abby's news

If you thought the FBI’s decision to look at new Clinton emails would lead to a bombshell against her, think again. That’s because, as the Associated Press and other outlets reported soon after the story broke Friday afternoon, the new emails in question weren’t retrieved from Clinton’s servers. They instead came from the personal electronic devices of her aide Huma Abedin, and Abedin’s soon-to-be ex-husband, Anthony Weiner.
Witness the triumphant return of Carlos Danger, per the latest report from the New York Times:

Federal law enforcement officials said Friday that the new emails uncovered in the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server were discovered after the F.B.I. seized electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.

That the F.B.I. would seize Abedin’s devices makes sense considering its previous investigation, but why Weiner’s? Possibly because they’re currently “investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina.”
According to information distributed to members of Congress by the F.B.I., the intelligence agency indicated “it had uncovered new emails related to the closed investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton or her aides had mishandled classified information.” Director James B. Comey indicated as much (and more) in a letter obtained by the press, writing he would “supplement [his] previous testimony” in light of the new evidence discovered on Abedin and Weiner’s devices.
(Via New York Times)

Newfound Trump devotee Ted Cruz doesn’t think the empty Supreme Court Justice seat will be filled anytime soon, at least, unless Donald Trump is doing so. On Wednesday, the Texas senator said the GOP would block any judge that Hillary Clinton would nominate if she is elected president, as reported by The Washington Post.
The selection of the new Supreme Court Justice after the death of Antonin Scalia has been the source of much controversy. That Republicans would want to wait until the election to fill the seat makes sense, but Cruz goes further and seems to think the justices are doing fine with one seat down. He said there’s precedent for having an open seat:

“You know, I think there will be plenty of time for debate on that issue. There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”

Cruz’s position somewhat contradicts other GOP lawmakers. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley says it would be counterproductive for Republicans to stonewall a Clinton appointment. However, Trump hasn’t made it easy for down-ballot Republicans — mostly those who have endorsed him — to win their respective races. And if the Democrats earn the majority on Election Day and Hillary Clinton wins, SCOTUS could easily see its first liberal Supreme Court majority since the 1970s.
(Via The Washington Post)

Fox News personality Megyn Kelly (a.k.a. alternate timeline Avery Jessup) has become a breakout media star during Election 2016® much to the chagrin of Trump and his supporters. It looks like the Kelly File host will be keeping that momentum rolling with a guest co-host spot on Live With Kelly.
In news that might make previous special co-host Anderson Cooper a twinge jealous, Megyn’s Live With Kelly co-host date comes on November 9. Is that the day after election day? You’re darn tootin’ it is. It’s a sensible piece of post-election programming to pair with the inevitable hangover and Megyn might like a minor break from sorting out bullsh*t to chat with Naomi Watts and give away prizes. We’re reasonably confident Watts won’t complain about bias over “blood coming out of her whatever.”
Elsewhere in Megyn Kelly talk, Donald Trump has lavished praise on Newt Gingrich for how he conducted himself in his interview with the Kelly File star. The GOP presidential candidate’s assessment of how the exchange went would traditionally be considered puzzling, but this campaign season has been stuffed to the gills with bizarre moments across the board, so why expect the atmosphere to change with just a matter of days to go?
(Via TV Line)

Yassin al-Haj Saleh has lived a life of struggle for his country. Under the Syrian regime of Hafez al-Assad, he was a student activist organizing against the government. In 1980, Saleh and hundreds of others were arrested and accused of membership in a left-wing political group. He was just 19 years old when a closed court found him guilty of crimes against the state. Saleh spent the next 16 years of his life behind bars.
“I have a degree in medicine, but I am a graduate of prison, and I am indebted to this experience,” Saleh said, sitting with us in a restaurant near Istanbul’s Taksim Square. Now in his 50s, with white hair and a dignified, somewhat world-weary demeanor, Saleh, called Syria’s “voice of conscience” by many, has the appearance and bearing of a university professor. But he speaks with passionate indignation about what he calls the Assad dynasty’s “enslavement” of the Syrian people.
Saleh was living in Damascus in 2011 when Syrian civilians rose up to demand political reform. That protest movement soon turned into open revolution after government forces met the protestors with gunfire, bombardment, mass arrests, and torture.
From painful firsthand experience, Saleh knew the cost of challenging the Assad regime. But when the uprising started, he did not hesitate to join it. He left home and spent the next two years in hiding, helping Syrian activists organize their struggle.
By late 2013, Syria had descended into anarchy. The conflict between the government and a range of opposition forces had become increasingly militarized. Like many other activists for the revolution, Saleh was forced to flee across the border to Turkey. That same year, armed groups in the Damascus suburbs kidnapped his wife, along with three other activists. ISIS kidnapped his brother in 2013. Neither has been heard from since.
Saleh is now among the millions of Syrians living in Turkey as refugees. He travels the country helping to train Syrian writers and activists in exile, while writing and speaking about his country’s plight. As a leftist, he has also been a vociferous critic of a growing international consensus that has come to see the Syrian conflict in Bashar al-Assad’s terms as a fight against terrorism.
Our interview with Saleh is presented below, lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
Please tell us briefly about your own background in Syria.
As a university student in the late 1970s, I was a member of one of two Communist Party organizations actively opposing the regime. At that time, there was an uprising in Syria that involved students, trade unionists, lawyers, and members of other professions who were fighting against the Assad government, as well as a separate conflict between the regime and the Muslim Brotherhood. There were regular worker strikes in Aleppo, where I was living, and I saw with my own eyes security forces breaking down the doors of homes and businesses.
To be arrested in Assad’s Syria, you didn’t need reasons. But in 1980, hundreds of my comrades and I were detained as part of a campaign by the government to break Syrian society.
I was young, and the early years in jail were very difficult. We suffered harsh treatment. In later years, our conditions were not so bad and we were allowed books and dictionaries. I learned English inside prison, and for 13 years, I read maybe 100 books or more per year. In the last year of my imprisonment, I was transferred to Tadmor prison, which is one of the most vicious places on the planet — a concentration camp for torture, humiliation, hunger, and fear. I was then released in 1996.
The experience of prison transformed me and my ideas about the world. In many ways, it was an emancipatory experience. I developed the belief that to protect our fundamental values of justice, freedom, human dignity, and equality, we had to change our concepts and theories. The Soviet Union had fallen and many changes were occurring in the world. My comrades who refused to change, those who adhered to their old methods and tools, found themselves in a position of leaving their values behind. This is one reason why many leftists today are against the Syrian revolution — because they adhere to the dead letter of their beliefs, rather than the living struggle of the people for justice.
What did you expect from the left in its response to the Syrian revolution?
It came to me as a shock, actually, that most of them have sided with Bashar al-Assad. I don’t expect much out of the international left, but I thought they would understand our situation and see us as a people who were struggling against a very despotic, very corrupt, and very sectarian regime. I thought they would see us and side with us. What I found, unfortunately, is that most people on the left know absolutely nothing about Syria. They know nothing of its history, political economy, or contemporary circumstances, and they don’t see us.
In America, the leftists are against the establishment in their own country. In a way, they thought that the U.S. establishment was siding with the Syrian revolution — something that is completely false and an utter lie — and for this reason they have stood against us. And this applies to leftists almost everywhere in the world. They are obsessed with the White House and the establishment powers of their own countries. The majority are also still obsessed with the old Cold War-era struggles against imperialism and capitalism.
Recently, an event in Rome that displayed images of those tortured and killed by Assad was attacked by fascists. Just days before, it had also been attacked in a local communist newspaper for promoting “imperialism.” There is a growing convergence between the views of fascists and the far-left about Syria and other issues. The reason for this is that perspectives on the left are outdated. They are interested in high-politics, not grassroots struggles. They are dealing with grand ideologies and historical narratives, but they don’t see people — the Syrian people aren’t represented. They are holding on to depopulated discourses that don’t represent human struggle, life, and death.
What should people on the left who have misconceptions know about Syria?
The Assad regime, the junta that rules Syria today, has transformed the country from a republic into a monarchy. As you are aware, Bashar al-Assad inherited the post of president from his father in 2000. I am not aware of a statement from one Western leftist protesting against this transformation of a republic into a monarchy. The state has become the private property of the regime, while the economy has been restructured according to the neoliberal agenda.
In the genes of this regime, it is inscribed that there must be no rights for the Syrian people. We are not citizens. We cannot say “no” to our rulers. We cannot organize, we cannot own the politics of our country, let alone organize in the public space or take part in it actively. They force us to suppress ourselves. We are, under their rule, politically speaking, enslaved.
Many on the left look at Syria and know nothing about the relationship between the Assad regime and the Western powers. The Assad regime was never a power against imperialism in the Middle East. In fact, it always sought a role for itself in the imperial game in the region. But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Assad was against imperialism. Even if that were the case, the Syrian people would still be a part of the deal! We as a people are not merely a tool for the narratives of the Western left. This is our country. We are not guests.
Over the past several years, there has been, in effect, a “Palestinization” of the Syrian people. We are being dealt with by the regime, and the world, as a people who will be annihilated politically. Maybe they won’t kill all of us. Many of us are still living. After all, only around half a million or so have been killed so far. But politically, they are annihilating us the same way that the Palestinians are being annihilated.
At the same time, there is a corresponding “Israelization” of the Syrian regime. The same way that Israel relies on the United States for United Nations Security Council vetoes to protect it internationally, the Syrian regime now relies on vetoes from Russia. In Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians, only one side — Israel’s — has air power. The same is true in the conflict between Assad and the opposition.
The Assad regime has become a representative of the internal First World in Syria, the Syrian whites. I think the elites in the West find Bashar al-Assad more palatable than other potential interlocutors. He wears expensive suits and has a necktie, and, ultimately, these elites prefer a fascist with a necktie to a fascist with a beard. Meanwhile, they don’t see us, the Syrian people. Those who are trying to own the politics of their own country have been rendered invisible.
What is your position on the Islamist parties?
Under the umbrella of Islam we have many things. There is the religion of Muslims, which should be respected. Then there is political Islam, which includes parties and groups with which one should negotiate and find compromises — groups such as Ennahda in Tunisia and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Then we have what I call nihilist groups like ISIS, which must be fought. But to be successful in fighting against these groups you must give a chance to politics. You cannot isolate nihilists like al Qaeda and ISIS without giving something to other parties with whom you can negotiate.
I am a secularist and a nonbeliever, an atheist. But I don’t find it democratic to fight against ISIS while being Islamophobic, while hating Muslims and expressing suspicion toward them, and at the same time stating that you don’t want any political role at all for Islamists! This is extremism, it is an extremist position, and it is what reactionary Islamic extremism is built on. When you refuse to accept the moderate groups, practically speaking you are supporting the extremists.
How do you respond to the perception in the West that the Assad regime is a bulwark of secularism in Syria?
I think there is something Islamophobic about this position. The Assad regime is not secular. It is a sectarian regime. You don’t need anything related to progress or the enlightenment to be loyal to one sect and fight against other sects. They employ sectarianism as a strategy of control, as a means to seize power forever. In their own slogans they openly say, “Assad or we burn the country,” and “forever, forever,” in reference to holding absolute power over the country.
In secularism, there is inherently the idea of not discriminating between people on the basis of their religion or confessional community. Is this the case in Syria now? No, it is not. If you are an Alawite, your chances of getting a job or having real power in society are greater than if you are a Sunni or a member of another group.
After the revolution began, I was in Eastern Ghouta [near Damascus]. My travels also led me to the eastern parts of Homs and Raqqa. When the Salafists came, I never once saw people celebrating. I am not saying that people were angry, but these groups didn’t have real popularity. People are against the regime, and these groups are against the regime. Their presence filled a gap.
What was it that allowed the Salafists and other groups to gain prominence after the revolution?
For 30 years, the Baath Party has made a project of crushing all political life in Syria. So when the uprising came, we had no real political organizations, only individuals here and there. Islam, in our society, is the limit of political poverty. When you don’t have any political life, people will mobilize according to the lowest stratum of an imaginary community. This deeper identity is religion. When you have political and cultural life, you can have trade unions, leftist groups, and people are able to organize along any number of identities. But when you crush politics, when there is no political life, religious identity will prosper.
Let me give you as an example the Syrian Kurds. Over the years of Baath Party rule, they were manipulated, divided, and even denied their very existence as Kurdish people in what was called the “Syrian Arab Republic.” Despite this, Kurds were still allowed to organize politically. Not one of their political parties was exterminated. When I was in prison, many of my friends were from Kurdish political organizations. They would only ever spend a year or two in prison at a time, never 15 or 20 years.
The Baath Party crushed all political life for Syrian Arabs, including the Muslim Brotherhood parties. When they were confronted by the Syrian revolution, they strove to crush that as well, and this has now resulted in ISIS. ISIS is not an expression of the Syrian revolution. It is an expression of the destruction of Syrian society, and of Iraqi society before it.
Bashar al-Assad has begun to portray himself as a partner to the West in fighting terrorism. What are the implications of accepting such a claim?
The war on terror narrative that Assad has adopted is one that is based on empowering states and empowering the powerful against the weak. That narrative weakens those who are already weak, which is why he has used it to present himself to the world as a partner in the campaign against terrorism.
I don’t think that there is anything democratic or progressive about this narrative, or about the practices and institutions related to this war on terror framing. The reason the world is now in a crisis is that the major global narrative now is not democracy, justice, socialism, or even liberalism — it is all about security and immigration. This means that Trump is better than Clinton, Marine Le Pen is better than Hollande. It means that a fascist is always better than a democrat, which means that Bashar Assad is better than the opposition.
Accepting this terrorism narrative makes people like us, those who were active in the revolution, in its peaceful stage, and then in the armed struggle, effectively invisible. All those opposing the regime are ISIS — as Bashar al-Assad is always saying — and the only other choice is him. Accepting this war on terror narrative weakens and disempowers people like us. It disempowers leftist, democratic, and feminist Syrian organizations and activists, while empowering the regime and the extremists.
Now that many people have become alienated from Islamists after witnessing their terrible practices in many areas, is there a chance for secular forces to win people back?
Yes, we have a chance. But only provided that Bashar al-Assad is not there. For us to be a real alternative in the country, Bashar and this junta regime that has killed hundreds and thousands of our people cannot be there. I am a leftist and I am an atheist, but I will not fight against ISIS if, behind my back, you put your hand in the hand of Bashar al-Assad.
If the proposal is, “Let’s focus on defeating ISIS and then afterward, maybe he will still be around,” I will not do it. The one who tortured, humiliated, killed, and despised my people — Bashar al-Assad — is a criminal who must be held accountable. This accountability will furnish a basis for secularists, nationalists, and democrats to compete against mainstream Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood, and to fight against nihilist groups like ISIS. Both ISIS and Bashar al-Assad are the extremist powers that must be eradicated in order to build an inclusive Syria.
I am not saying that things will be OK when these groups are gone. There will be huge problems to deal with in Syrian society. But right now, we don’t have problems in Syria. We have tragedies, we have massacres, we have a horrific human condition. We have a destroyed country and a destroyed society. When Bashar is gone and ISIS is gone, we can hope for a dynamic of rebuilding and reconciliation, in which Syrians can start to put their country back together. But as long as he remains, this will never be possible.
What do you say to those who concede that Bashar al-Assad is a tyrant but argue that he is a lesser evil than ISIS and should be kept in power to preserve stability?
For us, as Syrians, let me be frank: ISIS is the lesser evil. They have killed maybe 10,000 people, whereas Bashar al-Assad has killed hundreds of thousands. Ask yourself how anyone could tolerate such a situation. Could you imagine that in 10 or 15 years, after crushing all opposition, perhaps the son of Bashar al-Assad will proceed to rule the country after him? How horrible. How criminal. If Bashar al-Assad survives, after killing hundreds of thousands of people, expatriating 5 million more, displacing 6 million within the country, inviting the Iranians and the Russians and Shia militias from around the world to invade Syria, if such an abhorrent criminal survives and maintains his political power, the world will be a much worse place for everyone.
What is your opinion on the possibility of Western intervention in Syria?
First, it is a fable that Western countries did not intervene in Syria. The reality is that they intervened in a very specific way that prevented Assad from falling but guaranteed that the country would be destroyed. The United States pressured Turkey and other countries very early on to prevent them from providing decisive assistance to the Syrian opposition. In doing so, these countries vetoed Assad’s being toppled by the Syrian people by force. Meanwhile, as we can see, they have no problem watching the Syrian revolution be crushed by force.
The United States also negotiated the sordid chemical weapons deal with Russia in 2013 — a deal that solved a big problem for America, Russia, Israel, and for the Assad regime, but did nothing for the Syrian people. The United States also led the “Friends of the Syrian People” group, which it then sidelined and destroyed. Leftists in the West should know this: In many important ways, the Americans have been supporting Bashar al-Assad. The United States helped create a situation in which Syria would be plunged into chaos, but the regime would remain in power.
So if there were a military intervention to depose Assad today, would you support that?
I want Assad to be hanged now, not tomorrow. But there needs to be a vision, the cornerstone of which is to change the political environment of Syria substantially — to build a new Syria on an inclusive basis, with a new majority in the country. For such a majority to be built, you must both overthrow Bashar al-Assad and fight ISIS. This will help Alawites to be independent from the Assad regime and will isolate the extremists among the Sunnis. It will be good for the Christians and Druze and other minorities and will help unite them around issues that transcend sectarian divisions. We have people who are Sunnis who still refuse to be identified by their sect. There are many people like me and others who want real change and want to be part of this new Syrian majority. Only such a solution could be sustainable, and it will be the beginning of solving this crisis that is aggravating the entire world now.
Ultimately, it is not a matter of intervention against Assad. It is a matter of helping Syrians to regain ownership of their country and to hold the criminals accountable. ISIS is not that big of a monster. It can be easily defeated. Many of us are people from Raqqa [ISIS’s capital], scattered around the world, and we are all ready to go and fight them. But we are not ready to go back to slavery under Bashar al-Assad. This is a clique and junta that killed and tortured on an industrial scale. Under international law, it is meant to be held accountable. This is not something that we are inventing. We don’t ask Obama or Hollande to come solve our problems. International law was breached several times, and those who did this should be held accountable. We have a special tribunal at The Hague and Bashar al-Assad should be referred there.
Do you have hope for the future of Syria?
We are resilient people. We still believe in human dignity and in a better future for ourselves and others. We have a cause, and it is a just cause. I think that the Syrian revolution liberated us from an inferiority complex we had toward the other people of the world. We don’t wait for others to solve our problems now, or to define for us what is just and what is fair. We are struggling for our emancipation, without illusions. We are hopeful that more people will join us in this struggle. It is not just about Syria any longer. It is about the world.
The post Syria’s “Voice of Conscience” Has a Message for the West appeared first on The Intercept.

In July, Pew Research Center reported that “most Americans already feel election coverage fatigue.” July! More than three months ago. And in those three months, it’s safe to say that no one has gotten any respite. The news cycle has churned forward, the conversations have devolved, and the fissures revealed by the primary elections have turned into gaping crevasses.

ROUND 3

KIMBERLY: Well, you appear amused at how I’m zeroing in on Trump as defining this election, but I did point out that this is an extraordinary cycle. One candidate dominates all the headlines while the other is (wisely) allowing him to dig his hole. The sad thing is that the hole seems to be a never-ending one. And this extends to all of the Congressional races too, for they all fade in comparison to the overwhelming circus attraction. Trump may protest about the “biased media,” but this is what he wanted. Yet, to ignore him does a disservice to those he wounds with the prejudices he awakens.
Also, I think we’ve — oddly — come full circle in this conversation. There’s definite privilege associated with how you feel comfortable in clicking away from the “lesser theatrics” of Trump. He’s running for president and therefore cannot be compartmentalized if we’re going to hold him to the same standards that the rest of the media requires of Hillary Clinton. He’s almost purposely offended minorities while declaring his candidacy, he’s threatening to deport children of illegal immigrants, and that doesn’t even touch his contempt for women. Trump has ridiculously claimed to hold more support than anyone else for females, yet his words and alleged actions have proven themselves for decades. It took footage of his lewd commentary for some people to take the matter seriously, but there are still others who kind of shrug and hope he’ll disappear.
The thing is, no matter whether Clinton wins, Trump won’t go away. It won’t be daisies and cat videos. He’ll either win (and god knows what), or he will lose and do one of two things: (1) Go ballistic and continue to hold twice-daily rallies while shouting that he’s been robbed; or (2) Immediately launch Trump TV and claim this was the plan all along. His effects will be lasting. Trump sparked an uprising of alt-righters who now feel comfy expressing their views in the mainstream, but he’s also fed these conspiracy theorists for years prior to this election. Birtherism and his attempt to quickly erase his involvement stands as one easily accessible example. For those who have been affected or even terrified by Trump’s rhetoric — minorities and women — he’s much less of a pimple than an invasive cancer that may not be treatable.
But as far as the “big issues” go … of course, they will continue. I look forward to a time when news returns to “normal,” when we can concentrate on social justice without a one-man filter muddying everything. I’m somewhat optimistic about the fatigue, too, as a sign that people are ready to shake off this national depression and vote.
STEVE: I hope you’re right. And thank you for calling me out. You hit the nail on the head: To compartmentalize Trump is to reveal privilege. It’s a privilege to be able to avoid even his “lesser theatrics” when so many people see those behaviors as the outgrowths of a maniac. Fair enough.
For what it’s worth, and I feel like it may be worth something to many of our commenters, Hillary has contributed to my fatigue too (though not to the same degree). I think, with her, there are times when I’ve had to ignore certain things about her candidacy, because it’s hard for me to be reasonable about Hillary and concede her shortcomings, in light of her opposition. In March, when people said, “Hillary is just as bad as Trump!” we had a discussion. Now, I feel totally alienated by someone who might compare the two.

Donald Trump always has a bone to pick with specific individuals, groups or both — it all depends on the time of day, the weather and whether or not his hair combs over correctly. That said, those who’ve most consistently drawn the Republican nominee’s ire are the members of the press, whom he attacks regularly on social media, at campaign rallies and during interviews. And with repeated calls for British-like libel laws and his followers targeting journalists, it seems Trump’s animosity won’t end anytime soon.
As CBS News correspondent Sopan Deb revealed while covering a Trump rally in Tallahassee, Florida on Tuesday, not all of Trump’s supporters agree with their candidate’s opinion of the press. Hence a sweet, handwritten note the CBS News team received from one of the rally’s attendees, in which they apologized for the mob mentality directed their way:
“Thank you for doing your jobs!” the note read. “I have seen the reports of the hostility directed your way at Trump rallies, and as a proud American I am horrified. I am so sorry.” The writer went on to praise the “ideals” on which America was founded, including the need for a “free, open, functioning press.”
Other members of the media covering Trump quickly chimed in online, including Bryan Llenas with Fox News. The national correspondent shared a “letter we received outside trump rally in Pennsylvania last week” in response to Deb’s original tweet:
“Your work is critical,” said Llenas’s note. “It moves our democracy forward — on both the days I applaud your headlines and the days I don’t. Because your work isn’t about partisanship, but about the truth. Keep up your hard work!”
Considering all the times Trump has insulted various cable news channels, newspapers, magazines and journalists on Twitter, it’s a sure bet he doesn’t share these two supporters’ sentiments.

When it comes to a lawsuit, Donald Trump is an expert. Or I should say, he’s allegedly an expert. He claims to want to sue a lot of folks, he has a history of bringing people into court for a variety of reasons, and he claims victory a lot in the media. This may or may not be true, but the bottom line is that the guy seems to like to keep his legal team busy. It comes up due to his recent promise to sue the women accusing him of sexual assault, making the promise part of his plan for the first 100 days in office.
According to The Daily Show’s report, Trump has a fine history with lawsuits and his promise to sue these women might actually happen. He’s quick to sue and there’s really no way to skate by it, earning him the title that he’s a “libel bully.” I mean he took Bill Maher to court and failed over one of the silliest reasons I’ve heard:

Donald Trump has voluntarily dismissed his $5 million lawsuit against Bill Maher for failing to live up to an “unconditional offer” made on NBC’s Tonight Show to donate $5 million to charity if Trump provided a copy of his birth certificate proving that he’s not “spawn of his mother having sex with orangutan.”

It’s ridiculous, but it hasn’t stopped Trump from hitting the courtroom — or his lawyers in his place. Also pretty easy to take on several lawsuits if you’re allegedly using charity money to fund them. All alleged and reported by other bodies, by the way. Please don’t take my dog and children from me.
(Via The Daily Show)

Megyn Kelly & Newt Gingrinch had an insane fight tonight in which he accused her of being obsessed w sex.

Tuesday evening’s episode of The Kelly File got really ugly, really fast. Things weren’t going so well already, for Trump surrogate Newt Gingrich wasn’t thrilled with discussing Donald Trump’s lewd commentary about grabbing women’s genitals without consent. Nor did he wish to dissect the wave of allegations against his preferred candidate. Gingrich argued that the media spends too much time on Trump and not enough time on Hillary Clinton. Well, Kelly called Trump a “sexual predator,” and then Gingrich accused Kelly of being obsessed with sex.
These two video clips show much of the exchange. The second one ends with Kelly telling Gingrich, “Take your anger issues and spend some time working on them.” And in return, Gingrich could only tell Kelly, “…. and you too.”

Trump notices signs behind him: “Blacks for Trump — you watch. You watch.” http://pic.twitter.com/UrQO6wPXMe

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) October 25, 2016

On Tuesday, Donald Trump continued making his bid for Florida at a Sanford rally. The Republican nominee uttered his usual bombastic claims, including “There’s gonna be a lot of Brexit happening in a few weeks.” Considering how Trump reacted to Brexit, those aren’t promising words. Yet the main attraction of this rally happened to be a white woman standing behind Trump, who was holding a “Blacks for Trump” sign. He couldn’t have been more thrilled to see this display. “I love the signs behind me … blacks for Trump! I like those signs!” he exclaimed. “Blacks for trump, you watch. You watch.”
Naturally, Trump made these statements despite his checkered history with “the blacks.” His tone is similar to the time when he vowed to gain 99% of the black vote in 2020, but he’s trying to rewrite his narrative a little too transparently. These signs are now a fixture at Trump rallies, and Trump totes them too, along with “Women for Trump” signs. It’s a little awkward.

Trump’s supporters appear to enjoy sporting these signs, including the aforementioned white woman. People noticed her and spawned a hashtag. Some folks were amused while others were not impressed.
This is apparently something that just happens at Trump rallies now. Here’s the scene from a Las Vegas rally last week.

Russia has been in the news lately largely thanks to its attempts to relaunch the Cold War on the internet and its unquestioning support of the Assad regime in Syria. And now it’s grabbed attention for another reason: They’ve debuted the sequel no one wanted to its “Satan” nuclear missile.
The Satan 2, officially known as the RS-28 Sarmat, has been an open secret for a while now as Russia has more or less engaged in the geopolitical equivalent of a marketing campaign. And this is no different, as the first specs were declassified by the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau. On paper, the missile is state of the art, able to evade radar defenses and travel far enough to hit the East or West Coast of the US with a payload that could destroy an area the size of Texas.
That said, there’s reason to be skeptical of the Sarmat’s capabilities. The Sarmat has been rumored to have missed several key points on its development timeline, and modern Russia is notorious for making claims about its military capability that are not backed up by fact. Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov, for example, has had decades of trouble and was recently widely mocked by military observers as it went through the English Channel belching smoke. Last year, Russia’s Armata T-14 tank debuted at a Victory Day parade only to break down in front of Lenin’s Mausoleum.
Similarly, Russia is notably talking about the Satan 2 right when the original Satan missiles that carry Russia’s warheads are reaching the end of their operational life. So like anything with years of hype behind it, take that hype with a grain of salt. Russia will almost certainly remain a nuclear power, and that’s worrying in light of their recent behavior, but the claims of parity, or superiority, to the US nuclear arsenal will hopefully never have to be proven.
(via Gizmodo)

Donald Trump: “All of my employees are having a tremendous problem with Obamacare.” https://t.co/aeRxnZ4Rx4 https://t.co/LhAilyMi0q

— CNN (@CNN) October 25, 2016

On Tuesday, Donald Trump awkwardly called out Obamacare. The media mogul said his employees were having difficulties with President Obama’s signature health care legislation, and then Mark Cuban called out his gaffe (because of course he did).
Trump’s comments were delivered outside of beautiful Trump National Doral Miami resort, as a throng of his loyal employees stood behind him to help reinforce his Obamacare criticism. Trump began his discussion by talking about jobs, but he veered off topic and went after Obama:

“And I can say all of my employees are having a tremendous problem with Obamacare. You folks, this is another group. Is that a correct statement?” he said, gesturing to the crowd. “You look at what they’re going through with their healthcare is horrible because of Obamacare. So we’ll repeal it and replace it. But this is about jobs.”

Trump’s criticism arrives after news that Obamacare premiums will increase 25 percent next year, but he’s also revealing how his companies handle health insurance. Politico points out how Trump’s employees wouldn’t have to deal with Obamacare if their employer, Trump, provided them with health insurance. This seemed to dawn on Trump mid-speech as he back peddled to say, “This is what jobs do. Jobs just make lives and they make people and they make families and they’re not worried about their health care because we take great care of people.”
Trump was then offered a chance to clarify during an interview with Fox News, but pleaded ignorance, saying “I don’t much use Obamacare, I must be honest with you, because it is so bad for the people and they can’t afford it.” Trump’s gaffe was called out by some opponents including Mark Cuban:
Bill Clinton, who himself has criticized Obamacare’s premiums, spoke out in a positive way today about how Hillary hopes to make adjustments.
The Affordable Care Act marketplace can be tough to navigate, so perhaps Trump can’t be blamed for not knowing the ins and outs.
(Via Politico, CNN & CNN Money)

On Monday night, a New Jersey father jumped from a bridge over the Wanaque River. Police believe he may have been holding his two sons, aged 1 and 3, when he made his dive, which was fatal for him. The boys, however, miraculously survived the fall and are being treated injuries that aren’t considered to be life threatening.
In the above video, Pequannock Capt. Christopher DePuyt reveals how the father’s vehicle was found on the bridge, which DePuyt says he can “only surmise” enabled the father to climb over the fence barrier with his sons. This barrier on the Interstate 287 bridge (which includes a 32-inch concrete wall and a 6-foot fence) was specifically built in 2004 to deter suicides after about a dozen people leaped to their deaths after the bridge’s 1993 construction.
No video footage or witnesses can reveal exactly what happened near the bridge’s 56-mile marker, but the man was traced through his cell phone after he reportedly left his home during a fight with his wife (during which he threatened to kill the children). The man’s dead body was recovered, and somehow, his children — whose falls may have been broken by trees — are still alive. The younger child suffered a bruised lung while the older boy sustained a concussion. The boys remain hospitalized.
Capt. DePuyt described the incident as a domestic dispute that ended as “horribly as it possibly could.”
(Via NBC NY, New Jersey State Police, NorthJersey.com & NBC New York)

From the so-called “Trump TV” to the totally-exists Trump Winery, Republican nominee Donald Trump has spent much of his presidential campaign hocking confirmed and rumored wares to supporters, potential voters, and cable television news crews willing to grant him the free airtime. One of the many failed products Trump hasn’t tried to drown out otherwise political press conferences with, however, only came to light thanks to an exclusive report by the website Fusion. The product in question? A failed television cartoon created by those in charge of Trump Magazine called Trump Takeover.
Yes, this is a real thing, and yes, Fusion has the images and the details to prove it. Trump Takeover was “a TV cartoon for kids, starring The Donald as a wrong-righting, crusading superhero,” and as creator Mitchell Schultz told
Fusion, he suggested the idea to Trump since “the way to create immortality for [him was] through the youth of America.”
Along with writer Louis Cimino, Schultz pitched a variety of plot ideas to to the Trump Magazine team. Like an episode titled “Politically Corrected,” in which the United States finds itself “in a state of virtual collapse,” forcing the Donald and several cast members from The Apprentice to “go to Washington to take over.” As Cimino told Fusion:

“We wrote some stories — ‘SuperTrump,’ that kind of thing,” Cimino recalls. “I wrote the stories — ‘[Trump] solves the gang problem in New York and fights the aliens,’ stuff like that. I just remember the gist. He saves the city; he saves the Yankees. I wrote whole episodes with the dialogue.” Cimino says he “did it as a goof. I did it for fun.”

Trump and his magazine publisher, Michael Jacobson, loved the ideas so much they commissioned artist Elizabeth Koshy, who outsourced much of the work to her native India, to animate a few episodes. Not only was Jacobson happy about Koshy’s prices — since she was “giving [them] competitive pricing that no one else could give” — but he and Trump also skipped out on paying the artists what they were owed.
So much for “SuperTrump.”
(Via Fusion)

So even though science has proven caffeine is good for us in so many ways, it turns out mixing it with alcohol is maybe not such a great idea. Though they may be a perfect match for having fun, the combined effect of caffeinated cocktails on the brain long-term is similar to the changes caused by taking cocaine — according to a study published in the open access science journal PLoS ONE. Cancel that coffee beer, bartender!
The Purdue University researchers studied mice to determine the effects of mixing caffeine with alcohol (Picture scientists serving mice tiny drinks. That’s not what happened obviously but picture it, isn’t it great?) and found that the effect of combined alcohol and caffeine produced a greater increase in locomotor activity in adolescent mice than caffeine alone. The increase was similar to the effect produced by giving mice cocaine. They also learned that giving a mouse a mixture of caffeine and alcohol could sensitize (or enhance) its behavioral response to a later dose of cocaine, and vice versa.
The team also looked at the changes in the brain caused by the booze and caffeine mix and saw elevated levels of the protein ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens — an area of the brain important in addiction pathways. And just like with the behavioral effects, this change is also seen when you give a mouse coke.
The age of the mice in the study indicates adolescent brains may be particularly sensitive to the effects of mixing alcohol and caffeine, as is true with many drugs. Adolescent brains are extra squishy and prone to changes, after all. And since a lot of useful knowledge about human brains comes from studying tiny mouse ones, this study means it’s probably a good idea for everyone, especially teens, to chill with the mixing energy drinks and alcohol.

Donald Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway does not have an easy job. In a sit-down interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Conway shared what it’s like to supervise one of the strangest presidential runs in U.S. history.
The segment shows Conway brushing her daughter’s hair and getting ready to walk out the door while her own mother — who moved in to help with her four young grandchildren during the campaign — flips pancakes over the stove. Bash notes that the staircase in her home very closely resembles the one depicted in the SNL skit that made fun of her “day off.”
Though she skillfully evades noting any failure in her candidate during televised interviews, Conway says she doesn’t “sugarcoat at all” when it comes to critiquing Trump to his face. After his speech at Gettysburg last week, for example, Conway says she told him, “You and I are in a fight for the next 17 days … Because I know you’re going to win. And that comment you just made sounds like you think you’re going to lose. And we’re going to argue about it until you win.”
Though it seemed for a period after Conway was hired that she had effectively “tamed” Trump, the Republican nominee for president quickly resumed his 3am Twitter rants and off-the-cuff rally speeches. “Literally, people will seriously say, ‘Can’t you delete his Twitter app?'” Conway said.
“That was one of my questions!” Bash replied, laughing.
(Via CNN)

A Canadian nurse has been charged with eight counts of first-degree murder in connection with a series of deaths at the nursing home where she worked. Elizabeth Tracey Mae Wettlaufer recently entered into custody for these crimes, which occurred between 2007 and 2014, as reported by CTV London.
Few details have emerged about the case since Wettlaufer was charged on Tuesday, but BBC News reported Wettlaufer’s victims were between the ages of 75 and 96 years old and were given a fatal dose of a drug. Although that drug has yet to be revealed. Making the case a bit more tricky is that the deaths occurred at two different long-term care facilities, with one being in Woodstock, Ontario – where seven of the victims perished – and the other being in London, Ontario.
Woodstock Police Chief William Renton says that because of the nature of the allegations, a multi-jurisdictional major case manager was brought in to help facilitate the multiple city deaths. Renton went on to say at this time the cannot elaborate upon the allegations, but they are putting in the necessary resources to solve it:

“As you can imagine, this disclosure caused us to immediately assess the information and muster the necessary resources to ensure a thorough investigation of the facts. The information came to our attention, and unfortunately the manner in which it came to our attention will form part of the evidence and we can’t speak to that.”

Representatives from the long-term care facilities said they are cooperating with authorities and that no other residents of the facilities are in danger. Details are still trickling in regarding Wettlaufer’s case, and police are asking anyone to come forward if they have information.
(Via CTV News London & BBC News)

In addition to tackling how Catholic hospitals fail women on last night’s Full Frontal, Samantha Bee also addressed the elephant in the room by exposing the rampant misogyny Hillary Clinton has faced during the 2016 election cycle — and not just from her opponent Donald Trump, but from political commentators, right-wing voters, and everyone else in between. To accomplish this, she went straight to the United Nations to chat with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright about what it’s like to be a women in a position of leadership.
When asked about whether Clinton’s “playing into her woman-ness” helps her or hurts her, Albright responded, “I think its very hard to tell, frankly. Why are men afraid of women? I think we’re seeing in whatever previous relationship they have had, like the third grade that told Johnny to be nicer… or, Donald.”
She continued, “When Mr. Trump talks about her, in terms of her voice or her looks, I think he thinks he’s being subtle. I don’t think he’s being subtle. It kind of gives permission to others to, if not say it, think it.”
To really get to the bottom of the issue, Albright suggests that Bee talk to female heads of state in other countries to find out just what Hillary Clinton might be in for if and when she becomes elected. What she finds, for the most part, is surprising in how remarkably unsurprising it is. But if the Marshall Islands can get there, maybe some day the rest of the world can catch up.

Trump in 2008: Clinton will go down in history “at a minimum” as a great senator (h/t @KFILE @NY1) http://pic.twitter.com/zvxHOButEH

— Beth Ponsot (@bponsot) October 19, 2016

Donald Trump’s comments towards Hillary Clinton in the last few weeks of this election cycle have been, shall we say … not kind. But the two weren’t always mortal enemies. A video interview with NY1 from 2008 has resurfaced to show Trump glowingly talking about Clinton, saying “at a minimum” she will go down as a great senator.
Much of Trump’s campaign rhetoric involves him claiming how country is in the gutter and that Clinton is responsible. “Lock her up” has been a Trump rallying cry, and he does not refrain from name calling. Yet there was a time when the Trumps and Clintons got along well. In the 2008 interview, Trump flat-out calls Bill a great president and claims Hillary will go down as a great senator. He went on to praise the Clinton presidency, something he has flip-flopped on this election season:

“You know you look at the country then … The economy was doing great. Look at what happened during the Clinton years. I mean, we had no war, the economy was doing great, everybody was happy. A lot of people hated him because they were jealous as hell. You know people get jealous and they hate you. Bill Clinton was a great president. Hillary Clinton is a great woman and a good woman.”

And the praise did not stop there. CNN points out how Trump wrote a 2008 blog post, which deserves an investigation of its own because it features him heaping further heaping praise on the Clintons. The most illuminating remark Trump made within the post is how the Clintons are “fine people:”

“Hillary is smart, tough and a very nice person, and so is her husband. Bill Clinton was a great President. They are fine people. Hillary was roughed up by the media, and it was a tough campaign for her, but she’s a great trouper. Her history is far from being over.”

Politics sure can change people’s attitudes, as Trump has doubled down on his rhetoric towards Clinton in these final weeks of the election.
(Via NY 1 & CNN)

President Obama undoubtedly had a great time reading a final round of “Mean Tweets” on Monday’s Jimmy Kimmel Live, but he also sat down with the talk show host to discuss the election. And since half the race for the White House includes Donald Trump, Kimmel couldn’t help but ask the president about the Republican nominee’s antics on and off the campaign trail. Specifically, he wanted to know whether or not Obama “[wished he] were running against Donald Trump” so he could “climb in there” with the same tenacity as Vice President Joe Biden.
Laughter at Uncle Joe’s latest shenanigans aside, Obama said he thought Hillary Clinton was “doing just fine” against Trump. Though in referencing Michelle Obama’s stringent speech against the Donald’s recent (and past) behavior regarding allegations of sexual assault, and his repeated touts about election rigging, the president adopted a more serious tone:

“There is something qualitatively different about the way Trump has operated in the political sphere. I ran against John McCain. I ran against Mitt Romney. Obviously I thought that I could do a better job, but they’re both honorable men, and if they had won, then I wouldn’t worry about the general course of this country… What we haven’t seen before is somebody questioning the integrity of elections and the will of the people.”

Obama went on to list several examples of Trump’s penchant for “putting down” various groups and individuals, like women and Muslim-Americans, which he sees as evidence for Trump’s “qualitatively different” approach to politics. Or as his implied insult goes, the kind of politics enacted by those who aren’t “honorable.”
“If you are willing to say anything and do anything, even when it undermines everything that’s been built by previous generations, that’s a problem,” Obama concluded. “That’s why I take this election very seriously.”

From defending Donald Trump against allegations of sexual harassment by referencing King David’s “500 concubines” to ranting about Hillary Clinton’s underwear, Fox News personality Sean Hannity never ceases to amaze. And with recent reports of the Trump campaign’s so-called “Trump TV” launching after the election, many suspect the Republican nominee’s stalwart cheerleader may leave Fox News for greener and even more partisan pastures. Considering his interview with an alleged Clinton “fixer” on Monday’s show (and Trump’s penchant for touting conspiracy theories), it seems a match made in heaven.
But really, Hannity devoted the first 15 minutes of his program to Jeff Rovin, a former Weekly World News editor-in-chief turned novelist, whom the National Enquirer claims is a “Mr. Fix It” for both Hillary and former President Bill Clinton. This is a thing that actually happened on national cable television on Monday night.
“I was fixing something for an actor who was in [the Clintons’] inner circle, and that was how I was engaged,” Rovin explained when Hannity asked about his involvement. “I knew where the back doors were in Washington, so there were different ways to deal with things.”
As The Daily Beast notes, Hannity pressed Rovin “gently” for details about his work with the Clintons, what stories he helped bury or soften, and so on. Though as the segment wore on, the host — whose thinking was informed by his penchant for movies — became more aggressive when his guest didn’t offer any particularly salacious details about what he’d supposedly “fixed.”
As surprising as Hannity’s coverage of the National Enquirer story is, this isn’t the first time he’s covered stories published by the tabloid. And with his preferred presidential candidate’s supposed connections to the publication, the Fox News host’s reliance on it probably won’t end anytime soon.
(Via Fox News and The Daily Beast)