Shit gets real for Donnie

[JAFF]

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/y...ree/index.html

(CNN) — A growing wildfire in California's Yosemite National Park is "within a couple of miles" of the famed Mariposa Grove of giant sequoia trees, a park official says.
Scott Gediman, the park's chief spokesperson, told CNN on Sunday that flames from the 1,591-acre Washburn Fire were "very close, they are right around (the grove)."

Evacuation orders issued as fire threatens Yosemite's Mariposa Grove, home to more than 500 giant sequoia trees
Mariposa Grove is home to more than 500 giant sequoia trees, which can grow to more than 250 feet tall. The grove was founded in 1857 but the trees existed long before that, with some believed to be more than 2,000 years old.

Gediman also noted the fire about a mile or two from the park's oldest hotel, the Wawona Hotel, which was established in 1856, according to its website. Park officials have urged people in the Wawona campground and community to evacuate.
The Washburn Fire began July 7 and doubled in size from Saturday to Sunday, burning near the lower portion of the grove, park officials said earlier. A total of 360 fire personnel are working to contain the fire from the ground and air.

"Fire is naturally part of the ecosystem, but it's these high-intensity fires that are causing the damage that happened, for example, in the Creek Fire and sthe TCF complex last year in Sequoia National Park," Gediman said.

Gediman said it is "steep, heavily forested terrain" and they are relying on air and ground support to protect the park. "Air support is certainly helpful, but we've got a lot of hotshot crews and firefighters on the ground that are going in to suppress the fire. So it's really a ground and air attack, coordinated, that is going to get us to the suppression that we aiming toward as soon as we can."

Fire crews had success at the heel of the fire, at its origin point near the Mariposa Grove area, Matt Ahearn, the operations section chief with California Interagency Incident Management Team 13, said earlier Sunday.

"Top end of the Mariposa Grove, fire has backed into the grove a bit," Ahearn said. "We do have crews up on these edges, they've worked handline out of the bottom, direct handline all the way up and around. ... We need to now reinforce with hose lays."

Ahearn said that hotshot crews were on their way to the area and the fire's acreage was expected to be updated later Sunday after aerial intelligence was completed.

In a statement posted to InciWeb -- a site for coordinating fire response -- officials said the fire was burning in difficult terrain "with continuous heavy fuels in and around the fire."

"Significant tree mortality from 2013-2015 has left significant dead standing and dead fallen fuels. This also presents significant safety hazards to firefighters," the statement said.

Weather is forecast to get hotter through the week. However, fire scars from past fires about 1 to 3 miles from the Washburn Fire perimeter will help in slowing it, officials said.

Firefighters have put a sprinkler system around the Grizzly Giant, a famed Sequoia in Mariposa Grove, to protect it from the flames and park officials have said the grove will remain closed until further notice.

Yosemite is one of the most visited national parks in the US, drawing more than 3.3 million people in 2021. It encompasses nearly 1,200 square miles in the Sierra Nevada range in eastern California.

Meanwhile, California crews are also battling the Electra Fire, which has scorched more than 4,400 acres across Amador and Calaveras counties, also in the Sierra Nevada, according to Cal Fire.

How the climate crisis is forever changing our national parks
The blaze prompted the state's first night-water-drop operation via helicopter Wednesday, when about 12,000 gallons of water were dumped on the flames, Cal Fire Battalion Chief Isaac Sanchez told CNN.

"The helicopter was brought in to assist in the cooling and containment of a firing operation which had taken place earlier in the afternoon," Sanchez said. "While assigned to this operation, the helicopter identified additional areas where the fire had crept over the containment lines and was able to aid in their full extinguishment and containment."

The western US has been ravaged by wildfires in recent years, exacerbated by drought conditions tied to climate change. In California alone, more than 2.5 million acres were destroyed in nearly 9,000 fires last year, according to Cal Fire.
Last month, officials in Southern California said they were bracing for another challenging summer and fall amid a shortage of firefighting crews and increased workloads.

The threat is not limited to California. Robert Garcia, the US Forest Service's fire chief for the Angeles National Forest, said the summer months are off to a "concerning start." Firefighting resources have been mobilizing since March to Arizona and New Mexico, where the Black Fire just became the state's second-largest blaze in history.

"Southern California typically has a fire season of historically late June and then into the fall," Garcia told CNN last month. "But we're seeing activity now year-round."

Just heart breaking.

[Lov2fish]

Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles

o


Good article. Thanks.

Anybody who supports gutting welfare ought to wake up in the body of a single mother with little kids who was abandoned by her deadbeat, scumbag husband......just once, I would love for that fantasy of mine to come true so that I could see the look on the face of a person who went to bed one night as a well-fed white guy, and then woke up the next morning in that woman's shoes.

o

For the record, I am in favor of a safety net for the truly downtrodden in society. I am not for continued support of those who use the system as a career, and it happens. To receive those benefits should be a requirement to attend some kind of job skills classes to learn a trade. No indefinite free rides. I am perfectly fine with funding that type of program.

[Colts And Orioles]

Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles

o


Good article. Thanks.

Anybody who supports gutting welfare ought to wake up in the body of a single mother with little kids who was abandoned by her deadbeat, scumbag husband......just once, I would love for that fantasy of mine to come true so that I could see the look on the face of a person who went to bed one night as a well-fed white guy, and then woke up the next morning in that woman's shoes.

o

Originally Posted by JAFF

Well said.

o


Thanks.

There is a really good episode of Tales from the Darkside called, Payment Overdue.

It is about callous female collection agent who constantly harasses an immigrant woman named Rita Valdez. Valdez also has migraine headaches, 2 kids to support, and speaks limited English. When somebody asked the collection what she would do if she were in that woman's shoes, she replied, "I would not feel sorry for myself, like this woman does. I would learn the English language, and I would do everything that I could to better myself."

Well, she had just that opportunity to do so, as she woke up the next morning with migraine headaches, a strong Spanish accent, a limited comprehension of the English language, several kids to take care of, and overdue bills.


It was one of the best episodes of that series ever, and I would love it if it were required watching for high school students throughout the country.

o

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by Lov2fish

For the record, I am in favor of a safety net for the truly downtrodden in society. I am not for continued support of those who use the system as a career, and it happens. To receive those benefits should be a requirement to attend some kind of job skills classes to learn a trade. No indefinite free rides. I am perfectly fine with funding that type of program.

I agree for the most part. However, I have learned that a lot of people on assistance are not even close to employable. We need to fix substance abuse and have some sort of hep for mental illness.

[JAFF]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/10/polit...ege/index.html

Steve Bannon says he's willing to testify

. pt charges -- told the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection on Saturday that he is now willing to testify, ideally at a public hearing, according to a letter obtained by CNN.

Bannon's reversal comes after he received a letter from former President Donald Trump waiving executive privilege, although both the House select committee and federal prosecutors contend that privilege claim never gave Bannon carte blanche to ignore a congressional subpoena in the first place.
"When you first received the Subpoena to testify and provide documents, I invoked Executive Privilege. However, I watched how unfairly you and others have been treated, having to spend vast amounts of money on legal fees, and all of the trauma you must be going through for the love of your Country, and out of respect for the Office of the President," Trump wrote in a Saturday letter to Bannon, which was also obtained by CNN.
Bannon and DOJ don't want to talk politics or January 6 specifics at contempt trial
Bannon and DOJ don't want to talk politics or January 6 specifics at contempt trial
"Therefore, if you reach an agreement on a time and place for your testimony, I will waive Executive Privilege for you, which allows you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly" Trump added, as he went on to decry the committee of "Thugs and Hacks."
The letters were first reported by The Guardian.
Bannon was charged last year with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress. He has argued that he was free to ignore his congressional subpoena in order to protect Trump's potential privilege claims. But federal prosecutors and other legal experts have argued that privilege does not apply to Bannon -- who left his White House gig as chief strategist years before the Capitol riot -- and did not give him the authority to refuse to provide any documents or testimony to the committee.
Bannon's team provided Trump's new letter to the January 6 committee overnight, along with a letter from Bannon lawyer Bob Costello.
"While Mr. Bannon has been steadfast in his convictions, circumstances have now changed," Costello wrote. "Mr. Bannon is willing to, and indeed prefers, to testify at your public hearing."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who sits on the January 6 panel, told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" on Sunday that the committee hasn't yet had a chance to discuss Bannon's letter, but that "I expect that we will be hearing from him and there are many questions that we have for him."
Lofgren, however, said that public testimony from Bannon was unlikely, noting that the committee typically does depositions. "This goes on for hour after hour after hour. We want to get all our questions answered, and you can't do that in a live format," she said.
The January 6 committee was interested in speaking to Bannon about his communications with Trump in December 2020, when Bannon reportedly urged him to focus on the January 6 certification of the presidential election results. Committee members were also interested in Bannon's comments in the run-up to the Capitol insurrection, including a podcast on January 5, in which he predicted, "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow."
In a Monday court filing, federal prosecutors called Bannon's willingness to now testify before the House select committee a "last-minute" effort that doesn't change the case against him, pointing out that he has not produced subpoenaed records.
"The Defendant's last-minute efforts to testify almost nine months after his default — he has still made no effort to produce records — are irrelevant to whether he willfully refused to comply in October 2021 with the Select Committee's subpoena," prosecutors wrote.
Bannon is currently set to go to trial on July 18.
"The criminal contempt statute is not intended to procure compliance; it is intended to punish past noncompliance," prosecutors wrote in their filing.
A spokesperson for the committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This story has been updated with additional developments and reaction.

By the way, the executive privilege is nonsense. Bannon wasnt working for Trump at the time in question, so Bannon will sing

[Racehorse]

More money to be made off a book deal if he turns on Trump.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

More money to be made off a book deal if he turns on Trump.

A trump appointed judge told him he has no defense for the contempt charge, so he is in a tight spot. He had better have a bunch of evidence to turn over, there wont be a second pardon.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by JAFF

A trump appointed judge told him he has no defense for the contempt charge, so he is in a tight spot. He had better have a bunch of evidence to turn over, there wont be a second pardon.

Does not change what I said in the least.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

Does not change what I said in the least.

I didnt think it would.

[JAFF]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live...s/?id=86598399

Trump tried to call Jan. 6 committee witness, Cheney says

Vice Chair Liz Cheney said, in closing the hearing, that Trump himself tried to call a witness who she said has not yet publicly testified.

"After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation -- a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings," she said.

Cheney said the witness did not answer the call.

PHOTO: Rep. Liz Cheney speaks during a House select committee hearing investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol in Washington, July 12, 2022.

"Their lawyer alerted us, and this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice," she said.

"Let me say one more time, we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously," she added, as the committee continually warns against witness tampering in its ongoing investigation.

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)
(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—
(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—
(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) cause or induce any person to—
(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;
(iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or
(C) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—
(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;
(B) in the case of—
(i) an attempt to murder; or
(ii) the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;
imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and
(C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years.
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.
(f) For the purposes of this section—
(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
(g) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance—
(1) that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or
(2) that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant.
(h) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(i) A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.
(j) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.