Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	1/9/2017 5:17:20 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 353554

That actually smells like fake news.

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/1/2018 7:38:43 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Respond to of 353554

Lou Dobbs Discusses the FBI Investigation That Never Happened theconservativetreehouse.com This is the hidden story that could lead to a criminal probe of Loretta Lynch and James Comey Tonight on his TV show, Lou Dobbs highlighted the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton that never took place. WATCH . CTH decided to go back through two years of documents, releases, reports, testimony, media interviews; including interviews with fired FBI Director James Comey; question all prior assumptions; re-examine the entire framework within all the known granular DOJ and FBI activity; and finally contrast it all against the full scope of released messaging between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Within this project some breakout discoveries needed to be highlighted. One of those discoveries pertains to the Fox News interview with James Comey and Bret Baier. Within the interview Mr. Comey is questioned about the announcement of re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation on October 28th, 2016. In his response to why there was a delay between the FBI being notified by New York on September 28th, 2016, and waiting until October 28th, James Comey revealed a very important nugget. The New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY, Preet Bharara) called Main Justice in DC to ask about a “search warrant”. Previously we knew this call took place on October 21st, 2016 because it’s in the Page/Strzok text messages. Now we know the reason “why”, or at least the reason Comey was told, and who New York called at DOJ HQ. Listen closely to James Comey at 06:06 to 07:30 of the interview (prompted): Baier: “Did you know that Andrew McCabe, your deputy, had sat on that revelation about the emails”? Comey: “Yeah, I don’t know that, I don’t know that to be the case. I do know that New York and FBI headquarters became aware that there may be some connection between Weiner’s laptop and the Clinton investigation, weeks before it was brought to me for decision – and as I write in the book I don’t know whether they could have moved faster and why the delay” Baier: “Was it the threat that New York Agents were going to leak that it existed really what drove you to the ‘not conceal’ part? Comey: “I don’t think so. I think what actually drove it was the prosecutors in New York who were working the criminal case against Weiner called down to headquarters and said ‘are we getting a search warrant or not for this’? That caused, I’m sorry, Justice Department Headquarters, to then call across the street to the FBI and poke the organization; and they start to move much more quickly. I don’t know why there was, if there was slow activity, why it was slow for those first couple of weeks.” There’s some really sketchy stuff going on in that answer. Why would SDNY need to get authorization for a search warrant from DC if this is about Weiner’s laptop? Yes, you could argue it pertains to a tightly held Clinton investigation run out of DC but the Weiner prosecution issues shouldn’t require approval from DC. Additionally, the “search warrant” explanation by James Comey doesn’t match the internal communication that was happening inside the FBI (that was unknown to Comey). But let’s take Comey at face-value…. In his explanation Comey stated it was justice officials within SDNY (Southern District of New York) who called Main Justice (DOJ in DC) and asked about a needed search warrant for “this“, presumably Weiner’s laptop by inference. Now, let’s go look at the Page/Strzok description of what was going on. Here are the messages from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok surrounding the original date that New York officials originally notified Washington DC FBI. It’s important to note the two different entities: DOJ -vs- FBI. According to the September 28, 2016, messages from FBI Agent Peter Strzok it was the SDNY in New York telling Andrew McCabe in DC about the issue. Pay close attention to the convo: (pdf source for all messages here) Notice: “hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s attorney to SDNY”. Pay super close attention. This is not framed as an outcome of a New York Police Dept. raid on Anthony Weiner. This is stated as *Weiner’s attorney* going to the U.S. attorney and voluntarily turning over emails. These emails were not turned over to the FBI field office in New York (they have the laptop), these are actual emails turned over to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District; that’s Preet Bharara. Key point here: Weiner’s attorneys turned over “emails”. Actual “emails”. -If the U.S. Attorney in New York has the actual physical emails on September 28th, 2016, why would they need a search warrant on October 21st, 2016? (Comey’s call explanation) -Additionally, why would Weiner’s attorney be handing over evidence? Think about this carefully. I’ll get back to the importance of it later; but what I suspect is that Anthony Weiner had physical material, a sub-set of the emails that were on Huma Abedin’s laptop, and those documents/emails were his “insurance policy” against anything done to him by Hillary Clinton. Facing a criminal prosecution Weiner’s lawyer went to the U.S. Attorney and attempted to exploit/leverage that specific content therein on his client’s behalf. Fast forward three weeks, and we go back to FBI in DC. On October 21, 2016, this is now the call referenced by James Comey in the Bret Baier interview. Someone from the New York U.S. Attorney’s office called “Main Justice” (the DOJ National Security Division in DC) and notified DOJ-NSD Deputy Asst. Attorney General George Toscas of the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails via the “Weiner investigation”. [I would point out again, he’s not being notified of a laptop, Toscas is notified of “emails”] George Toscas “wanted to ensure information got to Andy“, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe…. so he called FBI Agent Peter Strzok…. who told George Toscas “we know“. FBI Agent Peter Strzok then tells Bill Priestap (who also previously knew) about Main Justice calling to make inquires about the emails. Of course, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe already knew about the emails since September 28th, 2016, more than three weeks earlier. In his Bret Baier interview FBI Director James Comey says this call is about a search warrant. There is no indication the call is actually about a search warrant. [Nor would there be a need for a search warrant if the call was actually about the emails that Wiener’s attorney dropped off on 9/21]. However, that phone call kicks off an internal debate about the previously closed Clinton email investigation; and Andrew McCabe sitting on the notification from New York for over three weeks – kicks off an internal FBI discussion about McCabe needing to recuse himself. Now it’s October 27th, 2016, James Comey chief-of-staff Jim Rybicki wants McCabe to recuse himself. But Rybicki is alone on an island. Lisa Page is furious at such a suggestion, partly because she is McCabe’s legal counsel and if McCabe is recused so too is she. At the same time as they are debating how to handle the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails, they are leaking to the media to frame a specific narrative. Important to note here, that at no time is there any conversation -or hint of a conversation- that anyone is reviewing the content of the emails. The discussions don’t mention a single word about content… every scintilla of conversation is about how to handle the issues of the emails themselves. Actually, there’s not a single person mentioned in thousands of text messages that applies to an actual person who is looking at any content. Quite simply: there is a glaringly transparent lack of an “investigation”. Within this “tight group” at FBI, as Comey puts it, there is not a single mention of a person who is sitting somewhere looking through the reported “600,000” Clinton emails that was widely reported by media. There’s absolutely ZERO evidence of anyone looking at emails or scouring through laptop data…. and FBI Agent Peter Strzok has no staff under him who he discusses assigned to such a task…. and Strzok damned sure ain’t doing it. Additionally, again accepting what Comey thinks is happening, sdny is asking for a search warrant – so under that premise the sdny has the laptop. So what gives? Remember, it’s now October 27th, 2016. McCabe has been sitting on this information since September 28th; Comey doesn’t know anything about it; and a day earlier McCabe and Loretta Lynch were on a conference call with the New York field office and the conversation was full of drama. From the OIG report: *4. The Attorney General Expresses Strong Concerns to McCabe and other FBI Officials about Leaks, and McCabe Discusses Recusing Himself from CF Investigation (October 26, 2016)* McCabe told the OIG that during the October 2016 time frame, it was his “perception that there was a lot of information coming out of likely the [FBI’s] New York Field Office” that was ending up in the news. McCabe told the OIG that he “had some heated back-and-forths” with the New York Assistant Director in Charge (“NY-ADIC”) over the issue of media leaks. On October 26th, 2016, McCabe and NY-ADIC participated in what McCabe described as “a hastily convened conference call with the Attorney General [Loretta Lynch] who delivered the same message to us” about leaks, with specific focus being on leaks regarding the high-profile investigation by FBI’s New York Field Office into the death of Eric Garner. McCabe told us that he “never heard her use more forceful language.” NY-ADIC confirmed that the participants got “ripped by the AG on leaks.” According to NY-ADIC’s testimony and an e-mail he sent to himself on October 31, McCabe indicated to NY-ADIC and a then-FBI Executive Assistant Director (“EAD”) in a conversation after Attorney General Lynch disconnected from the call that McCabe was recusing himself from the CF Investigation. ( Page #6 and #7 – IG Report Link) Stuff just got seriously elevated. Main Justice is making inquires, Attorney General Loretta Lynch is making inquiries, and now James Comey has to be brought into the loop. How does McCabe explain the call from Main Justice, and Loretta Lynch, to his boss, James Comey? Moving on – Note to readers. Click the graphics and read the notes on them too: It’s still October 27th, 2016, the day before James Comey announces his FBI decision to re-open the Clinton investigation. Jim Rybicki still saying McCabe should be recused from input; everyone else, including FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, is disagreeing with Rybicki and siding with Lisa Page. Meanwhile the conversation has shifted slightly to “PC”, probable cause. Read: While Lisa Page is leaking stories to Devlin Barrett (Wall Street Journal), the internal discussion amid the “small group” is about probable cause, “PC”. The FBI team is now saying if there was no probable cause when Comey closed the original email investigation in July 2016 (remember the very tight boundaries of review), then there’s no probable cause in October 2016 to reopen the investigation regardless of what the email content might be. This appears to be how the “small group” or “tight team” justify doing nothing with the content received from New York. They presumably received the emails September 28th and it’s now October 27th, and they haven’t even looked at them. Heck, they are debating if there’s even a need to look at it…. and General Counsel (Baker), along with Office of Legal Counsel (“Trisha” Beth Anderson), are giving Strzok, Page and McCabe advice about using Probable Cause as an ‘out’. However, the next day October 28th, 2016, the FBI and Main Justice officials have a conference call about the entire Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton email issue. Here’s where it gets interesting. George Toscas and David Laufman from DOJ-NSD articulate a position that something needs to happen – likely because Main Justice is concerned about the issue of FBI (McCabe) sitting on the emails for over three weeks, without telling Director James Comey and without any feedback to SDNY (New York). Additionally, Loretta Lynch has made inquiries about what was going on. Thanks to Deputy Director McCabe, Main Justice in DC, specifically DOJ National Security Division, now looks like they are facilitating a cover-up operation being conducted by the FBI “small group”. [which is actually true, but they can’t let that be so glaringly obvious]. The FBI New York field office suspects a top level cover-up. As a result of the Top-Tier DOJ and FBI officials conference call, Peter Strzok is a grumpy agent because his opinion appears to be insignificant. The decision is reached to announce the re-opening of the investigation and take control over the optics. This decision sends Lisa Page bananas… …In rapid response mode Lisa Page reaches out to Devlin Barrett, again to quickly shape the media coverage. Now that the world is aware of the need for a Clinton email investigation 2.0 the internal conversation returns to McCabe’s recusal. Please note that at no time in the FBI is anyone directing an actual investigation of the content of the Clinton emails. Every single second of every effort is devoted to shaping the public perception of the need for the investigation. Every media outlet is being watched; every article is being read; and the entire apparatus of the small group is shaping coverage therein by contacting their leak outlets. So let’s go back to that Comey interview: -What exactly would SDNY need a search warrant for? -Anthony Weiner’s lawyer has delivered SDNY actual emails. Why would he do that? Now lets pause and re-connect those questions to the earlier report. On page six of the IG report on Andrew McCabe (point number 4) we find a conference call between Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and the FBI field office in New York where the subject of the Weiner/Abedin/Clinton email findings overlap with: the Clinton Foundation (CF) investigation; the Clinton Email investigation; pressure for Asst. Director McCabe to recuse himself, and Washington DC via Loretta Lynch using DOJ Main Justice leverage from the Eric Garner case against the NY FBI office and New York Police Department. From the OIG report: *4. The Attorney General Expresses Strong Concerns to McCabe and other FBI Officials about Leaks, and McCabe Discusses Recusing Himself from CF Investigation (October 26, 2016)* McCabe told the OIG that during the October 2016 time frame, it was his “perception that there was a lot of information coming out of likely the [FBI’s] New York Field Office” that was ending up in the news. McCabe told the OIG that he “had some heated back-and-forths” with the New York Assistant Director in Charge (“NY-ADIC”) over the issue of media leaks. On October 26th, 2016, McCabe and NY-ADIC participated in what McCabe described as “a hastily convened conference call with the Attorney General who delivered the same message to us” about leaks, with specific focus being on leaks regarding the high-profile investigation by FBI’s New York Field Office into the death of Eric Garner. McCabe told us that he “never heard her use more forceful language.” NY-ADIC confirmed that the participants got “ripped by the AG on leaks.” According to NY-ADIC’s testimony and an e-mail he sent to himself on October 31, McCabe indicated to NY-ADIC and a then-FBI Executive Assistant Director (“EAD”) in a conversation after Attorney General Lynch disconnected from the call that McCabe was recusing himself from the CF Investigation. ( Page #6 and #7 – IG Report Link) What makes this explosive is the timing, and what we now know about what was going on amid the FBI “small group” in DC. On September 28th, 2016, Andrew McCabe was made aware of emails given to New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) directly from Anthony Weiner’s lawyer. Again, the information relayed to DC is not about a Weiner laptop, it’s about actual emails delivered by Weiner’s lawyer. The laptop was evidence in the Weiner “sexting” case involving a minor; however, the laptop did, reportedly, also contained thousands of State Department documents from Hillary Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s wife. When Weiner’s lawyer walked into SDNY to deliver his leverage emails, Preet Bharara, a Clinton-Lynch ally, was the United States Attorney. Again, look at the text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok (Inbox) and FBI Special Counsel to Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page (Outbox): [The letter to “Congress” at the end of the text exchange relates to notification of the re-opening of the Clinton investigation – Actual date of notification 10/28/16] According to the text messages, and Comey’s own statements, FBI Director James Comey was not notified of the emails until after October 21st, 2016. However, in late October and early November, there were media reports (leaks) from people with contacts in New York police and New York FBI, about Washington DOJ officials interfering with the Weiner investigation. On the same date (October 26th, 2016) as the Lynch, McCabe and NY FBI phone call, former NY Mayor Rudy Giuilani was telling Fox News that an explosive development was forthcoming. Two days later, October 28th, 2016, Congress was notified of the additional Clinton emails. However, a few more days later, November 4th, 2016, an even more explosive development as Erik Prince appeared on radio and outlined discoveries within the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner/Hillary Clinton email issues that was being blocked by AG Lynch. Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week. “Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed. “They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said. “The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained. “I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said. ( Link) An earlier Grand Jury in New York had refused to return an indictment against the NYPD in the Garner case. As an outcome of that grand jury finding, and as an outcome of their own investigation, the local FBI office and Eastern District of New York DOJ office was not trying to pursue criminal charges against the NYPD officers involved. This created a dispute because federal prosecutors (EDNY) and FBI officials in New York opposed bringing charges, while prosecutors with the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department in Washington argued there was clear evidence to do so. On October 25th, 2016, Loretta Lynch replaced the EDNY New York prosecutors: New York Times ( Oct. 25) – The Justice Department has replaced the New York team of agents and lawyers investigating the death of Eric Garner, officials said, a highly unusual shake-up that could jump-start the long-stalled case and put the government back on track to seek criminal charges. With the moves Lynch made prior to the phone call, on Oct. 25th, 2016, AG Lynch was in position to threaten criminal prosecutions against the NYPD, and repercussions against the New York FBI field office and EDNY using the Garner case as leverage, just like Erik Prince outlined in the phone interview above. Additionally, we see confirmation from the IG report, the Garner case was brought up in the (Oct 26, 2016) phone call to the NY FBI field office; just as Erik Prince outlined. Obviously Prince’s sources were close to the events as they unfolded. The NY FBI and Eastern District of New York (EDNY) were threatened by Washington DC Main Justice and FBI, via Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe to drop the Clinton/Abedin/Weiner email investigation matters, concede the Clinton email investigative approach to DC, or else the Garner DOJ Civil Rights Division would be used as leverage against the NYPD. And Loretta Lynch had SDNY U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara as the enforcer waiting for her call. There’s a solid case to be made that the emails Anthony Weiner’s lawyer brought to Preet Bharara was Weiner’s leverage to escape prosecution. Likely those specific emails were exactly as Eric Prince sources outlined. However, the SDNY Attorney (Preet Bharara) responding to upper level Main Justice leadership (Loretta Lynch), buried those emails. In DC the FBI (Comey and McCabe), helped bury the content by creating the appearance of re-opening of the Clinton investigation. This stemmed the NYPD and NY field office from making further public statements; and Comey’s move kept control of the investigation in DC; and ensured the investigative outcomes remained out of the hands of the Eastern District (EDNY) and New York FBI field office. They had no choice. However, once the FBI reopened the investigation October 28th, they did exactly the same thing they had done from September 28th to October 28th… they did nothing. A few days later they declared the second investigation closed, and that was that. They never expected her to lose.

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/1/2018 8:19:11 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 353554

Rosenstein says a sitting US President CANNOT be indicted, it's DOJ policy - GOOD POLICY...

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/2/2018 10:45:39 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Respond to of 353554

Sebastian Gorka: Clapper, Comey, Brennan Helped Putin Meddle

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/3/2018 9:28:13 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Respond to of 353554

CHANGE: Posted at 8:49 am by Glenn Reynolds

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/3/2018 12:25:54 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By James Seagrove longnshort Respond to of 353554

CHANGE: Jobless claims running at lowest levels in 45 years.

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/5/2018 2:04:07 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By James Seagrove longnshort Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 353554

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/7/2018 11:21:06 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 353554

POLLAK: Mueller Teaming up with Schneiderman Further Undermines Russia Inquiry - SHOWS YOU WHAT A POS, LOWLIFE MUELLER IS! by JOEL B. POLLAK 31 Aug 2017 Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reported to be working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on his inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race. ... breitbart.com

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/8/2018 8:45:34 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Respond to of 353554

CAN'T MAKE THIS UP: Both Harvey Weinstein & Eric Schneiderman were at the Women's March, orchestrated by convicted terrorist Rasmea Odeh & Linda Sarsour, who's tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, while Madonna said she wanted to blow up the White House. This is the democrat party. — #ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) May 8, 2018

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/8/2018 9:50:57 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Respond to of 353554

Eric Schneiderman Beat Ex-Lovers, Threatened to Kill Them, Report Says lawandcrime.com New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been accused by four women of abusive behavior. Two of them, Michelle Manning Barish and Tayna Selvaratnam, spoke on the record with The New Yorker in a new report. #1 One woman claims Schneiderman called her his “brown slave.” Both Barish and Selvaratnam claim Schneiderman repeatedly hit them, often times in bed, and without their consent. Barish was with him on-and-off from Summer 2013 to New Year’s Day 2015. In one instance, at his Upper West Side apartment, they were getting ready for bed, when he called her a “whore,” and she talked back. They had been drinking. “All of a sudden, he just slapped me, open handed and with great force, across the face, landing the blow directly onto my ear,” she said. “It was horrendous. It just came out of nowhere. My ear was ringing. I lost my balance and fell backward onto the bed. I sprang up, but at this point there was very little room between the bed and him. I got up to try to shove him back, or take a swing, and he pushed me back down. He then used his body weight to hold me down, and he began to choke me. The choking was very hard. It was really bad. I kicked. In every fibre, I felt I was being beaten by a man.” In her story, Schneiderman accused her of scratching him, and said it was a felony to hit “an officer of the law.” Three female friends and former boyfriend Salman Rushdie each told the outlet that Barish told them at the time that Schneiderman had hit her. Barish suggested the slap might have caused injury to the ear, but when she went to a doctor to get “dried blood crust” from it, she lied, saying it was caused by a Q-tip. “I was protecting Eric, and I was ashamed.” Selvaratnam, who is an author, was with Scheiderman from Summer 2016 to Fall 2017. She described him as “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” and claimed he physically abused her in bed. “The slaps started after we’d gotten to know each other,” she said. “It was at first as if he were testing me. Then it got stronger and harder.” He eventually would end up choking her to the point she couldn’t breathe. She described him as a “misogynist and sexual sadist.” He made sexual demands, and had an obsession with having a threesome with a second woman. Schneiderman would hit her until she agreed to find a second woman, Selvaratnam said. He would call her his “brown slave,” and demanded she call him “master.” (Selvaratnam was born in Skri Lanka, and is described as having dark skin.) #2 Death Threats Both women claim he threatened to kill them if they left him. “If you ever left me, I’d kill you,” Barish reported him as saying. “I was scared what he might do if I left him,” Selvaratnam said. “He had said he would have to kill me if we broke up, on multiple occasions. He also told me he could have me followed and could tap my phone.” #3 Controlling Behavior Both woman said he exhibited signs of controlling behavior. According to Barish, he told her to remove a tattoo from her wrist. Selvaratnam claimed she was told to get plastic surgery to get rid of scars from an operation for cancerous tumors. He’d also tell her to get breast implants, smack talk her friends, and tell her to leave a birthday party just when the cake arrived. #4 Alleged Drug Use and a Heavy Drinker Barish and Selvaratnam both said Schneiderman was a heavy drinker, who egged them, even forced them, to imbibe as well. In one instance, on January 19, 2017, Selvaratnam said he called her from a hospital emergency room. “He told me that he’d been drinking the night before he fell down,” she said. “He didn’t realize he’d cut himself, and got into bed, and when he woke up he was in a pool of blood.” He had gotten stitches over his left eye. She shared a picture with the outlet, which the outlet describes as showing him with a black eye, and a bandage on the left side of his forehead. A spokesperson for Schneiderman had a different story. “One morning, Mr. Schneiderman fell in the bathroom while completely sober, hit his head, and had to go the the E.R. for stitches. Because he was embarrassed to tell his staff he fell in the bathroom, he told them he fell while running.” Barish said Scheiderman took prescription tranquilizers. He allegedly asked her to refill her Xanax prescription so he could have half for himself. #5 Two Other Women Claim Schneiderman Abused Them A third woman reportedly told Barish and Selvaratnam that Schneiderman physically abused her too, but she was too scared to step forward. The New Yorker said it vetted “the accounts that they gave of her allegations.” A fourth woman, who is a lawyer, said Schneiderman slapped her after she rebuffed him. She gave the outlet a picture of her face with the mark left behind by the alleged attack. The attorney, who is described as an Ivy League graduate, said the AG came onto her. “Yeah, you act a certain way and look a certain way, but I know that at heart you are a dirty little slut,” he allegedly told her. “You want to be my whore.” Schneiderman Says He Never Violated Consent Scheiderman has denied wrongdoing. “In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity,” he said in a statement obtained by the outlet. “I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.” According to the women, this was definitely not kink-gone-wrong. “I want to make it absolutely clear,” Barish said. “This was under no circumstances a sex game gone wrong. This did not happen while we were having sex. I was fully dressed and remained that way. It was completely unexpected and shocking. I did not consent to physical assault.” “It wasn’t consensual,” Selvaratnam said. “This wasn’t sexual playacting. This was abusive, demeaning, threatening behavior.” [Image via Drew Angerer/Getty Images]

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/8/2018 10:14:11 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Respond to of 353554

Daniel Hoffman, ex-CIA officer: Communist Brennan’s Trump attacks risk national security BRENNAN IS A TOOL OF RUSSIA Then-CIA Director John Brennan testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, June 16, 2016, before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on the Islamic State. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) FILE more >But for Mr. Hoffman, the damage was done. “What I found cringe-worthy,” he says, “is that Brennan was insinuating that Vladimir Putin could control President Trump and that Brennan’s choice of the word ‘speculate’ would be lost on the audience because of his previous position as director of the CIA.” The former station chief initially took his concern public with an early-April article for The Cipher Brief, a publication known for its commentary by former intelligence officials. There, Mr. Hoffman argued that vital foreign liaison partners, upon whom American spy agencies depend to steal secrets from Russia and other adversaries, “must have been shocked and concerned over Brennan’s allegation.” “I felt like if Brennan wanted to make the kind of allegation he made, he should have done it through the established process, by going and speaking privately about it to Special Counsel Robert Mueller,” Mr. Hoffmanmore recently told The Washington Times. “That way, he could avoid collateral damage to those with whom we are working, whether it’s a spy who’s risking his life to be the source of secrets for us, who’s now going to wonder whether he should be doing that because his boss Vladimir Putin has dirt on our president, or a partner liaison service, which might want to work with us against the Russiatarget.” It’s an argument whose nuance has so far gone largely overlooked by the mainstream media. To the contrary, several news outlets have had a field day focusing on more rudimentary insults Mr. Brennan has hurled at Mr. Trump, such as his recent assertion on Twitter that the president’s “self-adoration is disgraceful.” The former CIA director made headlines tweeting last month that the president’s “kakistocracy” — a reference to government run by the worst, least qualified or most unscrupulous citizens — was “collapsing after its lamentable journey.” His criticism comes against a backdrop in which U.S. lawmakers will debate this week whether to embrace longtime Clandestine Service operative Gina Haspel as the next CIA director. If confirmed, Ms. Haspel will become the first female director and the first career agency officer in decades with a background in operations — rather than a political appointee — to serve in the post. Fears of a deep state Mr. Brennan declined to comment for this article. Conservatives have largely disregarded his Trump criticism as base partisanship emanating from a former official of the Obama administration, where Mr. Brennan served in various intelligence-related advisory capacities prior to being tapped to head the CIA from 2013 through 2017. But within the wider intelligence community, Mr. Brennan’s statements, as well as Mr. Hoffman’s attempt to counter them, are being watched with intense interest. “This dispute that’s going on raises two issues,” said former CIA and National Security Agency Director Michael V. Hayden. “Number one is, look, the Russians are doing things to mess with our heads and to divide us and so when we get into this kind of discussion, however well merited it might be, it does seem to push the Russian agenda a bit.” “At the same time, we’re allowed to speak out and to argue. The Russian objective may well be to get us to argue with one another and here we are in this argument. But that’s not an ironclad argument against arguing,” Mr. Hayden told The Times. “Number two though, is that we have a president who’s more norm busting than any president in our history, so a lot of people who think norms should be respected are pushing back,” he said. “But at what point do we run the danger that in pushing back, we violate our own norms?” In his new book, ‘The Assault on Intelligence; American National Security in an Age of Lies,’ Mr. Hayden goes to length exploring such challenges facing the intelligence community in the Trump era. It’s an era some believe got off to a rocky start when Mr. Trump went off script during a visit to CIA headquarters in the early days of his presidency. Speaking at the time in front of the Memorial Wall honoring agency employees who’ve died in the line of duty, Mr. Trump suddenly began harping about the media’s unfair treatment of him, personally, saying journalists “are the most dishonest human beings on earth.” One former high-level intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the fight now playing out between Mr. Brennan and Mr. Hoffman is representative of a sharp division within the intelligence community over whether and how it should respond to such behavior. “ Brennan comes down on the gotta speak out side and Hoffman comes out on the you’re only adding fuel to the fire side,” said the former official, who added that while both have their merits, Mr. Brennan has gone so far in his criticisms of Mr. Trump that he’s merely feeding the view held by some administration supporters that there’s a “deep state” conspiring to undermine president. Another former high-level official, who also spoke only on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Brennan’s blackmail speculation on live television was a kind of “holy [expletive] moment” for many in the intelligence community. Interest only elevated a few weeks later, when Mr. Hoffman entered the fray to call the former director out. It’s gotten personal That a visceral fight is now playing out between the two former high-level CIA officials is “unprecedented,” said yet another intelligence source, who also spoke on condition of not being named. The source suggested the dispute may actually be a very personal between a long-time field operator and his former bureaucrat-analyst boss. Mr. Brennan spent 25 years at the CIA as an analyst before rising through the politically-appointed bureaucratic ranks to head the agency under Mr. Obama, while Mr. Hoffman’s career was one dominated more by time in the bare-knuckle and secretive shadows of the intelligence world. “They’re not peers in any sense,” said the source, who knows both men personally. “Dan was a division chief, senior operations guy, but that’s many, many rungs away from director of the CIA…[Dan] had very senior positions, but not anywhere near John’s stature.” For Mr. Hoffman, it’s irrelevant. He says his argument is simple: Mr. Brennan went too far with the blackmail speculation and his comments could jeopardize sensitive foreign intelligence sources relied upon by Washington. In an interview with The Times, the former station chief lamented that other media outlets have so-far failed to grasp the gravity of what he’s getting at. During April interviews on National Public Radio and NBC’s “Meet the Press,” hosts lobbed Mr. Brennan questions only about whether he was concerned by Mr. Hoffman’s other assertion, that Mr. Brennan is “doing Putin’s bidding” by attacking Mr. Trump in a way that could be construed as divisive and partisan. “When Brennan was on ‘Meet the Press’ with Chuck Todd, they twisted my [argument] into something it wasn’t,” said Mr. Hoffman. “ John Brennanmade it appear as if I was criticizing him for criticizing Trump’s Russiapolicy, when in fact, I had a much more nuanced point that I was making, which was that John Brennan should not be speculating about Vladimir Putin being able to blackmail the president.” He added that Mr. Brennan is “certainly protected by freedom of speech to criticize a current administration in a partisan way, what he did took it too far in my view.” Brennan’s side of this Nick Shapiro, who formerly Mr. Brennan’s deputy chief of staff at the CIA, took issue with Mr. Hoffman’s “logic.” “One could even argue that it is Dan who is doing Putin’s bidding by criticizing Brennan for criticizing Trump, as Russia seems to welcome any and all discord and since Putin and Trump seem so closely aligned,” Mr. Shapiro told The Times. “These are not normal days. We’re seeing a growing chorus of former national security leaders who have served presidents of both parties, speaking out to warn us about Trump,” he said. “They aren’t becoming partisans, this isn’t about politics. Instead of throwing accusations at these dedicated patriots, we should all be concerned about why they feel the need to speak out — not that they are doing so.” Further, Mr. Shapiro called it absurd for Mr. Hoffman to focus on the potentially jeopardizing impact that Mr. Brennan’s “speculation” on Mr. Putin blackmailing Mr. Trump might have on foreign spying alliances. “It is quite the overreach to hang it on Brennan — after all that Trump has done and himself said — that allies would be concerned,” he said. Mr. Hoffman disagreed. “There’s certainly plenty to debate about the president’s policy toward Russia, his holding back on sanctions and the laudatory things he’s said about Vladimir Putin,” the former station chief said. “But there’s a difference between that and insinuating — from a position of someone who should have known as director of the CIA — that Vladimir Putin could blackmail the president. “ Brennan offered zero evidence that Vladimir Putin could blackmail the president,” Mr. Hoffman added. “Look,” he said. “Whatever damage Brennan thinks Trump is causing with his Russia policy, I don’t understand why Brennan thinks he needs to pile on and make it worse.”

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/9/2018 3:20:27 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Respond to of 353554

REAL JOURNALISTS HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR. 90% ARE ACTIVISTS, NOT JOURNOS...

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/10/2018 4:13:14 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Respond to of 353554

Blue Wave? Dem Advantage on Generic Ballot Down to 1.4%. Historically, Democrats have needed about a five-point or better advantage to take the House. Still, don’t get cocky. Posted at 12:37 pm by Stephen Green May 10, 2018 pjmedia.com

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	5/24/2018 8:01:21 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Respond to of 353554

TRUMP: NO DEAL ON IMMIGRATION BILL UNLESS IT INCLUDES A WALL… …THREATENS TO CUT AID TO COUNTRIES WHO DO NOT STOP MS-13 ENTERING U.S.

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	6/1/2018 9:55:42 AM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By James Seagrove longnshort Respond to of 353554

Payroll employment increases by 223,000 in May; unemployment rate edges down to 3.8% https://t.co/NsuHovcqn0 #JobsReport #BLSdata — BLS-Labor Statistics (@BLS_gov) June 1, 2018

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	6/4/2018 9:12:38 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Respond to of 353554

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	6/4/2018 2:45:01 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By James Seagrove longnshort Respond to of 353554

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	6/7/2018 9:12:56 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By i-node James Seagrove Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 353554

Donald Trump Is The WORST Racist Ever!!!! LMAO - DCWhispers.com dcwhispers.com The unhinged anti-Trump left continues to hurl “racism” accusations at Donald Trump, a man who not so long ago stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of Rosa Parks and Al Sharpton. As president, the accusations are even more ridiculous given the remarkable record of improvement to minority communities across the nation over the last two years. What was eight years of suffering during the Obama regime has turned into a time of real prosperity, hope, and opportunity for all since Mr. Trump took office. Racist? Not even close…

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	6/8/2018 12:56:14 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 353554

'Sanctuary Cities' Get A Big Thumbs Down, Even From Hispanics: IBD/TIPP Poll Investor's Business Daily investors.com Nearly two-thirds of the public oppose "sanctuary cities." Less than a third say they back the policy, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll. The IBD/TIPP poll asked about support for a policy in which "some cities in the U.S. do not report illegal immigrants who commit crimes to federal immigration authorities." It found that 64% oppose the policy, with just 31% supporting it. More interesting, while just 16% strongly support sanctuary cities, 45% strongly oppose the policy. Every one of the 41 demographic groups broken out by the IBD/TIPP poll opposes this policy, except for Democrats (only 44% oppose) it, liberals (38% oppose) and those between 18 and 24 (48% of whom oppose this policy). The strongest opposition comes from investors (71%), married women (70%), conservatives (79%), Gen-Xers (74%) and young boomers (72%). Even Hispanics oppose this policy by a 57% to 39% margin. The sanctuary cities controversy erupted after President Trump started to more strictly enforce existing immigration laws. Cities across the country passed ordinances announcing that, to one degree or another, they wouldn't cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, even when it involved illegal immigrants who had committed crimes. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, more than 150 cities and counties have declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Then last October, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill making California a sanctuary state. The law, which went into effect at the start of this year, bans state and local law enforcement from holding illegal aliens on the basis of federal immigration detainers, and bans law enforcement from asking anyone about their immigration status. It also in many cases prohibits them from sharing information with ICE — including the release of inmates from a county jail — that isn't available to the general public. That prompted the Justice Dept. to sue the state in March, claiming the state law obstructed enforcement of federal immigration laws. More than a dozen cities and counties in California have either joined the Justice suit or are passing ordinances exempting them from the state "sanctuary" law. The Trump administration has attempted to withhold federal law enforcement grants from "sanctuary cities," but a federal judge on Wednesday ruled in favor of the city of Philadelphia. The judge said that withholding certain law enforcement grants based on local immigration policies "violates statutory and constitutional law." The judge added that the city's policy of not complying fully with federal immigration authorities was "reasonable, rational" and "equitable." Previous IBD/TIPP polls have found public support for other Trump administration positions on immigration. The February poll found that 50% approve of "the construction of physical and electronic barriers along the southern U.S. border." Among independents, support is 65%. It also found that 55% back limits on chain migration. The IBD/TIPP poll in March 2017 found that 57% supported Trump's plan to hire 10,000 more immigration agents and 58% support the deportation of illegal immigrants charged with a crime, even if they haven't been convicted. Other polls have shown strong public support for several Trump immigration policies. Methodology: The June IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted May 29-June 5. It includes responses from 905 people nationwide, who were asked questions by live interviewers on phones. The poll's margin of error is +/-3.3 percentage points. (Toplines from the June IBD/TIPP Poll can be found here.) The IBD/TIPP Poll has been credited as being the most accurate poll in the past four presidential elections, and was one of only two that correctly predicted the outcome of the November 2016 presidential election.

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	6/10/2018 2:11:47 PM
From: FJB	3 Recommendations Recommended By Alex MG James Seagrove longnshort Respond to of 353554

MSM Ignores: Muslim Food Truck Worker in Portland Calls Black Woman ‘Nier,’ Throws Bottle at Her for Trying to Pay With Change -- WHICH VICTIM GROUP TO SIDE WITH?!??!**

To: longnshort who wrote (5433)	6/12/2018 12:14:57 PM
From: FJB	3 Recommendations Recommended By Bill James Seagrove Katelew Respond to of 353554

Putting America First Has Made U.S. No. 1 STEPHEN MOORE 6/12/2018 investors.com The left is quickly running out of excuses for why Donald Trump's economic policies have caused a boom rather than the bust that they predicted with such great certainty. Last year, when the U.S. economy began to percolate with faster growth, the media and other Trump haters argued that this simply reflected a pickup in worldwide growth: Trump was riding the wave of what economists were calling "synchronized growth." But now what do they have to say? The latest indicators are that, as a Wall Street Journal headline reported on June 3: "Global Economic-Growth Story Fades." Japan's growth rate is estimated to have slowed to slightly negative in the first quarter. The European Union was at an anemic 0.4%. The pace of global growth is expected to be much slower over the next two years, according to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Then there is the outlier: the United States. Here at home, growth is sizzling. Almost all economists now predict a growth rate of above 4% for the second quarter of 2018, and Dan Clifton of Strategas, one of the best forecasters of recent times, believes we may hit 5% later this year. He points to the surge of investment capital flowing into the United States and how the increased business spending points to several more quarters of this torrid growth. Meanwhile, the rest of the world treads water. So much for synchronized swimming. Then there is the argument that Trump's policies have nothing to do with the American prosperity burst. Politico's economics reporter recently published a column insisting that the "GOP tax cut is not why (the) economy is booming." He contemptuously added, "Economist are rolling their eyes at candidates' claims (that Trump's policies inspired faster growth)." Which economists? As it happens, this is the same gang that was dead wrong about the likelihood of growth in the first place. Now they argue that the tax cuts are just kicking in and can't account for the increased economic activity. But this ignores the anticipatory effect: Businesses are anticipating the tax bill's lower rates on their profits and investments and making decisions accordingly. Whatever the cause, it is undeniable that America has a new spring in its step. After a decade of malaise, the American economy is the envy of the world today. A recent Bloomberg article reports: "The U.S. dethroned Hong Kong to retake first place among the world's most competitive economies, thanks to faster economic growth and a supportive atmosphere for scientific and technological innovation, according to annual rankings by the Switzerland-based IMD World Competitiveness Center." But the ultimate judges of all this are the American people — the voters. They know something big is going on here. In the years before the 2016 election, about 3 in 10 voters described the economy as good or great. This year, 7 in 10 do. That surge in optimism began immediately after Trump's election and hasn't subsided. The same trend is true for the confidence of small businesses and manufacturing businesses. Up, up and away. Perhaps the best news of all is to think that maybe Trump's critics are right that the economic thrust from the tax cut hasn't even kicked in yet. If that's true, then buckle up, because we're in for a hell of a ride. Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with Freedom Works. He is the co-author of "Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy."