STORMY DANIELS SAGA & ROBERT MUELLER DRAMA WILL NOT IMPEACH TRUMP (FAKE NEWS)

STORMY DANIELS SAGA & ROBERT MUELLER DRAMA WILL NOT IMPEACH TRUMP (FAKE NEWS):

DEMOCRATS ARE HOPING TO IMPEACH TRUMP WITH DANIELS & MUELLER MESS BUT IT’S FUTILE.

TRUMP IS NOT A POLITICIAN. HE’S A POWERFUL NY BUSINESSMAN WITH MANY GREAT CONNECTIONS.

STORMY DANIELS WAS NOT RAPED AND SHE IS NOT A SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM.

HIRING GIULIANI IS A STRATEGY TO STOP THE BLEEDING YET FORCES DEMS TO REVEAL THEIR IMPEACHMENT STRATEGY.

TRUMP’S STRATEGY OF MAKING DEMS REVEAL ALL THEIR FUTURE PLANS AGAINST HIM IS WORKING.

IF DEMOCRATS WANT TO REGAIN POWER THEY NEED TO FIND AN AMAZING CANDIDATE FOR 2020.

DEMOCRATS STOP WASTING TIME WITH FAKE NEWS MESS AND PREPARE FOR 2020.

REAL VOTERS DON’T CARE ABOUT FAKE NEWS MESS.

DEMS SHOULD FIND A GOOD CANDIDATE & DEVELOP HIM OR HER INTO A GREAT CANDIDATE LIKE OBAMA.

NEITHER CORY BOOKER, NOR KAMALA HARRIS STAND A CHANCE AGAINST TRUMP.

MAYBE ANDREW CUOMO OR KIRSTEN GILIBRAND BUT THAT’S IT.

I REPEAT.

TRUMP IS NOT A POLITICIAN. HE’S A POWERFUL NY BUSINESSMAN WITH MANY GREAT CONNECTIONS.

STORMY DANIELS SAGA & ROBERT MUELLER DRAMA WILL NOT IMPEACH TRUMP.

TRUMP IS MAKING DEMOCRATS LOOK FOOLISH AND THEY’RE GOING TO LOSE TO GOP AGAIN IN 2020.

BECAUSE OF WASTING ENERGY ON FAKE NEW MESS.

REAL VOTERS DON’T CARE ABOUT FAKE NEWS MESS.


Post Sources: Fox News, NY Mag, CNN, Al Jazeera, TIME, Washington Post, Youtube


***** Meet the 7 Lawyers Advising Trump on Robert Mueller and Stormy Daniels


President Donald Trump is shaking up his legal team, again.

As negotiations continue with special counsel Robert Mueller on the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, the president has added a new lawyer and is considering making other changes.

The newest addition to the legal team has garnered attention for burnishing Trump on cable TV. Former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova previously argued on Fox News that the Russia investigation was part of a “brazen plot” by FBI and Department of Justice staffers to frame Trump.

Trump’s legal team also reached out in recent days to noted D.C. powerhouse Ted Olson, solicitor general under President George W. Bush, but he declined within hours of the news becoming public. Trump is also reportedly in discussions with Emmett Flood, a veteran D.C. lawyer who worked with Bill Clinton during the impeachment.

The news contradicts Trump’s tweet on the subject earlier this month, in which he declared that he was not seeking to change his legal representation.

The Russia probe is not the only matter on which Trump is getting legal advice.

The president’s private lawyers are also currently working through separate lawsuits:

They are suing porn star Stormy Daniels for violating a hush agreement about her alleged affair with the president, while also defending Trump in a defamation lawsuit for calling former “Apprentice” contestant Summer Zervos a liar after she accused Trump of sexual assault.

Former Playboy model Karen McDougal is also suing the parent company of the National Enquirer, whose chief executive is friendly with Trump, seeking to be released from a legal agreement that bars her from speaking about an alleged affair with the president as well. Trump’s lawyers are not involved in that case.

~ Here’s a look at the lawyers representing Trump in the various matters.

~ Don McGahn

McGahn is the current White House counsel, the top lawyer tasked with advising the president on legal issues about policies and legislation. But McGahn has been at the center of controversies over Trump’s challenged travel ban, executive orders and the scandal surrounding former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s tenure in the White House, and Trump at one point handed off responsibility of Russia-related issues to his personal attorney. Before becoming White House counsel, McGahn was Trump’s lawyer on the campaign, and he previously served as a commissioner with the Federal Election Commission. McGahn reportedly threatened to quit when Trump asked him in 2017 to fire Mueller, and the president backed down.

~ Ty Cobb

A former federal prosecutor and a white-collar defense lawyer at the law firm Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C., Cobb was at one point in charge of overseeing the legal strategy and media response to investigations into the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia. Trump has reportedly considered firing Cobb, who repeatedly said during 2017 that the Russia investigation would be finishing soon and encouraged the president to cooperate with Mueller. In September, Cobb was overheard by a reporter talking openly at a Washington restaurant about the investigation.

~ John Dowd

A noted white collar defense attorney in Washington, Dowd joined Trump’s legal team in June. He argued in December that a president cannot obstruct justice, a controversial legal theory that many experts disagree with. And in March, he told a reporter that he hopes Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will shut down the Russia investigation, a break from Cobb’s talk of cooperating with Mueller. The remark led to questions about whether the president’s legal strategy on the Russia investigation was moving to a more aggressive stance.

~ Michael Cohen

Cohen is a personal lawyer, spokesperson and close confidant of Trump’s. He’s been working for Trump for years, closely enough that he has hired his own lawyer to help him with the Russia probe. He’s known as a particularly aggressive advocate on Trump’s behalf, Trump’s “pit bull or consigliere,” as ABC puts it, for threatening legal action against critics, yelling at reporters and vigorously defending his boss on Twitter.

~ Jay Sekulow

Sekulow is on Trump’s personal legal team advising him on Russia issues, and one of the lawyers who often appears in television hits. On Sunday on ABC, Sekulow said of Donald Trump Jr.’s Russian meeting, “Well, I wonder why the Secret Service, if this was nefarious, why the Secret Service allowed these people in.” The Secret Service responded and said it did not vet the meeting. Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice and hosts his own talk show, and before joining Trump’s team he had spent his legal career representing conservative groups.

~ Joseph diGenova

Trump added Joseph diGenova, a Washington lawyer and former U.S. attorney, to his legal team in March. Two months earlier, diGenova had gone on Fox News and endorsed the conspiracy theory that the FBI and Justice Department framed Trump. “There was a brazen plot to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton and, if she didn’t win the election, to then frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime,” he said. “Make no mistake about it: A group of F.B.I. and D.O.J. people were trying to frame Donald Trump of a falsely created crime.” It also emerged that during the investigation of President Bill Clinton in 1997, diGenova published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that sitting presidents can be indicted, a legal question that may take on new relevance under Mueller’s investigation.

~ Marc Kasowitz

Trump’s personal attorney, Kasowitz has represented Trump for years, including in divorces, bankruptcy cases and the sexual misconduct allegations that surfaced during the presidential campaign. He’s known for a fiery temper—in an email outburst published by ProPublica, Kasowitz told an unidentified person, “”F–k you… And you don’t know me, but I will know you. How dare you send me an email like that. I’m on you now. You are f–king with me now. Let’s see who you are. Watch your back b—h.” Kasowitz then reportedly left Trump’s legal team, but he has recently been working with Trump on the Zervos lawsuit.

KIRSTEN GILIBRAND FOR PREZ IN 2020? PERHAPS AS VICE-PREZ FOR HILLARY

KIRSTEN GILIBRAND FOR PREZ IN 2020? PERHAPS AS VICE-PREZ FOR HILLARY:

WALL STREET LIKES GILIBRAND & HILLARY.

NO PREZ CANDIDATE CAN WIN WITHOUT WALL STREET’S $UPPORT.

HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD RUN AGAIN AS DEMS’ TOP TICKET WITH GILIBRAND AS HER ROBIN.

WHY HAS EVERYONE GIVEN UP ON HILLARY?

SHE DESERVES ONE MORE CHANCE & I THINK SHE COULD WIN UNLESS TRUMP RUNS AGAIN.

TRUMP BORROWED OBAMA’S POLITICAL PLAYBOOK FOR CAMPAIGNING.

THIS TIME HILLARY WILL HAVE TO DO IT OBAMA’S WAY OR DEMS WILL LOSE AGAIN.

LAUGH IF YOU WANT BUT I’M USUALLY CORRECT EVEN IF I HAVEN’T RECEIVED ENOUGH CREDIT FOR MY POLITICAL COMMENTARY.

I’M JUST SAYING.


Sources: PBS, NBC News, The Week, Youtube


***** Kirsten Gillibrand 2020? Not with her Wall Street problem.


TThe presidential campaign was always here. Before man was, the campaign waited for him. And President Trump's first 100 days in office are almost up. So you know what that means: idle speculation about who will run in 2020!
Jokes aside, it is obviously too early to actually start running for the presidency, even in this wretchedly dysfunctional country. But it's not too early for ambitious politicos to start thinking about which policies to advocate for and what kind of reputation to cultivate. Laying the groundwork early has always been part of running for national leadership in every democracy.

One obvious proto-candidate is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). She has a decent national profile, a couple of solid signature policies, and a lot of goodwill with the Democratic base for defying President Trump early. Plus, she would be able to claim that first female president ring that eluded Hillary Clinton. (Better still, she doesn't have one quarter of the baggage that Clinton had.)

There's just one big problem: Wall Street. If she wants to lock up the next Democratic presidential primary, she would be wise to make herself absolutely loathed by the bankster class.

The basic shape of a potential Gillibrand candidacy is outlined reasonably well in a sympathetic profile by Rebecca Traister. Gillibrand started her career in a conservative district in New York, taking office in 2006 as part of the great Democratic wave. She had been a lawyer for Big Tobacco in her early career, and started out as a Blue Dog conservative, holding pro-gun, pro-austerity, and anti-immigration positions.

She was thus thought to be a bad choice to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat when Clinton was tapped to serve as secretary of state in 2009. But Gillibrand quickly moved left, reversing course on immigration and gun control, and helping kill Bill Clinton's odious policy on gays in the military. She was easily elected in a 2010 special election and reelected properly in 2012.

She has since been a fairly middle-of-the-road Democrat, but has made a bit of a national name for herself by advocating for paid family leave in the form of the FAMILY Act. As policy and politics, it could stand to be more aggressive, but it's still pretty good by Democratic Party standards. (At least it's not a rotten tax-advantaged savings account.) And since then, Gillibrand has garnered even more attention by consistently opposing President Trump in almost everything he's done — including voting against more of his Cabinet nominees than any other senator.

But her record on Wall Street will haunt her. Gillibrand, as usual for New York senators, has worked assiduously on behalf of the financial industry. In 2010 she briefly suggested filing an amendment making it harder to regulate derivatives trading, though she later backed down after a backlash. In 2011, she complained that derivatives regulation would make U.S. banks uncompetitive. In 2013, she and five other Democratic senators wrote to then-Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew arguing essentially for an indefinite delay of regulations on cross-border derivative trading. As Reid Pilfant wrote in 2012, she has "quietly overcome considerable skepticism about her on Wall Street to become a go-to advocate for the financial services industry in her own right."

Why is this bad? For one, Wall Street is a cancer at the heart of the American economy. Its share of GDP has roughly doubled since the 1950s, and approximately all of that growth has come at the expense of the rest of the economy. It went from about 8 percent of corporate profits to 20-40 percent while becoming less efficient at basic financial tasks.

How? By abusing contracts, tax law, and market power to dominate consumers and productive enterprises so as to extract quick cash. Most "markets" in this country have become monopolies or oligopolies — the deliberate result of mergers and acquisitions coordinated on Wall Street. A generation of pressure from finance means corporations are now mainly expected to think only about the next quarter's profits, and to immediately disgorge them all — or more than all — to shareholders and executives.

Pick some economic abuse disproportionately affecting women or minorities, and it's a safe bet that some finance goons will be up to their neck in it. And that's setting aside actual criminal actions, like systematic document fraud that kicked nine million people out of their homes.

Dodd-Frank was a step in the right direction, but about 1/40th the proper size. We need cricket bat regulation.

Bernie Sanders got tremendous political mileage out of arguing that big banks must be broken up, his signature call to to wrest political power away from the "millionaires and billionaires," and above all from his palpable contempt for the ultra-rich. By necessity, taking a credible populist stand now means a ferocious attack on Wall Street.

If Gillibrand tries to split the difference, and run a Clinton-style campaign of status quo finance plus moderate new social programs, she's likely to be outflanked by a more credible populist. What's more, she will not have Clinton's gigantic head start, nor her total lock on all the party insiders. And with Clinton's astonishing loss to Trump, electability arguments against such a challenger will be far less convincing.

It will be tough — Gillibrand is married to a banker — but a good first step would be to contemptuously refuse all donations from finance for her upcoming reelection campaign. She won in 2012 by 46 points, partly on the strength of gigantic donations from Goldman Sachs. A smaller margin of victory there would pay national electoral dividends.