In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 08 2018 12:39 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: umm what the hell is this
A Texas appeals court has overturned a man's conviction after finding a judge had inappropriately electrocuted him in court, US media report.
Terry Lee Morris was convicted of soliciting sexual performance from a child and was sentenced to 60 years.
Judge George Gallagher ordered the bailiff to activate a stun belt sending 50,000 volts through Morris when he allegedly refused to answer questions.
The higher court found that stun belts cannot be used as punishment in court.
Mr Morris appealed his 2014 conviction alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when the judge used the belt as punishment for not answering questions properly.
The belts - used by courtrooms such as the one Tarrant County in Texas - are affixed around the legs or midsection of a suspect in court and are used to deliver a shock to the person should they become violent.
Mr Morris said he was too scared to return to court out of more electrical shocks, the Texas Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso heard.
I'm still amazed that his lawyers haven't jumped ship, unless they are getting him to pay them per week rather than at the end of all this.
WASHINGTON — The special counsel in the Russia investigation has learned of two conversations in recent months in which President Trump asked key witnesses about matters they discussed with investigators, according to three people familiar with the encounters.
In one episode, the president told an aide that the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, should issue a statement denying a New York Times article in January. The article said Mr. McGahn told investigators that the president once asked him to fire the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. McGahn never released a statement and later had to remind the president that he had indeed asked Mr. McGahn to see that Mr. Mueller was dismissed, the people said.
In the other episode, Mr. Trump asked his former chief of staff, Reince Priebus, how his interview had gone with the special counsel’s investigators and whether they had been “nice,” according to two people familiar with the discussion.
The episodes demonstrate that even as the special counsel investigation appears to be intensifying, the president has ignored his lawyers’ advice to avoid doing anything publicly or privately that could create the appearance of interfering with it.
The White House did not respond to several requests for comment. Mr. Priebus and Mr. McGahn declined to comment through their lawyer, William A. Burck.
Legal experts said Mr. Trump’s contact with the men most likely did not rise to the level of witness tampering. But witnesses and lawyers who learned about the conversations viewed them as potentially a problem and shared them with Mr. Mueller.
In investigating Russian election interference, Mr. Mueller is also examining whether the president tried to obstruct the inquiry. The former F.B.I. director James B. Comey said that Mr. Trump asked him for his loyalty and to end the investigation into his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. After firing Mr. Comey, the president said privately that the dismissal had relieved “great pressure” on him. And Mr. Trump also told White House officials after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation that he needed someone running the Justice Department who would protect him.
The experts said the meetings with Mr. McGahn and Mr. Priebus would probably sharpen Mr. Mueller’s focus on the president’s interactions with other witnesses. The special counsel has questioned witnesses recently about their interactions with the president since the investigation began. The experts also said the episodes could serve as evidence for Mr. Mueller in an obstruction case.
“It makes it look like you’re cooking a story, and prosecutors are always looking out for it,” said Julie R. O’Sullivan, a law professor at Georgetown University and expert on white-collar criminal investigations.
She added, “It can get at the issue of consciousness of guilt in an obstruction case because if you didn’t do anything wrong, why are you doing that?”
Central figures in investigations are almost always advised by their own lawyers to keep from speaking with witnesses and prosecutors to prevent accusations of witness tampering. The president has not been questioned by Mr. Mueller; Mr. Trump’s lawyers are negotiating terms of a possible interview. Learning even basic details about what other witnesses told investigators could help the president shape his own answers.
Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. McGahn unfolded in the days after the Jan. 25 Times article, which said that Mr. McGahn threatened to quit last June after the president asked him to fire the special counsel. After the article was published, the White House staff secretary, Rob Porter, told Mr. McGahn that the president wanted him to release a statement saying that the story was not true, the people said.
Mr. Porter, who resigned last month amid a domestic abuse scandal, told Mr. McGahn the president had suggested he might “get rid of” Mr. McGahn if he chose not to challenge the article, the people briefed on the conversation said.
Mr. McGahn did not publicly deny the article, and the president later confronted him in the Oval Office in front of the White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, according to the people.
The president said he had never ordered Mr. McGahn to fire the special counsel. Mr. McGahn replied that the president was wrong and that he had in fact asked Mr. McGahn in June to call the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to tell him that the special counsel had a series of conflicts that disqualified him for overseeing the investigation and that he had to be dismissed. The president told Mr. McGahn that he did not remember the discussion that way.
Mr. Trump moved on, pointing out that Mr. McGahn had never told him that he was going to resign over the order to fire the special counsel. Mr. McGahn acknowledged that that was true but said that he had told senior White House officials at the time that he was going to quit.
It is not clear how the confrontation was resolved. Mr. McGahn has stayed on as White House counsel, one of the few senior administration officials who has been with the president since the campaign.
Mr. Priebus met with the president in the West Wing in December, according to the people with knowledge of their encounter. Allies of Mr. Priebus, who left the White House in July 2017, have cautioned him to keep his distance. But Mr. Priebus, who is seeking to build a law practice as a Washington power broker who can open doors for clients, has maintained contact and occasionally visited the White House to see Mr. Trump and his own replacement, Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Trump brought up Mr. Priebus’s October interview with the special counsel’s office, the people said, and Mr. Priebus replied that the investigators were courteous and professional. He shared no specifics and did not say what he had told investigators, and the conversation moved on after a few minutes, those briefed on it said. Mr. Kelly was present for that conversation as well, and it was not clear whether he tried to stop the discussion.
It is not illegal for the subject of an investigation to learn what witnesses have told investigators. But that is usually done through lawyers for the people involved because their communications are often shielded from prosecutors because of attorney-client privilege. In organized crime and complex white-collar investigations, prosecutors often ask witnesses whether they have spoken to the person under investigation to determine whether they are coordinating their stories.
Mr. Priebus has had a long and complicated relationship with the president. He was one of the few who publicly defended Mr. Trump after the Times article about his attempt to fire Mr. Mueller, which cited the president’s view that Mr. Mueller had too many conflicts to be the special counsel.
“He expresses concerns with the conflicts, but I never heard the idea or the concept that this person needed to be fired,” Mr. Priebus said last month in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I never felt it was relayed to me that way, either. And I would know the difference between a level 10 situation as reported in that story and what was reality. And it just — to me, it wasn’t reality.”
On March 08 2018 13:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'm still amazed that his lawyers haven't jumped ship, unless they are getting him to pay them per week rather than at the end of all this.
WASHINGTON — The special counsel in the Russia investigation has learned of two conversations in recent months in which President Trump asked key witnesses about matters they discussed with investigators, according to three people familiar with the encounters.
In one episode, the president told an aide that the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, should issue a statement denying a New York Times article in January. The article said Mr. McGahn told investigators that the president once asked him to fire the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. McGahn never released a statement and later had to remind the president that he had indeed asked Mr. McGahn to see that Mr. Mueller was dismissed, the people said.
In the other episode, Mr. Trump asked his former chief of staff, Reince Priebus, how his interview had gone with the special counsel’s investigators and whether they had been “nice,” according to two people familiar with the discussion.
The episodes demonstrate that even as the special counsel investigation appears to be intensifying, the president has ignored his lawyers’ advice to avoid doing anything publicly or privately that could create the appearance of interfering with it.
The White House did not respond to several requests for comment. Mr. Priebus and Mr. McGahn declined to comment through their lawyer, William A. Burck.
Legal experts said Mr. Trump’s contact with the men most likely did not rise to the level of witness tampering. But witnesses and lawyers who learned about the conversations viewed them as potentially a problem and shared them with Mr. Mueller.
In investigating Russian election interference, Mr. Mueller is also examining whether the president tried to obstruct the inquiry. The former F.B.I. director James B. Comey said that Mr. Trump asked him for his loyalty and to end the investigation into his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. After firing Mr. Comey, the president said privately that the dismissal had relieved “great pressure” on him. And Mr. Trump also told White House officials after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation that he needed someone running the Justice Department who would protect him.
The experts said the meetings with Mr. McGahn and Mr. Priebus would probably sharpen Mr. Mueller’s focus on the president’s interactions with other witnesses. The special counsel has questioned witnesses recently about their interactions with the president since the investigation began. The experts also said the episodes could serve as evidence for Mr. Mueller in an obstruction case.
“It makes it look like you’re cooking a story, and prosecutors are always looking out for it,” said Julie R. O’Sullivan, a law professor at Georgetown University and expert on white-collar criminal investigations.
She added, “It can get at the issue of consciousness of guilt in an obstruction case because if you didn’t do anything wrong, why are you doing that?”
Central figures in investigations are almost always advised by their own lawyers to keep from speaking with witnesses and prosecutors to prevent accusations of witness tampering. The president has not been questioned by Mr. Mueller; Mr. Trump’s lawyers are negotiating terms of a possible interview. Learning even basic details about what other witnesses told investigators could help the president shape his own answers.
Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. McGahn unfolded in the days after the Jan. 25 Times article, which said that Mr. McGahn threatened to quit last June after the president asked him to fire the special counsel. After the article was published, the White House staff secretary, Rob Porter, told Mr. McGahn that the president wanted him to release a statement saying that the story was not true, the people said.
Mr. Porter, who resigned last month amid a domestic abuse scandal, told Mr. McGahn the president had suggested he might “get rid of” Mr. McGahn if he chose not to challenge the article, the people briefed on the conversation said.
Mr. McGahn did not publicly deny the article, and the president later confronted him in the Oval Office in front of the White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, according to the people.
The president said he had never ordered Mr. McGahn to fire the special counsel. Mr. McGahn replied that the president was wrong and that he had in fact asked Mr. McGahn in June to call the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to tell him that the special counsel had a series of conflicts that disqualified him for overseeing the investigation and that he had to be dismissed. The president told Mr. McGahn that he did not remember the discussion that way.
Mr. Trump moved on, pointing out that Mr. McGahn had never told him that he was going to resign over the order to fire the special counsel. Mr. McGahn acknowledged that that was true but said that he had told senior White House officials at the time that he was going to quit.
It is not clear how the confrontation was resolved. Mr. McGahn has stayed on as White House counsel, one of the few senior administration officials who has been with the president since the campaign.
Mr. Priebus met with the president in the West Wing in December, according to the people with knowledge of their encounter. Allies of Mr. Priebus, who left the White House in July 2017, have cautioned him to keep his distance. But Mr. Priebus, who is seeking to build a law practice as a Washington power broker who can open doors for clients, has maintained contact and occasionally visited the White House to see Mr. Trump and his own replacement, Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Trump brought up Mr. Priebus’s October interview with the special counsel’s office, the people said, and Mr. Priebus replied that the investigators were courteous and professional. He shared no specifics and did not say what he had told investigators, and the conversation moved on after a few minutes, those briefed on it said. Mr. Kelly was present for that conversation as well, and it was not clear whether he tried to stop the discussion.
It is not illegal for the subject of an investigation to learn what witnesses have told investigators. But that is usually done through lawyers for the people involved because their communications are often shielded from prosecutors because of attorney-client privilege. In organized crime and complex white-collar investigations, prosecutors often ask witnesses whether they have spoken to the person under investigation to determine whether they are coordinating their stories.
Mr. Priebus has had a long and complicated relationship with the president. He was one of the few who publicly defended Mr. Trump after the Times article about his attempt to fire Mr. Mueller, which cited the president’s view that Mr. Mueller had too many conflicts to be the special counsel.
“He expresses concerns with the conflicts, but I never heard the idea or the concept that this person needed to be fired,” Mr. Priebus said last month in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I never felt it was relayed to me that way, either. And I would know the difference between a level 10 situation as reported in that story and what was reality. And it just — to me, it wasn’t reality.”
How can it be witness tampering when he didn't even ask then to change their statements to Mueller? Anyways the actually interesting part of that story is just how informal Trump's "fire Mueller" moment was. It came and passed and not much happened. *yawn*
Telling the WH lawyer to fire the Special Counsel, and then telling him to deny it to the media. It's a pretty good example of gossip, both as required journalism and as obstruction of justice at the executive level.
It's good to note in light of this week's reporting how much the media does capitulate.
Pretty extraordinary. Even the President publicly danced on the graves of these 3 strong journalists' careers. The Fox News/Greenwald crowd of course latched onto it as a sign of "bias".
But, oops, turns out the CNN reporters were pre-imminently right. Like everything in the Steele dossier: time goes by, and we see these alleged meetings did take place, sanctions were discussed, etc. Time and again.
Not much talk about the Seychelles story here, actually. Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, is Erik Prince's sister. She has zero qualifications, or reasons to be Secretary of Education. How'd she get that job? Meanwhile, Erik Prince claimed to Congress that he went to this meeting in Seychelles of his own accord and didn't know this Kremlin man would be there. Turns out he went there as a spokesperson for Trump, knew this man from the Kremlin would be there, and went to talk about Trump with him. Specifically, about removing sanctions implemented against specific Russian oligarchs in response to numerous crimes against Ukraine. But that doesn't matter because Obama-thing bad, white Russian good. Scaramucci was there to lend his intellectual-authority.
It's the Trump Tower meeting with Donald Jr. all over again. Along with all the lies. Because that's what innocent people do. They lie about everything.
If Erik Prince gets indicted for even lying to the FBI (we know he lied to Congress, but that's a GOP Congress, so it doesn't count), that'll be big news in a myriad of ways, because he is a major GOP-donor who runs mercenary companies for violent psychopaths and is responsible for numerous atrocities in Iraq. This is actually a bit of a George W. Bush connection.
I could've linked the story, but funner to rehash it.
On March 08 2018 15:53 Leporello wrote: Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, is Erik Prince's sister. She has zero qualifications, or reasons to be Secretary of Education. How'd she get that job?
On March 08 2018 15:53 Leporello wrote: Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, is Erik Prince's sister. She has zero qualifications, or reasons to be Secretary of Education. How'd she get that job?
It doesn't make any sense at all. Didn't this meeting happen somewhere in December 2016 (or was that just when they first reported on it, I can't remember)? Why would Trump have to rely on some kind of random murderer to facilitate a "back-channel" (wtf is that, anyway?) with Putin after he was elected? Putin and Trump were already in close contact at that point, with -- IIRC -- several meetings between Russian representatives and people related to the Trump campaign over the whole of 2016, not to mention various electronic ways of communicating like that Alfa Bank server and whatnot. And wasn't one of those meetings in the Trump Tower (not 100% on the location, but does it matter?) with Trump's own son where they explicitly discussed undermining Hillary's campaign?
But now they needed an additional "back-channel" for communication after the election? Riiight.
On March 08 2018 13:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'm still amazed that his lawyers haven't jumped ship, unless they are getting him to pay them per week rather than at the end of all this.
WASHINGTON — The special counsel in the Russia investigation has learned of two conversations in recent months in which President Trump asked key witnesses about matters they discussed with investigators, according to three people familiar with the encounters.
In one episode, the president told an aide that the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, should issue a statement denying a New York Times article in January. The article said Mr. McGahn told investigators that the president once asked him to fire the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. McGahn never released a statement and later had to remind the president that he had indeed asked Mr. McGahn to see that Mr. Mueller was dismissed, the people said.
In the other episode, Mr. Trump asked his former chief of staff, Reince Priebus, how his interview had gone with the special counsel’s investigators and whether they had been “nice,” according to two people familiar with the discussion.
The episodes demonstrate that even as the special counsel investigation appears to be intensifying, the president has ignored his lawyers’ advice to avoid doing anything publicly or privately that could create the appearance of interfering with it.
The White House did not respond to several requests for comment. Mr. Priebus and Mr. McGahn declined to comment through their lawyer, William A. Burck.
Legal experts said Mr. Trump’s contact with the men most likely did not rise to the level of witness tampering. But witnesses and lawyers who learned about the conversations viewed them as potentially a problem and shared them with Mr. Mueller.
In investigating Russian election interference, Mr. Mueller is also examining whether the president tried to obstruct the inquiry. The former F.B.I. director James B. Comey said that Mr. Trump asked him for his loyalty and to end the investigation into his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. After firing Mr. Comey, the president said privately that the dismissal had relieved “great pressure” on him. And Mr. Trump also told White House officials after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation that he needed someone running the Justice Department who would protect him.
The experts said the meetings with Mr. McGahn and Mr. Priebus would probably sharpen Mr. Mueller’s focus on the president’s interactions with other witnesses. The special counsel has questioned witnesses recently about their interactions with the president since the investigation began. The experts also said the episodes could serve as evidence for Mr. Mueller in an obstruction case.
“It makes it look like you’re cooking a story, and prosecutors are always looking out for it,” said Julie R. O’Sullivan, a law professor at Georgetown University and expert on white-collar criminal investigations.
She added, “It can get at the issue of consciousness of guilt in an obstruction case because if you didn’t do anything wrong, why are you doing that?”
Central figures in investigations are almost always advised by their own lawyers to keep from speaking with witnesses and prosecutors to prevent accusations of witness tampering. The president has not been questioned by Mr. Mueller; Mr. Trump’s lawyers are negotiating terms of a possible interview. Learning even basic details about what other witnesses told investigators could help the president shape his own answers.
Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. McGahn unfolded in the days after the Jan. 25 Times article, which said that Mr. McGahn threatened to quit last June after the president asked him to fire the special counsel. After the article was published, the White House staff secretary, Rob Porter, told Mr. McGahn that the president wanted him to release a statement saying that the story was not true, the people said.
Mr. Porter, who resigned last month amid a domestic abuse scandal, told Mr. McGahn the president had suggested he might “get rid of” Mr. McGahn if he chose not to challenge the article, the people briefed on the conversation said.
Mr. McGahn did not publicly deny the article, and the president later confronted him in the Oval Office in front of the White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, according to the people.
The president said he had never ordered Mr. McGahn to fire the special counsel. Mr. McGahn replied that the president was wrong and that he had in fact asked Mr. McGahn in June to call the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to tell him that the special counsel had a series of conflicts that disqualified him for overseeing the investigation and that he had to be dismissed. The president told Mr. McGahn that he did not remember the discussion that way.
Mr. Trump moved on, pointing out that Mr. McGahn had never told him that he was going to resign over the order to fire the special counsel. Mr. McGahn acknowledged that that was true but said that he had told senior White House officials at the time that he was going to quit.
It is not clear how the confrontation was resolved. Mr. McGahn has stayed on as White House counsel, one of the few senior administration officials who has been with the president since the campaign.
Mr. Priebus met with the president in the West Wing in December, according to the people with knowledge of their encounter. Allies of Mr. Priebus, who left the White House in July 2017, have cautioned him to keep his distance. But Mr. Priebus, who is seeking to build a law practice as a Washington power broker who can open doors for clients, has maintained contact and occasionally visited the White House to see Mr. Trump and his own replacement, Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Trump brought up Mr. Priebus’s October interview with the special counsel’s office, the people said, and Mr. Priebus replied that the investigators were courteous and professional. He shared no specifics and did not say what he had told investigators, and the conversation moved on after a few minutes, those briefed on it said. Mr. Kelly was present for that conversation as well, and it was not clear whether he tried to stop the discussion.
It is not illegal for the subject of an investigation to learn what witnesses have told investigators. But that is usually done through lawyers for the people involved because their communications are often shielded from prosecutors because of attorney-client privilege. In organized crime and complex white-collar investigations, prosecutors often ask witnesses whether they have spoken to the person under investigation to determine whether they are coordinating their stories.
Mr. Priebus has had a long and complicated relationship with the president. He was one of the few who publicly defended Mr. Trump after the Times article about his attempt to fire Mr. Mueller, which cited the president’s view that Mr. Mueller had too many conflicts to be the special counsel.
“He expresses concerns with the conflicts, but I never heard the idea or the concept that this person needed to be fired,” Mr. Priebus said last month in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I never felt it was relayed to me that way, either. And I would know the difference between a level 10 situation as reported in that story and what was reality. And it just — to me, it wasn’t reality.”
How can it be witness tampering when he didn't even ask then to change their statements to Mueller? Anyways the actually interesting part of that story is just how informal Trump's "fire Mueller" moment was. It came and passed and not much happened. *yawn*
So much leaked gossip.
The article itself says that it likely wasn't witness tampering.
On March 08 2018 16:37 a_flayer wrote: It doesn't make any sense at all. Didn't this meeting happen somewhere in December 2016 (or was that just when they first reported on it, I can't remember)? Why would Trump have to rely on some kind of random murderer to facilitate a "back-channel" (wtf is that, anyway?) with Putin after he was elected? Putin and Trump were already in close contact at that point, with -- IIRC -- several meetings between Russian representatives and people related to the Trump campaign over the whole of 2016, not to mention various electronic ways of communicating like that Alfa Bank server and whatnot. And wasn't one of those meetings in the Trump Tower (not 100% on the location, but does it matter?) with Trump's own son where they explicitly discussed undermining Hillary's campaign?
But now they needed an additional "back-channel" for communication after the election? Riiight.
Don't forget that Kushner sought a back channel with Russia as well.
On March 08 2018 16:37 a_flayer wrote: It doesn't make any sense at all. Didn't this meeting happen somewhere in December 2016 (or was that just when they first reported on it, I can't remember)? Why would Trump have to rely on some kind of random murderer to facilitate a "back-channel" (wtf is that, anyway?) with Putin after he was elected? Putin and Trump were already in close contact at that point, with -- IIRC -- several meetings between Russian representatives and people related to the Trump campaign over the whole of 2016, not to mention various electronic ways of communicating like that Alfa Bank server and whatnot. And wasn't one of those meetings in the Trump Tower (not 100% on the location, but does it matter?) with Trump's own son where they explicitly discussed undermining Hillary's campaign?
But now they needed an additional "back-channel" for communication after the election? Riiight.
Don't forget that Kushner sought a back channel with Russia as well.
I'm going to laugh when the play is that this was all people trying to back trade for self-advancement on the name of a dawdling old man.
On March 08 2018 16:37 a_flayer wrote: It doesn't make any sense at all. Didn't this meeting happen somewhere in December 2016 (or was that just when they first reported on it, I can't remember)? Why would Trump have to rely on some kind of random murderer to facilitate a "back-channel" (wtf is that, anyway?) with Putin after he was elected? Putin and Trump were already in close contact at that point, with -- IIRC -- several meetings between Russian representatives and people related to the Trump campaign over the whole of 2016, not to mention various electronic ways of communicating like that Alfa Bank server and whatnot. And wasn't one of those meetings in the Trump Tower (not 100% on the location, but does it matter?) with Trump's own son where they explicitly discussed undermining Hillary's campaign?
But now they needed an additional "back-channel" for communication after the election? Riiight.
Don't forget that Kushner sought a back channel with Russia as well.
I'm going to laugh when the play is that this was all people trying to back trade for self-advancement on the name of a dawdling old man.
I actually think this is the most likely case. A bunch of people trying to profiteer off the campaign that they all thought they weren't going to win....but then they did.
The White House has made a mysterious claim that Donald Trump won a case “in arbitration” against a pornographic film actor who alleges that she had sex with him a decade ago.
Press secretary Sarah Sanders’ surprise assertion appears to confirm that a contract existed between Trump and Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
“This case has already been won in arbitration and anything beyond that, I would refer you to the president’s outside counsel,” said Sanders, who insisted that Trump denies Daniels’ allegations.
At Wednesday’s press briefing she was pressed further on who won the arbitration and when. The spokeswoman replied gnomically: “By the president’s personal attorneys and for details on that I would refer you to them.
“I can share that the arbitration was won in the president’s favour, and I would refer you to the president’s outside counsel on any details beyond that.”
The disclosure implies that arbitration was used as a simpler, less costly alternative to litigation.
Soon after the briefing, Daniels’ lawyer, Michael Avenatti, reportedly dismissed Sanders’ claim. Jim Rutenberg, media columnist at the New York Times, tweeted: “Stormy Daniels lawyer, @MichaelAvenatti responds to me re Sanders’ statement Trump won at arbitration: ‘yeah and he also won the popular vote.’”
On Tuesday Daniels filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against Trump, arguing that his longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen tried “to silence Ms Clifford through the use of an improper and procedurally defective arbitration proceeding hidden from public view”.
Daniels contends that a non-disclosure agreement she signed days before the 2016 presidential election, which blocked her from discussing the alleged sexual encounters, is “null and void and of no consequence” because Trump did not personally sign it.
Cohen has said he paid the actress $130,000 out of his own pocket as part of the agreement. He has also said that “neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly”.
Sanders was asked repeatedly about whether Trump had knowledge of the payment by Cohen. She said: “I’ve had conversations with the president about this. And, as I outlined earlier, that this case has already been won in arbitration and that there was no knowledge of any payments from the president, and he’s denied all of these allegations.”
Meanwhile Avenatti said on television on Wednesday that Daniels wants “to set the record straight”. He told NBC there was “no question” Trump knew about the agreement, though he did not offer any proof.
Avenatti said Daniels was not looking to profit from her story. But he told CBS: “I don’t know whether she’s going to ultimately seek payment or not.”
Daniels alleges that she began the “intimate relationship” with Trump in 2006 and that it continued “well into the year 2007”, according to the lawsuit. She said it included encounters in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, and Beverly Hills, California. Trump married Melania Trump, now the first lady, in 2005.
Have to say, Sanders does seem to be the best WH Press Secretary they've had. Nobody really talks about her, like they did about Spicer and THE MOOCH (whose name must forever be written and spoken in capitals. Yes, it must be spoken in capitals).
Sometimes I think that the US understates the threat that Iran poses to international security. The department of state has imposed some sanctions on the country but not enough, in my opinion. America, you've got a job to do: make sure that everyone feels safe enough to come & go as they please! https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/index.htm
I think that the sanctions by the US government against Iran are a good step to indicate to the world that their nuclear capabilities are a significant danger to countries that are near them. As long as America has some sort of coherent policy to deal with them, there is some measure of safety for US citizens traveling abroad. At work there isn't much interest in US politics so this is where I go to figure out what's going on in the world.
On March 08 2018 20:17 A3th3r wrote: Sometimes I think that the US understates the threat that Iran poses to international security. The department of state has imposed some sanctions on the country but not enough, in my opinion. America, you've got a job to do: make sure that everyone feels safe enough to come & go as they please! https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/index.htm
I think that the sanctions by the US government against Iran are a good step to indicate to the world that their nuclear capabilities are a significant danger to countries that are near them. As long as America has some sort of coherent policy to deal with them, there is some measure of safety for US citizens traveling abroad. At work there isn't much interest in US politics so this is where I go to figure out what's going on in the world.
Before you post more random youtube videos about fear of Iran and the bomb (I'm surprised that dude didn't put a symphonic ta ta dum behind there every time he mentioned the bomb), please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework
That is what will stop Iran from continuing their nuclear weapons program. Not more sanctions. Did the worst sanctions on any country probably *ever* stop NK from building nukes? No. So why do you think sanctions will stop Iran from doing so? In fact, the whole reason for that treaty was because sanctions were quite clearly *not* working.
Did you miss the memo when basically the whole world signed the nuclear deal with Iran and it was seen as a very positive thing everywhere, except on the american right? Your sanction won't do shit to Iran if you do them alone.
If we're posting random crap from 2014 like that video, with the aim of bringing up shit out of the blue when its not actively being discussed in this thread, I've got another one for you:
Students in Israel are to form government-funded "covert units" to defend the country on Facebook and Twitter, it's reported.
The Prime Minister's office is reportedly spending around £540,000 recruiting more than 500 students to respond to social media posts calling for boycotts and sanctions against the country, the Jerusalem Post says. Those with foreign language skills who receive these "scholarships" would not identify themselves as being in the pay of the government. Instead, Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper says, the plan is to make the programme appear to be based on the activity of politically-neutral students, with the Prime Minister's Office also hoping to recruit from pro-Israel student groups from around the world.
On March 08 2018 16:37 a_flayer wrote: It doesn't make any sense at all. Didn't this meeting happen somewhere in December 2016 (or was that just when they first reported on it, I can't remember)? Why would Trump have to rely on some kind of random murderer to facilitate a "back-channel" (wtf is that, anyway?) with Putin after he was elected? Putin and Trump were already in close contact at that point, with -- IIRC -- several meetings between Russian representatives and people related to the Trump campaign over the whole of 2016, not to mention various electronic ways of communicating like that Alfa Bank server and whatnot. And wasn't one of those meetings in the Trump Tower (not 100% on the location, but does it matter?) with Trump's own son where they explicitly discussed undermining Hillary's campaign?
But now they needed an additional "back-channel" for communication after the election? Riiight.
I mean, the whole point of a "back-channel" is to be able to communicate surreptitiously. The desire to not have your communications be public record or in official capacities doesn't disappear once you win the electoral college.
Plus the Alfa Bank kind of lost its purpose as a "back-channel" (if it ever was one) when the media realized it might be one and it was formally investigated with the FBI.