Posts

Spread the love

The Karolinska Institutet in Sweden has declared that once-lauded surgeon Paolo Macchiarini and three co-authors committed misconduct in a 2015 paper.

The decision by KI’s vice chancellor will be followed by a request to retract the paper, published by the journal Respiration.

In the paper, the researchers described the case of a man with an acute lung disorder, in which he received an experimental treatment involving the use of his own blood-derived cells and the drug erythropoietin, which stimulates the production of red blood cells. The patient “demonstrated an immediate, albeit temporary, clinical improvement,” according to the authors. However, he ultimately died of multisystem organ failure.

Among the 26 co-authors on the paper, KI declared that last author Macchiarini, first author Philipp Jungebluth, and two middle authors had committed misconduct over the course of this project. The KI release, issued yesterday, did not specify the nature of the misdeeds.

Autologous Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells as Treatment in Refractory Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome” has been cited twice since it was published in 2015, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.

KI has investigated Macchiarini before. Although in 2015 the university initially decided he had not committed misconduct, the following year, it reopened its investigation. He was dismissed from KI in March 2016. Months later, KI declared Macchiarini and three co-authors committed misconduct in a 2014 paper published by Nature Communications paper, which was eventually retracted. (For more on this ever-updating story, see our timeline.)

Jungebluth was among the three co-authors flagged in the probe into the 2014 Nature Communications paper. The other two authors, Sebastian Sjöqvist and Mei Ling Lim, were listed as co-authors on the 2015 Respiration paper, as well, but yesterday’s announcement identified the other two responsible authors as Bernhard Holzgraefe and Håkan Kalzén.

Professor Anders Ekbom, acting pro-vice chancellor at KI, told Retraction Watch this is the first time the institute has investigated this paper, and each of the 26 co-authors was investigated individually.  According to yesterday’s release:

None of the researchers who have been found guilty of scientific misconduct are employed by Karolinska Institutet and therefore they will not be subject to any disciplinary measures under employment legislation.

Although Kalzén has a page associated with KI, Ekbom explained he is affiliated with KI as a graduate student, but “he has never been employed, he is employed by the Karolinska University Hospital.”

Yesterday’s announcement concludes:

A decision is expected from the Vice-Chancellor in the spring regarding scientific misconduct relating to six articles of which Paolo Macchiarini was the main author. These include an article published in The Lancet describing the transplantation of a synthetic prosthesis into human trachea.

In October, the Expert Group on Scientific Misconduct at Sweden’s Central Ethical Review Board recommended retracting six papers co-authored by Macchiarini, including The Lancet paper; the Respiration paper was not on that list.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].


VISIT THE SOURCE ARTICLE
Author: Alison McCook || retractionwatch.com

Spread the love

The stock market was rattled by news of a bigfoot new entrant in healthcare, slowly coming up the horizon … thud … thud … like Godzilla, stomping everything in its path.

Investor’s Business Daily, in its editorial, noted the that that reaction to the news that Amazon was teaming up with Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase was the sign of a disruptive force in the market, writing:

The immediate reaction of the stock market to the news that Amazon is teaming up with Berkshire Hathaway (BRKB) and JPMorgan Chase (JPM) to form a new health care company suggests that this is a transformative event. It is in one sense.

The editorial makes the point that the new venture, in a free market, may or may not succeed, and must avoid socialist pitfalls. As the editorial page writers there have a strong grasp of market dynamics and the way companies behave, the piece is well worth reading.

For me, (and full disclosure, I used to write for IBD), what’s vivid is the flip side of this. We seem to be in for a healthcare spring.

Suddenly, a new player, with new ideas, and new innovations, is entering the markets.

Did anything like this ever happen under Obamacare? Actually, it would never have been possible with Obamacare. Obamacare stifled innovation, customer service, added value and everything in healthcare, that, out in retail land, made Amazon great. And now the end of the Obamacare mandate opens the door to improvement. In hindsight, the effect is obvious.

After all, the new venture was announced just after the GOP tax cut, which not cut the corporate rate to 21%, and most significantly, it freed consumers from the nightmare of Obamacare with its detested mandate, as President Trump noted in his State of the Union address last night. That mandate was in fact, a poverty tax on the middle class and working poor people who could not afford Obamacare plans. Paying that poverty tax prevented them from buying anything else in the health care market that might work better for them.

Now, the nightmare is over and new companies are springing up, far freer to provide the services customers want and cut costs that drive premiums up and customers away.

The mandate forced unwilling buyers into Obamacare programs run by just a few corporate giants, whether they liked it or not. They were a captive audience, everyone knew it, and thus, the trapped consumers could be jerked around because companies (and their government allies) set the terms. That was one reason why health care costs kept going up and up, and available services kept going down. As buyers quit anyway and went without health insurance, costs went even higher. It was as bad a system as was possible to be, and it encouraged health insurance providers to entrench themselves in their privileges with no incentives to change. They were like a nomenklatura, an elect, an elite, same as in the Soviet Union. Consumers had absolutely no input, given that the Obamacare mandate forced them to participate or be fined.

Now those customers have a potential choice. According to the New York Times report on the matter, which is full of good tidbits, JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimond believes the new non-profit being set up could move beyond being merely a company vehicle for health care insurance (which these companies already provide), and in time become available for everyone, presumably if they get it right. The Times notes that if the model is successful, competitors will follow and they may make it to the broader market before Amazon.

As for the new beast itself, all eyes are on what it will be like.

Amazon & Company seem to want it to be a non-profit, which may not be as bad as it sounds, given that health insurance and even health care itself is not an ordinary willing-buyer, willing-seller, market. Nobody actually wants to use the service they are buying, they only do if they have to, which is not an ordinary, straightforward market dynamic. And, health providers benefit when people get sick, which is not an ordinary market, which health insurers lose money if they have to pay for services, rather than gain. That someone’s loss is someone else’s gain is a tough dynamic in markets that normally operate on win-win. So non-profit, just as the Associated Press and educational establishments run on, is not out of the question, a company can still deliver a quality product on such terms and not be a complete charity.

American Thinker writer Joseph Smith has some knowledgable thoughts on how this might work out, too, in his blog piece here.

With the Republican tax cuts, and the end of the Obamacare mandate, suddenly everything is wide open. Amazon and its cohorts will offer a model. But so may others and people should be ready to see more. Meanwhile, existing health care companies will themselves be spurred to do better as competitors emerge, and some may succeed nicely. What we have here is a freer market and with freer markets, consumers benefit and more winning for everyone is in the works.

Had enough winning yet?

The stock market was rattled by news of a bigfoot new entrant in healthcare, slowly coming up the horizon … thud … thud … like Godzilla, stomping everything in its path.

Investor’s Business Daily, in its editorial, noted the that that reaction to the news that Amazon was teaming up with Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase was the sign of a disruptive force in the market, writing:

The immediate reaction of the stock market to the news that Amazon is teaming up with Berkshire Hathaway (BRKB) and JPMorgan Chase (JPM) to form a new health care company suggests that this is a transformative event. It is in one sense.

The editorial makes the point that the new venture, in a free market, may or may not succeed, and must avoid socialist pitfalls. As the editorial page writers there have a strong grasp of market dynamics and the way companies behave, the piece is well worth reading.

For me, (and full disclosure, I used to write for IBD), what’s vivid is the flip side of this. We seem to be in for a healthcare spring.

Suddenly, a new player, with new ideas, and new innovations, is entering the markets.

Did anything like this ever happen under Obamacare? Actually, it would never have been possible with Obamacare. Obamacare stifled innovation, customer service, added value and everything in healthcare, that, out in retail land, made Amazon great. And now the end of the Obamacare mandate opens the door to improvement. In hindsight, the effect is obvious.

After all, the new venture was announced just after the GOP tax cut, which not cut the corporate rate to 21%, and most significantly, it freed consumers from the nightmare of Obamacare with its detested mandate, as President Trump noted in his State of the Union address last night. That mandate was in fact, a poverty tax on the middle class and working poor people who could not afford Obamacare plans. Paying that poverty tax prevented them from buying anything else in the health care market that might work better for them.

Now, the nightmare is over and new companies are springing up, far freer to provide the services customers want and cut costs that drive premiums up and customers away.

The mandate forced unwilling buyers into Obamacare programs run by just a few corporate giants, whether they liked it or not. They were a captive audience, everyone knew it, and thus, the trapped consumers could be jerked around because companies (and their government allies) set the terms. That was one reason why health care costs kept going up and up, and available services kept going down. As buyers quit anyway and went without health insurance, costs went even higher. It was as bad a system as was possible to be, and it encouraged health insurance providers to entrench themselves in their privileges with no incentives to change. They were like a nomenklatura, an elect, an elite, same as in the Soviet Union. Consumers had absolutely no input, given that the Obamacare mandate forced them to participate or be fined.

Now those customers have a potential choice. According to the New York Times report on the matter, which is full of good tidbits, JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimond believes the new non-profit being set up could move beyond being merely a company vehicle for health care insurance (which these companies already provide), and in time become available for everyone, presumably if they get it right. The Times notes that if the model is successful, competitors will follow and they may make it to the broader market before Amazon.

As for the new beast itself, all eyes are on what it will be like.

Amazon & Company seem to want it to be a non-profit, which may not be as bad as it sounds, given that health insurance and even health care itself is not an ordinary willing-buyer, willing-seller, market. Nobody actually wants to use the service they are buying, they only do if they have to, which is not an ordinary, straightforward market dynamic. And, health providers benefit when people get sick, which is not an ordinary market, which health insurers lose money if they have to pay for services, rather than gain. That someone’s loss is someone else’s gain is a tough dynamic in markets that normally operate on win-win. So non-profit, just as the Associated Press and educational establishments run on, is not out of the question, a company can still deliver a quality product on such terms and not be a complete charity.

American Thinker writer Joseph Smith has some knowledgable thoughts on how this might work out, too, in his blog piece here.

With the Republican tax cuts, and the end of the Obamacare mandate, suddenly everything is wide open. Amazon and its cohorts will offer a model. But so may others and people should be ready to see more. Meanwhile, existing health care companies will themselves be spurred to do better as competitors emerge, and some may succeed nicely. What we have here is a freer market and with freer markets, consumers benefit and more winning for everyone is in the works.

Had enough winning yet?


VISIT THE SOURCE ARTICLE
Author:

Spread the love

Decoding syllables to show the limits of artificial intelligence
The (traditional) univariate analysis of MEG (magnetoencephalography) activity recorded in human subjects when they perform a simple task such as « did you hear BA or DA? », shows that the decision is encoded very early and very focally in the human brain. On the contrary, new decoding techniques of neuronal activity by machine-learning suggest that decisional information is present all over the brain. Building on the temporal precision of the MEG technique, we show that machine-decoding algorithms capture patterns of neuronal activity that follow the decision and, hence, do not reveal how our brain uses information contained in these patterns. Credit: UNIGE

For the last decade, researchers have been using machine learning to decode human brain activity. Applied to neuroimaging data, these algorithms can reconstitute what we see, hear, and even what we think. For example, they show that words with similar meanings are grouped together in zones in different parts of our brain. However, by recording brain activity during a simple task—whether one hears “BA” or “DA”—neuroscientists from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, and the Ecole normale supérieure (ENS) in Paris now show that the brain does not necessarily use the regions of the brain identified by machine learning to perform a task. These regions reflect the mental associations related to the task. While machine learning is thus effective for decoding mental activity, it is not necessarily effective for understanding the specific information processing mechanisms in the brain. The results are available in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Modern neuroscientific data techniques have recently showed that the brain spatially organises the portrayal of word sounds, which researchers were able to map by region of activity. UNIGE neuroscientists thus asked how these spatial maps are used by the brain itself when it performs specific tasks. “We have used all the available human neuroimagery techniques to try to answer this question,” says Anne-Lise Giraud, a professor at the Department of Basic Neurosciences of the UNIGE Faculty of Medicine.

UNIGE neuroscientists had 50 people listen to a continuum of syllables ranging from “BA” to “DA.” The central phonemes were ambiguous and it was difficult to distinguish between the two options. They then used a functional MRI and magnetoencephalography to see how the brain behaves when the acoustic stimulus is clear or when it is ambiguous and requires an active mental representation of the phoneme and its interpretation by the brain. “We have observed that regardless of how difficult it is to classify the syllable that was heard, between ‘BA’ and ‘DA,’ the decision always engages a small region of the posterior superior temporal lobe,” says Anne-Lise Giraud.

Neuroscientists then double-checked their results on a patient with an injury in the specific region of the posterior superior temporal lobe used to distinguish between “BA” and “DA.” “And indeed, although the patient did not appear to have symptoms, he was no longer able to distinguish between the ‘BA’ and ‘DA’ phonemes … this confirms that this small region is important in processing this type of phoneme ,” says Sophie Bouton, a researcher from Anne-Lise Giraud’s team.

But is the information on the identity of the syllable just locally present, or is it present more generally in the brain, as suggested by the maps produced via ? To answer this question, the neuroscientists reproduced the “BA” / “DA” task with people who have electrodes directly implanted in their brains for medical reasons. This technique can collect very focal neural activity. A univariate analysis made it possible to see which region of the brain was solicited during the task, electrode by electrode, contact by contact. Solely the contacts in the posterior superior temporal lobe were active, thus confirming the results of the Geneva study.

However, when a machine-learning algorithm was applied to all of the data, thus making a multivariate decoding of data possible, positive results were observed in the entire temporal lobe, and even beyond it. “Learning algorithms are intelligent but ignorant,” specifies Anne-Lise Giraud. “They are very sensitive and use all of the information in the signals. However, they do not allow us to know whether this information was used to perform the task, or if it reflects the consequences of this task—in other words, spreading information in our brain,” continues Valérian Chambon, researcher at the Departement d’études cognitives at the ENS. The mapped regions outside of the posterior superior temporal lobe are thus false positives, in a way. These regions retain information on the decision that the subject makes (“BA” or “DA”), but aren’t solicited to perform this .

This research offers a better understanding of how our portrays syllables and, by showing the limits of artificial intelligence in certain research contexts, fosters welcome reflection on how to interpret data produced by machine learning algorithms.


Explore further:
Voices and emotions: the forehead is the key

More information:
Sophie Bouton et al. Focal versus distributed temporal cortex activity for speech sound category assignment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2018). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1714279115



VISIT THE SOURCE ARTICLE

Decoding syllables to show the limits of artificial intelligence


Spread the love

The state of Illinois is in the worst financial mess of any state in the union. The state owes billions in unpaid bills to vendors – most of them small businesses. The pension system is underfunded and is a ticking time bomb getting ready to explode. The state income tax is among the highest in the nation, the recently “reformed” school funding formula heavily favors the Chicago public schools while shortchanging suburban and rural schools, and the state legislature proceeds as if nothing was wrong.

Democrats refused to enact any of Republican Governor Bruce Rauner’s reforms, which included pension reform, tax cuts for the middle class, and property tax reform. Rauner, looking to change the “pay to play” culture in Springfield, stood firm for his reforms. But Democrats refused to vote a state budget for two years. In the end, Democrats got their way and passed a budget with a hefty increase in taxes.

In short, the state is broke. But you’d never know it by listening to the front runners for the Democratic nomination for governor.

To a candidate, they are pushing spending schemes that are not only unrealistic, they are delusional considering the state’s financial condition. Universally, they would pay for the massive increase in spending by “taxing the rich.” If only. With 10,000 residents leaving the state every month, and businesses fleeing the state for friendlier climes, it’s an open question whether anyone rich enough to pay the tax increase will be left.

A recent debate among the candidates highlighted this disconnect from reality.

Chicago Tribune:

All of the candidates except Marshall favor replacing the state’s current 4.95 percent personal income-tax rate, which Democratic and Republican lawmakers raised last summer, with a graduated tax that would place a higher levy on higher incomes akin to the federal system. The change, which would require a voter-approved constitutional amendment, couldn’t be considered for at least two years.

Pritzker, Biss and Kennedy declined to specify the highest tax rate they would support on those making the most money, but Pritzker and Kennedy each said Illinois should adopt changes to the state’s tax code to grant additional tax credits to help the middle class until a graduated tax could be considered.

Among the top candidates, Biss is the only supporter of a financial transaction tax, known as the “LaSalle Street tax,” on individual transactions in Chicago’s financial and commodity exchanges. Such a tax, he said, could generate up to $8 billion.

But the transactions tax, long supported by the Chicago Teachers Union, is viewed as unlikely in an era of digitized trading in which exchanges could leave Chicago. The comment prompted a rebuke from Kennedy, who suggested Biss was trying to “promise something we can’t deliver.”

The major contenders also voiced wariness over state incentives and tax breaks to lure such companies as Amazon in its search for a second headquarters, though they didn’t offer specifics.

“It has become a race to the bottom, unfortunately, around the nation where municipalities and states are offering huge tax benefits to bring companies to their state,” Pritzker said. “Talent is what companies are looking for. We’ve got to invest in that.”

Biss said the incentive issue is central to “what kind of economy we’re trying to build” and that “large corporations that are famous enough to get a headline in the newspaper, that are big enough to hire the right lobbyists in Springfield, put their hands out. They get what they want.”

Said Kennedy: “I think bringing companies, buying them into the states is a terrible economic development philosophy.”

Chris Kennedy is the son of Robert Kennedy and is considered a long shot. This isn’t Massachusetts and Illinois Democrats are not Kennedy worshippers.

But Kennedy is right. Granting individual corporations massive tax breaks to lure them to the state is a terrible idea. Why not cut business taxes and create an investment friendly business environment. You might not get the Amazon headquarters. But you might get 100 smaller entities that will create far more jobs.

But Democrats won’t cut business taxes and it’s doubtful they could cut taxes for the middle class or raise them on the rich. Most Illinois residents know that state government hasn’t even tried to cut the budget, or reform the pension system that will cost taxpayers billions in the coming years. There won’t  be an attempt to get a constitutional amendment changing the tax rate on the ballot – certainly not in 2018 or 2020, and it’s extremely doubtful such an effort would succeed anyway.

You would think that reality, along with the state’s financial woes, would restrain Democrats from making wild promises about health care, education, and infrastructure. Wrong. They are proceeding as if the state’s coffers were full and penny pinching Rauner won’t spend money because he’s an evil white rich guy.

Rauner has his own political problems with a challenge from the right. State senator Jean Ives may not be a household name in the state – yet. But she is cashing in on Republican disillusionment with Rauner and anger that he gave in to Democrats on the budget. Put simply, Rauner has not delivered and many GOP voters in the state want to make him pay.

Rauner has, at least, a good chance of leaving office without going to jail – something that 4 of the last 7 Illinois governors failed to do. But the Democrats controlling the legislature know they have the upper hand and even if the governor is re-elected, it’s likely that his second term wouldn’t be any different from the first.

The state of Illinois is in the worst financial mess of any state in the union. The state owes billions in unpaid bills to vendors – most of them small businesses. The pension system is underfunded and is a ticking time bomb getting ready to explode. The state income tax is among the highest in the nation, the recently “reformed” school funding formula heavily favors the Chicago public schools while shortchanging suburban and rural schools, and the state legislature proceeds as if nothing was wrong.

Democrats refused to enact any of Republican Governor Bruce Rauner’s reforms, which included pension reform, tax cuts for the middle class, and property tax reform. Rauner, looking to change the “pay to play” culture in Springfield, stood firm for his reforms. But Democrats refused to vote a state budget for two years. In the end, Democrats got their way and passed a budget with a hefty increase in taxes.

In short, the state is broke. But you’d never know it by listening to the front runners for the Democratic nomination for governor.

To a candidate, they are pushing spending schemes that are not only unrealistic, they are delusional considering the state’s financial condition. Universally, they would pay for the massive increase in spending by “taxing the rich.” If only. With 10,000 residents leaving the state every month, and businesses fleeing the state for friendlier climes, it’s an open question whether anyone rich enough to pay the tax increase will be left.

A recent debate among the candidates highlighted this disconnect from reality.

Chicago Tribune:

All of the candidates except Marshall favor replacing the state’s current 4.95 percent personal income-tax rate, which Democratic and Republican lawmakers raised last summer, with a graduated tax that would place a higher levy on higher incomes akin to the federal system. The change, which would require a voter-approved constitutional amendment, couldn’t be considered for at least two years.

Pritzker, Biss and Kennedy declined to specify the highest tax rate they would support on those making the most money, but Pritzker and Kennedy each said Illinois should adopt changes to the state’s tax code to grant additional tax credits to help the middle class until a graduated tax could be considered.

Among the top candidates, Biss is the only supporter of a financial transaction tax, known as the “LaSalle Street tax,” on individual transactions in Chicago’s financial and commodity exchanges. Such a tax, he said, could generate up to $8 billion.

But the transactions tax, long supported by the Chicago Teachers Union, is viewed as unlikely in an era of digitized trading in which exchanges could leave Chicago. The comment prompted a rebuke from Kennedy, who suggested Biss was trying to “promise something we can’t deliver.”

The major contenders also voiced wariness over state incentives and tax breaks to lure such companies as Amazon in its search for a second headquarters, though they didn’t offer specifics.

“It has become a race to the bottom, unfortunately, around the nation where municipalities and states are offering huge tax benefits to bring companies to their state,” Pritzker said. “Talent is what companies are looking for. We’ve got to invest in that.”

Biss said the incentive issue is central to “what kind of economy we’re trying to build” and that “large corporations that are famous enough to get a headline in the newspaper, that are big enough to hire the right lobbyists in Springfield, put their hands out. They get what they want.”

Said Kennedy: “I think bringing companies, buying them into the states is a terrible economic development philosophy.”

Chris Kennedy is the son of Robert Kennedy and is considered a long shot. This isn’t Massachusetts and Illinois Democrats are not Kennedy worshippers.

But Kennedy is right. Granting individual corporations massive tax breaks to lure them to the state is a terrible idea. Why not cut business taxes and create an investment friendly business environment. You might not get the Amazon headquarters. But you might get 100 smaller entities that will create far more jobs.

But Democrats won’t cut business taxes and it’s doubtful they could cut taxes for the middle class or raise them on the rich. Most Illinois residents know that state government hasn’t even tried to cut the budget, or reform the pension system that will cost taxpayers billions in the coming years. There won’t  be an attempt to get a constitutional amendment changing the tax rate on the ballot – certainly not in 2018 or 2020, and it’s extremely doubtful such an effort would succeed anyway.

You would think that reality, along with the state’s financial woes, would restrain Democrats from making wild promises about health care, education, and infrastructure. Wrong. They are proceeding as if the state’s coffers were full and penny pinching Rauner won’t spend money because he’s an evil white rich guy.

Rauner has his own political problems with a challenge from the right. State senator Jean Ives may not be a household name in the state – yet. But she is cashing in on Republican disillusionment with Rauner and anger that he gave in to Democrats on the budget. Put simply, Rauner has not delivered and many GOP voters in the state want to make him pay.

Rauner has, at least, a good chance of leaving office without going to jail – something that 4 of the last 7 Illinois governors failed to do. But the Democrats controlling the legislature know they have the upper hand and even if the governor is re-elected, it’s likely that his second term wouldn’t be any different from the first.


VISIT THE SOURCE ARTICLE
Author:

Spread the love
The snowballing Volkswagen diesel experiment scandal keeps growing, being fuelled both by proven facts and suppositions. The lates addition to the unraveling puzzle is the claim that Volkswagen was also involved in human experiments.
Two German publications, the Süddeutsche Zeitung and Stuttgarter Zeitung, revealed at the beginning of the week a possible involvement of the carmaker in such an undertaking. The two publications claim 25 young and healthy human beings were asked and paid to participate in a diesel emissions related study.

The experiments are said to have taken place at an institute belonging to the University Clinic Aachen. The participants had to breath nitrogen dioxide, a component of diesel fumes linked, among other things, to heart attacks and lung cancer. The subjects were then medically examined for any side effects.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office condemned the test conducted by Volkswagen and asked the carmaker to make full disclosure surrounding its practices. Christian Schmidt, Germany’s transport minister, also condemned the tests, saying they only deepen the mistrust in the German automotive industry, especially after Monkeygate surfaced.

Animal rights organization Peta also reacted: ““There is nothing fair about condemning these complex, sensitive animals to suffer physical suffering and psychological torment in laboratories where they are caged and deprived of fresh air, sunshine, freedom of movement, the companionship of others, and just about everything else that makes any life worth living,” they said in a letter send to VW, according to The Independent.

On Tuesday, Volkswagen announced its decision to suspend Thomas Steg, General Representative of the Volkswagen Group and its chief lobbyist, for the duration of the investigation it has started. Officially, VW distances itself from the experiments and blames them on individual decisions, not on a company policy.

The monkey experiments that started this scandal has been commissioned by the European Research Group on Environment and Health in the Transport Sector, a group also included Daimler and BMW. Daimler also announced the start of an investigation into the matter.


VISIT THE SOURCE ARTICLE
Author:

… condemned the test conducted by Volkswagen and asked the carmaker to … to The Independent.
On Tuesday, Volkswagen announced its decision to suspend … Steg, General Representative of the Volkswagen Group and its chief lobbyist …

Spread the love
The mass layoffs at the motorcycle manufacturer are part of a growing wave of job losses, belying Trump’s claims of strength in the US economy.

VISIT THE SOURCE ARTICLE
Author:

Spread the love

The Madison Police Department recently detailed the success of its new drone team after effectively tightening the search area for a missing Madison nursing home patient through Unmanned Aircraft System technology.

UAS, more commonly known as drones, is a recent addition to the MPD, with June 1 marking the launch of the 11-person squad. By surveying land from an aerial position, Lieutenant Mike Hanson, team commander and estimated officers were able to reduce a search that would have taken hours on foot, to a 20-minute operation.

“We want to assist as often as we can as one more tool in the field for officers and supervisors to use,” Hanson said. “Either with documenting crime scenes, assisting with lost children, missing adults and criminals who are fleeing from us.”

MPD is also allowed to use UAS for surveying large crowd situations like the Mifflin Street Block Party and Freakfest for public safety, Hanson said.

For MPD, safety is ‘number one goal’ at FreakfestMadison Police Department Captain Jason Freedman outlined safety measures for Freakfest at a press conference held at the City County Read…

According to Hanson, the drone unit was called in more than 20 times in the second half of 2017. After arriving on the scene, it takes only three to four minutes for team members to get the UAS airborne and operational.

Officer Mike Love, who amassed 7,000 hours of aircraft piloting time over the past 40 years, went through the police academy at the age of 57 and later applied to join the newly forming drone team.

“I have been flying for a long time,” Love said. “This is an excellent use of that because I understand air space, and everything else that you need to when you’re operating the drone.”

Though the ACLU has voiced concerns regarding UAS’ potential to invade privacy rights, the drone team follows strict MPD guidelines that comply with FAA and the Department of Homeland Security regulations. Because of this, Hanson said he has not received a single complaint, which he believes is due to the department’s training and ethics.

Badger drone enthusiasts hope for new campus policyThe University of Wisconsin may modify rules concerning drones and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles on campus after the Federal Aviation Administration Read…

Going forward, MPD wishes to continue using this technology to more efficiently aid in various missions and crime scene investigations.

“It’s a great tool,” Love said. “I think we’re going to be able to use it to serve the residents of Madison and to really offer an opportunity to get help to people that are in need of it.”


VISIT THE SOURCE ARTICLE
Author:

Spread the love
The most popular Cisco transceiver modules have been announced end-of-sale and end-of-life. How to migrate to the new model? Read the following guide and info about the Legacy SFP Modules and the newest SFP Transceivers.
End-of-Sale Transceiver Modules Replacement Models
GLC-ZX-SM GLC-ZX-SMD
GLC-ZX-SM= GLC-ZX-SMD=
SFP-GE-Z GLC-ZX-SMD
SFP-GE-Z= GLC-ZX-SMD=
GLC-LH-SM GLC-LH-SMD
GLC-LH-SM= GLC-LH-SMD=
GLC-SX-MM GLC-SX-MMD
GLC-SX-MM= GLC-SX-MMD=
SFP-GE-L GLC-LH-SMD
SFP-GE-L= GLC-LH-SMD=
SFP-GE-S GLC-SX-MMD
SFP-GE-S= GLC-SX-MMD=
GLC-T GLC-TE
GLC-T++= GLC-TE++=
GLC-T= GLC-TE=
SFP-GE-T GLC-TE
SFP-GE-T= GLC-TE=

GLC-SX-MM vs. GLC-SX-MMD vs. GLC-SX-MM-RGD vs. SFP-GE-S

Legacy SFP Modules End of Sale

Legacy SFP modules and new SFP modules will coexist for a maximum period of 12-18 months; then legacy SFP modules will be end of sale.

Target EoS Date for Legacy SFP Modules

Legacy Product ID Target EoS date
GLC-SX-MM March 2013
SFP-GE-S March 2013
GLC-LH-SM March 2013
SFP-GE-L March 2013
GLC-ZX-SM October 2013
SFP-GE-Z October 2013
GLC-T TBD
SFP-GE-T TBD
SFP features on new Product IDs:
  • Backward compatible
  • Digital Optical Monitoring
  • UDI compliant
  • PbFree
  • Extended temperature range of operation (-5°C to 85°C)

From https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/interfaces-modules/transceiver-modules/product_bulletin_c25-681353.html

The Newest SFP Transceivers, Updated on January 24, 2018

SFP Transceivers
Model Number Transceiver Description
GLC-T= 1000BASE-T SFP transceiver module for Category 5 copper wire, RJ-45 connector
GLC-TE= 1000BASE-T SFP transceiver module for Category 5 copper wire, RJ-45 connector, Extended Temperature
GLC-SX-MM= 1000BASE-SX SFP transceiver module for MMF, 850-nm wavelength, dual LC/PC connector
GLC-LH-SM= 1000BASE-LX/LH SFP transceiver module for MMF and SMF, 1300-nm wavelength, dual LC/PC connector
GLC-ZX-SM= 1000BASE-ZX SFP transceiver module for SMF, 1550-nm wavelength, dual LC/PC connector
GLC-BX-D= 1000BASE-BX10 SFP module for single-strand SMF, 1490-nm TX/1310-nm RX wavelength, single LC/PC connector
GLC-BX-U= 1000BASE-BX10 SFP module for single-strand SMF, 1310-nm TX/1490-nm RX wavelength, single LC/PC connector
GLC-BX40-D-I 1000BASE-BX10 SFP module for single-strand SMF, 1550-nm TX/1310-nm RX wavelength, single LC/PC connector
GLC-BX40-U-I 1000BASE-BX10 SFP module for single-strand SMF, 1310-nm TX/1550-nm RX wavelength, single LC/PC connector
GLC-BX80-D-I 1000BASE-BX10 SFP module for single-strand SMF, 1570-nm TX/1490-nm RX wavelength, single LC/PC connector
GLC-BX80-U-I 1000BASE-BX10 SFP module for single-strand SMF, 1490-nm TX/1570-nm RX wavelength, single LC/PC connector
GLC-BX40-DA-I 1000BASE-BX10 SFP module for single-strand SMF, 1490-nm TX/1310-nm RX wavelength, single LC/PC connector
GLC-2BX-D= Dual-channel 1000BASE-BX10 SFP module for single-strand SMF, 1490-nm TX/1310-nm RX wavelength, two single LC/PC connectors
SFP-GE-S= 1000BASE-SX SFP transceiver module for MMF, 850-nm wavelength, extended operating temperature range and DOM support, dual LC/PC connector
SFP-GE-L= 1000BASE-LX/LH SFP transceiver module for MMF and SMF, 1300-nm wavelength, extended operating temperature range and DOM support, dual LC/PC connector
GLC-EX-SMD= 1000BASE-EX SFP transceiver module for SMF, 1310-nm wavelength, extended operating temperature range and DOM support, dual LC/PC connector
SFP-GE-Z= 1000BASE-ZX SFP transceiver module for SMF, 1550-nm wavelength, extended operating temperature range and DOM support, dual LC/PC connector
SFP-GE-T= 1000BASE-T SFP transceiver module for Category 5 copper wire, extended operating temperature range, RJ-45 connector
GLC-SX-MM-RGD 1000BASE-SX SFP transceiver module for MMF, 850-nm wavelength, industrial Ethernet, dual LC/PC connector
GLC-LX-SM-RGD 1000BASE-LX/LH SFP transceiver module for MMF and SMF, 1300-nm wavelength, industrial Ethernet, dual LC/PC connector
GLC-ZX-SM-RGD 1000BASE-ZX SFP transceiver module for SMF, 1550-nm wavelength, industrial Ethernet, dual LC/PC connector
GLC-SX-MMD= 1000BASE-SX SFP transceiver module for MMF, 850-nm wavelength, extended operating temperature range and DOM support, dual LC/PC connector
GLC-LH-SMD= 1000BASE-LX/LH SFP transceiver module for MMF and SMF, 1300-nm wavelength, extended operating temperature range and DOM support, dual LC/PC connector
GLC-ZX-SMD= 1000BASE-ZX SFP transceiver module for SMF, 1550-nm wavelength, dual LC/PC connector
SFP-GPON-B Gigabit passive optical network (GPON) Class B+ SFP OLT transceiver module, 1490-nm TX/1310-nm RX wavelength
SFP-GPON-B-I Gigabit passive optical network (GPON) Class B+ SFP OLT transceiver module, 1490-nm TX/1310-nm RX wavelength, industrial temperature range
SFP-GPON-C Gigabit passive optical network (GPON) Class C+ SFP OLT transceiver module, 1490-nm TX/1310-nm RX wavelength
SFP-GPON-C-I Gigabit passive optical network (GPON) Class C+ SFP OLT transceiver module, 1490-nm TX/1310-nm RX wavelength, industrial temperature range

 Get the Best Prices on Cisco Gigabit Ethernet Transceiver Modules

More Related

GLC-T vs. GLC-TE

Updated: Cisco Gigabit Ethernet Transceiver Modules for ASR 1000 Series Router

Cisco’s Next Generation Storage Networking Innovations

Catalyst 3XXX Series Supports 100-MB Ethernet SFP Transceiver Module Models

Updated: Something New on Cisco 4000 T1/E1 NIMs

Move to 40G Today? Yes!


VISIT THE SOURCE ARTICLE
Author: Yejian Technologies || Router Switch Blog

Spread the love

The Garden State appears to be returning to its days as a clean energy leader. Its new governor, Phil Murphy (D), signed an executive order on Monday mandating that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the state Board of Public Utilities begin the process of reentering the state into Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Within 30 days, the DEP will begin determining rules and guidelines necessary to facilitate New Jersey’s participation in the regional compact.

New Jersey’s status as a clean energy leader started to wane when former Gov. Chris Christie (R) took office in January 2010. His administration delayed progress on offshore wind and favored increased use of natural gas to generate energy. Most prominently, Christie withdrew New Jersey from the RGGI, a program that placed a regional cap on the amount of carbon that fossil-fuel-based power plants can emit.

By withdrawing from the program, New Jersey lost out on an estimated $279 million in revenue that it could have received as a result of participation in the initiative’s carbon budget trading program. New Jersey’s energy efficiency and clean energy efforts could have benefited from that revenue. As a result, from 2006 to 2016, the state fell to 24th from seventh on the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s energy-efficiency scorecard.

“Pulling out of RGGI slowed down progress on lowering emissions and has cost New Jerseyans millions of dollars that could have been used to increase energy efficiency and improve air quality in our communities,” Murphy said in a statement Monday. “With this executive order, New Jersey takes the first step toward restoring our place as a leader in the green economy.”

Under the Murphy administration, New Jersey also has submitted a motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to withdraw from litigation challenging the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, a rule to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The Christie administration had joined more than two dozen other states in litigation to stop implementation of the plan, claiming it overstepped federal authority and unfairly punished New Jersey. Following through on its campaign promise, the Trump administration announced in October it plans to repeal the Clean Power Plan.

New Jersey was a founding member of RGGI when it was launched in 2007. The state Global Warming Solutions Fund Act, enacted in 2008, provided New Jersey with the authority to create an allowance auction program and to reinvest the funds.

RGGI’s other founding states were Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. In the coming years, Virginia also is expected to forge a relationship with the regional compact. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) is moving forward with making the state carbon trading-ready, allowing the state to link to a multi-state carbon allowance trading program such as RGGI.

The RGGI carbon cap program represents a regional budget for carbon emissions generated by the power sectors in participating states. Participants can allocate, award, and transfer carbon allowances. Revenue is generated through quarterly auctions of these allowances. RGGI has raised more than $2.78 billion since the program started in 2007, which includes more than $1 billion in investments in energy efficiency and $270 million for clean and renewable energy investments.

“New Jersey has a long and proud history of being a leader on effective and innovative environmental policy,” Jeanne Herb, associate director of the Environmental Analysis and Communications Group at Rutgers University, said in an email to ThinkProgress. “While significant, rejoining RGGI is only one piece of that agenda. Having it proceed so early in the governor’s first few weeks is definitely sending a signal that, through implementation of a portfolio of actions, New Jersey is well on its way to becoming a leader in innovative climate change policy.”

Under state law, auction proceeds must be invested in a variety of ways to benefit consumers, including investment in clean energy efforts in the industrial and commercial sector; providing funds for consumers who struggle to keep up with energy costs; investment in actions at the municipal level that result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and investment in efforts to restore and steward forests and marshes that sequester carbon.

In addition to reducing carbon emissions, those investments could deliver other benefits, including creating clean energy jobs, building more livable communities, and increasing New Jersey’s capacity to adapt to a changing climate through natural systems restoration, Herb said.

On Monday, the clean energy campaign group ReThink Energy NJ said in a tweet that Murphy’s decision to rejoin RGGI represents a boost for the state’s “already growing clean energy economy.” According to a report released by the group last spring, 79 percent of all energy generation and efficiency jobs in New Jersey are in clean energy, with 41,000 jobs in solar, wind and energy efficiency.

Under Christie, the state’s focus on climate change may have waned, but the solar energy industry continued to thrive. In 2012, the Republican governor signed a bill into law intended to help expand and stabilize New Jersey’s robust solar industry. In 2017, New Jersey’s solar industry surpassed 80,000 solar projects, with a combined installed solar energy capacity exceeding 2.25 gigawatts. The state ranks fifth in the country in total installed solar capacity, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

And yet, Christie will be best remembered among clean energy advocates for his decision to leave RGGI. Prior to its departure from the pact, New Jersey participated in 14 carbon allowance auctions that brought in a total of $115 million that should have been reinvested in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, ratepayer relief, and forest and tidal marsh stewardship and restoration, said Marjorie Kaplan, associate director of Rutgers Climate Institute in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Roughly half of those funds were diverted by the Christie administration to other state programs, she said.

By now, New Jersey would have had the revenue from nine additional auctions to reinvest in such programs if the state had not left RGGI, according to Kaplan. Although the allowance prices fluctuate, the clearing price generally has been higher more recently than it was before New Jersey pulled out of RGGI in 2011, she said.

Once New Jersey rejoins RGGI, Kaplan said she would be surprised if funds again get diverted from their legislative intent, “as this issue has become more pronounced in New Jersey in recent years.” Upon signing the executive order on Monday, Murphy directed the state DEP to consider allocation of funds to communities disproportionately burdened by environmental exposures, she noted.

The governor’s decision to rejoin RGGI sends a signal that addressing climate change, Kaplan said, “while seemingly daunting, is a task where states can play a key role and by working together, can make a difference.”


VISIT THE SOURCE ARTICLE
Author: Mark Hand

Spread the love

The confirmation of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General by a lopsided 94-6 vote should have set off warning bells. It is odd that a Trump nominee would get much Democratic support, if any. But his role in appointing his buddy Robert Mueller to lead a bogus Russian collusion probe and his history of looking the other way when Hillary Clinton is involved shows the Democrats had high hopes for Rosenstein, hopes realized by actions documented in the four-page House Intelligence Committee memo:

A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it.

The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent…

The memo’s primary contention is that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge in initially seeking a warrant for surveillance of Mr. Page that they were relying in part on research by an investigator, Christopher Steele, that had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign

Steele’s discredited “research,” which relied heavily on input from Russian sources, was paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, which puts Rosenstein in the position of aiding the efforts of one political party to overturn the results of an election won by the other political party by okaying domestic spying on an American citizen.

When the newly departed Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified for seven hours before the House Intelligence Committee, he was unable to report that the FBI had corroborated anything in the Steele dossier, except for the fact that Carter Page had visited Russia:

Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump “dossier” and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier’s allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow.

Based on the flimsiest of evidence in a fake Russian dossier paid for by Democrats the surveillance of Carter Page began and was reauthorized by Rosenstein. Page has vehemently denied the allegations in the dossier and has sought the release of the memo to show its falseness and to show the DOJ of Rod Rosenstein and the FBI of Andrew McCabe colluded with the Democrats to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House:

The former Trump campaign adviser who was spied on by the U.S. government prior to the 2016 election is “very much” in favor of the release of a controversial congressional memo alleging abuses of the surveillance warrant application process…

Page pressed for the release the FISA application in a May 14 letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“If FISA warrants indeed exist as has been extensively reported, wide-ranging false evidence will be inevitably revealed in light of the fact that I have never done anything remotely unlawful in Russia or with any Russian person at any point in my life,” he wrote.

What remains unanswered about the application for the warrant on Page is how heavily it relied on the dossier and whether the FBI and DOJ vetted the allegations made about him by Steele…

Page has vehemently denied the allegations made against him in the dossier, which was put together by former British spy Christopher Steele, commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and financed by the Clinton campaign and DNC.

In the 35-page dossier, Steele alleges that Page was the Trump campaign’s main backchannel to the Kremlin for the purposes of campaign collusion. Steele claims that Page was working with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and that during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, he met secretly with two Kremlin cronies, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin.

The dossier also alleges that it was Page who “conceived and promoted” the idea of having hacked DNC emails released through WikiLeaks in order to swing Bernie Sanders supporters away from Hillary Clinton and into the Trump camp.

Page denies all of the claims. He says he does not know Manafort and has never spoken with Sechin and Diveykin.

Needless to say, Rosenstein did not grant Page’s request to see the FISA application to determine how much it was based on Steele’s fake dossier. Nor has he expressed any dissatisfaction with the Mueller witchhunt he was responsible for launching,

In an interview with a local D.C. TV station, Rosenstein admired the monster he created, who now runs an alleged investigation into supposed Russia-Trump collusion but which quickly morphed into what amounts to a silent coup against a sitting President of the United States:

The U.S. Department of Justice official who appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election said he is satisfied with the special counsel’s work…

“The Office of Special Counsel, as you know, has a degree of autonomy from the Department of Justice. But there is appropriate oversight by the department. That includes budget. But it also includes certain other details of the office. It is part of the Department of Justice. And we’re accountable for it.”

Yes, Mr. Rosenstein, you certainly are accountable for the Mueller witchhunt. Mueller has picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton’s Department of Justice. He has picked a bevy of Clinton donors, an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate assistant prosecutor, and even a senior advise to Eric Holder. Objective professionals all.

Oh, what tangled webs Rosenstein and the FBI have woven! Republican lawmakers, needless to say, are not amused at all this, casting the obvious doubts on Rosenstein’s praise of Special Counsel Mueller:

Several conservative lawmakers held a news conference Wednesday demanding more details of how the FBI proceeded last year in its probes of Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email and Russian election interference. This week, the conservative group Judicial Watch released an internal Justice Department email that, the group said, showed political bias against Trump by one of Mueller’s senior prosecutors….

“The question really is, if Mueller was doing such a great job on investigating the Russian collusion, why could he have not found the conflict of interest within their own agency?’’ Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) asked at the news conference. Meadows, leader of the Freedom Caucus, cited a litany of other issues that he said show bias on the part of the FBI and Mueller, including past political donations by lawyers on Mueller’s team.

A good question Rosenstein won’t answer. Rosenstein is satisfied with Mueller, and why shouldn’t he be? The two go back a long way and cooperated in the coverup of an FBI investigation into Russia’s use of bribes, kickbacks, and money laundering to grab U.S. uranium supplies and real collusion with Hillary Clinton, only to resurface years later to chase phantom collusion between Team Trump and Russia.

Mueller and Rosenstein were both involved in the FBI investigation dating back to 2009, with current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller up to their eyeballs in covering up evidence of Hillary’s collusion, bordering on treason, with Vladimir Putin’s Russia:

Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill…

John Solomon and Alison Spann of The Hill: Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show…

From today’s report we find out that the investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump.

Robert Mueller was head of the FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015.

If evidence of bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in the Uranium One affair were not grounds for a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, then what is? Rosenstein’s goal apparently has long been to shield Hillary Clinton from prosecution for her crimes and to use any means to bring down the Trump administration he supposedly was appointed to serve. Now he has stooped so low as to employ a fake Russian dossier in a witchhunt the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy could only envy

Rosenstein, Mueller, McCabe et al have used the office of special counsel and a politicized the FBI and DOJ to conduct a silent coup against a duly elected president and are unindicted coconspirators in Hillary’s crimes. They should be the targets of their very own special counsel.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. 

The confirmation of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General by a lopsided 94-6 vote should have set off warning bells. It is odd that a Trump nominee would get much Democratic support, if any. But his role in appointing his buddy Robert Mueller to lead a bogus Russian collusion probe and his history of looking the other way when Hillary Clinton is involved shows the Democrats had high hopes for Rosenstein, hopes realized by actions documented in the four-page House Intelligence Committee memo:

A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it.

The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent…

The memo’s primary contention is that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge in initially seeking a warrant for surveillance of Mr. Page that they were relying in part on research by an investigator, Christopher Steele, that had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign

Steele’s discredited “research,” which relied heavily on input from Russian sources, was paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, which puts Rosenstein in the position of aiding the efforts of one political party to overturn the results of an election won by the other political party by okaying domestic spying on an American citizen.

When the newly departed Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified for seven hours before the House Intelligence Committee, he was unable to report that the FBI had corroborated anything in the Steele dossier, except for the fact that Carter Page had visited Russia:

Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump “dossier” and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier’s allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow.

Based on the flimsiest of evidence in a fake Russian dossier paid for by Democrats the surveillance of Carter Page began and was reauthorized by Rosenstein. Page has vehemently denied the allegations in the dossier and has sought the release of the memo to show its falseness and to show the DOJ of Rod Rosenstein and the FBI of Andrew McCabe colluded with the Democrats to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House:

The former Trump campaign adviser who was spied on by the U.S. government prior to the 2016 election is “very much” in favor of the release of a controversial congressional memo alleging abuses of the surveillance warrant application process…

Page pressed for the release the FISA application in a May 14 letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“If FISA warrants indeed exist as has been extensively reported, wide-ranging false evidence will be inevitably revealed in light of the fact that I have never done anything remotely unlawful in Russia or with any Russian person at any point in my life,” he wrote.

What remains unanswered about the application for the warrant on Page is how heavily it relied on the dossier and whether the FBI and DOJ vetted the allegations made about him by Steele…

Page has vehemently denied the allegations made against him in the dossier, which was put together by former British spy Christopher Steele, commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and financed by the Clinton campaign and DNC.

In the 35-page dossier, Steele alleges that Page was the Trump campaign’s main backchannel to the Kremlin for the purposes of campaign collusion. Steele claims that Page was working with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and that during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, he met secretly with two Kremlin cronies, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin.

The dossier also alleges that it was Page who “conceived and promoted” the idea of having hacked DNC emails released through WikiLeaks in order to swing Bernie Sanders supporters away from Hillary Clinton and into the Trump camp.

Page denies all of the claims. He says he does not know Manafort and has never spoken with Sechin and Diveykin.

Needless to say, Rosenstein did not grant Page’s request to see the FISA application to determine how much it was based on Steele’s fake dossier. Nor has he expressed any dissatisfaction with the Mueller witchhunt he was responsible for launching,

In an interview with a local D.C. TV station, Rosenstein admired the monster he created, who now runs an alleged investigation into supposed Russia-Trump collusion but which quickly morphed into what amounts to a silent coup against a sitting President of the United States:

The U.S. Department of Justice official who appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election said he is satisfied with the special counsel’s work…

“The Office of Special Counsel, as you know, has a degree of autonomy from the Department of Justice. But there is appropriate oversight by the department. That includes budget. But it also includes certain other details of the office. It is part of the Department of Justice. And we’re accountable for it.”

Yes, Mr. Rosenstein, you certainly are accountable for the Mueller witchhunt. Mueller has picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton’s Department of Justice. He has picked a bevy of Clinton donors, an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate assistant prosecutor, and even a senior advise to Eric Holder. Objective professionals all.

Oh, what tangled webs Rosenstein and the FBI have woven! Republican lawmakers, needless to say, are not amused at all this, casting the obvious doubts on Rosenstein’s praise of Special Counsel Mueller:

Several conservative lawmakers held a news conference Wednesday demanding more details of how the FBI proceeded last year in its probes of Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email and Russian election interference. This week, the conservative group Judicial Watch released an internal Justice Department email that, the group said, showed political bias against Trump by one of Mueller’s senior prosecutors….

“The question really is, if Mueller was doing such a great job on investigating the Russian collusion, why could he have not found the conflict of interest within their own agency?’’ Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) asked at the news conference. Meadows, leader of the Freedom Caucus, cited a litany of other issues that he said show bias on the part of the FBI and Mueller, including past political donations by lawyers on Mueller’s team.

A good question Rosenstein won’t answer. Rosenstein is satisfied with Mueller, and why shouldn’t he be? The two go back a long way and cooperated in the coverup of an FBI investigation into Russia’s use of bribes, kickbacks, and money laundering to grab U.S. uranium supplies and real collusion with Hillary Clinton, only to resurface years later to chase phantom collusion between Team Trump and Russia.

Mueller and Rosenstein were both involved in the FBI investigation dating back to 2009, with current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller up to their eyeballs in covering up evidence of Hillary’s collusion, bordering on treason, with Vladimir Putin’s Russia:

Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill…

John Solomon and Alison Spann of The Hill: Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show…

From today’s report we find out that the investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump.

Robert Mueller was head of the FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015.

If evidence of bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in the Uranium One affair were not grounds for a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, then what is? Rosenstein’s goal apparently has long been to shield Hillary Clinton from prosecution for her crimes and to use any means to bring down the Trump administration he supposedly was appointed to serve. Now he has stooped so low as to employ a fake Russian dossier in a witchhunt the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy could only envy

Rosenstein, Mueller, McCabe et al have used the office of special counsel and a politicized the FBI and DOJ to conduct a silent coup against a duly elected president and are unindicted coconspirators in Hillary’s crimes. They should be the targets of their very own special counsel.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. 


VISIT THE SOURCE ARTICLE
Author: