Tuesday, January 7, 2020

Comedy Video - This Is It Folks: Trump Can Wage War With No Understanding Of The Consequences

Video - Trump Orders Assassination of Top Iranian General Soleimani | The Daily Show

Video Report - U.S.-Iran on the brink: Tehran's threats of revenge raise fear of escalation

Video Report - : Putin meets Assad in Damascus during official visit

Video Report - Syria: Assad greets Putin at Damascus airport


Video Report - Bernie Sanders: Trump administration hasn't a clue about what it's doing

Video Report - Elizabeth Warren on Qasem Soleimani killing: 'People are reasonably asking, why this moment?'

Video Report - Amanpour presses defense secretary: Are you ready to refuse Trump's order?

U.S. - Why Is Mitch McConnell So Afraid of John Bolton?

 By Neal K. Katyal and George T. Conway III
The Senate must hear his testimony in an impeachment trial.
The importance of John Bolton’s offer to testify if subpoenaed in the impeachment proceedings against President Trump cannot be overstated. In a single stroke, Mr. Bolton, the former national security adviser, elevated truth and transparency over political gamesmanship.
The Senate must take him up on his offer, as well as demand the testimony of President Trump and the administration officials he has barred from testifying. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, reportedly has the votes to proceed with the trial despite no agreement with Democrats on new witnesses and to leave it a question to take up after opening arguments. The Senate still must declare that it will call witnesses during the trial.
Everyone — Republicans, Democrats and independents — must know that these crucial witnesses will be heard.
The core principle behind the rule of law is that justice is blind and partisan identity should not influence a trial’s outcome. But anyone watching Mr. McConnell twist himself into knots in trying to block witnesses and documents has to wonder whether this notion ever took root in his mind. He has gone so far as to say that “there will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can.” He also said, “There’s no chance the president is going to be removed from office.”
How can Mr. McConnell make such a claim without having heard from Mr. Bolton? Remember that the diplomat Fiona Hill testified at the House impeachment hearings that Mr. Bolton called the pressuring of Ukraine by the administration a “drug deal” and said he wanted no part of it. Mr. Bolton himself has said that he possesses new information that has not been revealed. He even gave a speech saying that some of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy decisions were made in his self-interest, not in the interest of the American people. Particularly after the United States’ killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani of Iran, such questions have arisen once again.
And how can Mr. McConnell make such a claim without having heard from the most important witness of all, Mr. Trump? The president has been too scared to testify, and too scared to let anyone else in his administration testify. This is not a particularly compelling demonstration of innocence. When the House was holding impeachment hearings, Mr. Trump said he wanted the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry to testify. Even that pretense is now gone.
There is only one possible explanation for this behavior: He is afraid of the truth. Otherwise, what argument can there be for refusing to hear from a central witness like Mr. Bolton, who other witnesses have indicated was exceptionally concerned about the suspension of military aid to Ukraine?
Making matters worse, Mr. McConnell is a lawyer (as are nearly 50 of his Senate colleagues). Yet clearly being a lawyer does not give one a monopoly on truth-seeking, as his Republican colleagues with law degrees are proving.
Lindsey Graham, for example, said if there were evidence of a quid pro quo, he’d want to investigate, only to turn around after such evidence emerged to try to stop that very inquiry.
Marco Rubio deserves particular opprobrium. He has said Mr. Bolton cannot testify, reasoning that the Senate “inquiry should be based on the testimony” heard by the House. “We are acting on articles of impeachment,” he declared. “We should be constrained by the information that those articles are based on.” His ostrichlike behavior would appall the founders, who believed, in the words of Federalist 65, that such “strict rules” could never govern impeachments.
Mr. Rubio would have an even harder time explaining the 41 witnesses who testified in Andrew Johnson’s Senate impeachment trial, or the three who testified in Bill Clinton’s. Neither of those impeachments involved a president who had ordered those very witnesses not to cooperate with the House. It’s quite rich to say the witnesses should have testified in the House when the defendant in the proceedings blocked them from doing so.
There’s one bright spot: another senator who happens to be a lawyer, too. Mitt Romney recently said that the Senate should hear from Mr. Bolton. A handful of other Republican senators could join him and ensure a real trial, with witnesses and documents alike. Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner and Rob Portman — all of whom happen to be lawyers — would be a good start.
The two of us are lawyers and became friends and writing partners out of our shared reverence for the rule of law. We have very different politics, but we believe our commitment to this principle far eclipses the rest. The Constitution imposes upon the Senate a duty to “try all impeachments,” and so a real trial — with all relevant testimony and evidence — is what is required.
This week, Mr. Bolton, himself a lawyer, and recognizing the nature of the Senate’s crucial constitutional obligation, has taken a critical step in the right direction. It’s our hope that Americans will recognize that our commitment to the rule of law is what holds us together.
The truth may not set the president free, but the Constitution is meant to keep the country free, and a fair and impartial trial is what must take place here.


Overview Of Rupee Circulation In Afghanistan – OpEd

Pakistan’s currency (Rupee) has been in circulation in the markets of Afghanistan since the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan and Dr. Najeebullah’s Government has been overthrown and start of the then civil tumult in the country. After the civil war was underway in late 1992 in Afghanistan, the country’s incumbent government laid off contract with the Russian firms to stop printing the Afghani notes which resulted in the Afghani to lose its value and 1 dollar was exchanged for 24,000 Afghani.
Given the ignited skirmish in the country, Pakistan considered the situation a fruitful chance to start its political interference in terms of providing financial aids to the pro-Pakistan jihadists in Afghanistan who used to fight against each other that opened a roadway for Pakistan to take over control of the country’s outright system including its economy. Warlords started printing their currencies without any formal approval and standard procedure of the state’s central bank “i.e. Da Afghanistan Bank”, therefore people living across the Durand line were forced to start their daily transactions using Pakistan’s currency (Rupee) which caused Afghanistan to be financially, economically and politically reliant on Pakistan. Ever since the Rupee has dominated the Markets of Afghanistan, however, over the last one-and-a-half-decade circulation of the Rupee has been limited to the eastern markets.
After the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies defeated in the year 2001, by then almost all the institutions were reinstated, the new Afghani currency were printed approved by the “Da Afghanistan Bank” and the international monetary standards, the country’s economy was revived with the assistance of the United State of America (USA) and the NATO-allied countries, hence Afghanistan started diverting partially from Pakistan’s economic influence. sprint in economic slowdown of Pakistan has caused the value of Rupee toppled over in the international market both against the dollar and the Afghani which is AFN 1= RS 1.99 and $ 1= RS 154.43, this fluctuation has negatively affected the ordinary lives and various local businesses in the eastern regions of Afghanistan particularly in the city of Jalalabad. 
Wholesalers, when enquired, expressed that a single piece of locket was sold to retailers on RS50, now because of the depreciation in the rate of Rupee it costs them at RS70, to increase profit margin the wholesalers need to sell the same product in the range of RS80 to RS90, due to which they lose their customers because customers are not willing to pay a higher price for a low-value product. Similarly, the credit card for mobile recharge is priced only AFN50 which is sold at Rs100, but after the value of Rupee has decreased customers are forced to pay AFN50 with Rs10 extra.
On the other hand, an ordinary jobless citizen or one having a job with a low salary is in dilemma whether to spend the earned rupees or not, if they receive the same amount of salary in rupee or save it for meeting the future needs there will be possible future economic complications in case the rate of rupee slumps.
However, a few weeks ago the governor of Nangarhar province has put forward strict rules for the shopkeepers with regards to the rupee ban and having announced that one-day ban will be imposed in case a shopkeeper disobeys the rules, therefore five shops have been shut down in Jalalabad, the capital city of Nangarhar province, as the shoppers defied using Pakistan’s rupees in their daily business.
Moreover, a campaign against using Pakistani rupee and promoting Afghani is going on in Jalalabad city and districts of the province. A special commission has been set to monitor the markets and act against violators. In the second time, shops of the rules violators would be closed for three days, and for the third time, the ban would extend to five days and for the fourth time, their license would be revoked.
Those who have suffered call upon the concerned authorities for taking serious and quick measures to curb the Rupee use, because as the rate of Rupee decreases against Afghani, people using Rupee as a daily transactional currency will face possible fallout that will be strenuous enough to thus control it. to avoid further loss, the Central Bank of Afghanistan (Da Afghanistan Bank) could preclude the circulation of Rupee in the markets of eastern Afghanistan by printing new Afghani notes, which will be thus exchanged with Rupee and the old Afghani notes by the local banks across Nangarhar and southeastern Afghanistan lapsing up to a specified time limit.

Blast in Pakistan's Quetta kills two, wounds many: Officials


A bomb packed on a motorcycle target a security personnel vehicle near busy market in the southwestern city.

At least two people have been killed and several others wounded after a bomb targeted a security personnel vehicle in the southwestern Pakistani city of Quetta, officials say. The attack took place at an intersection near the city's busy Liaqat market on Tuesday evening, police said.
"Two people have been killed and the number of injured is 14," said Waseem Baig, spokesman for the city's main government hospital.
The explosives were packed on a motorcycle, although it was unclear if the attack involved a suicide attacker or if the bomb was planted to go off via remote control or a timer, said police official Mushtaq Hussain.Quetta is the capital of Balochistan province, the country's largest but most sparsely populated province, rich in mineral resources and the route of much of the $60bn China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project.CPEC projects focus on transport, infrastructure and electrical power generation, culminating in a trade route that will connect southwestern China with the Arabian Sea through the length of Pakistan.
The route ends in a major commercial seaport in the Balochistan town of Gwadar.
For more than a decade, Pakistani security forces have been battling rebel separatist groups that want independence for the ethnic Baloch areas of the province.
Such groups frequently target Pakistani security forces across the province, although no group immediately claimed responsibility for Tuesday's attack.
In November, at least two security personnel were killed and five others wounded in a similar attack targeting a vehicle, local media reported.
Images from the scene of Tuesday's attack showed a moderately damaged Pakistani paramilitary vehicle, alongside debris strewn across the intersection.
Some shop fronts adjacent to the attack site were moderately damaged.

Pakistani Writer Says Parody About Ex-Dictator Zia Confiscated

A prominent Pakistani writer and New York Times columnist has said that purported Pakistani security agents raided the Karachi office of his publisher and confiscated all copies of a novel he wrote about the country's former military dictator, Muhammad Zia ul-Haq.
Novelist Mohammad Hanif said on Twitter that the January 6 raid was carried out by "some people claiming to be from" Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.
"They asked about my book and took all copies of it," Hanif said, adding that he was consulting his lawyer about filing a complaint with police.
But an ISI spokesman rejected Hanif's claim as a "cheap attempt to gain popularity by hurling false accusations on a national institution."
Hanif's acclaimed novel, A Case Of Exploding Mangoes, is a parody about Zia, a former dictator who seized power in a 1977 military coup and was killed in a plane crash in 1988.
Authorities never released the results of their investigation nor said what had caused the crash, which also killed U.S. Ambassador Arnold Raphel and then-ISI chief General Akhtar Abdur Rahman.
Hanif rose to fame when the novel was first published in English in 2008. His Karachi-based publisher released an Urdu translation of the novel in October 2019.
"A Case of Exploding Mangoes has been in publication for 11 years now," Hanif said on Twitter. "Nobody has ever bothered me. Why now? I am sitting here, wondering when will they come for us."
Hanif also said he had received "a defamation notice from General Zia's son" Ejaz ul-Haq last week demanding 1 billion Pakistani rupees (about $6.4 million) "for maligning General Zia's good name."
"Our lawyers are preparing a reply," Hanif said. "Is ISI acting on Ejazul Haq's behalf?"

Another war on border will be dangerous for Pakistan: Bilawal Bhutto

Peoples Party Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari on Monday said that a very dangerous situation is taking shape in the region, and Pakistan cannot afford another war on the border.
Meanwhile talking to media representatives outside the Parliament House, he expressed that the rules and regulations of the Army Act should be strictly followed. He said that the importance of the House was lowered bypassing the Amendment Bill.
The scion of the Bhutto dynasty said that his party wants to give the Parliament its due respect. “We demand implementation on the orders of the Supreme Court, and want the new Army Act to be passed in a democratic manner”.
He went on to say that the questions will be raised on the government if a democratic way is not adopted by the House. He added that they also contacted the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and they will respond on the matter soon.
Bilawal expressed that the proposals for all three amendments were presented to the committee and the National Assembly. He said that the government seems to be playing a game with the opposition. “The issues that came up at the time of the notification were the result of haste made by the government”, he said, adding that PPP will contact other parties in this regard to avoid the repetition of the mistake.