AuthorTopic: Agelbert's Newz Channel  (Read 1627721 times)

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Trump Excuse Factory — BY JEFF DANZIGER
« Reply #9435 on: November 30, 2018, 05:55:25 PM »
Trump Excuse Factory — BY JEFF DANZIGER
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Macron To Close Multiple Nuclear Reactors - Renewables NOW 3–6 times cheaper
« Reply #9436 on: November 30, 2018, 08:33:50 PM »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.

Backstory: Macron To Close Multiple Nuclear Reactors, But Why Now?

November 30th, 2018 by Michael Barnard

President Emmanuel Macron of France depressed nuclear executives globally in late November 2018, announcing the planned retirement of 14 of 58 reactors by 2035. This was still less than was promised in his election campaign, but represents a major internal political battle, as well as a major change of France’s circumstances.



This has been an emerging story for several years.

France did a better job than most of building nuclear plants. They picked a single design and built a bunch of them over a relatively concentrated 20 years from about 1978 onward. It was a massive, state-funded, state-managed energy infrastructure initiative at a scale rarely seen. They dodged a bunch of the mistakes of other geographies somewhat by accident. They aren’t subject to earthquakes or tsunamis. They kept the technology highly standard. They developed a skilled workforce for building them and rewarded them well.

But the last nuclear reactor went live almost 20 years ago, the oldest ones are at end-of-life, and the skilled workforce only knows how to maintain and operate existing reactors now, not build new ones. The current President of France, Macron, used to be the Minister of Industry. He’s stated publicly that even he couldn’t find out how much the build-out actually cost, with the clear assertion that a bunch of actual costs were hidden.

Quote
“Nobody knows the total cost for nuclear energy,” he said. “I was minister for industry and I could not tell you.”

And France had to build nuclear to be load-following due to its over-reliance on a more usually inflexible form of generation. Nuclear is good for baseload up to 30–40%, but when it has to be turned on and off it gets a lot more expensive very quickly. France has the good fortune to have been able to export a lot of electricity to the rest of the EU for several years, but the energy mix on the continent is strongly favoring more flexible forms of generation.

And now, a few things have changed in the decades since France made its huge bet on nuclear generation in the Messmer Plan in 1974.

Renewables are dirt cheap, with Lazard’s latest figures bringing them in at 3–6 times cheaper than new nuclear. (Amusingly, Lazard still labels wind and solar as ‘alternative energy‘. ::) ) Europe is a leading geography for wind and solar, so skilled trades and supply chains all exist. Europe’s grid has strengthened and expanded over the past 30 years, so the need for a country to go it alone has diminished substantially.

The EU was founded in 1993 and France is an integral part of it, and that has two impacts. The first is that France’s energy independence policy that was part of the impetus for a massive nuclear fleet looks archaic in context of modern politics and economics. The second is that EU regulations forbid destabilizingly large governmental subsidies for energy, something which the Hinkley plant in the EU had to fight through. As Macron’s experience shows, it’s actually impossible for anyone to figure out how much any nuclear plant actually cost due to budget fudging. This last is true globally, by the way.

French attempts to build next-generation reactors are failing in multiple locations in France and elsewhere. The cost and budget overruns and construction failures are staggering.

And Chernobyl and Fukushima both happened since the French nuclear build-out began. Public support diminished substantially after those events, one on the same continent and one a world away.

France receives a greater percentage of its electricity from nuclear than any country in the world, at 72% close to 50% more than its nearest ‘competitor’, Slovakia. And it will diminish over the coming decades. Its last-built reactor will reach end-of-life in 2040 or so. It’s unlikely that it will be replaced. And it’s unlikely that more than a fraction of the aging reactors will be refurbished at all.

Wind, solar, a continent-scale grid, and open economic borders all contributed to the death of the French nuclear dream.

It’s time for France to wake up and join the future, and it has. It voted in Macron, a politician who promised to reduce France’s nuclear fleet. He fought the entrenched bureaucracy and EDF, and while the new plans are slower than the promised ones, they are the right plans on a pragmatic timeline.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/30/backstory-macron-to-close-multiple-nuclear-reactors-but-why-now/

Agelbert NOTE: Better late than never, I always say.

Let us not forget WHO PROFITED from these radioactive white elephants when the bill for decommissioning them comes due. Yes folks, that bill will be massive.

The logical thing to do is find every single person in every corporation that profited directly from building and maintaining these nuclear reactors and TAX THEM appropriately for the cost of decommissioning said nuclear reactors.

Yes, I know, ALL the French public will be billed for this while those who profited from the polluting energy will pay a pittance.  That's how things "work" in CAPITALISM.  👎👎👎 😡🤬
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
IMPORTANT HISTORICAL DETAILS MICHAEL COHEN PROBABLY SHARED WITH MUELLER’S TEAM
« Reply #9437 on: December 01, 2018, 09:20:28 AM »
Agelbert NOTE: The following selected comments highlight the importance of the article posted here after the comments:

Quote
Eureka says:
November 30, 2018 at 7:47 pm
Well that’s a relief, another loop back into Stone besides Corsi.  I remember those posts about the earlier PACs but it is hard to keep all of the crime syndicate balls in the air as to how they may relate ultimately to the Mueller investigation.  So appreciate you are on top of it all.  These people are so exhausting!


Semanticleo says:
November 30, 2018 at 8:15 pm
Hoping Muellers self-,,,imposed gag order is lifted soon. It must be embarrassing enduring so many scofflaws of putative legal entities and low-lifes of Manaforts 😈 statuous Republican  iconography.


Jenny says:
November 30, 2018 at 9:13 pm
Thanks Marcy for continuing to put all the puzzle pieces together.  At this point, I need a score card to tell the players.

Shady Don McGahn’s name was in the book, Blinded by the Right, not very flattering back in the 80s and 90s.  Now he is front and center.  Questionable as FEC, Commissioner.  Will he go down too?

Did these individuals all go to Trump 🦀 University majoring in Crime 101: Collusion, Corruption and Obstruction?


SOME IMPORTANT HISTORICAL DETAILS  MICHAEL COHEN PROBABLY SHARED WITH MUELLER’S TEAM

November 30, 2018/19 Comments/in 2012 Presidential Election, 2016 Presidential Election, emptywheel, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel

The attention since Michael Cohen pled guilty has focused largely on his role in brokering a Trump Tower deal, which was the substance of his lies to Congress as detail in his plea. But there are other things about which he was surely a really useful witness for Mueller. ABC provided some sketchy details, including the enticing detail that Cohen knew about pardon offers (possibly, even for him).

Quote
Cohen has spent more than 70 hours in interviews with Mueller’s team. The questioning has focused on contacts with Russians by Trump associates during the campaign, Trump’s business ties to Russia, obstruction of justice and talk of possible pardons, sources familiar with the discussions have told ABC News.

But I want to point to two historical details of particular interest. 🧐

It’s clear that Mueller has some interest in campaign finance irregularities, at least those of Roger Stone . But the crowd Roger rat-fucks with actually has a history with Michael Cohen . Cohen set up a 527 in 2011 into which Trump Organization funneled probably illegal cash.

As I’ve noted, in 2011, one of the people closely involved in Stone’s 2016 rat-fucking, Pamela Jensen , was involved in a 527 called ShouldTrumpRun that listed Michael Cohen as President.

 

The organization was apparently laundering Trump corporate cash into campaign spending. But when the issue came before the FEC, Commissioner Don McGahn  helped kill an investigation into it.

Quote
During McGahn’s FEC tenure, one of those he helped save from enforcement action was Trump himself. In 2011, when the future president-elect was engaged in a high-profile process of considering whether to enter the 2012 race for the Republican presidential nomination, Trump was formally accused in an FEC complaint of violating agency regulations. The case was dismissed on a deadlocked vote of the FEC commissioners.

A four-page complaint filed by Shawn Thompson of Tampa, Fla., accused Trump of illegally funneling corporate money from his Trump Organization into an organization called ShouldTrumpRun.com. McGahn and fellow FEC Republicans Caroline Hunter and Matthew Petersen voted to block FEC staff recommendations that Trump be investigated in the matter—designated Matter Under Review (MUR) 6462.

Ultimately, Trump opted not to run for president in 2012. Nonetheless, FEC staff attorneys concluded his activities before that decision may have violated campaign finance rules regarding money raised to “test the waters” for a candidacy. A staff report from the FEC Office of General Counsel, based largely on news articles and other documents about Trump’s flirtation with running for president—including Trump’s own quoted statements— recommended that the commissioners authorize a full FEC investigation backed by subpoena power.

FEC Democrats voted to pursue the recommended probe, but the votes of McGahn and the other FEC Republicans precluded the required four-vote majority needed for the commission to act.

McGahn and Hunter issued a “ statement of reasons” explaining their votes in the Trump matter in 2013. The 11-page statement blasted FEC staff attorneys in the Office of General Counsel for reviewing volumes of published information regarding Trump’s potential 2012 candidacy in order to determine whether to recommend that the FEC commissioners vote to authorize a full investigation. McGahn and Hunter argued that the FEC counsel’s office was prohibited from examining information other than what was contained in the formal complaint submitted in the case.

The Office of General Counsel shouldn’t be allowed to pursue an “unwritten, standardless process whereby OGC can review whatever articles and other documents not contained in the complaint that they wish, and send whatever they wish to the respondent for comment,” the Republican commissioners wrote.

And this public trial balloon in 2011 is interesting  ;) for another reason. It means that when Trump set up the Miss American deal in 2013, the Russians knew he 🦀 might consider running for President. Cohen was closely involved in that deal, too.

That Cohen was involved in negotiations with the Agalarovs in 2013  is interesting enough. But I’m particularly intrigued by something that happened in the wake of the disclosure of the June 9 meeting. As the Trumps and Agalarovs started getting testy about each others’ response, Ike Kaveladze called Roman Beniaminov’s attention to a picture from the Las Vegas announcement party that got leaked to the press, highlighting Cohen and Keith Schiller.

On July 13, 2017, Ike Kaveladze (who was really in charge of the meeting for his boss, Aras Agalarov) and Roman Beniaminov (Emin Agalrov’s assistant, who heard ahead of time the meeting was about dealing dirt on Hillary to the Trumps) had the following exchange by text (PDF 34).

 

[Kaveladze sends link]

Quote
Beniaminov: But I don’t recall taking any video. And I can’t understand why it looks so similar.

Kaveladze: I mean his trump organization employees.

By July 13, the Agalarovs and Trumps were increasingly at odds on how to respond to the story, not least after the Trumps leaked Rod Goldstone’s name to the press after saying they wouldn’t. After that, there seemed to be increasing amounts of dirt being leaked, perhaps by both sides. :laugh:

It appears that Kaveladze may have phoned Beniaminov right before this to raise this CNN story, which had just been posted. Beniaminov seemed to think Kaveladze had suggested that he, Beniaminov, had taken the video, even while he seems to have been present at the Las Vegas event back in 2013.

 

Scott Balber 😈, the Agalarov’s👹 ever-present lawyer (who had actually represented Trump on a Miss Universe related issue in 2013), was quoted in the piece.

Quote
“It’s simply fiction that this was some effort to create a conduit for information from the Russian federal prosecutors to the Trump campaign,” Balber said on CNN’s “New Day.” “It’s just fantasy world because the reality is if there was something important that Mr. Agalarov wanted to communicate to the Trump campaign, I suspect he could have called Mr. Trump directly as opposed to having his son’s pop music publicist be the intermediary.”

I don’t rule out Balber having taken and leaked the video.

Or maybe not: What Kaveladze is interested in highlighting to Beniaminov is the presence of two other Trump employees in the video: Keith Schiller and Michael Cohen, shown above.

I don’t know what to make of the reference — though it’s equally possible they were involved in the 2017 response, or were viewed for some other reason as an additional concern regarding the June 9 meeting.

While Schiller actually was in the loop of the June 9 meeting (Rob Goldstone chatted with him the day of the meeting and asked about how to mail things to Trump given increased security), there’s no public evidence Cohen was.

But perhaps Kaveladze realized Cohen might know something about the 2013 events that would be of concern as the investigated heated up.

In any case, we know from Mueller’s questions he thinks the 2013 does serve as a key part of the investigation. And while Schiller 🦖with his sinecure at the RNC — may not be talking, Michael Cohen is;D

There are other aspects of Trump’s business that Cohen will explain for Mueller, including corrupt deals with Russians and related countries.

But these two past events are likely to be of particular interest for Mueller’s prosecutors.



Tags: Aras Agalarov, Don McGahn, Ike Kaveladze, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Roman Beniaminov

Agelbert additional NOTE: For those that don't know about the Miss America Trump DEAL with Russia, let me say that you are missing the KEY to how Russia got to Trump. All the rest of the collusion fun and games, including real estate money laundering and continuously bailing Trump out of his CONSISTENT BUSINESS FAILURES, followed smoothly thereafter.

The Russian Oligarchs OWNED Trump LONG before he ran for POTUS.

If you cannot handle that, you are in willful denial. Let me also add that the Republican Party DOES NOT see Russia as an adversary, simply because Russia is run by a Profit Over People and Planet Oligarchy, just as the USA currently is. So, YEAH, the Republicans are happy as pigs in poop to take all the Russian money they can. AND THEY HAVE, AND CONTINUE NOW, to TAKE RUSSIAN MONEY! The Republican Party is the Party of TRAITORS on behalf of CAPITALIST/FASCIST OLIGARCHY. If you think that is not the case, SEE BELOW:

« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 10:51:12 AM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #9438 on: December 01, 2018, 09:34:26 AM »
Good journalism there.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Convert Military 🦍 to Green Production, or Perish – Daniel Ellsberg
« Reply #9439 on: December 01, 2018, 12:20:58 PM »
Convert Military 🦍 to Green Production, or Perish ☠️– Daniel Ellsberg on RAI (13/13)

November 29, 2018

A massive reduction in ICBM’s and transforming the economy away from the military-industrial complex are prerequisites for our survival  – says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/udsSEZNfdFI&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/udsSEZNfdFI&fs=1</a>

Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome back to Reality Asserts Itself. I’m Paul Jay. This is The Real News Network, and we’re continuing our discussion with Daniel Ellsberg. Thanks for joining us again.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Good to be here.

PAUL JAY: If there was a president elected, and if there are, for example, in the Democratic Party enough people elected to Congress who are breaking from the kind of militarist position, what would you recommend? What does a plan look like?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, first of all, realize that neither party has promised any departure from our reliance on the military-industrial complex. Since McGovern, in effect. And he was the only one, I think, who—and his defeat taught many Democratic politicians they could not run for office with that kind of burden of dispossessing, even temporarily, the workers of Grumman, Northrup and General Dynamics and Lockheed, and the shipbuilders in Connecticut, and so forth. And [grutton].

So it would take a different political economy, or it would take a different movement in pressing our Congress, and basically a different kind of Democrat from any we’ve seen. Our system is a two-party system, which people can find by looking at Wikipedia, the web in general, and asking the question, what is a two-party system? And the answer to that is one that most people don’t realize. It’s based not just on the strength of the existing two parties, but on the fact that we have a system of single-member constituencies, winner take all, not first past the post. These are terms that can be quickly found out if you look them up. It’s a political system that makes it extremely unlikely that a third party will actually succeed, and is why no party has succeeded since 1860, when the Democrats were split on the issue of slavery.

By the way, if there was a third party on the right, I’d be all for that. Because that would enable a really progressive Democrat to be nominated, I think, and actually to win. But without that, a requirement, I think, as early as this year, in 2018, is a Democratic House and/or Senate. Preferably both; Senate is more difficult. Is a requirement, but very far from sufficient to make any of these changes. In the past, the Democrats have not been willing to do that. And almost no Democratic candidate, even the most progressive of them, has really addressed the idea of conversion, which is the prerequisite for any of the other changes on climate and health and education that are needed.

PAUL JAY: Conversion of military production to green, sustainable production.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Spending has to change away from the ability to destroy life on earth, primarily. And that, without either total disarmament—I am not a total pacifist, and never have been, although it’s very hard, be very hard put to find a conflict since the Second World War, that’s a long time ago, where I thought it was necessary or worthwhile for the U.S. to be engaged. And I used to make an exception for Korea. More study on that has recently changed my mind on that.

But I think, in fact, for the Russians, for the British, ultimately for the Americans to oppose Nazi Germany under Hitler and his ambitions, his recklessness, was justified. That is my strong opinion. But without that, and without giving any other country a monopoly of nuclear weapons, let’s say, by the U.S. totally disarming nuclear weapons, I don’t think it would serve world peace to give, adequately, to give Russia a monopoly of nuclear weapons. Not that they would immediately start throwing them around, by any means. But that it would embolden them in ways that would not be good for world peace, or ultimately avoiding nuclear war.

But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether we continue to sustain a doomsday machine of the kind we have, whether we continue to modernize it with the B61-12 bombs, and so many others—on both sides, by the way. Or whether we can move away from that. Doomsday can be made impossible. And not, actually, in some Utopian way that we’ve never seen in the world, even in the nuclear age. China went for decades after their first explosion in ‘64, when I was in the Pentagon, not building a large nuclear force. For decades they had only a dozen or so ICBMs against the United States, at a time when we could have launched thousands of weapons against China.

Now, how did they rationalize that? At first we said, well, they can’t afford to. They’re too poor. But within 20 years, certainly 30 years ago, that didn’t work. They obviously could match, achieve parity, as they say, with the U.S. or Russia. They absolutely could. They’ve chosen not to spend money in ways that threaten doomsday, and threaten their own deterrence, by making us fear they’re about to disarm us. China has never pretended to have the capability to disarm a major adversary. They don’t, even though they have two rockets-

PAUL JAY: By disarm you mean first strike.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: By a first strike. They don’t have that capability. They have, perhaps, 300 warheads now, mostly tactical, against Russia [in their area]. But many, several dozen, strategic warheads. More than they need. Enough to cause nuclear winter. But less than 10 percent of what we have. China, in other words, has followed a relatively sane policy in the nuclear era, I would say, if any nuclear policy can be sane. And I would say, actually, they have. They bought themselves a good deal of deterrence with a handful of weapons capability, and didn’t go beyond that.

We could, we could … the world would be much safer, we would be safer, if we had no more weapons than the Chinese. Likewise, the Russians. And that would be true whether the Russians imitated that or not. The same would be true for the Russians. They would be safer from a false alarm on our side, let’s say, against a Russian, supposedly surprise attack, if they dismantled their ability for a surprise attack.

PAUL JAY: And this underlying idea that the Soviet Union is trying to take over the world, it seems to me it’s just as true about modern-day Russia is also not trying to take over the world. There’s no reason to think Russia would not comply in such a scenario.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Yes. As you say that, you know, I don’t think the U.S. is trying to take over the world by military means, although our military spending is so vastly greater than [the combination].

PAUL JAY: No, I wasn’t saying the—I wasn’t saying that.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: I don’t think anybody is. But certainly Russia, it would be absurd to say that’s what they’re trying to do.

PAUL JAY: So why don’t they move to that? It’s the only sane move-

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Why don’t they, you said?

PAUL JAY: Well, all three. I mean, China’s already in a relatively modest position. One would think, instead of developing new hypersonic planes, and new bombs, the sane course is a modest amount.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: I can only guess. For much the same reasons we do it. On the one hand, as Gorbachev has indicated, as I say, to a friend of mine, Cynthia Lazaroff, in Russia, they have their profit motive over their [inaudible] again. They’re supporters of Putin. Their oligarchs are not all drug dealers. Some of them are arms makers, as over here.

Second, the idea of being a great power has domestic politics implications, and implications in negotiations in general. Status, prestige. The only reason, by the way, for the UK or France to have nuclear weapons at this time, to be in the nuclear club. To be a shadow, at least, of their former imperial selves. To be one of the big boys.

There’s—in terms of how many weapons are actually needed for the deterrence of nuclear attack, which I think is not an entirely, is not an illusory notion altogether, what does it take? Dr. Herbert York, the physicist who was the first director of Livermore Nuclear Weapons Design Laboratory, one of our two laboratories; Los Alamos, and … which produced the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, and Livermore. He was the first director of Livermore, which was set up in particular as the home of Edward Teller, and to press H-bomb development. He said in a meeting at Livermore later, years later, after he’d been head of the research and engineering in the Defense Department, and major arms negotiator for several, for several administrations, asked the question, how many weapons are needed to deter nuclear attack from an enemy rational enough to be deterred? To be influenced? He said, one? Or ten? He said, perhaps 100. Not more than that. But closer to 10 … sorry. Closer to 1 than 100. [That’ll be like] 49.

He went at it from one other point of view, too. He said, what is the largest amount of destruction that we think one man, or one nation, should be able to inflict in a short period of time on another, on the world? Supposing we take World War II as an upper limit there, 60 million dead in a short time. That would take about 100 weapons. Largest, maybe 200. But more likely 100 weapons. So again, he says one to ten to 100 weapons. Now, of the nine nuclear states, North Korea is the only one who’s clearly below that level. We, of course, are many more, ten times more than that. And [coughing] I would say that no nation in the world can actually justify having as many weapons as the least of them, putting aside North Korea.

PAUL JAY: What is the rationale, and does it play any real deterrent for Israel to have nuclear weapons?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Yeah. Well, Israel’s nuclear weapons are only first use weapons. Their adversaries have no nuclear weapons. So like us in the late ‘40s, their plans are only first use. First strike. Not for responding to nuclear weapons. Still, they are faced with, as NATO felt it was faced, by large adversarial forces, non-nuclear. If you add them all together, if you put them together, they have relied on their first use threat. They’re said to have some 80 weapons.

Now, what would they do with 80 weapons? Actually, a better figure is—I’ve seen other estimates. It’s very likely closer to 200. But whether it’s 80 or 200, how can anyone, how can Israel, justify having that many? That’s 80. But we have, you know, 1500 on alert, thermonuclear weapons. How about, when you go above Israel, then, you get in the level of 100, 140 or so, when you look at Pakistan, India. Those are atomic weapons, fission weapons. Or Britain and France, either have on the order of 100-200. None of these countries could really justify in hearings, rational hearings, having that many, as a matter of fact. And we, come back to it, have more than 10 times more.

PAUL JAY: So why does Israel have so many?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Probably—I don’t know the answer, actually. But for reasons like ours. Probably a lot of theirs, by the way, they think of as tactical weapons, many of them may be neutron bombs, who would be used against armies in the desert. I doubt it. They wouldn’t need that many—they wouldn’t need 10 against cities.

PAUL JAY: But there would be nothing left of Israel after blowing up all these bombs.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: No, no, no. The—and the fallout-

PAUL JAY: Whether the—by fallout. Whether the enemy has nuclear weapons or not, there wouldn’t be anything much of an Israel left.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Sam Cohen, the father of the neutron bomb, was convinced that Israel had built his neutron bombs; that they had seen the advantage of those—which are weapons, by the way, which if they explode at a high altitude don’t cause a lot, if any, fallout, and actually don’t destroy structures. They penetrate through structures or tanks, and they kill the living organisms inside, the humans. The Communists at that time called it a capitalist weapon; it preserved property and killed only humans. But the Soviets, like Reagan after President Carter, almost surely did build neutron bombs and test them.

So with a lot of those, you could think of those as tactical weapons in the desert. They are [faced] in the desert. I don’t know their planning [worth] knowing. In the case of India and Pakistan, for example, they have so far only fission weapons. A hundred of those, 50 each in a war against cities, a country, would cause the absorption of about 7 percent of the sunlight. Not nuclear winter, which U.S. and Russia would absorb perhaps 20 … 70 percent of the sunlight, and starve everyone. India-Pakistan would cut sunlight by 7 percent, shortening the harvest, killing the harvest, depending on the season, and probably cause by starvation 2 billion deaths of the most ill-nourished people in the world. That’s the calculation of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Ira Helfand and others have calculated that. Something between 1-2 billion, one third of the earth’s population.

If, however, testing resumes, as the Republicans for a long time have been proposing should be, should happen, as a matter of fact; and Russian labs are said to be anxious to resume testing. If testing resumed, India and Pakistan would quickly achieve H-bombs. They’re on the verge of it now. North Korea, again, has claimed it has tested an H-bomb. May or may not, but certainly would need more tests to have an operational H-bomb. That would give them a full nuclear winter capability. So a war between India and Pakistan wouldn’t kill only one third of the earth’s populations, but three thirds, like ours. The in between nations, the UK, France, China and the others, perhaps may or may not be able to get a full nuclear winter. But they can starve, if they launch their forces as they plan, including cities like Moscow and other capital cities; many other cities with command and control. They would reflect sunlight. Between 1-7 billion. Probably somewhere in between.

There’s no excuse. These are, I say, evil outcomes, certainly. And plans that risk them or prepare for them have their uses, but at the risk of causing this effect, which I would say is absolutely unconscionable, as well as a vast diversion of the world’s resources that are needed otherwise.

Daniel Ellsberg ends his book, The Doomsday Machine, Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner with this:

“Is it simply quixotic to hope to preserve human civilization from either the effects of burning fossil fuels or preparing for nuclear war? As Martin Luther King Jr. warned us,328 one year to the day before his death, “There is such a thing as being too late.” In challenging us on April 4, 1967, to recognize “the fierce urgency of now” he was speaking of the “madness of Vietnam,” but he also alluded on that same occasion to nuclear weapons and to the even larger madness that has been the subject of this book: “We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.”

He went on: “We must move past indecision to action.… If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight. … Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world.”

PAUL JAY: Thanks for joining us.

And thank you for joining us on Reality Asserts Itself—one hopes this is not a reality that is going to assert itself—on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/convert-military-to-green-production-or-perish-daniel-ellsberg-on-rai-13-13

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
GM's Layoffs Made Possible by Weak Unions, Automatization, and Bad Priorities
« Reply #9440 on: December 01, 2018, 12:49:26 PM »
GM's Layoffs Made Possible by Weak Unions, Automatization, and Bad Priorities

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/1jOF8jaZeJs&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/1jOF8jaZeJs&fs=1</a>

TheRealNews

Published on Nov 29, 2018

Prof. Leo Panitch and former auto worker Frank Hammer discuss how the GM's 14,000 layoffs in Canada and the US are made possible by the weakening of unions, outsourcing, and misdirected production priorities

Visit https://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at https://therealnews.com/donate.
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
DINO Plan to Screw Us Out of Medicare for All, Reality based SS Pensions, etc.
« Reply #9441 on: December 01, 2018, 01:53:36 PM »
How the Profit Over People and Planet DINOs in the Democratic Party Plan to Screw Americans Out of Medicare for All, Reality Based Social Security Pensions & A Green New Deal

Agelbert NOTE: Also in this reality based video is a (summarized) TRUE HISTORY of WHY and HOW the REPUBLICAN PARTY destroyed a MAJOR PART of the middle class in the USA.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/nlcGqc7DZi8&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/nlcGqc7DZi8&fs=1</a>

Thom Hartmann Program

Published on Nov 20, 2018

After Democrats took back the House, a debate on who the next speaker would be was the a major concern for democrats right up there with who would be running for President in the 2020 general election.

One group of corporate democrats is fighting to get rid of Nancy Pelosi, but not for the reasons you would think,

Can progressives put aside ideological unity and embrace Nancy Pelosi before this group of corporate democrats sends the party right into the hands of multinational corporations?

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Bernie Sanders, "Where We Go From Here" 🤔
« Reply #9442 on: December 01, 2018, 02:34:38 PM »
Bernie Sanders, "Where We Go From Here" 🤔

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/7Q_3qPWlX2s&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/7Q_3qPWlX2s&fs=1</a>

Politics and Prose

Published on Nov 29, 2018

Bernie Sanders discusses his book, "Where We Go From Here", at a Politics and Prose event at George Washington University on 11/27/18.

Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign was a beginning, not an ending. In Where We Go From Here: Two Years in the Resistance, New York Times bestselling author Bernie Sanders chronicles the day-by-day struggles that he and his progressive colleagues have waged over the last two years in the fight against Donald Trump’s agenda and for a government that works for all. The good news is, progressive voices are making significant strides. Where We Go From Here shows how citizens all across America are standing up to the Trump government.

https://www.politics-prose.com/book/9...

BERNIE SANDERS was a Democratic candidate for President of the United States. He is serving his second term in the U.S. Senate after winning re-election in 2012 with 71 percent of the vote. Sanders previously served as mayor of Vermont’s largest city for eight years before defeating an incumbent Republican to be the sole congressperson for the state in the U.S. House of Representatives. He lives in Burlington, Vermont with his wife Jane and has four children and seven grandchildren.

Founded by Carla Cohen and Barbara Meade in 1984, Politics and Prose Bookstore is Washington, D.C.'s premier independent bookstore and cultural hub, a gathering place for people interested in reading and discussing books. Politics and Prose offers superior service, unusual book choices, and a haven for book lovers in the store and online. Visit them on the web at http://www.politics-prose.com/

Agelbert NOTE: If absolutely everything Norman Solomon says in the following post is not done with absolutely no compromise to the Corporate Capitalist BASTARDS (who OWN the Republican Party) corrupting the Democratic Party, all the laudable reforms (sine qua non for a viable biosphere) that Senator Sanders courageously champions are doomed to failure. 😟 Indeed, the existence of humanity itself may hinge on Democratic Party Progressive SOCIALIST Militancy.


If the Republicans AND DINOs prevail, thus continuing the insane Government Welfare Queen Babying of CAPITALIST Profit Over People and Planet STUPIDITY, then, uh, see below:


« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 02:36:43 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #9443 on: December 01, 2018, 03:51:33 PM »
Quote from: AG
The Russian Oligarchs OWNED Trump LONG before he ran for POTUS.

If you cannot handle that, you are in willful denial. Let me also add that the Republican Party DOES NOT see Russia as an adversary, simply because Russia is run by a Profit Over People and Planet Oligarchy, just as the USA currently is. So, YEAH, the Republicans are happy as pigs in poop to take all the Russian money they can. AND THEY HAVE, AND CONTINUE NOW, to TAKE RUSSIAN MONEY!

Bookmark this post. Most of the Rs in Congress are owned by Russia, and all are actively engaged in obstruction of justice. In the fullness of time all will be revealed. And the fuckwits who have declaimed that "TrumpRussia"is a neocon myth, like Caitlin Fucking Johnstone, will be revealed for their poor judgment and lack of understanding Or ideological blindness.

Eric Trump admitted to all this before they told him to STFU.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Well said, Surly
« Reply #9444 on: December 03, 2018, 10:28:36 AM »
Quote from: AG
The Russian Oligarchs OWNED Trump LONG before he ran for POTUS.

If you cannot handle that, you are in willful denial. Let me also add that the Republican Party DOES NOT see Russia as an adversary, simply because Russia is run by a Profit Over People and Planet Oligarchy, just as the USA currently is. So, YEAH, the Republicans are happy as pigs in poop to take all the Russian money they can. AND THEY HAVE, AND CONTINUE NOW, to TAKE RUSSIAN MONEY!

Bookmark this post. Most of the Rs in Congress are owned by Russia, and all are actively engaged in obstruction of justice. In the fullness of time all will be revealed. And the fuckwits who have declaimed that "TrumpRussia"is a neocon myth, like Caitlin Fucking Johnstone, will be revealed for their poor judgment and lack of understanding Or ideological blindness.

Eric Trump admitted to all this before they told him to STFU.

Yep. By the way, have you been able to wade through the 33 page Mueller Motion to get Cohen a lighter sentence? It is quite incriminating of Trump , even if Trump 🦀, as usual, is trying Orwell his way out of his PROVEN COLLUSION by making noises about having the "maximum sentence" book thrown at Cohen.

Palmer Report December 1, 2018 SNIPPET:

The document is thirty-three pages, so we’ll cut to the chase: Michael Cohen is asking for time served. This would mean that he wouldn’t have to report to prison at all. Considering the seriousness of the nine felonies he’s pleaded guilty to, as well as the other felony charges that were waived as part of his deal, this would be a very lenient sentence. The thing is, the mere act that he’s asking for it reveals something.

For a defendant, the goal in a sentencing memo is to ask for something on the lenient end of what might be considered realistic. You don’t want to ask for something absurd, because then the judge might be offended, and might be inclined to not take the request seriously. Considering how closely Michael Cohen has been working with Robert Mueller and other prosecutors – including the events of yesterday – you have to figure that he made this request after running it past them first, and wouldn’t have asked for something that they found offensive, either.

Michael Cohen’s decision to release this document right now, when his sentencing hearing isn’t for nearly two weeks, suggests that he’s trying to capitalize on the public goodwill that he earned yesterday when he helped Robert Mueller expose that Donald Trump was a part of the Trump Tower Moscow conspiracy during the 2016 election. Cohen went a long way yesterday to taking down Donald Trump, as well as bringing Trump’s kids to justice.

We’ll see what Robert Mueller comes back with as far as his sentencing recommendation. The judge could then end up realistically going with anything in between what Mueller asks for and what Cohen asks for. But again, it’s revealing that Cohen thinks he’s in a strong enough position to even ask for a free pass. If Mueller comes anywhere close to recommending time served, it’ll mean that Mueller thinks Cohen has been a really big help in Trump’s downfall.

You can  read the lengthy sentencing memo here.

Full article:

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/sentencing-memo-revealing-cohen/14384/
« Last Edit: December 03, 2018, 10:30:33 AM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
]Tesla ⚡ Model 3 RWD :P Versus An Icy (Snowy) Hill: Video
« Reply #9445 on: December 03, 2018, 10:43:49 AM »
INSIDEEVs

December 3, 2018

Agelbert NOTE: The driver knows how to drive in snow but deliberately did all the wrong, dumb driving things, when driving in snow up and down hills, in order to test the Tesla Model 3 performance.

The comments are educational and instructive. 👍 I am experienced in driving in HEAVY ❄❄❄ snow conditions. What they say about tires being of prime importance is correct. However, AWD outperforms even the best winter tires in severe icy conditions.

AWD is better than FWD. FWD is better than RWD. The Subaru Forester, because of its AWD X-Mode electronics, is the best ICE vehicle out there for snow and ice driving conditions. I've seen videos of a Forester going throgh two feet deep mud as well. In those videos, ALL the other FWD and AWD vehicles got stuck.

That said, electronics on EVs are more time responsive in controlling the wheels than the best Gas Guzzler AWD electronics out there. As to the auto-wipers, I agree that they suck.

Tesla  ⚡ Model 3 RWD :P Versus An Icy Hill: Video

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/V-xVgLWVBGg&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/V-xVgLWVBGg&fs=1</a>
Article with above video:

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
How The EPA Rates Electric ⚡ Cars: Range, Efficiency & More
« Reply #9446 on: December 03, 2018, 11:02:04 AM »
INSIDEEVs

How The EPA Rates Electric ⚡ Cars: Range, Efficiency & More

Model 3 EPA range and MPGe numbers

DEC 2 2018

BY JIM GORZELANY

IT’S ALL ABOUT RANGE, KWH/100 MI, AND MPGE.

As with conventionally powered models, electric vehicles are rated for their energy efficiency – and in this case their operating range on a charge – by the Environmental Protection Agency. If you’re already an EV owner, you probably have noticed that your power consumption and/or range doesn’t always jibe with its official ratings. As automakers usually say in ads that reference a vehicle’s fuel economy, “your mileage may vary.”

A big reason for this is the manner in which vehicles are tested. Contrary to what you might expect, they’re not driven on the open road. Rather, a vehicle’s energy consumption is determined in a laboratory using a standardized procedure that’s mandated by federal law.

TEST PROCEDURES 👨‍🔬

Each vehicle tested is “driven” on a device called a dynamometer. Think of it as a treadmill for cars. While the engine and transmission drive the wheels, the vehicle never moves, just the rollers upon which the wheels are placed.

A professional driver runs the vehicle through multiple standardized driving schedules to simulate city and highway motoring. The basic city-driving program replicates a rush-hour stop-and-go driving experience with frequent idling. The highway circuit is designed to emulate rural and interstate freeway driving at higher speeds, without making any stops.

An electric vehicle is tested after being parked overnight, and with the battery fully charged. It’s then operated through successive city or highway driving cycles until the battery becomes depleted. It’s then brought back to a full charge. A technician determines the vehicle’s energy consumption by dividing the kilowatt-hours of energy needed to replenish the battery by the number of miles driven. The latter is also used to determine an EV’s estimated operating range on a charge.

To help consumers compare the energy consumption of electric cars with those that run on fossil fuel, the EPA created a miles-per-gallon equivalent measurement, called “MPGe.” This is calculated based on a conversion factor of 33.705 kilowatt-hours of electricity equaling one gallon of gasoline.

For 2018, the EPA’s most energy-efficient EV is the Hyundai Ioniq Electric, with a rating of 150 MPGe in city driving and 122 on the highway. The next-highest 2018 models are the Tesla Model 3 Long Range at 136/123 MPGe, the Chevrolet Bolt EV at 128/110 MPGe, and the Volkswagen e-Golf at 126/111 MPGe.

FUDGE FACTORS 👀

Unfortunately, there are elements inherent in the EPA’s testing procedures that tend to skew the ratings. For starters, vehicles are tested without a full load of passengers, cargo and options aboard. All else being equal, the heavier a vehicle’s rolling weight, the more energy is needed to reach and maintain a given speed.

Also, the tests are conducted indoors at room temperature. An electric car’s range tends to suffer when subjected to extremely cold or hot weather. This is both because of the adverse effects of high and low temperatures on a battery’s charge, and the drain caused by operating the heater and air conditioning.

What’s more, a given motorist’s driving habits can also affect an EV’s energy consumption. Lead-footed acceleration and driving at higher speeds will tend to drain the battery faster than will maintaining a smooth and steady pace. Driving on under-inflated tires will also cost an EV owner additional kilowatt-hours of electricity.

READING AN EV’S ‘FUEL ECONOMY’ STICKER 🧐

The federal government requires automakers to include information on a vehicle’s energy consumption, along with pricing and other information on the so-called “Monroney” sticker that’s posted on every new light-duty vehicle sold in the U.S. It’s named for Almer Stillwell “Mike” Monroney, a U.S. Senator from Oklahoma who sponsored the Automobile Disclosure Act of 1958 that mandated the use of price stickers.

In the case of electric vehicles, the Monroney sticker prominently displays the MPGe estimates for city, highway and combined city/highway driving. The latter assumes 55 percent city driving and 45 percent on the highway. The sticker also shows the number of kilowatt-hours of electricity that’s needed to run the vehicle for 100 miles (this is expressed as kWh/100 mi). The EPA says this measurement is actually more meaningful when comparing costs and energy consumption between EVs than the MPGe rating.

The sticker also notes, on average, how many miles the vehicle can operate on a charge, and how long it takes to fully replenish a discharged battery using a 240-volt (Level 2) charger. You can expect the time to typically double when using a standard household outlet.

The window sticker further notes the energy consumption range for other models in the vehicle’s size class. You’ll also find the average annual cost to keep the car or truck running, based on 15,000 miles driven at a predetermined price per kilowatt-hour for electricity. It also shows how much more or less that amount is compared to the average vehicle over a five-year ownership period. These numbers will of course, differ for a given driver depending on local energy rates.

The sticker also provides ratings on a 1-10 basis for a vehicle’s smog-related tailpipe emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. Since full electric vehicles produce neither of these they automatically receive a rating of 10.

You’ll also find a “QR” code that can be scanned by a smartphone and takes users to a website where they can enter information about their commutes and driving habits to get a better estimate of their energy consumption and costs.

The above information can also be found on the EPA’s fueleconomy.gov website for easy comparison among competing models, and it’s available for all current and past plug-in and conventionally powered vehicles.

Be sure to check out other helpful information on electric vehicles here on MYEV.com, which is also the Internet’s prime – and free – marketplace for buying and selling EVs.

Source: MYEV.com

https://insideevs.com/how-epa-rates-electric-cars-range-efficiency/
« Last Edit: December 03, 2018, 11:15:50 AM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #9447 on: December 03, 2018, 11:31:07 AM »
My wife has ended up with the second Volt I bought last summer. So far I think the onboard computer is saying the hybrid's gas consumption amounts to 169 MPG. She is driving it for her daly commute, in fairly heavy traffic most of the time.

The old Volt (with just over 30 miles of range in most weather) never did better than about 100 MPG. That extra 20 miles of battery range has made the Volt from a good car into a great car, for people who still need a car that can run on gas, which is most people who do a lot of driving. The decision Chevy made to axe the Volt really breaks my heart, and we've discussed buying another before they're all gone.

I'm looking forward to the all electric cars, from a standpoint of reducing carbon, but i have my doubts they'll ever build  a car that will equal the Volt of today.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
The decision Chevy made to axe the Volt really breaks my heart, and we've discus
« Reply #9448 on: December 03, 2018, 11:43:41 AM »
My wife has ended up with the second Volt I bought last summer. So far I think the onboard computer is saying the hybrid's gas consumption amounts to 169 MPG. She is driving it for her daly commute, in fairly heavy traffic most of the time.

The old Volt (with just over 30 miles of range in most weather) never did better than about 100 MPG. That extra 20 miles of battery range has made the Volt from a good car into a great car, for people who still need a car that can run on gas, which is most people who do a lot of driving. The decision Chevy made to axe the Volt really breaks my heart, and we've discussed buying another before they're all gone.

I'm looking forward to the all electric cars, from a standpoint of reducing carbon, but i have my doubts they'll ever build  a car that will equal the Volt of today.

The Volt is a great car. The GM decision to axe the car caused me to be so angry I could spit. This is what I posted at Cleantechnica forum on that issue:

To GM's plan to stop building the Volt, I will let Obi Wan say it ALL:



RIP: GM Will Close 5 Assembly Plants In North America, Eliminate 15,000 Jobs, & Cease Production Of Chevy Volt
Autonomous Vehicles The mournful cry from Detroit that "Nobody wants to buy an electric car" is partially correct. Relatively few cons…

 cleantechnica.com
120 Comments

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/26/rip-gm-will-close-5-assembly-plants-in-north-america-eliminate-15000-jobs-cease-production-of-chevy-volt/





Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: Well said, Surly
« Reply #9449 on: December 03, 2018, 11:49:33 AM »
Quote from: AG
The Russian Oligarchs OWNED Trump LONG before he ran for POTUS.

If you cannot handle that, you are in willful denial. Let me also add that the Republican Party DOES NOT see Russia as an adversary, simply because Russia is run by a Profit Over People and Planet Oligarchy, just as the USA currently is. So, YEAH, the Republicans are happy as pigs in poop to take all the Russian money they can. AND THEY HAVE, AND CONTINUE NOW, to TAKE RUSSIAN MONEY!

Bookmark this post. Most of the Rs in Congress are owned by Russia, and all are actively engaged in obstruction of justice. In the fullness of time all will be revealed. And the fuckwits who have declaimed that "TrumpRussia"is a neocon myth, like Caitlin Fucking Johnstone, will be revealed for their poor judgment and lack of understanding Or ideological blindness.

Eric Trump admitted to all this before they told him to STFU.

Yep. By the way, have you been able to wade through the 33 page Mueller Motion to get Cohen a lighter sentence? It is quite incriminating of Trump , even if Trump 🦀, as usual, is trying Orwell his way out of his PROVEN COLLUSION by making noises about having the "maximum sentence" book thrown at Cohen.

Palmer Report December 1, 2018 SNIPPET:

The document is thirty-three pages, so we’ll cut to the chase: Michael Cohen is asking for time served. This would mean that he wouldn’t have to report to prison at all. Considering the seriousness of the nine felonies he’s pleaded guilty to, as well as the other felony charges that were waived as part of his deal, this would be a very lenient sentence. The thing is, the mere act that he’s asking for it reveals something.

For a defendant, the goal in a sentencing memo is to ask for something on the lenient end of what might be considered realistic. You don’t want to ask for something absurd, because then the judge might be offended, and might be inclined to not take the request seriously. Considering how closely Michael Cohen has been working with Robert Mueller and other prosecutors – including the events of yesterday – you have to figure that he made this request after running it past them first, and wouldn’t have asked for something that they found offensive, either.

Michael Cohen’s decision to release this document right now, when his sentencing hearing isn’t for nearly two weeks, suggests that he’s trying to capitalize on the public goodwill that he earned yesterday when he helped Robert Mueller expose that Donald Trump was a part of the Trump Tower Moscow conspiracy during the 2016 election. Cohen went a long way yesterday to taking down Donald Trump, as well as bringing Trump’s kids to justice.

We’ll see what Robert Mueller comes back with as far as his sentencing recommendation. The judge could then end up realistically going with anything in between what Mueller asks for and what Cohen asks for. But again, it’s revealing that Cohen thinks he’s in a strong enough position to even ask for a free pass. If Mueller comes anywhere close to recommending time served, it’ll mean that Mueller thinks Cohen has been a really big help in Trump’s downfall.

You can  read the lengthy sentencing memo here.

Full article:

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/sentencing-memo-revealing-cohen/14384/

I haven't been following this closely, but I would expect Cohen to eventually be disbarred, which means he loses his livelihood, too. I'm not sure that's completely inevitable, but it has to be 99% certain. Not that I'm against it.

I hope Cohen gets to walk, just to stick it up Trump's nose, but time served seems pretty optimistic.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1799 Views
Last post October 10, 2014, 02:00:44 AM
by Guest
0 Replies
833 Views
Last post July 05, 2017, 07:11:08 PM
by Palloy2
0 Replies
1050 Views
Last post September 14, 2017, 04:20:30 PM
by azozeo