Scheme To Pay Off Trump Accusers Emerges, One Woman Was Offered $750,000

California woman"s rights Attorney Lisa Bloom operated behind a scheme to compensate Trump accusers and potential accusers using money from donors and tabloid media outlets during the final months of the 2016 presidential race, in an effort which intensified as the election neared, report John Solomon and Alison Spann of The Hill. 

Lisa Bloom’s efforts included offering to sell alleged victims’ stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000, the clients told The Hill. -The Hill

The various accounts of Bloom"s scheme were detailed in documents, emails and text messages reviewed by The Hill, and come on the heels of Bill O"Reilly"s claim that there is a secret tape of a women who was offered $200,000 to file sexual harassment charges against Trump. It is unknown whether or not O"Reilly"s claim is related to Bloom"s activities. 

Lisa Bloom with mother Gloria Allred

Bloom, the daughter of activist Attorney Gloria Allred who initially defended Harvey Weinstein against sexual assault allegations earlier this year and was publicly shamed by anti-Trump comedian Kathy Griffin, represented four women considering launching allegations against Trump last year. Two of the women went public, while the other two declined. 

Bloom says that the goal of her accusation mill was to simply raise funds to help women "relocate or arrange security if they felt unsafe during the waning days of a vitriolic election." With a commission to Bloom as high as 33 percent, if she was able to sell their stories to media outlets. 

“Our standard pro bono agreement for legal services provides that if a media entity offers to compensate a client for sharing his or her story we receive a percentage of those fees. This rarely happens. But, on occasion, a case generates media interest and sometimes (not always) a client may receive an appearance fee,” said Bloom.

Jill Harth

One client of Bloom"s who received money was Trump accuser Jill Harth, who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against trump in 1997, but withdrew it after Trump settled a separate lawsuit from Harth and her boyfriend for alleged breach of contract when trump backed out of a business deal. After Bloom began representing Harth, she arranged for a donor to help Harth pay off her Queens, NY mortgage, which was recorded as extinguished on Dec. 19, 2016. Bloom also "arranged a small payment from the licensing of some photos to the news media, then set up a GoFundMe page for Harth"s benefit which raised a little over $2,300.

Harth maintains Bloom"s financial incentives had nothing to do with her decision to reignite her claims:

“Nothing that you’ve said to me about my mortgage or the Go Fund Me that was created to help me out financially affects the facts or the veracity of my 1997 federal complaint against Donald J. Trump for sexual harassment and assault,” Harth told The Hill.

One woman who spoke with The Hill under the condition of anonymity said that she was friends with Bloom and Harth, and said that Bloom never encouraged them to make false statements - however their texts and emails "indicate Bloom held a strong dislike of Trump," telling the potential Trump accuser in one email that her story was "further evidence of what a sick predator this man is." 

Other documents reveal that Bloom"s efforts to peddle accusers intensified as the 2016 election neared. 

When Harth, for instance, informed Bloom she had just made a Facebook post urging other women to come forward about Trump in October 2016, the lawyer texted back: “Wow Jill that would be amazing. 27 days until the election.”

 

And when a potential client abruptly backed out of a pre-election news conference in which she was supposed to allege she was sexually assaulted at age 13, Bloom turned her attention to another woman.

 

That woman, Harth’s friend, went back and forth for weeks with Bloom in 2016 about going public with an allegation of an unsolicited advance by Trump on the 1990s beauty contest circuit.

“Give us a clear sense of what you need and we will see if it we can get it,” Bloom texted the woman a week before Election Day.

“I’m scared Lisa. I can’t relocate. I don’t like taking other people’s money,” the woman wrote to Bloom.

“Ok let’s not do this then,” Bloom responded. “We are just about out of time anyway.”

This angered the potential Trump accuser, who texted Bloom back about the deadline: “What does time have to do with this? Time to bury Trump??? You want my story to bury trump for what? Personal gain? See that "s why I have trust issues!!”

Another exchange of text messages between Bloom and a potential client reveal a negotiation which started out at $50,000. When the woman demanded more, Bloom came back with an offer of $100,000 from a donor, which the woman balked at.

“Hey after thinking about all this, I need more than $100,000.00. College money would be nice” for her daughter. “Plus relocation fees, as we discussed.”

After their discussion, the figure jumped to $200,000 after a series of phone calls. The support was promised to be tax-free, and included relocation complete with a new identity. 

Bloom told The Hill that the woman eventually demanded as much a $2 million, which eventually became a low six-figure offer: 

“She asked to be compensated, citing concerns for her safety and security and over time, increased her request for financial compensation to $2 million, which we told her was a non-starter,” Bloom told The Hill. “We did relay her security concerns to donors, but none were willing to offer more than a number in the low six figures, which they felt was more appropriate to address her security and relocation expenses.”

When the woman fell ill and ended up in the hospital days before the election, Bloom scrambled to reach her, sending repeated texts to a friend of the potential accuser, who replied with a picture of the client in a hospital bed. Bloom did not give up, warning the woman"s friend that if she did not go through with the accusation, it could have "a significant impact on her life," and a "big impact on her daughter."

"She is in no condition for visitors," the friend responded, adding "If you care about her you need to leave her be until she is feeling better." 

Bloom then flew out from California to visit the woman, who then decided she would not move forward with her allegations against Trump. Via The Hill: 

“I am confused because you sent me so many nice texts Wednesday night after my other client wasted so much of my time and canceled the press conference,” Bloom texted on Nov. 5, 2016. “That meant a lot to me. Thursday you said you wanted to do this if you could be protected/relocated. I begged you not to jerk me around after what I had just gone through.”

Bloom then browbeat the woman, texting "You have treated me very poorly. I have treated you with great respect as much as humanly possible. I have not made a dime off your case and I have devoted a great deal of time. It doesn’t matter. I could have done so much for you. But you can’t stick to your word even when you swear you will.”

The woman eventually agreed to meet Bloom after she got out of the hospital, two days before the election - where she told The Hill that Bloom had upped her offer to $750,000, which was declined. 

Another woman who declined to come forward with accusations says that Bloom made it very clear that she would be paid fees from arranging compensated media appearances. 

“Outlets with which I have good relationships that may pay for your first on camera interview, revealing your name and face: Inside Edition, Dr. Phil, LawNewz.com,” Bloom texted the woman just weeks before Election Day. “My best estimate of what I could get for you would be $10-15,000 (less our 1/3 attorney fee)."

After Bloom found out that one of her clients had already spoken with CBS News right before the election about a paid interview, she told the accuser "You and your friends should not be shopping the story it will come back to bite you," adding "And this whole thing we have worked so hard to make happen will go away." 

Are You Still Here?

The last few weeks of disgusting exposés from various so-called celebrities have proven one thing for sure - you cannot trust a single one of them... But then we knew that a year ago when half the liberal media world declared they would leave if Donald Trump was elected President... They didn"t!

As a reminder, Canada’s immigration website crashed from heavy traffic as it looked increasingly likely that Trump would win.

Here is a list of some of the celebs who claimed they would move out of the U.S. under a Trump administration. (via The Hill)

Actors

Bryan Cranston said he hopes he doesn’t have to pack his bags, but would “definitely move” if Trump won. “Absolutely, I would definitely move,” the “Breaking Bad” star said on “The Bestseller Experiment” podcast. “It’s not real to me that that would happen. I hope to God it won’t.”

Samuel L. Jackson slammed Trump for running a “hate”-filled campaign and said he would move to South Africa if he wins. “If that motherf---er becomes president, I’m moving my black ass to South Africa,” the movie star quipped to Jimmy Kimmel.

Lena Dunham told Andy Cohen at the Matrix Awards that “I know a lot of people have been threatening to do this, but I really will. I know a lovely place in Vancouver.” The star and creator of HBO’s “Girls” has been a vocal advocate for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee.

Neve Campbell, an actress on the political drama “House of Cards,” vowedto move back home to Canada, while “Orange is the New Black” actress Natasha Lyonne said she would hightail it to a mental hospital.

Singers

Cher tweeted this summer that if Trump gets elected, “I’m moving to Jupiter.”

Miley Cyrus wrote in an emotional Instagram post in March that tears were running down her cheek and she was unbelievably scared and sad. “I am moving if he is president,” the young pop star said. “I don’t say things I don’t mean!”

Barbara Streisand, a vocal Clinton supporter, told “60 Minutes” that “I’m either coming to your country if you’ll let me in, or Canada.”

Ne-Yo told TMZ last month that he’d move to Canada and be neighbors with fellow R&B singer Drake if the country elected Trump.

Comedians

Comedian Amy Schumer said in September that Spain would be her destination of choice. “My act will change because I will need to learn to speak Spanish,” Schumer said in an appearance on the BBC’s “Newsnight.” “Because I will move to Spain or somewhere. It’s beyond my comprehension if Trump won. It’s just too crazy.”

Chelsea Handler said she already made contingency plans months ago. “I did buy a house in another country just in case,” the comedian and talk show host said during an appearance on “Live with Kelly and Michael” in May. “So all these people that threaten to leave the country and then don’t — I actually will leave that country.”

Former “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart said he would consider “getting in a rocket and going to another planet, because clearly this planet’s gone bonkers” if the real estate mogul wins.

Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of the “The View”, said on an episode of the talk show earlier this year that if the country elects Trump, “maybe it’s time for me to move, you know. I can afford to go.”

Keegan-Michael Key said he would flee north to Canada. “It’s like, 10 minutes from Detroit,” the comedian told TMZ in January. “That’s where I’m from; my mom lives there. It’d make her happy too.”

Hispanic comedian George Lopez said Trump “won’t have to worry about immigration” if he takes the White House because “we’ll all go back.”

Political Figures

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joked in an interview with The New York Times in July that it’d be time to move to New Zealand if Trump were to win. “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,” she said quoting her husband who died in 2010. “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” Ginsburg later apologized for her comments, calling them “ill-advised.”

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton told a reporter earlier this year that he’s “reserving my ticket out of here if [Trump] wins.”

*  *  *

One year later... and they"re all still here.

Perhaps the lesson is those who "virtue signal" the most, are often the most lack in virtue.

Politics Of The Next 4 Years: Part 3 (What's An Independent To Do?)

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Before we get started, it’s important for me to clarify where I’m coming from politically. First, here’s what I’m not, as described in last year’s piece, Thank You and Welcome New Readers – A Liberty Blitzkrieg Mission Statement:

I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I do not consider myself a libertarian, progressive, socialist, anarchist, conservative, neoconservative or neoliberal.

I’m just a 38 year old guy trying to figure it all out.

Naturally, this doesn’t imply that there aren’t things which I hold dear. I have a strong belief system based on key principles. It’s just that I don’t think it makes sense for me to self-label and become part of a tribe. The moment you self-label, is the moment you stop thinking for yourself. It’s also the moment you stop listening. When you think you have all the answers, anyone who doesn’t think exactly as you do on all topics is either stupid or “paid opposition.”  I don’t subscribe to this way of thinking.

If I had to describe my politics at the most macro level, I guess you could call me a decentralist. I believe the primary threat to human liberty, happiness and evolution is the concentration of power, whether it manifests in government or business.

In today’s America we’ve seen the worst of both these things come together, as oligarchs and large corporations have used their money and influence to transform the country into an undemocratic, neo-feudal cesspool. The grotesque amount of centralized power that resides in Washington D.C. proved a very tempting and easily controlled target for modern day robber barons. The major threat we face today shouldn’t be simplified into a soundbite that consists of simply attacking “business” or “government” in isolation. We need to understand and accept that concentrated power in both these areas has morphed into a unified attack force against the general public.

Two tweets I sent out yesterday summarized how I see our current situation:

I still don"t understand why any of us put up with Washington D.C.

All 50 states should secede from it and start over.

— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) July 25, 2017

The biggest threat is how centralized and powerful D.C. is.

I don"t want anyone, even someone I like, in charge of that.

— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) July 25, 2017

For more on my thinking about how I’d like to see community and government transform over the coming years, see my 4-part series on decentralization which I published earlier this month.

Unfortunately, I doubt my vision for decentralized political organization will be embraced any time soon. It’s possible that events could unfold that might create that opportunity sooner than I expect, but for now I have to deal with the reality we have, and this reality consists of a highly centralized governing structure based in Washington D.C. Various political gangs to which I have no allegiance will ruthlessly compete to snatch control of this power, and then impose their views on 320 million people. I think this is an irrational and dangerous governing structure for a land as massive and diverse as the 50 states, but it is what it is.

The past couple of posts have focused on how I see the next four years unfolding from a domestic political perspective. It’s not what I want or don’t want, but simply what I see happening. Since the likely progression is not one of political decentralization in the near-term, how will I function within the coming environment?

First, I’m going to start with the things that matter most to me at this point in our country’s history. I outlined some of these issues in my final thoughts article ahead of the 2016 election, in which I discussed some overlap between what Trump and Sanders were saying:

Rather than dwelling on the differences between these two populist movements (Sanders and Trump), let’s consider some of the areas where they overlap.

1. Trade — Opposition to NAFTA and current “trade” deals such as TPP, TTIP, and TISA have been central to both the Sanders and Trump campaigns.

2. War and militarism — Whether you believe Trump is sincere or not, opposition to Obama/Clinton interventionist overseas wars were key talking points for both Trump and Sanders.

3. The system is rigged — The painful acknowledgment that the U.S. economic system is a rigged scam that fails to reward hard work, and is more akin to a parasitic, predatory oligarchy with very limited social mobility, has been a key campaign theme for both Trump and Sanders. The economy is increasingly dominated by near-monoploy giants who relentlessly push for more power and more profits irrespective of the cost to society, whether that cost be war, poverty or social unrest.

4. Money in politics — The rigged economic system described above aggregates wealth into an increasingly small number of hands. Those hands then buy off politicians and rig the political process. A rigged economy and rigged political system perpetually feeds itself and endlessly grows at the expense of the public like a terminal cancer. Both Trump and Sanders emphasized this problem.

5. Rule of law is dead — Sanders focused on Wall Street bankers, while Trump focused on Hillary and her inner circle of cronies, but the overall point is the same. Rich and powerful oligarchs are above the law. We all know this, but Washington D.C. refuses to do anything about it.

During the campaign, I received pressure from some readers to back Trump because he was saying some things I agreed with on issues I care about compared to Hillary Clinton, but I stood firm in opposition to both. Part of the reason I held my ground and refused to vote for either, was I didn’t trust Trump’s sincerity. Having grown up in New York City, I literally observed Trump from the time I was in diapers. I watched his activities for decades and also developed an understanding of the mindset of a Manhattan real estate developer. Yes, he was a political outsider, but this guys lives and breathes the FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) sector. There was no way he would challenge the power of the more parasitic aspects of the U.S. economy in favor of the productive. Indeed, he hasn’t.

This doesn’t mean I’m looking for a “perfect candidate” as some people accused me of. Quite the contrary. I simply didn’t trust Donald Trump as a person, and this is important going forward. Given my unconventional political views, the chances of a candidate coming along who I agree with on all the issues that matter to me is extraordinarily unlikely. This doesn’t mean I need to sit out every single election for the rest of my life. Rather, if a candidate for President comes along who checks enough of my boxes and who I consider to be a relatively genuine person, I would consider throwing my support behind that candidate.

That said, in the bigger picture it’s extremely important that we acknowledge no single person no matter how genuine their intentions will be able to fundamentally put this country on a more sane path on their own. It is up to us to do that, through the little actions we take in our individual lives every day, as well as by articulating and spreading ideas of freedom, civil liberties and the rule of law (oligarchs must not be above the law).

Indeed, it’s far more important to a functioning society that elite criminals receive punishment for their crimes versus jailing your average thief. The elite criminal certainly represents a far greater threat to any civilization than a corner drug dealer. Our current twisted society sees things in the exact opposite way, and therefore incentivizes rampant corporate pillaging. Until we change this, nothing will improve.

Feeding Frenzy In The Echo Chamber

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

The best comment on the June 13 Jeff Sessions Senate testimony, and I’m sorry I forgot who made it, was that it looked like an episode of Seinfeld. A show about nothing. Still, an awful lot of voices tried to make it look like it was something life- and game-changing. It was not. Not anymore than Comey’s testimony was, at least not in the sense that those eager to have these testimonies take place would have liked it to be.

Comey shone more of an awkward light on himself rather than on Donald Trump, by admitting that he had leaked info on a private conversation with the president he served at the time. Not quite nothing, but very little to satisfy the anti-Trump crowd. It’s just that there’s so many in that crowd, and most in denial, that you wouldn’t know it unless you paid attention.

To cut to the chase of the issue, it’s no longer possible -or at least increasingly difficult- to find coverage in the US -and European- press of anything related to either Trump or Russia that doesn’t come solidly baked in a partisan opinionated sauce.

For instance, I have a Google News page, somewhat personalized, and I haven’t been able to open it for quite some time without the top news articles focusing on Trump and/or Russia, and all the ones at the very top are invariably from the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Hill, Politico et al.

But I am not interested in those articles. These ‘news’ outlets -and you really must ask whether using the word ‘news’ is appropriate here- dislike anything Trump and Putin so much, for some reason, that all they do is write ‘stuff’ in a 24/7 staccato beat based on innuendo and allegations, quoted from anonymous sources that may or may not actually exist.

In the case of Russia, this attitude is many years old; in the case of Trump, it dates back to him announcing his candidacy. And that’s funny, because when you think back to who else was a GOP candidate, how can you not wonder if Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush would really have been better presidents than Trump? The Trump presidency is not an indictment of the man himself, but of the entire US political system.

You only need to think back of the Republican hopefuls who got beaten in the primaries, or the Democratic candidates on the other side of the isle. There are 320 million Americans, and that was the cream of the crop? What does that say about the state of the union? That’s very much true about Trump as well: is that the best you can do?

It’s the story behind the multiple veils, the -political- policy choices of the likes of the New York Times and Washington Post, that is perhaps the most interesting part of this. Their anti-Trump stories are certainly not. They’re utterly boring repetitive propaganda material. Still, there are also reasons behind this that have little to do with politics.

With the advent of the interwebs, the MSM were always going to have a challenging time. As time passed, it became clear they were going to have to compete with 100 million other voices. And while the established media have clear advantages, it was never going to be an easy task. For one thing because unlike most of these 100 million voices, the traditional media have a lot of overhead, fixed costs etc.

They can establish their own web presence, but not much about that is obvious. Some have moved behind a paywall to manage costs, others focus on ads. But none of that really works well. Ad revenue is not enough to keep the vast machinery going, and a paywall limits readership.

Ergo, the MSM has to focus on both 1) what makes it strong, and on 2) what sets it apart from the ‘new competition’. That does seem evident, and it’s therefore surprising that they have elected to do the opposite. A choice that will inevitably hasten their demise.

I’ve long thought that the only way the MSM can survive in the age of the interwebs, for as long as they can indeed survive, is to be uncompromisingly objective, perhaps even to stay away from opinionating, period. Because all other areas, everything that is subjective, will be taken over, and often already is, by the millions who write and post their own opinions on social media.

And no-one will be able to make up their mind any longer about what’s real or not if they can’t figure out from reading between all these lines what is true or not. That is a battle the media establishment cannot win. So it’s more than a bit surprising that it is exactly that which they have elected to pin their futures on.

Media organizations like the New York Times and the Washington Post have over a long time built the contacts, the revenue (for now) and the resources to do what newer media can not: that is for instance, to assign a team of good and smart researchers and/or writers to difficult topics that may take months to cover satisfactorily. It just so happens that is what their entire business model was always based on.

But they’ve thrown it away. They’ve chosen to compete with the entire world, who can all write and all have opinions, in the shadowy realm of fake news, anonymity and mud-slinging. But the opinion of a Washington Post writer, or even its editorial staff, is just another opinion. That’s not where they can stand out. That they can only do in truth-finding. And then they choose not to.

Mainstream media are not short on content, but they ARE short on news. What they do is opinion, propaganda, and that’s not what they’re there for. Both they themselves and their readers should be very worried about that. Because news gathering and dissemination is a vital function in any democratic nation. Taking it away leaves a big hole.

And they’re pouring out so much of the same stuff that even if inside the echo chamber the audience just can’t get enough of it, those on the outside get pushed ever further away. The distance between these groups of people keeps growing, and that’s not what media should be doing, let alone aim for.

There comes a point when people will say: we get it, you don’t like Trump, but we don’t need to see that repeated 100 times a day, and certainly not if you don’t provide facts to base your preferences on. Outside the echo chamber that has already happened. I haven’t read anything in the New York Times or Washington Post forever. If I can’t trust them to write facts on Trump, I can’t trust them, period.

They already have so much going against them. Sales of paper copies are under relentless pressure, because they’re a day old when they’re published, and nobody needs to wait for their news that long anymore. Another kind of pressure comes from the fact that a huge part of their subscribers are older, and the younger stay away from print.

A story over the weekend said CNN, one of its “brethren in crime”, is clamping down on stories about Russia. All stories have to go through the senior editors now. CNN the next day fired 3 people over one of the many stories. How about the rest? Did they all meet those ‘rigorous editorial standards?

As for CNN, have you watched those guys on TV lately? They’re like a firing-squad. Henchmen don’t ask questions either.

Before I forget: Does anyone think there would have been a Special Counsel appointed if the anti-Trump echo chamber press had not incessantly came up, and still does, with new narratives about President Trump, his campaign, his advisers, his staff, and all of the above’s links to Russia? For which to this day no proof has been revealed?!

I find it hard to fathom. I even think it is possible that the feeding frenzy will cost Trump his presidency, not because of evidence but because of neverending innuendo. The frenzy has shown no signs of letting up, and it can continue because it feeds on itself.

While it’s strange that the MSM should risk their own credibility and even survival to be competing, as I said, with a 100 million other ‘sources’, a fight that it can never win, in the short term they have established a loyal echo chamber following that has even ‘miraculously’ increased their subscription numbers.

The flipside of that is they have lost half of their potential readers, but they got so many more from inside the chamber in return that the bottom line looked good. But at some point you will have to prove something, if you want to live. And very little of the ‘material’ on both Trump and Russia has turned out to actually be wearing clothes.

Then again, once you’re inside the chamber, it’s hard to leave. Which is a disgrace for America in all its facets, but there’s not easy way back out. There’s only one, and it’s more out of reach than perhaps ever before: that of the truth, which only the MSM have the resources to provide on a consistent and wide-ranging basis. But they’ve rejected the truth.

They will find out soon enough that the echo chambers are all booked full, with nutjobs and snake oil salesmen. Why they would want to be thrown in with that crowd, who knows? Sure, a quick profit can work miracles. But then you die.

The entire drama has caused an enormous impoverishment of the American media landscape. And it never had much, if anything, to do with news.

The best way to illustrate what’s really going on is probably in these graphs. The negative ‘reporting’ about Trump is off the scale (don’t miss German TV network ARD’s 98% score):

But when it comes to bombing the Middle East, all the ducks get in line. As ducks do. As behooves ducks. Even when it comes to Trump, they can’t hide their true nature.

We’re done here.

CNN Terminates Kathy Griffin After Trump Rages At "Sick" Comedian's Stunt

Update 2: CNN pulled the plug on Griffin...

CNN has terminated our agreement with Kathy Griffin to appear on our New Year"s Eve program.

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) May 31, 2017

Her partner for the New Year"s Eve shows, Andersoin Cooper, had already disowned her...

For the record, I am appalled by the photo shoot Kathy Griffin took part in. It is clearly disgusting and completely inappropriate.

— Anderson Cooper (@andersoncooper) May 31, 2017

Nigel Farage was quick to respond...

Kathy Griffin"s removal from CNN is the first kickback I"ve seen against the wall-to-wall left wing comics on both sides of the pond. https://t.co/zTtWRW5354

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) May 31, 2017

*  *  *

Update 1: First Lady Melania Trump has spoken out against Kathy Griffin"s actions, questioning her "mental health."

“As a mother, a wife, and a human being, that photo is very disturbing,” the first lady said in a Wednesday statement, according to reports.

“When you consider some of the atrocities in the world today, a photo opportunity like this is simply wrong and makes you wonder about the mental health of the person who did it,” Melania Trump said.

*  *  *

Despite her apology - after her ultimate act of virtue signaling by holding up the blood-soaked head of the president backfired - President Trump and his family failed to find the humor in this particular act.

First Donald Trump Jr. tweet-raged...

Disgusting but not surprising. This is the left today. They consider this acceptable. Imagine a conservative did this to Obama as POTUS? https://t.co/QdghcbIjS7

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 30, 2017

And this morning the President himself reacted...

Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself. My children, especially my 11 year old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

We are sure this outrage will be seen as some badge of honor for the New Year"s Eve counter-downer, but perhaps we should reflect on what this really means. As Martin Armstrong writes...

While Kathy Griffin apologizes for going tooooo far, that is obviously only because of the flack she got for even doing this photo.

If it were Obama, she would be called a racist. The mere simple act of doing something like this is exposing just how dangerous the future truly is. We have the left who thinks it is their God given right to suppress if not kill anyone who disagrees with them. I for one am starting to lean for the break up of the United States and all the leftists please move to the left of the country and anyone else who wants freedom from these insane people, move to the right.

They never heard of freedom and that means to enjoy your own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without being told what to do by people who want to rule the world their way. I have always had a simple motto – live and let live. I ask for nothing but freedom from oppression. Tyranny is what these people preach. It is their way or no way. We need to separate or there will be blood in the streets.

It’s very simple. I fully agree with Patrick Henry. They have no right to subjugate the 50% they seem to hate so much.

"Look At The Way I've Been Treated Lately" Trump Tells Coastguard Grads "Don't Let Critics Get You Down"

The speech was going great.. and then out of nowhere...

• *TRUMP: LOOK AT THE WAY I"VE BEEN TREATED LATELY


•  *TRUMP: NO POLITICIAN IN RECENT HISTORY HAS BEEN TREATED WORSE


•  *TRUMP: DON"T LET CRITICS GET IN THE WAY OF YOUR DREAMS


• *TRUMP: DON"T GIVE IN, DON"T BACK DOWN

"Things are not always fair... things happen to you that are not always warranted, but you have to put your head down and fight, fight, fight..."

In his first public appearance since the "memo-gate" debacle dropped, President Trump is scheduled to speak at commencement ceremonies at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy on Wednesday morning.

Live Feed...

Things You’ll Never Believe

By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at

So today I"m going to leap all over the place and show you some some interesting things that"ve come across my desk in the last week. Why no full fledged blog?

Well, if you didn"t notice, this week"s WOW on the "Trumpification" of US foreign policy (and its winners and losers), was, I dare say, a bit of a beast. And so for all my avid readers who managed to get through it all, it was worth it for me. Also, I"ve been spending some time on my latest Insider alert and time is running short.

First out of the gate, a funny conversation I had with my dear wife:

Wife: So, let me get this straight: you"ve got thousands upon thousands of people on your list but only 42% of them read your work?

Me: Well, I guess only 42% open their emails, yes. I couldn"t understand it for a while.

Wife: You"d better step up your game, that"s awful.

Me: Well, I"m told it"s actually quite good as open rates for this blogging stuff are typically around 20%, so in theory I"m killing it, honey.

Wife: Well, that makes no sense. Why would someone sign up and then not read your emails? It must be that you"re just not that good. I think you should just focus on your fund and leave all this stuff alone.

Me: Well, this helps me to concentrate on thinking stuff through so that the fund will do well. And look, it"s working.

Wife: Seems all backward to me.

Me: Yeah, but you don"t use the net like most and you never use social media at all so you wouldn"t know.

I was hoping she wouldn"t ask if all of the 42% who open the emails (according to my mail system) are members of Insider (they"re not). Then I"d have some explaining to do. She didn"t. Whew!

It made me realise how much I"ve learned since starting this blog and how many people, just like my wife, don"t understand revenue models for businesses which brings me to...

Hahaha! Going in at an eye watering valuation of $25 billion.

Now, if you"re one of those guys (you know who you are) who are running an IPO book, then you"ve been waiting for something like this. The equity markets have seen a dearth of these so it"s about time, heh? After all, all the fun"s been in fixed income (aka bubble) markets.

Your problem is that the media is pretty hyped about this little baby and so the bookmakers don"t need to give you that stock allowing you to dump it in the first few weeks. Nope, you"ll have to take the lockups they offer you and then you and I both know the risks you"re running now, don"t we? I look forward to see how you play it.

You"re playing on the gullibility of the retail guy. And for the retail guys amongst you, remember this and etch it into your brain: IPOs are NOT an entry. They are an exit. Realise that you are the last in line after founders, venture capitalists, lawyers, and investment bankers. They are all looking for liquidity - exiting.

If that"s not enough then consider the following:

• Negative gross margins and a $2 billion commitment to Google.


• What the hell is the business actually? I mean is this a social media/advertising business or is it a data center reseller?


• Amusingly the company actually calls itself a "camera" company in its company filings. No, it"s bloody not. If you make your money selling cameras, you"re a camera company, OK? If you make it selling advertising, then you"re an advertising company. And if you make your money selling your clients data, then you"re a data reselling company, OK? These guys are most certainly not a "camera" company. Sheesh!

If you buy into the IPO, you"re speculating. This isn"t investing. At some point - and we"ll return there again - investors are going to give a s**t about profits again and companies that fight for eyeballs and concoct valuations based on eyeballs (and not hard cash in the till) will find a significantly different environment.

If you want my take on valuing businesses based on "eyeballs" go read "Watch Out For Your Eyeballs", which was fun to write but not half as fun as the responses I received from venture capitalists explaining to me how wrong I was and that "this time it"s different".

Back to Snipsnap chitchat. Even if the market really likes it. Explain to me where"s the asymmetry in this? High risk, low reward. Why bother?

What You See Is What You Get

I think this is going to become my mantra for Trump.

Friends who hated the thought of the basilisk winning automatically became Trump supporters. I think it"s a terrible idea to think that not voting for one party should equal cheerleading their foe. Trump is a perfect example of this.

The man shows disturbing signs of adolescence. He"s childish, petulant, and self obsessed. Again, what you see is what you get. Trump the president is the same as Trump the "before president". People mistakenly believed he"d "grow up" and become more "presidential". Nope!

Case in point: Mexico.

He"s lost a lot of money in Mexico and clearly holds a grudge. Fine for an individual but as a foreign policy?

Time published an entire list of Trumps tweets on Mexico:

This is a guy who is combative, a bully, and unfortunately doesn"t seem to understand that threatening nuclear superpowers is, ahem... dangerous.

As I mentioned in my Wednesday"s WOW, talking to China like it"s a naughty adolescent is plain stupid.

When Trump was on the campaign trail telling the paid for media and the elites to get knotted this was a lot of fun but treating Iran and China like misbehaving schoolchildren while at the same time pissing off allies (Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada) simply means that you"re backing yourself into that corner that every bully ultimately gets backed into - the one where he finds himself with a blood nose and the other school kids laughing at him.

A Question

Lastly, I"ll answer a question and, as always, my sincere apologies to all those who wrote to me with questions which I haven"t replied to. I do read them all but if I had to answer them all I"d be divorced, and there"d be no blog.

Chris,

Your understanding of the world is truly unique. Yours is easily the most insightful financial publication on the internet... and I"ve been a consumer for financial publications for over 30 years now. I have gone back and read many of your posts from years ago and though I"ve not tabulated any results you"ve definitely got an impressive track record. 

I realise that I"m just a little guy unlike some of your readers who are clearly sophisticated investors and professional money managers. I"m a retail investor with a small portfolio (about $200k) and if you"d be so kind I"d love to know how you would allocate a portfolio of this size.

Thanks very much for all your work.

Firstly, allocations are dependant on so many factors such as your current income, cost of living, obligations, tolerance to risk, and experience in managing your money.

I do think the most valuable thing I"ve ever managed to do, and it"s an ongoing process, is to "know yourself".

I"m largely risk tolerant. This is due to my personality but also because of my background. I didn"t come from wealth and it is risk taking that has brought me so much. I know that if you dropped me into some unknown country in my underpants I"ll come out OK. This feeling or attitude allows me to take risks few would dare take.

But risk for the sake of risk is dumb. You want risk that is skewed in your favour. Vegas is dumb risk. Investing in cyclical sectors that are bottoming is skewed risk.

That said, I believe that you should try focus on income generating assets for the core part of your wealth. That"s tough in today"s environment where dividend yields are low, bond yields are non-existent, and equity valuations are far from cheap (I"m referring to the US here).

My personal attitude is to protect the majority of your capital and not expect anything from it, and then to take a portion of your portfolio (and only you can decide what that is) and focus on the greatest asymmetry around.

Coincidentally, I believe we have more on offer in that space than at any time in history. Literally every asset price has been distorted by the actions of central bankers, creating huge misallocations of capital as asset mangers have chased one sector after another in search of returns. I believe we"re in the early stages of this unwinding. As a reader, you"ll know it"s a topic I"ve covered extensively.

We"re not in any "normal" investing environment today. What worked for the last 10 years almost certainly isn"t going to continue to last for the next 10. This is a time to be really vigilant. And that"s what I"m doing.

That"s it for this week.

Break a leg and see you next week!

- Chris

"We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability." — from Snap"s IPO filing

--------------------------------------

Liked this article? Don"t miss our future missives and podcasts, and

get access to free subscriber-only content here.

--------------------------------------

BuzzFeed And The NYDN: Click-Bait Headlines, False Stories, And Virtually Nonexistent Retractions

Submitted by Duane via Free Market Shooter blog,

On Thursday, December 1st,  Yasmin Seweid was allegedly assaulted by Trump supporters in NYC.  According to BuzzFeed and the NY Daily News, the attack took place at the uptown 6 train stop at 23rd Street in midtown Manhattan.  The assaliants allegedly called Seweid a terrorist, broke her bag strap, followed her when she tried to get away from them, and tried but were unable to pull her hijab off of her head.

Both Tamerra Griffin and Ben Kochman, the authors for BuzzFeed and the NYDN stories, did not include any additional sources for their story, other than Seweid’s personal account and a statement from police that the “investigation was ongoing” with no further comment.  It seems both read her Facebook post recounting her story (which has since been removed), and after speaking with her, they took it and her account of the incident as fact, without verifying her story anywhere else.  Even though Seweid was their sole source for the story, they didn’t even bother to include the word “allegedly” as I did in italics above.  The NY Daily News said Seweid stated the following:

They kept screaming Trump’s name at her, and then said, “Oh look, a (expletive) terrorist,” she said.“ Get the hell out of the country!” they yelled during the train ride. “You don’t belong here!”

When Seweid ignored them, they pulled on her bag to get her attention and the strap broke.“That’s when I turned around and said ‘can you please leave me alone,’ and they started laughing,” she said. She walked to the other end of the train, and they followed her and tried to pull off her hijab, a head covering worn by Muslim women.“ Take that thing off!” they hollered.

“I put my hand on top of my head to hold it,” Seweid said. “Then I turned around and screamed ‘what the (expletive).’ ” Seweid got off the train at Grand Central Terminal on E. 42nd St. and reported the terrifying incident to police.

Her father, Sayeed Seweid, 55, of New Hyde Park, L.I., said he was also angry that no one else stepped in to defend his daughter.“ Nobody even offered to help an 18-year-old girl,” he said. “That means something. Her phone was dying. You offer help — it doesn’t matter the race, religion, or the country.”

Yes, in overwhelmingly “accepting” and liberal NYC, which voted 87% for Hillary Clinton and 10% for Donald Trump, a Muslim woman was attacked by Trump supporters on a subway platform directly under the Credit Suisse building in a very safe part of Manhattan.  Not only that, no one stepped in to help, and even more surprisingly, no one recorded the incident and splashed it all over social media.  And no police officer was able to readily verify her account to reporters with confirmation from the vast network of surveillance cameras that are omnipresent in NYC.

The only time I would ever expect to hear this story is if it were prefaced with the words, “I’ll take stuff that never happened for $400, Alex.” 

In fact, the story would have been much more believable if it was a Trump supporter who was being harassed and attacked.  Back in August, some guy who was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat tried to walk through the public park surrounding City Hall.  Unfortunately for him, he just so happened to be walking through a police protest, but the protesters turned on him, shouting and shoving him out of the park to the chants of “racist out” and “fascist out”, while police stood by without intervening.  Of course, video of the whole incident was captured and posted on social media:

Huge crowd of protesters escort out #Trump supporter at #ShutDownCityHallNYC pic.twitter.com/zHgD50mcXb

— Alexander Rubinstein (@AlexR_DC) August 1, 2016

As the NY Post reported, protesters took to the streets in force after Trump won the election, chanting “not my president” and “Trump Is Hitler” all over Manhattan, even using a noose to hang a Trump effigy in Columbus Circle.

If you heard a story about a Trump supporter and an attack on an NYC subway, and just after this election, wouldn’t you expect it to be a Trump supporter getting attacked by a group of anti-Trump assailants, and not a group of Trump supporters doing the attacking?  And no matter what happened, wouldn’t you expect to see a video of the incident?

You certainly should.  As an example, in the days after the election, GotNews founder Charles C. Johnson was on an NYC subway wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, minding his own business, when he was repeatedly harassed by someone who was angry with Trump’s election.  Once again, the whole incident was captured on video and splashed all over the internet, like so many other confrontations, altercations and assaults that take place on public transit that have been made quite popular on websites like World Star Hip Hop and LiveLeak.

And yet, BuzzFeed and the NYDN ran the Seweid story on her word alone, without any video, police or witness commentary to support her claim.  Notably, they presented her story as fact, never once stating that it could be fiction.  Given the attack’s alleged location and assaliants, if you were a journalist, wouldn’t you expect fiction to be the case, and not even bother running the story?

My sentiments exactly.  Though the NYDN was careful to post a follow-up story detailing discrepancies and doubts in her story, it wasn’t until almost two weeks later when she was arrested and formally charged by police for filing a false report that the NYDN acknowledged that their original story was totally bogus.  According to police, Seweid finally told them, “she didn’t want to get in trouble for breaking her curfew after being out late drinking with friends”, even though “she had numerous opportunities to admit nothing happened and she kept sticking by her story.”  And somehow, the original story remains up on the NYDN website, unedited and readily accessible to NYDN readers, and no retraction was ever published.  

As I have pointed out in the past, were any of the “fake news” websites listed by the MSM to do this, they would not only be called out by the MSM, they would instantly lose all of their viewers.  But somehow, people keep going back to the true purveyors of “fake news”, when they time and again demonstrate that they are not willing to hold themselves accountable for their mistakes.  Which is something that is readily apparent in the case of BuzzFeed, who has left their original story and click-bait headline up, and only posted the following addition below the title:

UPDATE: The woman was arrested on Dec. 14 for filing a false police report and obstructing government administration, police said.

TRUNEWS, who did an excellent job of covering a real, videotaped assault of a Trump supporter in Chicago, also did a superb job of summarizing the entire saga of the Seweid story.  I spoke with Edward Szall, the TRUNEWS correspondent who covered both stories, and he explained to me the specifics about how the Seweid story was run without question by the local news and the aforementioned outlets, noting the initial reaction to the story and the ensuing vilification of Trump supporters.  I’ve provided screenshots to the BuzzFeed comments section, which also remains up, so you have an idea of how exactly people reacted.

Note that you can see the doubt in the minds of some of the commenters.  Shocking, but hardly surprising; even BuzzFeed’s own comment section sees holes in the story that author Tamerra Griffin didn’t even bother to acknowledge at all.

And somehow, Seweid’s sister Sara is blaming the police for investigating the incident.  Yes, she really expects police to not be skeptical of a dubious allegation and not investigate her story.  WND reported what she stated in a Facebook post below:

…she said she was concerned about the “mental state of young Muslim women who feel that they have to lie so intensively to survive.”

She also wrote, “The NYPD should have never been involved in the first place even if the incident did happen. It became super clear to me these past two week [sic] that the police’s first instinct is to doubt your story and try to disprove it.”

Sara Seweid also blasted the police: “The NYPD doesn’t care about us or our safety. Never did.”

Then she went on to attack the media: “Things snowballed out of our control because of the media because by the next morning the news had started publishing stories. Reporters made things so much worse for my family.”

As ridiculous as she sounds, Sara Seweid makes a good point – we never would have heard about this story if it wasn’t for irresponsible reporting from outlets like BuzzFeed and the NYDN.  But in her post, she of course omitted the obvious fact that Seweid retold her lie to the media on her own. 

If journalists and publications plan to stay in business and retain readers, they will need to do a better job of providing tangible content that isn’t later proven to be completely fabricated.  If they don’t, they’ll soon find their names in the constantly growing list of defunct newspapers and websites.  BuzzFeed and the NYDN will need to learn that not only do they need to publish truthful stories that are credible and honest, they need to do a better job of owning up to their mistakes and retracting them.  It wouldn’t have taken more than a couple seconds to verify that Seweid’s story was dubious – they shouldn’t have posted it almost as much as Seweid shouldn’t have told it.

Look, we’ve all been teenagers and made teenage mistakes.  I’ve certainly made much bigger mistakes than coming home “after curfew” and dating someone my parents didn’t approve of, and you probably have too.  But, I’ve always faced up to the consequences of my decisions.  With Seweid’s indiscretions now being front page news, its fair to say that she is certainly facing up to the multitude of mistakes she made, and it almost feels unnecessary to write this article as a result.

But, Seweid needs to be held accountable for what she did.  Not only did she foolishly get the police and media involved in her ridiculous attempt to cover her tracks, she made a false accusation.  If someone ended up being accused of a crime against her, it could have been even more damaging personally and professionally as whatever Seweid is facing, from either the authorities or her parents.  What if it was you on that subway platform who was accused of assaulting her, and you got dragged before the police and falsely charged with a crime? 

What should her punishment be?  You’ll have to trust the courts to sort that one out properly.  Should her parents have punished her over this incident and being “upset she was dating a Christian” by shaving her head and eyebrows prior to her arrest, and having her display it by not wearing her hijab?  You’ll have to decide that one for yourself.

Share this: