|
Post by auntym on Sept 26, 2017 21:31:04 GMT -6
apnews.com/dc0728173537459b9a1e38009dd5c4b5/Famous-fake-news-writer-found-dead-outside-Phoenix?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP Famous fake news writer found dead outside PhoenixBy CLARICE SILBER 9-26-2017 PHOENIX (AP) — A leading purveyor of fake news in the 2016 presidential election has died outside Phoenix at the age of 38. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Mark Casey said Tuesday authorities discovered Paul Horner dead in his bed on Sept. 18. Casey said the Maricopa County medical examiner performed an autopsy which showed there were no signs of foul play. He said Horner had a history of prescription drug abuse and that “evidence at the scene suggested this could be an accidental overdose.” Horner was known for writing false stories and disseminating internet hoaxes that often went viral on Facebook and hoodwinked thousands of people. They included a story falsely claiming President Barack Obama was gay and a radical Muslim, and another saying protesters were being paid thousands of dollars to demonstrate at Donald Trump’s campaign rallies. Horner took on greater prominence during the presidential election when false stories were widely shared on social media during the race between Trump and Hillary Clinton. In an interview with The Washington Post in 2016, Horner said he thought Trump won the White House because of him. Horner said Trump’s supporters didn’t fact-check his stories before posting them. J.J., Horner’s brother, said Paul considered his work satire and explained that his brother’s unique eye for hoaxes and hypocrisy at a young age later worked as clickbait in the internet world. “So I think that was a lot of the genius behind a lot of his work was pushing ideas that either people wanted to believe or thought was possible,” J.J. said. Casey said toxicology reports from the medical examiner’s office are still pending. The case will remain open until those results are known and a cause of death is finalized. J.J. Horner said they grew up in Minnesota before moving to Arizona as teenagers. He said his brother was drawing and making political cartoons at a very young age and took an interest in politics. Horner said while his brother was pigeonholed as a Trump supporter after a member of the Trump family shared one of his stories, he was always transparent about his views and it was obvious that he wasn’t. “I think he just wanted people to just think for themselves and be credible for their actions,” J.J. Horner said. “Read more; get more involved instead of just blindly sharing things.” apnews.com/dc0728173537459b9a1e38009dd5c4b5/Famous-fake-news-writer-found-dead-outside-Phoenix?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Dec 1, 2017 16:13:06 GMT -6
www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/michael-flynn-pleads-guilty-what-you-need-to-know-w513026 Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty: What You Need to KnowDisgraced general can now tell prosecutors everything he knows about Russiagate – and Trump's worst fears may soon be realizedBy Bob Dreyfuss / www.rollingstone.com/contributor/bob-dreyfuss12-1-2017 This past Valentine's Day, President Trump asked then FBI Director James Comey to stick around following a meeting with a group of national security officials in the Oval Office. It was a dramatic moment. After the others filed out, Trump made an insistent plea to Comey – who, it turns out, kept careful memos of this and other interactions he had with the president – to take it easy on General Michael T. Flynn, his national security adviser who'd been fired the previous day. "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," Trump begged Comey. "He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Comey, naturally, didn't let it go. The FBI folded Flynn into an official investigation into the possibility that Team Trump colluded with Russia, an inquiry that began in July 2016 after the U.S. intelligence community picked up reports of a pattern of odd contacts between the Trump campaign and an assortment of Russians. In May, Trump fired Comey over "this Russia thing with Trump and Russia," as Trump described it. Comey's ouster was a stunning event, one that led directly to the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel for Russiagate. On Friday, this all came full circle. The disgraced Flynn – who was fired for covering up his interactions last December with Sergei Kislyak, then Russia's ambassador to the United States – pleaded guilty to charges filed by Mueller that Flynn lied to the FBI about those talks with Kislyak. Flynn's guilty plea opens the door for him to tell Mueller's team everything he knows about whether Trump's aides, associates and hangers-on colluded with, cooperated with or encouraged Moscow's scheme to intervene in the 2016 election. (Three documents from Mueller's office, the statement of criminal information, the plea agreement with Flynn and the "statement of the offense," are all available to read in full.) That is, undoubtedly, why Trump made his special plea to Comey in February, why Trump fired Comey and why the White House has circled the wagons against Mueller's Russiagate investigation. We don't yet know how much Flynn knows about collusion – but Mueller surely would not have accepted the guilty plea he did unless Flynn had promised to, or already has, delivered some juicy information to the prosecutors and the FBI. Trump's worst fears may soon be realized. The charges against Flynn relate to a series of discussions the general had last December, during the presidential transition, when he reportedly told Kislyak that Trump's White House might go easy on sanctions against Russia that were imposed by President Obama and asked Kislyak to sabotage a UN resolution on Israel that Obama's White House supported. They also extend to false statements that Flynn made in regard to his company, the Flynn Intel Group, in connection with his work as a lobbyist and consultant to the government of Turkey. But having nailed Flynn – and gotten a plea agreement and Flynn's promise to cooperate with the investigation – the big question is whether Flynn can implicate President Trump, his campaign and his aides. To start with, and there are already reports to this effect, Flynn can say it was President-elect Trump and/or other Trump aides who directed him to say what he did to Kislyak. At a minimum, that would mean Trump was covertly behind those contacts and that the president knew about the content of the Flynn-Kislyak meetings last December even as other senior officials, including Vice President Pence, were in the dark and publicly exonerated Flynn. At the very least, that's embarrassing to Pence, who ought to resign. At worst, it implicates Trump directly in working, secretly and behind the scenes, to undermine Obama's foreign policy while the former administration was still in charge. Next, Flynn can tell Mueller what, if anything, he knows about the contacts between Russia and a series of Trump officials in 2016, including meetings, emails, phone calls and trips involving Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Carter Page, Roger Stone and George Papadopoulos. Mueller has already indicted Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, and Gates, his deputy campaign manager and a longtime Manafort associate, on charges involving money laundering and other offenses, and it's not known whether Manafort and Gates might also decide to tell all to Mueller in exchange for a deal. Meanwhile, Papadopoulos, a low-level campaign staffer, is already doing so, after he was nailed for lying about his own, repeated contacts with Russia, including the fact that Russia had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton and "thousands of emails." And it was Manafort who joined Don Jr. and Kushner in a now-famous meeting in Trump Tower in July 2016 in which a delegation of Russians promised to deliver "dirt" on Clinton directly from the Russian government. As Trump's chief national security campaign aide throughout 2016, Flynn could have a lot to say about all this. Trump, who publicly fretted about his desire to have Mueller wrap up his investigation sooner rather than later, and who supposedly will "blow a gasket" if he isn't exonerated by year's end, will now watch as Mueller proceeds full steam ahead, bolstered by Flynn's input. The same goes for the investigations by the House and Senate intelligence committees, despite the fact that during a closed-door meeting with GOP senators this week Trump implored the Senate committee to wrap up its own inquiry. (Like Mueller's long march, the two congressional committees aren't looking to shut down anytime soon.) Mueller's charging documents state bluntly that Flynn interfered with the FBI's inquiry into Trump-Russia collusion. "Flynn's false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a significant material effect on the FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election," the document declares. Meanwhile, let it sink in: Already, Trump's chief national security aide, his campaign manager and his deputy campaign manager have all been indicted on criminal felonies. And there's more to come. During the Republican National Convention in July 2016, when Trump was officially nominated as the GOP's candidate, Flynn led the entire convention in a repeated chant of "Lock her up! Lock her up!" On Friday morning, as Flynn hurriedly exited the federal court building in Washington, D.C., after making his guilty plea, a spectator held high a simple, hand-lettered sign: "Lock him up!" www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/michael-flynn-pleads-guilty-what-you-need-to-know-w513026
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Dec 5, 2017 16:49:18 GMT -6
www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/see-jimmy-fallon-sing-robert-muellers-comin-to-town-w513321 Watch Jimmy Fallon as Bruce Springsteen: 'Robert Mueller's Comin' to Town'By Elias Leight / www.rollingstone.com/contributor/elias-leight12-05-2017 Jimmy Fallon and Stephen Colbert found the holiday spirit in the latest results of Robert Mueller's investigation into collusion between Russia and President Trump's administration. On Friday, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador and agreed to cooperate with Mueller's inquiry. On The Tonight Show, Fallon resurrected his spot-on Bruce Springsteen impression – donning Aviator sunglasses, a red bandana, sleeveless denim and one earring – and adapted the words of Springsteen's rendition of "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town." "You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not lie to the FBI," Fallon sang. "He sees your Russian meetings, he's read all your emails ... He knows that you tried to collude, it isn't fake news for goodness' sake." Fallon ended the performance with a cheerful ad-lib: "All your *bleep* are going to jail! Merry Christmas!" Colbert took a different tack on The Late Show, assembling an eight-person choir that reworked the carol "The 12 Days of Christmas" in honor of "holiday collusion season": "On the first day of Christmas Bob Mueller gave to me/ A Michael Flynn guilty plea." The ensemble made it to through four verses before their resolve broke down. "On the fifth day of Christmas, Bob Mueller gave to me/ Please speed this up/ I won't last 12 days, cut to the trial," the choir sang. They finished with a cry for help: "We can't take it anymore." CONTINUE READING: www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/see-jimmy-fallon-sing-robert-muellers-comin-to-town-w513321
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Dec 9, 2017 14:15:19 GMT -6
www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/opinion/sunday/congress-sexual-harassment-dowd.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fmaureen-dowd&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection Roadkill on Capitol Hillby Maureen Dowd www.nytimes.com/column/maureen-dowd?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=ExtendedByline®ion=Header&pgtype=article DEC. 9, 2017 WASHINGTON — Alan Simpson was appalled by the injustice of it all. Back in 1991, during the incendiary Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings, the salty Republican senator from Wyoming was very concerned at the idea that a woman would wait many years after a disturbing encounter and then “come out of the night like a missile and destroy a man.” It has been a rough spell for men whose primal fear is women coming out of the night like missiles. Even though then-Senator Simpson absurdly claimed during those hearings that it was puzzling that Hill had not come forward sooner given that the nation’s capital was “fertile ground” for a woman with a sexual harassment complaint to be treated fairly, it took 26 more years of rampant sexual harassment — and a fortune in secret settlements on Capitol Hill — before women took to the ramparts. For all the furor surrounding those hearings, male politicians did not learn anything about sexual harassment. Most of the all-male, all-white members of the Judiciary Committee privately — and mistakenly — assumed that Thomas and Hill had had some sort of work romance that soured. So they just went through the motions of looking into it and then got back to business as usual in the men’s club. It took far too long, but something finally snapped with women. Why had we allowed ourselves to think of abusive behavior as the norm for so long? Maybe it was this pent-up anger that has given the cascading accusations such a feral edge. “There’s roadkill, yeah,” conceded one Democratic woman in Congress. “People are being forced to resign whose conduct was not as bad as other people’s.” And she believes that a lot more missile-fearing legislators will quietly slink away, opening up a lot of seats for women and minorities and a younger generation. There is rough justice in this initial barrage of j’accuses, before people work out a hierarchy of sins and due process. That may stem from the decades when so many women accusers — from Anita Hill to Bill Clinton’s inamorata and prey — were treated as collateral damage, smeared and pushed aside so that the careers of powerful men could be preserved. For the first time, as they shudder watching the reputations and livelihoods of so many high-profile men disappear in a blink, many men are paying close attention to women’s stories of being manhandled and minimized, out of self-preservation if not sympathy. The more potent lesson of the Hill-Thomas hearings (echoed in the 2000 Florida recount) was that Democrats often lose out because Republicans play to win, and they play rough. So Al Franken, who is good on women’s rights, resigns for wet kisses and random squeezes while President Trump, who is awful on women’s rights, skips right past his braggadocio on groping. Meanwhile, the accused pervert and pedophile Roy Moore, who is a Neanderthal on women’s rights, leads once more in the Senate race in Alabama, buoyed by the president — who believes in nothing but winning — and the soulless R.N.C. There were many women who wanted to save Franken and who complained to the Furies in the Senate, “Why are we killing our own when we’re getting Roy Moore?” And Nancy Pelosi’s first instinct was to protect John Conyers, because, as she said, he was “an icon in our country.” But Democrats in Congress want to use Trump and Moore as foils to stamp themselves as the party that sticks up for women. They can no longer justify the way they defended Bill Clinton’s retrograde treatment of women simply because of his progressive policies toward women. Kirsten Gillibrand knew that when she jettisoned her old patrons, the Clintons, in a recent interview with The Times’s podcast “The New Washington.” www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/podcasts/kirsten-gillibrand-sexual-harassment-new-washington.htmlThey also are aware that they sound tinny hailing Hillary Clinton as a feminist icon when she participated in smear campaigns against Bill’s girlfriends and prey. Harvey Weinstein took a couple of vile pages out of the Clinton playbook, hiring private investigators to dig up dirt to discredit accusers and floating suggestions that the victims might be a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty. When the first Times story revealed Ashley Judd’s harrowing experience with Weinstein, the ogre evoked Hillary’s move with Monica when she told people that Bill was merely “ministering” to a troubled young woman, hinting with faux sympathy that Judd was a troubled woman. “I know Ashley Judd is going through a tough time right now,” Weinstein told Page Six’s Emily Smith. “I read her book in which she talks about being the victim of sexual abuse and depression as a child.” The Times reported on Tuesday that Lena Dunham and Tina Brown had cautioned Hillary’s campaign to keep its distance from Weinstein. (“I just want to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist,” Dunham said she warned a Clinton aide.) But Clinton Inc. ignored the advice, preferring to let one of Hillary’s top fund-raisers bask in her aura even as he mauled women. The muddled message of Hillary campaigning as a feminist while being a key cog in Weinstein’s complicity machine was summed up nicely in a tweet Wednesday by The Times’s Amy Chozick. Running the gamut from Bill to Harvey to Trump to Anthony Weiner, Chozick tweeted: “So Hillary, married to an alleged sexual abuser, took $ from an alleged sexual abuser to help her defeat an alleged sexual abuser and ended up losing partly b/c of an alleged sexual abuser.” That’s no way to be the party that protects women. www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/opinion/sunday/congress-sexual-harassment-dowd.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fmaureen-dowd&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Dec 18, 2017 18:37:19 GMT -6
www.cnn.com/2017/12/18/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller/index.html?sr=twCNN121817donald-trump-robert-mueller0716PMVODtop Can Donald Trump fire Robert Mueller? And how would it work?By Laura Jarrett, CNN / www.cnn.com/profiles/laura-jarrett Mon December 18, 2017 Trump says he's not considering firing Mueller (CNN)Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel to lead the Russia probe in May caught President Donald Trump by surprise. Seven months later, the President's defenders have gone into overdrive hoping to discredit the investigation as Trump insists publicly he has no plans to fire Mueller. Trump has called the investigation a "witch hunt," his allies on Capitol Hill highlight the political contributions Mueller's team members have made to Democrats over the years, and Fox News banners muse about an anti-Trump "coup in America?" Trump transition lawyers also say Mueller's team wrongfully got a hold of tens of thousands of emails. Trump, his lawyers, his Cabinet, and White House staff all still maintain that Mueller isn't on the chopping block even as his investigation reaches members of the President's inner circle. But what's to stop the President from handing Mueller a pink slip if he changes his mind? The answer isn't straightforward.Under the special counsel regulations, Mueller may be "disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the attorney general." Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from all matters related to the 2016 presidential campaigns, so the power to fire Mueller falls to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. But Rosenstein has continuously offered a full-throated defense of Mueller's integrity, telling the House Judiciary Committee just last week that he's seen no "good cause to fire Mueller." Trump does have the ability to fire Sessions and/or Rosenstein -- as a members of the executive branch -- in which case Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand would elevate to acting attorney general. "The President is not considering changes to the Department of Justice leadership," Raj Shah, principal deputy White House press secretary, told The Washington Post Monday. But former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal, who helped draft the special counsel regulations in the 1990s, has also suggested that the rules don't "foreclose the possibility of political interference in the investigation." "Our Constitution gives the President the full prosecution power in Article II; accordingly, any federal prosecutor works ultimately for the President," Katyal said. "The President, therefore, would have to direct Rosenstein to fire Mueller -- or, somewhat more extravagantly, Trump could order the special-counsel regulations repealed and then fire Mueller himself." When President Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating Watergate, it proved to be a turning point in the investigation, leading to the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre." Richardson refused and resigned in protest, leading Nixon to order then-Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. But Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned, and eventually then-solicitor general Robert Bork fired Cox. Is Trump worse off if he tries?Harvard Law School Professor Jack Goldsmith, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during George W. Bush's administration, has suggested the President will only come under further scrutiny if he tries to fire Mueller. "I don't see how firing Mueller gives Trump relief from the investigation. More likely the opposite, since it would call Trump into greater suspicion. Just as it got worse for him after he fired (former FBI Director James) Comey, it would get yet worse for him if he fired Mueller," Goldsmith tweeted. "(T)he overall investigation has already yielded fruit and there is a clear justification for it to continue," he added. Just as the FBI's counterintelligence investigation had been looking into contacts between Russian operatives and individuals associated with the Trump campaign prior to Mueller's appointment in May -- the FBI's probe would not necessarily shut down even if Mueller were out of the picture. "FBI Director (Christopher) Wray would continue to investigate until ordered not to," Goldsmith said. What's at stake if he does it anyway?The number two Republican in the Senate has said it would be a "mistake" for Trump to fire Mueller and Democrats would undoubtedly go ballistic if he tried. Yet the legislative proposals floated over the summer to protect the special counsel have, thus far, stalled. And even if someone tried to file a lawsuit in federal court to stop the President -- it's difficult to envision a realistic scenario where a challenger with adequate standing would have a legal leg to stand on. As the head of the executive branch, the President is ultimately in charge of law enforcement. "The President under our Constitution has the prosecution power. So prosecutors serve as an extension of the Presidency," Katyal has said. But the very idea that Trump might try to fire or order the firing of the prosecutor -- who now charged the President's former campaign aides with federal crimes and secured a cooperation deal with the President's former national security adviser -- strikes some legal experts as an illustration of the inherent flaw in our constitutional design. Trump is "a stress test for this particular constitutional problem," Harvard Law School Professor Noah R. Feldman told CNN. www.cnn.com/2017/12/18/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller/index.html?sr=twCNN121817donald-trump-robert-mueller0716PMVODtop
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Dec 29, 2017 11:22:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jan 3, 2018 15:11:02 GMT -6
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42559436?ocid=socialflow_twitter10 explosive revelations from new Trump book1-3-2018 Donald Trump was "befuddled" by his election win, did not enjoy his inauguration and was scared of the White House, according to a new book. Journalist Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House also purports to lift the lid on Ivanka Trump's secret presidential ambitions. The book details Mr Trump's regard for media titan Rupert Murdoch, though the admiration was apparently not mutual. Michael Wolff's book was reportedly based on more than 200 interviews. But White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the book was filled with "false and misleading accounts". The author says he was able to take up "something like a semi-permanent seat on a couch in the West Wing" following the president's inauguration for a close-up insight into the administration. Here are 10 of the book's revelations: 1. Bannon thought Don Jr meeting 'treasonous'According to the book, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon thought a meeting between Donald Trump Jr and a group of Russians was "treasonous". The Russians had offered Donald Trump Jr damaging information on Hillary Clinton at the June 2016 meeting. Media captionSteve Bannon's three goals for the Trump presidency Wolff writes that Bannon told him of the meeting: "The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor - with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers. Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad s***, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately." Bannon reportedly said the Justice Department investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Moscow would focus on money laundering, adding: "They're going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV." Russia-Trump: Who's who? 2. Trump 'befuddled' by his victoryIn an article for NYMag adapted from his book, Wolff describes the amazement - and dismay - in the Trump camp at his November 2016 election win. "Shortly after 8pm on Election Night, when the unexpected trend - Trump might actually win - seemed confirmed, Don Jr told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears - and not of joy. There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon's not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump. But still to come was the final transformation: Suddenly, Donald Trump became a man who believed that he deserved to be, and was wholly capable of being, the president of the United States." 3. Trump 'angry' at inaugurationWolff writes: "Trump did not enjoy his own inauguration. He was angry that A-level stars had snubbed the event, disgruntled with the accommodations at Blair House, and visibly fighting with his wife, who seemed on the verge of tears. Throughout the day, he wore what some around him had taken to calling his golf face: angry and *angry* off, shoulders hunched, arms swinging, brow furled, lips pursed." But the first lady's office rejected the claims. Communications director Stephanie Grisham said in a statement: "Mrs Trump supported her husband's decision to run for President and in fact, encouraged him to do so. She was confident he would win and was very happy when he did." Image copyright Getty Images 4. Trump found White House 'scary' Wolff writes: "Trump, in fact, found the White House to be vexing and even a little scary. He retreated to his own bedroom - the first time since the Kennedy White House that a presidential couple had maintained separate rooms. In the first days, he ordered two television screens in addition to the one already there, and a lock on the door, precipitating a brief standoff with the Secret Service, who insisted they have access to the room. He reprimanded the housekeeping staff for picking up his shirt from the floor: 'If my shirt is on the floor, it's because I want it on the floor.' Then he imposed a set of new rules: Nobody touch anything, especially not his toothbrush. (He had a longtime fear of being poisoned, one reason why he liked to eat at McDonald's - nobody knew he was coming and the food was safely premade.) Also, he would let housekeeping know when he wanted his sheets done, and he would strip his own bed." Does Donald Trump have a nuclear button?5. Ivanka hopes to be presidentMr Trump's daughter and her husband Jared Kushner allegedly struck a deal that she might run for president in future, according to Wolff: Image caption Mr Trump pats his pregnant daughter Ivanka during his 2016 campaign "Balancing risk against reward, both Jared and Ivanka decided to accept roles in the West Wing over the advice of almost everyone they knew. It was a joint decision by the couple, and, in some sense, a joint job. Between themselves, the two had made an earnest deal: If sometime in the future the opportunity arose, she'd be the one to run for president. The first woman president, Ivanka entertained, would not be Hillary Clinton; it would be Ivanka Trump. Bannon, who had coined the term 'Jarvanka' that was now in ever greater use in the White House, was horrified when the couple's deal was reported to him. 'They didn't say that?' he said. 'Stop. Oh, come on. They didn't actually say that? Please don't tell me that. Oh my God.'" 6. Ivanka mocks dad's 'comb-over'The US first daughter poked fun at her father's alleged "scalp-reduction surgery", according to the book. "She treated her father with a degree of detachment, even irony, going so far as to make fun of his comb-over to others. She often described the mechanics behind it to friends: an absolutely clean pate - a contained island after scalp-reduction -surgery - surrounded by a furry circle of hair around the sides and front, from which all ends are drawn up to meet in the center and then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray. The color, she would point out to comical effect, was from a product called Just for Men - the longer it was left on, the darker it got. Impatience resulted in Trump's orange-blond hair color." Image caption Jared Kushner was unsure of his father-in-law's priorities, according to the book 7. White House unsure of prioritiesKatie Walsh, the White House deputy chief of staff, asked Mr Kushner, the president's senior adviser, what the administration wanted to achieve. But according to the book, Mr Kushner did not have an answer. "'Just give me the three things the president wants to focus on,' she [Katie Walsh] demanded. 'What are the three priorities of this White House?' It was the most basic question imaginable - one that any qualified presidential candidate would have answered long before he took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Six weeks into Trump's presidency, Kushner was wholly without an answer. 'Yes,' he said to Walsh. 'We should probably have that conversation.'" 8. Trump's admiration for MurdochWolff, who previously wrote a biography of Rupert Murdoch, describes Mr Trump's high regard for the News Corp media titan. "On the Saturday after the election, Trump received a small group of well-wishers in his triplex apartment in Trump Tower. Even his close friends were still shocked and bewildered, and there was a dazed quality to the gathering. But Trump himself was mostly looking at the clock. Rupert Murdoch, who had promised to pay a call on the president-elect, was running late. When some of the guests made a move to leave, an increasingly agitated Trump assured them that Rupert was on his way. 'He's one of the greats, the last of the greats,' Trump said. 'You have to stay to see him.' Not grasping that he was now the most powerful man in the world, Trump was still trying mightily to curry favor with a media mogul who had long disdained him as a charlatan and fool." 9. Murdoch calls Trump 'idiot'But the admiration was not mutual, according to Wolff's account of a call between Mr Murdoch and Mr Trump about the president's meeting with Silicon Valley executives. Mr Trump is said to have told Mr Murdoch: "'These guys really need my help. Obama was not very favorable to them, too much regulation. This is really an opportunity for me to help them.' 'Donald,' said Murdoch, 'for eight years these guys had Obama in their pocket. They practically ran the administration. They don't need your help.' 'Take this H-1B visa issue. They really need these H-1B visas.' Murdoch suggested that taking a liberal approach to H-1B visas, which open America's doors to select immigrants, might be hard to square with his promises to build a wall and close the borders. But Trump seemed unconcerned, assuring Murdoch, 'We'll figure it out.' 'What a f****** idiot,' said Murdoch, shrugging, as he got off the phone." 10. Flynn knew Russia ties 'a problem'Former US National Security Adviser Mike Flynn knew that accepting money from Moscow for a speech could come back to haunt him, according to the book. Wolff writes that before the election Mr Flynn "had been told by friends that it had not been a good idea to take $45,000 from the Russians for a speech. 'Well it would only be a problem if we won.' he assured them." Mr Flynn has been indicted in the Justice Department special counsel's inquiry. www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42559436?ocid=socialflow_twitter Michael Wolff's Trump book 'FIRE AND FURY' hits #1 on Amazon, publisher speeds up rollout plan money.cnn.com/2018/01/03/media/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-interviews/index.html?sr=twCNN010318michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-interviews0421PMStory
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jan 3, 2018 15:23:32 GMT -6
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42560520Ex-aide Bannon has lost his mind - Trump1-3-2018 Former White House aide Steve Bannon "lost his mind" after he lost his job at the White House, US President Donald Trump has said. The president disavowed Mr Bannon after he was quoted in a new book describing a meeting between Mr Trump's son and a group of Russians as "treasonous". The Russians had offered Donald Trump Jr damaging information on Hillary Clinton at the June 2016 meeting. Mr Bannon's quote appears in a new book by journalist Michael Wolff. "Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind," Mr Trump said in a statement on Wednesday. 10 explosive claims from new Trump book"Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating seventeen candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party," he continued. "Now that he is on his own, Steve is learning that winning isn't as easy as I make it look. Steve had very little to do with our historic victory, which was delivered by the forgotten men and women of this country." Mr Bannon, the president's former chief strategist, was considered a key player in the Trump White House and helped shape Mr Trump's "America First" campaign message before he left his post in August. He returned to his role as the head of the right-wing Breitbart News website, where he said he planned to help Mr Trump's administration as a "wingman outside". Mr Trump reportedly spoke to Mr Bannon as recently as 13 December, the day of the special US Senate election in Alabama that saw the defeat of Republican Roy Moore, whom Mr Bannon supported. The president reportedly spoke to his former chief strategist for 15 minutes, according to the New York Times. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said she believed Mr Trump's last conversation with Mr Bannon took place "in the early part of December". The president's comments came hours after the explosive new book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, revealed that Mr Bannon called Mr Trump Jr's meeting "treasonous" and "unpatriotic". How Trump cooled on BannonSpeaking to the author, Mr Wolff, Mr Bannon said of the investigation into whether there was any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign: "They're going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV." An inevitable break-upAnthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington Donald Trump swept to the presidency in part on the back of Steve Bannon and his Breitbart conservative media empire. Now we will see how he fares when he's at war with them. The president's blistering reply to Mr Bannon's comments appears to indicate that the bridge between the politician and his ideological spirit guide has been reduced to cinders. But how will Mr Trump's legion of supporters react? It is never wise to underestimate their dedication to the man himself, above all else. No matter the outcome of this coming battle, this has to be viewed as a devastating failure for Mr Bannon personally. After spending years advocating for an anti-establishment conservative populism, he finally had a seat in the halls of power. He said in early 2017 that his goal was nothing short of the "deconstruction of the administrative state". Now he is on the outside again, besieged by long-time antagonists and former allies. His president recently signed a tax bill embraced by corporate interests. His first post-2016 foray into elective politics, the Alabama Senate race, ended in humiliating defeat. Perhaps, given all this, the Bannon-Trump feud was as inevitable as it is certain to be vicious. Emails show Mr Trump Jr agreed to meet Russian associates in June 2016 on the premise that they had damaging information against his father's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. The meeting was also attended by Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and aide, and then campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Mr Bannon reportedly told Mr Wolff that the three senior campaign officials "should have called the FBI immediately" after the meeting, according to US media reports. The Senate, House of Representatives and a special counsel are all investigating alleged Russian interference in the presidential election and alleged attempts to undermine Mrs Clinton - a claim denied by the Kremlin. Mr Trump has also vehemently denied any collusion. Mrs Sanders described the book as "filled with false and misleading accounts from individuals who have no access or influence with the White House". "Participating in a book that can only be described as a trashy tabloid fiction exposes their sad desperate attempts at relevancy". www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42560520
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jan 4, 2018 16:27:47 GMT -6
money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/media/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book/index.html?sr=twCNN010418michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book0405PMStory CNN Verified account @cnn 1h1 hour ago
Hours after a personal attorney for President Trump sent a cease and desist letter to the publisher and author of a new book, demanding that it not be released, the publisher announces it will be released on Friday -- four days earlier than expected cnn.it/2EWRwDC****************************************************** Wolff's Trump book going on sale four days early amid furorby bob Stelter and Gloria Borger @cnnmoney January 4, 2018 The publisher of Michael Wolff's new book about President Trump is rushing it onto bookshelves."Due to unprecedented demand, we are moving the on-sale date for all formats of 'Fire and Fury,' by Michael Wolff, to Friday, January 5, at 9 a.m. ET, from the current on-sale date of Tuesday, January 9," a Henry Holt spokeswoman told CNN Thursday afternoon. Booksellers were notified of the decision earlier in the day on Thursday. The move came hours after a personal attorney for President Trump sent a cease-and-desist letter to Henry Holt and Wolff demanding that the book not be released. Instead, the publisher is doing the opposite. Wolff tweeted about the publisher's decision to speed up the release: "Here we go. You can buy it (and read it) tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. President." Wolff's TV book tour has also been moved up. He was originally going to appear on NBC's "Today" show next Monday. Now he'll be on "Today" on Friday morning. Excerpts from the book have been published by New York magazine, The Hollywood Reporter and GQ. The excerpts are full of shocking quotes and claims about what Wolff portrays as White House chaos and incompetence -- affirming much of what's been previously reported by other outlets and adding disturbing new details. Some of Wolff's reporting has already been corroborated. But the book also contains some errors, according to early reviewers. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders called the book "fantasy" and fiction on Thursday. But other White House officials allowed Wolff an enviable amount of access to the West Wing last year. The book is already #1 on Amazon, which means there have been thousands of pre-orders. It is unclear when those orders will be delivered. In the cease-and-desist letter to Henry Holt, Trump lawyer Charles Harder demanded that the publisher "cease and desist from any further publication, release or dissemination" of the book. Harder's letter alleged that the book excerpts contain "false/baseless statements" about the president. The letter also used the term "actual malice," raising the prospect of a libel or defamation case. The Henry Holt spokeswoman said in a statement to CNNMoney Thursday afternoon, "Henry Holt confirms that we received a cease and desist letter from an attorney for President Trump. We see 'Fire and Fury' as an extraordinary contribution to our national discourse, and are proceeding with the publication of the book." Legal experts said an actual lawsuit is highly unlikely. Harder did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the book's new release date. In any case, Trump's legal threat is a serious escalation in Trump's war against media outlets. Some journalism advocates said Trump's tactic was disturbing and compared it to an attempt at censorship. Others said the threat would backfire and help sell even more copies of the book. Trump has a long history of challenging opponents with cease and desist letters. He also has a reputation for threatening lawsuits but not following through. WATCH VIDEO: money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/media/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book/index.html?sr=twCNN010418michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book0405PMStory Donald Trump Threatens to Sue 'Fire and Fury' Book Publisher www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/donald-trump-threatens-to-sue-fire-and-fury-book-publisher-w514984
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jan 12, 2018 10:22:59 GMT -6
Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner withdraw their divorceBy Julia Marsh January 10, 2018
Photo source: Capitalism, Inc.
She just can’t pull out.
Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her jailed sext-a-holic hubby Anthony Weiner have ended their pending divorce case.
Identical statements from their lawyers Wednesday cited the scandal-plagued couple’s desire to protect their 6-year-old son by settling outside court — but experts say the real reason could be to shield one another from a potential federal probe.
Abedin, 41 — spotted over the weekend sunning herself at the luxury Four Seasons Hotel on Hawaii’s Big Island — was scheduled to appear in Manhattan Supreme Court for a compliance conference in her contested divorce case against Weiner, 53.
Instead, one of her attorneys submitted paperwork signed by both parties agreeing to end the case, a court source told The Post.
The judge announced from the bench that the case was “discontinued.”
pagesix.com/2018/01/10/huma-abedin-and-anthony-weiner-call-off-divorce/
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jan 16, 2018 16:11:39 GMT -6
Jimmy Fallon Sings "Fire and Fury" (James Taylor "Fire and Rain" Parody)
Jimmy Fallon Sings "Fire and Fury" (James Taylor "Fire and Rain" Parody)
The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon Published on Jan 15, 2018
Just yesterday morning, Breitbart announced you were gone. Bannon, the tell-all book put an end to you. Thought you were besties, but I guess I was wrong, Shouldn’t have dissed Trump’s *bleep* in those interviews.
I've seen fire and I've seen fury. I've seen White House staff who will have to face a jury. I've seen him drink a cup of water with tiny hands, While he's lyin' in bed watching "Fox and Friends."
Bannon hated Don Jr., for disrupting his plans, Called him unpatriotic and treasonous. Trump heard about that, and Bannon got canned, Cuz Trump's, like, a really smart stable genius.
Whoa, I've seen fire and I've seen fury, I've seen so many tweets that my eyes are getting blurry. Even his own wife and kids thought he would lose, Now he's throwin' a damn awards show for fake news.
He's been goin' to bed at 6 p.m., up at 3 a.m. to tweet, Lord knows when he's on his phone, he can throw a fit, y'know. And he has a light snack of six Big Macs, while he's watchin' three TV's, He's turned the White House into a total shithole.
Whoa, I've seen fire and I've seen fury, I just wish Robert Mueller would friggin’ hurry. And this time I’ll be the one who calls Putin, Cuz in 2020, Oprah…she’s gonna win.
Thought I'd vote Oprah this time again, there's an election Coming our way in three more years, Vote for Oprah, vote for Oprah, yeah yeah.
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jan 20, 2018 13:54:09 GMT -6
www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/daca-vs-the-wall-whats-the-deal-w515512 DACA Vs. The Wall: What's the Deal?Donald Trump is bargaining the lives of 800,000 Dreamers to sink billions of dollars transforming an empty campaign slogan into concrete and steelBy Tim Dickinson / www.rollingstone.com/contributor/tim-dickinson1-18-2018 For a brief moment last week, Donald Trump sparked hope. The president who touts himself as a master dealmaker quietly encouraged Republican Senator Lindsey Graham to do more than pursue a bipartisan fix for the 800,000 undocumented Dreamers who could face deportation with the expiration of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. "You are not that far away from comprehensive immigration reform," Trump told Graham. "If you want to take it that further step, I'll take the heat." Dealing with racism is exhausting – and the fact that it comes from the leader of our country in such tired, simplistic narratives makes it doubly so This is what we yearn for in our politics: A U.S. president willing to take a political hit with his base to advance the best interests of the nation. But then, in a racist outburst just two days later — demanding fewer arrivals from "shithole countries" in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa — Trump torpedoed the bipartisan solution to the DACA dilemma. He also torched Republican lawmakers like Graham, who'd been negotiating in good faith with Democrats, in the context of a larger bill to fund the federal government. As a result, the nightmare continues for Dreamers, and Congress is scrambling to avoid a government shutdown. Without a fix by Friday, the American economy could slam into Trump's demand for the Wall. Sinking a DACA fix, Trump has rejected a rare political victory — out of shameful allegiance to an ideology of white supremacy that is championed by the most extreme members of his political inner circle. Given the wild swings of the negotiations, it's unclear whether Trump was ever serious about forging a bipartisan solution. But then, the president's immigration politics have never been grounded in reality. While Democrats fight for the recipients of DACA — a proven program that bolsters America's future and values — the president and his team of nativists are asking taxpayers to sink billions to transform an empty campaign slogan into concrete and steel. DACA confers legal status to those brought to the country illegally as children, and it has brought more than 800,000 young Americans into the light. They are studying, working, and serving in the military of the only country they've ever known. The program is golden politically — supported by 86 percent of Americans, including 75 percent of Republicans. It's safe: DACA status is reviewed regularly, and criminals are barred from the program. DACA immigrants are contributing to America — a 2017 study by the libertarian think tank CATO found the average DACA immigrant is 17 years old, holds a job, and earns $17 an hour. Removing these immigrants would be a disaster, economically, CATO found – deportation would cost the federal government $60 billion, and deal a $280 billion blow to the American economy over 10 years. Trump set the DACA negotiations in motion last September, insisting his move to end the program was an effort to bring congress to the bargaining table to craft a permanent solution. "I have a love for these people," Trump told reporters, "and hopefully now Congress will be able to help them." Democrats took Trump at his word. The president even briefly seemed to strike a deal with Democratic congressional leaders to protect the Dreamers. But by November, Trump had turned his back, blasting "Chuck and Nancy" as "weak on crime" and "weak on illegal immigration." Despite the president's show of bad faith, Democrats returned to the bargaining table and made deep concessions in the bipartisan deal presented to Trump last week. Dreamers would have been given a path to citizenship, but their parents would have been blocked from obtaining citizenship — a limit on "chain migration," as the White House had been demanding. The proposed deal allocated nearly $3 billion to border security. It also reportedly ended a "diversity lottery" for 50,000 green cards — intended to bring immigrants from under-represented countries into the American melting pot — that is much hated by Trump. In exchange, the deal then reallocated some of those diversity work visas to temporary immigrants here from El Salvador, Haiti, and countries in Africa. It was this provision that sparked Trump's "shithole" tirade, bringing negotiations to a screeching halt. (With no legislative fix in sight, the Trump Justice Department nonetheless made a rare appeal directly to the Supreme Court to overturn an injunction that could keep DACA afloat past its scheduled expiration in March.) We are now left with an alternate explanation for ending DACA – racism – and president Trump's unwavering demand for a 30-foot high monument to his bigotry, the Wall. In contrast to the DACA immigrants who contribute to our country, the Wall is a useless drain on our economy. Building a barrier along the southern border would cost upwards of $25 billion. But it would do little to curb illegal immigration. A wall would add only minutes to the journey of a determined border crosser in the desert. More salient: Most illegal immigration is now driven by people who enter the country legally — and overstay their visas. (The Wall would also do nothing to stem the flow of opioids, which mostly cross in small quantities across the most fortified parts of our border, according to top U.S. military brass.) But then, the Wall was never serious policy; it was fundamentally a campaign stunt. As Trump's campaign adviser, Sam Nunberg told Rolling Stone in August, "You know, it was me and [Trump adviser] Roger Stone who suggested that 'Build the Wall' thing. We thought it was *bleeping* genius. It's marketing, it's branding. Mexico would pay for it, it's licensing. It's what he does. It's Trump!" Trump's retrenched, hardline stance on immigration is a signal of the influence of adviser Stephen Miller and chief of staff — former Homeland Security secretary — John Kelly, reports the Washington Post. Sen. Graham affirmed that view to reporters on Tuesday, blaming the shift in Trump's thinking on "people in charge at the White House who have an irrational view of how to fix immigration." What's at stake in this fight — between Dreamers and the Wall — is something bigger than politics. Our national character is at stake, as Republican Sen. John McCain made clear in tweeted remarks over the weekend: "People have come to this country from everywhere, and people from everywhere have made America great," McCain wrote. "Our immigration policy should reflect that truth, and our elected officials, including our President, should respect it." www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/daca-vs-the-wall-whats-the-deal-w515512
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jan 20, 2018 16:41:14 GMT -6
www.cnn.com/2018/01/20/politics/everything-that-happened-donald-trump-first-year/index.html?sr=twCNN012018everything-that-happened-donald-trump-first-year1226PMStory A year of Trump: (Almost) everything that happenedBy Stephen Collinson, Deena Zaru, Deema Alfadl, Caroline Kenny and Jasmine Lee, CNN Sat January 20, 2018 Washington (CNN)It will be impossible to adequately explain in decades to come just what it was like to be alive in the exhausting first year of Donald Trump's presidency. From the moment he trampled the unifying conventions of the inaugural address by decrying "American carnage," Trump shattered political normality, tearing at racial and societal divides, the limits and decorum of his office, even raising doubts about his fidelity to the nation's founding values. Trump is like a raging storm that never blows itself out, as his early morning Twitter rants injected into the nation's central nervous system trigger outrages that obliterate traditional political debate and make days feel like weeks, weeks feel like months and months feel like years. Here's everything that happened during Trump's first year: CONTINUE READING: www.cnn.com/2018/01/20/politics/everything-that-happened-donald-trump-first-year/index.html?sr=twCNN012018everything-that-happened-donald-trump-first-year1226PMStory
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Feb 10, 2018 17:24:06 GMT -6
mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/opinion/sunday/trump-shows-us-the-way.html?referer=https://t.co/sIpwMCnPXi?amp=1Trump Shows Us the WayHope Hicks, who was dating her disgraced colleague Rob Porter, consults with her boss, President Trump.CreditKevin Lamarque/ReutersBy Maureen Dowd / www.nytimes.com/by/maureen-dowdFeb. 10, 2018 WASHINGTON — Donald Trump slipped into the Oval Office through a wormhole of confusion about the American identity. We weren’t winning wars anymore. They just went on and on and on, with inexplicable and deceptive aims and so many lives and limbs and trillions lost. We couldn’t believe in our institutions, with breaches of trust and displays of ineptitude. We were moving from a white-majority, male-dominated country and manufacturing base to a multicultural, multilateral, globalized, P.C., new energy, new technology world, without taking account of the confusion and anger of older Americans who felt like strangers in a strange land. Among many, the allure of Barack Obama’s brainy nuance had given way to a longing for a more muscular certainty. With the Russians sowing confusion, Trump surfed those free-floating anxieties, that fear of not knowing who we are, straight to Pennsylvania Avenue. And now, thanks to our barmy president and his staff meltdown, we are finding out fast who we are and whom we don’t want to be. We don’t want to countenance abusive behavior. And we certainly don’t want men like Rob Porter who have punched, kicked, choked and terrorized their wives to be in the president’s inner circle, helping decide which policies, including those that affect women, get emphasized. We don’t want the White House chief of staff to be the sort of person who shields and defends abusers — and then dissembles about it — simply because the abuser is a rare competent staffer. Or a man who labels Dreamers “too lazy to get off their *bleep*” simply because they didn’t apply for legal protections in time. John Kelly served as a character witness not only for Porter, after he didn’t receive security clearance because F.B.I. agents had heard the harrowing tales from his battered ex-wives. Kelly also testified as a character witness for Gen. Robert E. Lee and a former Marine who pleaded guilty to sending inappropriate sexual messages to female subordinates; who drove drunk to an arraignment; and who got charged in Virginia with sex crimes against children. A military hero like General Kelly who made the ultimate sacrifice of losing a son in war should have a higher standard for integrity and honor, the words he lavished on his disgraced aide, Porter. We want our president to be a moral beacon, not a ratings-obsessed id. We want a president who understands that sexual and physical abuse are wrong. As a more lucid Trump tweeted in 2012 about Rihanna getting back together with Chris Brown, “A beater is always a beater.” We don’t want a president who bends over backward to give the benefit of the doubt to neo-Nazis, wife beaters, pedophiles and sexual predators — or who is a sexual predator himself. We don’t want a president who thinks #me is more important than #metoo. We don’t want a president who flips the ordinary equation, out of some puerile sense of grievance, to honor Russia and dishonor the F.B.I. We don’t want a president who believes that vile behavior is justified by a Vesuvial stock market. We don’t want a president who is too shallow to read his daily intelligence report and too obsessed with the deep state to deal fairly with our intelligence agencies. We don’t want a president who is on a sugar high of ego, whose demented tweets about nukes and crowd size scare even Omarosa. We don’t want a president who redecorates the Oval as an infinity mirror. We don’t want a president who suggests that Democrats who don’t clap for him are treasonous and who seems more enthralled by authoritarian ways than democratic ones. We don’t want a president who promises an A team but surrounds himself with dreckitude, a president who vows to pass “the best” bills but then doesn’t care whether he’s selling steak, wine, condos or garbage policies on matters of life and death that he hasn’t even bothered to read. We don’t want a president who goes to military school but never leaves; who loves generals but trashes Gold Star parents; who wants the sort of chesty military parade that we mock Kim Jong-un for, a phallic demonstration of overcompensation that would only put more potholes in the D.C. boulevards. We don’t want a president who makes his version of make-believe real, and who looks with favor on deceit, hypocrisy, conflict of interest and nepotism. We don’t want a president who merits a special prosecutor, let alone one who could be so easily trapped in lies that he can’t even be allowed to talk to an investigator. We don’t want a president who treats the hallowed house where Abraham Lincoln once wrote the nation’s most sacred texts as the set of a cheesy reality show. We don’t want a president who treats the presidency as just another personal business franchise or family employment program. We don’t want a president who glides through the chaos he craves and conjures, while everyone around him immolates and shivers. And, finally, we surely don’t want a president who seeks advice on foreign affairs from Henry Kissinger. Ever. Again. mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/opinion/sunday/trump-shows-us-the-way.html?referer=https://t.co/sIpwMCnPXi?amp=1I invite you to follow me on Twitter (@maureendowd) and join me on Facebook. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@nytopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Feb 19, 2018 14:13:44 GMT -6
www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/gop-candidate-assault-rifle-giveaway/index.html?sr=twCNN021918gop-candidate-assault-rifle-giveaway0256PMVODtop GOP congressional candidate defends AR-15 giveaway VIDEO By Andrew Dunn, CNN Mon February 19, 2018 Washington (CNN)A Kansas congressional hopeful said Monday that he's sticking by his campaign giveaway of an AR-15 rifle despite criticism in light of last Wednesday's mass school shooting in Florida. "We aren't using this to raise money," Tyler Tannahill told HLN's Carol Costello. "We had this planned over a month ago to kind of coincide with the Kansas Republican Convention." The Republican candidate launched the giveaway along with his candidacy on February 13, a day before an AR-15-style rifle was used in the Parkland, Florida, massacre that left 17 people dead. Tannahill said his campaign discussed if they should end the contest and decided to keep it going. "We have to sit down and have these tough discussions," he said. "I'm a staunch believer in the Second Amendment, and I don't think those rights should be infringed, but how do we keep our children and teachers safe in schools?" Costello interrupted: "You're saying these things, but you're giving away an AR-15 to bring attention to your campaign, at the very least." John Fredericks, a conservative talk radio host in Virginia who was participating in the segment, also criticized Tannahill's giveaway, saying he felt it was "in really bad taste." "Come on, man, it doesn't make any sense," Fredericks said. "You're not having a legitimate conversation when you're giving away an AR-15 for free." Tannahill's campaign isn't the only assault rifle giveaway carrying on despite the Parkland shooting. The Kansas City Star reported on Saturday that third-graders will continue selling tickets for an AR-15 raffle in a baseball team fundraiser. WATCH VIDEO: www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/gop-candidate-assault-rifle-giveaway/index.html?sr=twCNN021918gop-candidate-assault-rifle-giveaway0256PMVODtop
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Feb 21, 2018 15:11:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Feb 24, 2018 10:07:46 GMT -6
Oh what a tangled web we weave.....Trump supporter, 76, blames ‘fake news’ CNN for threats following reporter ambushBy bob Flood | Fox News February 23, 2018
Florine Gruen Goldfarb has faced a barrage of criticism since CNN ambushed her outside her home
Florine Gruen Goldfarb, 76, never thought her Trump-inspired activism during the 2016 election would earn her infamy and ridicule – but that’s what happened thanks to CNN.
CNN correspondent Drew Griffin ambushed the Trump supporter outside her home earlier this week because she may have unwittingly promoted a Russian-coordinated event during the 2016 election. Now she's receiving threats on social media, and she lays the blame at the news network's feet.
Goldfarb had her full name plastered on the video that was tweeted out to CNN’s nearly 40 million followers. Her house number was also visible for much off the video. Her crime? Unknowingly organizing a pro-Trump event on Facebook that was influenced by the Russians, who are accused of meddling in the election.
Fox News reached Goldfarb, of Pembroke Pines, Fla., via Facebook Messenger and she declined a phone interview because she wants the “situation to go away.” She says she's been bombarded since Griffin showed up at her door.
"My phone is ringing off the hook and I can't keep up with the emails and Facebook messages. I am being trashed by anti-Trump trolls on Facebook. This would have never happened if Fake News CNN had not caught me at home and ambushed me trying to coerce me into giving them the answers they were looking for,” Goldfarb told Fox News via the messaging app. “CNN is doing a great job exposing themselves as Fake News."
Goldfarb was called “public enemy number one,” a “traitor,” “miserable racist trash” and a treasonous hillbilly.” One Facebook user said she “should be arrested and tried for treason” in a series of messages arising in the wake of the CNN segment.
Outspoken liberal actor Jon Cryer, co-star of "Two and a Half Men," tweeted out CNN’s video of the ensnarement and wrote, “We are dealing with a cult.” One user responded that Goldfarb should “move” and ought to be embarrassed to show her face in town. Yet another user called her a “complete moron,” and one person responded that “there's no witness protection program for the willfully igannant.”
THE EPISODE PUTS THE SPOTLIGHT ON CNN’S OWN COVERAGE AND PROMOTION OF AN ANTI-TRUMP RALLY THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY COORDINATED BY RUSSIAN TROLLS FINGERED BY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION. BACK ON NOV. 12, 2016, CNN GAVE “ENTHUSIASTIC COVERAGE TO THE RUSSIAN-ORGANIZED ANTI-TRUMP RALLY THAT DAY, WITH LIVE REPORTS EVERY HOUR,” ACCORDING TO THE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER.
“They should do an ambush of their own producers,” Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld recently said on “The Five.”
Instead, Griffin approached Goldfarb on her own front lawn in Pembroke Pines, asking if she'd been part of a coverup. “The Russians? I don’t care if they were involved or not,” she said.
The combative CNN correspondent then asked if she was aware of the Russian influence, but Goldfarb quickly shot down his question. “They weren’t involved with us. Just make sure you report it correctly,” she said.
Griffin then shifted gears, asking her if she was involved in “Being Patriotic,” which is apparently the name of a Russian troll group. But Goldfarb responded that she was “very patriotic.”
Griffin continued to question her outside her home, essentially accusing her of complying with Russian trolls. Goldfarb eventually walked away, calling the allegations “bulls—t” on her way inside the house.
CNN’s verified Twitter account shared the video with the caption “A Florida woman who ran a Trump supporters page that unwittingly promoted a Russian-coordinated event on Facebook says she doesn’t believe that she was influenced by Kremlin-linked trolls.”
With the apparent shaming of her for being manipulated by Russians, CNN gave American trolls a green light to harass her on social media. She isn’t hard to find, as only one “Florine Gruen Goldfarb” appears in the search function on Facebook.
Her page features an Ivanka Trump photo and reveals that she is part of numerous conservative pro-Trump groups. Goldfarb said she has received messages from fellow Trump supporters across the globe who saw the CNN segment.
“I greatly appreciate their support,” Goldfard wrote to Fox News.
“The Five” co-host Jesse Watters established himself as a cable news star conducting man-on-the-street segments and ambush interviews. “I’ve done this dozens and dozens of times and ambushed people. I’ve never done it to a regular person outside of their house,” Watters said. “The guy can go to someone’s house with a camera and a mic, that’s fine. … His tone was so wrong and accusatory.”
Co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle added that Goldfarb would have “quite a lawsuit if anything happens to her” as a result of the CNN report.
Goldfard shared one of the threatening messages she has received with Fox News. She received it on Friday at 9:10 a.m. ET from a stranger on Facebook.
“Hey Comrade, I saw you being interviewed and denying helping Russians. You and all the Russian allies should go prison once we hang Trump for treason. Looking forward to impeaching your treasonous pos fake President, and coming after his enablers like you,” the message said.
While Goldfarb is concerned for her safety, she doesn’t want anyone feeling sorry for because of her advanced age.
“I may be 76 going on 77 but I am not an old lady. I have been active in politics for 10 years. Worked on many campaigns. In between my hobby is dancing, such as line dancing, couple dancing such as cha-cha, west and East Coast swing dances,” Goldfarb said.
Pembroke Pines police did not immediately respond to request for comment.
www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/02/23/trump-supporter-76-blames-fake-news-cnn-for-threats-following-reporter-ambush.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Mar 10, 2018 15:02:39 GMT -6
www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/trump-the-porn-president.html The First Porn Presidentby Maureen Dowd / www.nytimes.com/column/maureen-dowd?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=ExtendedByline®ion=Header&pgtype=articleMarch 10, 2018 Stormy Daniels WASHINGTON — Why not just go with Dirk Diggler? I mean, if you’re going to pick a fake name to pay off a porn star you’ve dallied with, why choose something bland like David Dennison? If you are, after all, Donald Trump, the king of grandiosity, go for a name worthy of being Stormy Daniels’s real-life co-star. A proper moniker is in order if Trump is going to be our first porn president. Kim Jung-un can drag him away for talks about the relative size of their nuclear buttons. Justin Trudeau can tackle him for relief on tariffs. Robert Mueller can continue his imperturbable march through the Trump family’s field of lies. But Donald Trump will not be deterred. He is determined to be our most shameless president, running a White House awash in salacious stories and louche characters. Asked by reporters Wednesday how Republicans would have responded if President Barack Obama had been charged with cavorting with a porn star (right after his wife had a baby, no less), Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana replied, “I don’t know,” adding, “This is no country for creepy old men.” Trump’s love life, it seems, boasts more pseudonyms than Frank Abagnale Jr. Stormy Daniels’s real name is Stephanie Clifford, but she was called Peggy Peterson, or “P.P.” (shades of the dossier!), and Trump was referred to as David Dennison in the 2016 legal agreement Trump lawyer Michael Cohen drew up to buy her silence before the election for $130,000. (He registered a whole new company in Delaware for this purpose. More tax benefits!) Stormy, the star of 2016’s “Sex Bots: Programmed for Pleasure,” has learned to be litigious from the master. She sued, claiming the agreement is null and void because Trump, a.k.a. John Barron, John Miller and David Dennison, didn’t sign it. But Cohen slapped a restraining order on the actress, even as she sat for a “60 Minutes” segment with Anderson Cooper this past week, presumably to dish without restraint on the Donald. Alana Evans, another blond porn actress, who has appeared in “It’s Okay! She’s My Mother in Law 13” and “Dirty Little Sex Brats 9,” claims that Trump told her she should come along to his hotel room with Stormy that weekend in 2006 at the Lake Tahoe golf tournament, but she didn’t. Evans’s real name may or may not be Dawn Vanguard. Jessica Drake, yet another porn actress, who starred in “Massage School Dropouts,” appeared with Gloria Allred the month before the presidential election to accuse Trump of kissing her without permission and offering to pay her for sex at the SAME golf tournament, a charge Trump denied. In Cohen’s legal agreement, Stormy refers to Drake as Angel Ryan. The president, who often seems short-tempered, nasty and impatient with others and who has certainly been disrespectful to his wife, showed his sweet side to his mistresses in the skin trade. He actually took time out from showing Stormy a picture of himself on the cover of a magazine, according to her interview in In Touch Weekly, to ask her about her own work in the porn industry. “He was very curious,” she said. “Not necessarily about the sex or anything like that, but business questions.” Like how much she made off royalties from the movies. When she asked what was up with his hair, he laughed with her about it. He gave her his ultimate compliment, comparing her to Ivanka. And he didn’t ask to do anything kinky. “He wasn’t like, ‘Chain me to the bed’ or anything,” she reported, adding that the experience was “textbook generic.” While she ate swordfish in his room, he watched Shark Week and confided his terror of sharks, adding, “I hope all the sharks die.” Oddly, for such a germaphobe, he did not use a condom, she said. At the Tahoe golf tournament where Trump was pinballing among porn actresses, when his son Barron was a few months old, he also began an affair with a former Playmate of the Year named Karen McDougal, according to Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker. (Trump denies it.) When he offered her money after sex, McDougal said, she told him she was not “that girl” and he told her, “You are special.” The Stormy episode is exactly the kind of embarrassing episode that Trump wiggled out of for decades, denying that he knew women who accused him, playing the legal and media angles to kill stories, getting the help of friends and employees to pay off women. But times have dramatically changed, post-Weinstein. At the White House on Friday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders tried again to bury the story, saying, “We’ve addressed this extensively and I don’t have anything else to add.” But that isn’t going to mollify the millions of women who find the president’s behavior sordid and unacceptable. Trump and by extension the Republican Party are facing a gender chasm they may fall into in November. Disgusted with the Rat Pack role model at the top, women are lining up not just to vote, but to run for office. A historic number are running for Congress this year, and in Texas alone last Tuesday, 25 Democratic women won their primaries or advanced to a runoff. The White House will keep trying to dismiss Daniels as she is on her “Make America Horny Again” tour, but she’s not going away. As Muddy Waters famously sang the blues, “They call it stormy Monday, but Tuesday’s just as bad; Wednesday’s worse, and Thursday’s also sad.” www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/trump-the-porn-president.html STORMY DANIELS CNN INTERVIEW: www.cnn.com/2018/03/10/politics/stormy-daniels-cnn-interview-transcript/index.html?sr=twCNN031018stormy-daniels-cnn-interview-transcript1219PMStory How Stormy Daniels could impact the Russia investigation: www.cnn.com/2018/03/10/politics/stormy-daniels-trump-cohen-russia-investigation/index.html?sr=twCNN031018stormy-daniels-trump-cohen-russia-investigation1156AMVODtop
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Mar 15, 2018 10:30:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Mar 18, 2018 14:30:50 GMT -6
www.apnews.com/552a440769664062a9927371549e37f8?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely says ‘no crime’ in Russia probeBy HOPE YEN and CALVIN WOODWARD 3-18-2018 WASHINGTON (AP) — In blistering tweets, President Donald Trump again skews facts regarding the government investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, claiming “no crime” was uncovered and a House intelligence panel had concluded there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia. The weekend tweets attacked special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe as meaningless and biased. They also exulted in the firing of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, once a leader of the bureau’s investigation into Democrat Hillary Clinton’s email practices. The FBI’s decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton infuriated Trump at the time and still does. A look at some of the misleading claims:TRUMP: “Why does the Mueller team have 13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans? Another Dem recently added...does anyone think this is fair? And yet, there is NO COLLUSION!” — tweet Sunday. THE FACTS: Trump’s suggestion that the Mueller investigation is politically biased lacks important context. Several members of Mueller’s team have made political contributions to Democratic candidates, including Clinton. But Mueller, who is a longtime Republican, could not have barred them from serving on the team. Federal regulations and Justice Department policy prohibit the consideration of political affiliation in hiring and other personnel actions involving career attorneys. Mueller reports to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, an ex-U.S. attorney under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama who was named to the Justice Department post by Trump. Rosenstein serves under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a Trump appointee to the Cabinet. ___ TRUMP: “The Mueller probe should never have been started in that there was no collusion and there was no crime. It was based on fraudulent activities and a Fake Dossier paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC, and improperly used in FISA COURT for surveillance of my campaign. WITCH HUNT!” — tweet Saturday. THE FACTS: He’s incorrect to say “no crime” was found. So far, four former Trump campaign aides have been charged with financial crimes or with lying to the FBI, and three of them have pleaded guilty and agreed to assist in Mueller’s investigation. Those who pleaded guilty are former Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign aide Rick Gates. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, has pleaded not guilty to charges in the case. In all, six people — including the four Trump campaign aides — have been charged, along with 13 Russians accused in a hidden but powerful social media campaign to meddle in the American election. Trump’s claim that the Russia probe was based on a “fake dossier” is also inaccurate. The FBI’s investigation began months before it received a dossier of anti-Trump research funded by the Democratic Party and Clinton’s campaign. The FBI probe’s origins were based on other evidence — not the existence of the dossier. ___ TRUMP: “As the House Intelligence Committee has concluded, there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign. As many are now finding out, however, there was tremendous leaking, lying and corruption at the highest levels of the FBI, Justice & State.” — tweet Saturday. THE FACTS: He’s wrong. That conclusion came from Republicans on the committee; it was not a committee finding. Democrats on the committee sharply dispute the Republican conclusions and will issue their own. Whatever the findings of the committee, Mueller is leading the key investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and Russian contacts with the Trump campaign. The probe has produced a number of charges and convictions, none to date alleging criminal collusion. But Mueller continues to explore whether collusion occurred and whether Trump or others may have obstructed justice. Trump did not specify what he meant in accusing the agencies of corruption. McCabe was fired ahead of the release of an inspector general’s report that’s expected to conclude he was not forthcoming about matters related to the FBI investigation of Clinton’s emails. ___ TRUMP: “The Fake News is beside themselves that McCabe was caught, called out and fired. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars was given to wife’s campaign by Crooked H friend, Terry M, who was also under investigation? How many lies? How many leaks? Comey knew it all, and much more!” — tweet Saturday. THE FACTS: Some context is missing here. This is true: McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, ran as a Democrat for the Virginia state Senate in 2015, and the political action committee of Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe gave her campaign $500,000 during her race. McAuliffe is a longtime associate of Hillary Clinton, branded “Crooked H” by Trump. Jill McCabe lost the race. Trump’s complaint, as he spelled it out in the past, is that Clinton-linked money went to “the wife of the FBI agent who was in charge of her investigation.” But that timeline is wrong. Andrew McCabe was elevated to deputy FBI director and didn’t become involved in the Clinton email probe until after his wife’s bid for office was over. The FBI said McCabe’s promotion and supervisory position in the email investigation happened three months after the campaign. The bureau also said in a statement at the time that McCabe sought guidance from agency ethics officers and recused himself from “all FBI investigative matters involving Virginia politics” throughout his wife’s campaign. www.apnews.com/552a440769664062a9927371549e37f8?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Mar 21, 2018 14:28:53 GMT -6
www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/18/fact-checking-trumps-error-filled-tweetstorm-about-the-mueller-probe/?utm_term=.b0e2dd35bf6b Fact-checking Trump’s error-filled tweetstorm about the Mueller probeBy Glenn Kessler / www.washingtonpost.com/people/glenn-kessler/?utm_term=.5d5753396103March 18, 2018 In a series of tweets March 17 and 18, President Trump made a number of inaccurate or misleading statements about the investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. As a reader service, here’s a quick guide to his claims. ************************************* Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump As the House Intelligence Committee has concluded, there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign. As many are now finding out, however, there was tremendous leaking, lying and corruption at the highest levels of the FBI, Justice & State. #DrainTheSwamp 1:11 PM - Mar 17, 2018 ************************************* The House Intelligence Committee made no such conclusion. The Republican majority offered preliminary conclusions, released in a one-page summary of a draft 150-page report, which said they found “no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy” between the Trump campaign and Russia. Democrats on the committee have said that the investigation was incomplete and that key witnesses had not been interviewed. The House panel investigation has been deeply split along partisan lines from the start, in contrast to a parallel Senate inquiry. The president’s sweeping attack on the FBI, the Justice Department and the State Department appears to mostly refer to former FBI director James B. Comey, whom Trump fired in 2017, and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who was fired late on March 16 for allegedly authorizing disclosures about the details of an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Comey, after he was fired, passed a memo concerning a conversation with Trump to a professor, in the hope, he said, that it would be disclosed to the media. The reference to the State Department is more obscure, but it may refer to contacts between two State Department officials and Christopher Steele, a former British spy who wrote the “dossier” that alleged connections between Trump and Russia. ************************************** Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump The Fake News is beside themselves that McCabe was caught, called out and fired. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars was given to wife’s campaign by Crooked H friend, Terry M, who was also under investigation? How many lies? How many leaks? Comey knew it all, and much more! 1:34 PM - Mar 17, 2018 **************************************** The question of McCabe’s wife’s political activities emerged during the campaign, and Trump constantly has gotten the details incorrect. The timeline shows any connection to Hillary Clinton is pretty thin, although McCabe claims that Trump brought up his wife in almost every conversation. On March 12, 2015, Jill McCabe, a hospital physician, announced her candidacy for the Virginia Senate. The political action committee of then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), a close Clinton ally, gave $452,500 to McCabe, and the state Democratic Party gave her campaign $207,788. That was about one-third of the $1.8 million budget for her campaign. Meanwhile, on March 2, 2015, the New York Times first reported on Clinton’s email server setup while she was secretary of state. At the time, Andrew McCabe was running the FBI’s field office in Washington. In July 2015, the FBI opened a criminal investigation of Clinton’s server. The D.C. field office provided resources and personnel to the email inquiry. In September, Andrew McCabe moved to the FBI’s headquarters, taking the No. 3 position. In November 2015, Jill McCabe lost her race. Three months later, in February, Andrew McCabe became the FBI’s deputy director and part of an executive team overseeing the Clinton email investigation. In any case, it’s hard to see how McAuliffe would know that the husband of someone he was supporting in a Virginia legislative race was going to be promoted months later. In 2016, reports emerged that the FBI was investigating $120,000 in donations to McAuliffe’s campaign and inauguration made by U.S.-based companies controlled by Chinese businessman Wang Wenliang. No charges have been filed. ******************************************** Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump The Fake News is beside themselves that McCabe was caught, called out and fired. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars was given to wife’s campaign by Crooked H friend, Terry M, who was also under investigation? How many lies? How many leaks? Comey knew it all, and much more! - Mar 17, 2018 Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump The Mueller probe should never have been started in that there was no collusion and there was no crime. It was based on fraudulent activities and a Fake Dossier paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC, and improperly used in FISA COURT for surveillance of my campaign. WITCH HUNT! - Mar 17, 2018 ************************************************ There are so many things incorrect in this single tweet that it’s hard to know where to begin. First, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was appointed because Trump fired Comey and then went on television and suggested that it was because of the Russia probe. That left the Justice Department little choice but to appoint an independent prosecutor. (Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, so the decision was made by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.) Mueller’s investigation has yielded concrete evidence of Russian interference, including the indictments of Russian individuals and entities. Second, the investigation did not start with the dossier written by Steele. (Steele was working for political research firm Fusion GPS, which has a contract with a law firm that worked for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.) Instead, it was a tip from the Australian government, which notified U.S. authorities about a drunken conversation between a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, and an Australian diplomat in May. Papadopoulos claimed the Russians had “political dirt” on Clinton. The memo released by the Republican majority of the House Intelligence Committee, which Trump has approvingly cited, confirms the counterintelligence investigation of Russian interference began in July 2016, because of the tip about Papadopoulos. The information in the dossier came to the attention of the FBI later. Third, there is no evidence the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application to monitor Carter Page was used to spy on the Trump campaign. On Sept. 26, 2016, Page announced that he was taking “a leave of absence” from the campaign. On Oct. 21, the FBI received a FISA court order to begin surveillance on Page. So that was just days before the election — and after Page was no longer part of the campaign. The order was renewed at least three more times over the next year, meaning that the FBI was able to convince the judges — all appointed by Republicans — that surveillance continued to help investigators. As for the probe being a “witch hunt,” the number of guilty pleas and indictments demonstrates that Mueller is finding evidence of malfeasance. ********************************************* Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump Wow, watch Comey lie under oath to Senator G when asked “have you ever been an anonymous source...or known someone else to be an anonymous source...?” He said strongly “never, no.” He lied as shown clearly on @foxandfriends. 8:02 AM - Mar 18, 2018 ********************************************** This tweet is prompted by a passage in McCabe’s statement defending himself against charges of unauthorized leaking about the Clinton investigation: “I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As deputy director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter.” During May 2017 testimony, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Comey two key questions: “Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?” Comey replied: “Never.” Then Grassley asked: “Question two and relatively related: Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?” Comey replied: “No.” Whether Comey’s answer was untruthful may turn on the question of authorization. McCabe asserts that he had the authority to have the conversation with the reporter and that Comey was “aware of the interaction.” But he does not say Comey authorized the conversation — and Grassley did not ask whether Comey was aware of anyone in the FBI acting as an anonymous source. Trump jumped to the conclusion that Comey lied. (He also changed the question asked by Grassley from “authorized” to “known,” precisely what we noted Grassley did not ask.) Nevertheless, Comey’s emphatic responses may cause him trouble. ************************************************* Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump Spent very little time with Andrew McCabe, but he never took notes when he was with me. I don’t believe he made memos except to help his own agenda, probably at a later date. Same with lying James Comey. Can we call them Fake Memos? 8:22 AM - Mar 18, 2018 ************************************************ Just because McCabe supposedly did not take notes, he still could have summarized the conversations for a memo immediately after the conversation. Comey had a practice of emailing his summary to a few close aides, thus creating a record and time stamp. The time between the conversation and the record of it would be an important part of establishing the memo’s credibility. ************************************************ Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump Why does the Mueller team have 13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans? Another Dem recently added...does anyone think this is fair? And yet, there is NO COLLUSION! 8:35 AM - Mar 18, 2018 ************************************************* Mueller is a registered Republican, as is Rosenstein, who appointed him. Publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller’s team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found, The Washington Post reported. Nine of the 17 made political donations to Democrats, their contributions totaling more than $57,000. The majority came from one person, who also contributed to Republicans. Six donated to Clinton. Federal regulations prohibit the Justice Department from considering the political affiliation or political contributions of career appointees, including those appointed to the special counsel’s office. So Mueller is legally prohibited from considering the political affiliations of the people he has hired. It’s worth noting that Trump was big donor to Democrats, including seven times to Hillary Clinton, before he decided to run for the Republican presidential nomination. Trump switched his party registration at least five times; he was a registered Democrat from 2001 to 2009.
WATCH VIDEO & CONTINUE READING: www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/18/fact-checking-trumps-error-filled-tweetstorm-about-the-mueller-probe/?utm_term=.b0e2dd35bf6b
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Apr 30, 2018 13:06:55 GMT -6
www.insidesources.com/john-podesta-pushes-conspiracy-theories-on-season-premiere-of-ancient-aliens/ i don't buy this... John Podesta Stars in “Documentary” Suggesting Clinton Lost Because of AliensPosted to Politics April 29, 2018 by Michael Graham / www.insidesources.com/author/michaelgraham/Conspiracy Theorists Wonder Whether Clinton Lost Because the Deep State Wanted to Stop Her From Releasing Secret Alien Files No, you’re not in the Twilight Zone: That really was Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman and former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta on Ancient Aliens Friday night. The long-running History Channel series is a haven for believers in the government/UFO conspiracy, alien abductions, and “The Reptilians.” (Season 8, Episode 5: “Could ancient myths about reptilian creatures provide evidence that they are more than just a pop-culture creation?”). The show has even pondered whether the moon is hollow and houses a secret alien base (Season 11, Episode 11). This weekend Ancient Aliens kicked off its 13th season with a review of efforts to get the federal government to release its treasure trove of documents and data on what really happened at Roswell, Area 51, etc. And there—in between artist renditions of flying saucers and interviews with UFO conspiracy theorists like Georgio Tsoukalos and Stephen Bassett—was well-known Democrat politico John Podesta. Among the conspiracies promoted in this new (ahem) “documentary” is the suggestion that the real reason Hillary lost an impossible-to-lose campaign in 2016 wasn’t the Russians or the FBI. It was aliens. As conspiracy-debunker Jason Colavito says in his review of the episode: “The show speculates that Clinton would have led a UFO disclosure movement had she won the presidency in 2016, and there is a strange implication that ‘the CIA and the Pentagon were worried about Hillary Clinton’ and therefore arranged for her to lose the election.” John Podesta’s obsession with alien encounters and government disclosure is no secret. The Washington Post and others have written about it in the past. And video of Podesta’s 2002 appearance in a press event urging the government to release all its UFO files has a staple of “The Truth Is Out There” documentary industry. Podesta’s passion has even made an appearance in the #Russiagate story, as InsideSources has reported. Among the Podesta emails released by Wikileaks during the 2016 campaign were several from Blink-182 front man (and UFO activist) Tom DeLonge referencing “Classified Science,” “DOD topics” and Roswell. What is unusual about the latest Ancient Aliens episode (“The UFO Conspiracy”) is Podesta’s decision to sit down for an on-camera interview, participating directly in the program. “Right after I left law school, I started working on that at the Department of Justice then at the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then when I worked for President Clinton’s White House,” Podesta says to the camera. “I was one of the people spearheading an initiative to declassify what turned out to be over a billion pages of documents that were resident at the national archives in President Clinton’s case. I think he was interested in the phenomenon.” Podesta also discusses supposedly alien materials found at alleged UFO crash sites, materials currently in the possession of budget-hotel-billionaire-turned-aerospace-exec Robert Bigelow. “There were also indications that there were certain polymers that were discovered at crash sites that were unexplained and reviewed,” Podesta claims. Podesta’s expertise on polymers may be suspect, but he knows his politics. In fact, there are a surprising number of political names in the episode: The Clintons; former Senators Harry Reid, Daniel Inouye and Ted Stevens; George Stephanopoulos, even President Obama who, the History Channel reminds us, oversaw the CIA’s release of 13 million documents, many of which related to the UFO issue. These document dumps, according to conspiracy-theorist Bennett, are “all part of an effort to move us in a direction that we can accept as a society [the fact that] extraterrestrials are here and have been here for thousands of years.” But are we ready? “Secretary Clinton was also interested in the topic” of releasing UFO documentation and was very open about that fact “if elected, she would have ordered a more thorough declassification review,” Podesta says. After this statement from Hillary’s campaign manager, the show’s narrator intones: “Many believe that if Clinton had won, there would have been a seismic shift from the government’s long-held policy of secrecy concerning UFO investigations to a new policy of full disclosure.” Is this the answer to Hillary’s question “What Happened?” That’s certainly the documentary makers’ implication: “The CIA, the Pentagon, they were worried about Hillary Clinton…winning the presidency and going to the Pentagon and basically saying, ‘you’re going to get me the information I need to disclose the extraterrestrial presence, or I’m going to fire every single one of you,’” Bassett says. He’s followed by Linda Moulton Howe, whose previous work includes “Neil Armstrong’s Secret: UFO’s on the Moon?” “As this year of 2016 went forward. We all expected that this headline that we’ve been waiting for that is going to break,” she said. “John Podesta was trying to get ready to open up [the fact] that we’re not alone in the universe.” “All of that crashed when a different person became president of the United States,” Howe said. Was Hillary Clinton’s historic loss engineered by shadowy government figures afraid she would expose their relationship with our alien overlords? Was the real villain of 2016 the “Cigarette-Smoking Man?” The truth it out there. On cable TV. And it stars John Podesta. www.insidesources.com/john-podesta-pushes-conspiracy-theories-on-season-premiere-of-ancient-aliens/
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jun 8, 2018 19:31:56 GMT -6
The Swamp Still Needs to Be Drained...Judicial Watch Uncovers Hidden Strzok Emails in Clinton-Lynch Tarmac DocumentsThis is just too rich. We now have emails from notorious anti-Trump, pro-Hillary Clinton FBI officials who seem to confirm that James Comey and Loretta Lynch decided to let Hillary Clinton ride on her email abuses before she was even interviewed by the FBI.
The disclosure is found in 16 pages of FBI documents related to the infamous June 2016 tarmac meeting between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton.
The FBI originally informed us it could not locate any records related to the tarmac meeting. However, in a related FOIA lawsuit, the Justice Department located emails in which Justice Department officials communicated with the FBI and wrote that they had communicated with the FBI. As a result, by letter dated August 10, 2017, the FBI stated, “Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist. As a result, your [FOIA] request has been reopened …” This is the second batch of documents the FBI produced since telling us they had no tarmac-related records. So this makes two cover-ups!
We obtained the documents in response to our October 2016 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)) filed after the Justice Department failed to comply with our July 7, 2016, FOIA request for:
All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.
All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.
In a previously unseen email, on July 1, 2016, Strzok forwarded to Bill Priestap, assistant director of FBI counterintelligence, and other FBI officials an article in The New York Times titled, “Lynch to Remove Herself From Decision Over Clinton Emails, Official Says.” Priestap comments on it, saying: “The meeting in PX is all over CNN TV news this morning …” Strzok replies: “Timing’s not ideal in that it falsely adds to those seeking the ‘this is all choreographed’ narrative. But I don’t think it’s worth changing … later won’t be better.” Priestap responds: “Agreed.”
In November 2017, we revealed 29 pages of FBI documents showing officials were concerned about a leak that Bill Clinton delayed his aircraft taking off in order to “maneuver” a meeting with the attorney general. The resulting story in the Observer was discussed in this production of documents. The Strzok email was absent from this production.
Another Strzok email suggest the decision on the Clinton email matter has been under discussion since April 2016—three months before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he would recommend no prosecution.
On July 3, 2016, in an email with the subject line “Must Read Security Article” someone from the FBI's Security Division (SECD) forwards the article in the Observer and reveals concern:
"I believe that the source quoted in the article is one of the local Phoenix LEO’s [law enforcement officers]. Needless to say that I have contacted the Phoenix office and will contact the local’s [sic] who assisted in an attempt to stem any further damage. This is exactly why our Discretion and Judgement are the foundation of the AG’s trust in our team, which is why we can never violate that trust, like the source did in this article.”
In a July 1, 2016, email from an unidentified official in the FBI Security Division sent to officials in several FBI offices with the subject line “Media Reports***Not for Dissemination***”, sent in the wake of the tarmac meeting, an FBI official warns his colleagues “Our job is to protect the boss from harm and embarrassment.” [Emphasis in original] He emphasizes that FBI officials should ask themselves: “What issues are currently being reported in the media? And what actions/interactions/situations that the Director may be in could impact them.” The official then cites an example of a public relations disaster near-miss when Comey’s plane “literally just missed Clinton’s plane” when they flew into the White Plains, NY, airport (HPN) a few months earlier, and saying, “Imagine the optics and the awkward situation we would have put the Director in we would have been at the FBO at the same time as Secretary Clinton.”
In a July 1, 2016, email exchange, FBI Section Chief Rachel Rojas warns a colleague to “stay away” from discussion of the Clinton Lynch tarmac meeting following publication of the meeting, unless they hear from a “higher up”. The colleague responds the next day, telling Rojas not to worry because, “I know better <winking.>” He/she adds that “it was DOJ opa [Office of Public Affairs] who threw us under the bus.” Rojas replies “Doj is likely overwhelmed so in [sic] hoping it wasn’t intentional. I know it wasn’t you guys because I know you have great judgement. Nothing good would come from that. Her staff should have avoided that scenario. The bu[reau] will be fine but obviously disappointed on how this is happening. Unfortunately, she’s taking heat from all over the place and I feel bad for her. I know she didn’t want this on her plate or for this to happen.” The colleague then concludes by saying that he/she thought the leaker was “a Phoenix cop assisting with the motorcade.”
These emails are simply astonishing. No wonder the FBI hid them from the court and us. They show anti-Trump, pro-Clinton FBI Agent Peter Strzok admitting the decision not to prosecute the Clinton email issue was made back in April 2016 – long before Hillary Clinton was interviewed. And the new emails show that the FBI security had the political objective of protecting then-Director Comey from ‘embarrassment’—which is, frankly, disturbing.
Here’s additional background: On June 27, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton on board a parked plane at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona. The meeting occurred during the then-ongoing investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s email server, and only a few days before she was interviewed the Justice Department and FBI. (We filed a request on June 30 that the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General investigate that meeting).
The tarmac meeting also came just days before former FBI Director James Comey held the July 5, 2016, press conference in which he announced that no charges would be filed against Mrs. Clinton. In his subsequent May 3, 2017, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey said the Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting was the “capper” among “a number of things” that had caused him to determine that Department of Justice leadership “could not credibly complete the investigation and decline prosecution without grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the justice system.”
These latest documents are more evidence that the arrogant FBI assumed its secrets would never see the light of day. Judicial Watch proved them wrong.
Court Hearing Ordered for Our Suit Seeking DOJ Fusion GPS Records Piece by piece we’re dismantling the Rube Goldberg conspiracy to take down a president. At every step the Justice Department is putting up roadblocks, an indication that the Deep State is still alive and well and now being accommodated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Here’s a piece of our effort. A federal court ordered a hearing for next week for in our lawsuit for communications of the Office of the Attorney General with Nellie Ohr, the wife of former Senior DOJ Official Bruce Ohr, who was critical to the Clinton/DNC dossier authored by Christopher Steele (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.1:18-cv-00491)). The suit is before U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton.
Outrageously, the Justice Department is resisting our request to search Attorney General Sessions’ office and otherwise is stonewalling searching for and releasing records.
We filed the lawsuit on March 1, 2018, after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 12, 2017, FOIA request seeking:
All records of contact or communication, including but not limited to emails, text messages, and instant chats, between DOJ officials in the Attorney General’s Office and Fusion GPS employee or contractor Nellie Ohr.
In December 2017, Bruce Ohr was removed from his position as U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General after it was revealed he conducted undisclosed meetings with dossier author Christopher Steel and Glenn Simpson, principal of Fusion GPS.
A House Intelligence Committee memo released by Chairman Devin Nunes on February 2 notes that Nellie Ohr was “employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump” and that Bruce Ohr passed the results of that research, which was paid for by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign, to the FBI.
The Ohr scandal is bad enough, but it beyond belief we have to battle the Sessions DOJ in federal court for basic information about this Spygate-related scandal.
www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-hidden-strzok-emails-latest-production-clinton-lynch-tarmac-meeting-docs-strzok-email-suggests-clinton-investigation-decision-made-april-2016/
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jun 13, 2018 12:52:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jul 19, 2018 23:48:24 GMT -6
CNN Verified account @cnn For the second month in a row, Time magazine has put a provocative photo illustration of President Trump on its cover -- this time, morphing him into Russian President Vladimir cnn.it/2uA8GU1THE SUMMIT CRISIS cnn.it/2uA8GU1
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Jul 20, 2018 6:51:04 GMT -6
If they put a picture of a “flying saucer” in the background..... oooooo.
Timing here?
More than a bit creepy (yes, my mind of course went THERE).
🙃
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Jul 27, 2018 9:24:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jul 31, 2018 17:04:35 GMT -6
apnews.com/1b1ed66c55984002b6312cf4a7b48cea/Long-after- Long after Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein make newsBy HILLEL ITALIE / apnews.com/1b1ed66c55984002b6312cf4a7b48cea7-31-2018 FILE - In this April 29, 2017 file photo, Bob Woodward, left, and Carl Bernstein appear at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington. More than 40 years after they became the world’s most famous journalism duo, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are still making news. Bernstein was among three CNN reporters who last week broke the story of former Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s allegation that Trump had advance knowledge of the June 2016 meeting between representatives of his campaign and Russian officials. On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Woodward’s upcoming “Fear: Inside the Trump White House” was No. 1 on Amazon.com. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File) NEW YORK (AP) — More than 40 years after they became the world’s most famous journalism duo, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are still making news. Bernstein was among three CNN reporters who last week broke the story of former Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s allegation that Trump knew in advance of the June 2016 meeting between representatives of his presidential campaign and Russian officials. On Tuesday, Woodward’s upcoming “Fear: Inside the Trump White House” was No. 1 on Amazon.com, within a day of its announcement. The former Washington Post colleagues known for their Watergate coverage speak regularly, they say, comparing notes on the Trump era. “He’s a news junkie, and I’m a news junkie,” Woodward, 75, explained Tuesday during a telephone interview, adding that he includes a tribute to Bernstein in his new book’s acknowledgements. “We keep each other posted pretty well,” Bernstein, 74, said during a separate phone interview. “Obviously, we do different things. But we also have a lifetime of understanding each other and looking at news together.” WOODARD AND BERNSTEIN MAY 1973 won a Pulitizer for the Watergate InvestigationWoodward, an associate editor at the Post, is among the most successful nonfiction authors of his time, with a long series of best-selling accounts of sitting presidents from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. A new Woodward book even became a political tradition — coming out in the fall of an election year. But after the 2012 release “The Price of Politics,” Woodward stepped away from the present, publishing no works on Obama’s second term, and instead focused on Watergate-era news. “The Last of the President’s Men,” his work on White House aide Alexander Butterfield, the man who revealed Nixon’s taping system, came out in 2015. A Trump book was an easy choice for Woodward, who calls his rise a “pivot point” in American history. According to his publisher, Simon & Schuster, Woodward will show the “harrowing life” of the Trump White House and the president’s decision-making process as he draws upon “hundreds of hours of interviews with firsthand sources, contemporaneous meeting notes, files, documents and personal diaries.” The book’s title draws upon an interview Woodward and Washington Post reporter Robert Costa had with Trump that was published in April 2016. Costa had noted that Obama defined power as “you can get what you want without having to exert violence.” Trump had a different interpretation. His answer was, Woodward says, checking his notes, “Real power is, I don’t even want to use the word: ‘Fear.’” Bernstein is a political commentator for CNN whose books include “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” and the two Nixon-era classics he wrote with Woodward, “All the President’s Men” and “The Final Days.” He is currently working on a memoir about his early years of journalism, when he was starting out at the now-defunct Washington Star. “My time at the Star was a great learning experience, and then there was the Post and Watergate. Those two experiences inform pretty much everything I do,” Bernstein said. “Imagine,” he added, referring to himself and Woodward, “here we are, 74 and 75 years old, and we still get to do this.” apnews.com/1b1ed66c55984002b6312cf4a7b48cea/Long-after-
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 5, 2018 13:31:11 GMT -6
www.newyorker.com/news-desk/swamp-chronicles/the-day-trump-told-us-there-was-attempted-collusion-with-russia?mbid=social_twitterSwamp Chronicles
The Day Trump Told Us There Was Attempted Collusion with RussiaBy Adam Davidson / www.newyorker.com/contributors/adam-davidson8-5-2018 Precisely forty-four years after the collapse of the Nixon Presidency, another President, Donald Trump, made his own public admission. Photograph by Kevin Dietsch / Bloomberg / Getty August 5, 1974, was the day the Nixon Presidency ended. On that day, Nixon heeded a Supreme Court ruling and released the so-called smoking-gun tape, a recording of a meeting, held two years earlier, with his chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman. Many of Nixon’s most damaging statements came in the form of short, monosyllabic answers and near-grunts—“um huh,” the official transcript reads, at one point—as he responds to Haldeman’s idea of asking the C.I.A. to tell the F.B.I. to “stay the hell out of” the Watergate investigation. The coverup is clearly of Haldeman’s design. Nixon’s words are simple: “All right. Fine.” Then, “Right, fine.” Haldeman’s idea seemed clever. He believed the F.B.I. was close to concluding that the break-in at the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate hotel was the work of a C.I.A.-led operation, which had something to do with Cuba and the Bay of Pigs. Nobody would have to actually lie, he seems to suggest—it wasn’t “unusual” for the C.I.A. to warn the F.B.I. to drop an investigation that could harm national security. “And that will fit rather well because the F.B.I. agents who are working the case, at this point, feel that’s what it is. This is C.I.A.” Nixon’s strongest statement to Haldeman is, surprisingly, a word of caution. “Don’t lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it,” he says. “Say that we wish, for the country, don’t go any further into this case, period!” When Nixon released the tape, he acknowledged that it would lead to his impeachment. Three days later, he resigned the Presidency. Listening to the tape today, it’s hard not to imagine an alternate strategy, one that Nixon’s aide, Roger Ailes—hired at Haldeman’s request—would surely have endorsed. Nixon could have released the tape himself and declared it as proof of his innocence, pointing out that he did, in fact, tell Haldeman not to lie. He could have argued that he didn’t mean “yes” when he said “um huh”—that the transcript should have read “unh-unh,” a clear sign that he was against the whole scheme. Instead of embracing impeachment, congressional Republicans could have supported an effort to do just what Haldeman and Nixon had attempted: end the investigation. On August 5, 2018, precisely forty-four years after the collapse of the Nixon Presidency, another President, Donald Trump, made his own public admission. In one of a series of early-morning tweets, Trump addressed a meeting that his son Donald, Jr., held with a Russian lawyer affiliated with the Russian government. “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere,” he wrote. “I did not know about it!” The tweet contains several crucial pieces of information. First, it is a clear admission that Donald Trump, Jr.,’s original statement about the case was inaccurate enough to be considered a lie. He had said the meeting was with an unknown person who “might have information helpful to the campaign,” and that this person “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children.” This false statement was, according to his legal team, dictated by the President himself. There was good reason to mislead the American people about that meeting. Based on reporting—at the time and now—of the President’s admission, it was a conscious effort by the President’s son and two of his closest advisers to work with affiliates of the Russian government to obtain information that might sway the U.S. election in Trump’s favor. In short, it was, at minimum, a case of attempted collusion. The tweet indicates that Trump’s defense will continue to be that this attempt at collusion failed—“it went nowhere”—and that, even if it had succeeded, it would have been “totally legal and done all the time.” It is unclear why, if the meeting was entirely proper, it was important for the President to declare “I did not know about it!” or to tell the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to “stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now.” The President’s Sunday-morning tweet should be seen as a turning point. It doesn’t teach us anything new—most students of the case already understand what Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner knew about that Trump Tower meeting. But it ends any possibility of an alternative explanation. We can all move forward understanding that there is a clear fact pattern about which there is no dispute: *The President’s son and top advisers knowingly met with individuals connected to the Russian government, hoping to obtain dirt on their political opponent. *Documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee and members of the Clinton campaign were later used in an overt effort to sway the election. *When the Trump Tower meeting was uncovered, the President instructed his son and staff to lie about the meeting, and told them precisely which lies to use. *The President is attempting to end the investigation into this meeting and other instances of attempted collusion between his campaign staff and representatives of the Russian government. It was possible, just days ago, to believe—with an abundance of generosity toward the President and his team—that the meeting was about adoption, went nowhere, and was overblown by the Administration’s enemies. No longer. The open questions are now far more narrow: Was this a case of successful or only attempted collusion? Is attempted collusion a crime? What legal and moral responsibilities did the President and his team have when they realized that the proposed collusion was underway when the D.N.C. e-mails were leaked and published? And, crucially, what did the President know before the election, after it, and when he instructed his son to lie? Earlier on Sunday, Trump wrote another tweet, one that repeated a common refrain: journalists are the enemy of the people. “I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People,” it read. In a way, he did provide a great service. He allowed us to move away from a no-longer-relevant debate about whether or not he and his campaign had done anything wrong. Our nation can now focus on another question: What do we do when a President has openly admitted to attempted collusion, lying, and a coverup? www.newyorker.com/news-desk/swamp-chronicles/the-day-trump-told-us-there-was-attempted-collusion-with-russia?mbid=social_twitterTrump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer: apnews.com/9e02158ade184c119c3f030d5e58b7b1?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP_Politics
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 5, 2018 14:32:06 GMT -6
|
|