Dems to probe Trump’s treatment of CNN, Amazon, Washington Post in triple-threaded abuse-of-power inquiries

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-to-probe-trumps-treatment-of-cnn-amazon-washington-post-in-abuse-of-power-inquiries

Dems to probe Trump’s treatment of CNN, Amazon, Washington Post in triple-threaded abuse-of-power inquiries

November 11, 2018

The incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee this week said that when the new Congress is seated in January, Democrats plan to scrutinize whether President Trump abused his authority by taking adverse action against retail giant Amazon and two of his bitter left-leaning media rivals: CNN and The Washington Post.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in an interview with “Axios on HBO” that he and his colleagues will employ committee subpoena powers — which are backed by the legal threat of contempt of Congress — to conduct the triple-threaded inquiry into Trump’s possible use of the “instruments of state power to punish the press.”

Specifically, Schiff charged that Trump “was secretly meeting with the postmaster [general] in an effort to browbeat” her into “raising postal rates on Amazon,” whose founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos, separately owns The Washington Post.

“This appears to be an effort by the president to use the instruments of state power to punish Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post,” Schiff said in the interview.

The president signed an executive order earlier this year mandating a review of what he called the “unsustainable financial path” of the United States Postal Service (USPS). And he has reportedly met with Postmaster General Megan Brennan several times to push for hikes to the shipping rates paid by companies like Amazon, although there are no indications he did so to seek political payback.

Trump has long derided the political coverage at the Post, which is fiercely and relentlessly criticial of the White House, as a lobbying tool for Bezos. Most recently, the White House has contradicted the Post’s unequivocal reporting that it had shared a “doctored” video of CNN reporter Jim Acosta making contact with a White House intern during a press conference last week, as a Buzzfeed analysis suggested the changes in the video could have resulted inadvertently from the conversion of the footage to the lower-fidelity .gif format commonly used on Twitter.

But Trump has also feuded specifically with Amazon throughout the year, saying it is taking advantage of taxpayer-subsidized shipping rates.

In March, he argued in a series of tweets that the online retailer’s “scam” shipping deal with the U.S. Postal Service is costing the agency “billions of dollars.”

While the U.S. Postal Service has lost money for 11 years, package delivery — which has been a bright spot for the service — is not the reason. Boosted by e-commerce, the Postal Service has experienced double-digit increases in revenue from delivering packages, but that hasn’t been enough to offset pension and health care costs as well as declines in first-class letters and marketing mail.

Schiff also raised the possibility that the Trump administration’s opposition to AT&T’s $85 billion takeover of Time Warner on antitrust grounds may have been motivated by the president’s animus toward CNN, whose parent company is Time Warner. Trump frequently claims that CNN speads “fake news” and that when it does so, it is acting as the “enemy of the people.”

“We don’t know, for example, whether the effort to hold up the merger of the parent of CNN was a concern over antitrust, or whether this was an effort merely to punish CNN,” Schiff said, without offering evidence.

“It is very squarely within our responsibility to find out,” Schiff said. Along with incoming House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and other top Democrats, Schiff will have a mandate to serve a slew of subpoenas on the Trump administration.

But former GOP Judiciary Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who is now a Fox News contributor, told Politico in October that Cummings and Schiff shouldn’t get their hopes up.

“If [North Carolina Rep.] Mark Meadows and [Ohio Rep.] Jim Jordan can’t get documents out of the White House, I don’t know why Elijah Cummings and the Democrats think they’ll do any better,” Chaffetz said.

Still, Democrats had signaled even before last week’s midterm elections that they would aggressively investigate the Trump administration if they took power in Congress. Bogging down the White House with burdensome document requests and subpoenas could indeed backfire, political analysts tell Fox News, but there is little doubt that the strategy — made more viable by heightened partisanship and loosened congressional norms — would impair Republicans’ messaging and even policy goals for the next two years.

“Well, we are responsible,” House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who is campaigning to reclaim her role as House speaker, said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “We are not scattershot. We are not doing any investigation for a political purpose, but to seek the truth. So I think a word that you could describe about how Democrats will go forward in this regard is we will be very strategic.”

But Pelosi has previously suggested that she would, indeed, use the threat of subpoenea for political gain.

“Subpoena power is interesting, to use it or not to use it,” Pelosi said at a conference in October, referring to the authority of House committees to summon individuals and organizations to testify or provide documents under penalty of perjury. “It is a great arrow to have in your quiver in terms of negotiating on other subjects.” She added that she would use the power “strategically.” (Trump has flatly called Pelosi’s plan “illegal.”)

Pelosi’s approach would mark the continuation of a trend. Research conducted by Cornell University political science professor Douglas Kriner, who co-wrote the 2016 book “Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power,” underscores the increasingly political nature of House investigations.

“We examined every congressional investigation from 1898 to 2014 – more than 11,900 days of investigative hearings,” Kriner told Fox News. “What we found is that divided government is a major driver of investigations in the House. This is particularly true in periods of intense partisan polarization. For example, from 1981-2014, the House averaged holding 67 days of investigative hearings per year in divided government, versus only 18 per year in unified government.”

Kriner added that modern congressional probes seem geared toward “maximiz[ing] the political damage on the White House,” rather than producing more substantive results. “Investigations are less likely to trigger new legislation than in previous, less polarized eras,” Kriner told Fox News.

On Election Day, Pelosi vowed to “restor[e] the Constitution’s checks and balances to the Trump administration” by enhancing transparency and accountability. But Trump last week signaled he had no patience for that approach, which he characterized as an expensive folly.

“If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can play that game!” Trump tweeted.

November 11, 2018. Tags: , . Donald Trump. 1 comment.

Feds Now Have Evidence Trump Broke the Law to Become President

https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-now-have-evidence-trump-broke-the-law-to-become-president-will-whitaker-bury-it

Feds Now Have Evidence Trump Broke the Law to Become President. Will Whitaker Bury It?

Prosecutors won’t likely charge a sitting president, yet have implicated him in a criminal scheme to pay off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. What to do then? Go to Congress.

November 10, 2018

Friday’s in-depth Wall Street Journal report suggests the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York and the FBI appear to possess evidence of Donald Trump’s involvement in a criminal scheme that helped get him elected president. This raises serious questions about what comes next, particularly in light of Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker, a political loyalist, as acting attorney general.

Trump played a central role in hush-money payments made to Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Journal reports, adding more detail to the case of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer-lawyer who pled guilty to federal campaign finance violations in the Southern District in August.

Recall that when Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court, he stated under oath that he had made the payments “in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office”—many assumed that that candidate was Trump, of course. We now know from the Journal that the person who directed Cohen in this criminal scheme was, indeed, Donald Trump. The charging document to which Cohen pled guilty states that he “coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments.” The Journal reports that “[t]he unnamed campaign member or members referred to Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the document.”

In addition, we now know that the evidence of Trump’s involvement in this criminal scheme is not limited to Cohen. Even accounting for the likelihood that the piece relies in some part on information provided by Cohen himself, there are plenty of other sources weighing in; the reporters note they obtained information from “interviews with three dozen people who have direct knowledge of the events or who have been briefed on them, as well as court papers, corporate records and other documents.”

Of course there is an important caveat here that what can be reported in the Wall Street Journal doesn’t always translate into usable evidence in the grand jury—in other words, people who are willing to talk to the press may not be as willing or as thorough when it comes to giving testimony to federal prosecutors or a grand jury. But, the Journal article contains an important nugget along these lines: “In August, [prosecutors] outlined Mr. Trump’s role—without specifically naming him—in a roughly 80-page draft federal indictment they had been preparing to file against Mr. Cohen.” As former federal prosecutors, that tells us that the SDNY had evidence of Trump’s involvement even before Cohen pled guilty and began cooperating.

All of this, taken together, indicates that evidence of Trump’s involvement in the hush-money scheme would be a combination of witnesses and other evidence not limited to Cohen, which makes it much more difficult for Trump to brush this off as lies concocted by Cohen to save himself, which Trump’s team have already begun arguing.

And, we know more about Trump’s role in this scheme from the article. For example, the story opens with a detailed recounting of a crucial and previously unreported August 2015 meeting between Trump and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker (who reportedly has been granted immunity to testify by the SDNY) during which Trump asked Pecker how he could help the campaign. Pecker reportedly offered to use his tabloid newspaper to purchase and squash the stories of women alleging affairs with Trump (which he did months later with McDougal).

This conversation, on its own, establishes Trump’s direct involvement with and direction of the hush money payment: precisely as Cohen stated when he pled guilty and goes to the heart of the question of Trump’s intent, namely, did he know and intend that these hush money payments would benefit his campaign for president?

So, can President Trump be charged by the SDNY with a crime of violating the federal campaign finance laws? Probably not. First, even assuming that the quality of the evidence is to the level that prosecutors demand, it is currently DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president, and SDNY, fiercely independent as it is, is still part of DOJ.

If the feds have evidence of criminality but do not believe they can indict, then what becomes of the information?

If the SDNY charges other people or entities involved in the campaign finance scheme, Trump’s involvement as an unindicted co-conspirator could be laid out in those documents for the public to see. Short of that, it will be challenging for the SDNY to share its evidence and information with other authorities. Rule 6e of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure strictly governs disclosure of grand jury materials. We do not know how much, if any, of the SDNY’s evidence falls into this category. Even if it does, there is precedent in an opinion by Judge John Sirica in the Watergate case from 1974 that the SDNY grand jury could provide evidence to Congress in the form of a report. A third option is that the SDNY could share the evidence it has, pursuant to a court order, with a state prosecuting authority, such as the New York Attorney General’s Office which is not necessarily limited in its ability to charge a sitting president, assuming there are parallel state crimes.

Further complicating matters is the DOJ’s new boss, who has taken the view that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump’s finances would cross a “red line.” In 2017, Whitaker wrote an opinion piece for CNN that if Mueller’s office “were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, then this would raise serious concerns that the special counsel’s investigation was a mere witch hunt.” Will the fact that this investigation is now in the hands of the SDNY and not Mueller change that conclusion for Whitaker? It should.

But, given Whitaker’s unusually partisan past and his statements hostile to any criminal investigation of Trump, the American public and Congress need to ensure that any evidence that the SDNY possesses of Trump’s participation in an illegal campaign finance scheme to help get him elected does not get buried by political forces looking to protect him.

November 11, 2018. Tags: , . Donald Trump. 1 comment.

Trump should prosecute Barack Obama and Eric Holder for Brian Terry’s murder

In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals.

U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered with one of these guns.

The murderer was sentenced to 30 years in prison, but his accomplices, Barack Obama and Eric Holder, haven’t even been arrested or charged.

In May 2016, it was reported that newly released documents from the Department of Justice suggested that guns from Obama’s Fast And Furious program had been linked to at least 69 killings by Mexican drug cartels.

In September 2012, Obama said that Fast and Furious had “begun under the previous administration.” In reality, Fast and Furious began in October 2009.

Bush and Obama each had a program where the U.S. government put guns into the hands of Mexican criminals. Bush’s program was called “Operation Wide Receiver,” and Obama’s program was called “Operation Fast and Furious.” However, there were three major differences between the two programs:

First, Bush’s program was carried out with the knowledge, permission, and cooperation of the Mexican government, whereas Obama’s program was not. Mexican attorney general Marisela Morales told the Los Angeles Times that she first learned about Obama’s program from the news, and said, “In no way would we have allowed it, because it is an attack on the safety of Mexicans.”

Secondly, many of the guns used in Bush’s program contained radio tracking devices, whereas most of the guns used in Obama’s program did not. In addition, under Bush’s program, U.S. federal agents followed the guns to see whose hands they ended up in, whereas with Obama’s program, U.S. federal agents were ordered not to do this.

Third, Bush’s program did not cause any known deaths, whereas Obama’s program did.

In April 2016, it was reported that the Department of Justice had illegally ignored a court order to turn over certain Fast and Furious documents.

In October 2013, the ACLU announced that it would be defending John Dodson’s first amendment right to free speech, against the Obama administration, which was trying to prevent Dodson from publishing a book about Obama’s Fast and Furious scandal.

Obama illegally ignored Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information requests regarding Fast and Furious.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder illegally refused to release 1,300 pages of information on Operation Fast and Furious, even after he had been subpoenaed to do so.

On October 3, 2011, CBS News aired a story by Sharyl Attkisson which showed that Attorney General Eric Holder had lied under oath regarding Fast and Furious. The report can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JaDEShZIvQ

On October 4, 2011, Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, wrote the following in an email to White House Deputy Press Sectary Eric Schultz:

“I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to Scheiffer. She’s out of control.”

Schultz responded with an email that said:

“Good. Her piece was really bad for the AG.”

Afterward, CBS made it harder and harder for Attkisson to do reports on Fast and Furious, and she eventually quit her job at CBS.

October 4, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Guns, Violent crime. 1 comment.

Trump is threatening to sue the New York Times for defamation. By comparison, here are 11 times that Obama tried to prevent the media from telling the truth.

The New York Times claims that it just found information which proves that Donald Trump broke the law regarding his taxes. Trump responded by threatening to sue the paper for defamation if they published this information.

Here’s the great thing about defamation law: even if Trump does carry out his threat and files the lawsuit, the only thing the New York Times needs in order to defend itself is for its claim about Trump to be true. As long as the Times’s claim is true, there is nothing that Trump can do to the paper.

Trump is against defamation, which involves saying things that are false.

By comparison, the Obama administration tried to prevent the media from publishing things that were true.

Here are 11 different real world examples of this, as documented in my book The Least Transparent Administration in History.

1) Tried to silence criticism of auto-bailouts

The Obama administration pressured Ford Motor Company to stop airing a TV ad that criticized Obama’s bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler.

2) Complained to YouTube about an anti-Muslim video

In September 2012, the Obama administration phoned YouTube to complain about an anti-Muslim video.

Ben Wizner of the ACLU said that of this

“It does make us nervous when the government throws its weight behind any requests for censorship.”

Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said of this

“I am actually kind of distressed by this… Even though there are all these great quotes from inside the White House saying they support free speech….by calling YouTube from the White House, they were sending a message no matter how much they say we don’t want them to take it down, when the White House calls and asks you to review it, it sends a message and has a certain chilling effect.”

3) Tried to censor the Washington Post

In August 2013, the Washington Post reported:

The Obama administration referred all questions for this article to John DeLong, the NSA’s director of compliance, who answered questions freely in a 90-minute interview. DeLong and members of the NSA communications staff said he could be quoted “by name and title” on some of his answers after an unspecified internal review. The Post said it would not permit the editing of quotes. Two days later, White House and NSA spokesmen said that none of DeLong’s comments could be quoted on the record and sent instead a prepared statement in his name. The Post declines to accept the substitute language as quotations from DeLong.

4) Tried to censor the AFL-CIO

In September 2013, Associated Press reported:

The AFL-CIO on Wednesday approved a resolution critical of parts of President Barack Obama’s health care law in spite of efforts by White House officials to discourage the labor federation from making its concerns so prominent.

The strongly worded resolution says the Affordable Care Act will drive up the costs of union-sponsored health plans to the point that workers and employers are forced to abandon them. Labor unions still support the law’s overall goals of reducing health costs and bringing coverage to all Americans, the resolution says, but adds that the law is being implemented in a way that is “highly disruptive” to union health care plans.

Some individual unions have complained about the law’s impact for months. The resolution marks the first time the nation’s largest labor federation has gone on record embracing that view. Unions were among the most enthusiastic backers of the law when it passed in 2010.

A labor official told The Associated Press that White House officials had been calling labor leaders for days to urge them not to voice their concerns in the form of a resolution.

5) Tried to censor a book about the “Fast and Furious” scandal

In October 2013, the ACLU announced that it would be defending John Dodson’s first amendment right to free speech, against the Obama administration, which was trying to prevent Dodson from publishing a book about Obama’s “Fast and Furious” scandal.

6) Told reporters to stop reporting his low poll numbers

In Decmember 2013, Joel Benenson, Obama’s pollster, told reporters to stop reporting Obama’s low poll numbers.

7) Tried to censor the Center for American Progress

In March 2014, it was reported that the Obama administration had called the Center for American Progress to complain about its accurate report that Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan had more troops than the highest number during Bush’s presidency.

8) Tried to censor the ACLU and NAACP

In March 2014, it was reported that the ACLU and the NAACP had criticized the Obama administration’s proposal for new regulations that would restrict the speech of non-profit organizations during election campaigns.

9) Prohibited members of the media from bringing cameras or audio recorders when they visited a shelter housing illegal aliens

In July 2014, it was reported that Obama had prohibited members of the media from bringing cameras or audio recorders when they visited a shelter housing illegal aliens.

10) Illegally tried to block a Freedom of Information release of the video that showed Michael Brown committing theft and assault

On August 15, 2014, NRP reported:

[Ferguson Police Chief Thomas] Jackson said he had gotten numerous Freedom of Information Act requests from the media to release the video. “I had to release it,” he said.

“I had been sitting on it and too many people put in FOIA requests for it and I had to release it,” he said.

On August 16, 2014, CBS News reported:

Feds opposed releasing Ferguson robbery video

Federal authorities opposed Friday’s release of a surveillance video showing a man resembling Michael Brown committing a robbery at a convenience store in Ferguson, Mo., CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports.

The Justice Department asked Ferguson police not to release the video, believing that it would roil the community further, and were able to successfully prevent the video from being released Thursday, the U.S. law enforcement official said.

Friday’s release occurred over the objection of federal authorities, the official said.

Here is the video that Obama illegally tried to prevent people from seeing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2z5-H8NSGA

11) Ordered reporters to stop filming Michelle Obama on a public sidewalk at Martha’s Vineyard

In August 2014, the Obama administration ordered reporters to stop filming Michelle Obama on a public sidewalk at Martha’s Vineyard.

October 4, 2018. Tags: , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump. Leave a comment.

Kavanaugh accuser asks Senate to limit press access for hearing

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/25/accuser-senate-limit-press-kavanaugh-hearing/

Kavanaugh accuser asks Senate to limit press access for hearing

September 25, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers have asked senators to limit the press who will be allowed in the room to cover Thursday’s hearing with her and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and sought to dictate at least some of the outlets.

Coverage is one of a number of issues Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers are negotiating with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter.

Those emails were among several seen by The Washington Times detailing the tense negotiations between Ms. Blasey Ford’s team and committee staff.

While committees sometimes limit press based on space at hearings, and some witnesses have arranged to have their identities shielded, longtime Capitol Hill watchers struggled to think of precedent for a witness dictating terms of press coverage.

In Ms. Blasey Ford’s case she has received threats since she went public with her story, and her team has insisted the committee guarantee her safety as she testifies, as well as limited access to the hearing.

Ms. Blasey Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of an attempted sexual assault at a party when they were both high school students in the early 1980s. He has vehemently denied the accusation, and as yet no contemporaneous witness has come forward to verify her allegations.

She has agreed to testify but has laid out a number of parameters and is objecting to some of Republicans’ plans.

One major sticking point is the GOP’s plans to use a female lawyer hired specifically for this hearing to ask questions on behalf of the Republican senators. That lawyer will question both Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Blasey Ford, according to one email from Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations to Chairman Chuck Grassley.

Debra Katz, another of Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers, said in a Tuesday morning message they still haven’t been told who that outside lawyer will be.

“Please let us know if you have similarly withheld the name of this person from Mr. Kavanaugh and his counsel. If you have not, which we assume to be the case, can you please explain the disparate treatment?” she wrote. “Please also advise whether Mr. Kavanaugh and his counsel have been given an opportunity to meet with this individual. We would similarly like the opportunity to meet with her at her soonest availability.”

She said in the email that Mr. Davis was refusing to talk by phone, so Ms. Blasey Ford’s team was asking for an in-person meeting.

A spokesman for Mr. Grassley didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/

10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of assault have been documented.

By Adam Mill

September 25, 2018

I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.

My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.

Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.

I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.

When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.

Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.

1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.

Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.

2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.

For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.

3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.

The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.

4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.

The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the press as “uncooperative.” If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.

5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.

Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courts on college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s a red flag.

6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.

In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.

7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.

It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of the process that’s already in place.

8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained.

In the Duke lacrosse case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers. Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.

9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.

10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.

It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations.

These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.

Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Alan Dershowitz: Six rules for conducting the Christine Blasey Ford-Brett Kavanaugh hearings

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/09/22/six-rules-for-conducting-ford-kavanaugh-hearings/ceJUeP97WOmIcKquyMIhzO/story.html

Six rules for conducting the Christine Blasey Ford-Brett Kavanaugh hearings

By Alan M. Dershowitz

September 22, 2018

It’s not surprising that each side of the Ford/Kavanaugh he said/she said dispute is seeking different procedures. This is an adversarial high-stakes confrontation between a male Supreme Court justice nominee and his female accuser. Reasonable people could disagree about the appropriate procedural steps, but there are basic rules that must be followed for hearings of this kind to be fair.

Rule 1: No one should presume that either party is lying or telling the truth. There is no gender-based gene for truth telling. Some women tell the truth; some women lie. Some men tell the truth; some men lie. Without hearing any evidence under oath, and subject to cross-examination, no reasonable person should declare psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford to be a victim or federal judge Brett Kavanaugh to be a perpetrator. Nor should anybody declare the opposite. The issue is an evidentiary one and evidence must be heard and subject to rigorous cross-examination, preferably by an experienced and sensitive female litigator.

Rule 2: The accuser must always testify first, and be subject to cross examination. The accused must then be allowed to respond to the accusation and also be subject to cross-examination. In the bad old days of the Inquisition, the accused was required to testify first without even knowing the grounds of the accusation. The rule of law in the United States had always been the opposite. The accuser accuses first and the accused then has an opportunity to respond to all accusations.

Rule 3: Political considerations should not enter into he said/she said decision making. Fact-finders and investigators must take as much time as necessary to get as close to the truth as possible, without regard to whether this helps the Democrats or the Republican or particular candidates. There should be no deadlines designed to influence the mid-term elections. Both sides should be given as much time as is reasonable to make their cases and no decision should be made until each side has had that opportunity.

Rule 4: Everybody must be willing to accept the “shoe on the other foot test.” The same rules that would apply if a liberal Democrat had been nominated by a liberal Democratic president must be applied to a conservative Republican candidate nominated by a Republican president. There can’t be one rule for the left and a different one for the right. The rule of law must apply equally in all situations.

Rule 5: The standard for proving a serious sexual allegation must be high. In a criminal case, the evidence must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. “Better ten guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted.” That standard must vary with the consequences to both sides. On university campuses, for example, the standard for proving a charge of sexual assault that could result in expulsion should be close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, perhaps “clear and convincing evidence.”

But it should never be “a mere preponderance of the evidence,” because that means no more than a 51 percent likelihood that the sexual assault occurred. Under that low preponderance standard, 49 out of every 100 people convicted may well be innocent. That is far too high a percentage.

What about when the issue is suitability to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? The consequences of an erroneous decision are high on all sides. A nominee rejected for a false allegation of sexual assault will suffer grievous reputational and career consequences. But so will the woman whose accusations are deemed untruthful. There is also the consequence of having a Supreme Court justice serve for many years if he was a sexual assailant. On balance, the standard should be higher than proof by a mere preponderance. It should come close to clear and convincing evidence, especially if the allegation is decades old and the nominee has lived an exemplary life ever since.

Rule 6: No material information should be withheld from either side. Each side should have a full opportunity to examine inculpatory, exculpatory or otherwise relevant material that may have an impact on the truth-finding process. Specifically, the letter written to Senator Dianne Feinstein must be disclosed to Judge Kavanaugh and to the Senators. Ideally it should also be shared with the public as well, but if there is any highly embarrassing and personal information that is not relevant, it could be redacted.

Doubts should be resolved in favor of disclosure because Ford came forward voluntarily with her accusation, thus waiving any right to privacy. Kavanaugh too has waived his privacy rights by being a candidate for the Supreme Court, and any information relevant to his activities, even 36 years ago, should be disclosed.

If these neutral rules are followed, the process may end up being fair to both sides. All Americans have a stake in the fairness of this process and no one should compromise the basic rules of fairness and due process that have long been the hallmarks of the rule of law.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Man Apologizes For Claiming Kavanaugh Sexually Assaulted His Friend, Says He ‘Made A Mistake’

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/26/rhode-island-kavanaugh-made-a-mistake/

Man Apologizes For Claiming Kavanaugh Sexually Assaulted His Friend, Says He ‘Made A Mistake’

September 26, 2018

A Rhode Island man who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting his friend apologized on Wednesday and said he “made a mistake.”

The man called Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s office and claimed that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, a high school friend of Kavanaugh, drunkenly sexually assaulted one of his friends, according to interview transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A committee investigator asked Kavanaugh about the allegation during an interview on Tuesday, which he denied.

The man’s name was redacted in the transcripts released to the public but the investigator quoted verbatim several outlandish anti-Trump tweets from the man’s Twitter account, allowing reporters to identify him on Twitter as “Jeffrey Catalan.”

“Dear Pentagon, please save my country from the parasite that occupies the White House,” Catalan wrote in one tweet. “Our [sic] you waiting until Russians parachute in like in Red Dawn? Please help!”

After Catalan started getting attention on Twitter, he publicly stated that he had recanted the accusation.

“Do [sic] everyone who is going crazy about what I had said I have recanted because I have made a mistake and apologize for such mistake,” he wrote.

The committee is set to hear testimony on Thursday in a separate and unrelated accusation against Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly trying to force himself on her while the two were in high school, will both testify before the committee. Kavanaugh has adamantly denied Ford’s accusation.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-two-men-say-they-had-disputed-sexual-encounter-christine-ford/1439569002/

Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

September 26, 2018

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations.

The revelation was included in a late-night news release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the committee. The release includes a day-by-day view of the committee’s investigative work over the last two weeks since allegations surfaced targeting Kavanaugh.

Ford was the first to step forward with allegations and claimed Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982. Since then a number of accusations have piled on, including that of a physical assault and several other sexual encounters.

Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied all the allegations lodged against him.

The committee has interviewed two men who came forward about the disputed assault at a summer house party. Both told the committee they, not Kavanaugh, “had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his complaint,” the release states.

The previously unknown interviews could add a new layer to the evolving saga on the eve of a possible explosive hearing between Kavanaugh and Ford, though it’s unknown whether the men’s claims are being taken seriously.

One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday.

Committee staff spoke to a second man over the phone Wednesday who also said he believed he, not Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Ford. “He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter” to staff, the release states.

Both men were not named. USA TODAY was not able to independently vet the claims.

The committee has said it is investigating all claims made in the Kavanaugh saga, attempting to “make sure no stone was left unturned.”

In this regard, the committee has also questioned Kavanaugh about a series of anonymous allegations, including a physical assault on a woman in the 1990s.

The release also outlines a number of others the committee has interviewed, including friends of Kavanaugh and those who know the women who have lodged accusations against him.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Trump should withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination, and nominate Ann Coulter instead

President Trump should withdraw Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, and nominate Ann Coulter instead.

September 25, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism. Leave a comment.

43% of Republicans say Trump should be allowed to shut down media

These Republicans are the very definition of fascism.

 

https://nypost.com/2018/08/07/43-of-republicans-say-trump-should-be-allowed-to-shut-down-media/

43% of Republicans say Trump should be allowed to shut down media

August 7, 2018

President Trump’s repeated cries of “fake news” and attacks on journalists as “enemies of the American people” have resonated with his base, with 43 percent of Republicans saying he “should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.”

The results — suggesting that a plurality of Republicans would have no problem trashing the First Amendment — came from a stunning new poll conducted by Ipsos and reported Tuesday by the Daily Beast.

The survey also showed that just 36 percent of GOP voters disagreed with that statement.

When asked if Trump should close down specific news organizations, such as CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times — all frequent Trump targets — 23 percent of GOP voters agreed while 49 percent did not.

Overall, Republicans were more likely to take a dim view of the media, the website reported.

Forty-eight percent said they believed “the news media is the enemy of the American people,” with only 28 percent disagreeing.

Nearly four out of five — 79 percent — said that they believed “the mainstream media treats President Trump unfairly.”

The commander-in-chief — who as recently as January called existing US libel laws “a sham and a disgrace” — has routinely accused journalists of lying, making up sources and knowingly reporting false information to make him look bad.

“The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it’s TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!” he ranted Sunday in a typical media-bashing tweet.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders recently refused to respond when she was asked if she thought journalists were the enemies of the people — though first daughter Ivanka Trump said she disagreed with the characterization.

But it’s not only Republicans who think the president should have the power to muzzle the media, a common practice in dictatorships and authoritarian states like Russia, North Korea and China.

According to the survey, 12 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of independents agreed that “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.”

Conversely, 74 percent of Dems and 55 percent of independents disagreed with the statement.

But 12 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of independents agreed that “the news media is the enemy of the American people,” while 74 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of independents disagreed.

But there were kernels of positive news for the press in the survey as well.

Overall, 57 percent of those surveyed said they believed the news media and reporters were “necessary to keep the Trump administration honest” — including a 39 percent plurality of Republicans.

And a large majority — 85 percent — believed that “freedom of the press is essential for American democracy,” compared to 4 percent who opposed that statement.

The 43 percent figure roughly corresponds to the president’s loyal base.

Gallup’s most recent weekly tracking poll showed that 41 percent of voters approved of the job Trump is doing while 54 percent disapproved.

 

August 10, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Police state. Leave a comment.

Trump falsely says “If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/trump-grocery-shopping-id/index.html

Trump claims you need ID to buy groceries. You do not.

August 1, 2018

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump used an odd example Tuesday night to call for stronger voter ID laws, saying that identification is required for buying groceries.

There is no such requirement.

“We believe that only American citizens should vote in American elections, which is why the time has come for voter ID, like everything else. Voter ID,” Trump told the crowd of supporters gathered at the Florida State Fairgrounds.

“You know, if you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID,” Trump continued. “You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture.”

He added that “the only time you don’t need it in many cases is when you want to vote for a president, when you want to vote for a senator, when you want to vote for a governor or a congressman. It’s crazy.”

Photo ID is required when purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, and occasionally when verifying purchases made with a credit card. In a small number of states, identification photos are included on food stamp cards for low income families, and several chains, such as Costco, may require identification when applying for membership.

Asked about the remark Wednesday afternoon, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump was referring to liquor purchases.

“If you go to a grocery store and you buy beer or wine, you’re certainly going to show your ID,” Sanders said. “He’s not saying every time he went in. He said, ‘When you go to the grocery store.’ I’m pretty sure that everybody in here who’s been to a grocery store that’s purchased beer or wine has probably had to show their ID. If they didn’t, then that’s probably a problem with the grocery store.”

Trump has repeatedly railed against a “rigged” system that he claims, without evidence, allows people to vote illegally. A widely criticized commission Trump established to look into the matter dissolved in January due to what the White House described as “endless legal battles at taxpayer expense.”

August 3, 2018. Tags: , . Donald Trump. 2 comments.

Trump wants to give $12 billion of taxpayers’ money to help farmers who were hurt by Trump’s own trade war

I’m against trade barriers, and I’m also against farm subsidies.

Trump was wrong to start this trade war, and he’s also wrong to use taxpayers’ money to help farmers who were hurt by his trade war.

 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-farmers/trump-wants-12-billion-in-aid-to-u-s-farmers-suffering-from-trade-war-idUSKBN1KE1YE

Trump wants $12 billion in aid to U.S. farmers suffering from trade war

July 24, 2018

WASHINGTON/KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) – The Trump administration on Tuesday said it will use a Great Depression-era program to pay up to $12 billion to help U.S. farmers weather a growing trade war with China, the European Union and others that the president began.
(more…)

August 2, 2018. Tags: , , , , . Donald Trump. 1 comment.

Trump has a new proposal for dealing with undocumented immigrants

President Trump has a pretty nasty proposal for dealing with undocumented immigrants who try to climb over the border wall that he is planning to build.

On the positive side, at least he lets family members stay together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ghNBhlzAQ

 

July 28, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Humor, Immigration, Television. Leave a comment.

Attention Peter Fonda! It was Obama – not Trump – who gave child molesters access to the children of illegal aliens.

Peter Fonda recently said:

“We should rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles.”

On January 28, 2016, the Washington Post reported:

Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says

The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers…

The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children…

It detailed nearly 30 cases where unaccompanied children had been trafficked after federal officials released them to sponsors or where there were “serious trafficking indicators.”

 

June 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump. Leave a comment.

Shame on Trump for continuing Obama’s insane policy of hiring air-traffic controllers based on race instead of merit!

When Obama was president, he abandoned the old system of hiring qualified air-traffic controllers who had a college degree in air-traffic control and/or were military veterans with aviation experience, because too many of these people were white males. Obama then replaced the old system with a new system that tried to achieve racial diversity by asking applicants how many different sports they had played when they were in high school. I explain this below in detail.

But first, I want to post this new video from Fox News, which shows that Trump is continuing with Obama’s ridiculous policy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh9SxqsQdpo

The Wall St. Journal has also written an article about Trump’s continuation of Obama’s absurd policy, which you can read at this link.

Now, to explain Obama’s policy in detail.

When Obama was president, the Federal Aviation Administration stopped giving preferential treatment to air-traffic controller applicants who had passed classes from the 36 FAA-approved college aviation programs across the U.S., because too many of the people who passed these classes were white males.

At the same time, the FAA also stopped giving preference to applicants who were military veterans with aviation experience.

Under the new system, applicants were asked how many different high school sports they had participated in.

In 2014, the Wall St. Journal reported:

For years, aspiring air-traffic controllers in the U.S. have enrolled in schools selected by the Federal Aviation Administration to offer special courses that could smooth the way for a job at the agency.

But at the end of December, the FAA abruptly ended that special status for the 36 participating colleges and universities…

… some critics suspect it is intended partly to increase the share of minorities and women among controllers, who are now 83% male and white…

Some school officials say their controller enrollment already has fallen off because of the FAA change.

The FAA’s new stance “just doesn’t make sense,” said Douglas Williams, aviation-program director at the Community College of Baltimore County in Catonsville, Md… “They’re not getting the best-qualified applicants this way,” he said.

Students who have studied for the controller degrees fear they wasted time and money. Navy veteran Oscar Vega recently completed the two-year air-traffic program at Mt. San Antonio College in Walnut, Calif. He said he passed the FAA controller aptitude test last year, so he was shocked when, in February, he failed the biographical assessment.

“They say you can take it again,” said the 28-year-old. “But it’s not a test you can study for. And we don’t know why we failed because we don’t get any feedback.”

The schools estimate that more than 3,000 graduates have been removed from the FAA’s hiring pool because of the new policy.

In 2014, the Chicago Tribune reported:

More than half of the latest batch of air-traffic controller job offers nationwide went to people with no aviation experience…

The hiring breakdown marks a major shift in FAA recruitment strategy, which is now geared toward… attracting more minorities and women to the nation’s largely white and male controller work force

For almost the last 25 years, until the off-the-street hiring process was implemented in February, the FAA recruited controllers heavily from among military veterans possessing aviation experience and from the 36 FAA-approved college aviation programs across the U.S.

A sample version of the new test includes the following question:

21. The number of different high school sports I participated in was:

A- 4 or more

B- 3

C- 2

D- 1

E- didn’t play sports

Trump has now been president for more than a year, and this policy remains in place.

Shame on Trump for continuing Obama’s insane policy of hiring air-traffic controllers based on race instead of merit!

 

June 6, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Dumbing down, Education, Politics, Racism. Leave a comment.

Wall St. Journal: The Airport Control Tower Is No Place for Racial Redress

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-airport-control-tower-is-no-place-for-racial-redress-1528240025

The Airport Control Tower Is No Place for Racial Redress

The Obama FAA grounded qualified candidates in the name of justice. Why isn’t Trump moving to reverse?

June 5, 2018

Andrew Brigida is the son of a former New York City police officer. When he was 12, his family moved to a suburb of Phoenix, and at the urging of a neighbor he decided to become an air-traffic controller. In 2013 he graduated with two aviation-related bachelor’s degrees from Arizona State University, one of the dozens of schools with which the Federal Aviation Administration has partnerships to vet candidates for its air-traffic-control training program.

Graduates of these Collegiate Training Initiative schools then must pass the Air Traffic Selection and Training exam, or AT-SAT. This eight-hour test is designed to assess numeric ability, tolerance for high-intensity work, capacity for solving problems, and so forth. The goal is to determine their likelihood of completing the requisite training to become an air-traffic controller. Training a controller is expensive—on average it costs more than $400,000—and the CTI system has proved an accurate predictor of who’s got what it takes.

Mr. Brigida completed the college program, aced the AT-SAT and received a strong recommendation from an academic adviser. He was then placed on a list with other prospective controllers, who would be sent to Oklahoma City for the mandated 15 weeks of training. Five years later, Mr. Brigida still is not working as an air-traffic controller. What happened is the Obama administration.

In 2013 the Obama FAA changed the process for hiring controllers and then applied the new policy retroactively. No longer would the FAA give hiring preference to applicants with degrees from CTI schools or military experience, as it had in the past. In order to foster “diversity” in control towers, the agency would move away from merit-based hiring and toward more subjective measures. To attract a higher percentage of candidates from racial and ethnic minorities, a “biographical questionnaire,” or BQ, was added to the screening process. Applicants were asked about their upbringing, family hardship and the like. Those who didn’t score well enough on the BQ were deemed ineligible, regardless of how well they had performed on tests measuring cognitive skills.

What’s worse, Mr. Brigida and some 2,600 others already on the FAA referral list were notified that their AT-SAT results would be tossed and that they would need to reapply. Mr. Brigida did so but was told that he had failed the BQ and was no longer eligible to become an air-traffic controller.

“The most shocking thing to me is that nobody in that room when this change was decided—not the secretary of transportation, not the head of the FAA—raised his hand and said that we’re talking about airline safety here,” said William Perry Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a public-interest law firm that is representing Mr. Brigida and other plaintiffs in a discrimination lawsuit against the federal government. “We’re not talking about somebody driving a truck. We’re talking about somebody guiding an aircraft into snowbound Chicago.”

Equally shocking is the revelation that the Trump administration is fighting in court to preserve the Obama-era policy. Like its predecessor, this administration is ignoring the fact that thousands of people like Mr. Brigida dedicated years of their lives to getting the proper schooling—in some cases incurring significant debt—only to see the rules changed in the middle of the game. Moreover, the changes weren’t to streamline the process or improve safety but rather to achieve what the government decided (for now) is the “right” racial mix.

The Trump administration should be returning to a sensible system that prioritizes objective measures of competence. After all, being a controller means making life-or-death decisions on a regular basis. Instead, the administration has opted to preserve a policy that in practice amounts to thinly disguised discrimination in the service of boosting the number of minority air-traffic controllers.

The Trump administration didn’t respond to my questions about the case, but the proper course of action is clear: Settle with Mr. Brigida and the thousands of other eminently qualified plaintiffs. Allow them to embark on careers as air-traffic controllers. And then reverse the wrongheaded and potentially dangerous hiring procedures implemented by an Obama administration obsessed with racial balance.

Mr. Pendley believes that his clients are victims of blatant racial discrimination and that the FAA’s current hiring practices won’t withstand scrutiny by the courts. If you care more about your plane landing safely than about the racial makeup of folks manning the airport control tower, you should hope his lawsuit succeeds.

 

June 6, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Racism. Leave a comment.

Media bias: United Nations “expert” and Reuters falsely blame Trump for poverty that occurred while Obama was President

Reuters just published this article, which was written by Stephanie Nebehay, and is titled:

America’s poor becoming more destitute under Trump: U.N. expert

The article’s first paragraph states:

GENEVA (Reuters) – Poverty in the United States is extensive and deepening under the Trump administration whose policies seem aimed at removing the safety net from millions of poor people, while rewarding the rich, a U.N. human rights investigator has found.

For the next seven paragraphs, the article goes on and on with United Nations “expert” Philip Alston explaining how poverty is getting worse under Trump.

Not until the ninth paragraph does the article admit that none of the poverty that’s mentioned in the first eight paragraphs or the article’s title has anything to do with Trump. The ninth paragraph states:

However, the data from the U.S. Census Bureau he cited covers only the period through 2016, and he gave no comparative figures for before and after Trump came into office in January 2017.

This media bias is disgusting.

If Reuters was interested in telling the truth, then the article’s title and first eight paragraphs would have mentioned Obama instead of Trump.

 

June 2, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Media bias. 1 comment.

How is liberals’ ranking of the best and worst countries any less “racist” than Trump’s recent statement?

Liberals are accusing Trump of “racism” because he recently said that Norway was better than Haiti.

But check this out. This chart was published by the left wing The Nation two years ago. It shows what liberals consider to be the 10 best and 10 worst countries:

https://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-fel

t-backward-heres-why/


How is the liberals’ ranking of the best and worst countries any less “racist” then Trump’s recent statement?

Why do liberals think that all the best countries are ones that are white majority?

Why isn’t liberals’ so-called love of diversity represented in that chart?

Why is it that when all those famous liberal celebrities promised to move out of the U.S. if Trump was elected (a promise which 100% of them broke), they all cited white majority countries as their new home (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) instead of, oh, say, Haiti?

January 16, 2018. Tags: , , , , . Donald Trump, Racism. 4 comments.

The following rich liberal hypocrites who criticized Trump’s “tax cuts for the rich” have all used legal tax shelters to legally lower their own taxes

Liberals are criticizing Trump’s “tax cuts for the rich.” But this is how these liberals actually behave. The following rich liberals have all used legal tax shelters to legally lower their own taxes. I am not criticizing their legal use of these legal tax shelters. I am criticizing their hypocrisy:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The Weekly Standard reports:

Disclosure forms reveal that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Florida, previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India. This revelation comes mere days after the Democratic chair attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for holding money in Swiss bank accounts in the past.

Nancy Pelosi

The Daily Caller reports:

According to Pelosi’s 2011 financial disclosure statement, the Democratic House Minority Leader received between $1 million and $5 million in partnership income from ”Matthews International Capital Management LLC,” a group that emphasizes that it has a “A Singular Focus on Investing in Asia.”A quick trip to the company website reveals a featured post extolling the virtues of outsourcing.

Valerie Jarrett

fireandreamitchell.com reports:

Top Obama adviser and BFF Valerie Jarrett has a line of credit from a Bermuda insurance company valued between $100,000 and a quarter of a million dollars.

Barack Obama

Fox News reports:

President Obama and his wife, Michele, gave a total of $48,000 in tax-free gifts to their daughters, according to tax records made public on Friday.The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.There is nothing illegal about the president’s taking advantage of this tax shelter, but it does raise eyebrows given that he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy—“millionaires and billionaires” like himself—to pay less in taxes.

Noam Chomsky

The Hoover Institution reports:

One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest 1 percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor—like 80 percent of the population—pay off the rich.”

But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning,” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.

Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.

When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,” he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam.

John Kerry

The Boston Globe reports:

Documents obtained by the Globe detail John Kerry’s 1983 investment of between $25,000 and $30,000 in offshore companies registered in the Cayman Islands. The document below, signed by Kerry, shows his pledge to purchase 2,470 shares of Peabody Commodities Trading Corp. through Sytel Traders, registered in the Caymans.

Barney Frank

National Review reports:

When Massachusetts cut its top tax rate to 5.3 percent in 2001, it let guilty liberals pay the old 5.85 percent rate if they wished… Pro-tax U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) spurned the higher rate. “No, I won’t” pay some $800 extra, Frank told Boston radio host Howie Carr in April 2003.

Michael Moore

ihatethemedia.com reports:

Moore’s most recent effort, Capitalism: A Love Story, took aim at businesses that used shelters to avoid paying taxes and took government bailouts during the market crash.

The thing is, Moore used similar tactics, taking advantage of a Michigan tax break to fund the making of his film–which raked in millions, by the way. Michigan taxpayers–already hit hard with the collapsing auto industry–were left holding the funny money bag for that one.

Bill Clinton

USA Today reports:

Former president Bill Clinton once made public a tax return on which he deducted $2 apiece for donated underwear.

December 27, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump. Leave a comment.

I’m not sure if I agree or disagree with Trump for rescuing the UCLA shoplifters from China

I understand why Trump rescued these guys.

But I’m not sure if I agree, or disagree, with what Trump did.

If they hadn’t been famous athletes, would Trump still have rescued them?

What kind of a message does this send? That’s it’s OK to break the law because you won’t have to pay the price?

And how dumb would someone have to be to shoplift in China, where the punishment is far more severe than in the U.S.?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ucla-basketball-players-admit-shoplifting-china-trump/story?id=51164270

UCLA basketball players admit to shoplifting in China, thank Trump

November 15, 2017

The three UCLA basketball players detained in China last week have admitted to shoplifting and thanked President Donald Trump for helping them return to the U.S.

The players are suspended indefinitely as UCLA reviews the situation, Coach Steve Alford said, adding they will not travel with the team and will not suit up for home games.

Last week, while in China for a game against Georgia Tech, the three players, LiAngelo Ball, Jalen Hill and Cody Riley, were detained for questioning following shoplifting allegations. The rest of the UCLA team returned home without them on Saturday. Ball, Hill and Riley returned to Los Angeles on Tuesday.

At today’s press conference Riley said he takes “full responsibility for the mistake I have made — shoplifting,” and said he is “embarrassed” and “ashamed.”

Riley thanked the Chinese police and government for taking care of them and he also thanked Trump and the U.S. government for intervening “on our behalf.”

“We really appreciate you helping us out,” he said.

“I will never do anything again to jeopardize UCLA’s reputation,” Riley said.

Ball apologized for “stealing” from the stores in China, calling it a “stupid decision.”

Ball said he “didn’t exercise my best judgment,” adding, “I’ve learned my lesson.”

He also thanked Trump and the U.S. government for helping and said he takes “full responsibility” for his actions.

Hill admitted to shoplifting and thanked the president as well, describing his actions as “stupid” and “childish.”

Alford called the players “good young men” who “exercised an inexcusable lapse of judgment.” The coach, who also apologized on their behalf, said he’s “extremely disappointed” and said the players “let a lot of people down.”

The shoplifting took place on Nov. 6, UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero said.

On Nov. 7, police arrived at their hotel to interview students and search bags and the team bus, and once the three suspects were identified, they were escorted to a police station, Guerrero said.

On Nov. 8, the students were released on bail and surrendered their passports, he said.

On Tuesday, local authorities confirmed the students were free to leave the country, and the charges were withdrawn, he said.

Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott said in a statement Tuesday that “the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Chinese authorities.”

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block said Tuesday, “Our primary concern remains the safety and well-being of all members of our community, particularly our students. I am grateful they are headed home.”

Block added, “When members of the UCLA family fail to uphold these values, we review these incidents with fair and thorough processes. In this particular case, both Athletics and the Office of Student Conduct will review this incident and guide any action with respect to the involved students. Such proceedings are confidential, which limits the specific information that can be shared.”

Trump on Tuesday said he personally appealed to China’s President Xi Jingping to help resolve the case. The president said Xi was “terrific” in response to his request and indicated he would intervene.

Today, hours before that players’ press conference, Trump tweeted, “Do you think the three UCLA Basketball Players will say thank you President Trump? They were headed for 10 years in jail!”

November 15, 2017. Tags: , , , . Donald Trump, Sports. Leave a comment.

Donald Trump threatens to shut down NBC and other TV news networks that criticise him

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-threatens-shut-down-150300346.html

Donald Trump threatens to shut down NBC and other TV news networks that criticise him

October 11, 2017

Donald Trump has threatened to shut down NBC and other American networks, saying that they peddle fake news.

“With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!” Mr Trump wrote in a tweet.
(more…)

October 16, 2017. Tags: , , , , . Donald Trump, Police state. Leave a comment.

Social justice warrior Edith Macias might be charged with a felony for stealing someone’s Trump hat

In the video below, which was recently filmed at UC Riverside, social justice warrior Edith Macias spends nine minutes explaining why she stole a Trump hat right off the head of a Trump supporter.

Macias takes the hat to campus authorities, under the belief that they will take her side.

But they don’t. Instead, they take the side of the hat owner, get him his hat back, and call the campus police.

Originally, the owner of the hat was not planning to press charges.

However, after Macias put a video online where she encouraged other people to steal people’s Trump hats, the owner of the hat changed his mind, and is pressing charges. Macias could be charged with a felony.

Meanwhile, Macias continues to claim that she is the victim. And her friends are demanding that the school pay for a safe place for her and her family to live, as well as pay for the cost of her current residence.

I’m no legal expert. At first, I thought that a felony charge seemed kind of severe for stealing someone’s hat. However, the fact that Macias has gone online and incited other people to steal people’s Trump hats makes me have no problem with her getting a felony charge. She still shows no remorse for what she has done, and, on the contrary, seems to be quite proud of it. That’s a shame. I think she just ruined any chance she had of living a decent life, or getting a college education.

If she is convicted, I hope her sentence is to write a 500 word essay on why it’s wrong to steal other people’s personal property. And then the essay should be put online for everyone to see. I think that would be a much more appropriate sentence than prison, especially for a first time, non-violent offender. Besides, it would be cruel and unusual punishment for the other prisoners if they were forced to live with her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2T4b14WbY

 

October 6, 2017. Tags: , , , , , . Donald Trump, Racism, Social justice warriors. 4 comments.

Trump gives no-bid “fraud prevention” contract to Equifax to “protect” the identities of taxpayers

(more…)

October 4, 2017. Tags: , , . Donald Trump. Leave a comment.

Video: social justice warrior spends nine minutes explaining why she stole hat from Trump supporter

In this video, a social justice warrior spends nine minutes explaining why she stole a hat from a Trump supporter.

The thief takes the hat to campus authorities, thinking that they will take her side.

But they don’t. Instead, they take the side of the hat owner, get him his hat back, and call the campus police.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2T4b14WbY

 

September 28, 2017. Tags: , , , , . Donald Trump, Political correctness, Racism, Social justice warriors. Leave a comment.

Next Page »