JUNE 11, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


THE OLD DIXIECRAT SESSIONS IS NO BETTER THAN TRUMP IN THE MOST BASIC WAYS. HIS GROUP SUPPORTS THE TRUMPIST THINKERS FINANCIALLY AND POLITICALLY ALMOST TO A MAN. NONE OF THIS IS NEW; BUT, THIS PARTICULAR DECISION GRATES ON MY NERVES NONETHELESS.

I LOVE THE SOUTH FOR ITS’ SOFT WARM AIR, ITS’ GREENERY AND FLOWERS, AND BEAUTIFUL OLD FOLKSONGS, BUT NOT FOR ITS’ UNCARING ATTITUDE TOWARD PEOPLE. OF COURSE, NOT EVERY SOUTHERNER IS IN THAT GROUP. GOOD GUYS OUT THERE, I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU! BLESS YOU FOR BEING DECENT TOWARD PEOPLE WHO ARE ESSENTIALLY HELPLESS!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sessions-excludes-domestic-gang-violence-asylum-claims-203735796--politics.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=5b2061e4-87d9-11e5-93d4-fa163e6f4a7e&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Sessions excludes domestic, gang violence from asylum claims
Associated Press • June 11, 2018

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Immigration judges generally cannot consider domestic and gang violence as grounds for asylum, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday in a ruling that could affect large numbers of Central Americans who have increasingly turned to the United States for protection.

"Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-government actors will not qualify for asylum," Sessions wrote in 31-page decision. "The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes — such as domestic violence or gang violence — or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim."

The widely expected move overruled a Board of Immigration Appeals decision in 2016 that gave asylum status to a woman from El Salvador who fled her husband. Sessions reopened the case for his review in March.

Sessions took aim at one of five categories to qualify for asylum - persecution for membership in a social group - calling it "inherently ambiguous." The other categories are for race, religion, nationality and political affiliation.

Domestic violence is a "particularly difficult crime to prevent and prosecute, even in the United States," Sessions wrote, but its prevalence in El Salvador doesn't mean that its government was unwilling or unable to protect victims any less so than the United States.

Dan Kowalski, editor of Bender's Immigration Bulletin, said the decision, subject to appeal in federal appeals court, could affect tens of thousands of people claiming asylum on grounds of domestic violence.

The decision came hours after Sessions' latest criticism on the asylum system, which he and other administration officials consider rife with abuse. The cases can take years to resolve in backlogged immigration courts that Sessions oversees and applicants often are released on bond in the meantime.

"Saying a few simple words — claiming a fear of return — is now transforming a straightforward arrest for illegal entry and immediate return into a prolonged legal process, where an alien may be released from custody into the United States and possibly never show up for an immigration hearing," Sessions said at a training event for immigration judges. "This is a large part of what has been accurately called 'catch and release.'"

3,118 reactions7%71%22%

As I understand it, the definitions of race, religion, nationality, political affiliation and membership in a social group are different than the definition of victim of domestic or criminal violence.

ReplyReplies (46)29425
B
B6 hours ago
Wow!

Bye NFL hello NHL 5 hours ago
We are a nation of laws.
We are not a 'territory' with no laws.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/11/bernie-sanders-starbucks-ceo-dead-wrong-on-government-run-healthcare.html
Bernie Sanders: Starbucks CEO 'dead wrong' on government-run health care
By Kimberly Leonard | Washington Examiner
June 08, 2018 01:11 PM

PHOTOGRAPH -- Outgoing Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has been criticized by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., over his comments on a healthcare system fully funded by the government. (Reuters)

Liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders says outgoing Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is "dead wrong" for saying that moving to a health care system fully funded by the government isn't realistic.

The Vermont independent, who has been pressing for the U.S. to move toward socialized medicine, was asked to respond to comments Schultz made about the plan in another interview.

Schultz recently announced that he would be leaving Starbucks and said he was considering "public service." He said on CNBC he was concerned about the way "so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left.”

PHOTOGRAPH -- FILE - In this April 4, 2018, file photo, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., responds to a question during a town hall meeting in Jackson, Miss. Sanders announced Monday, May 21, 2018, that he intends to seek re-election in 2018. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)
Sen. Bernie Sanders said Medicare-for-all is a "cost effective" program. (AP)

“And I ask myself, how are we going to pay for all these things? In terms of things like single-payer or people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job, I don’t think that’s realistic,” he said.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked Sanders about the possibility of Schultz running as "the Left's Trump" who may go up against the current president in 2020.

Sanders said he didn't know Schultz but his comment was "dead wrong."

"You have a guy who thinks that the United States apparently should remain the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people,” Sanders said. “The truth of the matter is that I think study after study has indicated that Medicare for All is a much more cost-effective approach toward health care than our current, dysfunctional health care system, which is far and away the most expensive system per capita than any system on Earth.”

Sanders reintroduced his Medicare for All Act last year, which would enroll every U.S. resident in the Medicare program. The bill has unprecedented backing from Democrats, with 16 co-sponsors. They include possible 2020 presidential hopefuls Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. A majority of lawmakers in the House have co-sponsored a similar bill.

[Opinion: Democrats seem poised to field at least one 2020 candidate from the business world]



I’VE ALWAYS BEEN GLAD TO SEE THAT THE JEWISH PEOPLE HAVE A NATION OF THEIR OWN AFTER 2500 YEARS OR SO OF BEING DOMINATED BY LARGER AND MORE AGGRESSIVE GROUPS. I AM SAD, HOWEVER, TO SEE THEM MAKE WAR ON THE PALESTINIANS IN A PERSISTENTLY HATRED FILLED WAY. IT’S LIKE WITH THE AMERICAN BLACKS. THEY WERE ENSLAVED, THEN MURDERED WANTONLY FOR ANY NUMBER OF SPECIOUS REASONS, AND NOW THEY ARE VERY ANGRY. THE ONLY WAY IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WHOLE PATTERN OF WRONGS DONE, AND AN AGREEMENT TO START OUT TOGETHER AGAIN. LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE BRITISH AND FRENCH.

“BERNIE SANDERS, WHO NOW STANDS A BETTER CHANCE OF BECOMING PRESIDENT THAN ANY JEW IN AMERICAN HISTORY, IS NOT AFRAID.” THIS MEMORABLE SENTENCE ON SANDERS’ STAND ON ISRAELI POLITICS UNDER NETANYAHU TELLS EXPLICITLY WHY I BELIEVE BERNIE SANDERS IS THE BEST CANDIDATE TO BE PRESIDENT THAT WE HAVE AT THIS TIME. HE WILL NOT DISAPPOINT ME BY BEING CORRUPT, UNFAIR TO ANY MINORITY GROUP OVER THEIR CULTURAL NATURE, OR TOO OBTUSE TO DEAL WITH SOME SENSITIVE ISSUES SUCH AS INSULTING ANGELA MERKLE. I REALLY WANT OUR LEADERS TO LOOK THOROUGHLY AT AN ISSUE, THINK ABOUT IT, COME TO A PRINCIPLED CONCLUSION AND THEN STAND BY IT. BERNIE IS A GOOD GUY, A NICE GUY, BUT CLEARLY A FIGHTER – A STRONG LEADER. ANOTHER DEMOCRAT I’VE BEEN CHECKING OUT, THOUGH NOT FOR 2020, IS ADAM SCHIFF. HE STRIKES ME AS BEING A SIMILAR SORT OF POLITICIAN.

https://forward.com/opinion/402885/bernie-sanders-criticism-of-israel-is-radical-and-hes-taking-it-mainstream/
Opinion
Bernie Sanders’ Criticism Of Israel Is Radical. And He’s Taking It Mainstream
Peter Beinart June 11, 2018Getty Images

Not many in the media are noticing, which is understandable given the burden of keeping up with Donald Trump, but in the shadow of Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, Bernie Sanders is dramatically challenging Beltway discourse on Israel.

In 2020, when Sanders likely runs for president, and journalists begin paying attention, they’re going to be shocked. The Israeli government and the American Jewish establishment will be scared out of their minds.

Last month, Sanders crossed one of the red lines demarcating politically acceptable Washington discourse about Israel. He organized the first letter written by multiple senators criticizing Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. Then, last week, he raced past that line again with a video that is unlike anything I’ve ever seen from an American senator.

[HIS VIDEO ON THE PALESTINIAN SITUATION IS PUBLISHED UNDER THE NAME “BERNIE SANDERS VT VOICES.”]

To understand how radical Sanders’ video is, it’s worth remembering how liberal Democrats like Barack Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton talked about Israel and the Palestinians as recently as two years ago. While Obama, Kerry and Clinton did sometimes criticize Israeli policy, they generally did so in the language of Israeli self-interest, not of Palestinian human rights. Israeli settlement policy was bad for Israel, they argued, because it threatened Israel’s future as a democratic Jewish state.

On Gaza, the Obama administration never publicly urged Israel to negotiate with Hamas, even as former Israeli security chiefs did. And Obama effectively endorsed Israel’s position that Palestinians should not be allowed to hold elections because Hamas might win. (This despite the fact that Israeli parties that oppose the two state solution — among them, Likud — run in Israeli elections all the time).

American Jews Have Abandoned Gaza — And The Truth

Peter Beinart April 26, 2018

When Gaza came up in a 2016 Democratic primary debate, Clinton placed the blame for its people’s suffering exclusively on Hamas. “Remember,” she declared, “Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people. And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza. So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.” Her comments, which are demonstrably false, could easily have come from Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz.

Contrast that with the video Sanders released last week. (It’s the third he’s released on Gaza since April). For starters, it consists entirely of interviews with Palestinians in Gaza. That alone is extraordinary. Palestinians in Gaza are almost never included in the debates on American TV. Palestinians are rarely invited to hold public briefings on Capitol Hill, and when they are, it’s hugely controversial.

In his video, Sanders lets Palestinians from Gaza speak for themselves. And they say things American politicians simply don’t say. Again and again, the speakers, who are not politicians but rather academics, students and journalists, call Gaza a “prison.” They talk about having only four hours of electricity per day. In one comic-tragic moment, the lights go on behind a young woman while she is speaking. She notes that the power has just returned after being off for 16 hours. Then it flickers off again.

What Israelis Hear When You Say There Was A ‘Massacre’ In Gaza
Shoshanna Keats JaskollApril 3, 2018

A professor of political science notes that his family hasn’t left Gaza in more than twenty years. A young man says his “biggest dream is to travel from Gaza for one time in my life. To see how life is from outside the walls of the prison.” He later comments that many of his friends have contemplated suicide: “They cannot continue to live without any types of hope.” A young woman says, “I want the situation to change to where I feel like an equal human being to Israelis.”

By allowing ordinary Palestinians to describe their plight, Sanders’ video allows Americans to see the Great Return March as the product not of blind hatred of Israel but of a quintessentially human desire for a better life. “This protest,” says the professor, “was designed and orchestrated by young, independent and frustrated Palestinians who were sick, tired and exhausted of their living conditions.”

And by allowing ordinary Palestinians to speak for themselves, the video shows how dehumanizing it is to describe the people protesting Israel’s blockade as mere pawns of, or “human shields” for, Hamas. Brilliantly, Sanders’ video shows clips of American pundits blaming Hamas for the protests, and then lets Palestinians in Gaza do something they can rarely do on American television: respond.

“I’m talking with you. I’m not Hamas,” exclaims one man.

“It’s a big lie to say that Hamas is pushing Palestinian children and Palestinian women in the front line,” says the Palestinian professor.

“The majority of the people are not following Hamas,” insists the young man. “They are just participating peacefully because they just want to be free.”

Criticizing Hamas is both legitimate and necessary. But Sanders’ video shows how the media’s obsession with Hamas obscures the human causes of Palestinian protest, and the human consequences of Israel’s brutal response.

“The right question to ask is not whether there is someone asking them to go to the fence,” argues a young woman. “The right question is what is driving these people to walk up to the fence. What kinds of conditions would drive someone to risk their lives knowing that there are snipers who are willing to shoot them?”

And when you look at her, you imagine being that desperate yourself.

For decades, the conventional wisdom has held that a video like Sanders’, which focuses without equivocation or apology on Palestinian human rights, is political suicide. But that conventional wisdom has rarely been tested. Democratic politicians and foreign policy experts are so accustomed to self-censorship that AIPAC and its allies rarely have to make an example of them. They make an example of themselves.

Sanders is betting that the political ground has shifted. In a sense, he’s doing in the Democratic Party what Trump has done inside the GOP. For years, polls showed that ordinary Republicans were moving away from their party’s elite on trade and immigration. But until Trump, no Republican presidential frontrunner had been sufficiently unconventional and sufficiently unafraid to put that proposition to the test.

That’s what Sanders is doing on Israel. He knows that Netanyahu’s opposition to the two state solution, and his support for the Iraq War, and his battles with Barack Obama, and his bromance with Trump, have deeply eroded support for Israel among African Americans, progressives and the young. He knows that his likely 2020 competitors are moving left on issue after issue—from health care to college tuition to the minimum wage—in an effort to keep pace with a Democratic base that has been radicalized by the financial crisis, stagnant wages, failed wars and Donald Trump. But he knows that when it comes to Israel, those competitors are constrained by their fears of the American Jewish establishment.

Bernie Sanders, who now stands a better chance of becoming president than any Jew in American history, is not afraid. And, as a result, over the next two years he just might alter the American debate over Israel in ways we have not witnessed in decades.

Perhaps the courage of the protesters in Gaza is proving contagious after all.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

GIVE TODAY SUPPORT FEARLESS JOURNALISM
Join thousands of readers and give today to help fund the Forward’s reliable reporting, intelligent analysis, and a Jewish voice you can trust on news, culture, lifestyle and opinion. Thank you for making a generous donation now.
Tagged as: bernie sanders israeli-palestinian conflict

Author
Peter Beinart

Peter Beinart is a Senior Columnist at The Forward and Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York. He is also a Contributor to The Atlantic and a CNN Political Commentator.

RELATED: Bernie Sanders Still Hasn’t Endorsed His Son’s Run For Congress

Riverdale Private School Investigates Teacher Over Israel Comments
Ben Fractenberg June 11, 2018
Next Article

Copyright ©2018 The Forward Association, Inc.All rights reserved. | Contact | Privacy



JUST TO SEE THAT THIS PUBLICATION, THE FORWARD, IS NOT AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE PUBLICATION OF SOME KIND, I GOOGLED IT AND CAME ACROSS A LARGE AMOUNT OF VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE JEWISH PEOPLE IN THE USA. LIKE MANY CHRISTIANS, I HAVE ALWAYS CONSIDERED THE JEWS TO BE OUR FOREFATHERS RATHER THAN OUR ENEMY AS SO MANY AMERICANS CLAIM.

IT ALSO HAS A BIT ABOUT THE US LABOR MOVEMENT HERE. ONE OF THE MOST ENTHRALLING COLLEGE COURSES I TOOK AT UNC-CH WAS A HISTORY OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT. BY THE WAY, SANDERS IS NOT AGAINST ISRAEL, BUT CRITICAL OF THEIR INTERRELATIONS WITH THE ISLAMIC GROUPS THERE. I AGREE WITH HIM 100%. PEACE, IMPORTANT AS IT IS, IS A TWO-WAY STREET. NEITHER THE ISRAELIS NOR THE PALESTINIANS HAVE DONE AS THEY SHOULD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forward
The Forward
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Forward (Yiddish: פֿאָרווערטס‎, translit. Forverts), formerly known as The Jewish Daily Forward,[2] is an American magazine published monthly in New York City for a Jewish-American audience. Founded in 1897 as a Yiddish-language daily, today The Forward is a digital-first publication with online reporting alongside monthly magazines in both English and Yiddish. The Forward's perspective on world and national news and its reporting on the Jewish perspective on modern America have made it one of the most influential American Jewish publications. The Forward is published by an independent not-for-profit association. It has a politically progressive editorial focus.[3]

Origins

The first issue of Forverts appeared on April 22, 1897, in New York City.[4] The paper was founded by a group of about 50 Yiddish-speaking socialists who organized themselves approximately three months earlier as the Forward Publishing Association.[4] The paper's name, as well as its political orientation, was borrowed from the German Social Democratic Party and its organ Vorwärts.

PHOTOGRAPH -- Abraham Cahan, patriarch of The Forward until 1946

Forverts was a successor to New York's first Yiddish-language socialist newspaper, Di Arbeter Tsaytung (The Workman's Paper), a weekly established in 1890 by the fledgling Jewish trade union movement centered in the United Hebrew Trades as a vehicle for bringing socialist and trade unionist ideas to non-English speaking immigrants.[5][6] This paper had been merged into a new Yiddish daily called Dos Abend Blatt (The Evening Paper) as its weekend supplement when that publication was launched in 1894 under the auspices of the Socialist Labor Party (SLP).[5] As this publication established itself, it came under increased political pressure from the de facto head of the SLP, Daniel De Leon, who attempted to maintain a rigid ideological line with respect to its content.[7] It was this centralizing political pressure which had been the motivating factor for a new publication.

Chief among the dissident socialists of the Forward Publishing Association were Louis Miller and Abraham Cahan. These two founding fathers of The Forward were quick to enlist in the ranks of a new rival socialist political party founded in 1897, the Social Democratic Party of America, founded by the nationally famous leader of the 1894 American Railway Union strike, Eugene V. Debs, and Victor L. Berger, a German-speaking teacher and newspaper publisher from Milwaukee. Both joined the SDP in July 1897.[8]

Despite this political similarity, Miller and Cahan differed as to the political orientation of the paper and Cahan left after just four months to join the staff of The Commercial Advertiser, a well-established Republican newspaper also based in New York City.[9]

For the next four years Cahan remained outside of The Forward office, learning the newspaper trade in a financially successful setting. He only returned, he later recalled in his memoirs, upon the promise of "absolute full power" over the editorial desk.[10]

The circulation of the paper grew quickly, paralleling the rapid growth of the Yiddish speaking population of the United States. By 1912 its circulation was 120,000,[11] and by the late 1920s/early 1930s, The Forward was a leading U.S. metropolitan daily with considerable influence and a nationwide circulation of more than 275,000[11][12] though this had dropped to 170,000 by 1939 as a result of changes in U.S. immigration policy that restricted the immigration of Jews to a trickle.[11]

Early on, The Forward defended trade unionism and moderate, democratic socialism. The paper was a significant participant in the activities of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union; Benjamin Schlesinger, a former president of the ILGWU, became the general manager of the paper in 1923, then returned to the presidency of the union in 1928. The paper was also an early supporter of David Dubinsky, Schlesinger's eventual successor.

This November 1, 1936, magazine section of The Forward, illustrates its evolution from a Socialist publication to a Social Democratic supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal"
The most well-known writer in the Yiddish Forward was Isaac Bashevis Singer, who received the Nobel Prize in Literature. although other well known Socialist literary and political figures, such as Leon Trotsky and Morris Winchevsky, also wrote for it.

Modern times
By 1962 circulation was down to 56,126 daily and 59,636 Sunday,[13] and by 1983 the newspaper was published only once a week, with an English supplement.[12] In 1990 the English supplement became an independent weekly which by 2000 had a circulation of 26,183, while the Yiddish weekly had a circulation of 7,000 and falling.[14]

As the influence of the Socialist Party in both American politics and in the Jewish community waned, the paper joined the American liberal mainstream though it maintained a social democratic orientation. The English version has some standing in the Jewish community as an outlet of liberal policy analysis. For a period in the 1990s, conservatives came to the fore of the English edition of the paper, but the break from tradition didn't last. (A number of conservatives dismissed from The Forward later helped to found the modern New York Sun.)

The Yiddish edition has recently enjoyed a modest increase in circulation as courses in the language have become more popular among university students; circulation has leveled out at about 5,500. Boris Sandler, one of the most significant contemporary secular writers in Yiddish, was the editor of the Yiddish Forward for 18 years, until March 2016; the new editor who succeeded him is Rukhl Schaechter.[15][16]

From 2013 to 2017, prior to the current format as a monthly magazine, The Forward was published as a newspaper in separate English weekly and Yiddish biweekly editions, and online daily. Each was effectively an independent publication with its own contents. Jane Eisner became the first female editor in chief of the English Forward in June 2008.[17][18] The previous editor in chief was J.J. Goldberg, who served from 2000 to 2007; since that time he has been editor at large.[19] The paper maintains a left of center editorial stance.[18]

In August 2015, The Forward received wide attention for reporting from Iran[20] at a charged moment in American politics, as the U.S. Congress was ramping up to a vote on an accord reached the month before to limit Tehran's nuclear ability in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions. Assistant Managing Editor Larry Cohler-Esses was, in the words of The New York Times, "The first journalist from an American Jewish pro-Israel publication to be given an Iranian visa since 1979."[21]

For a few years, there was also a Russian edition. The website of The Forward describes its formation: "In the fall of 1995 a Russian-language edition of the Forward was launched, under the editorship of Vladimir "Velvl" Yedidowich. The decision to launch a Russian Forward in the crowded market of Russian-language journalism in New York followed approaches to the Forward Association by a number of intellectual leaders in the fast-growing émigré community who expressed an interest in adding a voice that was strongly Jewish, yet with a secular, social-democratic orientation and an appreciation for the cultural dimension of Jewish life."

The Russian edition was sold to RAJI (Russian American Jews for Israel) in 2004, although initially it kept the name.[22] In contrast to its English counterpart, the Russian edition and its readership were more sympathetic to right-wing voices. In March 2007, it was renamed the Forum.

Around the same time in 2004, the Forward Association also sold off its interest in WEVD to The Walt Disney Company's sports division, ESPN.

The name of the publication was shortened to The Forward in April 2015.[2]

As of July 2016 the Forward began publishing a monthly magazine. The last newspaper published was the June 30, 2016 issue.[23]

Notable columns
For 24 years, The Forward was the home of the popular column "Philologos". It now runs in Mosaic.[24][25]

Jewish Daily Forward Building

At the peak of its popularity, the Forward erected a ten-story office building at 175 East Broadway on the Lower East Side, designed by architect George Boehm and completed in 1912. It was a prime location, across the street from Seward Park. The building was embellished with marble columns and panels and stained glass windows. The facade features carved bas relief portraits of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels[26] (who co-authored, with Marx, The Communist Manifesto), and Ferdinand Lassalle, founder of the first mass German labor party. A fourth relief portrays a person whose identity has not been clearly established, and has been identified as Wilhelm Liebknecht,[27] Karl Liebknecht,[28] or August Bebel.[29][30] In the real estate boom of the 1990s, the building was converted to condominiums.[11][31]

Forward 50

The "Forward 50" is a list of fifty Jewish-Americans "who have made a significant impact on the Jewish story in the past year", published annually as an editorial opinion of The Forward newspaper since 1994.[32] The list was the initiative of Seth Lipsky, founding editor of the English Forward.[33]

According to the magazine's website, this is not a scientific study, but rather the opinion of staff members, assisted by nominations from readers. The Forward does not endorse, or support any of the individuals mentioned in the listing. The rankings are divided into different categories (which may vary from year to year): Top Picks, Politics, Activism, Religion, Community, Culture, Philanthropy, Scandals, Sports and, new in 2010, Food.[32]

The list also includes those Jews whose impact in the past year has been dramatic and damaging.[33]


ARE THE DEMS PLANNING TO RUN THEIR OWN BILLIONAIRES? I GUESS THEY’RE COMING OUT OT THE CLOSET,THEN?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-seem-poised-to-field-at-least-one-2020-candidate-from-the-business-world
OPINION
Democrats seem poised to field at least one 2020 candidate from the business world
by Emily Jashinsky
June 06, 2018 04:27 PM
Monday, June 11, 2018

It's not just Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz — as things stand today, the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential primary field could shape up to be heavy on business leaders.

Schultz, who announced his retirement from Starbucks this week, somehow wasn't resigning under pressure after unflattering publicity due to the treatment of blacks in his company's coffee shops, which he was quick to blame on other people.

Instead, friendly commentators fanned the flames of speculation swirling around his presidential ambitions on Monday. He declined to rule out a run for office, even for president, in an interview with the New York Times. "I intend to think about a range of options, and that could include public service," said Schultz. "But I’m a long way from making any decisions about the future.”

Other potential Democratic candidates from the business world seem less likely to run than Schultz, but can't be ruled out entirely. Though he's downplayed recent speculation, Disney CEO Bob Iger's name has been consistently listed among those considering 2020 bids. Then there's Mark Cuban, who could run as either a Republican or Democrat. On the heels of Schultz's announcement, Cuban confirmed to the New York Times that he's given more thought to the possibility of running in 2020. "Yes," he responded. "But not willing to discuss at this point."

The same Times article also cited a source familiar with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon's thinking who claims he's ruled out a run, but that doesn't always mean much when it comes to presidential primaries, and Dimon has signaled his interest in the past.

Before the company's disastrous spring, Facebook executives Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg seemed more likely to explore candidacies. Though he's been subject to intense scrutiny in recent months, Zuckerberg, in particular, probably shouldn't be altogether ruled out from 2020. The CEO went on a nationwide listening tour last year and has made other noteworthy moves as well.

And don't forget hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, who's already made major waves in the 2018 cycle.

Of course, one business leader's decision to join the race could potentially clear the field of any similar candidates, with others assuming the lane would be too crowded. But it seems increasingly likely that in the party's efforts to put up a formidable opponent to President Trump, at least one strong candidate from the business world will emerge, perhaps hoping to defang some of his credibility by virtue of their shared career backgrounds.

And don't forget that all of this could be intensely complicated by the strain of anti-corporate sentiments that runs strong among the party's base, already nudging possible 2020 contenders like Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., to the Left as primary season approaches.

Opinion Beltway Confidential Starbucks Democratic Party Campaigns 2020 Elections Mark Zuckerberg Sheryl Sandberg Tom Steyer


SEVERAL ARTICLES THESE LAST FEW DAYS HAVE BEEN ON THE SUBJECT OF THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE BERNIE SANDERS ISSUES. SEE THE FOLLOWING NBC STORY FOR A SUMMARY WHICH I DO BELIEVE IS ACCURATE.

THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS ARE OF GREAT INTEREST TO ME BECAUSE OF TWO THINGS. FIRST, THE DESCRIPTION OF “THE PARTY” AS BEING DIFFERENT FROM – AND SUPERIOR TO – “THE VOTERS.” IN MY VIEW, THE PARTY CERTAINLY SHOULD “BE” THE PEOPLE RATHER THAN A HANDFUL OF POWERFUL “LEADERS.” THE MORE ACCURATE WORD HAS BECOME “RULERS,” OR AS IN THE OLD DAY, THE “BOSSES.” THAT’S REASON NUMBER ONE FOR WHY I LEFT THEM ON ELECTION DAY, 2016. I CARE A VERY GREAT DEAL ABOUT POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT, AND KISSING THE FEET OF “BOSSES” ISN’T ACCEPTABLE TO ME.

SECOND, THE DNC BOSSES’ ATTEMPT TO “KNOCK LAURA MOSER” OUT OF THE RACE WAS NOT ONLY TOTALLY UNETHICAL (MOSER IS NO DONALD TRUMP, WHO SHOULD BE DISLODGED), BUT ACCORDING TO THIS ARTICLE, NOTICEABLY UNPOPULAR AMONG RANK AND FILE VOTERS. THEIR OBVIOUS POWER PLAY FAILED MISERABLY. THE 2016 DEMOCRATIC DECISION WAS BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE – THAT THEY HAD THE FULL LOYALTY OF THE YOUNG, THE FINANCIALLY STRUGGLING AND/OR THE IDEALISTIC GROUPS – TRUE AMERICAN “PATRIOTS.” THE DEMS HAVE BEEN CLEVER AND MUCH MORE TRUSTWORTHY THAN ANY REPUBLICAN FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER, BUT THEY DON’T HAVE A MOSES. SANDERS IS PRETTY MUCH A MOSES. INSTEAD OF HATING HIM, THE CENTRAL PARTY SHOULD FOLLOW HIM.

“MORE DEMOCRATS WILL BE RUNNING SANDERS-STYLE CAMPAIGNS OVER THE NEXT FEW CYCLES REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PARTY DOES. ON THE LATTER QUESTION, IT’S CLEAR THAT THE USUAL DEMOCRATIC PLAYERS DON’T HAVE A TON OF INTEREST IN HAVING ANYONE IN THE SANDERS MOLD BECOMING THE DEMOCRATIC STANDARD-BEARER. FOR INSTANCE, IN TEXAS, THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE ATTEMPTED TO KNOCK THE PROGRESSIVE LAURA MOSER OUT OF THE RACE (WHICH BACKFIRED, ULTIMATELY HELPING HER GET INTO A PRIMARY RUN-OFF); THE SAME THING OCCURRED IN COLORADO, AND OTHER RACES AROUND THE COUNTRY.”

BERNIE SANDERS DIDN’T STEAL THE ELECTION. HILLARY DROPPED THE BALL. HIS FOLLOWERS ARE SINCERELY, SOLIDLY AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY BEHIND HIM, NOT BECAUSE WE ARE DUMB, BUT BECAUSE SANDERS MAKES SO MUCH GOOD SENSE; AND THE DEMS, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS –TWO OF WHICH ARE A LONG AND ALL TOO COMFORTABLE HISTORY OF DEPENDENCE ON UNETHICAL MONETARY GAIN AND POWER GRABS – HAVE ABANDONED US FOR THE DARK SIDE.

SANDERS STANDS FOR THE PEOPLE’S NEEDS AND THEIR RIGHTFUL POWER. THE TRUMP FOLLOWERS FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT HIM. I JUST DISAGREE WITH THEM. BOTH CENTRAL PARTIES TYPICALLY IGNORE POOR OR LOWER MIDDLE-CLASS WHITES. BERNIE’S USE OF THE TERM “WORKING CLASS” IS THE RIGHT ONE. IT HAS NO STIGMA ATTACHED. WHAT THEY,WE NEED IS A JOB AND A UNION. BERNIE IS FROM THAT BACKGROUND, TOO, SO HE DOESN’T LOOK DOWN ON US. BESIDES, HE’S GOING TO MAKE A GREAT PRESIDENT WHEN HE IS ELECTED IN 2020!

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-was-right-democrats-are-running-his-message-will-ncna882091
Pat Garofalo Bernie Sanders was right, and Democrats are running on his message. But will the party listen?
The junior Senator didn't win in 2016, but his ideas are on the ballot for the 2018 and 2020 elections.
Jun.11.2018 / 3:29 PM ET

Senator Sanders greets students gathering outside the U.S. Capitol as part of a nationwide walk-out of classes to demand stricter gun laws

Senator Bernie Sanders greets students gathering outside the U.S. Capitol as part of a nationwide walk-out of classes to demand stricter gun laws in Washington on March 14, 2018. Jim Bourg / Reuters

Though Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., lost the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 (and he might not win the nod in 2020, should he decide to run) he’s going to emerge triumphant from this moment in Democratic politics anyway.

Just look at the other candidates expected to run for the Democratic nomination in 2020, all of whom are in some way seeking to curry favor with Sanders’ supporters and coalescing around the policies he backed — even though, in 2016, those ideas were derided as a pipe dream promulgated by an old man from Vermont who didn’t understand the real world.

The most obvious example of this shift has occurred is in health care policy: Sanders’ single-payer style “Medicare for All” plan was widely panned by Beltway pundits and prognosticators in 2016 as hopelessly idealistic and a political non-starter. Now, though, Sanders has 16 co-sponsors on a single-payer bill, including potential 2020 contenders Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. The Democratic establishment, too, has come around to the idea that pushing for a single-payer style system is the correct thing to do.

Plenty of skeptics — particularly conservative ones — welcome a race amongst the 2020 hopefuls to out-Bernie each other.

Beyond health care, Booker has rolled out a plan to implement a jobs guarantee, Gillibrand and Booker want to legalize marijuana and they, along with Harris, have sworn off corporate PAC money. That first one is more than even Sanders dared to call for back in 2016; the latter two are straight out of his playbook. Even Sanders’ push for labor law reform, a dream of activists that didn’t happen under the Obama administration (despite Democrats having 60 votes in the Senate), has garnered its fair share of backers.

Plenty of skeptics — particularly conservative ones — welcome a race amongst the 2020 hopefuls to out-Bernie each other as a signal that Democrats are intent on driving themselves into inevitable electoral doom. But, though it’s hard to square with a country that sent Donald Trump to the White House and a big Republican majority to Congress, these policy moves make good political sense.

Majorities are now in favor of pot legalization, for instance, while a plurality favors a nationalized health care system. On many economic matters, there is hard evidence that the conservative governance America is getting is not what most voters actually want.

Sen. Bernie Sanders attends an event to mark the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassinationSen. Bernie Sanders attends an event to mark the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 2018 in Memphis, Tennessee.Joe Raedle / Getty Images

And, perhaps more to the point, the Obama years proved that Republicans are going to portray Democrats as wild-eyed socialists no matter how incremental and market-friendly the reforms they propose are. So they might as well go big; the response from the opposition will be the same either way.

Sanders himself isn’t solely responsible for this shift in Democratic thinking: Though his 2016 run showed that progressive ideas are more viable than the conventional wisdom previously allowed, his success is also a product of the times. Millennials are the most progressive generation America has seen in a long while, and they now constitute a voting bloc that outnumbers any other. That liberalness was bound to trickle down to election results, and Sanders benefitted from it.

But though Sanders proved that an unabashedly liberal platform is not necessarily the liability it was previously believed to be, it remains an outstanding question whether Democrats be successful running for office on a Sanders-style platform and whether the Democratic establishment will really let candidates try.

More Democrats will be running Sanders-style campaigns over the next few cycles regardless of what the party does.

On the latter question, it’s clear that the usual Democratic players don’t have a ton of interest in having anyone in the Sanders mold becoming the Democratic standard-bearer. For instance, in Texas, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee attempted to knock the progressive Laura Moser out of the race (which backfired, ultimately helping her get into a primary run-off); the same thing occurred in Colorado, and other races around the country.

The Democrat establishment’s allergy to progressives is no accident or strategic electability play: As David Dayen reported in The Intercept, a new study suggests that party leaders back moderate candidates even when there’s no reason to think that a particular district would be turned off by someone more liberal. In places with safe seats that could absolutely be represented by someone further to the left, the Democratic establishment not only sticks with the more centrist candidate, it’s more likely to push for a centrist than in a competitive district.

Recommended
What's included in the EU list of tit-for-tat tariffs? Bikes, bourbon, and fishing boats
Stormy Daniels' former lawyer countersues, alleging defamation

Even if you assume that establishment-types really do believe that moderation is the path toward big majorities, there’s little reason to think their case is a good one. Democrats have been decimated in the last few election cycles, up and down the ballot. But in 2016, Sanders won in places — like West Virginia, Montana and Idaho — in which Democrats are not typically successful. So it’s probably worth seeing if a different kind of Democrat taking a more progressive stance could break the GOP’s stranglehold in similar places. Nothing else Democrats have done has worked so, if the party had any sense, it’d get out of the way and let some candidates give it a whirl.

More Democrats will be running Sanders-style campaigns over the next few cycles regardless of what the party does, thanks to simple political reality and voters’ distaste for dictates from on high. The party’s power to decide for its voters is ebbing. And, for that, progressives — even ones that voted for Hillary Clinton — have Bernie to thank.

Pat Garofalo is a writer and editor based in Washington, D.C. He was formerly an editor at U.S. News & World Report and ThinkProgress.

RELATED: Michael Conway A Trump pardon won't mean Mueller targets are off the hook


AVENATTI, DANIELS, COHEN AND DAVIDSON, OH YES, AND TRUMP.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-michael-cohen-case-admonishes-michael-avenatti-publicity-tour-223217643.html
NEW YORK — Wednesday’s court hearing about the documents seized by the FBI from President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, was largely focused on another lawyer, Michael Avenatti, who represents actress Stormy Daniels and has become one of cable news’ most ubiquitous faces in the process.

Cohen’s team accused Avenatti of staging a legal “drive-by shooting” against Cohen. And Avenatti implied he has information that the raid unearthed, what he described as “disturbing” tapes of a conversation between Cohen and Daniels’s former lawyer.

Related Searches
Michael Cohen News Stormy Daniels Michael Cohen Michael Avenatti News Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Wife Michael Cohen Daughter

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is suing both Trump and Cohen to get out of a confidentiality agreement that prevents her from discussing her encounter with the president in 2006. Cohen has admitted giving Daniels a $130,000 payment in exchange for her silence, though he denies she had a sexual liaison with Trump. Daniels is separately suing Cohen for defamation because he accused her of lying about the alleged affair. Trump and his lawyers have given conflicting accounts of whether the president was aware of Cohen’s deal with Daniels.

On April 26, Avenatti filed a motion to allow Daniels to intervene in Cohen’s case. The motion, which was opposed by Cohen’s team, is under consideration by Judge Kimba Wood in U.S. district court in Manhattan. The proceedings are at the stage of determining which documents seized by the FBI from Cohen’s office and residences will be made available to prosecutors. The FBI raid was part of a criminal investigation into Cohen’s business dealings and payments he made to Daniels and at least one other woman, who also claimed to have had a relationship with Trump.

Wood has appointed a special master to work with Cohen’s attorneys and prosecutors to determine which documents are privileged. In his request to allow Daniels to intervene, Avenatti argued that the raid may have included documents that could be subject to her attorney-client privilege. And attorneys for both Trump and Cohen have also that argued some of the seized materials may be privileged.

Michael Cohen, right, leaves federal court in New York on Wednesday. Cohen’s attorney Stephen Ryan is immediately behind him. (Photo: Richard Drew/AP)

But Wednesday’s hearing revolved, in part, around Avenatti himself, including his financial dealings and the nearly 200 television appearances he has made since taking on Daniels’s case. Wood warned him that if he does formally enter the case, “you would have to stop doing some of the things you’ve been doing.”

Specifically, she said that Avenatti, who has routinely criticized Trump and Cohen on Twitter and television, would have to refrain from issuing “opinions on Mr. Cohen’s guilt.” Wood also said Avenatti could not disclose the contents of nonpublic documents. She suggested that she either wanted Avenatti to behave as a participating attorney in the case while Daniels’s application to intervene is held in abeyance or to remove himself.

“I don’t want you to exist in some kind of limbo where you are able to denigrate Mr. Cohen and potentially contaminate the jury pool,” said Wood.

The judge also warned Avenatti that he would not be able to continue his “publicity tour” if he formally participated in the case.

“I say ‘publicity tour’ not in a derogatory sense. You’re entitled to publicity, I can’t stop you. Unless you’re participating in a matter before me,” said Wood.

Avenatti said he was willing to have Daniels’s motion to intervene held in abeyance. But he also brought up the issue of “disturbing” tapes he said were made by Cohen to make the case that Daniels’s application would need to be dealt with “sooner or later.”

According to Avenatti, he became aware of the recordings when a “member of the press” called him last week to ask about a taped conversation between Cohen and Daniels’s former attorney, Keith Davidson. Avenatti said the unnamed reporter told him this conversation included references to Daniels. He expressed concerns that the tape was made in the first place and that the press was made aware of it, suggesting this could have been a violation of Daniels’s attorney-client privilege.

Davidson did not respond to an email from Yahoo News asking whether he discussed Daniels with Cohen and if he knew their conversation was taped.

Avenatti went on to argue there were only “two sources” that could have leaked a tape of Cohen and Davidson to the press. He said the first potential source would have been the FBI or U.S. attorneys, but he said and he highly doubted law enforcement would have given a recording to reporters. Therefore, Avenatti said the leak “had to” have come from “Cohen or someone close” to him. Avenatti suggested Cohen would have leaked the tape to “plant a false narrative” about Daniels.

Stormy Daniels speaks to media along with lawyer Michael Avenatti outside federal court in the Manhattan on April 16. (Photo: Lucas Jackson/Reuters)

Wood responded to this dramatic tale of the tape by saying Avenatti had “no standing” to raise the issue unless he is formally participating in the case. And the judge suggested she has some concern about admitting Avenatti to the proceedings, specifically the he “might share something” he saw that was not public.

Stephen Ryan, one of Cohen’s attorneys, then jumped in and addressed the issue that likely sparked the judge’s fears.

“I’ve never seen an attorney conduct himself in the way Mr. Avenatti has,” Ryan began.

Ryan said he was alarmed by Avenatti’s publication of a report that detailed how Cohen received $500,000 from a Russian oligarch. That payment was subsequently confirmed, but Avenatti’s report also included details about accounts belonging to two other people named “Michael Cohen.”

“It was a drive-by shooting of anyone named Michael Cohen,” Ryan said.

The New Yorker subsequently published an interview with an anonymous law enforcement official who acknowledged leaking the information about Cohen’s bank account because reports relating to it had gone missing from a government database.

In court on Wednesday, Ryan described Avenatti’s publication of the information as a “malicious” act that was designed to “prejudice” potential jurors who could be called if Cohen eventually faces charges stemming from the investigation into him.

“It was a premeditated drive-by shooting of my clients’ rights,” Ryan said.

Ryan also pointed to Avenatti’s spate of media appearances and accused the lawyer of having given the banking report to news outlets under embargo to maximize press coverage.

“This is absolute aggrandizement of a single attorney and his client,” Ryan said of Avenatti’s media blitz.

Ryan also denied Avenatti’s claim that Cohen was leaking tapes of conversations with Davidson.

“If we had released audio to a reporter, it would have been the biggest story in America,” said Ryan. “It has not occurred.”

The Washington Post has reported that Cohen “sometimes taped” his conversations. Ryan said that if there was any audio recording involving Daniels in Cohen’s possession it would be under “lock and key,” along with the rest of the items seized in the raid. He urged the judge to hold Daniels’s application to intervene in abeyance and keep Avenatti out of the case for now.

“Because who knows what’s going to drip out next week,” Ryan said.

Avenatti returned to discussing the tapes and said Ryan “confirmed” the existence of the audio with his comment that any recordings would be secure. It was somewhat of a stretch. Ryan’s carefully worded statement remained in the realm of the hypothetical and referred to tapes that might exist.

Michael Avenatti talks to the media after Wednesday’s court hearing. (Photo: Richard Drew/AP)

Joanna Hendon, who is representing President Trump, joined with Ryan’s push to keep Avenatti from participating in the case. Trump is intervening in the case to ensure that documents detailing his privileged communications with Cohen are not provided to prosecutors. Hendon said that, on Trump’s behalf, she “fully” endorses Ryan’s objections to Avenatti. She noted that outside the court on Wednesday morning a podium had been set up with “eight microphones” in front of a group of waiting reporters.

“I don’t believe that podium was there for me, Mr. Ryan or Michael Cohen,” said Hendon, implying that Avenatti brought the media circus.

Avenatti pointed out that there would be “press attention” to a case involving the president’s personal attorney regardless of his own participation. This reporter has made numerous attempts to speak with Ryan, Hendon and Cohen. After the hearing Wednesday, Cohen ignored shouted questions from a jostling crush of reporters as he sped off in a waiting SUV.

Avenatti’s media blitz isn’t the only issue the other attorneys have cited in their objections to his participation. In court filings, Cohen’s legal team has pointed to a $10 million bankruptcy judgment against Avenatti’s law firm, Eagan Avenatti.

Avenatti addressed this in court on Wednesday and said the firm was not representing Daniels — he was, personally. Hendon then presented a document to Judge Wood. Avenatti leapt up to complain.

“Your honor, I have no idea what this is,” Avenatti said.

“You don’t need to speak yet,” Wood replied curtly. “I don’t either.”

Hendon said the document included emails from the Eagan Avenatti firm to Trump’s legal team. She said this proved Avenatti was “not straightforward” when he said the firm was not representing Daniels.

As she concluded the proceedings by announcing deadlines for future document production, Wood turned to Avenatti.

“Until you are admitted, you can’t stand and be heard here,” Wood said, adding, “I can’t control what you do outside.”

After the hearing, Avenatti proceeded to the podium outside the courthouse, where he discussed the hypothesized recordings of Cohen and Davidson, dubbing them “The Trump Tapes,” although there’s nothing to suggest that, if they exist, the president was even aware of the conversations.

With that, Avenatti’s courthouse show came to an end — for now.

Following the proceedings, Avenatti withdrew his motion to appear on Daniels’s behalf, but he told Yahoo News he will refile the motion “when and if” the judge grants Daniels’s request to intervene. Theoretically, Daniels could be allowed to enter the proceedings but the judge could require her to use a different attorney. Either way, safe to say, the public will be hearing more from Avenatti.


READ MORE FROM YAHOO NEWS:

Obama cyber chief: Iran may ramp up cyberattacks after Trump ditched nuclear deal
McCain’s legacy: Principles tempered by political necessity
The Newest Deal: Dems build a progressive platform for 2020
How the press is getting it wrong about the Democratic primaries
Is Cory Booker for real?
Photos: Mississippi Delta: Still the heart of poverty



SARS, OR SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS, ARE ISSUED BY BANKS WHEN THEY HAVE DETECTED POSSIBLE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT COHEN MIGHT HAVE DONE THAT? OR THAT HE MAY HAVE BRIBED, COERCED SOMEONE WHO WAS IN A POSITION DO SO? TO REMOVE THE SUPPOSEDLY PERMANENT RECORDS SHOWS THAT WHATEVER WAS IN THEM WAS DAMNING, POSSIBLY TO TRUMP. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN ALL EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DATABASES, THERE SHOULD BE SOMEWHERE OUT IN INTERNET LAND A SET OF COPIES?

READING THESE STORIES ABOUT THE WHOLE TRUMP COMPLEX OF ACTIVITIES IS BETTER THAN A SPY NOVEL. THE ONLY REAL DIFFERENCE, OF COURSE, IS THAT THIS ISN’T FICTION.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/missing-files-motivated-the-leak-of-michael-cohens-financial-records
Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohen’s Financial Records
A law-enforcement official released the documents after finding that additional suspicious transactions did not appear in a government database.
By Ronan Farrow May 16, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Transactions involving Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer, were the subject of multiple unreleased suspicious-activity reports. Photograph by John Taggart / MediaPunch / Alamy

Transactions involving Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer, were the subject of multiple unreleased suspicious-activity reports.Photograph by John Taggart / MediaPunch / Alamy

Last week, several news outlets obtained financial records showing that Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney, had used a shell company to receive payments from various firms with business before the Trump Administration. In the days since, there has been much speculation about who leaked the confidential documents, and the Treasury Department’s inspector general has launched a probe to find the source. That source, a law-enforcement official, is speaking publicly for the first time, to The New Yorker, to explain the motivation: the official had grown alarmed after being unable to find two important reports on Cohen’s financial activity in a government database. The official, worried that the information was being withheld from law enforcement, released the remaining documents.

The payments to Cohen that have emerged in the past week come primarily from a single document, a “suspicious-activity report” filed by First Republic Bank, where Cohen’s shell company, Essential Consultants, L.L.C., maintained an account. The document detailed sums in the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to Cohen by the pharmaceutical company Novartis, the telecommunications giant A.T. & T., and an investment firm with ties to the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg.

The report also refers to two previous suspicious-activity reports, or sars, that the bank had filed, which documented even larger flows of questionable money into Cohen’s account. Those two reports detail more than three million dollars in additional transactions—triple the amount in the report released last week. Which individuals or corporations were involved remains a mystery. But, according to the official who leaked the report, these sars were absent from the database maintained by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or fincen. The official, who has spent a career in law enforcement, told me, “I have never seen something pulled off the system. . . . That system is a safeguard for the bank. It’s a stockpile of information. When something’s not there that should be, I immediately became concerned.” The official added, “That’s why I came forward.”

Seven former government officials and other experts familiar with the Treasury Department’s fincen database expressed varying levels of concern about the missing reports. Some speculated that fincen may have restricted access to the reports due to the sensitivity of their content, which they said would be nearly unprecedented. One called the possibility “explosive.” A record-retention policy on fincen’s Web site notes that false documents or those “deemed highly sensitive” and “requiring strict limitations on access” may be transferred out of its master file. Nevertheless, a former prosecutor who spent years working with the fincen database said that she knew of no mechanism for restricting access to sars. She speculated that fincen may have taken the extraordinary step of restricting access “because of the highly sensitive nature of a potential investigation. It may be that someone reached out to fincen to ask to limit disclosure of certain sars related to an investigation, whether it was the special counsel or the Southern District of New York.” (The special counsel, Robert Mueller, is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The Southern District is investigating Cohen, and the F.B.I. raided his office and hotel room last month.)

Whatever the explanation for the missing reports, the appearance that some, but not all, had been removed or restricted troubled the official who released the report last week. “Why just those two missing?” the official, who feared that the contents of those two reports might be permanently withheld, said. “That’s what alarms me the most.”

finCEN said in a statement that it protects the confidentiality of sars “in order to protect both filers and potentially named individuals.” The statement added, “FinCEN neither confirms nor denies the existence of purported SARs.” Spokespeople for the special counsel’s office and the Southern District of New York declined to comment. Michael Cohen and his lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.

Banks are legally mandated to file suspicious-activity reports with the government in order to call attention to activity that resembles money laundering, fraud, and other criminal conduct. These reports are routed to a permanent database maintained by fincen, which can be searched by tens of thousands of law-enforcement and other federal government personnel. The reports are a routine response to any financial activity that appears suspicious. They are not proof of criminal activity, and often do not result in criminal charges, though the information in them can be used in law-enforcement proceedings. “This is a permanent record. They should be there,” the official, who described an exhaustive search for the reports, said. “And there is nothing there.”

Cohen set up the First Republic account for Essential Consultants in October, 2016, shortly before the Presidential election, in order to pay the adult-film actress Stephanie Clifford, who performs under the name Stormy Daniels, a hundred and thirty thousand dollars in return for signing a nondisclosure agreement about her alleged affair with Donald Trump. First Republic’s compliance officers later began flagging Cohen’s transactions in the account as possible signs of money laundering. Among other potential violations, the documents cite “suspicion concerning the source of funds,” “suspicious EFT/ wire transfers,” “suspicious use of multiple accounts,” and “transaction with no apparent economic, business, or lawful purpose.” (A spokesperson for First Republic Bank declined to comment.)

VIDEO FROM THE NEW YORKER
A Hundred Years of Coney Island

By January of this year, First Republic had filed the three suspicious-activity reports about Cohen’s account. The most recent report—the only one made public so far—examined Cohen’s transactions from September of 2017 to January of 2018, and included activity totalling almost a million dollars. It alludes to the two previous reports that the official could not find in the fincen database. The first report that the official was unable to locate, which covered almost seven months, appears to have listed a little over a million dollars in activity. The second report that the official was unable to locate, which investigated a three-month period between June and September of 2017, found suspect transfers totalling more than two million dollars.

A substantial portion of this money seems to have ended up in Cohen’s personal accounts. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney filed a separate sar showing that, during that same three-month period, Cohen set up two accounts with the firm, into which he deposited three checks from his Essential Consultants account, two in the amount of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and one in the amount of five hundred and five thousand dollars. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney marked those transactions, which added up to more than a million dollars, as possible signs of “bribery or gratuity” and “suspicious use of third-party transactors (straw-man).”

Cohen appears to have misled First Republic repeatedly regarding the purpose of the Essential Consultants account. In paperwork filed with the bank, he said that the company would be devoted to using “his experience in real estate to consult on commercial and residential” deals. Cohen told the bank that his transactions would be modest, and based within the United States. In fact, the compliance officers wrote, “a significant portion of the target account deposits continue to originate from entities that have no apparent connection to real estate or apparent need to engage Cohen as a real estate consultant.” Likewise, “a significant portion of the deposits continues to be derived from foreign entities.” David Murray, a former Treasury official focussed on illicit finance, told me, “There are a ton of red flags here. The pattern of activity has indicators that are inherently suspicious, and the volume and source of funds do not match the account profile that was built when the account was opened.”

The report released last week highlights a payment from Cohen’s account to Demeter Direct, Inc. In publicly filed paperwork, Demeter Direct represents itself as a Korean food company. However, a Web site, since taken down, suggested that it was a global consulting firm. After the press began scrutinizing Cohen’s accounts, a man listed as Demeter Direct’s C.E.O., Mark Ko, told CNN that he served as an intermediary and translator in Cohen’s dealings with an aviation firm, majority-owned by South Korea’s government, called Korea Aerospace Industries. According to the First Republic report, the aerospace company paid Cohen a hundred and fifty thousand dollars in November of 2017, the same month President Trump visited South Korea. At the time, the company was lobbying for a controversial multibillion-dollar contract with the U.S. Air Force.

The report also shows how Cohen apparently used the Essential Consultants account for personal expenses. He seems to have used it to pay his American Express, A.T. & T., and Mercedes Benz bills, marking account numbers on the memo lines of his checks. He paid initiation fees and dues to the Core Club, a social club that the Times once described as a “portal to power.” He also cut himself multiple personal checks from Essential Consultants, amounting to more than a hundred thousand dollars, on top of the million he had already deposited into his Morgan Stanley accounts.

In many cases, the suspicious-activity reports highlight activity of potential interest to ongoing investigations, including that of the special counsel, Robert Mueller. Bank compliance officers noted eight payments from a company called Columbus Nova to Cohen’s account between January and August of 2017, totalling five hundred thousand dollars. The investigators wrote that Columbus Nova’s biggest client is a company controlled by Viktor Vekselberg, whom they described as “reputed to be a longtime ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.” The report also points out that Andrew Intrater, Vekselberg’s relative and the C.E.O. of Columbus Nova, donated more than three hundred thousand dollars to Trump-related causes. The report flagged the activity as suspicious “because the CEO’s company transferred substantial funds to the personal attorney of Trump at the same time the CEO reportedly donated substantial funds to Trump’s inauguration fund and joint fundraising committee for Trump’s reelection and the Republican National Committee.”

Other banks also noticed Cohen’s suspicious transactions and filed their own sars about his activity. Some of those show the banks piecing together the reasons for the transactions from news reports, citing articles from publications including the Wall Street Journal and Vanity Fair about Trump, Russia, and secret election-season payments, including the payment to Clifford. One, filed by City National Bank, follows money paid to Cohen by Elliott Broidy, at the time the deputy finance chairman for the Republican National Committee. The report notes, “Broidy also owns a private security company, Circinus, which provides services to the U.S. and other governments. The company has hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts with the U.A.E.” Broidy has said that Cohen and another lawyer, Keith M. Davidson, worked out a deal in which Broidy would pay $1.6 million to a former Playboy model he had impregnated. Broidy appears to have paid both lawyers for arranging the deal. The City National report shows that Broidy funnelled the payments through Real Estate Attorneys’ Group, a legal corporation. Broidy seems to have paid Davidson two hundred thousand dollars, and to have sent three payments, of $62,500 each, to Cohen—one to the Essential Consultants account and two to the account of Michael D. Cohen and Associates. The payments may have been a part of the settlement. Davidson said, “Like any lawyer, I maintain an attorney-client trust account, where funds for clients are held. I have never performed legal services for, nor have I ever been compensated for performing legal services for, Elliott Broidy.”*

A representative for Broidy said that this description of the payments was “not correct,” and that “Mr. Broidy is not going to detail his payments for legal services to Mr. Cohen.” The representative added, “Mr. Broidy did not pay Mr. Davidson.” However, the City National [Bank] report shows that on November 30, 2017, a wire of two hundred thousand dollars was received by the Real Estate Attorneys’ Group from Broidy. Then, on December 5, 2017, two hundred thousand dollars were transferred from Real Estate Attorneys’ Group to an account belonging to Keith M. Davidson and Associates.

Michael Avenatti, an attorney representing Clifford, who has released summaries of Cohen’s transactions on social media, said, “The Treasury Department should release all of the sars immediately to the American public.”

Suspicious-activity reports are kept strictly confidential, as a matter of law. “sars are secret, to protect the government and to protect financial institutions,” the former prosecutor told me. “I don’t think there’s a safe harbor for somebody who discloses it.” According to fincen,* disclosing a sar is a federal offense, carrying penalties including fines of up to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and imprisonment for up to five years. The official who released the suspicious-activity reports was aware of the risks, but said fears that the missing reports might be suppressed compelled the disclosure. “We’ve accepted this as normal, and this is not normal,” the official said. “Things that stand out as abnormal, like documents being removed from a system, are of grave concern to me.” Of the potential for legal consequences, the official said, “To say that I am terrified right now would be an understatement.” But, referring to the released report, as well as the potential contents of the missing reports, the official also added, “This is a terrifying time to be an American, to be in this situation, and to watch all of this unfold.”

This story has been updated to include a statement by the lawyer Keith M. Davidson.

Ronan Farrow
Ronan Farrow is a contributing writer to The New Yorker and a television anchor and investigative reporter whose work also appears on HBO. A series of stories he wrote exposing the sexual predation of the movie producer Harvey Weinstein won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2018. He is the author of “War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence.”



HERE IS COREY BOOKER, ANOTHER POTENTIAL DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL. I DON’T THINK HIS NAME IS SUFFICIENTLY WELL KNOWN YET, THOUGH.

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD DO THE TRICK, IF ANYONE READS IT ALL. I DIDN’T. SOMETIMES IT’S BETTER TO BREAK THESE THINGS UP INTO MORE DEFINED SUBJECTS, AND NO MORE THAN THREE PAGES PER ARTICLE. NEWS ARTICLES ARE NOT TREATISES. THAT’S MY PERSONAL OPINION. I’M NO WRITING PROFESSOR, JUST A FAIRLY PRACTICED NEWS READER.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cory-booker-real-090003827.html
Is Cory Booker for real?
Hunter Walker ,Yahoo News • May 8, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Cory Booker speaking at a fundraising event in Los Angeles last year. (Photo: Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP)

NEWARK, N.J. — The old woman walked outside in her bathrobe and curlers to shout at the man who might be president.

“Senator Booker!” she called out to him.

Cory Booker spun around and saw the woman standing on the stoop of her squat three-story apartment building.

“Oh my gosh!” he said. “How are you? I haven’t seen you in the longest time!”

The woman was incredulous.

“What are you doing over here?” she exclaimed.

“Just walking around the neighborhood,” said Booker. “I love that robe. Look at that.”

Her name is Stephanie. They apparently have known each other for a while. With a warm smile, she explained why she rushed out in her early morning finery.

“I just looked out the window and I said, ‘That’s Senator Booker!’”

Booker, who stands six-foot-four, is a hard man to miss. His bald head sits atop the agile, sturdy frame of a former college football player. And he’s a familiar face to anyone with a television. Booker’s been touted as a potential presidential candidate virtually since the day he was elected mayor of Newark in year 2006. It’s a city with about 280,000 largely African-American and Latino residents — and a tough reputation.

“You know, I still live right off Martin Luther King [Boulevard],” Booker told Stephanie.

He named a street about five blocks away. She had heard Booker was her neighbor in Newark’s Central Ward, but hadn’t believed it.

“Somebody told me that and I said, ‘He don’t live down here,’” Stephanie said.

Booker explained that he travels to Washington on Mondays and is usually back in New Jersey three days later. He walked through the neighborhood with Yahoo News late last month to show off the streets that birthed his political philosophy and the “proud things” he did here as mayor.

One of them was right across the street.

“I love our park,” Stephanie said.

“Yes. Isn’t it nice?” Booker replied. “We follow through. That was the promise we made. Remember?”

“I know. I know. I know. I know,” she said before offering him advice for his return to Washington. “Keep on fighting Trump.”

“Amen,” said Booker with a laugh.

Sen. Cory Booker
Sen. Cory Booker visiting the Almonte Supermarket in Newark’s Central Ward, April 23, 2018. (Photo: Yahoo News/Hunter Walker)

Walking through New Jersey with Booker means frequent encounters with his fans. They are clearly aware their former mayor might run for president.

“2020, Mr. Booker! 2020!” shouted one passing driver.

“Our next president right there!” said another, as he pumped his horn in celebration.

Booker got a similar greeting when he walked into a bodega around the corner from his house.

“Yo! Presidente!” said the man behind the register.

And it’s not just in Newark. In the hallways of Capitol Hill and at the speeches he gives around the country, Booker is regularly urged to mount a White House bid. It happens so often that he’s got something of a standard response.

“Thank you for that encouragement!”

When pressed about a presidential campaign by Yahoo News, Booker admits he’s going to mull the possibility.

“Look, my focus right now is two things; my own reelection and making sure we’re in a strong position for that and the 2018 elections,” Booker said. “I think, that passes, I’ll sit down and give a hard consideration about a lot of folks that are talking to me about doing something else.”

Booker’s term — he was elected in 2013, in a special election after the death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg, and then again in 2014 — ends in 2020. In the meantime, he’s become an in-demand campaign surrogate for other Democrats. In the past year, Booker has traveled to at least 11 states to stump for his colleagues.

Cory Booker with Doug Jones
Cory Booker with then senatorial candidate Doug Jones in Birmingham, Ala., last December. (Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

So far, Booker has strenuously avoided any key early primary states that would fuel presidential speculation. But in an interview, Booker let slip that he is planning one trip that might raise eyebrows: a “red state farmers tour.” It’s the kind of thing that screams White House run, but Booker insisted “it’s not going to be a public listening tour.”

“We’re going to do it and not tell anybody were doing it,” he explained, adding, “We’re not going to be doing it with lots of media coverage.”

The reasons for the presidential buzz surrounding Booker are clear. Whenever Booker hits the campaign trail, he is a potent weapon. His rise has largely been propelled by his inspiring personal story — and his unique ability to tell it.

Asked about Booker’s future, David Axelrod, the veteran Democratic strategist and former top adviser to President Obama, sees Booker as an “exceptional political talent” who is a real potential 2020 contender.

“I think he is a brilliant guy; big-time personality, interesting thinker, and an at times spellbinding presenter and … obviously, a really good story. So, I take him seriously,” Axelrod said.

Axelrod currently leads the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago. He recently hosted Booker there, and the strategist left with the impression that Booker’s flair for the dramatic can sometimes go “a bit too far” and reach a place where the senator “sacrifices a sense of authenticity” for “performance.” Axelrod offered up a classic piece of baseball lore from the early days of Dodgers pitching great Sandy Koufax as advice for Booker.

“Some catcher … told him, ‘You know you are a great pitcher … and you throw the ball 100 miles an hour, but if you threw it at 97 and got it over the plate you’d be untouchable,’” recounted Axelrod.

“I think that Booker is a great, great talent. … I think that he’s in public service for the right reasons, but he probably could take three miles off his fastball, and get the ball over the plate, and be even better,” added Axelrod.

Indeed, the captivating narrative and presentation that has inspired support for Booker has also provoked skepticism, including fears from progressives about his close ties to donors from Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry. There are also substantive questions about his record in Newark and in the Senate.

Booker has in many ways mastered the art of retail politics.* He has a boundless energy that he credits to a vegan diet supplemented by iced tea and his newest discovery, intermittent fasting. He knows just when to deploy a dad joke, fist bump, broken Spanish, a lesson from one of the many religions he’s studied, or a warm embrace. Booker is also a gifted orator. His speeches are crafted from what he calls “riffs,” including tales from his own life and anecdotes that have touched him from people he’s met or read about. Working without a script, Booker turns these set pieces into symphonies of rising emotion and soaring inspiration with his voice alternately breaking and booming before rapt audiences.

Cory Booker
Sen. Cory Booker at a rally outside in Washington last January. (Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

The Cory Booker origin story is a staple of his oratorical arsenal. His parents were pioneering black executives at IBM who were active in the civil rights movement. They were able to raise Cory and his brother in the wealthy New Jersey suburb of Harrington Park, with the help of housing activists who worked with the family to force unwilling property owners to sell them a home.

When Booker tells it, this isn’t just a tale of defying injustice. Booker calls the story a “conspiracy of love” and paints himself as the “physical manifestation” of the kindness and decency of those who helped his father as a poor young man and later in the face of housing discrimination. Booker sums it up with the words of a man he often quotes, Martin Luther King Jr.

“This was the lesson of my childhood, that we all are connected,” said Booker. “As Martin Luther King said, we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a common bond of destiny. That injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Booker constantly returns to King’s legacy and teachings to discuss modern problems and his own ideals. But he doesn’t just channel King by echoing his values. Booker’s impassioned delivery has deep echoes of the black church tradition that shaped the civil rights icon. And both Booker and King can provoke a similar reaction from supporters. When we saw Booker present his personal story during a speech at the Parkinson’s Policy Forum on March 20, he left the ballroom full of activists on their feet. Some were in tears.

It’s a typical reaction. But these sermons do leave some wondering whether the emotion could possibly be genuine.

An aide to a senior Senate Democrat told Yahoo News about listening to one of Booker’s speeches. Booker wept on stage and had much of the audience joining him. The staffer was shocked when the senator abruptly left amid the applause.

“I’ve seen him give that speech five times — and each time he cried,” the senator said.

Booker began his community work attending college at Stanford. “I wanted to make a difference in the world. … I felt like I had all of this privilege,” he told a group of high school students.. “I was working in a place called East Palo Alto and found my calling. I wanted to do big things.”

Sen. Cory Booker
Sen. Cory Booker with a group of New Jersey high school students at the Capitol. (Photo: Yahoo News/Hunter Walker)
More
Booker went on to earn a law degree at Yale and then to Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship for an honors degree in American history. At Oxford, the decidedly non-Jewish Booker helped run a chapter of Chabad House and picked up biblical wisdom and Yiddish witticisms that still pepper his speeches.

Then comes the final chapter in the Cory Booker origin story.

“Before I even graduated from law school, I decided that I was going to move to the most dangerous neighborhood I could find in the city I loved,” Booker told the students.

In 1997, his final year of law school, he began working — and living — as a tenants’ rights advocate in Newark, about nine miles from Manhattan. The once-thriving city had seen steep drops in population and wealth, especially after the notorious riots in 1967.

Through his work in Newark, Booker met Virginia Jones, who led the Brick Towers tenants’ association in one of the city’s most troubled public housing complexes. Booker eventually moved in to an apartment there and, he says, Jones pushed him to run for city council.

This story is one of Booker’s main speech riffs. “I always say I got my BA from Stanford but my PhD on the streets of Newark,” Booker likes to say.

Booker also regularly recounts lessons and maxims passed down from Jones. She taught him that “hope is the active conviction that despair will never have the last word.”

In 1998, Booker, who was then 29, won a seat on Newark’s municipal council. He quickly began displaying the media savvy that would become a hallmark of his career, earning attention far beyond the city by moving into a tent and going on a hunger strike to protest crime.

Cory Booker with supporters
Then mayoral candidate Cory Booker outside his campaign headquarters in Newark in 2002. (Photo: Mike Derer/AP)

Booker had a film crew by his side when he first ran for mayor in 2002. The subsequent documentary, “Street Fight,” captured his ultimately unsuccessful bid to unseat Mayor Sharpe James, who led a local political machine for two decades. Booker gained exposure as a crusader against corruption, but also saw some people questioning his authenticity.

James and his allies attacked Booker with a series of wild allegations, including that he was Jewish and a Republican. There were also insinuations Booker, a bachelor, was gay. That last accusation would stick with Booker through his ascent to the Senate.

Booker has addressed the gay rumors by saying, “So what if I am?” But he has dated women, most recently the poet Cleo Wade. When asked about Wade, Booker declined to comment. Wade did the same in a recent interview with the New York Times.

Booker made it to City Hall on his second attempt in 2006. After becoming mayor, he quickly became a national figure with an early presence on Twitter, where he promoted his own hands-on do-gooding: shoveling snow, delivering diapers, welcoming people into his home during a hurricane, and even helping to rescue a woman from a burning building.

The heroics led to fantastic press. However, the outsized characterization brought a unique political problem. As one of his many national headlines in the Washington Post put it, Booker was “almost too good to be true.” Advisers knew people could be skeptical.