Texans have found themselves in the middle of some serious drama in Republican National Conventions in years past.

Heres a look back at memorable moments involving former Gov. John Connally, future President George H.W. Bush, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, and former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.

The Houston Republican became Donald Trumps most significant primary challenger in 2016. In May, Cruz would drop out of the race, but not before winning 11 states and amassing the second-highest number of delegates in a battle that had frequently turned bitter.

Still, when it came time for the convention in Cleveland, Cruz was given a prime time speaking spot on the third night of the convention, just before Mike Pence would speak.

When Cruz was called on stage, he congratulated Trump on his victory, but boos rained down on him as it became clear he would not endorse Trump. The next day Cruz defended his decision by saying I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father.

In 2012, Texas Congressman Ron Paul ran for president against eventual nominee Mitt Romney. Although he lost, Paul built a passionate following with his Libertarian views.

While Paul was offered a chance to speak at the convention, he had to agree to endorse Romney and to have his speech first reviewed by the Romney camp.

It wouldnt be my speech, Paul told the New York Times then. That would undo everything Ive done in the last 30 years. I dont fully endorse him for president.

After negotiations broke down, Romneys team when to Plan B making a video tribute to Paul that resembled a movie trailer.

In 1980, when Houstons George H.W. Bush arrived in Detroit, he did not expect he would leave the city as Ronald Reagans running mate.

The former CIA director had lost to Reagan in the primary, but Reagan had not named a vice president as the convention started. Reagan and his team were negotiating with former President Gerald Ford about the position late into the evening when the deal fell through. At 11:38 p.m., Reagan called Bush to see if he wanted the position.

No one was more surprised than I was when I answered the phone in my hotel suite and Ronald Reagan was on the other end of the line, Bush said in his book All The Best.

Reagan would go to the floor of the convention just past midnight to announce Bush would be his vice presidential pick.

In joining the Reagan ticket, Bush gave a less than 7-minute acceptance speech on the final night of the convention.

Conventions in the 1970s were very different. In 1976, Ronald Reagan took to the floor of the convention to challenge the renomination of President Gerald Ford. Although Ford appeared to have enough delegates to win, Reagan triggered a procedural vote that was seen as a key test to whether Ford would survive.

It was right before that vote that former Texas Gov. John Connally was tasked with delivering a speech to distracted delegates in Kansas City as vote wrangling was ongoing.

Connally had been a Democrat as governor but three years before his speech he had switched to the Republican Party. There was a lot riding on the speech. Ford still hadnt named a running mate, and Connally was seen as a potential vice presidential candidate that could help Ford win southern states against Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter.

But Connallys speech received mostly polite applause as he failed to mention Ford or Reagan by name during the nearly 30-minute talk. Texas Monthly would call the speech a clunker and Ford bypassed Connally, instead picking U.S. Sen. Bob Dole to be his running mate. Connally would run for president in 1980, but his campaign never got far off the ground.

Watch Connallys speech here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4901321/user-clip-connolly1976

Visit link:

Ted Cruz gets booed, and other Texans memorable RNC moments - Houston Chronicle

During the 2016 presidential election, U.S. president Donald Trump captured 306 electoral votes en route to his shocking upset victory over Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Narrow victories in states like Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin carried the day for Trump who actually lost the national popular vote to Clinton by a little more than two percentage points.

As we have previously reported, several of these swing states are very much in play in the 2020 election cycle which pits Trump against former U.S. vice president Joe Biden in his bid for a second four-year term.

Meanwhile, Clinton coronated by the pollsters (most of them, anyway) as the first female president in American history won 232 electoral votes four years ago, although she did not receive all of them when the Electoral College convened on December 19, 2016. Nor did Trump wind up receiving all of his electoral votes.

What happened?

Five faithless electors pledged to Clinton instead cast their ballots for other candidates. Three from Washington State voted for former U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell, while another voted for native American activist Faith Spotted Eagle. Also, an elector from Hawaii who was pledged to Clinton cast his ballot for U.S. senator Bernie Sanders her rival for the 2016 Democratic nomination.

Two other electors pledged to Clinton (one in Maine and another in Minnesota) voted for Sanders instead while an elector in Colorado pledged to Clinton voted instead for Ohio governor John Kasich. All three of these electoral votes were invalidated and recast, however.

When it was all said and done, Clinton received only 227 electoral votes (five fewer than she earned).

Trump was also the victim of faithless electors. Two pledged to him in the state of Texas cast their electoral college votes for other politicians (one for Kasich and one for former U.S. congressman Ron Paul). Both of those ballots stood, giving Trump 304 total electoral votes two shy of the total he earned.

Electoral faithlessness is the focus of an even, eloquent and expansive forthcoming treatment by Emily Conrad a South Carolina author who is self-publishing a book that every American needs to read before they go to the polls on November 3.

Conrads soon-to-be released book The Faithless is driven predominantly by the personal narratives of the individual electors who defied convention (and the will of their home states voters) by voting their consciences in 2016. But this untold story of the Electoral College also delves into the essence of electoral faithlessness and its potential implications on the 2020 presidential election.

(Click to view)

(Via: Provided)

Our readers may recall Conrad (above) as having contributed several thought-provoking columns to this news outlet over the years including this piece on the then-brewing trade war between the United States and China back in early 2018.

Until recently, she was studying at Peking University in Beijing, China. There, one of her professors tasked her with including a chapter about swing states as part of her masters thesis. As Conrad explored that topic, she found herself steeped in research about the Electoral College.

The concept of faithless electors immediately intrigued her, and as she read more about the individuals who cast these votes she became more and more captivated.

Who were these people who were willing to completely alienate themselves from their respective political parties? Conrad wrote. What sorts of people would risk it all to do something that seemed so futile? What message were they trying to convey?

Prior to 2016, only nine faithless votes had been cast during the previous 104 years (most recently an anonymous 2004 elector in Minnesota who voted for John Ewards despite being pledged to cast a ballot for former U.S. secretary of state John Kerry).

That number was eclipsed in the last election.

As of 2016, there have been 165 separate instances of electoral unfaithfulness including 71 electors who cast ballots for candidates who died prior to the Electoral College convening. And while the faithless voting in 2016 did not impact the outcome of the presidential race, the possibility of another close contest in 2020 certainly raises the specter that it could.

I believe that faithless electors may become a more influential trend in future presidential election cycles, Conrad wrote, adding that it is possible for electors to be easily identified and targeted by bad-faith domestic or foreign actors.

As mentioned, Conrads book is primarily focused on the stories of the individual electors but within those narratives are ideological leanings we believe are worth watching as the 2020 campaign hits the homestretch.

Take the story of David Mulinix of Hawaii whose disdain for establishment Democratic politicians like Clinton and Biden is what has fueled the rise of Sanders. Like the other faithless, he spoke at length with Conrad about what motivated him to betray his pledge.

In Bernies speeches, he always focused on the we, Mulinix told Conrad. Bernie said things like, We can make change happen or We can build a better tomorrow. Whenever Clinton spoke it was always about the I. She said things like I want this or I did that.

I began to think about the election process and about the millions of people who voted for Bernie because they believed in him, Mulinix continued. Hillary Clinton had done nothing to earn my Electoral College vote. In fact, the Democratic nomination was stolen from us: from us Bernie supporters.

Wait is Mulinix correct? Was the 2016 Democratic primary rigged?

Yes

Which is why he said it was his duty to lend his vote and his voice to the millions of Sanders supporters who were robbed.

The election had been stolen, Mulinix said. All I did was validate all of their efforts all of our efforts to make the world a better place. At that moment, I felt so proud. I thought to myself: This isnt my protest vote; this is our protest vote. This is our stand.

Could ber-liberal progressive electors take a similar stand in 2020?

Last month, the U.S. supreme court issued a ruling (.pdf) in the case of Chiafalo v. Washington (591 U.S. ___, 2020). This unanimous decision determined that states can demand that (an) elector actually live up to his pledge, on pain of penalty.

What does that mean, though, precisely?

While the mainstream media interpreted the courts ruling as a decisive defeat for faithless electors and a victory for electoral order the truth is far murkier. As Conrad noted in a postscript to her book, only 32 states have laws currently in place which bind electors, while only fifteen states have laws in place to remove and replace an elector after a faithless vote.

(Click to view)

(Via: Getty Images)

So while the courts decision empowered state governments to exert some measure of control over their electoral votes not all states have such controls in place. And those that do .. well, they are in place to varying degrees.

Also, the court appears to have sidestepped a significant question as to the constitutionality of the laws. Specifically, its decision does not resolve whether statutes that strip faithless electors of their right to cast a ballot as they desire or preemptively bar them from voting (in the case of Colorado elector Michael Baca) are constitutional.

For example, if an elector in one state can be imprisoned and have their faithless vote invalidated (the irony is thick there, we will admit) how is it fair that a faithless elector in another state could have their vote counted and see themselves subjected only to a nominal fine for the same action?

Perhaps the most complicated part of binding elector laws is that different state governments may have different interpretations about the constitutional role of electors, Conrad noted, adding that those in the know couldnt help but to notice that the supreme court decision left gaping holes unaddressed.

One national consultant we spoke with earlier this month warned us that the courts ruling not only failed to resolve the issue of faithless electors it more ominously failed to address the issue of potential bribery associated with those who hold these powerful votes in their hands.

There is nothing to prevent some of these electors from selling their votes, the consultant told us. We have statutes on the books that keep our politicians from selling their votes, but show me the statute that says a presidential elector cannot pledge their vote for whomever they choose based on whatever agreement they wish.

This issue was actually raised by justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito during oral arguments on the Chiafalo case.

Want to learn more about this debate? Conrad is hosting a book launch party this coming Tuesday (August 25, 2020) beginning at 5:00 p.m. EDT at the Dray Bar and Grill in Spartanburg, S.C. She will be signing copies of the book and answering questions from readers.

And again, those of you looking to pick up your own copy of the book can do so by clicking here

-FITSNews

Got something youd like to say in response to one of our stories? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your own letter to the editor (or guest column) via-email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE. Want to help support what were doing? SUBSCRIBE HERE.

Here is the original post:

Why 'The Faithless' Could Be The Most Important Political Book In America - FITSNews

After three years of insisting that unvetted information should never form the basis for an investigation into an active presidential candidate, Republican members of the Senate would never attempt to do such a thing themselves, right?

Wrong. That is exactly what some are attempting to do in the home stretch of the 2020 election. Specifically, Senator Ron Johnson has been laying the groundwork to undertake Ukrainegate 2.0: An attempt to accomplish through a congressional hearing what President Donald Trump was unable to achieve through his quid pro quo to Ukrainian President VolodymyrZelensky, namely, to put Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, under a cloud of suspicion before the country votes this November. And rather than wait for any report voted out by his committee, Johnson has taken to penning an open letter and tweeting out insinuations.

But Ukrainegate 2.0, like the original, has a dual purpose. The goal isnt just to smear Biden, but also to shift blame for 2016 election interference to Ukraine. An architect of that false narrative about Ukraine is Paul Manafort, and the probe has accordingly served the former Trump campaign chairmans interests along numerous fronts in Ukraine politics and at home. With regard to his personal interests, Manafort is currently serving a 7 1/2-year federal sentence for bank fraud, tax fraud, money laundering, acting as an unregistered foreign agent, false statements, and witness tampering. Manafort has attempted to use the Ukraines election interference conspiracy to discredit the evidence that led to his own prosecution.

Whats not received sufficient attention is how Johnsons efforts have worked in tandem with Manaforts as Johnsons probe looks to discredit the same Ukrainian officials responsible for working with American investigators in bringing charges against Manafort. Undermining Manaforts prosecution offers a basis for President Trump to tie up the last loose end from the charges brought by Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign and finally give the pardon he had dangled to Manafort over a year and a half ago.

To understand how these two parallel efforts are linked, we need to rewind the tape a few years to when the Ukraine conspiracy began and also look at the common denominator in this combined effort, Trumps personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

The Origins of the Ukraine Conspiracy

Manafort began floating the false theory during the 2016 campaign that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for the hack of the DNC server, according to interviews conducted by Muellers team with Rick Gates, Trumps former deputy campaign chairman. (The US intelligence community unanimously attributed the hack to Russia, and Special Counsel Mueller later indicted 12 GRU Russian military officers for the hack.) In the ensuing months, Manafort and his close collaborator Konstantin Kilimnik a Russian intelligence officer actively engaged in secretive efforts to promote the idea that Ukraine interfered in the election not only with respect to the server; their narrative also included the idea that Ukraine officials targeted Manafort in the final stretch of the campaign using false documents. Manafort embraced and promoted the narrative of Ukraines alleged involvement in the 2016 elections, the recently released bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report explains. Kilimnik almost certainly helped arrange some of the first public messaging that Ukraine had interfered in the U.S. election, which included fostering stories in the media.

Key to understanding the interference aspect of the conspiracy theory as it relates to Manafort is the release of a document in August 2016, known as the black ledger, by an independent Ukrainian anti-corruption agency, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, and publicized by a Ukrainian parliamentarian, Serhiy Leshchenko. The ledger appeared to detail $12.7 million in undisclosed payments from Yanukovychs Russia-aligned political party, the Party of Regions, to Manafort. The Anti-Corruption Bureau had, a month and a half prior, signed an evidence-sharing agreement with the FBI. For his part, Manafort denied receiving the payments and questioned the authenticity of the ledger, though he stepped down from the Trump campaign following public reporting of these payments. This was part of the disinformation campaign described, at length, in the Senate Intelligence Committees report. Manafort and Kilimnik both sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. election and that the ledger naming payments to Manafort was fake, the report states.

A Media Report: What Was and Wasnt In It

The Ukraine interference theory gained traction in right-wing circles especially after reporter Ken Vogel published a piece in 2017 fleshing out some aspects of the narrative in an article titled, Ukrainian Efforts to Sabotage Trump Backfire. Central to this circuitous article which has become key to Senator Johnsons current probe was a consultant to the DNC, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American lawyer, who since 2014 had been investigating Manaforts ties to former Ukrainian president Yanukovych and pro-Russian oligarchs. One of the articles most explosive allegations came from Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a diplomatic aide at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, DC. He told Vogel, among other things, that Ukrainian embassy officials were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa. This was also an aspect of the story that Vogel highlighted on social media:

We have detailed the central role that Telizhenko plays as a conduit for Russian disinformation and in Johnsons probe in our previous article for Just Security. Since the publication of our piece, the Senate Intelligence report has also identified Telizhenko as part of the effort to spread disinformation through the media that Ukrainian officials framed Manafort. (At the time of Vogels story, there was no public record of Telizhenkos connections to Russian disinformation.)

Specifically on the black ledger, Vogels article includes interviews with Manafort and Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, who served as Poroshenkos head of security but had since become affiliated with a leading opponent of Poroshenko. In their comments, Manafort and Nalyvaichenko cast doubt on the authenticity of the ledger. (For additional information on Nalyvaichenkos more recent activities, see the Kyiv Posts 3 Ukrainian lawmakers doing Trumps dirty work in scandal.)

The Vogel article was careful to disclaim proof of a centralized effort involving President Poroshenko and never touched on the issue of the hack of the DNC server, but that did not stop right-wing circles and some Republican Senators from invoking the article to support wider claims not actually found in Vogels piece. It was widely cited as the GOPs evidence of Ukrainian election interference during Trumps impeachment hearings two years later. (Some of those same commentators have also disregarded or downplayed Vogels other reporting. He was, for example, the first reporter to identify Kilimnik and the operatives connections to Manafort and Russian intelligence, and he has reported on other elements such as Telizhenkos months-long work with Johnsons staff.)

The Causal Logic of the Ukraine Conspiracy

The causal logic that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, as spun up by Manafort, Kilimnik and Telizhenko, appears to be that Chalupa, with ties to the Hillary team/DNC, worked with Ukrainian officials to smear Manafort. The Ukrainian side, the logic goes, engineered the production of the black ledger, which effectively framed Manafort, forced him to resign from the Trump campaign, and ultimately led to the FBI investigation into his activities and ultimate prosecution and conviction. Or, as the-White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders summed it up in 2017, If youre looking for an example of a campaign coordinating with a foreign country or a foreign source, look no further than the DNC, who actually coordinated opposition research with the Ukrainian Embassy.

Except thats not what happened. For starters, U.S. law enforcement agents have been conducting an investigation into the financial dealings of Manafort since 2014, and, in January 2016, the FBI initiated a money laundering and tax evasion investigation of Manafort based on his work with Ukraine political groups. That was well before Manafort joined the Trump campaign or the known existence of the black ledger. Second, FBI Director Christopher Wrays said in December, We have no information that would indicate that Ukraine tried to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Likewise, in discussing Manafort and Kilimniks disinformation campaign, the Senate intelligence committees report states that during the course of the investigation, the Committee identified no reliable evidence that the Ukrainian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.

Whats more, the essential veracity of the black ledger has held up over time. As Robert Mackey explained:

Bank records described in an FBI search warrant, and reviewed by the Associated Press, confirmed that at least $1.2 million in payments listed in the records next to Manaforts name were actually deposited in one of his firms bank accounts in Virginia.Andrew Kramer, the New York Times foreign correspondent who first revealed the secret payments to Manafort, also reported at the time that others in Ukraine who were named in the ledger had confirmed that the records were genuine.

As a BBC fact check on the ledger explained, More than three years since it emerged, no one has managed to cast serious doubt on its contents. The Washington Posts fact checker Glenn Kessler noted, While some Republicans have suggested that the ledger was fake, Manaforts defense lawyers did not make that argument.

Simply put, Manafort was not framed. He was convicted of 8 felonies by a jury and pleaded guilty to money laundering and acting as a foreign agent for Ukraine to avoid a second trial (and likely to avoid detailed evidence of his Ukraine activities from being aired publicly in court).

Enter Rudy Giuliani

Not one to let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, Trumps personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, picked up the torch on the Ukraine election interference idea after he came on board in 2018. Over months Giuliani consulted several times with Manafort through the federal prisoners lawyer in an effort to find any information that he could use to say the black ledger was a forgery cooked up by officials in Ukraine. Giuliani has hoped that by discrediting the authenticity of the black ledger, he could show that the investigation against Manafort was a pretext and discredit the Russia investigation more generally.

Giuliani, for example, declared on CNN that the ledger is a completely fraudulent document that was produced, in order to begin the investigation of Manafort. He added that people in the Ukraine who knew about this plot were trying to get to us but they were being blocked by the Ambassador [Marie Yovanovitch] who was Obama-appointee, in Ukraine, who was holding back this information.

To understand why Giuliani may care specifically about Manafort, or has ongoing communication with his lawyer, it helps to remember the findings of the Mueller investigation. Specifically, Manafort originally agreed to cooperate with Muellers team in their investigation. Part way through that agreement, Muellers team discovered that Manafort was not being truthful, and was continuing to share information about the Mueller investigation with Trumps personal lawyers. Giuliani defended the arrangement between Trumps and Manaforts attorneys when it surfaced publicly. Mueller also uncovered evidence that Trump had floated the possibility of a pardon to Manafort, as an incentive for him not to cooperate with Muellers team. The Mueller report also describes several instances in which Giuliani personally used media interviews apparently to dangle the pardon for Manafort. Mueller terminated the cooperation agreement with Manafort, and along with it, any possibility of a plea deal or reduced sentence.

The Senate Intelligence Committees counterintelligence report also underscores how much information Manafort may have with regard to Russias activities in 2016, and which we still do not know. As stated in the report:

Prior to joining the Trump Campaign in March 2016 and continuing throughout his time on the Campaign, Manafort directly and indirectly communicated with Kilimnik, Deripaska, and the pro-Russian oligarchs in Ukraine. On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik. The Committee was unable to reliably determine why Manafort shared sensitive internal polling data or Campaign strategy with Kilimnik or with whom Kilimnik further shared that information. The Committee had limited insight into Kilimniks communications with Manafort and into Kilimniks communications with other individuals connected to Russian influence operations, all of whom used communications security practices. The Committee obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the GRUs hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election.

A member of the committee, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), noted that the unredacted version of the report includes indications of Manaforts own connections to [the hack and leak] operations.

In sum, Manafort may hold the keys to the kingdom, not only in terms of shedding light on Russias activities in 2016, but also how much coordination or assistance they received from members of the Trump campaign.

The upshot here is that Manafort could have spilled the beans to Mueller, but didnt presumably gambling that he could get off scot-free, via a presidential pardon, if he kept his mouth shut. NBCs Howard Fineman reported in 2018, that Trump decided that a key witness in the Russia probe, Paul Manafort, isnt going to flip and sell him out, friends and aides say a further indication that Manafort has derogatory information about Trump and the president knows it. Manaforts leverage, of course, likely includes whatever information he never revealed to Muellers team: He could still say what he knows. Simply put, it has been in Trumps interest to keep Manafort happy, which involved laying the groundwork for a pardon. But until now, at least, Trump seems to have assessed that an outright pardon could be too costly. Hes needed a politically expedient reason, and a cooked up investigation of Manafort would provide the right grounds.

Which brings us to the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky. A review of the summary of the call shows that the quid pro quo offered by Trump has as much to do with asking Zelensky to help substantiate the idea that Ukraine was responsible for interfering in the 2016 election as with investigating the Bidens. Trump references Ambassador Yovanovitch, and the people she was dealing with in Ukraine as bad news; he adds, shes going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call. Trump also mentions [t]he other thing, in which he elaborates on the Bidens. Zelensky notes that one of his assistants has already spoken with Giuliani and that he looks forward to meeting with Giuliani when he comes to Ukraine.

In short, Giulianis mission to discredit Ukrainian officials involved with Manaforts investigation preceded the July 25 phone call, and the Biden ask was added to that effort. As we have previously written, Giuliani also appears to be one of the main channels funneling disinformation about Ukraine into Sen. Johnsons committee.

But theres an important element in the timeline that should not be missed. While some have said that Johnsons investigation began last year as counterprogramming to the House impeachment process, that cant explain the senators original motivation. Johnsons efforts actually began before impeachment and even before Trumps phone call with Ukraines president. The timing indicates that Johnsons probe, like Guilianis efforts, were also undertaken initially to advance the Ukraine conspiracy theory, and thereby discredit Manaforts prosecution and the Special Counsel investigation more generally.

In fact, around early July 2019, the senator was already exercising poor judgment meeting personally with Telizhenko; and Johnsons staff spent over 5 hours with the Ukrainian operative to discuss the the DNC issue a reference to his unsubstantiated claim that the Democratic National Committee worked with the Ukrainian government in 2016 to gather incriminating information about Paul Manafort, the Washington Post reported. Johnsons meeting followed Giulianis interviewing Telizhenko for several hours in May. according to Telizhenko, Giuliani said that he was representing Trump, that he was the presidents personal lawyer, and that he was working on proving that the DNC had colluded with Ukraine in 2016.

On May 23, 2019, Sen. Johnson attended a meeting in the Oval Office as part of a small delegation of senior officials who returned from a trip to Ukraine. President Trump directed the group going forward to work with Giuliani on Ukraine, Ambassador Gordon Sondland told Congress. In an interview in Oct. 2019, Johnson responded that he had no recollection of the president mentioning Rudy Giuliani at the May meeting. In November, the House Intelligence Committee released the depositions from Ambassador Bill Taylor, who corroborated Sondlands testimony, and from Ambassador Kurt Volker who said he interpreted the President not as an instruction but just as a comment, talk to Rudy. Tim Morrison would later testify along the same lines as Volker. Somehow Johnson was the only one who failed to recall the presidents making any statement about their working or speaking with Giuliani.

* * *

The promotion of the Ukraine-interference conspiracy theory has served multiple objectives over time, including the personal interests of Manafort. Its unclear if Manafort still seeks a pardon as desperately. In May, Bill Barrs Justice Department released Manafort to serve the rest of his sentence in home confinement, notably despite Manaforts failure to qualify for the categories prioritized for release under DOJ coronavirus guidelines. Manafort has about five years left in his sentence. We dont have any experience with anyone serving this much time in home confinement, Kevin Ring, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, told Bloomberg News. Compared to prison its so much better, but you are being monitored and you cant screw up.

More:

Manafort's Reward: Sen. Ron Johnson and the Ukraine Conspiracy Investigation - Just Security

This has been one of the worst summers on record for most people, what with the pandemic, political divisiveness and social injustices plaguing the country. But even still, its a pretty cool time to be a member of the Cephas Jones family. In July, dad Ron and daughter Jasmine each earned Emmy nominations.

And while Ron has been through this excitement before (hes won an Emmy for the role of William on This Is Us), this is Jasmines first nomination for the Quibi short program "#FreeRayShawn. But the 31-year-old actress has already experienced the Hamilton whirlwind, earning a 2016 Grammy for the Broadway smashs soundtrack.

The duo is remarkably close despite living on opposite coasts. They recently Zoomed in together on a call with The Envelope and talked about taking advice from Philip Seymour Hoffman, how jazz and acting overlap, and why its important to show up and just do the work.

What was it like to find out youd each been nominated?

Jasmine Cephas Jones: I was walking my dogs and grabbing a coffee and somebody texted me and was like, Congrats, Emmy nom! I said, That would be awesome, but I dont think Im nominated. I went on Google and started crying.

Ron Cephas Jones: I was excited also but more excited that my daughter was nominated; that was everything for me. [She grew] up being dragged around in the theater for so many years.

Did you offer Jasmine advice when you found out she wanted to be an actor?

Ron: The advice I gave her was advice I continue to give her its all about the work. Shes hung out with me in the theater company that I was involved in [LAByrinth] and two plays that I did [there] were both directed by [longtime theater leader] Philip Seymour Hoffman. Jasmine used to be at the rehearsals, and there were two words that he said to me. And what were those two words, Jasmine?

Jasmine: You guys were in rehearsal and [Hoffman] was giving out notes, and he said, Youre acting.

Ron: Youre acting. Dont act.

Jasmine: It wasnt until I started studying Meisner [technique] where [I] was like hit over the head, and I was like, I know what he means. He means live truthfully under imaginary circumstances.

Was there ever a time you tried to dissuade her from becoming an actor?

Ron: No; it was an opportunity to hang out with my daughter. We had a lot of fun growing up together.

Jasmine: It was also inevitable. I was like at the Nuyorican Poets Cafe as a little kid, you know, 4 or 5. I was there watching poetry till 2 or 3 in the morning just hanging out with my dad.

And your mother is singer Kim Lesley, correct?

Jasmine: She is a jazz singer. And she was performing when she was pregnant with me. She was really big with this band called Paul Young in England.

Wait, 80s singer Paul Young, from Everytime You Go Away?

Jasmine: Yeah, she was one of the Fabulous Wealthy Tarts. She came to New York to follow her dreams and create a solo career.

Obviously, acting is key to your lives, but music threads through it for both of you Jasmines got a Grammy, and Ron, you were going to study jazz at one point, right?

Ron: Well, if you look behind Jasmine [whose bookshelf displays several albums], its a copy of Miles Davis Kind of Blue. That album was Jasmines bedtime lullaby. When she was a little girl, I would put that on as well as Charlie Parker With Strings. [Parkers] nickname is Bird. I ended up nicknaming her Bird. Its a world that Ive always been connected to, and I connected my daughter to it in a way that we could share the artistic and beautiful sound of it.

Jasmine: Jazz is a form of improv that if you study and really listen to, you know, it can also translate into your acting as well.

That give and take in jazz that translates into acting, you mean?

Ron: Its like organized chaos, but you know, like a band you have to work together and you have to listen. So, its the art of listening to where your fellow musician or actor is taking you. And then go with that and giving and taking.

You both landed major breaks around the same time 2015 for Jasmine with Hamilton, and for Ron, This Is Us the following year. What was it about those productions that grabbed you?

Jasmine: The first time that I heard the music from Hamilton, it was something Ive never, ever heard in my entire life. Immediately, I was like, This is a game changer. I walked into the audition not being in musical theater at all. And it was a very new world for me.

Ron: I was at that audition I sat outside, and I was listening to her inside. And I knew, I just knew.

Jasmine: Oh, my God. Yeah, that was for one of my callbacks, I think, because we were going to get lunch.

Ron: I had spent most of my career on the stage. Each time I would book a television show, it would last maybe one season or my character would get killed off in the second season. So, when I got that role on This Is Us, it just was right. Everything about that character, I already knew from my history in the theater from [James] Baldwin to August Wilson to Ralph Ellison to Richard Wright. So, when I read him, I didnt really have to do anything but just show up in the room. My blessing was that [show creator] Dan Fogelman noticed it.

And again, like Ive taught my daughter, Do the work and everything else will eventually happen the way you want it to happen. Or not really the way you want it to happen but in the way its supposed to happen. So regardless of the time, my whole blessing is that my daughter is healthy, happy and pursuing that which she loves to do. And nothing, nothing could be greater for a parent than that. Nothing.

Original post:

Father and daughter earn 2020 Emmy nominations - Los Angeles Times

Letter writer Ron Eldridge, as a retired CFO, would, I hope, know the meaning of the words transfer payment. In economics, this is a payment made as a redistribution of income by government.

That is what Social Security is and always has been. Social Security takes money from working Peter and gives it to retired Grandpa Paul.

Im fine with that and believe that it is important and should continue. It is one of our basic promises to all Americans.

But Eldridge seems, like many Americans, to believe it is a savings account. It is not. Any payroll tax money left over after paying benefits was given to the federal government for U.S. Treasury bonds. This money was then spent by the federal government immediately.

It is as if you had money left after paying your bills, so you wrote yourself an IOU and then spent the money. A cookie jar full of IOUs to yourself is not a savings account.

If Social Security stopped collecting payroll taxes for a number of years as Eldridge suggests, and tried to use funds from the sale of U.S. Treasury bonds to fund Social Security benefits, the money to redeem these government IOUs could be found in three ways: Increase other federal taxes, sell the bonds to someone other than the federal government (China, perhaps) or print the money. I dont see why we would want to do any of these things; they would all hurt the American people.

Instead, we must face the simple truth that we, the American people, allowed Washington to use excess payroll taxes as another source of revenue for the past three generations. We have a Social Security system that still works the way it always has, where people like me who are working pay our payroll taxes so that the retired Eldridge can collect his Social Security check.

ROBIN MOULDER

engineer

Baton Rouge

See the original post here:

Letters: Taking from 'working Peter' and giving to 'retired Grandpa Paul' - The Advocate

Im honored to be a part of the Black community in MLB the one that Jackie created and the one that we are continuing, Fowler said in the statement.

Speaking to the media before the game, the 34-year-old Fowler said, Obviously, the past few days have been pretty emotional. I wanted to play baseball but some things are better than baseball. African Americans in this country have been hurting for some time, and I took that day just to bring awareness.

Fowler said he also went through some emotions driving home that night while his team was preparing to play the Kansas City Royals. And, then when he got home, his 6-year-old daughter, Naya, had a burning question for him.

Daddy, why arent you playing tonight?

I had to explain that to her, said Fowler, and she goes, Thats not right. For a 6-year-old to realize the difference between right and wrong definitely hits home.

Fowler said he had talked to his father about his decision not to play. Hes one of the guys I lean on all the time and he said, I think youre making the right decision. With that, I went on and did it, Fowler said.

Hopefully, the conversation keeps going.

Asked whether he had personal experience of racial injustice, Fowler, who grew up in the Atlanta area, said, Thats for a whole another day.

Read the original:

Fowler says he 'put my money where my mouth is' - STLtoday.com

Its been 26 years since The Fast Show first aired. Originally running from 1994-97, the frantic sketch shows sex-mad car showman and innuendo-crazed tailors perhaps wouldnt find their way on to TV today. But that hasnt stopped Charlie Higson, Paul Whitehouse, Simon Day, Arabella Weir, John Thomson and Mark Williams reuniting for a one-year-late silver anniversary special packed full of unacceptable 90s humour. We caught up with the shows best-loved characters to see how they are coping with the modern world.

Hi, Swiss. In what ways is turning 26 very much like making love to a beautiful woman?For me, turning 26 was very much like making love to a beautiful woman because I spent the day making love to a beautiful woman. In fact, as it was my birthday, I made love to three women and what turned out to be a goat with a hat on.

Following #MeToo, is it still politically correct to lure women with the promise of fine wines, Belgian chocolates and the manly smell of a pipe?Whats the alternative? A face mask, some compostable carrier bags and a scented candle? Anyway, I object to the term lure, I prefer court. Courtship is a dying art. These days its just swipe left, swipe right, bullseye!

In what ways is travelling by public transport while adhering to strict social distancing guidelines during a worldwide pandemic very much like making love to a beautiful woman?I have absolutely no idea. I have never used public transport. I am a driver and always will be. To get me on to a bus they will have to prise the steering wheel out of my cold dead hands. But I have seen people using a bus on the television. It looks fairly straightforward, even if youre sticking to the government guidelines. In fact, Id go so far as to say its very much like making love to a beautiful woman. First, consider entering via the lesser-used rear entrance. The front entrance generally sees more traffic and can be a honey trap for germs. On entry, remember to smile with your eyes, it doesnt matter what youre really thinking because they wont be able to see you behind your mask. Then simply enjoy the ride. When you get off, wash your hands and sanitise your PPE your personal pipe end.

The Euros, the Olympics and Wimbledon are all off! How are you coping, Ron?Oh, isnt it, the football? Hmm? Association soccer the soccer experience? The piped-in chants of racial abuse, the empty stadia (notice how I used the correct term for the plural of stadium there?), sad, isnt it? If a defender is nutmegged in a forest with no crowd to cheer, does it make any sound? Or something. But we will fight this virus, we are British after all, and unlike every other country in the world we wont give in. We shall fight them on the beaches. Although I dont think Churchill meant we should fight each other on the beaches like our lads are doing in Wales and Bournemouth kicking each other up their ba (notice how I used the correct term for the plural of bum there?).

Oh, yes. This pandemic. Pandemonium isnt it? Wasnt it? Like the shadow of Hitlers jackboot stamping its way across Europe. That was the last time the football was cancelled. Small boys, on the beach, oil-covered, rotting seagulls for goal posts. Isnt it? Wasnt it? And, quite frankly, I dont give a toss about the tennis.

Have you ever had an infectious disease?COVID! Aaaaaaargh! Ive had almost every disease known to mankind . I believe it was either in Rio de Janeiro, or Dar Es Salaam, or was it Kettering? Anyway, I had running sores all the way up my inner thigh and up the back of my head . Extremely high temperature the highest ever recorded for a human being . I remember the beautiful painted floorboards third in line to the throne I was looked after by a beautiful Mayan woman. Interesting people, the Mayans did you know they played the earliest team sport in the world?! With a brain not allowed to use their head, hands or feet! Offside ref I got sicker and sicker and sicker and sicker and sicker and sicker and sicker and I Brexited all over the carpet . I was quarantined for rabies, Ebola, Lassa fever and the foxtrot. Tintin Quarantino. And the upshot was to this day I still cant. . Is that all right? My grandchildren tell me I need to keep up with the modern world and use emojis. They did show me how, but Im afraid I was very, very drunk.

So, Dave, how are you coping with the virus?We must track and trace. If you are showing signs of Covid get home and get the snooker on the time will fly by. For me, putting on a mask took me right back to a sub-post office in Wicklow in Essex. Happy days, nobody got hurt and the insurance paid out.

Has lockdown has been good or bad for the planet?There has sadly been a massive increase in single-use plastic, which is pointless and dangerous for the old globe. The turtles have been strangled just so you can have a tiny bottle of fake spring water sourced from a sewage works in Dagenham. And now we are being stung by jellyfish. Get down the cash and carry and get a barrel of water. Better still, drink TAP WATER! The planet enjoyed a break cos of Covid but we need a permanent one. Lets go back to nudity and bartering seriously.

How has your tailors shop coped in the lockdown crisis?Kenneth: Lockdown? Ooh, suit you, sir. Locked right down sir. In a dungeon Ooooh. Our shop has reopened, but it has all changed. You have to wear a mask.

Ken: Do you wear a mask, sir? Do you? Does it add a little spice to your life?

Kenneth: Ooh. Do you get your wife to wear a mask and pretend shes someone else, sir one of the Kardashians, perhaps, or even Kanye West? Were all fluid in this modern world, arent we, sir, or madam, or non-binary person Im not fussy. I like all 227 genders. You can use whatever pronoun you like with me. Ooh, suit you.

People have been buying fewer clothes in lockdown. Isnt fashion bad for the planet anyway?Ken: Well, body shapes change sir. And we need to accommodate that. Now the large booty is in fashion.

Kenneth: Do you like the large booty, sir? Straining at the Lycra, showing every contour known to mankind, like a 3D map of Jupiters moons. Ooh, suit you! Sorry, what was the question again?

Arent the royal family brilliant? They only have four different names, Edward, George, Henry and George again. Oh yeah, and Charles, but hell never be king, not as long as Olivia Colmans on the throne. The amazing thing about the British royal family is that theyre not really British at all. First they were Normans, which were a sort of French with funny helmets, then they were Scottish, then they were Dutch, then they were Germans and then they became British, just in time for world war two. Which was handy, cos it might have got confusing and wed have been at war with ourselves. And I think theyre probably still a bit confused, which was why Harry dressed up with all swastikas and that. Anyway, shes forgiven him, Meghan Sparkle, and now they live in Los Angeles, which is in Hollywood. Arent films brilliant? Except the ones that arent, which is most of em Int Prince Philip fantastic? Hes 325 year old and hes not dead yet, bout the same age as Dracula although some people reckon Prince Philip died years ago and was replaced by a robot or an alien or something. Id like to be replaced by an alien. Arent aliens fantastic? Nothing ever happens round here. Specially since lockdown. Except when we go to illegal raves in the park, take hippy crack and fight each other. Int hippy crack brilliant? Its like a drug you can also use to whip cream. Brilliaaaaant!

The Fast Show: Just a Load of Blooming Catchphrases is on Gold on 29 August. Words 2020 Charlie Higson, Paul Whitehouse, Simon Day.

Link:

'Lockdown? Suit you, sir!' The Fast Show characters on the Covid era - The Guardian