Not only did these employees not know they were supposed to wear gear,
but they went back into the community immediately after being exposed to
the dangerous virus.
If it seemed like Tuesday night’s debate audience was a little hostile to certain candidates, that’s because it was. The debate audience was packed with the wealthy elite and high-dollar donors, with tickets ranging from $1,700 to more than $3,000.
Average Americans were shut out of the debate, allowing the wealthy to make their voices heard to those on stage. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains the impact this had on the debate.
It started as a stupid joke, as these things do. I watched a video that Donald Trump had posted to his Twitter account where he was talking directly to the camera right outside the White House. He's done a bunch of these, and they have the air of a needy vlogger desperate for likes (which, to be fair, is what Trump was before resident).
I was struck by how it was filmed, making it look like he was missing something, so I tweeted the dumb joke "Where's your fucking neck?" That's a Rocky Horror reference for you young'uns reading this, from when it was a midnight movie staple and we'd shout things at the screen. Give us a break. We didn't have the internet, and porn took some effort to obtain. We'd yell the neck line any time the narrator appeared.
That was it. That was what I meant.
Then eagle-eyed reader Al Petterson took me more literally (as did several others) and said, "Watch that neckline. The body is not the head. This is two videos blue-screened together." So I did and, holy crap, that's exactly what it looked like. Or, more precisely, it looked like someone had digitally removed Trump's pronounced neck wattle, the prominent flesh sag that, when pinched together by a collar and tie, has the quality of a puffy vulva. Sometimes, it does lop over his collar but certainly not smoothly.
I took a screenshot which, sorry, I'll share:
Look at the smoothing on his neck. Wanna see it closer? No? Too bad.
I haven't touched it up. Look at the line between the collar and "neck." When you watch the video, you see it the digitized line (or whatever the term of art is) even more clearly. In fact, the aforementioned Al Petterson took it on himself to put together this video that focuses in on the neck area as it moves and, gotta say, it's freaky:
Other videos, some recorded at the sametime as the first one here, have the same effect. It's seemingly there in more videos posted by Trump or the White House. But weirdly, it's not in a video from a couple of months ago where he's doing the same thing, speaking outside the White House.
The wattle camel toe is clear.
Look, there are way, way more important things going on. And I don't think anyone is gonna be surprised if he does demand he's turkey skin be airbrushed out. But the man is incredibly vain, and going at his vanity is one way to screw with his deranged brain as we approach the general election.
And if #Wattlegate gets under his digitally-tightened skin, so much the better.
(Credit where it's due: Twitterizer Ralph of Nazareth came up with "Wattlegate." And it's awesome.)
A classified briefing to lawmakers angered the resident, who complained that Democrats would “weaponize” the disclosure.
American
intelligence agencies concluded that Russia, on the orders of President
Vladimir V. Putin, interfered in the 2016 presidential election.Credit...Emmanuel Dunand/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
WASHINGTON
— Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia
was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get resident Trump
re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to
Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use
it against him.
The day after the
Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, Mr. Trump berated Joseph Maguire, the
outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to
take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump cited the
presence in the briefing of Representative Adam B. Schiff, the
California Democrat who led the impeachment proceedings against him, as a
particular irritant.
During the
briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump’s allies
challenged the conclusions, arguing that he has been tough on Russia and
strengthened European security. Some intelligence officials viewed the
briefing as a tactical error, saying that had the official who delivered
the conclusion spoken less pointedly or left it out, they would have
avoided angering the Republicans.
That
intelligence official, Shelby Pierson, is an aide to Mr. Maguire who
has a reputation of delivering intelligence in somewhat blunt terms. The resident announced on Wednesday that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with
Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and long an aggressively
vocal Trump supporter.
Though
some current and former officials speculated that the briefing may have
played a role in the removal of Mr. Maguire, who had told people in
recent days that he believed he would remain in the job, two
administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell
had been in discussions with the administration about taking on new
roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had never felt a kinship with Mr.
Maguire.
Spokeswomen for the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence and its election security office
declined to comment. A White House spokesman did not immediately respond
to requests for comment.
A Democratic
House intelligence committee official called the Feb. 13 briefing an
important update about “the integrity of our upcoming elections” and
said that members of both parties attended, including Representative
Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the committee.
Image
Joseph
Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, is planning to
leave government, according to an American official.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Mr.
Trump has long accused the intelligence community’s assessment of
Russia’s 2016 interference as the work of a “deep-state” conspiracy
intent on undermining the validity of his election. Intelligence
officials feel burned by their experience after the last election, where
their work became subject of intense political debate and is now a
focus of a Justice Department investigation.
Part
of the resident’s anger over the intelligence briefing stemmed from
the administration’s reluctance to provide sensitive information to Mr.
Schiff. He has been a leading critic of Mr. Trump since 2016, doggedly
investigating Russian election interference and later leading the
impeachment inquiry into the resident’s dealings with Ukraine.
After
asking about the briefing that the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence and other agencies gave to the House, Mr. Trump complained
that Mr. Schiff would “weaponize” the intelligence about Russia’s
support for him, according to a person familiar with the briefing. And
he was angry that no one had told him sooner about the briefing, the
person said.
Mr. Trump has fixated on
Mr. Schiff since the impeachment saga began, pummeling him publicly with
insults and unfounded accusations of corruption. At one point in
October, Mr. Trump refused to invite lawmakers from the congressional
intelligence committees to a White House briefing on Syria because he
did not want Mr. Schiff there, according to three people briefed on the
matter.
Mr. Trump did not erupt at Mr.
Maguire, and instead just asked pointed questions, according to the
person. But the message was unmistakable: He was displeased by what took
place.
Ms. Pierson, officials said,
was delivering the conclusion of multiple intelligence agencies, not her
own opinion. The Washington Post first reported the Oval Office confrontation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Maguire.
The intelligence community issued an assessment in early 2017 that President Vladimir V. Putin personally ordered
an influence campaign in the previous year’s election and developed “a
clear preference for resident-elect Trump.” But Republicans have long
argued that Moscow’s campaign was designed to sow chaos, not aid Mr.
Trump specifically.
And some
Republicans have accused the intelligence agencies of opposing Mr.
Trump, but intelligence officials reject those allegations. They
fiercely guard their work as nonpartisan, saying it is the only way to
ensure its validity.
At
the House briefing, Representative Chris Stewart, a Utah Republican who
has been considered for the director’s post, was among the Republicans
who challenged the conclusion about Russia’s support for the resident.
Mr. Stewart insisted that Mr. Trump has aggressively confronted Moscow,
providing anti-tank weapons to Ukraine for its war against
Russian-backed separatists and strengthening the NATO alliance with new
resources, according to two people briefed on the meeting.
Mr.
Stewart declined to discuss the briefing but said that Moscow had no
reason to support Mr. Trump. He pointed to the resident’s work to
confront Iran, a Russian ally, and encourage European energy
independence from Moscow. “I’d challenge anyone to give me a real-world
argument where Putin would rather have resident Trump and not Bernie
Sanders,” the nominal Democratic primary front-runner, Mr. Stewart said
in an interview.
Mr.
Trump believes that Russian efforts to get him elected in 2016 have
cast doubts about the legitimacy of his campaign victory. Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
Under
Mr. Putin, Russian intelligence has long sought broadly to sow chaos
among adversaries around the world. The United States and key allies on
Thursday accused Russian military intelligence, the group responsible
for much of the 2016 election interference in the United States, of a cyber-attack on neighboring Georgia that took out websites and television
broadcasts.
Though intelligence
officials have previously informed lawmakers that Russia’s interference
campaign was ongoing, last week’s briefing did contain what appeared to
be new information, including that Russia intends to interfere with the
ongoing Democratic primaries as well as the general election.
They
have made more creative use of Facebook and other social media. Rather
than impersonating Americans as they did in 2016, Russian operatives are
working to get Americans to repeat disinformation to get around social
media companies’ rules that prohibit “inauthentic speech.”
And
they are working from servers located in the United States, rather than
abroad, knowing that American intelligence agencies are prohibited from
operating inside the country. (The F.B.I. and the Department of
Homeland Security can, with aid from the intelligence agencies.)
Russian
hackers have also infiltrated Iran’s cyber-warfare unit, perhaps with
the intent of launching attacks that would look like they were coming
from Tehran, the National Security Agency has warned.
Some
officials believe that foreign powers, possibly including Russia, could
use ransomware attacks, like those that have debilitated some local
governments, to damage or interfere with voting systems or registration
databases.
Still, much of the Russian
aim is similar to its 2016 interference, officials said: Search for
issues that stir controversy in the United States and use various
methods to stoke division.
One of
Moscow’s main goals is undermining confidence in American election
systems, intelligence officials have told lawmakers, seeking to sow
doubts over close elections and recounts. Confronting those Russian
efforts is difficult, officials have said, because they want to maintain
American confidence in voting systems.
Both
Republicans and Democrats asked the intelligence agencies to hand over
the underlying material that prompted their conclusion that Russia again
is favoring Mr. Trump’s election.
How
soon the House committee might get that information is not clear. Since
the impeachment inquiry, tensions have risen between the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence and the committee. As officials
navigate the disputes, the intelligence agencies have slowed the amount
of material they provide to the House, officials said. The agencies are
required by law to regularly brief Congress on threats.
While
Republicans have long been critical of the Obama administration for not
doing enough to track and deter Russian interference in 2016, current
and former intelligence officials said the party is at risk of making a
similar mistake now. Mr. Trump has been reluctant to even hear about
election interference, and Republicans dislike discussing it publicly.
The
aftermath of last week’s briefing prompted some intelligence officials
to voice concerns that the White House will dismantle a key election
security effort by Dan Coats, the former director of national
intelligence: the establishment of an election interference czar. Ms. Pierson has held the post since last summer.
And
some current and former intelligence officials expressed fears that Mr.
Grenell may have been put in place explicitly to slow the pace of
information on election interference to Congress. The revelations about
Mr. Trump’s confrontation with Mr. Maguire raised new concerns about Mr.
Grenell’s appointment, said the Democratic House committee official,
who added that the upcoming election could be more vulnerable to foreign
interference.
Mr. Trump, former
officials have said, is typically uninterested in election interference
briefings, and Mr. Grenell might see it as unwise to emphasize such
intelligence with the resident.
“The
biggest concern I would have is if the intelligence community was not
forthcoming and not providing the analysis in the run-up to the next
election,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a former intelligence official
now with the Center for New American Security. “It is really concerning
that this is happening in the run-up to an election.”
Mr.
Grenell’s unbridled loyalty is clearly important to Mr. Trump but may
not be ideally suited for an intelligence chief making difficult
decisions about what to brief to the resident and Congress, Ms.
Kendall-Taylor said.
“Trump is trying
to whitewash or rewrite the narrative about Russia’s involvement in the
election,” she said. “Grenell’s appointment suggests he is really
serious about that.”
The
acting deputy to Mr. Maguire, Andrew P. Hallman, will step down on
Friday, officials said, paving the way for Mr. Grenell to put in place
his own management team. Mr. Hallman was the intelligence office’s
principal executive, but since the resignation in August of the previous
deputy, Sue Gordon, he has been performing the duties of that post.
Mr. Maguire is planning to leave government, according to an American official.
Eric Schmitt and David E. Sanger contributed reporting.
Adam Goldman reports on the F.B.I. from Washington and is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. @adamgoldmanNYT
Julian
E. Barnes is a national security reporter based in Washington, covering
the intelligence agencies. Before joining The Times in 2018, he wrote
about security matters for The Wall Street Journal. @julianbarnes•Facebook
Maggie
Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The Times in 2015
as a campaign correspondent and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer
Prize in 2018 for reporting on resident Trump’s advisers and their
connections to Russia. @maggieNYT
Nicholas
Fandos is a national reporter based in the Washington bureau. He has
covered Congress since 2017 and is part of a team of reporters who have
chronicled investigations by the Justice Department and Congress into residentt Trump and his administration. @npfandos
"resident Donald Trump on Tuesday granted clemency to 11 people, including several convicted felons who are either Fox News regulars or have been championed by the resident’s favorite cable-news network. And in another case, the family of one pardon recipient dished out massive contributions to the resident’s re-election campaign just months before Trump’s clemency spree.
Among those granted pardons or sentence commutations were former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was sentenced to 14 years in prison for attempting to sell former President Barack Obama’s Senate seat; former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik, who was sentenced to four years in 2010 for tax fraud and lying to the feds; and Michael Milken, the “junk-bonds king” whose early-90's insider-trading conviction made him a poster boy of white-collar crime."
Similar to Trump's destruction of the Republican Party, Michael Bloomberg's take over of the DNC Rules will destroy whatever's left of the Democratic Party.
George Zimmerman is suing Democratic presidential candidates Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren
for defamation over tweets they posted about the shooting death of
unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman's lawsuit accuses them
of "maliciously publishing false and misleading" tweets about the case
in order to "garner votes in the black community."
Zimmerman filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Florida, seeking $265 million "for loss of good will and reputation" and financial damages.
In 2012, Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year-old Martin when
he encountered the teen walking to his father's home nearby. Zimmerman
was later acquitted after his lawyers argued he was acting in
self-defense, provoking widespread protests.
Both Democratic candidates published the tweets on February 5, which would have been Trayvon Martin's 25th birthday.
"My
heart goes out to [Martin's mother] @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon's family
and friends. He should still be with us today. We need to end gun
violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our
children-especially young Black boys-can grow up safe and free,"
Elizabeth Warren tweeted to her 3.7 million followers.
My heart goes out to @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon's family and friends. He should still be with us today.
We
need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where
all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and
free. https://t.co/9lXXlRnvzL
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 6, 2020
"Trayvon Martin would have been 25 today. How many 25th
birthdays have been stolen from us by white supremacy, gun violence,
prejudice, and fear?" Pete Buttigieg said in his tweet.
Trayvon Martin would have been 25 today.
How many 25th birthdays have been stolen from us by white supremacy, gun violence, prejudice, and fear?#BlackLivesMatter
— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) February 5, 2020
In his lawsuit, Zimmerman claims the tweets defame him by
suggesting to millions of followers that his actions were a result of
"white supremacy, gun violence, prejudice, and fear" of Martin's skin
color. George Zimmerman in court in 2013.
Getty
"Defendant Warren's use of the
word 'racism' as having caused the death of Trayvon Martin is a smear
that disparages and defames Zimmerman, a man who is Hispanic, a minority
advocate, and an Obama supporter," the lawsuit reads. "...Defendant
Warren knows that as established in the 2013 trial and in the media,
that Zimmerman fired a single shot only because he believed he might go
unconscious and die."
The lawsuit claims Buttigieg's and Warren's
"preconceived plan to discredit and destroy Zimmerman" was part of their
political strategy to gain black votes. Polls have shown the two candidates lagging in support among African American voters.
But
CBSN legal contributor Keir Dougall, a former federal prosecutor and
trial lawyer, says Zimmerman would face an "uphill climb" trying to
prove his case in court.
Because Zimmerman is a public figure, to win his claim he "would have
to prove that the statements were knowingly false or reckless to the
truth," Dougall explained. That's a high bar. And at the same time, the
First Amendment offers a great deal of protection to Warren and
Buttigieg to exercise their right to free speech.
"One of the core
types of speech the First Amendment protects is political speech, and
you've got two presidential candidates tweeting in their campaigns —
that's obviously political speech," Dougall said. "The First Amendment
would be at its strongest in protecting this particular type of speech."
In 2014, a Florida judge threw out a libel suit
Zimmerman filed against a news organization on the grounds that he was a
public figure and could not prove the outlet acted with reckless
disregard for the truth.
CBS News has reached out to the Buttigieg and Warren campaigns for comment and will update this story if they provide responses.
Rob Reiner
✔
@robreiner
Today’s revelation of Trump’s bribe of Assange is further evidence
of what we all know to be true: Trump colluded with Russia to steal the
2016 election. He’s trying to do it again. That’s what Criminals do.
Whoa if true. Julian Assange is in court
in England today and the claim that he was offered a pardon to cover up
Russian involvement in the DNC hack is going to blow up the news.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told a British court on Tuesday that
he had been promised a pardon by people close to resident Donald
Trump.
Assange made the remarks while appearing at a pretrial hearing via teleconference.
Courtroom reporter James Doleman broke the news on Twitter. According
to Doleman, Assange said that the pardon was conditional on him publicly announcing that Russia had nothing to do with the attack on the 2016 election.
Breaking, at
pre-trial hearing for Julian Assange a court has heard that he will be
calling a witness who will allege he was offered a pardon by the US
government, if he would say Russia was not involved in the leak of DNC
documents during the 2006 election.
Julian Assange
court appearance today- His lawyer mentioned a statement, that alleges
former US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher visited Assange, saying he was
there on behalf of the President, offering a pardon if JA would say
Russia had nothing to do with DNC leaks. @SBSNews
In 2017, a The Wall Street Journal report said that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) attempted to broker a deal for a pardon or clemency between the White House and Assange.
Assange is wanted in the United States on 18 counts of violating espionage laws and conspiring to hack government computers.
According to Julian Assange’s lawyers, Assange was promised a presidential pardon by a Trump associate if he was willing to lie about the Russian involvement in the DNC hack. We know that the hack originated from Russia, and Trump knew that this information would make him look bad, so he allegedly wanted Assange to lie about the source. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains what’s happening.
Former congressman Dana Rohrabacher confirms he dangled a Trump pardon to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and the reporter with whom Rohrabacher spoke shares the details. Aired on 02/20/20.
In the latest installment of “Opening Arguments”, former Acting U.S. Solicitor General, Neal Katyal discusses Trump’s “lawless” and “unprecedented” pardon of his “friends” and “campaign contributors.” Katyal argues while Trump has “gotten away with so much” the “law is going to come after him,” adding America’s “courts will bring him to justice.”
