On day five of the trial in Alexandria, Virginia, Gates was asked by the prosecutor whether he had committed any crimes with Mr Manafort, and he said: "Yes."

He testified that Mr Manafort had directed him to lower taxable income by reporting overseas income as loans, according to US media.

Gates also reportedly told the court on Monday that he had been told by Mr Manafort not to disclose foreign bank accounts.

The witness also testified that he had helped the defendant file false tax returns, and had concealed 15 foreign accounts from the US government.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Rick has rolled

On day five of the trial in Alexandria, Virginia, Gates was asked by the prosecutor whether he had committed any crimes with Mr Manafort, and he said: "Yes."

He testified that Mr Manafort had directed him to lower taxable income by reporting overseas income as loans, according to US media.

Gates also reportedly told the court on Monday that he had been told by Mr Manafort not to disclose foreign bank accounts.

The witness also testified that he had helped the defendant file false tax returns, and had concealed 15 foreign accounts from the US government.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I can kinda see both sides of the argument here actually.

To Trumps detractors:
1. Is it true that Iran refuses to allow access to their military sites to weapons inspectors? If that is the case, how do you justify inaction - isn't that a clear breach by Iran?
2. Isn't Iran's support of terror activities in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere a clear breach? If that is the case, how do you justify inaction?

To Trump supporters:.
Trump like many past US Presidents is blatantly being played like a fiddle by Saudi Arabia in their proxy war with Iran, he is pursuing Saudi foreign policy. How you justify this double standard?
Saudi Arabia also is a significant sponsor of terrorism. How do you justify this double standard?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So they ARE allowing weapon inspections of their military facilities? That particular allegation is false?

tneva82 wrote:
And what you are more interested? No nukes in iran or those inspections? Maybe they don't allow, don't know. But they have stopped their nuke program. It might not be deal that works perfectly but it's doing main thing and works hell of a lot better than abandoning it completely which would turn making strong icbm arsenal with nukes absolutely essential for Iran.

The FCC has come clean on the fact that a purported hack of its comment system last year never actually took place, after a report from its inspector general found a lack of evidence supporting the idea. Chairman Ajit Pai blamed the former chief information officer and the Obama administration for providing “inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people.”

The semi-apology and finger-pointing are a disappointing conclusion to the year-long web of obfuscation that the FCC has woven. Since the first moment it was reported that there was a hack of the system, there have been questions about the nature, scale and response to it that the FCC has studiously avoided even under direct Congressional questioning.

It was so galling to everyone looking for answers that the GAO was officially asked to look into it. The letter requesting the office’s help at the time complained that the FCC had “not released any records or documentation that would allow for confirmation that an attack occurred, that it was effectively dealt with, and that the FCC has begun to institute measures to thwart future attacks and ensure the security of its systems.” That investigation is still going on, but one conducted by the FCC’s own OIG resulted in the report Pai cites.

The former CIO, David Bray, was the origin of the theory, but emails obtained by American Oversight in June show that evidence for it and a similar claim from 2014 were worryingly thin. Nevertheless, the FCC has continuously upheld the idea that it was under attack and has never publicly walked it back.

Pai’s statement was issued before the OIG publicized its report, as one does when a report is imminent that essentially says your agency has been clueless at best or deliberately untruthful at worst, and for more than a year. To be clear, the report is still unpublished, though its broader conclusions are clear from Pai’s statement. In it he slathers Bray with the partisan brush and asserts that the report exonerates his office:

I am deeply disappointed that the FCC’s former [CIO], who was hired by the prior Administration and is no longer with the Commission, provided inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people. This is completely unacceptable. I’m also disappointed that some working under the former CIO apparently either disagreed with the information that he was presenting or had questions about it, yet didn’t feel comfortable communicating their concerns to me or my office.

On the other hand, I’m pleased that this report debunks the conspiracy theory that my office or I had any knowledge that the information provided by the former CIO was inaccurate and was allowing that inaccurate information to be disseminated for political purposes.

Although an evaluation of Pai’s “conspiracy theory” idea must wait until the report is public, it’s hard to square this pleasure of the chairman’s with the record. At any time in the last year, especially after Bray had departed, it would have been, if not simple, then at least more simple than maintaining its complex act of knowledgelessness, to say that the CIO had made an error and there was no attack. Nothing like that has escaped the mouth of Chairman Pai.

One must assume the agency had reviewed the data. Bray left a long time ago; why did these subordinates of his fail to speak out afterwards? If the FCC had its doubts, why did it not say so instead of risking withering criticism by avoiding the question for months on end?

Some of the FCC’s reticence to speak out may have even been explained as part of the request by the inspector general not to discuss the investigation. That’s an easy out, at least for some of the time! But we haven’t heard that, that I know of at least, and it doesn’t explain the rest of the agency’s silence or misleading statements.

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel urged everyone to move on with a quickness:

The Inspector General Report tells us what we knew all along: the FCC’s claim that it was the victim of a DDoS attack during the net neutrality proceeding is bogus. What happened instead is obvious—millions of Americans overwhelmed our online system because they wanted to tell us how important internet openness is to them and how distressed they were to see the FCC roll back their rights. It’s unfortunate that this agency’s energy and resources needed to be spent debunking this implausible claim.

Although moving forward is a good idea, accountability and an explanation for the last year of mystery would also be welcome.

Because it wasn’t a hack, it seems that the comment-filing system, though recently revamped, needs yet another fresh coat of paint to handle the kind of volume it saw during the net neutrality repeal. Plans for that are underway, Pai wrote. A separate investigation by the Government Accountability Office regarding fraud in the comment system will no doubt affect those plans.

I’ve contacted the FCC and its Office of the Inspector General for more information, including the report itself. I will update this post when I hear back.

tneva82 wrote:
And what you are more interested? No nukes in iran or those inspections? Maybe they don't allow, don't know. But they have stopped their nuke program. It might not be deal that works perfectly but it's doing main thing and works hell of a lot better than abandoning it completely which would turn making strong icbm arsenal with nukes absolutely essential for Iran.

tneva82 wrote:
Nukes can't be made anywhere. So if iran prevents going to barracks whee.


Independent parties have confirmed nuke production has stopped. And anybody with any sense whatsoever trusts independent parties more than "i lie dozens times a day" trump

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So they ARE allowing weapon inspections of their military facilities? That particular allegation is false?

 Asherian Command wrote:
https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/06/fcc-admits-it-was-never-actually-hacked/

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/06/fcc-admits-it-was-never-actually-hacked/

That article so heavily misunderstands the situation that it's saddening.

The purported "hack" wasn't an actual hack, but rather it was people saying that the comments system was flooded with misleading comments using peoples' identities.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/06/fcc-admits-it-was-never-actually-hacked/

That article so heavily misunderstands the situation that it's saddening.

The purported "hack" wasn't an actual hack, but rather it was people saying that the comments system was flooded with misleading comments using peoples' identities.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Nukes can't be made anywhere. So if iran prevents going to barracks whee.


Independent parties have confirmed nuke production has stopped. And anybody with any sense whatsoever trusts independent parties more than "i lie dozens times a day" trump

Right. Independent parties have confirmed it. That is the key point, that is what I asked for. I presume that they have carried out their own inspections?

You're acting like I'm an idiot for even asking if there's any truth to the allegation against Iran. I have been reassured that there is not, so I am satisfied. So drop the snark please.

One of the most dangerous construction-related carcinogens is now legally allowed back into U.S. manufacturing under a new rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). On June 1, the EPA authorized a “SNUR” (Significant New Use Rule) which allows new products containing asbestos to be created on a case-by-case basis.

According to environmental advocates, this new rule gives chemical companies the upper hand in creating new uses for such harmful products in the United States. In May, the EPA released a report detailing its new framework for evaluating the risk of its top prioritized substances. The report states that the agency will no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.

This news comes after the EPA reviewed its first batch of 10 chemicals under the 2016 amendment to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which required the agency to continually reevaluate hundreds of potentially toxic chemicals to see whether they should face new restrictions or be removed from the market. The SNUR greenlights companies to use toxic chemicals like asbestos without thinking about how it will endanger people who are indirectly in contact with it.

Asbestos, once seen as a magical mineral, was widely used in building insulation up until it was banned in most countries in the 1970s. The U.S. is one of the only developed nations in the world that has placed significant restrictions on the substance without banning it completely. New data revealed that asbestos-related deaths now total nearly 40,000 annually, with lung cancer and mesothelioma being the most common illnesses in association with the toxin. That number could rise if new asbestos-containing products make their way into brand new buildings.



Healthy Building Network (HBN), an environmental advocacy group, recently told Fast Company that the fibrous material poses a major health risk for everyone exposed to it, including those who mine it, those who handle it in industrial facilities, as well as people near or inside renovation and construction projects where it’s being used. HBN’s Board President Bill Walsh said that the chlor-alkali industry is the only industry in the country that still uses asbestos, reportedly importing about 480 tons of the carcinogen each year from Russia and Brazil.

Walsh also pointed out that chlorine-based plastics are commonly found in building-product materials and that “virtually all” asbestos in the U.S. is used in the industrial process to make chlorine. This includes PVC and vinyl plastics, which is largely found in the creation of pipes, tiles, flooring, adhesives, paints, and roofing products.

Though the EPA is easing its regulations against using harmful toxins like asbestos, it will largely be the responsibility of local and state governments, as well as companies and informed consumers to counter these federal moves. Walsh says it’s up to sustainable building-product manufacturers and ultimately, architects to pressure the market.

“Architects really set the pace of design, in terms of aesthetics and materials that we like,” he said. “If they start to incorporate health-based criteria into their palette, it could really have an influence on what the manufacturers produce.”

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So they ARE allowing weapon inspections of their military facilities? That particular allegation is false?

https://nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/side-deal-allows-iran-inspect-its-own-military-site-n412786
https://financialtribune.com/articles/national/71813/iran-not-bound-to-allow-inspection-of-military-sites
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20170830-story.html
https://belfercenter.org/publication/are-iranian-military-bases-limits-inspection
https://www.english.almanar.com.lb/335531
https://npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/09/13/549217764/should-nuclear-inspectors-be-demanding-access-to-irans-military-sites
https://reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSKCN1B918E
http://mei.edu/content/io/iran-rejects-us-demand-inspection-military-sites
http://mei.edu/content/io/iran-rejects-iaea-chief-s-claim-about-inspection-military-sites
https://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/08/are_iranian_military_bases_off-limits_to_inspection_128007.html

That's on googles first page and a half.

Seems like Military sites were off limits.

"Already we have had many [visits] and we will continue to have access," he said, adding that "we do not distinguish between civilian sites and military ones."

Touring the Sunday morning talk shows, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz argued that the 24-day delay the deal provides is immaterial.

“We are very confident in our ability to detect the vestiges of any nuclear work beyond 24 days,” he said, and later explained, "When environmental samples are taken and nuclear activity has taken place, it is virtually impossible to clean up that place. You can paint the floors. You can do what you want. We feel very confident that we would find evidence of nuclear activity.”

 Asherian Command wrote:

The report states that the agency will no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

The report states that the agency will no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.

Wait, haud on there - are those things not the whole fething point of the EPA as an entity? Like, how the feth do you Protect the Environment if you're not considering what impact the presence of substances will have in the environment?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The enviroment is clearly a Chinese hoax.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I can kinda see both sides of the argument here actually.

To Trumps detractors:
1. Is it true that Iran refuses to allow access to their military sites to weapons inspectors? If that is the case, how do you justify inaction - isn't that a clear breach by Iran?
2. Isn't Iran's support of terror activities in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere a clear breach? If that is the case, how do you justify inaction?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I can kinda see both sides of the argument here actually.

To Trumps detractors:
1. Is it true that Iran refuses to allow access to their military sites to weapons inspectors? If that is the case, how do you justify inaction - isn't that a clear breach by Iran?
2. Isn't Iran's support of terror activities in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere a clear breach? If that is the case, how do you justify inaction?

1. They can request access and are given that in a quick amount of time. The thing is, most think tanks (the decent ones, not the politically subservient) agree that checks could be better if they take some other things into account. But they talked about working that out with Iran while saying that the deal was the best opportunity. Furthermore even the Israelis who had been watching Iran like hawks found nothing really new regarding an Iranian program that was for the majority shut down a decade ago. Its difficult to hide devolping something like this, especially with some of the world's best intelligence agencies breathing down their necks. For most experts throwing away the entire deal was pointless because the Iranian government complied with international requests and moved excess nuclear material out of Iran when it went over the limit, while not enriching uranium to the level required for weapons. Meanwhile the people who threw away the Iran deal are now giving North Korea the exact same one based on belief (if you see their rethoric on the Iran one), while maintaining its going to work in the face of clear evidence the NK are still working on their stockpile.
2. This is a difficult one. Iran supporting terrorism is obviously wrong, but its also a consequence of everybody in the region and the West treating Iran as the enemy. Western engagement with Iran might lessen the extremism and building economic ties with Iran also means they have more to lose. The question being of course, should we let Iran sponsoring terrorism be the decider on an Iranian nuclear deal when the US is allied with Pakistan, a nuclear state supporting terrorism or Saudi Arabia that supports terrorism? While this is going to be very cynical for a second it has to be mentioned, Iranian terrorism is focussed on supporting regional allies, Saudi terrorism is also an export product to the wider world including the West. Iranian support for Syria is also shameful, but from a geopolitical perspective it makes sense. There are only few Shia allies for Iran, lose Syria and you risk Lebanon being lost when its cut off from Iran. Meanwhile you have an array of countries lined up against Iran in the region that would happily dance on its grave.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The first principle of negotiation is not to walk away from the table.

The Iran nuclear deal was not perfect, but it was better than nothing.

Firstly it did actually stop nuclear weapons development.

Secondly, and importantly, it began to re-engage Iran into the international rules based order. Thus it could have led on to other deals including something to do with sponsorship of Hesbollah and so on.

Eventually there could have been normalisation of Iran's international positiion. This would have taken a decade or two, as these difficult situations are not sorted out overnight.

In what appeared to be a further sign of deteriorating relations between the two countries, a verified Twitter account, which is reportedly linked to Saudi authorities, shared an image of a plane flying towards Toronto's famed CN Tower.

The image was overlaid with text, including a quote which read "he who with what doesn't concern him finds what doesn't please him".

 AduroT wrote:
Asbestos is perfectly safe and any concerns that it’s dangerous are just a conspiracy by the mob.