What will 2018 bring for Donald Trump?

Written By: - Date published: 7:58 am, January 1st, 2018 - 181 comments
Categories: australian politics, Donald Trump, International, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, us politics - Tags: ,

Happy new year everyone.

One person who I don’t think will be having such a good new year is American POTUS Donald J Trump.  A recent disclosure by the New York Times suggests that an alcohol fuelled indiscretion by George Papadopoulos to Australian UK Ambassador and former Liberal leader Alexander Downer may have been the cause of the FBI investigating Trump’s crew for colluding with the Russian Government to fix the 2016 American elections.  And the disclosure really makes you question what the FBI was doing just before the election occurred.

From the New York Times:

During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.

And Trump must have known what was happening.

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/947165455256637441

When you think what happened just before the election when James Comey announced the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton you have to question the fairness of what occurred.  Certainly Democrats were riled up about Comey’s actions.  The New York Times reported Harry Reid asking why there was an apparent double standard.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, responded angrily on Sunday with a letter accusing the F.B.I. of not being forthcoming about Mr. Trump’s alleged ties with Moscow.

“It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government — a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity,” Mr. Reid wrote. “The public has a right to know this information.”

F.B.I. officials declined to comment on Monday. Intelligence officials have said in interviews over the last six weeks that apparent connections between some of Mr. Trump’s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate. Still, they have said that Mr. Trump himself has not become a target. And no evidence has emerged that would link him or anyone else in his business or political circle directly to Russia’s election operations.

This last sentence is going to be put under some intense scrutiny.  In July 2016 The FBI were told by one of America’s most trusted allies that the Trump camp knew all about the hacking of Hillary’s emails.  The Russians were clearly targeting Clinton’s campaign and Trump was gloating about it.

The decision to go public on the reopening of the investigation into Clinton even though the FBI subsequently closed it had many people scratching their head.  Surely in the interests of balance and fair treatment they should have also publicised the fact that they were investing the Trump campaign for possible collusion with the Russian Government.  Or they should have investigated privately and urgently to see if the new emails would cause them to change the decision to close the file.

This article by Timothy Egan at the New York Times three weeks ago predicts then how this will go.  Trump will at some stage stop the investigation.  Then America will be a hair’s breadth away from being a banana republic.

You can see where this is headed, the once bright and shiny democracy going down the drain before the holidays are out. The Russians, the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his agents, desperate men flipped and singing to save their souls — all may soon be gone, by President Trump’s design.

If there’s any outrage left in the tank, use it now, because Trump has signaled exactly what he’s going to do. First, he had to set some brush fires, impugning the legitimacy of the rule of law — an old dictator’s trick. Trump is no Hitler, but when the German Reichstag burned in 1933, it was all the Nazis needed to gut civil liberties.

So, before Trump can fire the prosecutor who is hot on the corruption trail of those in the president’s inner circle, he needs a pretext. He could just work his way down the line at the Justice Department, until he found a quisling willing to remove the special counsel. But before he gets to that, he has to delegitimize the whole investigation.

Thus, he’s now attacking the F.B.I., saying the agency is in “Tatters” and its standing “the worst in History.” Bashing cops — wasn’t that what those Black Lives Matter people did to disrespect Blue Lives?

We live in interesting times …

181 comments on “What will 2018 bring for Donald Trump? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bill 1
    1 January 2018 at 8:28 am

    You see how this shit goes?

    A drunk guy tells another guy that someone told him something.

    And on that, we get built for us a marvelous citadel of unquestionable “truths” to meditate on and expand on. Oh, and all the people pointing out the foundations are laid on sand have been ostracised.

    So we have an uncritical consensus. Great.

    edit – just to be clear. The Russians having some ‘dirt’ or info on Clinton does not equal “[t]he Russians were clearly targeting Clinton’s campaign and Trump was gloating about it.” The allegedly hacked DNC emails go up through May ’16. The drunk guy was reportedly told about something in April 16.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      1 January 2018 at 8:40 am

      And on that, we get built for us a marvelous citadel of unquestionable “truths” to meditate on and expand on…

      That, and some plea bargains.

      • Bill 1.1.1
        1 January 2018 at 8:58 am

        Ah yes. Contact with “the Professor” and the “female Russian national” that Papadopoulos used as leverage to secure a position in Trump’s team because he reckoned they would be able to arrange a meeting between the Trump Campaign and Russian government officials. (He lied to the FBI about how long he’d known those two people)

        Given that Trump was openly stating a desire for better relations with Russia, why not?

        Unless the contention is that no campaign team personnel should ever meet with any foreign government officials…and/or that no groundwork should be laid for possible future meetings between two country’s leaders.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1
          1 January 2018 at 9:05 am

          Oh, and conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.

          Obviously the lying to the FBI was just an innocent mistake and in any case, it’s all a hoax dreamt up Hillary Clinton and that’s why I should obstruct justice and sack the special prosecutor.

          😆

          • Bill 1.1.1.1.1
            1 January 2018 at 9:14 am

            Erm. You haven’t read the document have you?

            edit – Here it is.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1.1
              1 January 2018 at 9:24 am

              “The document”? You haven’t mentioned a “document” until now. I’m just quoting the charge sheet and the POTUS.

              Edit: I was quoting Manafort’s charge sheet, not Papadopoulos’. I note that most commenters believe the FBI has more evidence that it hasn’t yet disclosed.

              • Bill …
                1 January 2018 at 9:27 am

                You commented on a string of stuff supposedly connected to Papadopoulos’s plea bargain. His plea bargain is on line and available.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  1 January 2018 at 9:31 am

                  If Manafort’s indictment weren’t connected to exactly the same investigation as Papadopoulos’, that would be a very good point.

                  If you don’t want to see that the other charges lend credence to the Papadopoulos narrative, I shouldn’t be at all surprised.

              • Bill …
                1 January 2018 at 9:34 am

                And here was me thinking the discussion here was about allegations of Russian state interference in a US election and possible connivance of Trump campaign team members in that interference.

                Manafort and his buddy being up for being dodgy bastards in their business dealings between the years 2006 and 2015 doesn’t really seem very relevant to that.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  1 January 2018 at 9:57 am

                  1. The special prosecutor has a huge amount of leeway in pursuing matters which may not be related to the central purpose of their investigation. That’s going to include Trump’s finances too.

                  2. How do you know Manafort et al’s behaviour isn’t relevant? Pretty much everyone else seems to think Mueller is holding a lot of information in hand.

                  3. The OP is actually about the discrepancy between the FBI’s treatment of the respective Trump and Clinton investigations, and whether Trump will take any more steps to obstruct justice.

        • Andre 1.1.1.2
          1 January 2018 at 9:05 am

          American law has something about it being illegal for a campaign to accept something of value from a foreign source.

          “The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:

          A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

          snip

          Here’s the second important passage of the statute: “No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].” ”

          https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal

        • mickysavage 1.1.1.3
          1 January 2018 at 9:07 am

          There is a law against negotiating with a foreign power by individuals – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

          And the Flynn indictment and plea bargain would suggest there is more than just the drunken rantings of a low level individual.

          • Bill 1.1.1.3.1
            1 January 2018 at 9:19 am

            The Logan Act criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States

            I don’t see how Papadopoulos “big noting” off the back of a couple of supposedly well connected people who (he reckoned) could lay the groundwork for a future meeting between the head of the US and Russia has anything to do with the Logan Act.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.3.1.1
              1 January 2018 at 9:29 am

              I don’t see why we must confine our scrutiny to Papadopoulos rather than looking at the whole sorry bunch as a group. Perhaps that’s the only way all this whataboutism can be made to look as though it stands up.

              • Bill …
                1 January 2018 at 9:46 am

                Sure.

                But the post revolves around Papadopoulos and what he said or did or whatever. And that’s what my comments refer to.

                If you or anyone else wants to argue they (“the whole sorry bunch”) are dodgy bastards, you’ll not get any counter argument from me.

                But being a dodgy bastard in a cabal of dodgy bastards doesn’t in and of itself mean anything in relation to alleged Russian interference in US elections – or mean that they (individually or collectively) connived with Russia in any supposed interference.

                I’d suggest that any US Admin would puke up the same type of person with similar dodgy dealings as the Trump led one is puking up. That’s just the type of shit that coalesces around politics and power.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  1 January 2018 at 9:58 am

                  As noted above, the OP is about the discrepancy between the FBI’s treatment of the respective Trump and Clinton investigations.

                  Edit: whether it’s just politics as usual or not, politics as usual doesn’t normally lead to conspiracy and money laundering charges. Perhaps it should.

              • mickysavage …
                1 January 2018 at 10:21 am

                +1

          • Andre 1.1.1.3.2
            1 January 2018 at 9:37 am

            Intertoobz commentary suggests the Logan Act is unlikely to bring down anyone. The strongest Logan Act case (so far) appears to be against Flynn for his actions during the transition. In which case the fact that he was working for the incoming President-elect might be a solid defense.

            The clauses cited by the Vox piece appear to be much more recent and stronger, without an obvious defense. This HuffPo piece looks at a few other possible violations.

            https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/under-what-circumstances-would-trump-russia-collusion_us_597b382be4b09982b73763ae

    • Psycho Milt 1.2
      1 January 2018 at 10:18 am

      Drunk Trump campaign staffer blabs that Russia has thousands of Clinton’s emails and will use them to damage her election campaign. Short time later, emails are released and damage Clinton’s campaign.

      Bill: “Nothing to see here folks, move along now…”

      • mickysavage 1.2.1
        1 January 2018 at 10:21 am

        Yep.

      • Bill 1.2.2
        1 January 2018 at 12:00 pm

        He splabbed that he had been told such a thing. Not that he knew such a thing. And the timing’s not really conducive to those supposed emails being the same emails that made up the leak. (Told in April and emails going up through May)

        I’m not saying “there’s nothing to see”, so cut out the lies.

        I’ll note (before being off for the day) that stone deaf ears and a blind fixation to “get in behind” on an official narrative that would procure a convenient state enemy is right on down there beneath the muck of dumb fuckery PM. A well popular destination these days it seems.

        edit – I wonder what the playbook would have been with a Sanders Presidency? Probably more in line with the anti-Corbyn stuff, but with the same aim in mind. 😉

        • Psycho Milt 1.2.2.1
          1 January 2018 at 1:34 pm

          He splabbed that he had been told such a thing. Not that he knew such a thing.

          Yep. And if this were a jury trial I’d be unwilling to convict on the basis of such testimony. But it’s not a jury trial, it’s a blog comments thread.

          And the timing’s not really conducive to those supposed emails being the same emails that made up the leak. (Told in April and emails going up through May)

          So, in April they were talking to the Trump campaign about these emails and in May they put them online. That timeline’s impossible how, exactly?

          • Bill 1.2.2.1.1
            1 January 2018 at 2:05 pm

            Thank fuck you’ve got nothing to do with the law then PM. Because hear-say doesn’t fly. Not in any legal environment.

            The timeline’s fucked because they couldn’t have had copies of emails from May in April. (The leak includes emails from May)

            • mickysavage 1.2.2.1.1.1
              1 January 2018 at 2:20 pm

              Unless they were supplied the emails by the Russians themselves.

              I’m struggling with the full on defence of Trump you are mounting.

              And the main premise of the post is why did the FBI release news about HIllary’s emails but not news that Trump was allegedly colluding with the Russians to win the election. Given the closeness of the result this was arguably an election turning decision made by a department of state.

              • Andre …
                1 January 2018 at 3:15 pm

                ” … why did the FBI release news about HIllary’s emails but not news that Trump was allegedly colluding with the Russians … ”

                To try to understand the indefensible, the best I’ve come up with is that Hillary’s e-mails and her home-brew server was already solid public knowledge. It was the only piece of misbehaviour brought to light from the multiple congressional Benghazi investigations. There was enormous pressure to go further with that, partly because of leaks (some apparently from within the Justice Department), partly because of really dumb stuff like Billy inviting himself aboard Loretta Lynch’s plane, probably other things going on we don’t yet know about. So the pressure to break normal protocol (say nothing about current investigations) got to be too much, and Comey cracked and blabbed.

                Whereas in the Russia investigation, all there really was in the public at that point was rumours and innuendo. So it was really simple to keep normal protocol and say nothing.

              • Macro …
                1 January 2018 at 3:18 pm

                About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

                Note that in this conversation that happened sometime late April early May 2016 where Papadopoulos makes the claim that Russia had the emails – he doesn’t say that they have stopped infiltrating the DNC. Nor does he claim that they have been given to the Trump campaign at that stage. It was not until July 2016 that wikileaks then published emails stolen from DNC servers up until May 2016. But obviously Trump and co. knew about them prior to then.
                By July 2015, Russia had infiltrated the computers of the Democratic National Committee. In March 2016, hundreds of phishing emails were sent to US Democrats, Democratic organizations and other political targets. Political ads were posted to social media and promoted on networks of potentially susceptible voters. In August 2016, the FBI sent a “flash alert” warning state elections officials of systematic attempts by Russia to hack 21 states’ voter rolls.

                Trump acts in the manner of a 5 year old being asked “Who’s been in the bickie tin?”
                “It wasn’t me!”
                But he has chocolate all over his face.

                In June 2017 James Comey testifying to Congress said:
                “There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever,” ….. “The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts.”

              • Andre …
                1 January 2018 at 4:59 pm

                Oh and micky, do you really think Bill is mounting a defense of Trump? TBH, to me it looks more like kickback against anything … ahem … that suggests that Russia is anything other than a model angelic international citizen.

                • Bill …
                  2 January 2018 at 12:45 pm

                  So Andre. You’re going to link to those comments I’ve made that would suggest I view Russia as “a model angelic international citizen”, right?

                  No. Of course you fucking aren’t.

                  You want to reduce everything to “white hat/black hat”? Is that all you’re capable of? Because if it is, then please just stay the fuck away from any conversation or debate I’m engaged in. Feel free to fill the space of other exchanges with your simple minded bullshit.

              • Bill …
                2 January 2018 at 12:37 pm

                I’m struggling with the full on defence of Trump you are mounting.

                Please don’t diminish yourself by confusing my refusal to join the baying crowd with some nonsense about me defending Trump. This fucking George Bushite “with us or against us” bullshit isn’t something I’ve any time for.

    • mickysavage 1.3
      1 January 2018 at 10:18 am

      The Russians having some ‘dirt’ or info on Clinton does not equal “[t]he Russians were clearly targeting Clinton’s campaign and Trump was gloating about it.”

      They hacked a Democrat’s mail server and caused all sorts of mayhem. Any collusion with or assistance for this is basically treason.

      • Andre 1.3.1
        1 January 2018 at 10:50 am

        That’s treason in the common understanding of the word.

        In a legal sense, committing treason requires the US to be in a declared war, or possibly just an open war though that hasn’t been legally tested yet. The last time Congress declared war was WW2, and the last treason convictions were for actions helping Japan during WW2. There was a dude charged with treason for helping al-Qaeda, but he was killed before it came to court. The US is definitely not currently at war with Russia, so a treason charge for footsie under the table with Russia seems unlikely.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.14c23a67e287

      • Bill 1.3.2
        1 January 2018 at 11:51 am

        There is only the allegation the Russian government or its Agencies hacked the DNC mail server.

        And there are counter analyses and informed opinions to the contrary. But those accounts and explanations have been starved of oxygen, not because they are baseless, but because they contradict the official narrative.

          • Bill 1.3.2.1.1
            1 January 2018 at 12:45 pm

            You link to two Fox News pieces by way of showing that western liberal media have been thorough and even handed in their approach to accusations about Russia interfering in US elections? Seriously!?

            Hmm. Maybe you can provide links to respected mainstream outlets that display a degree of inquisitiveness or healthy skepticism towards the “Russia bad!!” narrative?

            I’m going to guess not (reason being, I haven’t seen any).

            And I’m also going to guess that the lack of any skepticism, or of any serious or searching questions on the validity of the basis those claims are built on isn’t going to give you any pause for thought.

            Silly smart arse repostes aside, do you have anything you might want to say by way of a contribution to explaining why ‘our’ media have been marching in happy lock step with official or government claims of the Russian government meddling in elections and so on?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.2.1.1.1
              1 January 2018 at 12:49 pm

              No, I linked to them to demonstrate that the counter-narrative hasn’t been “starved of oxygen.” I could have linked to all the other examples of mainstream media providing oxygen to said counter-narrative, but since you’re going to reject them anyway I can’t be bothered.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.2.1.1.2
              1 January 2018 at 1:02 pm

              …or perhaps the counter-narrative simply isn’t as compelling as the (not completely compelling) evidence.

              There is strong evidence indicating that Democratic email accounts were breached via phishing messages, and that specific malware was spread across DNC computers. There’s even evidence that the attackers are the same group that’s been spotted attacking other targets in the past. But again: No one has actually proven that group is the Russian government (or works for it).

              And now here’s Papadopoulos saying Moscow’s got the emails. We will never get all the bits of this jigsaw, and we can still get the picture.

              • Bill …
                1 January 2018 at 1:54 pm

                An Australian politician said that Papadopoulos said that someone told him there were emails in April. But whatever those emails were (assuming them to exist), they couldn’t have been the ones contained in the leak, because they go up through May.

                edit – But where are these linked stories or pieces or articles from the likes of The New York Times, the BBC, CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post et al that shed doubt on the official narrative and that you say are easy to find?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  1 January 2018 at 2:10 pm

                  No Bill, you said it has received no oxygen, whereas in fact it had at least enough oxygen to make it into congressional committee, as the link shows, notwithstanding your list of approved media.

                  I posit that the reason The Intercept says there’s evidence of a phishing attack, not an inside job or whatever (you haven’t said which of the counter-narratives you are putting up for scrutiny, btw), is because there is, rather than the The Intercept has learnt to “get in behind” like all the other media you dismiss.

                  If you think you know better than Secureworks’ identification of Fancy Bear’s other targets, let’s see your reasoning. If you think you can show Fancy Bear didn’t do the hack, go for your life.

                  Whataboutism and but but but Hillary doesn’t cut it.

                  • Bill …
                    1 January 2018 at 2:30 pm

                    I didn’t say counter narratives had received no oxygen, I said they had been starved of oxygen (qualitatively different).

                    My question relates to the lack of questioning of official narratives by western mainstream liberal outlets. If you’d been following the week long exchange I’ve been having with McFlock you’d know that I look on The Intercept as yes, liberal, but serious, and certainly not mainstream. And it does question the official narrative.

                    What’s with the “but but but Hilary” bullshit parroting of conservative liberal types OAB? You’re not…..? Anyway, when have I ever come out with that as a line of argument?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      1 January 2018 at 2:41 pm

                      the lack of questioning of official narratives by western mainstream liberal outlets

                      There’s a possible explanation for that: like The Intercept they’ve seen enough evidence that Fancy Bear hacked the DNC using phishing and malware, and enough evidence that Fancy Bear is Moscow: cf: Secureworks.

                      So that once they’d run the “it was an inside job”, “Hillary murdered the Duke of Edinburgh” claims, and a zero sum of evidence came to light to support those claims, and they just lay there playing dead, and the phishing attack narrative didn’t.

                      Oh, and before you start, please consult a dictionary regarding the difference between “evidence” and “proof”. As Schmidt says: we know things with varying degrees of confidence.

                    • Bill …
                      1 January 2018 at 2:45 pm

                      It’s been fun, but I must away.

                      I believe it’s The Intercept that did a complete take-down of all those supposed hacking outfits and their identification and naming by Secureworks or who-ever.

                      Worth searching out. 😉

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  1 January 2018 at 2:32 pm

                  they couldn’t have been the ones contained in the leak, because they go up through May.

                  Unless the hack was still live that is, and the emails were still being stolen by Fancy Bear, and Moscow knew because Moscow is Fancy Bear.

                  But that would require you to be wrong.

                  • Bill …
                    1 January 2018 at 2:41 pm

                    Well. The “hack” could have been an undetected drip feed over a period of time I guess. Or we’re considering two separate lots of emails.

                    Or there could be one lot of emails from a hack, and one lot from a direct download.

                    Or “the Professor” was simply ‘big noting’ to Papadopoulos to give the impression he was a somebody, when in actual fact there was no trove of emails in the hands of the Russian government.

                    Many possibilities.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      1 January 2018 at 2:48 pm

                      Sure, Fancy Bear might have gone to all the trouble of hacking the DNC and then not use the information.

                      Maybe they had already provided Moscow with reports on Ukrainian generals and Russian journalists that week and were saving Hillary’s emails for later, but they slipped and accidentally provided them to Wikileaks instead.

                      No, wait, maybe they offered them to Pooty, but he’s a lovely nice and completely ethical man and would never do anything like that, and he scolded them until their ears were pink for being so naughty. And then they pressed send to Julian.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.2.1.1.3
              1 January 2018 at 1:09 pm

              …and then there’s the list of Fancy Bear’s other targets…

              …and yes, I know “they do it too”.

      • One Two 1.3.3
        1 January 2018 at 12:33 pm

        They hacked a Democrat’s email server…

        They…

        MS, as a lawyer it could be observed that your comments on this subject completely lack critical reasoning and therefore credibility..

        Lacking in understanding of systems and security is no excuse for accepting ‘non evidence’, as ‘proof’…

        Then propagating ad nauseum…

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.3.1
          1 January 2018 at 1:12 pm

          There’s plenty of evidence, as linked at 1.3.2.1.1.2 & 3.

          Is it “proof”? Nope, but demanding “proof” is the same tactic AGW deniers employ, so I’m inclined to dismiss it out-of-hand.

          • Bill 1.3.3.1.1
            1 January 2018 at 2:01 pm

            There isn’t really much of anything in the way of evidence that might be reasonably treated as as proof.

            Nice to see you finally getting towards a point of honesty there – leaning on the basic psychology of belief to justify dismissing anything running counter to your chosen belief 😉

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.3.1.1.1
              1 January 2018 at 2:12 pm

              Bollocks. As I have stated many many times on this forum, proof is a mathematical concept and as such is inapplicable to reality.

              cf: Box, Einstein, etc etc. Do I need to dig up that “Unsettled Science” quote again?

              Nice to see you projecting your shite onto me. Get a clue: you cannot read my mind.

              • Bill …
                1 January 2018 at 2:33 pm

                By reading your words I get a pretty good sign-post to what you’re thinking…or basing on belief.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  1 January 2018 at 2:56 pm

                  I believe I can drive a large truck through your argument. I believe I can also drive a family car through the official narrative, it just has fewer and smaller holes in it.

                  But by all means, tell me what else I believe 😆

                • One Two …
                  1 January 2018 at 3:52 pm

                  ‘Personality type’ , as a minimum

                  Some commentators are easier to read than others…phoney’s require more of an examination as they seek to mask tactics through various methods, but eventually they out themselves, as phoney’s. ..

                  James would be an example of ‘phoney’

                  Else, and due to the anonyminity afforded by pseudonyms, those who lack the self control or discipline to mask their personality, shed the cloak of camouflage on various levels…some literally (real name aside) offer as close to 100% as written words on a blog could achieve..

                  The abusive, bullying and hypocritical commentators are being honest to their cowardly traits…

                  Why write on a blog site as an anonymous, agressive bully…unless that is who/what ‘you are’…

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    1 January 2018 at 5:52 pm

                    Six paragraphs of vacuity containing nothing but two personal attacks. You really are very very shit at this, eh.

        • Psycho Milt 1.3.3.2
          1 January 2018 at 1:41 pm

          … accepting ‘non evidence’, as ‘proof’…

          Can you point to where Micky Savage used the word ‘proof’? Because I haven’t seen anyone claim that this has been ‘proven’ and I think you’re making shit up.

          • One Two 1.3.3.2.1
            1 January 2018 at 2:20 pm

            ‘Proof’, Milt..

            MS use of a statement rife in absolute belief, ‘they’ (Russians) “hacked a Democrat’s mail server..”

            Perhaps MS needs to be mindful of the phrasing he uses (because he has repeatedly used absolutes on this exact topic. Yes I recall, no I’m not trawling through archives)…and you, Milt should look more carefully at the ‘proof’ …

            HNY

            • Psycho Milt 1.3.3.2.1.1
              1 January 2018 at 5:11 pm

              A person can believe a particular event occurred based on pretty much any level of evidence they’re personally happy with. That’s by no means the same as saying they have proof the event occurred. This a blog comments thread, not a courtroom.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.3.2.1.2
              1 January 2018 at 6:18 pm

              What Milt said.

              ‘Evidence’ encompasses everything from wild hearsay to DNA and a signed confession.

              That’s why people talk about attaching this or that ‘weight’ to a piece of evidence. Wild hearsay is generally considered unreliable. DNA and a signed confession are more compelling, but even they don’t really “prove” anything, which is why DNA evidence is typically presented as eg: “there is a one-in ten million chance that someone other than One Two left this drool on the floor”.

              So you might not be the source of the drool, but it’s exceedingly unlikely.

              The allegation that Russia used Fancy Bear to hack the DNC is impossible to “prove”, but that doesn’t mean we assume that all other possibilities are equally likely. One of the good things about this case is that at least some of this evidence may be tested in court. I’d be surprised if they all weren’t trying to hack one another. Trump’s problem is if he and/or his people tried to take advantage of it.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                1 January 2018 at 6:37 pm

                I’d be surprised if they all weren’t trying to hack one another.

                For ‘they’ read ‘the nations involved and all the other nations too’.

        • Macro 1.3.3.3
          1 January 2018 at 2:13 pm

          We won’t get “proof” until Mueller has presented his evidence, and I’m sure he knows a lot more than the little tit bits we are being given. However there is a raft of circumstantial evidence being presented almost every day which endorses the narrative that the Trump campaign had dealings with Russia which was outside the law.

          • One Two 1.3.3.3.1
            1 January 2018 at 2:29 pm

            Hi Macro,

            It’s a charade, it’s theatre, it’s a complete waste of time and energy…

            There is no ‘truth or proof’ to be found…Humans are not the purveyors of truth…

            In the absence of ‘Truth’ there will NEVER be ‘Proof’

            Mueller is as bent and compromised as [pick a name]

            HNY

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.3.3.1.1
              1 January 2018 at 3:05 pm

              Very very confused person, there is no such thing as proof in the real world. This is why science has confidence intervals etc.

              It is why courtrooms work to “beyond reasonable doubt”.

              It is why climate deniers demand it: because they know it cannot be provided. As Gavin Schmidt says,

              The forced binary distinction implicit in the phrase is designed to misleadingly relegate anything about which there is still uncertainty to the category of completely unknown. i.e. that since we don’t know everything, we know nothing.

              You know precisely jack shit about Mueller or any of the other people involved, but your ego demands that you spew some ‘wisdom’ around anyway. The word in the papentnesist is the Romanized.

              • Stunned Mullet …
                1 January 2018 at 3:15 pm

                Apologies for the pedantry but there most definitely is such a thing as ‘proof’ in the real world. Many beautiful and eloquent proofs have been demonstrated in mathematics, physics and chemistry over the years.

                I find myself in broad agreement with the rest of your commentary.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  1 January 2018 at 3:26 pm

                  I must respectfully disagree.

                  As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

                  Albert Einstein.

                  Proofs are most certainly provided in Mathematics, but Maths is an art, not a science: to be accepted, physical theories only have to explain results, not prove hypotheses.

                  As an illustration, consider the ‘arguments’ employed against the theory of evolution. Or what Schmidt said about gravity: it’s “pretty well accepted… (despite continuing interest in what happens at very small scales or very high energies)…”

                  Or George Box: “All models are wrong. Some are useful.”

                  • Stunned Mullet …
                    1 January 2018 at 6:19 pm

                    Alexander Pope would’ve had fun with you. I, however, haven’t got the time this evening.

            • Macro 1.3.3.3.1.2
              1 January 2018 at 5:43 pm

              Mueller is as bent and compromised as..

              You have some verifiable evidence for that assertion – other that you rear oriface?

              • One Two …
                1 January 2018 at 9:10 pm

                Verifiable evidence

                Yes, I’m planning to present the file to The FBI/CIA/NSA/DOD/DOJ…

                Oh you were joking , Macro

                Good one!

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 January 2018 at 11:35 am

                  Ah, so it’s just another one of your malicious smears. Thanks for confirming that.

        • mickysavage 1.3.3.4
          1 January 2018 at 2:22 pm

          I am not presiding over a trial. I am merely generalising what I believe to be the preponderence of views on the matter.

          • One Two 1.3.3.4.1
            1 January 2018 at 2:39 pm

            Hi MS, thanks for the clarification…

            As I pointed out, the statement read as an absolute…it still does…

            IMO, moving away from US political articles and focussing energy on local topics of relevance is the way to go…

            Appreciate all the articles you post, regardless of subject matter…

            HNY

            • Stunned Mullet 1.3.3.4.1.1
              1 January 2018 at 3:18 pm

              A Trump free couple of weeks on the interwebs and MSM would do the world a power of good – I suspect Donald would be apoplectic however.

  2. Andre 2
    1 January 2018 at 8:42 am

    In the paragraph below Ezra Klein’s tweet, there’s mention of Manafort announcing the re-opening of the Clinton investigation. Those two mentions of Manafort should maybe be Comey?

    [Damn New year’s brain. Right you are, now corrected – MS]

  3. One Anonymous Bloke 3
    1 January 2018 at 8:55 am

    What will 2018 bring for Donald Trump?

    Midterm elections, and the prospect of a congress (and senate?) with a greater appetite for impeachment.

    • Andre 3.1
      1 January 2018 at 9:23 am

      Impeachment and conviction ain’t gonna happen. Impeachment by the House alone without a conviction in the Senate would just be viewed by the public as political silly games and bring a backlash of support for Don of the Deadbrains. Just like Clinton’s impeachment actually boosted his popularity.

      Even if the Dems do outstandingly well in 2018 and get both the House and the Senate, conviction will still require a lot of votes from Repug senators whose careers are at much greater risk of being primaried by wrathful Trumpkins than they are at risk of losing to a Dem.

      I reckon the Dem position on impeachment should be something like “He’s a Republican. Republicans put him there, and still have the numbers to keep him there. When enough Republicans come to their senses and want him gone, we’ll gladly help. But in the meantime, he is what Republicans are.”

      But if King Con sees an opportunity to claim he’s done enough winning and prearranges a pardon from Pence, he might just bow out to go back to his tremendous life and figure out some way to spend more of his time basking in the adulation of adoring crowds.

      • Macro 3.1.1
        1 January 2018 at 10:45 am

        I believe you are right. The Repugs are never going to impeach this clown (and there is enough evidence to impeach him already). Even though they are trailing in the polls by around 12% at the moment those in the red neck states are never going to vote against Trump. And haven’t they just all given themselves a wonderful big xmas present?
        As for Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion – it’s not even clear that he could bring an indictment against Trump. As far as I can see it’s a good vehicle with which to investigate, and bring to justice, all the hangers on, who have been acting on the fringes of the law for decades enabling Russian oligarchs to launder money into the US – and Trump himself is and has been involved in this.
        I think Jonathan Freedland’s column on the weakness of the US constitution is worthy of a read on this matter as well:
        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/30/trump-us-constitution-weakness-founding-fathers

  4. cleangreen 4
    1 January 2018 at 10:34 am

    What will 2018 bring for Donald Trump?

    More endless mindgames from the ‘Washington Swamp’ as they struggle to retain the control of US politics from thiose who would threaten their power over us all.

    While Donald Trump will continue on as the king of the “tweeter sphere” as he continues also with his struggles to drain the “Washington Swamp”

    US politics has always been about “stories and not substance”

    We by comparison – in NZ however seem to be thinking forward to more of the ‘bitter actics’ of the rejected National Party and deflections to ‘arrest’ the ‘Jacinda effect’.

    Curiously just as the ‘new dawn of centre left Labour coalition’ takes hold in our country, with a promise of a new ‘kinder, gentler, caring, inclussive government’ – setting us on a path of us all sharing in the commonwealth of NZ equally to engenter another ‘egalitarian society’ of which we were once proud to be called the best place to live globally in 1959 except for Sweden.

    ‘Lets do this.’ – That is the way of a truly better future.

  5. One Two 5
    1 January 2018 at 10:41 am

    ‘What will 2018 bring for Trump‘….

    More articles from mickeysavage attempting to figure out…what isn’t for figuring out with ‘murican politics’…

    A new year…time for a new preoccupation, perhaps?

    • Anne 5.1
      1 January 2018 at 10:50 am

      What will 2018 bring for Trump‘….

      More articles from mickeysavage attempting to figure out…

      I hope you’re right. miskeysavage’s ‘attempts’ are always reasoned, clear-cut and he has the ability to cut through the mish-mash and get right to the point.

      Gets a few names wrong now and then but… 😉

    • Incognito 5.2
      1 January 2018 at 1:36 pm

      Whatever floats your boat 😉

      You can always submit a Guest Post about what occupies your mind; I’ve done it a few times and it is a worthwhile exercise …

  7. North 7
    1 January 2018 at 11:27 am

    The first day of a new year with no let-up in the insistence by some lefties that no matter what Trump is somehow a saviour. Pretty fucked really. Mad bastard could cinder us all. What would these lefties……more accurately these ‘weird old authoritarians’……what would they say then? “But Hillary but Hillary…….”?

  8. NZJester 8
    1 January 2018 at 11:36 am

    I think if not for the fact that his insane tweets distract the media from reporting on what the Republicans are actually doing to the US they would have replaced him long ago. He has been a godsend for the very people he told his gullible supporters he was going to clean out of office. He has been purging all those with ethics and been replacing them with the corporate stooges that will do as they are told.
    He claimed he was going to save US jobs, but all the so-called jobs he saved were smoke and mirrors with more jobs lost under him.
    They only have to tell him something was signed into law by Obama and he is willing to sign the paper to take it away or shut it down.
    He still has a small group of vocal Trump fans that are too dumb and blind to see what he has done to them. But slowly day by day as the reality of what he has done to some of them sinks in they are abandoning him.
    His popularity among Fox viewers has dropped to below 60% and that channel is the Republican party propaganda channel and he should be polling twice as high with them.

    • Tricledrown 8.1
      1 January 2018 at 11:59 am

      NZ Jester Fox News at its lowest level of viewership that combined with low approval rating’s for Twittler that means Trump would loose the Majority in Congress.

  9. Infused 9
    1 January 2018 at 11:42 am

    I think you guys need to get over it

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1
      1 January 2018 at 11:48 am

      Trump says what you’re all thinking, his ethics are yours. Since you’re on such flagrant display it makes sense to take notes.

    • Tricledrown 9.2
      1 January 2018 at 12:02 pm

      Confused you are letting go infused.
      You are being used and abused by a serial liar and sexual abuser and Criminal.
      A Trump groupie groping for Twittler.

  10. Tricledrown 10
    1 January 2018 at 11:53 am

    Hill Bill y.
    Trump Kushner have received $400 million in loans from from Russian mafia connected to Putin.
    Pence Ryan etc all trump’s inner circle closely aligned all received money from Russian oligarchs for business or political campaigns.
    Trump will loose mid term house of Representative majority allowing impeachment.
    Treason could be another charge.
    Nixon was in the same position and finally resigned.
    Trump’s only way out is going to War where he can take control of govt.
    Hence all his sabre rattling.
    The Drag net is closing in on Trump and he is flailing around like the Madman he is.

    • Bill 10.1
      1 January 2018 at 12:26 pm

      Yup. Some links that provide substance to those supposed connections and loans (ie – more substance than that associated with someone blowing smoke out of their arse) would be useful.

      You mention a drag net. And yes, there has been a net cast, and cast wide. What it’s dragging up is all the putrid crap associated with politics and power. No “Putin fish” yet, though the fishers are no doubt utterly convinced that a “Putin fish” must be somewhere among all the muck they’ve dredged up.

      What ‘gets’ me is the unstated implication that these fuckers around Trump are somehow substantially different to the fuckers who have coalesced around any previous President, suggesting then, that if only ‘we’ could get back to the days of nice people in power…

  11. Sanctuary 11
    1 January 2018 at 12:19 pm

    Trump will sack special counsel Robert Mueller or Mueller will find significant collusion with the Russians. Either way, Trump will pretend it never happened, house Republicans will look the other way as they try and abolish medicare & social security and nothing will happen as a consequence.

    The Democrats will sweep back into control of the senate and make big gains in congress and they will then largely adopt the Republican position on everything.

    The MAGAs will double down in the Republican civil war.

    a bit further out:

    Trump will start a war with North Korea despite desperate warnings from his generals that it is unwinnable, the U.S. and it’s allies will score a remarkable victory against the odds, the MAGAs will win big in 2020 with Trump winning a second term…

    • cleangreen 11.1
      1 January 2018 at 1:22 pm

      “Trump will pretend it never happened, house Republicans will look the other way ”

      To be truly honest we saw this happen with Decocrats too didnt we?

      That was a carbon copy of what the Democrats did over Hillary Clintons 32 000 destroyerd emails!!!!!

      Hilllary did this against a FBI/CIA warrant to surrender her celphone first!!!!!

      But she wilfully destroyed the evidence first, – but the media and democrats said, “move along nothing to see here.”

      ‘Double standards here’?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1
        1 January 2018 at 1:47 pm

        Whose double standards?

        “They do it too” has never been a generally accepted argument at TS, so far as I’m aware.

        • red-blooded 11.1.1.1
          1 January 2018 at 3:03 pm

          And besides, the fuss over the Clinton emails is nowhere near as serious as the allegations and mounting body of proof against Trump and his people. There’s no allegation that Clinton or her people deliberately acted in a way that violated US interests or colluded with anyone to undermine a democratic process. Coney decided not to press charges, saying that Clinton had been “extremely careless” but there was no criminal activity.

  12. Morrissey 12
    1 January 2018 at 12:51 pm

    There’s no evidence of Russia influencing the election. There are, though, masses of evidence of mass de-registration of black and Latino voters in several states. The Democratic Party leadership has virtually ignored that, however, given that its own similar practices led to the undemocratic and doomed installation of Hillary Clinton rather than the far more popular Bernie Sanders to run against Trump.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1
      1 January 2018 at 1:50 pm

      There’s no evidence of Russia influencing the election.

      What a lovely strawman. Did you make it yourself?

      any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

      Note the absence of the word “influence” or any synonym thereof.
      I further note that the Democratic Party leadership is not the FBI.

      • Morrissey 12.1.1
        1 January 2018 at 3:20 pm

        Ah, yes, the FBI. That organ of state renowned for its integrity and reliability. Oh yes.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.1
          1 January 2018 at 3:28 pm

          Another strawman! What a clever little boy.

          • Morrissey 12.1.1.1.1
            1 January 2018 at 4:27 pm

            ????

            Could you explain what on earth you’re trying to say? You’re obscure, perhaps deliberately so.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.1.1.1
              1 January 2018 at 5:48 pm

              It’s perfectly clear: you advanced your second strawman argument in as many comments. No-one has said the FBI is reliable, and that doesn’t in any way validate your attempt to link the Mueller investigation to whatever you think the Democratic Party should do.

              • Morrissey …
                1 January 2018 at 7:36 pm

                The Mueller investigation is a road to nowhere. And it’s not only me that thinks the Democratic Party leaders should be focused on substance rather than a chimera.

                Actually, the “Democrats” are going nowhere with the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, and co. holding the levers of control there.

                Four more years of Trump is a certainty as long as there is no effective congressional opposition.

    • swordfish 12.2
      1 January 2018 at 10:11 pm

      Clinton Hits Record Low In Poll With 61 Percent Unpopularity

      There is an interesting Gallup poll out that shows that, after an active speaking tour promoting her book and her retrospective on her loss to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has actually become even more unpopular

      Goddam Russkies !!! Is there no end to their malevolence ???

      https://jonathanturley.org/2017/12/20/clinton-hits-record-low-in-poll-with-61-percent-unpopularity/

      • red-blooded 12.2.1
        2 January 2018 at 9:35 am

        Wanna check out Trump’s approval rating?

        Note that he’s on 36% (ie, 64% don’t approve of him). I also think the screenshot of the options offered for the poll conducted by his own people (the Republican Party’s Make America Great Again Committee) is interesting: when asked how they see Trump’s first year as President, people aren’t given a negative option – just “great”, “good” okay” and “other”. When asked about Obama, they’ve got the chance to indicate “poor”. In order to participate, they also have to give their contact information and agree to be contacted by the Repug’s. Not exactly subtle, but then I guess Trump has never pretended to be that!

        As for Clinton’s rating, she’s been trashed by one and all (some before the election – “Lock her up!”, and some after – blamed for losing to Mr T) and she’s been out of the public eye for a year. It’s hardly surprising that she’s got poor approval ratings. Yes, that’s partly something she and her people have to take responsibility for, but yes, that’s also (partly) a result of the Russian-Trump collusion leading up to the election. Shit sticks. Let’s just hope that it also sticks to Trump and his repugnant supporters.

        • Morrissey 12.2.1.1
          2 January 2018 at 9:57 am

          You seem to think that despising Clinton and her cronies is equivalent to being one of Trump’s “repugnant supporters.”

          While you’re there, maybe you could tell us how the following speech is in any way morally or intellectually superior to one of Trump’s….

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno

        • francesca 12.2.1.2
          2 January 2018 at 10:24 am

          On the contrary, I would have thought the largest and most powerful newspapers were all very definitely in favour of Hillary, and loudly proclaiming her sure win. Everyone thought Hillary would win. All the polls pointed that way. She’d raised more funds than Trump, she had the backing of Hollywood and the entertainment industry.Her loss is still a mystery to all those who paid good money to get her elected.The only explanation can be those mysterious enigmatic, quasi magical (in a bad way)Rasputinish evil uninvited bad fairies …The Rooskies !!! They’re coming again.! While the propaganda of the Cold War is still resonating in innocent American dreams, why waste all that psychological prepping, it can be revived and kill 2 birds with one stone. Bring back an enemy, because all Empires need one, and get rid of the loathsome Trump by any means possible.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1.2.1
            2 January 2018 at 10:34 am

            Francesca: The only explanation…!!!…!!!!!!

            R/B: …partly something she and her people have to take responsibility for…

            One of these things is not like the other one.

  13. Ad 13
    1 January 2018 at 3:25 pm

    President Trump will not resign.

    President Trump will not be impeached.

    President Trump will get the Repub 2020 nomination.

    President Trump will solidify execitive control over all branches of the intelligence and military establishments.

    He is building to gut Justice, kill the FBI and merge them into CIA and Homeland Security.

    President Trump will probably be re-elected on the back of a strong economy even though that’s not fair. But lose the Senate majority. So no constitutional crisis in practice.

    President Trump will double his wealth from his term.

    I can’t see any institution resisting him.

    I can’t tell anymore if a diminished US public sector is a price worth paying for a more diminished US global presence.

    But it’s time to prepare for that.

    • Peroxide Blonde 13.1
      2 January 2018 at 7:15 pm

      AD
      A shared bottle of good Zinfandel says Trump is not President this time next year. Are you up for it?

      • Ad 13.1.1
        2 January 2018 at 7:22 pm

        Yes.

        If he is not President this time next year I will officially hand the car keys over and go for it.

        • Peroxide Blonde 13.1.1.1
          2 January 2018 at 8:06 pm

          Done.
          I’ve expensive tastes, though I’m not sure where to find an Auckland bar with good Zinfandel. I’ve a year to do the research!

    • McFlock 13.2
      2 January 2018 at 8:10 pm

      I doubt he will resign.
      Depending on midterms he might be impeached. It depends on whether the repugs decide pence will be morein their self interest.

      There might also be legal arguments about impeachment vs charges, but they’ll probably not go anywhere.

      He might be declared medically unable to do the job, I wouldn’t rule that out.

      And he might have a genuine debilitating illness and drop dead.

      • Ad 13.2.1
        2 January 2018 at 8:25 pm

        Dems have got more chance taking out Congress than the Senate. That is a massively tall order.

        The Republicans are in power in every layer of elected US power there is, from President, to Cabinet and tier 2,3,4 appointments to every level, to the Supreme Court, to Senate, to Congress, to Governorships, to State houses which is where the vital redistricting kicks in, leaving all but a few coastal governorships and a few major cities in play for the Dems.

        With the Democrats – and Obama’s legacy – now royally torched, the US global leadership of the nationalist-hard-business-right are in full effect and getting stronger by the day.

        My only very minor solace is that I live in New Zealand.

        • McFlock 13.2.1.1
          2 January 2018 at 8:33 pm

          I think Alabama could be an Ardern moment for the dems.

          But the other thing that gives me hope is, ironically, this brinkmanship with NK. Nuclear war is bad for the hard business right. They prefer expensive, long wars a long way away.

          • Ad 13.2.1.1.1
            2 January 2018 at 8:37 pm

            Wishing for nuclear war with North Korea as a salvation for the global left is way, way too dark for me. But go for it.

            • McFlock 13.2.1.1.1.1
              2 January 2018 at 8:48 pm

              No, my point was that if it starts to look likely then that’s a powerful incentive for the corporate shills to start getting rid of trump.

              The true believers will go with him until he irradiates everything, but the repugs’ corporate base needs living people to sell to.

  14. Tanz 14
    1 January 2018 at 4:06 pm

    If only New Zealand had our own sensible and God fearing President Trump. Bill English is just as fabulous, he won, and he will be back. Happy New Year darlings.

  15. Tanz 15
    1 January 2018 at 4:21 pm

    Life itself provides enough highs without false stimulants. God gave us so much!
    I envy America though, with their delightful President! They hit the jackpot.

  16. mauī 16
    1 January 2018 at 4:21 pm

    This would be like lefties believing a Rodney Hyde article saying that while he was out one night getting completely hammered with some right wingers, one National campaign volunteer told him that the 2014 election was rigged against the left.

    • Psycho Milt 16.1
      1 January 2018 at 5:17 pm

      Er, no. This would be like the Australian ambassador telling his government that a drunk Nat campaign worker had told him their campaign had word that the Russians had shitloads of Labour Party correspondence and was going to use it to damage Labour’s election campaign. Pretty far-fetched in Labour’s case, but not even slightly far-fetched in Hillary Clinton’s case.

  17. francesca 17
    1 January 2018 at 6:05 pm

    So if we are to believe that Russia hacked the emails and gave them to Wikileaks..does that mean that Julian Assange and Craig Murray are lying when they say they know who they got them from and it wasn’t a state actor.I find it curious that No one, not one single US intelligence agent, or investigator, or anyone on Mueller’s team has asked to interview Assange or Murray.
    I find that staggering, and yet poor Jill Stein is being dragged before the Inquisition for attending an RT dinner.Leftist comedian and civil rights activist Randy Credico is being subpoenaed for his contacts with Assange.And yet no one is interested in questioning Assange, who received and published the emails.
    So was the electoral college influenced by Russia?, because after all, he didnt win the popular vote(despite all those facebook ads about puppies that apparently sowed confusion and discord)

    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1
      1 January 2018 at 6:43 pm

      You think Moscow isn’t capable of using an intermediary to approach Assange?

      The terms of the special prosecutor’s investigation do not mention ‘influence’ once. How would you even measure it? Mueller can go wherever the investigation takes him, and the question of influence simply doesn’t come into it.

      • francesca 17.1.1
        1 January 2018 at 9:27 pm

        Assange and Craig Murray say they know who gave them the emails. You’re not curious that neither of them have been questioned?I would have thought Wikileaks is central to the whole Russian interference scenario

        • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1.1
          1 January 2018 at 9:51 pm

          Questioned by whom under what authority? Journalists usually protect their sources.

          • francesca 17.1.1.1.1
            2 January 2018 at 5:32 am

            Craig Murray is not a journalist. He claims he was the go between and took the device ..USB.. to Assange.
            And yes, journalists protect their sources, but that doesn’t mean they are protected from having to give evidence about the circumstances of receipt of information

            • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1.1.1.1
              2 January 2018 at 5:39 am

              Oh that guy. Does he strike you as reliable?

              • francesca …
                2 January 2018 at 8:41 am

                Well as it happens he was reliable about Uzbekistan torture, and CIA torture and the gathering of false intelligence. He lost his job over that And Assange, does he strike you as unreliable in any of his publications?

                Does reliability or otherwise ..and I’m thinking of the US intelligence agencies here, and their past records on honesty….preclude anyone from giving testimony?Surely thats for the court or investigation to decide
                Does anyone in the whole sorry affair come out looking steadfastly reliable to you? All the blowhards and chancers and wheelers and dealers associated with power and money

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 January 2018 at 8:53 am

                  Ok, let’s say Murray gave Assange the emails. Who gave them to Murray?

                  He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

                  So even if he’s reliable, his evidence is irrelevant.

                  I agree that Mueller will need “testimony”. That’s why Flynn got a plea bargain. Not sure how third parties twice removed (Murray, Assange) are going to fill in any blanks in this jigsaw.

                  Remember, Mueller is investigating what Trump and his criminal associates got up to, not the DNC hack.

                  • francesca …
                    2 January 2018 at 9:28 am

                    What nonsense Surely this is the way you track back to where the original data came from. Irrelevant ?I don’t think so .Its the reluctance to take up this thread that I find so curious.
                    And Mueller’s investigation, the Russia probe ,is tasked with finding any links or co ordination between the Russian govt and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. Mueller has very wide powers and can further investigate any matters that arise from said probe
                    I would have thought the DNC “hack ” as you call it falls in to those parameters

                    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/trump-russia-probe-171031123655241.html

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 January 2018 at 9:39 am

                      Yes. The original data has been ‘tracked’ and there is strong evidence that it was obtained by a phishing and malware attack by the hacking group “Fancy Bear”, whose list of targets give rise to the suspicion that they act on behalf of Moscow.

                      From Mueller’s point of view, it then turns up being dangled as bait in front of Papadopoulos et al, by people who claim to have links to Moscow.

                      It’s unlikely that Assange or Murray can add anything of substance to this timeline, unless they are going to claim Fancy Bear was them all along.

                      Of course, if you believe that it was an inside job and the phishing malware attack was just a wild coincidence, that is your right.

                      How is it relevant to the case against Trump and his criminal associates? According to them, the Russians dangled the emails, they said “yes please” and “can we launder some more money for you?” Or something like that.

    • Psycho Milt 17.2
      2 January 2018 at 8:34 am

      No one, not one single US intelligence agent, or investigator, or anyone on Mueller’s team has asked to interview Assange or Murray.

      Oh, US officials would love to be in a position to “interview” Julian Assange – why do you think he lives at the Ecuadorian embassy? I don’t think the feeling’s mutual though.

      • francesca 17.2.1
        2 January 2018 at 9:09 am

        Why not?
        The Swedish prosecutors interviewed him at the Ecuador Embassy
        He’s offered to provide electronic evidence

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4933810/Assange-reveal-proof-Russia-did-not-hack-Hillary.html

        Ever heard of interviews via video link?
        And OAB:

        If the hearsay from some drunk in a bar can be taken seriously , I would have thought Murray’s statements given in sobriety should be given equal seriousness. As far as I can find , after he lost his job for embarrassing the UK govt, all kinds of slanderous claims were made which he was later cleared of. The Puritans amongst us are reduced to complaining about his adulterous sexual activities with a pole dancer who he later married.
        Be interested to read the source of your evident disdain

        https://thebrokenelbow.com/2016/12/15/craig-murray-doubles-down-on-clinton-hacking-claim/

        • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2.1.1
          2 January 2018 at 9:44 am

          Since when is the report of the drunk guy’s statement relevant to the case Mueller is building? It’s hearsay, for a start.

          Sure, it makes for good clickbait, but it’s useless as evidence, especially when you have General Flynn singing like a canary.

          Also, how do you know neither Murray nor Assange has been approached? The fact is, you have no idea.

          • francesca 17.2.1.1.1
            2 January 2018 at 9:54 am

            Oh c’mon OAB. It would be all over the news Get real.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2.1.1.1.1
              2 January 2018 at 10:08 am

              Doesn’t change my central argument – I think the reason neither of them have been approached is because they have nothing of substance to add to the investigation.

              Let’s say Murray can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the emails were leaked by an insider. How does that bear on the Trump campaign’s willingness to collude with Moscow to get a look at them? Because that’s the relevant detail. It wasn’t Assange or Murray who made the offer.

              It may not even have been Moscow, for that matter. The point is that Papadopoulos et al believed it was Moscow and took the meeting anyway. That and the money laundering and whatever else Mueller’s going to throw down.

              • francesca …
                2 January 2018 at 10:43 am

                The Mueller probe is to find out whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign coordinated or whatever with the Russian govt. That someone in the Trump campaign was eager to get dirt on Clinton provided by someone said to be Kremlin linked (as bait )is one thing. Whether the Kremlin was in fact involved is quite another.In fact there was no co ordination with the Kremlin during that meeting

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 January 2018 at 10:45 am

                  Why, is buying smack in some way equivalent to attempting to collude with a foreign power? How about money-laundering?

                  In fact… You don’t have any facts.

                  • francesca …
                    2 January 2018 at 11:12 am

                    And neither do you, which is my point.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 January 2018 at 11:26 am

                      Yeah I do. It’s a fact that Manafort, Flynn and Papadopoulos are facing charges. It’s a fact that Flynn has cut a deal.

                      It’s a fact that Mueller has all the Trump campaign’s emails.

                      You are confusing evidence with proof. I’m not.

  18. rightly or wrongly 18
    1 January 2018 at 7:25 pm

    For my 5 cents worth I say this:

    1: If you’re going to moan about vague drunken whispers that someone connected to Trump’s campaign might have talked to a Russian. (Are Russians evil or something?) then what should you say about the following:

    – Clinton’s deliberate and ongoing breach of Federal Regulations by directing official government and confidential papers through a home made email server?
    – Allowing the same confidential papers to be forwarded to an associate’s Laptop for printing and allowing access by her pedophile husband.
    -Clinton’s husband meeting with the head of the FBI during the process of a criminal investigation which results in said investigation being shelved by using very elastic legalistic language.
    – The very dodgy smell that emanates from the link between Clinton’s foreign policy decisions and large foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation.

    At some point the Democrats and the wider left have to stop this stupid nitpicking of everything around Trump. It hardens his support base as Trump may be a duffus and a goose but he has none of the ingrained, institutionalized stain of corruption that the name Clinton has attached to it.

    Move on already, stop fighting 2016’s battles over again.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1
      2 January 2018 at 8:38 am

      Once more for the very very dim: the FBI and the Democratic Party are not the same thing.

      The “nitpicking”, aka charges of conspiracy, money laundering, etc. etc., is being conducted by the FBI.

      Squealing “she did it too” isn’t going to get Dear Leader off the hook, no matter how much he embodies your values.

  19. 44 south 19
    1 January 2018 at 7:37 pm

    Have any of you actually read the CNN article “Trump was right about the FBI”?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1
      2 January 2018 at 9:03 am

      Let’s say the FBI was more lenient to Clinton than Trump.

      That is a case for re-considering charges against Clinton. It doesn’t make charges of conspiracy and money laundering go away.

      • francesca 19.1.1
        2 January 2018 at 9:13 am

        Well then, if you accept that, you are accepting that the FBI has become politicised, which is an absolute red line , and rather reduces their credibility

        • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1.1
          2 January 2018 at 9:19 am

          Good thing they aren’t the judge and jury then, eh.

          • francesca 19.1.1.1.1
            2 January 2018 at 9:29 am

            Well they kind of are , when their”intelligence” is given such credence.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1.1.1.1
              2 January 2018 at 9:47 am

              Meanwhile, in court, the FBI will have to make their case using evidence. So they “kind of” aren’t.

              • francesca …
                2 January 2018 at 9:59 am

                Evidence which won’t be made public
                The evidence they received from the Democrat paid Crowd Strike (rather than conducting the examination of the DNC servers themselves)can not apparently be made public because of national security. So we are told to BELIEVE .Personally I’d rather see the evidence.
                Stick with belief if its more comfortable with your mind set

                • McFlock …
                  2 January 2018 at 10:13 am

                  And if you were on the jury, you would see the evidence. But you almost certainly won’t be, so your (and my) opinion is irrelevant to criminal proceedings that might result from the investigation.

                  • francesca …
                    2 January 2018 at 10:44 am

                    So once again we have to believe

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 January 2018 at 10:47 am

                      Speak for yourself.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 January 2018 at 11:23 am

                      Nope. It just doesn’t matter whether you do or not. Unless you want every legal system in the world to replace their judges and juries with just you.

                      Given what we do know, from tweets and emails released by the trumps, claims made by trump campaign members, and now even fucking Downer… if you don’t at the very least believe that the trump campaign probably had people who were attempting to collude with the russians to affect the election, I can’t envisage what type of evidence would persuade you that it actually happened. Just theoretically, there seems to be no possible threshold of evidence that would make you go “they did it”.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 January 2018 at 10:15 am

                  The source of the DNC email hack/leak has limited relevance to Mueller’s investigation.

                  They could literally say to the court:

                  “We do not know how these emails ended up in the wrong hands”, and then go on to catalogue the evidence they have of conspiracy, money laundering, etc etc.

                  However, and here’s the thing: Secureworks have made the hacking evidence public already, so it isn’t a secret, so I don’t know where you’re coming from, and even if I did, I still don’t have the coding skills to verify what they say one way or t’other. Do you? I doubt it, or you’d already be telling me where they went wrong.

                  Now, what was that about my “beliefs”? Pfft.

                  • francesca …
                    2 January 2018 at 11:11 am

                    Where is the evidence?
                    Moscow office hours?
                    The assertion that Fancy Bear is the Kremlin?
                    “Allegations that Fancy Bear works for Russia aren’t new , but raw data is hard to come by”
                    There is still no raw data, just a list of targets and Moscow office hours.
                    None of this is new by the way
                    This article by someone who is definitely not friendly to Trump or Russia, nevertheless has his reservations about Fancy Bear

                    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 January 2018 at 11:20 am

                      Once more for the terminally dense: there are two competing stories for how the DNC emails were obtained by third parties.

                      One is that they were leaked, because Craig Murray says someone told him so.

                      The other is that it was a phishing and malware attack as documented by Secureworks.

                      None of this is relevant to whether or not the Trump campaign laundered money or attempted to collude with Moscow, the evidence for which is being provided by Michael Flynn etc.

                      Can you please just try and fucking read what I’m saying to you instead of going off on another witless red herring?

  20. McFlock 20
    1 January 2018 at 9:53 pm

    I’m shocked that Downer is a tool of the clinton-supporting deep-state. Shocked, I tell you. They have agents everywhere, from the imprisoned hacker who claims to have done it for the russians, the trump campaigners who have slyly made up stories to tell the pro-clinton deep-state Mueller, and now an Australian ambassador. It’s five eyes, it must be. Thank god putin and assange tell it straight… /sarc

  21. SPC 21
    1 January 2018 at 10:12 pm

    If the Democrats win control of Senate and House, both houses of Congress, then and only then would a case for impeachment be made.

    F

    • SPC 21.1
      1 January 2018 at 10:16 pm

      (comment made, told it was a duplicate and now unable to edit).

      For this reason, Mueller will just continue to investigate until those elections and either continue to a prosecution case 2018-2020, or just submit a report to conclude the matter and leave it to posterity (including 2020 voters).

  22. peterh 22
    2 January 2018 at 7:25 am

    What a load of garbagge. I read a tweet from Dotcom 6 months before the election. he stated dirt on Clinton was coming. all we hear is aload of crap day after day .if there was ANYTHING on Trump and Russia that was true. it would be proven by now

    • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1
      2 January 2018 at 8:47 am

      Do you want Manafort et al to receive due process or not? How will you decide if they are guilty or innocent? Draw straws? Your ignorant reckons?

      This may come as a shock to you, but Kim Dotcom has not proved 100% reliable when it comes to such matters.

      • peterh 22.1.1
        2 January 2018 at 9:26 am

        we will see in 2018 about Dotcom being reliable, I will back my ignorance

        • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1.1.1
          2 January 2018 at 9:29 am

          Oh well in that case, since due process and the rule of law don’t mean shit to you, I hold you guilty of sexual assault on a goat. You’ve dispensed with the need to hear legal arguments so we can move right onto sentencing.

          • peterh 22.1.1.1.1
            2 January 2018 at 1:51 pm

            And the goat said it was not assault, and the judge threw the case out,
            good law

            ,

            • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1.1.1.1.1
              2 January 2018 at 1:53 pm

              I’m your judge, just like you vainly affect to be Manafort’s.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1
      2 January 2018 at 11:30 am

      Oh right, so you can’t understand what you read, but everyone else is passive and obedient. 🙄

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Government focused on getting people into work
    Benefit figures released today underscore the importance of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy and have 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker Support, Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston says. “Benefit numbers are still significantly higher than when National was last in government, when there was about 70,000 fewer ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 hours ago

  • Clean energy key driver to reducing emissions
    The Government’s commitment to doubling New Zealand’s renewable energy capacity is backed by new data showing that clean energy has helped the country reach its lowest annual gross emissions since 1999, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. New Zealand’s latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory (1990-2022) published today, shows gross emissions fell ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 hours ago

  • Earthquake-prone buildings review brought forward
    The Government is bringing the earthquake-prone building review forward, with work to start immediately, and extending the deadline for remediations by four years, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “Our Government is focused on rebuilding the economy. A key part of our plan is to cut red tape that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    8 hours ago

  • Thailand and NZ to agree to Strategic Partnership
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and his Thai counterpart, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, have today agreed that New Zealand and the Kingdom of Thailand will upgrade the bilateral relationship to a Strategic Partnership by 2026. “New Zealand and Thailand have a lot to offer each other. We have a strong mutual desire to build ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    20 hours ago

  • Government consults on extending coastal permits for ports
    RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Transport Minister Simeon Brown have today announced the Coalition Government’s intention to extend port coastal permits for a further 20 years, providing port operators with certainty to continue their operations. “The introduction of the Resource Management Act in 1991 required ports to obtain coastal ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    24 hours ago

  • Inflation coming down, but more work to do
    Today’s announcement that inflation is down to 4 per cent is encouraging news for Kiwis, but there is more work to be done - underlining the importance of the Government’s plan to get the economy back on track, acting Finance Minister Chris Bishop says. “Inflation is now at 4 per ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago

  • School attendance restored as a priority in health advice
    Refreshed health guidance released today will help parents and schools make informed decisions about whether their child needs to be in school, addressing one of the key issues affecting school attendance, says Associate Education Minister David Seymour. In recent years, consistently across all school terms, short-term illness or medical reasons ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago

  • Unnecessary bureaucracy cut in oceans sector
    Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones is streamlining high-level oceans management while maintaining a focus on supporting the sector’s role in the export-led recovery of the economy. “I am working to realise the untapped potential of our fishing and aquaculture sector. To achieve that we need to be smarter with ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago

  • Patterson promoting NZ’s wool sector at International Congress
    Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson is speaking at the International Wool Textile Organisation Congress in Adelaide, promoting New Zealand wool, and outlining the coalition Government’s support for the revitalisation the sector.    "New Zealand’s wool exports reached $400 million in the year to 30 June 2023, and the coalition Government ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago

  • Removing red tape to help early learners thrive
    The Government is making legislative changes to make it easier for new early learning services to be established, and for existing services to operate, Associate Education Minister David Seymour says. The changes involve repealing the network approval provisions that apply when someone wants to establish a new early learning service, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago

  • RMA changes to cut coal mining consent red tape
    Changes to the Resource Management Act will align consenting for coal mining to other forms of mining to reduce barriers that are holding back economic development, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. “The inconsistent treatment of coal mining compared with other extractive activities is burdensome red tape that fails to acknowledge ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago

  • McClay reaffirms strong NZ-China trade relationship
    Trade, Agriculture and Forestry Minister Todd McClay has concluded productive discussions with ministerial counterparts in Beijing today, in support of the New Zealand-China trade and economic relationship. “My meeting with Commerce Minister Wang Wentao reaffirmed the complementary nature of the bilateral trade relationship, with our Free Trade Agreement at its ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago

  • Prime Minister Luxon acknowledges legacy of Singapore Prime Minister Lee
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon today paid tribute to Singapore’s outgoing Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.   Meeting in Singapore today immediately before Prime Minister Lee announced he was stepping down, Prime Minister Luxon warmly acknowledged his counterpart’s almost twenty years as leader, and the enduring legacy he has left for Singapore and South East ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • PMs Luxon and Lee deepen Singapore-NZ ties
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon held a bilateral meeting today with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. While in Singapore as part of his visit to South East Asia this week, Prime Minister Luxon also met with Singapore President Tharman Shanmugaratnam and will meet with Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.  During today’s meeting, Prime Minister Luxon ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • Antarctica New Zealand Board appointments
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has made further appointments to the Board of Antarctica New Zealand as part of a continued effort to ensure the Scott Base Redevelopment project is delivered in a cost-effective and efficient manner.  The Minister has appointed Neville Harris as a new member of the Board. Mr ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • Finance Minister travels to Washington DC
    Finance Minister Nicola Willis will travel to the United States on Tuesday to attend a meeting of the Five Finance Ministers group, with counterparts from Australia, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.  “I am looking forward to meeting with our Five Finance partners on how we can work ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • Pet bonds a win/win for renters and landlords
    The coalition Government has today announced purrfect and pawsitive changes to the Residential Tenancies Act to give tenants with pets greater choice when looking for a rental property, says Housing Minister Chris Bishop. “Pets are important members of many Kiwi families. It’s estimated that around 64 per cent of New ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • Long Tunnel for SH1 Wellington being considered
    State Highway 1 (SH1) through Wellington City is heavily congested at peak times and while planning continues on the duplicate Mt Victoria Tunnel and Basin Reserve project, the Government has also asked NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) to consider and provide advice on a Long Tunnel option, Transport Minister Simeon Brown ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • New Zealand condemns Iranian strikes
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters have condemned Iran’s shocking and illegal strikes against Israel.    “These attacks are a major challenge to peace and stability in a region already under enormous pressure," Mr Luxon says.    "We are deeply concerned that miscalculation on any side could ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago

  • Huge interest in Government’s infrastructure plans
    Hundreds of people in little over a week have turned out in Northland to hear Regional Development Minister Shane Jones speak about plans for boosting the regional economy through infrastructure. About 200 people from the infrastructure and associated sectors attended an event headlined by Mr Jones in Whangarei today. Last ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • Health Minister thanks outgoing Health New Zealand Chair
    Health Minister Dr Shane Reti has today thanked outgoing Health New Zealand – Te Whatu Ora Chair Dame Karen Poutasi for her service on the Board.   “Dame Karen tendered her resignation as Chair and as a member of the Board today,” says Dr Reti.  “I have asked her to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • Roads of National Significance planning underway
    The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) has signalled their proposed delivery approach for the Government’s 15 Roads of National Significance (RoNS), with the release of the State Highway Investment Proposal (SHIP) today, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.  “Boosting economic growth and productivity is a key part of the Government’s plan to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • Navigating an unstable global environment
    New Zealand is renewing its connections with a world facing urgent challenges by pursuing an active, energetic foreign policy, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.   “Our country faces the most unstable global environment in decades,” Mr Peters says at the conclusion of two weeks of engagements in Egypt, Europe and the United States.    “We cannot afford to sit back in splendid ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • NZ welcomes Australian Governor-General
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has announced the Australian Governor-General, His Excellency General The Honourable David Hurley and his wife Her Excellency Mrs Linda Hurley, will make a State visit to New Zealand from Tuesday 16 April to Thursday 18 April. The visit reciprocates the State visit of former Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • Pseudoephedrine back on shelves for Winter
    Associate Health Minister David Seymour has announced that Medsafe has approved 11 cold and flu medicines containing pseudoephedrine. Pharmaceutical suppliers have indicated they may be able to supply the first products in June. “This is much earlier than the original expectation of medicines being available by 2025. The Government recognised ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • NZ and the US: an ever closer partnership
    New Zealand and the United States have recommitted to their strategic partnership in Washington DC today, pledging to work ever more closely together in support of shared values and interests, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.    “The strategic environment that New Zealand and the United States face is considerably more ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • Joint US and NZ declaration
    April 11, 2024 Joint Declaration by United States Secretary of State the Honorable Antony J. Blinken and New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs the Right Honourable Winston Peters We met today in Washington, D.C. to recommit to the historic partnership between our two countries and the principles that underpin it—rule ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • NZ and US to undertake further practical Pacific cooperation
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has announced further New Zealand cooperation with the United States in the Pacific Islands region through $16.4 million in funding for initiatives in digital connectivity and oceans and fisheries research.   “New Zealand can achieve more in the Pacific if we work together more urgently and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • Government redress for Te Korowai o Wainuiārua
    The Government is continuing the bipartisan effort to restore its relationship with iwi as the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill passed its first reading in Parliament today, says Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith. “Historical grievances of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua relate to 19th century warfare, land purchased or taken ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago

  • Focus on outstanding minerals permit applications
    New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals is working to resolve almost 150 outstanding minerals permit applications by the end of the financial year, enabling valuable mining activity and signalling to the sector that New Zealand is open for business, Resources Minister Shane Jones says.  “While there are no set timeframes for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago

  • Applications open for NZ-Ireland Research Call
    The New Zealand and Irish governments have today announced that applications for the 2024 New Zealand-Ireland Joint Research Call on Agriculture and Climate Change are now open. This is the third research call in the three-year Joint Research Initiative pilot launched in 2022 by the Ministry for Primary Industries and Ireland’s ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Tenancy rules changes to improve rental market
    The coalition Government has today announced changes to the Residential Tenancies Act to encourage landlords back to the rental property market, says Housing Minister Chris Bishop. “The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Boosting NZ’s trade and agricultural relationship with China
    Trade and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay will visit China next week, to strengthen relationships, support Kiwi exporters and promote New Zealand businesses on the world stage. “China is one of New Zealand’s most significant trade and economic relationships and remains an important destination for New Zealand’s products, accounting for nearly 22 per cent of our good and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Freshwater farm plan systems to be improved
    The coalition Government intends to improve freshwater farm plans so that they are more cost-effective and practical for farmers, Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay have announced. “A fit-for-purpose freshwater farm plan system will enable farmers and growers to find the right solutions for their farm ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • New Fast Track Projects advisory group named
    The coalition Government has today announced the expert advisory group who will provide independent recommendations to Ministers on projects to be included in the Fast Track Approvals Bill, say RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones. “Our Fast Track Approval process will make it easier and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Pacific and Gaza focus of UN talks
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters says his official talks with the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in New York today focused on a shared commitment to partnering with the Pacific Islands region and a common concern about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.    “Small states in the Pacific rely on collective ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Government honours Taranaki Maunga deal
    The Government is honouring commitments made to Taranaki iwi with the Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill passing its first reading Parliament today, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “This Bill addresses the commitment the Crown made to the eight iwi of Taranaki to negotiate ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Enhanced partnership to reduce agricultural emissions
    The Government and four further companies are together committing an additional $18 million towards AgriZeroNZ to boost New Zealand’s efforts to reduce agricultural emissions. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay says the strength of the New Zealand economy relies on us getting effective and affordable emission reduction solutions for New Zealand. “The ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • 110km/h limit proposed for Kāpiti Expressway
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed news the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) will begin consultation this month on raising speed limits for the Kāpiti Expressway to 110km/h. “Boosting economic growth and productivity is a key part of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy and this proposal supports that outcome ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • New Zealand Biosecurity Awards – Winners announced
    Two New Zealanders who’ve used their unique skills to help fight the exotic caulerpa seaweed are this year’s Biosecurity Awards Supreme Winners, says Biosecurity Minister Andrew Hoggard. “Strong biosecurity is vital and underpins the whole New Zealand economy and our native flora and fauna. These awards celebrate all those in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-04-18T01:21:34+00:00