20:05
Monday, 5 September 2016
Thursday, 9 June 2016
20:05
adebayo
No comments
97
Many of the Iraqis who came back to Iraq after the US-led invasion were people of high principle who had sacrificed much as opponents of Saddam Hussein. But fast forward 10 years and the prediction of the unnamed civil servant about the rapacity of Iraq’s new governors turns out to have been all too true. As one former minister puts it, “the Iraqi government is an institutionalised kleptocracy”.
It is a view shared by Iraqis in the frontline of business in Baghdad. Property prices in the capital are high and there are plenty of buyers. I asked Abduk-Karim Ali, a real-estate broker, who was paying so much for houses. He replied with a laugh that there were investors from Kurdistan and Bahrain, but most purchasers he dealt with are “the thieves of 2003 who have the money”. “Who are they?” I asked. “I mean the officials in the government,” said Mr Ali. “They buy the best properties for themselves.”
“The corruption is unbelievable,” says Ghassan al-Atiyyah, a political scientist and activist. “You can’t get a job in the army or the government unless you pay; you can’t even get out of prison unless you pay. Maybe a judge sets you free but you must pay for the paperwork, otherwise you stay there. Even if you are free you may be captured by some officer who paid $10,000 to $50,000 for his job and needs to get the money back.” In an Iraqi version of Catch-22 everything is for sale. One former prison detainee says he had to pay his guards $100 for a single shower. Racketeering is the norm: one entrepreneur built his house on top of a buried oil pipeline, drilled into it and siphoned off quantities of fuel.
Corruption complicates and poisons the daily life of Iraqis, especially those who cannot afford to pay. But the frequent demand for bribes does not in itself cripple the state or the economy. The highly autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government is deemed extremely corrupt, but its economy is booming and its economic management is praised as a model for the country. More damaging for Iraq is the wholesale theft of public funds. Despite tens of billions of dollars being spent, there is a continuing shortage of electricity and other necessities. Few Iraqis regret the fall of Saddam, but many recall that, after the devastating US air strikes on the infrastructure in 1991, power stations were patched up quickly using only Iraqi resources.
There is more to Iraqi corruption than the stealing of oil revenues by a criminalised caste of politicians, parties and officials. Critics of Nouri al-Maliki, Prime Minister since 2006, say his method of political control is to allocate contracts to supporters, wavering friends or opponents whom he wants to win over. But that is not the end of the matter. Beneficiaries of this largesse “are threatened with investigation and exposure if they step out of line”, says one Iraqi observer. Even those who have not been awarded contracts know that they are vulnerable to being targeted by anti-corruption bodies. “Maliki uses files on his enemies like J Edgar Hoover,” the observer says. The system cannot be reformed by the government because it would be striking at the very mechanism by which it rules. State institutions for combating corruption have been systematically defanged, marginalised or intimidated. Five years ago, a senior US embassy official testified before Congress that Mr Maliki had issued “secret orders” preventing cases being referred to the courts by the Integrity Commission (an independent government commission tasked with tackling and preventing corruption) “if the cases involve former or current high-ranking Iraqi government officials, including the PM… The secret order is, literally, a license to steal.”
Nothing much has changed since then. Blatant scams continue and receive official protection. In 2011 Rahin al-Ugaili, the head of the Integrity Commission, unmasked “shell companies” abroad used by senior officials to award contracts to themselves. Full payment was made to the companies even if the contracts were never fully implemented. A report by the International Crisis Group, a not-for-profit organisation established to prevent and resolve conflict says that “when the [Integrity] Commission sought to engage the courts to prosecute it found the government blocked all avenues, pressuring Ugaili to resign in protest”. His duly did on 9 September 2011, the same day that Hadi al-Mahdi, a prominent journalistic critic of the government and leader of street protests, was assassinated in his home. A few hours before he was shot he had written on his Facebook page that he was “living in a state of terror” and had been threatened by government reprisals.
Not all Iraqi officials are corrupt. But all are vulnerable to anti-corruption charges. This has a crippling impact. A US businessman explained that he was dealing with a ministry in which he thought only 10 per cent of officials took bribes. “But the other 90 per cent know they might be targeted for investigation and therefore the safest course for them is to take their salaries and do nothing. The ministry is effectively paralysed.”
There are other reasons why director generals in ministries do nothing. Kassim, a senior engineer in the Electricity Ministry, says “director generals get their jobs through political connections. They control the big projects, but they have no experience to plan for the future so they do nothing to avoid being fired.” He is derisive about official promises to end the electricity shortage, saying this will not happen for 20 or 30 years “because they are putting too much of the emphasis on electricity production and not enough on transmission and distribution”.
The new elite benefiting from the system lead a mysterious existence, hidden behind the ramparts of the Green Zone or sweeping through the streets of Baghdad in armoured convoys. Most of the money embezzled is believed to go abroad while the rest is kept in the bank or discreetly invested in property. In Erbil in Kurdistan, businessmen say the housing market is partly sustained by money laundering by investors from Baghdad. “They turn up here with suitcases filled with millions of dinars,” one said.
There is plenty of money in Baghdad but little conspicuous consumption. Violence is down but fear of kidnapping is real and nobody wants draw attention to themselves by appearing wealthy. Mr Ali, the real-estate broker, says: “I drive a poor car so people don’t know I have money.” Rich Iraqis lived sealed off behind walls and bodyguards.
When I visited the bird market in Shorja, central Baghdad, a shopkeeper asked if I would like to buy a tiger or lion cub and showed me a picture of them gambolling at his farm outside the city. I asked who was buying them and he said “mostly tribal leaders – there is quite a fashion for them at the moment.”
Why is the corruption in Iraq so bad? The simple answer that Iraqis give is that “UN sanctions destroyed Iraqi society in the 1990s and the Americans destroyed the Iraqi state after 2003”. Patronage based on party, family or community determines who gets a job. There are many winners as well as losers and all depends on Iraqi oil exports going up and prices staying high. “I only once saw panic in the cabinet,” says an ex-minister, “and that was when there was a sharp drop in the price of oil.”
By Patrick Cockburn
Source: CLICK HERE
Iraqis are not naïve. Grim experience of their country’s rulers over the past 50 years leads many to suspect them of being self-serving, greedy, brutal, and incompetent. Ten years ago, some had hoped Iraqis might escape living in a permanent state of emergency as the US and Britain prepared to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Others were wary of Iraqis returning from abroad who promised to build a new nation.A few months before the invasion, an Iraqi civil servant secretly interviewed in Baghdad made a gloomy forecast. “The exiled Iraqis are the exact replica of those who currently govern us… with the sole difference that the latter are already satiated since they have been robbing us for the past 30 years,” he said. “Those who accompany the US troops will be ravenous.”
Many of the Iraqis who came back to Iraq after the US-led invasion were people of high principle who had sacrificed much as opponents of Saddam Hussein. But fast forward 10 years and the prediction of the unnamed civil servant about the rapacity of Iraq’s new governors turns out to have been all too true. As one former minister puts it, “the Iraqi government is an institutionalised kleptocracy”.
It is a view shared by Iraqis in the frontline of business in Baghdad. Property prices in the capital are high and there are plenty of buyers. I asked Abduk-Karim Ali, a real-estate broker, who was paying so much for houses. He replied with a laugh that there were investors from Kurdistan and Bahrain, but most purchasers he dealt with are “the thieves of 2003 who have the money”. “Who are they?” I asked. “I mean the officials in the government,” said Mr Ali. “They buy the best properties for themselves.”
“The corruption is unbelievable,” says Ghassan al-Atiyyah, a political scientist and activist. “You can’t get a job in the army or the government unless you pay; you can’t even get out of prison unless you pay. Maybe a judge sets you free but you must pay for the paperwork, otherwise you stay there. Even if you are free you may be captured by some officer who paid $10,000 to $50,000 for his job and needs to get the money back.” In an Iraqi version of Catch-22 everything is for sale. One former prison detainee says he had to pay his guards $100 for a single shower. Racketeering is the norm: one entrepreneur built his house on top of a buried oil pipeline, drilled into it and siphoned off quantities of fuel.
Corruption complicates and poisons the daily life of Iraqis, especially those who cannot afford to pay. But the frequent demand for bribes does not in itself cripple the state or the economy. The highly autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government is deemed extremely corrupt, but its economy is booming and its economic management is praised as a model for the country. More damaging for Iraq is the wholesale theft of public funds. Despite tens of billions of dollars being spent, there is a continuing shortage of electricity and other necessities. Few Iraqis regret the fall of Saddam, but many recall that, after the devastating US air strikes on the infrastructure in 1991, power stations were patched up quickly using only Iraqi resources.
There is more to Iraqi corruption than the stealing of oil revenues by a criminalised caste of politicians, parties and officials. Critics of Nouri al-Maliki, Prime Minister since 2006, say his method of political control is to allocate contracts to supporters, wavering friends or opponents whom he wants to win over. But that is not the end of the matter. Beneficiaries of this largesse “are threatened with investigation and exposure if they step out of line”, says one Iraqi observer. Even those who have not been awarded contracts know that they are vulnerable to being targeted by anti-corruption bodies. “Maliki uses files on his enemies like J Edgar Hoover,” the observer says. The system cannot be reformed by the government because it would be striking at the very mechanism by which it rules. State institutions for combating corruption have been systematically defanged, marginalised or intimidated. Five years ago, a senior US embassy official testified before Congress that Mr Maliki had issued “secret orders” preventing cases being referred to the courts by the Integrity Commission (an independent government commission tasked with tackling and preventing corruption) “if the cases involve former or current high-ranking Iraqi government officials, including the PM… The secret order is, literally, a license to steal.”
Nothing much has changed since then. Blatant scams continue and receive official protection. In 2011 Rahin al-Ugaili, the head of the Integrity Commission, unmasked “shell companies” abroad used by senior officials to award contracts to themselves. Full payment was made to the companies even if the contracts were never fully implemented. A report by the International Crisis Group, a not-for-profit organisation established to prevent and resolve conflict says that “when the [Integrity] Commission sought to engage the courts to prosecute it found the government blocked all avenues, pressuring Ugaili to resign in protest”. His duly did on 9 September 2011, the same day that Hadi al-Mahdi, a prominent journalistic critic of the government and leader of street protests, was assassinated in his home. A few hours before he was shot he had written on his Facebook page that he was “living in a state of terror” and had been threatened by government reprisals.
Not all Iraqi officials are corrupt. But all are vulnerable to anti-corruption charges. This has a crippling impact. A US businessman explained that he was dealing with a ministry in which he thought only 10 per cent of officials took bribes. “But the other 90 per cent know they might be targeted for investigation and therefore the safest course for them is to take their salaries and do nothing. The ministry is effectively paralysed.”
There are other reasons why director generals in ministries do nothing. Kassim, a senior engineer in the Electricity Ministry, says “director generals get their jobs through political connections. They control the big projects, but they have no experience to plan for the future so they do nothing to avoid being fired.” He is derisive about official promises to end the electricity shortage, saying this will not happen for 20 or 30 years “because they are putting too much of the emphasis on electricity production and not enough on transmission and distribution”.
The new elite benefiting from the system lead a mysterious existence, hidden behind the ramparts of the Green Zone or sweeping through the streets of Baghdad in armoured convoys. Most of the money embezzled is believed to go abroad while the rest is kept in the bank or discreetly invested in property. In Erbil in Kurdistan, businessmen say the housing market is partly sustained by money laundering by investors from Baghdad. “They turn up here with suitcases filled with millions of dinars,” one said.
There is plenty of money in Baghdad but little conspicuous consumption. Violence is down but fear of kidnapping is real and nobody wants draw attention to themselves by appearing wealthy. Mr Ali, the real-estate broker, says: “I drive a poor car so people don’t know I have money.” Rich Iraqis lived sealed off behind walls and bodyguards.
When I visited the bird market in Shorja, central Baghdad, a shopkeeper asked if I would like to buy a tiger or lion cub and showed me a picture of them gambolling at his farm outside the city. I asked who was buying them and he said “mostly tribal leaders – there is quite a fashion for them at the moment.”
Why is the corruption in Iraq so bad? The simple answer that Iraqis give is that “UN sanctions destroyed Iraqi society in the 1990s and the Americans destroyed the Iraqi state after 2003”. Patronage based on party, family or community determines who gets a job. There are many winners as well as losers and all depends on Iraqi oil exports going up and prices staying high. “I only once saw panic in the cabinet,” says an ex-minister, “and that was when there was a sharp drop in the price of oil.”
By Patrick Cockburn
Source: CLICK HERE
- 19:55
- adebayo
- No comments
0
A conviction under RICO comes when the Department of Justice proves that the defendant has engaged in two or more examples of racketeering and that the defendant maintained an interest in, participated in or invested in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. There is ample evidence already in the public record that the Clinton Foundation qualifies as a criminal enterprise and there’s no doubt that the FBI is privy to significantly more evidence than has already been made public.
Under RICO, the sections most relevant in this case will be section 1503 (obstruction of justice), section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) and section 1511 (obstruction of State or local law enforcement). As in the case with Richard Nixon after the Watergate Break-in, it’s the cover-up of a crime that will be the Clintons’ downfall. Furthermore, under provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201, the Clinton Foundation can be held accountable for improprieties relating to bribery. The FBI will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that through the Clinton Foundation, international entities were able to commit bribery in exchange for help in securing business deals, such as the uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan.
It is a Federal Crime to negligently handle classified information under United States Code (USC) 18 section 1924. It is a Federal Class A Felony under USC 18 section 798. Hillary certified under oath to a federal judge that she had handed over to the state department all of her emails, which she clearly did not. In spite of her repeated statements to the effect that everything that she did with her home brewed email server as Secretary of State was above-board and approved by the State Department, the Inspector General Report vehemently refutes this claim. Hillary refused to be interview by the Inspector General’s office in their investigation, claiming that her upcoming FBI interview took precedent but it seems more likely that Hillary is more concerned about committing perjury or admitting to anything that can be used against her in a court of law.
Hillary Clinton is guilty of exposing classified documents to foreign governments by placing them illegally on her server, of sending and receiving classified documents and conspiring with her staff to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by avoiding the use of the State Department run servers. Some of the documents were so highly classified the the investigators on the case weren’t even able to examine the material themselves until they got their own clearances raised to the highest levels.
While there is an excellent cast to be made the Hillary committed treasonous actions, the strongest case the FBI has is charging both Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as the Clinton Foundation of Racketeering. There’s no wonder why it’s taken this long for the FBI to bring forward a recommendation. The rabbit hole is so deep on this one that it has taking dozens of investigators to determine the full extent of the crimes that have been committed. Perhaps the most interesting question here is whether or not the FBI’s investigation will be able to directly link The Clinton Foundation with The Hillary Victory Fund. If this happens, the DNC itself may be in jeopardy of accusations of either being an accomplice or of being complicit in racketeering.
James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.
Initially, Comey had indicated that the investigation into Hillary’s home brewed email server was to be concluded by October of 2015. However, as more and more evidence in the case has come to light, this initial date kept being pushed back as the criminal investigation has expanded well beyond violating State Department regulations to include questions about espionage, perjury and influence peddling.Here’s what we do know. Tens of millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation was funneled to the organization through a Canadian shell company which has made tracing the donors nearly impossible. Less than 10% of donations to the Foundation has actually been released to charitable organizations and $2M that has been traced back to long time Bill Clinton friend Julie McMahon (aka The Energizer). When the official investigation into Hillary’s email server began, she instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails and cloud backups of her emails older than 30 days at both Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc. The FBI has subsequently recovered the majority, if not all, of Hillary’s deleted emails and are putting together a strong case against her for attempting to cover up her illegal and illicit activities.
A conviction under RICO comes when the Department of Justice proves that the defendant has engaged in two or more examples of racketeering and that the defendant maintained an interest in, participated in or invested in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. There is ample evidence already in the public record that the Clinton Foundation qualifies as a criminal enterprise and there’s no doubt that the FBI is privy to significantly more evidence than has already been made public.
Under RICO, the sections most relevant in this case will be section 1503 (obstruction of justice), section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) and section 1511 (obstruction of State or local law enforcement). As in the case with Richard Nixon after the Watergate Break-in, it’s the cover-up of a crime that will be the Clintons’ downfall. Furthermore, under provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201, the Clinton Foundation can be held accountable for improprieties relating to bribery. The FBI will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that through the Clinton Foundation, international entities were able to commit bribery in exchange for help in securing business deals, such as the uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan.
It is a Federal Crime to negligently handle classified information under United States Code (USC) 18 section 1924. It is a Federal Class A Felony under USC 18 section 798. Hillary certified under oath to a federal judge that she had handed over to the state department all of her emails, which she clearly did not. In spite of her repeated statements to the effect that everything that she did with her home brewed email server as Secretary of State was above-board and approved by the State Department, the Inspector General Report vehemently refutes this claim. Hillary refused to be interview by the Inspector General’s office in their investigation, claiming that her upcoming FBI interview took precedent but it seems more likely that Hillary is more concerned about committing perjury or admitting to anything that can be used against her in a court of law.
“Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”Inspector General Report
Hillary Clinton is guilty of exposing classified documents to foreign governments by placing them illegally on her server, of sending and receiving classified documents and conspiring with her staff to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by avoiding the use of the State Department run servers. Some of the documents were so highly classified the the investigators on the case weren’t even able to examine the material themselves until they got their own clearances raised to the highest levels.
While there is an excellent cast to be made the Hillary committed treasonous actions, the strongest case the FBI has is charging both Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as the Clinton Foundation of Racketeering. There’s no wonder why it’s taken this long for the FBI to bring forward a recommendation. The rabbit hole is so deep on this one that it has taking dozens of investigators to determine the full extent of the crimes that have been committed. Perhaps the most interesting question here is whether or not the FBI’s investigation will be able to directly link The Clinton Foundation with The Hillary Victory Fund. If this happens, the DNC itself may be in jeopardy of accusations of either being an accomplice or of being complicit in racketeering.
Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices.The racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act (rico) is a United States federal law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. Rico allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.
James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.
“The New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.Source: CLICK HERE
Monday, 6 June 2016
- 09:56
- adebayo
- No comments
Sunday, 5 June 2016
- 04:24
- adebayo
- No comments
After Clinton's broadside, Donald Trump defends foreign policy views
After Hillary Clinton delivered a scathing indictment of Donald Trump's approach to foreign policy on Thursday, the presumptive Republican nominee fired back Friday in an interview with "Face the Nation," saying the former secretary of state's criticism was "ridiculous.""It was supposed to be foreign policy and it was really Trump policy," Trump said of Clinton's address. "And she got it all wrong."
"I mean first of all, you know, she talked about that I want to nuke all of these countries," Trump explained. "It's ridiculous. No, I want these countries to pay for protection. We are protecting them. We have $19 trillion in debt, it's very soon going to $21 trillion...And I want these countries to reimburse us at least for our cost. We're talking about ultimately trillions of dollars over a period of time. And we just can't be doing that anymore. This isn't 30 years ago and 40 years ago."
"I don't want to see Japan go nuclear," he added. "I want to see Japan help us out. I have great relationships with Japan. I have a lot of friends in Japan. And they even laugh at it. I mean, we're defending Japan, and a general got up and said, 'No, no, they pay for half the cost.' He thought that was a good thing. I said, 'Why aren't they paying for 100 percent of the cost?' ...Saudi Arabia, the same thing. They have nothing but money, and we subsidize Saudi Arabia. For what? What are we doing? Why are we doing that?"
Trump has repeatedly suggested that U.S. allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East must begin paying more in exchange for American help with defense. He's said he'd be okay with some of those countries acquiring nuclear weapons if they decide they'd rather defend themselves than pay for American help, upsetting some arms control advocates and national security experts who view America's global military presence - particularly along the Pacific Rim and among the Persian Gulf states - as a cornerstone of U.S. security policy.
Trump suggested he'd be prepared to walk away from America's current security arrangements with Japan and Saudi Arabia if those countries don't begin shouldering more of the financial burden. And he suggested the U.S. will never negotiate a better deal if its leaders aren't ready to walk.
"You always have to be prepared to walk... [Clinton] said, 'We will never walk for these countries.' Well, then we'll continue to lose billions and billions of dollars. You have to be prepared to walk. You can't go into a negotiation without it," Trump said. "However, I think that what's going to happen is they'll all come through."
"Face the Nation" moderator John Dickerson followed up, "But it is a fair characterization of your view to say, if you walk and they get nuclear weapons, you said, you know-that'd be okay?"
"I didn't say get nuclear," Trump replied. "Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But at a certain point, you know Japan will, if they're not going to pay us what it's going to cost...The fact is, they are paying a small fraction of what it's costing. So is Germany, so is Saudi Arabia, so is South Korea. We are losing a fortune. We're the policemen for the world. We're losing a fortune. What I say is this: You have to be prepared to walk. I don't think they'll let us walk, frankly, because they like it the way it is. But they have to pay."
Trump also expanded on his recent remark that he knows more about the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) than the generals in the U.S. military.
"Do you still feel like you know more about ISIS than the generals?" Dickerson asked.
"Well, they don't know much, because they're not winning," Trump said. "That I can tell you. Now, I think they're not winning for a different reason. I think Obama's hurting them."
"How so?" Dickerson asked.
"Well from what I hear, it's being run from the White House," Trump said. "It's all being run from the White House. I've spoken to certain generals, I'll keep it quiet as to who, but highly respected people they say we could knock them out fast."
Dickerson asked if those generals are currently serving, or whether they are retired, and Trump responded, "In one case in office, and in one case, out of office. And they said both of them said the same thing: if we had the leadership, meaning the go ahead, you could knock them out fast. But for some reason, Obama's not doing that."
- 00:32
- adebayo
- No comments
Debra Messing deleted her “ironic” tweet already (see above), but the internet never forgets, nor does I-A-B…
To get you up to speed, you remember this post from earlier this morning about the UCLA campus shooting (which turned out to be a murder-suicide), right? Well, Messing thought it was the perfect time to tweet. Note her pensive stare into the ether, pondering life’s complexities, and hoping she got her good angle.
Don’t worry, I-A-B — she excused her opportunistic, self-centered, hand-wringing tweet as “horrible irony.” Is there any other kind?
This all happened because she was supposedly told to take a photo in her “Under the Gun” t-shirt. (Side note: the shirt is supporting an anti-gun ‘documentary’ by Katie Couric which has already been critisized by its use of “creative editing.”)
Oddly enough, the shirt’s logo is barely visible and there is no link or information to help her Twitter followers associate her shirt with Couric’s documentary. Now THAT’S ironic.
Some of the better comments her Twitter followers left her…
“People dying…better take a selfie!” — @SaveLazz
“Kim Kardashian called. She says you’re being an attention whore.” — @CrankyGordon.
She deleted her original tweet, then posted a “Sorrynotsorry you pleebs didn’t get it” apology (see below)…
Take a stand. This day was predetermined as a day of awareness. Don’t belittle the effort. #wecandobetter https://t.co/ufHHkeGXQX— Debra Messing (@DebraMessing) June 1, 2016
Debra Messing deleted her “ironic” tweet already (see above), but the internet never forgets, nor does I-A-B…
To get you up to speed, you remember this post from earlier this morning about the UCLA campus shooting (which turned out to be a murder-suicide), right? Well, Messing thought it was the perfect time to tweet. Note her pensive stare into the ether, pondering life’s complexities, and hoping she got her good angle.
Don’t worry, I-A-B — she excused her opportunistic, self-centered, hand-wringing tweet as “horrible irony.” Is there any other kind?
This all happened because she was supposedly told to take a photo in her “Under the Gun” t-shirt. (Side note: the shirt is supporting an anti-gun ‘documentary’ by Katie Couric which has already been critisized by its use of “creative editing.”)
Oddly enough, the shirt’s logo is barely visible and there is no link or information to help her Twitter followers associate her shirt with Couric’s documentary. Now THAT’S ironic.
Some of the better comments her Twitter followers left her…
“People dying…better take a selfie!” — @SaveLazz
“Kim Kardashian called. She says you’re being an attention whore.” — @CrankyGordon.
She deleted her original tweet, then posted a “Sorrynotsorry you pleebs didn’t get it” apology (see below)…
- See more at: http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/06/actor-debra-messing-posts-selfie-during-ucla-shooting-pics.html#sthash.7kE29JLw.dpufTake a stand. This day was predetermined as a day of awareness. Don’t belittle the effort. #wecandobetter https://t.co/ufHHkeGXQX— Debra Messing (@DebraMessing) June 1, 2016
Debra Messing deleted her “ironic” tweet already (see above), but the internet never forgets, nor does I-A-B…
To get you up to speed, you remember this post from earlier this morning about the UCLA campus shooting (which turned out to be a murder-suicide), right? Well, Messing thought it was the perfect time to tweet. Note her pensive stare into the ether, pondering life’s complexities, and hoping she got her good angle.
Don’t worry, I-A-B — she excused her opportunistic, self-centered, hand-wringing tweet as “horrible irony.” Is there any other kind?
This all happened because she was supposedly told to take a photo in her “Under the Gun” t-shirt. (Side note: the shirt is supporting an anti-gun ‘documentary’ by Katie Couric which has already been critisized by its use of “creative editing.”)
Oddly enough, the shirt’s logo is barely visible and there is no link or information to help her Twitter followers associate her shirt with Couric’s documentary. Now THAT’S ironic.
Some of the better comments her Twitter followers left her…
“People dying…better take a selfie!” — @SaveLazz
“Kim Kardashian called. She says you’re being an attention whore.” — @CrankyGordon.
She deleted her original tweet, then posted a “Sorrynotsorry you pleebs didn’t get it” apology (see below)…
- See more at: http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/06/actor-debra-messing-posts-selfie-during-ucla-shooting-pics.html#sthash.7kE29JLw.dpufTake a stand. This day was predetermined as a day of awareness. Don’t belittle the effort. #wecandobetter https://t.co/ufHHkeGXQX— Debra Messing (@DebraMessing) June 1, 2016
Sunday, 29 May 2016
- 07:58
- adebayo
- No comments
David Cameron and Michael Gove to face EU Referendum Question Time - but not together
The PM has declined to take part in any 'blue-on-blue' TV clashes with fellow Conservatives such as Mr Gove or Boris Johnson
The BBC said the Prime Minister and Michael Gove will face questions from a live audience GETTY
David Cameron and Michael Gove will take part in EU referendum debates on the BBC - but not head-to-head.
The broadcaster said the Prime Minister and Justice Secretary - who are on opposite sides of the campaign - will face questions from a live audience in two special editions of its Question Time programme.
Pro-Brexit Mr Gove will feature in the first of the shows - moderated by usual host David Dimbleby - on June 15 from Nottingham, with Mr Cameron representing the Remain camp on June 19 in Milton Keynes.
Read more
What will happen to UK immigration if there's Brexit?
The PM has declined to take part in any "blue-on-blue" TV clashes with fellow Conservatives such as Mr Gove or Boris Johnson, arguing he wanted to show the debate went wider than within his own party.
He has already agreed to feature on an ITV show on June 7 straight after Nigel Farage, whose inclusion instead of a figure from the official campaign sparked angry accusations by Vote Leave - firmly denied - of bias by the broadcaster.
What has the EU ever done for us?
Sky News will broadcast separate shows featuring Mr Cameron and Mr Gove on June 2 and 3.
The BBC also announced the line-up for its first debate show to be broadcast on May 26 - which will be hosted in Glasgow by Victoria Derbyshire with an audience of 18 to 29-year-olds.
SNP MP and former Scottish first minister Alex Salmond and the head of the Labour In campaign, former home secretary Alan Johnson, will make the case for continued membership while the anti-EU camps are represented by Tory ex-defence secretary Liam Fox and senior Ukip MEP Diane James.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
