Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

The Official World Politics Thread

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckr...rand-jury-legal-fight-appears-mueller-related

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/24/mueller-investigation-grand-jury-roger-stone-friend-938572

Politico: Secret Grand Jury Legal Fight Appears Mueller Related

Through forensics work on the court docket for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and some eagle-eyed reporting at the D.C. federal courthouse, Politico has identified a secret grand jury court fight that appears to be related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

The “Grand Jury Subpoena” matter, as its called on the docket, appears to have originated from the court of U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, the chief judge in DC federal court, who has already heard other legal squabbles over whether certain witnesses must testify in front of Mueller’s grand jury.

Sometimes, like the fight over whether Paul Manafort’s attorney had to testify, the proceedings happen under seal — meaning the press and public can’t access them — and are later unsealed when the secrecy is no longer necessary. The challenge that Roger Stone’s aide Andrew Miller has brought to a grand jury subpoena started under seal but has since been allowed to spill into the public eye, with a November appellate court hearing on it expected to be open to the public.

The latest grand jury matter appears to have been appealed twice, the first time after a ruling from Howell on Sept. 19. An appeal was filed in front of the D.C. Circuit Sept. 24, but that appeal appears to have been denied on the basis of being premature.

The case’s proceedings in front of Howell remain under seal, but there’s a publicly viewable docket for it at the appeals court level, though none of the individual filings are accessible to the public and there’s no indication who the parties are.

One hint that it may be a Mueller-related issue that Politico picked up on is that appellate Judge Greg Katsas is not participating, per the docket for the first appeal. Before his appointment to the court, Katsas was a deputy White House counsel for President Trump and during his confirmation hearing, acknowledged he may have to recuse himself of Russia probe related matters.

Adding to Politico’s suspicions that it’s Mueller related is that one of its reporters spotted a man in the appeals court clerk’s office on the day of deadline for a filing in the secret case who asked the clerk for the special counsel’s most recent filing. He said, according to Politico, that he needed it for his law firm to write its response, but the man declined to identify himself when approached by Politico. Another filing was submitted in the sealed case later that day, according to Politico.

A appeals court hearing is set in the case for Dec. 14
Click to expand...
 
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/aryeh-lightstone-trump-official-undisclosed-work-elliott-broidy

Trump Official Did Undisclosed Work With Scandal-Plagued GOP Fundraiser


Meetings arranged for Elliott Broidy, a major Trump fundraiser and former Republican National Committee official, should have triggered foreign agent registration, experts say.

A current State Department official helped a top fundraiser for Donald Trump arrange meetings with U.S. senators and Angolan officials in early 2017, according to emails obtained by ProPublica. Neither the official nor the fundraiser registered as a foreign agent.

Aryeh Lightstone helped plan the January 2017 meetings with U.S. senators, high-ranking Angolan government officials and the Trump fundraiser Elliott Broidy, the emails show. Several months later, Lightstone was appointed by the Trump administration to a top position in the U.S. Embassy in Israel. The involvement of a now-sitting Trump administration official in Broidy’s work has not previously been reported.

Broidy has since been embroiled in scandal, stepping down from his Republican National Committee deputy finance chair post after the revelation that he agreed to pay $1.6 million in a settlement with a Playboy model he reportedly impregnated. (Broidy has said it was just to help her financially, and he stopped paying her after the arrangement became public.)

The Washington Post reported in August that the Justice Department is investigating whether Broidy “sought to sell his influence with the Trump administration by offering to deliver U.S. government actions for foreign officials.” Several news outlets have also reported that Broidy worked for or sought to do business with a Malaysian financier and the United Arab Emirates. (Learn more about Broidy in this “Trump, Inc.” podcast episode.)

Some legal experts argue that Lightstone and Broidy should have registered with the government for the Angolan meetings, though representatives for both dispute that. Work for foreign governments must be publicly reported under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires people conducting business with foreign countries for political purposes to disclose and periodically report details of that work.

“Arranging meetings between a foreign government and U.S. government officials to discuss the foreign policy of the U.S. vis-à-vis a foreign government or to discuss the relationship between the U.S. and the foreign county would in my view count as political activities requiring registration,” said Joshua Rosenstein, a FARA specialist at the law firm Sandler Reiff.

For years, the foreign agents law was sparsely enforced. Recently, the Justice Department has pursued high-profile prosecutions based on the law, most notably of former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, who was paid millions to represent a Ukrainian political party.

Broidy’s attorney said in a statement he “has never done any work, in relation to Angola or otherwise, that would require registration under FARA.” He declined to comment on the Post report of a Justice Department investigation, calling it a “rumor.”

In a statement, Lightstone said he “never worked for or received any compensation from Elliott Broidy, Threat Deterrence, or Circinus,” referring to Broidy’s companies. The statement added that Lightstone “has never engaged in activity that would require him to register under FARA.” The State Department declined to comment.

In January 2017, Angola paid Broidy’s company $6 million for intelligence services, according to the emails and Broidy’s lawyer. The Angolan defense and intelligence minister were in Washington and were “looking forward to fostering a closer relationship with the United States and the Trump Administration,” Broidy’s assistant said in a Jan. 15, 2017, email to an aide for Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.

The emails show that Lightstone helped plan the meetings with Cotton and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.; the Angolan officials; and Broidy. In one email to Broidy under the subject line “Contacts & next steps,” Lightstone lists several senators and advice for how to approach them.

“Cotton – ideal lunch in Senate dining room,” Lightstone wrote. “My gut is if we can lock in these Senators we have a good showing – plus the group you have on the house side [sic].” He added, “Please advise if I am looking to do anything else?”

In his statement, Broidy’s attorney described the meetings as “simply handshake opportunities and purely introductory in nature” and added that “no substantive matters of any kind were discussed. There certainly were no policy-related discussions.”

In July 2017, several months after Lightstone helped arrange the meetings for the Angolans, he was appointed to the Israel Embassy post. He is now considered one of the most influential people in the embassy as a top aide to Ambassador David Friedman. Lightstone’s connection to Broidy has not been previously reported.

Lightstone and Broidy have long been friends and fixtures in pro-Israel advocacy circles. They co-hosted fundraisers focused on pro-Israel advocacy in the 2016 election cycle for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. Lightstone also owns a stake in Broidy’s company, Threat Deterrence Capital LLC, as ProPublica previously reported.

Angola, which is a major oil producer, has military and economic interests with the U.S. government. In May 2017 Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis signed a memorandum of understanding with the Angolan defense minister to “enhance the security cooperation” between the U.S. and Angola. That was the same official, João Lourenço, for whom Lightstone helped arranged meetings with U.S. senators. Lourenço is now president of the country.

Broidy’s attorney, Chris Clark of Latham & Watkins, described the emails about Broidy’s dealings with the Angolans as “stolen and likely doctored.” He declined to give specific examples of any emails that had been altered. Broidy this year sued Qatar and several people accusing them of hacking his emails to retaliate against him for working for one of Qatar’s regional rivals, the United Arab Emirates. Qatar has denied the allegations.

The embassy of Angola and the offices of Cotton and Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.
Click to expand...
 
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ben-jacobs-warns-gianforte-lying-2017-attack

Reporter Gianforte Body Slammed Says He May Sue GOP Rep If He Keeps Lying

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — U.S. Rep. Greg Gianforte has intentionally misled voters and the media about his attack on a reporter last year as the Montana Republican campaigns for re-election, the reporter’s attorney said in a letter Thursday.

Ben Jacobs’ attorney, Geoffrey Genth, sent a cease-and-desist letter threatening to cancel Jacob’s agreement not to sue Gianforte if the congressman doesn’t stop. Genth told William Mercer, Gianforte’s attorney, to preserve all documents about the attack in case they are needed as evidence.

“Please advise your client that he and his spokespersons need to stop — immediately and forever — telling lies about the assault, about their own prior lies, about your client’s ‘settlement agreement’ with Ben, or about any other aspect of this matter,” Genth wrote.

Gianforte spokesman Travis Hall did not have an immediate comment on the letter. Genth declined to comment, saying the letter speaks for itself.

The attack against Jacobs has re-emerged as a campaign issue for Gianforte, who is defending his seat against Democratic challenger Kathleen Williams. Williams recently released an ad with audio of the scuffle from Jacobs’ recorder, with the ad saying, “This is not who we are.”

President Donald Trump also praised Gianforte for the attack during a rally last week in Missoula. “Any guy that can do a body slam — he’s my kind of guy,” the president said.

Gianforte pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault after throwing Jacobs to the ground when the reporter tried to ask him a question the day before the special congressional election Gianforte won in 2017 to complete the term of Ryan Zinke, who was named Interior Department secretary.

Jacobs agreed not to sue after Gianforte donated $50,000 to the Committee to Protect Journalists and wrote a letter acknowledging that Jacobs didn’t initiate the attack. Gianforte initially told police that Jacobs attacked him first, and his campaign initially released a statement repeating that Jacobs was the aggressor.

Gianforte told the editorial board of the Missoulian newspaper that he recounted to police what he remembered about the assault — that Jacobs attacked him first — and that he was bound by the settlement agreement not to talk about the assault, the newspaper reported earlier this week.

Those comments led to Genth’s letter. Gianforte’s remarks aim to conceal his responsibility for the attack and his dishonesty about it, Genth wrote. There also is no confidentiality provision in the agreement and nothing keeping Gianforte from answering questions about the attack and his statement to police, the lawyer added.

“By way of his new falsehood about the ‘settlement agreement,’ Rep. Gianforte intended, during the last weeks before a contested election, to mislead the press and the electorate about his ability to respond to questions relevant to his candidacy,” Genth wrote.

The renewed attention on Gianforte’s attack comes with absentee voting underway in Montana.

Carroll College political science professor Jeremy Johnson said the president didn’t do Gianforte any favors by bringing it up last week. The reminder could influence independent and swing voters in the race.

“It’s now become another argument that Williams can use to make her case,” Johnson said.

Williams said Thursday that Montana voters should be having conversations about health care, Social Security and rural issues — but instead find themselves talking about an assault by a congressman.

“Montanans can do so much better,” Williams said. “Frankly, this is not behavior becoming of a U.S. representative.”
Click to expand...
 
Why Michael Avenatti Thinks Only a White Man Can Beat Trump

http://time.com/5435310/michael-avenatti-trump-white-male/

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer and possible presidential candidate, caused a stirwith his contention that there’s only one type of candidate who can beat President Trump. In an interview with TIME published Thursday, Avenatti said the Democrats’ 2020 nominee “better be a white male,” because society affords more credibility to white men than it does others.

Though the statement has struck many as inflammatory, it represents a real, if usually private, debate within the Democratic Party—one that is likely to recur as the next presidential election approaches. Avenatti, who once worked as a researcher on political campaigns, clarified his position on Thursday:

Here’s what Avenatti told TIME in an interview on June 25 in New York City, before he began publicly considering a presidential run:

Is there anybody that you like in the Democratic political class? Or do you think [the 2020 nominee] should be someone from outside politics?

I think it better be a white male.

Really?

100%. And I don’t say that because I want it to have to be a white male. I say that because of just the realities of the situation. I think if the Democrats nominate anyone other than a white male at the top of the ticket, they’re gonna lose the election. I’d be willing to bet anything. I feel highly confident in that. And it shouldn’t be that way for this election–

But just because the electorate is too racist and sexist?

Because of where the electorate lines up and where Trump’s strengths lie. And I think if you nominate–

So Obama only won because of who he was running against? But a Trump who activates people’s racism and sexism —

No, I think Obama could have won against a lot of people. But I think this is a very unique situation. I think Donald Trump is a very unique candidate. And I think if you run anyone other than a white male against him in 2020 — and I think a lot of people in the party agree with me on this, and I think a lot of people disagree with me — I think you are begging for a repeat of 2016. That’s what I believe. Firmly. I firmly believe that. Look. If Joe Biden would have run in 2016, if Beau, his son, had not tragically died, we wouldn’t be sitting here right now. We wouldn’t be sitting here because I would have no case against Donald Trump.

You don’t think he’d have been able to demonize Biden the way he did Hillary?

No. No. And look, here’s what’s unfortunate. It’s very difficult for a woman to run against Donald Trump. Women face a very, very difficult time when they run for higher elected office unfortunately, especially against a guy like Donald Trump. Okay? If they don’t hit hard enough, they’re soft, right? And if they hit back with the same force as a man, they’re classified as a bitch, right? Which is entirely unfair to women. And that’s a very fine line for a woman to walk. And it’s a line that a man doesn’t have to walk. And, again, that’s not right. It shouldn’t be that way. But it’s a very, very difficult walk.

So I do think it is a critical mistake for anyone other than a white male to lead the top of the ticket in 2020. And I wish I didn’t have to say that. I wish it was different. But it’s not, in my view. That’s just my view. I might be wrong about this.

In a separate interview the same day, Avenatti said the disproportionate authority society grants to white men is also a part of his success as an advocate:

One of the reasons why I’ve been effective with women — and others, but especially with women — is because I think it’s different when you have a white male making the arguments. I think they carry more weight. Should they carry more weight? Absolutely not. But do they? Yes. It’s no different than when I make arguments on behalf of Hispanic families at the border. Because I happen to be a white guy, I think that they carry more weight. I think there’s a segment of our population that looks at that and doesn’t immediately discount what I’m saying, because I happen to be one of them. Which is outrageous, that people view things that way. That’s not right. That’s not right. But the reality of the situation is that it’s important that we have white males standing up for women, standing up for minorities.

image

Avenatti is considering running against Trump in 2020

Philip Montgomery for TIME
In a subsequent interview, Avenatti made the same point in response to a question about whether he might himself run for office:


I’m not presently putting together a presidential run, but whoever the Democrats nominate in 2020 better be a street fighter, better be prepared to take the fight to Mr. Trump. If you want to know what ‘They go low, we go high’ looks like, go interview Michael Dukakis about 1988. I think this is unfortunate—please get this right—I firmly believe, and I wish this were not true, neither a woman nor minority can successfully lead the ticket for the Democrats in 2020. There is no doubt in my mind that that’s true. Do I think that’s right? Absolutely not. Do I think it’s 100% correct? Yes.

Democrats have responded to the Trump presidency by nominating a record number of women and minority candidates for the upcoming midterms. Many of the party’s prospective 2020 candidates are also women or people of color, and black women in particular are the party’s most reliable voters. But even if they don’t put it in Avenatti’s stark terms, many in the party argue that the path to victory lies not in galvanizing reliably Democratic demographics, but in finding a way to appeal to swing-voting whites. It’s those voters—non-college-educated whites in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — that swung to Trump and put him over the top in 2016.

Whether openly or in code, the 2020 Democrats will have to address a version of Avenatti’s sentiment, which is also on the minds of the party rank and file. Indeed, in interviews with a dozen attendees at the New Hampshire Democratic picnic where Avenatti spoke, the issue came up more than once. “I don’t think we should be trying to elect a woman, a black person or a Hispanic,” said Nancy Walton-Hamm, a white 68-year-old retired computer programmer. “Too many old white guys won’t support that. I’d be willing to wait another generation” for a woman president.

As a potential candidate, Avenatti is seeking to create an image as a product of the American heartland. “That’s why I’m very dangerous to this president — that’s exactly why the last thing in the world this guy wants is to run against somebody like me,” he told TIME. “Because I can talk to those people, and whoever the Democratic nominee is better be able to talk to those people.”

Whether or not Avenatti’s on the stage, the 2020 contenders will be debating this point.
 
Avenatti said he didnt say that.

I too think only a white man can beat trump in 2020. But im not a public figure, so yea.
 
TheNightKing said:
Democrats don't want somebody who shoots it straight and calls out the other side on their bullshit. They want somebody who's going to pander based on demographics of race, religion, and gender.

In other words, a losing strategy against Trump.
Click to expand...

Bolded...identity politics.

If the Dems dont learn from their mistakes made in 2016. Its their own fault.

No one on TV is mentioning Gavin Newsome. Dont kno why. imo he would be a shoe in to beat trump. Tho trump would jus paint him as a bleeding liberal, coastal elite who wants open borders n doesnt love military lol smh
 
He talks to much but there was truth to what he said.. the part where he said better be came off wrong..he should just stay in his lane
 
TheNightKing said:
Democrats don't want somebody who shoots it straight and calls out the other side on their bullshit. They want somebody who's going to pander based on demographics of race, religion, and gender.

In other words, a losing strategy against Trump.
Click to expand...

Yeah he was right about the "when they go low we go high approach"......that didn't work for Dukakis at all and it really wouldn't work against Trump.
 
313 Wayz said:
Why Michael Avenatti Thinks Only a White Man Can Beat Trump

http://time.com/5435310/michael-avenatti-trump-white-male/

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer and possible presidential candidate, caused a stirwith his contention that there’s only one type of candidate who can beat President Trump. In an interview with TIME published Thursday, Avenatti said the Democrats’ 2020 nominee “better be a white male,” because society affords more credibility to white men than it does others.

Though the statement has struck many as inflammatory, it represents a real, if usually private, debate within the Democratic Party—one that is likely to recur as the next presidential election approaches. Avenatti, who once worked as a researcher on political campaigns, clarified his position on Thursday:

Here’s what Avenatti told TIME in an interview on June 25 in New York City, before he began publicly considering a presidential run:

Is there anybody that you like in the Democratic political class? Or do you think [the 2020 nominee] should be someone from outside politics?

I think it better be a white male.

Really?

100%. And I don’t say that because I want it to have to be a white male. I say that because of just the realities of the situation. I think if the Democrats nominate anyone other than a white male at the top of the ticket, they’re gonna lose the election. I’d be willing to bet anything. I feel highly confident in that. And it shouldn’t be that way for this election–

But just because the electorate is too racist and sexist?

Because of where the electorate lines up and where Trump’s strengths lie. And I think if you nominate–

So Obama only won because of who he was running against? But a Trump who activates people’s racism and sexism —

No, I think Obama could have won against a lot of people. But I think this is a very unique situation. I think Donald Trump is a very unique candidate. And I think if you run anyone other than a white male against him in 2020 — and I think a lot of people in the party agree with me on this, and I think a lot of people disagree with me — I think you are begging for a repeat of 2016. That’s what I believe. Firmly. I firmly believe that. Look. If Joe Biden would have run in 2016, if Beau, his son, had not tragically died, we wouldn’t be sitting here right now. We wouldn’t be sitting here because I would have no case against Donald Trump.

You don’t think he’d have been able to demonize Biden the way he did Hillary?

No. No. And look, here’s what’s unfortunate. It’s very difficult for a woman to run against Donald Trump. Women face a very, very difficult time when they run for higher elected office unfortunately, especially against a guy like Donald Trump. Okay? If they don’t hit hard enough, they’re soft, right? And if they hit back with the same force as a man, they’re classified as a bitch, right? Which is entirely unfair to women. And that’s a very fine line for a woman to walk. And it’s a line that a man doesn’t have to walk. And, again, that’s not right. It shouldn’t be that way. But it’s a very, very difficult walk.

So I do think it is a critical mistake for anyone other than a white male to lead the top of the ticket in 2020. And I wish I didn’t have to say that. I wish it was different. But it’s not, in my view. That’s just my view. I might be wrong about this.

In a separate interview the same day, Avenatti said the disproportionate authority society grants to white men is also a part of his success as an advocate:

One of the reasons why I’ve been effective with women — and others, but especially with women — is because I think it’s different when you have a white male making the arguments. I think they carry more weight. Should they carry more weight? Absolutely not. But do they? Yes. It’s no different than when I make arguments on behalf of Hispanic families at the border. Because I happen to be a white guy, I think that they carry more weight. I think there’s a segment of our population that looks at that and doesn’t immediately discount what I’m saying, because I happen to be one of them. Which is outrageous, that people view things that way. That’s not right. That’s not right. But the reality of the situation is that it’s important that we have white males standing up for women, standing up for minorities.

image

Avenatti is considering running against Trump in 2020

Philip Montgomery for TIME
In a subsequent interview, Avenatti made the same point in response to a question about whether he might himself run for office:


I’m not presently putting together a presidential run, but whoever the Democrats nominate in 2020 better be a street fighter, better be prepared to take the fight to Mr. Trump. If you want to know what ‘They go low, we go high’ looks like, go interview Michael Dukakis about 1988. I think this is unfortunate—please get this right—I firmly believe, and I wish this were not true, neither a woman nor minority can successfully lead the ticket for the Democrats in 2020. There is no doubt in my mind that that’s true. Do I think that’s right? Absolutely not. Do I think it’s 100% correct? Yes.

Democrats have responded to the Trump presidency by nominating a record number of women and minority candidates for the upcoming midterms. Many of the party’s prospective 2020 candidates are also women or people of color, and black women in particular are the party’s most reliable voters. But even if they don’t put it in Avenatti’s stark terms, many in the party argue that the path to victory lies not in galvanizing reliably Democratic demographics, but in finding a way to appeal to swing-voting whites. It’s those voters—non-college-educated whites in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — that swung to Trump and put him over the top in 2016.

Whether openly or in code, the 2020 Democrats will have to address a version of Avenatti’s sentiment, which is also on the minds of the party rank and file. Indeed, in interviews with a dozen attendees at the New Hampshire Democratic picnic where Avenatti spoke, the issue came up more than once. “I don’t think we should be trying to elect a woman, a black person or a Hispanic,” said Nancy Walton-Hamm, a white 68-year-old retired computer programmer. “Too many old white guys won’t support that. I’d be willing to wait another generation” for a woman president.

As a potential candidate, Avenatti is seeking to create an image as a product of the American heartland. “That’s why I’m very dangerous to this president — that’s exactly why the last thing in the world this guy wants is to run against somebody like me,” he told TIME. “Because I can talk to those people, and whoever the Democratic nominee is better be able to talk to those people.”

Whether or not Avenatti’s on the stage, the 2020 contenders will be debating this point.
Click to expand...

I basically said this shit way before the IC shutdown. Dude is 100% correct in what he is saying
 
TheNightKing said:
Democrats don't want somebody who shoots it straight and calls out the other side on their bullshit. They want somebody who's going to pander based on demographics of race, religion, and gender.

In other words, a losing strategy against Trump.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't really make sense for the Dems to do that either though for a few reasons. Dems don't have a Fox News. Republicans can call Dems on their bullshit and have a 24 hour news channel to back their play and paint anything they say or do in a positive light or just ignore their fucked things. Dems also don't go hard enough plain and simple. They always fold in the clutch. They always rather look clean in defeat than to come up dirty with a win. Politics is a dirty game with no one deep enough being clean. So why not be what you already are which is dirty? Everybody knows it but the Dems try to act like that is not what is going on. People see and know this shit already.

Also Republicans are who they are and don't give a fuck about it. People can disagree with them on a lot of shit but a lot people also respect the shit out of that type of stance.

Dems were the first I believe to enact the nuclear option when they had power. Now that republicans have power they use it all the times that they can with no fucks given. But Dems acting like that shit is unfair and crying about it. That's fake shit and people who follow politics know that is sucka shit from Dems. Which is another reason Dems turn some people off. Dems start some shit and now that its not going in their favor they crying about it.

The shit is all a show and Dems need better actors, a better script and director for their stage productions going forward. So far they still fucking up in that regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top