Not news: Kellyanne defending Trump on Fox

“We don’t discuss security clearances. I am not even going to discuss my own. But I will tell you that the president has the absolute right to do what was described,” Conway said in an interview with Fox News.

  The Hill

And he does, begging the question: Why then did he (and Ivanka) lie about it? Of course, she wasn't asked that.

“I wouldn’t do it,” Trump told the Times in January when asked if he overruled security officials. “I know that there was issues back and forth about security for numerous people, actually. But I don’t want to get involved in that stuff.”

Trump’s daughter and senior aide Ivanka Trump also denied last month that her father was involved in clearances for her or Kushner, who is her husband.

“There were anonymous leaks about there being issues,” Trump said on ABC’s “The View.” “But the president had no involvement pertaining to my clearance or my husband’s clearance, zero.”

Asked about Ivanka Trump’s remarks, Conway said “if Ivanka Trump chose to comment, then she probably has knowledge that some of us do not have so she has a right to do that.”

Making absolutely no sense.

Kushner’s security clearance has come under scrutiny from House Democrats, who are investigating Trump’s administration and businesses.

Citing the Times report, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) wrote a letter on Friday demanding that White House counsel Pat Cipollone be in “full and immediate compliance” with the panel’s request for documents and witnesses related to the clearance process.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Keeping Roger Stone in line

It's a never-ending, difficult task.

Republican operative and Trump associate Roger Stone found himself in more legal trouble Friday after a federal judge demanded an explanation as to why he did not disclose the “imminent” publication of a book that may violate a gag order.

U.S. District Amy Berman Jackson imposed the gag order last week after Stone posted a picture on his Instagram page that put crosshairs over Jackson’s head.

The gag prohibits Stone from discussing his case in public, including criticizing Jackson or special counsel Robert Mueller, which the book reportedly does.

“It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall file an additional submission by March 4, 2019 identifying the specific date of the ‘imminent general rel[e]ase’ of the book…and explaining why this matter -- which was known to the defendant -- was not brought to the Court's attention,” Jackson wrote in Friday’s court order.

[...]

She also said when she imposed the gag order that she had “serious doubts whether [Stone] learned any lesson at all,” and said she would consider sending Stone to jail for future transgressions.

  The Hill

UPDATE:

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! They're coming back!

Nearly 2,000 workers at a factory in the US state of Pennsylvania have gone on strike.

They say new owners want to cut pay and force overtime.

It's the first major strike in the manufacturing industry, since President Donald Trump came to power.

  alJazeera

The reality is sinking in.

This strike is at the GE plant in Erie, Pennsylvania.  The last time they struck there was 50 years ago.

According to a local economist, manufacturing jobs in Erie, Pennsylvania, have almost halved in the last decade, reflecting an industry trend across the US.

Yeah. Obama was right. Manufacturing is not the future for US workers. Trump sold a lie. (One of many.)

Speaking of Buzzfeed

Donald Trump’s security guards once shoved, threatened, and held a 12-year-old boy and his mother against their will after her husband promised to go public with damaging allegations against the Trump Organization, according to the family’s account in FBI records and court filings.

The incident is one of several in which Trump surrogates have been accused of going to extreme lengths to protect him.

A bankruptcy attorney who represented Trump Entertainment Resorts investors once received a phone call warning him “if you keep fucking with Mr. Trump, we know where you live and we’re going to your house for your wife and kids.” A New York City housing commissioner told the NYPD his life was threatened for refusing to grant a $20 million tax abatement for the construction of Trump Tower. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, told Daily Beast reporters that he would “mess your life up” before they published a story saying Trump made his first wife feel “violated” during sex.

  Buzzfeed

A very mob oriented outfit.

This time, it was September 1995 and Daut Bajrushi, a superintendent at one of Trump’s buildings, claimed he could prove “financial improprieties” and other misconduct by the Trump Organization. Bajrushi, then 46 years old, worked at Trump Palace, a skyscraper on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.

[...]

Days before he was to reveal this information to board members at Trump Palace, Bajrushi fell ill and sent his wife and 12-year-old son to retrieve items from his office. They were gathering paperwork, according to a suit Bajrushi later filed, when someone used a screwdriver to bust the lock. The door burst open and a team of Trump security officials poured in.

According to the lawsuit, four men prevented Hatixbe Bajrushi and her son from leaving. Matthew Calamari, the hulking head of security, shoved the boy. Trump’s brother-in-law, James Grau, barked questions, demanding to know why they were there. Michael Nicoll, another guard, pushed them back when they tried to leave. Grau snatched her purse and passed it to Calamari, Nicoll, and Domenic Pezzo to rifle through.

How terrifying. So terrifying, in fact...

The boy started to cry and his mother fainted, they claim. Daut Bajrushi, informed by his wife in a phone call of what was happening, had a friend call the police.

Calamari threatened to harm the family if they spoke to police about what happened, according to the lawsuit. After 90 minutes, the police arrived and the Bajrushis were freed.

[...]

“The allegations, from over 20 years ago, are completely inaccurate, ridiculous and utterly false,” a Trump Organization spokesperson wrote in a statement.

The testimony of a 12-year-old and the fact that the police showed up would normally be plenty good evidence that the allegations were accurate and true.

None of the security guards were charged in this case. Even though its officers were called to the scene, the New York Police Department has refused to turn over records about the case, citing privacy concerns.

How interesting.

The incident was cited in an FBI document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by BuzzFeed News and Ryan Shapiro, an MIT doctoral student. The document was compiled as part of a racketeering investigation.

How very interesting.

In response to the false imprisonment lawsuit filed by the family, the Trump Organization countered with claims that Bajrushi was disloyal, committed fraud, and embezzled money.

Even if those things were true, how would that make it legal for them to hold the woman and child against their will?

In their response to the lawsuit, Calamari and Nicoll said that they told the woman and her child they were free to leave, but that they couldn’t remove any Trump Palace property.

Which is why the boy was crying and the woman fainted.

The lawsuit never went anywhere, and the legal bills piled up for Bajrushi. His attorney met with Trump and his attorney, Jay Goldberg, to discuss a settlement. Bajrushi’s attorney, Jonathan Mark, said Trump made no offer.

Of course not.

After the confrontation, Calamari continued to climb the ranks at the Trump Organization, working his way up to his current title: executive vice president and chief operating officer.

Calamari is someone Michael Cohen named to the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday as a person who would know about the Trump Organization activity.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Remembering the Buzzfeed story

Remember when Buzzfeed put out a story saying Trump directed Cohen to lie about the Moscow Project?  Remember that the Special Counsel broke protocol to say their story was "inaccurate"?  Remember how all the Trumanzees dumped on Buzzfeed for being Fake News?  And Buzzfeed stood by their story?

That story's looking more accurate than ever now that Cohen testified he submitted his proposed testimony to Trump's team (including Jay Sekulow and Abbe Lowell) for edits before he went before Congress (and lied).

Maybe some day we'll find out why Mueller's team put out that rare statement, and exactly what they meant by it.



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:









In my experience, always go with Buzzfeed.  They've been doing some incredible investigative reporting.

Cohen to testify again

We don't get to hear these.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Sater to testify again

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Vice

By the time Cohen’s televised session before Congress wrapped up Wednesday, he’d provided testimony and evidence suggesting Trump may have been involved in at least 11 different felonies, according to a VICE News review of the testimony and conversations with former prosecutors.

Now the question will be how many of Cohen’s claims can be backed up by documentary evidence or by testimony from other witnesses.

  Vice News

My guess would be all of them. I think that's why he was willing to say what he did.

“We have unambiguous evidence that the president has committed a crime at this point, I think,” Rep Jerrold Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told the New York Times. “Do we have unambiguous evidence he has done impeachable offenses? We’ve got a ways to go yet.”

Jerrold, I think you know very well you have unambiguous evidence. You don't have to prove he committed a crime.

[H]ere’s an incomplete list of the criminal activity Trump’s former personal attorney dropped at the feet of the president.

[...]

Cohen introduced new information linking Trump and his campaign to a possible criminal conspiracy relating to the hacked Democratic emails that were stolen by Russian spies and released by WikiLeaks before the 2016 election.

[...]

Russian agents have already been charged with a conspiracy to hack into Democratic computers by special counsel Robert Mueller. If anyone from the Trump campaign can be shown to have helped out with that operation, or to have coordinated the release of the emails, they could be added to Mueller’s existing list of defendants as co-conspirators.

Cohen’s assertion supplies new evidence that Trump knew about, and made encouraging statements about, the release of the pilfered documents.

[...]

Cohen’s story about Trump’s conversation with Stone also contradicts what Trump reportedly told Mueller in writing. Trump’s legal team reportedly rejected Mueller’s request for an interview with the president, and instead responded to the Special Counsel’s questions in a letter.

Trump told Mueller’s team in written answers that Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks, CNN has reported, citing two sources “familiar with the matter.”

That stark contrast should concern Trump, because lying to a federal investigator is a crime.

[...]

Cohen said Wednesday that Trump implicitly told him to lie to Congress under oath about attempts to develop a Trump Tower in Moscow in the midst of the 2016 presidential campaign — a move that could potentially constitute the crime of suborning perjury.

[...]

Cohen said his former boss directed him to organize hush-money payments during the campaign to women who claimed that they’d slept with Trump. This accusation isn’t new, and has been backed up by prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, which wrote in a sentencing memo that Cohen committed crimes “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump.

Cohen added fresh evidence on Wednesday in the form of a check signed by Trump that reimbursed Cohen for the payout to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

[...]

Cohen said Trump knew exactly what he was giving Cohen money for: to silence the women and keep voters from finding out about Trump’s affairs. If so, then aside from the campaign finance violation, Trump may have also entered into a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. — by thwarting the administration of a fair election [-- election fraud].

[...]

Cohen also alleged that Trump made false claims to insurance companies by inflating the size of his assets, a move that Cohen said would have allowed him to reduce his premiums [-- insurance fraud].

[...]

Cohen and Democrats in Congress have accused Trump of attempting to intimidate him out of testifying against Trump by making threats against Cohen’s family [-- witness tampering].

[...]

Cohen said Trump inflated his wealth while seeking to borrow money from Deutsche Bank in a failed attempt to buy the Buffalo Bills in 2014.

Lying to a financial institution to get a loan would be bank fraud, which carries a maximum 30 year sentence.

[...]

Cohen also said Trump “deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes [-- tax fraud].”

[...]

Trump may have broken the law by failing to disclose the money he owed Cohen for making the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels.

[...]

“There could be a conspiracy to cause false entries in the accounting of the Trump Organization by disguising hush-money payments as legal fees, and that could be the basis for separate charges in New York State.”

[...]

Cohen said Trump used his charity’s money to buy a painting of himself — a potentially improper misuse of charitable funds.

[...]

The New York attorney general is already suing the Trump Foundation, arguing that the charity engaged in a “shocking pattern of illegality.”

“This one might fall into the civil category under the New York AG’s office,” Levin said. “But if it can be determined that money was funneled into, or out of, the foundation in order to evade taxes, it could also be the basis of tax crimes.”

If you need this reference, there'll be a link to it always in the right sidebar.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Dershowitz wants the press barred from hearing

An attorney for lawyer Alan Dershowitz wrote a letter to the U.S. District Court Second Circuit of Appeals on Tuesday, asking whether the media should be excluded from the proceeding because his oral arguments on behalf of his client could contain sensitive information that has been under seal.

[...]

Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard, constitutional law expert and criminal defense attorney, represented Epstein, who in 2008 received what many consider an unusually light sentence for sexually abusing dozens of girls at his Palm Beach mansion. Two women — one of whom was underage — have said Epstein and his partner, British socialite and environmentalist Ghislaine Maxwell, directed them to have sex with Dershowitz, 80, and other wealthy, powerful men. Dershowitz and Maxwell have denied the claims.

Oral arguments are scheduled Wednesday to hear an appeal by the Miami Herald and other parties seeking to unseal a 2015 court case involving Epstein and Maxwell. The Herald, as part of an ongoing investigation into Epstein’s case, hopes to shed more light on the scope of Epstein’s crimes, who was involved and whether there was any undue influence that tainted the criminal justice process.

[...]

The appeals court had not responded to his concern as of Friday, but if the hearing is closed during his lawyer’s argument, it would represent the latest in a long history of successful efforts to keep details of Epstein’s sex crimes sealed.

[...]

Dershowitz’s lawyer, Andrew G. Celli Jr., emphasized to the Herald that Dershowitz is not trying to ban the media from the proceeding; he is simply giving the court a heads up that his arguments could include information that has never been made public because its under seal.

  Miami Herald

Oh, OK. Sure.

Barbara Petersen, executive director of the First Amendment Foundation, pointed out that since the judges are well aware that sealed documents are at the heart of the appeal, Dershowitz’s request comes across more as a “veiled threat.”

“It’s like ‘if you don’t keep out the media, then we are going reveal stuff and let the chips fall where they may,’ ’’ she said.

That is exactly what they're doing.

“They don’t want it to come out and they don’t want to make a motion and ban the media, so they are hoping the judges do it for them.”

And I hope they don't.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

The world notices

From The (UK) Guardian:

Recall the fury of the leave crowd when Barack Obama dared puncture the Anglosphere fantasy by warning that a post-Brexit Britain would, in fact, be at “the back of the queue” for a trade agreement with the US, prompting Boris Johnson to reach for his racist dog-whistle and remind British voters that Obama was “part-Kenyan”. Recall too the needy relief of those same Brexiters when Michael Gove interviewed the newly elected Donald Trump and extracted a not-quite-promise that Britain and the US would “get something done very quickly”.

This week we got a double glimpse into what that “something” might be – and it wasn’t pretty. Most lurid was the sight of Donald Trump, international negotiator. His uselessness in this regard was already evident from his first meeting with Kim Jong-un in June, when North Korea’s leader bagged several major US concessions while Trump got precisely nothing. But the collapse of Wednesday’s meeting in Hanoi demonstrated again the mercurial instability of this US president, the lack of preparedness and basic statecraft by his team and the sheer unpredictability of doing business with Trump’s Washington.

Hanoi offered several warning signs for future UK trade negotiators, all of them blinking red. The obvious one is that Trump is prepared to walk away from talks that don’t go his way. Another is that, notwithstanding the failure in Vietnam, Trump maintains a clear, expressed preference for dictators over democrats. On Thursday he praised Kim as “very sharp” and “a real leader” – approbation he has never extended to, say, Angela Merkel.

[...]

I took part in a sobering conversation with two former US state department officials who have had close dealings with the current administration. They made clear that Team Trump does not operate like any of its predecessors, barely drawing on the institutional wisdom of the US government machine, working instead in tight, secretive huddles open only to Trump loyalists.

What’s more, Trump can hardly be said to empower those who conduct trade negotiations on his behalf. Witness this week’s jaw-dropping video of a meeting in which Trump publicly contradicted, and hugely undermined, the US trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, in front of representatives of the Chinese government. Lighthizer said that a memorandum of understanding was a “binding agreement”; Trump said no, such a document “doesn’t mean very much” to him. He didn’t like the term at all. There and then Lighthizer and the Chinese team agreed to call their text something else, which made Trump much happier.

All of which brings us to our second glimpse of the kind of deal a post-Brexit UK might expect from the US. On Thursday Lighthizer released Washington’s “negotiating objectives”, starting with “comprehensive market access for US agricultural goods in the UK”. Translation: they want the right to fill our supermarkets with their chlorinated chicken.

  Guardian

To be sure, the US has always shoved our unwelcome agricultural Frankenstein shit down Europe's throat in trade deals.

There’s language in there that takes aim at the NHS [the UK's National Health Service], specifically at the health service’s power as a bulk purchaser to set prices, paying less for drugs than big pharma would like. The US demand for “procedural fairness” may well be an attempt to break that power, forcing the NHS – and everyone else – to pay more for medicine.

Some of these are demands any US administration would make, but others are Trump innovations. Note the US insistence that, on services, Britain take down all existing barriers to American exporters, while the US be allowed to maintain barriers that keep out British exporters. As Sam Lowe, trade analyst at the Centre for European Reform, puts it: “It’s a laughably one-sided demand.”

More striking is the US attempt to restrict Britain’s ability to sign a deal with a non-market economy such as China. So much for taking back control. If the UK were to sign up to these demands, we’d simply be trading one set of restraints on our sovereignty – restraints agreed by us and 27 other nations in Brussels – for another, dictated by Donald Trump in Washington.

[...]

Right now, we are part of a bloc big enough to stand up to the demands of an America First Trump administration. After Brexit, we will be a single medium-sized economy standing alone, with much less ability to say no.

[...]

[The idea of Brexit trading benefits] didn’t stack up in June 2016, but it is even more absurd now – abandoning the largest ever free trade area, right where we live, for a dictator-coddling would-be autocrat thousands of miles away, who sees us not as a trusted ally but as prey.

[...]

Leaving Europe would always have been a mistake. Leaving Europe for the tender mercies of Donald Trump is insane.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.