HEADLINES: 2026

[sear]

"I had some sympathy for Trump originally since there were only 200 classified docs out of 20,000.
But going after Comey was pretty low." R5 #480

There's more than one possible explanation.

They include:
Trump envies Comey.
Trump attempts to acquire notoriety by displaying the Trump name on buildings.
Comey serves the People with integrity. Trump can't match that.
So in addition to Trump hoping to build himself up with vanity projects
Trump also seeks to tear others down, in this case by questioning a prominent component of Comey's superiority.

Trump has failed twice. Any reason Trump's 3rd attempt will produce a different outcome?

 

[Shiftless2]

Back to Cornell -

thanks to his legal team for this treasure of a news story… | Finley Muratova / Educator Finley | Facebook

thanks to his legal team for this treasure of a news story…

www.facebook.com

In other words, this guy just admitted to assaulting her ....

 

[sear]

Inside the Pentagon's doomsday plan to keep America fighting if global war erupts​

The FORTRESS initiative envisions portable nuclear reactors, microgrids and strategic reserves of munitions and fuel​

By Morgan Phillips Fox News Published October 25, 2026 6:00am EDT

FIRST ON FOX — The Pentagon is preparing U.S. military bases to keep operating for at least 90 days without outside support as it prepares for the possibility of a major war that could cripple power grids, disrupt supply chains and threaten critical infrastructure on American soil.
The new requirement is part of FORTRESS, a broader military initiative aimed at ensuring American forces can continue fighting even if the civilian systems they depend on are disrupted, according to documents reviewed by Fox News Digital.
"We don't want to rely on standard civilian municipal infrastructure to run our national defense. We just simply can't. It's an intolerable risk," Pentagon chief spokesperson Sean Parnell told Fox News Digital.
The Pentagon is also laying the groundwork for civilian factories to shift to defense production during a crisis, while preparing alternative supply chains and strategic reserves to keep weapons, fuel and other essential materials flowing.
"Power is combat now. Without electricity, you lose communications, water, logistics, assembly lines and just basic military command structures," Parnell, who led the FORTRESS initiative, said.
Under FORTRESS, every major military installation in the continental United States would be expected to sustain essential operations independently for at least 90 days, including access to electricity, water, fuel and communications.
AMERICA'S NEXT WAR COULD REACH US SOIL, TOP ARMY GENERAL WARNS

Inside the Pentagon's doomsday plan to keep America fighting if global war erupts

The Pentagon's FORTRESS initiative requires every major U.S. military base to sustain operations for 90 days without civilian power or supply chains.

www.foxnews.com

 

[sear]

"Back to Cornell" S2 #482 -

New York AG James files opposition to effort to bar her from Cornell investigation​

One of the men named in an explosive lawsuit alleging sexual assault at a Cornell fraternity house opposed Letitia James’ appointment as special prosecutor.
Oct. 22, 2026, 9:29 PM GMT-5 / Updated Oct. 23, 2026, 9:53 AM GMT-5
By Phil Helsel and Kenzi Abou-Sabe
New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a response Thursday opposing an effort to bar her from acting as special prosecutor in the Cornell University rape investigation over claims of political bias.
James said in a court filing that the petition to remove her as special prosecutor relies on claims that “are not justiciable.”


jus·ti·ci·a·ble (jŭ-stĭshə-bəl)
adj.
1. Appropriate for a decision by a court because of the presentation of clear legal issues in a dispute between parties with an actual stake in the outcome.
2. Appropriate to adjudication by the judiciary rather than resolution by the legislative or administrative branches.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin iūstitiābilis, from Medieval Latin iūstitiāre, to try, from Latin iūstitia, justice; see JUSTICE.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.

 

[Rigby5]

Back to Cornell -

thanks to his legal team for this treasure of a news story… | Finley Muratova / Educator Finley | Facebook

thanks to his legal team for this treasure of a news story…

www.facebook.com

In other words, this guy just admitted to assaulting her ....

View attachment 6988

Not sure.
Depend on what the law had in mind?
I do not believe a forced handshake would be possible to prosecute, even if "forcible touching".
A kiss is mucus membranes, so is of higher concern.
But to me there is a difference between even kissing a cheek vs lips.

 

[Rigby5]

New York AG James files opposition to effort to bar her from Cornell investigation​

One of the men named in an explosive lawsuit alleging sexual assault at a Cornell fraternity house opposed Letitia James’ appointment as special prosecutor.
Oct. 22, 2026, 9:29 PM GMT-5 / Updated Oct. 23, 2026, 9:53 AM GMT-5
By Phil Helsel and Kenzi Abou-Sabe
New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a response Thursday opposing an effort to bar her from acting as special prosecutor in the Cornell University rape investigation over claims of political bias.
James said in a court filing that the petition to remove her as special prosecutor relies on claims that “are not justiciable.”


jus·ti·ci·a·ble (jŭ-stĭshə-bəl)
adj.
1. Appropriate for a decision by a court because of the presentation of clear legal issues in a dispute between parties with an actual stake in the outcome.
2. Appropriate to adjudication by the judiciary rather than resolution by the legislative or administrative branches.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin iūstitiābilis, from Medieval Latin iūstitiāre, to try, from Latin iūstitia, justice; see JUSTICE.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.

Letitia has shown bad judgement in the past, like claiming hush money violates some law.

 

[Shiftless2]

Letitia has shown bad judgement in the past, like claiming hush money violates some law.

Falsifying business records to conceal the payment does violate the law.

 

[Rigby5]

Falsifying business records to conceal the payment does violate the law.

I believe the expense was legitimate, so then the reimbursement was legal as well.
You have the right to conceal blackmail.

 

[sear]

"I believe the expense was legitimate, so then the reimbursement was legal as well." R5 #488

While organizations such as FBI officially oppose it, paying ransom is reportedly not illegal, iirc.

I'm in way over my head here, guessing wildly. Perhaps S2 #487 & R5 #488 are both true,
that it's NOT a matter of what, but how.

Example: If the extortionists demand $1 $million, and they're paid that amount from ready cash, no problem. BUT
if instead the books are cooked, or a bank is robbed, etc.
that crosses the line?

Cut to the chase:
Whatever the facts, there is at least the appearance, however crooked (or not) AG James may be,
it's those trying to bar her that are the more crooked here.

 

[Rigby5]

While organizations such as FBI officially oppose it, paying ransom is reportedly not illegal, iirc.

I'm in way over my head here, guessing wildly. Perhaps S2 #487 & R5 #488 are both true,
that it's NOT a matter of what, but how.

Example: If the extortionists demand $1 $million, and they're paid that amount from ready cash, no problem. BUT
if instead the books are cooked, or a bank is robbed, etc.
that crosses the line?

Cut to the chase:
Whatever the facts, there is at least the appearance, however crooked (or not) AG James may be,
it's those trying to bar her that are the more crooked here.

Here is how Letitia's prosecution of Trump player out:
{...
In 2022, in her capacity as New York Attorney General, James filed a civil lawsuit against the Trump Organization and worked alongside the Manhattan district attorney's office in its criminal investigation of the organization.[77] Trump argued that previous comments by James, promising to "challenge this illegitimate president" during her campaign for attorney general, prove that she has a political vendetta against him.[78][79] On February 16, 2024, the fraud case against the former president, Donald Trump, initially proved successful. as Judge Arthur Engoron's 92-page ruling barred Trump from operating any business in New York for three years and fined him more than $355 million.[80][81] In August 2025, however, the New York appeals court upheld Trump's liability but completely voided the penalty as excessive and violating the U.S. Constitution.[82] James said in August 2025 that she planned to appeal the voiding of the penalty.[83]
...}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letitia_James

I do not understand a state AG filing a "civil lawsuit", and if it is "excessive and violating the U.S. Constitution", you have to wonder how the court "upheld liability"?

 

[Shiftless2]

I believe the expense was legitimate, so then the reimbursement was legal as well.
You have the right to conceal blackmail.

The courts disagreed.

As I said, falsifying business records is a felony - he wasn't just "concealing blackmail" - if he'd been paying out of his own pocket you might have a point but he was making the payment look like a legitimate business expense and running it thru his company's books.

 

[Shiftless2]

And in Texas

 

[Rigby5]

The courts disagreed.

As I said, falsifying business records is a felony - he wasn't just "concealing blackmail" - if he'd been paying out of his own pocket you might have a point but he was making the payment look like a legitimate business expense and running it thru his company's books.

It was a legitimate business expense, just like an actor can write off plastic surgery as a valid business expense.
If he had not paid, then he might not get elected, and would lose the presidential salary.
So it is valid.

 

[Shiftless2]

It was a legitimate business expense, just like an actor can write off plastic surgery as a valid business expense.
So it is valid.

Again the courts disagreed.

If he had not paid, then he might not get elected,

And that's why it wasn't a legitimate expense

.... and would lose the presidential salary.

You mean the salary that he claimed to have declined?

 

[Rigby5]

Again the courts disagreed.



And that's why it wasn't a legitimate expense



You mean the salary that he claimed to have declined?

No one was defrauded or had their rights harmed in any way by Trump paying the hush money and labeling it as legal expenses on his taxes.
Buying secrecy on personal activities is a valid legal expense.

{...

Key Facts​

Trump’s indictment stems from the $130,000 payment, which Trump’s ex-attorney Michael Cohen made to Daniels in October 2016 to cover up her allegations of having an affair with Trump in 2006.
Trump then allegedly reimbursed Cohen $420,000—consisting of the Daniels payment, a separate expense, a $60,000 bonus and enough to cover taxes on the payment—which were made through the Trump Organization, though many came out of Trump’s personal bank account, and were allegedly falsely labeled as being for legal services through a retainer agreement.
The $130,000 Trump and Cohen paid to silence Daniels is not actually illegal in itself: “Hush money” agreements that both parties enter into consensually, in which one party pays money to stop the other party from revealing information, are actually perfectly legal in themselves, University of Pennsylvania law professor Tess Wilkinson-Ryan told Slate.
Hush money payments can be illegal if they’re done to cover up a crime, or if it’s not a consensual agreement, such as in the case of blackmail or bribery, Wilkinson-Ryan noted.
In Trump’s case, he’s not being charged with making the payment itself or reimbursing it, but has only been indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, based on the fact that his reimbursement payments to Cohen were allegedly disguised as legal payments.
Even if hush money isn't inherently illegal, some prosecutors have argued the way Daniels was paid—through Cohen, right before the 2016 election—was a campaign finance crime: Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations in 2018, after the Department of Justice alleged the Daniels payment was effectively a donation to Trump's campaign that exceeded the legal limit on political contributions.
...}

It clearly was not a political contribution by Cohen since he was reimbursed.
When you reimburse your lawyer, that is valid "legal payments".