Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by RocketMan » Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:09 am
The morals of Donald J. Trump, as a longtime model lover and then a modeling agency owner, were forged in another era, one in which young girls were used as a sort of currency between men doing business with one another.
It’s not a time that Trump, who once blew up gossip reporters’ phones to dish on his own sexual exploits, real and imagined, is eager to remember now. But after I wrote for The Daily Beast earlier this year about the parties he hosted in the 1990s where “his wealthy friends, high-rollers from his Atlantic City casinos, and potential Trump condominium buyers could meet models” from second-tier agencies, several men who attended those parties at the Plaza Hotel emerged to share scandalous specifics about Trump’s presence and behavior at events where illegal drugs and young women were passed around and used.
by Searcher08 » Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:45 am
seemslikeadream » Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:37 pm wrote:“It is my belief that nearly any invented quotation, played with confidence, stands a good chance to deceive.” ~ Mark Twain
still waitingseemslikeadream » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:02 am wrote:seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:56 pm wrote:8bitagent » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:50 pm wrote:Forget Donald Trump's proposed giant wall, SLAD's endless wall of text is enough to keep anyone out.
That said, to Jerky and SLAD, our two lone Hillary defenders...I will concede this point:
Hillary I thought did her best performance tonight. Was poised, laid out a great progressive-ish
rights case in the beginning. And unlike the "Hillary is sick" conspiracies, Trump was the one
who looked rather sickly tonight. Either that or he smoked quite a big doobie
please link to all the defense of Hillary posts I have made
on edit
and the posts I made defending a woman's right not to be blamed for her husband/boyfriends deeds do not count
still waiting
I did a search through all your posts and you are non-binary. You do not support Hilary and do not support Trump... nor (from what I saw) the Greens nor the Libertarians, nor a Third Party.You do love Denis Kucinich... but he loved Ron Paul.
by stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:38 pm
Searcher08 » Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:45 am wrote:At least Trump doesnt take Saudi money, AFAIK
by stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:29 pm
Trump: 'We should just cancel the election' and declare me the winner
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Updated 9:15 AM ET, Fri October 28, 2016
Toledo, Ohio (CNN)Donald Trump, trailing his opponent in key battleground states polls less than two weeks from Election Day, said Thursday he'd like to "cancel the election" and be declared the winner.
"Just thinking to myself right now, we should just cancel the election and just give it to Trump," the Republican presidential nominee said during a rally here on Thursday.
"Her policies are so bad. Boy, do we have a big difference," he added of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
The apparently lighthearted comment falls against the backdrop of Trump's repeated and serious questioning of the legitimacy of the presidential election in recent weeks as he has tumbled in the polls.
Trump has called the election "rigged," argued that the media and establishment politicians are conspiring to sink his campaign and warned supporters that the presidency could be stolen from them due to voter fraud -- instances of which are extremely rare.
Trump is trailing Clinton in national tracking polls and in key battleground states, and its unclear how Trump can amass the Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency if polls hold where they are through Election Day.
Trump's comments about the election also came as he mocked Clinton as "low energy" for the second time in as many days, even polling the crowd to ask them if they think Clinton or his GOP primary foil Jeb Bush is more "low energy."
"Who is more low energy, Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton?" Trump asked the crowd, re-upping a question he said Fox News host Bill O'Reilly asked him earlier in an interview airing Thursday evening.
"Hillary!" replied most of the crowd.
Trump had repeatedly mocked Bush, the very early favorite to win the GOP presidential nomination, as "low energy" during the primary contest and has repeatedly argued that Clinton does not have the "strength or stamina" to serve as president. On Thursday, he referred to her as "very low energy."
by identity » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:15 pm
Law and order, stability and prosperity:
Chinese evangelical Trumplicans in Metro Vancouver
By Justin K.H. Tse
One of the surprising discoveries of this American election season is how loud on social media Chinese evangelical supporters of Donald Trump in Metro Vancouver can be.
I don’t have the quantitative survey instruments to determine exactly how many Trumplicans there are among Chinese evangelicals in Metro Vancouver, but I’m pretty sure that most of them (an estimated 16% of the 400,000 or so Chinese Canadians counted in Metro Vancouver) can’t vote in the United States.
But what I don’t have in terms of statistics, I do have in social media posts.
Some of the people with whom I’ve interacted among Metro Vancouver’s Chinese evangelical supporters of Trump were in fact my previous research interviewees (I interviewed 50 of them in 2011), although some are not.
Perhaps one of the confusing things about Chinese evangelical support for Trump in Metro Vancouver is that the Trump campaign has by and large run a racist campaign, which on the surface would exclude Chinese people.
Sure, American evangelicals themselves have been divided over the Trump campaign; while some refuse to support Trump, others talk about Trump’s promises to appoint Supreme Court justices that would roll back abortion rights.
But none of this explains why Chinese evangelicals in Vancouver would be inclined to support Trump; this has little do, after all, with right-to-life politics in Canada.
So what is it, then?
One of the key words that keeps coming up in the social media posts that I’ve seen is stability.
A friend of mine who is a second-generation Chinese Baptist minister shared with me a video from someone to whom he’d ministered. The person has been posting Trump propaganda incessantly on his Facebook for the last four months or so.
In this video, this acquaintance – a Chinese evangelical woman – expounds her pro-Trump political philosophy in Cantonese, expanding on the ideology that is embedded in her social media comments.
For her, Trump must be elected because he is chummy with (Russian President) Vladimir Putin and (Communist Chinese President) Xi Jinping, world leaders that in her mind are ensuring the stability of global markets through authoritarian law-and-order regimes.
These leaders must not be questioned, as that would lead to an apocalyptic war among these militaristic entities.
Instead, a stable world order with strong states would facilitate global market flows, perhaps even leading to the ability to proclaim the Christian Gospel in a much more efficient, if not propagandistic, way.
The end of the world may be coming, but let’s get the word out about it first in a well-managed market where ideas and capital can freely circulate.
“For this particular class of ethnic Chinese migrants, stability was why they moved to Canada in the first place,” says Justin Tse. They believe a Trump victory will protect their wealth.
Law and order in a world of disorder: my Baptist friend’s acquaintance is not the only one talking this way.
I am told by both this woman and a financial planner in Richmond – and others still, for that matter – that protests like Euromaidan in Kyiv, the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong, and Black Lives Matter are signs of disorder because they allegedly endanger the police, the arm of the state enforcing law and order.
Whatever the disorder that Trump’s rhetoric may have caused, Trump for these social media commentators is a dose of strong law-and-order medicine on the world stage.
In other words, Chinese evangelical Trumplicans living in Vancouver may not be able to vote, but they need him to win to feel safe even in Canada.
Of course, such comments indicate that these Chinese evangelicals come from a particular class of people with wealth to protect (raising questions, of course, about whether there’s room in the religion for Chinese people who don’t have wealth to protect).
But for this particular class of ethnic Chinese migrants, stability was why they moved to Canada in the first place.
(They wanted to get) away from, say, the possible political upheavals of the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty, or the strangely personal dialectical politics of the market socialist mainland.
What all this stability talk amounts to is what the contemporary philosopher Slavoj Žižek calls “‘capitalism with Asian values’ (which, of course, has nothing to do with Asian people and everything to do with the clear and present tendency of contemporary capitalism as such to suspend democracy).”
In the same way, Chinese evangelical Trumplicanism in Metro Vancouver may have little to do with either ‘Chinese people’ or ‘evangelical theology,’ and everything to do with an ideology of law-and-order stability on the world stage in order to protect whatever material prosperity they’ve amassed.
What this implies is that the Trump phenomenon is much more than an American one. And perhaps disillusioned Americans thinking that they can simply move to Canada if Trump wins ought to feel more disillusioned still after reading this.
It’s a symptom of our global order, so perhaps it’s no surprise that folks in a city that’s called ‘global’ like Vancouver would be so invested in it.
by Grizzly » Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:31 pm
by Freitag » Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:04 pm
Rape lawsuits against Donald Trump linked to former TV producer
Norm Lubow, formerly a producer on the Jerry Springer show, apparently coordinated lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of raping a child in the 1990s
Lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of sexually assaulting a child in the 1990s appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.
[...]
by seemslikeadream » Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:21 pm
Hurt is the man who dug out Ivana Trump's 1990 divorce deposition, in which Trump's first wife stated under oath that he had raped her. The New Yorker reported this week on the deposition as described in Hurt's 1993 biography, "Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump":
Trump was furious that a "scalp reduction" operation he'd undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wife's hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, "with menacing casualness, 'Does it hurt?' " Trump has denied both the rape allegation and the suggestion that he had a scalp-reduction procedure. Hurt said that the incident, which is detailed in Ivana's deposition, was confirmed by two of her friends.
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.s ... exual.html
“Does Rush Limbaugh Not Understand The Difference Between Consensual Sex And Rape?”
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/10/1 ... ape/213831
The latest Trump tape accidentally explains rape culture in less than 3 minutes
What Trump does to a former Miss Universe onstage almost seems normal. That’s why it’s so awful.
http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/2 ... ss-onstage
Donald Trump Sexual Assault Accusations: Timeline And List Of Women With Lawsuits, Including A 13-Year-Old Girl
http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-sex ... 13-2438791
New York’s five year statute of limitations on this claim - the legal deadline for filing — has long since run. However, Jane Doe’s attorney, Thomas Meagher, argues in his court filing that because she was threatened by Mr. Trump, she has been under duress all this time, and therefore she should be permitted additional time to come forward. Legally, this is calling “tolling” - stopping the clock, allowing more time to file the case. As a result, the complaint alleges, Jane Doe did not have “freedom of will to institute suit earlier in time.” He cites two New York cases which I have read and which do support tolling
Two unusual documents are attached to Jane Doe’s complaints - sworn declarations attesting to the facts. The first is from Jane Doe herself, telling her horrific story, including the allegation that Jeffrey Epstein also raped her and threatened her into silence, and this stunner:
Defendant Epstein then attempted to strike me about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at me that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who took my virginity, not Defendant Trump . . .
And this one:
Defendant Trump stated that I shouldn’t ever say anything if I didn’t want to disappear like Maria, a 12-year-old female that was forced to be involved in the third incident with Defendant Trump and that I had not seen since that third incident, and that he was capable of having my whole family killed.
The second declaration is even more astonishing, because it is signed by “Tiffany Doe”, Mr. Epstein’s “party planner” from 1991-2000. Tiffany Doe says that her duties were “to get attractive adolescent women to attend these parties.” (Adolescents are, legally, children.
Tiffany Doe says that she recruited Jane Doe at the Port Authority in New York, persuaded her to attend Mr. Epstein’s parties, and actually witnessed the sexual assaults on Jane Doe:
I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old.
It is exceedingly rare for a sexual assault victim to have a witness. But Tiffany Doe says:
I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.
Tiffany Doe corroborates, based on her own personal observations, just about everything in Jane Doe’s complaint: that twelve year old Maria was involved in a sex act with Mr. Trump, that Mr. Trump threatened the life of Jane Doe if she ever revealed what happened, and that she would “disappear” like Maria if she did.
Tiffany Doe herself says that she is in mortal fear of Mr. Trump to this day:
I am coming forward to swear to the truthfulness of the physical and sexual abuse that I personally witnessed of minor females at the hands of Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein . . . I swear to these facts under the penalty for perjury even though I fully understand that the life of myself and my family is now in grave danger.
Given all this, and based on the record thus far, Jane Doe’s claims appear credible. Mr. Epstein’s own sexual crimes and parties with underage girls are well documented, as is Mr. Trump’s relationship with him two decades ago in New York City. Mr. Trump told a reporter a few years ago: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
Powerfully, Jane Doe appears to have an eyewitness to all aspects of her claim, a witness who appears to have put herself in substantial danger by coming forward, because at a minimum Mr. Epstein knows her true identity.
Jane Doe has not granted any interviews, and we don’t know anything about her background, or Tiffany Doe’s, or the details of their stories. Much information needs to be revealed to fully assess this case. Perhaps they will be discredited on cross-examination. Perhaps they will recant. But if we’re going to speculate in that direction, we should speculate in the other direction as well. Perhaps Jane Doe and her lawyer will have more evidence and witnesses to corroborate her claim. Perhaps witnesses from Mr. Epstein’s notorious parties will come forward. We just can’t know any of that at this point.
But based on what we do know now, Jane Doe’s claims fall squarely into the long, ugly context of Mr. Trump’s life of misogyny, are consistent with prior sexual misconduct claims, are backed up by an eyewitness, and thus should be taken seriously. Her claims merit sober consideration and investigation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloo ... 19944.html
How Trump Has Helped the Christian Right Return to Its White Nationalist Roots
The racism never left—it was just in hiding until Trump came along.
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/reli ... tionalists
10 Ways Trump Broke the Law and Got Away with It: Putting the Latest Clinton Email Media Frenzy in Perspective
There's no comparing Clinton's email carelessness to a lifetime of lawlessness.
By Steven Rosenfeld / AlterNet October 28, 2016
With 11 days to go before Election Day, the FBI's announcement Friday that the bureau is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while Secretary of State may be 2016’s October surprise, inflaming an already scorched race.
But nobody should confuse Clinton’s unfortunate use of a private email system in which a handful of classified messages seeped into the tens of thousands sent and received with Donald Trump’s lifetime of borderline criminality, as evidenced by being sued more than 4,500 times for his business practices, his extensive bilking of small businesses, his deliberate tax evasions, and his on-camera boasts of sexual assaults.
Friday’s disclosure by FBI director James Comey, a Republican appointed by President Obama three years ago, will raise more questions than can be answered before Election Day. Others will parse the politics, noting the unnerving development serves the Trump-Republican National Committee strategy of suppressing voter turnout. A Bloomberg profile this week, quoting top Trump staffers, described this as the campaign’s only path to victory because Trump is stuck in the low 40s in polls.
What’s lost in the media frenzy over the FBI investigation is that Clinton’s mishandling of several dozen emails simply cannot be compared to Trump’s outrageous history of bending or breaking the law, and getting away with it.
“Trump launched his campaign with fraud, as the Trump Tower crowd that interrupted him 43 times with applause on June 16, 2015, consisted of actors paid fifty bucks apiece,” David Cay Johnston, an investigative reporter who has covered Trump since the 1980s and is the author of The Making of Donald Trump, wrote earlier this week. “For his whole life, Trump has cheated workers, shortchanges small business owners and ripped off investors, as courts have determined in some of the 4,500 Trump lawsuits.”
Here are 10 examples of Trump’s borderline or admitted criminality, all taken from The Making of Donald Trump, a book with 44 pages of source notes, and subsequent articles and interviews with Johnston.
1. Boasts of sexually assaulting women. As almost everyone in America knows, Trump was caught boasting on videotape about imposing himself sexually on women, including the felony of grabbing their genitals. While he tried to dismiss his remarks as mere locker room bragging, a dozen women came forward to accuse him of improper behavior or sexual assault. Trump predictably accused all of them of lying and working for Clinton, and threatened to sue them all after the election. However, what Trump bragged about, and what the women said he did, is against the law.
2. Used illegal immigrants and mob to build Trump Tower. Trump’s borderline relationship with the law goes back decades. Before his signature building in New York City, Trump Tower, could be built, he had to demolish a department store. Trump used 200 undocumented Polish migrants who did not follow construction safety codes and were paid “off the books,” a federal court later held. He then built an all-concrete building, which cut some costs associated with a steel-based tower, using “ready-mix from a company called S&A Concrete. Mafia chieftains Anthony ‘Fat Tony’ Salerno and Paul Castellano secretly owned the firm,” Johnston wrote.
3. Caught Illegally not paying sales taxes. Some of Trump’s other brushes with the law are just dumb, unless he’s not as rich as he says he is or just likes to flirt with borderline behavior. In the mid-'80s, New York State’s attorney general listed Trump among 200 other wealthy people who bought pricey gems at a Manhattan jeweler and had the store put an out-of-state address on the receipt to avoid paying sales tax. Ed Koch, the mayor of New York at the time, said Trump should have spent 15 days in jail. Had Trump been convicted of tax fraud, Johnston wrote, he likely would have lost his New Jersey casino licenses.
4. More evidence of federal income tax fraud. In what can only be described as a bizarre series of events, Trump’s lawyer and accountant Jack Mitnick testified under oath that while he signed Trump’s 1984 federal tax return, neither he nor his firm had prepared it. “That same return showed $0 business consulting income and more than $600,000 of expenses for which no receipts were produced, also strong evidence of fraud,” Johnston wrote. During the presidential campaign, Trump has refused to release his taxes, saying he is being audited by the IRS, “but [he] will not even release the form letter proving an audit.”
5. Claiming $916 million in tax losses, but not paying bills. When the New York Times broke the story that Trump claimed $916 million in real estate losses in 1995, most of the focus was on how it allowed him to avoid federal taxes for years on income adding up to that figure. But there is another dimension to that move, which Johnston described in a Daily Beast piece: Those losses enabled Trump to tell bankruptcy courts he didn’t have the money to fully pay an army of contractors and small businesses. “Trump claimed to be worth billions in the 1990s, just as he now does, yet he could not pay his bills,” Johnston wrote. “He stiffed hundreds of small-business suppliers, including those for the Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, which will go out of business [in mid-October].”
6. Trump University was another massive con job. To start, Trump broke the laws of several states that only allowed an authorized institution to be called a university. Then Trump lied when he said he would personally pick the faculty, but when deposed under oath after being sued, admitted he had no idea who the faculty were. Johnston wrote, “His ‘faculty’ stood over students helping them take on all the credit card debt banks would give them to pay tuition and other fees to Trump U., leaving them with no capacity to invest in real estate.”
7. Paying off prosecutors via political donations to avoid charges. When former Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott investigated Trump University, he found its teaching “worthless” and encouraging “illegal” actions, Johnston wrote. “The Texas attorney general’s lawyers concluded that if sued by the state, Trump would have no legal defenses to civil fraud charges.” Abbott did not sue, but later got a $35,000 campaign contribution from Trump. Much the same storyline unfolded in Florida, where Attorney General Pam Bondi declined to take action after receiving many complaints and Trump’s foundation illegally donated $25,000 to her re-election campaign. Tax-exempt charities aren’t allowed to contribute to political campaigns.
8. Using his foundation for other illegal expenses. Johnston writes, “At least nine times, Trump made illegal use of Trump Foundation money including paying personal debts, legal obligations and buying two paintings of himself; he also illegally solicited money (he recently stopped) and did not provide audited financial statements as required by state law.”
9. A lifetime of hiding behind secret settlements when sued. Trump has been sued 4,500 times and has a history of dragging out cases until the other side quits, or reaching a settlement in which those suing are sworn to secrecy before getting paid. As Johnston told AlterNet after his book came out, “His skill at shutting down law enforcement investigations—I cite those four grand juries, etc.—is extraordinary. He knows when to run to the cops and rat out people, or tell them information that will help them. He knows how to use the court system to cover up what he’s done by making a settlement on the condition that the record be sealed. And he’s masterful at this.”
10. Doing business with other known criminals. Over his career, Trump has done business with people with serious criminal records. Some were involved in deals, like “a violent convicted felon and swindler, named Felix Sater, who was helping Trump make two major development deals in Denver” a decade ago, Johnston wrote. “Trump wildly overpaid two mob hitmen known as ‘The Young Executioners’ for a tiny plot of New Jersey land,” he said in another example.
Then there's convicted drug smuggler Joseph Weichselbaum, whose helicopter service flew gamblers to Trump’s New Jersey casino, a business relationship that put his casino license at risk. When Weichselbaum, who also lived at Trump Towers, faced additional charges, Trump wrote to the judge seeking leniency. After New Jersey regulators discovered the letter, which Trump initially denied writing, they investigated but did not “raise deeper issues about Trump’s fitness to hold a license,” Johnston wrote. More recently, he has also worked with “a convicted art thief…as well as the son of a Russian mob boss, a man with a violent history—and there’s a video to prove it.”
The Latest Clinton Media Frenzy
Nobody needs to be reminded that the same national press that helped create Trump the candidate—because he was willing to feed them a new inflammatory remark every day—is now in a frenzy over the latest development in the Clinton email saga.
Obviously, Hillary Clinton should have never used a private email server while Secretary of State, especially if she knew she’d be running for president again. But that blind spot, and the few confidential emails that slipped through the tens of thousands of other messages, doesn’t bend or break the law on comparable grounds to Trump’s lifelong record of flouting rules and breaking laws, and in many cases, bragging about it.
“So much of this book is about Trump's many complex and little-known relationships with criminals—a vast assortment of con artists, swindlers, mobsters and mob associates, a major drug trafficker he went to bat for, and other unsavory characters,” Johnston wrote in his book’s epilogue. "As these pages make clear, Trump’s relationships with criminals were often profitable, sometimes gratuitous, and never properly examined by those whose duty was to investigate."
It's Alive: The FBI Reanimates the Clinton Email Server Fake Scandal
The ugly ending of this ugly election just got even uglier. Like rotting armadillo ugly. Oh, we were lulled briefly into a sense that the whole thing was going to wind to an end, as Republican candidate and upside down candy corn Donald Trump was starting to choke on his own conspiracy theories, as Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton amassed an insurmountable lead and was starting to make serious inroads into states that had previously been GOP strongholds.
Well, the motherfuckin' joke was on every one of us motherfuckers.
Today, FBI Director James Comey released a nearly meaningless, cagey letter to members of Congress saying the FBI, while looking into some unnamed matter, found some emails "that appear pertinent to the investigation" of Clinton's private email server. So the FBI is gonna check 'em out to see if "they contain classified information" and if they have any "importance to our investigation."
This isn't a "reopening" of the investigation, as everyone is breathlessly saying. If it had ever been closed, Comey wouldn't have said he was going to "supplement" his previous report. It would be a new investigation. Besides, reporter Pete Williams says that the emails aren't actually from Clinton, just from a device that was found. In other words, chances are it's a big fucking pile of nothing and Comey was covering his ass and/or starting up some shit because he's, hell, who knows? bored? Or was he trying to get the FBI out of the crosshairs of the Republican pigfuckers in Congress who have vowed nonstop investigations of the bureau?
And thus, with a whiff of pheromones in the air, the right-wing feeding frenzy went from "shit fight at a monkeyhouse" to "weasels fucking after getting into the meth stash." All of a sudden, Trump was loving the FBI after talking shit about it for months, and declared that the email "scandal" was "bigger than Watergate" (and obviously more important than being a sexual predator). The Republican National Committee, facing the loss of the Senate and the potential loss of the House, went all in on saying that the mere hint at some iota of something slightly suspicious automatically disqualifies Clinton. Conservatives yelped out in simultaneous orgasm all over social media. Sean Hannity was last seen still convulsing on the floor of his office as a weeping intern waited to clean him up. Ann Coulter just squirted and exploded.
Welcome to the last dozen days of this endless goddamn punishment of an election. I'm gonna guess almost no one is thinking of changing their votes from Clinton to Donald Trump because some vague, undefined thing must be up with Clinton and the emails, even though you don't really know what the fuck that really is. But, goddamnit, it just means that the GOP is fluffing itself for the coming impeachment hearings.
And that, more than anything else, is the reason they must be crushed into street scum and washed away come Election Day.
Posted by Rude One at 2:47 PM
10/27/2016
Jason Chaffetz Thinks He Can Take Just the Tip of Trump's Dick
Jason Chaffetz, a proud Republican congressman from Utah and a man who looks like a shit-flecked, tossed-out toilet scrub brush, announced proudly on his proud Twitter feed that he was taking a proud stand for America: "I will not defend or endorse @realDonaldTrump, but I am voting for him. HRC is that bad. HRC is bad for the USA." He followed this up by adding, "And I won't suck Mr. Trump's dick entirely, but I will just lick the tip."
Previously, Chaffetz had taken another mighty stand, proudly declaring that Republican presidential nominee and withered kumquat of doom Donald Trump was vile when he talked about pussy-grabbing. Said Chaffetz on CNN just 3 weeks ago, "I'm not going to put my good name and reputation and my family behind Donald Trump when he acts like this, I just can't do it," bemoaning that his 15 year-old daughter might be exposed to such Trumpian vulgarity.
Today, however, he said, "I don't actually have a good name. Seriously, have you seen me in action? I'm just a fucked-up, horrible human being whose only purpose will be to shit all over the presidency of Hillary Clinton and try to stop government from functioning by tying her up in endless bullshit investigations." He added, "My reputation is garbage and I kind of fucking hate my family, so, yeah, I'm gonna just place the tip of Mr. Trump's dick in my mouth. But I promise all of my constituents that I will not fully engorge his cock."
He continued, "Rest assured, people of Utah's 3rd Congressional District, I will lick a bit around Mr. Trump's prick hole, but I am not going to deep throat the entire shaft and grab it and jack it off while I suck and lick. I won't cup Mr. Trump's balls and swallow with a satisfied moan when he spurts hot jism into my face. I have ethics, as you all know. Instead, I will spend every waking moment obsessed with leaked emails, trying to desperately fuck that into a scandal that will nakedly appeal to Trump's voters so I can get more power."
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com
by seemslikeadream » Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:53 pm
by 82_28 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:19 am
by seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:01 am
Analysis: The Vengeful World of Donald Trump, and Why it Matters
by BENJY SARLIN
PlayAnalysis: Inside Donald Trump's vengeful worldview
Analysis: Inside Donald Trump's vengeful worldview 1:59
Summarizing Donald Trump's worldview isn't easy, but this may come close: The world is a violent place, and it demands a violent response.
His campaign might seem like a storm emitting strikes of lightning: He's made news by giving out a Republican rival's phone number, tweeting about a "sex tape" and even accusing his opponent, Hillary Clinton, of possibly taking drugs.
But there's a pattern to what he says and does and the campaign's waning days have placed that pattern in sharp focus as Trump issues apocalyptic warnings of a vast conspiracy to steal the election.
"This is a struggle for the survival of our nation, believe me, and this will be our last chance to save it on November 8," Trump said in a speech this month.
The Candidate's Rhetoric
Trump's emphasis on violence and retaliation, especially outside the confines of the law, is unique among modern nominees and is rooted in a set of guiding principles.
"WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF VIOLENCE ON ELECTION DAY AND AFTERWARDS"
In his eyes, the world is an unforgiving place where cities are "war zones," where "rapists" are streaming across the border and where jealous rivals are hatching plots to humiliate America and Trump personally.
To prevail in such an environment, he suggests, the response to any slight must be swift and overwhelming. Dwelling on limits imposed by law or tradition is usually a secondary concern.
This framework has expressed itself in policy, in which Trump has extolled the use of torture, threatened reprisals against the families of terrorists and pledged to jail Clinton, a former senator and secretary of state. It has expressed itself rhetorically in vicious insults against critics and in his encouragement of violence by supporters.
"She's nasty, but I can be nastier than she ever can be," Trump told The New York Times after Clinton criticized his past comments on women's appearances in their first debate. The next day, he suggested at a rally that she had cheated on her husband, while offering no evidence for the claim.
PlayTrump Calls Clinton A 'Nasty Woman' Facebook Twitter Google PlusEmbed
Trump Calls Clinton A 'Nasty Woman' 0:21
It has expressed itself in the video of Trump boasting about sexual assault and demeaning a journalist who he said refused his advances. In recent days, he's threatened to sue women who have publicly accused him of unwanted sexual contact and to break up large companies (including Comcast, which owns NBC News) that produce media coverage he finds unfair.
It has also expressed itself at Trump's rallies, where supporters have reflected the candidate's harsh tone.
"We're all Second Amendment pros, we want our country back like he just said, and she's not going to give it to us," a Trump voter, Tammy Wilson, said at a Florida rally this month after predicting people would "rise up" if Trump loses.
The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this story. With Trump's language heating up in the final days and his list of enemies growing fast, some civil rights groups and law enforcement officials are raising fears that things could get out of hand.
"We are concerned about the possibility of violence on Election Day and afterwards," Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center told NBC News.
Code of Vengeance
A strict code of vengeance seems to be a point of pride for Trump, who has touted his philosophy on numerous occasions.
"What happens is they hit me and I hit them back harder and, usually in all cases, they do it first," Trump told Fox News in April. "But they hit me and I hit them back harder and they disappear. That's what we want to lead the country."
The same month, Trump told a radio host that the Bible verse that's influenced him most is "an eye for an eye."
Image: Pastors from the Las Vegas area pray with Donald Trump
Pastors from the Las Vegas area pray with Donald Trump during a visit to the International Church of Las Vegas and International Christian Academy on Oct. 5. Evan Vucci / AP
"They laugh at our face, and they're taking our jobs, they're taking our money, they're taking the health of our country," Trump said in explaining his affection for the passage. "We have to be firm and have to be very strong. And we can learn a lot from the Bible, that I can tell you."
He's explained his support for torture and war crimes as a case of having "to fight fire with fire." He's justified an abusive tweet mocking Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's wife, Heidi, as an example of "counterpunching," one of his favorite phrases.
"Am I not allowed to respond?" he asked after being criticized for feuding with a Gold Star family that denounced his proposed ban on Muslims.
"I know of no presidential candidate and no president who has used that kind of imagery on a repeated basis throughout an entire campaign," Martin Medhurst, a professor at Baylor University who specializes in political rhetoric, said. "There's simply nothing like it."
Violence as policy
At the second presidential debate, in St. Louis, millions of viewers waited to hear how Trump would respond to the newly released 2005 Access Hollywood tape in which he boasted of grabbing women's genitals.
When asked whether his comments constituted sexual assault, the candidate briefly apologized and dismissed the remarks as "locker room talk." But then his answer took an abrupt turn for the bloody.
PlayExtended: Donald Trump hot mic comments
Extended: Donald Trump hot mic comments 3:02
"You know, when we have a world where you have ISIS chopping off heads, where you have them, frankly, drowning people in steel cages, where you have wars and horrible, horrible sights all over and you have so many bad things happening, this is like medieval times," Trump said. "We haven't seen anything like this."
It was a revealing riff, one that Trump has used many times before, and makes sense in his confrontational worldview: as long as an enemy somewhere is engaged in bad behavior, there's little point fretting about the goodness of one's own.
In the case of the debate, Trump brought up ISIS when talking about his own personal conduct. Usually, though, he's brought up the same descriptions of executions while rousing audiences with talk of war crimes.
"The enemy is cutting off the heads of Christians and drowning them in cages, and yet we are too politically correct to respond in kind," he wrote in a letter to USA Today in February explaining his support for torture.
"We have to fight so viciously and violently because we're dealing with violent people," he said in a June speech endorsing waterboarding that also referenced ISIS executions.
Trump has made this willingness to out-brutalize opponents a central point of his political message. It was an effective strategy during the Republican primary campaign, when his rivals were largely uncomfortable straying from constitutional limits or traditional assumptions of human decency.
PlayDespite His Claims, Donald Trump Did Initially Support the Iraq War
Despite His Claims, Donald Trump Did Initially Support the Iraq War 0:59
On the eve of the New Hampshire primary last February, for example, Trump repeated the words of a supporter who called a leading opponent, Ted Cruz, a "p***y" for not showing enough enthusiasm for torture.
Trump later credited the moment with helping power him to victory in the state. "Torture works, OK folks?" he said later that month. "If it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway," he has also said.
Officials who served under the last Republican president, George W. Bush, engaged in heated debates over issues like torture that tested legal boundaries. Bush ultimately authorized the use of waterboarding, arguing it did not rise to the level of torture. Congress eventually outlawed the practice.
It's notable, however, that some of the most prominent figures on both sides of those Bush-era arguments are now among Trump's fiercest critics.
"On issue after issue, Trump lacks a fundamental humanity in his approach to people that is absolutely startling," said Alberto Mora, the former top Navy lawyer who led efforts to oppose practices like waterboarding within the Bush administration. "His support of torture is of a piece with his innate cruelty."
John Yoo, author of the so-called "torture memos" that provided legal footing for enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding, condemned Trump using equally strong language, even comparing him to fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.
"He's the classic demagogue described well in the Federalist Papers that our system is designed to stop," Yoo said.
PlayTrump in Praise of Dictators
Trump in Praise of Dictators 1:38
For Mora and Yoo the issue isn't just the proposals Trump has championed, but the underlying philosophy that they see behind them.
"He's pandering to the sort of visceral reaction people have for revenge against terrorists, which is not what motivated the Bush administration," Yoo said.
Trump's public remarks often suggest that brutal adversaries should set the terms of engagement.
"Look, you have to play the game the way they're playing the game," Trump said on CBS in March, when asked whether he was stooping to the same level as the "savages" he sought to defeat.
In a GOP debate last December, when criticized for his plan to "take out" the civilian families of terrorists, Trump asked: "So they can kill us, but we can't kill them?"
Army Lt. General Keith Kellogg, an adviser to Trump, told NBC News that the candidate would uphold American law and international treaties such as the Geneva Convention that the candidate has criticized on the trail.
"His point is that he will do everything he can to protect the American people, everything, but he also understands there are certain rules," Kellogg said.
PlayTrump on the Military: In His Own Words
Trump on the Military: In His Own Words 1:36
Trump himself has said as much after initially suggesting at a debate he would override military officers who refused to carry out illegal orders. He currently enjoys support from a number of retired military leaders. Yet, dozens of senior Republican national security officials in August signed onto a letter opposing his candidacy. In March, 122 prominent foreign policy and national security conservatives also warned of Trump's "embrace of the expansive use of torture."
"I would never trust him to follow the law," said Eliot A. Cohen, a former State Department official under Bush who helped organize the March statement. "We're dealing with a dangerous egomaniac who has no control of himself, recognizes no limits, no bounds and does not recognize the constraints of law or anything else."
Telling it Like it Is
Waiting in line with thousands of Trump fans outside the Mohegan Sun Arena in Wilkes-Barre on October 10, some of the nominee's supporters offered a different take on Trump's tough stance on security.
To Ben Johnson, a retired firefighter wearing a "Deplorable Me" T-shirt and a "Make America Great Again" cap, the problem isn't Trump, it's everyone else. Other politicians, Johnson said, offer a "rosy picture" of the world. Trump, he said, is a realist, especially on issues like terrorism.
"I dug at the World Trade Center for two weeks, so I saw what these people are capable of up close and personal," Johnson said. "If Hillary Clinton gets in, it's going to be more of that."
At the rally, two women in costume acted out a coughing Clinton being led to prison by Trump. Inside the venue, a man wearing a "She's A C**t, Vote For Trump" T-shirt sat with his wife and children. While most audience members opt for a tamer message, "Trump That B***h" T-shirts have been a rally mainstay for months.
When Trump spoke that day, he paused at points to allow the crowd to scream in unison at the reporters covering the rally. Chants of "lock her up," the campaign's unofficial slogan, broke out before and during his remarks. "Lock her up is right," Trump, who has said he will prosecute and jail Clinton, responded.
Four days later in Greensboro, North Carolina, another crowd chanted "lock her up" — this time in reference to one of the women accusing Trump of unwanted sexual contact.
Play Donald Trump Says He'll Sue All of His Accusers After the Election
Donald Trump Says He'll Sue All of His Accusers After the Election 0:22
The women coming forward with stories of what they say was inappropriate behavior by Trump were the main topic of his speech that day. Trump, who counts among his fans people notorious for harassing perceived enemies on social media, urged the crowd to "check out" one accuser's Facebook page.
While Trump spoke, a burly man in a "Make America Great Again" cap put a protester in a headlock before security removed the activist, then walked around collecting high fives from rally-goers. As security came to remove him as well, the crowd began cheering, "Let him stay!"
Law and order
While past presidential nominees have taken care to distance themselves from unruly or threatening supporters, Trump has hinted, implied or outright stated that extremism in defense of Trump is no vice.
That message peaked during the primaries, when Trump, running on a platform of "law and order," routinely defended supporters who physically attacked protesters.
On the day of the Iowa caucuses in February, Trump told supporters he would pay for a lawyer if they "knock the crap out of" protesters he claimed were planning to throw tomatoes. Later that same month, as a protester was escorted out, Trump said he'd "like to punch him in the face, I tell ya."
Image: A member of the audience throws a punch at a protester as Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks
A member of the audience throws a punch at a protester as Trump speaks during a campaign event in Tucson, Arizona, on March 19. SAM MIRCOVICH / Reuters
In March, Trump said he would consider paying legal bills for a supporter who had sucker punched a protester on camera. He didn't "condone" the behavior, but the protesters, he said, were "very taunting."
These face-offs were a familiar ritual at Trump rallies until the candidate toned things down somewhat after protesters and supporters clashed at a March event in Chicago. His rallies now include a recorded request that audience members let security handle any disturbances. The largest subsequent outbreak of violence came from anti-Trump protesters, who threw eggs and attacked Trump supporters at an event in San Jose. But Trump also warned Republicans of "riots" if delegates denied him the nomination at the GOP convention.
"We see a lot of violence around Trump appearances where supporters think: 'Well, gee he's authorized me to do it,' even without a direct order," said Kim Lane Scheppele, a Princeton professor and expert on authoritarian regimes. "It creates a kind of culture of permission," Scheppele said.
Image: Supporters watch Donald Trump speak on the eve of the South Carolina primary
Trump supporters watch him speak on the eve of the state's primary in North Charleston on Feb. 19. Spencer Platt / Getty Images
Twice Trump has made jokes that seem to float the notion of Clinton being assassinated. In August he suggested "Second Amendment people" could prevent her from filling a Supreme Court seat. It was widely perceived as a reference to violence, although the campaign denied that was his intent. In September, he said Clinton's bodyguards should disarm and then "see what happens to her."
Trump has also shown unprecedented tolerance for supporters who engage in more overt threats.
He enthusiastically defended the character of an adviser, Al Baldasaro, after he repeatedly said Clinton "should be shot by a firing squad," even after his campaign distanced itself from the remarks.
Carl Paladino, the current chair of Trump's New York campaign, sent an email to a female anti-Trump Utah GOP delegate saying she should be "hung for treason" and promised to "be in your face" at the convention. Roger Stone, a longtime informal adviser to Trump, has regularly called for executing political opponents.
Rising tension
In the final weeks of the campaign, the candidate has cast himself as the victim of an unsubstantiated global conspiracy to rob him of the presidency — blaming almost everyone, including media outlets, election officials, banks, pollsters, Democrats, Republicans and his many female accusers.
Taking a cue from the nominee, one Trump voter told the Boston Globe that he plans to make minority voters "a little bit nervous" at election sites in response to the candidate's regular calls to watch for fraud at polling places. Others have raised the possibility of post-election unrest. The Trump campaign responded to the Globe article by saying they "reject violence in any form and will not allow it to be a part of our campaign."
PlayWhen Trump Admitted He Was Wrong
When Trump Admitted He Was Wrong 1:21
For the most part, Trump supporters at recent events say they will accept the results of the election even as they question the process. Trump has complained that accusations his campaign remarks stoke violence are overblown and has accused activists of deliberately baiting his voters.
But the escalation in rhetoric, paired with Trump's longstanding reluctance to denounce extremist supporters, has civil rights groups worried that conditions are becoming dangerous.
This fear is especially pronounced because Trump has cast such a wide net in picking targets, and they often have a racial, ethnic, or religious component. He's regularly made false claims about American Muslims celebrating terrorism or refusing to turn in an attacker and warned that "other communities" — almost invariably cities with large minority populations — are out to steal the election. Recently, Trump told Fox News "illegal immigrants are voting all over the country."
"What happens on Nov. 9 is anyone's guess, but some of these trend lines of mainstreaming and broadening bigotry and incidents of violence and hints of a dark conspiracy are very concerning," Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, said in an interview.
PlayClinton Campaign Pushes Back Hard Against New Probe of Clinton Emails
Clinton Campaign Pushes Back Hard Against New Probe of Clinton Emails 4:14
WILTON MANORS, Fla. — Hillary Clinton pledged to keep her "foot on the gas" in the final stretch of the campaign, despite the "noise and distraction" coming from her opponent amid the news that FBI is seeking a warrant to review newly discovered emails tied to her private server.
Speaking at an LGBT event here Sunday, Clinton said she wanted voters to know she was "focused" and wouldn't be "knocked off course" despite what "our opponents throw at us."
The Democratic candidate made a similar vow earlier in the day during a stop at New Mount Olive Baptist Church in Fort. Lauderdale, where she pledged to tackle systemic racism, sexism and prejudice.
At both events, she made no explicit mention of the FBI probe that has once again thrust her private email server into the headlines, but repeated several times that she would not "back down." Emails that FBI director James Comey said "appear to be pertinent" to the original investigation were discovered by agents on a laptop that belonged to former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who is under investigation for allegedly sexting an underage girl, that Weiner's wife, current and former top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, also used.
PlayClinton camp: Comey's letter 'short on facts'
Clinton camp: Comey's letter 'short on facts' 5:28
During the church service, the Democratic nominee cited scripture when she said that "suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope," and spoke extensively about her mother, who taught her that when facing hardships "what matters is whether you get back up."
At her next stop, Clinton went beyond her usual charge that Donald Trump is divisive and dangerous for his "fear-mongering" to slam him for overstating his level of charitable giving throughout his career. Citing a Washington Post report that details several instances in which Trump exaggerated his generosity, Clinton ripped his philanthropy record.
"For as long as he has been rich and famous, he has wanted people to believe he is generous," Clinton said, arguing that David Fahrenthold's new story shows the exact opposite. "With Donald, it's always Donald Trump first and everyone else last. He abuses his power, he games the system and doesn't care who is left holding the bag."
Noting the "unity" theme of Sunday afternoon's event, Clinton bashed Trump for his "terrible" record on LGBT issues as well.
"This election will determine whether we continue the progress we've made or let it be ripped away. We know Trump has promised he'll appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn marriage equality and that he will repeal President Obama's executive actions to protect LGBT people from discrimination," she said.
Throughout this riff, several members of the crowd yelled "lock him up!" — a twist on the usual Trump crowd rallying cry.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... rs-n671721
The costs of Comey’s appeasement
Who is FBI Director James Comey?
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Opinion writer October 30 at 7:48 PM
The evidence suggests that FBI Director James B. Comey is a decent man. The evidence also suggests that he has been intimidated by pressure from Republicans in Congress whose interest is not in justice but in destroying Hillary Clinton.
On Friday, a whipsawed Comey gave in. Breaking with FBI precedent and Justice Department practice, he weighed in on one side of a presidential campaign.
I don’t believe this was his intention. But his vaguely worded letter to Congress announcing that the FBI was examining emails on a computer used by Clinton aide Huma Abedin accomplished the central goals of the right-wing critics Comey has been trying to get off his back.
Especially disturbing is that some of those critics are inside the FBI. As The Post’s Sari Horwitz reported on Saturday, “a largely conservative investigative corps” in the bureau was “complaining privately that Comey should have tried harder to make a case” against Clinton.
For a major law-enforcement institution to be so politicized and biased against one party would be a genuine scandal. If Comey acted in part out of fear that his agents would leak against him, it would reflect profound dysfunction within the FBI.
Clinton and Trump campaigns react to renewed FBI email probe Play Video2:06
The campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, including their respective running mates Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, reacted on Oct. 30 to the FBI’s announcement that it will examine newly discovered Clinton emails. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)
One measure of the damage Comey has done to his reputation is the praise Donald Trump showered upon him after months of trashing the director for not recommending Clinton’s indictment. Winning favor from a politician who has described how he would use the government’s instruments to punish his enemies is not something a professional like Comey should ever be proud of.
Far from cowering, Clinton and her campaign went on the offensive, demanding more clarity from the FBI director. In light of reports that no one in the bureau has even viewed the messages, Tim Kaine, Clinton’s vice-presidential running mate, said on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday: “If he hasn’t seen the emails, I mean, they need to make that completely plain.” Clinton called Comey’s intervention “unprecedented” and “deeply troubling.” Indeed.
Comey’s murky letter opened the way for Trump to level wild charges against Clinton and for congressional Republicans to engage in their own initiatives to twist the truth.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chair of the Oversight Committee, quickly tweeted news of Comey’s letter Friday and stated: “Case reopened.”
This is not what Comey said (and technically the Clinton case was never closed). But many in the media bought Chaffetz’s hype, especially in early accounts. That’s what happens when an FBI director hands an explosive but muddled letter to a Republican-led Congress.
In fact, Chaffetz had already made clear that if Clinton wins, the GOP’s top priority will be to keep the Clinton investigative machine rolling.
“It’s a target-rich environment,” Chaffetz cheerfully told The Post’s David Weigel last week. “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”
Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail
View Photos The Democratic presidential nominee hits the road as Election Day nears.
And on ABC Sunday, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chair of the Judiciary Committee, gave the Republicans’ game away when he spoke of Clinton’s “potential impeachment” before correcting himself. Note to reader: Inauguration Day isn’t until Jan. 20, 2017.
These are the people Comey has been trying to mollify ever since he decided that there was no way the evidence justified prosecuting Clinton. His first act of appeasement was his July news conference in which he announced his decision but also criticized Clinton and her aides for being “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sign up
Comey may have thought he had arrived at the Solomonic middle ground that would make everyone happy. But as Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department official, wrote in The Post, when “the government decides it will not submit its assertions to . . . rigorous scrutiny by bringing charges, it has the responsibility to not besmirch someone’s reputation by lobbing accusations publicly instead.”
Comey had entered the political fray, and there was no turning back — especially since his Republican tormentors would not be satisfied until Clinton was brought down. As The Post editorialized, Comey had already gone “too far” in “providing raw FBI material to Congress.” He allowed himself to be sucked into a dangerous and dysfunctional relationship with one political party that set him on the hazardous course to Friday’s letter.
History shows that appeasing bullies never works. Maybe Comey has learned this lesson and will try to make amends in coming days.
As for the voters, my hope is that they reject this perversion of justice all the way down the ballot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 1213064674
by Luther Blissett » Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:24 am
by seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:27 am
Luther Blissett » Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:24 am wrote:Are people not talking about his upcoming trial for the alleged rape of a child because it's too tabloid-esque, impolite, or trashy to even mention? I don't get it.
Donald Trump has a long, troubling history of destroying and hiding important documents in lawsuits, but he thinks Hillary Clinton’s the one who should be going to jail.
Over the course of decades, Donald Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders. These tactics—exposed by a Newsweek review of thousands of pages of court filings, judicial orders and affidavits from an array of court cases—have enraged judges, prosecutors, opposing lawyers and the many ordinary citizens entangled in litigation with Trump. In each instance, Trump and entities he controlled also erected numerous hurdles that made lawsuits drag on for years, forcing courtroom opponents to spend huge sums of money in legal fees as they struggled—sometimes in vain—to obtain records.This behavior is of particular import given Trump’s frequent condemnations of Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent, for having deleted more than 30,000 emails from a server she used during her time as secretary of state. While Clinton and her lawyers have said all of those emails were personal, Trump has suggested repeatedly on the campaign trail that they were government documents Clinton was trying to hide and that destroying them constituted a crime. The allegation—which the FBI concluded was not supported by any evidence—is a crowd-pleaser at Trump rallies, often greeted by supporters chanting, “Lock her up!”
TRUMP’S USE OF DECEPTION and untruthful affidavits, as well as the hiding or improper destruction of documents, dates back to at least 1973, when the Republican nominee, his father and their real estate company battled the federal government over civil charges that they refused to rent apartments to African-Americans. The Trump strategy was simple: deny, impede and delay, while destroying documents the court had ordered them to hand over.
Shortly after the government filed its case in October, Trump attacked: He falsely declared to reporters that the feds had no evidence he and his father discriminated against minorities, but instead were attempting to force them to lease to welfare recipients who couldn’t pay their rent.The family’s attempts to slow down the federal case were at times nonsensical. Trump submitted an affidavit contending that the government had engaged in some unspecified wrongdoing by releasing statements to the press on the day it brought the case without first having any “formal communications” with him; he contended that he’d learned of the complaint only while listening to his car radio that morning. But Trump’s sworn statement was a lie. Court records show that the government had filed its complaint at 10 a.m. and phoned him almost immediately afterward. The government later notified the media with a press release.Prosecutors responded to Trump’s affidavit by showing he had fudged his claim by using the term “formal communication”—an acknowledgment, they said, that he had received what only he would characterize as an informal notification—which they described as an intentional effort to mislead the court and the public. But the allegation slowed the case; it required government lawyers to appear in court to shoot down Trump’s false charge.
The Trumps had more delaying tactics. Trump announced in a press conference that his family and their company were bringing a $100 million countersuit against the government for libel; anonymous tenants and community leaders, he said, had been calling and writing letters expressing shock at the government’s “outrageous lies.” Once again, motions, replies and hearings followed. Once again, the court threw out the Trump allegations.For months, the Trumps ignored the government’s discovery demands, even though court procedure in a civil or criminal case requires each side to produce relevant documents in a timely manner. This allows for the plaintiffs or prosecutors to develop more evidence in support of their claims, as well as for the defense to gather proof to fight the case against them. When litigation is filed or even contemplated, scrupulous lawyers and corporations immediately impose document-retention programs or require that any shredding or disposing of records be halted. Courts have handed down severe sanctions or even criminal charges of obstruction of justice against executives and companies that destroyed records because they knew they were going to be sued.Yet when the government filed its standard discovery requests, the Trumps reacted as though seeking that information was outrageous. They argued in court that prosecutors had no case and wanted to riffle through corporate files on a fishing expedition. Once again, this led to more delays, more replies, more hearings...and another specious argument thrown out of court.
Six months after the original filing, the case was nowhere because the Trumps had repeatedly ignored the deadlines to produce records and answers to questions, known as interrogatories. When a government attorney finally telephoned a Trump lawyer to find out why, he was told the Trumps had not even begun preparing their answers and had no plans to do so. The Trumps also postponed and blocked depositions, refused to provide a description of their records, as required, and would not turn over any documents.
11_11_Trump_02
Trump has a long history of ignoring orders from a court, such as during his 1973 discrimination case when he ignored government requests for documents.
BRAD TRENT
Finally, under subpoena, Trump appeared for a short deposition. When asked about the missing documents, he made a shocking admission: The Trumps had been destroying their corporate records for the previous six months and had no document-retention program. They had conducted no inspections to determine which files might have been sought in the discovery requests or might otherwise be related to the case. Instead, in order to “save space,” Trump testified, officials with his company had been tossing documents into the shredder and garbage.The government dashed to court, seeking sanctions against the Trumps. Prosecutors asked the judge to allow them to search through the corporate files or simply declare the Trumps in default and enter a judgment against them. The judge opted to allow the government access to the company offices so they could find the records themselves.In three letters and three phone calls, the government notified the Trumps that this inspection would take place on June 12, 1974. When they arrived at the Trump offices, Trump was there, but he and everyone else were “surprised” that prosecutors had come and refused to allow them access to documents without their defense lawyers present. A prosecutor called those lawyers, but they were not in their offices. The frustrated prosecutors then gave up and headed back to court.THE TRUMP STRATEGY WAS SIMPLE: DENY, IMPEDE AND DELAY, WHILE DESTROYING DOCUMENTS THE COURT HAD ORDERED THEM TO HAND OVER.They were then hit with a new delaying tactic. The Trumps submitted a filing based on statements by Trump that radically misrepresented what had occurred that day. He claimed a prosecutor, Donna Goldstein, had arrived at the company without notifying the Trumps’ counsel, refused to telephone their lawyer and demanded access to Trump’s office. The prosecutor—accompanied, the Trumps claimed, by five “stormtroopers”—then banged on doors throughout the office, insisting she and her team be allowed to “swarm haphazardly through all the Trump files and to totally disrupt their daily business routine.”At the same time, in a move that caused another huge delay, the Trumps claimed that Goldstein had been threatening Trump employees who were potential witnesses. In several instances, the employees signed affidavits stating they had been subjected to abuse by Goldstein, then denied it when they were forced to testify. Even one of the government’s key witnesses, Thomas Miranda—who told the government the Trumps instructed managers to flag applications from minorities and that he was afraid the family would physically harm him—suddenly announced that prosecutors had threatened him and that he had never provided any evidence against the Trumps.These allegations of misconduct, which demanded sanctions against the government for abusing its power, required more hearings. Once again, the Trump claims went nowhere.In June 1975, more than 18 months after the government filed the case and with the Trumps still withholding potentially relevant records, the two sides struck a settlement. The agreement—which, like all civil settlements, did not contain an admission of guilt—compelled the Trumps to comply with federal housing regulations against discrimination, adopt specific policies to advance that goal, to notify the community that apartments would be rented to anyone, regardless of race, and meet other requirements.The Trumps ignored these requirements and still refused to rent apartments to minorities, something the government proved by sending African-Americans and non-Hispanic Caucasians to pose as applicants. The government brought another complaint against the Trumps in 1978, who then agreed to a new settlement.
In that case, the government had the financial wherewithal to fight back against abuses of the courts and the discovery process by the Trump family. But many private litigants, who have to spend their own money and hire their own lawyers, have been ground down by Trump’s litigation-as-warfare-without-rules approach.
COURTS ARE LOATH to impose sanctions when litigants fail to comply with discovery demands; in order to hurry cases along, judges frequently issue new orders setting deadlines and requirements on parties that fail to produce documents. But Trump and his companies did get sanctioned for lying about the existence of a crucial document to avoid losing a suit.In 2009, a group of plaintiffs claimed Trump duped them into buying apartments in a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, development by portraying it as one of his projects. The fine print of the dense and legalistic purchase contracts, however, revealed that Trump had agreed only to license his name to the developers, and when the project hit financial snags, he walked away from it.In their initial disclosures in 2011, Trump and his company said they had no insurance to cover any of their liability in this case. That was important because an insurance policy lets the plaintiffs calculate how much money a defendant can pay in a settlement without suffering any direct financial consequences. In other words, that insurance lets the plaintiff know how aggressively to pursue a settlement, knowing the defendant will have some losses covered by the policy.At the time, a settlement in the then-prominent case could have been disastrous for Trump; he faced an array of similar lawsuits because he had licensed his name to developers around the world for projects that later collapsed. In each case, Trump had marketed the developments as his own, a claim contradicted by the sales contracts. A settlement in any of these cases might have encouraged other people who had lost deposits in a Trump-marketed development to file lawsuits against him.TRUMP TESTIFIED THAT OFFICIALS WITH HIS COMPANY HAD BEEN TOSSING RECORDS INTO THE SHREDDER AND GARBAGE.Two years after denying that Trump had insurance that could have been used to settle the Fort Lauderdale litigation, one of his lawyers made a startling admission: Trump and his company had been insured all along for up to $5 million. But no more—the policy had recently “dried up,” the lawyer said. Stunned, the apartment buyers filed a motion seeking sanctions against Trump and his company, arguing that the case “may very well have settled long ago had the plaintiffs been provided with the policy in a timely manner,” according to a court filing.Alan Garten, General Counsel at the Trump Organization for the past decade, said that at the time of the original disclosure, the company’s lawyers did not believe that the policy covered any potential liability in the lawsuit, which he said was an error on his part. “This solely fell on me, and if anyone is to blame for that, it’s me,’’ he said. “It was completely an innocent oversight. And it was my innocent oversight.’’ Garten said the other cases in this article preceded his time at the company and he did not know the facts surrounding them. In the Ft. Lauderdale case, Federal Judge Kathleen Williams ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Trump to pay limited legal fees for failing to disclose the policy, then held in reserve the possibility of imposing additional sanctions. The case subsequently settled.
PERHAPS THE WORST LEGAL CASE involving Trump and his companies hiding and destroying emails and other records involved real estate developer Cordish Cos., which, through an affiliate called Power Plant Entertainment LLC, built two American Indian casinos in Florida. In January 2005, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts sued in a state court almost immediately after the opening of the casinos, which both operate under the Hard Rock brand. In his lawsuit, Trump claimed that the companies had unlawfully conspired with one of his former associates to cheat him out of the deal; he argued that the projects should be turned over to him.Negotiations with the tribe and construction of the casinos had taken many years, raising the possibility that the state’s four-year statute of limitations had passed before Trump finally got around to filing his lawsuit. If Power Plant could prove Trump knew in early 2000 that his former associate was working on the Hard Rock deal, the case would be thrown out of court. The clock here for the statute of limitations starts ticking down when plaintiffs learn they have been swindled.Trump claimed he learned about the deal in January 2001, about the time of the groundbreaking and more than three years before he filed suit. However, the defendants contended he had been informed of the projects in 1999. Trump offered no evidence in support of his contention except his word, so the opposing lawyers filed extensive discovery demands, seeking emails, computer files, calendars and other records that might prove he knew about the casino deal before 2000.A full year into the case, Trump and his company, Trump Hotels, had produced only a single box of documents, many of which were not relevant—and no emails, digital files, phone records, calendars or even documents Trump lawyers had promised to turn over. Interrogatories were still unanswered. Lawyers for Power Plant obtained a court order compelling Trump and his company to comply with the discovery demands and hand over the relevant information and documents.
In a March 2006 response, Trump’s lawyers argued that the emails and other electronic documents had not been produced because the company didn’t have them. They claimed it had no servers until 2001—the year Trump claimed he had learned of the Power Plant project. They also claimed Trump Hotels had no policy regarding retaining documents until 2003. In other words, they hadn’t turned over any emails because no emails had been saved on a Trump server.Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld reacted with near disbelief. "I don't have the patience for this," he said. "This has been going on too long to have to listen—and I don't mean to be disrespectful—to this double-talk. There has to be an attitude adjustment from the plaintiff."Streitfeld ordered Trump executives to file sworn statements attesting to how their email systems had worked from 1996 onward. In response, Trump Hotels filed an affidavit from one of its information technology managers stating that it had had no servers prior to 2001.That was false and by deposing numerous IT specialists with two Trump companies—the Trump Organization and Trump Hotels—lawyers for Power Plant gradually chipped away at it. Finally, during a deposition nine months after he had signed the deceptive affidavit, the same Trump executive admitted his assertions in it were untrue. In fact, an IBM Domino server for emails and other files had been installed in 1999, the same year witnesses for Power Plant contended that Trump had learned of the casino deal. Prior to that, as early as 1997, the Trump corporations used servers off-site operated by a company called Jersey Cape, according to sworn testimony by one of the Trump IT experts; the following year, the Trump Organization and Trump Hotels moved to another email provider, Technology 21.These startling revelations changed nothing, however, because there was no trove of documents. The Trump records had been destroyed. Despite knowing back in 2001 that Trump might want to file a lawsuit, his companies had deleted emails and other records without checking if they might be evidence in his case. Beginning around 2003, the company wiped clear the data from everyone’s computers every year. Lawyers for Trump Hotels had never sent out the usual communication issued during litigation instructing employees to stop destroying records that might be related to this case. The deletions continued, and backup tapes were reused—thus erasing the data they held. Power Plant lawyers also discovered that after the lawsuit was filed, Trump Hotels disposed of a key witness’s computer without preserving the data on it.DATA FROM EVERYONE’S COMPUTERS AT TRUMP’S COMPANY WAS WIPED CLEAR EVERY YEAR.In subsequent filings, Power Plant maintained that Trump Hotels had intentionally deceived the court in its March 2006 filing when it claimed it had located no emails relevant to the case because, at that point, it had not yet conducted any searches of its computer system. Trump Hotels executives did not instruct their IT department to examine backup computer tapes until 2007, and even then the job wasn’t done, depositions show. And when computer specialists finally attempted to electronically locate any relevant documents that had survived the flurry of deletions, the procedures were absurdly inadequate. While looking for relevant documents, the technology team was told to use only two search terms—the name of the tribe and the last name of the former Trump associate. So even if there was an email that stated, “Donald Trump learned the full details of the Hard Rock casino deal in Florida in 1999,” it would not have been found by this search.With all this proof that Trump Hotels had ignored every court order and filed false documents, Power Plant asked the judge either to impose sanctions or allow its own expert to search for relevant digital records. Trump Hotels argued it had done nothing improper, although its lawyers acknowledged having made some mistakes. Still, Streitfeld ordered Trump Hotels to make its servers and computer systems available for inspection by a computer forensics consulting firm. That review showed there was no digital data in the computers, servers or backup tapes prior to January 2001—the very month Trump claimed to have learned of the Florida casino deal.
With the likelihood of sanctions growing, Trump Hotels dropped the suit a few months later, in part because of the company’s financial troubles. A company involved in the Power Plant case agreed to purchase one of Trump’s struggling casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and included as part of the deal a requirement that the litigation be ended.
THIS REVIEW OF TRUMP’S many decades of abusing the judicial system, ignoring judges, disregarding rules, destroying documents and lying about it is not simply a sordid history lesson. Rather, it helps explain his behavior since he declared his candidacy. He promised to turn over his tax returns and his health records—just as he promised to comply with document discovery requirements in so many lawsuits—then reneged. As a result, he has left a sparse evidentiary trail that can be used to assess his wealth, his qualifications for the presidency or even his fitness. Should voters choose him to be the next U.S. president, he will enter the Oval Office as a mystery, a man who has repeatedly flouted the rules. He has solemnly told the country to trust him while refusing to produce any records to prove whether he speaks the truth or has utter contempt for it.http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/dona ... 15120.html
Dems to Comey: Share info on Trump and Russia
David M Jackson , USA TODAY 9:50 a.m. EDT October 31, 2016
FBI Director James Comey
FBI Director James Comey (Photo: Shawn Thew, European Pressphoto Agency)
Harry Reid and other Democrats aren't just accusing FBI Director James Comey of making Hillary Clinton look bad — they are accusing him of covering up information about Donald Trump and Russian hacking.
“In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government — a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity,” Reid said in a Sunday letter to Comey.
The incendiary — and unproven — claim by the Senate minority leader came in a letter in which Reid attacked Comey for his disclosure that the FBI is reviewing new information on the Clinton e-mail case, less than two weeks before Election Day. Reid and other Democrats accused Comey of a "double standard" with regard to the presidential election candidates.
USA TODAY
Harry Reid says FBI director 'may have broken the law'
Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has also joined the fray, tweeting Monday: "Members of Congress have asked 4 months 4 the FBI to provide us w/ info as re: Trump and Russian govt. connections."
It should be noted that the volatile Reid has a mixed track record of accusations: His claims during the 2012 election that Republican Mitt Romney sometimes paid no taxes turned out to be unfounded.
Clinton, Reid and Democrats have frequently criticized Trump for his seeming praise of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. The Obama administration has accused Russian interests of seeking to influence the election via hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton associates, email thefts that have led to a flurry of embarrassing news stories about the Clinton campaign.
Trump and aides have denied any connection to the Russians and questioned whether they are involved in the hacks of Democrats.
As for Putin, Trump has said that Clinton's bashing of the Russian president is counterproductive, and the U.S. should have a better relationship with its former Cold War rival.
"It'd be nice if we could get along," Trump said last week in Toledo
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /93051988/
Trump's Connection to Dakota Access Pipeline
By Steve Horn
Continental Resources—the company founded and led by CEO Harold Hamm, energy adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign and potential U.S. Secretary of Energy under a Trump presidency—has announced to investors that oil it obtains via fracking from North Dakota's Bakken Shale basin is destined for transport through the hotly-contested Dakota Access Pipeline.
http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-dakota-ac ... 66014.html
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 170 guests
