Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Thursday, February 6, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 389)

A truck crashed into a department store in central Stockholm. REUTERS

A truck crashed into a department store in central Stockholm. REUTERS

Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said a truck plowing into a crowd on a shopping street before crashing into a department store in Stockholm, Sweden is “a terror attack.” The attack killed at least 2 people and injuring several others on Friday.

“The government is informed and doing everything to help authorities with it,” he said during a press conference.

Broadcaster SVT reported at least 5 people were killed in the attack, but People’s Pundit Daily could not immediately confirm that number with police officials. Swedish radio said at least three people have died.

Europe has been plagued by a series of truck plowing attacks in populated areas, which bare all the hallmarks of Islamic terrorism.

In July 2016, Mohamed Lahouiaej Bouhlel plowed a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day at a waterfront promenade in the French tourist hotspot of Nice, killing 86 people. The Islamic State terror group claimed responsibility.

In December, a truck in Berlin smashed through a Christmas market, killing 12 people.

Just over two weeks ago in London, another driver with ties to radical Islam crashed a rented SUV into a crowd on Westminster Bridge before attacking an officer on the grounds of Parliament. The officer died and a fifth victim died Friday; a Romanian woman who fell into the river below. Dozens of other people were wounded. The killer, Khalid Masood, was shot dead at Parliament.

Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said a truck

White House Chief of Staff Reince, left, and Senior Counselor Steve Bannon, right, make a joint appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland on Feb. 23, 2017.

White House Chief of Staff Reince, left, and Senior Counselor Steve Bannon, right, make a joint appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland on Feb. 23, 2017.

President Donald J. Trump is weighing a decision to replace loyalists and his promise to drain the swamp with the very creatures who profit there. The shakeup could include the White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steven Bannon, Axios reported.

People’s Pundit Daily has confirmed the report.

The move, particularly as it relates to Mr. Bannon, will no doubt enrage even his most loyal base of support. But it’s not just who is being replaced that will cause a firestorm, but who is being considered for their replacements.

The short list for chief of staff to replace Mr. Priebus includes House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., a liberal-to-moderate member of the Republican establishment. Gary Cohn, the number two man at Goldman Sachs who has amassed enormous influence serving as economic advisor at the expense of Mr. Bannon, is also on the list.

The fight between the nationalist-populists–represented by Mr. Bannon and Stephen Miller–and the liberal-moderates–led by Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner–has been raging for weeks. While it’s true that Mr. Priebus was considered more establishment as the former chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), he was a Trump loyalist during the campaign.

Following the release of the Access Hollywood tape during the campaign, Republicans in battleground states pressured Priebus to abandon the then-nominee and redirect resources to save down-ballot candidates. But he refused and the President, known for valuing loyalty, rewarded him with the position of chief of staff.

Mr. Bannon this week was removed from the National Security Council’s Principles Committee. However, he said in a statement that his job of ensuring former head Micheal Flynn carried out the President’s directive to depoliticize the NSC was completed.

President Donald J. Trump is weighing a

People search for jobs on computers at the Verdugo Jobs Center, a partnership with the California Employment Development Department, in Glendale, California November 7, 2008. The U.S. unemployment rate shot to a 14-1/2 year high last month as employers slashed jobs by an unexpectedly steep 240,000, suggesting President-elect Barack Obama will face a deep recession when he takes office. (Photo: Reuters)

People search for jobs on computers at the Verdugo Jobs Center, a partnership with the California Employment Development Department, in Glendale, California November 7, 2008. The U.S. unemployment rate shot to a 14-1/2 year high last month as employers slashed jobs by an unexpectedly steep 240,000, suggesting President-elect Barack Obama will face a deep recession when he takes office. (Photo: Reuters)

The Labor Department said Friday the unemployment rate fell to 4.5% in March but the U.S. economy added just 98,000 jobs, missing the 180,000 forecast. The government jobs report stands in stark contrast to the ADP National Employment Report that found the private sector added 265,000 jobs in March, far more than the 185,000 expected by economists for the month.

“The Category 3 storm that swept the Northeast may explain a much weaker-than-expected 98,000 increase in March nonfarm payrolls,” Econoday wrote in reaction. “The big storm hit during the sample week of the employment report and apparently delayed new hiring.”

Still, economists were anticipating the jobs report would beat expectations after the Labor Department said Thursday weekly jobless claims fell 25,000 to 234,000 from the previous week’s revised level, easily beating the median forecast.

The labor force participation rate remained at 63% and the employment-population ratio also was flat at 60.1%. The sharp 2 tenths declined in unemployed raised the issue of wage inflation which, has yet to materialize.

Retail trade weakened in March, losing 30,000 jobs as employment in general merchandise stores also declined by 35,000. Manufacturing and construction show gains at 11,000 each.

The Labor Department said Friday the unemployment

unemployment-benefits

Weekly jobless claims, or first-time claims for unemployment benefits reported by the Labor Department.

The Labor Department said Thursday weekly jobless claims fell 25,000 to 234,000 from the previous week’s revised level, easily beating the median forecast. The previous week’s level was revised up by 1,000 from 258,000 to 259,000.

The last look at the labor market before Friday’s monthly jobs report conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for the DOL is very positive.

The 4-week moving average–which is widely considered a better gauge–came in at 250,000, a decline of 4,500 from the previous week’s revised average. The previous week’s average was revised up by 250 from 254,250 to 254,500. Lagging continuing claims are down 24,000 in the March 25 week to 2.028 million, with this 4-week average at a new 17-year low of 2.023 million.

The Labor Department said no special factors influenced the data and no state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending March 18.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending March 18 were in Alaska (3.9), Connecticut (3.0), New Jersey (3.0), Puerto Rico (2.7), Rhode Island (2.7), California (2.6), Massachusetts (2.6), Montana (2.5), Pennsylvania (2.5), and Illinois (2.4).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending March 25 were in New York (+6,249), Texas (+2,606), Michigan (+2,221), Pennsylvania (+2,216), and California (+1,603), while the largest decreases were in Ohio (-4,302), Kansas (-2,460), Missouri (-1,860), Illinois (-1,157), and Kentucky (-1,014).

The Labor Department said Thursday weekly jobless

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., left, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., right, hold a joint press conference in Washington D.C. (Photo: Reuters)

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., left, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., right, hold a joint press conference in Washington D.C. (Photo: Reuters)

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., released a joint statement applauding President Donald Trump for taking military action in Syria. The two war hawks, who have been frequent critics of President Trump’s policy in Syria and other regions, were among the first to weigh on the President’s response to one of the deadliest attacks in the country’s 6-year civil war.

“Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action,” the senators said in a joint statement. “For that, he deserves the support of the American people. Building on tonight’s first step, we must finally learn the lessons of history and ensure tactical success leads to strategic progress.”

The chemical weapons attack claimed the lives of an estimated 72 people and wounding at least 400 others.

“The measure in such a strategy must be to take Assad’s air force–which is responsible not just for the latest chemical attack, but countless atrocities against the Syrian people–completely out of the fight,” the senators added. “We must also bolster support for the vetted Syrian opposition and establish safe zones to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis.”

But while it has been widely reported the new U.S. administration has had greater success against the Islamic State in Iraq, it was unclear how far President Trump was willing to go to respond to President Assad in Syria, particularly considering the regime is acting as a countering force to the Islamic State.

Fifty-nine (59) tomahawk missiles were launched from the USS Porter and USS Ross in the Mediterranean Sea and hit multiple confirmed targets at Shayrat, which is located roughly 120 miles from Homs. It is believed that the base was used as a staging point for the chemical weapons attack on Tuesday and both warships have been training for the past two days to execute this mission.

U.S. Pentagon officials tell People’s Pundit Daily the attack was limited but meant to send a message to Assad and Russia that U.S. foreign policy toward Syria has fundamentally changed and will not allow the use of chemical weapons on innocent people.

Preliminary investigations point to Sarin as the chemical involved in the attack. Sarin is a colorless, odorless liquid and is highly volatile moving easily from liquid to a gas.. However, unlike chlorine, which is the preferred chemical weapon of the Assad government, Sarin does not dissipate quickly.

That accounts for the high number of fatalities in what is a painful death– including twitching, jerking and foaming at the mouth.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham,

USS Porter conducts a test of the SeaRAM in the Mediterranean Sea.

USS Porter conducts a test of the SeaRAM in the Mediterranean Sea.

President Donald J. Trump has ordered the U.S. military to strike at chemical weapons storage facilities in Syria, People’s Pundit Daily confirmed. The attack comes in response to one of the deadliest attacks in the country’s 6-year civil war, claiming the lives of an estimated 72 people and wounding at least 400 others.

Fifty-nine (59) tomahawk missiles were launched from the USS Porter and USS Ross in the Mediterranean Sea and hit multiple confirmed targets at Shayrat, which is located roughly 120 miles from Homs. It is believed that the base was used as a staging point for the chemical weapons attack on Tuesday and both warships have been training for the past two days to execute this mission.

The President condemned the chemical attack in Syria as “reprehensible” and said it “cannot be ignored by the civilized world.” He slammed his predecessor Barack Obama and said “these heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution.”

While it has been widely reported the new U.S. administration has had greater success against the Islamic State in Iraq, it was unclear how far President Trump was willing to go to respond to President Assad in Syria, particularly considering the regime is acting as a countering force to the Islamic State, otherwise known in Syria as Daesh, which has a stronghold capital in Raqqa.

But when asked during a joint press conference with King Abdullah II of Jordan if the chemical attack crossed a red line for him, the President made clear his views were changing on Assad.

“It crossed a lot of lines for me,” President Trump said. “When you kill innocent children, innocent babies — babies, little babies — with a chemical gas that is so lethal… that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson briefed President Trump on military options in Syria earlier in the day.

“It will seem that there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people,” he said at an impromptu press conference. When asked about a possibility of removing Assad, Secretary Tillerson replied “Those steps are underway.”

U.S. Pentagon sources tell People’s Pundit Daily the attack is limited but meant to send a message to Assad and Russia that U.S. foreign policy toward Syria has fundamentally changed and will not allow the use of chemical weapons on innocent people.

The first lawmakers to weigh in were Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., two war hawks previously critical of President Trump’s policy in Syria, among other regions.

“Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action,” the senators said in a joint statement. “For that, he deserves the support of the American people. Building on tonight’s first step, we must finally learn the lessons of history and ensure tactical success leads to strategic progress.”

Preliminary investigations point to Sarin as the chemical involved in the attack. Sarin is a colorless, odorless liquid and is highly volatile moving easily from liquid to a gas.. However, unlike chlorine, which is the preferred chemical weapon of the Assad government, Sarin does not dissipate quickly.

That accounts for the high number of fatalities in what is a painful death– including twitching, jerking and foaming at the mouth.

President Donald J. Trump has ordered the

Devin Nunes, R-Calif. briefs reporters about information he received confirming “incidental collection” of intelligence on members of the Trump transition team under the Obama Administration. (Photo: AP)

Devin Nunes, R-Calif. briefs reporters about information he received confirming “incidental collection” of intelligence on members of the Trump transition team under the Obama Administration. (Photo: AP)

House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has temporarily stepping aside from the Russia investigation. The announcement comes as reports reveal former National Security Advisor Susan Rice was behind the “unmasking” of U.S. persons in intelligence reports unrelated to Russian, indicating a political motive.

“Several leftwing activist groups have filed accusations against me with the Office of Congressional Ethics,” Chairman Nunes said in a statement. “The charges are entirely false and politically motivated, and are being leveled just as the American people are beginning to learn the truth about the improper unmasking of the identities of U.S. citizens and other abuses of power.”

Chairman Nunes dropped a bombshell when he announced sources had stepped forward with information confirming the Obama Administration spied on the Trump transition team. He said at a press conference he was “alarmed” by the “incidental collection” of intelligence unrelated to Russia and didn’t understand “why people would need to know that about President-elect Trump and his transition team.”

The announcement set off a political firestorm, to which Democrats responded by calling for Chairman Nunes to step down or recuse himself. The New York Times and Washington Post reported, falsely, his sources were members of the White House and a chorus of recusal voices grew.

However, it has since been revealed his sources are intelligence officials and the meeting took place in the White House because it is one of only a few facilities where raw classified data can be reviewed. The meeting could obviously have not been held in the agency of origin without the sources being identified.

“Despite the baselessness of the charges, I believe it is in the best interests of the House Intelligence Committee and the Congress for me to have Representative Mike Conaway, with assistance from Representatives Trey Gowdy and Tom Rooney, temporarily take charge of the Committee’s Russia investigation while the House Ethics Committee looks into this matter,” he said. “I will continue to fulfill all my other responsibilities as Committee Chairman, and I am requesting to speak to the Ethics Committee at the earliest possible opportunity in order to expedite the dismissal of these false claims.”

To be clear, anyone can file this type of complaint, which can be completed rather quickly and entails the mishandling of classified information. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., supported the chairman and said he had “full confidence” in him. The decision was the chairman’s idea, according to statements.

“Devin Nunes has earned my trust over many years for his integrity and dedication to the critical work that the intelligence community does to keep America safe,” Speaker Ryan said in a statement. “He continues to have that trust, and I know he is eager to demonstrate to the Ethics Committee that he has followed all proper guidelines and laws.”

Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, a senior member of the Committee, will now lead the investigation in the House. He will be assisted by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who led the Select Committee on Benghazi.

“I am confident that he will oversee a professional investigation into Russia’s actions and follow the facts wherever they lead,” Speaker Ryan added.

Breaking: House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes, R-Calif.,

President Barack Obama talks with National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice in the Oval Office prior to a phone call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, Feb. 10, 2015. (Photo: White House/Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama talks with National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice in the Oval Office prior to a phone call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, Feb. 10, 2015. (Photo: White House/Pete Souza)

The intelligence reports in which members of the Trump transition were “unmasked” by Susan Rice involve personal details unrelated to national security, PPD has confirmed. The content of the “highly detailed” reports are significant as congressional investigators probe whether the Obama Administration used the cover of the legitimate surveillance to spy on the incoming administration.

Not only do the reports not contain evidence of collusion with Russian officials on behalf of members of the Trump team, but the material collected indicates intelligence operations that were unrelated to the Russian investigation, altogether. Multiple sources tell People’s Pundit Daily the content, paper trail and timeline indicate a political motive by the Obama Administration.

It’s a claim that has just been corroborated by a top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee who has been briefed on the reports.

“This is information about their everyday lives,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said. “Sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired just to find out what the other person is doing from morning until night and then you try to piece it together later on.”

Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and the Ranking Member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., are the only lawmakers to date who have personally viewed the raw intelligence reports. Rep. Schiff, who had been calling on the chairman to resign after he confirmed the spying, has gone dark after personally viewing the material.

“I cannot comment on the content of these materials or any other classified documents, and nothing should be inferred from the fact that I am treating classified materials the way they should be treated – by refusing to comment on them,” Rep. Schiff told Fox News in a statement for a corroborating report. “Only the Administration has the power to declassify the information and make it available to the public.”

The ranking member’s remarks show a stark contrast to his previous behavior regarding information surrounding the probe into Russian collusion. With the new spying revelations, and in the absence of evidence supporting collusion, the focus of the probe has turned to whether Rice or anyone else in the Obama Administration committed a crime.

Rep. King said the intelligence reports resembled the work of a private investigator hired to conduct op-research rather than a counterintelligence operation. Experts say the fact the materials are unrelated to Russia or national security may mean the legal standard for unmasking was not met.

“U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive (Section 18) only allows unmasking of the identity of U.S. persons when it is essential to national security. The question is why the identity of Trump aides satisfied this standard if there was no evidence of collusion,” notable liberal law Professor Jonathan Turley noted. “Nevertheless, this intent standard is difficult to violate absent a confession or incriminating statement.”

Former National Security Adviser Rice now denies ever having “unmasking” individuals for political purposes, but she also initially lied about having knowledge of the information Chairman Nunes discovered. Democrats are attempting to establish the narrative that Rice’s actions were “routine” for the national security advisor.

But the claim isn’t supported by those with knowledge of the process.

 

“From my direct experience dealing at this level, that is never done,” retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Fox News. “The national security adviser person is a manager position, not an analyst position.”

Government data seems to back up Schaffer, not Rice. The Office for the Director of National Intelligence said the NSA in 2015 disseminated 4,290 FAA Section 702 intelligence reports that also included U.S. person information. Of those reports, just 1,122 had U.S. persons information and even fewer (654) had identities unmasked.

 

The intelligence reports in which members of

minimum-wage-graphic-image

Minimum Wage Graphic Image

The real world is like a cold shower for our friends on the left. Everywhere they look, there is evidence that jurisdictions with free markets and small government outperform places with big welfare states and lots of intervention.

That’s true when comparing nations. And it’s also true when comparing states. That must be a source of endless frustration an disappointment for statists.

Speaking of disappointed statists, the real world has led to more bad news. The left-wing Mayor of Baltimore campaigned in favor of a $15 minimum wage, but then decided to veto legislation to impose that mandate. The Wall Street Journalopines on this development.

Mayor Catherine Pugh, a Democrat, has rejected a bill that would raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022. She did so even though she had campaigned in favor of raising the minimum wage, which shows that economic reality can be a powerful educator. She explained her change of heart by noting that raising the rate above the $8.75 an hour minimum that prevails in the rest of Maryland would send jobs and tax revenue out of Baltimore to surrounding counties. The increase would also have raised the city’s payroll costs by $116 million over the next four years when she’s already coping with a deficit of $130 million in the education budget.

The key thing to notice is that the Mayor recognized that the real-world impact of bad legislation is that economic activity would shrink in the city and expand outside the city.

Writing for Reason, Eric Boehm also points out that the Mayor was constrained by the fact neighboring jurisdictions weren’t making the same mistake.

Pugh said the bill would not be in the best interest of Baltimore’s 76,000 unemployed workers and would drive businesses out of the city to the surrounding counties. …Indeed. Raising the minimum wage would not solve Baltimore’s economic troubles, and would likely only add to them. While support for a $15 minimum wage has become something of a litmus test for progressive politicians, the true test of any politician should be whether he or she is willing to set aside campaign trail rhetoric that flies in the face of economic reality. Signing the bill would have made progressive pols and activists happy—one Baltimore city councilman called Pugh’s decision “beyond disappointing” and a minimum wage activist group said it would remind voters of Pugh’s “broken promise”—but there’s no honor in following through on a promise to do more damage to an already struggling city’s economy. Pugh’s decision to veto a $15 minimum wage bill isn’t disappointing in the least. More politicians should learn from her example of valuing economic reality over populist rhetoric.

The Mayor’s veto is good news, though it remains to be seen whether city legislators will muster enough votes for an override.

Regardless of what happens, notice that the Mayor didn’t do the right thing because she believed in economic liberty and freedom of contract. She also didn’t do the right thing because she recognized that higher minimum wage mandates would lead to more joblessness.

Instead, she felt compelled to do the right thing because of jurisdictional competition. She was forced to acknowledge that bad policy in her city would explicitly backfire since economic activity is mobile. She had to admit that there are no magic boats.

And this underscores why federalism and decentralization are vital features of a good system. Governments are more likely to do bad things when the costs can be imposed on an entire nation (or, even better from their perspective, the entire world). But when bad policy is localized, it becomes very hard to disguise the costs of bad policy.

And, as today’s column illustrates, decentralization stopped the Mayor of Baltimore from a bad policy that would hurt poorly skilled workers. Just as federalism stopped Vermont politicians from imposing a destructive single-payer health system.

Let’s close by circling back to the minimum wage.

Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, Andy Puzder makes a very timely pointabout automation.

Entry-level jobs matter—and you don’t have to take my word for it. In a speech last week on workforce development in low-income communities, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said that “it is crucial for younger workers to establish a solid connection to employment early in their work lives.” Unfortunately, government policies are destroying entry-level jobs by giving businesses an incentive to automate at an accelerated pace. In a survey released last month, the publication Nation’s Restaurant News asked 319 restaurant operators to name their biggest challenge for 2017. Nearly a quarter of them, 24%, said rising minimum wages. …The trend toward automation is particularly pronounced in areas where the local minimum wage is high.

Need more evidence?

By the way, even the normally left-leaning World Bank has research on the damaging impact of minimum wage mandates.

This paper uses a search-and-matching model to examine the effects of labor regulations that influence the cost of formal labor (notably minimum wages and payroll taxes) on labor market outcomes… The results indicate that these regulations, especially minimum wage policy, contribute to higher unemployment rates and constraint formalization…, especially for youth and women.

The research was about the labor market in Morocco, but the laws of supply and demand are universal.

As I’ve repeatedly stated, when you mandate that workers get paid more than what they’re worth, that’s a recipe for unemployment. And as the World Bank points out, it’s the more vulnerable members of society who pay the highest price.

In an ideal world, there should be no minimum wage mandates. But since that’s not an immediately practical goal, the best way of protecting low-skilled workers is to make sure Washington does not impose a nationwide increase. That won’t stop every state and local government from imposing destructive policies that cause unemployment, but the pressure of jurisdictional competition will

And when those bad policies do occur, that will simply give us more evidence against intervention. Which brings us back to where we started. The real world is a laboratory that shows statism is a bad idea.

P.S. In honor of Equal Pay Day, I can’t resist sharing this tidbit from the Washington Free Beacon.

Oh, you also won’t be surprised to learn that there was also a big pay gap in Hillary Clinton’s Senate office, as well as Obama’s White House. In reality, of course, the market punishes genuine discrimination and the pay gap is basically nonexistent when comparing workers with similar education, experience, and work patterns.

Evidence shows jurisdictions with free markets and

White House Chief of Staff Reince, left, and Senior Counselor Steve Bannon, right, make a joint appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland on Feb. 23, 2017.

White House Chief of Staff Reince, left, and Senior Counselor Steve Bannon, right, make a joint appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland on Feb. 23, 2017.

Steve Bannon, the controversial top strategist for President Donald J. Trump, was removed from the National Security Council “Principals Committee” on Wednesday, PPD confirmed. He only attended one meeting of the committee and was put on it to ensure National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn carried out the president’s directive to depoliticize the NSC.

In a statement, Mr. Bannon said Susan Rice, the former national national security advisor under Barack Obama, had politicized the NSC.

“Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration,” he said in the statement. “I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized. General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function.”

Lt. Gen. Flynn was fired from his role in mid February after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador.

But now with H.R. McMaster serving as the new National Security Adviser and President Trump’s wishes carried out, the White House saw no need for Mr. Bannon to continue to serve on the committee as a check, officials said.

Bannon is still permitted to go to NSC meetings and retained his clearance.

The shakeup Wednesday also promoted the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats to “regular attendees.” Those roles had previously been downgraded.

Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert also had his role toned down in the shakeup, though he can still call a meeting of the Homeland Security Council, remains on the Principals Committee and can attend NSC meetings.

Steve Bannon, a top strategist for President

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial