Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[Michael Scally MD]

WASHINGTON — Standing before reporters in February, President Trump said unequivocally that he knew of nobody from his campaign who was in contact with Russians during the election. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has told the Senate the same thing.

Court documents unsealed this week cast doubt on both statements and raised the possibility that Mr. Sessions could be called back to Congress for further questioning.

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, unsealed his first charges Monday in a wide-ranging investigation into Russian attempts to disrupt the presidential election and whether anyone close to Mr. Trump was involved. Records in that case show that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser, had frequent discussions with Russians in 2016 and touted his connections in front of Mr. Trump and Mr. Sessions.

For months, journalists have revealed evidence that associates of Mr. Trump met with Russians during the campaign and the presidential transition. But the court documents represent the first concrete evidence that Mr. Trump was personally told about ties between a campaign adviser and Russian officials.

At a March 31, 2016, meeting between Mr. Trump and his foreign policy team, Mr. Papadopoulos introduced himself and said “that he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin,” according to court records.

“He went into the pitch right away,” said J. D. Gordon, a campaign adviser who attended the meeting. “He said he had a friend in London, the Russian ambassador, who could help set up a meeting with Putin.”

Mr. Trump listened with interest. Mr. Sessions vehemently opposed the idea, Mr. Gordon recalled. “And he said that no one should talk about it because it might leak,” he said.

Several of Mr. Trump’s campaign advisers attended the March 2016 meeting, and at least two of those advisers are now in the White House: Hope Hicks, the communications director, and Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Manafort Contract ... Going Bid!!!

 

[Michael Scally MD]

(CNN) Former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page privately testified Thursday that he mentioned to Jeff Sessions he was traveling to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign — as new questions emerge about the attorney general's comments to Congress about Russia and the Trump campaign.

During more than six hours of closed-door testimony, Page said that he informed Sessions about his coming July 2016 trip to Russia, which Page told CNN was unconnected to his campaign role. Page described the conversation to CNN after he finished talking to the House intelligence committee.

Sessions' discussion with Page will fuel further scrutiny about what the attorney general knew about connections between the Trump campaign and Russia — and communications about Russia that he did not disclose despite a persistent line of questioning in three separate hearings this year.

 

[hurricane]

A report published Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture included a recommendation to lift a 20-year ban on mining for uranium in the Grand Canyon watershed.

The report was one of several requested by Trump’s “energy independence” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-and-economi-1, which directed all agencies to identify regulations that potentially “burden” fossil fuel development. Among other recommendations in the USDA report, including creating more exclusions to the National Environmental Policy Act, was the recommendation to revise the current ban on new mining claims in the national forest lands that surround Grand Canyon National Park.

The current 1-million-acre ban on new uranium mining was put into place by the Obama administration in 2012 for after an environmental impact statement found that expanded mining could cause severe impacts on water quality for downstream users. The Grand Canyon watershed provides https://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/PRS_AZ_Sept2017-091817.pdf for at least 25 million people.

“Like our ancestors, we do not know how future Americans will enjoy, experience, and benefit from this place,” former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said when the ban was announced. “And that’s one of the many reasons why wisdom, caution, and science should guide our protection of the Grand Canyon.”

The new Trump administration proposal was immediately slammed as another gift to extractive industries — one that puts drinking water, wildlife habitat, and the $887 billion outdoor recreation industry at risk.

All of the nation's national parks should never be touched. Roosevelt was a great President for all he did for our national parks.

 

[Swiper]

A report published Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture included a recommendation to lift a 20-year ban on mining for uranium in the Grand Canyon watershed.

The report was one of several requested by Trump’s “energy independence” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-and-economi-1, which directed all agencies to identify regulations that potentially “burden” fossil fuel development. Among other recommendations in the USDA report, including creating more exclusions to the National Environmental Policy Act, was the recommendation to revise the current ban on new mining claims in the national forest lands that surround Grand Canyon National Park.

The current 1-million-acre ban on new uranium mining was put into place by the Obama administration in 2012 for after an environmental impact statement found that expanded mining could cause severe impacts on water quality for downstream users. The Grand Canyon watershed provides https://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/PRS_AZ_Sept2017-091817.pdf for at least 25 million people.

“Like our ancestors, we do not know how future Americans will enjoy, experience, and benefit from this place,” former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said when the ban was announced. “And that’s one of the many reasons why wisdom, caution, and science should guide our protection of the Grand Canyon.”

The new Trump administration proposal was immediately slammed as another gift to extractive industries — one that puts drinking water, wildlife habitat, and the $887 billion outdoor recreation industry at risk.

I would have to assume no one would care if Trump let Russia control that uranium in the grand canyon. ha ha !

oh wait never mind Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration already gave 20% of our uranium to the Russians to control for $146 million in donations to the clinton foundation. no corruption, nothing to see here move along you sheep.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Just Sayin' ...

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[flenser]

All of the nation's national parks should never be touched. Roosevelt was a great President for all he did for our national parks.

[url=https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/01/bart-frazier/the-eminent-domain-origin-of-shenandoahnationalpark/]The Eminent-Domain Origin of Shenandoah National Park[/URL]
By Bart Frazier

January 4, 2007

The establishment of Shenandoah
National Park in 1926 is one of the greatest abuses of eminent domain
in our country’s history. With the Commonwealth of Virginia
condemning the entire area and removing more than 450 families,
many by force, the park would eventually encompass 196,000 acres.
After people were evicted, Virginia transferred the property to
the federal government and Shenandoah National Park was born. The
history books have forgotten the episode, but it is one that needs
to be remembered.

Just as with politics today,
the main force behind the establishment of Shenandoah National Park
(SNP) was a special-interest group, for it was not a federal bureaucracy
that pined for the park but local Virginians themselves.

In 1924, the secretary of the
Interior had established a committee to investigate a potential
site for a national park in the southern Appalachians. Knowing that
it would be a boon to tourism, many residents in the Shenandoah
Valley of central Virginia began lobbying for the park to be located
there. That same year, nearly 1,000 local residents gathered in
Harrisonburg and established Shenandoah Valley, Inc., whose slogan
was “A National Park Near the Nation’s Capital.”

The tactics used to influence
the decision on the park’s location would do any K Street veteran
proud. Shenandoah Valley, Inc., inaugurated the Apple Blossom Festival
in Winchester to showcase the area’s beauty. It is still held
annually to this day. Harry Byrd, one of the most influential members
of Shenandoah Valley, Inc., hosted members of the search committee
at his Skyland resort high up in the Blue Ridge. At Skyland, the
committee reveled in the resort’s beautiful wilderness and
sweeping vistas of the Shenandoah Valley. Skyland can still be visited
within SNP today as a campground and picnic area.

After the committee’s
visit, more than 500 valley residents traveled to Washington, D.C.,
and held a meeting to show how much local support there was for
the park. They were not disappointed. In May of 1926, President
Calvin Coolidge signed a bill authorizing the establishment of Shenandoah
National Park.

Now that Virginians had succeeded
in getting the park established within their state, the job of actually
obtaining the land was the biggest obstacle to getting tourist dollars
flowing. An arduous task lay ahead of them.

Collective condemnation

The bill that Coolidge signed
stipulated that no federal funds could be used to acquire the land
the park would comprise. The job of obtaining the land therefore
fell to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The idea of buying the land
from the owners was immediately ruled out, as it was thought too
difficult an undertaking. William E. Carson, director of the state
commission responsible for managing the land acquisition, stated,

It was manifestly
hopeless to undertake to acquire the necessary area by direct purchase
[because] any of the thousands of owners or claimants could hold
up the entire project unless paid exorbitant and unfair prices,
with jury trials, appeals, and all the endless delays which can
be injected into ordinary condemnation proceedings by selfish, stubborn,
and avaricious litigants.

It is clear that government
officials at the time considered these property owners as nothing
more than obstacles. Their concern was not for their rights, but
simply for the difficulty that they would present in bringing the
national-park project to fruition. Indeed, many people, including
the press, thought they were doing the property owners a favor by
running them off their land. The general consensus was that the
people who inhabited these mountains were living as animals and
needed to be civilized. National Park Service official Arno Cammerer
stated, “There is no person so canny as certain types of mountaineers,
and none so disreputable.” SNP official James R. Lassiter stated
in 1935 that residents suffered from a lack of “independence
and resourcefulness” and from their “dependence on outside
help.”

So in order to avoid the slow
and painful process of negotiating prices with each landowner, Virginia
passed the Public Park Condemnation Act. The act simply confiscated
all the lands that would make up the park. Officials then formed
a three-man committee to assess the value of each property that
the owner would be paid. Once the condemnation had been signed into
law, the next task was to remove the inhabitants.

With the passage of the Public
Park Condemnation Act, some landowners decided to leave of their
own accord. They took the money the state gave them and reestablished
their lives elsewhere. But many landowners refused to budge, either
because they thought they were not getting fair-market value for
their property or simply out of principle.

The park proponents soon found
out that these “mountaineers” were a little more sophisticated
than they had thought. Robert H. Via challenged the takings on Fourteenth
Amendment grounds, claiming that his due-process rights under the
Constitution had been violated. The district court ruled against
him, but Via appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined
to hear the case. H.M. Cliser wrote to Gov. John Garland Pollard
of Virginia, “I am relying wholly on the Constitution in this
matter; therefore I have nothing to arbitrate.” And Lewis Willis
wrote directly to President Hoover, “We are unwilling to part
with our homes to help a small part of our population to get their
hands into tourists’ pockets.”

Overcoming resistance

Of course, all of their efforts
were of no avail. By 1935 most of the inhabitants had left voluntarily.
But the ones who chose to remain had to be removed by force. And
the tactics used on those most adamant about staying were forceful
indeed.

H.M. Cliser owned a filling
station on one of the main roads that would lead into the park.
He had lived with his wife for 35 years in the house that his father
had built, and he steadfastly refused to leave. When the police
finally came to press the issue, they cuffed him as he started singing
“The Star-Spangled Banner.” He informed the police that
he was a free man and that he was simply defending his constitutional
rights. It took four officers to stuff him in the back of a police
car. Afterwards, his wife and children refused to leave the porch
of their house, even after the police had boarded it up. They all
eventually moved in with family outside the park boundaries where
Cliser appealed his eviction until he died at age 75.

John Mace had sold water that
he bottled from a spring on his property within park boundaries.
When he refused to leave his property, the police piled all of his
furniture and his belongings in his yard and then burned his house
down in front of him to let him know there was no chance of return.

Lizzie Jenkins was five months
pregnant when the police dragged her from her home, piled her belongings
in horse-drawn wagons, and pulled her chimney down so that she would
have no source of heat for the upcoming winter.

All in all, about 2,800 people
were forced from their homes. A small group of men decided that
a large park in the mountains would be a wonderful idea and they
uprooted an entire community and destroyed their culture in order
to accomplish it. The tyranny of the majority that Alexis de Tocqueville
warned against in the 1840s reared its head in the heart of the
Blue Ridge Mountains in the 1920s. As Madison wrote in Federalist
No. 51,

It is of great
importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against
the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society
against the injustice of the other part.

Indeed, the Constitution was
adopted to defend the likes of those poor mountain farmers from
the injustice that they eventually suffered at the hands of their
own government.

Any time the government
takes property under the power of eminent domain, it is forcibly
evicting someone from his property in the process. We have seen
it in Shenandoah National Park. We have seen it in Poletown, when
an entire Detroit suburb was razed and given to General Motors for
a new factory, and we have seen it in the recent case of Kelo
v. New London, where a township took people’s homes in
order to transfer the land to a developer.

The descendants of those who
were evicted from the Blue Ridge of Virginia are still bitter. They
still see the establishment of the park as sheer theft – their
families’ heritage stripped away in an immoral and violent
fashion. It is cases such as this that display the vile nature of
government takings, and it would be a proud day for our country
should men one day become wise enough to decide that the use of
eminent domain should be discarded completely.

 

[hurricane]

The Eminent-Domain Origin of Shenandoah National Park
By Bart Frazier

January 4, 2007

The establishment of Shenandoah
National Park in 1926 is one of the greatest abuses of eminent domain
in our country’s history. With the Commonwealth of Virginia
condemning the entire area and removing more than 450 families,
many by force, the park would eventually encompass 196,000 acres.
After people were evicted, Virginia transferred the property to
the federal government and Shenandoah National Park was born. The
history books have forgotten the episode, but it is one that needs
to be remembered.

Just as with politics today,
the main force behind the establishment of Shenandoah National Park
(SNP) was a special-interest group, for it was not a federal bureaucracy
that pined for the park but local Virginians themselves.

In 1924, the secretary of the
Interior had established a committee to investigate a potential
site for a national park in the southern Appalachians. Knowing that
it would be a boon to tourism, many residents in the Shenandoah
Valley of central Virginia began lobbying for the park to be located
there. That same year, nearly 1,000 local residents gathered in
Harrisonburg and established Shenandoah Valley, Inc., whose slogan
was “A National Park Near the Nation’s Capital.”

The tactics used to influence
the decision on the park’s location would do any K Street veteran
proud. Shenandoah Valley, Inc., inaugurated the Apple Blossom Festival
in Winchester to showcase the area’s beauty. It is still held
annually to this day. Harry Byrd, one of the most influential members
of Shenandoah Valley, Inc., hosted members of the search committee
at his Skyland resort high up in the Blue Ridge. At Skyland, the
committee reveled in the resort’s beautiful wilderness and
sweeping vistas of the Shenandoah Valley. Skyland can still be visited
within SNP today as a campground and picnic area.

After the committee’s
visit, more than 500 valley residents traveled to Washington, D.C.,
and held a meeting to show how much local support there was for
the park. They were not disappointed. In May of 1926, President
Calvin Coolidge signed a bill authorizing the establishment of Shenandoah
National Park.

Now that Virginians had succeeded
in getting the park established within their state, the job of actually
obtaining the land was the biggest obstacle to getting tourist dollars
flowing. An arduous task lay ahead of them.

Collective condemnation

The bill that Coolidge signed
stipulated that no federal funds could be used to acquire the land
the park would comprise. The job of obtaining the land therefore
fell to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The idea of buying the land
from the owners was immediately ruled out, as it was thought too
difficult an undertaking. William E. Carson, director of the state
commission responsible for managing the land acquisition, stated,

It was manifestly
hopeless to undertake to acquire the necessary area by direct purchase
[because] any of the thousands of owners or claimants could hold
up the entire project unless paid exorbitant and unfair prices,
with jury trials, appeals, and all the endless delays which can
be injected into ordinary condemnation proceedings by selfish, stubborn,
and avaricious litigants.

It is clear that government
officials at the time considered these property owners as nothing
more than obstacles. Their concern was not for their rights, but
simply for the difficulty that they would present in bringing the
national-park project to fruition. Indeed, many people, including
the press, thought they were doing the property owners a favor by
running them off their land. The general consensus was that the
people who inhabited these mountains were living as animals and
needed to be civilized. National Park Service official Arno Cammerer
stated, “There is no person so canny as certain types of mountaineers,
and none so disreputable.” SNP official James R. Lassiter stated
in 1935 that residents suffered from a lack of “independence
and resourcefulness” and from their “dependence on outside
help.”

So in order to avoid the slow
and painful process of negotiating prices with each landowner, Virginia
passed the Public Park Condemnation Act. The act simply confiscated
all the lands that would make up the park. Officials then formed
a three-man committee to assess the value of each property that
the owner would be paid. Once the condemnation had been signed into
law, the next task was to remove the inhabitants.

With the passage of the Public
Park Condemnation Act, some landowners decided to leave of their
own accord. They took the money the state gave them and reestablished
their lives elsewhere. But many landowners refused to budge, either
because they thought they were not getting fair-market value for
their property or simply out of principle.

The park proponents soon found
out that these “mountaineers” were a little more sophisticated
than they had thought. Robert H. Via challenged the takings on Fourteenth
Amendment grounds, claiming that his due-process rights under the
Constitution had been violated. The district court ruled against
him, but Via appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined
to hear the case. H.M. Cliser wrote to Gov. John Garland Pollard
of Virginia, “I am relying wholly on the Constitution in this
matter; therefore I have nothing to arbitrate.” And Lewis Willis
wrote directly to President Hoover, “We are unwilling to part
with our homes to help a small part of our population to get their
hands into tourists’ pockets.”

Overcoming resistance

Of course, all of their efforts
were of no avail. By 1935 most of the inhabitants had left voluntarily.
But the ones who chose to remain had to be removed by force. And
the tactics used on those most adamant about staying were forceful
indeed.

H.M. Cliser owned a filling
station on one of the main roads that would lead into the park.
He had lived with his wife for 35 years in the house that his father
had built, and he steadfastly refused to leave. When the police
finally came to press the issue, they cuffed him as he started singing
“The Star-Spangled Banner.” He informed the police that
he was a free man and that he was simply defending his constitutional
rights. It took four officers to stuff him in the back of a police
car. Afterwards, his wife and children refused to leave the porch
of their house, even after the police had boarded it up. They all
eventually moved in with family outside the park boundaries where
Cliser appealed his eviction until he died at age 75.

John Mace had sold water that
he bottled from a spring on his property within park boundaries.
When he refused to leave his property, the police piled all of his
furniture and his belongings in his yard and then burned his house
down in front of him to let him know there was no chance of return.

Lizzie Jenkins was five months
pregnant when the police dragged her from her home, piled her belongings
in horse-drawn wagons, and pulled her chimney down so that she would
have no source of heat for the upcoming winter.

All in all, about 2,800 people
were forced from their homes. A small group of men decided that
a large park in the mountains would be a wonderful idea and they
uprooted an entire community and destroyed their culture in order
to accomplish it. The tyranny of the majority that Alexis de Tocqueville
warned against in the 1840s reared its head in the heart of the
Blue Ridge Mountains in the 1920s. As Madison wrote in Federalist
No. 51,

It is of great
importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against
the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society
against the injustice of the other part.

Indeed, the Constitution was
adopted to defend the likes of those poor mountain farmers from
the injustice that they eventually suffered at the hands of their
own government.

Any time the government
takes property under the power of eminent domain, it is forcibly
evicting someone from his property in the process. We have seen
it in Shenandoah National Park. We have seen it in Poletown, when
an entire Detroit suburb was razed and given to General Motors for
a new factory, and we have seen it in the recent case of Kelo
v. New London, where a township took people’s homes in
order to transfer the land to a developer.

The descendants of those who
were evicted from the Blue Ridge of Virginia are still bitter. They
still see the establishment of the park as sheer theft – their
families’ heritage stripped away in an immoral and violent
fashion. It is cases such as this that display the vile nature of
government takings, and it would be a proud day for our country
should men one day become wise enough to decide that the use of
eminent domain should be discarded completely.

I believe those who sold their homes to the state were allowed to live out the rest of their lives there. While this is a terrible thing to do, it had nothing to do with Roosevelt. The deal was shot down while he was President. From 1901-1909 he developed the United States Forest Service. Was a huge advocate for protecting wildlife. Developed close to 150 national forests. Over 50 bird reserves and 18 national monuments. Not to mention 5 new national parks. I'm a big fan of President Roosevelt. He was a tough mother fukr. But I agree that eminent domain isn't the best idea.

 

[flenser]

I believe those who sold their homes to the state were allowed to live out the rest of their lives there.

Uh, no. No one sold their homes to the state, their homes were condemned through eminent domain. A few of those who didn't complain, or who had political connections, were granted limited access to portions of their property.

While this is a terrible thing to do, it had nothing to do with Roosevelt. The deal was shot down while he was President. From 1901-1909 he developed the United States Forest Service. Was a huge advocate for protecting wildlife. Developed close to 150 national forests. Over 50 bird reserves and 18 national monuments. Not to mention 5 new national parks. I'm a big fan of President Roosevelt. He was a tough mother fukr. But I agree that eminent domain isn't the best idea.

TR's dam projects alone destroyed plenty of wildlife and ecosystems, not to mention economies. The national forest service was mainly used as a tool to limit competition among timber companies, and allow those aligned with TR greater access. You should read https://www.amazon.com/Bully-Boy-Theodore-Roosevelts-Legacy/dp/0307237222/sr=1-1/qid=1157041288/ref=sr_1_1/104-8208774-0223107?ie=UTF8&s=books/lewrockwell/ (Bully Boy). It might change your mind about him.

 

[XKawN]

It's been a whlie. Just checking if they've found any collusion yet?

 

[hurricane]

You can't tell me you believe everything in that book. Of course every president has an agenda. He did much more good then harm. There's a dark side to every president. You know that. I still support his actions.

 

[hurricane]

Uh, no. No one sold their homes to the state, their homes were condemned through eminent domain. A few of those who didn't complain, or who had political connections, were granted limited access to portions of their property.



TR's dam projects alone destroyed plenty of wildlife and ecosystems, not to mention economies. The national forest service was mainly used as a tool to limit competition among timber companies, and allow those aligned with TR greater access. You should read https://www.amazon.com/Bully-Boy-Theodore-Roosevelts-Legacy/dp/0307237222/sr=1-1/qid=1157041288/ref=sr_1_1/104-8208774-0223107?ie=UTF8&s=books/lewrockwell/ (Bully Boy). It might change your mind about him.

Remember though, most of them didn't even own their land. They were mostly squatters. Yes they'd been there for years, but most had no legal claim. Shit, most couldn't read or write. And some did receive up to 2,000$. Most didn't. But some did. Not going to argue. Displacing around 2,000 people who were on land most didn't own really doesn't bother me. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[VaginaShark]

If we were smart we would all stop arguing in terms of Democrat vs Republican and start arguing in terms of the People vs the government.

It's not really ideal for a free society to have the people that run 2 out of the 3 branches of government spending their entire lives in office and never having to run for re-election. We have the same group of people writing the laws and the same group of people interpreting the laws and we wonder why things don't ever really improve from president to president.

 

[hurricane]

If we were smart we would all stop arguing in terms of Democrat vs Republican and start arguing in terms of the People vs the government.

It's not really ideal for a free society to have the people that run 2 out of the 3 branches of government spending their entire lives in office and never having to run for re-election. We have the same group of people writing the laws and the same group of people interpreting the laws and we wonder why things don't ever really improve from president to president.

I completely agree with that.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

RUFKM ...

Trump]FUCKING]Idiots, Trump[FUCKING]Tards, TrumPsychopaths ...



Energy Secretary Rick Perry suggested on Thursday that increasing fossil fuel use to spread electricity across Africa would help prevent sexual assaults there.

Perry, who traveled to South Africa last week to tout the Energy Department’s partnerships there, said he spoke with a young girl who wanted electricity so she could read without relying on the light of a fire “and have those fumes literally killing people. But also from the standpoint of sexual assault.”

“When the lights are on, when you have light that shines — the righteousness, if you will — on those types of acts,” he told an Axios event.

Perry was implicitly responding to a protester who yelled that fossil fuels were causing climate change and killing people in poor countries.

“Let me tell you, where people are dying in Africa is because of the lack of energy they have there and it’s going to take fossil fuels to push power out into those villages in Africa.”

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Just Sayin' ...

President Trump's verified @realDonaldTrump account briefly went offline. Anyone who navigated to his feed was given a generic blue landing page that read, "Sorry, that page doesn't exist!"

And in a stunning plot twist, the world later learned it wasn't a glitch -- but the work of a Twitter employee on his or her last day at work.

Initially, one of the social media site's verified accounts said Trump's feed was "inadvertently deactivated due to a human error." But a couple of hours later, Twitter announced further investigation revealed "a Twitter customer support employee ... did this on the employee's last day."

The company said it's conducting "a full internal review" of the incident.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

TrumPsychopath ...

 

[Michael Scally MD]

The Trump administration said Thursday it would exit an international effort to fight corruption that targeted revenue from oil and natural gas extraction.

The U.S. will no longer participate in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), a global initiative that requires member nations to disclose their revenues from oil, gas and mining assets, according to Reuters.

Under the agreement, the U.S. was required to reveal all the revenue it received from oil, gas and mining companies, and required those companies to publicly disclose the payments they make to the U.S. and other governments.