Tag: Contoversy

The Calm Before the Storm: Most Shocking Details from Stormy Daniel’s 60 Minutes Interview

Image: Wall Street Journal

Stephanie Clifford, better known by her stage name, ‘Stormy Daniels,’ is a 39-year-old adult film star who has recently become one of the most well-known names in politics, all because she is the center of an affair scandal with the most powerful man in the world. Just days before the 2016 election, Daniels signed a non-disclosure agreement which stated that she could not discuss any sexual relationship between her and Donald Trump, and she received $130,000 from then-candidate Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen. Many watchdog groups and lawyers believe that, since this ‘donation’ from Cohen went unreported to the Federal Election Commission, President Trump may have committed a significant campaign violation that could land him in federal court.

However, Daniels believes that the agreement is invalid because Donald Trump failed to sign the document.

Now, she wants to talk openly about the affair. Despite facing threats from Trump’s legal team that includes over one-million dollars in fines, Daniels spoke publicly on one of America’s most viewed cable television shows, 60 Minutes, on Sunday with Anderson Cooper, in what has notoriously become known as “Stormy Daniels Day.” In her interview, Daniels did not discuss campaign violations or election law. Instead, she discussed, in shockingly great detail, her sexual encounters with Trump and her [non-sexual] encounters with his legal team. Below are the most shocking details from Daniels’s interview, and as a fair warning, they are not for the faint of heart.

1: She Had It Coming

Although Daniels insists that the sexual encounter with Trump was entirely consensual, she did state that she felt obligated to engage because she “had it coming for making a bad decision.” Daniels went on to say, “Well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this.” Despite the sense of obligation, Daniels refuses to be seen as a victim and has asked people to stop praising her as a #MeToo movement hero because it damages the credibility of actual victims. 

2: Magazine Mayhem

One of the most detailed parts of Daniels encounter with Trump had long been rumored on the internet, and it is not a pretty thing to imagine. Daniels claims that during their first encounter Trump had taken out a magazine in which his face was the cover and began to brag about himself. Daniels then asked Trump if talking about himself normally works, and then she went on to tell him that “Someone should take that magazine and spank you with it,” by which he was taken back. Daniels then went into great detail about the interaction, stating, “He turned around and pulled his pants down a little—you know had underwear on and stuff and I just gave him a couple swats.”

3: Marriage Troubles

During the time of the alleged sexual encounter between Daniels and Trump, Trump’s third wife, Melania Trump, had just given birth to their son Barron. When Daniels asked Trump about their encounter interfering with his marriage, Daniels alleges that Trump stated, “Oh yeah, yeah, you know, don’t worry about that. We don’t even—we have separate rooms and stuff.” During the airing of Daniels segment on “60 Minutes,” Trump and Melania were in separate states, which only fueled the speculation of long-rumored marriage problems. 

4: Mirror Image

During their encounter Daniels alleges that Trump compared her to his daughter, presumably Ivanka, stating, “Yeah. He was like, ‘Wow, you—you are special. You remind me of my daughter.’ You know—he was like, ‘You’re smart and beautiful, and a woman to be reckoned with, and I like you. I like you.'” Many people have long accused Trump of having sexual feelings towards his daughter, especially after an interview was released which he stated that he would be dating his daughter if they weren’t related. Daniels and Ivanka were around the same age during the alleged encounter and images from that time show a resemblance between the two. 

5: Harassment and Harm 

In May 2011, Daniels agreed to tell her story to a sister publication of In Touch magazine for $15,000 dollars. Daniels says she was never paid after Trump threatened to sue the magazine, and says a few weeks later, she was threatened by a man who approached her in Las Vegas. In the interview, Daniels described the threat in detail, stating, “I was in a parking lot, going to a fitness class with my infant daughter. T—taking, you know, the seats facing backwards in the backseat, diaper bag, you know, gettin’ all the stuff out. And a guy walked up on me and said to me, ‘Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.’ And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.’ And then he was gone.” Although Daniels has no idea who the person was, she claims that if she saw him again she would “100%” be able to identify him. In a press conference the morning after the interview aired, White House Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said that President Trump does not believe the claims made by Daniels, including that she was physically threatened. 

6: Threats and Denial

In January of 2018, Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, publicly released statements signed by Daniels in which she stated that there was never any hush money paid to her and that the encounter never happened. Daniels stated in the interview that she was pressured into signing it, not because of any physical harm, but because her legal team told her that “They can make your life hell in many different ways”. Daniels believes that “they” was referring to Cohen and Trump’s legal team.

Daniels’s 60 Minutes interview will most likely remain in the spotlight for the next 24 hours, but this is not the end of her story. Daniels’s lawyer has hinted at several key pieces of evidence in his possession and has stated that this is just the beginning. Even if Daniels had fabricated her story Trump’s lawyer did, in fact, pay her illegal campaign “funds,” and Trump failed to report them to the FEC, which could mean serious legal trouble. 

A Problematic Religious Freedom Day

Image: Politicus USA

Freedom of religion has had roots in our history long before it was guaranteed by the constitution. We grow up with stories of William Penn dedicating Pennsylvania to people of all religions. Americans who opened their hearts and their land to welcome people of different faiths. It is utterly ingrained in our patriotic, opportunistic culture, the freedom to speak, write, express, and pray. Which may be why you either think this holiday is overkill, or you plain haven’t heard of it. To most,  it goes down as a holiday known only on the day of, fading in and out of fickle Twitter accounts like Squirrel Appreciation Day, Jan. 21National Organ Donor Day, Feb. 14, and… Panic Day, March 9. In fact, all Wikipedia has on religious freedom day is a meager 3 sentences:

National Religious Freedom Day commemorates the Virginia General Assembly‘s adoption of Thomas Jefferson‘s landmark Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom on January 16, 1786. That statute became the basis for the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and led to the freedom of religion for all Americans. Religious Freedom Day is officially proclaimed on January 16 each year by an annual statement by the President of the United States.

You probably care about its principles, but I’m not going to pretend you care about the holiday itself, and for years that meant that we’ve been so attuned to the normalcy of religious freedom, that we haven’t had to worry about protecting it. We should hope to see it next year and not bat an eyelash as it passes over us. We shouldn’t have to worry about its sanctity today, but the Trump administration’s press release has more than a few concerned.

It starts off as many Presidential Declarations have, exulting religious freedom’s virtues and vowing to protect it. It ends nicely as well,

The free exercise of religion is a source of personal and national stability, and its preservation is essential to protecting human dignity.  Religious diversity strengthens our communities and promotes tolerance, respect, understanding, and equality.  Faith breathes life and hope into our world.  We must diligently guard, preserve, and cherish this unalienable right.

What’s the problem? Many point to this quote from the president:

Our Constitution and laws guarantee Americans the right not just to believe as they see fit, but to freely exercise their religion.  Unfortunately, not all have recognized the importance of religious freedom, whether by threatening tax consequences for particular forms of religious speech or forcing people to comply with laws that violate their core religious beliefs without sufficient justification. These incursions, little by little, can destroy the fundamental freedom underlying our democracy.  Therefore, soon after taking office, I addressed these issues in an Executive Order that helps ensure Americans are able to follow their consciences without undue Government interference and the Department of Justice has issued guidance to Federal agencies regarding their compliance with laws that protect religious freedom.  No American—whether a nun, nurse, baker, or business owner—should be forced to choose between the tenets of faith or adherence to the law.

In the same speech proclaiming the ethics of respecting others, he subtly references the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. The case is supported by the Trump administration and a group called Alliance Defending Freedom whom the Southern Poverty Law Center deems a hate group. The story can be summed up as a baker unwilling to create a cake for a gay couple, citing his religious beliefs as the reason why. It was brought up in the supreme court to debate a business’s right to pick and choose customers. This right isn’t immoral in itself, it’s actually exceptionally important. Afterall, who would disagree with a business owner’s decision to kick out an angry, unreasonable customer who generally causes mayhem? Whereas the customer is causing harm to the owner, in circumstances such as Newman vs. Piggie Park enterprises, it’s the other way around. In the 1960’s, a barbecue owner refused service to a man established solely on the fact he was African American. He argued it was because of his religious values too. The lawsuit was a landmark piece of litigation that established that civil rights are more important than religious views.

I want to point out something: if Trump and his followers get his way in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, it could harm the people he’s trying to protect. If he believes that business owners should be allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs, then he may unknowingly believe that the Christian bake shop proprietor can discriminate against someone of a different faith. The Buddhist refuses the Muslim, the Catholic refuses the Shintoist, and on and on and on. If he truly wants to protect “The right not just to believe as they see fit, but to freely exercise their religion,” He should understand the full repercussions of his statement.

With that, let’s hope for a more boring Religous Freedom day next year—a day that actually represents religious freedom.

“This Is Not a Drill”: False Alarm Terrorizes​ Hawaii

Image: The Australian

Imagine enjoying the glowing beaches of paradise one moment and fearing total, nuclear annihilation the next. Well, that’s exactly what happened to residents of Hawaii and vacationers Saturday morning.

img_4546
Notification sent to all phones in Hawaii at 8:07am HST

BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.

That’s the message that was sent out to all of Hawaii via emergency alert notification. Many people began to panic, and wonder if North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un had finally reached his boiling point. As all activities came to a sudden halt, residents and tourists called loved ones, took shelter, and were preparing to die. Little did they know, in spite of what the message said, this was a drill, but it was also a colossal failure.

Moments after the alert was sent out the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency tweeted out that there was no missile threat to Hawaii, but it wasn’t until almost 40 minutes after the initial alert that a second one making the correction was sent. How could such a mistake be possible? A human error, according to officials.

“It was a mistake made during a standard procedure at the change over of a shift, and an employee pushed the wrong button,” stated Hawaiian Governor David Ige, while speaking to CNN on the alert broadcasted through television, radio, and emergency text message to all of Hawaii. Later, in a tweet, Ige has also promised to never let it happen again, but to many Hawaiians, his promise seemed empty and blame began to fall upon Ige, and his Twitter began to fill with angry responses like this one,

Responses like this are justified, considering that over a million people believed that today would be their last day on earth, all thanks to a careless mistake that could have been prevented.

To see the type of impact this alert had on Hawaii, this is a video from the Univeristy of Hawaii at Manoa showing people in a full sprint for safety after seeing the notification:

 

Official Army Twitter Account Likes Anti-Trump Post

On Saturday, the U.S. Army’s official Twitter account liked a tweet from actress Mindy Kaling, apparently mocking President Donald Trump’s claim that he’s “like, really smart.”

This tweet comes after Trump defended his mental fitness by claiming to be “Like, really smart” and “a stable genius.”

The Army later unliked the tweet and stated,

An operator of the Army’s official Twitter account inadvertently ‘liked’ a tweet whose content would not be endorsed by the Department of the Army. As soon as it was brought to our attention, it was immediately corrected.

This isn’t the first time a government social media page expressed anger over Trump. In early 2017, the National Park Service retweeted two photos of small crowds from Trump’s inauguration. Those retweets were later investigated.

Kaling later responded to the Army in a tweet using their signature slogan “Army strong.”

Now We Burn Art

Mansoor Adayfi, a freed prisoner from Guantanamo, said:

Everyone who could draw drew the sea(…) the sea means freedom no one can control or own, freedom for everyone.

The John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York City has put up a controversial art exhibit called “Ode to the Sea” that features 36 paintings, drawings and sculptures, all stamped with the words “Approved by US Forces.” The art was made by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and the exhibition gained worldwide news coverage due to its artists. In November, the government stopped releasing any art from Guantanamo Bay, reportedly in response to the exhibit. Art from Guantanamo was already censored. No art that revealed anything about Guantanamo or that portrayed the United States negatively would be released, and the art was inspected by experts for secret messages. The US government gave no explanation for its change in policy. Apparently, it doesn’t have to, because, according to the Army, the government owns art created in Guantanamo, despite the fact the artists were held there without trial—against their will. Because of this policy, the government can do what it wants with the prisoner’s art. Prisoners cannot take their art with them when they are freed, so instead, the army burns it. A lawyer representing three Guantanamo Bay prisoners said, as quoted by the New York Times, said:

One of my clients was told that, even if he were ever to be released, that he would not be able to take his art with him, and that it would be incinerated.

Art in Guantanamo has never fared well. It has been forbidden, censored, and now it will be burnt.

The Third Reich hated modernism (what it called degenerate art). They deemed it insane and insulting to morality and society. The Nazis removed over 20,000 pieces of art from German museums and put them in a special museum created to mock the art. The “museum” showed the art as corrupt, evil, and nonsensical. Some of the art the Nazis sold, but much of itthey burned. Art made by Jewish artists faced the same fate. The Soviet Union also practiced strict censorship against art, it had a whole office dedicated to deciding what books and paintings the Soviet public could or could not see. Religious art and the books or paintings of people the government had killed or exiled were banned. More recently, ISIS has destroyed tons of art in order to destroy messages they don’t agree with. They burned books from libraries in Mosul that they believed promoted infidelity or disobeyed Allah and destroyed statues they believed promoted following false idols.

Governments destroy and censor art in order to get rid of its message. The Nazis hated modernism because it didn’t focus on an idealized image of Anglo-Saxon society. It blurred the lines between good and bad. It scorned the absolutes that the Third Reich was built upon. The Soviet Union censored any art that criticized the government or didn’t perfectly fit communist ideals. ISIS destroys art that promotes anything but following their beliefs. Governments also censor art because it connects and humanizes people, making it much harder to demonize an enemy. Nazis mocked and burned Jewish art, the Soviet Union banned the art of exiles and religious people, ISIS destroys the art of so-called sinners.

The United States government is censoring the art of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay for the same reasons. First, the United States didn’t release any art they didn’t agree with. Now, no art can leave their island “dungeon.” Our government would rather burn art made by prisoners than let it leave Guantanamo because it proves that the prisoners are humans—not monsters. Because the art depicts the views of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners and humanizes them, it makes the public ask questions about Guantanamo thatthey couldn’t when the prisoners were just “the worst of the worst.” The government has no good answers. 779 people have been kept at Guantanamo—forty-one remain. The Trump administration has freed none. Eight have been convicted in illegal military commissions. Of these eight, these three were completely overturned, and one was partially overturned. Only one prisoner was found guilty in a legal court case. Lawrence Wilkerson, a former senior State Department official, declared:

There was no meaningful way to determine whether [the prisoners] were terrorists, Taliban, or simply innocent civilians picked up on a very confused battlefield or in the territory of another state such as Pakistan.

The government offered thousands of dollars to anyone who brought in a person they said was a member of ISIS, and some prisoners weren’t even vetted by any Americans before being sent to Guantanamo to be tortured. Wilkerson testifies children as young as twelve and thirteen years-old were shipped to Guantanamo alongwith men in their 90s.In Guantanamo, prisoners were beaten by guards, forced into ice baths, and waterboarded. No communication with families was allowed, even for prisoners who had been found innocent and were just being held—sometimes for years—until a country would take them. Even with extreme security measures and constant supervision, seven prisoners managed to commit suicide. Yasser Zahrini was taken to Guantanamo when he was sixteen. He committed suicide at twenty-one, becoming the youngest person to die at Guantanamo. Many other prisoners attempted suicide, Majid Khan reported trying to commit suicide by chewing through his own arteries because the conditions at Guantanamo were so bad. On top of that, according to a Senate committee investigation, torture was a completely ineffective means to gain truthful information, and the CIA lied about the about gaining helpful information from torture.

The United States committed war crimes, now it is demonizing its victims. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners’ art is their best way to connect with the public, but our government would rather burn their art than let it reach the eyes of American citizens.

Time Magazine’s Person of the Year

Image: Today

Donald Trump has finally been named TIME’s Person of the Year. “It is a great honor,” said the President-Elect on the Today Show this morning.

It means a lot, especially me growing up reading TIME magazine, and it’s a very important magazine, and I’ve been lucky enough to be on the cover many times this year — and last year. But I consider this a very, very great honor.

Since his announcement of candidacy, he has been on the cover of many, many magazines. He has always had an obsession with putting his face on the cover of magazines, and so this only makes him feel even better about himself. Actually, Trump keeps all of the said magazines in his office and frequently jokes about them saying that he does not have time to read them all because there are so many. He has even referred to himself as a “supermodel, except like, times ten.”

Last year, when TIME announced Angela Merkel as their Person of the Year, Trump was openly disturbed that he was not the winner. TIME Magazine responded by saying throughout their entire existence, they have never chosen a presidential candidate as their Person of the Year, and if he won (he did), he would have a much greater chance of becoming the Person of the Year.

I was on their cover four, five weeks ago. They should have picked me for the ‘Person of the Year,’ but they didn’t. No, they should have.

Trump, at a Rally in Arizona, his first rally since the announcement from TIME in 2015, could not help but go on a rant about the magazine and their choice. You could see in what he says that was affected by the result.

I said I’m never going to get it because I’m not establishment. But every panel that I saw on television when TIME was — because, you know, it’s sort of cool, even though the magazine’s going down the tubes. No, it’s a cool thing. Most magazines are going down, in all fairness to them. It’s great, isn’t it? To watch these guys go down the tubes? Isn’t it great? I love it.

Trump had used his ‘political revolution’ as a reason he deserved the title and related this bad decision to the one that he believes the Emmys made when they did not give the award to The Apprentice.

It’s just like ‘The Apprentice.’ For the first three seasons, I should have gotten the Emmy for the Apprentice. Got the No. 1, got tremendous ratings. It was the hottest thing, and they picked these shows that were establishment — ‘Amazing Race.’ You fall asleep watching it. Okay? It’s not a race; it’s a sleeping contest. Because I’m not establishment in Hollywood, I’m not establishment politically, so Time magazine picked a woman who is destroying Germany. She let the migration come right into Germany. She’s destroying Germany.

While he expressed much joy in receiving the recognition this year, he was not a big fan of some of the wording on their cover where it said, “President of the Divided States of America.”

Since then, becoming the Person of the Year was Trump’s personal Holy Grail.

I guess this is great because it gives him something new about which he can boast.