this is what the statement was from usss. "Donald Trump, Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016. Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time," It ends any questions about if Trump himself attended, "the 8th person" and it raised the question did the usss screen trump tower visitors?
this is what the statement was from usss. "Donald Trump, Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016. Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time," It ends any questions about if Trump himself attended, "the 8th person" and it raised the question did the usss screen trump tower visitors?
Who have asked the question if Trump attended? That hasn't been up for any serious discussion? Not something I've seen atleast.
A few have mentioned it, but there's no way he was there. He doesn't do any real work because he sees himself as a ruler who expects his underlings to take care of the real business. He only meets with Kanye and Steve Harvey in his suite for tacos and chocolate cake.
In case anyone's interested, here's one of the statements Glenn Greenwald made on an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now on Friday, which I just finally had a chance to listen to. The topic at this point was the Donald Trump, Jr. emails. The link is to the full interview and transcript.
"GLENN GREENWALD: So here’s what I don’t understand about this. Certainly, it’s an interesting email. I’m glad that it surfaced. It does lend some credence to the possibility that the Trump administration colluded with the Russians criminally, meaning with their hacking of the DNC and Podesta emails, if in fact the Russians did that as the intelligence agencies claim, although they’ve produced no evidence for it. It is possible that the Trump administration or Trump officials colluded with the Russians to commit that crime. It’s possible they didn’t. We still haven’t seen any evidence that they have. Remember, this is not evidence suggesting that Trump officials actually colluded with the Russians to commit a crime—the hacking.
Now, what the Democrats are saying is that the Trump administration and their defenders in the media at Fox News and the like are, quote-unquote, "moving the goalposts" by saying, "Well, this only shows that Trump Jr. was willing to get information from the Russian government about Clinton, but it doesn’t show there was actual criminal collusion." To me, it seems as though the people who are moving the goalposts are the Democrats. The claim all along, the reason why there’s talk of impeachment, the reason why there is a special prosecutor, the reason why people want to see Trump and his associates criminally prosecuted, is because of the claim that they committed crimes by colluding with the Russians with regard to the hacking. That’s what Harry Reid has always said. That’s what John Podesta has always said. That has always been the Democratic claim. This newest evidence doesn’t in any way suggest that. What it suggests instead is that Donald Trump Jr. was told that the Russian government had incriminating evidence about Hillary Clinton and wanted to give it to him. And he said, "Well, I’d love to get it. I’d love to have it." Now, I guess there’s some sense that it’s wrong for a political campaign to take dirt on your adversary from a foreign government. I don’t think it’s illegal at all to do that, but there’s a claim that it’s somehow sort of immoral.
And here’s what I don’t understand. The Steele dossier that everybody got excited about, that claimed that the Russians had incriminating videos of Trump in a Moscow hotel and other dirt on Trump, that came from somebody who was getting first paid by Republicans and then by Democrats, going to Moscow and getting dirt about Donald Trump from Kremlin-affiliated agents in Moscow. In other words, he went to Russia, talked to people affiliated with the Russian government and said, "Give me dirt about Donald Trump," and then, presumably, got it and put it in the memo. Similarly, there’s an amazing Politico article from January of this year that describes how allies of the Clinton campaign, including somebody being paid by the DNC, met with officials of the Ukrainian government, which was desperate to help Hillary Clinton win and Donald Trump lose, and get information incriminating about Trump from Ukrainian officials. In other words, Ukraine was meddling in our election by giving Democrats incriminating information about Trump.
Now, I, personally, although it’s dirty, think all of these events are sort of the way politics works. Of course if you’re in an important campaign and someone offers you incriminating information about your opponent, you’re going to want it no matter where it comes from, whether it’s Ukrainian officials, whether it’s anti-Trump people in Moscow or whether it’s pro-Trump people in Moscow. So, I want to hear the standard that we’re supposed to use to assess Trump Jr.'s actions. Is it that it's wrong in all cases to get incriminating information about your opponent from a foreign government? In which case, why is it OK for the Democrats to do it with Ukrainian officials or for their investigator to go to Moscow and get dirt on Trump? Or is it some other standard that distinguishes what Trump Jr. did in this case versus what Democrats did with the Steele dossier and with Ukraine? And I just don’t see this distinction. "
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Great post Benjs, and very true. There's still no hard evidence of a crime being committed.
What we do have though, is a pattern of lies, denial & cover up from the Trump campaign. Why tell so many lies if there's nothing to hide? Trump would be wise to reveal all now rather than deal with the slow leaks that will no doubt come over time. (unless of course, he has something to hide)
Two key distinctions, assuming everything else Greenwald is saying is true (which we don't know) is that the head of the Trump campaign, his son and key surrogate, and his son-in-law who was also a surrogate and now the most important adviser, were in that meeting. If he doesn't see the difference between those jokers and "allies of the Clinton campaign" are different, well we can't help that. The second, most important key distinction, is that one set of actions is under a special investigator probe, the other is not. So there's that little nugget of importance.
Two key distinctions, assuming everything else Greenwald is saying is true (which we don't know) is that the head of the Trump campaign, his son and key surrogate, and his son-in-law who was also a surrogate and now the most important adviser, were in that meeting. If he doesn't see the difference between those jokers and "allies of the Clinton campaign" are different, well we can't help that. The second, most important key distinction, is that one set of actions is under a special investigator probe, the other is not. So there's that little nugget of importance.
Also, the Steele dossier wasn't used by the Clinton campaign during the election.
Greenwald doesn't have very much credibility anymore as far as I'm concerned. He is bending over backwards to make this seem okay.
Two key distinctions, assuming everything else Greenwald is saying is true (which we don't know) is that the head of the Trump campaign, his son and key surrogate, and his son-in-law who was also a surrogate and now the most important adviser, were in that meeting. If he doesn't see the difference between those jokers and "allies of the Clinton campaign" are different, well we can't help that. The second, most important key distinction, is that one set of actions is under a special investigator probe, the other is not. So there's that little nugget of importance.
Also, the Steele dossier wasn't used by the Clinton campaign during the election.
Greenwald doesn't have very much credibility anymore as far as I'm concerned. He is bending over backwards to make this seem okay.
You are absolutely right. In fact, the dossier made it to Obama. They thought it was a joke, if I remember correctly.
Two key distinctions, assuming everything else Greenwald is saying is true (which we don't know) is that the head of the Trump campaign, his son and key surrogate, and his son-in-law who was also a surrogate and now the most important adviser, were in that meeting. If he doesn't see the difference between those jokers and "allies of the Clinton campaign" are different, well we can't help that. The second, most important key distinction, is that one set of actions is under a special investigator probe, the other is not. So there's that little nugget of importance.
Also, the Steele dossier wasn't used by the Clinton campaign during the election.
Greenwald doesn't have very much credibility anymore as far as I'm concerned. He is bending over backwards to make this seem okay.
You are absolutely right. In fact, the dossier made it to Obama. They thought it was a joke, if I remember correctly.
Yeah, I remember hearing something about Biden laughing about it.
I don't think Greenwald is objective about any of this due to his involvement with the Snowden revelations. He's had an axe to grind ever since.
He also makes no mention that the Steele Dossier was begun by the Dems, dropped and then picked up by republican opposition researchers. Further, no mention of Comey's firing, sessions' recusal, the ding bat house committee member's recusal, failure to disclose contacts, etc. Its basically one supposition that, "we haven't seen any evidence of illegality so it's nothing." Mueller will get to the bottom of it. Oh Jared dear boy, oh Jared?
Follow the money from Russia with love all the way to impeachment.
The trump admins desperate attempt to woo the republican congress to pull back on Russia sanctions was a desperate attempt to deliver on some of the quid pro quo. The Trump team never thought any of this would ever come to light. Gee, I wonder what's on those wire taps of Trump Tower?
The evidence of absence is not the absence of evidence. And who's the 8th person at the Trump Tower meeting and why weren't all the attendees previously disclosed? Oh Jared dear boy, bring me my slippers.
In a a nine-month inquiry that subpoenaed bank records, the investigators found that an unknown number of Russians and other East Europeans moved more than $1.4 billion through accounts at Citibank of New York and the Commercial Bank of San Francisco.
The accounts had been opened by Irakly Kaveladze, who immigrated to the United States from Russia in 1991, according to Citibank and Mr. Kaveladze. He set up more than 2,000 corporations in Delaware for Russian brokers and then opened the bank accounts for them, without knowing who owned the corporations, according to the report by the General Accounting Office, which has not been made public.
this is what the statement was from usss. "Donald Trump, Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016. Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time," It ends any questions about if Trump himself attended, "the 8th person" and it raised the question did the usss screen trump tower visitors?
Does that negate the fact that for the last yr his campaign stated over & over no meetings with any Russians period .
this is what the statement was from usss. "Donald Trump, Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016. Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time," It ends any questions about if Trump himself attended, "the 8th person" and it raised the question did the usss screen trump tower visitors?
Does that negate the fact that for the last yr his campaign stated over & over no meetings with any Russians period .
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
Two key distinctions, assuming everything else Greenwald is saying is true (which we don't know) is that the head of the Trump campaign, his son and key surrogate, and his son-in-law who was also a surrogate and now the most important adviser, were in that meeting. If he doesn't see the difference between those jokers and "allies of the Clinton campaign" are different, well we can't help that. The second, most important key distinction, is that one set of actions is under a special investigator probe, the other is not. So there's that little nugget of importance.
Also, the Steele dossier wasn't used by the Clinton campaign during the election.
Greenwald doesn't have very much credibility anymore as far as I'm concerned. He is bending over backwards to make this seem okay.
You are absolutely right. In fact, the dossier made it to Obama. They thought it was a joke, if I remember correctly.
Yeah, I remember hearing something about Biden laughing about it.
I don't think Greenwald is objective about any of this due to his involvement with the Snowden revelations. He's had an axe to grind ever since.
I actually remember exactly when that happened. Biden had a press conference of sorts and told the press how he had "showed the dossier to Obama. Obama laughed and shrugged 'What does this have to do with anything?' "
I talked to my parents about it that night. It seemed to me that Obama wanted it to get out that he thought there was nothing to it yet. How could Obama say "What does this have to do with anything?" months after the election, and just as news was piling up about the Russia connections. Even if the dossier were completely fake, that seems like an odd response for Obama to have made.
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
B and C. However, it has been at least alluded to there being false emails added into the dump as well as real emails removed from the dump. When including that fact, it changes to answer A.
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
B and C. However, it has been at least alluded to there being false emails added into the dump as well as real emails removed from the dump. When including that fact, it changes to answer A.
PM your address or po box, I'll send you a signed copy of Donna Brazile new book "Hacked". Work address or weird uncles address if your fearful I'm KGB.
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
B and C. However, it has been at least alluded to there being false emails added into the dump as well as real emails removed from the dump. When including that fact, it changes to answer A.
PM your address or po box, I'll send you a signed copy of Donna Brazile new book "Hacked". Work address or weird uncles address if your fearful I'm KGB.
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
B and C. However, it has been at least alluded to there being false emails added into the dump as well as real emails removed from the dump. When including that fact, it changes to answer A.
PM your address or po box, I'll send you a signed copy of Donna Brazile new book "Hacked". Work address or weird uncles address if your fearful I'm KGB.
What are you trying to say?
sorry predictive text again. whatever happened to the 2 most important witnesses to Russia Russia Russia hacking our election... Susan Rice and Crowdstrike?
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
B and C. However, it has been at least alluded to there being false emails added into the dump as well as real emails removed from the dump. When including that fact, it changes to answer A.
PM your address or po box, I'll send you a signed copy of Donna Brazile new book "Hacked". Work address or weird uncles address if your fearful I'm KGB.
What are you trying to say?
sorry predictive text again. whatever happened to the 2 most important witnesses to Russia Russia Russia hacking our election... Susan Rice and Crowdstrike?
More important than DTJ, the guy who was informed that Russia wants to help his dad?? Good thing Mueller is running the investigation and not you.
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
B and C. However, it has been at least alluded to there being false emails added into the dump as well as real emails removed from the dump. When including that fact, it changes to answer A.
PM your address or po box, I'll send you a signed copy of Donna Brazile new book "Hacked". Work address or weird uncles address if your fearful I'm KGB.
What are you trying to say?
sorry predictive text again. whatever happened to the 2 most important witnesses to Russia Russia Russia hacking our election... Susan Rice and Crowdstrike?
More important than DTJ, the guy who was informed that Russia wants to help his dad?? Good thing Mueller is running the investigation and not you.
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
B and C. However, it has been at least alluded to there being false emails added into the dump as well as real emails removed from the dump. When including that fact, it changes to answer A.
PM your address or po box, I'll send you a signed copy of Donna Brazile new book "Hacked". Work address or weird uncles address if your fearful I'm KGB.
What are you trying to say?
sorry predictive text again. whatever happened to the 2 most important witnesses to Russia Russia Russia hacking our election... Susan Rice and Crowdstrike?
When were those the 2 most important? I think I'll let Mueller and the SSCI determine who is important...
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
B and C. However, it has been at least alluded to there being false emails added into the dump as well as real emails removed from the dump. When including that fact, it changes to answer A.
PM your address or po box, I'll send you a signed copy of Donna Brazile new book "Hacked". Work address or weird uncles address if your fearful I'm KGB.
What are you trying to say?
sorry predictive text again. whatever happened to the 2 most important witnesses to Russia Russia Russia hacking our election... Susan Rice and Crowdstrike?
When were those the 2 most important? I think I'll let Mueller and the SSCI determine who is important...
let's rewind? what exactly is Mueller investigating? maybe I'm confused again?
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
B and C. However, it has been at least alluded to there being false emails added into the dump as well as real emails removed from the dump. When including that fact, it changes to answer A.
PM your address or po box, I'll send you a signed copy of Donna Brazile new book "Hacked". Work address or weird uncles address if your fearful I'm KGB.
What are you trying to say?
sorry predictive text again. whatever happened to the 2 most important witnesses to Russia Russia Russia hacking our election... Susan Rice and Crowdstrike?
More important than DTJ, the guy who was informed that Russia wants to help his dad?? Good thing Mueller is running the investigation and not you.
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
B and C. However, it has been at least alluded to there being false emails added into the dump as well as real emails removed from the dump. When including that fact, it changes to answer A.
PM your address or po box, I'll send you a signed copy of Donna Brazile new book "Hacked". Work address or weird uncles address if your fearful I'm KGB.
What are you trying to say?
sorry predictive text again. whatever happened to the 2 most important witnesses to Russia Russia Russia hacking our election... Susan Rice and Crowdstrike?
More important than DTJ, the guy who was informed that Russia wants to help his dad?? Good thing Mueller is running the investigation and not you.
interesting question! By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks? A interfere in the election B influence the election C inform the electorate
B and C. However, it has been at least alluded to there being false emails added into the dump as well as real emails removed from the dump. When including that fact, it changes to answer A.
PM your address or po box, I'll send you a signed copy of Donna Brazile new book "Hacked". Work address or weird uncles address if your fearful I'm KGB.
What are you trying to say?
sorry predictive text again. whatever happened to the 2 most important witnesses to Russia Russia Russia hacking our election... Susan Rice and Crowdstrike?
More important than DTJ, the guy who was informed that Russia wants to help his dad?? Good thing Mueller is running the investigation and not you.
Comments
Blumenthal states that he would welcome a debate with Maddow on her show (Phil Collins drum kit)
here is the entire Raskin in interview from June
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/13/glenn_greenwald_donald_trump_jrs_emails
"GLENN GREENWALD: So here’s what I don’t understand about this. Certainly, it’s an interesting email. I’m glad that it surfaced. It does lend some credence to the possibility that the Trump administration colluded with the Russians criminally, meaning with their hacking of the DNC and Podesta emails, if in fact the Russians did that as the intelligence agencies claim, although they’ve produced no evidence for it. It is possible that the Trump administration or Trump officials colluded with the Russians to commit that crime. It’s possible they didn’t. We still haven’t seen any evidence that they have. Remember, this is not evidence suggesting that Trump officials actually colluded with the Russians to commit a crime—the hacking.
Now, what the Democrats are saying is that the Trump administration and their defenders in the media at Fox News and the like are, quote-unquote, "moving the goalposts" by saying, "Well, this only shows that Trump Jr. was willing to get information from the Russian government about Clinton, but it doesn’t show there was actual criminal collusion." To me, it seems as though the people who are moving the goalposts are the Democrats. The claim all along, the reason why there’s talk of impeachment, the reason why there is a special prosecutor, the reason why people want to see Trump and his associates criminally prosecuted, is because of the claim that they committed crimes by colluding with the Russians with regard to the hacking. That’s what Harry Reid has always said. That’s what John Podesta has always said. That has always been the Democratic claim. This newest evidence doesn’t in any way suggest that. What it suggests instead is that Donald Trump Jr. was told that the Russian government had incriminating evidence about Hillary Clinton and wanted to give it to him. And he said, "Well, I’d love to get it. I’d love to have it." Now, I guess there’s some sense that it’s wrong for a political campaign to take dirt on your adversary from a foreign government. I don’t think it’s illegal at all to do that, but there’s a claim that it’s somehow sort of immoral.
And here’s what I don’t understand. The Steele dossier that everybody got excited about, that claimed that the Russians had incriminating videos of Trump in a Moscow hotel and other dirt on Trump, that came from somebody who was getting first paid by Republicans and then by Democrats, going to Moscow and getting dirt about Donald Trump from Kremlin-affiliated agents in Moscow. In other words, he went to Russia, talked to people affiliated with the Russian government and said, "Give me dirt about Donald Trump," and then, presumably, got it and put it in the memo. Similarly, there’s an amazing Politico article from January of this year that describes how allies of the Clinton campaign, including somebody being paid by the DNC, met with officials of the Ukrainian government, which was desperate to help Hillary Clinton win and Donald Trump lose, and get information incriminating about Trump from Ukrainian officials. In other words, Ukraine was meddling in our election by giving Democrats incriminating information about Trump.
Now, I, personally, although it’s dirty, think all of these events are sort of the way politics works. Of course if you’re in an important campaign and someone offers you incriminating information about your opponent, you’re going to want it no matter where it comes from, whether it’s Ukrainian officials, whether it’s anti-Trump people in Moscow or whether it’s pro-Trump people in Moscow. So, I want to hear the standard that we’re supposed to use to assess Trump Jr.'s actions. Is it that it's wrong in all cases to get incriminating information about your opponent from a foreign government? In which case, why is it OK for the Democrats to do it with Ukrainian officials or for their investigator to go to Moscow and get dirt on Trump? Or is it some other standard that distinguishes what Trump Jr. did in this case versus what Democrats did with the Steele dossier and with Ukraine? And I just don’t see this distinction. "
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Great post Benjs, and very true. There's still no hard evidence of a crime being committed.
What we do have though, is a pattern of lies, denial & cover up from the Trump campaign. Why tell so many lies if there's nothing to hide? Trump would be wise to reveal all now rather than deal with the slow leaks that will no doubt come over time. (unless of course, he has something to hide)
The second, most important key distinction, is that one set of actions is under a special investigator probe, the other is not. So there's that little nugget of importance.
Greenwald doesn't have very much credibility anymore as far as I'm concerned. He is bending over backwards to make this seem okay.
I don't think Greenwald is objective about any of this due to his involvement with the Snowden revelations. He's had an axe to grind ever since.
Follow the money from Russia with love all the way to impeachment.
The trump admins desperate attempt to woo the republican congress to pull back on Russia sanctions was a desperate attempt to deliver on some of the quid pro quo. The Trump team never thought any of this would ever come to light. Gee, I wonder what's on those wire taps of Trump Tower?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/eighth-person-in-trump-tower-meeting-is-identified/2017/07/18/e971234a-6bce-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.939b80454580
Edit:
In a a nine-month inquiry that subpoenaed bank records, the investigators found that an unknown number of Russians and other East Europeans moved more than $1.4 billion through accounts at Citibank of New York and the Commercial Bank of San Francisco.
The accounts had been opened by Irakly Kaveladze, who immigrated to the United States from Russia in 1991, according to Citibank and Mr. Kaveladze. He set up more than 2,000 corporations in Delaware for Russian brokers and then opened the bank accounts for them, without knowing who owned the corporations, according to the report by the General Accounting Office, which has not been made public.http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/29/business/laundering-of-money-seen-as-easy.html
Follow the money, from Russia with love, all the way to impeachment. PTAPE release for added effect. Phil Collins drum kit indeed.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
By publishing what Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC truly said to each other & to financiers such as Goldman Sachs, did WikiLeaks?
A interfere in the election
B influence the election
C inform the electorate
I talked to my parents about it that night. It seemed to me that Obama wanted it to get out that he thought there was nothing to it yet. How could Obama say "What does this have to do with anything?" months after the election, and just as news was piling up about the Russia connections. Even if the dossier were completely fake, that seems like an odd response for Obama to have made.
Work address or weird uncles address if your fearful I'm KGB.
whatever happened to the 2 most important witnesses to Russia Russia Russia hacking our election... Susan Rice and Crowdstrike?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?pushid=596fab4ff1dad71d00000034&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.d4dbfcd08a77