|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » User Ranks » User Post History |
Post History:
lk2fireone (0)
|
| 1151-1200 of 3618 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 7 | 12 | 17 | 23 | Page 24 | 25 | 32 | 39 | 46 | 53 | 60 | 72 | 73 | Next Page > |
| 05-04-18 12:53am - 2424 days | #582 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Watchdog group, ex-ethics chief charge Trump's Cohen reimbursement is a financial disclosure violation By Eli Watkins, CNN Updated 6:45 PM ET, Thu May 3, 2018 Giuliani: Trump repaid Cohen for Stormy payment Washington (CNN)A government watchdog group and a frequent critic of President Donald Trump are charging that Trump's acknowledgment that he reimbursed Michael Cohen for Stormy Daniels' nondisclosure agreement payment shows that he filed a false financial disclosure. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on Thursday filed an amendment to the group's complaint in March that argues the payment Cohen facilitated constituted a loan to Trump, and because this potential liability was not included in Trump's financial disclosure form, it amounts to a legal violation. CREW's March letter to both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and acting ethics chief David Apol requested that the Justice Department and the Office of Government Ethics look into the matter for potential violations. On Thursday, the group amended its complaint to include the statement from Rudy Giuliani Wednesday night that Trump had reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford. In a statement accompanying the amended complaint, CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said, "It's not often that the president's lawyer goes on television and appears to confirm one of our complaints." Walter Shaub, the former head of the Office of Government Ethics and a CNN contributor, charged in a Twitter post on Thursday that by "trying to talk his way out of a campaign finance violation, Trump has admitted to filing a false financial disclosure in 2017." "I normally assume omissions are inadvertent," Shaub said in a follow-up tweet. "However, given all of the deception about the Stormy Daniels payment, it is pretty hard to believe this was not intentional." After news of the payment to Daniels prompted campaign finance complaints earlier this year, Cohen admitted to facilitating the payment. Trump said later that he had been unaware of the payment, but on Wednesday night, Giuliani said Trump knew of the arrangement, and Trump took to Twitter on Thursday morning to acknowledge that he repaid Cohen through a monthly retainer. Trump denied on Thursday that any campaign money had been used to reimburse Cohen and said he was paid via retainer. "Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA," Trump wrote Thursday morning on Twitter. "These agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth," Trump continued. "In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. " He added, "Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction." CREW charges that because Trump's financial disclosure form last year admitted no such liability, it was likely a violation of federal law. When asked on Thursday if the form was fraudulent, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders referred the matter to Trump's lawyers. "I don't know," Sanders said. "You would have to talk to the President's outside counsel." CNN's Kevin Liptak contributed to this report. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 11:50pm - 2424 days | #581 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Since Rudy Giuliani knows so much about Trump's business before he became Trump's attorney, why not simplify the issues: Subpoena Guiliani, Trump, Cohen and everyone associated with Trump, get their depositions under oath, and throw them into prison, where they belong, for perjury, slander, and any other disgraceful acts they have committed. Guiliani knew about the payment to Stormy Daniels long before Trump admitted Trump knew about it. Cohen stated repeatedly that he paid his own money for the payment, and was never re-imbursed. Trump stated he never knew about the payment. (So how could Trump have re-paid Cohen for the money, if he never knew about the payment?) A bunch of liars. Forget the embarrassment. Put all the liars in jail or prison, to clear the swamp in Washington. Is Trump a legal President? Not according to the standards that Trump and his team go by. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 11:38pm - 2424 days | #580 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Giuliani is full of shit. And it's coming out of his mouth whenever he speaks. End of story. ------- ------- Giuliani offers new explanation of why Trump fired Comey Associated Press ERIC TUCKER,Associated Press 8 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's explanation for why he fired FBI Director James Comey has shifted again. Rudy Giuliani, Trump's new attorney, said in an interview on Fox News that Trump fired Comey last year because Comey would not state "that he wasn't a target" of the special counsel's Russia investigation. He said Trump felt that he was treated worse than Hillary Clinton, who was publicly cleared of criminal wrongdoing at an unusual FBI headquarters news conference in July 2016. "He fired Comey because Comey would not, among other things, say that he wasn't a target of the investigation," Giuliani said. "He's entitled to that. Hillary Clinton got that. Actually, he couldn't get that." Comey told The Associated Press in an interview this week that he saw telling Trump privately — at a January 2017 Trump Tower meeting — that he wasn't under investigation as a way to lower the "temperature" of an otherwise tense encounter before the president took office. Giuliani's explanation foreshadows a likely defense to the May 2017 dismissal, but it was just the latest in a series of rationales offered by Trump and his advisers. It also comes as the president's legal team is debating whether to allow Trump to be interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller's team, which in addition to investigating potential coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign, is examining whether the president's firing of Comey and other actions constitute obstruction of justice. "The president, frankly, doesn't have to have a justification," White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters Thursday. "He can hire and fire whoever he wants and he made the decision to fire James Comey and that's certainly a decision he stands by and one that he feels very justified in since." In announcing the firing, the White House initially cited the FBI director's handling of the investigation into Clinton's emails. Trump later told NBC's Lester Holt that he was thinking of "this Russia thing" when he made the move. On Fox News Wednesday night, Giuliani said Trump did the Lester Holt interview "to explain to the American people the president was not the target of the investigation." Comey has acknowledged that he told Trump on multiple occasions that he was not personally under investigation. Yet when asked that same question by Congress at a public hearing last year, he declined to provide that same reassurance. "I'm not gonna answer that," Comey said a at March 2017 House intelligence committee hearing in response to the question of whether Trump himself was being investigated. "We have briefed him in great detail on the subjects of the investigation and what we're doing, but I'm not gonna answer about anybody in this forum." After that hearing, Comey has said, Trump called him at the FBI and declared the Russia investigation a "cloud" that needed to be lifted. During that conversation, Comey told Trump again that he was not personally under investigation and said he had already shared that fact with congressional leaders. But Trump was not satisfied, Comey has said, and repeatedly told him, "We need to get that fact out" more widely. In the AP interview Tuesday, Comey acknowledged that it was possible he could have handled the January 2017 Trump Tower meeting differently. His general counsel had expressed concern about providing that reassurance to Trump, but Comey said he thought it was probably necessary as a way to preserve their relationship. During that same meeting, Comey alerted Trump to the existence of salacious allegations concerning Russia prostitutes contained in a dossier compiled by a former British spy that had been circulating around Washington. Comey said Trump strongly denied the allegations, but appeared to calm down after being told he wasn't under investigation. "If I was still going to be in the position of having to brief him privately, had I not said that, what would have happened thereafter?" Comey said in the interview. "That is, what would have happened to the temperature of that meeting if I didn't have some way to take it down in the moment at Trump Tower?" He added, "I can imagine some things that I would do differently but then I'd have to figure out, so what would I do then with the alternative lives that would spin out from that and would they be better or worse?" ___ Associated Press writer Chad Day contributed to this report. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 11:05pm - 2424 days | #11 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I just saw AVENGERS: Infinity War. The most powerful and evil character of them all, Hela, played by Cate Blanchett, did not appear in the movie. Why not? Was Disney afraid that she would conquer the multi-universe, crush Thanos beneath her feet, and rise to become the Eternal Goddess? Shame on Disney, for leaving out the most powerful, female character of all time. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 06:52pm - 2424 days | #579 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Reuters U.S. investigators wiretapped phone lines of Trump lawyer: NBC Reuters By Roberta Rampton and Jan Wolfe,Reuters 4 hours ago WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Federal investigators wiretapped the phone lines of U.S. President Donald Trump's longtime lawyer Michael Cohen before the FBI seized records and documents in a raid last month on his offices, hotel room and home, NBC News reported on Thursday. NBC, citing sources familiar with legal proceedings involving Cohen, said it was unclear how long the wiretap had been authorized, but it was in place in the weeks before the April 9 raids in New York targeting the lawyer. At least one call between a phone line associated with Cohen and the White House was intercepted, NBC quoted one source as saying. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told a news briefing she could not verify the NBC report and said she had not talked to Trump about the wiretap issue. The raids were part of a federal criminal investigation of Cohen in New York in part over a $130,000 payment he made to adult film star Stormy Daniels a month before the 2016 U.S. presidential election to keep her quiet about a sexual encounter she said she had with Trump in 2006. Earlier on Tuesday, Trump said on Twitter that Cohen was reimbursed for that payment through a monthly retainer, not campaign funds, to stop "false and extortionist accusations" Daniels has made about a sexual relationship with the president. The wiretapping of Cohen, if confirmed, would represent the latest ominous development for Trump, who faces legal difficulties on several fronts. The investigation of Cohen is an offshoot of the ongoing probe by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller into potential collusion between Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia and whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the investigation. Russia and Trump deny any collusion. Daniels also has filed two lawsuits against Trump. Like a search warrant, a wiretap can be authorized when a judge determines there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime. But there is an added burden of showing the criminal behavior is ongoing and that there is no other way to reasonably obtain the information. Authorities must re-apply for the wiretap every 30 days. It was not immediately clear when the warrant for surveillance was obtained or what evidence the Federal Bureau of Investigation had to support its request. 'A MOCKERY' Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor who is a member of Trump's legal team, told the Washington Post that, if true, the wiretaps would be "not appropriate," according to a Twitter post by a Post reporter. "You mean, I call up my lawyer and the government is wiretapping him?" Giuliani asked in comments to the Post. "... They've already eviscerated the attorney-client privilege. This would make a mockery of it." Attorney-client privilege generally shields communications between a lawyer and a client. Giuliani did not immediately return a call for comment from Reuters. A spokesman for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office, which is handling the Cohen investigation, declined to comment. Cohen and a lawyer for him did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Because Cohen is a lawyer, prosecutors likely took multiple steps to address concerns that a wiretap would violate attorney-client privilege, said Chris Slobogin, a professor of criminal law at Vanderbilt University Law School. At the time of their wiretap application, prosecutors likely would have needed to convince a judge that Cohen was not acting as lawyer or was engaging in criminal conduct, both exceptions to attorney-client privilege, Slobogin said. The agents who conducted the wiretap would also have been instructed to turn off eavesdropping equipment off if they determined at the start of a conversation that it might be protected by attorney-client privilege, Slobogin added. In an April 13 court filing, federal prosecutor Robert Khuzami said the government had previously obtained covert search warrants on several of Cohen's email accounts and had used a "filter team" to examine the materials gathered in the raid. Their review found Cohen was performing little to no legal work, Khuzami said. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 06:47pm - 2424 days | #578 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
When it comes to telling the truth, President Trump has a problem. In the past week alone, Trump has contradicted his own claims that he did not know where his lawyer Michael Cohen received $130,000 in hush money paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. His former personal physician, Harold Bornstein, disclosed that Trump himself had dictated the glowing assessment of the candidate’s health that was released during the campaign. The president falsely portrayed the status of three U.S. hostages in North Korea, tweeting, “As everybody is aware, the past Administration has long been asking for three hostages to be released from a North Korean Labor camp, but to no avail. Stay tuned!” In fact, two of the three hostages were taken captive during Trump’s term, not Barack Obama’s presidency. During Thursday’s briefing, reporters peppered White House press secretary Sarah Sanders with questions about Trump’s casual relationship with the truth. “Could you explain why the president, when he answered questions by reporters a few weeks ago about the $130,000 payment from Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels, why the president was not truthful with the American people and with the people in this room?” the Associated Press’s Zeke Miller asked. “As Mayor Giuliani stated, and I’ll refer you back to his comments, this was information that the president didn’t know at the time but eventually learned,” Sanders replied. In a follow-up, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl piled on. “When the president so often says things that turn out not to be true, when the president and the White House show what appears to be a blatant disregard for the truth, how are the American people to trust or believe what is said here or what is said by the president?” Sanders’s answer — that she offers “the very best information” she has at the time — was telling, and did little to dispel a growing skepticism that the information she provides can be taken at face value. By the Washington Post’s tally, Trump has made 3,001 false or misleading claims since he was sworn into office — an average of 6.5 untruths per day. A cottage industry of Trump fact checkers struggles to keep pace with the president’s pronouncements. So frequent are his erroneous statements, in fact, that the debate has shifted from whether he makes them to whether they matter. Former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden took note of this shift in an excerpt from his upcoming book, “The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies.” “It was no accident that the Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year in 2016 was ‘post-truth,’ a condition where facts are less influential in shaping opinion than emotion and personal belief,” Hayden wrote in the New York Times. “To adopt post-truth thinking is to depart from Enlightenment ideas, dominant in the West since the 17th century, that value experience and expertise, the centrality of fact, humility in the face of complexity, the need for study and a respect for ideas.” Other conservatives have also been troubled by Trump’s casual relationship with the truth. “What does public life look like without the constraining internal force of character — without the firm ethical commitments often (though not exclusively) rooted in faith?” Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post last year. “It looks like a presidential campaign unable to determine right from wrong and loyalty from disloyalty. It looks like an administration engaged in a daily assault on truth and convinced that might makes right. It looks like the residual scum left from retreating political principle — the worship of money, power, and self-promoted fame. The Trumpian trinity.” While those philosophical concerns abound in the nation’s capital, there are signs that the president’s truthfulness may be having a wider effect. An NBC/Survey Monkey poll released Wednesday found that 61 percent of Americans think Trump only tells the truth “some of the time or less.” On the bright side for Trump, 76 percent of Republicans still believe that he speaks the truth “all or most of the time.” In an op-ed published last week in the New York Times, Daniel Effron, an associate professor of organizational behavior at London Business School, posited an explanation of why the president’s supporters seem unbothered by Trump’s lies. “Wittingly or not, Mr. Trump’s representatives have used a subtle psychological strategy to defend his falsehoods: They encourage people to reflect on how the falsehoods could have been true,” Effron wrote. It’s through that lens that one might understand the statements made by Sanders, who — like her predecessors — is tasked with spinning the president’s tweeted and off-the-cuff remarks into the realm of reason. Last month, for example, she was asked by a reporter to justify Trump’s resurfaced claim that millions of Americans had participated in voter fraud in the 2016 election. “The president still strongly feels that there was a large amount of voter fraud, and attempted to do a thorough review of it, but a lot of states didn’t want to cooperate or participate,” Sanders said from her White House podium. “We certainly know that there were a large number of instances reported, but we can’t be sure how much because we weren’t able to conduct a full review that the president wanted.” So could Trump have convinced himself he wasn’t involved in Cohen’s payment to Stormy Daniels, or that he wasn’t the author of the medical report issued under Bornstein’s name, or that two of the three U.S. hostages in North Korea weren’t captured during his own term in office? Anything is possible, and no one can know for sure what’s in his mind. But there’s a simpler explanation, and it doesn’t reflect well on him. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 06:24pm - 2424 days | #577 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
A sign of the times. Bill Cosby and Roman Polanski have been expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. This is the same movement (roughly speaking) that will bring down Donald Trump's Presidency. Harvey Weinstein was expelled from the Academy last year. ---------- ---------- May 3, 2018 11:19AM PT Film Academy Expels Bill Cosby and Roman Polanski From Membership By Kristopher Tapley and Gene Maddaus The Board of Governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has voted to expel actor Bill Cosby and director Roman Polanski from its membership ranks. The decision to remove Cosby and Polanski from the membership was made Tuesday, May 1 at a scheduled board meeting. The move comes a week after Cosby was convicted of three counts of aggravated indecent assault brought against him by Andrea Constand. Cosby has been accused of sexual assault by as many as 60 women, a few of which testified at the emotional hearing. Polanski has been on the lam for 40 years, ever since fleeing the country while awaiting sentencing for statutory rape in 1978. The case has undergone a number of bizarre twists over the decades, as the L.A. County District Attorney’s office has tried unsuccessfully to extradite him, and Polanski has tried unsuccessfully to resolve the case from afar. Polanski’s attorney, Harland Braun, told Variety that the director was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself to the Academy, which he says is at odds with the process outlined Academy’s new code of conduct. However, there is a provision allowing the board to act whether that process is followed or not. “It sets a very poor example,” Braun said. “It seems to be wrong to just expel someone and make a decision without knowing all the facts.” The Academy’s code, adopted in January, states that the Membership and Administration Committee may receive complaints and ask for a response from the accused member. The member then has 10 days to provide a written response, after which the committee may make a recommendation on discipline to the full board. The member is also provided 10 days to appeal the board’s decision. The code also includes a provision whereby the board retains the ability to impose discipline without following the new process. “He accepted responsibility,” Braun said. “He apologized to the woman. She has accepted his apology. It’s a very ignorant thing to do.” Harvey Weinstein was expelled from the Academy last year after exposés in the New Yorker and New York Times detailed years of sexual harassment allegations against the now-disgraced mogul. The full AMPAS statement: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Board of Governors met on Tuesday night (May 1) and has voted to expel actor Bill Cosby and director Roman Polanski from its membership in accordance with the organization’s Standards of Conduct. The Board continues to encourage ethical standards that require members to uphold the Academy’s values of respect for human dignity. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 06:11pm - 2424 days | #576 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Politics This Week Was A Great Reminder That Trump Is A Huge Liar HuffPost Alana Horowitz Satlin,HuffPost 6 hours ago It’s been another cataclysm of a news cycle in which President Donald Trump was caught in a series of lies too obvious to be explained away as misstatements or ignorance. Weeks after Trump insisted he didn’t know about the hush money used to keep his alleged affair with Stormy Daniels quiet, he on Thursday admitted to the entire arrangement. Denying that the funds were campaign expenses, the president tweeted that his longtime lawyer Michael Cohen “received a monthly retainer” which he used to arrange a nondisclosure agreement with Daniels. His comments came hours after former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who recently joined Trump’s legal team, told Fox News that the payment was “funneled through a law firm, and then the president repaid it.” Trump’s lies ― much like the mere notion that he had sex with a porn star in the first place ― are both jarring and also completely predictable. He offered another flagrant falsehood later on Thursday when he claimed that “the past Administration has long been asking for three hostages to be released from a North Korean Labor camp, but to no avail.” Two of the three hostages were detained after Trump took office. This week’s untruths got even weirder on Tuesday when Trump’s longtime doctor, Harold Bornstein, said that he didn’t actually write the glowing bill of health released during the campaign. Trump “dictated that whole letter. I didn’t write that letter,” Bornstein told CNN this week. “I just made it up as I went along.” “His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary,” Bornstein’s December 2015 letter read. “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” These frequent contradictions make it hard to take any of Trump’s claims seriously, including his outrage this week that a list of questions special counsel Robert Mueller plans to ask him were leaked to the press. Multiple sources told The Washington Post that it was Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, who compiled the questions after talking with Mueller’s team. Mueller’s team is also not known for leaking. The same can’t be said for the White House. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. ----------- ----------- Vogue Donald Trump Lied About Stormy Daniels. Why Should We Believe He Isn’t Still Lying? Vogue Michelle Ruiz,Vogue 6 hours ago The president admitted on Twitter today that he, and not his attorney and fixer Michael Cohen, funded the much-talked-about $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Why should we believe he didn’t violate campaign finance laws in the process? So, President Trump lied. Again. Some are saying he “reversed his position” or “changed his story” but, if we’re being perfectly honest, those are just euphemisms. For months, Trump flatly denied to the American public that he was behind his attorney and all-around fixer Michael Cohen’s $130,000 payment to silence Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. But today, after his new lawyer Rudy Giuliani opened the floodgates last night on Fox News, Trump finally admitted on Twitter that he was, in fact, the source of that payment; that he himself reimbursed Cohen, and with his own—not his campaign’s—money. Trump’s tweets directly contradict his—and his team’s—past statements about the so-called “hush money” paid to Daniels to stop her from going public with allegations of an affair with Trump (which Trump still denies). Most notably, this past April, when asked by a reporter if he knew about the payment to Daniels, Trump said “no” and referred further questions to Cohen. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders had earlier supported that story when she said, “There was no knowledge of any payments from the president.” Maybe the president wasn’t being honest with her, either. Or maybe she was complicit in furthering his lie. That’s between Sanders and whatever’s left of her conscience. But whether Michelle Wolf was truly mocking Sanders’s appearance or not, let the record show that Wolf had a point: Sanders is indeed fast and loose with the facts. Parsing all of the lies peddled by the Trump administration is like playing whack-a-mole. There are so many popping up all the time, it’s hard to knock them all down. But the latest about Stormy Daniels isn’t a garden-variety fib. It’s very likely that the reason Trump used formal legalese in his tweets today—and, perhaps, why he attempted to call not it and blame Cohen for the payment to begin with—is that writing a $130,000 check to Daniels on October 27, 2016, just days before the election, could be a violation of campaign finance law, and, oops, that could be a felony. Trump is especially quick to note today that the money was “not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign” and that “money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.” But this line of defense doesn’t necessarily get Trump off the hook. Even if he paid Daniels with his own money and not the campaign’s war chest, it could still be argued that a payment to silence Daniels about her alleged affair with the Republican candidate, a matter of great interest to the Trump campaign, just days before Election Day, was very much campaign-related. Once upon a time, John Edwards was indicted for payments to a girlfriend during his 2008 campaign. The legal question at hand, then and now, is this: What was the intention behind the payment? Was it, fundamentally, made to protect Trump as a presidential candidate, or perhaps, for a personal reason, such as making the affair go away and saving his marriage? (No comment there.) Even before Trump’s admission today, Common Cause, a government watchdog group, had filed complaints with the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission over the $130,000 payment to Daniels, according to The New York Times; Trump’s confirmation that he was the one who paid Daniels after all could be used as evidence that he was “knowing and willful” about campaign finance violations. We may find out soon. According to multiple reports, federal investigators tapped Cohen’s phone lines, and according to NBC News, intercepted at least one call with the White House. Trump denies wrongdoing—of course he does. But given his track record, why would we start believing him now? ------------- ------------- President Donald Trump repaid his lawyer Michael Cohen for a $130,000 hush payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign, Rudy Giuliani said, contradicting previous statements by the president. "Funneled it through the law firm, and then the president repaid it,’’ Giuliani, who serves on Trump’s legal team, said Wednesday during an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News. Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney, is in the midst of a legal firestorm over the payment to Daniels, which was made during the 2016 presidential campaign in exchange for Daniels’ silence about an alleged affair with Trump. Cohen and Trump have said the payment was made without Trump’s knowledge. “When I heard Cohen’s retainer of $35,000, when he was doing no work for the president, I said ‘That’s how he’s repaying, with a little profit and a little margin for paying taxes for Michael’,’’ Giuliani said. Asked last month whether he knew about the payment, Trump said “No.’’ Asked if he knew where Cohen got the money for the payment, Trump said he didn’t know. “No, I don’t know,’’ Trump told reporters. Giuliani said Trump was aware of the payment arrangement and that it did not constitute a campaign finance violation. “He didn’t know about the specifics of it, as far as I know,’’ he said. “But he did know about the general arrangement, that Michael would take care of things like this.’’ “That money was not campaign money, sorry," Giuliani added. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 05:10pm - 2424 days | #575 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: New Jersey superintendent defecated on high school football field 'on a daily basis,' cops say After he was arrested, the superintendent took a paid leave of absence. Thankfully, his leave of absence is paid. The man makes $147,504 a year as superintendent. He also has a part-time job as a lecturer at Rutgers Graduate School of Education. No reason was given why the man did not use a public restroom. No reason why I am posting this on a Donald Trump thread, except that Trump is a tricky character, and I am posting this article about another tricky character: my hope is that this superintendent will give a convincing explanation why he defecates on a high school football field: did he dislike sports when he was in high school? Or something else easily understood: the school was not paying him enough money for the work he put in? Whatever works for him. ------ ------ Fox News CRIME 9 hours ago New Jersey superintendent defecated on high school football field 'on a daily basis,' cops say By Katherine Lam | Fox News Thomas Tramaglini, 42, was arrested and charged with lewdness, littering and defecating in public, police said. A New Jersey schools superintendent was arrested Monday when officials discovered he had been defecating on a high school football field “on a daily basis,” police said. Thomas Tramaglini, 42, was charged with lewdness, littering and defecating in public, police said Thursday. The Kenilworth schools superintendent was arrested after surveillance video caught him in the act on Holmdel High School’s football field. Authorities began hunting for the "mystery pooper" after Holmdel High School staff and coaches for football and track reported finding human feces on or near the field nearly every day. Tramaglini was arrested while running on the athletic fields’ track just before 6 a.m. Monday, NJ.com reported. Turns out, the alleged "pooper-intendent" lived in Aberdeen, about three miles away from the high school. Tramaglini took a paid leave of absence after his arrest. "We learned of municipal court charges facing our current superintendent of schools in Holmdel, NJ. Given the nature of those charges, he asked for and was granted a paid leave of absence," according to a Wednesday message posted on the Facebook page for Kenilworth Public Schools. The district said unpaid leave would only occur "in the face of indictments or tenure charges." The superintendent makes $147,504 a year. He was named superintendent of Kenilworth schools after his predecessor Scott Taylor resigned in August 2015. Tramaglini also has a part-time job as a lecturer at Rutgers Graduate School of Education, NJ.com reported. His employment status post-arrest at the graduate school wasn't immediately clear. Katherine Lam is a breaking and trending news digital producer for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @bykatherinelam | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 04:29pm - 2424 days | #574 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I have re-thought my position on White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. I was blind or thoughtless when I said she was a liar. I think she is doing an excellent job in a very difficult position. She probably has coaches for her interviews with the press. But she is calm under pressure, and speaks with authority defending her boss, Donald Trump. Even when many of her statements turn out to be false, she continues on. That takes guts. Or something. I personally would fold under the pressure she endures day after day after day. I admire her stamina and strength. But I do have to wonder how she balances in her own mind the facts she knows, against the statements she has made, and the statements she continues to make, to the press. Or is she somehow able to ignore any facts she has learned, in the service of her boss? | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 01:32pm - 2425 days | #572 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I think I'm a little closer to understanding how some people think. Here is a story of a 15-year-old girl who lives in Beverly Hills. The girl's mother is a single mother, who works. The girl spends over $8,000 per month. But the mother recently reduced the girl's allowance to $1,000 per month. The teenager calls herself a princess, who is now forced to live like a peasant. She appeared on the Dr. Phil show with her mother, to complain about the "low", $1,000 per month allowance. The teen might not be a registered Donald Trump supporter, but I believe the girl illustrates how people can be so entitled that whatever they do is normal and wonderful, just like our hero, Donald Trump, and many of Trump's supporters. However, the article shows that the teenager can be helped. By being treated in a consistent way. The same way we need to treat Trump in a consistent way. If Trump has committed any crimes, we need to show Trump tough love: punish Trump for any lies and/or crimes he may have committed. Then Trump can be a better person, and help the world as he truly embraces God's ways. --------- --------- 15-year-old says her $1,000 monthly allowance makes her 'feel like a peasant' — and the internet's upset Elise Solé 8 hours ago A Beverly Hills teen who calls herself “a princess” is furious at her mother for slashing her monthly $5K allowance. Fifteen-year-old Nicolette, who appeared on the Dr. Phil show Tuesday, has lived a lavish California childhood — a closet full of Chanel, Gucci, and Céline, personal drivers, exercise trainers, and her own credit card with zero limit. “Some months, her credit card bills would be $10K,” her mother, Nina, told Dr. Phil. “I just paid the bill.” She added, “In the past year, I’ve probably have given her $100,000, I don’t even keep track anymore.” Nina had initially given her daughter a $5,000 monthly allowance “to cover her expenses” but recently reduced it to $1,000, an amount Nicolette says makes her “feel like a peasant.” Nicolette brought her mom onto Dr. Phil to compromise at a monthly stipend of $2,500, and their appearance made people angry on Twitter. Really angry. However, Nina admits she spoils her daughter due to guilt over being a single working mom who is rarely home. And Nicolette, who attends online high school, is angry at their lack of quality time. “Other people would have their moms drive them places, buy them food, make them food,” she says. “But I have to do everything myself. And I need the funds for that.” Nicolette added, “You created me … you raised me. You should have done better. … I was never loved as a child. I feel like I never was. She just gave me money. … I feel like she ruined my whole childhood.” It’s understandable to label Nicolette a brat and Nina a deadbeat, but according to Sharon Silver, creator of the Proactive Parenting website, the teen deserves empathy. “She has been trained to value material things,” she tells Yahoo Lifestyle, “So it’s unsurprising that she’s raging at losing what she learned meant love.” What the mother needs to do, says Silver, is prioritize unbreakable quality time to establish an emotional connection and stop indulging her daughter. “I’d also advise removing any over-the-top possessions and have the girl earn them back with good behavior.” Most importantly, Nina owes it to her daughter to be direct about her upbringing. “This teen is old enough for that conversation,” says Silver. “Withholding love and connection is a form of emotional abuse and the mom needs to be honest with herself and her daughter about how she parents.” Dr. Deborah Gilboa, a parenting and youth development expert, also has hope for the mother-daughter pair. “This mom has decided to course correct her teen — at age 16, when other parents may have given up — and she should continue trusting her instincts,” she tells Yahoo Lifestyle, adding, “There will be pushback, but it is not too late.” “The most important parenting value right now is consistency,” she says. “If this mom can do that, her daughter will respect her so much more.” | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 01:07pm - 2425 days | #571 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Mueller needs to get a subpoena on Cohen and on Trump, force them to testify under oath. They will almost certainly take the 5th, to avoid incriminating themselves. Except Trump is so arrogant he might start spouting off like he does in his tweets. Then Cohen can be put in jail. And Trump can be impeached or resign. Or--the impeachment process can be dragged out, because Trump is a fighter who will go down proclaiming his innocence, no matter what "true facts" are revealed. So Pence, the President in waiting, will issue a pardon to Trump. Except there are legal ways to prosecute Trump and Cohen on the state level, which can block the pardon from civil and criminal actions against Trump and Cohen. New York and California are probably looking into bringing charges against Trump and Cohen already. (A pardon by the President only applies to federal crimes. Not to state crimes.) | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 12:14pm - 2425 days | #569 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Federal investigators are not giving Trump lawyer Michael Cohen a fair chance. They have wiretapped his phone. How can Michael Cohen do crimes if the Feds are snooping into his private business? Shame on Mueller for using federal money to spy on a private citizen. (US government spends billions to spy of private citizens, and President Trump is fine with that: it's only when the government spies on Trump allies that it becomes a shameful act that should never be done). ----- ----- Federal Investigators Put Wiretap On Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen: NBC Report HuffPost Marina Fang,HuffPost 1 hour 39 minutes ago Scroll back up to restore default view. Federal investigators in New York City have conducted surveillance on the phone lines of President Donald Trump ’s longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen, sources told NBC News, the outlet reported Thursday . Cohen has been embroiled in a legal battle stemming from a $130,000 “hush money” payment he made to silence Stormy Daniels, the porn star who allegedly had an affair with Trump. It’s unclear how long ago the wiretapping was authorized, according to NBC News, but one source told the outlet that it has been in place since at least last month, when federal authorities raided Cohen’s home, hotel room and office. This is a developing story. Check back for updates. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 10:30am - 2425 days | #568 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Trump needs cash. That is why he plans to sue Stormy Daniels for cash over the NDA agreement. But if, as Trump still maintains, that he never had sex with Stormy Daniels, how can he sue Stormy Daniels for talking about sex between Daniels and Trump that never happened, that was supposedly covered by a NDA. Guiliani says the payment for $130,000 was perfectly legal. Trump has denied that he knew about the payment. But now he is stating that he knew about the payment (which seems to be admitting a previous lie), and, since Guiliana stated that the $130,000 payment from Cohen was repaid to Cohen--even though Cohen previously said he made the payment with his own funds, and did not tell Trump about the payment, and that the payment from Cohen to Daniels was Cohen's money, that was never repaid by Trump. Does the American public have the right to know the truth? Can we get Trump and Cohen to admit the truth under oath? Or will they take the 5h amendment and refuse to answer under oath because of self-incrimination. Politics Trump defends 130K reimbursement for Stormy Daniels payment as 'very common among celebrities' Good Morning America LUCIEN BRUGGEMAN and JOHN SANTUCCI,Good Morning America 2 hours 2 minutes ago In a series of morning tweets, President Donald Trump reacted to the revelation that he had reimbursed personal attorney Michael Cohen for a $130,000 payment to adult porn actress Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election, calling the arrangement "very common among celebrities and people of wealth." The president's morning tweets are his first response to Wednesday night's bombshell announcement, made by Trump's newest legal adviser, Rudy Giuliani, on Fox News. PHOTO: In this April 16, 2018, photo, Michael Cohen, center, leaves federal court in New York. (Mary Altaffer/AP Photo) Giuliani told host Sean Hannity that the president reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 payment, appearing to contradict repeated denials from the White House and Trump's legal team that the president was even aware of the payment to Daniels. "Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA," Trump tweeted, reiterating Giuiliani's characterization of Trump's reimbursement to Cohen. Trump goes on to deny the affair for the first time publicly, though a slew of spokespeople has made the claim on his behalf. "The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair, despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement." PHOTO: Adult-film actress Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, arrives at ABC studios to appear on The View talk show in New York City, April 17, 2018. (Mike Segar/Reuters) The president does not indicate when he learned of the payment to Daniels, though a source told ABC News that Trump's reimbursement payments to Cohen began shortly after the president took office and Cohen left the Trump Organization for private practice. The payments were mostly for the reimbursement, the source said, but included payments for some other legal matters Cohen was working on for the president. It’s unclear what those matters were. PHOTO: President Donald Trump denied knowledge about the payment by his personal lawyer Michael Cohen to porn film actress Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, while speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One on April 5, 2018. (Doug Mills/The New York Times via Redux Pictures) Trump's final tweet described the arrangement as “having nothing to do with the campaign” and threatened that the non-disclosure agreement between Cohen and Daniels “will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford.” Comment Guidelines The Cut Trump Reportedly Repaid Michael Cohen $130,000 for Stormy Daniels Payout The Cut Amanda Arnold,The Cut 13 hours ago In Wednesday evening segment on Fox News, Rudy Giuliani told Sean Hannity that Donald Trump repaid his lawyer, Michael Cohen, the $130,000 he paid to adult-film star, Stormy Daniels. Before this admission, the Trump team’s story was that Cohen himself had arranged a $130,000 payment to Daniels, with whom the president had an alleged affair, just days before the 2016 election. Just last month, Trump again denied having had any knowledge of the hush payment. But tonight, Giuliani contradicted that story. “I’m giving you a fact that you don’t know,” said Giuliani, who is a new member of Trump’s legal team. “It’s not campaign money. No campaign finance violation. They funneled through a law firm and the president repaid it.” Giuliani went on to claim that Trump “didn’t know about the specifics about it, as far as I know. But he did know about the general arrangements.” HuffPost Trump Backs Rudy Giuliani's Claim That No Campaign Money Went To Stormy Daniels HuffPost Willa Frej,HuffPost 5 hours ago President Donald Trump on Thursday tried to explain Rudy Giuliani’s startling claim that Trump reimbursed personal lawyer Michael Cohen for a $130,000 settlement to silence adult film star Stormy Daniels, who alleges she had an affair with the president. Trump said in a tweet that Cohen was paid a monthly retainer “not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract ... known as a non-disclosure agreement.” He added that the agreement was to “stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair.” The president’s tweets appeared to ratify a central claim of Giuliani’s startling statements Wednesday night on Fox News. “It’s going to turn out to be perfectly legal; that money was not campaign money,” Giuliani, who joined Trump’s legal team last month to handle issues related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Wednesday night in an attempt to argue that the payment wasn’t a campaign finance violation. The payment was “funneled through a law firm, and then the president repaid it.” “Sorry, I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know,” Giuliani told Hannity. He said the president was unaware of the “specifics” of the payments, “but he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this.” Giuliani told The New York Times after his appearance on Hannity’s show that a monthly $35,000 reimbursement scheme was set up, coming out of a personal Trump family account. Trump ended up paying Cohen $460,000 to $470,000 in total, including funds for “incidental expenses,” he said. Thursday morning, on “Fox & Friends,” Giuliani seemed to backpedal on his statement that Trump knew about the payments to Cohen. “He didn’t know the details of this until we knew the details of it, which is a couple weeks ago ― maybe not even a couple weeks, maybe 10 days ago,” Giuliani said of Trump. “Remember when this came up ― October 2016 ... I don’t want to demean anyone, but $135,000 seems like a lot of money. It’s not when you’re putting $100 million into your campaign. It isn’t pocket change, but it’s pretty close to it.” Giuliani also came to the defense of Cohen, who Trump has held at arm’s length since FBI raids last month seized records from the lawyer. “I think he was trying to help the family,” Giuliani said of Cohen. “And for that, the man is being treated like some kind of villain. And I think he was just being a good lawyer and a good man.” Giuliani told the Times that he had discussed what he planned to say on Fox News Wednesday night with Trump before and after the interview. His interview contradicted the statements of Trump and Cohen. Cohen said in March that he’d paid Daniels out of his own pocket. Trump said he had no knowledge that Cohen had paid Daniels, when asked last month aboard Air Force One. “You’ll have to ask Michael Cohen,” he said when reporters pressed him. “Michael is my attorney. You’ll have to ask Michael.” Michael Avenatti, Daniels’ attorney, called Giuliani’s admission a “bombshell” that will undoubtedly bring the president down. Trump, he said in an interview with CNN, could face “potential criminal liability” related to money laundering, campaign finance and fraud violations. “I said it weeks ago, I’m going to say it again: Mr. Trump will not serve out his term,” Avenatti said. This article has been updated to include Giuliani’s comments Thursday on “Fox & Friends.” This article originally appeared on HuffPost. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 09:34am - 2425 days | #567 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
News Flash: I just had a message sent directly to me from God Himself. God has seen how I have struggled to understand how Satan's emissary, Donald Trump, was elected and is now doing Satan's work in the White House. God revealed to me that Trump is an agent of Russia, working undercover. Trump says he will make America great again. His true mission is the destroy the moral roots of America, and let the Nazis, Rednecks, and Slimeballs run rampant over God-fearing Americans. And that Trump has many allies in Congress, who work to make Trump President-For-Life of Trump-America. ------------ ------------ Politics George Conway Appears To Shut Down Rudy Giuliani's Claim About Stormy Daniels Payment HuffPost Hayley Miller,HuffPost 1 hour 43 minutes ago George Conway, a high-profile attorney and the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, on Thursday appeared to once again question claims made by President Donald Trump’s legal team. Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who recently joined Trump’s ever-evolving roster of attorneys, revealed Wednesday that Trump had reimbursed his personal lawyer Michael Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Stephanie Clifford, the adult film star who goes by her stage name Stormy Daniels. Legal experts have argued that Cohen’s hefty payment to Daniels to silence her about her alleged affair with Trump may have violated campaign finance laws since it was meant to quash negative media coverage about Trump in the days leading up to the 2016 election. Giuliani said Wednesday such a violation never occurred because Trump used his own money to reimburse Cohen. But Conway seemed to suggest otherwise. Conway’s tweet links to a page on the Federal Election Commission’s website that explains how and when personal gifts and loans to candidates violate campaign finance laws. According to the passage highlighted in Conway’s tweet: If any person, including a relative or friend of the candidate, gives or loans the candidate money “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” the funds are not considered personal funds of the candidate even if they are given to the candidate directly. Instead, the gift or loan is considered a contribution from the donor to the campaign, subject to the per-election limit and reportable by the campaign. This is true even if the candidate uses the funds for personal living expenses while campaigning. Since Cohen loaned Trump the money when he paid Daniels ― even if Trump reimbursed him over time ― campaign finance laws may still have been violated. Conway also retweeted several posts mocking Giuliani’s admission about the alleged reimbursement, including tweets from Politico’s Emily Stephenson and The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker. Conway has repeatedly shared tweets critical of Trump to the bewilderment of many political and media pundits. Kellyanne Conway tore into CNN’s Dana Bash last month after the TV host asked about her husband’s Trump-trolling tweets. “It’s fascinating to me that CNN would go there,” the White House counselor said. “But it’s very good for the whole world to just witness that it’s now fair game how people’s spouses and significant others may differ with them.” “You just brought him into this,” she continued. “We’re now going to talk about other people’s spouses and significant others just because they either work at the White House or CNN? ... CNN just went there.” This article originally appeared on HuffPost. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 09:17am - 2425 days | #566 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Trump still wants to sue Stormy Daniels for violating the NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement). Will Trump be able to hire lawyers for this cash-grab against a porn star, after Trump is impeached or forced to resign from office? Or maybe Cohen will be able to help in the suit, from his prison cell after he is convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, or whatever crimes he is convicted of. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 09:10am - 2425 days | #565 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
President Trump admits he lied to the public. Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Now, Trump admits that he knew about the payment. Also, Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, said that Michael Cohen himself made the payment, without telling the President about the payment. Formerly, Michael Cohen said that he made the payment with his own funds, and that he was never re-paid by Trump or Trump's business interests. But now Giuliani states that Trump re-imbursed Cohen for the $130,000 payment. And Trump admits that Trump paid Cohen for the payment--which Trump had previously denied. So Trump is revealed as the King of Liars (not the Prince of Liars, since he was already known as a serial liar). ----------- ----------- Trump admits he reimbursed Cohen for Stormy Daniels 'hush money' payment Dylan Stableford 2 hours 58 minutes ago President Trump released a carefully-worded three-tweet statement confirming the bombshell disclosure by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani — a new member of the president’s legal team — that Trump reimbursed his personal attorney Michael Cohen for a $130,000 “hush money” payment to actress Stephanie Clifford, whose stage name is Stormy Daniels. The statement appeared to flatly contradict Trump’s previous assertion that he was unaware of the payment. “Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA,” Trump tweeted. “These agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels).” The president added: “The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair, despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll [sic] in this transaction.” In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Wednesday night, Giuliani said Trump repaid Cohen for his October 2016 payment to Daniels, who has said she had a sexual relationship with Trump in 2006. Giuliani mentioned a figure of $135,000; until now, other reports have specified the amount was $130,000. “Funneled through a law firm and then the president repaid it,” Giuliani said. “He didn’t know about the specifics of it, as far as I know. But he did know the general arrangement — that Michael would take care of things like this, like I take care of things like this with my clients. I don’t burden them with every single thing that comes along. These are busy people.” From left: Rudy Giuliani, Michael Cohen, Donald Trump, Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti. (Photo illustration: Carolyn Kaster/AP, Seth Wenig/AP, Yahoo News; photos: Drew Angerer/Getty Images, Seth Wenig/AP, Joe Raedle/Getty Images, Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty Images) Appearing on MSNBC Wednesday night, Daniels’s attorney, Michael Avenatti, said Giuliani’s comments rendered him “speechless.” “This is an outrage, what has gone on here,” Avenatti said. “The American people have been lied to — about this agreement, about the $130,000, about the reimbursement — and this is consistent with what we have been saying now for months. That ultimately it is going to be proven and ultimately was going to come out. We just didn’t know that Rudy Giuliani was going to go on the ‘Sean Hannity Show’ and admit it on national television.” Asked aboard Air Force One last month whether he knew about the payment, Trump replied, “No.” When asked why Cohen made the payment, Trump told reporters that they would have to ask Cohen. “Do you know where he got the money to make that payment?” another reporter asked Trump. “No,” Trump replied. “I don’t know.” But in a wide-ranging interview with “Fox & Friends” last week, Trump suggested he knew about Cohen’s involvement in arranging the nondisclosure agreement with the porn star. “He represents me, like, with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal,” Trump said, marking the first time he had ever spoken the adult film actress’s name publicly. In a statement to the New York Times in February, Cohen stated that he used his “own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford.” Cohen added: “Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly.” Last month, the FBI raided Cohen’s office and hotel and reportedly seized information related to the hush-money payment. The raids were carried out on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. And they enraged the president. “Attorney-client privilege is dead!” Trump declared in one tweet, echoing Cohen’s own pushback against the record seizures. Trump also returned to his oft-used phrase to describe Mueller’s probe. On Wednesday night, Giuliani referred to the FBI agents who raided Cohen’s home and office as “stormtroopers.” Appearing on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday morning, Giuliani suggested that Trump didn’t know the full details of the payments until his lawyers told him “10 days ago.” “Remember when this happened — October 2016,” said Giuliani, who served as an adviser to the Trump campaign. “I was with him day in and day out then. I can’t remember the details of what happened. I know $135,000 — I don’t want to demean anyone — $135,000 seems like a lot of money. It’s not when you’re putting $100 million into your campaign. It isn’t pocket change, but it’s pretty close to it.” “Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton,” Giuliani added. “Cohen made it go away. He did his job.” Back in March, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump was unaware of Cohen’s payment. “I’ve had conversations with the president about this,” Sanders told reporters during a March 7 press briefing at the White House. “There was no knowledge of any payments from the president and he’s denied all allegations.” But when asked about the latest revelations on “Fox & Friends” Thursday morning, Sanders declined to answer, pointing to Giuliani’s comments about the case. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 08:50am - 2425 days | #564 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Politics Samantha Bee agrees with Michelle Wolf that Sarah Sanders is a liar Stephen Proctor 7 hours ago On Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, Bee came to the defense of comedian Michelle Wolf, who has been catching flak for, among other things, essentially calling White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders a liar at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner. Bee agrees with Wolf that Sanders is indeed a liar, but it seemed as if Bee is equally impressed with Sanders’s lying prowess. “She is smart. She’s savvy. And she has the eerie ability to make towering falsehoods unwatchably dull,” Bee said. “Sarah Huckabee Sanders is like a public relations Dementor, sucking the energy out of the White House press until they can’t really fight back, turning them into tragic journalistic husks called Maggie Habermans” — Maggie Haberman being a New York Times White House correspondent who has gone after Wolf for her performance. Bee took issue with the press for its negative reporting of Wolf’s performance and defense of Sanders, as Sanders calls the press liars or fake news on a seemingly daily basis. And Bee had video of several examples proving her point that Sanders deserved the insult. Full Frontal with Samantha Bee airs Wednesdays at 10:30 p.m. on TBS. After a controversial performance by comedian Michelle Wolf at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, newspaper The Hill will no longer participate in the event without “major reforms.” The dinner is an annual event that benefits the WHCA and a number of journalism students who receive WHCA scholarships. It typically includes a comedian who skewers journalists and the presidential administration. Wolf, a former member of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, received criticism for what was perceived as harsh jokes, especially toward White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Even WHCA President Margaret Talev said that some of the jokes made her “uncomfortable.” In a letter Tuesday to WHCA Chairman Steven Thomma, James Finkelstein, The Hill’s chairman, called the routine “out of line.” “The Hill, which has participated in the White House Correspondents' Association dinner for many years, does not plan at this time to participate in the event moving forward,” wrote Finkelstein. “The kind of jokes told by this year’s headliner, Michelle Wolf, were out of line for an event that’s supposed to be fun—and fair. Based on what Americans witnessed on national television at Saturday night’s dinner, a once-fine evening celebrating the strong, free press the WHCA speaks of has turned into an angry display and ad-hominem attacks.” Finkelstein said The Hill would continue to donate to WHCA scholarships for future journalists and hoped the dinner would return to highlighting the importance of journalism. “A solid majority of journalists from the left and right have condemned this year's comedian and rightly so. The association made apologies, albeit not to the press secretary, only after the pressure compelled it to happen,” wrote Finkelstein. “We hope the dinner can get back to talking about the importance of the Fourth Estate without the kind of ugly sideshow that completely overshadowed the event this year.” The Hill was the first major publication to officially quit in protest over Wolf’s performance. The president typically attends the dinner, but Donald Trump has declined to come for the past two years. Past presidents have offered their own set of jokes at the dinner prior to a comedian’s performance. Wolf stood by the material. “I wouldn’t change a single word that I said. I’m very happy with what I said, and I’m glad I stuck to my guns,” said Wolf in an interview with NPR. The WHCA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Newsweek does not participate in the dinner, nor does it donate to the WHCA. This article was first written by Newsweek | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 04:40am - 2425 days | #563 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Stormy Daniels‘ attorney, Michael Avenatti, visited The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and revealed a major piece of evidence in his client’s claim against President Trump. Avenatti has been on television quite a bit lately, but this is his biggest reveal yet. The attorney brought a copy of the receipt for the nondisclosure agreement with Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen. “This is the $130,000 receipt, coming from the entity, Essential Consultants, which is the entity that Michael Cohen created and fabricated for the purposes of this payment,” Avenatti said. He also pointed out that the check was sent from a First Republic Bank branch in San Francisco. That matters, as the bank is under the oversight of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra — who is not a Trump fan. “This document may in fact give [Becerra] jurisdiction over certain criminal acts associated with this payment,” Avenatti said. In fact, if the attorney general of the state of California were to bring charges, President Trump could not pardon Michael Cohen for those charges.” And if it doesn’t seem normal for a lawyer to reveal a key piece of evidence on a late night talk show, it isn’t. “This is not your normal case, and it’s not your normal defendant,” Avenatti said. “You’re dealing with a defendant that’s very undisciplined, can be easily baited into making mistakes, and I think we’ve been very, very successful in doing just that. And we’re going to keep doing what we’re doing.” The Late Show with Stephen Colbert airs weeknights at 11:35 on CBS. | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 04:39am - 2425 days | #562 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Giuliani: Trump repaid Cohen $130K for payment to porn star Associated Press CATHERINE LUCEY and JILL COLVIN,Associated Press 6 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump reimbursed his personal lawyer for $130,000 in hush money paid to a porn actress days before the 2016 presidential election, Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump's attorneys, said Wednesday, appearing to contradict the president's past claims that he didn't know the source of the money. During an appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity," Giuliani said the money to repay Michael Cohen had been "funneled ... through the law firm and the president repaid it." Asked if Trump knew about the arrangement, Giuliani said: "He didn't know about the specifics of it, as far as I know. But he did know about the general arrangement, that Michael would take care of things like this, like I take care of things like this for my clients. I don't burden them with every single thing that comes along. These are busy people." The comments appeared to contradict statements made by Trump several weeks ago, when he said he didn't know about the payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels as part of a nondisclosure agreement she signed days before the presidential election. Giuliani later suggested to The Wall Street Journal that while Trump had repaid the $130,000, Cohen had settled the payment to Daniels without Trump's knowledge at the time. Guiliani's revelation seemed aimed at reducing the president's legal exposure. But outside experts said it raised a number of questions, including whether the money represented repayment of an undisclosed loan or could be seen as reimbursement for a campaign expenditure. Asked aboard Air Force One last month whether he knew about the payment, Trump said flatly: "No." Trump also said he didn't know why Cohen had made the payment or where he got the money. In a phone interview with "Fox and Friends" last week, however, Trump appeared to muddy the waters, saying that Cohen represented him in the "crazy Stormy Daniels deal." The White House referred questions to the president's personal legal team. Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and ex-U.S. attorney who joined Trump's legal team last month, said the president had repaid Cohen over several months, indicating the payments continued through at least the presidential transition, if not into his presidency. He also said the payment "is going to turn out to be perfectly legal" because "that money was not campaign money." No debt to Cohen is listed on Trump's personal financial disclosure form, which was certified on June 16, 2017. Giuliani also described the payment to Daniels as "a very regular thing for lawyers to do." Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, called the comment "a stunning revelation." "Mr. Trump evidently has participated in a felony and there must be serious consequences for his conduct and his lies and deception to the American people," he said. Giuliani made the statements to Fox host Sean Hannity, who has his own connection to the case. It was recently revealed in court that Hannity is one of Cohen's clients. Hannity has described his personal dealings with Cohen as centered on real estate advice and said that it "never rose to any level that I needed to tell anyone that I was asking him questions." Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, says she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, months after his third wife gave birth to his youngest child, and was paid to keep quiet as part of a nondisclosure agreement she is now seeking to invalidate. She has also filed a defamation suit against Trump after he questioned a composite sketch she released of a man she says threatened her to stay quiet. The White House has said Trump denies having a relationship with Daniels. Cohen had said previously: "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." He notably did not include the president personally. Asked about Cohen's denial, Giuliani said that he didn't know whether Cohen had made the payment without asking Trump but that he had "no reason to dispute that." The revelation from Giuliani came as Cohen was under escalating legal pressure. He is facing a criminal investigation in New York, and FBI agents raided his home and office several weeks ago seeking records about the nondisclosure agreement. Daniels' lawsuit over the hush deal has been delayed, with the judge citing the criminal investigation. The payment to Daniels has raised numerous legal questions, including whether it was an illegal campaign contribution and, now, loan. "If this is true then it looks like Cohen may have made an unreported loan to the campaign rather than a contribution," said Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the University of California, Irvine. He said that might be better for Cohen, but not for Trump, because it undermines the argument that Cohen was acting independently. "The greatest significance is that it implicates the president directly," he said. Law firms advance expenses for clients as a matter of course, and so there's nothing inherently improper about a lawyer covering a particular payment and then being reimbursed for it. In this case, though, the client who apparently reimbursed the expense was running for president and the money was paid just days before the election, raising questions about whether Cohen's law practice was functioning as a vendor for the campaign and whether the expense was therefore an unreported campaign expenditure. If so, that could be legally problematic. Andrew Herman, an attorney specializing in campaign finance law at Miller & Chevalier, said Giuliani's argument that this was a private payment unrelated to the campaign appears to be "pretty far-fetched" given the timing — weeks before the election while Trump was under fire for his behavior with women and for an "Access Hollywood" tape in which he spoke of groping women without their consent. But if Cohen or Trump could establish that discussions with Daniels over the payment long predated his run for office, that could help them with the argument that the money was a personal rather than political expense. "It obviously increases the president's exposure to potential campaign finance violations, but it also makes him look terrible," said Sol Wisenberg, a defense attorney who was a deputy independent counsel during the Starr special counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton. "I don't understand the Giuliani strategy," he added. "Maybe it's been too long since he's been in the criminal justice field." ___ Associated Press writers Zeke Miller, Jonathan Lemire and Eric Tucker contributed to this report. Major piece of evidence in Stormy Daniels case revealed on 'The Late Show' George Back 4 hours ago | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 04:34am - 2425 days | #561 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Giuliani comments on Stormy payment raise legal questions Associated Press JILL COLVIN and CHAD DAY,Associated Press 3 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Rudy Giuliani's revelation that President Donald Trump reimbursed his personal attorney for a $130,000 payment to a porn star to keep her quiet about an alleged affair is raising new legal questions, including whether the president and his campaign violated campaign finance laws. The former New York City mayor insisted on Fox News Channel Wednesday night that the payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels was "going to turn out to be perfectly legal." "That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know. It's not campaign money, no campaign finance violation," he said. Some legal experts disagree. A look at some of the issues at play: TIMING Giuliani's insistence the money had nothing to do with the campaign is complicated by the fact that Daniels' silence was secured just days before the 2016 presidential election, and as Trump was dealing with the fallout from the "Access Hollywood" tape in which he bragged about sexually assaulting women. If the payment were wholly personal, said Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the University of California, Irvine, there would be no campaign finance violations. But Giuliani's argument that the payment was unrelated to the campaign appears to be "pretty far-fetched" given the timing, said Andrew Herman, an attorney specializing in campaign finance law at Miller & Chevalier. "Certainly, the argument that the government will make is that the $130,000 payment from Michael Cohen to Daniels was a loan to the Trump campaign to keep these allegations secret obviously and then Trump paying Cohen back would be a campaign expenditure" — a loan and expenditure that should have been disclosed to the Federal Election Commission, he said. DISCLOSURE: All campaign expenses, including payments and loans, are supposed to be disclosed to the FEC. Hasen said the question before Wednesday had been whether Cohen had made an unreported contribution to the Trump campaign exceeding legal limits. "If this is true, then it looks like Cohen may have made an unreported loan to the campaign rather than a contribution," he said. That could be good news for Cohen, because it would have been up to the president or his campaign to report the loan, not up to Cohen. "The greatest significance is that it implicates the president, directly," he said. "If it's done with Trump's knowledge ... then now we're talking about something that is related to the campaign and is more serious." Norm Eisen, who served as an ethics lawyer in the Obama White House and now chairs the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, which has repeatedly challenged Trump, also said Trump should have disclosed the loan on his federal financial disclosure. "There's probably a sufficient basis for DOJ to open another investigation about whether the president was candid on his personal financial disclosure," he said. WHY GO THERE? It wasn't immediately clear what Giuliani sought to gain with the admission. Eisen suggested it might have something to do with the fact that Cohen is under criminal investigation in New York. FBI agents also raided his home and office several weeks ago seeking records about the nondisclosure agreement. "I think the other intention here apparently was to tear the Band-Aid off and to get out in public whatever Cohen might offer should he choose to cooperate," speculated Eisen. Sol Wisenberg, a defense attorney who was a deputy independent counsel during the Starr special counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton, said the comment "obviously increases the president's exposure to potential campaign finance violations, but it also makes him look terrible." "I don't understand the Giuliani strategy," he added. "Maybe it's been too long since he's been in the criminal justice field." ___ Associated Press writer Zeke Miller contributed to this report. Comment Guidelines | |
|
||
| 05-03-18 04:20am - 2425 days | #560 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michaeil Avenatti, pleased with Rudy Giuliani admissions. Believes it helps his case against Trump and Cohen. Believes it could lead to criminal charges against Trump and/or Cohen. Politics Michael Avenatti Stunned By Rudy Interview: 'No Way, No How' Trump Finishes His Term Now HuffPost Ed Mazza,HuffPost 4 hours ago Michael Avenatti, attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels, said Rudy Giuliani’s stunning Wednesday night interview on Fox News will doom the presidency of Donald Trump. Giuliani told Sean Hannity that Trump repaid his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, for the $130,000 sent to Daniels as part of a nondisclosure agreement, something the president has previously denied. Daniels claims the agreement kept her from discussing her alleged affair with Trump. In response, Avenatti told “CNN Tonight” that Trump could face “potential criminal liability” related to money laundering, campaign finance and fraud violations. “I said it weeks ago, I’m going to say it again: Mr. Trump will not serve out his term,” Avenatti said. “No way. No how. He will be forced to ultimately resign. This is a bombshell.” Earlier on Wednesday, Avenatti taped an appearance on Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” where he implied there were more women with similar NDAs involving Trump. Avenatti also produced the receipt for Cohen’s payment to Daniels’ attorneys at the time: The receipt showed involvement with a bank in California, which Avenatti said would be of interest to Xavier Becerra, the state’s attorney general. “This document may, in fact, give him jurisdiction over certain criminal acts associated with this payment,” Avenatti said. “And, in fact, if the attorney general of the state of California were to bring charges, President Trump could not pardon Michael Cohen for those charges.” He did not specify what the “certain criminal acts” could be. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. -------- -------- The Wrap Stormy Daniels’ Lawyer Shows Colbert Receipt for $130K Wire Payment From Michael Cohen The Wrap Debbie Emery,The Wrap 5 hours ago Stormy Daniels’ Lawyer Shows Colbert Receipt for $130K Wire Payment From Michael Cohen Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti didn’t arrive at “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” empty-handed on Wednesday night. Avenatti brought what he said was a receipt for a $130,000 wire payment made by attorney Michael Cohen. “This is a copy of the incoming wire receipt from Ms. Daniels’ prior counsel showing the origin of the $130,000,” he told Colbert. He said the payment came from the San Francisco branch of a company Cohen created, meaning that if California Attorney General Xavier Becerra were to bring charges against Cohen, Trump would not be able to pardon him. “That could take away his get-out-of-jail-free card right there,” Colbert said. “Absolutely,” Avenatti replied. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is suing Trump to vacate the nondisclosure agreement she signed in 2016 for $130,000 paid by Cohen. She is also suing Trump for defamation after he called some of her statements “fraud” on Twitter. A California judge set a July hearing date for the first lawsuit. When Colbert asked why he didn’t believe that Cohen simply cut the $130,000 check for Trump, Avenatti replied: “It’s absurd to suggest that an attorney would advance $130,000 for somebody from a personal home equity loan, never tell him about it — not just anyone, but a billionaire running for president — never seek reimbursement, never tell him about it. It’s just absurd, it’s ridiculous, nobody believes that.” “What if they’re a terrible attorney?” Colbert responded. “What if he’s just really bad it his job?” | |
|
||
| 05-02-18 09:36pm - 2425 days | #555 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: Trump and Giuliani make a swell team. Both seem to be at ease with telling contradictory stories about the same event. The problem with this approach is that some people want a consistent story of what the facts are. But their approach works best with people with short-term memory: they will not notice the contradictions in the stories Trump and Guiliana tell. ------ ------ In first TV appearance as Trump’s new lawyer, Giuliani makes serious legal error Rudy is off to a bad start. Judd Legum May 2, 2018, 10:11 pm On Wednesday night, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sat for an interview with Sean Hannity in his first major TV appearance as President Trump’s lawyer. It did not go well. Giuliani offered a new — and contradictory — explanation for why Trump fired Comey. This is problematic when the goal of Trump’s lawyers is to provide Mueller with a consistent, and legal, explanation for the firing. Early in the interview, Giuliani said that Trump fired James Comey as FBI director because “Comey would not — among other things — say that he wasn’t a target of the investigation.” Giuliani said Trump was “entitled to that.” Giuliani’s statement not only confirms that Comey was fired because he refused to publicly clear Trump in the Russia investigation, but also directly contradicts two other explanations for Comey’s firing offered by Trump. According to Giuliani, Trump told NBC’s Lester Holt in an interview shortly after Comey’s firing that “I did it because I felt I had to explain to the American people that their president was not the target of the investigation.” That is not, however, what Trump told Holt. Trump told Holt that he fired Comey because of his frustration with the existence of the entire Russia investigation, which he believed was an excuse concocted by Democrats who lost the election. (Comey was a Republican appointed as FBI director by George W. Bush.) And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.” In the interview with Holt, Trump did not mention Comey’s refusal to state publicly that he was not a target of the investigation. Trump’s answer in the Holt interview, in turn, contradicted the official explanation for Comey’s firing. Officially, Trump fired Comey for the reasons laid out in a memo written by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The memo criticizes Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Specifically, Rosenstein said Comey was too harsh to Clinton and should not have criticized her publicly when he announced that charges would not be filed. On Hannity, Giuliani made the exact opposite argument. “Hillary, I know you’re very disappointed you didn’t win. But you’re a criminal. Equal justice would mean you should go to jail,” Giuliani said. It’s a well-received talking point on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News. But Giuliani’s failure to tell a consistent story, particularly about Comey’s firing, could create much bigger problems for Trump down the road. | |
|
||
| 05-02-18 08:33pm - 2425 days | #554 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: Who are you going to believe? Donald Trump, who said he did not know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Donald Trump, who denies he had a sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels. Michael Cohen, who said he paid the $130,000 to Stormy Daniels with his own money, and was never re-paid by Donald Trump. Donald Trump, who now says he re-paid the $130,000 to his lawyer, Michael Cohen, Rudy Guliani, who says that Trump paid the $130,000 to Cohen without knowing what the money was for (Trump is such a trusting man, that he pays his lawyer $130,000 without asking what the money is for). Trump, who denies that he had sex with Stormy Daniels, but authorized a payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels for what reason? Why pay a woman $130,000 for no reason: except that Trump is such a generous guy? Lies, lies, lies, more lies. And do any of these powerful men think the public will believe them? Or that the courts will believe them? After denying all the details, and then saying, "oh, wait a minute, now I recall that I did do this after all..." I don't think the lies and denials are going to be covered under the freedom of political speed argument. ---------- ---------- Giuliani: Trump repaid Cohen $130K for payment to porn star Associated Press Catherine Lucey and Jill Colvin, Associated Press,Associated Press 25 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a startling revelation, President Donald Trump's new lawyer said Wednesday that Trump repaid his personal attorney $130,000 in a deal made just before the 2016 election to keep porn star Stormy Daniels quiet about her tryst with the president, directly contradicting Trump's past statements about the hush money. During an appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity," Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said the money to repay Michael Cohen had been "funneled ... through the law firm and the president repaid it." Asked if Trump knew about the arrangement, Giuliani said: "He didn't know about the specifics of it, as far as I know. But he did know about the general arrangement, that Michael would take care of things like this, like I take care of things like this for my clients. I don't burden them with every single thing that comes along. These are busy people." Trump told reporters several weeks ago that he didn't know about the payment to Daniels as part of a non-disclosure agreement she signed days before the 2016 presidential election. Asked aboard Air Force One whether he knew about the payment, Trump said flatly: "No." Trump also said he didn't know why Cohen had made the payment or where he got the money. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. Giuliani, who joined Trump's legal team last month, said the president had repaid Cohen over several months, indicating the payments continued through at least the presidential transition, if not into his presidency. He also said the payment "is going to turn out to be perfectly legal" because "that money was not campaign money." Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, called the comment "a stunning revelation." "Mr. Trump evidently has participated in a felony and there must be serious consequences for his conduct and his lies and deception to the American people," he said. Giuliani made the statements to Fox host Sean Hannity, who has his own connection to the case. It was recently revealed in court that Hannity is one of Cohen's clients. Hannity has described his personal dealings with Cohen as centered on real estate advice and said that it "never rose to any level that I needed to tell anyone that I was asking him questions." Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, says she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006 and was paid to keep quiet as part of a nondisclosure agreement she is now seeking to invalidate. She has also filed a defamation suit against Trump after he questioned a composite sketch she released of a man she says threatened her to stay quiet about the encounter with Trump. The White House has said Trump denies having a relationship with Daniels. Cohen's payment to the president's accuser in the weeks leading up to the presidential election could be cast as an illegal contribution but not if he were acting on the president's behest and with his money. The revelation from Giuliani came as Cohen is under escalating legal pressure. He is facing a criminal investigation in New York and FBI agents raided his home and office several weeks ago. The FBI was seeking records about the nondisclosure agreement. Daniels' lawsuit over the hush deal has been delayed, with the judge citing the criminal investigation underway. | |
|
||
| 05-02-18 04:58pm - 2425 days | #553 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: Sheriff's deputies shoot and kill a black teenager. The deputies say the black teen had a gun, but no gun is found by the body. The dead teen's family say the teen was unarmed. Who you gonna believe: the police, who stand for law and order? Or a bunch of black civilians, who might be lying through their teeth? The sheriff's department is refusing to release tapes of the incident, the names of the deputies involved, and the coroner's report, saying the incident is under investigation. We must have faith in the sheriff's department, since they are legally sworn to protect the public. Maybe the black teen was an undocumented immigrant, or some rapist, or other type of criminal. Anyway, the deputies fired in self-defense, since the deputies thought the teen had a gun. That gun somehow disappeared before the deputies could prove their innocence of any potential criminal action (such as shooting an unarmed black teen--except that shooting unarmed black men is safer than shooting an armed black, who might shoot back). ------- ------- LA Times Family of 16-year-old fatally shot by L.A. County sheriff's deputies says in lawsuit that boy was unarmed Nicole Santa Cruz By Nicole Santa Cruz May 02, 2018 | 4:00 PM Family of 16-year-old fatally shot by L.A. County sheriff's deputies says in lawsuit that boy was unarmed John Weber, the father of 16-year-old shooting victim Anthony Weber, reaches out to touch his son's photo during a news conference outside the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday. Anthony was killed by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies in February. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times) The family of a teenager fatally shot by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies in February has filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming that deputies used excessive force and then accused the dead teen of having a weapon to justify the shooting. In the three months since the shooting, attorneys for the parents and 1-year-old daughter of Anthony Weber said the L.A. County Sheriff's Department has not released additional information about the incident, including the 911 tapes, dispatch recordings or the identities of the deputies. Sheriff's officials have placed the results of an autopsy on hold, blocking the coroner's office from releasing information. "The aim of this lawsuit is to uncover and expose the code of silence in this case and reveal the true facts of what happened," Gregory Yates, an attorney for the family, said at a news conference Wednesday. Yates said attorneys filed the lawsuit to gain more information about the shooting. "The family doesn't know. They want to know." After the shooting, the department said that Anthony, 16, had a gun that may have been removed from the crime scene. His family denies that the teenager had a weapon. "Anthony was a beloved son, grandson, father and brother," Yates said. "No gun was found at the scene and that's because Anthony did not have a gun at the time he was shot." In the lawsuit filed against the county Tuesday, attorneys said that the teenager's hands were "visibly empty" at the time of the shooting, and that the department did not provide proper medical aid to Anthony, who was "bleeding profusely." Sheriff's officials declined to address specific claims in the lawsuit or release additional details. In a statement, the department said: "It is frustrating for our Department to see that there is a growing body of evidence in this case that is undeniable, and yet, to protect the integrity of the investigation, to continue to maintain open channels of communication for more potential witnesses to come forward, we must stay silent." The incident began on Feb. 4 about 8 p.m., when two deputies responded to a report of a young man in blue jeans and a black shirt pointing a handgun at a driver in the 1200 block of West 107th Street, according to the department. The driver, according to partial audio of the dispatch call, said he feared for his life. While on foot, deputies encountered a 16-year-old boy who matched the description. They spotted a handgun tucked in his pants, according to statements by the Sheriff's Department. When they ordered him not to move, the teen ignored the deputies' commands and took off running into an apartment complex known as a gang hangout, sheriff's Capt. Christopher Bergner has said previously. After entering a courtyard, the young man turned toward the deputies and one of them fired about 10 shots. The teenager was struck "several times" in the upper body, the department said in a statement. After the shooting, the department said, neighbors immediately flooded the courtyard and the two deputies called for help to control the crowd as it swelled to 30 or 40 people. Deputies believe the gun went missing during the commotion, Bergner has said. A meeting meant to quell tensions in the community days later had to be cut short, after a comment made by a sheriff's official prompted outrage. Community activists called on California's attorney general to independently investigate the shooting and residents marched in the neighborhood to demand justice. The teenager's mother, Demetra Johnson, said that her son, who went by "A.J.," was a loving person who managed to form a bond with each member of his large family. Johnson said that his daughter, Violet, was the "greatest love of his life." "It brought me so much joy to watch how affectionate and protective he was as a young father," she said. "He demonstrated the maturity and lovingness that most grown men didn't show as a dad." Johnson said her son had "dreams for the future," and wanted to see his daughter grow up. "I just never got to say goodbye," she said. Anthony's father, John Weber, stood by holding his son's gray baseball mit. He said that his son helped him build the seven-bedroom home he shared with his family. "Every time I walk down the halls, I think about the boards he helped me nail together," he said. nicole.santacruz@latimes.com | |
|
||
| 05-02-18 07:35am - 2426 days | #552 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: West Virginia Republican Senate candidate Don Blankenship says the father-in-law of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is a Chinaperson. During Tuesday night’s debate, Blankenship repeated his claim that McConnell had “conflicts of interest with China.” The candidate has made attacking the Senate majority leader a centerpiece of his GOP Senate primary campaign. Blankenship called McConnell “Cocaine Mitch” in a campaign ad earlier this week, alluding to a 2014 drug bust on a shipping vessel owned by the company founded by Chao’s father. However, Blankenship himself is not lily-white. Blankenship is a former coal CEO who served a year in prison for involvement in the deadly 2010 Upper Big Branch mine explosion. Donald L. Blankenship, whose leadership of the Massey Energy Company catapulted him from a working-class West Virginia childhood into a life as one of the wealthiest and most influential men in Appalachia, was sentenced on Wednesday to a year in prison for conspiring to violate federal mine safety standards. The prison term, the maximum allowed by law, came in Federal District Court here six years and one day after an explosion ripped through Massey’s Upper Big Branch mine, killing 29 men. Although Mr. Blankenship was not accused of direct responsibility for the accident, the deadliest in American coal mining in about 40 years, the disaster prompted the inquiry that ultimately led to his conviction. Federal officials have said that last autumn’s guilty verdict was the first time such a high-ranking executive had been convicted of a workplace safety violation. That is the Republican way: maximize profits, let a few poor working-men die because profits are more important than safe working conditions. Also, When debate moderator Bret Baier asked how Blankenship would work with McConnell if elected, given his penchant for “slinging insults,” he insisted it would not be a problem. “I’m not going to D.C. to get along,” Blankenship said. Shades of Donald Trump, Glorious Leader For Life of Trump-America. ------- ------- GOP Senate Candidate: 'Chinaperson' Isn't Racist HuffPost Marina Fang,HuffPost 1 hour 48 minutes ago West Virginia Republican Senate candidate Don Blankenship on Tuesday said he West Virginia Republican Senate candidate Don Blankenship on Tuesday said he saw nothing wrong with his use of a racial slur to describe the father-in-law of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “This idea that calling somebody a ‘Chinaperson,’ I mean, I’m an American person. I don’t see this insinuation by the press that there’s something racist about saying a ‘Chinaperson,’” Blankenship said during a primary debate hosted by Fox News. “Some people are Korean persons, and some of them are African persons. That’s not any slander there.” Blankenship, a former coal CEO who served a year in prison for involvement in the deadly 2010 Upper Big Branch mine explosion, attacked McConnell’s ties to China last week by targeting the family of McConnell’s wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. “I have an issue when the father-in-law is a wealthy Chinaperson and there’s a lot of connections to some of the brass, if you will, in China,” Blankenship said on a radio show. During Tuesday night’s debate, Blankenship repeated his claim that McConnell had “conflicts of interest with China.” The candidate has made attacking the Senate majority leader a centerpiece of his GOP Senate primary campaign. Blankenship called McConnell “Cocaine Mitch” in a campaign ad earlier this week, alluding to a 2014 drug bust on a shipping vessel owned by the company founded by Chao’s father. When debate moderator Bret Baier asked how Blankenship would work with McConnell if elected, given his penchant for “slinging insults,” he insisted it would not be a problem. “I’m not going to D.C. to get along,” Blankenship said. Blankenship is in a close race with other top GOP contenders to challenge Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) in November. Other Republicans in the May 8 primary include state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Rep. Evan Jenkins. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. | |
|
||
| 05-02-18 07:09am - 2426 days | #551 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Cohen represented clients who allegedly staged car accidents for insurance money: report By Brooke Seipel - 05/02/18 08:23 AM EDT Before he was President Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen worked as a personal injury lawyer reportedly covering clients who allegedly staged car accidents in order to sue for large sums of money. Rolling Stone found in a new investigation that while working as a personal injury lawyer, Cohen covered clients affiliated with insurance fraud rings where people allegedly rented vehicles, purchased insurance and then crashed those vehicles into friends cars in order to receive a large payout. Cohen never faced any charges of wrongdoing related to the cases and Rolling Stone reports there is no evidence that he knowingly filed false claims. One example reported by Rolling Stone is a case brought by State Farm, in which Cohen was listed as the defense attorney for four people charged of staging at least 10 accidents from 2000 to 2001 as part of a fraud ring. The case was granted a default judgment after Cohen's clients chose not to contest charges. The report comes as Cohen is under investigation for bank and tax fraud. FBI agents reportedly seized emails, tax documents and records related to his payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels during a raid Cohen's home and his Manhattan office last month. It is unclear if they may have seized any information relating to his past work as a personal injury lawyer, according to Rolling Stone. | |
|
||
| 05-02-18 06:57am - 2426 days | #550 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Chaplain Ouster Shows What Version Of Christianity Controls The GOP HuffPost Michelangelo Signorile,HuffPost 18 hours ago There was an uproar last week among Democrats, and even some Republicans, after it was reported that House Speaker Paul Ryan abruptly fired the Catholic House chaplain, the Rev. Patrick J. Conroy. Many have charged that Ryan axed Conroy in retaliation for the chaplain’s November prayer that there not be “winners and losers” created by the GOP tax bill, but rather “benefits balanced and shared by all Americans.” In response, Ryan reportedly told GOP colleagues that he let the Jesuit chaplain go because he wasn’t serving members’ “pastoral needs,” and not because of politics. It’s true that it would be quite petty if Ryan was so personally offended by Conroy expressing concern about the speaker’s signature piece of legislation that he decided to fire the chaplain. But this kind of purging and retribution is the stock-in-trade of religious right leaders and their faithful in the House GOP, to whom Ryan has bowed on issues ranging from abortion to LGBTQ rights. Democratic Rep. Gerald Connelly, a Catholic from Virginia, hinted at this “dark theory,” telling The Washington Post, “There’s a crowd that doesn’t like urban, Catholic Jesuits who have a broad-minded approach to things, and they want to replace him.” And though Ryan is leaving Congress at the end of this term, there’s been pressure on him from conservatives to resign now rather than wait. So far resisting, he’s still pandering and still bowing. He likely also desires to maintain good relationships with those who he no doubt will need if he becomes a lobbyist in the future, like so many other retired politicians. Devout white evangelicals dominate the influential House Freedom Caucus ― from Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Louie Gohmert of Texas to Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. Another, Rep. Mark Walker of North Carolina, stirred controversy when he suggested the next chaplain should have a family, a requirement that would automatically exclude Catholic priests from the position. Freedom Caucus members’ beliefs in curtailing government funding of many programs that help the less affluent ― with which Ryan agrees, and which is reflected in the new tax law ― has support among evangelical leaders and even among the broader evangelical electorate. A Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation poll last year found 53 percent of white evangelicals believe an individual’s poverty stemmed from lack of effort. Apparently a line in Second Thessalonians that says, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat,” is enough to rebut statement after statement by Jesus in the gospels to help the poor and the sick. So much for Christian charity ― at least among a subset of evangelical believers and their leaders. It’s easy, then, to understand how evangelical politicians, as well as those politicians who pander to evangelical voters, are threatened by Conroy’s remarks. The Jesuit’s prayer reflects a Christian spirit of giving a helping hand to the poorest and the weakest among us that goes back centuries. But evangelicals have cast that spirit aside. The modern evangelical political movement, which has been focused more on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality than programs for the poor, has been a key part of the Republican Party going back to President Ronald Reagan, who actively courted evangelicals. Today they are a force ensconced in many state legislatures, governorships and within Congress. And President Donald Trump ― whose words and actions reveal his intent on eviscerating social welfare programs perhaps more than any other president ― received more of the evangelical vote than even the devout evangelical George W. Bush. White evangelical leaders boast about having more access to this White House than any in the past, and are gearing up for yet another meeting with Trump next month. As I noted last month, it appears they’re going to use the Stormy Daniels affair as a bargaining chip, claiming the president needs to give them even more if he wants them to stick by him. The religious right ― which includes conservative Catholic leaders, Mormon leaders and conservatives among other faiths in addition to white evangelicals ― was viewed only a few years ago as a waning political force in American life. Yet right now evangelicals are wielding enormous power within the Republican Party, with a continued, firm grip on both the White House and Congress. The ugly firing of Rev. Patrick Conroy is yet another vivid example of that. Follow Michelangelo Signorile on Twitter @msignorile. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. | |
|
||
| 05-02-18 06:48am - 2426 days | #549 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: The article says that Trump tweets will haunt him because they are inconsistent with the facts, or might prove embarrassing if Trump had a moral center. However, Trump has no problem with being inconsistent, telling lies that are proven to be lies, or being morally conflicted. So read the article with a grain of salt: the article just shows that Trump is a hypocrite, who criticizes people before he does the same thing even worse. ----- ----- This Old Trump Tweet Is Coming Back to Haunt Him — Because, Well, Just Read It Trump Tweet About Obama's Staff Turnover Rate This Old Trump Tweet Is Coming Back to Haunt Him — Because, Well, Just Read It May 2, 2018 by Victoria Messina First Published: March 14, 2018 It's no secret that President Donald Trump isn't the best at keeping officials in his administration around for very long. Though it feels like he's been in the Oval Office for centuries, it's only been a little more than a year — and in that time more than 30 of his staff members have either resigned or been fired from their posts. Notable departures include Sean Spicer, former White House Press Secretary, James Comey, former FBI Director, and Steve Bannon, former White House Chief Stategist — just to jog your memory, since these departures seem to happen so often that they all blend together. Trump's most recent staff switch up came when he announced on March 13 that he had fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. As soon he shared the news — on Twitter, naturally — many were quick to call out his alarmingly high turnover rate, and some even resurrected an old tweet from the president in which he slammed Barack Obama for the amount of staff change-ups he made during his time in office. Way back in January 2012, just one day after Obama announced that his second Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, would be stepping down, Trump tweeted, "3 Chief of Staffs in less than 3 years of being President: Part of the reason why @BarackObama can't manage to pass his agenda." Little did he know that six years later he'd wind up in the White House, already on his second Chief of Staff before even reaching his two-year mark, with his third COS, John Kelly, possibly on his way out soon. We've said it before and we'll likely say it again: for almost all of Trump's controversial statements or decisions, there's always a corresponding tweet from his past that totally contradicts it. And everyone on social media isn't about to let him off the hook for it . . . | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 10:27pm - 2426 days | #5 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
TMW (Teen Mega World) network has a VR site that updates around 5 to 8 videos per month. The VR site has about 179 videos currently (with matching photo sets). TMW VR Net skippy did a review of the site on 02-02-17. He gave it an 87 score, so he liked the site. I am not into VR. I don't have any idea of how the VR videos play (the quality of the experience, whatever other factors are important to you personally). But the first month of a membership to TMW network (or most of its sites) is $14.95 (with a PU discount). All the sites in TMW are available with a membership in any one of their sites. TMW (Teen Mega World) is a massive network of hardcore teen sites, covering many niches. Currently there are over 30 sites in the network. Most of the sites do not update. But the network as a whole has a daily update of 1 video (and an accompanying photo set, I believe). A very cheap price to view a boatload of hardcore teen videos (and photo sets). The quality of the videos and photo sets has improved massively over the years. The navigation is not as good as it used to be (switching between sites, searching a site's content, searching for a model's content (the search is site specific, instead of covering the entire network as it used to be). But the overall attractiveness of the models is very good: healthy young white Eastern European teens (mainly from Russia or thereabouts). TMW is one of my favorite teen hardcore networks. (I'm not a shill for TMW, I just like the network, and have joined it repeatedly over the years.) I did a review of the TMW VR Net on 08-28-16. I'm not into VR, so I reviewed it stating I watched the videos in 2D, not VR, since I don't have any VR equipment. You can watch the videos in 2D, if you don't have any VR equipment, though the experience would be far different. Or maybe there's a better term than 2D, for a video that's supposed to be viewed in VR, but watched without any VR equipment. Whatever. Edited on May 01, 2018, 10:37pm | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 09:52pm - 2426 days | #548 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Begala: Donald Trump is no 'idiot.' He's something worse By Paul Begala Updated 11:41 PM ET, Tue May 1, 2018 Begala: Staff deriding Trump a recurring motif "Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN political commentator, was a political consultant for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 and was counselor to Clinton in the White House. He was a consultant to Priorities USA Action, the pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his." (CNN)Add the name of White House chief of staff John Kelly to the astonishingly long list of close Trump aides who have reportedly disparaged the President's intellect, in his case referring to the leader of the free world as "an idiot." Kelly called the report "total B.S." But, like the dog that didn't bark, Kelly's statement reveals more by what it does not say. It does not say the President is bright. It does not say he is engaged. It does not say he digs into the impossibly difficult issues that come into the Oval Office each day. And Kelly's silence on those matters is telling. Of course, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called President Trump "a [expletive deleted] moron" then heroically refused to participate in the ritualistic dishonest denial. Tillerson told CNN's Jake Tapper, "I'm not going to get into that kind of petty stuff." National security adviser H.R. McMaster, according to a report in BuzzFeed, has called President Trump an "idiot," a "dope" and a man with the brain of a "kindergartner." In Michael Wolff's book, "Fire and Fury" (which ought to be taken with an entire salt lick), the former chief of staff Reince Priebus and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin refer to the President as an "idiot." Then-chief economic adviser Gary Cohn says Trump is "dumb as [poop]," and is "an idiot surrounded by clowns." (Note that this was at the time that Cohn himself was one of the people surrounding the President. Does that make him Clarabell?). And billionaire media baron Rupert Murdoch reportedly called President Trump "a [effing] idiot" after a phone call on immigration. The tumultuous relationship between Trump, Kelly The tumultuous relationship between Trump, Kelly 02:32 I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Those closest to the President think, well, it's pretty clear what they think. But I dissent. I think Donald J. Trump is plenty bright. Not in the intellectual, Mensa-meeting sense, but he has, I think, an undeniable intelligence. He is street smart, savvy, clever. No one can be that conniving and be an idiot. So why the disconnect? Why do I as an outside analyst see an intelligence that those closest to the President do not? Because there are different kinds of intelligence that are useful for different purposes. The kind of intelligence I believe Trump has is enormously useful if you want to, say, be a politician -- even better if you want to be a demagogue. He has a cynical, innate intelligence for what his base wants to hear. It's like a divining rod for division, prejudice and stereotyping. His relentless rhetorical repetition ("No collusion, no collusion, no collusion") is brilliantly designed to tell folks who are predisposed to like him what they want to hear. Forget the objective reality that his campaign chairman, his son and his son-in-law all met with Russians who promised dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government, helping make the case for why Robert Mueller should be investigating potential collusion. He has an unerring sense for how to command media attention, whether it was assuming a pseudonym and leaking the "Best Sex I Ever Had" myth to the New York tabloids, or dominating water coolers across the country by attacking NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem. It's like he knows what every barstool blowhard is about to say before he or she even says it. Tapper to Tillerson: Did you call Trump a moron? His penchant for third-grade nicknames undoubtedly demeans the discourse, and yet otherwise sophisticated people repeat them: "Lyin' Ted," "Little Marco," "Crooked Hillary." So who's really the idiot? The problem is, Trump's idiosyncratic intelligence, while enough to propel him to the White House, does not serve him well for the job of President. He lacks, by most accounts, the broad curiosity, the policy depth, the healthy skepticism of his own positions, the attention span, the appreciation of nuance, and most of all, the intellectual humility that successful presidents must have. Serving President Clinton in the West Wing was the highlight of my professional life. He is the smartest person I have ever known -- and he never, ever acted like (or felt like) the smartest person in the room. He paired his astonishing intellect with an immeasurable empathy, and the combination brought out the best in everyone around him. He didn't merely want to know; he wanted to understand. Then he would integrate, cross-pollinating new information about farm prices with the latest briefing on the French military budget, and seeing the world in subtle hues. It is impossible to imagine any of his top aides speaking as contemptuously of him as President Trump's do of him. Finally, a word of caution for the Democrats: Don't attack Donald Trump's intelligence. Liberals already suffer from the conceit that they are more intelligent, and it can make them insufferable. Plus, in a weird way, calling President Trump stupid excuses his intentional acts of malice. So, don't call him "moron" or "idiot;" call him what he is: a conniving, corrupt con man, a dangerous, divisive demagogue -- and, most sobering of all, the man who carried 30 states in the last election, and may well do it again if Democrats don't focus their fire more effectively. | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 09:30pm - 2426 days | #547 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: Who are going to believe: A doctor who does an autopsy for the Sacramento police. Remember, the police are law enforcement officers. Sworn to uphold the law. Or a private doctor who did an autopsy, but is not working for the police. The police autopsy doctor says the police shot a black man 7 times. And that the victim (the dead black man) was probably shot as he was approaching the police officers. The private doctor says it was strange that the coroner's office brought in its own independent pathologist to review the official autopsy. So who are you going to believe? We need White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to tell us what the truth really is: And since Trump is a conservative Republican, who supports the police, we can take what the police and the police coroner say as the truth, since police do not lie, or cheat, or steal. ------- ------- California 4 hours ago Coroner releases official Stephon Clark autopsy Associated Press Stephon Clark was shot and killed by Sacramento police in March. SACRAMENTO, Calif – An official autopsy released Tuesday says an unarmed black man was shot seven times, not eight as concluded by an independent doctor hired by the man's family. A pathologist retained by the Sacramento County coroner says that's a crucial distinction because it shows the pathologist hired by the family of 22-year-old Stephon Clark mistook an exit wound for an eighth entry wound, creating an impression that police first shot Clark from the side or back. Clark was most likely shot as he approached police, a conclusion that is consistent with the officers' story of the fatal encounter, Dr. Gregory Reiber wrote after reviewing the official autopsy along with video taken by the two officers' body-worn cameras and a sheriff's helicopter circling overhead. The autopsy also says Clark was legally drunk and had traces of marijuana, cocaine and codeine in his system when was shot, but the report said the toxicology findings are not directly relevant to the fatal shooting. The officers shot Clark after chasing him into his grandparents' backyard. They were responding to a report of someone breaking car windows, and said they shot Clark because they thought he was approaching them while pointing a handgun. Investigators found only a cellphone. The slaying set off weeks of protests as demonstrators called for the officers to be fired and criminally charged. Protesters at times blocked fans from attending professional basketball games and disrupted rush hour traffic downtown in the state capital and on a nearby interstate. Benjamin Crump, a spokesman for the family's attorney, did not immediately comment. The pathologist hired by the family, Dr. Bennet Omalu, told The Sacramento Bee he found it strange that the coroner's office brought in its own independent pathologist to review the official autopsy. Omalu found that Clark was hit by six bullets in the back, one in the neck and one in the thigh, and took three to 10 minutes to die. Police waited about five minutes before rendering medical aid. The official autopsy found that Clark was hit three times in his right back; in the right front of his neck; his right arm; in his right chest, slightly back to front; and in the left thigh. Two bullets perforated his lungs, with one of those two bullets hitting his heart and aorta, and another bullet striking his spine. The direction of the bullets "do not support the assertion that Clark was shot primarily from behind as asserted by Omalu," Reiber wrote. He wrote that a frame-by-frame analysis of video from both officers' body-worn cameras shows Clark facing the officers while helicopter footage shows him "walking ... toward the officers' position." He was most likely shot first in the thigh, then in the right side and back as he fell first to his knees and then face down with his right side facing the officers, Reiber wrote. | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 09:06pm - 2426 days | #3 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
PU member skippy has written reviews on some VR sites. Seems like he is sort of an expert on VR sites, or at least has experience with them. Suggest you read his reviews, to see what are the best sites to join for VR. Or maybe he will pop up at this thread with some suggestions. | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 09:01pm - 2426 days | #546 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Bloomberg White House Defends Taking Records From Trump’s Former Doctor Bloomberg Bloomberg 8 hours ago Washington (AP) -- The White House said Tuesday that President Donald Trump's former bodyguard did nothing out of the ordinary when he took possession of the president's medical records last year, despite a claim by Trump's former doctor that the episode felt like a "raid." Harold Bornstein, Trump's longtime personal doctor, told NBC News that Keith Schiller, the president's longtime bodyguard and former director of Oval Office operations, showed up at his office in February 2017 along with two other men to collect the records, leaving Bornstein feeling "raped, frightened and sad." White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders disputed the doctor's characterization of the episode. "As is standard operating procedure for a new president, the White House Medical Unit took possession of the president's medical records," she told reporters at a White House briefing. As for Bornstein's description that it had had the feel of a raid, she said, "No, that is not my understanding." Bornstein told NBC that Schiller and another "large man" were in his office about 30 minutes and "created a lot of chaos." The doctor said the two men were joined by Alan Garten, the chief legal officer for the Trump Organization. A spokeswoman for the Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. The incident at Bornstein's office came two days after the doctor told The New York Times that Trump takes Propecia, a drug for enlarged prostates that is often prescribed to stimulate hair growth in men. Bornstein told the Times that he prescribed Trump drugs for rosacea and cholesterol as well. Bornstein told NBC that Trump's longtime personal secretary called him after the story ran and said: "So you wanted to be the White House doctor? Forget it, you're out.'" Bornstein said he wasn't given a form authorizing him to release Trump's records, but said Schiller and Garten took the originals and copies of Trump's charts and lab reports, including records filed under pseudonyms the office used. Questions were raised about the legality of the seizure. Patients have a right to a copy of their medical records but the original physical record belongs to the doctor, said Dr. Matthew Wynia, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado. "If a patient wants a copy, they can have a copy, but they don't get the original. Patients can also ask for their records to be transferred to a new doctor, but that also involves making copies (i.e., transferring the information), not literally packaging up the originals and sending them off," Wynia said in an email. Most states require doctors to keep and maintain records, Wynia said. Federal patient privacy law bars doctors from relinquishing records without a signed release from the patient. "Law enforcement can get copies of medical records, under some specific circumstances, but it doesn't seem like the people gathering these records were acting as law enforcement officers," Wynia said. Bornstein did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. Schiller departed the White House last fall and also could not be reached. With his long flowing hair and large glasses, Bornstein became a colorful character in Trump's unlikely 2016 campaign for the presidency. In a letter released in December 2015, Bornstein wrote that Trump would "unequivocally" be the healthiest president in history and deemed the celebrity businessman's condition "astonishingly excellent." He later said he wrote the note in five minutes while a limo sent by the candidate waited outside his office. Bornstein's return to the headlines comes just days after Trump's White House physician, Dr. Ronny Jackson, withdrew his nomination to the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs after allegations of workplace misconduct. Jackson has denied the claims. ___ Lemire reported from New York. Associated Press writer Carla K. Johnson contributed to this report from Seattle. | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 08:59pm - 2426 days | #545 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: President Trump's former personal doctor says Trump himself wrote his own letter of health during the 2016 presidental campaign, when Trump's health was questioned. But the doctor signed the letter, making it legitimate, even if was full of lies or exaggerations. During the raid on the doctor's office, when 3 men took all of Trump's medical records, they told the doctor to take down a photo showing Trump and the doctor. My guess is that Trump wants to declare that he only visited the doctor on very rare occassions, and that he does not want any evidence to contradict that "truth". Maybe Trump could even go so far as to deny knowing the doctor at all, except for one brief physical exam where it was found that Trump was in the best of health, and truly fit to be president. Which was a very un-biased medical opinion, since Trump basically wrote the opinion himself. ------- ------- Politics Trump's Doctor Says Trump Basically Wrote That Glowing Health Letter: Report HuffPost Carla Herreria,HuffPost 3 hours ago President Donald Trump’s doctor claims that Trump himself wrote the bizarre letter of health that included results from a 2015 physical suspiciously written with many superlatives, CNN reported Tuesday. Trump’s presidential campaign released the letter, signed by his personal physician Dr. Harold Bornstein, after Trump’s health came into question in 2015. “Mr. Trump has had a recent complete medical examination that showed only positive results,” Bornstein’s letter read. “Actually, his blood pressure, 110/65, and laboratory test results were astonishingly excellent.” “His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary,” Bornstein continued. “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” Bornstein told CNN on Tuesday that Trump essentially wrote the letter himself. “He dictated that whole letter. I didn’t write that letter,” Bornstein told CNN. “I just made it up as I went along.” Trump has been Bornstein’s patient since 1980, according to the doctor’s original letter. Dr. Harold Bornstein's Letter of Health for Donald Trump by carla on Scribd Bornstein, who is based in New York City, told NBC News earlier Tuesday that White House aide Keith Schiller (Trump’s longtime personal bodyguard), Trump Organization chief legal officer Alan Garten and an unidentified “large man” raided his office in search of medical records in 2017. The surprise raid allegedly took place in February 2017, two days after Bornstein told The New York Times that he had prescribed Propecia, a medication that promotes hair growth, for Trump for years. Bornstein also told the paper that Trump took medications to treat cholesterol and rosacea, a common skin disease that causes redness. During the raid on Bornstein’s office, Trump’s team took all of the president’s medical records, including the only copies of Trump’s charts and lab reports. They also reportedly told Bornstein to take down a framed photo of Trump and Bornstein from a wall in the waiting room. The incident left the doctor feeling “raped, frightened and sad,” Bornstein NBC News. “They must have been here for 25 or 30 minutes. It created a lot of chaos.” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told Boston Globe reporter Matt Viser that the alleged raid of Bornstein’s office was “standard procedure” for a newly elected president. This article has been updated with details of the 2015 letter and Bornstein’s comments. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 05:15pm - 2426 days | #544 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The real reason Michelle Wolf is under attack is because her Sarah Sanders jokes are true Sarah Huckabee Sanders can dish it, but Republicans can’t take it. By Laura McGannlaura.mcgann@vox.com Apr 30, 2018, 11:25am EDT Michelle Wolf headlined the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in 2018. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images Comedian Michelle Wolf headlined the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday night, shocking the crowd and spinning up indignation among Republicans and even some journalists for accusing press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders of ... lying. “Every time Sarah steps up to the podium,” Wolf started, “I get excited because I’m not really sure what we’re going to get — you know, a press briefing, a bunch of lies, or divided into softball teams.” This isn’t exactly a controversial joke. Huckabee Sanders lies all the time. It’s not spin. It’s not an ideological narrative wrapped around shared facts. She states and defends stacks of untruths — from the motivations of Donald Trump accusers to the state of health care negotiations. Many of her most measurably false claims indict the character of entire groups of people, notably brown people. Mexican men are rapists. Immigrants vote illegally en masse. Republicans, who’ve never called out Huckabee Sanders for any of her comments, had a lot to say Saturday night. Mike Huckabee, Sarah’s father and former governor of Arkansas, captured the sentiment when he tweeted: “The WHCD was supposed to celebrate the 1st Amendment. Instead they celebrated bullying, vulgarity, and hate.” Wolf’s routine hit a nerve because it’s true. Huckabee Sanders represents White House policy, which includes smearing people for political gain and selling legislation through blatant falsehoods, like a health care repeal bill that would have cost millions their insurance. But Washington insiders think standing at a podium and saying all this calmly is professional, and telling a joke about it is cruel. Until we take a hard look at Huckabee Sanders’s own words, though, the joke’s on us. Sarah Huckabee Sanders tells a lot of lies Huckabee Sanders stands poised in front of the White House press corps nearly every day, laying out the White House’s priorities and taking questions. Unlike her predecessor Sean Spicer, she keeps her cool or goes on the offense. She doesn’t backpedal. She doesn’t hide in the bushes. She’s a PR pro. | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 05:10pm - 2426 days | #543 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: “After 12 years of marriage, we have decided to go our separate ways. We will always have tremendous respect for each other and our families,” they previously said in a joint statement. "We have five beautiful children together and they remain our top priority. We ask for your privacy during this time.” Why break up when a couple has such love and respect for each other? Because they have publicists, who write such crap for publication. "I love you, darling, forever. But we must go our separate ways. For the benefit of each of us." Maybe Donald Trump Jr. and his current wife can hire sarah huckabee sanders to do press for them. Keep it all in the family. Huckabee is known for her loyalty and how she speaks with admiration and devotion for her boss, President Donald Trump. So what better than to speak for Donald's son and his soon-to-be ex-wife? -------- -------- Donald Trump Jr. wants to know estranged wife Vanessa’s net worth New York Daily News VICTORIA BEKIEMPIS May 1st 2018 4:08PM X Donald Trump Jr. wants to know how much money his estranged wife, Vanessa, has in the bank. A “defendant’s demand for statement of net worth” was filed in Manhattan Supreme Court on Friday. Vanessa Trump, who married the President’s eldest son in 2005, filed for divorce on March 15. The circumstances behind their divorce remain unclear. While the divorce is classified as “uncontested” in court filings — suggesting the split might be amicable — divorcing couples exchange information on their assets to determine, for example, child support payments. Vanessa Trump, 40, and her estranged husband, 40, have five children. “After 12 years of marriage, we have decided to go our separate ways. We will always have tremendous respect for each other and our families,” they previously said in a joint statement. "We have five beautiful children together and they remain our top priority. We ask for your privacy during this time.” | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 04:50pm - 2426 days | #542 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Reuters Two top EPA staffers resign amid ethics probes Reuters By Valerie Volcovici,Reuters 2 hours 5 minutes ago WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two high-level Environmental Protection Agency employees whose names have come up in investigations of Administrator Scott Pruitt's ethics and travel have resigned from the agency, the EPA confirmed on Tuesday. Pasquale "Nino" Perrotta, a former Secret Service agent who served as the head of Pruitt's security team, resigned on Monday but said he will continue to cooperate in a U.S. House of Representatives investigation of his role in costly decisions around Pruitt's security. ABC News first reported the resignation on Tuesday. Albert "Kell" Kelly, who ran the agency's Superfund cleanup program, also announced his resignation, the EPA confirmed. Kelly, a friend of Pruitt's from his days in Oklahoma, was barred by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from working at any U.S. financial institution after unspecified violations while working at a bank in that state. Lawmakers last week grilled Pruitt in back-to-back hearings on reports of ethics violations, excessive spending on travel and security, close industry ties and the reassignment of agency whistleblowers who flagged concerns about high spending. Those issues included the installation of a $43,000 soundproof phone booth in Pruitt's office and routine use of first-class flights - both of which the EPA has argued were important to Pruitt's safety and privacy. Perrotta had also hired a business associate from a firm where he also works to carry out a $3,000 security sweep of Pruitt's office, which internal staff said did not meet national security standards. Pruitt praised both men for their work at EPA, citing Kelly's "tremendous impact on EPA’s Superfund program" and Perrotta's service to four EPA administrators. House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy said on Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation" that his committee had scheduled interviews with Perrotta and other senior Pruitt aides this week. A committee aide told Reuters the staff will conduct a transcribed interview with Perrotta on Wednesday and that his resignation will not affect his appearance before the panel. The committee also is confirming dates for transcribed interviews with other EPA witnesses, the aide said. The panel received more than 1,000 pages of documents it requested from the EPA in February and April related to Pruitt and his staff's use of first-class flights and a condo rental agreement between Pruitt and the wife of an industry lobbyist. President Donald Trump has not indicated whether the investigations would affect Pruitt's tenure. "At this point, EPA is complying with our requests," the aide said. Several Republicans in the House who have embraced Pruitt's deregulatory agenda said Pruitt was unfairly grilled by Democrats, but others said his answers to some key questions were vague. U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House energy and commerce committee, said despite the resignations of some of Pruitt's controversial associates, his colleagues will not ease up on the scrutiny. "Democrats will continue to shine light onto the corruption at Scott Pruitt’s EPA, even if congressional Republicans refuse to join us," he said. (Reporting By Valerie Volcovici; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Bill Trott) | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 04:49pm - 2426 days | #541 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: If Donald Trump was moral (God forbid), he would support sex workers. Instead, he pays them off in private (with NDAs--Non Disclosure Agreements), to keep secrets about his sex life. And in public, he supports laws that erode any protections the sex workers might have. Typical Trump behavior. ----- ----- Unfiltered: ‘Society treats sex workers as second-class citizens’ Yahoo News Wed, Apr 25 5:17 PM PDT By Brian Prowse-Gany and Joyzel Acevedo As a prominent face in the world of adult entertainment, sex worker Ginger Banks has endured her share of insults and discrimination: “When I read comments on articles about sexual assault happening to sex workers, it breaks my heart. Because a lot of the people say, ‘Well, she’s a sex worker. She gets f***ed for money. Why can’t I grab her right now?’” “Which makes no sense. If you are going to run into a UFC fighter on the street, you’re not going to punch him in the face and say, ‘That’s your job,’ right?” Following a recent string of deaths by suicide and drug overdose among female adult-film actresses, including the popular performer August Ames, Banks has spoken out about the damaging and discriminatory treatment sex workers in the industry regularly face. The issue, Banks believes, stems from the stigma society places on sex work and the porn industry. “There are people who probably respect drug dealers, that shoot and kill people, more than they do sex workers,” she says, “because sex is so negatively viewed still by such a large percentage of the country. … There are mothers who have had their children taken away from them because they are sex workers, there are banks and other institutions that have shut down sex workers’ accounts.” “We’re all just people who want to provide for themselves and for their families.” In this latest episode of “Unfiltered,” adult-film actress Ginger Banks explains why porn stars need more support for the kind of work they do — both within the industry and in society at large. The 27-year-old has worked in the sex industry for eight years, first finding success as a webcam model and most recently having filmed a big-budget XXX feature. She was a chemical engineering student when she made the decision to pursue webcamming full-time, a choice that shocked her father. “When my dad found out, he immediately said, ‘Is someone forcing you to do this?’” she recalls, “Because it’s easier to think of that and accept that, than it is to realize that your independent, intelligent daughter decided to go into the sex work industry.” Ginger Banks (Photo courtesy of Ginger Banks) It took time for Banks to get past her shame: “When I was lying about my job as a sex worker, that’s when I was the most depressed. Because deep down I knew there was nothing wrong with being a sex worker, but I had to hide it and I had to lie to people about my job. And that made me feel terrible.” Now, with the new Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, known as the FOSTA-SESTA bill, signed by President Trump on April 11, 2018, Banks believes the struggles many sex workers face will not only increase, it will also “cause [them] to die.” “Full-service sex workers are already at a higher risk of being murdered due to their job,” explains Banks. “And taking away their resources to screen through violent clients is just going to make that worse.” Online platforms, like classified advertising website Backpage.com, are being held responsible by the new law for any sex related content. (Image: Backpage) Banks also feels that the new law will hurt those who are involuntarily trafficked into the industry. “If we make it safe for people to do sex work,” she asserts, “We are going to be making it safer for these people to come forward who are being forced into this industry.” Ultimately, Banks wants sex workers to be treated fairly and with respect, “My goal in life is to help change the stigma surrounding sex workers. … We are just like any other part of society,” she says. “It is important to see us as people, because that’s what we are.” | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 04:45pm - 2426 days | #540 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to tell the Secret Service to assassinate Hilary Clinton instead of spending so much time, effort and money in trying to assassinate her politically. Or maybe I don't realize how much fun and profit the Republicans and Donald Trump are having in promoting Hillary Clinton as a criminal who belongs in jail. The only problem is: Trump is almost certainly a criminal who belongs in prison. Except he is the President, and the Republicans stand staunchly behind his graft, corruption, and illegal acts. ----- ----- Republicans are still running against Hillary Clinton David Knowles 3 hours ago Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton says she’s not going to run again, but Republican midterm candidates are still using her as a political target. (Photo: Brooks Kraft/ Getty Images) Old political habits die hard. Republicans running in midterm elections have picked a familiar target to try to fire up voters: Hillary Clinton. The former U.S. secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee has vowed she’s “not going to run again,” but that’s not stopping several candidates from portraying her as their de facto opponent in the fall. According to data compiled by USA Today, Clinton has been mentioned more than 5,000 times in television ads in the Ohio gubernatorial race in the past four months. In West Virginia’s U.S. Senate race, Clinton has been featured in TV spots that aired 3,751 times, while in Indiana’s Senate contest, she’s appeared 2,222 times, USA Today reports. The only Democratic politician to appear in more television ads is former President Barack Obama, who has turned up in 18,971 spots paid for by Republicans and 3,976 paid for by Democrats. Clinton has been portrayed negatively in 12,864 ads nationally — a stunning figure for a politician who lost and doesn’t plan to run again. Hillary Clinton Clinton herself has joked about the fact that she still garners so much attention on Fox News, quipping in early April that “Fox News is always trying to impeach me, so someone needs to tell them that it doesn’t apply to a private citizen.” Of course, while Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity regularly run segments bashing Clinton, President Trump has also offered his Twitter followers a steady diet of anti-Clinton messages, keeping that feud alive in the minds of his supporters. Indeed, rarely a week goes by that Trump doesn’t find a way to insert a reference to Clinton into his Twitter feed. Perhaps one reason Clinton remains a rallying cry for Republicans is the fact that her approval ratings have slipped below Trump’s. In December, a poll released by Gallup found that just 36 percent of Americans held a favorable view of the former senator and secretary of state, compared with 61 percent who held an unfavorable opinion. | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 02:21pm - 2427 days | #539 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Justice Department does not believe in freedom of the press. Justice Department does not believe the public has the right to know. Only the President and his Administration have the right to know. Fuck the public. Fuck the press. Contacts with the press must be reported, as fraternizing with the enemy. Unless the contact was authorized by the President, who has the right and privilege of tweeting and speaking any lies he tweets or utters, under the freedom of political speech. Hail to President Trump, leader of the United States of Trump. (Maybe this is a little pre-mature, since Trump has not officially declared himself as Dictator for Life of the United States of Trump.) -------- -------- Yahoo U.S. Trump administration removes language on freedom of the press from Justice Department handbook The Independent Emily Shugerman,The Independent 23 hours ago Attorney General Jeff Sessions testifies during a hearing before the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee: Alex Wong/Getty Images The Trump administration has removed language about freedom of the press from its guidebook for US attorneys. The US Attorneys' Manual is a guide to Justice Department policies written for US attorneys and other department employees. It was edited late last year, for the first time in two decades, with significant changes to the “Media Relations” section – changes experts say reflect a larger Trump administration hostility towards members of the press. Gone from the handbook is a section specifically reminding attorneys of the public's right to know. Gone is a section on the need for free press and public trial. Added to the manual is a section reminding employees to report any concerns to their superiors, and requiring them to disclose any contacts they have with the media. Summer Lopez, the Senior Director of Free Expression Programmes at PEN America, said the changes showed a "deliberate effort to shift the tone of internal debates away from press freedom concerns". "It confirms what we already know: That this administration is dismissive of the important work done by the press to promote government accountability," she said in a statement to The Independent. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ordered a review of the handbook last year, department spokesperson Ian Prior told BuzzFeed News, who first reported the changes. The purpose of the overhaul – the largest since 1997 – was to “identify redundant sections and language, areas that required greater clarity, and any content that needed to be added to help Department attorneys perform core prosecutorial functions,” Mr Prior said. The new manual removes a section titled “Interests Must Be Balanced,” which reminded attorneys to balance the public's right to information with an individual's right to a fair trial and the government’s ability to enforce justice. Instead, it adds language on "the right of the public to have access to information about the Department of Justice" to a sentence in the opening section. Also gone is a section on the need for free press and public trial, which previously stated that employees should consider “the right of the people in a constitutional democracy to have access to information about the conduct of law enforcement officers, prosecutors and courts, consistent with the individual rights of the accused”. Added to the manual is a section on “whistleblower protections,” which reminds DOJ employees that they can report concerns to their management or the inspector general without threat of retaliation. Another new section, “reporting media contacts” tells employees they must report any contact with members of the media about DOJ matters to their designated media representative. Previous language in the handbook did not make such a stipulation. Instead, it said the department’s Office of Public Affairs should be informed of requests from national media organisations to discuss “in-depth stories and matters affecting the Department of Justice, or matters of national significance”. Alexandra Ellerbeck, the North America Program Coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said the handbook changes were largely symbolic, and more of an indication of the department's priorities than a guide to how attorneys will behave on the ground. But taken in the context of current Justice Department leadership and the administration as a whole, she said, the changes are concerning. President Donald Trump has made his disdain for the mainstream press clear, at one point referring to them “the enemy of the American people”. He has suggested challenging the licenses of television networks that run negative coverage of him, and threatened to make people who leak information to the media “pay a big price”. The head of the Department of Justice, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has made similar statements. Last year, he told reporters his department had tripled the number of leak investigations over the previous administration, and even created a new counterintelligence unit in the FBI to work on the issue. Mr Sessions also said he would review current rules that make it difficult to subpoena reporters for the names of their sources. Ms Ellerbeck said these comments made her nervous about the edits to the handbook. “This administration has shown an unprecedented level of overt hostility to the press, and in that context I think these changes are concerning,” she told The Independent. “...They’re another example and another indication of where the administration's priorities are when it comes to a free press.” HuffPost | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 02:05pm - 2427 days | #538 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
When I was much younger, I listened to a record called House of the Rising Sun, which warned about the dangers of growing up in a whorehouse. Now I read tweets from the White House, which seems to be the House of Lies. The White House is the source of fake news, or news which is twisted or invented to protect the President from his enemies. Trump may have the most corrupt administration the US has ever had. But if you listen to Trump, Trump is the greatest President we've ever had. Which version of Trump is more accurate: Trump is a slimeball con man who has lied repeatedly to the public? Trump is a man who constantly boasts about his greatness, based on his own lies? If men show up at your place of business and demand your property, and you think they may have guns and may use force, is that natural? Sarah Huckabee Sanders says it is natural, as long as the men are working for Donald Trump, the President. Even if the men don't have a warrant. Even if the men are not proper law enforcement officers. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the White House Spokesperson. She would have done well under the Nazi regime of Adolph Hitler. ---------- ---------- Yahoo White House defends seizure of Trump's medical records Associated Press Associated Press 1 hour 13 minutes ago White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaks during the daily press briefing at the White House, Tuesday, May 1, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says President Donald Trump's former bodyguard did nothing out of the ordinary when he took possession of the president's medical records in what Trump's former doctor says felt like a "raid." Harold Bornstein, Trump's longtime personal doctor, told NBC that Keith Schiller and two others showed up at his office in February 2017 in an episode that left him feeling "frightened" and "sad." White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the move: "As is standard operating procedure for a new president, the White House Medical Unit took possession of the president's medical records." She disputed that it had the feel of a raid. The incident took place two days after Bornstein divulged that he had prescribed Trump Propecia, a drug to combat hair loss in men. | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 07:47am - 2427 days | #537 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: House conservatives draft articles of impeachment against Rod Rosenstein. My take: Trump should order his Secret Service agents to assassinate Rod Rosenstein, but make the act appear to be a random act of violence in Washington, DC. Then Trump can appear on national TV, and declare martial law in this time of emergency. Then Trump can order the Secret Service to assassinate Robert Mueller. Trump can then state there are counter-revolutionaries, which everyone is already aware of, and that justifies becoming Dictator For Life of the United States, since Trump is the only person able to defend the United States against the threats and evil doers that are out there. -------- -------- Yahoo Politics House Conservatives Draft Articles Of Impeachment Against Rod Rosenstein HuffPost Antonia Blumberg,HuffPost 11 hours ago A group of conservative House members has drafted articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, multiplenews organizations reported Monday. The reported draft is the latest in an ongoing feud between Congress members allied with President Donald Trump and the Justice Department over its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Members of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of conservatives led by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), recently finalized the draft, The Washington Post reported. Meadows called it “a last-resort option if the Department of Justice fails to respond” to congressional requests for documents pertaining to the Russia investigation and another federal inquiry into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. A representative of Meadows did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The impeachment articles accuse Rosenstein of several transgressions, The Hill reported, including that he violated federal law by not immediately complying with a congressional subpoena to release documents regarding FBI surveillance during the 2016 presidential election. The documents also accuse Rosenstein of “knowingly provided misleading statements related to his supervision of the initial Department of Justice investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged contacts with Russia,” according to The Hill. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who oversees the House Intelligence Committee, threatened to impeach Rosenstein, along with FBI Director Christopher Wray, earlier this month. “I can tell you that we’re not going to just hold in contempt. We will have a plan to hold in contempt and impeach,” Nunes said in an appearance on Fox. Trump and a handful of vocal conservatives in Congress have long mistrusted Rosenstein over his role in the Russia investigation. The president reportedly considered firing Rosenstein last summer. But an impeachment proceeding is unlikely to progress far. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the Speaker of the House, and other GOP leaders in the House have largely remained silent amid calls for Rosenstein’s impeachment or firing. USA Today also noted that the last time a member of the executive branch other than a president was impeached by the House was in 1876, when Ulysses S. Grant’s secretary of war, William Belknap, was accused of taking kickbacks. He was acquitted in the Senate. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 02:09am - 2427 days | #536 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Yahoo Documents show ties between university, conservative donors Associated Press MATTHEW BARAKAT,Associated Press 6 hours ago FILE - In this May 22, 2012, file photo, Charles Koch speaks in his office at Koch Industries in Wichita, Kan. A sure sign of policy success for the sprawling conservative network funded by the billionaire Koch brothers is Democratic pushback. With regulations being rolled back and huge tax cuts, Democrats question how far the Koch network's influence extends. (Bo Rader/The Wichita Eagle via AP, File) FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — Virginia's largest public university granted the conservative Charles Koch Foundation a say in the hiring and firing of professors in exchange for millions of dollars in donations, according to newly released documents. The release of donor agreements between George Mason University and the foundation follows years of denials by university administrators that Koch foundation donations inhibit academic freedom. University President Angel Cabrera wrote a note to faculty Friday night saying the agreements "fall short of the standards of academic independence I expect any gift to meet." The admission came three days after a judge scrutinized the university's earlier refusal to release any documents. The newly released agreements spell out million-dollar deals in which the Koch Foundation endows a fund to pay the salary of one or more professors at the university's Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank. The agreements require creation of five-member selection committees to choose the professors and grant the donors the right to name two of the committee members. The Koch Foundation enjoyed similar appointment rights to advisory boards that had the right under the agreements to recommend firing a professor who failed to live up to standards. Cabrera emphasized in his note to faculty that the "agreements did not give donors control over academic decisions" — an apparent reference to the fact that the Koch Foundation did not control a majority of seats on the selection committees. A university spokesman said Cabrera was unavailable for an interview. On Monday night, Cabrera issued a statement saying he is ordering a review of all the university's donor agreements that support faculty positions to "ensure that they do not grant donors undue influence in academic matters." Cabrera's admission that the agreements fall short of standards for academic independence is a stark departure from his earlier statements on the issue. In a 2014 blog post on the issue, he wrote that donors don't get to decide who is hired and that "these rules are an essential part of our academic integrity. If these rules are not acceptable, we simply don't accept the gift. Academic freedom is never for sale. Period." In 2016, in an interview with The Associated Press, he denied that the Koch donations restricted academic independence and said Koch's status as a lightning rod for his support of Republican candidates is the only reason people question the donations. The documents were released to a former student, Samantha Parsons, under a Freedom of Information Act request she filed earlier this year after years of having similar requests rejected. Parsons, who now works for the activist group UnKoch My Campus, said the documents are strikingly similar to agreements the Koch Foundation made with Florida State University that caused a similar uproar. She said provisions giving the foundation a say in which professors are chosen are especially alarming. "The faculty is supposed to have the independence to choose the best-qualified candidate," she said. The Koch Foundation issued a statement saying the agreements with Mason are "old and inactive" and that newer agreements contain no such provisions. "We took criticism of our agreements seriously when similar concerns were raised" about the Florida State deal in 2008, the foundation's director of university relations, John Hardin, said in the statement. Mason, which has developed a reputation over the years as a conservative powerhouse in law and economics, has received increased scrutiny about its connections to the Koch Foundation since 2016, when Mason renamed its law school for conservative jurist Antonin Scalia. A 2016 analysis by the AP found that Mason received more money from the foundation than any school in the country. UnKoch My Campus released documents on Monday that spell out some of the details of the donation leading to renaming of the law school for Scalia, which occurred in conjunction with a $10 million donation from the Koch Foundation and $20 million from an anonymous donor. The newly released emails are heavily redacted and do not expose the donor, but they do show that Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the conservative Federalist Society, is described as a representative of the donor. Emails between Leo and the Mason law school's dean, Henry Butler, show Leo inquiring on behalf of law school applicants and expressing approval of faculty hires. In one email, Butler informs Leo of a unanimous faculty vote in favor of hiring a new member of the law school faculty, to which Leo replies "Great!" The faculty member later went on leave to join the Trump administration. In a 2015 email, Leo informs Butler about a student prospect who has been working at RAGA, the Republican Attorney General Association, and who is looking to apply to Mason's law school. Leo asks if Butler will meet the prospect and Butler replies, "Absolutley! (sic) I will work with the admissions office to make sure we get together." Bethany Letiecq, president of the American Association of University Professors at GMU, said in a statement that the Scalia school documents confirm what many faculty have suspected for years. "Private donors have been provided influence over faculty affairs at our public university," she said. "This is a violation of the public trust." Del. Marcus Simon, a Fairfax County Democrat who helped lead a petition effort in 2016 to block the name change, said he is not surprised to see the level of influence granted to the donors in these agreements. "The idea that the Kochs are giving money without anything expected in return always seemed a little absurd," he said. He said the university should release all of its agreements with the Koch Foundation, including its most recent ones. | |
|
||
| 05-01-18 01:50am - 2427 days | #10 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: Elizabeth Olsen slams Avengers--Infinity Wars. Says she is the only one with cleavage. Movie will go down as sexist Movie of the Year. Will people stay away from movie once they realize that Olsen is the only girl with cleavage? ------- ------- Yahoo Entertainment Elizabeth Olsen slams revealing 'Avengers' costume: 'I would like to cover up a bit' Fox News 12 hours ago There are many things Elizabeth Olsen enjoys about her character in "Avengers: Infinity War" but her costume is not one of them. Olsen says Scarlet Witch's plunging corset isn't exactly what she pictured the superhero wearing. And if she could, Olsen said she would "tweaK" the costume a bit. "It would just not be a cleavage corset. I like corsets, but I'd like it to be higher. Everyone has these things that cover them — Tessa Thompson does, Scarlett does. I would like to cover up a bit," Olsen told ELLE magazine on Friday. The corset doesn't exactly portray modern women, Olsen argued, though she admitted she understands why female superheroes are dressed a certain way on camera. "I think of the costumes and what we have to wear — it’s more about iconic images, because that's what these movies are.... I think that's the goal with the costumes, and it's not representing the average woman," Olsen continued. However, the 29-year-old admits she has to laugh when she scans the set with her mostly covered up co-stars. "I look around and I'm just like — 'Wow, I'm the only one who has cleavage,' and that's a constant joke because they haven't really evolved my superhero costume that much," she added. Though she would love a slightly more conservative costume, Olsen said she doesn't have any complaints, especially when it comes to working with Marvel — which, she says, promotes diversity. "It's almost like they're not trying to slap anyone over the head with it, but they recognize that they have such a huge platform, and they're using it to be as inclusive as they can with their storylines and representing the world," Olsen said. "That's why [Black] Panther felt like such a huge thing in culture, and they're aware of it, and their goal is to not make the same stories that have happened over and over and over again." | |
|
||
| 04-30-18 10:27pm - 2427 days | #535 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: The article says to forget the Pee tapes. This is wrong. As a member of the public, I demand my right to view the Pee tape(s). Did they catch the future President of the US peeing? On prostitutes? Or did they catch the prostitutes peeing on the future President? Enquiring minds want to know.' And to view the tapes for themselves, without any editing. --------------- --------------- Observer Opinion Forget Pee-Pee Tapes: the Kremlin Just Dropped a Bigger Bomb on the White House By John R. Schindler • 04/30/18 1:11pm As long as suspicion has surrounded President Donald Trump regarding his secret ties to Russia—that is, every day of his presidency—lurid rumors have swirled about what unpleasant things the Kremlin might know about the Oval Office’s current occupant. In particular, tabloid-worthy speculation has it that the president’s unseemly personal habits were caught on video during his November 2013 visit to Moscow. This, of course, is the notorious “pee-pee-tape” floated by Christopher Steele, the former British spy whose 2016 dossier has been the source of so much gossip and controversy in our nation’s capital. As I’ve previously explained, there’s no reason to doubt that the Russians indeed possess compromising information on Trump, given the many trips to that country he’s made over the last 31 years, but scandalous adult videos are perhaps the least of the president’s worries when it comes to Kremlin kompromat. It’s Trump’s shady business dealings and how they connect to powerful Russians that constitute the real scandal here. While it’s likely that the president has had some sort of less-than-above-board relationship with Moscow’s intelligence agencies for many years, as I recently elaborated, a Bondian secret agent he certainly is not. KremlinGate is fundamentally a long-term financial-cum-influence scandal with an element of espionage thrown in—not the other way around. That said, during the presidential campaign, Team Trump made multiple hush-hush outreaches to the Kremlin, most of them inept and bumbling, which raise glaring questions for anyone versed in counterintelligence. None of these clandestine parleys has gotten more attention than the June 9, 2016 meeting held in Trump Tower in Manhattan between a top Team Trump delegation (including Donald Trump, Jr. and Paul Manafort, Trump’s then-campaign manager who has an inordinate degree of dubious Kremlin links) and several Russians, led by Natalya Veselnitskaya, a lawyer known in Moscow for her links to Kremlin power circles. This meeting was ostensibly about adoptions, a ridiculous line the White House stuck with when word of the Trump Tower rendezvous reached the media many months after the event. Eventually, Don Jr. conceded that the meeting’s real purpose was obtaining kompromat on Hillary Clinton, specifically allegations that the Democratic presidential nominee had her own unsavory ties to Russia. In exchange, Veselnitskaya wanted help getting sanctions off Moscow, in particular, some relief regarding the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 U.S. law that punishes Russians suspected of human rights abuses. Indeed, one of the attendees at the Trump Tower meeting, Rinat Akhmetshin, who admits to being a former officer in Kremlin military intelligence or GRU—with all the caveats that implies in Putin’s Russia—is a dodgy character who has been engaged in aggressive lobbying against the Magnitsky Act. However, Akhmetshin is a naturalized American and well known in Washington, D.C.; while he has ties to Moscow officials, Veselnitskaya was the delegation boss, the one who was speaking for the Kremlin at Trump Tower. Don Jr. insists that nothing came of the meeting, but the mere fact that Team Trump felt it was appropriate to discuss obtaining kompromat on Democrats from anyone linked to the Kremlin raises troubling questions—especially considering who Veselnitskaya actually is. She is known in several countries as a senior operative for Russia’s intelligence services. The unsavoriness of her work was exposed recently in a sensational case in Switzerland, where Veselnitskaya attempted to infiltrate Swiss investigations of Russian oligarchs. As I explained: A top federal investigator, known only as Victor K. due to Swiss privacy laws, in late December 2016 was lured to Moscow to meet with Veselnitskaya. For years, K. had been the lead investigator of Russian organized crime and financial malfeasance in Switzerland. His supervisors forbade K. from traveling to Moscow, given his position, but he did so anyway, in secret. There, Veselnitskaya attempted to recruit him as a mole inside the Swiss investigation of Kremlin crimes. This is typical Russian espionage tradecraft yet again, and this case firmly establishes that Veselnitskaya is no ordinary lawyer, rather a high-level operative for Kremlin intelligence. Nevertheless, the Trump White House has persisted in its story that they had no idea who Veselnitskaya really is. In this telling, the June 9, 2016 meeting, while perhaps less than entirely ethical, was no more than forward-leaning opposition research. For some time, Veselnitskaya played along, telling the media that she was just an attorney, nobody’s secret agent. She informed the Senate Judiciary Committee in a written response to its questions, “I operate independently of any governmental bodies” in Russia. That narrative has just been exploded, however, by none other than Natalya Veselnitskaya herself. On Friday, NBC News broadcast an interview conducted by Richard Engel, in which Veselnitskaya stated, “I am a lawyer and I am an informant,” specifically for the Kremlin’s prosecutor-general Yuri Chaika. She added, “Since 2013, I have been actively communicating with the office of the Russian prosecutor general.” Chaika, who has been Russia’s top justice official since 2006, is known for his aggressive efforts to thwart Western sanctions on his country. Here Veselnitskaya, no mere private attorney, admits she has played an important role. The White House seems dumbstruck by this public revelation, which blows apart its cover story about the Trump Tower meeting. On Saturday evening, at a Michigan rally, the president tried to slough off Veselnitskaya’s revelation by stating, “In fact, have you heard about the lawyer? For a year—a woman lawyer—she was like, ‘Oh, I know nothing.’ Now all of a sudden, she supposedly is involved with the [Russian] government.” Interestingly, the president conceded that obviously Veselnitskaya wouldn’t drop a bombshell like this without Kremlin approval. He explained his take on Putin’s motivation, “You know, this Trump is killing us. Why don’t you say that you’re involved with government so that we can go and make their life in the United States even more chaotic.” This seems highly unlikely. While Trump regularly pronounces that “nobody’s been tougher on Russia than Donald Trump,” this would be news to Ronald Reagan or John F. Kennedy—or even Jimmy Carter. In truth, Putin’s regime is disappointed in Trump, who has proven incapable of managing any sort of “re-reset” of relations between Moscow and Washington. While Trump’s public pronouncements regarding his Russian counterpart have ranged from the nervously flattering to the outright obsequious, his administration’s policies toward Russia by and large have remained consistent with longstanding U.S. actions. Not much has changed to Russia’s benefit since Trump took office, while in some areas—for instance, dispatching defensive weaponry to Ukraine, which remains in a low-boil war with Russia—there are backsteps from Obama-era policies. In short, Moscow sees little to be gained in helping Trump save himself from his increasingly dire predicament with KremlinGate. On the contrary, Putin and his retinue now are seeking to inflict damage on our beleaguered and weakened president: More chaos on the Potomac is good for Russia, goes this perennial line of Kremlin thinking. The White House ought to prepare for rough seas ahead. John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst. | |
|
||
| 04-30-18 03:36pm - 2428 days | #534 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: President Trump is such a genius. If he wasn't busy taking care of Presidential business, the stock market would have been up 60%. Unfortunately, Trump has more important things to do than making the stock market go up. ----- ----- Politics Trump: The stock market ‘would’ve been up 60%, but I have to do things’ Krystal Hu 4 hours ago President Donald Trump hasn’t been shy about taking credit for the stock market’s rise. And since prices started falling from their highs of last December, he has largely been silent. But now he’s taking some ownership, saying he is doing something that “bothers the market.” This past weekend during a rally in Washington, Michigan, Trump touted tax cuts, job creation and the 35% jump in the stock market since the election. “The stock market, which is not really the all-time indicator, because the country is actually doing much better than the stock market,” he said to thousands of supporters. “It would’ve been up 60%, but I have to do things. I can’t let other countries take advantage of us, so we’re doing trade deals.” ‘We’re not playing games’ In effect, Trump is taking the blame for the recent market volatility, which many experts have attributed to his aggressive rhetoric. The selling really picked up when he started to announce tariffs on steel, aluminum and other imported goods from China in March. Though no tariff has been imposed yet, the looming trade war between the U.S. and China has had markets reeling. Following Trump’s announcement of 25% tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports to the U.S., the S&P 500 stock index tanked 6% in a week, the worst sell-off since January 2016. Now, the market awaits trade negotiations between the U.S. and China, which will start later this week. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in Washington, Michigan on April 28, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts In the past month, China has made some bullish moves by announcing decisions to open up its financial sector and to cut tariffs on car imports. But little has been said about the alleged technology theft at the center of the trade debate. “I’m not going to give you what’s actually going to happen because we don’t really know,” Trump said on Saturday. “But I’m telling you one thing: we’re not playing games.” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also expressed some uncertainty regarding trade negotiations, but said he is cautiously optimistic about the meetings with China’s vice premier in Beijing. “I don’t want to predict what is going to happen or not going to happen,” Mnuchin told Fox Business News on Sunday. “We’re going to have very frank discussions — these are issues President Trump has been focused on for over the last year and hopefully we’ll have significant progress.” During the rally, Trump also spoke of China’s President Xi Jinping and praised his help with the North Korea situation. “He’s a friend of mine,” Trump said. “But he likes China. I like the U.S.A.” Krystal Hu is a technology and economy reporter at Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter | |
|
||
| 04-30-18 11:22am - 2428 days | #533 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Trump campaign has paid portions of Michael Cohen's legal fees: Sources By Katherine Faulders, JOHN SANTUCCI Soo Rin Kim Apr 30, 2018, 12:44 PM ET The Trump campaign has spent nearly $228,000 to cover some of the legal expenses for President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen, sources familiar with the payments tell ABC News, raising questions about whether the Trump campaign may have violated campaign finance laws. Federal Election Commission records show three payments made from the Trump campaign to a firm representing Cohen. The “legal consulting” payments were made to McDermott Will and Emery — a law firm where Cohen's attorney Stephen Ryan is a partner — between October 2017 and January 2018. Cohen has said that he did not have a formal role in the Trump campaign, and it is illegal to spend campaign funds for personal use – defined by the FEC as payments for expenses “that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.” "They're on shaky legal ground," said Stephen Spaulding, chief of strategy at the nonprofit watchdog group Common Cause. "It sounds like they are really pushing the envelope … If the campaign were to say they are campaign-related payments, then maybe it's okay to use campaign funds. But he can't have it both ways." Legal experts told ABC News that if the payments referenced in the FEC filings are related to the Russia investigation, they likely wouldn't violate campaign finance law, as the investigation is related to the 2016 presidential campaign. If the payments are related to the Stormy Daniels matter, however, the campaign could have a problem. It is not clear what type of legal work the payments were for, but sources familiar with the matter said that the legal work in question was not related to Daniels. A spokesperson for the Trump campaign declined to comment on the payments. Ryan, Cohen’s attorney, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Cohen has been Trump's personal attorney and confidante for more than a decade, but he is now facing possible legal exposure related to his work for Trump. Ryan has represented Cohen in two key legal matters — Special Counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian agents ahead of the 2016 presidential election, and the so-called “hush” agreement he arranged with a porn star who claimed to have had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Mueller's team has subpoenaed the Trump Organization for Russia-related documents, according to sources with direct knowledge of the matter, and congressional investigators have asked Cohen to explain his role in confidential negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow at the height of the presidential campaign. Cohen told ABC News in Augusts that the Trump Organization seriously considered the proposal — which would have brought the world’s tallest building to Moscow — before eventually abandoning the plan. The special counsel could also be interested in Cohen’s $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the election to keep quiet about an alleged affair with Trump. Earlier this month, the FBI raided Cohen’s home, office, and hotel room and seized records related to the Daniels matter, after a referral from Mueller’s team was made to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York. Cohen has not been charged with a crime. He appeared in court last week, where a judge appointed a “special master” to review the seized material to determine what records, if any, fall under attorney-client privilege. Cohen’s possible legal jeopardy doesn’t end with the investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York or the special counsel. Daniels has since sued Trump and Cohen over the “hush” agreement, challenging its legitimacy because Trump never signed it, and she later added defamation charges against Cohen to the suit. In a court filing last week, Cohen revealed his plans to exercise his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in that lawsuit. The Trump campaign spent more than $830,000 on legal consulting during the first three months of 2018, including one payment to the firm representing Cohen, according to FEC reports. The payments made up more than 20 percent of the total campaign expenditures. More than $279,000 of that went to two other law firms — Harder LLP received $93,181 and Larocca, Hornik, Rosen, Greenberg & Blaha received $186,279 — that have represented President Trump and Cohen in matters related to Daniels, but sources said these particular payments were related to other matters. The Trump campaign also paid Larocca, Hornik, Rosen, Greenberg & Blaha firm nearly $81,000 for "legal consulting" during the 2016 election cycle, FEC reports show. President Trump added Lawrence Rosen, a partner at Larocca, Hornik, Rosen, Greenberg & Blaha, to his legal team in March to handle the legal issues following the disclosure of the so-called "hush" agreement that Cohen negotiated with Daniels. Rosen did not respond to a request for comment on the payments. The Patriot Legal Defense Fund was established earlier this year to help former Trump campaign staffers and Trump administration officials pay for legal bills associated with the ongoing Russia probes. It is unclear, however, who has benefited from the fund as it does not disclose its beneficiaries. Trump and his immediate family members are excluded from receiving money from the fund, and a source close to former national security adviser Michael Flynn told ABC News in February that he would not accept support from the fund. In 2017, the Trump campaign also paid legal fees to the attorneys representing top aides – and family members – tangled in the ongoing Russia probes. The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee paid $514,000 in legal fees for Donald Trump Jr, and in January, the Trump campaign paid more than $66,000 to the law firm representing former Trump bodyguard Keith Schiller, who has been a fixture at Trump’s side for decades and served as Trump’s director of Oval Office operations until September. | |
|
||
| 04-30-18 11:15am - 2428 days | #532 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
If Trump is forced out (through impeachment or resignation), then Pence takes over. God forbid. Pence will probably appoint God-fearing homophobic conservatives, so most of Trump's choices will be out the door. But do we really want Pence to be the President?   | |
|
||
| 04-30-18 03:25am - 2428 days | #530 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Does Trump know how to spell hypocrite? Trump has complained bitterly about how Ronny Jackson was treated after being nominated to lead the VA, and defended him as a good man who did not deserve such treatment. Trump has said Tester should resign after publicly discussing unproven allegations about Jackson. But instead of giving Ronny Jackson back his old job of personal physician to the president, Jackson will now be given a slot on the White House medical staff. So Jackson is a good man who should have been appointed to lead the Veteran Affairs Administration, but since he did not get the job, Trump has basically demoted Jackson from physician to the president, to an appointment on the White House medical staff. That's how Trump backs up a "good man". By demoting him. But at least Jackson still has a job, and was not fired. Even though one of Trump's favorite actions is saying to his employees: "You're fired." ---------- ---------- Report: Jackson not returning as Trump's personal physician Associated Press Associated Press 5 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Dr. Ronny Jackson, a Navy rear admiral who abandoned his nomination to be secretary of Veterans Affairs amid numerous allegations, will not return to the job of President Donald Trump's personal physician but will remain on the White House medical staff, Politico reported Sunday. The newspaper reported that administration officials said Jackson has returned to a job with the White House medical unit. Dr. Sean Conley, a Navy veteran, who has taken the role of Trump's personal physician after Jackson was nominated by Trump, will remain in that role. Jackson withdrew his nomination Thursday after Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., released allegations that Jackson drank on the job, overprescribed medication and presided over a toxic work environment. Jackson has denied those allegations. Tester, speaking on MSNBC, acknowledged that not all the allegations had been verified, but said they should be investigated. The White House released records that it says show the allegations were not true. The Secret Service said it has found no evidence of an alleged car accident involving drunken driving, one of the claims released by Tester. Trump has complained bitterly about how Jackson was treated, and defended him as a good man who did not deserve such treatment. Trump has said Tester should resign after publicly discussing unproven allegations about Jackson. Tester faces a tough re-election bid in a state Trump won easily in 2016. | |
|
||
| 1151-1200 of 3618 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 7 | 12 | 17 | 23 | Page 24 | 25 | 32 | 39 | 46 | 53 | 60 | 72 | 73 | Next Page > |
|
