Gaslighting, as a term, has become more popular for obvious reasons over the last two years. It refers to a 1944 movie in which a wife is manipulated by her husband into believing she is insane.
Incidentally, if any of you haven't seen Gaslight you should watch it--it's pretty good.
Israeli police have recommended the indictment of Benjamin Netanyahu for bribery and other charges. Apparently, the police have recommended his indictment on two other occasions many years ago for previous charges, but the cases were dismissed by the attorney general for lack of evidence. This time, apparently the police have Ari Harow, Netanyahu's former chief of staff, as a witness. Whether the outcome will be different this time is yet to be seen.
Their attorney general has to decide whether or not to proceed with pressing charges against Netanyahu; given the average length of investigations, trials, and appeals it will be years before anything definitive happens. Although I have no evidence to support my suspicion, I suspect that this is being driven by politics, but not by his opponents--members of his own party are ready for a change in leadership.
*************
Why were the allegations against Porter merely allegations? Was there insufficient evidence to prosecute him for domestic violence while he was committing it on multiple occasions against multiple spouses? In Texas, if you are in a relationship with someone (not just dating but something a little more concrete such as "both names are on the lease") and you assault them, the victim cannot simply drop the charges; instead, the district attorney's office picks up the charges and prosecutes the offense--this stops the victim from giving the abuser more opportunity to commit abuse. Sometimes. Anyway...why hadn't he already been charged and, most likely, convicted?
As far as "who knew what and when they knew it"...they knew right away, as soon as they got the results of the first background check, which was probably completed in 24 or 48 hours. They were hoping that no one else would find out.
*************
Governor Wolf in Pennsylvania has vetoed the redrawn district maps, which I suspected would happen. The deadline for new district lines is this coming Thursday; the lines must be passed by the State Legislature and signed by Gov. Wolf by that date. If not, the court will consider input from both sides then redraw the lines itself. I highly doubt Wolf would sign off on *any* redrawn maps the Legislature submits.
Why were the allegations against Porter merely allegations? Was there insufficient evidence to prosecute him for domestic violence while he was committing it on multiple occasions against multiple spouses? In Texas, if you are in a relationship with someone (not just dating but something a little more concrete such as "both names are on the lease") and you assault them, the victim cannot simply drop the charges; instead, the district attorney's office picks up the charges and prosecutes the offense--this stops the victim from giving the abuser more opportunity to commit abuse. Sometimes. Anyway...why hadn't he already been charged and, most likely, convicted?
Bringing charges can only happen when the assaults are reported in the first place. Even if the charges aren't dropped, a case is much less likely to succeed if the victim is unwilling to testify. For this particular case, the specific physical assaults that have been publicly alleged were outside of the U.S., in the Canary Islands and in Italy. As far as I know, law enforcement was not aware of the issue until the FBI contacted Porter's ex-wives as part of his background check.
Surely someone willing to give his wife a black eye in Italy was doing something similar back in the United States, though. At this point, though, all we can really do is speculate since we are not privy to the details of any of those cases.
Surely someone willing to give his wife a black eye in Italy was doing something similar back in the United States, though. At this point, though, all we can really do is speculate since we are not privy to the details of any of those cases.
Yeah if you date Porter, don't travel internationally.
But seriously, you'd have to get the wives story and any other police reports to get the full picture of the abuse. So apparently the Trump admin knew for months but are lying about how long they knew. FBI director Wray apparently blew a hole in the Trump administration timeline.
Surely someone willing to give his wife a black eye in Italy was doing something similar back in the United States, though. At this point, though, all we can really do is speculate since we are not privy to the details of any of those cases.
Yeah if you date Porter, don't travel internationally.
But seriously, you'd have to get the wives story and any other police reports to get the full picture of the abuse. So apparently the Trump admin knew for months but are lying about how long they knew. FBI director Wray apparently blew a hole in the Trump administration timeline.
Which of the 5 timelines they have come up with since last week are we talking about?? Beyond that, we have pictures of a black eye, and two women willing to go on the record. And in this day and age, if anyone thinks that is easy given the nature of politics right now, that isn't easy. I'm sure both of them are receiving threats. It's not just that John Kelly knew about this and tried to shove it in the drawer, it's not just that dozens of people are running around the White House without security clearances. It's that Trump, when he finally spoke about this, said nothing about the victims. Don't think that women around the country aren't noticing this shit. They are.
I was taught never to hit a women under any circumstances. I have no tolerance for it. I myself have been kicked, slapped, and scratched. Each time, though very mad, I walked out of the room rather than escalate the situation.
I was taught never to hit a women under any circumstances. I have no tolerance for it. I myself have been kicked, slapped, and scratched. Each time, though very mad, I walked out of the room rather than escalate the situation.
Jeez jjstraka34, what are you doing around women that has made them want to kick slap and scratch you? But I do applaud your restraint. It ain't easy to back down when provoked especially by a (presumably) smaller person.
So anyway, Republican family values include wife beaters, pedophiles, serial sexual assaulters and deficit exploding tax cuts. Not good times.
Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, has claimed that he paid hush money to Stormy Daniels out of his own pocket, and that the payment therefore was legal per existing campaign finance laws on the grounds that Cohen made the payment himself, rather than dipping into the Trump campaign's funds.
So apparently Trump did sleep with Daniels, beginning in 2006 and continuing on and off some time afterwards.
Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, has claimed that he paid hush money to Stormy Daniels out of his own pocket, and that the payment therefore was legal per existing campaign finance laws on the grounds that Cohen made the payment himself, rather than dipping into the Trump campaign's funds.
So apparently Trump did sleep with Daniels, beginning in 2006 and continuing on and off some time afterwards.
Trump married Melania in 2005.
It would be one thing if I actually thought the way this story has just floated away signaled the end of the public or media caring about Presidents (or members of Congress) and extramarital affairs. But I know with 100% certainty that it's not. It's only Trump that will get the pass.
We, the public, already know that our politicians do not honor marriage vows on a regular basis. We care only when they get caught, and even then only if the person caught is from the other side.
Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, has claimed that he paid hush money to Stormy Daniels out of his own pocket, and that the payment therefore was legal per existing campaign finance laws on the grounds that Cohen made the payment himself, rather than dipping into the Trump campaign's funds.
So apparently Trump did sleep with Daniels, beginning in 2006 and continuing on and off some time afterwards.
Trump married Melania in 2005.
He probably paid it out of his own pocket after Trump paid him a $130, 000 consulting fee.
Cohen and Trump are trying to tap into the “allegations ruin careers” idea that Trump pushes on Twitter. Cohen is saying that he paid Daniels to prevent the “fake news” about her affair with Trump from getting out of hand. Trump’s base will accept this argument without question.
Cohen says, “Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump."
So is Cohen going to pay all of Trump’s accusers or just the ones with lawyers? Just the ones with hard evidence? Was Daniels extorting Trump? Lots of angles but I can’t see one where a lawyer would dump six figures on someone out of the goodness of their heart if there wasn’t some real threat.
In reality, Cohen probably wasted his money because Trump’s base wouldn’t care one way or the other. Many of them would say they would jump at the chance to sleep with a porn star, too. Dang deplorables.
Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, has claimed that he paid hush money to Stormy Daniels out of his own pocket, and that the payment therefore was legal per existing campaign finance laws on the grounds that Cohen made the payment himself, rather than dipping into the Trump campaign's funds.
So apparently Trump did sleep with Daniels, beginning in 2006 and continuing on and off some time afterwards.
Trump married Melania in 2005.
He probably paid it out of his own pocket after Trump paid him a $130, 000 consulting fee.
This. There was a suspicious $130k transfer from Trump campaign to Trump business. Cohen probably took that money "from his own pocket" by claiming to work a couple hours at thousands of dollars an hour - to arrange the payoff of Stormy Daniels.
The most recent judge's ruling preventing the Trump Administration from ending DACA is quite weak.
A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked moves to end DACA — though he recognized that the administration “indisputably” has the authority to do so.
U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in New York wrote that the program “simply reflected the Obama Administration’s determination that DHS’s limited enforcement resources generally should not be used to deport individuals who were brought to the United States as children, met educational or military-service requirements, and lacked meaningful criminal records.” Thus, he said, the Trump administration was well within its rights to change tack. But Garaufis wrote that administration officials had not offered legally adequate reasons for doing so because they relied on an erroneous legal conclusion that the program was unconstitutional and illegal under federal law.
“Because that conclusion was erroneous, the decision to end the DACA program cannot stand,” Garaufis wrote.
So if the Trump Administration gives a different reason for ending DACA, one not based on a faulty conclusion, then it would be allowed to do so, according to this judge. Does an Administration have to have a "legally adequate" reason to stop an Executive Branch program? Can't they stop it if they just feel like it? Do all Executive programs, including EOs, have to have a "legally adequate" foundation? Clearly, they cannot violate existing laws but legality is not the issue, the phrase "legally adequate" is. Adequate...how? Who determines "adequate"?
@Mathsorcerer: I'm guessing the distinction is that the Trump administration said that DACA was unconstitutional. But the executive branch cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional; only the Supreme Court can do that.
As @semiticgod pointed out, yesterday the lawyer for the President of the United States admitted to paying hush money to a porn star. Here is where that story ended up in the 3 major national newspapers:
NYT: A12 WSJ: A4 WashPost: Didn't make the paper
The battle really is uphill in the snow at this point. Because when everything is a scandal, nothing is a scandal. I don't care whether people personally care about it or not. The idea that it's not even a news story is preposterous.
The decision by the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York is wrong imho. The idea that you can overrule a prior executive order "because you feel like" but not if you rely on an erroneous legal conclusion doesn't make much sense. Courts give greater deference to congressional acts repealing former law, never mind an executive decision. Imagine if every law repealed by Congress underwent that kind of scrutiny?
@Mathsorcerer: I'm guessing the distinction is that the Trump administration said that DACA was unconstitutional. But the executive branch cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional; only the Supreme Court can do that.
DACA was not a law, so the distinction wouldn't be relevant.
@Mathsorcerer: I'm guessing the distinction is that the Trump administration said that DACA was unconstitutional. But the executive branch cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional; only the Supreme Court can do that.
DACA was not a law, so the distinction wouldn't be relevant.
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court would also be able to strike down executive orders and so forth as unconstitutional; it need not be a bill.
There is breaking news tonight, being revealed because of Rob Porter (indirectly). As of November 2017, nearly 130 people working in the White House had not received full security clearances or were working under interim ones, including Ivanka, Jared, and Don McGahn....who is the frickin' WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL!!!! It is unclear how many of these people have gotten there clearance SINCE November, since that information is still not fully available. But the question doesn't seem to be who in the White House doesn't have a security clearance. The question is who actually DOES??
Well, my main point is that they basically ran an entire campaign based on her supposed mishandling of classified information, when it appears 9 out of 10 people working in the White House can't even pass a background check within a year's time-frame.
Well, my main point is that they basically ran an entire campaign based on her supposed mishandling of classified information, when it appears 9 out of 10 people working in the White House can't even pass a background check within a year's time-frame.
Is a background check even required? It seems like it should be in order to be in the cabinet or be a presidential advisor but it looks like it's not necessary by law at least. Something to look at for future administrations I'd guess. Trump certainly isn't going to be the last non-traditional candidate to run and/or win...
It's a sad state of affairs when 17 people get killed in a school (again, with another AR-15 from the looks of it) and everyone knows there isn't even a point in talking about it, because we've had this same discussion half a dozen times just in this thread. I've never seen a country so totally paralyzed to respond to a problem as this one is by it's gun violence.
Just saw a stat that in there have been 18 school shootings in the rest of the world the last 20 years. We have had 18 school shootings in the last 35 days. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the problem is us.
@Mathsorcerer: I'm guessing the distinction is that the Trump administration said that DACA was unconstitutional. But the executive branch cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional; only the Supreme Court can do that.
DACA was not a law, so the distinction wouldn't be relevant.
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court would also be able to strike down executive orders and so forth as unconstitutional; it need not be a bill.
They are able to do so, but they don't have the exclusive power to do so.
It's a sad state of affairs when 17 people get killed in a school (again, with another AR-15 from the looks of it) and everyone knows there isn't even a point in talking about it, because we've had this same discussion half a dozen times just in this thread. I've never seen a country so totally paralyzed to respond to a problem as this one is by it's gun violence.
Just saw a stat that in there have been 18 school shootings in the rest of the world the last 20 years. We have had 18 school shootings in the last 35 days. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the problem is us.
I have to say that I'm moderating my views on gun control. I'm not sure the problem can be fixed any time soon, but background checks and psychiatric evaluations are starting to look like a good start to me. What to do with the guns already out there is a huge issue though.
@jjstraka34 any ideas on how to deal with that barring outright confiscation (which would be a huge infringement on individual rights imho)? Yes, I'm actually serious and if I can change my views I'm sure many other conservatives can also...
Well, my main point is that they basically ran an entire campaign based on her supposed mishandling of classified information, when it appears 9 out of 10 people working in the White House can't even pass a background check within a year's time-frame.
Is a background check even required? It seems like it should be in order to be in the cabinet or be a presidential advisor but it looks like it's not necessary by law at least. Something to look at for future administrations I'd guess. Trump certainly isn't going to be the last non-traditional candidate to run and/or win...
It depends on what type of clearance they are getting.
According to this website, used by people looking for jobs with security clearances
I don't know what type of clearance they are up for. It seems reasonable to me that a presidential advisor be expected to see and discuss classified information with the President. They might be around him when it's being discussed. There's probably a law or something somewheres that says what they need.
Well, my main point is that they basically ran an entire campaign based on her supposed mishandling of classified information, when it appears 9 out of 10 people working in the White House can't even pass a background check within a year's time-frame.
Is a background check even required? It seems like it should be in order to be in the cabinet or be a presidential advisor but it looks like it's not necessary by law at least. Something to look at for future administrations I'd guess. Trump certainly isn't going to be the last non-traditional candidate to run and/or win...
It depends on what type of clearance they are getting.
According to this website, used by people looking for jobs with security clearances
I don't know what type of clearance they are up for. It seems reasonable to me that a presidential advisor be expected to see and discuss classified information with the President. They might be around him when it's being discussed. There's probably a law or something somewheres that says what they need.
203 days or even 116 seems a bit long to me for an incoming administration, especially if the newcomers are hostile to the previous administration (which seems to be the case currently). There should be some way to expedite that.
Well, my main point is that they basically ran an entire campaign based on her supposed mishandling of classified information, when it appears 9 out of 10 people working in the White House can't even pass a background check within a year's time-frame.
Is a background check even required? It seems like it should be in order to be in the cabinet or be a presidential advisor but it looks like it's not necessary by law at least. Something to look at for future administrations I'd guess. Trump certainly isn't going to be the last non-traditional candidate to run and/or win...
It depends on what type of clearance they are getting.
According to this website, used by people looking for jobs with security clearances
I don't know what type of clearance they are up for. It seems reasonable to me that a presidential advisor be expected to see and discuss classified information with the President. They might be around him when it's being discussed. There's probably a law or something somewheres that says what they need.
203 days or even 116 seems a bit long to me for an incoming administration, especially if the newcomers are hostile to the previous administration (which seems to be the case currently). There should be some way to expedite that.
That is the standard. It is not personal or adjusted for anybody, it always is that. It takes the government time to call people and check sources and so forth.
Comments
*************
Why were the allegations against Porter merely allegations? Was there insufficient evidence to prosecute him for domestic violence while he was committing it on multiple occasions against multiple spouses? In Texas, if you are in a relationship with someone (not just dating but something a little more concrete such as "both names are on the lease") and you assault them, the victim cannot simply drop the charges; instead, the district attorney's office picks up the charges and prosecutes the offense--this stops the victim from giving the abuser more opportunity to commit abuse. Sometimes. Anyway...why hadn't he already been charged and, most likely, convicted?
As far as "who knew what and when they knew it"...they knew right away, as soon as they got the results of the first background check, which was probably completed in 24 or 48 hours. They were hoping that no one else would find out.
*************
Governor Wolf in Pennsylvania has vetoed the redrawn district maps, which I suspected would happen. The deadline for new district lines is this coming Thursday; the lines must be passed by the State Legislature and signed by Gov. Wolf by that date. If not, the court will consider input from both sides then redraw the lines itself. I highly doubt Wolf would sign off on *any* redrawn maps the Legislature submits.
But seriously, you'd have to get the wives story and any other police reports to get the full picture of the abuse. So apparently the Trump admin knew for months but are lying about how long they knew. FBI director Wray apparently blew a hole in the Trump administration timeline.
I was taught never to hit a women under any circumstances. I have no tolerance for it. I myself have been kicked, slapped, and scratched. Each time, though very mad, I walked out of the room rather than escalate the situation.
So anyway, Republican family values include wife beaters, pedophiles, serial sexual assaulters and deficit exploding tax cuts. Not good times.
So apparently Trump did sleep with Daniels, beginning in 2006 and continuing on and off some time afterwards.
Trump married Melania in 2005.
Cohen says, “Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump."
So is Cohen going to pay all of Trump’s accusers or just the ones with lawyers? Just the ones with hard evidence? Was Daniels extorting Trump? Lots of angles but I can’t see one where a lawyer would dump six figures on someone out of the goodness of their heart if there wasn’t some real threat.
In reality, Cohen probably wasted his money because Trump’s base wouldn’t care one way or the other. Many of them would say they would jump at the chance to sleep with a porn star, too. Dang deplorables.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/stormy-daniels-bailout-trump-campaign-transferred-130k-trump-business-one-month-election/
And there's $3M in campaign funds that Trump somehow can't or won't account for.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-inauguration-donations-funds-missing-steve-kerrigan-congress-714118
NYT: A12
WSJ: A4
WashPost: Didn't make the paper
The battle really is uphill in the snow at this point. Because when everything is a scandal, nothing is a scandal. I don't care whether people personally care about it or not. The idea that it's not even a news story is preposterous.
But her emails.
Just saw a stat that in there have been 18 school shootings in the rest of the world the last 20 years. We have had 18 school shootings in the last 35 days. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the problem is us.
@jjstraka34 any ideas on how to deal with that barring outright confiscation (which would be a huge infringement on individual rights imho)? Yes, I'm actually serious and if I can change my views I'm sure many other conservatives can also...
According to this website, used by people looking for jobs with security clearances
"As of today, initial Secret clearances are now taking 116 days, Top Secret clearances are taking 203 days."
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2016/08/08/long-security-clearance-process-take/
I don't know what type of clearance they are up for. It seems reasonable to me that a presidential advisor be expected to see and discuss classified information with the President. They might be around him when it's being discussed. There's probably a law or something somewheres that says what they need.