The Hemingway Report

Sunday, April 7, 2019

Lemon engaged to a terrorist

CNN's Don Lemon, 53, announces his engagement to realtor boyfriend Tim Malone, 35, after the couple's two dogs Boomer and Barkley helped pop the question with cute collars

Video 501

Wonder what dumbass Cuomo was thinking?

---------------------

CNN Tonight anchor Don Lemon has announced his engagement to boyfriend, Tim Malone, after the real estate agent popped the question while celebrating his birthday.

Lemon, 53, took to Instagram to share the good news with an adorable photograph of the couple's two poodles, Boomer and Barkley, wearing matching bow tie-shaped dog tags that read, 'Daddy will you marry Papa?'

'He gave me a present on his birthday. How could I say no?' Lemon wrote, showing off both the couple's ring.

CNN Tonight anchor Don Lemon has announced his engagement to boyfriend, Tim Malone, after the real estate agent popped the question while celebrating his birthday

(Touching)

Malone proposed to Lemon after the two celebrated his 35th birthday with friends.

He also confirmed the engagement by sharing the same photo on his Instagram with the caption: 'He said Yes!'

Lemon and Malone have been dating since 2016, even sharing an on-screen kiss during a live broadcast of during CNN's New Year's Eve broadcast last year.

The anchor revealed that the pair met in a restaurant in New York City and hit it off right away.

The anchor revealed that the pair met in a bar in New York City and hit it off right away

Lemon came out in his book Transparent, published in 2011, where he wrote: 'I think it would be great if everybody could be out. But it's such a personal choice.'

Lemon told Metrosource magazine last year about how the couple met: 'He was seeing someone, and I was playing the field. They broke up, and we got together, but we knew each other as friends for a year and a half.'

He added: 'I'm never sure why people are interested in me. Is it because of me? Is it because of what I do? Is it because they think they're gonna get some sort of fame, or… I have no idea.

'So in that sense, dating was a bit difficult. And it's probably why I was single for so long, 'cause I was just so focused on my career and probably not so trusting of people wanting to get into a relationship with me.'

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Court Ruling Implies Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

I can see it now.

Once they get to a redacted page.

'Ah...the smoking gun'.

Mueller himself (once considered their Savior) could appear with Barr before

Nadler and the scam he runs called the House Judiciary Committee and agrees there was no collusion and they still wouldn't let it go accompanying Trump into his 2nd term eventually evolving into American folklore like the grassy knoll and Bush blew up the Twin Towers.

--------------------------

Andrew C. McCarthy,

National Review

In disclosing the Mueller report, Attorney General William P. Barr will have to redact grand-jury information. That is the upshot of the ruling today by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

I flagged this case, now called McKeever v. Barr (formerly McKeever v. Sessions), last week. It did not arise out of the Mueller investigation, but it obviously has significant ramifications for the Mueller report — in particular, how much of it we will get to see.

At issue was this question: Does a federal court have the authority to order disclosure of grand-jury materials if the judge decides that the interests of justice warrant doing so; or is the judge limited to the exceptions to grand-jury secrecy that are spelled out in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? The D.C. Circuit’s McKeever ruling holds that the text of Rule 6(e) controls. Consequently, judges have no authority to authorize disclosure outside the rule.

This is significant for the Mueller report because Rule 6(e) does not contain an exception to secrecy that would permit disclosure to Congress.

The case involves a writer, Stuart McKeever, who was researching a book on the disappearance of Columbia University professor Jesús de Galíndez Suárez in 1956. It was suspected that Galíndez, a very public critic of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo, was kidnapped and flown to the D.R., where he was murdered. In the course of a federal investigation, suspicion fell on John Joseph Frank, a former FBI agent and CIA lawyer, who later worked for Trujillo. Frank was eventually prosecuted for failing to register as a foreign agent but never charged with any involvement in Galíndez’s murder.

In 2013, for purposes of his research, McKeever petitioned the court for release of records of the grand jury proceedings that led to Frank’s 1957 indictment. There is nothing in Rule 6(e) that would permit the veil of grand-jury secrecy to be pierced for an academic or literary research project. Yet the district judge asserted that federal courts have “inherent supervisory power” to disclose grand-jury materials, including those that are “historically significant.” Ultimately, however, the judge denied the petition, reasoning that it was “overbroad.”

McKeever appealed. In opposition, the Justice Department argued not only that he should be denied the grand-jury records, but also that the lower court had been wrong to claim authority to disclose the materials outside the strictures of Rule 6(e). The three-judge panel agreed with the Justice Department, in an opinion written by Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg (now a senior judge, appointed by President Reagan) and joined by Judge Gregory Katsas (appointed by President Trump). Judge Sri Srinivasan (appointed by President Obama) dissented.

The majority explained that the Supreme Court has long recognized the vital purposes served by grand-jury secrecy, and thus that secrecy must be protected unless there is some clear contrary indication in a statute or rule. Disclosure is the exception, not the rule.

In Rule 6(e), Congress has prescribed grand-jury secrecy and its exceptions. Those who contend that a court may permit disclosure outside the rule argue that judges had such authority before the rule was enacted. The panel majority, however, emphasized the rule’s sweeping language: Officials must refrain from disclosure “unless these rules provide otherwise.” The rule also takes pains to spell out the situations in which a judge may authorize disclosure. Plainly, the intent of the rule was to limit disclosure; were an unwritten judicial power to ignore the limitations recognized, the rule would be pointless.

The exceptions enumerated in the rule permit judges to authorize disclosure, to federal and certain non-federal officials, in order to aid in the enforcement of criminal laws. Clearly, it would be easy to conjure other worthy exceptions. Nevertheless, the panel majority observed, the Supreme Court has stressed that “not every beneficial purpose, or even every valid governmental purpose, is an appropriate reason for breaching grand jury secrecy.”

The panel rejected the claim that the D.C. Circuit’s decision in a Watergate-era case, Haldeman v. Sirica (1974), permits disclosure outside the rule. This is salient for purposes of the Mueller report because Haldeman involved an order by the district court (Judge John Sirica) permitting transmission of a sealed grand-jury report to the House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering possible grounds to impeach President Nixon.

In his dissent, Judge Srinivasan maintained that Haldeman should control. Judges Ginsburg and Katsas disagreed, relating that the lower and appellate courts in Haldeman failed to conduct any “meaningful analysis of Rule 6(e)’s terms”; they merely offered policy arguments in favor of disclosure — with Sirica, for example, suggesting that disclosure to the House of Representatives was analogous to disclosure to another grand jury (the rule allows the latter). Moreover, Haldeman was distinguishable, the majority reasoned, because the disclosure of the grand jury report was technically done within the context of the criminal case against H. R. Haldeman and his co-defendant, Gordon Strachan; that is, it was not a direct transmission to the House.

(For what it’s worth, I believe Haldeman is distinguishable for an additional reason: The grand jury, in that case, was operating under a statute that permitted it to file a report, as distinguished from an indictment, which the grand jury itself recommended be transmitted to the House. I described such reports nearly two years ago when we first learned that Mueller had convened a grand jury; and Kim Strassel had an excellent Twitter thread about them earlier this week, specifically addressing Haldeman. Such grand-jury reports are very different from what is at issue in the Mueller report. The latter is a prosecutor’s report based, in part, on grand-jury evidence; there are no grand-jury findings or recommendations that its proceedings be transmitted to Congress; and Democrats are asking for all the grand-jury information, with no view expressed by the grand jury or the witnesses who would be affected. The panel majority, however, did not address these differences — no doubt because the Mueller report was not under consideration in the McKeever came.)

It is foreseeable that McKeever could be further appealed, to the full D.C. Circuit (an en banc review) and to the Supreme Court. Not only was the panel divided, but there is a split in the circuits — which the panel majority acknowledges, discussing the relevant cases at the conclusion of its opinion. For now, however, McKeever is the law in the D.C. Circuit, where the Mueller investigation took place. Naturally, the Justice Department must follow it — and it is, again, an affirmation of the Justice Department’s position on the law.

This means Attorney General Barr must redact grand-jury material from the Mueller report before disclosing it to Congress. Democrats will complain long and loud about this, but I don’t see how Barr can be reasonably faulted for following the law. Congress, after all, has the power to legislate an amendment to Rule 6(e) that would permit disclosure of grand-jury materials from a special counsel investigation to appropriate congressional committees.

Friday, April 5, 2019

Who is Nkechi Diallo?

Why it's none other than Rachel Dolezal!

Thought for sure I was going to read she's running for POTUS. Why not? She's as unhinged as the rest of the Democratic contenders.

----------------------------

Nkechi Diallo, aka Rachel Dolezal, reaches settlement in welfare fraud case

Guess you could say she beat her... 'white privilege.'

Rachel Dolezal, the former NAACP leader who pretended to be black for years before being unmasked as white, has reached a settlement in a Washington state welfare fraud case. Dolezal (above in June 2018) was accused last year of illegally receiving nearly $9,000 in government aid between August 2015 and November 2017

The one-time president of the NAACP’s Spokane, Wash., chapter, Rachel Dolezal, reached a settlement with the state last month regarding her welfare fraud case.

Dolezal, who made headlines in 2015 after her claims of being African-American were debunked by her own parents, reached a diversion agreement on March 25 that required her to pay restitution and complete 120 hours of community service, her attorney confirmed to KXLY on Thursday.

“I think it’s a fair and equitable resolution of the matter,” Dolezal attorney Bevan Maxey said. “I don’t believe she tried to obtain benefits that she wasn’t entitled to. Needless to say, she’s been through a lot. I believe this is the appropriate way to solve it.”

Probably the first time in history a white person pretended to be black to get a job.

In June 2015, Dolezal's parents revealed to the media that she was born white but had been presenting herself as a black activist in Spokane. The former civil rights activist and African studies instructor has not been able to find regular employment since the bombshell reveal

Dolezal, 41, who changed her name to Nkechi Diallo in 2016, was arrested in May 2018 on charges of first-degree theft by welfare fraud, perjury in the second degree and false verification for public assistance, FOX 28 reported.

She allegedly collected close to $9,000 in state assistance from the period between August 2015 and November 2017, despite depositing more than $80,000 during that same time frame.

Her 2015 book, “In Full Color,” is what tipped investigators off that she had been cashing in on book sales, speaking engagements, and other sales.

Maxey told KXLY that if Dolezal agrees to the terms of the agreement, her charges will be dismissed.

“I think she’s anxious to move beyond this and move forward with a productive life. She’s a very intelligent and creative woman.”

"Very intelligent and creative woman?”

That's the new term for...She's a f-ing crook!

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, 37, is one of the latest Democrats to enter the 2020 presidential race

About 500 people came out in Washington D.C. Thursday night to hear from Pete Buttigieg

Pete's husband, (Left) Chasten, 29, is among a growing group of Democratic spouses in the race who could become 'First Gent'. They married at an Episcopalian church on June 16, 2018.

A list of some of the Democratic candidates pitted against Trump:

A Socialist

A Cherokee

A Whore

A Spartacus wannabe

A Homosexual

A Burglar/Poet with a DWI arrest

A woman who eats salad with a comb

A candidate (unannounced) that goes by the name of 'Creepy Joe'

Should be interesting.

Jussie Smollett fallout: Suburban Chicago police chiefs call on prosecutor Kim Foxx to resign

CHICAGO — A group of suburban police chiefs, as well as the police union on Thursday, called on Kim Foxx, the prosecutor whose office abruptly dropped charges against “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett, to immediately resign.

She's no better than this turd.

Mike Nifong

https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3285862&page=1

---------------------------

The heads of three suburban Chicago police chiefs’ associations, which represent dozens of chiefs throughout the area, said they took “no confidence” votes against Foxx this week.

All three organizations voted for Foxx, who as Cook County State’s Attorney oversees prosecutions in the city of Chicago and inner-ring suburbs, to resign.

About 30 suburban police chiefs announced the associations' call for Foxx to step down at a news conference organized by the union.

Kevin Graham, the Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police’s president, said that the Smollett case was the last straw in a long list of grievances that members of the city’s 13,000 officer police force have had with how Foxx has carried out her duties since being elected in 2016.

Related:

Attorney calls for special prosecutor to investigate if Kim Foxx interfered in Jussie Smollett investigation

He cited officers’ frustration that Foxx was too frequently allowing suspects who allegedly assaulted police officers to be let go without being charged.

“This didn’t start with Jussie Smollett,” Graham said. “This started when we wanted to try and make sure that when officers received a battery in the performance of their duties that the felony charges would be placed. And we continually had problems getting those charges approved.”

In a statement, Foxx dismissed the police chiefs call for her step down.

“I was elected by the people of Cook County to pursue community safety, prevent harm, and uphold the values of fairness and equal justice,” Foxx said. “I’m proud of my record in doing that, and I plan to do so through the end of my term and, if the people so will it, into the future.”

The prosecutor has faced scrutiny since her office announced March 26 that they were dropping charges against Smollett, less than three weeks after he had been indicted for disorderly conduct for filing a false police report. Smollett agreed to forfeit $10,000 to the city that he put up in bond money to secure his release after his arrest.

Smollett, who is black and gay, allegedly hired two brothers to stage an assault on him and make it look like a hate crime, police and prosecutors say. The actor told investigators that his attackers yelled homophobic and racist slurs at him as well as screamed “This is MAGA country,” a reference to President Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan.

Police spent about $130,000 in officer overtime as they investigated the Jan. 29 alleged assault before they said they learned that the actor had paid the brothers — men he knew from the “Empire” set — to stage the attack.

The city of Chicago’s law department on Thursday said it was drafting a civil lawsuit against the actor to recoup the money. City officials announced the lawsuit a week after sending Smollett's team a demand letter to reimburse Chicago for the overtime fees.

"Mr. Smollett has refused to reimburse the City of Chicago for the cost of police overtime spent investigating his false police report on January 29, 2019," Bill McCaffrey, a spokesman for Chicago's law department, said in a statement.

He added that the city would pursue the "full measure of damages allowed under the ordinance," which is triple the amount they are trying to claw back.

Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, who heads Chicago’s 13,000-officer department, was critical of Foxx and her office for dropping a 16-count indictment against Smollett for filing a false police report. He said that Foxx and her aides did not forewarn him or his aides that they were dropping the charges.

Johnson, however, was not among the police chiefs to call for the state’s attorney’s resignation.

“The Chicago Police Department and Cook County State's Attorney's Office work in partnership to keep neighborhoods throughout our city safe,” Johnson said in a statement. “Our relationship is symbiotic, and we share the goal of reducing crime. Every day, CPD presents dozens of cases for felony prosecution. Our relationship with the (state’s attorney) is paramount in keeping dangerous offenders off of the streets and safeguarding the people of Chicago.”

The heads of the area’s three suburban chiefs associations said they sent letters to Foxx Thursday informing her of the no-confidence vote.

“This action invoked by our membership has been only taken after serious deliberation and after numerous attempts throughout State’s Attorney Foxx’s tenure to maintain communication between her office and our membership over prosecutorial decisions and policy choices that have been made with seemingly no regard for the burden it’s placed on our agencies and our communities,” said Duane Mellema, who heads the Chicago’s North Suburban Association of Chiefs of Police representing more than 30 departments

Graham, who called on the Justice Department to investigate the Foxx and her deputies handling of the Smollett case, said by spoke with her after the charges were dropped.

“She was very unhappy with me calling for a federal investigation,” Graham said. “I’m going to leave it at that.

Earlier this week, the police union held a protest outside Foxx’s downtown office in which hundreds of demonstrators called on her to resign.

A smaller group of activist held a counter-protest in which they argued the police union was expressing disproportionate outrage about Foxx, because she is black.

Rev. Michel Pfleger, a Catholic priest, and activist who has defended Foxx, noted that all of the police chiefs who attended Thursday's news conference are white.

"So Pathetic that FOP Kevin Graham and a room full of ALL WHITE police chiefs stand asking for Kim Foxx to resign," Pfleger posted on Twitter. "The MAGA culture that lives in Law Enforcement is one of the reasons Black and Brown communities don't trust police.....Bull Connor lives..."