Vanity Fair Editors Relentlessly Attacked Over "Don"t-Run-Again-Hillary" Satirical Video

It appears the McResistance is on the warpath once again, and this time they"re going after Vanity Fair, which to the surprise of many published a satirical video about Hillary Clinton"s future prospects in the days just before Christmas with the caption, "Maybe it"s time for Hillary Clinton to take up a new hobby in 2018" as part of a broader series on New Year"s resolutions. 

"Take up a new hobby in the new year," suggested Vanity Fair writer Maya Kosoff. "Volunteer work, knitting, improv comedy - literally anything that will keep you from running again."

Editor John Kelly, meanwhile, suggested that Clinton "finally put away your James Comey voodoo doll." And added further with cheerful snark, "We all know you think James Comey cost you the election and he might have, but so did a handful of other things. It’s a year later and time to move on."

Maybe it"s time for Hillary Clinton to take up a new hobby in 2018 pic.twitter.com/sbE78rA5At

— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) December 23, 2017

Editors from the magazine’s politics and business section, Hive, published the one-minute video entitled "Six New Year"s Resolutions for Hillary Clinton" featuring themselves holding Champagne flutes while giving New Year"s advice, which includes telling the former secretary of state and failed presidential candidate to give up and retire in 2018.

Though the video is fast approaching one million views via twitter, it more noticeably has evoked an avalanche of anger and outrage in the form of over 10,000 twitter comments - the overwhelming majority of which express shock and indignation, with repeat calls for Vanity Fair to remove the video. 

One of the reporters for @VanityFair who appeared in the "don"t-run-again-Hillary" video, @mekosoff, has locked her account after being subjected to the most foul vitriol and abuse, endlessly, over several days.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 27, 2017

At the same time Hillary supporters including celebrities, journalists, and political commentators voiced their anger using the "#CancelVanityFair" hashtag which garnered over 30,000 tweets. And predictably it didn"t take long for sexism to become the driving critique with Peter Daou, a former Clinton adviser, slamming the magazine for insulting “one of the most accomplished women in the history of the United States” while adding that he"s long defended Clinton from such "sexist attacks."

But it appears the magazine caved by issuing a vague blanket apology, though the video hasn"t been removed. A Vanity Fair spokesperson said, "It was an attempt at humor and we regret that it missed the mark." 

Of course, this didn"t placate the trolls as "the resistance" thinks Hillary Clinton should remain uniquely immune from being the object of satire and didn"t take the magazine to task over any other satirical videos in the same series. The New Year’s resolution video for Trump, for example, advises the president to delete his Twitter account and drink more Diet Coke in 2018. The Hive editors also took shots at Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Gary Cohn among others.

Meanwhile the creators of the video, which in its mockery is no harsher than your average Saturday Night Live skit, have been trolled relentlessly by Hillary supporters forcing at least one to lock her social media accounts. According to The Intercept"s Glenn Greenwald, "One of the reporters for Vanity Fair who appeared in the "don"t-run-again-Hillary" video, Maya Kosoff, has locked her account after being subjected to the most foul vitriol and abuse, endlessly, over several days."

Below are a handful of select tweets which capture the outrage over the simple satirical Hillary video... it appears the resistance mob will attack even Vanity Fair for crossing narrowly enforced boundaries. With such sensitivity 2018 is sure to be loads of fun.

So @VanityFair decided that the best way to end 2017 was to take a repulsive cheap shot at @HillaryClinton, one of the most accomplished women in the history of the United States.

Now #CancelVanityFair is moving.

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) December 27, 2017

I ended 2015 defending Hillary Clinton from sexist attacks.
I ended 2016 defending Hillary Clinton from sexist attacks.
I"m ending 2017 defending @HillaryClinton from sexist attacks.
So much for my Twitter break...

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) December 27, 2017

So, Vanity Fair, a woman"s magazine has decided that one of the most accomplished women in the USA, @HillaryClinton should quietly fade away because men don"t want to hear her. No, no, no. This is not how we empower women. #cancelvanityfair

— Not sitting down (@Deenie65Nadine) December 27, 2017

Hey STOP TELLING WOMEN WHAT THE F-CK THEY SHOULD DO OR CAN DO. Get over your mommy issues.

— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) December 27, 2017

Doing cutesy mean satire to appeal to millennials" hatred of Hillary Clinton is beneath you. Or it used to be. The only way to save yourself is to do this to Bernie and Biden. Oh, and FU to everyone who participated.

— HRC persists ???? (@HRCpersists) December 26, 2017

I’d love to know who pitched the idea of putting @HillaryClinton out to pasture like an old brood mare but are perfectly fine with Bernie sticking his 2 cents into every discussion. #CancelVanityFair

— VeryVexingIndeed???? (@MyPoorNerves__) December 27, 2017

@EGraydonCarter Go to hell. I went to @HillaryClinton book tour @EmanuEl_NYC She was dignified, erudite and globally knowledgeable What have these 6 white kids accomplished? They will never be 1/2 the person Hillary is. Publicly apologize or FU #CancelVanityFair

— mimi eressim (@mimi1bandolera) December 27, 2017

I am sick and tired of Hillary being used as a punching bag.

I am through with the pettiness, the cruelty, the rank misogyny.

The fact that @VanityFair gave this crap a platform tells me they do not need my patronage or my money.

#UnfollowVanityFair
#CancelVanityFair

— LYSSA ?????????????? (@Sunnysgrl62) December 27, 2017

Special Counsel Mueller Now Probing Kushner"s Contacts With Israeli Officials During Transition, WSJ

In a startling illustration of just how expansive Mueller"s investigation of the Trump administration has become, the Wall Street Journal now reports that the Special Counsel"s team is looking into meetings that Jared Kushner may have conducted with Israeli officials in the days leading up to an important U.N. vote on the construction of settlements in disputed territories on December 23, 2016. 

Robert Mueller’s investigators are asking questions about Jared Kushner’s interactions with foreign leaders during the presidential transition, including his involvement in a dispute at the United Nations in December, in a sign of the expansive nature of the special counsel’s probe of Russia’s meddling in the election, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

The investigators have asked witnesses questions about the involvement of Mr. Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a senior White House adviser, in a controversy over a U.N. resolution passed Dec. 23 that condemned Israel’s construction of settlements in disputed territories, these people said.

 

Israeli officials had asked the incoming Trump administration to intervene to help block it. Mr. Trump posted a Facebook message the day before the U.N. vote—after he had been elected but before he had assumed office—saying the resolution put the Israelis in a difficult position and should be vetoed. Mr. Trump also held a phone conversation with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, whose government had written a draft of the resolution. Egypt proceeded to call for the vote to be delayed, but the resolution passed the following day, with the Obama administration declining to block it.

 

Investigators have also asked witnesses about Mr. Kushner’s role in arranging meetings or communication with foreign leaders during the transition, the people said. The special counsel’s mandate gives Mr. Mueller a broad directive to examine any matters arising from the Russia investigation.

These revelations raise new questions over whether Special Counsel Mueller may attempt to use the 1799 Logan Act to apply pressure on Kushner.

A 1799 law called the Logan Act also bars Americans from communicating with a foreign government to influence the government’s actions related to a dispute with the U.S., but no one has ever been successfully prosecuted under the law.

 

In a statement that Mr. Kushner gave to congressional committees in July, he wrote that at his father-in-law’s request, he served as the main point of contact for foreign countries at a time when it was clear Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee.

Of course, Kushner is under investigation for a litany of other allegations of wrongdoing ranging from his meeting with a Russian lawyer to inaccuracies on his financial disclosure forms to his role in Comey"s dismissal.  Why do we get the sneaking suspicion that Mueller isn"t going to stop pursuing new angles on Kushner until something sticks?

FBI Reportedly Investigating Harvey Weinstein

The FBI has opened an investigation into Harvey Weinstein for alleged sex crimes, the DailyMail reported on Wednesday evening, a move that reportedly came at the behest of the DOJ which instructed the bureau to investigate the mounting allegations leveled at the movie mogul. The move comes amid rumors that Weinstein plans to head to Europe for sex rehab – leading to fears that Weinstein could attempt to pull a "Roman Polanski" where he lands in some non-extradition country in Europe to dodge U.S. prosecution.

The FBI can both look at whether he has committed any federal crimes in the U.S. and prepare extradition proceedings if he remains in Europe.

The Mail writes that while it is unknown whether the DOJ order came directly from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the probe will likely be seen in a political light given Weinstein"s friendship with Trump foe Hillary Clinton. Additionally, it is not yet known if Sessions gave the direct order or if Trump requested the investigation, however the president has previously said he wasn"t surprised by the sexual harassment and assault claims made against Weinstein.

Trump said shortly after news of the shock report on Thursday: "I"ve known him for years. I"m not surprised."

Among the allegations against Weinstein, which the FBI is expected to examine, is that he forced Lucia Evans, a student who wanted to be an actress, to perform oral sex on him in New York in 2004. And since New York State has no statute of limitations on rape and criminal sexual acts - its legal term for forced oral or anal intercourse - Weinstein may be out of luck if Evans, or any other number of women who have stepped up in recent days, decides to press charges.

Ironically, even escaping to Europe may not help the scandalous former movie exec: So far five accusers have given accounts of attacks in France, while allegations of attacks in London have also surfaced – any of which could lead to charges there. Additionally, the FBI has field offices in both countries and could assist prosecutors there with their cases.

Weinstein was a big donor for Hillary Clinton, who kept silent for five days after the accusations emerged, before finally denouncing her longtime friend in a statement on Tuesday;

"I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein. The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior."

She has, however, remained silent on the crucial issue of the vast amount of cash Weinstein donated directly to her and her family.  The move by the DOJ comes as it emerged the movie mogul has taken on top criminal defense lawyers Blair Berk and David Chesnoff. Berk has represented A-listers like, Mel Gibson, Johnny Depp, Britney Spears, Kiefer Sutherland, and Lindsay Lohan, while Chesnoff’s clients have included Vince Neil, Bruno Mars, Paris Hilton, Leonardo DiCaprio and the family of Michael Jackson.   The pair will join his expanding legal team following an article in the New Yorker, which alleged three women were sexually assaulted by him.

Up to 30 women have now come forward to make allegations of sexual misconduct

"Clear That DHS Was Wrong": California Says Russians Did Not Hack Voting Systems

Last Friday the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) dropped a "bombshell" statement that sent a "thrill up the leg" (to quote Chris Matthews) of every CNN reporter across the country.  The news from DHS implied that the election systems of 21 states around the country had been hacked, or at least were close to being hacked, which set off a new wave "Russian collusion" speculation in the U.S. news media (see: DHS Notifies 21 States Of Hacker Targeting; Election Officials Blame "Russian Government Cyber Actors").

That said, according to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla who released a statement this morning in response to the DHS, the whole thing was just a bunch of "fake news."  Padilla noted that after requesting additional information from DHS on the "hacks" it quickly became clear that their "conclusions were wrong" and that "California"s elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.”

“Last Friday, my office was notified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that Russian cyber actors "scanned" California’s Internet-facing systems in 2016, including Secretary of State websites. Following our request for further information, it became clear that DHS’ conclusions were wrong.”

“DHS confirmed that Russian scanning activity had actually occurred on the California Department of Technology statewide network, not any Secretary of State website. Based on this additional information, California voters can further rest assured that the California Secretary of State elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.”

“Our notification from DHS last Friday was not only a year late, it also turned out to be bad information. To make matters worse, the Associated Press similarly reported that DHS has reversed itself and "now says Russia didn’t target Wisconsin’s voter registration system," which is contrary to previous briefings.”

“The work of our intelligence agencies is critical in defending against cyber threats. I remain committed to a partnership with DHS and other intelligence agencies, however, elections officials and the American public expect and deserve timely and accurate information.”

Meanwhile, this comes after another stunning and embarrassing reversal from the DHS earlier this week in which they first blamed Russians for hacking the Wisconsin election systems, then reversed and said it wasn"t the Russians then reversed further and said there was actually no hack on the WI election system at all.

But in a stunning reversal - one which we doubt will put endless rumors of Russian cyberinterference to bed - the AP now reports that DHS has told Wisconsin that the Russian government was not involved in the cyber-targeting.

In an email to the state’s deputy elections administrator that was provided to reporters at the Wisconsin Elections Commission meeting on Tuesday, Homeland Security said that initial notice of Russian involvement was made in error. Also, as we noted at the time, the government did not originally assign blame to the Russians when news of the alleged "scanning" initially broke on Friday although most medias jumped at the opportunity to blame Putin.

Infuriated by the error, some state officials said that DHS should provide an expalanation for the errror, or at least issue an apology to state elections officials, who were understandbly unnerved by the news of Russian involvement.

Wisconsin’s chief elections administrator Michael Haas told AP that Homeland Security had assured the state that it had not been targeted - by Russians, or anybody else, for that matter. 

“Wisconsin was not provided any information that indicated before the November election that Russian government actors were targeting election systems,” Haas said. He said one theory is that Homeland Security saw suspicious activity from IP addresses targeting state election systems in other states and assumed that was the intent in Wisconsin as well.

Others were apparently in shock: “It’s been a difficult process trying to piece all of this together,” said Wisconsin Elections Commission spokesman Reid Magney. “We’re trying to understand what happened.”

So, for folks, like WI"s Elections Commission spokesman Reid Magney, who are still "trying to understand what happened"...allow us to clarify: NOTHING HAPPENED.  Hillary Clinton lost an election...other than that, not much happened that hasn"t happened in every election since the 1950"s. 

Sarah Sanders Lays Out The Many Ways James Comey Broke Federal Laws In Fiery Press Conference

Sarah Sanders" White House press briefings have seemingly become way more entertaining over the past couple of days.  Maybe it"s just us, but "gotcha" questions from the usual narrative-pushing mainstream media outlets that used to be quickly dismissed by Sanders are suddenly being exploited to put on a daily clinic on how to school brain-dead reporters.

The latest example came today after one such reporter had to seek clarification on why Comey"s leaking of confidential FBI property to the New York Times might violate federal laws.  Here was Sanders" response:

“The memos that Comey leaked were created on an FBI computer while he was the director.  He claims they were private property, but they clearly followed the protocol of an official FBI document."

"Leaking FBI memos on a sensitive case regardless of classification violates federal laws including the Privacy Act, standard FBI employment agreements, and nondisclosure agreements all personnel must sign. I think that is clean and clear that that would be a violation.”

“The Department of Justice has to look into any allegations of legality, whether or not something is illegal or not — that"s not up to me to decide."

“What I"ve said and what I"m talking about are facts. James Comey"s leaking of information, questionable statements under oath, politicizing investigations, those are real reasons for why he was fired and the president"s decision was 100 percent right, which we"ve said multiple times over and over. In fact, I think the more and more we learn, the more and more that"s been vindicated."

Of course, Sanders" response could always be even clearer...we highly encourage the New York Times, CNN and/or Wapo to ask additional clarifying questions on this Comey issue tomorrow.

Former Trump Insiders Predict Paul Manafort Close To Being Indicted For Financial Crimes, Report

It has become increasingly clear in recent weeks that Special Counsel Mueller is intent upon either flipping Paul Manafort against Trump in his "Russian collusion" investigation or filing charges against him for crimes unrelated to the 2016 presidential campaign.  Either way, Manafort"s future looks to be dimming.

As the Daily Caller has just revealed in an exclusive report, former Trump campaign aides are now saying that Manafort could be indicted for financial crimes, allegedly including money laundering and/or tax evasion, in the very near future.

Former Trump campaign aides are telling The Daily Caller that they increasingly believe former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort will be indicted for crimes such as money laundering or tax evasion.

One of the former campaign advisers has knowledge of the ongoing investigations into Manafort, a longtime Republican operative who joined the Trump campaign last March. Another former aide said his own knowledge of Manafort’s past history working with despots, coupled with news reports about Mueller’s investigation, led him to believe that an indictment of Manafort is becoming more likely.

The former Trump advisers told TheDC they have no knowledge of any collusion with the Russian government on the presidential campaign. One aide stressed that any financial crimes by Manafort are his own problem and not that of the White House.

“Ill-informed speculation has become the new Washington parlor game. Despite breathless headlines, it is increasingly clear the Russia Collusion story is eroding,” Manafort’s spokesman Jason Maloni told TheDC. Maloni declined to comment when asked specifically about financial crimes.

One of the former aides was interviewed by a Congressional committee investigating Russian interference and told TheDC that many of the questions were about Manafort’s finances.

“Investigators appeared focused on finances and business relationships of the Trump family and top associates such as Paul Manafort and General Michael Flynn,” the former Trump campaign adviser told TheDC.

Of course, back in July WaPo reported that FBI agents "raided the Alexandria home of President Trump’s former campaign chairman, using a search warrant to seize documents and other materials."  Federal agents reportedly appeared at Manafort’s home without advance warning in the predawn hours on Wednesday, July 26, the day after he met voluntarily with the staff for the Senate Intelligence Committee. The WaPo reported that the served search warrant was "wide-ranging and FBI agents working with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III departed the home with various records."

The raid came as Manafort has been voluntarily producing documents to congressional committees investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. The search warrant indicates investigators may have argued to a federal judge they had reason to believe Manafort could not be trusted to turn over all records in response to a grand jury subpoena.

It could also have been intended to send a message to President Trump’s former campaign chairman that he should not expect gentle treatment or legal courtesies from Mueller’s team.

Then again, other rumors would suggest that Manafort could luck out on a technicality as Law Newz reported earlier today that FBI agents may have overstepped their bounds during their raid and collected evidence from Manafort"s home that was subject to attorney-client privilege.  If true, such a blatant abuse of power could result in all evidence from Manafort"s home being dismissed by the courts.

As the Robert Mueller investigation intensifies, new details are being leaked about the direction the probe is going. Buried in a story about the intensifying relationship between Mueller and Congress, CNN revealed some very interesting information. According to the report, Mueller’s team may have obtained evidence in the raid of Paul Manafort’s home that was not covered by the search warrant.

As the article points out, this certainly brings up concerns as to what exactly was seized, what investigators saw, and who handled the material. You can’t “unsee” evidence once you saw it.

“If they (investigators) had any kind of heads up, and they went beyond the scope of the warrant, that could be a problem,” Henry Hockeimer, a former federal prosecutor, told LawNewz.com.

Meanwhile, just one day after we found out about the FBI"s raid, we learned that Special Counsel Mueller had also been going after Manafort"s family in order gather dirt.  According to Politico"s anonymous sources, Manafort"s son-in-law, Jeffrey Yohai, was approached earlier this summer regarding his "business deals" with Manafort.

Federal investigators sought cooperation from Paul Manafort’s son-in-law in an effort to increase pressure on President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, according to three people familiar with the probe.

Investigators approached Jeffrey Yohai, who has partnered in business deals with Manafort, earlier this summer, setting off “real waves” in Manafort’s orbit, one of these people said. Another of these people said investigators are trying to get “into Manafort’s head.”

Manafort, who is a focus of the broad federal and congressional investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign, is also under investigation for his business and real estate transactions, including some that involve Yohai.

As Politico noted at the time, Mueller’s targeting of both Manafort and his son-in-law over potential criminal wrongdoing is a common tactic employed in white-collar cases, commonly called “climbing the ladder.”  The strategy, more or less, entails digging up whatever dirt can be found on those in Trump"s orbit and then using that dirt to coerce potential witnesses into cooperation.

“Manafort is — on many levels — a key subject of the investigation and someone who might be leveraged to share information about others,” said one Washington-based white-collar attorney with a client involved in the Russia probe.

The approach involves finding a suspected crime — false statements on tax returns or loan applications, for example — and then offering leniency on prosecution in exchange for cooperation. “They always start with the people on the low end of the ladder and try to get information on someone high up on the ladder,” said William Jeffress, a white-collar attorney who represented Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, in the President George W. Bush-era Valerie Plame leak investigation.

Mueller would clearly have jurisdiction over any real estate dealings between Yohai, Manafort and Russians, Jeffress said. In addition, he could press Yohai for details on what he knows about Manafort’s role in the campaign.

In summary, when your "Russian collusion" narrative fails miserably...keep digging until you find something on someone...Paul Manafort appears to be that "someone."

FBI Unexpectedly Releases Confidential Employee Evaluations Of James Comey

In an unexpected, impromptu release, on Tuesday morning the FBI"s "Records Vault" twitter account released a trove of information, divulging "Field Office and Headquarters Climate Survey Results" among which are annual results for the years 2013 through 2017, but more notably, the confidential employee evaluation results for now-former Director James Comey.

FBI Field Office and Headquarters Climate Survey Results: https://t.co/bs66406HSv

— FBI Records Vault (@FBIRecordsVault) August 16, 2017

It is unclear why the FBI releases this data now, although like on previous occasions, it was likely prompted by an external FOIA request.

In the description of the survey results, the FBI notes the following:

The FBI Annual Employee Survey (AES) provides an opportunity for employees to anonymously share their perspective on the performance of FBI leaders and the organization.

The AES is comprised of two surveys: the Leadership Survey, measuring employees" perceptions of their supervisors" leadership abilities; and the Climate Survey, measuring employees" attitudes about their work, work environment, and the FBI as a whole. The FBI analyzes the data to help improve current leadership, pick new leaders, and encourage employees to express ideas on how management and the FBI can improve.

Each survey item is rated on a five-point scale. Each rating is averaged by the number of respondents. The following scoring breakdown is congruent with the scoring ranges identified by Human Resources senior level executive in the Senior Leader selection process:

• Average scores between 1.0 and 2.99 indicate potential areas of concern which could worsen if not addressed. A focus on development in these areas would be recommended.


• Average scores between 3.0 and 3.80 indicate positive feedback in these areas with potential for improvement.


• Average scores between 3.81 and 5 indicates success in those areas.

FBI Field Office and Headquarters Climate Survey Results (2013)
FBI Field Office and Headquarters Climate Survey Results (2014)
FBI Field Office and Headquarters Climate Survey Results (2015)
FBI Field Office and Headquarters Climate Survey Results (2016)
FBI Field Office and Headquarters Climate Survey Results (2017)
FBI Director James Comey Climate Survey Results (2015-2017)

In the charts below, we have summarized the disclosed results from Comey"s survey results, broken down across 4 key verticals: i) Personal Characteristics and Values, ii) Leading People, iii) Managing Work and iv( Miscellaneous. While there are not drastic changes over the roughly 3 years during which Comey was FBI Director, there appears to be a notable downward shift in Comey"s evaluations by anywhere from 36 respondents (in 2015) and 48 (in 2017).

While there are more details in the full evaluations, here is the core breakdown:

Personal Characteristics and Values:

Leading People:

Managing Work

Miscellaneous.

The full Comey Survey Results are below (link)

"I Have A Right To Express My Concerns": Fired Google Engineer Will Pursue Legal Action; Assange Offers Job

The computer engineer fired by Google for writing a memo in which he slammed the company"s anti-conservative culture and said women are less suited to certain roles in tech and leadership, is considering taking legal action against the company.

As a reminder, now former Google employee James Damore, caused outrage when he circulated a manifesto on Friday, complaining about Google’s “ideological echo chamber” alleging women have lower tolerance for stress and that conservatives are more conscientious. The chess master, who studied at Harvard, Princeton and MIT and worked at Google"s Mountain View HQ, was fired on Monday after the search giant’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, said portions of Damore’s 10-page memo “violate our code of conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes” despite saying in the same memo that Google employees shouldn"t be afraid of speaking their minds.

One day after Google announced the engineer was fired, Damore said he would “likely be pursuing legal action”.

“I have a right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does,” he said in an email reported by the New York Times.

In a further email to Breitbart, he reportedly said: “They just fired me for ‘perpetuating gender stereotypes’.”

While liberals were delighted by the decision, others accused Google of hypocrisy as the company is itself currently involved in litigation with the U.S. Department of Labor alleging the company systemically discriminates against women. Google has denied the charges, arguing that it doesn’t have a gender gap in pay, but has declined to share full salary information with the government. According to the company’s most recent demographic report, 69 percent of its workforce and 80 percent of its technical staff are male.

Among other things, Damore argued that “Google’s left bias has created a politically correct mono-culture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence”. He said: “The distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes, and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.”

In his memo, subtitled “How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion”, he said he wanted to increase women’s representation in tech without resorting to discrimination.

He complained that “discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons and school dropouts”. His suggestions included the company making tech and leadership less stressful because “women are on average more prone to anxiety”. His dismissal followed "outrage" in Silicon Valley because Damore sought to explain the gender imbalance in the tech industry as a function of biological difference.

The senior software engineer had worked at Google since 2013 and had previously studied computational biology at Princeton, Harvard and the University of Illinois where he graduated with a bachelor’s degree in 2010 in the top 3% of his class, according to his CV posted online and noted by the Guardian.

On Tuesday, Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, said that he would like to hire Damore, declaring “censorship is for losers”.

1/ Censorship is for losers. @WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore. https://t.co/tmrflE72p3

— Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) August 8, 2017

Writing on Twitter he said: “WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore. Women and men deserve respect. That includes not firing them for politely expressing ideas but rather arguing back.” He added: “I value intellectual diversity and workers rights to not be fired for politely expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion.”

I value intellectual diversity and workers rights to not be fired for politely expressing the "wrong" opinion. https://t.co/Qlqyht8CUA

— Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) August 8, 2017

Damore"s termination also sparked a conservative backlash, with Breitbart and other websites rushing to Damore’s defence. Breitbart quoted an anonymous employee who claimed that “the diversity gospel has been woven into nearly everything the company does, to the point where senior leaders focus on diversity first and technology second.

“For conservative employees, this is obviously demoralising, but it is also dangerous. Several have been driven out of the company or fired outright for sharing a dissenting view.”

Eric Weinstein, managing director of Peter Thiel’s venture capital firm, wrote an open missive to Google asking it to “stop teaching my girl that her path to financial freedom lies not in coding but in complaining to HR”.

More to the matter at hand, legal observers have questioned whether Google has broken employment law by firing Damore.

Dan Eaton, an employment lawyer, in San Diego wrote on CNBC: “Federal labour law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions … California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.”

He also said” “It is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws.”

A spokesman for Google in London declined to comment to the press on the legality of the decision.

Our guess: the most likely outcome will be a multi-million dollar settlement, and in a few months the name James Damore will be forgotten.

Finally, for those who still haven"t read it, Damore"s full memo is below (link):

Graham Dares Trump: "Holy Hell To Pay if You Fire Sessions"

Threat, promise, or red flag to a bull?

After a few days of non-stop tirades against current Attorney-General Jeff Sessions by President Trump, increasing numbers of Republicans are coming out in support of the "beleauered" AG urging Trump to stop.

As Bloomberg reports, a number of Republicans have called White House officials - and even Trump personally - to warn against removing Sessions, according to a Senate GOP aide who asked not to be identified discussing the private conversations. Their message has been that Sessions is universally liked on Capitol Hill and that removing him would be one of Trump’s biggest mistakes as president.

But, just in case the message from senior Republicans was not getting to the President, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told CNN on Thursday morning...

WATCH: "Any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency," says Sen. Lindsey Graham. pic.twitter.com/x2scZCKUIo

— NBC News (@NBCNews) July 27, 2017

“If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay.”

Graham described as “chilling” a tweet posted by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley late Wednesday in which the Iowa Republican said there was “no way” his panel would consider the nomination of a replacement for Sessions.

“There will be no confirmation hearing for a new attorney general in 2017,” Graham said.

Graham also warned Trump against any efforts to remove the special prosecutor appointed in the Russia probe, former FBI Director Robert Mueller.

“Any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency,” Graham said on CNN.

Over/Under on Trump"s tweet response to Graham"s "threat" is currently 90/120 mins.

CNN Melts Down Over Trump Complimenting Female Reporter's Smile

Controversial and regular guest on CNN, Symone Sanders, melted down on a panel of guests today, who converged to discuss today"s impeachable offense. During a call to the PM or Ireland, the vaginal grabbing President had the audacity, as well as the gall, to compliment one of the Irish supporters, telling her that she had a nice smile.

Sanders exploded: "Let me tell you something. I would describe this as how Donald Trump always acts when there are women in the room. It was condescending. It was just creepy. Why is the President of the United States picking out reporters, who just happen to be aesthetically pleasing, calling them over and telling them they have a nice smile. It"s just absolutely disgusting."

Here is Trump telling a member of the opposite sex that she had a nice smile -- and CNN"s reaction.

Let"s recap Trump"s crimes again, especially for new readers.

He worked with Russian hackers to access John Podesta"s email box, revealing the DNC to be the corrupt organization we"ve all grown to adore.
After becoming President, he took two scoops of iced cream, while everyone else took only one.
He fired Comey and called Flynn "a good guy." Clearly, collusion -- execute all involved.
He obstructed justice by claiming to have tapes. He had zero tapes. Impeach now.
He didn"t enjoy a Ramadan dinner -- something of a tradition in the White House.
He might get a chance to nominate a second supreme court justice.
He has yet to release his taxes.

And now, he complimented an "aesthetically pleasing" female about her smile.

We cannot allow this chicanery to continue. When is the earliest Trump can sign the impeachment papers and get done with it?

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

Trump Hints He Has Comey Tapes, Tells Press: "You're Going To Be Very Disappointed, Don't Worry"

Trump just dropped an awful lot of bombs in a very short period of time during a brief press conference with the Romanian President held in the White House Rose Garden.

First, on the issue of the infamous "Comey tapes," Trump hinted that they do, in fact, exist and he will "tell you about it over a short period of time."

Reporter: "And you seem to be hinting that there are recordings of those conversations." 

Trump:  "I"m not hinting anything.  I"ll tell you about it over a very short period of time....Oh, you"re going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer. Don"t worry."

RT CNNPolitics: When asked again about tapes, Trump responds: “you’re going to be very disappointed when you hear … https://t.co/eH39bzY4ly

— DigitalClusterz (@DigitalClusterz) June 9, 2017

On whether he would be willing to refute Comey"s testimony under oath, Trump said he would "100 percent" be willing to tell Special Counsel Mueller that he did not ask for Comey"s loyalty or ask for him to drop the Flynn investigation.

Reporter:  "Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of events?"

Trump:  "100%.  I hardly know the man, I"m not going to say "I want you to pledge allegiance."  Who would do that?  I mean think of it.  I hardly know the man.  It doesn"t make sense."

Reporter: "Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of events?"
Pres. Trump: "100%" https://t.co/Okz2bwUl4f pic.twitter.com/jdAAR8HFOt

— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 9, 2017

And on why Trump felt vindicated by Comey"s testimony:

"No collusion, no obstruction, he"s a leaker..."

"In the meantime, no collusion, no obstruction, he"s a leaker," Pres. Trump says when asked about Comey testimony: https://t.co/Okz2bwUl4f pic.twitter.com/HQ8mPS65Ai

— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 9, 2017

CNN Fires Host Who Called Trump A "Piece Of Shit"

It"s going from bad to worse for "unbiased" CNN staffers who just happen to have a vendetta with the president.

Last week, after the latest London terrorist attack, in response to a Trump tweet suggesting that the terrorist attack is confirmation of the need for Trump"s "travel ban", CNN host Reza Aslan flipped out, and slammed the president on Twitter, saying in a since deleted tweet, "This piece of shit is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He"s an embarrassment to humankind."

Less than a week later, Aslan was fired by CNN, which according to Variety, no longer believes in “Believer,” the non-fiction series it launched earlier this year with Reza Aslan, the Iranian-American author and religious scholar. “Believer” would have entered a second season if it had been picked up.

CNN spokeswoman confirms that the network has parted ways with @RezaAslan, who posted profane anti-Trump tweets. Story coming shortly

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 9, 2017

“CNN has decided to not move forward with production on the acquired series ‘Believer with Reza Aslan,"” the network said in a statement. “We wish Reza and his production team all the best. “

After Aslan"s Saturday outburst, the host apologized, saying, “I should have used better language to express my shock and frustration at the president’s lack of decorum and sympathy for the victims of London. I apologize for my choice of words” but that appears to not have been enough for CNN, whose credibility suffered one of its worst weeks in history, after it was forced to retract a recent report on James Comey"s testimony - based on "anonymous source" - which was quickly exposed as being "fake news" by Comey himself.

“Obviously I am very disappointed in this decision. ‘Believer’ means a great deal to me and to the countless viewers it’s reached. Its message of religious tolerance and exploration is extremely important right now. I am deeply grateful to CNN for giving me the opportunity to launch the show and to amplify my voice on their network. I am especially grateful to the legion of people within the Turner organization who worked so hard to make the show a hit series,” said Aslan, in a prepared statement.

”However, in these politically charged times, the tenor of our nation’s discourse has become complicated, and I recognize that CNN needs to protect its brand as an unbiased news outlet. Similarly, I need to honor my voice. I am not a journalist. I am a social commentator and scholar. And so I agree with CNN that it is best that we part ways. I look forward to partnering with another platform in the future to continue to spread my message.  I wish CNN all the best.”

Aslan"s termination comes shortly after CNN also parted ways with another of its hosts, Kathy Griffin. CNN said it said Griffin would no longer be part of CNN"s annual New Year’s Eve broadcast, a day after pictures surfaced on social media of Griffin holding a bloody head resembling President Trump.

And some Friday humor: in January, CNN conducted an internal brand survey, eager to find out whether remarks made by Trump suggesting CNN offered“fake news” had any sort of lasting impact on prospective viewers. “There has been no diminution whatsoever in the CNN brand,” Zucker said to reporters in February. “It’s as strong as it’s ever been. It’s incredibly trusted and we see no impact whatsoever in all of those attacks on the CNN brand.”

Jared Kushner "Under FBI Scrutiny" In Russia Probe: NBC

Update:  Just like last week"s bombshells, the Washington Post managed to publish an almost identical confirmation of NBC"s story within minutes...almost like they coordinated...

And, just like NBC, the Washington Post was careful to hedge their salacious title (though multiple paragraphs down in the body of the article) by pointing out that Kushner is not technically a "target" in any investigation and has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

The Post has not been told that Kushner is a target — or the central focus — of the investigation, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Target is a word that generally refers to someone who is the main suspect of investigators’ attention, though prosecutors can and do bring charges against people who are not marked with that distinction.

Breaking: Jared Kushner now a focus in Russia investigation https://t.co/h3WiyrIkC6

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 25, 2017

* * *

Last week when the Washington Post first reported that a senior White House adviser and "someone close to the president" was under scrutiny by investigators looking into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign, we noted speculation from the Twittersphere suggesting that that "someone" might be Jared Kushner (see "Unnamed White House Official Under FBI Investigation In Russia Probe").  Now, at least according to NBC, and information garnered from more anonymous sources, it seems that speculation may have been accurate. 

Jared Kushner, the president"s son-in-law and one of his senior advisers, has come under FBI scrutiny in the Russia investigation, multiple U.S. officials told NBC News.

Investigators believe Kushner has significant information relevant to their inquiry, officials said. That does not mean they suspect him of a crime or intend to charge him.

The FBI"s scrutiny of Kushner places the bureau"s sprawling counterintelligence and criminal investigation not only on the doorstep of the White House, but on the cusp of the Trump family circle. The Washington Post first reported last week that a senior White House official close to Trump was a "person of interest," but did not name the person.

Not surprisingly, NBC"s report is lacking on actual facts on why Kushner may be a "person of interest" in the FBI"s inquiry but is long on innuendo as they point out that he met at least once in December with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, and he also met last year with a Russian banker, Sergey Gorkov.

Meanwhile, Kushner"s lawyer told NBC that he expects to cooperate if contacted in regards to any inquiry.

"Mr. Kushner previously volunteered to share with Congress what he knows about these meetings," Kushner"s lawyer, Jamie Gorelick, told NBC News. "He will do the same if he is contacted in connection with any other inquiry.

Of course, despite the sensational headline, NBC"s report still offers no facts to support their larger thesis of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign...but it does help advance the provocative narrative just a bit further...