monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Ah, conspiracy theorists . . . they're just so cute! Sofia Lash Goth has been attacking the Clintons at this site for over 14 years. It should surprise no one that she makes yet another hilariously inept attempt to link the Clintons another great evil in the world. The New York Times published accusations against Weinstein a month before the election.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Weinstein and Hillary were/are close friends, supporters and advocates of one another. Weinstein was one of Hillary's primary Hollywood bundlers.

Part of the machine that advocates and covers for you.

You don't have to believe it if it makes you uncomfortable, but it is true.

1 Reply

Details and links from Hollywood paper.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/harvey-weinstein-harassment-claims-put-obamas-clintons-tough-spot-1046107

Excerpt:

Weinstein was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton's recent presidential run and donated to her political campaigns about 10 times between 1999 and 2016, according to a review of campaign finance records.

Weinstein's donations to Clinton over the years total more than $20,000 and span from her successful campaign for U.S. Senate in New York in 2000 to her unsuccessful presidential campaigns of 2007 and 2016. He also donated to her husband's presidential campaigns in the 1990's.

More broadly, Weinstein has donated generously to Democratic political candidates, national party campaign committees and state Democratic Party operations over the last few decades. Last year, he also gave $10,000 to a political action committee associated with the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign.

On Thursday, after the Times report came out, a spokesperson for Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich's re-election campaign told The Hollywood Reporter that a $5,400 donation from Weinstein in April has been given to a New Mexico non-profit organization that offers a 24-hour hotline for survivors of domestic and sexual violence. The decision to do so was made "as soon as Senator Heinrich learned of these allegations," the campaign representative said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy has also given away a campaign donation from Weinstein, as have fellow Democratic Sens. Corey Booker and Elizabeth Warren.

Weinstein threw a fundraiser for Clinton in June 2016 at his home in Manhattan, co-hosted by several A-list actors. He also reportedly attended several other fundraisers for Clinton in New York City during the campaign. Hollywood, generally, was firmly behind Clinton's campaign, so Weinstein was not alone in his support for the former secretary of state.

THR has reached out to Clinton's post-campaign spokesman to ask if she plans to return any of the donations she has received.

He also hosted fundraisers benefiting Barack Obama's reelection campaign in 2012 and donated several times to his campaign in 2011 and 2012. Weinstein was considered a "bundler" for Obama's campaign, as he raised $679,275 for it.

Obama's daughter, Malia Obama, also recently interned for Harvey Weinstein's company in New York during a break before college.

Weinstein, in an interview on CBS in April 2016, expressed a preference for Clinton over her then-rival in the Democratic primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders. "I'd rather go with Hillary's, who's a strong, proven leader," he said at the time. According to an email leaked and published last fall, the Clinton campaign helped prepare Weinstein for the interview.

0 Replies

...and don't forget the good work of the sisterhood of perpetual graft...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-will-keep-donations-from-harvey-weinstein/article/2637657

The Clinton Foundation said it will not return the up to $250,000 in donations it received from Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein after he was accused of sexual harassment and assault.

Weinstein's donations to the Clinton Foundation totaled between $100,000 and $250,000, and the organization said the money had already been spent.

0 Replies

None of which alters that The New York Times reported on allegations against Weinstein a month before the election, beggaring any claim that this is a part of some deep dyed plot to attack Plump.

I find it even more hilarious in that Sofia Lash Goth has called Trump her president and the Republicans her party, in this thread. When I pointed that out recently, she called me a liar.

But the most hilarious thing about this latest excursion into whacky conspiracy theories is the suggestion that because Clinton and Weinstein are friends, she got him to take the fall--the big fall-- in a plot to discredit President Plump. Is there supposed to be some logic involved in all of that?

Check, please!

0 Replies

I wouldn’t say Clinton orchestrated Weinstein’s fall. She’s just no longer in a position to take in those big Saudi bucks, so she has so many less strings to pull.

Her power structure is failing all her Clinton Foundation cronies.

0 Replies

The Weinstein timeline.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/entertainment-arts-41594672

Hollywood has been rocked by allegations against film mogul Harvey Weinstein - which first came to light in a New York Times article.

Since then, the story has developed continuously, with a large number of women coming forward to say they were sexually harassed or assaulted by Weinstein - allegations he has denied.

Here is a summary of the events so far:

Thursday 5 October
The New York Times publishes a story detailing decades of allegations of sexual harassment against Harvey Weinstein. Actresses Rose McGowan and Ashley Judd are among the women who come forward.
Among the accusations are that he forced women to massage him and watch him naked. He also promised to help advance their careers in return for sexual favours.
Weinstein issues an apology acknowledging he "has caused a lot of pain" - but disputes allegations he harassed female employees over nearly three decades.
Weinstein's lawyer tells The Hollywood Reporter his client is preparing to sue the New York Times.
Weinstein says he is taking a "leave of absence" from The Weinstein Company and is working with a therapist.

———————————

Several attempts were made to break the story previous to October, but they were unsuccessful.

1 Reply

I’ve been right about the Clintons for 14 years. Crooked as snakes, users, a rapist, and greedy as hell.

I hate them for what they’ve done to this country.

You should too.

0 Replies

Republicans like policies that result in more dead children, just note the voting record on gun control and healthcare. That is why they're so unforgiving of Clinton because he was the first American president to seriously engage with the Northern Ireland peace process. Peace in Northern Ireland means fewer dead children.

Clinton is still very popular over here and in Ireland and deservedly so. The amount of time and effort he put into NI should not be underestimated and after the disastrous years of Reagan and Bush snr he showed that America can stand for decency, the rule of law and dialogue over brute force. I can see why republicans wouldn't like that.

0 Replies

Maybe he can be the High Swami of Britain and Ireland!

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

As far as any "letter" (which is not a warrant and not a court-authorized subpoena) from the FBI to the GSA goes:

Quote:
A national security letter (NSL) is an administrative subpoena issued by the United States government to gather information for national security purposes. NSLs do not require prior approval from a judge.

By law, NSLs can request only non-content information, for example, transactional records and phone numbers dialed, but never the content of telephone calls or e-mails.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter

This statutorily imposed limit on the scope of NSL's merely incorporates the constitutional limitations imposed by the 4th Amendment:

Quote:

United States v. Warshak is a criminal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet service provider (ISP) to turn over his emails without first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause.

... In conjunction with a criminal investigation of Warshak and his questionable business practices, the government seized roughly 27,000 private emails from Warshak's ISP. The court held that government agents infringed upon Warshak's Fourth Amendment rights when they compelled his ISP to produce the content of his emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.

The court declared it would be incongruous to treat email, letters, and telephone calls differently because of the method of delivery. "It follows that email requires strong protection under the Fourth Amendment; otherwise, the Fourth Amendment would prove an ineffective guardian of private communication, an essential purpose it has long been recognized to serve."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak

The ISP is a third party (like the GSA) who happened to have access to the stored emails. That does NOT:

1.Eliminate the email owner's expectation of privacy, or
2. Make their (the third party's) consent to produce the emails binding on the owner of the emails.

Quote:

The threat of possible access by an ISP to the content of a subscriber's email does not defeat this reasonable expectation of privacy, the court continued. Both the post office and telephone companies have the ability to access and the right to access, under certain conditions, the contents of a communication, yet these facts do not eliminate Fourth Amendment protection.

Mueller's team claims it had the "consent of the account owner," by which it obviously means the GSA, who clearly did NOT "own" the transition team's emails. The "account owner" was the transition team and there is no reasonable argument against that simple fact. Both the GSA and the FBI violated the 4th amendment. Their flimsy-ass attempt to deny it just shows how little regard they have for the 4th Amendment.

Nice try, cheese-eaters.

0 Replies

By getting a look at the slimy underbelly of Weinstein’s power structure, you can get a perfect example of the Clinton’s dirty network.

She probably gave him pointers.

Funny, how she’s mentioned in the article.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/05/us/harvey-weinstein-complicity.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=DF57B73253937BB66A4439F01509D021&gwt=pay

He gathered ammunition, sometimes helped by the editor of The National Enquirer, who had dispatched reporters to find information that could undermine accusers. He turned to old allies, asking a partner in Creative Artists Agency, one of Hollywood’s premier talent shops, to broker a meeting with a C.A.A. client, Ronan Farrow, who was reporting on Mr. Weinstein. He tried to dispense favors: While seeking to stop the actress Rose McGowan from writing in a memoir that he had sexually assaulted her, he tried to arrange a $50,000 payment to her former manager and throw new business to a literary agent advising Ms. McGowan. The agent, Lacy Lynch, replied to him in an email: “No one understands smart, intellectual and commercial like HW.”

Mr. Weinstein’s final, failed round of manipulations shows how he operated for more than three decades: by trying to turn others into instruments or shields for his behavior, according to nearly 200 interviews, internal company records and previously undisclosed emails. Some aided his actions without realizing what he was doing. Many knew something or detected hints, though few understood the scale of his sexual misconduct. Almost everyone had incentives to look the other way or reasons to stay silent. Now, even as the tally of Mr. Weinstein’s alleged misdeeds is still emerging, so is a debate about collective failure and the apportioning of blame.

Executives at Mr. Weinstein’s film companies who learned of allegations rarely took a stand, cowed by their volatile boss or worried about their careers. His brother and partner, Bob, participated in payoffs to women as far back as 1990. Some low-level assistants were pulled in: They compiled “bibles” that included hints on facilitating encounters with women, and were required to procure his penile injections for erectile dysfunction. His lawyers crafted settlements that kept the truth from being explored, much less exposed. “When you quickly settle, there is no need to get into all the facts,” said Daniel M. Petrocelli, a lawyer who handled two agreements with accusers.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

You don't have to believe it if it makes you uncomfortable...

It doesn't.

Quote:

...but it is true.

It may be "true" but it's basically meaningless. Weinstein, along with many other Hollywood big shots, donated big bucks to the Clintons. But that doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to throw Harvey to the wolves.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

This is such an obvious ploy. As Mariotti points out:

Quote:
If Mueller didn’t follow the law, a court would suppress the evidence so it couldn’t be used. The reason Trump’s lawyers are writing letters to Congress instead of Mueller or a court is because their legal arguments have no merit.

Once again, see how Trump's GOP treats their own base with such disdain. Tell 'em anything; just change the topic. Let the loyal sheep gather talking points from the host of conservative websites promoting this fiction and let them post the crap on internet forums.

Mark Twain wrote:
It's easier to fool people than to convince that they have been fooled.

You ate this **** up like a cheese-eater who has found a 5-pound slab of Limberger, and chided others for not being the same kind of chump you are with the arrogance of a Mussolini, eh, Hi?

I have since made quite a few posts (not necessarily addressed to you) which show, by way of authoritative documentation, including court cases, MOU agreements, etc. just how wrong and gullible you are in this post.

Care to retract any of it?

I didn't think so.

0 Replies

@hightor,

I think this second time is a calculated misstatement of my opinion.

I didn’t say that Clinton threw Weinstein to the wolves. Clinton’s camp may have started the sex abuse ball rolling toward Trump, but it likely grew out of their control. I think her web of support is weakening as is his.

During this sex assault wave, Bill Clinton was mentioned many times prominently-I’m sure Hill Clinton didn’t envision or welcome that.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

If you'd said that the movement was sparked by the Access Hollywood video and the crass behavior of candidate Trump

Quote:

What I do know is that your attempt to link the situation to HRC and your suggestion of a conspiracy seems like too far a reach.

Avoiding criticism of Trump and the GOP (or fighting against any such) is Lash's game. It's a constant feature of most anything she writes.

"Lying Hillary" and the "corrupt DNC" are her two avoidance devices.

1 Reply

Strong-arm tactics are typical of Mueller, this guy says. I would go further and say he has contempt for the rule of law in this case.

0 Replies

This left-wing legal scholar admits that the Mueller has credibility problems and is playing right into Trump's hand. He calls Mueller "foolish." No cheese-eater in this thread is willing to concede that, for some damn reason, eh?

2 Replies

The GOP is going to pass their tax cut bill today. Needless to say, this is disappointing, in that it is a piece of **** bill that does tons of really negative things to the citizens of this country, all in the name of massively cutting taxes for the wealthy.

What's really amazing is how badly they've lost the messaging fight on this. This tax cut bill is wildly unpopular, perhaps the most unpopular tax cut I've ever seen. The Dems are literally going to run on this next year and polling is already heavily slanted in their favor.

Here's a good article about the 2018 election and how it's shaping up:

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/18/new-nbc-midterm-poll-uh-interesting-numbers-seniors-young-adults/

Just think how easy the messaging on this one will be. From the article:

Quote:

It seems like a really simple 2018 election message for Dems is: "They made the corporate tax cut permanent and yours are set to expire."

What's the response gonna be? "Well, you see, The Byrd Rule stipulates that at a 10-year horizon..." lol.

Not only that, but the vast majority of taxpayers aren't going to see the effects of this tax-cut until the Spring of 2019; however, corporations are going to be raking in additional profits immediately. This is going to turn into bigger dividend payments and gigantic bonuses for CEOs who just happen to be in the seat when the bill was passed. How do you think it's going to look, when the news in Summer 2018 is full of plutocrats getting huge bonuses while the citizenry gets practically nothing?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@layman,

Surprisingly, in this same video, the "right-wing" Judge Neopolitano, who works for Fox, seems to (erroneously) say that Mueller acted properly. Dershowitz says he should know better (and he should).

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know