World watch – Tuesday

Sunday GMT

WorldWatch

Post, news or views on anything happening of interest around the world.

Leave a comment

25 Comments

  1. Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  June 27, 2017

      And to really show how partisan the lower courts were in their original decisions the SCOTUS decision was a unanimous 9 – 0 in favour of Trump, with the one caveat of still allowing those with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States in.

      Reply
      • Mefrostate

         /  June 27, 2017

        First of all that’s a pretty big caveat, and highlights how unfit for purpose Trump’s executive order was, even after the March revision. Indeed, only 3 of the 9 were in favour of reviving the ban in full.

        And secondly, this is not really a ruling “in favour of Trump”, this is an agreement to hear the two cases against Trump in full, in the October session. This is after the 90 days that this temporary ban will be operative. Essentially, if Trump pushes through a more permanent order, they’ll see him in court.

        For the best interpretation of this development, see here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/06/shrewd-justice

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  June 27, 2017

          He only wanted the temporary ban in place to relieve the pressure on staff currently enforcing the extreme vetting put in place by the Obama administration so as to enable the review to be undertaken.
          It has never been about a long term ban, it was all about reviewing and improving processes,
          The Justices have delayed their hearing of the case until after the time the review should take, which effectively enables it.
          There were three justices who said the partial caveat was completely unworkable and invites litigation – so it will be interesting how that pans out.

          Reply
          • Mefrostate

             /  June 27, 2017

            “He only wanted the temporary ban in place to relieve the pressure on staff currently enforcing the extreme vetting put in place by the Obama administration so as to enable the review to be undertaken.”

            Can you source this please? Google doesn’t yield anything of the sort.

            Reply
            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 27, 2017

              I had read that the staffing was a reason – but admit I cannot find where that may have been so will happily retract that part. The rest remains true – temporary ban while systems and procedures are checked and tightened.

              NYT:
              “Mr Trump’s revised executive order, issued in March, limited travel from 6 mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation’s refugee program for 120 days. The time was needed, the order said, to address gaps in the government’s screening and vetting procedures”

              “This executive order responsibly provides a needed pause so we can carefully review how we scrutinize people coming here from these countries of concern,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in announcing that the order had been signed.

            • Mefrostate

               /  June 27, 2017

              Appreciate you discussing this in good faith. You’ve also helped me understand the intended temporary nature of it.

              So I guess in that regard Trump did manage to get the March revision through the Supreme court successfully. I can’t see this as a win for him though, not until he gets some permanent policy in place.

              But I don’t think it “really show(s) how partisan the lower courts were in their original decisions”, since the Supreme court have only supported it after having to remove the unconstitutional bits. That’s no minor tweak.

  2. Reply
  3. Gezza

     /  June 27, 2017

    He colluded

    US President Donald Trump stepped up his criticism of former Democratic President Barack Obama’s handling of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential campaign, accusing his predecessor of collusion and demanding an apology from investigators.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/94111000/us-president-donald-trump-attacks-barack-obama-over-russia-and-elections

    Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  June 27, 2017

      You beat me to it. The worm is slowly turning.

      Reply
    • Mefrostate

       /  June 27, 2017

      Insanity, projection and deliberate muddying of the waters by Trump – probably because he knows more big news is about to hit.

      There’s no evidence to back up his accusations towards Obama, no motive for Obama to have done these things, and no reason to take them seriously for even a split-second, given his long history of outright lies, and of making allegations without a shred of evidence.

      Reply
      • MaureenW

         /  June 27, 2017

        Clearly you don’t read much. There is plenty on this topic if you look in the right publications. It probably won’t be on the front page of CNN or Huffpost, but plenty of other outlets have been covering this. It was also revealed by Wikileaks some time back.

        Reply
        • Mefrostate

           /  June 27, 2017

          Go on then…

          Reply
            • Mefrostate

               /  June 27, 2017

              This seems like a useful exercise in critical thinking for those who somehow still think Trump deserves to be president.

              Trump’s specific claims:

              Claim 1. Obama knew about the Russia issue long before the election

              Discussion: TRUE. Obama was first notified in early August that Putin was directly involved in a campaign to damage Clinton and get Trump elected. (Source: your WaPo link).

              Sidenote: Trump was notified on August 17 but continued to argue publicly that it might have been China or lots of other people (Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-was-told-russia-was-blame-hacks-long-debate-n663686)

              Claim 2. Obama did nothing about Russian interference

              Discussion: FALSE. Before the election: Obama instructed his aides to assess vulnerabilities in the election system. After the election: expelled 35 diplomats, closed two Russian compounds, narrow sanctions, began a project to install cyber weapons in Russian infrastructure. (Source: your WaPo link).

              Sidenote a) Schiff’s argument (that Obama should have done more) is reasonable. But I think it’s obvious that if Obama had indeed gone public with the CIA briefing, Trumpians would have screamed blue murder about Obama trying to influence the elections. So he clearly had to tread carefully, which seems to have led to an under-reaction.

              Sidenote b) Despite these facts being established as public record, Trump has also done nothing. He continues to treat Russia with remarkably soft hands, six months into his presidency. Why?

              Claim 3. Obama’s reason for 2. was that he thought Clinton would win and did not want to rock the boat.

              Discussion: Rubbish, this makes no sense. Going public with the CIA briefing is far more likely to have skewed voters towards rather than away from Clinton. It would have a) undermined the significance of the email scandal, by challenging the motives of the hackers/leakers, and b) given substance to questions about why Trump was so publicly pro-Russia.

              Claim 4. Obama colluded

              Discussion: Vague bullshit. The implication I guess is that Obama colluded with Russia (?), but that also makes zero sense as we now know Russia was working against Clinton.

              Claim 5. Obama obstructed

              Discussion: Vague bullshit. I think Trump is deliberately trying to weaken the significance of the words ‘colluded’ and ‘obstructed’ to set up a false equivalence between the allegations being made against him (with considerable evidence) and the allegations he’s making toward Obama (with none to little evidence, as I’ve shown).

            • MaureenW

               /  June 27, 2017

              Your response says more about what you are saying rather than anyone else.
              Personally I think we’re still waiting to find out.

            • MaureenW

               /  June 27, 2017

              Your opening comment regarding those who think Trump should still be president, made me roll my eyes. Trump won the election, there is no evidence Trump colluded with Russia, and has there even been any evidence that Russia hacked the election? Did Russia hack the DNC? Why wouldn’t the DNC allow the FBI to find evidence of Russian hacking?
              So many unanswered questions .. and I see CNN had to let 3 presenters go for publishing as fact another Trump Russia story provided by an anonymous source.
              There is so much bullshit, it’s hard to breathe.
              More to come but there is certainly no conclusion at this stage.

            • I thought the Russian election hacking was fairly well established. And I thought Trump recently criticised Obama for not doing something about it when he found out.

            • MaureenW

               /  June 27, 2017

              What exactly did Russia hack? Where is the evidence? What difference did it make? Why is this Trumps problem when he wasn’t then president? There has been no evidence to show Trump colluded with Russia.
              Wikileaks has produced documentary evidence of the range of hacking tools the US intelligence services developed, capable of leaving behind foreign fingerprints of their choosing. Will the truth ever be known?

            • Mefrostate

               /  June 28, 2017

              Almost all of these questions have direct answers supported by evidence. If you’re going to accuse me of “not reading much” then I would expect you know all the answers already, but let me make it clear.

              Maureen: Has there even been any evidence that Russia hacked the election?

              “Hacked the election” is a terrible term. There’s no evidence the Russians hacked the voting systems.

              Let’s replace it with “has there been any evidence that Russia interfered with the election”

              Yes, there is plenty of evidence that Russia hacked into the emails of the DNC and the RNC, and engaged in an online influence campaign. Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections)

              Maureen: Did Russia hack the DNC?

              Yes

              Maureen: Why wouldn’t the DNC allow the FBI to find evidence of Russian hacking?

              Are you alleging that the DNC faked the entire hack, or that the DNC tried to make it look like a Russian hack afterward?

              Maureen: What exactly did Russia hack?

              Email accounts of DNC and RNC officials, using spear phishing.

              Maureen: What difference did it make?

              Many people believe the leaks of the DNC emails were a significant factor in Clinton’s loss of popularity during the 2016 campaign.

              Maureen: Why is this Drumpfs problem when he wasn’t then president?

              It’s not, necessarily. But Trump’s campaign is under investigation for their ties to Russia, and Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice in that very investigation. There’s plenty of smoke, maybe enough that he should be “fired”. Certainly enough that it is his problem now, and he should be treated with plenty of scrutiny.

              You don’t get to just ask a bunch of questions and throw up your hands with “there’s so much bullshit it’s hard to breathe” when there are indeed plenty of established and well-evidenced facts.

          • Mefrostate

             /  June 27, 2017

            Seems pretty unfair of you to make airy-fairy statements, then accuse me of “not reading much” and then brushing off my pretty well-evidenced and well-reasoned response to your links.

            Reply
      • duperez

         /  June 27, 2017

        Trump said it, it’s true. And we know he never changes stories a little bit later after the desired affect has been gained. 😊

        Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  June 27, 2017

      So the whole cat person vs dog person meme was a lie? What CAN you believe anymore…

      Reply
      • MaureenW

         /  June 27, 2017

        Very good HFD, definitely a cat person

        Reply
      • duperez

         /  June 27, 2017

        Now I’m really confused! The story about Trump and pussy in Moscow: True? Fake news? Or true fake news? 🐱

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s