Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

Gal_Tuesday

Subscribe to Gal_Tuesday's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Tuesday, October 01, 2024

Former President Donald Trump has escalated his long-running assault on the integrity of US elections as the 2024 presidential campaign enters its final stretch, using a new series of lies about ballots, vote-counting and the election process to lay the groundwork to challenge a potential defeat in November. read more


Sunday, September 29, 2024

Trump falsely claimed Friday and Saturday that the statistics are specifically about criminal offenders who entered the US during the Biden-Harris administration; in reality, the figures are about offenders who entered the US over multiple decades, including during the Trump administration. And Trump falsely claimed that the statistics are specifically about people who are now living freely in the US; the figures actually include people who are currently in jails and prisons serving criminal sentences.


Saturday, September 28, 2024

A former spokesperson for Kyle Rittenhouse says he became disillusioned with his ex-client after learning that he had sent text messages pledging to "fucking murder" shoplifters outside a pharmacy before later shooting two people to death during racial justice protests in Wisconsin in 2020.


Friday, September 27, 2024

In western Pennsylvania, Trump made one of his most savage anti-immigrant appeals yet. But one local official says it's all a lie. read more


Comments

The above info had to do with the Stormy Daniels case. Here's the info on the Karen McDougal case, and interestingly enough although the Republicans on the committe once again blocked an investigation into Trump, the committee did fine AMI (owners of the National Inquirer) $187,5000 for its part in the catch and kill scheme:

In addition to Michael Cohen's payment to Stephanie Clifford, the statement of facts supporting District Attorney Bragg's indictment of Trump describes another hush money scheme involving American Media, Inc. (AMI), the publisher of the National Enquirer, and a $150,000 "catch and kill" payment for the rights to former Playboy model Karen McDougal's story about her alleged affair with Trump. The FEC also received complaints about the AMI payment and, as in the Cohen case, the agency's nonpartisan attorneys recommended finding reason to believe that Trump and others violated campaign finance law. But the Republican commissioners again blocked an investigation into Trump, citing prosecutorial discretion because, among other things, the FEC's attorneys conducted "extensive outside research into news reports, published books, and social media posts" that the Republicans claimed to be unreliable. Their own effort to dismiss the allegations against Trump also failed to gain the four necessary votes to succeed.

In the AMI case, all six commissioners did, however, agree to find reason to believe, based on the non-prosecution agreement AMI previously signed with the Justice Department, that AMI had made a prohibited in-kind corporate contribution with its payment to McDougal. AMI subsequently agreed to a conciliation agreement supported by every FEC commissioner that stated the "payment to Karen McDougal to purchase a limited life story right combined with its decision not to publish the story, in consultation with an agent of Donald J. Trump and for the purpose of influencing the election, constituted a prohibited corporate in-kind contribution." AMI paid a $187,500 fine in June 2021.

"Federal election regulators fined Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee earlier this month for not properly disclosing the money they spent on controversial opposition research that led to the infamous Trump-Russia dossier.
The DNC was fined $105,000 and the Clinton campaign was fined $8,000, according to a letter sent by the Federal Election Commission to a conservative group that requested an inquiry.
Political candidates and groups are required to publicly disclose their spending to the FEC, and they must explain the purpose of any specific expenditure more than $200. The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" instead of opposition research.
The dossier was compiled by retired British spy Christopher Steele. It contained unverified and salacious allegations about Donald Trump, including claims that his campaign colluded with the Kremlin to win the 2016 election. Trump's campaign had numerous contacts with Russian agents, and embraced Russian help, but no one was ever formally accused of conspiring with Russia"
www.cnn.com
You have zero credibility. STFU
#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Say, did the FEC ever fine Trump for the money he paid to catch and kill the Karen McDougal and Stormy Dainiels stories? No, because there the Republican appointees on the commission voted against opening an investigation:

[A]fter assessing the merits of three complaints related to former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's $130,000 payment to buy the silence of porn star Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. Stormy Daniels) ahead of the 2016 election, the agency's nonpartisan lawyers recommended that the FEC find reason to believe that Trump and others violated several campaign finance laws and proposed an investigation "to determine the extent to which Trump coordinated with, or otherwise directed, Cohen to make the Clifford payment to help his presidential campaign during the 2016 election."

But the six-person bipartisan agency, which requires four affirmative votes to take most official actions, including launching an investigation, deadlocked on the recommendation, as it frequently does. By voting against the recommendation, Republican Commissioners Sean Cooksey and James "Trey" Trainor effectively killed any further inquiry into Trump's actions, despite the fact that the agency's professional staff believed the available evidence was at least sufficient to conduct a formal investigation.

www.citizensforethics.org

Catherine Rampell
@crampell

As president, Trump withheld Covid supplies from US states, but sent Covid tests to Putin.
Hard to believe this guy is still a coin flip away from a second term.

x.com

The federal government outbid states on critical coronavirus supplies after Trump told governors to get their own medical equipment

The federal government is outbidding states on orders of critical medical equipment necessary to aid patients and protect medical professionals from coronavirus, even though President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted states get their own supplies.

During a conference call with governors on Thursday, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker told Trump his state was denied three major orders of equipment because the federal government had outbid him.

"I'm not quite sure what to do with this, so I'm just going to throw it out there for you," Baker told Trump on the call, according to Bloomberg News. "We took very seriously the push ... that we should not just rely on the stockpile, that we should go out there and buy stuff and put in orders and try to create pressure on manufacturers and distributors, and I gotta tell you that on three big orders, we lost to the feds."

Baker, a moderate Republican, added, "I've got a feeling that if someone has the chance to sell to you and to sell to me, I am going to lose on every one of those."

www.businessinsider.com

Trump has always been a Putin lover/lackey and no amount of profanity is going to change that fact.

Grant Stern
@grantstern
That time Trump shipped $4.7 million in COVID aid to Putin and bought a bunch of fire prone Russian ventilators for FEMA that never got used at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Now that is a disaster.

x.com

Trump's Been Playing a Ventilator Shell Game With Russia"and Moscow Mocks Him

The Trump administration bought ventilators from Russia that can't be used (wrong voltage, and they catch fire). Then it gave good ventilators, still needed in the U.S., to Moscow.

www.thedailybeast.com

More background info:

Does FEMA Provide Direct Funding to Migrants?

No. FEMA does not provide funding directly to migrants. The Shelter and Services Program is a reimbursement program which is only available to state or local governments, or nonprofits providing services.

Can Organizations Be Reimbursed for Providing Support to Any Undocumented Immigrant?

No. In order to receive this funding, local governments and nonprofits have to keep detailed records on each person they have served and confirm that the funding is only being spent on individuals who have been previously released by DHS at the border. The Shelter and Services Program will not reimburse any government or organization for costs incurred by providing emergency sheltering services to other undocumented immigrants.

Does FEMA Divert Disaster Relief Funding to the Shelter and Service Program?

No. There is no truth to the claims that FEMA is using money intended for disasters for the Shelter and Services Program or for any migrant-related support. The Shelter and Services Program is a separate line item in the federal budget and does not draw from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund. Since 2019, Congress has authorized 140 times more funding for the Disaster Relief Program ($243.8 billion) than it has authorized for the Shelter and Services Program ($1.7 billion).

In addition, Congress has specifically set aside funding for FEMA to administer the Shelter and Services Program, ensuring that it does not pull any resources from FEMA's other work. For example, in the Fiscal Year 2019 funding bill, Congress authorized $9.1 million to be used for the operation of the Shelter and Services Program. As a result, FEMA can administer the program without having to pull any additional resources away from its primary mission of disaster relief.

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

Background info:

FEMA's Role in Migrant Assistance: Exploring the Shelter and Services Program

When local communities receive new immigrants who have been released at the border by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), they often provide necessary support to ensure that people have their immediate and short-term emergency needs (such as food and temporary shelter) met. Over the last decade, as large numbers of asylum seekers began arriving at the border and were released by DHS to await court hearings inside the country, local communities have stepped up to ensure that migrants are not forced to sleep on the streets after arriving.

Since 2019, Congress has provided a limited pool of funding that local and state governments, as well as nonprofits, can apply for to reimburse some costs of emergency sheltering needs. This funding is currently provided through the Shelter and Services Program, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA). The Shelter and Services Program is one of many such programs administered by FEMA, which carries out numerous functions beyond its core mission of disaster relief. Throughout its existence, the program has received bipartisan support from members of Congress and from local leaders who have called on the federal government to provide more financial assistance to communities both at the border and around the country that receive new immigrants. . . .

In 2018 and 2019, migrants again began arriving at the border in very high numbers, with over 850,000 Border Patrol apprehensions recorded in Fiscal Year 2019. In many communities, city officials and migrant shelter operators worked with law enforcement partners at DHS to ensure that migrants would be released directly to shelters. These shelters served a vital role in limiting the impact on border communities and providing a better procedure for the federal government when releases occur. However, ensuring that ensuring that asylum seekers without support systems in the U.S. do not end up homeless in their first hours in the United States can come at significant costs to local governments and to the shelters themselves, a concern which Congress eventually sought to address.

In the July 2019 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, Congress first authorized the federal government to reimburse some of those costs. The initial funding was operated through FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), which has operated since 1983, to disburse funding to local communities responding to the shelter needs of homeless residents. The creation of reimbursement funding for border communities received bipartisan support, including by Texas Senator John Cornyn, who declared in August 2019 that "it's high time the federal government repays the Texas communities that have diverted their local taxpayers' funds to address this crisis."

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable