Next Up In Defamation Suit Against Trump: Discovery, Documents, And Depositions, Oh My!
With attorney Michael Avenatti dropping so many bombshells in his zealous representation of his client Stormy Daniels regarding the hush agreement that won’t shut up, it’s easy to forget that President Donald Trump is also facing a defamation suit by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on “The Apprentice.”
So here’s the latest: Yesterday a New York state appellate court handed Trump another legal setback that makes a release of campaign records and depositions from both Trump and other women who have accused him of sexual misconduct more likely.
The First Department of the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division issued a one-paragraph order denying Trump’s motion to stay the case during his appeal of New York Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Schechter’s rulingthat Trump was not immune to suit solely because he is a sitting president.
“No one is above the law,” wrote Schechter. “It is settled that the president of the United States has no immunity and is ‘subject to the laws’ for purely private acts.”
In her reasoning, Schechter leaned heavily on a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones, in which the court allowed a lawsuit by Paula Jones against Bill Clinton to proceed, finding that a sitting president could be sued in federal court. Clinton and Jones settled out of court.
Translation: The appellate court ruled that there is no legal justification to delay the case, which can now move to discovery, barring any other appeals by Trump.
Trump’s attorney Mark Kasowitz says the appellate court’s decision denying the stay is wrong.
“There is no valid reason in this case — in which plaintiff is seeking merely $3,000 in damages, and which plaintiff’s counsel has repeatedly insisted was brought for political purposes — for the court not to grant the requested stay in order to take the time to first decide the threshold constitutional issue that is at stake.”
Opinion: Why don’t we know we’re racist?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and yet here we are at the end of another week of being asked to prove racism exists.
I have reason to believe the recent gale-force winds were caused by all the people of color in New Zealand sighing at the same time.
If you missed it (you didn’t) Taika Waititi, director and comedian and Māori and New Zealander of the Year, told Dazed that: “New Zealand is the best place on the planet, but it’s a racist place.” Many people who chose to disagree publicly did so by being incredibly racist.
trying to explain away low levels of racial bias is still acknowledging it exists. Claiming that people who aren’t white can be racist is still acknowledging it exists. Telling ‘his’ to learn English properly, and calling Māori ‘greedy’ and ‘ungrateful’ most definitely proves it exists.
My favorite (non) argument is Chatham’s Law, our very own version of Godwin’s – people who trot out the trusty ‘But Māori killed all the Moriori’ argument, but who clearly don’t care enough about their existence to check if it’s true. For what its worth, there are many Moriori descendants in New Zealand who are tired of racists telling the world they don’t exist, and as a historical issue it’s a very complicated (and yes, tragic and violent) one involving only two iwis (at a time when ‘Māori’ was very far from being a national identity) who may have diverted from traditional practices under the influence of destructive behaviours learned from the British… But who can be bothered with all that reading when you can just yell ‘But Morioris!’ into the void?
So far all of the ‘arguments’ for Waititi’s statement not being true have enforced the fact that New Zealanders have been, are and continue to be racist in many ways big and small, with green eggs and ham, on a boat, with a goat, in the rain, and on a train.
In fact, Stuff wrote a piece titled ‘Yes, some Kiwis are as racist as Taika Waititi says. Here’s the proof’ of all the comments they couldn’t publish because they didn’t comply with their standards.
Education Minister David Eggen assigned to find ways to tackle racism
Premier Rachel Notley has given her education minister a summer assignment: find ways for the Alberta government to fight racism and promote diversity.
In a letter to David Eggen outlining her expectations, Notley said the shooting deaths of six Muslim men at a mosque in Quebec City in January prompted her to find ways for the government to fight racism.
She said Alberta is making progress, “but there is work to be done.”
“In recent years, we have witnessed growing concern about racism,” Notley writes. “I share that concern and I know you do, too.”
Eggen will find people from different communities to advise the government, finish a review of policies in other Canadian jurisdictions and ask groups fighting racism about what works and what doesn’t.
The premier also wants Eggen to find ways to promote more diversity and inclusion within the public service and Alberta’s agencies boards and commissions.
Eggen said tackling racism is an issue government should undertake.
“Our basic responsibility of government is for a safe environment by which people can live and raise their families,” he said. “It’s an extension of my safe and caring efforts in schools. That extends to the larger society.”
Premier Rachel Notley has given her education minister a summer assignment: find ways for the Alberta government to fight racism and promote diversity. In a letter to David Eggen outlining her expectations, Notley said the shooting deaths of six Muslim men at a mosque in Quebec City in January prompted her to find ways for the government to fight racism. She said Alberta is making progress, “but there is work to be done.”
In a letter to David Eggen outlining her expectations, Notley said the shooting deaths of six Muslim men at a mosque in Quebec City in January prompted her to find ways for the government to fight racism. She said Alberta is making progress, “but there is work to be done.”
Racism” is from the root “Race” which is an invention of white supremacy.
It is now obvious that only a very small number of genes determine our physical appearance and they are not in any way connected to genes that influence our abilities or qualities.
In the post-Civil Rights era, there is a temptation to assume that racism is no longer the pressing social concern in the United States that it once was.
According to the authors, in 21st century, skin color has come to replace race as an important cause of discrimination. This is evidenced in the increasing usage of the term “people of color” to encompass people of a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds.
In order to disclose this topic we addressed a few questions to Ronald Hall who is a professor of social work at the Michigan State University and an expert in racism and diversity.
Where does the word racism come from?
Racism” is from the root “Race” which is an invention of white supremacy.
Many years ago people believed that it was possible to categorize human beings into groups that were called ‘races’. And that such categorization could establish some physical characteristics (for example skin colour or facial features) as well as qualities or particular abilities.
The belief that by looking at a person’s physical characteristics one can draw conclusions about them, and that some ‘races’ are altogether inferior or superior to others has come to be known as racism.
A very small number of genes determine our physical appearance and they are not in any way connected to genes that influence our abilities or qualities.
Research confirms that there are more biological differences within any one so-called ‘race’ than between any two. It comes out that there is only one race, The Human Race, to which we all belong and that people of all colours and appearances can have similar potential.
What Can We Do to Fight Racism?
The more people who stand up against racism, the less likely it will be that it takes hold.
At root racism is economic. The first thing to do is to eliminate “Race” from discourse.
Also i would suggest to fight racism:
By getting to know everyone around you and making friends based on personality, not skin colour.
Do not tolerate racist jokes or conversation in your presence.”
You should also refuse to support shops or companies that you feel are racist.
You can also organise an anti-racism campaign in your neighbourhood.
Do you agree that “Racism is taught”?
No doubt racism is taught. In the book “The history of white people” by Nell Painter, the author stresses that we are human beings and we are prone to learn everything that is happening around us.
Scientifically speaking, children are like sponges, they absorb everything in their path. Researches have shown that between the ages of 0 and 5 years the brain grows at a critical rate. It absorbs more information in between these years than any other.
From the moment of birth, an infant is making connections with the world. Racism is learned like anything else in the world.
Parents have a large influence on how a child deals with other people socially. The experience of interaction with the society begins at home.
I don’t believe that someone just is a racist to be racist. Children listen to how there mom and dad talk about others. Most of the time, adults use hateful language around children unaware of how they are affecting them. Children will often repeat what there parents say. They offend someone and they might think it’s ok because mommy and daddy said it was. The responsibility lays on parents to admit their mistakes and correct children.
SAHRC concerned over discrimination allegations at schools
CAPE TOWN – The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has raised serious concerns over allegations of discrimination at several schools across the country.
Learners have been protesting against what they view as discriminatory and racist policies at schools in Cape Town, Pretoria and Bloemfontein.
In a statement, the SAHRC has noted the various allegations of differential treatment and discrimination experienced by black learners at several schools.
Gauteng Education MEC Panyaza Lesufi is investigating claims of racism and discrimination at Pretoria High School for Girls following a protest by a group of learners last week.
This demonstration sparked similar protests at Saint Michael’s and Sans Souci where some learners claim they’ve been subjected to racism and discrimination from teachers and fellow learners, based on the school’s language and hair policies.
Why race and identity will remain the dividing line in American politics for a while to come
Writing yesterday about how race and identity has become the central dividing line in American politics, I argued that we are likely to have a politics dominated by race and identity for the near-term future.
This is a big claim, so I want to spend some time here explaining why I believe this is our near-term future, and what it might mean for how American politics will function.
The short version of the explanation is that race and identity is now the main issue holding both parties’ coalitions together, which means that neither party’s leadership has a strong incentive to try to make politics about anything else. The short version of the implication is that most likely this will reduce polarization, because it splits the parties on economic issues and thus creates a whole new set of cross-party coalitions. However, there are ways in which it could also fundamentally tear our nation apart.
Seeing politics in two dimensions
In yesterday’s post, I spent a while discussing the two-dimensional nature of conflict, borrowing an analysis from the political scientist E.E. Schattschneider and drawing on related insights from Gary Miller and Norman Schofield on how activist groups within parties affect realignment dynamics.
The quick foundational point from the post is that American political opinion is two-dimensional, and those two dimensions tend to be organized around two types of issues, economic and social/identity issues. For most people, the correlation between their beliefs on the two issues is actually quite low. And here’s the big takeaway: Depending on which issue is the primary dividing line, the party system can look quite different.
Black – an insightful tale of racism, poverty and alienation
Black is a film adaptation of books by author Dirk Bracke—influenced by William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and Arthur Laurents’ West Side Story,
It is largely set in Molenbeek, a district of Brussels in Belgium.
This is where some of those involved in recent terror attacks in Brussels and Paris were from. The location is a critical element to the plot. Molenbeek is an area with high unemployment and many recent immigrants.
It’s where we meet young Marwan (Aboubakr Bensaihi) and Mavela (Martha Canga Antonio), who start dating despite being from opposing gangs, the 1080s and Black Bronx.
The film’s most violent and inhumane moments are between and within the gangs.
It seemed that it was trying to tackle too many issues within a limited time frame and the dramatic plot was in danger of overshadowing its comment on race, gender and class.
But, surprisingly, it works because it focuses on social divisions and the racism faced by young people who seek a sense of belonging within the gangs.
The couple ultimately face the consequences of their decision to leave the gangs.
Marwan is seen as disloyal and Mavela is seen as someone else’s property. When Marwan looks to leave the gang and get a job his elder brother and gang leader Nassim tells him it’s futile. “You were born here but you’re still different, you’ll always be a foreigner,” he says.
How India can stem the rising scourge of racism against Africans
laIndia has seen a rise in incidents of racism by its citizens against foreign nationals, especially Africans, in recent times. As a country with the rgest diaspora communities, India needs to be particularly worried by this development.
The country is home to a significant migrant population, most of it from the neighbouring countries in South Asia. In 2010, there were 5.4 million foreign-born people in the country. The number of Africans in India is estimated to be about 40 000, of whom 25 000 are students.
Yet, these small numbers are significant for the growing relations between India and Africa. The Indian government has been announcing scholarships, grants and credit lines for Africa against the backdrop of the India-Africa Forum summits. In spite of these efforts to woo Africa, the government is in denial about racist attacks against Africans in India.
In the wake of the recent attacks on Africans in India, the official denial that such acts are racist hampers efforts to tackle the problem. This, plus the fact that the perpetrators are hardly ever brought to book is a major cause for their recurrence.
India and Africa matter to each other
The government positioning stands in contrast to the historic relations between India and Africa founded on the tenets of anti-racism and anti-colonialism. Moreover, the government’s stand risks jeopardising India’s growing relations with Africa in the fields of trade, technology and human resource development. India’s trade with Africa has grown from $1 billion in 1990-1991 to $71 billion in 2014-2015.
We are all guilty of racism, but few of us will admit it
IN PARTS one to three we established that:
• Contrary to the politically correct mantra that “there is only one race, the human race”, there are indeed many different races, but only one human species.
• What is called “racism” today is not so much prejudice against race in itself, but is rather a broad prejudice against what is culturally and behaviourally different to what we are accustomed to, on the part of races other than our own. “Racism” has little to do with race as such, and everything to do with the cultural and behavioural differences existing between races.
• “Racism” — prejudice against those culturally different to oneself — is in fact the inescapable flip side of self-identification with one’s community; the approval of and loyalty to one’s own kin. In other words, favour for those culturally similar to oneself.
• Defined as suspicion of and prejudice against what is different to what we are personally familiar with and accustomed to in our own race, “racism” or cultural prejudice is a survival adaptation deeply ingrained in human nature, whether we like the fact or not.
• Every society on earth was “racist” right up until the middle of the 20th century, and “racism” had, in fact, until then always and everywhere been the social norm.
• The reason that the social norm suddenly changed after millennia from “racism” to “anti-racism” in the West was not sudden moral enlightenment, but the high social costs and political conflict brought about by the mixing of previously physically separate racial populations.
Despite the enormous social pressure on the Western individual today to deny having any negative “racial” feelings whatsoever, in the light of the considerations above and on the balance of probability, everybody, or virtually everybody, on earth is likely to be to some degree or other “racially” prejudiced. And the more strongly they identify positively with their own cultural group, the more likely it is that they will be susceptible to negative “racial” feelings regarding other cultural groups.
Those of us who are bitter clingers to our freedom, our liberties, and the principles the nation was founded on shouldn’t allow ourselves to be rebuffed or silenced.
Ever since the junior senator from Illinois announced his candidacy for the presidency eight years ago, those who have criticized his politics and his ideology have been pummeled with a charge of “racism.” It’s been the perfunctory, knee-jerk response – devoid of intellectual integrity or factual relevance – to avoid the substantive issues, while attempting to simultaneously stifle dissent and silence critics. And it’s clear from early indications, with regard to the 2016 presidential race, that the same modus operandi will be employed against those critical of Hillary Clinton. Only this time, it will be gender based – the charge of sexism.
During the Obama tenure, the charge of “racist” has been unavoidable to any who were critical of the president. Whether it was criticism of Obamacare, lack of transparency, fiscal profligacy, inscrutable foreign policy, class-envy fomentation, and anti-capitalist policies, it didn’t matter. Regardless of the logic, data, facts, or strength of argument, if you opposed the administration’s policies and initiatives, you were a racist. At least according to the sycophants, who were either oblivious to logic, data, or facts, and had an empty logical quiver from which to fire back with anything except blanks.
And what’s pathetic, from a free speech, open discourse, and cogent political discourse perspective, is that it worked. The millions of Americans who flocked to Tea Party rallies, Glenn Beck confabs, and other conservative functions were successfully labeled “racists” because of their opposition to the liberal, destructive policies of the administration. It didn’t matter what color, race, creed, or socio-economic status they hailed from; they were all racists.
The ‘racist’ tactic
For some reason, the fact that the policies propounded and foisted on the nation the past six years are not race-based seems lost on the vapid purveyors of the “racist” tactic. Big government, massive debt, onerous regulations, expansive government control, and the concomitant loss of personal liberty are naturally opposed not because they might be advanced by someone of a certain color, ethnic background, or native language. They’re opposed because they’re antithetical to the founding principles of our republic! It matters not who is foisting the destructive policies and ideology on the nation; it matters that they’re distinctly anti-American. Conservative Ben Carson’s current lead in the crowded GOP primary race underscores that fact.
What’s brilliant about the tactic is that you don’t have to worry about any facts, data, or common sense to employ it. Just by hurling the accusation, several things have been accomplished with one fell swoop. 1) The argument has been misdirected, so it’s no longer about the policies or the substance of the disagreement; it’s now whether the dissenter is truly racist or not. 2) It neutralizes and diminishes the objections of the dissenter; for now, the greater issue is whether he is in fact racist, or not. And 3) it successfully stifles dissent, since no one, probably even real racists, likes to be called one; so why go out on a limb and face the probability of such an accusation?