Beet L. Jooz

Testifying under oath before Congress last month, Google CEO Sundar Pichai assured lawmakers that his company does not "manually intervene on any particular search result."

YouTube manually intervened to downrank pro-life videos in search results.

update: A US official speaking to Reuters has confirmed 4 US soldiers killed in Wednesday's suicide bomb attack on a Manbij restaurant in northern Syria: 

Four U.S. soldiers were killed and three wounded in a blast on Wednesday in the Syrian town of Manbij, a U.S. official said.

A news site affiliated with Islamic State earlier issued a statement saying an attacker with a suicide vest had targeted a patrol of the U.S.-led coalition operating in Manbij.

Previously, a source told Turkey's TRT World, "The explosion took place inside a restaurant where US, French troops, and YPG militants were meeting."

However, US defense officials have not immediately confirmed details, only saying in the aftermath that US coalition forces had been "conducting a routine patrol" in the area. 

White House correspondents have reported President Trump has been briefed on the matter. 

* * *

In an apparent terror attack targeting a US-led coalition patrol, a blast has rocked a restaurant in the northern Syrian city of Manbij on Wednesday. Conflicting reports say there are casualties among American soldiers as well as potentially a delegation of Syrian Kurdish leaders, as the bombing took place the moment a US military patrol passed by, and there may have even been coalition personnel inside the restaurant. 

“Six civilians were killed and 19 others wounded as a result of an explosion in the center of the city of Manbij, while a US military patrol was passing,” an Al-Jazeera broadcast said.

And a YPG-associated Manbij news organization, reporting from the ground, says that two US soldiers have died with 2 others evacuated to a hospital by military helicopter. 

Coalition helicopter landing near #Manbij blast sight amidst increasingly confirmed reports of US casualties involved. pic.twitter.com/tZDjerBznk

— Riam Dalati (@Dalatrm) January 16, 2019

Though unconfirmed, Al Jazeera in its early live broadcast has put the death toll at up to nine killed in the attack. A military helicopter was filmed landing near the scene to rescue survivors, which occurred just as American forces were reportedly making preparations to exit Syrian soil. Less than two hours later, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the death toll has been raised to 14 people." 

#pt: Local video footage shows U.S. military helicopter (possibly an S-92, likely on medevac mission) landed at #Manbij football stadium.pic.twitter.com/42MymtQsp5

— Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) January 16, 2019

The restaurant may have been a meeting place for a delegation of US and French soldiers and local Kurdish leaders. A source told Turkey's TRT World, "The explosion took place inside a restaurant where US, French troops, and YPG militants were meeting."

Warning! Graphic Video! Alleged video of the suicide attack in #Manbij pic.twitter.com/85MkFOTOpn

— Mutlu Civiroglu (@mutludc) January 16, 2019

Early reports say ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack, according to a press release by ISIS-linked news source al-Amaq Agency. Consistent with local eyewitnesses, the terror group is claiming a successful suicide attack targeting a "foreign military patrol," according to Reuters:

An Islamic State-affiliated web site, Amaq, said an attacker with an explosive vest had struck a foreign military patrol in a suicide attack.

Reuters could not independently verify a report by the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that 14 people had been killed in the attack including two U.S. soldiers. The coalition could not be immediately reached for comment.

Manbij has been held by US-backed Kurdish forces since the YPG Kurdish militia took it back from ISIS in 2016.

It has for the past two years seen a significant US troop, special forces, and patrol presence, and has at least one known small American base. 

Meanwhile, the blast scene has barely yet to be evacuated, and the finger pointing begins on Trump's Syria pullout.

By declaring victory over ISIS, Trump effectively challenged the group to prove him wrong. Terrible! https://t.co/nN8IWkEqQ1

— Peter R. Neumann (@PeterRNeumann) January 16, 2019

developing...

In what Judicial Watch describes as a "major victory for accountability," a federal judge ruled Tuesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes must answer written questions about the State Department's response to the deadly 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, as part of an ongoing legal battle over whether Hillary Clinton sought to deliberately evade public record laws by using a private email server while secretary of state.

As Fox News' Samuel Chamberlain reports, the judge's order amounts to approval of a discovery plan he ordered last month. In that ruling, Lamberth wrote that Clinton's use of a private email account was "one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency" and said the response of the State and Justice Departments "smacks of outrageous misconduct."

Judicial Watch announced last night that United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials - including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap - will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath. The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan. (The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruledthat the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)

Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to:

• Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;

• whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and

• whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

Discovery is scheduled to be completed within 120 days. The court will hold a post-discovery hearing to determine if Judicial Watch may also depose additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.

Judge Lamberth ordered written responses under oath to Judicial Watch’s questions from Obama administration senior officials Rice, Rhodes and Sullivan, and former FBI official Priestap. Rice and Rhodes will answer interrogatories under oath on the Benghazi scandal. Rejecting the State and Justice Department objections to discovery on the infamous Benghazi talking points, Judge Lamberth reiterated:

Yet Rice’s talking points and State’s understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case: information about the points’ development and content, as well as their discussion and dissemination before and after Rice’s appearances could reveal unsearched, relevant records; State’s role in the points’ content and development could shed light on Clinton’s motives for shielding her emails from FOIA requesters or on State’s reluctance to search her emails.

Judicial Watch also may serve interrogatories on Monica Hanley, a former staff member in the State Department’s Office of the Secretary, and on Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s former special assistant.

According to Lamberth’s order, regarding whether Clinton’s private email use while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA, Judicial Watch may depose:

Eric Boswell, the former Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security.… Boswell’s March 2009 memo to Mills … discusses security risks Clinton’s Blackberry use posed more generally. And Boswell personally discussed the memo with Clinton. So, he plainly has relevant information about that conversation and about his general knowledge of Clinton’s email use. Judicial Watch may depose Boswell.

Justin Cooper. the Clinton Foundation employee who created the clintonemail.com server. In its proposal, Judicial Watch noted Cooper’s prior congressional testimony “appears to contradict portions of the testimony provided by Huma Abedin in the case before Judge Sullivan.” … Cooper repeatedly told Congress that Abedin helped set-up the Clintons’ private server, e.g., Examining Preservation of State Department Federal Records: [before a Congressional hearing] Abedin testified under oath she did not know about the server until six years later.… Judicial Watch may depose Cooper.

Clarence Finney, the former deputy director of State’s Executive Secretariat staff…. [T]his case’s questions hinge on what specific State employees knew and when they knew it. As the principal advisor and records management expert responsible for controlling Clinton’s official correspondence and records, Finney’s knowledge is particularly relevant. And especially given the concerns about government misconduct that prompted this discovery, Judicial Watch’s ability to take his direct testimony and ask follow-up questions is critical.

Additionally, Judicial Watch states that it seeks to go beyond cursory, second-hand testimony and directly ask Finney what he knew about Clinton’s email use. This includes asking about emails suggesting he knew about her private email use in 2014, and emails he received concerning a December 2012 FOIA request from Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington (CREW) regarding senior officials’ personal email use-topics State’s 30(b)(6) deposition in Judge Sullivan’s case never addressed. Judicial Watch may depose Finney.

4. Heather Samuelson. the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate State’s receipt of Hillary Clinton’s emails.… [T]his case turns on what specific government employees knew and when they knew it. Judicial Watch must be able to take their direct testimony and ask them follow-up questions. Judicial Watch may depose Samuelson.

5. Jacob Sullivan. Secretary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy Chief of Staff. The government does not oppose Sullivan’s deposition.

Regarding whether the State Department’s settlement attempts that began in late 2014 amounted to “bad faith,” Judicial Watch was granted depositions from the State Department under Rule 30(b)(6); Finney; John Hackett, the former deputy director of State’s Office of Information Programs & Services; Gene Smilansky, an attorney-advisor within State’s Office of the Legal Advisor; Samuelson; and others.

Judicial Watch was also granted interrogatories on whether the State Department adequately searched for responsive records, as well as several document requests.

“In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”

The court-ordered discovery is the latest development in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

• Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

• Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

The Judicial Watch discovery plan was in response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Lamberth.

Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.” This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”

Judicial Watch countered that “[t]he government’s proposal, which is really nothing more than an opposition to [Judicial Watch’s] plan, demonstrates that it continues to reject any impropriety on its part and that it seeks to block any meaningful inquiry into its ‘outrageous misconduct.’”

As a reminder, this Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

As Democrats turn their attention to the 2020 primaries, there is a marked sense of deflation over the prospects of beating Donald Trump. The thought of candidacies from Elizabeth Warren - botched DNA "reveal" aside, and the ever-confident Joe Biden, have failed to stoke much excitement throughout the Democratic base. 

As Vanity Fair's T.A. Frank notes, Democrats surveying their options going into 2020 have begun to genuinely question the state of their party - and an increasing number of them are settling on the conclusion that Obama was a bad president. 

 If today’s Democrats can’t beat Trump, then maybe Hillary Clinton wasn’t as bad a candidate as her critics claimed. And if Clinton wasn’t the problem, then what was the problem? Such questions are behind a recent spike of debates on the left over Barack Obama’s record. More and more voices seem to be saying, either obliquely or bluntly, that Obama was a bad president. -Vanity Fair

Most on the left will agree that when Obama ran he was the obvious choice vs. his Republican opponents. In fact, Democrats who object to how Obama handled major issues such as war and peace, health care, immigration and the economy would likely conclude that he was still the better of all the evils on the right. 

That said, Obama was an establishment man at the end of the day, after campaigning as a revolutionary that would end wars and "change" the status quo (powered of course by mass quantities of "hope"). He sold himself as a disruptive phenomenon, then bombed seven countries and cobbled together an unsustainable healthcare plan destined to fail. 

That makes it tempting to say that Obama is being criticized only for pushing insufficiently to the left, settling for the Affordable Care Act rather than Medicare for All or a stimulus package under a trillion dollars rather than one twice that size. But such an explanation tends to assume a difference of degree rather than kind, with Obama dwelling in a more purplish spot than his bluer critics. In reality, the categories that matter as much as left and right are those of establishment and radical. Obama’s record of siding reliably with the former at a time when the zeitgeist had come to favor the latter is the source of much of the tension over his legacy. 

The categories of establishment and radical are tricky to define, except to say that the former wishes to preserve much of the status quo, while the latter seeks more fundamental change. If one side is full of people with opinions on how to set the dials, the other is full of people who say we need a new instrumental panel. This creates interesting alliances of left and right, ones that are less a union of extremes—a product of what political scientists call “horseshoe theory”—and more a union of dissent. A radical is not an extremist, necessarily. It’s someone who believes the fundamentals are flawed. -Vanity Fair

Vanity Fair's Frank notes that many of the disputes between today's establishment and its radicals "are merely continuations of where we were about 25 years ago. Clinton-era policy such as NAFTA and the decision to intervene in the Kosovo war in 1999 were widely supported by the establishment center, while "the outer bands of the left and right opposed it." When it came to immigration, "the center took a high-influx view while the disruptors took a more restrictive one." 

Blistering economic growth in the late 1990s and a relatively peaceful world stifled the debate between establishment-supported US policy and radicals on the left and right. Then came 9/11, "which reshuffled everything but also caused the right (with plucky exceptions such as Ron Paul and the founders of The American Conservative) to put aside internal disputes and, for the most part, fall in line behind George W. Bush." 

Then came the credit crisis - and the moment of truth in which the choices were massive bailouts, or economic cleansing by fire. The establishment, of course, chose the former. 

After the failures of Iraq and other Bush policies, though, the divisions roared back to life. If there was a crystallizing moment, it was when Wall Street as we knew it was about to collapse. In the eyes of the establishment, left and right, an unforeseeable real-estate crash had threatened the survival of the country’s vibrant financial sector and, with it, the wallets and neighborhood A.T.M.s of every American. In the eyes of the radicals, our financial sector was an out-of-control predator built on a rotten edifice that was finally about to crumble. Its collapse wasn’t the threat; it was the cure. For the first time in years, an immense policy question was breaking out not between parties but within them. Among both Democrats and Republicans, an establishment wing was supporting the bailouts, while the radical wing was opposing them. -Vanity Fair

Enter Obama

Barack Obama entered the scene amid financial chaos, as billions in bailouts and short-term lending facilities orchestrated by major central banks was the only mechanism propping up the financial industry, or at least helping it collapse in an "orderly" way. Of course, this isn't what the "radicals" wanted - and Obama sold himself as quite the disruptive candidate. 

And what did he do? Instead of pulling the plug on massive bailouts opposed by much of his base, Obama went full-throttle and sided with the establishment instead. It was the safer choice, after all, and earned Obama plenty of defenders. But that choice came at a great cost to Obama's legacy. 

Only one Wall Street executive ever went to prison for his part in the financial crisis. For millions of Americans, any residual trust in the competence and integrity of the ruling class was lost, and Obama had become part of the problem. -Vanity Fair

At that point Obama's credibility was shot, and it was predictable that when forced to choose, he would side with the establishment. Obama proceeded to send a surge of Troops to Afghanistan, conceal records of detainee abuse under President Bush, refuse to nationalizing banks or prosecute executives who had committed malfeasance, and promoted trade agreements created by establishment negotiators. 

Oh, and when the establishment called Obama callous when he initially refused to intervene in Libya, he reversed course and toppled Gaddafi (with his very establishment Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton).

Many of these positions, welcome as they were within the Beltway, were out of sync with the mood of the country. In the 1990s, the radicals had been on the fringes, but that was no longer the case after 2008. An anti-war and anti-corporatist message sent Ron Paul riding surprisingly high in 2012, and a filibuster by Rand Paul in 2015 over the issue of drone strikes prompted even Democrats to deploy the #StandWithRand hashtag. Tea Party Republicans began to team up with Democratic union members to oppose Obama’s trade deals. Fury over the bank bailouts made its way into the congressional campaigns of Republicans and Democrats alike. -Vanity Fair

Vanity Fair's Frank gives Obama somewhat of a break - noting that it would be unfair to call him an "establishment president," due to the "status-quo overtones of the term." After all, "He gave us the Affordable Care Act, the stimulus, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform, an executive action for Dreamers, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a nuclear deal with Iran, diplomatic relations with Cuba, a climate deal in Paris, a New START treaty, a reform of student-loan programs, and two liberal Supreme Court appointments."

Then again, "many of the country’s most ominous trends proceeded apace under his watch." 

The financialization of the economy kept increasing. Student debt kept exploding. Trade policy kept its same priorities. Opioid addiction kept spreading. Suicide numbers kept rising. Disparities in life expectancy between rich and poor kept widening. Union membership kept declining. Illegal border-crossers kept coming. Our defense commitments kept growing. In towns like Jasper, Indiana, and Mebane, North Carolina, factory workers—a hundred here, a couple of hundred there—kept losing their middle-class jobs, outcompeted by giant Chinese mills with appalling conditions. -Vanity Fair

Towards the end of his article, Frank points out a staggering statistic by left-leaning author John B. Judis' book The Nationalist Revival: 3.4 million jobs were lost to the growth of trade with China since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization. For many of those "forgotten Americans" whose jobs went overseas, Obama's last State of the Union address boasting about America's robust manufacturing surge was a slap in the face. Just as insulting was his vision of making "change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people."

Even Bill Clinton made the observation of Obama that "millions of people look at that pretty picture of America he painted and they cannot find themselves in it."

Trump and 2020

"Radicalism deferred was radicalism intensified," writes Frank. And Donald Trump - despite his "countless" failures, is a radical if nothing else. 

And this is what Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden and the rest of the Democrats have to contend with in 2020. Warren, who put out a bizarre video of herself drinking beer on instagram, is not a radical - and will have to embrace Obama's voting record along with her own. 

This leaves other Democrats, such as Cory Booker and Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke - who are also not radicals, but are instead establishment-friendly and "assisted by charisma, youth, and identity. 

Each bet could win or lose, because Trump is a wild card. Still, while revolution must give way to a new establishment eventually, the mood doesn’t seem to favor it yet, and our shifts are still ongoing. (Just look at Tucker Carlson’s recent monologue attacking our ruling class and its quest to “make the world safe for banking.” Much of it could have been delivered by Bernie Sanders.) 

In short, Obama spent eight years "deferring a radical disruption" that the country was absolutely waiting for. And then Trump - an actual radical, came along and took the Oval Office away from the establishment.

An Alabama judge overturned a state law that prevents the removal of Confederate monuments from public property, arguing it violated the free speech rights of local communities.Jefferson Count...

Louisiana is joining other states in handing out February food stamps early because of the partial federal government shutdown.

PG&E bonds are crashing and its stock just hit a new record low after the company opted not to make an interest payment today on its $800m of 5.4% bonds due Jan. 15, 2040, triggering a 30-day grace period on the note, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

PG&E is now trading below of the lows of the last bankruptcy (before its bailout)...

And its bonds are cratering...

If PG&E goes bankrupt as expected, it will be the first investment-grade name to default without entering the U.S. high-yield market since MF Global in 2011, Bank of America strategists led by Hans Mikkelsen said in a note.

Additionally, PG&E would be third largest IG default since 1999. Its $17.5b of index-eligible debt puts it behind Lehman ($34.9b) and Worldcom ($22.9b).

As Bloomberg reports, the filing, viewed by some as the worst outcome, may actually help California decide what type of utility is right for a state with an ever-increasing risk of multibillion-dollar wildfires, according to Severin Borenstein, an energy economist at the University of California, Berkeley. Options such as breaking up the utility giant or turning it into government-owned entities are likely to be hashed out in concert with the bankruptcy proceeding, he said.

“It will accelerate the discussion that was being had before bankruptcy, which is what is the appropriate structure of utilities given the increased wildfire risk?” Borenstein said.

“If we are going to have investor-owned utilities, how do we deal with the fact that they may face multibillion liabilities?”

So far, California Governor Gavin Newsom and other lawmakers showed little interest in bailing out the beleaguered company.

Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Broadway legend Carol Channing dead at 97  WBAL Baltimore

Actress and singer Carol Channing died early Tuesday morning at the age of 97.

View full coverage on Google News

Not kidding

A day before they were set to take effect, a federal judge has blocked new government rules that allow businesses to opt out of covering birth control for employees.

‘Who cares’

Tariffs, immigration and labor will be hot topics at this year's Farm Bureau Convention

Authored by Chloe Anagnos via The American Institute for Economic Research,

Adulting, the now common idiom goes, is hard. And to many millennials, the grim realization that debt will always be part of their lives is not making it any easier.

In some cases, their debt load is so soul-crushing they expect to die without ever paying what they owe back. So how much does this problem have to do with the higher-education crisis the country is facing? As it turns out, everything.

According to a study by Northwestern Mutual, educational loans are the leading source of debt for millennials ages 18 to 24. And according to a CreditCards.com report, over 60 percent of millennials aged 18 to 37 are completely unsure when, or if, they will be able to pay their debt off. Among those who responded they are uncertain about their ability to pay off debt, 20 percent said they expected to die in debt.

But to those with only credit card debt, the prospects aren’t as grim, as 79 percent of millennials said they had a plan to pay it all off, expecting to be completely debt-free by age 43.

While many of the news outlets reporting on these findings urge young people to get a plan in place so they can pay off their debt, the reality is that government’s push to give everyone a college education is what has greatly contributed to young people’s debt load. And what’s worse, degreesare not actually helping many young people get a job.

Will bureaucrats and those who pushed for more government-subsidized education ever admit they created a monster that has finally gotten out of control?

Government’s Role in Millennials’ Bad Choices

When government and elected officials push college education as a right, they imply that the government has the duty to help provide it to the populace. With grants, subsidies, and easy, risk-free loans going out to 17-year-olds with no credit history, young people think pursuing the career of their dreams is a piece of cake. But once school is out and all they have is a diploma, they finally realize things weren’t as easy as they expected.

The problem is that when government enters the picture and makes it easier for consumers to pay for college, it artificially increases the demand for college. With a greater number of students demanding higher education, schools have to raise their prices. After all, they have a limited supply of what they offer.

As explained by economist Ryan McMaken, “Were it not for the subsidized loans and — in the case of public colleges — directly subsidized tuition, the number of students able to afford such degrees would shrink considerably.” With fewer students knocking on their doors, colleges would have to slash costs and, consequently, prices, just so they could fill up their empty classrooms. But to bureaucrats, the solution doesn’t lie with letting the market work. Instead, they want more government interference.

Pushing for better loan deals, more regulation, or penalties for students who can’t pay the loans back, bureaucrats and their supporters are only worsening the problem they created.

In an age in which more and more employers are ditching degree requirements, paying for a piece of paper proving you finished college is becoming increasingly unnecessary.

The governmentcontinues to head in the wrong direction, giving young people the idea that college is for everyone. If this doesn’t prove the government doesn’t have our best interests at heart, nothing else does.

William Barr, President Trump's nominee for attorney general, will tell lawmakers this week that he will allow special counsel Robert Mueller to complete the Russia investigation and will work to make the findings public.“I believe it is in the best...