Donald Trump has been hiding in plain sight. Or not hiding. Seldom, if ever, has an American politician so aggressively acted out and imposed his unfiltered personality on the public, consequences be damned. And yet, the final weeks of the presidential campaign now are wholly centered on the media's shocking revelations about who he really is. "Well, where have you been?" is one glaring question for the media. The other is about how complicit the media has been in covering for him until now. Trump is a thrice-married beauty pageant owner, a compulsive attention seeker and a sexual braggart. The possibility of him not engaging in lewd, loutish, outre and, for a presidential candidate, scandalous behavior is nil. Was no one in the media looking? Did nobody care about the details? Or was it just not possible to believe what was as clear as the noses on our faces? A journalist's job can't be so easy as that. Or, perhaps, it was just a case of not wanting to belabor the obvious: It would hardly seem to advance the discussion to insist that Trump is an oaf, brute, philistine and cad, which is, of course, exactly the shocked — shocked! — point that now repeatedly is being made in the campaign's final days. Or, as the candidate uniquely created and promoted by the media, has he been gamely protected and tolerated through stages of amusement, gratefulness ("It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," said CBS Corp. chief Leslie Moonves earlier in the cycle, no doubt now regretfully), incredulity and alarm, until we reached the horror stage in September with a sudden leveling of the polls, prompting the media to act in righteous concert? The unavoidable awkwardness, of course, is that so many of the details about Trump's particular sort of sleaziness, so many smoking guns, actually have been in the hands of the media all along. The more or less fatal bullet came from the NBC-owned infotainment show Access Hollywood. Billy Bush, who would become a Today show regular this summer — that is, an employee of the NBC News division of NBCUniversal — was the other party to the tape. He knew! Reports indicate that inside NBC he was talking openly about what he knew since this past August. Still, perhaps this wasn't seen so much as news but as Trump being Trump, as hilarity. Really, does the video reveal anything about Trump that was not previously known? Bush, now losing his Today role, becomes something of a tragic figure in this. In the business of stroking celebrities, he now is reviled for stroking one. Likewise, NBC, ever on the job of the care and maintenance of NBC stars, was no doubt instinctively reluctant to shoot one — one, as it happens, running for president. Part of the rationale about the video's news value, and for why the media should be so righteous about stomping on Trump now, is the seeming singularity of the vulgarity in Trump's own voice. (For those without television or internet, he told Bush, among other things, he "moved" on Bush's Access Hollywood co-anchor Nancy O'Dell "like a bitch" and noted "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.") To have imagined it, to have intellectually appreciated what it must be, is nothing like actually hearing it. And yet, it turns out his real voice, offering a detailed and nuanced account of his sexual views and habits, was not at all unique. What he said theoretically in private to Bush he has said publicly over and over again with many variations — including agreeing with the description of himself as a sexual predator — to Howard Stern, for 30 years a leading champion of sexual harassment practices. Trump himself — recalling Gary Hart's fatal invitation to reporters to follow him if they didn't believe his claims of virtue — assured Anderson Cooper during the second debate that, in fact, he really didn't do the things he said he did. Voila! Among the accounts to swiftly contradict him was one from a former People reporter, Natasha Stoynoff, assigned to cover Trump and Melania at Mar-a-Lago in 2005 on the occasion of their first wedding anniversary. During the interview, in Stoynoff's telling, Trump sexually assaults her with a sudden kiss and grope. It is pretty much only Trump himself who now points out that the article she wrote based on this interview is a celebratory one. Nobody else, least of all anyone in the media, is saying People published a fraudulent story. It lied: People had firsthand proof the marriage was something other than what it said it was but drooled sycophantically over the couple anyway. The influence of People contributed to creating the celebrity stature of Trump. Now, with no more information than it had then, it wants to take that stature back. Who's responsible for what? Who's less trustworthy here? Another aspect of the media rationale for why now and not before involves the recently enshrined journalistic principle that the testimony of one victim brings out supporting testimony of others — and now there's a growing list of Trump grope victims — quite putting aside the fact that when witnesses have the opportunity to compare accounts, that necessarily lessens reliability. While it is wholly believable that Trump systematically mashed a lot of women, it also is as reasonable that the rudeness and grossness he has made no secret of, only now, in the tailoring of a chorus of accounts (lawyers shaping the language of decade-old memories) inflates to a media consensus of sociopathic if not criminal behavior. Indeed, The New York Times, when it previously pursued the issue of Trump's behavior toward women for an article in May, relying on independent accounts, came up with an entirely different tenor of story — "a complex, at times contradictory portrait of a wealthy, well-known and provocative man and the women around him, one that defies simple categorization." Trump, not surprisingly, now that he has been simply categorized as a sex abuser, makes matters worse for himself. By attacking the media — with toothless threats of lawsuits — he fortifies its unity and its certainty. But you can see why he's hurt and confused. For so long the media encouraged him to be Donald Trump. Thirty years of enabling him and encouraging him. And through more than 18 months of campaigning for president, it really seemed like he was going to get away with being who he was. But let no one forget: The media, if it makes you — in this instance with great civic resolve — can break you, too. This story first appeared in the Nov. 4 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe. Answer: ambassador
A "Muslim migrant" beats up a boy on crutches in a video posted to a site in the Netherlands. On 29 November 2017, United States President Donald Trump retweeted three videos from Jayden Fransen, the deputy leader of the far-right anti-Islam organization Britain First who was found guilty of religiously aggravated harassment in November 2016. As this group has a penchant for sharing out-of-context, misleading, and false information, it wasn’t surprising that at least one of these videos, which purportedly shows violent acts committed by Muslims, had a misleading caption : Although the video is frequently accompanied by the caption “Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches,” there is no evidence to support this assertion, which in fact came, like so many other unfortunate assumptions, from its comment section. This video was first posted to the web site Dumpert.nl, a popular video portal in the Netherlands, in May 2017. Although the original posting largely focuses on the act of hitting a person on crutches, and it was not shared with any claims about the attacker’s religion, some people on the comment section naturally — and baselessly — assumed that the perpetrator was Muslim. As the video was reposted to other web sites, the unfounded claim that the attacker was a Muslim migrant followed it. Shortly after this video was posted to Dumpert.nl, Dutch police officers were able to locate the attacker and arrest him. A news report from the Telegraaf identified him as a 16-year-old boy from Monnickendam. The report made no mention of the boy’s religion. Further, when this months-old video was brought back into the spotlight in November 2017 thanks to a retweet from President Trump, Dumpert.nl posted a short article that mocked Trump for sharing the video: (By the way, fake news! Dader was geen moslim en geen immigrant. Maar leuk geprobeerd Trumpie) (By the way, fake news! Perpetrator was not a Muslim and not an immigrant, but nice try Trumpie) Geenstijl, the web site that operates Dumpert, also stated that the attacker in the video was not a Muslim: Moreover, the perpetrator was not a Muslim, let alone a migrant, but simply a Dutchman. The official Twitter account of the Public Prosecution Service of North Holland also disputed the claim that the attacker in this video was a Muslim migrant. In a message posted on 29 November 2017, they explained that the video showed a May 2017 quarrel between two minors. The attacker, who was born in the Netherlands, was placed in the HALT Program, an alternative settlement for young first time offenders: A video has been shared on twitter in which an argument between two underage boys can be seen. This incident took place in May of this year. The public prosecution service Noord-Holland has studied the file submitted by the police. (1/2) The suspect, who was born and raised in the Netherlands, received a HALT settlement ( https://t.co/w62MNOFvug). This has been successfully completed. (2/2) The Netherlands Embassy in the United States also took to Twitter to tell to President Trump that “facts do matter” and that the attacker in the video was not a Muslim migrant: . @realDonaldTrump Facts do matter. The perpetrator of the violent act in this video was born and raised in the Netherlands. He received and completed his sentence under Dutch law. Answer: fifty
Heading into Election Day 2016, the Donald Trump campaign has a very specific path to 270 Electoral College votes. In order to win the election, Trump must win nearly every single battleground state and retain every state that Mitt Romney won in 2012 as well. Plus, there are a few states that Trump is hoping to flip from blue to red. So what exactly are the states that Trump needs to win if he hopes to become president? First, there are 21 states that Donald Trump will win essentially by default. These are the states that traditionally always vote for the Republican candidate, and they add up to 163 Electoral College votes. If Hillary Clinton were to somewhat win in just one of these states, it would be a complete shock. The states are: Then there are two states that usually vote for the Republican candidate but where Hillary Clinton has actually been somewhat close in the polls. Still, it seems likely that these states will stay red as they have been for a long time, but it’s necessary for Trump to defend himself here if he wants to win the election. Those states are: If we add these two states to Donald Trump’s column, plus all the traditionally red states, the Republican nominee is now at 190 Electoral College votes. He needs 80 more votes to become president. What remains are six battleground states that could realistically be won by either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Those battlegrounds are: All of these states add up to 80 Electoral College votes, meaning that if Trump wins all of the states we have mentioned so far, he hits 270 electors exactly, and he becomes the next president of the United States. The state that Donald Trump absolutely must win in order to be elected president is Florida. Technically Trump can win without it, but the path would become so narrow as a result that it’s almost impossible to imagine Hillary Clinton not winning if she turns Florida blue. If Florida is called for Hillary Clinton on the evening of November 8th, you can essentially consider this the announcement that Hillary Clinton has won the presidency. Florida is worth 29 Electoral College votes. Really, though, Trump does not have much wiggle room, and so basically all of the six battleground states – plus one battleground district – are must wins for him. Because the aforementioned path is so narrow, the Trump campaign is also looking at a fourth category, states that are leaning towards Hillary Clinton and that traditionally vote blue but that Trump hopes he can turn red. Winning any one of these would dramatically increase his odds of victory, as they would give him some room to lose another battleground state but still win the election. Winning any of them would also start eating into Hillary Clinton’s path rather than simply forging Donald Trump’s. Those blue states, accompanied by the lead Hillary Clinton currently has in the polls according to Real Clear Politics, are: To summarize, with each of the battlegrounds (Florida, Iowa, Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Ohio) losing one means Trump must make up for it by winning a combination of blue states (Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin) . If Trump loses a single battleground but does not compensate for it with a victory in a blue state, Hillary Clinton wins the election. And if Trump loses two battleground states, that will be almost impossible to recover from. With that in mind, here are a few scenarios, albeit somewhat unlikely scenarios, where Trump could recover from the loss in a battleground state. Read more about Donald Trump and Melania in Spanish at AhoraMismo.com: Join over 240,000 people who get the most important news stories and the best shopping deals from Heavy – Delivered right to your inbox. Answer: fifty
Amanda Marshall was Oregon’s federal district attorney. Then the scandals started catching up to her. Let’s recap her sordid history. Appointed by Obama in 2011, Marshall resigned in 2015 after allegedly stalking a subordinate and having an affair, and later faced internal probes (no pun intended). Marshall is the DA who pursued charges, even to the point of double jeopardy, against Dwight and Steven Hammond, the eastern Oregon ranchers who preemptively set controlled burns to stop wildfires from encroaching on their property. After already serving time in federal prison, Marshall encouraged the judge to re-imprison them for a harsher sentence. Those actions are what prompted the Malheur Wildlife Refuge protests in early 2016. In 2014, Marshall was caught on camera conspiring with Gabby Gifford’s gun control group, Americans For Responsible Solutions, to scheme up new gun control laws and propaganda. She spoke of wanting to force county Sheriffs to enforce federal gun laws, while also being one of the voices saying that local law enforcement shouldn’t enforce federal immigration laws. Of course the anti gun folks were more than happy to feature Amanda Marshall as a guest speaker at a summit presented by Ceasefire Oregon and “Oregon Alliance To Prevent Gun Violence”. Now she faces ethics complaints with the Oregon State Bar. The Oregonian reports: The panel determined there was probable cause to bring ethics charges against Marshall for violating rules dealing with honesty and trustworthiness. The case now advances to the trial phase. A panel will convene, likely sometime in the spring, to determine if Marshall has engaged in misconduct. Punishment for ethics violations range from a public reprimand to a suspension or disbarment. The disciplinary board identified two rules Marshall may have violated, one involving criminal conduct that reflects poorly on a lawyer’s honesty and trustworthiness or fitness and the other dealing with conduct involving fraud and dishonesty. Marshall’s lawyer, Allison Martin Rhodes, said Monday that Marshall “has always acknowledged” that she “was not completely truthful” when asked by a superior about the relationship. Martin Rhodes has said Marshall lied when asked if she had sex with her subordinate but was subsequently forthcoming in a four-hour interview with authorities. The professional standards agency opened an investigation last year after the U.S. Department of Justice’s inspector general found Marshall had engaged in a yearlong “intimate and personal” relationship with a subordinate. The inspector general said Marshall, who now practices law in McMinnville, violated sexual harassment laws, lied to investigators and tried to block the investigation. The Inspector General’s Office in March 2015 opened an investigation of Marshall. She took a leave of absence that month, citing health reasons that included post-traumatic stress disorder. She officially resigned on May 15, 2015, amid the internal review. It’s just fitting that someone with ties to the Obama administration and anti-gun organizations is caught up in a series of scandals and lies. Sponsored Sponsored Answer: ambassador
NEW YORK (KGUN9-TV) - Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva has been released from police custody following his arrest in New York Tuesday. The Tucson area legislator was part of a group sitting in the street in front of Trump Tower. He was involved in a demonstration protesting President Donald Trump's plans to end DACA; the order from then-President Obama protecting from deportation undocumented people who were brought to the U.S. when they were too young to have decided on their own to come to this country. Grijalva was charged with two counts of disorderly conduct---one for disrupting traffic, one for refusing to disperse. A public information officer for New York Police says the Congressman was fingerprinted and given paperwork instructing him to appear before a judge at a future date. Police arrested ten people in all. Grijalva has been a vocal critic of President Trump and his policies, and a strong advocate for protecting DACA recipients from deportation. Answer: fifty
The level of doublethink involved in being a contemporary member of the GOP is astounding. Former Presidential candidate and current Donald Trump sycophant Mike Huckabee can barely even remember basic facts, like whether or not Trump has ever admitted to committing sexual assault. The things Republicans have to tell themselves and the public in order to continue pushing their agenda take some serious mental gymnastics. We have Presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway coining the term “alternative facts.” Former Press Secretary Sean Spicer became a laughing stock for his outrageous defenses of President Donald Trump’s statements and behavior. And the person who took Spicer’s Job, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, has continued that trend. For example, she suggested that ESPN analyst Jemele Hill be fired for bullying President Trump on Twitter, despite the fact that the President regularly uses his own Twitter account to shout down opponents and turn his followers against others. However, Sarah’s father Mike Huckabee may take the cake with his comments on Fox &amp; Friends this morning. Conservatives have loved speaking about disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein and his donations to Democratic causes and candidates, and Trump’s favorite morning team and Huckabee decided to tie it back to Hillary Clinton yet again. Host Abby Huntsman started things off by addressing Huckabee: “There was also an uncomfortable moment when she talked about President Trump, how he admitted to being sexual assaulter. She was asked about the Weinstein situation and she mentioned how her husband – Bill Clinton – what he did was in the past. Anyone watching that, I think, was a little squirmy in their seat. She even looks squirmy, talking about it. Has President Trump ever admitted to being a sexual assaulter?” Anyone with a halfway functioning brain would of course recall the infamous Access Hollywood tape where Trump bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy” because he was famous. Huckabee, apparently, lacks that halfway functioning brain, responding: “I don’t recall that that has ever happened.” He then proceeds to turn the discussion back to Bill Clinton, who, if you recall, was President twenty years ago. Fairly selective memory there, Mike. So keep playing in your big boy trucks, Donald, and know that your sycophants are doing everything in their power to rewrite history. Watch the ridiculous exchange below: Featured image via Flickr user Gage Skidmore / CC BY-SA 2.0. Answer: ambassador
After Colin Kaepernick rightly chose to kneel during the national anthem before NFL games, many racists and idiots came out with critical response to what was a peaceful, important statement against police brutality and systemic American racism. That’s what Kap’s protest is about. Brutality and racism. Violence against people of color, unimpugned state violence at that. Kap’s protest is strictly against racism, which is what this country was built on. On the backs of African slaves shipped here catch-style to do white people’s work. Kap’s protest is decidedly not against the American flag. Anyone — including our moron President — that tries to argue otherwise is themselves a moron. “But the troops!” you might scream. The troops are a manifold and variegated thing. Here’s a former Marine sayingthat Kap’s protest is nececcesary. Chaps is good. Many of them fight for Kaepernick’s right to stand down during the national anthem. You want to shit on those troops too? Here’s a picture of Laremy Tunsil, a wonderful and beautiful left tackle, kneeling out of solidarity with fellow Americans before Sunday’s game against the New York Jets, which the Dolphins lost, 20-6. That doesn’t matter at all, though. He kneels at left. Hat off to Tunsil for this action. “Respecting the flag” and “respecting the anthem” before football games are perhaps the dumbest notions floated among sports fans. Sporting events are not flag-worthy at all. Nobody else in the world does this. Further, THESE ATHLETES ARE HUMAN PEOPLE. Laremy Tunsil is a real person with real political beliefs, and his political beliefs include “black people shouldn’t be killed by the police with impunity.” That’s a pertinent thing to assert. Tunsil’s politicism is important. Answer: ambassador
Mr. Trump said that health insurance premiums were “going up 60, 70, 80 percent,” and “next year, they’re going to go up over 100 percent.” Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees “who are definitely ISIS-aligned — we now have them in our country.” Mr. Trump said a cease-fire agreement between the United States and Russia allowed Russia to control more territory in Syria, because the Russians outplayed the United States. On projections that Mr. Trump’s proposals would raise the national debt, he said that “they’re wrong because I’m going to create tremendous jobs.” Mr. Trump criticized the Obama administration’s support of publicizing in advance the Iraqi-led attack on Mosul, which just began. Mr. Trump said the nuclear deal with Iran will “absolutely” let it obtain nuclear weapons. Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Trump tweeted that the Emmy’s were “rigged” when he did not win for “The Apprentice.” Regarding Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, Mr. Trump said that “she’s guilty of a very, very serious crime.” Mr. Trump asserted that $6 billion went missing from the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton said that when her husband, Bill Clinton, was president, the fiscal position of the federal government improved: A $300 billion budget deficit turned into a $200 billion surplus, she said. And, she added, “we were actually on the path to eliminating the national debt.” Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Trump didn’t even raise the issue of the border wall with the Mexican president, since he choked. Mr. Trump said Mrs. Clinton deleted 33,000 of her private emails after she got a subpoena. When asked about the many women who have come forward to allege they were kissed or groped by Mr. Trump without their consent, Mr. Trump said the stories were largely debunked. “We’ve lost our jobs. We’ve lost our businesses. We’re not making things anymore.” Mr. Trump suggested that South Korea and Japan do not pay any of the costs of maintaining American military bases on their territory. Mrs. Clinton said her fiscal plan “doesn’t add a penny to the debt.” Mrs. Clinton said that Mr. Trump’s economic plan “might lose 3.5 million jobs” while giving tax cuts to people at the very top. “People are going to pour in from Syria — she wants 550 percent more than Barack Obama.” Mrs. Clinton said that Mr. Trump is willing to “spout the Putin line” and “get help from him” in the election. Mr. Trump said “our country has no idea” if the Russians are responsible for the emails published by WikiLeaks. Mr. Trump said that Mrs. Clinton’s support for abortion rights would allow a fetus to be ripped from a woman’s womb in the ninth month of pregnancy, in some cases just a few days before a baby is born. Mr. Trump said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was forced to apologize for negative comments about him. Mrs. Clinton said the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court allowed “dark money” to stream into politics. Answer: fifty
You know it's an election year when the President of the United States is tweeting about the NFL's referee apocalypse. NFL fans on both sides of the aisle hope the refs' lockout is settled soon. -bo Obama's Twitter feed then pointed to a recent telephone interview with WTAM-AM in Cleveland, in which the POTUS pined for the return of locked-out officals. "But one thing I got to say, though, is it just me or do we have to get our regular refs back?" Obama asked WTAM's Bill Willis ( via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel). "I can't get involved with it, but I'm just expressing my point of view as a sports fan." In a potentially related story, Mitt Romney has dropped Paul Ryan as his running mate in favor of Ed Hochuli. Follow Dan Hanzus on Twitter @danhanzus. Answer:
fifty