[Al Ahram] The FBI is investigating an alleged scheme to pay women to accuse Russia collusion probe chief Robert Mueller of sexual harassment in a bid to discredit him, Mueller's office said Tuesday.
The scheme was uncovered after one woman who said she worked for Mueller decades ago told several journalists she had been offered $20,000 to accuse him of sexual misconduct.
"When we learned last week of allegations that women were offered money to make false claims about the Special Counsel, we immediately referred the matter to the FBI for investigation," Mueller's front man Peter Carr said.
Carr did not offer any additional details, but his rare public statement made clear that Mueller's office was taking the claims seriously.
When a matter is referred to the FBI, the agency must investigate the merits of the complaint.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/31/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
..its sort of like nuclear proliferation. Once someone unleashes the genie from the bottle, everyone else will play that game too. Do on to others what others have done on to you. We live in interesting times.
#5
She's unavailable to interview, B. She flew drove to Bali, Tahiti to spend that cool $1 Mil in Gofundme Dem $
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/31/2018 8:46 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Did the dems think the repubs were too innocent to follow on to the dems' suggestion?
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
10/31/2018 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Did the dems think the repubs were too innocent to follow on to the dems' suggestion?
Yeah but the repubs don't have the backing of a 24/7 news media to pump the story.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
10/31/2018 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#8
trailing wife, the Huffpo article is interesting because they insinuate it's conservatives that cooked up the fake lady but never explain why conservatives would do something like that which would make them look bad.
[NYPOST] President Trump is going after porn star Stormy Daniels for $300,000 in legal fees after a federal judge threw out her defamation suit against him, according to a report on Tuesday.
Trump’s lawyers in a court filing argued that they want $341,559.50 in attorney’s fees from Daniels, who alleged she had a sexual affair with the president in 2006, the Washington Examiner reported.
Daniels "filed this action, not because it had any merit, but instead for the ulterior purposes of raising her media profile, engaging in political attacks against the president by herself and her attorney, who has appeared on more than 150 national television news interviews attacking the President and now is exploring a run for the presidency himself in 2020," the documents filed Monday in Los Angeles federal court say.
"This is a number created out of whole cloth," her lawyer Michael Avenatti said in a statement to the newspaper. "And it is nothing compared to what he will owe my client from the main NDA case."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/31/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
[Hot Air] An oldie but goodie to cleanse the palate. We’ve blogged it before but I’d forgotten all about it until I was reminded today, now that the subject is topical again. Reid said this in the early 1990s, a decade that saw huge growth in Nevada’s Latino population and a sea change in the AFL-CIO’s attitude towards immigrant labor. By 1999 he had reconsidered his position. But then, convenient flip-flops on big-picture worldview-defining issues weren’t unusual for Reid.
He would have reversed himself eventually even if electoral pressures in his home state hadn’t forced him to. It’s hard to imagine a modern Democrat supporting any meaningful disincentive to illegal immigration but it’s completely unimaginable to imagine one backing a tweak to the Constitution(!) that would deny something as momentous as citizenship(!!). If we haven’t yet reached the point where open borders are as sacrosanct to liberals as feticide, we’ll get there. His logic in the clip is perfectly sound, though: Inescapably, if you grant citizenship to children of parents who have no lawful right to be in the United States, you’ll get more would-be parents attempting to enter the United States unlawfully. And that’s never been truer than it is today, as the Democratic Party veers ever further towards radicalism on immigration. Hillary Clinton wanted to preserve Obama’s (now defunct) DAPA program, which would have granted de facto legal status to illegal-immigrant parents of natural-born U.S. citizens. That is, if you snuck across the border and gave birth here, the last two Democratic nominees for president were prepared to not only uphold citizenship for your child but to reward you with the right to stay too. "No sane country would do that, right?" says Reid in the clip below. Correct. No sane country.
[NYPOST] President Trump said he’ll sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizens or illegal immigrants colonists born on US soil ‐ an action that could spark a heated constitutional battle.
"We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump told "Axios on HBO" in a snippet of an interview that aired Tuesday. "It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end."
"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t," Trump continued, claiming an executive order would be sufficient to change the policy.
Questioned that such an action was in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order."
Trump’s comments come as he tries to focus the debate on immigration and a caravan of Central American migrants colonists heading to the US border as the country a week before the midterm elections reels from the massacre of 11 worshipers at a Pittsburgh synagogue and pipe-bomb mailings to a number of prominent Democrats.
Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret ‐ subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
"What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ‐ meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants colonists, then you are entitled to citizenship," Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. "If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you." Of course the President's loyal supporter and Republican party champion, Speaker of The House Paul Ryan says it cannot be done.
That remains to be seen. In the meantime, and more importantly, the news that President Trump has announced his intention will cause a recalibration of plans across the migrating world.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/31/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You mean the 14th Amendment that SCOTUS suspended the 'equal protection before the law regardless of race' for 'affirmative action' to correct a 'historic wrong' and has spent its time for over half a century hemming and hawing about excuses rather than ending their action that is clearly against the text of the document?
The historical and textural intent was to prevent newly freed slaves from being disenfranchised as non-American. That was achieved. The interpenetration we have about foreigners today is just that an interpretation done through the judiciary.
There must be a principle in the action. You have a glaring problem that arises if simply being within the border make one a citizen. Since the end of WWII, we've had hundreds of thousands of American service families deployed and living overseas giving birth in foreign countries, not counting probably an similar number of 'love children' fathered by American service personnel.
Choose.
If the child is born in the sovereign territory of a state, that child is of that country.
If by birth through one parent is an American then the child is American.
We don't want principles. We want what we want regardless of whatever. As amply demonstrated by SCOTUS' continuing rationales used to extend affirmative action in one guise or another.
#4
The 14th was put in place to make sure the slaves became citizens after the civil war. In 1965, Kennedy bastardized it to get open borders.
While I could see a EO being used for say, 120 halt on citizenship for children born from Iranian nationals, I can't see one standing up to the legal challenges if it lasted longer.
Congress can define when citizenship does take effect and this is something they need to do. For example:
A child born from one or two US citizens is bestowed US citizenship.
A child born a non citizen is granted the same status as the parent.
Green card holders and visa holders have the same protection and rights bestowed on the child.
A non citizen going through the naturalization process will have the same protection and rights bestowed on the child, and when naturalization is complete, citizenship will be bestowed on the child.
Pretty simple and stops anchor babies while not violating the 14th amendment.
Whatever E.O. comes out of the WH needs to be narrowly written. It will immediately face legal challenge in District court, likely in a venue held by leftists.
But's Darth's proposal would be far superior to any EO.
Posted by: lord garth ||
10/31/2018 9:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
It just occurred to me that this might all be designed to settle legal citizenship issues before 2024. Any executive order would immediately be challenged and should get to the Supreme before then.
Ted Cruz's father was born in Cuba, his mother was born in the US but they were living in Canada when Ted was born. I bet Ted would like these issues settled by 2024 or so...
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[NYPOST] President Trump is going after porn star Stormy Daniels for $300,000 in legal fees after a federal judge threw out her defamation suit against him, according to a report on Tuesday.
[Hot Air] An oldie but goodie to cleanse the palate. We’ve blogged it before but I’d forgotten all about it until I was reminded today, now that the subject is topical again. Reid said this in the early 1990s, a decade that saw huge growth in Nevada’s Latino population and a sea change in the AFL-CIO’s attitude towards immigrant labor. By 1999 he had reconsidered his position. But then, convenient flip-flops on big-picture worldview-defining issues weren’t unusual for Reid.
'Anchor Baby' capital of the WORLD !
[NYPOST] President Trump said he’ll sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizens or illegal im
