Is he drunk? We're left with the same
question about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that we had yesterday. The Secretary of Defense was one of many involved in a breach of security -- discussing a US attack on foreign soil before it took place and exposing the operation -- and those tasked with carrying out. Since being exposed, Hegseth has attempted -- not very well -- to lie his way out of the
self-created mess and begin attacking journalist Jeffrey Goldberg
calling him "deceitful
and highly discredited." This only resulted in Brit Hume -- his
former FOX "NEWS" colleague -- offering on social media, "Oh for God's sake, the administration has already confirmed the authenticity of the message." "I don't know," former FOX "NEWS" host Bill O'Reilly offered of why Hegseth can't be honest, "I'm not his therapist."
Clearly,
if you listen to what he said, he's parsing the words. The Secretary of
Defense is parsing the words because he's angry when people make
mistakes
Again, the question: Is he drunk?
The
boozehound's drinking has caused numerous problems for him throughout
his life and work and it is so bad that he swore that, if confirmed of
Secretary of Defense, he wouldn't drink.
Is he drunk?
Housnia Shams (IRISH TIMES) notes, "House
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has labelled Pete Hegseth 'the most
unqualified person to lead the Pentagon,' after a report suggested the
Defense Secretary and other Trump administration officials mistakenly
leaked secret plans about military strikes in Yemen to a journalist." Erik De La Garza (RAW STORY) notes former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg posted to social media, “From
an operational security perspective, this is the highest level of
f---up imaginable. These people cannot keep America safe.” To CNN, Pete
Buttigieg offered, "Our current secretary of Defense
hadn’t shown a lot of evidence of . . . running a large organization
or, let alone running a large organization well, and he got put in
charge of the largest organization in the United States of America and
the most important organization in the world, which is the U.S.
Department of Defense,"
Yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Committee held an open hearing that was previously planned and ended up being the first hearing in which those involved in the security breach were before Congress.
The witnesses were Tulsi Gabbard the Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel, NSA Director Tim Haugh and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Jeff Kruse. Despite three out of five witnesses having the term "intelligence" in their job title, the five served up a lot of stupidity. Repeatedly.
In case anyone is late to the party, let's note this from Committee Vice Chair Senator Mark Warner's opening remarks:
Vice Chair Mark Warner: Yesterday, we stunningly learned that senior members of this administration and according to reports, two of our witnesses here today, were members of a group chat that discussed highly sensitive and likely classified information that supposedly even included ‘weapons packages, targets and timing,’ and included the name of an active CIA agent. Putting aside for a moment that classified information should never be discussed over an unclassified system, it's also just mind boggling to me that all these senior folks were on this line and nobody bothered to even check, security hygiene 101. Who are all the names? Who are they? Well, it apparently includes a journalist. And no matter how much the Secretary of Defense or others want to disparage him, this journalist had at least the ethics to not report everything he heard. The question I raise is: everybody on this committee gets briefed on security protocols. They're told you don't make calls outside of SCIFs of this kind of classified nature. Director Gabbard is the executive in charge of all keeping our secrets safe. Were these government devices? Or were they personal devices? Have the devices been collected to make sure there's no malware? There’s plenty of declassified information that shows that our adversaries, China and Russia, are trying to break in to encrypted systems like Signal. I can just say this. If this was the case of a military officer, or an intelligence officer, and they had this kind of behavior, they would be fired. I think this is one more example of the kind of sloppy, careless, incompetent behavior, particularly towards classified information, that this is not a one off or a first time error.
Let's stay with Senator Mark Warner for a moment and note some videos capturing and commenting on his round of questioning.
Ben Meiselas covers Mark's questions and covers Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's questioning in the video below.
I'm not seeing Senator Michael Bennet in the coverage so let's cover one of his exchanges.
Senator Michael Bennet: Director Ratcliffe, it sounds to me like your testimony today and the Secretary -- the DNI's testimony, there was nothing wrong at all with the Signal thread you were on that it didn't include any targeting information or battle sequence -- that is your testimony? That's your testimony? And I'm a little staggered that that as your view, Director Ratcliffe. Does the CIA have any rules about handling classified information -- yes or no?
Director John Ratcliffe: Yes.
Senator Michael Bennet: Thank you, Director Ratcliffe. Do you agree, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said this morning when asked by members of the press what had happened, he said this morning in Hawaii that ATLANTIC editor in chief Jeff Goldberg is a quote "deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of providing hoaxes time and time again." Do you share that evaluation the Secretary of Defense's evaluation of Jeff Goldberg as a journalist?
Director John Ratcliffe: Senator, I didn't see those comments. I don't know Jeffrey Goldberg
Senator Michael Bennet: So do you share that view of the Secretary of Defense?
Director John Ratcliffe: I don't -- I don't have a view --
Senator Michael Bennet: Okay. Do you -- do you -- Assuming that he has that view, I'm curious about whether -- You are the CIA Director, okay? This has happened. We know it's happened. Did Jeff Goldber somehow -- was it a hoax? Did he create a hoax that allowed him to become part of this Signal thread?
Director John Ratcliffe: I-I-I --
Senator Michael Bennet: Please answer the question. Don't -- Don't insult the intelligence of the American people. Did he invite himself to the Signal thread?
Director John Ratcliffe: I don't know how he was invited. But clearly --
[cross talk]
Senator Michael Bennet: Clearly, it was what? Finish your sentence please.
Director John Ratcliffe: I-I-I -- Clearly, he was added to the Signal group. I don't --
Senator Michael Bennet: You don't know that the present National Security Advisor invited him to join the Signal thread? Everybody in America knows that. Does the CIA Director not know that?
Director John Ratcliffe: I've seen conflicting reports about who added, uhm, the reporter to the Signal message
Senator Michael Bennet: Do you think that it's appropriate that there was a reporter added -- especially one that the Secretary of Defense says is "deceitful and highly discredited" a "so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes over and over again"? Is your testimony that it was appropriate that he was added to this Signal thread?
Director John Ratcliffe: No. Of course not.
Senator Michael Bennet: Why -- why did you -- You're the CIA Director.
[Cross talk]
Senator Michael Bennet: You-you answered the question. Let me ask you: When he was added to the thread, you're the CIA Director. Why didn't you call out that he was present on the Signal thread?
Director John Ratcliffe: I don't know if you use Singal messaging app --
Senator Michael Bennet: I do. I do. But not for classified information. Not for targeting --
Director John Ratcliffe: Neither do I, Senator. Neither do I, Senator --
Senator Michael Bennet: Well that's what your testimony is today
Director John Ratcliffe: It absolutely is not, Senator.
Senator Michael Bennet: No, I'm saying --
Director John Ratcliffe: At the beginning when I said that I was using it as permitted, it is permissible.
Senator Michael Bennet: I agree that is your testimony. I agree that's your testimony. You asked me if I use it and I said not for targeting, not for classified information.
Director John Ratcliffe: And I don't know
Senator Michael Bennet: I also know Jeff Goldberg. I don't use it to communicate with him. But you thought it was appropriate. By the way, I think he's one of the more outstanding journalists in America. But I'm shocked to find him on a thread that he's reading in the parking lot of a grocery store in Washington, DC and your testimony as the Director of the CIA is that it's totally appropriate.
Director John Ratcliffe: No.
Senator Michael Bennet: Is it appropriate that the president's --
Director John Ratcliffe: No, no, that is not what I said.
Senator Michael Bennet: Go ahead, please.
Director John Ratcliffe: When did I use the word appropriate
Senator Michael Bennet: Well go ahead please
Director John Ratcliffe: I didn't --
Senator Michael Bennet: Everybody in America --
Director John Ratcliffe: No
Senator Michael Bennet: There's nothing to see here is your testimony
Director John Ratcliffe: I never said that.
Senator Michael Bennet: This is just a normal day at the CIA where we chat about this kind of stuff over Signal. In fact, it's so normal that the last administration left it here for us. That's your testimony today?
[cross-talk]
Senator Michael Bennet: That's your testimony.
Director John Ratcliffe: No that's not my testimony, that's what you said.
Senator Michael Bennet: I heard you say it. Let me ask you one last thing, I'm out of time
[cross-talk]
Senator Michael Bennet: Is it appropriate, did you know that the president's Middle East advisor was in Moscow on this thread while you were, as Director of the CIA, participating in this thread? Were you -- were you aware of that? Are you aware of that today?
Director John Ratcliffe: I'm not aware of that today.
Senator Michael Bennet: This sloppiness, this incompetence, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies and the personnel who work for them is entirely unacceptable. It's an embarrassment.
Director John Ratcliffe: Senator --
Senator Michael Bennet: You need to do better. You need to do better.
Again, intelligence was something the intelligence witnesses did not bring with them for the hearing.
Since CIA Director John Ratcliffe is so confused as to whether or not one of the people in that chat was in Russia at the time of the chat, let's help him out by noting Joanne Stocker and Emmet Lyons (CBS NEWS) have reported:
President Trump's Ukraine and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff was in Moscow, where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin, when he was included in a group chat with more than a dozen other top administration officials — and inadvertently, one journalist — on the messaging app Signal, a CBS News analysis of open-source flight information and Russian media reporting has revealed.
Russia has repeatedly tried to compromise Signal, a popular commercial messaging platform that many were shocked to learn senior Trump administration officials had used to discuss sensitive military planning.
Witkoff arrived in Moscow shortly after noon local time on March 13, according to data from the flight tracking website FlightRadar24, and Russian state media broadcast video of his motorcade leaving Vnukovo International Airport shortly after. About 12 hours later, he was added to the "Houthi PC small group" chat on Signal, along with other top Trump administration officials, to discuss an imminent military operation against the Houthis in Yemen, according to The Atlantic magazine editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who was included on the chat for reasons that remain unclear.
U.S. lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, have questioned the use of the commercial communications platform for the conversation, which Goldberg revealed Monday in his own report for The Atlantic.
That's pretty clear cut and it does not speak well for the head of a US 'intelligence' agency to not know that fact when appearing before a Senate Committee to provide testimony.
But he obviously had a lot on his mind and well he should. And since the CIA Director was so addled and confused when appearing before the Committee, let's note this from the same CBS NEWS report:
During the group discussion on Signal, Goldberg reported, Ratcliffe named an active CIA intelligence officer in the chat at 5:24 p.m. eastern time, which was just after midnight in Russia. Witkoff's flight did not leave Moscow until around 2 a.m. local time, and Sergei Markov, a former Putin advisor who is still close to the Russian president, said in a Telegram post that Witkoff and Putin were meeting in the Kremlin until 1:30 a.m.
Having outed a CIA operative in the chat himself, the CIA Director is clearly under stress. A smart stress relief? Finding a new job, one you're actually qualified for. Possibly an underwear model for products geared towards middle-aged men?
Now when she covered this security breach on her MSNBC program Monday, Rachel Maddow noted that this security breach can impact intelligence other countries want to share with us. This security breach could result in them not wanting to share since the message being sent is that the US intelligence leaders are too damn stupid to follow basic security protocols that have long been in place to protect information from falling into the wrong hands.
So we're going to stay with the Senate and stay with a hearing from yesterday, but this is from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The Committee was hearing from the three nominees: Reed Rubinstein to be Legal Advisor for the State Dept, Kevin Cabrera to be the US Ambassador to Panama and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to be the US Ambassador to Israel. From that hearing, we're noting this exchange:
Senator Cory Booker: The second question that I have is that THE JERUSAALEM POST reported that the Trump administration's pivot to Russia is making our allies -- including Israel -- wary of sharing intelligence -- fearing that doing so could expose their assets. There's precedent for this concern. On May 10, 2017, while meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador to Washington in the Oval Office, Trump shared intelligence about an Islamic State threat with specifics that came from a spy embedded in the terrorist group on behalf of Israel. The Israel press reported that Trump's leak had placed that person's life at risk and cut off Israel from his intel. Now fast-forward, yesterday we learned that the highest ranking officials in the Trump administration -- including the National Security Advisor, the head of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State and others discussed sensitive and imminent military operations in a commercial, unclassified messaging app and accidentally included a reporter in that chat. This seems to be a pattern and practice of the administration to be using unclassified platforms for these kind of communications. So I deeply value our relationship with Israel. I know you do. Does it concern you that our close allies are now hesitant to share intelligence because they fear the Trump and its top intelligence officials can't be trusted and are continuing to give evidence to that effect.
Former Governor Mike Huckabee: Senator, with appreciation for the question, I can only tell you that I've seen some news reports but not detailed and I have no knowledge of what has actually happened. If confirmed, I will work diligently with the president and all of my colleagues to, uh, ensure that there is integrity in all that is done. And I have confidence the president will charge me with that responsibility.
Yes, Donald Chump already had a bad image when it came to classified and secret information -- a bad image that also includes his questionable storage of top secret and classified papers at his tacky Florida whorehouse. And this latest scandal? Doesn't help anyone to trust that he can handle intelligence that needs to be closely guarded.
Lets go back to the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing and we'll note this exchange between Senator Jack Reed and Director John Radcliffe and this is regarding what the witnesses claim was in the thread -- that they can remember -- as opposed to what's really in the thread which Goldberg could release to settle the matter. ("I don't feel I can answer that question here," Tulsi Gabbard told Senator Mark Kelly earlier in the hearing.).
Senator Jack Reed: One further point, if you are not
aware of any classified information on the-the discussions back and forth,
would it be appropriate for the author [Jeffrey Goldberg] to release the entire text of
what he heard or transcribed?
Director John Radcliffe: I think the author has released -- my understanding
essentially, almost all of the information as it’s been related to me. I
don’t know what calculation the author made with regard to what
information would be released or not --
Senator Jack Reed: Well he --
Director John Radcliffe: -- but again, I can again confirm
that with respect to the communications that were related as to me,
there was no classified information.
Senator Jack Reed: According to the article, quote, "the message contained information
that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence
operations," and the author did not disclose that information. So the question would be if he disclosed everything he heard, in your view --
Director John Radcliffe:: That wouldn’t be classified information. I know the
context of what that is, and I think the author said "might be
interpreted as related to intelligence information." It was not classified information.
Senator Jack Reed: So it goes back to my point, if he released all this
information he did not release, he could do so without any liability at
the federal level.
Director John Radcliffe:: I think you’re asking for a legal -- a legal answer that I’m not able to give you --
Why were you discussing these events on Signal? That's a question Senator Jack Reed asked the witnesses. It's a good question. A possible answer? Josh Marshall (TPM) explains:
Especially
in the national security domain, many things the government does have
to remain secret. Sometimes those things remain secret for years or
decades. But they’re not secrets from the U.S. government. The U.S.
government owns all those communications, all those facts of its own
history. Using a Signal app like this is hiding what’s happening from
the government itself. And that is almost certainly not an unintended
byproduct but the very reason for the use. These are disappearing
communications. They won’t be in the National Archives. Future
administrations won’t know what happened. There also won’t be any
records to determine whether crimes were committed.
This
all goes to the fundamental point Trump has never been able to accept:
that the U.S. government is the property of the American people and it
persists over time with individual officeholders merely temporary
occupants charged with administering an entity they don’t own or
possess.
Think this is hyperbole? Remember that
when Trump held his notorious meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki
in 2019 he confiscated his translator’s notes and ordered him not to
divulge anything that had been discussed. Remember that Trump got
impeached over an extortion plot recorded in the government record of
his phone call with President Zelensky. An intelligence analyst
discovered what had happened and decided he needed to report the
conduct. These aren’t hypotheticals. They’ve already happened. And he’s
even been caught. Which is probably one reason there’s so much use of
Signal.
Graff
added, in reference to the group chat, “This is clearly not a Signal
thread that anyone had any intention of preserving — as they are legally
required to do! — under federal records law.”
Oddly
enough, at least one member of the White House’s team seemed vaguely
aware of all of this. According to The Atlantic’s reporting, the Signal
group chat started on March 13. One day later, Director of National
Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — one of the officials included in the group —
published a tweet that read, “Any unauthorized release of classified
information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such.”
If anyone is sacrificed, some are saying Chump will place Pete on the alter. Matthew Chapman (RAW STORY) reports:
The
fallout from the explosive scandal of high-ranking military and
intelligence officials in the Trump administration leaking highly
classified war plans to a reporter in an unsecured Signal group chat
continues to spread — but President Donald Trump is firmly standing
behind National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, saying that he "learned his
lesson."
But Trump seems more keen to defend Waltz than he does Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, according to onlookers.
"Why
is everyone in MAGA going after Waltz when it was @PeteHegseth @SecDef
that sent all the classified stuff?" posted former Rep. Adam Kinzinger
(R-IL), a longtime conservative critic of the president.
In
fact, some sources and Trump insiders say there might be a very good
reason for that, which is that Trumpworld and the GOP at large would
rather, if worst comes to worst, Hegseth be set up to take the fall
while Waltz escapes unblemished.
"A Trump ally
told me that the discussion right now is over whether Pete Hegseth will
need a pardon ... not Waltz, even if he becomes the fall guy," wrote
investigative political reporter Tara Palmeri.
Some see Walz as a type and think being part of 'the club' will protect Walz. Dasha Burns, Rachael Bade and Eli Stokols (POLITICO) note:
A
senior administration official told POLITICO on Monday afternoon that
they are involved in multiple text threads with other administration
staffers on what to do with Waltz, following the bombshell report that
the top aide inadvertently included Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey
Goldberg in a private chat discussing a military strike on Houthis.
“Half
of them are saying he’s never going to survive or shouldn’t survive,”
said the official, who like others was granted anonymity to discuss
internal deliberation. And two high-level White House aides have floated
the idea that Waltz should resign in order to prevent the president
from being put in a “bad position.”
“It was
reckless not to check who was on the thread. It was reckless to be
having that conversation on Signal. You can’t have recklessness as the
national security adviser,” the official said.
Senator Jon Ossoff's exchange got a lot of media attention. We'll note this C-SPAN clip that the senator posted to YOUTUBE.
Some can't do anything right.
Take Politics of Destruction Rashida Tlaib -- the Socialist in the House of Representatives.
Because she is just that damn stupid.
She really is.
This is not about the politics of the strike or was it right or wrong.
You can certainly have that hearing.
This was about the US government failing to secure a chat that was a live chat about an impending strike the US government was carrying out.
Many have noted that Chump's intelligence choices were not up for the job -- noted it before they were confirmed. We've now got one example making the very clear.
That's what we're talking about now. And it matters because there can't be a next time.
Rashida Tlaib really needs to go somewhere and sit down. She's one of the most hated people in the country and she's earned that hate. Her stupidity means no one pays much attention to her.
For a discussion of the actual issues at play, you can refer to the below video where Ben spoke with Susan Rice.
Let's turn to some good news. Alien Musk continues to fade and disappear Khaleda Rahman (NEWSWEEK) reports:
Elon Musk's approval rating is "falling through the floor" among Democrats, according to CNN's chief data analyst Harry Enten.
Enten
said on Monday's CNN News Central that Musk's net favorable rating has
dropped from +24 to -19 overall from 2017 to 2025, and that his change
in favorability rating among Democrats has been even more significant in
that period.
[. . .]
The
billionaire entrepreneur and Tesla owner is leading the Department of
Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been tasked by Republican
President Donald Trump with slashing federal spending and shrinking the
federal workforce.
The "special government
employee" has spearheaded mass layoffs and terminations of federal
contracts, as well as the dismantling of federal agencies, including the
U.S. Agency of International Development. Musk's actions have sparked a
backlash, with demonstrators gathering outside Tesla showrooms for
nonviolent protests. Meanwhile, Tesla vehicles and property have been
vandalized and destroyed across the country.
Many are fleeing the train wreck that is South African-born Alien Musk. Zoë Bernard (BUSINESS INSIDER) reports:
Two
months into Donald Trump's second term, conservative leaders in the
tech industry — some of whom are advising the administration — are in a
state of turmoil. They are bristling at how the president's chaotic
governing, unusual even by the standards of Trump 1.0, is making it
increasingly difficult to run their companies.
"None
of my friends who voted for Trump are happy right now. Everyone is
annoyed," says Reggie James, the founder of Eternal, a new-media company
backed by Andreessen Horowitz. "When tech people got involved in the
government, they thought Trump was going to take more of a surgical
approach and act less like a wrecking ball."
Several
Silicon Valley executives I spoke to — some of whom requested anonymity
for fear of retribution — echoed this sense of disappointment, in
particular at the havoc the Department of Government Efficiency has
wreaked throughout the federal government. "We were all on board for a
more business-friendly presidency, but in the end, the whole industry of
crypto and AI got rug pulled," says the partner of a top-tier venture
firm directly involved in the Trump administration. "The people
surrounding Trump are all scamsters. They are getting rich off our
votes, our dollars, and our time."
While
his right-wing superiors flee from him -- they aren't cronies, Musk
doesn't invent, he buys and then ruins -- others are wiping their hands
of Musk for good. Antonio Pequeño IV (FORBES) explains:
Elon
Musk’s X, formerly known as Twitter, has experienced a dropoff in U.S.
user traffic since November’s presidential election, while rival social
media platform Bluesky’s traffic has increased since then, according to
data from digital market intelligence company Similarweb, though X is
still significantly more popular than its competitor.
X’s
daily web visits (calculated on a month-by-month basis) are down an
average of 8.4% compared to November, after briefly spiking during the
election and largely plateauing in the proceeding days, while average
daily active users per month on the platform are down 7.2% to 25 million
in that same window of time, according to Similarweb.
Meanwhile,
Bluesky maintained a post-election boom in daily web visits and daily
active users (calculated on a month-by-month basis), with Similarweb
reporting average daily web visits are up 21.5% compared to November
while average daily active users are up 2.3% to 1.5 million.
Bluesky
has mostly managed to keep its number of daily active users above 1.5
million since the election, marking a roughly threefold jump since the
start of November, when active users numbered around 540,000.
Meanwhile TAG24's Rey Harris reports:
The
FBI under President Donald Trump has now set up a task force to take on
threats against Tesla, the electric vehicle company owned by his top
adviser Elon Musk.
On Monday, recently appointed FBI director Kash Patel confirmed the news of the task force in an X post.
"The
FBI has been investigating the increase in violent activity toward
Tesla, and over the last few days, we have taken additional steps to
crack down and coordinate our response," Patel wrote.
I'm
sorry but I'm confused. First off, wasn't Musk tasked with saving the
government money? Why are we catering to him with a task force?
Am
I mistaken or wasn't he the richest hate monger on the face of the
planet? Why does he need US tax payers to foot the bill for a task
force for him?
I
didn't whine or object when Donald Chump cut off security for Hunter
Biden. He never should have had it to begin with. He wasn't a
president. And having the Secret Service protect him led to so many
problems. They knew about the hookers, for example. That's not law
enforcement. Looking the other way while someone's doing drugs or doing
hookers or doing both.
No.
That's
not what our tax dollars are for. I don't like John Bolton but if
someone can make an argument for why he needs secret service protection,
do so. There may be a reason.
But
whether the kid's last name is Chump or Biden or Obama or what have
you, no, it's not the job of the American taxpayer to foot the bill for
this nonsense. And that's before you factor in that most of these
people -- like Musk himself -- can more than handle the expense of a
bodyguards.
Musk
was supposed to protect our tax dollars -- that was the lie. And now
we're having to fork over money to protect him and his product?
It's not just bad economics, it's also unethical. But that's this administration every single day:
Just
a week after President Donald Trump stood in front of the White House
lawn to participate in a sales pitch for Elon Musk’s Tesla cars, a
member of his cabinet has now made a second plea for the American people
to buy into the ailing company.
U.S. Commerce
Secretary Howard Lutnick said on Wednesday that the stock for the brand
owned by Trump’s biggest financial donor (that is set for a ninth
straight weekly decline) will “never be this cheap” and that people
should “buy Tesla”. The shocking pitch from the man who himself owns
Tesla stock through his brokerage form Cantor Fitzgerald, has sparked
debate as to whether or not his comments were illegal.
“When
people understand the things he’s building, the robots he’s building,
the technology he’s building,” Lutnick told FOX, “people are going to be
dreaming of today.”
Ethics experts have picked
up on the comments and say that Lutnick, a cryptocurrency enthusiast
who appeared on Trump’s reality show ‘The Apprentice’ before being
appointed as U.S. Commerce Secretary, broke a 1989 law prohibiting
federal employees from using “public office for private gain” which
includes a ban on “endorsements.”
We were going to cover immigration but the snapshot's already too long, we'll try to grab the topic tomorrow.
The following sites updated:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bottled Blond Bimbo Bondi8 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
Donald is the devil8 hours ago
-
Shrimp Paella in the Kitchen8 hours ago
-
-
-
-
