Assange had “physical proof of that” and was going to show it in exchange for an agreement that he would not get arrested upon leaving the embassy, Rohrabacher said.
Republicans are retreating from calls to repeal ObamaCare ahead of this year's midterm elections.Less than a year after the GOP gave up on its legislative effort to repeal the law, Democrats are going on offense on...
Memos former FBI director James Comey says he kept of interactions between him and President Trump were released Thursday night.
1. Comey: CNN Wants A News Hook To Publish The Steele Dossier
On page two of the document, Comey writes that he warned Trump that CNN and other media outlets had obtained a copy of the infamous Steele dossier and were waiting for a news hook to cover it. Shortly after this meeting took place, CNN broke the news that Comey had briefed Trump on this dossier — which was funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee and is full of salacious and unverified information. Comey’s briefing of Trump itself formed the excuse outlets took to report the dossier’s contents. Coincidental?
2. Comey May Have Leaked Classified Information To Spin Media Coverage
Throughout the memos are redactions and notes stating that certain bits of information within the memos are classified. Yet while testifying before Congress last June, Comey admitted that he gave some of the memos to a friend, with the instructions to leak it to a reporter in order to force a special counsel to be appointed. In other words, Comey may have leaked classified information to a friend in order to facilitate news coverage in his favor and instigate an endless internal investigation of the Trump administration.
3. Comey Joked That Leakers’ Heads Should Be Put On A Spike
Ironically, during a conversation the two had in February, 2017, Comey quipped to Trump that leakers should have their heads put on a spike, according to page 11 of Comey’s memos.
Comey suggested putting someone's head on a pike to send a message about leaking, then laughed at the idea of putting reporters in jail. Roughly a year later, Comey defended McCabe, who was just referred to federal prosecutors for criminally lying about leaking. pic.twitter.com/Guu5i36UyP
On page 13 of the memo, Comey told Trump in March 2017 that he was not being investigated. Comey told Trump he had reiterated that to Congress, to which Trump asked if there was a way to let the public know that he was not the subject of the investigation. Comey did not, which led to his firing.
5. Trump Pleaded With Comey To Find Out If Any Campaign Associates Had Colluded With Russia
On page 13 of the memos, Trump told Comey that if someone connected to his campaign did anything to collude with Russian officials, that it “would be good to find out.”
Trump then stated he “hadn’t done anything” with the Russians, and asked the former FBI director if there was a way he could let the public know that he was not under investigation himself.
In a statement released Thursday night, Reps. Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) essentially called Comey a political hack for his double standards between the Obama and Trump administrations.
“Comey has at least two different standards in his interactions with others,” the statement reads. “He chose not to memorialize conversations with President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, Secretary Clinton, Andrew McCabe or others, but he immediately began to memorialize conversations with President Trump.”
“These memos also lay bare the notion that former Director Comey is not motivated by animus,” the statement continues. “He was willing to work for someone he deemed morally unsuited for office, capable of lying, requiring of personal loyalty, worthy of impeachment, and sharing the traits of a mob boss. Former Director Comey was willing to overlook all of the aforementioned characteristics in order to keep his job. In his eyes, the real crime was his own firing.”
Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper has come up with a scheme to split California into three states, and he’s collected twice as many signatures as he needs to get the proposition on the ballot in November. Some 600,000 Californians have signed his petition, which would allow a vote on whether to split the state into North California, South California and California.
Personally, I would have named the third part Coastal California. Here’s what Draper has in mind:
He has done one thing correctly. He has roughly equalized population among the three regions in his proposal. The effect, however, would be to syphon all the conservatives off into one state — South California — and create two progressive states. In other words, progressives would get four U.S. senators and conservatives just two.
What about the House of Representatives? Excluding states that only get one representative as well as the District of Columbia, which gets zero, each member of the House represents 705,524.19 people. That makes it easy to calculate House membership under Draper’s proposal. North California would get 18 members, South California 19 and (Coastal) California 16.
Curiously, the conservative state would get more representatives than either of the other two. But note the total of 34 progressive representatives to 19 conservative representatives. (These figures assume total representation in the House would equal California’s current 53 members.)
As For Gerrymandering
Pay close attention to the map. Note that Orange County and San Diego County are lumped in with the conservative farming areas of the Inland Empire. While this equalizes the population, it removes a large conservative component from the Coastal California state. In fact, Orange County and several of its cities have sued the state to be allowed to opt out of the “sanctuary state” status that has been declared by Sacramento.
Whether intentional or not, this would slightly change the balance in the Electoral College. Each state’s representation is equal to the sum of its senators and representatives in the House. California’s current Electoral College representation is 55. The proposed new state would add four new senators, bringing the total to 59. While this usually would not cause a change in the overall vote, it could conceivably make a difference.
California currently has 14 Republicans and 39 Democrats in the House. The problem is that CAL3 divides the state using counties as the unit of measurement. But congressional districts do not conform to county lines. For those unfamiliar with all of California, here are a few examples. CA1 covers the northeast part of the state. It includes nine counties (Siskiyou, Modoc, Shasta, Lassen, Tehama, Butte, Plumas, Sierra, and Nevada). It’s an understatement to say that region is sparsely populated. By contrast, Los Angeles county alone is home to 17 districts. About the only thing we can be sure of is that, if CAL3 passes and the state is eventually divided, there will be massive gerrymandering to try to get the districts the way whichever party controls the state wants them.
What Happens if CAL3 Passes?
CAL3 can be passed by a simple majority in November, if it is put on the ballot. If it passes, the state legislature will have to approve the request to divide the state and the governor will have to sign the bill. After that the request must be approved by the U.S. Congress. I personally doubt that either party in Washington, D.C., wants to take a chance on upsetting the balance of power. But it wouldn’t be the first time the idea has been tried.
There have been seven previous attempts to break up the state. The first, the Pico Act of 1859, would have split off all of the state from (roughly) San Luis Obispo south. The legislature approved it, the governor signed it, and it got a whopping 75 percent of the popular vote in southern California. But the U.S. Congress is also required to approve splitting a state, and in this case an inconvenient event called the Civil War distracted the Union Government from the relatively minor matter.
But the Jefferson Rebellion is far more interesting, if only because there have been repeated attempts to form the state of Jefferson. In late 1941, a group of ranchers from southern Oregon and northern California declared that the two regions would be joined to form the state of Jefferson. Both groups felt they were largely ignored in the capitals of each state.
But the original rebellion dates to the mid-19th century. The motivations, however, remain much the same. These two regions are very rural and have more in common with each other than with the rest of each state. I won’t go into details here, but Casey Michel has a rollicking account at Politico.
Breaking Up Would Be Hard To Do
For starters, there would be three state governments. Each would have its own departments: education, transportation, public safety, and so on. This is the inefficiency drag. Whether the improved proximity to voters in each state will be enough to offset those costs is very debatable.
For example, the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) is currently responsible for construction, repair, and maintenance of highways in the state. Here’s how that agency’s website describes its job: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) owns or controls 350,000 acres of Right of Way and maintains 15,133 centerline miles of highway and 13,063 state highway bridges. Caltrans also inspects more than 12,200 local bridges.
The agency divides the state into 12 districts. Naturally these do not conform to either congressional district or county boundaries (although only Butte, Kern, and Sierra counties are split between two districts).
So here’s how it would break down. Northern California would get districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and the northern bit of 5 (basically Santa Cruz county). Coastal California gets the rest of 5 plus 7. And South California gets 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12.
While it’s tempting to look at the number of miles of highways in each new state that the transportation agency would have to manage, that’s a fool’s errand. Eastern California (at least down to King’s County) is home to some of the heaviest snowfall in the U.S. Currently the base at a Lake Tahoe ski area is 400 inches. The northwest part of the state is subject to heavy rain. In fact, Del Norte county gets an average of 132 inches of rain per year. Contrast that with Imperial’s annual average of 3 inches. Southeastern California is home to the Joshua Tree National Park, Death Valley, and a lot of desert. Add to all that the varying degrees of earthquake risk in various areas, and it’s easy to see that highway miles alone would not be a good predictor of likely costs.
Colleges and Universities
California is home to three public college and university systems: the University of California, the California State University, and community colleges. The UC system has ten campuses: North California would get five, Coastal California two, and South California three. Would Los Angeles and Santa Barbara go along with that? In addition, the UC system has six medical centers, two national laboratories, and a host of other activities. What a mess.
But it gets even worse when you consider the CSU system. North California would get nine (Stanislaus is located northwest of Merced). South California would get four, while Coastal California would get ten. Those who live in the Inland Empire and Orange County would not be happy.
There are 114 campuses in the California Community College System. I leave it to readers with way too much time on their hands to perform those calculations.
In sum: CAL3 is a dream come true for politicians, consultants, lawyers, and accountants. There would also be plenty of work for surveyors and experts on geographic information systems. Each of these professions would find their services in high demand if this proposal passes and is approved by the Congress.
Facebook has quietly altered its terms of service, making stricter Irish data protection laws no longer binding on the vast majority of its users. The revision was first reported Wednesday by Reuters.
Now, Facebook’s headquarters in California will be responsible for processing any relevant legal claims, and American law will be binding for those outside the EU.
Previously, CEO Mark Zuckerberg had said Facebook would implement new EU rules "everywhere." While Facebook may claim that it is offering EU-style control globally, removing this provision in its own terms of service suggests that the company is trying to mitigate its potential legal liability.
This June, the world will mark the 55th anniversary of the first woman flying into space. Valentina Tereshkova, an amateur Russian skydiver, spent nearly three days in orbit inside a spherical Vostok 6 capsule. The first American woman, physicist Sally Ride, would not follow Tereshkova into space for another two decades.
A new documentary on Netflix, Mercury 13, examines the question of why NASA did not fly women in space early on and, in particular, focuses on 13 women who underwent preliminary screening processes in 1960 and 1961 to determine their suitability as astronauts. The film offers a clear verdict for why women were excluded from NASA in the space agency's early days—"good old-fashioned prejudice," as one of the participants said. Mercury 13 will be released Friday.
The film admirably brings some of these women to life, all of whom were accomplished pilots. There is Jerrie Cobb, who scored very highly in the preliminary tests and gave compelling testimony before Congress in an attempt to open NASA's early spaceflight programs to women. Another key figure is pilot Jane B. Hart, married to a US Senator from Michigan, whose experience in the project compelled her to become one of the founders of the National Organization for Women.
Crytpocurrencies are continuing their post-tax-day gains with Bitcoin above $8500, Ethereum at almost $600, and Ripple up over 30% on the week.
With Bitcoin back above $8,500...
And Ethererum is back above $550 - testing towards $600...
Certainly for now, the anecdotal performance suggests Tom Lee's tax-based-selling these is playing out with strength continuing, but, we also note that The Sovereign Investor believes the most important crypto indicator just turned bullish.
As the crypto asset class evolves, similar patterns and indicators used by traders in other asset classes are emerging.
One of these is the tendency of markets to be in either “risk on” or “risk off” mode.
Investors are either willing to take on more risk through buying riskier assets, such as tech stocks with little to zero earnings; or they are looking to take less risk, adding either gold or U.S. Treasurys to their portfolios.
As the oldest and most liquid crypto asset, bitcoin is considered “digital gold.” It can be exchanged for more altcoins than any other crypto and serves as the main entry and exit point to fiat currency.
Bitcoin has been able to maintain crypto hegemony even through significant faults: Transaction speeds are much slower than rivals, and fees tend to skyrocket when the network is busy.
Many contenders have tried, but none have successfully replaced bitcoin atop the crypto throne, and it remains the “store of value” within the crypto asset universe.
This unique position allows it to outperform other crypto assets when investors are moving away from risk. As the crypto asset class evolves, similar patterns and indicators used by traders in other asset classes are emerging.
One of these is the tendency of markets to be in either “risk on” or “risk off” mode.
Investors are either willing to take on more risk through buying riskier assets, such as tech stocks with little to zero earnings; or they are looking to take less risk, adding either gold or U.S. Treasurys to their portfolios.
As the oldest and most liquid crypto asset, bitcoin is considered “digital gold.” It can be exchanged for more altcoins than any other crypto and serves as the main entry and exit point to fiat currency.
Bitcoin has been able to maintain crypto hegemony even through significant faults: Transaction speeds are much slower than rivals, and fees tend to skyrocket when the network is busy.
Many contenders have tried, but none have successfully replaced bitcoin atop the crypto throne, and it remains the “store of value” within the crypto asset universe.
This unique position allows it to outperform other crypto assets when investors are moving away from risk.
Bitcoin Is the Crypto “Store of Value”
To get a better understanding of investors’ willingness to take on crypto risk, it’s possible to analyze bitcoin’s relationship to other competitors.
The second-largest cryptocurrency after bitcoin is Ethereum, which commands a $50 billion market cap, or about one-third that of bitcoin.
Ethereum provides decentralized computational power, which can be provisioned to build and execute smart contracts. You can think of Ethereum as a smarter, programmable version of money.
The computers responsible for processing and validating these computations are paid in ether, the native digital asset to the Ethereum blockchain.
In the past year, over half of all new blockchain-based projects were based on the Ethereum blockchain. These are extremely speculative projects called utility tokens, and investors assume more risk when they trade their bitcoin for this new token, usually through Ethereum.
(That’s not to say bitcoin isn’t speculative. Rather, it’s less speculative than crypto tokens such as TRON and Dentacoin.)
If bitcoin is considered the “flight-to-quality” crypto asset and Ethereum represents more risk-taking, it follows that the Ethereum/bitcoin (ETH/BTC) spread should indicate how much risk investors are willing to assume in the crypto markets.
A similar condition exists in the fixed-income markets, where most products are priced at a spread to U.S. Treasurys.
When investors bid up the price of riskier assets, such as high-yield bonds, the spread between those bonds and U.S. Treasurys will narrow. However, when investors are less willing to take risk in the fixed-income markets, the same spreads will widen.
Ethereum vs. Bitcoin
Let’s take a look at the historical relationship between Ethereum and bitcoin. The following logarithmic chart shows ETH/BTC dating back to early 2017.
You’ll notice that ETH/BTC began 2017 around 0.0081 and then peaked at 0.1500 in mid-June, which is about an 1,800% rally.
At the same time, the total crypto market space moved up from $20 billion to $115 billion, or a fivefold increase.
The next significant ETH/BTC rally began in December 2017 at 0.024, where we saw an increase of nearly 300% to 0.12 in early February 2018.
During these months, total crypto market cap rose from $300 billion to an all-time high of $800 billion.
Since this recent peak, both the total crypto market cap and the ETH/BTC spread have dropped significantly.
However, both started rebounding just a few weeks ago.
The ETH/BTC spread has recently rallied 20% from 0.053 to 0.063, and the total crypto market cap rose 40% from $250 billion to $330 billion.
A Harbinger of Good Things to Come
It’s hard to predict the future. However, most markets give us an indication as to whether or not investors are willing to take on more risk.
For instance, stock traders look at the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), and fixed-income traders will look at the spread between high yield and U.S. Treasurys.
When the VIX is low and bond spreads to Treasurys are narrow, investors are willing to take on more risk.
In the crypto markets, it appears that the most common “risk on/risk off” indicator is the ETH/BTC spread. The recent rise in this spread might be a harbinger of good things to come for crypto investors.
As Western countries continue to criticize Russian involvement in the poisoning of a former double agent, Russia is launching a campaign to get its citizens studying in 'unfriendly' countries to return.
Facing an imminent Congressional subpoena, the Department of Justice finally turned over James Comey's now-infamous memos Thursday night - which were promptly leaked and publishedby AP.
We already know that Comey's leak to the press was illegal - as the FBI's chief FOIA officer, David Hardy, gave a sworn declaration to Judicial Watch in which he says that all seven of Comey's memos were classified at the time they were written, and they remain classified.
Perhaps most disturbing is that James Comey's memos do not make a compelling case for obstruction whatsoever - which Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein (who Comey said "I didn't have confidence" in), used to launch the special counsel investigation headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.
In response to the Comey memos, Congressional Committee chairs Devin Nunes (R-CA), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) fired off a scathing rebuke, in which they made it abundantly clear that the Mueller investigation is a farce based on yet another example of the FBI using a flimsy document to launch a politically motivated investigation.
"These memos are significant for both what is in them and what is not," begins the joint statement, which goes on to completely dress down the FBI and James Comey:
Former Director Comey's memos show the President made clear he wanted allegations of collusion, coordination, and conspiracy between his campaign and Russia fully investigated.
The memos also made clear the ‘cloud’ President Trump wanted lifted was not the Russian interference in the 2016 election cloud, rather it was the salacious, unsubstantiated allegations related to personal conduct leveled in the dossier.
The memos also show former Director Comey never wrote that he felt obstructed or threatened. "he never once mentioned the most relevant fact of all, which was whether he felt obstructed in his investigation."
The memos also make certain what has become increasingly clear of late: former Director Comey has at least two different standards in his interactions with others. He chose not to memorialize conversations with President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, Secretary Clinton, Andrew McCabe or others, but he immediately began to memorialize conversations with President Trump. It is significant former Director Comey made no effort to memorialize conversations with former Attorney General Lynch despite concerns apparently significant enough to warrant his unprecedented appropriation of the charging decision away from her and the Department of Justice in July of 2016.
These memos also lay bare the notion that former Director Comey is not motivated by animus. He was willing to work for someone he deemed morally unsuited for office, capable of lying, requiring of personal loyalty, worthy of impeachment, and sharing the traits of a mob boss. Former Director Comey was willing to overlook all of the aforementioned characteristics in order to keep his job. In his eyes, the real crime was his own firing.
The memos show Comey was blind to biases within the FBI and had terrible judgment with respect to his deputy Andrew McCabe. On multiple occasions he, in his own words, defended the character of McCabe after President Trump questioned McCabe.
Finally, former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel, yet he took no steps to spur the appointment of Special Counsel when he had significant concerns about the objectivity of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
"As we have consistently said, rather than making a criminal case for obstruction or interference with an ongoing investigation, these memos would be Defense Exhibit A should such a charge be made."
In response to the memo's release, President Trump exclaimed over Twitter:
"James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION." adding "Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?"
James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?
Then again, given that the Special Counsel has gone from investigating whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russia - to raiding Trump's lawyer over documents related to paying off a porn star, perhaps Mueller's probe is getting a bit long in the tooth...
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli-American Hollywood actress Natalie Portman has refused to attend a ceremony in Israel to accept a million-dollar prize because of "distressing" events in the country, the organisers said, announcing the prizegiving had been cancelled.
President Trump on Friday knocked OPEC in a morning tweet, accusing the alliance of oil-producing countries of artificially raising prices on oil at a time when the resource is plentiful.Trump warned that the U.S....
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) joined SiriusXM hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak on Monday's Breitbart News Tonight, saying WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was previously prepared to provide him with "physical proof" that WikiLeaks' source for Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails was not the Russian government.
A young woman from Boston says she was re-victimized by a state court that allowed her illegal alien alleged rapist to flee the country after being released on bond. Despite an immigration detainer being placed on the suspect, a judge allowed the man to be released while still in possession of his passport, police say. He quickly fled the country and returned to his native Ghana.
Charlotte “Charlie” Fien, a British pro-life activist with Down syndrome, was reportedly blocked by Twitter for 24 hours this week after posting pro-life materials.
Launching a campaign to put an end to cheerleading in the NFL, USA Today columnist Nancy Armour is at it again, using her column for political activism.
In the wake of his primary challenge by former “Sex in the City” star Cynthia Nixon, the son of liberal legend Mario Cuomo is finding new and exciting ways to prove that he’s just as progressive as she is. Last month this took the form of lying on the ground for a “die-in” protest at Zuccotti Park, formerly the home of Occupy Wall Street.
Is there enough Karma for Cuomo to be laying down in the exact spot in Zucchotti Park where OWS used to dump? pic.twitter.com/nuB4FYaJHY
But this week, Cuomo has actually affected a policy change to show off his progressive bona fides. He effectively changed a law prohibiting parolees from voting until they are no longer under supervision by granting conditional pardons (and the right to vote) to 35,000 parolees in the state. He said the executive action was needed because the Republican-led state senate refused to pass a bill allowing the ex-cons access to the ballot.
It’s a curious argument given that Republicans were duly elected to the Senate to make these kinds of decisions. But, in the face of being primaried by a progressive celebrity, a guy’s gotta do what a guy’s gotta do. The first thing a cynic might suggest is that these are 35,000 New Yorkers who will be grateful for the restoration of their franchise and reward Cuomo, or Democrats in general, with their votes. And that may be part of it, but the deeper, perhaps more cynical plot line is that he has to keep up with a Nixon platform that falls, as the playwright Herb Gardner once put it, somewhere to the left of whoopee.
Progressive Talent Show
Earlier this month Nixon tweeted about how rich white men cannot be allowed to participate in the marijuana industry once it becomes legal in New York.
Now that public opinion has shifted on marijuana, rich white men like Boehner and companies like Monsanto are trying to cash in. We can’t let them rake in profits while thousands of people, mostly people of color, continue to sit in jail for possession and use.
Even though we all know rich white men are the worst, it is not clear how Nixon plans to use the state’s authority to bar them from selling grass. In fact, there is likely no plausible way to do so, but the real message was that she is on the side of the oppressed New Yorkers who find themselves incarcerated.
Not to be outdone, Cuomo is using his authority to give these people back the right to vote, as he tweeted out yesterday.
Today I’m issuing an executive order giving parolees the right to vote.
It is unconscionable to deny voting rights to New Yorkers who have re-entered society.
In the coming days, we should not be surprised if Cuomo claims authorship of the Port Huron statement, the original one, not the compromised second draft, or starts wearing a beret. The Democratic primary is quickly turning into a Che Guevara lookalike contest, albeit, one Cuomo is still likely to win.
Opportunity For The GOP?
Under usual circumstances, Cuomo’s lurch to the Left might be stunted by fear of a general election, where he would have to scramble back to the center. But this year, not only is there an expected blue tsunami coming, but the Republicans aren’t exactly throwing out household names to oppose him. State Sen. John DeFrancisco and Dutchess County Exec. Marc Molinaro are both well respected within the New York GOP, but they’re not the kind of sexy names that strike fear into political scions like Cuomo.
However, while a GOP pick up of the governor’s mansion in Albany is not expected, Cuomo’s rebranding from solid centrist to Zuccotti Park protester could shake things up. And, should Nixon actually defeat Cuomo through the strength of her apparent New York City base, that would open the door much wider for Republicans.
The Center Can’t Hold
The most significant takeaway from Cuomo’s announcement to let parolees vote is the signal it sends that moderate Democrats need not apply. And this is no small shift for him. Cuomo has a famous rivalry with New York City mayor and Sandinista loving socialist Bill de Blasio. Nixon’s top advisers are connected to the mayor and it’s no secret he would love to see her win. Both Cuomo and de Blasio have also been spoken of as possible presidential candidates in 2020.
Cuomo’s brand has, until now, been that of a centrist, a politician who can appeal to progressives in Brooklyn, but also moderates in Utica. That seems to be going out the window. At a time when Democrats, keen on the opportunities opened by the Left’s abject hatred of Trump, are debating whether to appeal to the center or put on pink hats and yell about stuff, Cuomo seems to be opting for the latter.
This would all appear to indicate that Cuomo is at least a little scared of Nixon. But frankly, that’s odd. A recent poll showed him leading the former TV star 58-27, which isn’t exactly a tight race. His decision to allow parolees to vote is likely less about staving of Nixon’s challenge than it is placing himself close to the heart of the Democratic party, which is eschewing Clinton-esque moderation and embracing progressive identity and victim-based politics.
As the race heats up in the coming weeks, it will be interesting to see how firmly Nixon’s leash is attached to Cuomo’s collar and how far to the left she can pull him. Will he draw a line between himself and her, or adopt the positions of the Hollywood progressive crowd? Will her candidacy encourage more celebrities to run as Democrats, as anti-Trump versions of Trump himself?
The 35,000 parolees now entitled to vote aren’t likely to make much of a difference in any election, but the move is still important because of what it signifies about Cuomo’s shift away from the center, and what that means long term for the Democrat Party.
Hans Asperger, a pioneer in autism research, was a Nazi collaborator who sent children to their deaths around World War II, new research said Thursday.
A woman police believe killed her husband in Minnesota -- and a lookalike in Florida -- was captured in Texas late Thursday, authorities said.
Hans Asperger, a pioneer in autism research, was a Nazi collaborator who sent children to their deaths around World War II, new research said Thursday.
