Pages

Friday, September 20, 2019

Trump Fights Back, Sues Manhattan DA over Tax Records Subpoenas

It’s the latest round in a long-running battle, but the Trump team is proving it’s got plenty of fight.
President Donald Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow announced Thursday that the president has filed a lawsuit against Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance over a subpoena Vance’s office had issued seeking Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns for the past eight years, according to The Independent.
In a statement, according to CNBC, Sekulow said the subpoena raised “significant constitutional issues.”
“In response to the subpoenas issued by the New York County District Attorney, we have filed a lawsuit this morning in Federal Court on behalf of the President in order to address the significant constitutional issues at stake in this case,” he said.
The lawsuit also names Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, National Review reported.
The development is just the newest twist in a saga that stems from even before Trump shocked the political world with his upset of Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
From his days on the campaign trail, Trump has outraged Democrats and the liberal media by refusing to release his tax returns, as past presidents have done.
In refusing, he has maintained that his taxes are being audited by the IRS and he would consider releasing them after that is complete.
That was never satisfactory, though, and Democrats have moved at various levels to get their hands on documents they no doubt hope will contain information that could embarrass Trump or even implicate him in wrongdoing.
The latest subpoenas were issued in August but not made public until The New York Times reported them Monday.
That report stated the records were part of Vance’s office investigation into a payment Trump made to porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had a sexual encounter with Trump back in 2006.
Daniels became known to the public in 2018, when The Wall Street Journal published a report revealing that in 2016, shortly before the November presidential election, then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen paid her $130,000 in return for a nondisclosure agreement.
Trump has denied any sexual encounter with Daniels.
Besides the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, Trump has been under attack by Democrats in Congress, where the House Ways and Means Committee in May issued subpoenas to the Treasure Department and the IRS seeking six years of Trump tax returns, The New York Times reported in the spring.

Meanwhile, the House Oversight Committee has also issued subpoenas to Trump businesses and Mazars USA demanding years worth of tax records, according to a CBS News report from April. Trump has sued over those subpoenas as well.
For Trump supporters, the legal moves are of a piece with the political opposition and warfare in the courts that the president has faced from even before he took the oath of office.
“It’s just harassment of the president, his family and his business, using subpoenas as weapons,” Trump lawyer Marc Mukasey told The New York Times in August.
And as the Trump team has proven ever since the GOP primaries, it’s not shy about fighting back.

Watch Lewandowski Mercilessly Mock Eric 'Nuke American Gun Owners' Swalwell at Impeachment Hearing

Former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski went after Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell during Tuesday’s impeachment inquiry.
Lewandowski mocked Swalwell’s pitiful 2020 presidential bid, calling him “President Swalwell” while responding to questions regarding President Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice.
The former campaign manager was instructed by the White House not to reveal details about one-on-one conversations that were not made public in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, which frustrated Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.
The ribbing only added to the frustration — and made the circus more bearable to watch.
It started with Swalwell asking Lewandowski to read what he apparently had written in the past regarding what Trump had allegedly dictated to him.
This was not a question but a command, and Lewandowski jabbed Swalwell when he suggested that the congressman read it himself.
“President Swalwell, I’m happy of what I’ve written, but you’re welcome to read it if you’d like,” Lewandowski said, obviously referencing the Democrat’s presidential campaign, which was, to be generous, absolutely pathetic.
Swalwell’s poll numbers peaked at around 1%, and he slunk out of the race July 8.
That wasn’t all that Lewandowski had for him, though.
“Have you ever put any words that the president asked you to write down before in a safe, or was this the first time you had done that?” Swalwell said, pressing Lewandowski about his handling of notes.
“I believe it’s my standard operating procedure when taking notes, Congressman,” Lewandowski replied.
Swalwell took the bait. “So every note that you take of the president you put in a safe?” he asked. “How big is that safe?”
“It’s a big safe, Congressman, there’s a lot of guns in there,” Lewandowski shot back, referencing Swalwell’s well-documented disdain for firearms.
From chickening out of debates he proposed to suggesting nuclear war against gun owners, Swalwell has been a laughingstock in the gun debate for a good while now, and I doubt he was prepared to deal with it during this hearing.

Now, were Lewandowski’s barbs completely appropriate for a legitimate congressional testimony? Probably not — but we all know that’s not what this sham is.
It’s a political hit job orchestrated by sore losers who weren’t satisfied with the results of a two-year investigation, choosing to read in their own conclusions instead of accepting it for what it is.
Donald Trump did not conspire with Russia, nor did he interfere with Mueller’s investigation. The Democrats know this, but they also know they can get away with these dog-and-pony shows as long as they’re in charge.
Hopefully, that won’t last too much longer.

The anti-life progressive left tries to mock God with their love for abortion. They will lose.

One of the greatest comforts any Christian has is that God will not be mocked.
 
The trick to believing that, though, is one must have eyes to see and ears to hear beyond the chaos and noise of the daily cesspool. For isn't it the most brutal and bloody mockery of God to year after year watch as countless babies are slaughtered at the altar of personal convenience and fake rights?
The latest example is the recent scriptural debauchery of Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg concerning the beginning of life. It has been exhausting for many a Christian to be regularly accused of fraudulent biblical hermeneutics and morality by a man who is not only hitched to a dude but recently said the smart money is on believing that a baby isn't a baby until it breathes its first breath.
It's an interesting math. Suggest that life begins at conception — you know, like science testifies to — and you are an oppressive theocrat. Argue that killing a baby in the womb may actually be endorsed by God Himself and you are enlightened.
How, as Théoden once asked, can man fight such reckless hate? Only God knows.
Which is why He seems to have weighed in in His own way following Mayor Pete's faux-holy dog-and-pony show. As it already stood, it seemed to be dripping with providential irony that Buttigieg hails from the city where one of the most recognizable Christian schools in the entire world — Notre Dame — calls home. Then just in the last week, the darkest of horrors arose to turn up the volume of divine certainty all the more.
There, in South Bend, Indiana, was discovered the partial remains of more than 2,000 murdered babies within the home of a now deceased child-killling doctor. Or, according to the biblical logic of Buttigieg, it was little different than a man with a stamp collection. Nothing to see here. Just a bunch of body parts that never knew oxygen.
Most people really couldn't believe such a lie when Kermit Gosnell told his own version of it, which is why he is now in prison. But most of those people also simply shrugged and moved on with their life.
And most people also really couldn't believe such a lie when Planned Parenthood was discovered to be the reported proud sellers of frozen dismembered body parts, which is why Planned Parenthood and their political/judicial partners in crime continue to fight so hard to bury the truth. But other than the likes of David Daleiden and Lila Rose, most of those people once again simply shrugged and moved on.
Now here we are, with the grotesque cost of Mayor Pete's theology coming to light in his very own backyard, as he attempts to take the reins of the entire country and impose his worldview on the rest of us.
This can't be a coincidence. The symmetry, though horrible, is also perfect. Like the cross, it seems destined to remind us of our place in the world and what we are called to do. However, while in the case of the cross every knee shall bend, in the case of Mayor Pete and his deadly licentiousness every heart shall cry out.
With eyes to see and ears to hear, it is as clear as ever in South Bend that God's thumb is pressing hard on the scales of truth, justice, and mercy. The only question remaining then is this: What are our thumbs doing?

Federal prosecutors say man from New Jersey was casing US landmarks for Hezbollah

Federal prosecutors have charged a New Jersey man with taking photos of U.S. landmarks for Hezbollah in order to help them carry out an attack on U.S. soil.
 

Here's what we know

Alexei Saab from Morristown, New Jersey, reportedly joined Hezbollah in Lebanon in 1996. Prosecutors said that during this time his job was to inform Hezbollah about "the movements of Israeli and Southern Lebanese Army soldiers in Yaroun, Lebanon."
In 2000, he entered the U.S. through legal means. After applying in 2005, he became a naturalized citizen in 2008.
But even while Saab was becoming a U.S. citizen, he allegedly never lost touch with Hezbollah. In fact, according to the federal charges, he went back to Lebanon to train some more. He also began casing U.S. landmarks as possible targets for attack.
In a news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers explained:
According to the allegations, while living in the United States, Saab served as an operative of Hizballah and conducted surveillance of possible target locations in order to help the foreign terrorist organization prepare for potential future attacks against the United States. Such covert activities conducted on U.S. soil are a clear threat to our national security and I applaud the agents, analysts, and prosecutors who are responsible for this investigation and prosecution.
These locations included "the United Nations headquarters, the Statue of Liberty, Rockefeller Center, Times Square, the Empire State Building, and local airports, tunnels, and bridges" in New York City. He also "conducted similar intelligence gathering in a variety of large American cities, including Washington D.C."
Prosecutors said Saab especially focused on "focused on the structural weaknesses of locations he surveilled in order to determine how a future attack could cause the most destruction."

What penalties could Saab face?

If convicted, Saab, 42, could by sentenced to up to 100 years in prison for charges including "providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization," "conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization," and "receiving military-type training from a designated foreign terrorist organization."
While most of the charges carry penalties of five or 10 years, one, "unlawful procurement of citizenship or naturalization to facilitate an act of international terrorism," has a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison.

Music Producer Mark Ronson Identifies As ‘Sapiosexual’

Add the term "sapiosexual" to the lexicon of sexual identities if you haven't already heard of it. Apparently, the term has been making the rounds for several years and it pertains to being attracted to a human being's intelligence before sexual attraction develops, regardless of the person's gender.
The latest celebrity to push this new brand of identity is music producer Mark Ronson, who told ITV's "Good Morning Britain" that he swings that way.
"The definition means intelligence first then attraction,” British journalist Nichi Hodgson explained on the show, as reported by Fox News. "I date men and women and identify as bisexual, and I realized the thing that linked all people that I have dated has been their brains."
The segment centered on the French equality minister Marlene Schiappa recently coming out as sapiosexual.
"I didn’t know that there was a word for it, but I was really enjoying that segment," said Ronson. "We were all arguing in the dressing room with a couple of your producers. And yes, I feel like I identify as sapiosexual."
 
The term "sapiosexual" has been generating some enthusiasm over the past decade with various outlets reporting on the subject. While some commentators accept it as a genuine sexual orientation, others do not. In 2015, Samantha Allen of The Daily Beast outright dismissed the sudden popularity of sapiosexuality as ridiculous:
The history of “sapiosexuality” is as unclear as its legitimacy. LiveJournal user wolfieboy claims to have invented the term “while on too little sleep driving up from SF in the summer of ’98.” For wolfieboy, being a sapiosexual means that he wants “an incisive, inquisitive, insightful, irreverent mind” irrespective of gender but he notes that the term is open to wider interpretation.
Apparently “bisexual guy who’s into smart people” was too many syllables for him to not invent a bogus sexual orientation instead.
In every scientific and sociological sense of the term, sapiosexuality is not a sexual orientation. A person who likes writers is not a scribosexual, a person who likes lawyers is not a jurosexual, and a person who loudly proclaims that they only date smart people might be dangerously full of themselves, but they’re not a “sapiosexual.”
 
Diana Raab Ph.D. argued in Psychology Today, however, that sapiosexuality is being "turned on by the brain."
"Those who admit to being sapiosexual will say that they are turned on by the brain, and tend to be teased or excited by the insights of another person," wrote Raab. "This means the person whom you are attracted to might have a tendency to have an incisive, inquisitive, and irreverent mind. As foreplay, the sapiosexual person may crave philosophical, political, or psychological discussions, because this turns them on."
"Those who are sapiosexual are stimulated or challenged by the way another person thinks," Raab continued. "They are basically in love with the mind. Sometimes, sapiosexual individuals have also been called 'nymphobrainiacs,' or individuals who find it arousing to engage with the intellectual perspective of another person."

Person Says It's Not Fair Police Officers Have Only 6 Months Of Training, Starts An Interesting Discussion

A simple search on YouTube might give you plenty of videos featuring police officers “getting owned” by law experts. And a lot of cop jokes next to them. But all kidding aside, how big of a problem is this? Recently, one protester put up a sign comparing the time it takes to become a police officer and a lawyer, asking if it’s reasonable for someone to put equal amounts of trust in their actions. After a photo of the sign went viral, people began searching for the answer.
One of the people who replied to the thread referred to the Heien case, where the Supreme Court ruled a “police officer’s reasonable mistake of law gives rise to reasonable suspicion that justifies a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment.” A motorist’s broken tail light caused an officer to make a traffic stop, which lead to evidence of a separate violation of the law. However, in North Carolina, a broken tail light wasn’t illegal, thus there wasn’t sufficient cause to justify the stop — nor the arrests stemming from it, lawyers argued, because that should be a violation of unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled the officer’s ignorance of the law essentially didn’t matter, effectively allowing police around the country the ability to make stops if they ‘reasonably’ believe the cause for the stop is legal. To put it in simple words, police can stop and search you despite ignorance of the law.

Bloody fierce facts about old world PIRATES (20 Photos)