Susan Rice blasts Trump over secure server, asked if Obama ever used similar system

Another Prevaricator!

Susan Rice, who was one of President Obama's closest advisers during his time in office, blasted President Trump on Friday night for storing details about his July 25 call with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky in a separate, highly secured computer system.

Rice, who was a guest at the Texas Tribune Festival in Austin, addressed whistleblower allegations that the Trump administration worked to "lock down" these records to presumably hide his interaction with Zelensky where he dangled about $400 million in military aid to get Kiev to investigate the Bidens relationship to the country.
Both Trump and Zelensky denied the allegations. Trump insisted that the conversation was "perfect" and he was just making sure the country was making good on its promise to weed out corruption.
Obama’s former national security adviser said the "normal system" that holds information on similar calls is protected and classified. She said there was "no classified substance" in the Trump phone call and yet the administration "hid it on a very highly sensitive, highly compartmentalized server that very few people in the U.S. government have access to in order to bury it."
She was asked by the moderator if the Obama administration ever kept calls on a separate server. She responded by saying only if "they were legitimately in their contents classified."
"It’s rare that a presidential conversation would be classified to that highest level," she said. "It's not impossible. It’s very rare. Even when they are two leaders discussing classified information. Here’s a case where there was nothing classified and it was moved to the most secure, sensitive server.”
The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday that the Trump administration—after sensing problematic leaks early in his presidency—worked to protect presidential phone calls. Politicians on both sides of the aisle understand the importance of a sitting president’s ability to engage with a foreign leader in a conversation that would not face public scrutiny.
The Trump administration reportedly said the phone call with Ukraine’s leader was only added to the server after guidance from  National Security Counsel lawyer.

Shifty Schiff Cartoons

NYT defends revealing key details of whistleblower’s identity

The New York Times said they want to allow their readers to make their own judgments about whether the whistleblower is credible. The paper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, said readers should know the whistleblower is a CIA officer with extensive knowledge about Ukrainian politics, who at one point worked in the White House.
Baquet regarded the information as vital to set the record straight after he said President Trump and some of his supporters have attacked the credibility of the whistleblower. The president and several officials have stated the subject’s complaint about the Ukraine phone call consisted of political bias and secondhand information.

“Basically, that person never saw the report, never saw the call…heard something and decided that he or she or whoever the hell it is…they’re almost a spy. I want to know who’s the person that gave the whistleblower the information?” — President Trump

Despite the New York Times trying to disprove President Trump’s argument, disclosing the identity backfired into a larger debate. Baquet’s statement alludes to the whistleblower’s gender as the editor refers to the complainant as “him” and “he.”

Dean Baquet, our executive editor, explains why we chose to publish the information about the whistle-blower https://t.co/5BtDXYpoiz pic.twitter.com/s0mZaivG3t

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 26, 2019

National Intelligence officials noted the publication has now endangered the whistleblower’s life and reputation, and has set an alarming precedent that would prevent potential whistleblowers to come forward in the future.
The general public also objected across the board as the hashtag — #CancelNYT — appeared trending on Twitter, kick-starting a movement for everyone to cancel their subscriptions. Others called for Baquet to step down and noted his New York Times continuously fails to meet basic journalistic standards.

Pakistan PM warns of ‘bloodbath’ in Kashmir; India PM silent

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Insisting he wasn’t making a threat, Pakistan’s leader denounced his Indian counterpart on Friday and warned that any war between the nuclear rivals could “have consequences for the world.” India’s prime minister took the opposite approach, skipping any mention at the United Nations of his government’s crackdown in the disputed region of Kashmir.

“When a nuclear-armed country fights to the end, it will have consequences far beyond the borders. It will have consequences for the world,” Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan said in a wide-ranging, at times apparently extemporaneous U.N. General Assembly speech in which he called Modi’s actions in Kashmir “stupid” and “cruel.”

“That’s not a threat,” he said of his war comments. “It’s a fair worry. Where are we headed?”

An hour earlier, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the U.N. meeting with a speech that focused primarily on his country’s development, though he warned of the spreading specter of terrorism. He never mentioned Kashmir directly.

India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars over the Himalayan region. They’ve been locked in a worsening standoff since Aug. 5, when Modi stripped limited autonomy from the portion of Kashmir that India controls.

Modi’s Hindu nationalist government imposed a sweeping military curfew and cut off residents in the Muslim-majority region from virtually all communications. Khan said there were 900,000 Indian forces in the region policing 8 million Kashmiris.

“What’s he going to do when he lifts the curfew? Does he think the people of Kashmir are quietly going to accept the status quo?” Khan said. “What is going to happen when the curfew is lifted will be a bloodbath.”

He added: “They will be out in the streets. And what will the soldiers do? They will shoot them. ... Kashmiris will be further radicalized.”

While not mentioning Kashmir by name, Modi touched on terrorism: “We belong to a country that has given the world not war, but Buddha’s message of peace. And that is the reason why our voice against terrorism, to alert the world about this evil, rings with seriousness and outrage.”

Modi has defended the Kashmir changes as freeing the territory from separatism. His supporters have welcomed the move.

Late Friday evening, India took advantage of its right of response and sent a diplomat — whose name was not immediately available — to briefly condemn Khan’s words. She called them “hate speech” and “brinksmanship, not statesmanship.”

“Rarely has the General Assembly witnessed such misuse — abuse — of the opportunity to reflect,” she said. She accused Khan of hypocrisy and said his words “reflect a medieval mindset and not a 21st-century vision.”

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said during his U.N. speech Friday afternoon that “as a neighbor of both nations, China hopes to see the dispute effectively managed and stability restored to the relationship between the two sides.”

The difference in speech styles between the Indian and Pakistani leaders was striking, with Modi sticking closely to a prepared text and Khan appearing to speak off the cuff and riff. While the U.N. distributed a transcript of Modi’s speech moments after he finished talking, Khan’s had not been released hours later.

Ahead of Modi’s and Khan’s appearances at the U.N., residents of Indian-controlled Kashmir expressed hope that their speeches would turn world attention to an unprecedented lockdown in the region.

“We really hope these leaders will do something to rid us of conflict and suppression,” said Nazir Ahmed, a schoolteacher on the outskirts of Srinagar, the main city in Indian-held Kashmir. “Conflict is like a cancer hitting every aspect of life. And Kashmiris have been living inside this cancer for decades now.”

As the two leaders spoke Friday, large dueling protests supporting and opposing India’s action in Kashmir were taking place across the street from U.N. headquarters.

U.S. President Donald Trump, who met with both Modi and Khan this week, has urged the sides to resolve their differences.

India and Pakistan’s conflict over Kashmir dates to the late 1940s, when they won independence from Britain. The region is one of the most heavily militarized in the world, patrolled by soldiers and paramilitary police. Most Kashmiris resent the Indian troop presence.

Modi, a pro-business Hindu nationalist, and his party won a decisive re-election in May. The election was seen as a referendum on Modi, the son of a poor tea seller whose economic reforms have had mixed results. But he has enjoyed enduring popularity as a social underdog in India’s highly stratified society.

Critics, however, say his Hindu-first platform risks exacerbating social tensions in the country of 1.3 billion people. Longtime Associated Press international correspondent Foster Klug is on assignment at the U.N. General Assembly. Follow him on Twitter at @APKlug. AP writers Shah Abbas and Edith M. Lederer contributed to this story.

Conway offers theory as to why Pelosi opened impeachment probe

Kellyanne Conway, the White House counselor, on Friday accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of giving in to the "men around her" when she announced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump over a July 25 phone call with the newly elected president of Ukraine.
Democrats--citing a newly released whistleblower complaint-- claim that Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid from Kiev unless it agreed to investigate his potential 2020 rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter's business dealing in the country.
Both Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky denied that there was an unspoken quid pro quo. Trump insisted that the call was "perfect" and he was just doing his due diligence to make sure the country was working to weed out corruption.
Conway addressed reporters outside the White House on Friday and accused Pelosi of taking the inquiry plunge-- not because of new evidence-- but because she was taking orders from men around her. Conway said a move like that is the worst thing a "woman in power can do."
According to a Washington Examiner timeline, Pelosi attended an Atlantic festival on Tuesday and was asked about impeachment and she reportedly remained noncommittal. She had a scheduled meeting with Democrats later that day and announced the formal impeachment inquiry, citing Trump's admission that he mentioned the Bidens to Zelensky.
“The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of his national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” she said on Tuesday while announcing the inquiry.
The Associated Press reported that the new drive was led by a group of moderate Democratic lawmakers from political swing districts, many of them with national security backgrounds and serving in Congress for the first time.
It is no secret that Pelosi has been the source of frustration to her party’s liberal wing that has called for Trump’s impeachment for months. Political observers argued that the speaker was deliberate in her actions in order to protect Democrats in moderate districts and hedge against the possibility that the allegations fizzled.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Thursday told an audience at Seton Hall's law school that he believed "leftists" were behind the impeachment push, according to Politico. He said the county is going to go down a "very long and unproductive" road.
"Speaker Pelosi was dealing with pressure from her caucus and, when you talk about pressure from the left, there is a highly leftist component to the Democratic Party that she was feeling pressure for,” Cuomo said. He said Pelosi is "a deliberate, responsible person. She’s not a knee-jerk person. And I think she resisted the pressure in her caucus admirably for a long period of time."
The whistleblower complaint was released on Thursday and Democrats appeared to double down on their push. Pelosi tweeted a portion of the complaint that claims Trump was seeking interference and said "it doesn't get more serious than this."
Pelosi told the New Jersey Democratic State Committee‘s convention in Atlantic City Friday night, according to Politico, that "this is not a cause for any joy that we have to go down this path. It’s a difficult decision to make. But we have that obligation because the actions that were taken undermine the constitution and the oath we take to protect and defend, including the oath that the president takes.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report

Maher blasts Hunter Biden's Ukraine ties: If Don Jr. did it, Rachel Maddow would be all over it

"Real Time" host Bill Maher slammed Hunter Biden's business ties to Ukraine, suggesting MSNBC's Rachel Maddow would be talking about it if it were one of President Trump's children.
Maher began by questioning whether former Vice President Joe Biden would benefit from the impeachment inquiry into Trump since he is "elevated" above the other 2020 candidates.
"The more I read about this- no, I don't think he was doing something terrible in Ukraine, but it's just- why can't politicians tell their f-----' kids, 'Get a job, get a godd--n job!''" Maher told the panel. "This kid was paid $600,000 because his name is Biden by a gas company in Ukraine, this super-corrupt country that just had a revolution to get rid of corruption. I just looks bad.'
The HBO star commended "genius" Republicans for "muddying the waters," predicting that their argument to defend Trump will be "You did this in Ukraine, well Joe Biden did this."
He then mentioned Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who was famously entangled in the Russia investigation after he held a meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 election.
"It does sound like something Don Jr. would do," Maher said. "And if Don Jr. did it, it would be all Rachel Maddow was talking about

Shepard Smith Cartoons

Tucker Carlson And Guest Shred Left-Wing Host Shepard Smith, Judge Napolitano

Fox News host Tucker Carlson and lawyer Joe diGenova blasted left-wing Fox News host Shepard Smith and Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano on Wednesday night over claims that they made the previous day.
The controversy started when Napolitano and Smith claimed on Tuesday that what President Donald Trump had admitted to in relation to his phone call with Ukraine was “a crime.”
DiGenova responded on Tuesday night by refuting Napolitano’s claims and saying that Napolitano was “a fool” and that what he said “was foolish.”
Smith responded to the criticisms during his program on Wednesday, saying: “A partisan guest who supports President Trump was asked about Judge Napolitano’s legal assessment. And when he was asked, he said, unchallenged, Judge Napolitano is a fool. Attacking our colleague, who is here to offer legal assessments on our air, in our work home is repugnant.”
Carlson and diGenova responded to Smith’s comments during Carlson’s Wednesday night broadcast.

Hours after Fox News anchor Shepard Smith blasted frequent network guest and Trump ally Joe diGenova for calling Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano a “fool” during Tucker Carlson’s show, Carlson devoted a Wednesday night segment to mocking Smith’s outrage and defense of their mutual colleague.
Inviting diGenova back on his program on Wednesday night, Carlson noted that the Trump-boosting lawyer’s insult of Napolitano caused “quite a firestorm,” reminding viewers that diGenova was responding to Napolitano’s assertion that Trump committed a crime with his phone call to the Ukrainian president. Carlson then took aim at Smith.
“Apparently our daytime host who hosted Judge Napolitano was watching last night and was outraged by what you said and, quite ironically, called you partisan,” Carlson exclaimed in a rather jovial manner.
The Fox News star went on to air a clip of Smith not-so-subtly calling out Carlson for letting a “partisan guest” attack Napolitano without being challenged. “Attacking our colleague, who is here to offer legal assessments on our air in our work home, is repugnant,” Smith added.
“Repugnant!” Carlson mockingly shouted. “Not clear if that was you or me, but someone was repugnant!”
Playing another clip of Napolitano reiterating his view that Trump broke the law by seeking election assistance from a foreign leader, the primetime Fox star insisted that “unlike maybe some dayside hosts, I’m not very partisan.”
After accusing Smith of being partisan, the conservative talk show host opened the floor for diGenova to continue to rail against Napolitano’s analysis. “I was very truthful last night,” diGenova said.
“So that’s why it doesn’t seem honest to me when a host, any host on any channel, including this one, pretends that the answer is obvious,” Carlson stated. “That there is ironclad consensus about what the answer is when there, in fact, isn’t, when it’s a subjective question. That’s not news, is it? That’s opinion.”
diGenova, meanwhile, insisted he was absolutely right to claim Trump has not committed any crimes because he’s a former U.S. attorney before taking some additional shots at Napolitano.
“He is entitled to feel that way,” the Trump-supporting lawyer declared. “He is a disappointed office seeker. He didn’t get the seat on the Supreme Court that he desperately wanted and he has been mad about it ever since. He showed it yesterday and he showed it so many times over the last year it’s pretty embarrassing actually for me. You know, I love the guy. God bless him.”
“I do too,” Carlson replied. “We invited him on tonight by the way. It makes people cynical when you dress up news coverage, when you dress up partisanship as news coverage and pretend that your angry political opinions are news. You know, people tune out.”
This wasn't the only time we saw friendly fire on Carlson's show Wednesday night. Earlier in the program, Fox News reporter Trace Gallagher said “most legal analysts, even on the liberal media outlets, acknowledge it would be very difficult to make a case that President Trump broke the law.” This would, however, contradict Napolitano's assessment, as well as a number of lawyers and legal analysts Smith also cited on Wednesday to show Trump broke the law.