Tom Arnold, Mark Burnett get into confrontation, report says

M. Moore Jr ?

Tom Arnold has worked on a series called, "The Hunt for Trump Tapes." He apparently had some type of confrontation with producer Mark Burnett on Sunday night.

Tom Arnold, who is working on a show about his search for the Trump tapes from his time on “Apprentice,” had a confrontation with producer Mark Burnett on Sunday night, according to social media posts.
Arnold took to Twitter to accuse the former “Apprentice” producer of “choking him at this huge Emmy party.” Burnett’s wife, Roma Downey, later posted a picture that she said showed a bruise on her left hand from the confrontation.
“Got this bruise tonight when Tom Arnold tried to ambush my husband Mark and me at a charity event. Is your TV show worth it Tom? Please stop,” she posted. Arnold responded to the tweet that he is filing a police report and “suing you for defamation.”
The Hollywood Reporter’s report said that it was unclear what event was being referenced, but the “Evening Before” fundraiser occurred on Sunday night, and Burnett has been known to attend.
The LAPD could not be reached by the Reporter or Fox News late Sunday night. Burnett has not publically responded to Arnold, the report said. A call early Monday to his office went to voicemail.
Burnett did not tweet out about the purported encounter.
Matthew Belloni, the editorial director of The Hollywood Reporter, tweeted that he spoke to Arnold’s attorney who called the confrontation an “unprovoked attack” by Burnett. Arnold claims to have a witness.
Vice announced that Arnold would be featured in a new show called, "The Hunt for the Trump Tapes" and would investigate rumored recordings of the president.
The eight-episode series follows Arnold as he searches for rumored recordings of Trump that are said to be potentially damaging. He interviews stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Penn Jillette, Judd Apatow, and Rosie O’Donnell, as well as, former White House Communications Director, Anthony Scaramucci.
Arnold has claimed that Trump has used the N-word and is “obviously a racist,” adding that the president’s take on the NFL is because “he doesn’t like black guys.”
Arnold has been focused on Burnett, who he noted has successful series such as “Shark Tank” and "The Bible" under his belt.
“I am going to keep hammering Mark Burnett until he shows America [the tapes],” Arnold said at the Television Critics Association's Summer Press Tour in July. “He sits next to Donald Trump and gives him cover and he never says one word. People are at the border. They are getting their kids snatched from them. It’s cruel… and Mark Burnett says he’s a Christian.”

Strzok-Page texts calling to 'open' case in 'chargeable way' under fresh scrutiny

Text messages from disgraced FBI figures Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, discussing whether to open a "case" in a "formal chargeable way" after Director James Comey was fired, are under fresh scrutiny after Page told congressional investigators there was no evidence of Russian collusion at the time, according to three congressional sources.
Two hours after Comey's termination became public on May 9, 2017, Strzok, a now-former FBI agent, texted Page, his then-colleague and lover: "We need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting."
"Andy" is a reference to then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who temporarily took over the bureau until Christopher Wray was confirmed as director in August 2017.
Page, a former FBI attorney, replied to Strzok: "We need to lock in (redacted). In a formal chargeable way. Soon."
Strzok concurred. "I agree. I've been pushing and I'll reemphasize with Bill," believed to be Bill Priestap, the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division.
The text messages were provided to congress earlier this year, and among the six months of missing messages blamed on software and technical issues with the FBI issued Samsung phones.  The recovered texts cover December 2016 to May 2017, including Comey's firing, and the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Page sat for a transcribed interview before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in mid-July as part of a joint congressional investigation into the Justice Department's handling of the Russia and Clinton email probes.  During the deposition, Page said that by the time special counsel Mueller was appointed and Comey was fired in May 2017,  investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript reviewed by Fox News.
While it is unclear what "case" Strzok and Page are talking about opening,  three republican sources on the house intelligence, and judiciary committees, said the texts demanded further explanation.  If there was no solid evidence of russian collusion,  as Page recently testified, the sources questioned whether "the case" relates to obstruction, and the President's decision to fire Director Comey.  The sources asked not to be identified citing the sensitivity of the ongoing investigations.
Fox News has learned that during her July deposition,  Page declined to clarify the May 9 text.  That same month, in his open public testimony, Strozk also declined to answer questions, suggesting there is a connection to Mueller's probe.
"...To get into that would relate to ongoing investigations, which, consistent with the department's policy on ongoing investigations and based on the special counsel's equities, I'm not authorized to discuss ongoing investigations," Strzok testified.
After Strzok refused to answer further questions, Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, said: "I know, as a former U.S. attorney, that if, in fact, that's what happened, I know that whoever is the subject of that case that was opened -- now that Andy is acting -- and whoever you and Ms. Page talked about needing to be locked in soon in a formal chargeable way, well, they would have had their civil liberties violated. They would have been deprived of due process."
Attorneys for Strzok and Page did not respond to Fox News' requests for clarification about "the case," and specifically, whether it referred to Russian collusion, obstruction, or an unrelated matter.
Strzok apparently made another reference to "the case" in late April 2017, but his text sheds little additional light on its target.
"I would like to get something written as well because we have specific written direction to open the case and now a bunch of informal discussion. Need to be able to show if asked, why did you not open when the (general counsel), cc:ing the (deputy director), directed you in writing last Friday to open. Thanks."
Page responded, "It’s not. It’s still with (redacted)" adding that she planned to talk to McCabe about it.
May 2017 represents a key month: Comey was fired by President Trump and Robert Mueller was designated special counsel. In August 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, wrote the still-secret "scope memo" spelling out the boundaries for the special counsel investigation.
The texts, and Page's testimony, congressional sources said, raise significant questions about the probe's foundation and whether by the summer of 2017 it had largely shifted away from alleged Russia collusion.

Kavanaugh faces uncertain future after woman accuser breaks silence, Republicans worry in private about midterms

We may be in a grey area when it comes to what’s next for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.
After the allegations against Kavanaugh made by Christine Ford, the White House says it won’t yank the nomination and may even gird for battle. A spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says aides are working to set up additional calls with Kavanaugh and Ford “ahead of Thursday’s scheduled vote.”
In other words, GOP leaders aren’t backing down from a committee vote on Kavanaugh Thursday and an effort to confirm him on the Senate floor by the middle of next week.
Here’s the problem:
Multiple Republicans that they want to slow the process until they thoroughly addressed Ford’s charge and not just blindly charged ahead with the confirmation.
“I’m uncomfortable moving forward with a yes vote until we hear from (Ford),” said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a member of the Judiciary Committee. Fellow Judiciary Committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also urged caution. But Graham wasn’t in favor of a pause.
“If the committee is to hear from Ms. Ford, it should be done immediately so the process can continue as scheduled,” said Graham. “If Ms. Ford wishes to provide information to the committee, I would gladly listen to what she has to say and compare that against all other information we have received about Judge Kavanaugh.”
Multiple Democrats demanded the committee to bring the confirmation process to a screeching halt.
“Sen. Grassley must postpone the vote until, at the very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “To railroad a vote now would be an insult of the women of America.”
What happens now is unclear. It’s unknown if Ford is willing to appear in person or just how thorough senators need to be with her allegation. But it wouldn’t take much to throw things off kilter for those hoping for a quick confirmation. Plus, there’s risk for the GOP if it fails to take Ford’s allegations seriously or account for what she has to say. We’re in the Me Too era now. Republicans ignore Ford at their own peril less than two months before the midterm elections. GOPers know they could face a backlash at the polls if they misplay their hand.
The Judiciary Committee is split nearly-evenly between Republicans and Democrats: 11 GOPers. 10 Democrats. Flake already wants to tap the brakes. But frankly, a committee vote doesn’t mean much. Let’s say Grassley marches ahead regardless. Would Flake and other Republicans vote in opposition in committee to Kavanaugh’s nomination? Possibly. But that means very little for the actual confirmation.
Consider this:
It’s not written anywhere in the Constitution or the Senate rules that Supreme Court nominees require a successful committee vote before heading to the floor. On October 6, 1987, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 9-5 against a favorable recommendation for Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. The committee then voted 9-5 to send Bork’s nomination to the floor with an unfavorable recommendation.
The full Senate later followed the committee lead, rebuffing Bork, 58-42. Bork became only the 11^th High Court nominee rejected by the Senate in the history of the republic.
In 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked 7-7 to send the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the floor with a favorable recommendation. The committee then voted 13-1 give Thomas no recommendation.
The Senate later voted to confirm Thomas, 52-48.
One can see how Kavanaugh could struggle to receive a favorable or even no recommendation from the Judiciary Committee with just a one vote GOP advantage.
So why do committees even bother with a recommendation? Not all senators sit on each committee. Senators take into account the disposition of committees who adjudicate nominees for a panoply of positions, ranging from the Supreme Court to ambassadors to Assistant Undersecretaries for Insular Affairs. Committee positions on nominees holds a lot of sway with senators.
But properly hearing from Ford may consume time. That’s why, nestled in the back of everyone’s mind, is what unfolded in 1991 with Thomas and Anita Hill.
In late September, 1991, the Judiciary Committee concluded its hearings with Thomas and sent his nomination onto the floor, without recommendation. That’s when allegations surfaced from Hill. She accused Thomas of sexual harassment when they worked at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
After much consternation, the Judiciary Committee re-opened the hearings and invited Hill to testify in a dramatic, public session. The panel heard again from Thomas and other witnesses. Thomas famously characterized the hearings “a high-tech lynching.”
History may not repeat itself. But as the author John le Carre wrote, “Tomorrow was created yesterday…and the day before yesterday, too.”
Those pushing for a quick, painless confirmation of Kavanaugh know that what happened with Thomas’s confirmation could be a problem. In fact, those hearings constitute what was really the first chapter in the Me Too movement. Republicans are wary of being portrayed as indifferent to Ford’s assertion.
The allegations made against Kavanaugh are unfolding in an eerily similar fashion to the way Hill leveled charges against Thomas: between the end of the hearings and a floor vote. The Kavanaugh accusations even hit at nearly the identical points on the calendar.
The committee vote could be the least the GOP and Kavanaugh’s worries.
Republicans hold a narrow 51-49 advantage in the Senate. Most Republicans are on the record as supporting Kavanaugh. But the nominee doesn’t have the votes on the floor to score confirmation yet. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has not announced her position on Kavanaugh, but fellow moderate Sen. Lisa Murkowski told CNN that she is open to the delay.
“If there are more questions that need to be asked and answered, then I think it would be appropriate for that time,” she said.
Collins just spent an hour on the phone with Kavanaugh Friday. It was a follow-up to questions the Maine Republican had after sifting through the nominee’s documents.
The call was scheduled prior to information arising about Ford. Collins discussed the accusations with Kavanaugh on Friday.
The office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday there were no changes to the schedule regarding Kavanaugh. So, if things go as planned – even if Kavanaugh scores an unfavorable rating by the committee or no recommendation at all, the Senate GOP brass hopes to hold a procedural vote to break a filibuster on the nomination around Monday, September 24.
The confirmation vote on the floor would presumably hit around Wednesday, September 26.
It’s not clear yet of Christine Ford’s charges could stall or derail Kavanaugh’s nomination. But the Senate now floats in a grey area. It’s a little bit like what happened when Anita Hill came forth in 1991. And with the midterms around the corner, Republicans worry privately about missteps with Kavanaugh and Ford could reverberate at the ballot box.

Midterm Blue Wave Cartoons

Energy Secy Perry asserts Russia, U.S., Saudi Arabia can compensate for oil fall

U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry gestures as he speaks to Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak during their talks in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, Sept. 13, 2018. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

Energy Secretary Rick Perry said the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia can make up for the shortage in Iranian oil exports.
In a recent interview on Friday Perry said he felt comfortable with the outlook for global crude output, and oil prices.
This comes after the Trump administration announced they will slap sanctions on Iran, a nation that has already cut supply to two year lows.
The secretary also cited improving relations between Saudi Arabia and neighboring Kuwait as another reason to be optimistic.

“They are working towards a solution on  Kuwaiti and Saudi border with some contested area there. It’s about half a million barrels a day. So, part of that – my understanding – is being addressed as we speak. They are working towards a solution in the not too distant future.” Rick Perry, White House energy secretary

Perry also called out the European Union, saying it needs to separate itself from dependence on Russian energy supplies.
U.S. sanctions are scheduled to take place on Iran in November.

Texas Board of Education votes to remove Hillary Clinton from history curriculum

Then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gestures as she speaks at a campaign rally on Nov. 2, 2016, in Tempe, Ariz.

The Texas Board of Education moves to take Hillary Clinton out of the history curriculum in the state’s public schools.

Then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary

The board’s action came after a work group of volunteers recommended the move.
The change is considered part of an effort to streamline the curriculum and the group estimates the change will save teachers 30 minutes of instruction time.
 The board will conduct a final vote on the changes in November.

Retired admiral who criticized Trump leaves Pentagon board

William McRaven, a former U.S. Navy admiral, criticized President trump in a recent Washington Post op-ed article.  (Associated Press)

A retired Navy admiral who oversaw the raid that killed Usama bin Laden has resigned from a Defense Department advisory board, after criticizing President Trump's decision to revoke a former CIA director's security clearance.
William McRaven, former head of U.S. Special Operations Command, left the Defense Innovation Board (DIB) on Aug. 20, Lt. Col. Michelle Baldanza, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said.
That was four days after he wrote in the Washington Post that Trump's actions revoking former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance "embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation."
McRaven's op-ed carried the headline, "Revoke my security clearance, too, Mr. President."
Trump revoked Brennan's clearance last month, saying he felt he had to do something about the "rigged" Russian election interference probe.
The DIB, on which McRaven served, was created during the Obama administration by then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter. Its members include technology executives and others who are mostly from outside the military, such as Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt, author and physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson and journalist Walter Isaacson.
Political donations by the panel's members lean overwhelmingly liberal, with some $2.4 million contributed to Democrats and political action committees that support them, versus about $236,000 for Republican candidates, DefenseNews reported.

Dan Gainor: Some 'journalists' happy to pitch in on last-ditch hit job on Kavanaugh

The Supreme Court nomination seems like a new season of “House of Cards,” with many in the media helping write the script.
It’s had everything it needed to be a hit: lies about what nominee Brett Kavanaugh said; journalists thrilled by a self-aggrandizing senator who was lying and fantasizing he was “Spartacus”; another senator who promoted a phony video of the testimony; hundreds of radical protesters intent on shutting down the hearing and even attempts to threaten or possibly bribe a senator into voting him down. Now there’s a last-second allegation from … high school.
The accusation was Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s First-Monday-in-October surprise. It pushed a claim “from a woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct when they were both in high school,” according to The New Yorker. Kavanaugh turned 53 in February. That means the claim is about 35 years old.
The attacks were so bad that even MSNBC Anchor Joe Scarborough skewered Democrats, complaining that “this is why a lot of people just don’t get involved in public service.”
Vox, HuffPost and CNN brought up comparisons to Anita Hill, who charged Justice Clarence Thomas with harassment during his nomination. Vox emphasized “The striking parallels between Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.” Of course, what’s also implied is that Kavanaugh will be approved, just as Thomas was.

The broadcast stories didn’t explain that the letter was dropped just before a weekend and as a huge storm was hitting — strange if Democrats actually believed in the allegations and wanted them to get attention.

ABC’s Chief Political Analyst Matthew Dowd was quick to assign blanket guilt. “I don’t know if the allegations against kavanaugh [sic] are true, but keep in mind every high profile man accused of sexual abuse denies it and has released a list of women saying they are a good guy.  And each one turned out to be an abuser,” he tweeted.
Teen Vogue columnist Lauren Duca used her Twitter feed to bash Kavanaugh at least 11 times in two days, along with whining about the “white supremacist patriarchy.” She retweeted a call for him to withdraw, saying, “Extremely f--- this #StopKavanaugh.” (Dashes added by yours truly.)
Feinstein’s stunt didn’t resonate with everyone. ABC hit the timing hard, with “World News Tonight” Anchor David Muir asking, “and why was the letter just now revealed?” Chief Foreign Correspondent Terry Moran stressed, almost incredulously, that Feinstein had received the letter “back in July” and “two months after she received it.”
NBC also noted the odd timing, with “Nightly News” Anchor Lester Holt noting it was “less than a week now until a key vote.” The story added that Feinstein was given the letter “weeks ago.” The broadcast stories didn’t explain that the letter was dropped just before a weekend and as a huge storm was hitting — strange if Democrats actually believed in the allegations and wanted them to get attention.
2. More or Les: CBS has now lost three of its most powerful figures in a downward spiral of #MeToo allegations.
This week saw the ouster of the man Vanity Fair described as “legendary longtime” C.E.O. Les Moonves plus the executive producer of CBS’ “60 Minutes” and former chairman of CBS News Jeff Fager. This follows the firing of anchor Charlie Rose “in the wake of eight women accusing him of sexual harassment and unwanted advances,” explained NBC News.
Moonves lost his job after The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow dropped another devastating #MeToo report. The story was horrifying — 12 women accusing Moonves of sexual harassment, as well as “claims that Moonves forced them to perform oral sex on him, that he exposed himself to them without their consent, and that he used physical violence and intimidation against them.”

Politico’s Chief Political Correspondent Tim Alberta called it “a stupid unforced error—handing Trump yet more ammunition to delegitimize all the objective, airtight, fact-based reporting out there.”

CBS awaits the results of an internal investigation it said will be kept private. “[W]e must have transparency,” demanded “CBS This Morning” co-host Gayle King, in response.
Moonves’ departure put Fager’s job in jeopardy. The New York Times said: “It would be hard to overstate Mr. Fager’s power inside CBS’s news division, where he succeeded the legendary producer Don Hewitt in overseeing ‘60 Minutes.’” The paper credited Moonves as having “collected 76 Emmy Awards and 13 Peabody Awards”
Fager also had sexual misconduct allegations against him and then he got fired for sending threatening texts to a CBS reporter. National Correspondent Jericka Duncan went on air soon after Fager’s firing and said she had asked him to comment on allegations that “he groped or touched CBS employees at company parties.”
Fager was incensed and sent her texts that appeared to threaten her job. “If you repeat these false accusations without any of your own reporting to back them up, you will be held responsible for harming me,’” went one text.
With his firing, Fager became the second CBS employee in a row to have the Fred Friendly First Amendment Award rescinded, according to the Times.
3. More Shady Journalism: Journalists pretend almost daily that there is no such thing as “fake news.” And then the New York Times and its State Department Correspondent Gardiner Harris do something so egregious that even liberals would have to call it fake news.
Harris took a story about expensive curtains ordered by the Obama administration for the UN ambassador’s residence and turned it into a hit job on Trump’s UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.
Several Times reporters retweeted it, each with their own little narrative. Investigative Reporter Eric Lipton wrote in a now-deleted tweet that, “Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless.” Vogue picked the story up only to modify it later. Rolling Stone still hadn’t fixed its story as of Saturday morning.
Track the story in NewsDiffs. It was originally headlined: “Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.” Then it became “State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Nikki Haley’s Residence” more than 14 hours later.
But, by that time, the story was widely mocked on Twitter because even the original story itself admitted that the curtains had been ordered by the Obama administration, though it buried that detail in paragraph six. The Daily Beast’s Matt Lewis summed it up nicely. “Every time someone in the MSM does something like this (and it happens a LOT), they lend credence to the 'fake news' narrative…”
Conservatives were joined by liberals and major media figures blasting the Times. The Washington Post headlined: “New York Times wrongs Nikki Haley with curtain headline.” Another story followed: “New York Times backtracks on a tale about some expensive curtains.”
Post Media Reporter Paul Farhi embarrassed the biased author a bit: “Reached by phone on Friday, the reporter of the Times story, Gardiner Harris, hung up without comment. He did not respond to follow-up messages.”
The Times caved to the pressure and added a 97-word “Editor’s Note.” It wasn’t an apology. It did explain the extent of the problem. “The article should not have focused on Ms. Haley, nor should a picture of her have been used,” it explained.
CNN Anchor Jake Tapper spent six tweets to fact check “the false meme bopping around about @nikkihaley’s $52,701 curtains,” though he effectively disproved it in his first. Politico’s Chief Political Correspondent Tim Alberta called it “a stupid unforced error—handing Trump yet more ammunition to delegitimize all the objective, airtight, fact-based reporting out there.”