Yeah. The fool actually bragged to the Russians that the coast was clear after he eliminated Comey!
Paints such a pretty picture…
Yeah. The fool actually bragged to the Russians that the coast was clear after he eliminated Comey!
Paints such a pretty picture…
Yeah… I been saying this since before the clown slithered into office…
The photographs of President Trump taken by a Russian state photographer (American media were not allowed into the meeting) with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, the day after sacking FBI Director James Comey, are more pieces of circumstantial evidence that show Trump should be investigated by a special prosecutor. (“Russia’s foreign minister has cordial talk at White House against a tumultuous backdrop,” May 10)
We know that many of the president’s men met with Russian representatives when their government was attempting to throw the election in his favor. Trump encouraged the illegal hacking by the Russians and celebrated WikiLeaks’ release of illegally obtained information. Trump officials took out of the Republican Party platform any mention of punishment of Russia for annexing Crimea. Trump praised Putin and Russia throughout the election campaign. After the election, on the very day President Obama announced sanctions against Russia, the now-disgraced former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was on the phone with the Russian ambassador discussing the sanctions, against which Moscow did not retaliate. Jared Kushner, Trump’s top advisor, also met with the Russians.
Now, after Comey asks for more resources for his agency’s investigation, Trump fires him. The Republicans sit idly by while the U.S. government is burning, and Trump is photographed meeting in the White House with his potential co-conspirators. No wonder the photos show them laughing — the joke is on us.
We need a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this now. If we do not, we will be living in Trump’s alternative universe, being told what to do by a dictator.
And Dean should know. He spent time in jail for covering for Nixon.
John Dean — former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon who was jailed for his role in the Watergate scandal — gave his thoughts on the firing of FBI director James Comey to The New Yorker.
Dean said that by firing Comey, President Donald Trump’sadministration has “raised so many questions.” He continued, “how can you conclude anything but that Trump knows he’s got problems?”
And then: “Every move they make keeps signaling ‘coverup.’”
Dean is something of an expert on cover-ups himself. He served time in jail after he was found guilty for helping to orchestrate what became Watergate. For his role in the scandal that took down Nixon’s presidency, the FBI described Dean as the “master manipulator of the cover-up.”
His insights clash with Kellyanne Conway’sassertions to Anderson Cooper Tuesday night that the firing of Comey was “not a coverup.”
Dean also criticized the decision to fire Comey instead of asking him to resign, noting “Trump, I guess, always has to play the strong guy.”
The veteran saboteur then doled out some advice for the administration: “If they think they can influence the Russian investigation by removing Comey, they are naïve. I learned from my own experience that you can’t put in the fix by removing somebody.”
But Wait! There’s more!
According to recently-revealed court documents, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking into a case that includes then-candidate Donald Trump’s public call for Russia to hack then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails.
During a 2016 campaign press conference, Trump made a plea directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government.
“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said in front of supporters in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
According to court filings obtained by The Sparrow Project, those remarks are now part of an FBI investigation.
Following Trump’s July statement, Buzzfeed News investigator Jason Leopold and researcher Ryan Shapiro sued the FBI to release all documents pertaining to the remarks.
In its response to the lawsuit, the FBI confirmed the existence of an ongoing investigation.
“Because of the existence of an active, ongoing investigation,” the court filing says, the agency has the right to “withhold all records responsive to the Russia Request, because releasing any responsive records (or portions thereof) ‘could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.’”
The court documents also state that “virtually all, if not all, of the documents responsive to the Russia Request will be exempt from disclosure in their entirety under Exemption 7(A), which applies to law-enforcement records the disclosure of which ‘could be reasonable expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.’”
“I’m sorry, but the concert has been cancelled due to unforseen incarceration. However, your tickets will be honored at a make-up concert as soon as we can schedule it.”
“Great! When can I expect that to be?”
In yet another case of Trump white boy justice being different for “some” folks…the black rapper got a 3 times longer sentence than a white child rapist.
Publicists for a festival in Louisiana say rapper Kevin Gates has cancelled his performance due to “an unforeseen incarceration.”
The Baton Rouge singer was sentenced Wednesday to 180 days in jail after being convicted of kicking a female fan at a Florida concert last year.
Organizers of the 2016 Voodoo Fest said in a tweet that the artist scratched his performance “due to an unforeseen incarceration.”
News outlets report a Polk County jury found Gates guilty of battery after he was captured on cellphone video kicking 19-year-old Miranda Dixon at Lakeland’s Rumors Nightclub, where he performed last August.
Dixon, who was in the crowd, testified that she tugged on Gates’ pants twice to get his attention for her friend. After the second time, she says Gates kicked her so hard that she fell back and passed out.
Gates’ attorney, Jose Baez, argued his client was battered by the woman before he kicked her and that Dixon has a financial motive in the case, saying that she had a civil lawyer.
The New Orleans Advocate reports Gates was slated to perform on Voodoo’s Pepsi Stage at 8:45 p.m. on Friday. No word yet on who, if anyone, will replace him. He has presumably also scrapped his post-fest show at the House of Blues, which was slated for later Friday night.
Here we go again with the annual battle of the “Crime statistics”…
Some good counters here for the right wing’s race baiting.
Forthcoming FBI statistics will likely reveal a murder uptick in 2015, but it wasn’t caused by Black Lives Matter
It is a fact that murder rates in many cities rose last year. The full nationwide picture, however, will only become clear on Sept. 26, when the FBI publishes its 2015 crime data. As it turns out, that’s the same day as the first presidential debate, as Lois Beckett observed at The Guardian. The data will convey a lot of information, and a fast-moving political circus will likely engulf it in confusion.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, running a hysterical law-and-order campaign, will likely point to a rare fact to bolster his case. Other conservatives, who since last year have blamed urban bloodshed and the murders of police officers on Black Lives Matter, will no doubt claim vindication. But reporters shouldn’t let anyone get away with such quick inferences. The overall murder rate is still way down from the worst years of the early 1990s, and the current spike is being driven by a small number of cities.
A recent New York Times analysis found that the murder rate rose sharply in 25 of the nation’s 100 largest cities, confirming a trend identified in a June report for the National Institute of Justice conducted by criminologist Richard Rosenfeld. Experts estimate that the FBI will report a nationwide increase of between 6 percent and 13 percent, according to Beckett. Numbers, however, don’t speak for themselves.
Many conservatives have been peddling a theory known as the “Ferguson effect,” which posits that Black Lives Matter protests are causing the police to pull back from doing their jobs, leading to increased crime. Such commentators and some credulous reporters will claim that this data proves their case. But the Ferguson effect theory, aimed at delegitimizing the movement against police violence, remains as unsubstantiated and implausible as ever. What follows is a handy guide for fighting politically motivated disinformation in the weeks and months to come.
The Ferguson effect doesn’t make any sense
The Ferguson effect theory, as I wrote in June, doesn’t make sense because it lacks a plausible causal theory as to how so-called de-policing (to the extent that it has taken place) leads to more people shooting one another to death. Much gun violence is the result of personal and intergroup disputes, and purveyors of the theory don’t explain how decreased police enforcement would lead to more shooting. Notably, gun seizures — which criminologist David Kennedy called “the one kind of day-to-day policing that one might expect would have the most direct impact on homicide and gun violence” — have been high in Baltimore and Chicago, two of the bloodiest cities.
In regard to a causal mechanism, Kennedy told me, “none of the people claiming there is a Ferguson effect have any idea” what it might be. “Most of the people behind that have essentially said, ‘Violence is up. People are mad at the police. Therefore people being mad at the police is driving violence up,’ and then left people to challenge them about why that might make sense.”
Kennedy, director of John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s National Network for Safe Communities and a leading gun violence expert, added, “But there isn’t much of a story, and there’s certainly next to nothing in terms of real facts or analysis that says, ‘This is what’s going on in the streets, and these are the ways it’s leading to increased violence.’ It’s really not an analysis. It’s more a position.”
The murder spike is not a nationwide phenomenon
According to the Times, just seven cities— Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, Milwaukee, Nashville and Washington — were responsible for half of the murder rate increase. In five cities, murder rates actually decreased significantly. In 70, they were mostly stable. The real story is thus embedded in a series of local circumstances and cannot be explained by easy recourse to the national debate over policing.
In Baltimore, for example, the murder rate is particularly out of control. In fact, it’s horrific: Last year’s was the city’s highest rate on record. But as the Times noted, “Some experts attribute the sudden spike in violence largely to a flood of black-market opiates looted from pharmacies during riots in April 2015.” It’s possible that decreased police enforcement played some role. It could also be that the riots caused a lot of young men already involved in gun violence to encounter one another in the streets, leading to more violence. The correlation that researchers have found between decreased enforcement in Chicago and Baltimore and rising murder, as Iexplained at length in June, does not demonstrate causation.
Three of the cities that drove the upsurge — Baltimore, Chicago and Cleveland — have been centers of widespread protests. Yet all seven have poverty rates above the national average. And cities like Baltimore, Chicago and Cleveland also contain something else: large, geographically contiguous segregated concentrations of black poverty. More reporting and research is necessary to discover why murder is spiking in certain cities—and also why it is dropping or holding steady in others.
Murder rates continued to decline in the nation’s two largest cities, Los Angeles and New York. In New York, crime has continued to fall even after it implemented one of the largest de-policing measures in history under massive public and legal pressure: ending mass stop-and-frisk practices. Contrary to the New York Post, the sky did not fall.Beware of headlines that blare, “Murder rate increase highest since 1990.” Beckett wrote that “overall murders would have to spike 73 percent, not 6 percent, to actually put the U.S. back at the record-breaking murder totals of the early 1990s.”
Because murders have declined so much in recent decades and the crime rate is currently so low, a relatively small increase in the absolute number of murders can make for a dramatic percentage increase in the murder rate.
If there is a Ferguson effect, it might not be what you think
Many experts have long believed there is a relationship between policing and gun violence but it’s not the relationship that many people might presume to exist. Instead, a lack of police legitimacy in poor black communities might fuel shootings because when people don’t trust police to solve their problems they are more likely take matters into their own hands. And so rather than protests against police violence causing more gun violence, the protests may instead be highlighting one of the causes behind increased violence.
After University of Missouri St. Louis criminologist Richard Rosenfeld conducted his June research showing rising murder rates in certain cities, he was reported to be having second thoughts about the Ferguson effect, which he initially thought to be implausible. This is not quite right.
In fact, Rosenfeld told me at the time that he is unaware of any research “that suggests de-policing could have such a powerful effect on firearm violence — except maybe if the police all went on strike and stayed home.” Rosenfeld said, “There are two versions of the Ferguson effect. One emphasizes the role of de-policing in the homicide rise. The other, which I favor, suggests that longstanding grievances with the police in minority communities are activated by controversial and heavily publicized incidents of police use of force, resulting in more killings as community members settle grievances or respond to crimes without recourse to the police.”… Read the rest here…
The CHumph’s Charity scams are increasingly being exposed a no more than efforts to fund his lavish lifestyle and failing companies – with little or no money going to the actual charities…
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump — already under attack for using charity money for lavish galas and not to help those in need — may have run afoul of IRS rules by buying himself a Tim Tebow-autographed helmet at an auction by using money from his Trump Foundation.
According to the Washington Post, the New York businessman placed a $12,000 bid at a charity auction in Palm Beach four years ago that won him the Denver Broncos helmet personally signed by the former quarterback.
But when the time came to pay for helmet, auctioned off by the breast-cancer nonprofit Susan G. Komen organization, Trump sent a check drawn on his own non-profit, The Donald J. Trump Foundation.
According to the Komen Foundation, it was the only contribution they have ever received from Trump.
Trump auction’s win was heralded in the Palm Beach Post, which noted, “The Donald giveth, and The Donald payeth,” although that proved to not be entirely true.
According to experts in non-profit law, Trump could be in violation of IRS laws involving “self-dealing,” if he kept the helmet for himself.
“That would be a classic violation of the prohibition on a charity being operated for the private inurement (benefit) of the charity’s creator,” explained Brett G. Kappel, an expert on tax-exempt organizations.
According to the Post, the Trump Foundation does not appear to have offices of its own and is headquartered at Trump’s business offices in New York.