text:
SHINING SEA
Tag Archives: Cohen
Mueller Report Part II – Trump Guilty of Obstruction of Justice – F
F. The Inexplicable Treatment of Trump's Personal Attorneys & Other Enablers
Another unexplained aspect of the Report relates to Trump's use of his personal attorneys (never identified) to communicate with Flynn and his attorneys. Trump's personal counsel appear a number of times in the report. II MR 121-122. A fair interpretation of this evidence is that Trump used his personal attorney to try to influence Flynn's cooperation with the SCO, first with cajoling about how Trump cared about him, then with implied threats about Trump's presumed anger. A further fair argument can be made that Trump's personal counsel was a knowing participant in an obstruction effort. Why is this not at least mentioned in the Report?
The Report relegates to II MR-122, n. 839 the extraordinary decision not to try to interview Trump's personal attorneys "because of attorney-client privilege issues." Given the active role those lawyers played in some of Trump's obstructive acts, it is hard to understand a decision not to try to learn something from them. Attorney-client privilege does not protect an attorney who is participating in a criminal enterprise. This is known as the crime-fraud exception to the general privilege rule. If Trump's personal counsel were actively and knowingly participating in an attempt to obstruct justice by, for example, influencing Gen. Flynn's testimony or by attempting to unlawfully procure the firing of the Special Counsel, the privilege likely does not apply. It is, moreover, inconceivable that Trump's attorneys acted on their own without consulting their client. We are left to speculate as to why Mueller did not pursue this seemingly fruitful source of information.
We can't be sure, of course, whether to credit Rick Gates assertion that Paul Manafort had talked with Trump's personal counsel and been assured that they would be "taken care of" if they did not talk to the SCO. Mueller, however, clearly believed Gates' account of these conversations with Manafort. II MR-123 & n. 848, 850. This is a subject that could have been pursued directly with Trump's counsel if Mueller had been more aggressive in seeking the full body of evidence rather than simply assuming that the privilege would be upheld.
One of Trump's personal attorneys during this period was Rudy Giuliani who gave multiple interviews in which he suggested Trump might pardon Manafort, then, following the classic Trump playbook, claimed he was misunderstood and not signaling anyone. II MR-124. This was fertile ground to discover whether Trump and Giuliani had mapped out this strategy to obtain Manafort's silence or other forms of cooperation. A good argument could be made that Trump-Giuliani had waived the attorney-client privilege when Giuliani told the Washington Post that Trump had consulted his attorneys about granting pardons to Manafort. II MR-127. Manafort had some kind of joint defense agreement with Trump and was coordinating his Mueller interviews with Trump's attorneys. II MR-127. That fact alone warranted taking Giuliani's testimony under oath. It is all the more compelling because Trump publicly contradicting Giuliani's statements. II MR-128. Instead, Mueller concludes that the evidence on Trump's personal participation in all this was inconclusive (II MR-132), an amazing conclusion in light of his decision not to press for an interview of Giuliani and/or Trump.
Mueller digs deep to find alternative explanations for Trump's comments about the treatment of Manafort. II MR-133. In the totality of circumstances regarding Trump's repeated litany of claims that he and others were being treated unfairly, this is astonishing, especially considering that at times Trump claimed he knew very little about what these people did for him and the campaign. Normally you can't have it both ways but Mueller lets Trump get away with it.
Note that there are substantial redactions in this part of the Report for Harm to an Ongoing Matter, suggesting that additional investigations have been farmed out to the US Attorneys' offices. II MR 128-130.
Trump's personal attorneys played a further role in Cohen's false testimony to Congress. II MR-139. A joint defense agreement existed between Cohen and Trump plus other unnamed individuals involved in the Russia investigation. II MR-139. The identity of all the other individuals is not revealed in the Report. Why is this not addressed? The president's personal attorney played an active role in assuring Cohen that his loyalty to Trump would be rewarded. II MR-140.
Despite the fact that drafts of Cohen's false testimony to Congress were discussed with members of the Joint Defense Agreement and that false testimony to Congress under oath is a crime, Mueller did not see the drafts because of concerns about the common interest privilege. But it is not clear who raised those concerns. This is another example of Mueller seeming to act as counsel for the defense.
Perhaps because Cohen was in almost daily contact with Trump's personal attorney about Cohen's Congressional testimony, Mueller, in this one case, indicates an attempt was made to interview counsel. But the counsel declined, citing "potential privilege concerns." II MR-143. What precisely those concerns were is not explained. Nor is there any indication that the SCO aggressively pursued this obviously important testimony about an agreement to suppress truthful information being sought by Congress. Who exactly is the "President's personal counsel" that is referred here? Is it the same person throughout? Trump hired and replaced many attorneys during this time. Why does the SCO not identify these people by name?
This is not the normal or effective way to handle privilege disputes. The privilege-claiming party should be presented with the questions and compelled to explain with specificity why each question cannot be answered even in part because of privilege. Mueller may have gone through this exercise but there is no evidence of that anywhere in the Report.
Further puzzling issues arise from Mueller's failure to pursue Robert Costello who, in the period following the raid on Cohen's home and office, was used as a go-between connecting Giuliani and Cohen and assuring Cohen of Trump's continued favor. II MR-146. Costello's offering to support secret communications between the White House and Cohen appears to have been of no concern at the SCO. One question is which personal counsel to the President was assuring Cohen that if he continued lying, Trump would protect him? Why does Mueller protect the identity of President's personal attorney engaged in a cover-up and overt acts of witness tampering/obstruction of justice?
Beyond that, Mueller accepts that Trump's personal counsel was working with Cohen on false testimony to Congress but does not attribute that conduct to Trump and never goes after the counsel for aiding & abetting false testimony or giving message to Cohen that he would be protected if he stuck to the party line. Why was Mueller so reticent about these compelling facts that do not appear to be disputed? Faced with an apparent conspiracy to submit false testimony to Congress, resistance by Trump & by his personal attorney (who refused to provide his version of his conversations with Cohen who was not his client and thus not covered by any plausible claim of privilege), Mueller simply assumed he couldn't get evidence about Trump's discussions with his personal counsel and didn't even try to pursue this line. II MR-154. No presumption of privilege should attach to conspiracy to commit a crime. Mueller's unwillingness to tangle with Trump's personal attorneys is inexplicable and unconscionable malpractice. Why was Trump's personal attorney not charged with suborning perjury in connection with Cohen's false testimony that Trump's personal attorney helped facilitate?
Mueller's approach is particularly disturbing because Trump refused to answer the written questions posed to him about the Trump Tower meeting. II MR-149. What Trump did say was that he couldn't remember his conversations with Cohen. After Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress about the Trump Tower meeting, Trump refused to provide any more information about his role and turned sharply against Cohen. II MR-151. Thereafter, Giuliani made public statements that conflicted with what Trump was now saying, then "walked those back." II MR-152. Mueller seems completely bamboozled by all this, unable to make the obvious conclusions.
Trump refused to clarify what Mueller calls the "seeming discrepancy" between his statements about the Trump Tower project in Russia made before and after Cohen's guilty plea. Mueller engages repeatedly in speculation about what Trump might have meant rather than concluding that, having declined the opportunity to set the record straight, Trump should be estopped to deny the discrepancy and to deny what Cohen said was the truth eventually.
I have asked repeatedly in these evaluations of the Mueller Report why Trump's enablers were not indicted. Mueller addresses very briefly at II MR-158 where he leaps a giant chasm of evidence to conclude that because a few of Trump's aides refused to carry out his blatantly obstructive orders, virtually all of them were allowed to walk away unscathed, including Trump's personal attorneys and others who, according to undisputed evidence, did carry out Trump's orders to try to intimidate witnesses, terminate the SCO investigation and other forms of interference detailed throughout the Report. Mueller calls the "pattern" one in which Trump's enablers resisted his obstruction directives, but the evidence adduced shows that in most cases the White House staff did exactly what Trump wanted them to do. The "pattern" is the exact opposite of Mueller's conclusion.
The Mueller Report ends with a lengthy, lawyerly analysis of the statutory and constitutional defenses asserted by Trump's attorneys. The analysis is unobjectionable and supports not only the conclusions Mueller did reach but re-emphasizes the lingering questions about the conclusions he declined to reach. In particular, we are left to wonder why so few of the obvious enablers of Trump's overt obstructive acts were not held accountable. Mueller's treatment of "presumption of privilege" issues is inexplicable, given that much of the enabling activity was in support of federal crimes. We can only hope, though likely in vain, that Congressional hearings will flesh out the hanging questions.
This entry was posted in Commentary, Politics and tagged Cohen, Giuliani, Manafort, Mueller, privilege, SCO. Costello, Trump on July 23, 2019 by shiningseausa.
Mueller Report Part II – Trump Guilty of Obstruction of Justice-A
In many ways, the obstruction of justice issue is the easiest to understand. But, among other factors, because the Attorney General, a Trump appointee, took it upon himself to assert publicly conclusions that the Mueller Report plainly did not reach, the question has been clouded in the public mind. Republican lackies for the president, and the President himself, continue to repeat the AG's lies about the Report.
The following analysis will endeavor to tell the truth about the Mueller Report and to ask fair questions that remain in the Report's wake and as a result of Mueller's refusal to speak about the substance of the Report.
A. Declining to Decide – Why Was This Not Disclosed at the Outset?
The Report opens with a summary statement of five major-impact concepts that shaped the investigation and the Report as its outcome (the Report says there are only four, but a careful reading indicates five).
The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) accepted the 2000 Justice Department legal conclusion that a sitting president could not be indicted – the Report refers to this as a limitation on "prosecutorial jurisdiction;" II MR 1.
The OSC believed, independent of the Justice Department's opinion about constitutional constraints, indictment of the sitting president would "place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct." II MR 1.
Investigation is nonetheless permitted during the presidential term, immunity does not follow the person after presidential service is over and, very importantly: "if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time." II MR 1.
The OSC decided not to apply an "approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes" because it would be unfair to make such findings when the opportunity for a speedy trial on the charges would not be possible. II MR 2
Notwithstanding (4) above, if the OSC concluded that the president did not commit crimes, it would have so stated, but it could not so state based on the evidence developed; therefore, the Report neither accuses nor exonerates the president. II MR 2
These introductory words in the Report raise many questions, among them:
If the SCO knew at the outset that it would not issue indictments, why was this not disclosed at the beginning?
I will go into this in much more detail later, but given the overwhelming evidence that Trump engaged in multiple acts of obstruction, why was not a single person indicted from his staff, his cabinet and in the Republican Party that supported his every falsehood and deflection?
How was the investigative approach altered to assure that a "judgment that the President committed crimes" was not the result?
Why was the Special Counsel prepared, if the evidence supported it, to publish a conclusion that the president was innocent of obstruction while being unwilling/unable to publish a conclusion that crimes were committed even if the evidence overwhelmingly supported that judgment? In light of this, the worst that the president could have faced was a finding that the evidence did not exonerate him. Considering that the alternative, an indictment, was never a possibility, Trump easily could see the outcome as a victory. And he did. And it appears that, at least in that sense, this was inevitable. The deck was stacked in Trump's favor from the beginning.
Was Mueller's "no finding of innocence" a kind of double wink, saying, in effect, "my hands were tied, but here's the evidence for Congress to make the obvious conclusion of guilt and impeach? Maybe, but that seems pretty naïve considering that, until the 2018 mid-term elections, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and still control the Senate.
I'm not going to go into the details here, but I studied the entire 2000 Justice Department opinion finding that indictment of a sitting president is unconstitutional and it is remarkable in its presumption of undemonstrated facts. It employs extreme language when discussing the presumed burden on the president of having to defend an indictment while in office and seems to be written more to justify a pre-determined result than to analyze the situation neutrally. Like the Mueller investigation itself, the 2000 OLC opinion, like the 1973 opinion that it confirms, seems to have a pre-ordained outcome. Considering that the current occupant of the White House spends little time actually doing presidential work, the overblown language of the OLC opinions rings hollow, turning, as it does, entirely on the presumed interference with presidential responsibilities of the obligation to defend criminal charges.
Turning to the matter at hand, the Mueller Report begins with a summary of the "issues and events" that were examined for obstruction evidence. It includes:
(1) Trump's lies about his business interests in Russia;
(2) Michael Flynn's lies about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak;
(3) Trump's attempt to extract loyalty commitments and a pledge to leave Flynn alone from then FBI Director Comey;
(4) Trump's attempt to direct his Deputy National Security Advisor (K.T. McFarland) to produce a letter falsely stating the president had not directed Flynn to discuss U.S. sanctions with Kislyak (why would Trump try to manufacture evidence that he was innocent of soliciting help from Russia if he were innocent?);
(5) Trump's attempt to prevent Attorney General Jeff Sessions from recusing himself regarding the Russia investigation;
(6) Trump's attempt to use U.S. intelligence officials and again the FBI Director to make public statements exonerating him from involvement in Russian election interference;
(7) Trump's firing of FBI Director Comey for the expressed purpose of relieving himself of the Russia investigation;
(8) Trump's manipulation of the Comey firing letter to make it appear the firing was based on DOJ recommendations when in fact Trump had decided to fire Comey before hearing from DO;
(9) Trump's attempt to have White House counsel tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be fired;
(10) Trump's attempt to limit Special Counsel to investigating future election meddling;
(11) Trump's false narrative about the origins of the Trump Tower meeting, including repeated false denials by his personal attorney that Trump had any role in Trump Jr's statement about the meeting;
(12) Trump's attempts to pressure Sessions into un-recusing regarding the Russia investigation;
(13) Trump's attempts to have White House counsel McGahn falsely state that Trump had not ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed; and
(14) Trump's attempt to influence testimony from Flynn, Manafort and Cohen, including involvement by Trump's personal attorney.
The Report then went through a most curious "on the one hand, on the other hand," regarding Trump's possible motives for interfering in the SCO investigation, defined by the point at which Trump became aware that he was personally under investigation. Mueller referred to these as "overarching factual issues." II MR-7. Mueller expressed concern that some of Trump's actions were within his Article II authority and that his motives should be judged in light of the fact that the investigation found no underlying crime in the Russia investigation, even though such a finding was unnecessary and despite the fact that Trump acted, throughout the entire period, as if he were guilty. II MR-7. Here, Mueller seems to have forgotten his own admonition that the absence of discovered evidence of participation in Russian interference was not proof that no such participation occurred. Finally, Mueller cites the fact that some of Trump's allegedly obstructive conduct took place in public, although, again, the harm done would be the same for public as for secretive obstructive acts. II MR-7.
My sense of this odd insertion into the Report is that Mueller is revealing a disinclination to hold the president to account when he can't indict. He is, in effect, gilding the lily in favor of Trump. However, in next analyzing various defenses asserted by Trump's attorneys, Mueller concludes, correctly I think, that the corrupt use of Article II powers is not immune conduct. Mueller notes that the requirement of corrupt intent is a high standard and "requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others." II MR-8.
In the end, Mueller reaffirms the "principle that no person is above the law." II MR-8. The Report then also concludes that based on the evidence adduced, the SCO could not find that the president committed no obstruction of justice crime. Therefore, although forbidden by policy from stating the prosecutorial conclusion that crimes were committed, the Report "does not exonerate him." II MR-8.
Despite the clarity of that conclusion, the sitting Attorney General and then Trump himself concluded that the Report did exonerate him. Those statements by the AG and the President were false. The AG also said that he had independently evaluated all the evidence underlying Mueller's Report and that he, the AG, had concluded that there was no evidence to support a finding of criminal conduct by the president. All that need to said about that is it is extremely unlikely that the AG personally was able to review the entirety of the evidence gathered by Mueller's team in the time the AG had with the draft report. In making these claims, the AG stepped out of his role as Attorney General of the United States and acted as if he were Trump's personal attorney defending him against Mueller. Barr's conclusions should be discounted completely since they conflict with the evidence disclosed in the Report that clearly and strongly demonstrates that Trump did commit obstruction of justice on multiple occasions.
This entry was posted in Commentary, Politics and tagged Barr, Cohen, Comey, Flynn, Manafort, McFarland, McGahn, Mueller, Obstruction, Russia, SCO, Sessions, Trump on July 23, 2019 by shiningseausa.
MUELLER REPORT PART I – TRUMP CANOODLING WITH RUSSIA – C
C. Campaign Officials Suffering from Failed Memories at Critical Times
George Papadopoulos was working toward a London meeting of Campaign officials with Putin staff that would be not openly endorsed by Trump. I-MR 92. Interestingly, Papadopoulos "declined to assist in deciphering his notes" about the TAG meeting and the London meeting plan. I-MR 91, n. 489. Clovis claimed not to recall attending the TAG meeting even though he was photographed sitting next to Papadopoulos. I-MR 91. Papadopoulos was dismissed from Campaign a few months later after an interview with the Russian news agency Interfax wherein he complained about the effect of Obama's sanctions on Russia and drew unwanted attention to the developing relationship with Russia. I-MR 93, n. 493
One of the most interesting aspects of the Report is that, when crucial issues were raised with various members of the Campaign, they experienced memory failure. This happens again and again in the investigation. A glaring and important example relates to whether Papadopoulos, having seemingly constant though irregular communications with Campaign officials about his efforts to link the Campaign with Russian support, told anyone on the Campaign staff that the Russians claimed to have email dirt on Clinton.
Papadopoulos wasn't sure and Stephen Miller and Clovis both could not recall hearing this extraordinary information. While the Report says that no documentary evidence, including emails, showed that Papadopoulos shared the information with the Campaign, it strains credulity to believe that Papadopoulos kept this claim to himself throughout the summer when he was working so hard to convince the Campaign of the value of his Russia connections. It is also not surprising that there was no documentary evidence because the nature of the secret and the warnings from Campaign staff about the sensitivity of the Russia connection, documented in the Report would naturally lead to avoiding the creation of a paper trail.
Papadopoulos also had memory loss when questioned about his relationship with Sergei Millian, who claimed to be the head of the New York-based Russian American Chamber of Commerce. I-MR 94. Curiously, that organization's website states that the "Chairman and Founder" of the RACC is Yelena Brezhneva. https://raccnv.com/about-us On LinkedIn, she is listed as a real estate investment advisor in Las Vegas and also founder of the RACC. Millian is nowhere mentioned.
Millian had offered Papadopoulos access to "disruptive technology that might be instrumental in your political work for the campaign." Trump campaign official Bo Denysyk declined Papadopoulos' offer to connect him with Millian because there was already to much media attention to Trump's enthusiasm for Russia. I-MR 94. There is no report about Papadopoulos' specific response to the offer of "disruptive technology," which is a strange omission and not explained anywhere in the Report.
The consideration of the Papadopoulos – Millian connection dries up despite further meetings between the two, in part because Millian remained out of the country during the investigation and refused requests to be interviewed. I-MR 94. It appears that Mueller simply gave up on this line of inquiry. Why?
The other point to be made here is that the Campaign people likely were aware that a lie about some action could be found out, with legal consequences for the liars (ask Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen), but a statement that "I don't remember" is virtually bullet-proof unless extrinsic evidence exists that the person does remember; such situations are rare.
While there are substantial Grand Jury-based redactions related to Carter Page's activities in Russia, the Report ultimately concludes that Page's activities "were not fully explained," suggesting there was more to be learned but for redacted reasons, there was no further opportunity. I-MR 101. Why?
As with Papadopoulos, the media focused on Page's Russia activities in the post Republican Convention period and by late September, he was dismissed from the Campaign amidst denials from the Campaign that he had a meaningful role. I-MR 102
The pattern seemed to be that the Campaign was comfortable with the efforts of Papadopoulos and Page to generate contacts in Russia as long as it was not publicly exposed; when it was exposed, they were ousted from the Campaign. Hope Hicks issued a directive that the Campaign was to deny Page had a role even after he was announced as foreign policy advisor in March 2016. Allegedly, he was paid to do nothing for six months, then fired. There is no discussion of the Campaign payrolls to show how much Papadopoulos and Page were paid or whether there was documentation of expenses reimbursed by the Campaign. WHY is this obvious investigative technique not at least mentioned?
Finally, let's not forget that Jeff Sessions, Trump's pick for Attorney General until Sessions recused himself and refused Trump's demands to un-recuse, also could not remember what he spoke with Russian Ambassador Kislyak about at the Global Partners in Diplomacy event. I-MR 123. I understand that these oh so very important people meet so many other very important people that they can't remember every conversation, but Kislyak was the Russian Ambassador. I, at least, believe it is more than a little odd, that Sessions could not remember anything substantive about their interaction. Maybe I just haven't met enough very important people.
Next: The Curious Handling of the Trump Tower Meeting
This entry was posted in Commentary, Politics and tagged Cohen, Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos, Sessions, Trump on July 11, 2019 by shiningseausa.
We're Not Better Than This
Rep. Elijah Cummings wrapped up the day-long public hearing today with the repeated statement that "we are better than this." I understand what he was trying to say but I have to say it is simply not true. Michael Cohen's riveting and history-making testimony, supported by documents, showed conclusively that the sitting president of the United States engaged in fraudulent and criminal schemes to cover up payments that were directly related to the 2016 election, not to mention other matters related to tax fraud and other actions that were, even after Watergate, unimaginable for the highest officer in the federal government.
I have written elsewhere that I did not believe Cohen would lie in this testimony because he knows that Robert Mueller and the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York were watching. He also has seen what has happened to Paul Manafort whom Mueller has called to task for lying during his promised cooperation with the Special Prosecutor's office. Cohen would have to be insane to testify falsely at this point. He may be many things, not much to admire, but I doubt he is insane.
For their part, the Republicans on the committee were unanimous in their relentless repetition of one theme: Cohen has lied before and can't be trusted now. What is most compelling is that no Republican asked any questions about Trump's conduct. Their entire "defense" was to attack, again and again, Cohen's credibility while ignoring the documents Cohen produced to support his testimony. The best they could do was to place into the record articles written by various people about, again, Cohen's credibility. The Republicans have, I suggest, essentially confessed that Cohen spoke the truth today. Their attempts to deflect were, I believe, a complete failure.
That is not to say that Trump's political base won't continue to talk the party line in support of Trump. They will likely see the "rat" claim that Trump made as more compelling and important than the president's underlying criminal behavior. It will be very interesting to see whether any Republican in Congress, in either house, concludes that the president is no longer supportable. I seriously doubt it.
A final observation. I don't pretend to understand all the political machinations or strategies that underlie the holding of a hearing such as occurred today, but I was extremely concerned at Chairman Cummings' reluctance to control the hearing. This enabled Republicans to posture, to talk over the witness, to interrupt other committee members and generally to comport themselves as a bunch of hooligans. Cummings allowed the Republicans to make repeated scurrilous comments about his motives and leadership without response. This was very disappointing. He has more patience than I do. In a similar situation, I would have rigorously enforced proper order and the courtesies that the Republicans loudly bemoaned when, for example, Rep. Tlaib objected to the sordid display of Republicans bringing a black woman into the committee area to "bear witness" to Trump's alleged non-racism. Cummings should have ruled Reps. Meadows and Jordan were out of order.
The Republicans disgraced the Congress and disgraced themselves today. They should be, but aren't, ashamed.
The good news is that revelations made today will have legs. There will be more and deeper investigations as a result of Cohen's testimony, including, very importantly, the names of witnesses who know even more about, and have documents that will show, Donald Trump's high crimes and misdemeanors.
This entry was posted in Commentary, Politics and tagged Cohen, Cummings, high crimes, Trump on February 27, 2019 by shiningseausa.
Trump's Lawyers Speak for … Trump, Themselves, Somebody, Nobody
Multiple sources have reported that Donald Trump's "personal attorney" called for the Justice Department to fire Robert Mueller and terminate his investigation into, among other things, collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian government interests intending to support his candidacy and damage Hillary Clinton's chances. See, e.g., http://wapo.st/2plSJhp. The demand by John Dowd followed immediately the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe which, according to Dowd, was fatally influenced by political bias. Repeating claims made directly by Trump, Dowd said "I pray" that the investigation is ended.
Dowd's "prayer" will have the same effect as the "thoughts and prayers" that are the sole national Republican response to the Parkland Florida school massacre.
Curiously, Dowd told the Daily Beast that he was speaking on behalf of the president in his capacity as Trump's attorney. When the Daily Beast published that statement, Dowd immediately retracted it and said he was not speaking for the president.
If Dowd was truth-telling in his retraction, it means that while serving as Trump's personal attorney, he has made public statements on his own initiative about a matter of the greatest importance to his client without his client's knowledge or approval. If indeed Dowd were not speaking for Trump, one would expect Trump, the client whose interests are being affected, to discharge his attorney for acting without permission in a way that could damage the client. On the other hand, if Trump liked what Dowd said, he (Trump) would not fire the attorney and would align himself with the attorney's statements. That is, in fact, what Trump did via the usual Saturday tweet storm, denying yet again that he colluded with Russians and yet again attacking federal law enforcement agencies and the State Department that he has criticized repeatedly during the campaign and after becoming president.
This dance brings to mind that other Trump attorney who claims to have acted in another matter of vital importance to Trump but without Trump's knowledge or approval. This, of course, is Michael Cohen who has represented Trump for years and who admits he paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to secure her agreement to remain silent about her claimed affair with Trump, an affair that Trump has denied.
So, once again, we have an attorney for Trump claiming to act on behalf of Trump without Trump's knowledge or consent, using the attorney's own funds and without expectation of reimbursement.
While the standards of attorney conduct have apparently loosened dramatically over recent decades, it is still considered risky for an attorney to invest in a client's business. The potential for conflicts of interest to arise when at attorney has a financial stake in a client's business is serious. One supposes, however, that even when it occurs, the attorney's investment in the client's affairs is disclosed to the client. Indeed, I believe it would be a clear ethics violation for an attorney to invest in a client's business without disclosure to the client.
So, if I am correct, Dowd either is lying about Trump's knowledge of the payoff to Daniels and the signing of the Nondisclosure Agreement by Dowd on Trump's behalf or Dowd acted on Trump's behalf without disclosing that he was, in effect, investing in Trump's business (in this case, the business being the presidential campaign) by making the secret payment to Daniels with no expectation of repayment. Trump himself did not sign the NDA, but standing alone, that fact does not prove that he was ignorant of the arrangements. Even if it's true that Cohen did not expect repayment (he reportedly complained to friends that Trump had stiffed him, but this is not substantiated), the payment still represents an investment that would, if successful in silencing Daniels, help get Trump elected, with longer term rewards to Dowd from his alliance with President Trump.
If there is a middle ground here, I don't see it. We have two different attorneys acting on behalf of a client they claim was ignorant of their actions on the client's behalf, in matters of the utmost importance to the client's future. Perhaps someone more steeped in the nuances of attorney ethics than I can explain how such actions are not ethics violations. And, of course, if Trump did know what was being done on his behalf in either or both cases, then the lying is compounded and becomes further dishonesty and corruption on the part of the president.
Time will tell how all this shakes out. Ms. Daniels is represented by Michael Avenatti who is very measured in his public statements and, by relying on his client to speak about Trump, seems to know what he is about. Her interview with 60 Minutes is scheduled to be broadcast next Sunday and, if it happens, will shed new and dramatic light on the situation. And then there is James Comey's book which is about to publish. Buckle your seat belts. The ride is about to get wilder.
This entry was posted in Commentary, Politics and tagged Avenatti, Cohen, Daniels, Dowd, ethics, Trump on March 19, 2018 by shiningseausa.
Experience Keeps a Dear School – Time to Call the Question
America Under Siege
Some Things You Just Don't Do
Congressional Hall of Dishonor
Trump Supporters Breach Capitol
Pat Caviness on America Under Siege
danielwalldammit on Trump Supporters Breach C…
Nadine Godwin on Congressional Hall of Dis…
danielwalldammit on Republican Traitors Last Try t…
Richard G. Little on Sammies – A Better Oscar


text:
Q: Orchard NHibernate Session Factory Initialize I'm currently looking at the Orchard source code and can't find where the NHibernate Session Factory been registered into the AutoFac. Anybody can help with that?
Thank you

A: Orchard.Framework\Data\SessionFactoryHolder.cs is probably a good place to start. I believe that's where the NHib configuration is built and the session is initialized.

A: The correct answer is ShellContainerFactory.
In ShellContainerFactory, it will scan all from IDependency inherited classes and register them. The SessionFactoryHolder is inherited from IDependency so it will be registered automatically.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Electricity prices are spiking 10 times higher than normal. Here are some educated guesses as to why
by Bruce Mountain, The Conversation
Credit: Shutterstock
Electricity prices in the short-term ("spot") wholesale markets in Australia are surging again.
As I first drafted this, at 11.30pm on Tuesday, while electricity demands were not high, the prices quoted for each five-minute interval in Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia were around A$250 per megawatt-hour, roughly ten times what they would normally be.
So far this year, average spot prices have been about 50% higher than last year in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, about 80% higher in NSW, and 150% higher in Queensland.
If it keeps up (which is likely), retail electricity prices will be on the rise again.
That effect is likely to be big. In NSW and Queensland, it could mean increases as high as 50% for large customers and as high as 20% for households.
Why is it happening? At first glance, it's hard to say. The minute-by-minute readout comes without explanations.
One reason would be that coal and gas prices are surging. Newcastle "spot" coal is trading at five times its price over the past three years.
Gas and coal prices are spiking
Queensland spot gas costs five times what it did before the invasion of Ukraine.
A second reason might be that electricity producers are making hay while the sun shines by withholding generation capacity.
Steven Percy and I examined the electricity price surges that followed the closure of Victoria's Hazelwood coal-fired generator in 2017, and found that one firm withheld capacity from the market, driving up prices.
Subsequently the government introduced so-called "big stick" legislation that imposes penalties for manipulating prices, although it has yet to be used.
We do not yet know whether manipulation can explain some of what we see now. It will require detailed study, and such analyses are contested.
The price of sunlight is not
The best way to restrain price surges in the medium term is to increase the penetration of low-cost energy from the wind and sun, and to back it with storage.
South Australia shows what can be done. The Rann and Weatherill Labor governments, and then the Marshall Liberal government, have all pushed the switchover to renewables.
By 2021, more than two-thirds of SA's electricity came from variable renewable generation, more than in any developed economy we know of.
For most days in 2021, there was no need for any other kind of generation between 10am and 5pm.
This has had a big impact on prices. From having long had the highest wholesale prices in the National Electricity Market, by 2021 SA had almost the lowest.
Conversely, Queensland, which has long had the least renewable generation, now has the highest prices. In the year to date, Queensland's average wholesale price has been twice SA's.
When inputs get cheap, prices fall
The reason, backed by econometric analysis is that when a free resource (wind and sun) displaces an expensive resource (coal and gas), prices fall.
Each state government now accepts this and is rapidly moving to decarbonise its supply, which is leading to a new problem. The states that get there quickly are less keen on sharing their cheaper power than they used to be.
Why would SA want to strengthen its interconnection to NSW, only to have its electricity prices dragged up to those of NSW by trade along that wire?
The newly elected SA government opposed the interconnector currently under construction while in opposition. From SA's point of view, the current high prices in NSW lend weight to its position.
We have reached the end of the beginning of the decarbonisation of Australian electricity. With the fossils-vs-renewables argument now over other than on the fringes, the argument has moved to whether the National Electricity Market can hold together and the best way the Commonwealth can help states get as much sunlight, wind and batteries into their systems as soon as possible.
Provided by The Conversation
Citation: Electricity prices are spiking 10 times higher than normal. Here are some educated guesses as to why (2022, May 11) retrieved 29 January 2023 from https://techxplore.com/news/2022-05-electricity-prices-spiking-higher.html
Energy bills are spiking after the Russian invasion. We should have doubled-down on renewables years ago
Electricity has become a jigsaw and coal is unable to provide the missing pieces
Study finds offshore wind could drive down energy costs in New England
Renewables are cheaper than ever, so why are household energy bills only going up?
Carbon emissions fell during COVID-19, but it's the shift away from coal that really matters
Reversible fuel cells can support grid economically, study finds
Geothermal 'battery' repurposes abandoned oil and gas well in Illinois, researchers report

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


First read a book aloud about feelings. If you can not find a book, then just take 5 minutes to discuss how we have different feelings.
Ask the children how they would feel if their favorite doll or toy suddenly broke. Ask them how they feel when they are sick. Ask the chilren how they feel when they first meet someone new.
After they have talked for awhile about different feelings, have the students make faces of their feelings on 4 different paper plates.
Have them glue the popsicle sticks to the bottom for handles.
Have them discuss the different faces and when they have felt that feeling.
The students then can take the plates home and play with them, or they can keep them at school and play with them together.


The final results of recruitment exam 2018 which were conducted for the post of Driver Constable and Fireman Driver posts in Police/Fire Services have been declared by the Central Selection Board of Constable (CSBC), Bihar. The exam was conducted on the basis of class 12 on June 10, 2018, to full fill, the vacancies of 16,69 posts of Driver Constable including Fireman Drive in the police department at 84 centres in Patna, Gaya, Bhojpur, Muzaffarpur and Bhagalpur wherein a total number of 969 vacancies are in Bihar Fire Service.
The PET exam was conducted from October 7 to October 12, 2018. Candidates, who had cleared the PET, were called for Driving Efficiency Test (DET) from January 5 to January 12, 2019.
All the candidates who have/had appeared in the exam can check their result through the official website- csbc.bih.nic.in as the final results are available on its official site.
• Download your result and take print out for future reference.
Central Selection Board of Constable (CSBC) is an organization which is conducted under the Government of Bihar with the view to recruiting constables for police force in the Bihar state.
CSBC was organized by the Governor of Bihar in 2008 by making amendments to Bihar Police Manual. This amendment instituted the board and gave it the power to conduct written as well as physical fitness examinations and create the merit list according to the merits of the applicants and the rules of reservation.


Are You on The Right Tack?
The characteristics that separated the winners from the rest of the pack were a combination of knowledge, skill and judgment. These characteristics equally apply to using tools and services that allow college and university websites to operate effectively.
In the same way that we conduct research to measure how higher education (and other) websites are actually configured and to understand which tools and applications are used to support their operations, individual websites need to be 'instrumented' to gather similar data about their own performance.
University websites exist to support a set of objectives and serve a broad range of 'end users' or consumers. There is a dynamic interaction between the intended outcomes and the way in which sites need to be configured to support those objectives. As a result, websites need data-gathering services and tools to measure how well they are meeting their objectives. And, it is important to view websites as 'processes' rather than 'projects', as one of the key benefits of 'digital' is the relatively low cost of making changes in response to new data. In fact, it may better to simply treat a website as a long-term experiment.
… Specifications made sense on projects where the cost of change was high. But digital allows us to adapt as new information arises. It also allows us to gather far more data than other mediums. Data that can inform our direction. This is why prototyping and minimum viable products are so popular in digital. It allows projects to evolve, removing the need to specify everything up front.
Our interviews and conversations with website support staff have reinforced the importance of competence with implementing and using a fundamental set of website data capture services/tools. These services gather the data that can inform the longer-term direction of websites and the outcomes they exist to meet.
The first of these services is Google Analytics. Our research, conducted over thousands of websites shows that 98.2% have Google Analytics installed. What is less clear, is how effectively Google Analytics has been implemented. We've conducted many Google Analytics reviews and these reveal shortcomings capturing "clean data" and setting up dashboards to focus on relevant measures.
One clue as to how well Google Analytics is installed is to look at whether the site is using a tag management tool. In our view, using a tag management tool recognises the breadth of website interaction data that can be captured and that non-technical staff need to measure the effects of site changes (experiments).
Again, our research shows that 42.4% of college and university websites have installed Google Tag Manager (or similar solutions, such as Tealium, Signal, Qubit). This result suggests that there is scope for improving the breadth and quality of data being captured and used to 'steer' websites towards their desired objectives.
As well as acquiring data we need to ensure that the data is reviewed and individuals with the appropriate competence make any recommendations for action: which is the tough part. Competence is the combination of three attributes: knowledge, skill and judgment.
Knowledge can be acquired from online and offline training. Skill acquisition requires time and 'deliberate practice': structured pushing of boundaries rather than simple repetition. But, judgment is the most difficult attribute to develop. It is the element that lets you recognise if your knowledge and skill levels are relevant and sufficient for the task.
And, it is likely that expert judgment was the factor that divided the first and second place finishers in the Vendée Globe from the rest of the pack. It may be the factor that results in the most 'adaptive' higher education websites.


text:
Navy History Matters
Welcome to Navy History Matters—our weekly compilation of articles, commentaries, and blogs related to history and heritage. Every week, we'll gather the top-interest items from a variety of media and social media sources, and then link you to related content at NHHC's website (history.navy.mil), your authoritative source for Navy history.
Compiled by Brent Hunt, Naval History and Heritage Command's Communication and Outreach Division
How a Community Came Together to Save The Sullivans
In just eight months, the Buffalo and Erie County Naval & Military Park managed to raise more than $1 million for desperately needed repairs for decommissioned 1943 destroyer USS The Sullivans. In recent years, the park has repaired small holes in the hull every spring, but harsh winter weather and the pandemic-related shutdown hastened the damage. Water was seeping into the leaky hull, causing the ship to list to port. Contributions to save the ship came from 26 states and seven countries. Donors ranged from a 4-year-old boy, who made two contributions of $4, to the foundation Save America's Treasures, which contributed $499,000. "We've been through some tough times these last few years, and to see people be so generous, it makes you emotional," said Kelly Sullivan, a third-grade teacher and granddaughter of the only Sullivan brother who married. The ship was named to honor a working-class family that lost all five of its sons aboard USS Juneau 79 years ago, when it was struck by a Japanese torpedo that killed most of her crew in the Solomon Islands. Developer Douglas Jemal, who initially donated $10,000 and held a fundraiser that raised another $85,000, noted that the future of USS The Sullivans is about more than just saving a National Historic Landmark. It's about honoring the sacrifices of the Sullivan family, and the 400,000 other Americans who died for our freedoms during World War II. For more, read the article.
Japanese Armada Departed Japan to Attack Pearl Harbor—80 Years Ago
On Nov. 26, 1941, under the greatest secrecy, a Japanese armada—commanded by Vice Adm. Chuichi Nagumo—left Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. The armada included all six of Japan's first-line aircraft carriers—Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku, and Zuikaku. With 353 embarked aircraft, it was by far the most powerful carrier task force ever assembled. In addition to the carriers, the Pearl Harbor striking force included fast battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, with tankers to fuel the ships during the passage across the Pacific. An advance expeditionary force of large submarines, five of them carrying midget submarines, was sent to scout around Hawaii. Their mission was to dispatch the midget subs into Pearl Harbor to attack ships there and torpedo American warships that might escape to sea.
Preble Hall Podcast
In a recent naval history podcast from Preble Hall, Stephen Phillips and author Stan Haynes discuss Hayne's historical novel, And Tyler No More, which includes a historically accurate account of screw steamer Princeton, the ship's technological innovations, and an ordnance accident that killed the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Navy, and but for a song, likely would have killed President John Tyler. The Preble Hall podcast, conducted by personnel at the U.S. Naval Academy Museum in Annapolis, MD, interviews historians, practitioners, military personnel, and other experts on a variety of naval history topics from ancient history to more current events.
Sailor Donated Admiral Joseph "Jocko" Clark Memorabilia to Cherokee Nation
This month, as the country celebrates National American Indian Heritage Month, the U.S. Navy finds itself at a cultural crossroads between its own proud history and the equally proud lineage of the Cherokee Nation. Members of the Navy and the Cherokee Nation came together recently at the Army Navy Club in Washington, DC, to remember and honor a proud Native American and Sailor, Joseph James "Jocko" Clark. During the ceremony, Vice Adm. Jeff Trussler, a Cherokee Nation member, who currently serves as the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare (N2N6) and as the Director of Naval Intelligence, presented a naval cruise book that once belonged to Clark to Kimberly Teehee, the Cherokee Nation delegate-designate to Congress, who accepted the cruise book on behalf of the nation. "I am honored to represent the U.S. Navy at this event to honor the memory and career of a true Navy warfighting hero of World War II… Admiral Joseph James "Jocko" Clark," said Trussler. "The timing of this ceremony couldn't be any better as it coincides with our annual commemoration of National American Indian Heritage Month. Coincidentally, today also happens to be the anniversary of the admiral's birth, Nov. 12, 1893. His life and career of service to our Navy and our nation are worth remembering—he set the standards for those of us who share that heritage and who have followed in his footsteps." For more, read the article by NHHC's MC2 Ellen Sharkey. For more on the Contributions of Native Americans to the U.S. Navy, visit NHHC's website.
Libby Relieved Burke as UN Delegate—70 Years Ago
On Nov. 26, 1951, during the Korean War, Rear Adm. Ruthven E. Libby relieved Rear Adm. Arleigh Burke as the United Nations delegate to the Panmunjom Peace Talks. In July 1951, Burke was made a delegate to negotiate with the Communists for a military armistice in Korea. However, after six months of frustration in the truce tents, he returned to the Office of Chief of Naval Operations. Libby experienced the same frustration. Negotiations for the armistice spanned more than two years, the longest negotiated armistice in history. Over those two years, representatives from United Nations Command, the Korean People's Army (KPA), and Chinese People's Volunteer Army (CPVA) met in Kaesong and later, Panmunjom. There were 158 meetings before any of the parties agreed to sign the document. During the meetings, all parties sought to make an agreement that would suspend open hostilities, arrange the release and repatriation of prisoners of war, and establish a separation of forces. In the final meeting, the armistice agreement accomplished those goals and established the Military Armistice Commission, as well as other commissions to oversee the truce terms and negotiate settlement of any armistice violations. Additionally, the armistice established the peninsula-wide demilitarized zone to provide a buffer between military forces.
Liscome Bay Lost
On Nov. 24, 1943, Japanese submarine I-175 sank USS Liscome Bay southeast of Makin Island. Although 272 were rescued, the ship lost more than 600 of her crew, including Navy Cross recipient Cook 3rd Class Doris "Dorie" Miller. Miller had previously received the Navy Cross from Adm. Chester W. Nimitz for heroism onboard USS West Virginia during the Pearl Harbor attack. After carrying several wounded Sailors to safety, including the ship's captain, Miller manned a Browning antiaircraft machine gun—on which he had no training—and proceeded to fire on the enemy until he ran out of ammunition and was ordered to abandon ship. Miller was assigned to Liscome Bay in the spring of 1943 and was aboard the escort carrier during Operation Galvanic, the seizure of Makin and Tarawa Atolls in the Gilbert Islands. A single torpedo hit the ship, detonating the aircraft bomb magazine, while the escort carrier was cruising near the Tarawa Atoll's Butaritari Island. Liscome Bay sank within minutes.
Namesake's Grandson Visited USS Winston S. Churchill
After recently attending a change of command ceremony on board USS Winston S. Churchill, at BAE Systems Shipyard near Jacksonville, FL, the Honorable Rupert Soames toured the ship. Soames is the ship's sponsor and grandson of the ship's namesake—World War II British Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill. "It's always a fantastic time for any ship to have its sponsor aboard," said Cmdr. Brian Anthony, the Churchill's commanding officer. "It was a great honor for us to update the Honorable Mr. Soames on Churchill, the challenges and successes of its crew. I am delighted to demonstrate how it continues to deliver as the Navy's most combat ready ship." Soames is also the Group Chief Executive Officer of SERCO, a company that has approximately 60 employees working on Winston S. Churchill's depot modernization project. "My grandfather would be immensely proud of this ship and all who have sailed, are now sailing, or will sail in her," said Soames. "USS Winston S. Churchill represents all that is right between our countries, and she is a fine global ambassador of peace and naval power." For more, read the U.S. Navy press release.
Webpage of the Week
This week's Webpage of the Week is the Navy Thanksgiving page. The U.S. Navy has celebrated Thanksgiving in one fashion or another even before it became an official American holiday. Arrayed on this page are selected Navy Thanksgiving menus from NHHC's collections that span the first half of the 20th century. Although some dishes, such as "Mayonnaise Salad" on battleship Arizona in 1917, and "Baked Spiced Spam à la Capitaine de Vaisseau" on cruiser Augusta in 1942, have not transcended time, roast turkey, baked ham, and pumpkin pie have been the anchors of nearly every Thanksgiving feast at sea or on shore to the present day. Check this page out today. Happy Thanksgiving!
Today in Naval History
On Nov. 23, 1838, sloop-of-war Vincennes reached Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, en route to the South Pacific during the U.S. Exploring Expedition. The four-year expedition, commonly referred to as the Wilkes Expedition, was led by Lt. Charles Wilkes, and its purpose was to study and survey the Pacific Ocean from north to south. In company with Peacock, Porpoise, Sea Gull, Flying Fish, and Relief, the expedition made its second stop at Tierra del Fuego, located at the southern tip of South America, and then made its first cruise through Antarctic waters, February–March 1839. They returned to Tierra del Fuego, and then later headed through the South Seas to Sydney, Australia, where they arrived in late November. On the day after Christmas, they embarked on their second voyage to the Antarctic. In January 1840, Wilkes sighted the actual land mass that constitutes Antarctica, though it took later explorations to confirm the continent existed. By late spring 1840, the expedition moved north again and began the exploration of the islands of the South Pacific. After surveying the Fiji Islands between May and August, the expedition made way to Hawaii. The Hawaiian survey centered on studying the volcanoes Mauna Loa and Kilauea. In April 1841, they set sail for the U.S. West Coast. After surveying parts of the coast of the Pacific Northwest during the summer of 1841, Wilkes brought the expedition into San Francisco on Aug. 14. Their arrival back in the United States, however, signaled no end to the work of the expedition. On Nov. 1, they were at sea once again, this time for a voyage to the Western Pacific. During that cruise, the expedition visited Manila in the Philippines, the British colony at Singapore, and Cape Town on the southern tip of Africa. Wilkes' expedition concluded upon arrival at New York on June 10, 1842.
For more dates in naval history, including your selected span of dates, see Year at a Glance at NHHC's website. Be sure to check this page regularly, as content is updated frequently.
Exploration, Expeditions and Voyages
People--Native Americans
Theater of Operations--Pacific
Boats-Ships--Cruisers
People-Places-Things--Japanese
Boats-Ships--Battleship
Boats-Ships--Destroyer
Korean Conflict 1950-1954
World War II 1939-1945


delayed reaction is a topic covered in the Taber's Medical Dictionary.
Venes, Donald, editor. "Delayed Reaction." Taber's Medical Dictionary, 23rd ed., F.A. Davis Company, 2017. Nursing Central, nursing.unboundmedicine.com/nursingcentral/view/Tabers-Dictionary/732186/all/delayed_reaction.
Delayed reaction. In: Venes D, ed. Taber's Medical Dictionary. 23rd ed. F.A. Davis Company; 2017. https://nursing.unboundmedicine.com/nursingcentral/view/Tabers-Dictionary/732186/all/delayed_reaction. Accessed April 19, 2019.
Delayed Reaction [Internet]. In: Venes D, editors. Taber's Medical Dictionary. F.A. Davis Company; 2017. [cited 2019 April 19]. Available from: https://nursing.unboundmedicine.com/nursingcentral/view/Tabers-Dictionary/732186/all/delayed_reaction.


Having been in the healthcare field for 28 years now, I am somewhat amazed at where I have been and where I am going. Starting out in the nursing profession and the critical care areas of a few hospitals, I cared for very ill patients. It took a nurses walking a picket line due to patient / nurse ratios (among other things) to open my eyes as to where I was heading. I made a detour of sorts and stepped out of the hospital and in to office nursing, a whole different world. While making way too many phone calls and looking at too many charts, I met another nurse who saw my frustration in the way healthcare was heading. She suggested I consider going to massage school.
After much consideration I chose to step in to the "alternative medicine" realm, as it was referred to back then, and become a massage therapist. For 8 years my focus was on pregnant, laboring and postpartum women and their infants. It was time for a change in 2009, but no so much of a change as to leave the healthcare field.
Reflexology was introduced to me while in massage school. An intriguing way to effect the entire body through the feet, hands and ears. Soon after completeing my inital training I attended an international conference and met someone who would forever change my life.


Image Title: Cool Door Mats E Mat Best Doormat Source A Winter Welcome With Regard To Cool Door Mats Decorating. Filename: cool-door-mats-e-mat-best-doormat-source-a-winter-welcome-with-regard-to-cool-door-mats-decorating.jpg. Image Dimension: 570 x 501 pixels. Images Format: jpg/jpeg. Publisher/Author: Alek Stehr. Uploaded Date: Wednesday - March 27th. 2019 02:46:55 AM. Category: Architecture. Image Source: interior.com.
Tap The Thumbnail Bellow to See Related Gallery of "Cool Door Mats E Mat Best Doormat Source A Winter Welcome With Regard To Cool Door Mats Decorating"


I captured this photo a few weeks ago while we were visiting a friend. She has a little dog, and Miss Crankles is intrigued by the dog, but at the same time, she is very afraid to get close to him. Bubby noticed that she was afraid, so he excused himself from his friend to help his baby sister. He eased her fears about the dog, and she ended up petting him.
I couldn't help but feel my heart swell with emotion. Those two have eleven years between them, but they are buddies. Bubby understands her and always wants to be close to her. It is one of the most beautiful treasures for which I am very thankful!
Bubby, Crankles, and a little doggy!


We'll be the first to admit that, when spring rolls around, we're keen to get out and in the garden. But while there's still a chill in the air, starting seedlings indoors is the best way to get a head start.
Luckily, you likely already have the makings of a seedling starter at home. Plant your seeds in one of these easy DIY planters now, and then transport the resulting buds to your garden when the sun is out and shining.
Don't throw out those empty eggshells after making breakfast — put some soil in them! Eggs are a great source of calcium for plants, too. When you start to see sprouts, you can place the whole shell right into the ground — just give it a squeeze so the roots can find their new soil easily.
Get the tutorial at Squawk Fox.
Before you turn any small, disposable pots into seedling starters, make sure they are clear of any of their original ingredients.
Poke a hole in the bottom of an already juiced lemon or orange rind for drainage and fill it with soil for a seedling starter that can be planted straight in the ground. The peel will compost into the soil, adding nutrients to the plants as they grow.
Get the tutorial at My Roman Apartment.
Seedling starters can also prevent your garden from being overpopulated after planting too many viable seeds. These emptied toilet paper tubes with brown packing paper wrapped around them are sweet enough to gift to friends if too many sprouts start popping up.
These biodegradable pots combine two of our favourite summer activities — eating ice cream and spending time in our gardens. Don't want to let good ice cream cones go to waste? Only use ones that have gone stale already.
Get the tutorial at Design Mom.
If you often let old newspapers gather dust in your foyer, this one's for you! Wrap your newspaper around a soup container to get the right shape, forming cups to hold seedlings.
Get the tutorial at Cottage Hill.
While you can't place this option right into your garden, it's a much cheaper solution to shop-bought seedling starters, plus you can reuse them year after year.
Get the tutorial at Mr Brown Thumb.
If you're looking for a seedling starter you can plant right in your garden when you start to see sprouts, the material should be your primary consideration. Paper egg cartons are biodegradable and can be easily pulled apart for planting.
Get the tutorial at The Soft Landing.
Repurpose two-litre bottles into self-watering planters for a low maintenance way to start seeds indoors.
Get the tutorial at Seattle Sundries.
This DIY planter actually lets you start seeds in the winter! Cut the top half of a milk jug off and plant seeds inside with some holes for drainage. Once you have a more traditional looking seedling starter, tape the top and bottom half of the jug back together. The plastic will act as a greenhouse, keeping the soil warm, even if it's snowing. Come spring, you can remove the top half.
Get the tutorial at Garden Gate.
For another take on repurposing milk jugs, build a tiered planter. While constructing its wooden base does take some extra time, it doubles as a space-saving garden solution that will look at home in any greenhouse.
Get the tutorial at Leaves n Bloom.


text:
No rush for any revisions on OPEC+ output plans, Russia says
Russia's Deputy Prime Minister said there is no need for immediate action to balance the oil market amid reports that the OPEC+ group may tweak its output schedule over potentially lower demand resulting from the new COVID-19 variant, AzVision.az reports citing Anadolu Agency.
Novak's remarks came after reports that the new variant Omicron, considered by the World Health Organization to be "a variant of concern," had been detected in several countries, prompting big economies to respond with stricter restrictions.
Novak said OPEC+ partners had not requested a revision of their short-term production plan, according to Russian news agency TASS.
The OPEC+ group is scheduled to hold a meeting on Thursday after which an announcement of the final decision on January's production volume will be made following technical discussions.
After South African scientists said last week that they had discovered the highly mutated variant, it spread from South Africa to several countries including Australia, Belgium, Botswana, Britain, Denmark, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, France and Canada.
Several countries around the world have now banned flights from over half a dozen southern African nations, including South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Lesotho and Eswatini over fears of the new variant.
More about: Russia OPEC


Austin Roof Re-New specializes in non- pressure , manufacturer approved roof cleaning. Our soft wash process producess immediate results, and last four to six times longer than pressure washing.
Our customeres are important to us, This is why you can count on top quality workmanship and customer service both before and after the job is complete.
Top Rated Company In Austin Tx.
Our "Soft Wash " approach and custom blended cleaning solutions provide immediate results that last many times longer than traditional cleaning methods, and will NOT damage your home or botanicals.
We have over 10 years of experience, and are certified by the largest roofing manufactures such as GAF, Certainteed, MuleHide. Every one of our service techs have been trained in safe and reiable process, and has passed a backgroud check for your protection.
Our pricing is some of the lowest you will find, and we never cut corners with the work we do for you.


text:
Crime and justice, Fact check, Politics
Claim police numbers up in Scotland and down in England and Wales is Half True
Ferret Journalists on December 17, 2018 April 6, 2019
Policing in the UK came into sharp focus after reports that forces in London were using controversial tactics to stop criminals on mopeds.
Footage of police ramming vehicles into scooters was widely criticised by campaigners and politicians, and the debate was raised on the BBC's Question Time on Thursday 6 December 2018.
Panellist Ian Blackford MP, the SNP's Westminster leader, said one of the central issues was policing numbers, which he suggested had decreased in England and Wales but increased in Scotland.
One of the issues here is that police numbers in England and Wales have gone down quite substantially, whilst in Scotland they've actually increased. Ian Blackford MP
Ferret Fact Service assessed this claim and found it to be Half True.
Policing is devolved to Scotland, whilst the power over policing in England and Wales is reserved to Westminster.
This has allowed Scotland to pursue significantly different policies and organisation, most notably the establishment of the single force, Police Scotland, in 2013.
There are some exceptions to this, notably the British Transport Police, which covers Britain's railways.
The number of police in the force in England and Wales is categorised slightly differently to Scotland.
Policing numbers increased in England and Wales from 2003 until 2009, when they peaked at 143,769. Since then the number of officers has been in decline, with 2018 statistics showing 122,404 in the police across England and Wales. This amounts to a 14.8 per cent decrease in the last 9 years.
When the total police force including British Transport Police, officers on secondments, and those on career breaks are included, the high water mark was 2010 with 244,497 employed. Now this figure is 199,752 in England and Wales.
Compared to 2017, police officer numbers in England and Wales have decreased 738, while the total number in the force has increased by 1,066. The first overall increase since 2010.
These figures refer to the number of full time equivalent (FTE) officers. This is the number of full time officers there would be if you added up all the hours to make full time roles. This is lower than the headcount figure.
The current number in England and Wales is at its lowest since directly comparable records began in 1996, and is the lowest number of officers since 1981.
In Scotland, policing numbers are not broken down into specific roles, since the amalgamation of the eight regional forces in 2013.
So statistics for police in Scotland are for the total force only. These are released every quarter.
Between 2007 and 2008, there was an increase of around 1,000 officers in Scotland. The increase occurred after the SNP got into power in 2007, and continued a trend of increasing police numbers since quarterly statistical releases began in 2003. This brought FTE numbers to over 17,000. The force reached its height in the first quarter of 2013, with 17,496.
Since then the number of police officers had stayed broadly consistent, with small decreases followed by increases the following year. However, the past two years has seen a decline in numbers.
In 2017, the Scottish Police Authority announced that around 400 police officers would be cut between then and 2026.
The chairman of the Scottish Police Authority, Andrew Flanagan, said: "We are anticipating a small reduction in police officer numbers through to 2020.
"It would be around 400, but that would come towards the end of the period, rather than early on."
Ferret Fact Service verdict: Half True
Ian Blackford is correct that police numbers in England and Wales have decreased in recent years. Since 2009 numbers have been decreasing, and are also down since last year. Frontline policing has also been cut. There has been an increase in police numbers in Scotland since the SNP came to power, with around 1,000 added to the force in 2008. But overall numbers have been declining in recent years, together with cuts to support staff and the Scottish Police Authority has committed to further reductions in coming years.
Ferret Fact Service (FFS) is a non-partisan fact checker, working to the International Fact-Checking Network fact-checkers' code of principles. All the sources used in our checks are publicly available and the FFS fact-checking methodology can be viewed here. Want to suggest a fact check? Email us at factcheck@theferret.scot or join our community forum.
Correction: An earlier version of this fact check described Andrew Flanagan as the "then Chief Constable". He was in fact the Scottish Police Authority chairman between 2015 and 2017.
Ferret Journalists
Police accused of 185 sexual assaults in five years
Claim that recorded crime down and police numbers up is Mostly True
Spycops: judge rejects claim for undercover police inquiry in Scotland
Revealed: how Scottish airports lobbied for £300m tax cut
Scots prisons to consult on changes to transgender policy