You had me up till middle-class. It's middle-class for a reason, not minimum class. A person can live comfortably below middle-class but they have to check their consumerism and debt and saving money can be an issue, but it can be done.
which equals, roughly $1525 a month, which equates too $9.53 a month after income tax, so about $10 - $10.25 an hour, $14 - $15 to save a bit. obviously minimum wage at $7.50 won't cut it unless you just go basic with rent/food/phone/transit.
But once again, the largest eater of below middle class workers money is rent. If municipalities start demanding affordable housing to be built, it can quickly help those who do make less than $15 an hour afford to live more comfortably. Ideally, two paychecks a month: one pay check goes to rent (roughly $550 a month for $7.5 an hour full time job - yes full time is rare in the states, another thing that needs to be addressed, but should be a separate topic) and one pay check goes to everything else. That should be the base starting line ($475-$500 small 1 bedroom/bachelor apt) when you are talking about an individuals cost of living. I bet I will never find an apartment anywhere in the United States for that price.
If I had to actually dig, I bet I could find a place or at least a flatmate in San Antonio for less than $600. Craig's list have some listed from 400-550 all in, which would be about $8 - $8.50 a month cutting out utilities, internet and the extra $100 in rent. So still above $7.50 minimum wage but not as high as some "Cost of Living" studies would have a person believe.
Yes, throwing in a family can complicate these numbers and I'd have to dig a bit deeper and add in a second salary (or child support) to actually figure it out properly, but its late.
You had me up till middle-class. It's middle-class for a reason, not minimum class. A person can live comfortably below middle-class but they have to check their consumerism and debt and saving money can be an issue, but it can be done.
which equals, roughly $1525 a month, which equates too $9.53 a month after income tax, so about $10 - $10.25 an hour, $14 - $15 to save a bit. obviously minimum wage at $7.50 won't cut it unless you just go basic with rent/food/phone/transit.
But once again, the largest eater of below middle class workers money is rent. If municipalities start demanding affordable housing to be built, it can quickly help those who do make less than $15 an hour afford to live more comfortably. Ideally, two paychecks a month: one pay check goes to rent (roughly $550 a month for $7.5 an hour full time job - yes full time is rare in the states, another thing that needs to be addressed, but should be a separate topic) and one pay check goes to everything else. That should be the base starting line ($475-$500 small 1 bedroom/bachelor apt) when you are talking about an individuals cost of living. I bet I will never find an apartment anywhere in the United States for that price.
If I had to actually dig, I bet I could find a place or at least a flatmate in San Antonio for less than $600. Craig's list have some listed from 400-550 all in, which would be about $8 - $8.50 a month cutting out utilities, internet and the extra $100 in rent. So still above $7.50 minimum wage but not as high as some "Cost of Living" studies would have a person believe.
Yes, throwing in a family can complicate these numbers and I'd have to dig a bit deeper and add in a second salary (or child support) to actually figure it out properly, but its late.
Again, and especially here in the states, hope you don't get sick. If you do, it's over. It will cost you more for a single visit to the hospital than anything else. Just for an aspirin, you can get charged for $50 to $100 and more.
Will this story get to the point where even Trump admits that he broke the law? We've seen that evolution regularly - "I did nothing"; "I did something, but it was very legal and very cool"; "I did something illegal, but it was no big deal and everybody does it and the real crimes are by the Democrats". On the face of it it would seem ridiculous for him to admit to a felony - for which he faces a real risk of being indicted even while President. However, given his inability to shut his mouth and the fact that occasionally he includes bits of truth in among the stream of lies - I wouldn't be surprised by a confession.
You had me up till middle-class. It's middle-class for a reason, not minimum class. A person can live comfortably below middle-class but they have to check their consumerism and debt and saving money can be an issue, but it can be done.
which equals, roughly $1525 a month, which equates too $9.53 a month after income tax, so about $10 - $10.25 an hour, $14 - $15 to save a bit. obviously minimum wage at $7.50 won't cut it unless you just go basic with rent/food/phone/transit.
But once again, the largest eater of below middle class workers money is rent. If municipalities start demanding affordable housing to be built, it can quickly help those who do make less than $15 an hour afford to live more comfortably. Ideally, two paychecks a month: one pay check goes to rent (roughly $550 a month for $7.5 an hour full time job - yes full time is rare in the states, another thing that needs to be addressed, but should be a separate topic) and one pay check goes to everything else. That should be the base starting line ($475-$500 small 1 bedroom/bachelor apt) when you are talking about an individuals cost of living. I bet I will never find an apartment anywhere in the United States for that price.
If I had to actually dig, I bet I could find a place or at least a flatmate in San Antonio for less than $600. Craig's list have some listed from 400-550 all in, which would be about $8 - $8.50 a month cutting out utilities, internet and the extra $100 in rent. So still above $7.50 minimum wage but not as high as some "Cost of Living" studies would have a person believe.
Yes, throwing in a family can complicate these numbers and I'd have to dig a bit deeper and add in a second salary (or child support) to actually figure it out properly, but its late.
Again, and especially here in the states, hope you don't get sick. If you do, it's over. It will cost you more for a single visit to the hospital than anything else. Just for an aspirin, you can get charged for $50 to $100 and more.
Sorry, can't relate. Canada figured out its health care in the 1960's. But once again, that's on government, not on businesses.
Why is it always: "I should make more money" instead of "I should pay less money"? If I paid less money for things I need (Housing/medical care/food) I'll have more money to spend on things that I want.
Edit2: I will also add that 7.50 minimum wage in the states, that hasn’t been raised since the 60s is stupidly low and does need to be raised just not all at once. I still believe it should be two tiered however between living wage and minimum wage.
Just an aside, since Grond0 already tackled the various "increasing the minimum wage hurts job numbers" fallacies, and better than I would have.
But the last minimum wage increase was 7.25 in 2009.
It's that the effective wage (adjusted for inflation) was at its peak in 1968 (nominally $1.60 then), when it was effectively $11.65 in 2018 dollars.
@deltago What's the difference between college and university? To my knowledge those are the same thing here in the US. Also, 11 dollars and hour? Dang. That's pretty good.
There IS a difference.
Generally, "college" is a 2 year institution granting associate degrees or certification in professional technical disciplines, and "university" grants 4 year bachelor or graduate degrees, and complicates that the university generally calls its subdivisions "colleges".
I am always careful to specify I attend "university", since in over 10 years of undergraduate education, I have only spent 1 month at a true "college".
Deltago specifically mentions a 2 year program, so that would be "college".
What is the cost difference? Well, around here, about half the price per course. I took a 3 hour economics course Summer II 2017 at a local college for about $450 tuition+fees when the same 3 semester hours costs about 900 at the public university I presently attend. Books, of course, eat your lunch to the tune of 80-200 dollars per course regardless if you take it at college or university, and aggravatingly are shifting to online subscription models where you "rent" an e-book for a semester as part of having to pay to get access to the program the instructor uses for homework. If you want an actual physical copy of the book, pay more. And more than half the time it's not even a good hardback book, it's loose leaf or paperback. One of the more aggravating things I've had to adjust to after almost 10 years out of school.
A full semester here is running about 3700 for tuition+fees for 12 hours. I am taking huge advantage of a quirk of the university that hours over 12 are free, apparently as part of some national push to increase graduation speed, and am taking max loads of 18 hours (except for next Spring when I'll be taking 16 due to 1 being a 1-hour, not 3) thus over 2 years I'll have taken 70 hours for about $15,000. Add the 500 for the college course, 2 separate semesters of taking a single course (1 summer, 1 in my final semester) for about 900 each, plus about 110/course in books for 27 courses for about 3,000, and parking permits for about 300. Totals up about $20,600 for 79 hours over 2.5 years, and that's for a second (fourth) bachelor's degree, so that's not counting about half that again for core curriculum I get to skip for already having a degree, because it's 120 hours for a degree, assuming no extraneous classwork. And I'm saving 1,700x4 semesters from the 18 hours at 12 hour rate. All told, ignoring the 18 hour discount (I've heard it's going away next year, fortunately I will be done with all but 1 course by then), and ignoring dorm residency requirements and meal plans, adding in books and all, and it comes up to roughly $41,100 for a 4-year Bachelor's degree.
And this at one of the cheapest 4-year universities in the state of Texas.
Financial aid can offset a lot of this. But I personally don't qualify for any of it. My family background puts me out of need-based scholarships, my having a poor overall GPA from prior degrees, and those prior degrees puts me out of everything else.
Then there's working. I am fortunate that my parents are willing to suffer to put me through school for the third time (and seems charmed, I am actually motivated, enjoying my chosen field, and am pulling grades I haven't had since I was a freshman), and have the luxury of focusing entirely on school and taking 18 hour loads and doing well. I am amazed at my far younger fellow students who are working full-time and have the gumption to do even 12 hours to my 18. I calculated I averaged about 65 hours/week related to schooling this semester. Adding a full-time job would have been impossible.
And then about 9 months from now, a CPA review course costing $3,000-$4,000, and about $2,000 to take the CPA exam.
Can the President Be Indicted? A Long-Hidden Legal Memo Says Yes
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR25dH2sXmfLxftYNiVC5luhUG3YJcmJN7ZglgbkXy9wk5bBif2KmRi8hC0 A newfound memo from Kenneth W. Starr’s independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton sheds fresh light on a constitutional puzzle that is taking on mounting significance amid the Trump-Russia inquiry: Can a sitting president be indicted? The 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office. “It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”
Will this story get to the point where even Trump admits that he broke the law? We've seen that evolution regularly - "I did nothing"; "I did something, but it was very legal and very cool"; "I did something illegal, but it was no big deal and everybody does it and the real crimes are by the Democrats". On the face of it it would seem ridiculous for him to admit to a felony - for which he faces a real risk of being indicted even while President. However, given his inability to shut his mouth and the fact that occasionally he includes bits of truth in among the stream of lies - I wouldn't be surprised by a confession.
It's indisputable at this point he committed a felony. The ONLY defense of these (now two, confirmed by his conspirators) payments would be the so-called "Edwards Defense", in which former Senator John Edwards claimed he wasn't covering up his affair (and child) with payments to influence the campaign, but to spare his family pain and suffering. That doesn't fly here for numerous reasons, chief among them being that Michael Cohen and AMI have explicitly said in plea deals that the EXPRESS PURPOSE of the payments was to cover up the stories because of the election. Moreover, both of these affairs had taken place years beforehand. If he was worried about sparing his family, he could have at any time previously made those payments, but it just so happened they both occurred with mere weeks to go before the election?? Give me a break.
If someone goes over the campaign finance limits, notices it, admits the mistake, reports it, and pays a fine because of the error, there would be no crime involved. This happened to the Obama campaign (as has been gone over before). They reported the error/violation, accepted responsibility for the mistake, paid the fine, and that was that. That is NOT what happened here. This was a deliberate conspiracy to obfuscate and hide the truth from the public, and not only did they not report what are in-kind contributions to the campaign, they set up secret meetings and shell companies to hide the fact that they had even taken place. The amount may seem paltry (something like $150,000 each). That is NOT the point here. The point is Cohen, David Pecker, and Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to deliberately hide the payments, because obviously reporting them (which would have freed them from legal liability) would have exposed the affairs. In this case, the cover-up isn't just worse than the crime, the cover-up IS the crime.
I don't know what debate there is to be had here. Trump, Cohen, and the Enquirer didn't "accidentally" break the law out of ignorance. This was a deliberate plan. We already have audio tapes of Trump and Cohen talking about the payments. Cohen has been sentenced to prison in no small part because of them, and he has flipped on Trump. AMI now has an immunity deal, as does the chief financial officer of the Trump organization. They are all going to be singing the same story to prosecutors, which is that Donald Trump ordered them to make these payments to these women and hide them in DIRECT and WILLFUL violation of campaign finance law. The President's lawyer and a major media organization (and if you don't think the National Enquirer is influential, spent more time in supermarket check-out line and listen to people comment on the stories) went to great lengths to hide the existence of the payments. That is the issue here. Not the amount, not what it did or did not do in regards to swinging the election. We at this point are strictly focused on the INTENT of the involved parties, which was to manipulate the law for their benefit in a national election. And the thing is, this is almost certainly just the tip of the iceberg. What will eventually come out about this guy will boggle the mind.
All these stories just continually point out how corrupt and disgusting Trump is. I don't know, because while it happened when I was a kid, I don't remember how it felt to live in the era of Nixon and Watergate, but I feel it must have been something like the same way it feels now. It makes me feel hollow inside. Empty. I didn't vote for Trump, but it makes me feel sad for America. He's done so much damage in such a short time, and all I keep thinking is how much worse it can be, and how much worse it will get as Trump lashes out. It's like a slow-motion car crash I am helpless to stop. I can see it coming, and it fills me with horror. I try to cope with snark, but it doesn't really work.
I keep having dreams about being treated badly by Trump, and of lashing back at him physically, punching that smug, slimy face at least once. One good, hard punch that hurts him deeply, and I wake feeling angry and unsatisfied. And just... empty. I'm worried and upset about where the USA is going and how deep and entrenched racism goes, and how many people seem to respond to Donald Trump's racist dog whistles.
Will this story get to the point where even Trump admits that he broke the law? We've seen that evolution regularly - "I did nothing"; "I did something, but it was very legal and very cool"; "I did something illegal, but it was no big deal and everybody does it and the real crimes are by the Democrats". On the face of it it would seem ridiculous for him to admit to a felony - for which he faces a real risk of being indicted even while President. However, given his inability to shut his mouth and the fact that occasionally he includes bits of truth in among the stream of lies - I wouldn't be surprised by a confession.
It's indisputable at this point he committed a felony. The ONLY defense of these (now two, confirmed by his conspirators) payments would be the so-called "Edwards Defense", in which former Senator John Edwards claimed he wasn't covering up his affair (and child) with payments to influence the campaign, but to spare his family pain and suffering. That doesn't fly here for numerous reasons, chief among them being that Michael Cohen and AMI have explicitly said in plea deals that the EXPRESS PURPOSE of the payments was to cover up the stories because of the election. Moreover, both of these affairs had taken place years beforehand. If he was worried about sparing his family, he could have at any time previously made those payments, but it just so happened they both occurred with mere weeks to go before the election?? Give me a break.
If someone goes over the campaign finance limits, notices it, admits the mistake, reports it, and pays a fine because of the error, there would be no crime involved. This happened to the Obama campaign (as has been gone over before). They reported the error/violation, accepted responsibility for the mistake, paid the fine, and that was that. That is NOT what happened here. This was a deliberate conspiracy to obfuscate and hide the truth from the public, and not only did they not report what are in-kind contributions to the campaign, they set up secret meetings and shell companies to hide the fact that they had even taken place. The amount may seem paltry (something like $150,000 each). That is NOT the point here. The point is Cohen, David Pecker, and Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to deliberately hide the payments, because obviously reporting them (which would have freed them from legal liability) would have exposed the affairs. In this case, the cover-up isn't just worse than the crime, the cover-up IS the crime.
I don't know what debate there is to be had here. Trump, Cohen, and the Enquirer didn't "accidentally" break the law out of ignorance. This was a deliberate plan. We already have audio tapes of Trump and Cohen talking about the payments. Cohen has been sentenced to prison in no small part because of them, and he has flipped on Trump. AMI now has an immunity deal, as does the chief financial officer of the Trump organization. They are all going to be singing the same story to prosecutors, which is that Donald Trump ordered them to make these payments to these women and hide them in DIRECT and WILLFUL violation of campaign finance law. The President's lawyer and a major media organization (and if you don't think the National Enquirer is influential, spent more time in supermarket check-out line and listen to people comment on the stories) went to great lengths to hide the existence of the payments. That is the issue here. Not the amount, not what it did or did not do in regards to swinging the election. We at this point are strictly focused on the INTENT of the involved parties, which was to manipulate the law for their benefit in a national election. And the thing is, this is almost certainly just the tip of the iceberg. What will eventually come out about this guy will boggle the mind.
As you know I agree with you - both that his guilt on the campaign finance issue is obvious and that there are plenty of other offenses.
The reason that I raised the issue of him incriminating himself though is two-fold: (i) Although I think his guilt on campaign finance charges is obvious, I'm not yet convinced he would be necessarily be found guilty in a court. His defense at the moment is that the pay-offs were private transactions and not related to the election. While that's a weak defense, particularly given the timing of the original encounters vs the payoffs, he doesn't have to prove that the defense is true - just that it's conceivable. Given a sympathetic jury, I think he could escape on the basis of 'reasonable doubt' - but that option could be ruled out if he effectively accepts his guilt. (ii) Every few weeks I have a look at Trump's approval rating on fivethirtyeight.com - and am continually amazed about how robust it is. That's still the case now - even with so many of his associates facing criminal charges, lots of overseas trouble and some worrying signs about the future direction of the economy. I may well be wrong (again), but despite the lack of movement in poll numbers I do, however, seem to detect recent signs of uneasiness among previously solid supporters. I suspect that some of those that have been fired up in the past by the idea of 'draining the swamp' are starting to wonder if Trump is the man to do that. If he implicitly accepts himself that he's been corrupt I think that will have a major knock-on effect in the way other areas of his activities are viewed (like the way he makes money out of golfing trips & foreign visitors - and even on his Russian connections).
When (if) his poll numbers do take a downturn I think you will also find that establishment Republicans will turn on him and take the opportunity to repay some of the insults he's handed out. I obviously don't have much knowledge of US politics, but even if I accepted your jaundiced view of the Republican party as a whole, it still wouldn't make sense for them to keep supporting Trump if he becomes an electoral liability. That could mean impeachment quite suddenly becoming a realistic possibility. Assuming that Trump doesn't resign I think there's now actually a pretty decent chance of a successful impeachment before the next election.
WASHINGTON — Robert Mueller, former FBI director and current head of the Special Counsel Investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 American election, has reported that he’s nearing the final boss fight against President Donald Trump in his lengthy quest, and that he will engage once he’s gained one or two final levels by grinding it out against smaller enemies. “Yeah, I’ve done pretty much all the side quests and extra stuff,” said the head of the FBI investigation into the current president’s alleged ties to Russia. “Probably gonna finish this game pretty soon here. Just gotta tie up some stuff, Corsi, Butina, maybe take on one of Trump’s stupid children. I still can’t believe they put those characters in here. I’m sure I have enough experience to take Trump down, but I just wanted to make sure I did everything.” “It might be one of those games where, after you finish, it doesn’t let you go back and do some of the smaller quests,” Mueller explained. The campaign, which was launched in 2016, has seen Mueller grow from a young, unknown agent chosen from obscurity to lead the mission against the ruler of the republic, to a hero figure the population has rallied around. “I love Mueller!” said local gamer Ana Rydell. “He’s a complete badass, the way he selflessly puts the needs of the townsfolk above any personal desires. And it’s so cute how you never hear him talk! Can’t wait to see what’s next for him.” The final boss battle is expected to be engaged once Mueller has defeated the final form of Paul Manafort, who has pestered him repeatedly throughout his prolonged adventure. “Ugh yeah,” said Mueller. “He really was the Ultros of this story.”
Okay, A Japanese RPG but this gave me some desperately needed humor in the midst of this horrendous time in America.
Also, @Grond0 I think it would hard to get a neutral jury for Trump. People either tend to be his partisans or really, really dislike him (and I'm being kind here.)
Edit: Just got this from Facebook:
Bomb threats demanding Bitcoin investigated across Canada, U.S.
The ONLY defense of these (now two, confirmed by his conspirators) payments would be the so-called "Edwards Defense", in which former Senator John Edwards claimed he wasn't covering up his affair (and child) with payments to influence the campaign, but to spare his family pain and suffering. That doesn't fly here for numerous reasons,
The main reason this doesn't fly is that by this point no-one can imagine Donald Trump giving a rat's ass about anyone else's pain and suffering, even if it was his own children.
The ONLY defense of these (now two, confirmed by his conspirators) payments would be the so-called "Edwards Defense", in which former Senator John Edwards claimed he wasn't covering up his affair (and child) with payments to influence the campaign, but to spare his family pain and suffering. That doesn't fly here for numerous reasons,
The main reason this doesn't fly is that by this point no-one can imagine Donald Trump giving a rat's ass about anyone else's pain and suffering, even if it was his own children.
I have zero doubt he would sacrifice every one of his children (in a legal sense) to avoid punishment himself. Donald Trump wouldn't accept blame for anything if it was his last act on Earth. This is the main reason he literally CAN'T find anyone to replace John Kelly. What kind of person is willingly going to walk into that hornet's nest?? Trump will abandon you and stick a shiv in your back the moment it becomes necessary for him to do so. He expects 100% loyalty and shows zero in return.
The ONLY defense of these (now two, confirmed by his conspirators) payments would be the so-called "Edwards Defense", in which former Senator John Edwards claimed he wasn't covering up his affair (and child) with payments to influence the campaign, but to spare his family pain and suffering. That doesn't fly here for numerous reasons,
The main reason this doesn't fly is that by this point no-one can imagine Donald Trump giving a rat's ass about anyone else's pain and suffering, even if it was his own children.
I have zero doubt he would sacrifice every one of his children (in a legal sense) to avoid punishment himself. Donald Trump wouldn't accept blame for anything if it was his last act on Earth. This is the main reason he literally CAN'T find anyone to replace John Kelly. What kind of person is willingly going to walk into that hornet's nest?? Trump will abandon you and stick a shiv in your back the moment it becomes necessary for him to do so. He expects 100% loyalty and shows zero in return.
Trump offers new alternative facts to explain his problems, but ...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/12/14/politics/shutdown-showdown-trump-facts/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0XKfYAnJIpCoeJL1XDlg9kM0KPyC3NiwApaXiFtsqlWV_63BTPy322NxA President Donald Trump sought the open arms of Twitter and Fox News to creatively explain away inconvenient facts about his legal peril and his promised border wall before GOP senators dragged him back to reality with a rebuke from his own party for ignoring a cold-blooded murder OK'd by a foreign colleague. In Trump's universe, Mexico is already paying for the wall. And the crimes for which Michael Cohen is going to jail aren't crimes after all; they were added to his rap sheet by prosecutors as a dig at Trump. But alternative facts, to borrow the phrase coined by White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway to reject facts they reject without evidence, only go so far. Trump learned their limits Thursday afternoon when Republican senators lobbed at him a resolution condemning Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the murder of US-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Jared Kushner Replaced Michael Cohen as Trump’s National Enquirer Connection
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-jared-kushner-replaced-michael-cohen-as-trumps-national-enquirer-connection?fbclid=IwAR1_g0j9noTwOL8slFFObVhMzDYlfoJGsC3bCP2zhUmiM13pX-9rz5SmBVM Shortly after the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was handed a task considered critical to the president’s operations. In addition to serving as a senior adviser in the White House, he would also be playing the role of the main conduit between Trump and his friend David Pecker, the National Enquirer publisher and chief executive of AMI, which prosecutors said on Wednesday admitted to making a $150,000 hush-money payment “in concert with” the Trump campaign. During the early months of the Trump era, Kushner performed the task admirably, discussing with Pecker various issues over the phone, including everything from international relations to media gossip, according to four sources familiar with the situation. Pecker, for his part, bragged to people that he was speaking to the president’s son-in-law and, more generally, about the level of access he had to the upper echelons of the West Wing, two sources with knowledge of the relationship recounted.
The bombshell revelations about the National Enquirer could doom the president — and Trump knows it
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/bombshell-revelations-national-enquirer-doom-president-trump-knows/ Donald Trump has made so many inane, dishonest comments that it would take days to lay them all out. But it’s not impossible that one of the most memorable will be something he said on Thursday in an interview with Fox News’ Harris Faulkner, which has some obvious echoes of Bill Clinton’s ill-fated line. When asked about the Southern District of New York’s announcement that his former friend David Pecker, CEO of American Media, the company that publishes the National Enquirer, had corroborated Michael Cohen’s testimony that Trump had arranged hush money payments as part of the election campaign, Trump said this: “I don’t think they even paid any money to that tabloid, OK. I don’t think we’ve made a payment to that tabloid.” He added later, “Let me tell you, I never directed him to do anything wrong,” in reference to Cohen.
‘You and your spawn are going to jail’: Trump mocked for trying to tweet his way out of Cohen’s felony allegations
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/spawn-going-jail-trump-mocked-trying-tweet-way-cohens-felony-allegations/?comments=disqus President Donald Trump issued a carefully worded denial after his attorney Michael Cohen implicated him in a criminal conspiracy — and social media users buried him in derision. The president insisted he had never directed Cohen to “break the law” by paying hush money to two women just ahead of the election, which he had flatly denied knowing about earlier this year, and claimed his attorney had not actually broken the campaign finance laws he admitted to violating. Multiple legal experts and other Twitter users pounced all over his three-tweet response to Cohen being sentenced to 36 months in prison.
And now 2 non-Trump stories:
Chief Justice of California Supreme Court leaves GOP over Kavanaugh confirmation
7 You Might Be Wearing Clothes Made By Slave Labor If you bought clothing from a U.S. department store in 2002, you might've bought something Flor made while she was an unpaid, unwilling laborer. "Yeah, the dresses were sold in the department store here in the United States. I remember some names of the stores ... Yeah, I do remember three department stores in the United States. One is Macy's, one is J.C. Penney, and the other one is Sears."
Patagonia is the global poster child for environmentally sustainable clothes and 35-year-old liberals who want to look "adventurous." The company also goes out of its way to ensure the people who sew its clothing make a fair wage and work willingly. But even so, it found evidence of human trafficking in its supply chain as recently as 2011.
Even if the people making the clothing are treated fairly, that doesn't mean the people making the cloth itself are. Patagonia only caught the problem because they rigorously check for this kind of thing, but other clothing retailers aren't always so motivated. In December 2016, an organization called "Know the Chain" published a report on how well various fashion brands take action to eliminate human trafficking from their supply chain. Prada scored a 9 out of 100. Ralph Lauren scored a 45. Even Adidas only scored an 81, which is great compared to Prada but also still means there's slave labor in the production of your running shoes.
The ONLY defense of these (now two, confirmed by his conspirators) payments would be the so-called "Edwards Defense", in which former Senator John Edwards claimed he wasn't covering up his affair (and child) with payments to influence the campaign, but to spare his family pain and suffering. That doesn't fly here for numerous reasons,
The main reason this doesn't fly is that by this point no-one can imagine Donald Trump giving a rat's ass about anyone else's pain and suffering, even if it was his own children.
I have zero doubt he would sacrifice every one of his children (in a legal sense) to avoid punishment himself. Donald Trump wouldn't accept blame for anything if it was his last act on Earth. This is the main reason he literally CAN'T find anyone to replace John Kelly. What kind of person is willingly going to walk into that hornet's nest?? Trump will abandon you and stick a shiv in your back the moment it becomes necessary for him to do so. He expects 100% loyalty and shows zero in return.
Allegedly it might be Kushner.
Or Ivanka. I can't imagine too many other people wanting this job.
In-kind contributions that go over the limit or are unreported is kind of a crappy crime. I'm not saying it's not there. I'm just saying, if I spend my own money to enter into a contract with a woman, and that gets my image polished up before my campaign begins... am I not allowed to spend my own money to run for office? Sure there might be limits or some kind of reporting required, but I'm not an expert in election law, right? I hire people to manage that side of things.
If I'm a prosecutor and that's the extent of my case, I wouldn't particularly enjoy the prospect of taking it to a jury. If I'm a defense attorney I might be tempted to go to trial even if, as a technical matter, the violation of law is clear as day. Of course the calculus for Trump is unique. But in general terms, it just seems to me that "improper in-kind contributions" is kind of weak sauce.
None of this is really the point. You are correct that the payments themselves and the amount seem like they shouldn't mean much. The point (as I spent an entire post explaining) is that they engaged in a willful conspiracy to cover the payments up, because what they would reveal in the waning days of the election would have caused FAR more than $300,000 worth of damage to the campaign. Admitting the payments exist reveals the story. Hence, the amount and seemingly benign surface nature of the crime takes on an entirely new context. Again, it was a conspiracy between the President, his lawyer, and a major media company to willfully break campaign finance laws to prevent a potentially devastating story from appearing in the news. Their specific intent was to break the law, or they wouldn't have been setting up shell companies to do so.
It's also telling that Trump has not yet attacked Pecker for cooperating with the prosecution. I think the only possible explanation for that is that Pecker knows significantly worse things and Trump is currently hoping he's not fully cooperating ...
Let's not forget that Al Capone was sent to prison not because of all the people he had killed or the syndicate he ran, but for Tax evasion. Sometimes, it's the little things that trip you up and bring you down. Incidentally, if you ever want your kids to real about Alcatraz, there is a book called "Al Capone Does My Shirts", written by the son of the Electrician in Alcatraz It's fictional, but fascinating.
Rudy Giuliani has been quoted today as saying "nobody got killed, nobody got robbed". So not only is he basically ADMITTING guilt on behalf of his client, he is also setting the standard for criminality Trump can be held accountable for at murder. We have reached the "he did it, who cares" phase of the Trump defenses. There is nowhere else to turn. I present this quote:
Rudy Giuliani has been quoted today as saying "nobody got killed, nobody got robbed". So not only is he basically ADMITTING guilt on behalf of his client, he is also setting the standard for criminality Trump can be held accountable for at murder. We have reached the "he did it, who cares" phase of the Trump defenses. There is nowhere else to turn. I present this quote:
Rudy Giuliani has been quoted today as saying "nobody got killed, nobody got robbed". So not only is he basically ADMITTING guilt on behalf of his client, he is also setting the standard for criminality Trump can be held accountable for at murder. We have reached the "he did it, who cares" phase of the Trump defenses. There is nowhere else to turn. I present this quote:
The NRA was infiltrated by a Russian spy. Actually, infiltrated is way overselling the effort she had to make, they just welcomed her with open arms. The reason (besides the recent accusations of illegal payments to the Trump campaign being laundered through the NRA) this is noteworthy is I can't think of a SINGLE organization in the country that does more to wrap their cause in the flag and use "patriotism" as a shield more than the National Rifle Association. And they were very easily taken to town by a Russian agent.
In-kind contributions that go over the limit or are unreported is kind of a crappy crime. I'm not saying it's not there. I'm just saying, if I spend my own money to enter into a contract with a woman, and that gets my image polished up before my campaign begins... am I not allowed to spend my own money to run for office? Sure there might be limits or some kind of reporting required, but I'm not an expert in election law, right? I hire people to manage that side of things.
If I'm a prosecutor and that's the extent of my case, I wouldn't particularly enjoy the prospect of taking it to a jury. If I'm a defense attorney I might be tempted to go to trial even if, as a technical matter, the violation of law is clear as day. Of course the calculus for Trump is unique. But in general terms, it just seems to me that "improper in-kind contributions" is kind of weak sauce.
None of this is really the point. You are correct that the payments themselves and the amount seem like they shouldn't mean much. The point (as I spent an entire post explaining) is that they engaged in a willful conspiracy to cover the payments up, because what they would reveal in the waning days of the election would have caused FAR more than $300,000 worth of damage to the campaign. Admitting the payments exist reveals the story. Hence, the amount and seemingly benign surface nature of the crime takes on an entirely new context. Again, it was a conspiracy between the President, his lawyer, and a major media company to willfully break campaign finance laws to prevent a potentially devastating story from appearing in the news. Their specific intent was to break the law, or they wouldn't have been setting up shell companies to do so.
"Their specific intent was to break the law"
Well, no, their specific intent was to achieve a certain end - limiting the reach of information that could damage Trump's image. The means by which they pursued that intent was in violation of the law.
I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm with you. (Or, more correctly, quoting My Blue Heaven (which is distinctly apropos here): "I'm whichu.") But the fact is, with this kind of charge, it's easy to muddy up the story.
"It was my own money - why can't I use my own money to engage in a private contract with someone?"
"I'm not an expert in the election laws. Maybe this was a technical violation, but I wasn't trying to break the law, I was just trying to enter a contract with someone else. My lawyer told me that was how we should do it."
"Of course we wanted it to be secret. I'm married, I have kids, I was running for office. It wouldn't make sense to shout from the mountaintops that we made this kind of deal. You'd have to be stupid not to want it to be secret."
Etc. etc. etc. Contrary to what you stated, I don't think that "the payments themselves and the amount seem like they shouldn't mean much." I'm just saying that there is a sizable number of Americans who are pre-disposed to want to support Trump who might end up thinking that, if his lawyers and spin machine do a good job. And then to them, something like impeachment/arrest would seem like a vicious and unfair attack from the Left, even though it manifestly is not.
I'm hoping that enough evidence comes out that we can get a really clear and really compelling story about Trump's wrongdoing in more areas than just a technical campaign finance violation. A story that cannot be muddied in that way and that turns even Republicans against him, so that his ouster in (by?) 2020 will be more like an act of unity than an act of further division.
At the moment we're on the knife-edge - I could see it going either way.
I agree the waters would be muddied in front of a jury. The defense would have nothing to do with the issue at hand, it would focus on "the left" trying to bring down his Presidency, much like OJ Simpson's defense had nothing to do with the actual murders, but in shifting the narrative to a judgement of the LAPD as a whole.
I'd be surprised if there's not still a lot more to come about links with Russians and how the Democratic emails were linked.
Collusion by Trump may not be proved yet, but there's definitely scope to be able to do that. We haven't heard the last of the meeting his son took with representatives of the Russian government that wanted to show how they could provide support for the election. Then there are the links between the campaign and Wikileaks, not to mention the information Butina will be spilling. Just like with Cohen and Pecker, investigators will be trying to prove specific charges, flip the guilty parties and work their way up - and all roads lead to RomeTrump.
I'd be surprised if there's not still a lot more to come about links with Russians and how the Democratic emails were linked.
Collusion by Trump may not be proved yet, but there's definitely scope to be able to do that. We haven't heard the last of the meeting his son took with representatives of the Russian government that wanted to show how they could provide support for the election. Then there are the links between the campaign and Wikileaks, not to mention the information Butina will be spilling. Just like with Cohen and Pecker, investigators will be trying to prove specific charges, flip the guilty parties and work their way up - and all roads lead to RomeTrump.
Collusion has never been the "crime" that would end up being charged. I don't know why everyone acts like it was. It's always been a descriptor for a wide-range of actions, not a specific charge in and of itself. But let's look at the definition itself, shall we:
Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
That describes the Trump campaign to a TEE given what we now know. Again, collusion is a definition of a large swath of behavior, not necessarily a specific legal charge that will end up in a court filing. Those charges will likely fit the definition provided above, but not use the word itself specifically.
Comments
Lets see if I can do San Antonio:
- $600-700 Rent 1 bedroom
- $400 Food
- $83 Utilities
- $25 phone bill
- $38 bus pass (damn, it's $118 here)
- $65 Internet
- $250 Entertainment & Haircut budget
which equals, roughly $1525 a month, which equates too $9.53 a month after income tax, so about $10 - $10.25 an hour, $14 - $15 to save a bit. obviously minimum wage at $7.50 won't cut it unless you just go basic with rent/food/phone/transit.But once again, the largest eater of below middle class workers money is rent. If municipalities start demanding affordable housing to be built, it can quickly help those who do make less than $15 an hour afford to live more comfortably. Ideally, two paychecks a month: one pay check goes to rent (roughly $550 a month for $7.5 an hour full time job - yes full time is rare in the states, another thing that needs to be addressed, but should be a separate topic) and one pay check goes to everything else. That should be the base starting line ($475-$500 small 1 bedroom/bachelor apt) when you are talking about an individuals cost of living. I bet I will never find an apartment anywhere in the United States for that price.
If I had to actually dig, I bet I could find a place or at least a flatmate in San Antonio for less than $600. Craig's list have some listed from 400-550 all in, which would be about $8 - $8.50 a month cutting out utilities, internet and the extra $100 in rent. So still above $7.50 minimum wage but not as high as some "Cost of Living" studies would have a person believe.
Yes, throwing in a family can complicate these numbers and I'd have to dig a bit deeper and add in a second salary (or child support) to actually figure it out properly, but its late.
Why is it always: "I should make more money" instead of "I should pay less money"? If I paid less money for things I need (Housing/medical care/food) I'll have more money to spend on things that I want.
But the last minimum wage increase was 7.25 in 2009.
It's that the effective wage (adjusted for inflation) was at its peak in 1968 (nominally $1.60 then), when it was effectively $11.65 in 2018 dollars. There IS a difference.
Generally, "college" is a 2 year institution granting associate degrees or certification in professional technical disciplines, and "university" grants 4 year bachelor or graduate degrees, and complicates that the university generally calls its subdivisions "colleges".
I am always careful to specify I attend "university", since in over 10 years of undergraduate education, I have only spent 1 month at a true "college".
Deltago specifically mentions a 2 year program, so that would be "college".
What is the cost difference? Well, around here, about half the price per course. I took a 3 hour economics course Summer II 2017 at a local college for about $450 tuition+fees when the same 3 semester hours costs about 900 at the public university I presently attend. Books, of course, eat your lunch to the tune of 80-200 dollars per course regardless if you take it at college or university, and aggravatingly are shifting to online subscription models where you "rent" an e-book for a semester as part of having to pay to get access to the program the instructor uses for homework. If you want an actual physical copy of the book, pay more. And more than half the time it's not even a good hardback book, it's loose leaf or paperback. One of the more aggravating things I've had to adjust to after almost 10 years out of school.
A full semester here is running about 3700 for tuition+fees for 12 hours. I am taking huge advantage of a quirk of the university that hours over 12 are free, apparently as part of some national push to increase graduation speed, and am taking max loads of 18 hours (except for next Spring when I'll be taking 16 due to 1 being a 1-hour, not 3) thus over 2 years I'll have taken 70 hours for about $15,000. Add the 500 for the college course, 2 separate semesters of taking a single course (1 summer, 1 in my final semester) for about 900 each, plus about 110/course in books for 27 courses for about 3,000, and parking permits for about 300. Totals up about $20,600 for 79 hours over 2.5 years, and that's for a second (fourth) bachelor's degree, so that's not counting about half that again for core curriculum I get to skip for already having a degree, because it's 120 hours for a degree, assuming no extraneous classwork. And I'm saving 1,700x4 semesters from the 18 hours at 12 hour rate. All told, ignoring the 18 hour discount (I've heard it's going away next year, fortunately I will be done with all but 1 course by then), and ignoring dorm residency requirements and meal plans, adding in books and all, and it comes up to roughly $41,100 for a 4-year Bachelor's degree.
And this at one of the cheapest 4-year universities in the state of Texas.
Financial aid can offset a lot of this. But I personally don't qualify for any of it. My family background puts me out of need-based scholarships, my having a poor overall GPA from prior degrees, and those prior degrees puts me out of everything else.
Then there's working. I am fortunate that my parents are willing to suffer to put me through school for the third time (and seems charmed, I am actually motivated, enjoying my chosen field, and am pulling grades I haven't had since I was a freshman), and have the luxury of focusing entirely on school and taking 18 hour loads and doing well. I am amazed at my far younger fellow students who are working full-time and have the gumption to do even 12 hours to my 18. I calculated I averaged about 65 hours/week related to schooling this semester. Adding a full-time job would have been impossible.
And then about 9 months from now, a CPA review course costing $3,000-$4,000, and about $2,000 to take the CPA exam.
And THEN, hopefully, a nice well paying job. That is a thing of beauty.
It's indisputable at this point he committed a felony. The ONLY defense of these (now two, confirmed by his conspirators) payments would be the so-called "Edwards Defense", in which former Senator John Edwards claimed he wasn't covering up his affair (and child) with payments to influence the campaign, but to spare his family pain and suffering. That doesn't fly here for numerous reasons, chief among them being that Michael Cohen and AMI have explicitly said in plea deals that the EXPRESS PURPOSE of the payments was to cover up the stories because of the election. Moreover, both of these affairs had taken place years beforehand. If he was worried about sparing his family, he could have at any time previously made those payments, but it just so happened they both occurred with mere weeks to go before the election?? Give me a break.
If someone goes over the campaign finance limits, notices it, admits the mistake, reports it, and pays a fine because of the error, there would be no crime involved. This happened to the Obama campaign (as has been gone over before). They reported the error/violation, accepted responsibility for the mistake, paid the fine, and that was that. That is NOT what happened here. This was a deliberate conspiracy to obfuscate and hide the truth from the public, and not only did they not report what are in-kind contributions to the campaign, they set up secret meetings and shell companies to hide the fact that they had even taken place. The amount may seem paltry (something like $150,000 each). That is NOT the point here. The point is Cohen, David Pecker, and Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to deliberately hide the payments, because obviously reporting them (which would have freed them from legal liability) would have exposed the affairs. In this case, the cover-up isn't just worse than the crime, the cover-up IS the crime.
I don't know what debate there is to be had here. Trump, Cohen, and the Enquirer didn't "accidentally" break the law out of ignorance. This was a deliberate plan. We already have audio tapes of Trump and Cohen talking about the payments. Cohen has been sentenced to prison in no small part because of them, and he has flipped on Trump. AMI now has an immunity deal, as does the chief financial officer of the Trump organization. They are all going to be singing the same story to prosecutors, which is that Donald Trump ordered them to make these payments to these women and hide them in DIRECT and WILLFUL violation of campaign finance law. The President's lawyer and a major media organization (and if you don't think the National Enquirer is influential, spent more time in supermarket check-out line and listen to people comment on the stories) went to great lengths to hide the existence of the payments. That is the issue here. Not the amount, not what it did or did not do in regards to swinging the election. We at this point are strictly focused on the INTENT of the involved parties, which was to manipulate the law for their benefit in a national election. And the thing is, this is almost certainly just the tip of the iceberg. What will eventually come out about this guy will boggle the mind.
The FBI has obtained wiretaps of a Putin ally tied to the NRA who met with Trump Jr. during the campaign
https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-obtains-alexander-torshin-wiretaps-from-spanish-police-2018-5?fbclid=IwAR3LQ4ZhwssvW_9xj3An1gwhObor572XsnQonurIJvFxCrQX2xxwnlGwgrkTop Democrat: DOJ 'needs to re-examine' guidance that a sitting president shouldn't be indicted
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/politics/adam-schiff-doj-guidance-president-indictment-cnntv/index.html?fbclid=IwAR1t0PzAMJc3GYnBiLWKIrC1UVwoCoa6kaeFSZI_zxH1CZ5lvc8JN9JQcr0Trump on a ‘days-long tirade’ complaining that ‘no one is doing anything’ to end his legal peril: NBC
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/trump-days-long-tirade-complaining-no-one-anything-end-legal-peril-nbc/?fbclid=IwAR28khNmnCfe0HJKisHyOv4FvRZYBp_rG1iFTxmxbTJNj0_A6Wybq9XWTEs#.XBJTbA9vaZ0.twitterAll these stories just continually point out how corrupt and disgusting Trump is. I don't know, because while it happened when I was a kid, I don't remember how it felt to live in the era of Nixon and Watergate, but I feel it must have been something like the same way it feels now. It makes me feel hollow inside. Empty. I didn't vote for Trump, but it makes me feel sad for America. He's done so much damage in such a short time, and all I keep thinking is how much worse it can be, and how much worse it will get as Trump lashes out. It's like a slow-motion car crash I am helpless to stop. I can see it coming, and it fills me with horror. I try to cope with snark, but it doesn't really work.
I keep having dreams about being treated badly by Trump, and of lashing back at him physically, punching that smug, slimy face at least once. One good, hard punch that hurts him deeply, and I wake feeling angry and unsatisfied. And just... empty. I'm worried and upset about where the USA is going and how deep and entrenched racism goes, and how many people seem to respond to Donald Trump's racist dog whistles.
The reason that I raised the issue of him incriminating himself though is two-fold:
(i) Although I think his guilt on campaign finance charges is obvious, I'm not yet convinced he would be necessarily be found guilty in a court. His defense at the moment is that the pay-offs were private transactions and not related to the election. While that's a weak defense, particularly given the timing of the original encounters vs the payoffs, he doesn't have to prove that the defense is true - just that it's conceivable. Given a sympathetic jury, I think he could escape on the basis of 'reasonable doubt' - but that option could be ruled out if he effectively accepts his guilt.
(ii) Every few weeks I have a look at Trump's approval rating on fivethirtyeight.com - and am continually amazed about how robust it is. That's still the case now - even with so many of his associates facing criminal charges, lots of overseas trouble and some worrying signs about the future direction of the economy. I may well be wrong (again), but despite the lack of movement in poll numbers I do, however, seem to detect recent signs of uneasiness among previously solid supporters. I suspect that some of those that have been fired up in the past by the idea of 'draining the swamp' are starting to wonder if Trump is the man to do that. If he implicitly accepts himself that he's been corrupt I think that will have a major knock-on effect in the way other areas of his activities are viewed (like the way he makes money out of golfing trips & foreign visitors - and even on his Russian connections).
When (if) his poll numbers do take a downturn I think you will also find that establishment Republicans will turn on him and take the opportunity to repay some of the insults he's handed out. I obviously don't have much knowledge of US politics, but even if I accepted your jaundiced view of the Republican party as a whole, it still wouldn't make sense for them to keep supporting Trump if he becomes an electoral liability. That could mean impeachment quite suddenly becoming a realistic possibility. Assuming that Trump doesn't resign I think there's now actually a pretty decent chance of a successful impeachment before the next election.
Mueller Just Going to Grind a Few More Levels Before Final Boss Fight
https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/mueller-just-going-to-grind-a-few-more-levels-before-final-boss-fight/?fbclid=IwAR3J62IHFH95cvLEW6U6tJGbRrqzJATa9Q100YD1SfNARs5N75AxJF4nyD0WASHINGTON — Robert Mueller, former FBI director and current head of the Special Counsel Investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 American election, has reported that he’s nearing the final boss fight against President Donald Trump in his lengthy quest, and that he will engage once he’s gained one or two final levels by grinding it out against smaller enemies.
“Yeah, I’ve done pretty much all the side quests and extra stuff,” said the head of the FBI investigation into the current president’s alleged ties to Russia. “Probably gonna finish this game pretty soon here. Just gotta tie up some stuff, Corsi, Butina, maybe take on one of Trump’s stupid children. I still can’t believe they put those characters in here. I’m sure I have enough experience to take Trump down, but I just wanted to make sure I did everything.”
“It might be one of those games where, after you finish, it doesn’t let you go back and do some of the smaller quests,” Mueller explained.
The campaign, which was launched in 2016, has seen Mueller grow from a young, unknown agent chosen from obscurity to lead the mission against the ruler of the republic, to a hero figure the population has rallied around.
“I love Mueller!” said local gamer Ana Rydell. “He’s a complete badass, the way he selflessly puts the needs of the townsfolk above any personal desires. And it’s so cute how you never hear him talk! Can’t wait to see what’s next for him.”
The final boss battle is expected to be engaged once Mueller has defeated the final form of Paul Manafort, who has pestered him repeatedly throughout his prolonged adventure.
“Ugh yeah,” said Mueller. “He really was the Ultros of this story.”
Okay, A Japanese RPG but this gave me some desperately needed humor in the midst of this horrendous time in America.
Also, @Grond0 I think it would hard to get a neutral jury for Trump. People either tend to be his partisans or really, really dislike him (and I'm being kind here.)
Edit: Just got this from Facebook:
Bomb threats demanding Bitcoin investigated across Canada, U.S.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4760045/canada-united-states-bomb-threats/?utm_source=notification/Why Bitcoin, I wonder? And who thinks any of the people/places sent these threats have Bitcoin to begin with?
Former Bush Ethics Attorney Richard Painter Says There’s Only 1 Way Out For Trump Now
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-painter-trump-way-out_us_5c11ca15e4b0449012f67e3c?fbclid=IwAR3sQvnJRNGwBcXW9IJggvmoZ7rNU2NJh1UqLJacSOSKRwd_JYJjFFXzDTQTrump has just one way out to protect himself and his family: a comprehensive plea deal to federal and state charges in exchange for his resignation.
“Donald Trump is in serious trouble. His lawyers ought to be telling him to negotiate a plea deal,” Painter said. “Get him out of the White House. Have him resign, plead guilty to lower charges and let’s move on as a country.”
Feds investigating whether Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE funneled cash into inauguration and pro-Trump super PAC: NYT
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/12/14/politics/shutdown-showdown-trump-facts/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0XKfYAnJIpCoeJL1XDlg9kM0KPyC3NiwApaXiFtsqlWV_63BTPy322NxAhttps://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/feds-investigating-whether-qatar-saudi-arabia-uae-funneled-cash-inauguration-pro-trump-super-pac-nyt/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2zYcadlpYVutRxG_vakJYiOI8CoV7n3OJQN6oeBjgD-3XCwgTaDwDRo2k
“The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations — including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds,” The Times reported. “Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds.”
The super PAC, Rebuilding America Now, was funded by billionaire financier Tom Barrack, Jr. — a close friend of Trump who also chaired the inauguration.
Trump offers new alternative facts to explain his problems, but ...
President Donald Trump sought the open arms of Twitter and Fox News to creatively explain away inconvenient facts about his legal peril and his promised border wall before GOP senators dragged him back to reality with a rebuke from his own party for ignoring a cold-blooded murder OK'd by a foreign colleague.
In Trump's universe, Mexico is already paying for the wall. And the crimes for which Michael Cohen is going to jail aren't crimes after all; they were added to his rap sheet by prosecutors as a dig at Trump.
But alternative facts, to borrow the phrase coined by White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway to reject facts they reject without evidence, only go so far. Trump learned their limits Thursday afternoon when Republican senators lobbed at him a resolution condemning Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the murder of US-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Jared Kushner Replaced Michael Cohen as Trump’s National Enquirer Connection
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-jared-kushner-replaced-michael-cohen-as-trumps-national-enquirer-connection?fbclid=IwAR1_g0j9noTwOL8slFFObVhMzDYlfoJGsC3bCP2zhUmiM13pX-9rz5SmBVMShortly after the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was handed a task considered critical to the president’s operations. In addition to serving as a senior adviser in the White House, he would also be playing the role of the main conduit between Trump and his friend David Pecker, the National Enquirer publisher and chief executive of AMI, which prosecutors said on Wednesday admitted to making a $150,000 hush-money payment “in concert with” the Trump campaign.
During the early months of the Trump era, Kushner performed the task admirably, discussing with Pecker various issues over the phone, including everything from international relations to media gossip, according to four sources familiar with the situation. Pecker, for his part, bragged to people that he was speaking to the president’s son-in-law and, more generally, about the level of access he had to the upper echelons of the West Wing, two sources with knowledge of the relationship recounted.
The bombshell revelations about the National Enquirer could doom the president — and Trump knows it
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/bombshell-revelations-national-enquirer-doom-president-trump-knows/Donald Trump has made so many inane, dishonest comments that it would take days to lay them all out. But it’s not impossible that one of the most memorable will be something he said on Thursday in an interview with Fox News’ Harris Faulkner, which has some obvious echoes of Bill Clinton’s ill-fated line.
When asked about the Southern District of New York’s announcement that his former friend David Pecker, CEO of American Media, the company that publishes the National Enquirer, had corroborated Michael Cohen’s testimony that Trump had arranged hush money payments as part of the election campaign, Trump said this: “I don’t think they even paid any money to that tabloid, OK. I don’t think we’ve made a payment to that tabloid.”
He added later, “Let me tell you, I never directed him to do anything wrong,” in reference to Cohen.
‘You and your spawn are going to jail’: Trump mocked for trying to tweet his way out of Cohen’s felony allegations
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/spawn-going-jail-trump-mocked-trying-tweet-way-cohens-felony-allegations/?comments=disqusPresident Donald Trump issued a carefully worded denial after his attorney Michael Cohen implicated him in a criminal conspiracy — and social media users buried him in derision.
The president insisted he had never directed Cohen to “break the law” by paying hush money to two women just ahead of the election, which he had flatly denied knowing about earlier this year, and claimed his attorney had not actually broken the campaign finance laws he admitted to violating.
Multiple legal experts and other Twitter users pounced all over his three-tweet response to Cohen being sentenced to 36 months in prison.
And now 2 non-Trump stories:
Chief Justice of California Supreme Court leaves GOP over Kavanaugh confirmation
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/421346-chief-justice-of-california-supreme-court-leaves-gop-over-kavanaugh?amp&fbclid=IwAR0YoSocEx3AvgZxsvL2MWU42DfjTxpidGybUNUApmPNRLt6HVcKLOA2qlQThe Chief Justice of California's Supreme Court announced on Thursday that she had left the Republican Party following the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
California Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye told CALmatters that she had been deliberating her decision for a while but made up her mind after watching the backlash following multiple sexual assault allegations leveled against Kavanaugh.
There Are Still 60,000 Slaves In America (And I Was One)
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2536-there-are-still-60000-slaves-in-america-and-i-was-one.html/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=5c13be6a04d30119081d07b5&utm_medium=link_repromote_classic&utm_partner=trueanthem&utm_source=facebookCKD&fbclid=IwAR02nYeyTWLbTI9-00fgNRMbiaZp7392OTzkIueqg0UFZKHP0t8TYQ7_OFUThe United States has been officially slavery-free since 1865. But it wasn't a smooth road to get to that point, and a startling number of pick-up truck gates still express support for the practice. Maybe that's why some 60,000 people are still enslaved in the United States today. Cracked sat down with one of these people, Flor Molina, and talked about her experience being forced to work against her will. She told us ...
7 You Might Be Wearing Clothes Made By Slave Labor
If you bought clothing from a U.S. department store in 2002, you might've bought something Flor made while she was an unpaid, unwilling laborer. "Yeah, the dresses were sold in the department store here in the United States. I remember some names of the stores ... Yeah, I do remember three department stores in the United States. One is Macy's, one is J.C. Penney, and the other one is Sears."
Patagonia is the global poster child for environmentally sustainable clothes and 35-year-old liberals who want to look "adventurous." The company also goes out of its way to ensure the people who sew its clothing make a fair wage and work willingly. But even so, it found evidence of human trafficking in its supply chain as recently as 2011.
Even if the people making the clothing are treated fairly, that doesn't mean the people making the cloth itself are. Patagonia only caught the problem because they rigorously check for this kind of thing, but other clothing retailers aren't always so motivated. In December 2016, an organization called "Know the Chain" published a report on how well various fashion brands take action to eliminate human trafficking from their supply chain. Prada scored a 9 out of 100. Ralph Lauren scored a 45. Even Adidas only scored an 81, which is great compared to Prada but also still means there's slave labor in the production of your running shoes.
This heartbreaking. And Tragic.
Incidentally, if you ever want your kids to real about Alcatraz, there is a book called "Al Capone Does My Shirts", written by the son of the Electrician in Alcatraz It's fictional, but fascinating.
And all Americans who ended up stuck with this criminal incompetent racist twitter troll of a President.
Today, Mueller is trying to indict someone who is appealing it. Could be Trump, we don't know. The level of security seems EXTREME including shutting down elevators searching the coat closet of belongings near the courtroom etc.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/mueller-grand-jury-mysterious-friday/index.html
Collusion by Trump may not be proved yet, but there's definitely scope to be able to do that. We haven't heard the last of the meeting his son took with representatives of the Russian government that wanted to show how they could provide support for the election. Then there are the links between the campaign and Wikileaks, not to mention the information Butina will be spilling. Just like with Cohen and Pecker, investigators will be trying to prove specific charges, flip the guilty parties and work their way up - and all roads lead to
RomeTrump.Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
That describes the Trump campaign to a TEE given what we now know. Again, collusion is a definition of a large swath of behavior, not necessarily a specific legal charge that will end up in a court filing. Those charges will likely fit the definition provided above, but not use the word itself specifically.