The first group includes 36 players receiving $750 million in equity based on the last five years of play. "Career Points" will be awarded based on how many years a player has been a Tour member, how many times they earned a spot in the Tour Championship and how many times they have won, with extra points awarded for high-profile victories like the majors, The Players Championship and the FedExCup.

Group 2's share of the initial equity will be much smaller ($75 million) and will be granted to 64 players. The group is considered "steady performers and up-and-comers" and will be based on FedExCup points earned over the last three years.

Equity to Group 3 will be $30 million going to 57 players based on career earnings and how many times a player finished inside the top 125 in FedExCup points.

The final group will include "past legends," like Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson, with $75 million going to 36 players based on the "Career Points" formula. Those grants will only be awarded to "past legends" that are living.

The Telegraph reported Wednesday that Woods will receive up to $100 million in equity as part of the newly created for-profit PGA Tour Enterprises, with McIlroy getting about half that amount. Other notable payouts include $30 million each for Jordan Spieth and Justin Thomas.

To receive the money, players would have to continue to remain loyal to the PGA Tour, with the funds vesting over the next eight years, according to The Telegraph. And going forward, the PGA Tour plans to award $100 million per year to the players.

I also think that the lack of access to these payments for LIV players who may want to return to the PGA Tour creates the punishment wanted by those who turned down LIV's lucre to remain on the globe's leading golf tour.

As a legal matter, it's relevant that ------ and his former publication were focused on Trump's electoral needs - as opposed to Trump's family and/or personal reputation - when it worked with Michael Cohen, the candidate's then-fixer, on the Enquirer's campaign-season efforts.

"The CEO of the National Enquirer is an individual named David ------," Cruz said at a [2016] campaign event. "Well, David is good friends with Donald Trump. In fact, the National Enquirer has endorsed Donald Trump, has said he must be president." The senator lamented that his young daughters would someday "read these lies, these attacks that Donald and his henchmen, that his buddies at the National Enquirer spread" about their father.

After the tabloid went after Cruz's father, and Trump seized on the story, the senator also told reporters that the future president was a "pathological liar," adding in reference to Trump, "He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth."

Trying to make what was at worst a misdemeanor and to try and spin it into a felony I offer to get around the statute of limitations is Banana Republic crap.

Only if you ignore the depth of actions taken by ------ and the National Enquirer which intentionally placed false stories about Trump's GOP opponents so that he could defeat them and gain the party's nomination. Once you introduce the money/payoff factor, the conspiracy to affect the election becomes the underlying crime that elevates the travesty into a felony as it should be. Trump and ------ defrauded and deceived the American voters in two ways. First, they conspired to print knowingly false information that damaged multiple GOP candidates' campaigns at the exact moment their polling threatened Trump's nomination. And second, they conspired to buy the silence of multiple women willing to let the public know that Donald had sexual relations with them while he was married to Melania, keeping damaging character information from the voting public everyone readily understands could have fatally damaged his candidacy, denying him the White House.

Trump is under 88 indictments. No one charged with that level of criminal activity deserves any benefit of the doubt as to their innate criminal nature and total lack of respect for laws and regulations. Trump has never claimed that he's actually innocent of any of these charges outside of lying that he didn't have sexual relations with either McDougal nor Daniels. The charges aren't banana republic-like, Trump's denigration and total disdain in disrespecting public servants (and their family members) doing their jobs and trying to give him fair trials with impartial juries is the most dictatorial, tyrannical act any defendant has ever played when faced with accountability for their own actions.

Why didn't Dems pass it in the Senate? They have a majority and I don't recall it being filibustered.

#6 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Maybe because the bill had zero Democratic support in the House and Senate, because Republicans refuse to negotiate or compromise with Democrats. Do Republicans pass bills that Democrats author that have zero GOP support?

However, that was not the case with the bill authored and negotiated by Republican Senator James Lankford and supported by Majority Leader McConnell.

In January, Sen. Lindsey Graham urged his GOP colleagues not to look a gift horse in the mouth. "To those who think that if President Trump wins, which I hope he does, that we can get a better deal - you won't," the South Carolina Republican told reporters. He added, "To my Republican friends: To get this kind of border security without granting a pathway to citizenship is really unheard of. ... So to my Republican colleagues, this is a historic moment to reform the border."

The radicals keeping Republicans from taking incremental steps to address the problem on their own terms because they aren't getting 100% of their demands simply isn't how divided government works. And Trump isn't interested in seeing the border issues bipartisanly addressed before this fall's election, yet again placing his own myopic interests before those of the American people and immigrants, both seeking better management of this ongoing problem.

Let's not forget, the immigration and border reforms that Democrats were prepared to accept were quite conservative, and much further to the right than any of the deals Democrats embraced throughout the Bush, Obama, and Trump eras.

In January, Sen. Lindsey Graham urged his GOP colleagues not to look a gift horse in the mouth. "To those who think that if President Trump wins, which I hope he does, that we can get a better deal - you won't," the South Carolina Republican told reporters. He added, "To my Republican friends: To get this kind of border security without granting a pathway to citizenship is really unheard of. ... So to my Republican colleagues, this is a historic moment to reform the border."

Republicans instead followed Trump's instructions and killed the bipartisan agreement.

As a result, the GOP ended up with none of what it wanted on border policy, even as Democratic leaders got all of what they wanted on security aid.

One of the reasons the right sees US policy move in a more progressive direction is their own inability to accept less than 100% of what their most extreme members insist upon. Thank goodness the far right continues to reject unprecedented rightward compromises for the sake of political purity talking points, which continually forces the realist Republicans to join with Democrats in passing vital legislation closer to what the Dems wanted all along.

This ---- reads like comedy.

And you READ like ----. The quotes are from the FBI INTERVIEW that was publicly released by the Court with the names REDACTED because the authorities don't want Trump disparaging or threatening the person. You do realize that lying to the FBI is a felony, right? The FBI KNOWS WHO THE PERSON IS and this same person will give testimony in the upcoming trial.

A summary of the associate's interview with federal agents was among nearly 400 pages of investigative records that were unsealed on Monday by the judge overseeing Mr. Trump's classified documents case. The associate's identity - in the unsealed records labeled as Person 16 - was redacted from the summary.

Biden colluded with the National Archives and the FBI to concoct a case against the former president.

You're a liar. Biden has had no direct or indirect contact with the DOJ about any of the cases involving Trump. He's never made a single comment regarding Trump cases other than to say everything being done is being done by the DOJ in the pursuit of following the law.

How can any sentient person get on this blog and argue that Donald Trump deserves the benefit of any doubt as he did direct his Attorney General to stop the SDNY's investigation of the hush money matter as told by its Trump-picked USA who was fired by Barr for refusing to drop said case altogether? Not to mention his incessant threats of having "his DOJ" prosecute and jail his political opponents or fact witnesses against him in his myriad criminal indictments, publicly smearing court personnel whom evidently can't have their own private lives (nor can their families) if they've ever criticized Trump over anything?

88 federal indictments cannot be explained away as frivolous or political. Trump is a career criminal whose past is finally catching up to him in his present and it scares him to death because he no longer lords over the federal justice system nor the non-right wing media like he did while President.

Clark received offers of $16 million over four years from Under Armour and $6 million over four years from Adidas, with both including a signature shoe, according to the WSJ.

Her marketability is enhanced by her polished performances in media settings, and her surprise appearance on "Saturday Night Live" two weeks ago was widely acclaimed and exposed her to an even wider audience.

The reported eight-year contract with Nike shows the sportswear giant's commitment. At 22, Clark could play well over a decade in the WNBA and she could be on the U.S. roster for the Olympics in Paris this year, in Los Angeles in 2028 and Brisbane, Australia, in 2032.

I did read somewhere that all four bills were going to be combined when they went to the Senate.

In the Senate, but not the House which is what I've always been referring to>

And to be clear, some Democrats voted for Ukraine aid and voted against the Israeli/Palestinian package. So, no, all the funding was not "rolled into" the Ukraine bill. All of the bills stood or sunk on their own merit, wholly independent from each other.

#32

Dude, YOU'RE WRONG. The votes were separate by design. Many GOP members voted for Israeli aid and against aid for Ukraine. Being for one didn't mean you had to be for the other. In Johnson's reoriented mind, all of the votes were directly related to his responsibility to protect America's defense and interest as the now 2nd in line of succession.

Stop while you're behind. You don't know what you're talking about.

A summary of the associate's interview with federal agents was among nearly 400 pages of investigative records that were unsealed on Monday by the judge overseeing Mr. Trump's classified documents case. The associate's identity - in the unsealed records labeled as Person 16 - was redacted from the summary.

Person 16 also suggested that some of Mr. Trump's children had been enlisted in the task of persuading him to return the presidential records to the archives. The person recounted to the F.B.I. that one of the children was told: "There are issues with the boxes. They belong to the government. Talk to your dad about giving them back. It's not worth the aggravation."

This is the case that unmistakably shows Trumps disdain for the law and his lifelong propensity of ignoring laws, rules and regulations which keep him from doing what he wants.

#30

No, it wasn't. There were 3 separate bills: One for Ukraine, one for Israel and Gaza, and one for the Indo-Pacific.

Your assertion is wrong.

#28

I think this article clearly states the most probable reasons for Johnson coming to the decision of bucking the Putinites from his Freedom Caucus and Trump's public statements critical of US aid to Ukraine, again insinuating Europe hasn't done enough.

I think the most relevatory part of this story was the fact that Johnson himself - prior to his lightning ascension to Speaker - had never met the President; never been in a high level intelligence briefing; never even met the other Congressional leaders from either party; and didn't know the truth that it's Russia who is persecuting Ukrainian Christians, not the other way around being propagated in the Russian disinformation being touted by MTG and other Putinites dominating the current GOP discourse.

Now, it's obvious that the polling of Republicans on Ukraine added the final steel to his spine, but to me, I think the two most important reasons he finally did what he did is because 1) He had the ephiphany as SPOH his role as 2nd in the line of succession comes with the caveat he has to place the entire nation's wellbeing as his guiding star, not simply the GOP or even a smaller subset thereof; and 2) His son is about to enter the Naval Academy, and if Ukraine fails in its quest to evict Russia from its lands, Russia will most certainly start other hot conflicts in the region that stand a very high probability of drawing US forces into a hot war as a part of NATO's defense.

IOW, some issues simply transcend partisan politics, especially issues regarding national security and world order. With all of Johnson's most important boxes checked (religion, personal interest, favored polling, national security, and global order) he did what any national leader should do given similar circumstances.

#24

I thing you're paragraph is related to remarks Saturday while still in the Capitol Building. Mine was from Sunday, and as yet I've seen no walkback or denial of the intentions she unambiguously stated.

Now that he did, she's going to be "responsible" and "listen to her constituents".

I don't know what tea leaves you're reading, but the opposite appears to be the truth.

Another related viewpoint:

For all its rank partisanship, the House right now is functionally and uneasily governed by a bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats. The House is led by a conservative speaker, but for any matter of lawmaking he cannot count on a Republican majority.

Members of the Freedom Caucus, however, now see themselves as watchmen of the floor. They set conservative policy demands that are impossible to achieve with Democrats controlling the Senate and White House. And when these demands are inevitably not met they routinely hijack the process to stop legislation before it can even get an up-or-down vote, no matter if a measure has the overwhelming support of the Republican conference or the House.

The Freedom Caucus's power stems from its willingness to take out the speaker. When those tools are removed, their threats quickly become more bark than bite. Whether it's Mr. Johnson or Mr. McCarthy or the two previous Republican speakers for whom I worked, it has not been the Republican leadership that cut out the Freedom Caucus. The Freedom Caucus, by believing in the myth of their own power, made themselves irrelevant to legislative outcomes.

Johnson can find all the safe harbor he needs if he's willing to publicly call the MTG-led Putinites what they are: misguided anti-American/pro-Russian know-nothings, willing to throw away 248 years of tacitly bipartisan foreign policy, especially in the face of Putin's blatant invasion of an emerging democratic country, now in an existential fight for its survival.

Basically, they have a carnival roadie as their first witness.

More like another one of Trump's co-cospirators. That's why he's testifying under an immunity agreement. He's only there because of his working relationship with Trump to commit the charged acts. Nothing's hypocritical about anything.

I'm sorry you feel accoutability is a left-right issue because it only confirms just how non-objective you are. Trump has the best defense money can buy so he's guaranteed a fair trial, and not a single witness against him in any of his trials are Democrats. They're all Republicans that Trump himself chose to associate with or hired to work for him.

They'll all put their hands on a bible and swear to tell the whole truth and let the chips fall where they may. Nothing left or hypocritical about that at all.

But for the most part Unions don't do well at all in the South.

Volkswagen isn't going to lose a minutes sleep over this.

Oh look boys and girls, Captian Obviously Stupid is back with more inanity! As Danforth already rubbed in your face, you didn't post about Unions not doing well, you said that they don't "work" which is a demonstrable lie and an admission that you don't begin to understand how unions "work" or why the "don't do well" is a meaningless statement as it regards their legal existence in Southern states. Unions "do very well" in most every place they exist because their root goals stay the same and no state as yet has legislated them into ineffectiveness. But, as I've stated before, any union's effectiveness is rooted in their members' engagement in jointly achieving their goals vis-a-vis their employment contracts. It's the same in the North, East, South, Midwest, or West.

The South's history and government have always been against worker organization as a means to lift wages and benefits. Their pitch to companies looking at moving there is based on those companies paying workers less than they'd make in more economically progressive or wage competitive cities and states.

But again, this has zero to do with any union either not working or not doing well in the South. You can rightly say that Southern states and many of their employers are typically hostile to unions and especially unionization efforts directed towards auto manufacturers, but that has nothing to do with unions themselves.

And of course VW isn't losing any sleep over the Chattanooga vote, but not for any reason you've identified in your anti-union burpings. Every single VW plant around the world is unionized EXCEPT Chattanooga until now. VW itself mandates union representation of their workers because their employment model is based on worker interaction with their ultimate business decisions.

Forgot about that option. My brain was thinking about statesmanship for a moment, so forgive me.

Let me retune my TDS filters so it won't happen again.

Wonderful quote Lamplighter, thank you.

I may have to take back my word though after reading this:

Many Republicans dismissed what the intelligence showed or refused to attend briefings, causing alarmed Republicans to say that misinformation and Russian propaganda has seeped into the Republican Party. Evangelical Christians tried to bend Johnson's and his staff's ear, pointing to the influence of propaganda from the Russian Orthodox Church. Johnson met with Pavlo Unguryan, a Ukrainian evangelical leader, who had been pushing for U.S. support.

Johnson is a devout Southern Baptist and his faith "guides him in every major decision he makes," one Republican member said.

Johnson was given polling from the American Action Network, the policy arm of the Republican affiliated super PAC, that found a large majority of voters favor aid to Ukraine in battleground districts and that favoring Ukraine aid was not a principle deciding factor for Republican primary voters. The polling reassured Johnson there was little political risk to funding Ukraine, an important data point when working to persuade his GOP colleagues.

A steady stream of European leaders and ministers have knocked on Johnson's door in recent months, telling the congressman from Louisiana that his place among global statesmen is assured if he got this done.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron applied some debonair wit. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, one of Ukraine's sharpest backers, told Johnson what it was like to live in a nation that borders Russia. Just last week, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala met with Johnson and told him that the world's eyes were on him.

"I really do believe the intel and in the briefings that we've gotten," Johnson said last week. "I believe [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping] and Vladimir Putin and Iran really are an axis of evil. I think they're in coordination.

"Look, history judges us for what we do," said an emotional Johnson, holding back tears and with a quivering lip at a news conference last week in response to a question from The Washington Post. "This is a critical time right now, critical time on the world stage. I could make a selfish decision and do something that's different, but I'm doing here what I believe to be the right thing."

Johnson's son will be headed to the U.S. Naval Academy in the fall. "To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine, than American boys," he said. "This is a live-fire exercise for me and for so many American families."

He had never had a high-level intelligence briefing, had never met President Biden, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). He had no meaningful relationship with House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.)

In a matter of moments, Johnson became second in line to the presidency. The day after he was elected speaker last October, he met with Biden and the three House national security panel chairs - Reps. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio), Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) and Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) - who brought him to the White House for a worldwide threats briefing heavy on Ukraine. Former CIA director and ex-secretary of state Mike Pompeo became an informal adviser.

The new speaker heard from evangelical Christians in the United States and Ukraine about the persecution of Ukrainian Christians by Russia. Over the next months, the other congressional leaders twice brought him to the White House to meet with Biden, where he got an earful about the importance of this moment in history from the president, McConnell and Schumer.

It was eye opening.

One Republican House member recalls: "I'll never forget Johnson one time said, 'I've gone from representing my district only to representing the entire [House] and the country.' For someone to go from where he was to where he is now as quickly as he did ... is remarkable."

And to make clear, RTW gave individual workers employed in a position represented by a union to opt out of paying dues while they're still mandated by law to receive the same compensation and representation as dues paying members.

As usual, retrograde Republicans and their billionaire ownership/donor class thought that by giving people the option of getting something of great value for nothing would end up bankrupting the unions. It didn't happen. While varying percentages of workers do opt out in order to put more union-negotiated contract money in their pockets, most unions are still thriving and growing, especially after the pandemic.

And as shown by the just-completed UAW deal with the Big 3, unions announced a multi-million dollar effort to unionize American-based foreign car manufacturers and Tesla, their first vote was overwhelmingly positive as are signs at other plants still gathering cards in their attempts to hold union elections at those workplaces - almost if not ALL of them in RTW states.

Unions don't "work" in RTW states - especially southern states.

You insist on continually proving you're a moron. RTW laws affect unions but they in no way stop them from being effective for their members as it regards negotiating pay, benefits, and working conditions.

I should know. I belong to a union and I live in a RTW state. I work with 100s of union locals and all of them would laugh at your idiotic ignorance. As a matter of fact, 3 of the 10 states with the most union members are RTW states including the hub of the UAW, Michigan.

I don't know why you think RTW causes unions not to "work" in such states. They make organizing life and dues collection more difficult (depending on which state you're talking about), but they do not stop unions from working, period. So you can stop spamming multiple threads with disinformation. Thank you.