coorslite21

Perhaps a "tongue in cheek" comment....(always wondered where that came from).....or, more likely, just inaccurate news reporting....which seems to be a popular trend these days!

Please explain.... condescending how? Just a simple explanation as to why anonymous sources are worthless.....how is that condescending?

Oh the drama...B/A believes Trump is "ready to snap"......more like the lying MSM that has snapped!

I'm not so sure there is a mole... The left and the main stream media along with most of the political world keep harping on who is this individual, how could they do this.... Of course the left paints it as some kind of Patriot trying to save the world, and the right paints it as this guy's a traitor..... It seems to me that especially with Fox News and the Republican establishment politicians harping on this "individual" aspect to all of this....that it's very likely this is a deep state move...... But why is the question?..... Why is no one (us/everyone)considering that the fake news, isn't behind this...... It's all about the source and the source almost seems to be given instant credibility by everyone even though anonymous ...and this was published in a less than balanced publication....and again I ask why?.... Until this source is named ....and I don't believe the source ever will be because I think it's totally made up.... as far as I'm concerned this is a non story and will be proved to be just that in time.... Just my opinion as always.....CL BTW....A friend of mine...heard from someone she knows....she can't tell me who...(anonymous) says Adam Montana's brother is Putin...even stranger is the fact thier grand father was aldufus hitler......he was known as adolf....but was a confused transgender/transvestite....and I know this because I believe this anonymous source??? Do you get my point?.....use some common sense when you look at this.....again JMO

Until it is proven otherwise this anonymous source is peer fiction..... This whole thing could be totally made up..... No actual person and just made up BS...... Wouldn't be the 1st time for this publication......heck.....Lanny Davis just pulled a like non story with Cohen supposedly flipping on Trump...the left seems more out of sorts than Trump and the White House!...can't wait for Pelopsi to say something@

You can't fix the looney left...they believe if they say it enough....they can wish it into being....and really.....journalism......all based on unnamed sources....BS

Sure.....consider the source(s)....and publication ....pure MSM bull crap until proven otherwise.....CL

Tick Tock!......change is coming....

Yet among all this chaos ....Trump is clicking off.....one by one......all those things he promised he would do if he was elected.......he must be a miracle worker!!!

Not so fast with this Woodward integrity theme.......True....he is a very articulate writer.....and has been a part of some big things...........but he writes to make a profit.......and that can call for sensationalism........ For years there have been rumblings of him 'ginning" his writings up......so he can sell..........is that the definition of integrity?? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/6-bob-woodward-controversies-075738 Bob Woodward's reporting has been questioned before. | REUTERS 6 Bob Woodward controversies By TIM MAK 04/30/2012 11:19 AM EDT Share on Facebook Share on Twitter With a New York magazine article’s revelation Sunday that legendary Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee once expressed “fear in my soul” that Bob Woodward had embellished elements of his reporting in the Watergate scandal, POLITICO has put together a list of six occasions where critics have questioned Woodward’s reporting: 1. The potted plant to signal “Deep Throat” Adrian Havill, author of “Deep Truth: The Lives of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein,” wrote in the book that Woodward’s claim of signaling his “Deep Throat” source for meetings using a flowerpot on his balcony “does strain credulity,” since Woodward’s balcony faced an inner courtyard and isn’t visible from a nearby alleyway. ( PHOTOS: The Watergate story) Woodward later claimed in the Sydney Morning Herald that the courtyard behind his apartment building had not yet been closed off at the time and that his balcony could be seen from “dozens of apartments or offices,” speculating even that the FBI had “surveillance or listening posts nearby,” though he admits he is not sure how Mark Felt — later unmasked as “Deep Throat” — monitored the flowerpot. (Also on POLITICO: New York Magazine writer calls out Bob Woodward) 2. CIA Director William Casey’s deathbed scene Woodward claimed in his book “Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987” that Casey admitted on his deathbed that he had known about the diversion of Iran arms sale money to the Contras. But Casey’s daughter, Bernadette Casey Smith, claimed that Woodward “never got the deathbed confession,” according to the Houston Chronicle. In addition, Kevin Shipp, a member of Casey’s security detail, asserted in a self-published memoirthat none of the agents standing guard over the Casey allowed Woodward into his hospital room at Georgetown University Hospital, and that in any case the former CIA director was not able to talk at the time Woodward cited. In his defense, Woodward quotes William Donnelly, head of CIA administration, who said “Woodward probably found a way to sneak in,” and argues that the guards weren’t there 24/7 at the time. 3. Tenet’s WMD “slam dunk” quote In his 2004 book “Plan of Attack,” Woodward claims that CIA Director George Tenet said that there was a “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. However, Tenet claimed that his words were taken out of context and that he was being set up as a scapegoat for the failures of the Iraq War. In a “ 60 Minutes” interview, Tenet said that he had said “slam dunk” to suggest it would be easy to build a public case for the war. By TIM MAK 04/30/2012 11:19 AM EDT Share on Facebook Share on Twitter 4. Did Justice William J. Brennan Jr. vote against his judgment to win favor? In Woodward’s 1979 book “The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court,” Justice William J. Brennan Jr. is alleged to have voted against his own personal judgment in the case Moore v. Illinois in order to avoid offending Justice Harry A. Blackmun. According to Woodward and co-author Scott Armstrong, Brennan had realized his initial vote was incorrect but declined to change it in order to avoid pushing Blackmun’s vote away on abortion and obscenity cases. Anthony Lewis challenged this account in the New York Review of Books, saying that the charge was leveled “without serious evidence” and that the story “leaves doubts not only about the authors’ understanding but about their scrupulousness.” Lewis said in a follow-up that he had reached all 30 law clerks that were at the Supreme Court in the 1971 term. “Their verdict on the story told by Woodward and Armstrong was overwhelmingly negative. The prevailing tone of their comments was disbelief, verging on contempt. The clerks who had personally worked on the case or had any direct knowledge of it all flatly rejected the story,” Lewis claimed. 5. Reagan recovery scene In “Veil,” Woodward also describes Ronald Reagan’s recovery from the 1981 attempt on his life as quite poor. He reports on a scene in which Reagan collapses into a chair. Woodward further writes that in the days after his release from the hospital, Reagan could “concentrate for only a few minutes at a time” and in the following days would only be able to “remain attentive only an hour or so a day.” Reagan’s physician, Dr. Daniel Ruge, disputed this portrayal, telling the AP that “his recovery was superb … I never saw anything like that [description in the book] … it’s certainly news to me and I was there all the time.” 6. John Belushi portrayal in “Wired” Close confidants of Belushi expressed outrage at the way the comedian was portrayed in Woodward’s biography “Wired,” alleging that some of the scenes were fabricated. “There were certainly things that he just got patently wrong. He painted a portrait of John that was really inaccurate — certain stories in there that just weren’t true and never happened,” said Dan Akroyd, a fellow Blues Brother and close friend, in the book “Live from New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live.” Akroyd did not specify which incidents in particular were made up. There are dozens more examples if you want me to post them.......CL ================================================= Criticisms of content Woodward has been accused of exaggeration and fabrication regarding "Deep Throat," his Watergate informant. Ever since W. Mark Felt was announced as the true identity behind Deep Throat, John Dean[45] and Ed Gray,[46] in separate publications, have used Woodward's book All The President's Men and his published notes on his meetings with Deep Throat to argue that Deep Throat could not have been only Mark Felt. They argued that Deep Throat was a fictional composite made up of several Woodward sources, only one of whom was Felt. Gray, in his book In Nixon's Web, even went so far as to publish an e-mail and telephone exchange he had with Donald Santarelli, a Washington lawyer who was a Justice Department official during Watergate, in which Santarelli confirmed to Gray that he was the source behind statements Woodward recorded in notes he has attributed to Deep Throat.[47] However, Stephen Mielke, an archivist at the University of Texas who oversees the Woodward-Bernstein papers, said it is likely the page was misfiled under Felt because no source was identified. The original page of notes is in the Mark Felt file but "the carbon is located with the handwritten and typed notes attributed to Santarelli." Ed Gray said that Santarelli confirmed to him that he was the source behind the statements in the notes.[48] J. Bradford DeLong has noted considerable inconsistencies between the accounts of the making of Clinton economic policy described in Woodward's book Maestro and his book The Agenda.[49] Some of Woodward's critics accuse him of abandoning critical inquiry to maintain his access to high-profile political actors. Anthony Lewis called the style "a trade in which the great grant access in return for glory."[50] Christopher Hitchens accused Woodward of acting as "stenographer to the rich and powerful."[51] Writer Tanner Colby, who co-wrote a biography of John Belushi with the late actor's widow Judy, wrote in Slate that, while Woodward's frequently criticized 1984 book Wired: The Short Life and Fast Times of John Belushi is largely accurate in its description of events, Woodward either gets the context wrong or doesn't find any context at all. For example, Belushi's grandmother's funeral, which led him to make a serious effort to sober up, gets merely a paragraph in Woodward's retelling, while a 24-hour drug binge in Los Angeles goes on for eight pages simply because the limo driver was willing to talk to Woodward. "It's like someone wrote a biography of Michael Jordan in which all the stats and scores are correct, but you come away with the impression that Michael Jordan wasn't very good at playing basketball," he concluded. Because it was unique among Woodward's books in that it made no use of confidential or anonymous sources, Colby was able to interview many of the same sources that Woodward had used, making comparisons of their recollection of events to Woodward's accounting of them relatively easy.[52] Woodward believed the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war, and the publication of the book At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA by former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet led Woodward to engage in a rather tortuous account of the extent of his pre-war conversations with Tenet in an article in The New Yorker in which he also chastised New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd for being critical of him.[53] Woodward was also accused of fabricating a deathbed interview with CIA Director William Casey, as described in Veil. Critics say the interview simply could not have taken place as written in the book.[54][55][56][57] Robert M. Gates, Casey’s deputy at the time, in his book "From the Shadows", recounts speaking with Casey during this exact period. Gates directly quotes Casey saying 22 words, even more than the 19 words Woodward said Casey used with him.[58] The CIA’s internal report found that Casey "had forty-three meetings or phone calls with Woodward, including a number of meetings at Casey’s home with no one else present" during the period Woodward was researching his book.[59]Gates was also quoted saying, "When I saw him in the hospital, his speech was even more slurred than usual, but if you knew him well, you could make out a few words, enough to get sense of what he was saying."[60] Following Casey's death, President Ronald Reagan wrote: "[Woodward]'s a liar and he lied about what Casey is supposed to have thought of me."[61]

I don't believe that it will be just Trump's base that will turn the midterms this time around. I also doubt that morals will be the main issue in the mid terms. The Democrat party has not exactly been a bastion for morality, with the likes of JFK and Bill Clinton in their history. I believe the economy will play the largest part in this upcoming election. Like yourself just my opinion. Additionally let me say I really wish we had 2 strong parties that both represented the well being and advancement of citizens of the United States of America..... Right now I don't feel that is the case!

Yes and until the left really comes up with some sort of platform that they're gonna run on, other than bash Trump, or anti Trump, they don't have a prayer in the mid terms or in 2020.... What are they gonna run on.. more taxes, Obama care, illegal immigrants coming across the border and killing US citizens?... is that what the left wants to stand for.... You tell me what is the plan?.....what is the left actually representing these days?....Oh sure....pure socialism.....I forgot......?

Who knew Woodward was a "fiction" writer?.....2 sources...Kelly and Mattis deny the BS.....like why would they ever speak with him to begin with knowing full well what his intentions were????....duh... Just more made up fake crap from the left.....just another day.......CL

Now Shabs, you know better. You know my point is the process has become so political that the conclusion is foregone.... I don't think it's right .....it's just what the system has become... I really wish we would see term limits on the Supreme Court Justices along with the Senate and the House.... I think that would clear a lot of these problems up.....JMO...CL

Just a shame that normal protocall calls for civility when these events get rolling....this was shouting and screaming from the peanut gallery and harsh rhetoric from those on the panel from the left.....those who claim to love family so much. The trouble was Cavanaugh's family wife and 2 young kids were there to be introduced as part of the normal proceedings. I can only imagine the lasting impression it made on the children. The gentleman who is running the clown show stated every one of those objecting from the left had already stated that they would not be voting for Kavanagh to be the next Supreme Court judge. So really what is the point of all of this embarrassment to the country. We all know what the outcome is going to be so why the dog and pony show just get the vote out of the way and put the man into the position as the 9th Justice of the Supreme Court. It's a real shame that even the courts have become political and that's not the way it was intended to be.....CL

I have watched the 1st hour of the proceedings to Approve Kavanagh is the next Supreme Court Justice... What a joke the left is making out of this process..... They're just digging the hole deeper for the mid terms..... They look like idiots..! CL

True story here..........some of my other left leaning friends have explained Melania this way....... Certainly not deep state..... But rather.......because Putin and the Russians are so deeply embedded into the USG and the political process....(Russian Collusion)........Putin arranged the marriage long ago between the Donald and Melania.........knowing he could place Trump into the Presidency............ so he would have a direct inside source to the President. So Melania would be a Russian Collusionist...... So what about that.....??

I would guess this to be "fake news".....Iraqi style,............ However if you recall..........in 2010 it took them 11 months to seat the Government...!!

Yes like this one.........sold out to the establishment......!!!!

Thank you.......as always, you put all of this in perspective like no other......CL

Hard to cut through all of this...... this is what I am getting..........There are 320 or so involved.......the reform and construction bloc included 183 members, while the construction coalition came with 148 members. So there are only a handful uncommitted..........so it looks like Abadi will hold on....... Those much smarter than I............your thoughts??? Abadi from Parliament: The issue of the largest bloc resolved and got a majority of half plus one Policy , 2018/09/03 16:31 , Number of readings: 1356 BAGHDAD, Iraq - Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said that the issue of the largest bloc has been resolved and got a majority of half plus one. Abadi said in a press statement that "was resolved today the issue of the largest bloc, which got a majority of half plus one vote of members of the House of Representatives." Abadi called for not using the suffering of citizens for political purposes, pointing out that all Iraqi problems can be resolved without any grievance. "All the problems of the Iraqis can be resolved without any of its components being wronged whether they are in the north, south, east or west," Abbadi said during the first parliament session held in the parliament building, calling for "not to exploit the suffering of citizens for political purposes." "The government and Iraq are in a state of loss because of the occupation of an oppressive organization, but now the country has taken its deserved place in its regional and Arab environment, and strengthened relations with neighboring countries." Abadi called on the next government to "strengthen relations with neighboring countries, Relations on the basis of mutual respect and non-interference in the internal affairs of the State ".

In a previous post about Trumps disapproval ratings being at an all time low I mentioned statistics can be twisted to any means........ There are far to many mass murder situations in the US......and some would like to see 2nd amendment rights reduced.....(big mistake) Here are some Stats.... https://nypost.com/2018/08/30/america-doesnt-actually-lead-the-world-in-mass-shootings/ America doesn’t actually lead the world in mass shootings By John Lott and Michael Weisser August 30, 2018 | 7:09pm | Updated Modal Trigger Shutterstock The claim that the US has by far the most mass public shootings in the world drives much of the gun-control debate. Many argue that America’s high rate of gun possession explains the high rate of mass shootings. “The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world,” President Barack Obama warned us. To justify this claim and many other similar quotes, Obama’s administration cited a then-unpublished paper by criminologist Adam Lankford. Lankford’s claim received coverage in hundreds of news stories all over the world. It still gets regular coverage. Purporting to cover all mass public shootings around the world from 1966 to 2012, Lankford claimed that the United States had 31 percent of public mass shooters despite having less than 5 percent of the population. But this isn’t nearly correct. The whole episode should provide a cautionary tale of academic malpractice and how evidence is often cherry-picked and not questioned when it fits preconceived ideas. Lankford’s study reported that over the 47 years there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. Lankford hasn’t released his list of shootings or even the number of cases by country or year. We and others, both in academia and the media, have asked Lankford for his list, only to be declined. He has also declined to provide lists of the news sources and languages he used to compile his list of cases. These omissions are important because Lankford’s entire conclusion would fall apart if he undercounted foreign cases due to lack of news coverage and language barriers. Lankford cites a 2012 New York Police Department report which he claims is “nearly comprehensive in its coverage of recent decades.” He also says he supplemented the data and followed “the same data collection methodology employed by the NYPD.” But the NYPD report warns that its own researchers “limited [their] Internet searches to English-language sites, creating a strong sampling bias against international incidents,” and thus under-count foreign mass shootings. Does Lankford’s paper also have that problem? A new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center, which one of us heads, has just finished collecting cases using the same definition of mass public shootings used by Lankford. We know of no way to discover most of the cases where four people have been shot to death in an incident in Africa or many other parts of the world during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or even 1990s, and that is the reason the new study just looked at the last 15 years from 1998 to 2012 of the 47 years he examined. Lankford’s data grossly undercount foreign attacks. We found 1,423 attacks outside the United States. Looking at just a third of the time Lankford studied, we still found 15 times as many shooters. Even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, such as excluding any cases of insurgencies or battles over territory, his estimate of the US share of shooters falls from 31 percent to 1.43 percent. It also accounts for 2.1 percent of murders, and 2.88 percent of their attacks. All these are much less than the United States’ 4.6 percent share of the population. Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings, the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States. When Lankford’s data is revised, the relationship between gun ownership rates and mass public shooters disappears. How could that be? One possibility is that guns don’t just enable mass shooters; gun owners can also deter and prevent such shootings. Another is that culture — not gun ownership — is a bigger factor in shootings. The media should be wary of any researchers who fail to let others look at their data. At least on this point, the intellectual base for liberal thunder about mass public shootings is wrong. John Lott is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. Michael Weisser was a professor of history at Columbia University.

My take is nothing would surprise me when it comes to the inner workings in DC....... The Establishment screwed Sanders and all of the lefty nation out of having a fair election in 2016 The right hasn't embraced their own duly elected President....... Both sides have many leaving office........why? Perhaps the big exposure is coming... The DOJ and FBI have been exposed for the corruption during the Obama years........and yet today..? I won't even get into the Clintons or the Bush's...... The FISA courts have been exposed as corrupt.....or really stupid...... And just like with Billy Bob.... the Special Council....(Mueller this time).....has illustrated just how stupid the entire system can be........By giving an individual the power to run roughshod all over the constitution........ So can Sessions be a plant...? He is certainly part of the establishment..........and the establishment doesn't support Trump......either side..... On a personal note........from a seasoned citizen........I recall the Race issues in Harlem, Watts and Detroit in the 60's...........The Viet Nam Mess that ended in the early 70's........As a part of that generational movement to end racism and idiotic nation building I/we felt optimistic that we had been a part of real change moving forward....... Unfortunately the Flower Children of that day never really realized the depth and control the establishment held. As I look back I just scratch my head and wonder what the hell happened........?? With this new awakening in the US I just hope this new generation can reshape the country to what the founders had designed it to be....... Hope you all in the States have a great Labor Day........CL

I have to say I don't go along with the race issue posted above....... This is sort of like the race baiting that CNN and many of the liberals take part in...... And frankly I don't know if Shabs is black or white, a man or a woman, a legal or an illegal.......for me I don't care..... Shabs has an opinion and expresses it, and does so well in my mind.... I can't say I agree with many of them, but 1st amendment rights give him the opportunity to speak them.... I will say the latest race baiting down in Florida where Santis is running for Governor and made the comment about Monkeying something up......well, the response from the MSM and left .... Kind of comical and over the top.... I have a close friend who is Black, and he has a rather large yacht and the name of that yacht is Monkey Business..... And I don't consider him to be a racist at all...... Additionally I remember President Obama in speaking to the press various times talking about some things that were happening in government or world affairs, and referring to them as monkey business..... Just to conclude I think we here probably should take the race card out of the conversations..... There's just no benefit to having them in the our conversations.....JMO....CL .

There are methods available to assure clean elections....guess the question is does the establishment really want them?...... Homepage Get started Follow Hedera Hashgraph Team The Hedera hashgraph platform will offer a public, distributed ledger that enables globally decentralized applications. Nov 22, 2017 I Want Your Vote! (Oh Wait I Already Know It) By Paul Madsen At the heart of Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs) is the mechanism by which the different instances of the ledger are kept consistent, i.e. how do the nodes holding those copies come to a shared agreement or consensus on the ordering of the various transactions within the ledger. How to gain the security benefits of voting without the overhead. A consensus mechanism will generally have the following steps Nodes create transactions they want recorded Nodes share transactions amongst other nodes Consensus is established on the order of valid transactions Nodes update their local state to the consensus result The goal is to get to step #4 as quickly as possible, but do so while minimizing the chance of the process being disrupted, corrupted or manipulated. Generally, consensus models rely on a mix of democratic mechanisms, economic principles to encourage good behavior or discourage bad behavior & random aspects which together make it impractical or unpredictable for an attacker to achieve such manipulation. Proof of Work (PoW) models like Bitcoin effectively run a contest to determine which node is given the power to make the consensus decision. The miner that first completes the hashing puzzle wins the right to add its block. Other nodes effectively endorse that block by subsequently adding their blocks to that chain. Proof of Stake (PoS) models like Ethereum’s Casper proposal layer on economic incentives — requiring that those nodes that would participate in consensus make a deposit of coins as a surety on their good behavior. Leader based models like Paxos & Raft rely on a specialized node (that may change over time) to unilaterally decide the consensus result. Voting models for consensus have desirable security properties (namely that they can be asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerant and achieve consensus even when some nodes are malicious and some messages are significantly delayed) relative to the consensus models listed above. On the other hand these voting models generally require that a large number of messages be sent amongst nodes in order to get to consensus. Consequently, voting models have been seen as impractical for any real deployments. The inefficiency of voting models derives from the necessity of multiple messages being sent between nodes to tally up the votes and so determine consensus. But consider what would happen if this weren’t necessary, that each node would know what other nodes had voted, without actually having that other node share its ballot? What if voting were ‘virtual’, i.e., that nodes were not only able to determine what their vote on a given question will be, but also what other nodes would vote on the same question? No longer would Alice need to tell Bob her vote, Bob would be able to put himself in Alice’s shoes and work out what her vote would have been if she actually cast the ballot and told Bob. The situation is similar to a political election. The candidates could save themselves some time and effort on the day by simply indicating to some volunteer at the polling station ‘You know how I’m going to vote, do it for me’. (though it is admittedly hard to imagine any politician being willing to forgo the photo opportunity of casting their ballot.) In fact, we could imagine all citizens voting virtually in this manner — every citizen would calculate how every other citizen would vote, and after adding up, they would all come to the same answer. A virtual vote to establish consensus on the order of transactions obviously requires that Bob is able to have the same view as Alice of the transactions. Without that view Bob would be unable to put himself in Alice’s shoes and see the world from her PoV — and so be able to determine what Alice’s vote would be. The hashgraph is a data structure that provides exactly that shared view of a set of transactions. But critically, not only does it provide Alice & Bob an identical view of the transactions, it gives them an identical view of how each of them (and all other nodes) learned of those transactions. The hashgraph provides each node a consistent history of exactly how each node has talked to others, and in what order they have talked, and exactly what they talked about. A hashgraph is a record of the complete history of how all nodes communicated, including what transactions were communicated at each step. With Alice and Bob both creating their own local copy of the hashgraph (built up over time via the nodes gossiping amongst themselves), both are able to see all the data & metadata they need to be able to cast their votes, but also cast a virtual vote on behalf of the other. No longer does Alice need to tell Bob how she voted, Bob just looks at his own copy of the hashgraph (which he knows Alice also has) and determines how Alice would vote (if he asked her). With virtual voting based on the hashgraph, we benefit from the great security characteristics of voting models, but without the associated messaging overhead. Constructing the hashgraph requires not only that nodes gossip about transactions, but also gossip about how and with whom they previously gossiped. I’ll go into greater detail on this ‘gossip about gossip’ in a subsequent blog post. Blockchain Distributed Ledgers Hashgraph Cryptocurrency Ethereum Like what you read? Give Hedera Hashgraph Team a round of applause. From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story. 483 Follow Hedera Hashgraph Team The Hedera hashgraph platform will offer a public, distributed ledger that enables globally decentralized applications. Follow Hedera Hashgraph Blog The Hedera hashgraph platform will offer a public, distributed ledger that enables anyone to easily develop globally distributed applications. Related reads What makes blockchains secure? (2/5) Tarun Chitra 109 Also tagged Distributed Ledgers Why Blockchain is Hard Jimmy Song 76K Related reads Blockchains in a Quantum Future Chain 327 Responses Show all responses