Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Donald Trump really hates his picture


Since he hates it all the time I am going to keep using it, along with these photos:


Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Melania Trump gets her way just like a bully



From TMZ

Melania Trump has hired a famous lawyer who is now threatening a lawsuit over a video suggesting her 10-year-old son, Barron, is autistic, and the letter calls out Rosie O'Donnell as a bully.
According to the letter, obtained by TMZ, the YouTube video falsely insinuates Barron is autistic. The letter, and our sources familiar with the situation, say Barron absolutely is not autistic.

Rosie tweeted out the video last week, with a caption, "Barron Trump Autistic?" The letter says, "The video allegedly seeks to 'stop the bullying' of Barron Trump. Not true ... The video did instigate further bullying by Rosie O'Donnell and others."

The video lists a number of signs it claims points to autism, including Barron clapping without slapping his hands together. Melania's attorney, Charles J. Harder, says Barron did this once -- at the end of a long day at the RNC -- but the "vast majority of the time, he claps normally."

The video shows Barron yawning and grimacing during his father's victory speech at the RNC and on election night. Melania's team says both events were late at night, and Barron was exhibiting normal behavior for a 10-year-old.

Melania is not threatening to sue Rosie, but her attorney, Harder, wants the person who posted the YouTube clip to delete it and post an apology.

Our sources say Melania is outraged and is serious about going after the person who posted the video if he doesn't take it down

Now the guy to made the video agreed to take it down.  Rosie's tweet is now gone as well but I have it above.

Claps normal most of the time?  Look there is no way to confirm if Barron is autistic or not but a lawsuit like this gives it credence that Barron is.  The Trumps think that filing lawsuits is the way to bury things, but once you are POTUS and FLOTUS it's going to be more difficult to do so.

If rumors of Barron being autistic is enough to rile Trump up, imagine when China or North Korea really piss him off.

The recount saga continues



Since Hillary Clinton is getting involved in the recount process in Wisconsin...

Donald Trump has made a wild accusation of voter fraud saying he won the popular vote because of voter fraud.

Kelly Anne Conway threatened Hillary Clinton if she participated in the Wisconsin recount, saying Donald may have her locked up.

Jill Stein has filed the papers for a recount in Pennsylvania even though officials say the recount deadline has passed.

Jill is also suing in Wisconsin to have all ballots counted by hand and not by machine.

I don't know if the recount will change anything but The Donald's reaction to it was pretty damning, calling it a scam, threatening Hillary and making up dubious claims.  He has something to hide.

Monday, November 28, 2016

The experts want Hillary Clinton to challenge the election results

From The Vice

Several prominent computers scientists and attorneys are pushing Hillary Clinton to seek a recount in three key swing states that cost her the election, suggesting that statistical irregularities in results from counties that used electronic voting machines indicate the possibility of manipulation or hacking.

The states in question are Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, which combined to give Donald Trump 46 votes in the electoral college, propelling him to an upset victory over Clinton. According to New York magazine and CNN, several experts, including J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Computer Security and Society, have contacted the Clinton campaign and presented evidence that she may have been denied votes in several counties in these states.

The reports say Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in Wisconsin counties that used electronic voting, a statistically significant margin that could have tipped the state — which hadn’t been won by a Republican presidential candidate since 1984 — in Trump’s favor. Clinton lost Wisconsin by 27,000 votes, but the experts reportedly say that with the alleged irregularities she may have been denied up to 30,000 votes.

“The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania,” Halderman wrote in a Medium post Wednesday. “Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.”

Clinton only has until Friday to seek a recount in Wisconsin, and until early next week to challenge the results in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but the Department of Justice could move to investigate the situation even after the fact. After Russian hackers were accused to targeting the Democratic National Committee ahead of the election, U.S. authorities, including the Pentagon, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies, were reportedly closely monitoring the situation on Election Day for anything unusual.

The sister of top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin has urged her Facebook followers to contact the Department of Justice and request an investigation into possible voting irregularities in the three swing states. Abedin said Clinton would only need a shift of about 55,000 votes in the states to win the election.

Abedin wrote that federal authorities “are starting to recognize there really is something off about the election results… Considering everything that is at stake, a vote audit shoudl be done.”

Clinton won the popular vote over Trump by about 2 million votes, but Trump won the electoral college by a 306-232 margin. At least six electors have refused to cast their votes for Trump despite their states voting for the GOP nominee. The Clinton campaign has not yet commented on the calls for a recount.

Looks like Hillary is taking their advice as her campaign is participating in the Wisconsin recount.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

The Donald is pissing everyone off now


From The Daily Beast

President-elect Donald Trump signaled he would break one of his most authoritarian campaign-promises: His vow to do everything he could to jail his political rival Hillary Clinton.

“It’s just not something that I feel very strongly about,” Trump told reporters and columnists at The New York Times Tuesday afternoon. “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.”

Trump told the Times, regarding his supporters, “I don’t think they’ll be disappointed.”

He thought wrong.

Many of Trump’s more high-profile fans, surrogates, and allies are angry about this about-face and insist “Crooked Hillary”—as Trump dubbed her throughout the campaign—be locked up.
“I’m hearing from people who are livid at Hillary, they’re still mad,” Rush Limbaugh, the famous conservative talk show host, said on Tuesday afternoon. “There are a lot of people who really thought that when Trump said ‘You oughta be in jail,’ that they agreed with that and thought that she should be!”

“Whoa! I thought we elected [Donald Trump] president,” Ann Coulter, conservative pundit and one of Trump’s most loyal media boosters, tweeted in response to the news. “Did we make him the FBI, & DOJ? His job is to pick those guys, not do their jobs.

“As happy as I am that our long national nightmare’s over, NO president [should] be blocking investigators from doing their jobs. #EqualUnderLaw,” she continued.
Coulter wasn’t alone in her frustration. Calls to imprison Clinton, wasn’t a passing idea in the Trump campaign—it was a central tenet. After all, this reversal comes  after a long campaign during which Trump and his allies and his surrogates had made “LOCK HER UP!” chants and “Hillary for Prison” swag staples of Trump rallies.

“BROKEN PROMISE,” declared Breitbart—a far-right website previously run by Stephen Bannon, Trump’s incoming White House chief strategist.
Former tea-party congressman Joe Walsh, who tweeted in July that “Hillary Clinton should be in prison,” didn’t seem too pleased, either.

“When he said ‘Lock her up’ what he really meant was ‘Help her heal,’” Walsh tweeted sarcastically on Tuesday.

Others tried to look for loopholes in Trump’s statements, and tried to find hope in the slight ambiguity of his statement.

“That doesn’t mean that [the Department of] Justice wouldn’t do it,” Al Baldasaro, a Trump supporter and New Hampshire lawmaker who called for the execution of Hillary Clinton during the campaign, told The Daily Beast. “It’s not that he’s not going to do it. He’s going to let Congress do their job… It’s going to continue its investigations.”

The media, Baldasaro said, was trying to “find something that’s not there.”

Bill Mitchell, a small-time talk-show host and a fervent Trump supporter, suggested the president-elect was pulling a Machiavellian maneuver.

“You may be upset Trump has signaled he will not ‘persecute Hillary,’ but you will see in short the this was brilliant strategic positioning,” he wrote on Twitter. “When Trump looks at an apple, he doesn’t just see the apple, he sees the soil and the tree and the farmer and the rain. Trust him.”

Others are making peace with Trump’s decision by hiding behind their supposed cynicism of politics. 

Limbaugh, who has rallied Trump supporters through the latter end of the campaign with anti-Clinton rantings, claims now that he never really believed Trump would have gone through with his promise.

“I never expected Trump to actually prosecute her,” he said on his show. “And the reason is… I’m falling back on what some of the standard protocols for politics are after victory and this just, we in America do not prosecute defeated political enemies... If he did it, it was going to be icing on the cake for me. But I never expected him to do it.”

The president doesn’t have the authority to put individuals in jail, but has influence over the process: Trump told Clinton during a presidential debate in October, “I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation… we’re gonna have a special prosecutor.” He then added that if he were in charge, she’d “be in jail.”

But now that he’s entering office, Trump is not so sure—and it raises questions about how serious he was about any of his promises, to the chagrin of his most ardent backers.

Me thinks The Donald was shown there was nothing there concerning Hillary's emails, now he has egg on his face.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

The Donald used an unsecured phone while talking to world leaders.

From Bipartisan Report

According to POLITICO, a list of foreign leaders that have already spoken with Trump was provided, and he has already met face to face with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Donald Trump has already spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to the New York Times, with the two connecting by telephone on Monday.

For someone who ran their campaign on the premise of criminalizing his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on the basis of “illegal” and unsecured handling of sensitive information, it’s surprising to see the incoming Republican admitting to phone calls with foreign leaders before having been properly briefed by intelligence personnel or ensuring that all communications were secured.

There is already rather valid concern that cyberattacks influenced the 2016 presidential election, with the Department of Homeland Security accusing Russian hackers of leaking emails “intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.” Hacking from foreign intelligence agencies resulted in a breach of the Democratic Party’s emails and databases.

When taking calls from foreign leaders, the security of phone and VOiP (voice over internet protocol) lines is a valid concern. Donald Trump seems unwilling to work outside of his Trump Tower offices, so the question on whether or not he has access to up-to-date intelligence sources as well as government-grade communications security is something that should be addressed considering the vulnerabilities exposed by the WikiLeaks hacks.

Trump spokesman, Jason Miller, told the press that “appropriate measures are being taken,” when questioned regarding communications security for the president-elect’s phone calls with foreign leaders; however, no details were provided.

So far, there has been a great deal of chaos within the Trump transition team, including changes in head of the team from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to Vice President elect Mike Pence. Some individuals have flat-out rejected positions in Trump’s cabinet, and rules regarding hiring lobbyists seem to have changed mid-course. Communications security is a valid worry considering the chaos and the unfamiliarity that the incoming president seems to have with both protocol and available resources.

New York Magazine’s Annie Lowrey points out the irony behind Trump’s “Lock her up!” message regarding Hillary Clinton during his campaign and his own lax security when making phone calls for world leaders.

‘Just to drive the point home: Trump has been talking to world leaders on unsecured lines without being briefed or prepped for the calls.’

And tell me why Hillary's emails were a big deal again?

Nikki Haley is a flip flopper too



From Wa Post

Since she became the first female minority governor of South Carolina six years ago, Nikki Haley has been on the shortlist of Republican state officials with possible national futures.

But few of those GOP operatives could have expected Haley's ascension to work out this way: She will be joining the administration of a politician she once said is “everything a governor doesn't want in a president.”

President-elect Donald Trump plans to nominate her to be his ambassador to the United Nations, one of the most senior and high-profile foreign policy positions in the United States. Haley is the first woman and the first minority Trump has chosen for his administration.

The Basics: Governor of South Carolina since 2010, reelected in 2014, term-limited in 2018.

She has made a lot of firsts: She's the first woman to serve as South Carolina's governor. She's also the first Indian American to serve as the state's governor (and only the second in the United States, after Louisiana's Bobby Jindal.) At 44, she's the youngest current governor.

Haley got elected in 2010 as a tea party reformer: But she has since been viewed as part of the GOP establishment. She endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for president. After Rubio dropped out, she endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).

Her relationship with Trump has been contentious: In January, Haley delivered the Republican response to President Obama's final State of the Union address, and, without mentioning Trump by name, appeared to criticize him and his candidacy: “During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices.”

In response, Trump said Haley was “weak” on immigration.

A month later, during the South Carolina primary (which Trump won), Haley described Trump as “everything a governor doesn't want in a president.”

Haley did tepidly support Trump in the general election, although she said she was “not a fan.”

Remember this one too, Nikki was endorsed by political loser Sarah Palin as well.


Friday, November 25, 2016

The Donald chews out the media, how presidential of him


From The Donald's favorite media outlet

It had all the trappings of a high-level rapprochement: President-elect Donald J. Trump, now the nation’s press critic in chief, inviting the leading anchors and executives of television news to join him on Monday for a private meeting of minds.

On-air stars like Lester Holt, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos and Wolf Blitzer headed to Trump Tower for the off-the-record gathering, typically the kind of event where journalists and politicians clear the air after a hard-fought campaign.

Instead, the president-elect delivered a defiant message: You got it all wrong.

Mr. Trump, whose antagonism toward the news media was unusual even for a modern presidential candidate, described the television networks as dishonest in their reporting and shortsighted in missing the signs of his upset victory. He criticized some in the room by name, including CNN’s president, Jeffrey A. Zucker, according to multiple people briefed on the meeting who were granted anonymity to describe confidential discussions.

It is not unusual for journalists to agree to off-the-record sessions with prominent politicians, including President Obama, as a way to gain insights and develop relationships.

But after details of Mr. Trump’s hectoring leaked on Monday in The New York Post, it seemed the meeting was being used as a political prop, especially after Trump-friendly news outlets trumpeted the session as a take-no-prisoners move by a brave president-elect.

“Trump Slams Media Elite, Face to Face,” blared the Drudge Report. “Trump Eats Press,” wrote Breitbart News.

Those curious to hear more of what the president-elect had to say at the closed-door session were out of luck: Although more than two dozen prominent journalists attended, many declined to comment because they had agreed to keep the proceedings off the record.

Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to Mr. Trump, described the meeting in more tempered terms. “It was very cordial, very productive, very congenial,” Ms. Conway told reporters at Trump Tower. “It was also very candid and very honest.”

“From my own perspective,” she added, “it’s great to hit the reset button.”

Still, the encounter crystallized concerns that Mr. Trump, emboldened by his victory, may refuse to abide the traditional dynamic of a president and the journalists who cover him, a naturally adversarial relationship that is nevertheless based on some level of mutual trust.

Some media critics questioned why the television networks, which granted Mr. Trump hundreds of hours of free exposure during the campaign, would agree to Monday’s terms. “They learned *nothing* over past 18 months of covering Trump,” tweeted Erik Wemple of The Washington Post.

Television is of particular interest to Mr. Trump, who is a keen watcher of morning shows and this past weekend tweeted his displeasure at being mocked on an episode of “Saturday Night Live.”

Coverage of Mr. Trump increased ratings and revenue at news networks, even as some executives conceded that, early in the race, the president-elect was granted too much free exposure. By the end of the campaign, Mr. Trump seemed to turn on certain networks and television journalists, in particular CNN, prompting supporters to chant anti-media slogans.

Two people briefed on Monday’s meeting said that Mr. Trump seemed well versed in the networks’ ratings increase during the election and did not hesitate to bring the subject up.

Actually the media was very kind of him.  If they had actually had some nads they would have called him out on his lies and Hillary would be the president elect.

Megyn Kelly was right, all the media did was feed him softball questions for the past year and a half.

Today the Christmas season begins



One month from today is Christmas and I would like to make a humble request.

To all the people who supported Donald Trump and Trump himself.  Be kind to EVERYONE.

This is the holiday season.  Remember the reason for this season.  Jesus would never say fuck you.

No reason to rub it in like this jerk:






Thursday, November 24, 2016

An annual Thanksgiving tradition!

Happy Thanksgiving to all readers of this blog.

When I was blogging on Sarah Palin has a serpent's heart I always posted the infamous Sarah Palin turkey pardon video.  I am continuing the tradition on this new blog as well so enjoy!


Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Sarah Palin is not being considered for the Cabinet


From The New York Post

Sarah Palin’s isn’t in the running for a cabinet job in the Trump administration — at least as far as the senior adviser to his transition team is aware.

“I know that they’re close and that she’s been a great, loyal friend and adviser to him throughout the campaign, but I haven’t seen her as part of the cabinet mix,” Kellyanne Conway told Fox News’ “The Kelly File” on Monday night.

Conway quickly added: “But that doesn’t mean that she’s not.”

Either way, Conway suggested, the former vice presidential candidate’s voice would be heard.

“Look, we’re going to take the counsel of many different people, whether you have a official position or not. your opinion and your advice — this guy is a world class listener and learner,” she told Kelly.

“He’s in command and control but he really does take counsel from many different people,” the former campaign manager added.

Palin endorsed Donald Trump in Iowa before the first votes were cast in the Republican primary.

Almost immediately, Trump said Palin would “certainly” play a role in his administration.

“I haven’t discussed it with her. No, I haven’t discussed anything with her about what she’d do, but she’s somebody I really like and I respect. And certainly, she could play a position if she wanted to,” Trump said in a Jan. 20, 2016 interview with NBC’s “Today.”

Trump is dumb but he is not that dumb.  He knows Sarah is lazy, stupid, and a quitter and he hates all three of those traits.

In regards to the picture above, they should have worded it "Tramp and the Trump."  And by the way the visual of them making love makes me throw up in my mouth.  A lot.

Michelle Obama's designer will not dress Melania Trump



From The Grio

Sophie Theallet, who designed for Michelle Obama, is refusing to ever work with Melania Trump, and she’s calling on other designers to do the same.

In an open letter, Theallet said that her brand “will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady.”

She cited the “rhetoric of racism, sexism and xenophobia” that followed Donald Trump’s campaign and noted that her “bottom line is not just about money.”

 “As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom and respect for all lifestyles, I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady,” she wrote in Thursday.

“The rhetoric of racism, sexism and xenophobia unleashed by her husband’s presidential campaign are incompatible with the shared values we live by,” she continued, adding, “I encourage my fellow designers to do the same. Integrity is our only true currency.”

She also described working with Michelle Obama as “a highlight and an honor.”

“She has contributed to having our name recognized and respected worldwide. Her values, actions and grace have always resonated deeply within me,” she said.

Good for Sophie!  Guess Melania will have to go back to wearing this:


Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Hillary Clinton now has 1.7 million more votes than The Donald. That is a mandate!

From The Inquisitir

The publication notes that the 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker by The Cook Political Report shows constantly updated figures that track exactly how many votes Trump received versus Hillary Clinton, seeing as though there was controversy over which candidate actually won the popular vote. According to the tracker, Clinton received 63,541,056 votes, while Trump received 61,864,015 votes — as of this writing. That means Clinton got 1,677,041 — or 1.7 million — more votes in the popular vote count than her opponent. The tracker also breaks down the amount of popular votes for Clinton and Trump by state — as well as by swing state.

And the vote counting continues.

I know abolishing The Electoral College isn't going to happen anytime soon but I vote the Electoral college voters take note.  Donald Trump sucks.


The Donald is already creating conflicts of interest

From NBC

How Trump's business presents huge conflicts of interest

During the general election, Donald Trump railed against the Clinton Foundation, accusing it of being a "pay for play" scheme -- alleging that donors gave money to the charity for access and special favors. "It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history," Trump said back in August. "What they were doing during Crooked Hillary's time as Secretary of State was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It must be shut down immediately." But doesn't that exact-same line of argument apply to Trump and his business interests now that he's president-elect? Consider:

The Washington Post reports how foreign diplomats are now staying at Trump's DC hotel as a way to curry favor with the new administration. "'Why wouldn't I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, "I love your new hotel!" Isn't it rude to come to his city and say, "I am staying at your competitor?"' said one Asian diplomat."
The New York Times notes how Trump's Indian business partners met with him in New York last week. "In a telephone interview, Atul Chordia, one of the developers who met last week with Mr. Trump, played down the appointment as a 'two-minute' congratulatory conversation in which no business was transacted and no new projects were discussed. But newspapers in India reported it as a business meeting, illustrated with a photograph of the beaming real estate executives — Atul Chordia, Sagar Chordia and Kalpesh Mehta — flanking the future president, and indicated that the builders and Mr. Trump's organization are planning further collaborative real estate projects."
And as we mentioned on Friday, daughter Ivanka Trump -- who is likely to help run Trump's business empire -- sat in on a meeting Thursday with Japan's prime minister.
Priebus: "We're looking at this right now"

Asked about these potential conflicts of interest, incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said on "Meet the Press" yesterday: "We're looking at this right now Chuck, as well. And like, like I said before, we're going to make sure that no matter what decisions are made, that they're going to be run through counsel. And as you know, there's a White House Counsel's office that will be there, that will be issuing opinions and these matters will all be dealt with, they'll all be dealt with accordingly." But if the Clinton Foundation was problematic because it was seen as a way to curry favor with a then-secretary of state and possible president, and if the GOP's call was to shut it down "immediately," then how is Trump's business any different? And why shouldn't immediate action be taken to deal with it? As the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page recommended last week, the only real solution is for Trump to liquidate his stake in his company. "Millions of Americans have put their trust in Mr. Trump to succeed as President and improve their lives, not treat this as a four-year hiatus from his business. The presidential stakes are too high for Mr. Trump to let his family business become a daily political target."

Remember Trump accused Hillary of "Pay to Play".  Hypocrite that he is.

How did Jared Kushner get into Harvard?

From Propublica

I would like to express my gratitude to Jared Kushner for reviving interest in my 2006 book, “The Price of Admission.” I have never met or spoken with him, and it’s rare in this life to find such a selfless benefactor. Of course, I doubt he became Donald Trump’s son-in-law and consigliere merely to boost my lagging sales, but still, I’m thankful.

My book exposed a grubby secret of American higher education: that the rich buy their under-achieving children’s way into elite universities with massive, tax-deductible donations. It reported that New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner had pledged $2.5 million to Harvard University in 1998, not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League school. At the time, Harvard accepted about one of every nine applicants. (Nowadays, it only takes one out of twenty.)

I also quoted administrators at Jared’s high school, who described him as a less than stellar student and expressed dismay at Harvard’s decision.

“There was no way anybody in the administrative office of the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard,” a former official at The Frisch School in Paramus, New Jersey, told me. “His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it. We thought for sure, there was no way this was going to happen. Then, lo and behold, Jared was accepted. It was a little bit disappointing because there were at the time other kids we thought should really get in on the merits, and they did not.”

Risa Heller, a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, said in an email Thursday that “the allegation” that Charles Kushner’s gift to Harvard was related to Jared’s admission “is and always has been false.” His parents, Charles and Seryl Kushner, “are enormously generous and have donated over 100 million dollars to universities, hospitals and other charitable causes. Jared Kushner was an excellent student in high school and graduated from Harvard with honors.” (About 90 percent of Jared’s 2003 class at Harvard also graduated with honors.)

My Kushner discoveries were an offshoot of my research for a chapter on Harvard donors. Somebody had slipped me a document I had long coveted: the membership list of Harvard’s Committee on University Resources. The university wooed more than 400 of its biggest givers and most promising prospects by putting them on this committee and inviting them to campus periodically to be wined, dined, and subjected to lectures by eminent professors.

My idea was to figure out how many children of these corporate titans, oil barons, money managers, lawyers, high-tech consultants and old-money heirs had gone to Harvard. A disproportionate tally might suggest that the university eased its standards for the offspring of wealthy backers.

I began working through the list, poring over “Who’s Who in America” and Harvard class reunion reports for family information. Charles and Seryl Kushner were both on the committee. I had never heard of them, but their joint presence struck me as a sign that Harvard’s fundraising machine held the couple in especially fond regard.

The clips showed that Charles Kushner’s empire encompassed 25,000 New Jersey apartments, along with extensive office, industrial and retail space and undeveloped land. Unlike most of his fellow committee members, though, Kushner was not a Harvard man. He had graduated from New York University. This eliminated the sentimental tug of the alma mater as a reason for him to give to Harvard, leaving another likely explanation: his children.

Sure enough, his sons Jared and Joshua had both enrolled there.

Charles Kushner differed from his peers on the committee in another way; he had a criminal record. Five years after Jared entered Harvard, the elder Kushner pleaded guilty in 2004 to tax violations, illegal campaign donations, and retaliating against a witness. (As it happens, the prosecutor in the case was Chris Christie, recently ousted as the head of Trump’s transition team.) Charles Kushner had hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, who was cooperating with federal authorities. Kushner then had a videotape of the tryst sent to his sister. He was sentenced to two years in federal prison.

I completed my analysis, which justified my hunch. Of the 400-plus tycoons on Harvard’s list — which included people who were childless or too young to have college-age offspring — more than half had sent at least one child to the university.

I also decided that the Kushner-Harvard relationship deserved special attention. Although the university often heralded big gifts in press releases or a bulletin called — in a classic example of fundraising wit, “Re:sources” — a search of these outlets came up empty. Harvard didn’t seem eager to be publicly associated with Charles Kushner.

While looking into Kushner’s taxes, though, federal authorities had subpoenaed records of his charitable giving. I learned that in 1998, when Jared was attending The Frisch School and starting to look at colleges, his father had pledged $2.5 million to Harvard, to be paid in annual installments of $250,000. Charles Kushner also visited Neil Rudenstine, then Harvard president, and discussed funding a scholarship program for low- and middle-income students.

I phoned a Harvard official, with whom I was on friendly terms. First I asked whether the gift played any role in Jared’s admission. “You know we don’t comment on individual applicants,” he said. When I pressed further, he hung up. We haven’t spoken since.

At Harvard, Jared Kushner majored in government. Now the 35-year-old is poised to become the power behind the presidency. What he plans to do, and in what direction he and his father-in-law will lead the country, are far more important than his high school grades.

Yes buying your way into good schools.  The Trump way.  It's a tradition in the Bush family as well.  Dumbya had medicore grades yet got into Yale.  It's a shame a poor person with a perfect ACT was denied admission because his parents weren't in bed with Harvard.

Monday, November 21, 2016

Melania and Barron Trump will not move to DC until after the school year is finished, if at all



It has been revealed that Melania and Barron will remain in NYC while The Donald moves to the White House in January.  The reasoning for this is so Barron will not have to change schools.

I smell bullshit on this.

There is no reason why Barron can't change schools in the middle of the year.  Malia and Sasha Obama did it.  Amy Carter did it.  Unless there is something wrong with Barron.

Like autism.

There is absolutely no shame in being autistic.  If Barron is I don't know why The Donald has to keep it quiet.  We have no confirmation that Barron is autistic but he has exhibited traits of being on the spectrum.

The Donald has ranted about vaccines and says he knows first hand how vaccines cause autism in children.  Could he be talking about Barron or  maybe one of his grandchildren?

Men over 50 and use Viagra have a higher chance of fathering autistic children.  So do women who have their labor induced.  This could be why The Donald refuses to release his medical records.  He suffers from erectile dysfunction and took Viagra to get it up.

Another reason is not all is well in Trumpland between Melanoma and The Donald.  Wouldn't be surprised since The Donald bragged about grabbing pussy while Melania was prego,

Last reason is Melanoma knows he will be impeached, so why move there for such a short time?


The Donald settled his case regarding Trump University


From The NY Times

Donald J. Trump has reversed course and agreed on Friday to pay $25 million to settle a series of lawsuits stemming from his defunct for-profit education venture, Trump University, finally putting to rest fraud allegations by former students, which have dogged him for years and hampered his presidential campaign.

The settlement was announced by the New York attorney general just 10 days before one of the cases, a federal class-action lawsuit in San Diego, was set to be heard by a jury. The deal averts a potentially embarrassing and highly unusual predicament: a president-elect on trial, and possibly even taking the stand in his own defense, while scrambling to build his incoming administration.

It was a remarkable concession from a real estate mogul who derides legal settlements and has mocked fellow businessmen who agree to them.

But the allegations in the case were highly unpleasant for Mr. Trump: Students paid up to $35,000 in tuition for a programs that, according to the testimony of former Trump University employees, used high-pressure sales tactics and employed unqualified instructors.

The agreement wraps together the outstanding Trump University litigation, including two federal class-action cases in San Diego, and a separate lawsuit by Eric T. Schneiderman, the New York attorney general. The complaints alleged that students were cheated out of thousands of dollars in tuition through deceptive claims about what they would learn and high-pressure sales tactics.

“I am pleased that under the terms of this settlement, every victim will receive restitution and that Donald Trump will pay up to $1 million in penalties to the State of New York for violating state education laws,” Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement. “The victims of Trump University have waited years for today’s result, and I am pleased that their patience — and persistence — will be rewarded by this $25 million settlement.”

The settlement is a significant reversal from Mr. Trump, who had steadfastly rejected the allegations and vowed to fight the lawsuits, asserting that students filled out evaluations showing they were mostly happy with what they had learned in seminars. When political opponents pressed him on the claims during the campaign, Mr. Trump doubled down, saying he would eventually reopen Trump University.

“It’s something I could have settled many times,” Mr. Trump said during a debate in February. “I could settle it right now for very little money, but I don’t want to do it out of principle.”

He added, “The people that took the course all signed — most — many — many signed report cards saying it was fantastic, it was wonderful, it was beautiful.”

But the position of Mr. Trump and his legal team appeared to soften soon after his election victory on Nov. 8. At a hearing last week, Daniel Petrocelli, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, expressed interest in moving toward a settlement. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump’s lawyers were seeking to delay the trial in one of the California cases until after his inauguration on Jan. 20, while also requesting that he be allowed to testify on video.

At a hearing on the case in San Diego on Friday, Mr. Petrocelli said Mr. Trump had settled the case “without an acknowledgment of fault or liability.”

The judge overseeing the two California cases, Gonzalo Curiel, was thrust into the limelight of the campaign in May when Mr. Trump spent several minutes at a rally denouncing the judge’s decisions in the case, calling him a “hater” and questioning his impartiality because of his Mexican heritage.

After he faced days of criticism for his remarks on the judge, Mr. Trump released a statement saying his words had been “misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage.” He also asserted that he was justified in questioning the fairness of his trial, given various rulings in the case that went against him. Still, he concluded, “we will win this case!”

Judge Curiel said in court Friday that he hoped that the settlement agreement — and the end of the presidential campaign — would begin “a healing process that this country very sorely needs.”

Under the agreement, Mr. Trump will pay $21 million to settle the two California class-action suits and $4 million to settle with the New York attorney general. The lawyers for the plaintiffs waived their attorneys’ fees. The deal still has to be approved in court, which could take months.

About 7,000 students will share in the settlement, according to their lawyers. The customers will be eligible to recoup at least half of what they spent at Trump University, and some could receive a full refund, the lawyers said.

Even before he was in the throes of his presidential bid, Mr. Trump began mounting a vigorous public defense of himself and Trump University. A website, 98percentapproval.com, touted high marks it received from students. A New York Times report in March, though, showed how some students recalled being pressured to give positive reviews.

Trump University, which operated from 2004 to 2010, included free introductory seminars across the country, focusing largely on real estate investing and learning Mr. Trump’s secrets. Students could then purchase more expensive packages costing up to $35,000.

Documents made public through the litigation revealed that some former Trump University managers had given testimony about its unscrupulous and exploitative business practices. One sales executive testified that the operation was “a facade, a total lie.” Another manager called it a “fraudulent scheme.”

Other records showed how Mr. Trump had overstated the depth of his involvement in the programs. Despite claims that Mr. Trump had handpicked instructors, he acknowledged in testimony that he had not.

In addition to the financial rewards, the conclusion of the Trump University cases brings vindication to former students, mostly ordinary people across the country who felt they had been robbed of their savings by Mr. Trump, a successful businessman they respected and admired.

One student, Jeffrey Tufenkian, who enrolled with his wife to pursue a real estate career, told The New York Times in 2011 that the experience “was almost completely worthless.”

“Trump University has no interest in taking care of its customers,” said Mr. Tufenkian, who paid $35,000 for a “Gold Elite” class, which he said at the time wiped out much of his savings.

Alan Garten, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, said Friday that his side was “pleased” with the settlement.

“While we have no doubt that Trump University would have prevailed at trial based on the merits of this case, resolution of these matters allows President-elect Trump to devote his full attention to the important issues facing our great nation,” he said in a statement.

The Donald once said "I never settle"  Well now we all have proof that is bullshit.  I'm sure he also settled his case with his rape victim too.

Hey Alan Garten make sure The Donald pays you, or you might have to settle with him too.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

The Donald cannot be thin skinned if he is to be POTUS

From Yahoo

Brandon Victor Dixon addresses Vice President-elect Mike Pence. (Screenshot: Twitter/’Hamilton’)
President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday criticized the cast of ‘Hamilton’ for confronting the incoming vice president the night before.

“Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing,” Trump tweeted. “This should not happen!”

Trump also demanded an apology:


But it’s up for debate how rude the cast actually was to Vice President-elect Mike Pence on Friday night. When the former Indiana governor took his seat at the critically-acclaimed Broadway show, the audience roundly booed him. The cast waited until after the show to deliver a message.

“Vice President-elect Pence, I see you walking out but I hope you will hear us, just a few more moments. There’s nothing to boo here, ladies and gentlemen,” actor Brandon Victor Dixon said.

He then read a statement reportedly drafted by Lin-Manuel Miranda, the creator of “Hamilton,” with input from cast members. The statement emphasized the diversity of the show’s actors and their broad concerns about the Trump administration:

“Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us here at ‘Hamilton: An American Musical’ — we really do. We sir — we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values, and to work on behalf of all of us. All of us. Again, we truly thank you for sharing in this show, this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men and women of different colors, creeds and orientations.”

After Trump’s tweets, Dixon disputed Trump’s claim that he had “harassed” Pence.

Many of Pence’s defenders have directed their criticism at the audience who booed the vice president-elect rather than the cast. On Twitter, Trump’s former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said Pence “deserves respect and a peaceful night out with his nephew and daughter.”


Sorry The Donald and Pence, when you steal an election expect to get booed.  You are going to be the most powerful men in the world after January 20.  Deal with the criticism, you deserve all the shit that will be thrown your way.

Happy Birthday to VP Joe Biden!


Joe was born on this day back in 1942.

Mr Vice President thank you for the past eight years.  Wish we could have four more years of you.  You have more class in your fingernail than your successor Mike Pence has in his entire body.  God bless you sir.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Yes the election was rigged

From Raw Story

Media exit polls in last Tuesday’s election suggested Democrats were going to win the White House and the Senate, yet the reported vote counts brought a GOP landslide. While theories abound about what happened, election integrity activists say the exit poll descrepancy underscores the need for a far more transparent and accountable process. AlterNet’s Steven Rosenfeld interviewed Jonathan Simon, a longtime exit poll sleuth and author of Code Red: Computerized Election Theft and the New American Century. Simon explains why exit polls are a critical clue in the breakdown of the voting process.
Steven Rosenfeld: Let’s start by telling people about your involvement with election integrity and tracking exit polls.
Jonathan Simon: I’ve been working in this field which we call election forensics for about 15 years, since the 2000 election. Certainly things kicked in with the 2004 election and the exit polls there. I was actually the person who downloaded the exit polls that were left up on the CNN website which then made it possible to compare the unadjusted exit polls—and we can explain that in a bit—but comparing the exit polls with the vote counts and show through all those disparities that there was reason to suspect possibly manipulation of the vote counts.
It has deep roots and basically looking at every election since has found varying, but at the same time, fairly pervasive patterns of what we call the “red shift” and where the exit polls are to the west of the vote counts. We track that, we record it and we attempt to analyze it and get some sort of handle on what has caused it as a phenomenon. Then we look at all sorts of forensic data, accumulative vote share, tables and hand counts where we can find them. I’ve always been particularly conscientious about trying to take whatever baseline we’re using and validate that baseline, so that if we have an exit poll for instance, we try to make sure something that has been skewed by over-sampling one party or over-sampling people of color or something to that effect and validate it by that.
We try as carefully as we can. I’ve been doing this pretty steadily now for the last 15 years along with some of my colleagues, and I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a lot of smoke there and there’s a lot of probative value to this work, but that bringing it forth as ironclad proof is very problematic. So we’re stuck at a place where I pivoted to is looking at the risk involved in having a computerized, privatized, unobservable vote counting system and just taking on faith that that system is not being manipulated when there is such a obvious vulnerability (on which the experts strongly agree) of the system to malfeasance and manipulation. That is where I’ve tended to go, is to look at that risk rather than screaming fraud from the rooftops and claiming proof.

SR: Let’s go through this piece by piece, because it’s a lot for people to really understand. You get the raw state-by-state exit polls that are commissioned by a big consortium of national media organizations. What did you find this year, that happened this week? What do you see in the raw data?
JS: Of course, we don’t get the raw data. The raw data would be… we have three definitions here. There’s raw data, which is the actual questionnaires and the simple numerical toning up of answers on the questionnaire. That is never publicly released. It’s if you want to characterize it as such, it’s what’s inside the sausage of exit polls, and we are not privileged to see that. I’ve had one opportunity in my life through an inside source to actually look at some of the raw data, but that’s a very rare thing. It’s not generally accessible to the public. Many of us have clamored for the public release of that raw data, certainly in the aftermath of the 2004 election and have been denied it.
Then there is the weighted exit poll data and that’s what the exit pollsters put out as soon as the polls close. This has been demographically weighted to their best approximation of what the electorate looked like and it is very valuable information. That’s what I was able to download in 2004 and that’s what I was able to download in many of the elections since, and that’s what I was able to download this Tuesday.
Then you have adjusted exit polls and what happens is they take the vote counts as they come in and they use the term as the art of “forcing,” they force the exit polls to [be] congruent with that vote count data so that by the end of the night or by the next morning when you have your final vote counts and final exit polls the exit polls and the vote counts will match, but that’s only because in essence they’ve been forced to match the vote counts.

SRI’m looking at the New York Times website right now, at its election 2016 exit polls interactive. What are the totals then that I’m seeing?
JS: I’m not looking at the New York Times. I’ve pulled these off of CNN and I’m also looking at MSNBC. Because the firm that does this, Edison, contracts with the consortium of major networks and then has some lesser clients such as the New York Times. When I say lessor, they’re still very major clients, they just don’t have the prime membership that these five networks and the AP have, but all these major clients get the same feed of weighted exit poll data.
What you’re probably looking at now would be adjusted exit polls and they’re very close to, if not congruent with the vote counts. But if you had looked up Tuesday night, for instance, if a poll closed at 7pm Eastern Time and you had gone online to a network site at 7:01pm Eastern Time, what you would have seen at that point was a weighted poll that had not yet been adjusted to match the vote counts. They would tell you the number of respondents. They’d give you all the cross tabs, by which I mean broken down by gender, age, income, party affiliation, usually 30 to 40, sometimes 50 questions … Pretty detailed stuff that indicated how each subgroup of the polled population had answered these various questions.
Some of those questions are demographic questions: What is your race? What is your income level? What party do you identify with? Who did you vote for in the last election? etc., etc. … Then there are the current choice questions. Who did you just vote for this evening and/or this afternoon? Those are all presented in sort of a scroll fashion. You can pull that up on all these websites.
However, they will change over time as the vote counts come in. That’s why we screen-capture these initial public postings, because that contains the purest information in terms of not relying on the vote counts and if we’re approaching this with a certain amount of suspicion of the vote counts we’re trying to verify or validate the vote counts we want exit polls that are independent as possible from the actual vote count data, which then becomes blended in as the evening goes on from the time the polls close until whenever the final vote counts are available. That vote count data becomes blended in with the exit poll algorithm and gradually pulls the exit polls in congruence with the vote counts, at which point they’re used for academic analysis of demographics, but they’re not anymore used for validating the vote counts.
SR: Tell me again what the ‘red shift’ is and how you saw this shift again this year.
JS: The red shift is a term that I coined back in 2004 after the Bush-Kerry election, because the familiar term the “red shift” when we mean astronomy, that’s what brought it to my mind. But the reason it’s called the red shift is that it was very directional in that election where you saw vote counts coming out more in favor of Bush, more in favor of Republican candidates. Since Republican by that time had been designated red as in red states and blue states, that’s how it got the moniker the red shift.
What we found from that point forward is that it’s almost a singularity, very rare, that we find any significant blue shift anywhere. When we look at exit polls and vote counts, what we’re almost always seeing are vote counts that come out more in favor of the Republican candidate than the exit polls and in the case of intraparty nomination battles, more in favor of the candidate that is, I guess you’d have to say, to the right of their opponent.
For instance, in the 2016 primaries, a massive shift of exit polls state after state after state, in favor of Hillary Clinton. The vote counts were more in favor of Clinton than the exit polls, which were more in favor of Bernie Sanders. We saw a very consistent pattern of that.
In this past Tuesday, again we saw a very consistent pattern of exit polls that were more in favor of Hillary Clinton, more in favor of Democratic senatorial candidates and then vote counts were shifted from the exit polls to the right towards Donald Trump, towards the Republican senate candidates. Those are the figures that I pulled down and did a very basic analysis of. You have a column of numbers of state by state showing the degree of that shift and we’ll eventually do that for the national vote for the House of Representatives as well.
SR: When you see this discrepancy, without being overly simplistic, the question becomes, why is it there and what caused it? You’ve been through this four or five times and not even counting the midterm elections. What do you think is really going on when you see this general one-way shifting? Does it mean the polling is wrong? Does it mean the voting machinery is being tampered with? Does it mean both? How do you explain or understand this?
JS: What it means to me is that neither system is self validating. Neither system can be trusted. If you look at accounting, you do double entry accounting. I’m not an accountant so my terminology may be off, but you basically audit by checking one column of numbers against another column of numbers. If they disagree, you know something is wrong somewhere. There is some arithmetical mistake, some failure of entry, possibly fraud … you don’t know. You just know that if two things that are pretty much supposed to agree had disagreed, there’s a problem somewhere. I can rule out mathematically and scientifically, by this time, errors due to random chance. Errors due to random chance, sampling errors, what we call margin of error issues, would not be expressing themselves so consistently in one direction. They’d be going in both directions and they’d be much smaller.
If you take a mathematical sample of a whole … if you take a blood draw in a person and you look at 1,000 or so blood cells as represented in of all their millions of blood cells, that’s guaranteed to be a random sample. It’s not like all the bad blood cells hide out in a single vein or something. From that, you get a very clear and crisp mathematical margin of error and it tells you how likely you are to be within X number of percent about what the truth is about the entire target that you’re looking at of the blood of the whole body. That’s how you can make a diagnosis based on a pinprick.
In exit polling it’s not that simple. In exit polling you have sampling that is not purely mathematically random. First of all, it’s done in clusters because it would be an impractical matter to catch people all over the state randomly coming out at the polls. You’d have to have a person at each precinct, etc. We’re not even talking about early voting and absentee voting. Let’s just leave that out of the equation and assume everybody votes on election day. You’d still have to go to thousands of precincts. It would be prohibitively expensive. What they do instead, and I was a pollster for a couple of years quite long ago, but the methods haven’t changed that much, you basically cluster sample. You pick 20 or 30 precincts that are representative politically and demographically of the whole state and those are the precincts in which you do all your interviews.
That adds mathematically about a 30 percent increase to the margin of error, to the inaccuracy if you want to call that of the poll. It’s certainly a tolerable change or loss of accuracy that can be factored in mathematically, but the real problems come up in exit polling with selection bias, response bias, the possibility of people lying to the pollster, etc. These are the things that have been seized on by those who have debunked the exit polls and said they’re worthless. They’re not worthless and at the same time they’re not best evidence. Best evidence would be the voter marked paper ballots. Best evidence would be the memory cards in the computers and what program is actually determining how these votes are counted, what the code is on those memory cards.
Exit polls are indirect. They’re statistical evidence and they have flaws that are difficult to quantify. When you see pervasive patterns where it is substantial well beyond the margin of error repeatedly in the same direction, in particular when you’ve been able to independently validate the demographics of the exit poll sample. This is the work that I did. It’s in my book, Code Red: Computerized Election Theft in the New American Century.
SR: So this is a persuasive and recurring pattern and not just in this week’s vote?
JS: In the 2016 primary, we compared the performance of the exit polls in the Republican primaries with the performance of the exit poll in the Democratic primaries. There was a glaring difference. I call these “second order comparatives.” Second order comparatives are very important because you’re essentially validating your baseline by doing that. If you’re conscientious about election forensics, that’s the work that you try to do. Does it add up to ironclad proof? No, but it’s a very consistent pattern that is absolutely probative enough that it says, Okay, we want to now take a look at the other system and how the votes are being counted. When you look at that other system and how the votes are being counted, your hair stands on end because it’s so vulnerable to not just outsider hacking, but to insider manipulation as well.
There are certainly a lot of anecdotal instances of this. For instance, just in this particular election, they bought machines in Ohio that had a feature in them that was basically capable of self auditing. It was a security feature. The Republican secretary of state of Ohio allowed the counties to switch off that feature. You have to ask why. You bought it and it had that feature. They said, Well, it would create chaos. You look at things like that and say hmm. You scratch your head and say, what is going on here? What may be happening in that darkness of cyberspace that the exit polls are giving us a pretty good hint about, but the vote counting system itself completely conceals?
SR: Let’s talk about what you found this week. I’m looking at your 2016 presidential chart. I’m looking at North Carolina for example, where it says the exit poll margin was 2.1% ahead for Clinton, but the final vote count showed Trump with a 3.8% lead. You have similar 4.4% Clinton lead in Pennsylvania but then losing by 1.2% to Trump, a 5.6% shift. You have Florida where she was ahead in exit polls by 1.3% and ends up losing by 1.3%, a 2.6% shift.
Is there any reason you can point to as to why you are seeing that in so many different states?
JS: First of all, let me preface it that what they’ve done since 2004 is exit poll fewer and fewer states. I think there were about 30 states exit polled this time, 20 states were left out because they were considered to be locks, non-competitive. What that does for a forensic standpoint is that it cuts our baseline… It’s as if they had a certain limited amount of resources, and they decided to really plow it into getting larger sample sizes in states that they knew were going to be competitive and possibly controversial.
North Carolina was one of those. I believe it had the largest sample size in the country. It was almost 4,000 voters were sampled and the usual sample size in these state exit polls is somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 if they expect it to be competitive. That was basically a double sampling that reduces the mathematical margin of error, but it also improves in a less quantifiable way the accuracy of the poll. That 5.9% red shift from Clinton to Trump is way outside the margin of error for that poll and therefore very unlikely to occur by chance. What might have made it happen? People could’ve been lying to the exit pollster. The exit pollster could’ve been all young urban college kids and the Trump voters might have been reluctant to comply with their requests. There might have been refusals from Trump voters.
Now Edison usually tries to get these things right and one of the ways they try to get it right is through some expensive training and they try to get a fairly represented sample of polling interviewers. The polls by the way are confidential. They’re not verbal interviews. You’re just handed a clipboard with a poll on it. It’s not as intimate as some people would believe. There’s less of an incentive to lie because it’s basically confidential. You fold your polling sheet up and you put it in the box or you hand it back to the interviewer to put it into a grab bag. There’s no name on it. There is nothing that associates you with it. The incentive to lie isn’t particularly high. We’ve always dealt with the—is there a reluctant [George W.] Bush responder going on here, is there a shy Trump voter? We don’t know. These are possibilities, but we’ve seen the same kind of exit poll pattern in intraparty contests, we’ve seen it year after year, we’ve seen it at the Senate races, at the House exit poll. It transcends an individual race like this where there was so much intensity.
If you want to sleep well at night, which I also prefer to denial, and you want to say to yourself, Yeah, it must have been people just lying to the exit pollsters and I’m not going to worry about it, that’s fine. What you’re missing at that point is the fact that if you challenge me to say, How do you know these exit polls are valid? I would turn right around and challenge you and say, How do you know the vote counts are valid?
The fact is, and this is cold hard fact, neither of us can prove our case. That is the problem. We have an unobservable system that cannot answer the challenge that it might be subject to manipulation. It can’t demonstrate that it is not rigged. Exit polls are just a tool that we use to look at it and say, Well folks, there might be something to dig deeper into here. The problem is virtually never is anyone allowed to dig deeper. We have optical scanner equipment all over this country right now that have the voter marked ballots that drop through the optical-scan reader device and sit in their cabinet below. Those voter marked ballots need to be saved 22 months in theory, although they’ve been destroyed early, in fact, in many cases, especially if when there was an investigation going on in Ohio.
You have these voter marked ballots that would have probably not been destroyed within two days of the election and they’re there. They theoretically could be exhumed and examined. You could go machine by machine, you could look at them in public and you could compare them with machine counts, then you could reconcile those machine counts with the central tabulator. County counts, and state counts … You could say, Yes, this was a valid election or no, this was not a valid election. We had a problem. Might have been fraud, might have been a glitch, we don’t know. The fact is, nobody has access to those ballots. They are corporate property. They are off limits to public inspection. It might as well, in the 99.9% of cases, be a paperless touchscreen that has no record whatsoever.
The fact is, we are denied, when I saw we, the candidates, the public, very often election administrators, by the rules of their states, are denied access to the actual hard evidence we call it, that would allow a determination of whether the election has been accurately counted or perhaps has been illegitimately counted and manipulated. As a matter of fact, in quite a few states and usually under Republican control, but the Democrats have not been tremendously cooperative about this either. The trend has been for ballots to be removed from public record status so that they are no longer susceptible to four-year requests and similar public information requests, Freedom of Information Act requests. They are getting less transparent, not more so.
SR: Where do we stand today? You have your exit poll analysis that says something is not right here. We look at the results. We don’t have access to the ballots. We really don’t have meaningful audit or recounting possibilities. People are just left feeling very upset and powerless and then the days pass and attention goes elsewhere and the election machinery and the polling machinery largely remains the same.
Am I wrong? Am I missing something?
JS: I couldn’t have stated that better. There was a Supreme Court case famously where it had to do with pregnancy and it stood for mootness; when cases became moot because they couldn’t be heard in time so they had to do either abortion or pregnancy. By the time it came up through the channels, the time had passed and the woman was no longer pregnant and the issue was moot.
In a similar kind of way we go through these cycles. Interest heightens right before the election. If there is high suspicion of fraud, which sometimes as there sometimes are. If in presidential elections, 2004 obviously being the major one and then this one, there is a flurry of interest, a kind of window of opportunity, but the public attention span and the media attention span in particular is very short. We live in a sound-bite society. There’s always other stuff to attend to. People are busy. People are working hard. By and large, you couldn’t find a subject that is less sexy than election forensics. The Kardashians are a lot sexier as is the football games on Sunday. So yes, it passes briefly in front of the public eye. There’s a lot of stirring about it and then it dies out and it’s basically left to us hardcore election integrity advocates. This is catastrophic. This is tragic. What we’re left with is a system that was accepted more or less without real proof.
If that’s what democracy is worth to us, then we deserve what we get. Democracy requires support. It requires citizen support. It requires an investment of care and an investment of vigilance and an investment of participation more than deciding, Yeah, I’m going to vote or I’m not going to vote. It requires the fulfillment of a duty to be part of the public that counts and observe the counting of the votes so we don’t have the ludicrous situation where we hand our ballots to a magician who takes them behind a curtain, you hear them shred the ballots, comes out and tells you so-and-so won. This is what we’ve got now and it’s what we’ve accepted. We spend more money in two weeks in Iraq then would cost us for 30 years to hand-count our elections. This is surrealistic, this is absurd, but it’s the very strong inertial reality. Getting the energy up to change that reality, especially when that reality has worked well by definition for everybody who is sitting in office. They’re the people with the least incentive to look under the hood and say, Hey, we need to change this. It’s what put them in office.
You will rarely meet a politician or a journalist with a seat at or anywhere near the adult table who wants to rock this boat, who wants to pull the cover off of this thing, who wants to restore public sovereignty. One other point about that is that the musical Hamilton is popular now and Hamilton was notoriously an elitist. Somebody who really didn’t believe in full franchise as many of the founding fathers, of course. Women didn’t vote, blacks didn’t vote, etc. You had to have property to vote in certain states. There’s a strain of that elitism that pervades the highly educated classes that tend to fill the political offices and tend to fill the journalistic offices around this country. These are people with high education, high capabilities. They look out at the American people and rightly or wrongly, if I channel what they see, they see a mass of Kardashian following and football fanatic uninformed people.
That’s our public. That’s our sovereignty. That’s what they see from their perch. It’s very understandable in a way that they’re not all that excited about restoring the sovereignty of that group because they don’t really trust it. In their minds, [the] last people you’d want making decisions about whether to war with Iraq or Russia or do this or that deal politically are a bunch of people who come on, flip on the TV, tune on “Dancing with the Stars” and drink a couple of beers. There’s not a whole lot of belief in public sovereignty, right or wrong. As moronic as one might believe a good part of this public is, it’s really the experts who keep wandering into the minefield. The public knows more than they’re given credit for.
One of the things that’s going on in this election manifests through Bernie Sanders, manifests through Donald Trump, is a very widespread recognition of that reality, whether they’d call it exactly such or not, a recognition that we are not being listened to, we are not being heard, we are not being considered. So there is this huge populist uprising. Was there enough to give Donald Trump the victory? That remains to be seen and may never be seen, but it was certainly enough to give both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the kind of support that was shocking to the journalistic establishment and to the political establishment. They’re not being the elites that they are … and yet they are not advocating for having a vote counting system that accurately, publicly and verifiably translates the will of that public into leadership policy and direction. That’s in large part what’s led us into the place that we’re in today, November 10th.
SR: Thank you, this is very good. There’s a lot here. I hope people will take the time to understand that something is not right with both the exit polls or the vote count machinery, and at a deep systemic level there are questions that are not being answered. I respect the work you’ve done, as discouraging as its findings are.

You can also blame James Comey

The Donald will be able to go after his enemies legally

From Raw Story

Donald Trump will come into possession of some powerful tools to punish his opponents and demand obedience from his allies — and only Senate Republicans can limit his powers.

The infamously — and pettily — vengeful Trump could use U.S. regulatory agencies, which don’t always operate on the presumption of innocence like the criminal justice system, to muzzle the free press, stifle dissent and reward cronies, wrote Matt Yglesias in a Vox analysis.

 Media companies would likely censor themselves if Trump made an example of one of them, Yglesias warned — and he cited a couple of possible targets for such a vendetta.
AT&T is seeking permission from anti-trust authorities to acquire Time Warner, whose executives may fear the deal could be scuttled if Trump is angered over coverage on CNN, one of the media company’s holdings.

Or Trump could punish Jeff Bezos, who owns both the Washington Post and Amazon, for unfavorable reporting by pressing a Federal Trade Commission investigation of the online retailer’s predatory pricing.

 Independent media aren’t as vulnerable to regulatory threats, but they’re more vulnerable to harassing lawsuits filed by Trump himself or a business ally such as Peter Thiel — who funded the lawsuit that killed Gawker.

Even Facebook, which plays a larger role in disseminating news than it will admit, could shake up its algorithm to favor pro-Trump propaganda to stay in the good graces of U.S. trade negotiators or financial regulators.

“We are used to corruption in which the rich buy political favor,” Yglesias wrote. “What we need to learn to fear is corruption in which political favor becomes the primary driver of economic success.”
Online, Trump-supporting trolls viciously harass individual journalists with racist, misogynist and anti-Semitic threats, and by dumping their private information online.

 Most of those cyberbullies would probably never act on their threats, but Yglesias warned “it would only take the murder of a single opposition activist or journalist to chill dozens of others.”

“The risk is not that Trump becomes a dictator, but that civil society simply withers and dies,” Yglesias wrote.

He called on Senate Republicans to trust their initial misgivings about Trump and insist that his Cabinet picks have higher qualifications than loyalty to the president.

 “We cannot allow personal loyalty to Donald Trump to be the decisive factor in staffing the executive branch,” Yglesias wrote. “Personnel is policy, and if fealty to Trump determines the personnel, then fealty to Trump will also be the policy.”

A lot of dictators in history have done this....Hitler, Stalin, Hussein.  Punishing people who disagreed with them.

Friday, November 18, 2016

A rundown of some of the deplorables on Team Trump

Mike Pence-Indiana governor who hates gays so much he signed a law allowing discrimination against them.

Steve Bannon-head honcho or Breitbart is a certified racist who abused his wife

Jared Kushner-son in law of Trump who hates Chris Christie so much he is purging the transition team of any Christie associates.  Jared's father was prosecuted by Christie in 2004 on tax evasion.

Rudy Guliani-married three times, asked his 2nd wife for a divorce on TV, his kids hated him for a while.

Newt Gingrich-former SOTH who lead the witchunt against Bill Clinton, also married three times, served first wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital.

Chris Christie-Gov of New Jersey, center of Bridgegate scandal.

Reince Preibus-former chair of the RNC now Trump's Chief of Staff

Kris Kobach-KS Secretary of State who is advising Trump on immigration problems.

Ivanka Trump-daughter of Trump, refused to give her employees reasonable maternity leave, uses TV interviews to hawk jewelry.

Donald Trump Jr-son of Trump and a carbon copy of his dad

Eric Trump-see above.  Also likes to steal drinks from fast food places.

None of these people should be anywhere near the government.




Thursday, November 17, 2016

The Donald hasn't even taken office yet and already he has broken ethics rules



From Salon

Donald Trump may have vowed to “drain the swamp,” but so far his troubled transition team hasn’t even been able to follow his own ethical standards.

According to a Politico report Wednesday, at least eight members of Trump’s transition team have done work that contradicts the campaign’s “Code of Ethical Conduct,” which among other things required each individual on the potential transition team to “disqualify myself from involvement in any particular transition matter if I have engaged in regulated lobbying activities with respect to such matter, as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, within the previous 12 months.”

Politico specifically named Williams & Jensen chairman Steve Hart, who lobbied for Anthem, Brinks and Smithfield Foods but is now working to staff the Labor Department; Michael McKenna, who is a lobbyist at MWR Strategies for the power provider Southern Company and French utility Engie and is now in charge of the transition for the Energy Department; David Bernhardt, who lobbied for Westlands Water District and is now heading the Department of Interior transition; Jim Carter, who is leading the tax reform transition even though he’s lobbied on taxation issues up through September; Michael Catanzaro and Mike Ference, who are leading the energy independence transition despite having both lobbied on behalf of petroleum companies; Martin Whitmer, who is leading the transportation and infrastructure transition despite being a lobbyist for railroads, pavement, and utilities associations; and Michael Torrey, who is leading the Department of Agriculture transition despite also lobbying as recently as September on behalf of groups ranging from the American Beverage Association to Little Caesars and Dean Foods.

Trump’s flip-flopping here is especially notable given the emphasis he placed on “draining the swamp” of Washington corruption in the final month of his campaign.

“It is time to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.,” Trump’s campaign website proclaims. “That is why I am proposing a package of ethics reforms to make our government honest once again.

On top of that Ivanka Trump is also hawking the $180,000 bracelet she wore on 60 minutes.  Not only the Trumps are mentally retarded, they are morally retarded as well.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Donald Trump is acting so presidential



Since he has been "elected" president he has gone on Twitter twice and attacked the press.

He has also shirked the press corp twice as well.

Imagine what will happen once he is president and someone really criticizes him when he has the nuclear access codes.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Paul Ryan's plan to gut Medicare



From The Week

One of the things that separated Donald Trump from his primary competitors — and the rest of the Republican Party in general — was his left-leaning stance on social insurance. Tossing aside a whole generation of conservative agitprop about the "unsustainability" of these programs, he said he would preserve Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid during the campaign.

But Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is a hardcore true believer in movement conservatism, which has been champing at the bit to slash these programs basically since the moment they were implemented. This is an unprecedented opportunity to do so, and it looks like Ryan is going to seize it — and Trump might even go along with it. The people who voted for Trump because he seemed to be a route towards material security for the lower and middle classes got conned.

On Friday last week — a mere three days after the election — Ryan was asked in an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier about "entitlement reform." This is Washington code for cuts, and when coming from a hard-right ideologue like Ryan, it means very sharp cuts, if not outright repeal of programs. He said that ObamaCare is "failing" and would be repealed, and that since Medicare and Medicaid were significantly changed as part of ObamaCare, they would need changes as well.

Then followed a duplicitous word salad about costs:

What people don't realize is that Medicare is going broke, that Medicare is going to have price controls. Because of ObamaCare, Medicaid is in fiscal straits. So you have to deal with those issues if you're going to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Medicare has got some serious problems because of ObamaCare. Those things are part of our plan to replace Obamacare.

These are lies. Medicare already has price controls, and in fact ObamaCare probably improved the fiscal position of Medicare and Medicaid. Health care price inflation has been unprecedentedly low since its passage, likely because it contained many cost control measures which appear to be working pretty well. Therefore, repealing it would massively increase the fiscal problems with government health insurance, and bring back the predictions of long-term explosions in deficits.

But unlike Trump's constant and omnidirectional lying, Ryan's lies usually have some specific motivation behind them. In this case, it's obvious enough. He wants to create the perception of a funding crisis to justify cuts. The "Better Way" paper on health care the GOP released in June gives a vision of what they might do — from repealing the ObamaCare cost controls, to expanding the quasi-private Medicare Advantage plans, to destroying Medicare as a public program and replacing it with "premium supports." With a once-in-a-generation chance at tearing up the Great Society, Ryan is likely going to try to shoot for the moon and go for premium supports. (Ironically, this would have to be similar to the basic structure of ObamaCare to have even a prayer of preserving a functioning insurance market for the elderly.)

Now, when Social Security came up during the interview, Ryan punted, saying he wasn't going to address it. However, Zaid Jilani at The Intercept discovered that Trump's transition team is going to have a couple notorious Social Security privatizers on the part of the team overseeing the Social Security Administration. Such people have wanted to turn Social Security into a 401(k)-style program, not least because it would be a stupendous windfall for Wall Street swindlers.

That's not a guarantee that Trump will try to privatize the program, but it suggests either that he was lying when he said he would preserve the program, or his attention span is so flighty that he's not even noticing the movement conservatives who are sneaking in through the general party mechanisms. (If I had to guess, I'd put my money on the latter.) If Trump were really committed to protecting the program, there's no reason on Earth to put such people in charge.

By the end of 2017 there will be a lot of buyers remorse amongst the Trump supporters.  Donald Trump will surely sign any Medicare revisions into law.  Good going depolorables.