You Cannot Hide Talent.

Robert Massimi.

Great Italian designers Dolce and Gabbana just don’t care what people think. They have been known to stir it up a little, from commenting on gay adoption to insulting singers as well as movie stars. With a company worth 5 billion dollars, D&G just do not care who they insult. They design Melania Trump, a beautiful women who also could care less what people think of her. In a world of political correctness, D&G is unapologetic and rightfully so. In a industry that is very liberal, D&G are outcasts being conservative. The media will not talk about the exploitive, abusive behavior for “There Own” but if you ever see any documentaries about Anna Wintour or many other designers or magazine executives, they are rude, harsh and brutal. The media will never focus on these tyrants because they are ultra liberal and support the liberal causes. D&G who are anathema to the fashion industry have taken major heat and their response is incredible. With great designs this company just moves forward and is not looking back. People like Madonna in her hey day wore D&G exclusively, with all the boycott Dolce and Gabbana will not add up tp a hill of beans amongst the “Jet Set” crowd or the wealthy who just like D&G’s style. Fashion talks and bullshit walks in this industry. The Fashion industry is one industry where talent is celebrated; ever see Jamie Dimon get a standing ovation for just walking into a conference? Ever see the CEO of GE get mobbed for autographs walking into his building. The Fashion industry is glamour, it is Hollywoodisk, it dresses people who want to look sheek. People like Graydon Carter, when he was at Vanity Fair, Cy Newhouse, and “The Queen” Anna Wintour were so respected as well as feared in the fashion world, Wintour still is. Wintour can squash anyone like a bug if she feels like it. That is, people who don’t have a loyal following, Dolce and Gabbana does. No one writer or writers can hurt them as long as they keep putting out great product.

Read Below:


Why Dolce & Gabbana’s founders are laughing at their haters

Dolce & Gabbana’s runway show at Milan Fashion Week has long been a hot ticket. After all, the brand is known for dressing the world’s sexiest women: Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, Scarlett Johansson, Beyoncé. Just don’t expect to see Selena Gomez at Sunday’s event.

In June, the blog Catwalk Italia posted on its Instagram account a collage of Gomez in five red dresses — including a Dolce & Gabbana frock from 2011 — prompting designer Stefano Gabbana to post in the comments: “È proprio brutta!!!” Translation? “She’s really ugly.”

Among those who rushed to Gomez’s defense was Miley Cyrus, who wrote that Gabbana’s comment was “bulls—t,” while thousands of others demanded the designer apologize.

Instead, Gabbana, 55, posted on his own account (which does not allow followers to comment) the crying-laughing emoji and “MY NAME IS SELENA!!! #saysorrytome,” and “Omfg #pleasesaysorrytoselena.”

In an era when many celebrities take back their words once the Internet cries foul, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana don’t care what the haters think.

They (especially Gabbana) call them as they see them, unabashedly dissing fashion-forward women such as Kate Moss and Victoria Beckham. The duo also sticks to their religious, political and cultural guns — speaking out against gay adoption and gleefully supporting Melania Trump — which has prompted countless boycotts of the brand.

But all that negative publicity might just be good for Dolce and Gabbana.

“They can afford to be bad boys,” a former executive for the brand told The Post. “They love to party and travel, and the bratty bad-boy thing works for the brand’s image.”

Something’s certainly working: Bloomberg values the brand as worth more than $5 billion.

‘They love to party and travel, and the bratty bad-boy thing works for the brand’s image’

The designers met in the 1970s while working at the same Milan design studio. They’ve previously said how the more flamboyant Gabbana helped draw Dolce out of his shell. The two began dating and formed their label in 1985.

As far back as 1997, Dolce told The Independent, “Stefano is instinctive and impulsive. I always tell him: ‘Before you talk, count one, two, three.’ Stefano doesn’t think, it just pops out of his mouth.”

According to the former Dolce executive, “Stefano does the provocation, the lashing out, then calm, kind Domenico cleans up the mess.”

The brand exploded as a pop-culture force in the 1990s, when Madonna — then known as the most provocative woman in the world — wore Dolce & Gabbana to the 1991 premiere of her film “Truth or Dare” and commissioned the duo to design costumes for her 1993 Girlie Show World Tour. Suddenly, they were the definition of sexy ’90s power dressing.

Since then, Dolce & Gabbana has become synonymous with luxe beauty: lush, overblown florals, rich embroidery and brocade, ultra-feminine silhouettes (including, often, corsets) and black lace that nods to their Catholic backgrounds.

It’s the kind of provocative — but never vulgar — clothing you imagine an Italian screen siren like Sophia Loren wearing in her Hollywood heyday. Vogue fashion critic Suzy Menkes has dubbed the duo “masters of the art of mixing exceptional clothes with a whole lot of fun.”

In 1999, Dolce and Gabbana publicly came out as a couple, but they’ve long resisted labels. (They split up in 2005.) Last year, Gabbana told an Italian newspaper, “I don’t want to be called gay … The word ‘gay’ was invented by those who need to label people.”

He also angered LGBTQ groups, which he referred to as “a defense,” adding, “I don’t want to be protected by anyone.”

Modal TriggerA woman walking with a boycott Dolce & Gabbana t-shirt.
Getty Images

Such groups certainly didn’t offer to defend him or Dolce in 2015, when the designers gave an interview to the Italian magazine Panorama. In it, Dolce, a devout Catholic, said he would never be a parent because “you are born to a mother and a father — or at least that’s how it should be.” He doubled down, outright saying that he opposed gay adoptions and that children born via in-vitro fertilization were “synthetic.”

The duo’s pal Elton John, who has two sons with husband David Furnish, initiated a Twitter campaign against the brand. “How dare you refer to my beautiful children as ‘synthetic,’ ” he tweeted. “I shall never wear Dolce and Gabbana ever again. #BoycottDolceGabbana.”


Within days, producer Ryan Murphy (“American Horror Story,” “American Crime Story”), the father of two children with husband David Miller, also vowed to dump the designers.

Referring to women he knew who were using IVF, Murphy told the Hollywood Reporter, “I don’t think they’ll be traipsing off to a Dolce & Gabbana store to buy clothes anytime soon.”

More than 10,000 people signed an online petition calling for Macy’s and Debenhams to stop stocking the brand. “I didn’t put Dolce on any of my clients after that for at least a year,” one A-list Hollywood stylist told The Post. “It became a total red-carpet no-no.”

That changed in a few months later, when Dolce and Gabbana apologized. “I’ve done some soul-searching … I’ve realized that my words were inappropriate, and I apologize,” Dolce told Vogue.

It notably remains the one time so far that they have backed down from controversial statements.

Lately, Gabbana has found a new outlet for voicing his opinions: social media.

In April, when Vogue Brasil posted a happy-birthday tweet for Victoria Beckham, Gabbana replied with three thumbs-down emoji. Although Beckham was once a friend of the designers, the relationship seems to have soured after Gabbana’s glancing 2014 comment that “she’s a designer but . . . it’s different. John Galliano is a designer . . . Alexander McQueen.”

It seems the duo has also parted ways with Kate Moss, who has starred in Dolce & Gabbana ads. In June, Catwalk Italia posted to Instagram a photo of the model in Saint Laurent, asking its followers if the look was a hit or a miss. Gabbana’s take: a simple “No.”

And early this month, he posted the word “cheap” on a photo of Blonde Salad blogger Chiara Ferragni in her Dior wedding gown.

“There’s a lot of hostility towards women here,” said a buyer for a major retailer that has carried the brand for years.

But these aren’t just any women — they are ones with huge social-media followings. With 143 million followers, Gomez is in the top 10 most popular Instagram users. Beckham has 22.7 million followers; Ferragni 15 million.

“He wants the mantle of Instagram provocateur,” said one well-placed insider who labeled Gabbana a “full-on enfant terrible.”

Continuing with that streak, Gabbana is unafraid to defend an underdog — albeit one who is among the most high-profile women in the world.

While many fashion designers, including Tom Ford and Marc Jacobs, have publicly refused to dress Melania Trump, Gabbana has embraced the first lady.

She has worn the brand several times over the past two years, including for her official portrait and to the 2017 G-7 summit, when she donned a $51,000 Dolce & Gabbana jacket. She also wore a custom lace gown — which the designers dubbed “Melania” — for February’s Governors’ Ball.

Gabbana regularly posts messages of thanks under photos of her on Instagram accounts such as @Trumpadmin.daily.updates and, along with multitudes of heart emojis.
This, too, has prompted cries of #BoycottDolceGabbana.

This summer, however, the designers had the last laugh, creating a $249 T-shirt that reads “#Boycott Dolce & Gabbana” and filming an ad featuring gorgeous young adults “protesting” the brand.

But after all the sound and fury, could this leopard-loving designer finally be changing his spots? A Sept. 10 post on Gabbana’s Instagram page reads, “Temporarily detoxing from Instagram.”

Three days later, he simply posted, “CLOSED.”

Insiders suspect that Gabbana is just taking a break until after this Sunday’s Milan show, and that he won’t be able to resist weighing in on something that tickles the devil on his shoulder.

As the former exec put it: “He’s always been a brat.”


“Danny and the Deep Blue Sea” Theater Review. This play sinks.

Robert Massimi.                 “Danny and the Blue Sea” is complicated. It has a minimal stage, it has very good acting but it also has a so-so plot. “Danny” would be recommended to all aspiring actors, they’re that good. The plot, however, just does not add up. The show is about two people who meet in a bar, Danny (Jonathan Crimenti) and Roberta (Hannah Beck). Danny is anti social, he spends most night in fist fights. He even believes he killed a man at a party the previous night. He is devoid of any feelings toward his mother, people he meets or people he works with. Dubbed “The Beast” by his fellow workers in a trucking company, he is an out cast everywhere. He keeps to himself more by societies aloofness towards him rather then by his wishes. We think this as an audience, writer John Patrick Shanley does not make this clear.

The problem I had with this play is the story line. Unlike a movie critic who watches the movie and determines the movie as is whether it is believable or not, a Theater Critic watches the performance then makes an instant judgement as to how believable it is. The reason for this is that it a live performance. It is just not believable either when the play was written, (!983), or now. To have two broken people meet at a bar randomly, and talk about love and spending the rest of their lives together is truly nuts. Put on top of that they are both a little off kilter and it becomes a convoluted mess.

The lighting by Benjamin Ehrenreich is nothing out of the ordinary. Common colors keep the pace of two common people. The lights do not stand out because the characters in their lives don’t stand out. The two are put on this earth with all their flaws. They are meant to just go through the motions, to be innocuous in this life.

Debbi Hobson’s costumes are extraordinary. From Danny’s bruises, to his cut up hands, Hobson puts forth a great costume menagerie. Without good costumes this play does not work. We need to see Roberta in that outfit, replete with the back tatt to see what she is really like. Her costume let’s us know almost immediately what she is like. As we move on, we she just what has bothered her for all these years and it is dark, very grotesquely dark. We hear how she hates her parents, sees her son that she had at eighteen, as a freak. She too is anti social, with only one friend who is now barely that, she holds onto her shattered life, barely. Hobson portrays Roberta magnificently.

The Direction is also a plus for this show, Peter Allas does on outstanding job in moving both characters around this small stage, in this intimate black box theater. We fear Danny, we worry about Robertas safety and we relish the playfulness that Allas gives us. With a weak script, Allas pulls double duty in directing the characters and making them believable in what is an unbelievable story. Allas continually keeps us on edge. The audience just does not know what is coming next and that is what kept the audience from leaving, (the show is only 80 minutes long).

John Patrick Shanley, who has written great pieces such as “Doubt” and “Moonstruck” has laid an egg with this one. It is certainly not one of his better pieces of work. The writing here is not consistent with that of his work “Doubt”. In “Doubt” you had a well laid out body of work, the conflict of Priest and Nun. In “Danny”, you start with two people who would never get together. Even though Roberta is desperate for affection, Danny is anti social. In a matter of 20 minutes he is deeply in love and planning his wedding with Roberta. If Shanley made him less violent at the beginning, then maybe we could believe it as we wanted to believe it, but to no avail. In his work “Moonstruck”, we see a family, their troubles, their wants and wishes. In “Danny”, we see two people whom we cannot figure out from beginning to end. Roberta who wants love badly tells Danny in the morning that it could never work. The night before she was out in a bar looking for someone who could change her life. When Danny comes along, albeit, a walking disaster, she falls in love,(or does she), then dismisses him the very next day. The other thing that did not figure was that you take a basic chaulkladite and turn him into a human in a short period of time. In the morning he is begging to get married? People with anti social behavioral problems don’t often do this.

“Danny and the Deep Blue Sea” was blessed with these two fine actors. Both very believable and both very talented in the roles they played. From the hostility to the playfulness to telling their sad stories, both keep the play alive. Without both playing believable performances, audience members were willing to give the play the benefit of the doubt.

With all the great theater in New York City right now this is certainly one you could miss. The acting with standing, it is not a well written play. The play is not believable nor interesting, it does not give us much. We keep searching for what Danny wants, we keep searching for what Roberta wants. We get a romance, then we don’t. The play adds up to nothing as far as a play with any meaning or a play that let’s us walk away with anything.

Rosenstein Needs To Go.

Robert Massimi.

Since when does the FBI/DOJ have a say in politics? It (they) are a government agency that are there to do their job and nothing more. Rosenstein was about to commit a crime, thought of doing it, then denied it. He has always been a thorn in the side of the president and he needs to be fired, as does Jeff Sessions. We need to finish draining the swamp. These swamp rats like Rosenstein have a hell of a nerve interfering with the government. With all the lackey things that gets through both bureaus, Rosenstein should stick to his job, which he is terrible at to begin with. The FBI/DOJ is a leak fest, it has shown the American public that it is biased and incompetent. Instead of prosecuting over Benghazi, they choose to go after the president on a lark. Instead of prosecuting fast and furious, they go after Supreme Court nominees. It is so biased and abusive that it is painful to watch. Many in this country feel the true criminals are these two organizations and not who they try to prosecute.

For Rosenstein to want to wear a wire then try to invoke the 25th is a high crime and misdemeanor. Rosenstein needs to be fired, he is a little weasel and a government dirt bag. Mueller, now on year two also a dirt bag, needs to wrap up his investigation quickly as well. The American people need closure and this fool is taking way too long, even by government standards. Mueller, who is in conflict of interest, should have recused himself, but I guess he saw another payday and a future book tour just like the other criminal, James (Hollywood) Comey. Two FBI sleaze bags who don’t know when to shut the hell up. Two glory mongers that did nothing in their lives but work for the government. It is sickening that Rosenstein remains in office. The president needs to name Trey Gowdy as AG, fire Sessions and clean the rat house out known as the FBI and the DOJ.


Rod Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment

Two weeks into his job as deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein was confronted with a crisis: the president’s firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director.CreditCreditT.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit.

Mr. Rosenstein made these suggestions in the spring of 2017 when Mr. Trump’s firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director plunged the White House into turmoil. Over the ensuing days, the president divulgedclassified intelligence to Russians in the Oval Office, and revelations emerged that Mr. Trump had asked Mr. Comey to pledge loyalty and end an investigation into a senior aide.

Mr. Rosenstein was just two weeks into his job. He had begun overseeing the Russia investigation and played a key role in the president’s dismissal of Mr. Comey by writing a memo critical of his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But Mr. Rosenstein was caught off guard when Mr. Trump cited the memo in the firing, and he began telling people that hefeared he had been used.

Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments.


None of Mr. Rosenstein’s proposals apparently came to fruition. It is not clear how determined he was about seeing them through, though he did tell Mr. McCabe that he might be able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and John F. Kelly, then the secretary of homeland security and now the White House chief of staff, to mount an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment.

The extreme suggestions show Mr. Rosenstein’s state of mind in the disorienting days that followed Mr. Comey’s dismissal. Sitting in on Mr. Trump’s interviews with prospective F.B.I. directors and facing attacks for his own role in Mr. Comey’s firing, Mr. Rosenstein had an up-close view of the tumult. Mr. Rosenstein appeared conflicted, regretful and emotional, according to people who spoke with him at the time.

Mr. Rosenstein disputed this account.

“The New York Times’s story is inaccurate and factually incorrect,” he said in a statement. “I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman also provided a statement from a person who was present when Mr. Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire. The person, who would not be named, acknowledged the remark but said Mr. Rosenstein made it sarcastically.

Andrew G. McCabe, who became acting director of the F.B.I. after Mr. Comey was fired, memorialized his interactions with Mr. Rosenstein in memos.CreditAlex Wong/Getty Images

But according to the others who described his comments, Mr. Rosenstein not only confirmed that he was serious about the idea but also followed up by suggesting that other F.B.I. officials who were interviewing to be the bureau’s director could also secretly record Mr. Trump.


Mr. McCabe, who was later fired from the F.B.I., declined to comment. His memos have been turned over to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in the investigation into whether Trump associates conspired with Russia’s election interference, according to a lawyer for Mr. McCabe. “A set of those memos remained at the F.B.I. at the time of his departure in late January 2018,” the lawyer, Michael R. Bromwich, said of his client. “He has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos.”

The revelations about Mr. Rosenstein come as Mr. Trump has unleashedanother round of attacks in recent days on federal law enforcement, saying in an interview with the newspaper The Hill that he hopes his assaults on the F.B.I. turn out to be “one of my crowning achievements,” and that he only wished he had terminated Mr. Comey sooner.

“If I did one mistake with Comey, I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries,” Mr. Trump said. “I should have fired him right after the convention. Say, ‘I don’t want that guy.’ Or at least fired him the first day on the job.”

Days after ascending to the role of the nation’s No. 2 law enforcement officer, Mr. Rosenstein was thrust into a crisis.

On a brisk May day, Mr. Rosenstein and his boss, Mr. Sessions, who had recused himself from the Russia investigation because of his role as a prominent Trump campaign supporter, joined Mr. Trump in the Oval Office. The president informed them of his plan to oust Mr. Comey. To the surprise of White House aides who were trying to talk the president out of it, Mr. Rosenstein embraced the idea, even offering to write the memo about the Clinton email inquiry. He turned it in shortly after.

A day later, Mr. Trump announced the firing, and White House aides released Mr. Rosenstein’s memo, labeling it the basis for Mr. Comey’s dismissal. Democrats sharply criticized Mr. Rosenstein, accusing him of helping to create a cover story for the president to rationalize the termination.


“You wrote a memo you knew would be used to perpetuate a lie,” Senator Christopher Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, wrote on Twitter. “You own this debacle.”

The president’s reliance on his memo caught Mr. Rosenstein by surprise, and he became angry at Mr. Trump, according to people who spoke to Mr. Rosenstein at the time. He grew concerned that his reputation had suffered harm and wondered whether Mr. Trump had motives beyond Mr. Comey’s treatment of Mrs. Clinton for ousting him, the people said.

How the Mueller Investigation Could Play Out for Trump

If Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, finds evidence that Mr. Trump broke the law, he will have decisions to make about how to proceed. We explain them.

A determined Mr. Rosenstein began telling associates that he would ultimately be “vindicated” for his role in the matter. One week after the firing, Mr. Rosenstein met with Mr. McCabe and at least four other senior Justice Department officials, in part to explain his role in the situation.

During their discussion, Mr. Rosenstein expressed frustration at how Mr. Trump had conducted the search for a new F.B.I. director, saying the president was failing to take the candidate interviews seriously. A handful of politicians and law enforcement officials, including Mr. McCabe, were under consideration.

To Mr. Rosenstein, the hiring process was emblematic of broader dysfunction stemming from the White House. He said both the process and the administration itself were in disarray, according to two people familiar with the discussion.

Mr. Rosenstein then raised the idea of wearing a recording device, or “wire,” as he put it, to secretly tape the president when he visited the White House. One participant asked whether Mr. Rosenstein was serious, and he replied animatedly that he was.


If not him, then Mr. McCabe or other F.B.I. officials interviewing with Mr. Trump for the job could perhaps wear a wire or otherwise record the president, Mr. Rosenstein offered. White House officials never checked his phone when he arrived for meetings there, Mr. Rosenstein added, implying it would be easy to secretly record Mr. Trump.

The suggestion itself was remarkable. While informants or undercover agents regularly use concealed listening devices to surreptitiously gather evidence for federal investigators, they are typically targeting drug kingpins and Mafia bosses in criminal investigations, not a president viewed as ineffectively conducting his duties.

In the end, the idea went nowhere, the officials said. But they called Mr. Rosenstein’s comments an example of how erratically he was behaving while he was taking part in the interviews for a replacement F.B.I. director, considering the appointment of a special counsel and otherwise running the day-to-day operations of the more than 100,000 people at the Justice Department.

Mr. Rosenstein’s suggestion about the 25th Amendment was similarly a sensitive topic. The amendment allows for the vice president and a majority of cabinet officials to declare the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Merely conducting a straw poll, even if Mr. Kelly and Mr. Sessions were on board, would be risky if another administration official were to tell the president, who could fire everyone involved to end the effort.


Mr. Rosenstein acknowledged that Mr. Comey was a role model but said he thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader for the F.B.I.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

Mr. McCabe told other F.B.I. officials of his conversation with Mr. Rosenstein. None of the people interviewed said that they knew of him ever consulting Mr. Kelly or Mr. Sessions.


The episode is the first known instance of a named senior administration official weighing the 25th Amendment. Unidentified others have been said to discuss it, including an unnamed senior administration official who wrote an Op-Ed for The New York Times. That person’s identity is unknown to journalists in the Times news department.

Some of the details in Mr. McCabe’s memos suggested that Mr. Rosenstein had regrets about the firing of Mr. Comey. During a May 12 meeting with Mr. McCabe, Mr. Rosenstein was upset and emotional, Mr. McCabe wrote, and said that he wished Mr. Comey were still at the F.B.I. so he could bounce ideas off him.

Mr. Rosenstein also asked F.B.I. officials on May 14, five days after Mr. Comey’s firing, about calling him for advice about a special counsel. The officials responded that such a call was a bad idea because Mr. Comey was no longer in the government. And they were surprised, believing that the idea contradicted Mr. Rosenstein’s stated reason for backing Mr. Comey’s dismissal — that he had shown bad judgment in the Clinton email inquiry.

Mr. Rosenstein, 53, is a lifelong public servant. After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard Law School, he clerked for a federal judge before joining the Justice Department in 1990 and was appointed United States attorney for Maryland.

Mr. Rosenstein also considered appointing as special counsel James M. Cole, himself a former deputy attorney general, three of the people said. Mr. Cole would have made an even richer target for Mr. Trump’s ire than has Mr. Mueller, a lifelong Republican: Mr. Cole served four years as the No. 2 in the Justice Department during the Obama administration and worked as a private lawyer representing one of Mrs. Clinton’s longtime confidants, Sidney Blumenthal.

Mr. Cole and Mr. Rosenstein have known each other for years. Mr. Cole, who declined to comment, was Mr. Rosenstein’s supervisor early in his Justice Department career when he was prosecuting public corruption cases.

Mr. Trump and his allies have repeatedly attacked Mr. Rosenstein and have also targeted Mr. McCabe, who was fired in March for failing to be forthcoming when he was interviewed in an inspector general investigation around the time of Mr. Comey’s dismissal. The inspector general later referred the matter to federal prosecutors in Washington.


The president’s allies have seized on Mr. McCabe’s lack of candor to paint a damning picture of the F.B.I. under Mr. Comey and assert that the Russia investigation is tainted.

The Justice Department denied a request in late July from Mr. Trump’s congressional allies to release Mr. McCabe’s memos, citing a continuing investigation that the lawmakers believed to be Mr. Mueller’s. Mr. Rosenstein not only supervises that investigation but is also considered by the president’s lawyers as a witness for their defense because he sought the dismissal of Mr. Comey, which is being investigated as possible obstruction of justice.

Matt Apuzzo and Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.

Follow Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt on Twitter: @adamgoldmanNYT and @nytmike.


Related Coverage

The Plot to Subvert an Election: Unraveling the Russia Story So Far


The Plot to Subvert an Election: Unraveling the Russia Story So Far

‘Shaken’ Rosenstein Felt Used by White House in Comey Firing


‘Shaken’ Rosenstein Felt Used by White House in Comey Firing

Comey’s Memos Were a Product of a Culture of Note-Keeping


Comey’s Memos Were a Product of a Culture of Note-Keeping

Over 100 Charges, 34 People and 3 Companies: The Investigations Surrounding Trump, Explained


Over 100 Charges, 34 People and 3 Companies: The Investigations Surrounding Trump, Explained

The Trump White House
The historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.

Conservative Pundit Points Finger at Another Man to Deflect from Kavanaugh

In Reversal, Trump No Longer Demands Declassification of Russia Documents

Dianne Feinstein Rode One Court Fight to the Senate. Another Has Left Her Under Siege.

More in Politics

Doug Mills/The New York Times

What Is the 25th Amendment? The Difficult Process to Remove a President.

Illustration by Matthieu Bourel

The Plot to Subvert an Election: Unraveling the Russia Story So Far

Bill Clark of CQ Roll Call, via Associated Press

Congressman Is Criticized for Joking That Justice Ginsburg Was ‘Groped’ by Lincoln

Illustration by Franziska Barczyk, Photos by Jennifer Law/Getty Images and Paul Hosefros, via The New York Times

Christine Blasey Ford Pushes Back: Here’s What Might Happen Next

Image by Duke Energy, via Associated Press

Florence’s Floodwaters Breach Defenses at Power Plant, Sending Toxic Coal Ash Into River

Editors’ Picks

Sarah Anne Ward for The New York Times

A Teacher Made a Hitler Joke in the Classroom. It Tore the School Apart.

Arizona Lawmakers Cut Education Budgets. Then Teachers Got Angry.

Anastasiia Sapon for The New York Times

Every Generation Gets the Beach Villain It Deserves

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.


49 Year Low!

Robert Massimi.

With jobless now at a 49 year low, Democrats are reeling. It looks like a business man is showing Washington how to get it done. It is incredible that a non globalist; an outsider is making Washington hum. Trump takes no for an answer, he demands that we run Washington like a business should. We are making much better deals and from the blue collar to minorities, this high tide has lifted all boats. People feel better about there future, less regulations and good business practices are making people wealthier. Quick appointments and decisive moves have really turned Washington on it’ ear.

The press, the liberals and the deep state cannot slow down this momentum. The better things get the bigger the win in November. We may see 5% GDP this quarter. If we do, we should see a red blowout. Make no mistake about it, the doubters are now saying Trump is doing well with the economy. Once the B.S. is over with the Kavanagh appointment, we should see a conservative Supreme Court. All this good stuff plus up coming talks with North Korea spells winning for the Republicans.


U.S. Jobless Claims Fall to 49-Year Low for Third Straight Week

Initial claims touch the lowest level since December 1969

The Right Gaining Momentum In South and Latin America.

Robert Massimi.

After years of socialism in both Latin and South America, many people are turning to free markets and capitalism to get their countries out of the dull drums. With South and Latin America on the verge of collapse, anarchy abound, people are looking for respite from the everyday tortures that occur in their daily lives. It is no wonder that people are going to vote towards the right to re adjust the disaster that is their lives. With inflation out of control, ramp-id unemployment and no future, people are going to vote far right.

Read Below:



Far-right candidate Bolsonaro widens lead in Brazilian presidential race: poll

BRASILIA (Reuters) – Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro gained ground over his rivals in the first round of Brazil’s presidential election set for Oct. 7, a new poll showed on Thursday, though it remains unclear who he will face in an expected run-off vote on Oct. 28.

FILE Photo: Presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro takes a selfie as he attends a rallyin Porto Alegre, Brazil August 30, 2018. REUTERS/Diego Vara

Bolsonaro, who is recovering in hospital from a near-fatal stabbing two weeks ago, is backed by 28 percent of the voters surveyed by polling firm Datafolha, a gain of 2 points since the previous poll a week ago.

The Workers Party’s candidate Fernando Haddad surged into second place with 16 percent of the voters surveyed backing him, a 3 percentage point rise, but he is statistically tied with Ciro Gomes, a center-left populist.

Datafolha surveyed 8,601 voters across Brazil on Sept. 18 to 19. The poll, published by the newspaper Folha de S.Paulo, has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

Haddad replaced jailed former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on the ticket nine days ago.

Gomes’ support remained at 13 percent, according to Datafolha.

With no candidate projected to win a majority in the first ballot, the two best-performing hopefuls will meet in a run-off.

FILE Photo: Presidential candidate Fernando Haddad of Workers Party (PT) attends a rally campaign in Sao Paulo, Brazil September 19, 2018. REUTERS/Paulo Whitaker

Gomes is the only candidate projected to beat Bolsonaro in a second-round vote, according to the poll.

Gomes, a former Ceará state governor would defeat Bolsonaro with 45 percent of the votes against 39 percent for the right-winger, Datafolha said.

Bolsonaro, a former army captain who favors easing gun controls, may have trouble winning a second round race against Haddad as they are tied at 41 percent each, according to Datafolha.

Bolsonaro shot ahead early in the race by tapping the anger of Brazilians fed up with political corruption and rising crime.

The poll indicated that Lula’s strategy of convincing his supporters to vote for Haddad, a former mayor of Sao Paulo, is working well and his stand-in could well reach the second-round vote.

Two-term president Lula was banned from running due to a corruption conviction but he remains Brazil’s most influential politician and his party is could return to power after governing Brazil from 2003 to 2016.

Among the other candidates in the first-round vote, Geraldo Alckmin, a favorite of the country’s business class and a former governor of Sao Paulo, stayed at 9 percent and environmentalist Marina Silva sunk to 7 percent, less than half the support she had the outset of the campaign last month.

The most divisive election since the end of Brazil’s military rule three decades ago has become increasingly polarized between right and left, raising concerns about the future of the country’s democracy.

Bolsonaro, an admirer of Brazil’s 1964 to 1985 military regime, has accused the Workers Party of trying to rig the elections. His running mate retired General Hamilton Mourão has said the armed forces should carry out a coup if the country’s judiciary cannot end political corruption.

Reporting by Anthony Boadle; Editing by Darren Schuettler and Christian Schmollinger

SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 / 11:24 AM / UPDATED 13 HOURS AGO

Divisive Brazil election careens into ‘dangerous’ polarization

SAO PAULO/BRASILIA (Reuters) – Brazil’s presidential campaign, already the most divisive since the end of military rule three decades ago, is growing increasingly polarized each day and raising concerns about the future of the country’s democracy.

A combination picture shows (top row L-R) presidential candidates Jair Bolsonaro and Fernando Haddad (bottom row L-R) Ciro Gomes and Geraldo Alckmin respectively, from Reuters files. REUTERS/Nacho Doce/Paulo Whitaker/Leonardo Benassatto/Adriano Machado/File Photo

Less than three weeks before the vote, surveys from the Ibope and Datafolha polling firms show the middle has collapsed, with the electorate rejecting any centrist and gravitating to opposite ends of the political spectrum.

On the far right is front-runner Jair Bolsonaro, a retired army captain, who has emerged from a Sept. 6 assassination attempt more radical than ever.



In a Facebook video, viewed over 7 million times by Wednesday, Bolsonaro said that if he loses the election, it would only be because the leftist Workers Party (PT) had rigged the voting system. That electrified an already tense political landscape.

On the other side, the PT has called the election a fraud because its jailed founder and Brazil’s most popular politician, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has not been allowed to run due to a corruption conviction. The party has made “Free Lula” its rallying cry.

The PT’s stance has stoked concerns among a wide swath of voters, who blame the party for widespread political corruption and fear that if the PT’s candidate, Fernando Haddad, wins he would pardon Lula. Haddad on Tuesday flatly denied he would do that, though he said the former president would be an essential adviser to his government, even from jail.

Lost in the increasingly toxic atmosphere ahead of the Oct. 7 first-round vote is any chance Brazil’s election will unite a deeply split country. That raises the risk that the next government will be paralyzed by infighting and opposition, unable to make headway against the dual economic and political crises facing Brazil, Latin America’s largest economy.

Brazilian electoral workers seal electronic ballot boxes in Brasilia, Brazil September 19, 2018. REUTERS/Adriano Machado

“Many thought that by the time we got close to the election, some middle ground would be found, and that is not what we are seeing,” said Monica de Bolle, director of Latin American studies program at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Instead, Bolsonaro, 63, is heading to a likely Oct. 28 runoff vote against Haddad, 55, a matchup that polls show is deadlocked. The election has become “very dangerous,” de Bolle said.

That is mainly because Bolsonaro, who has repeatedly praised Brazil’s military regime, and his running mate, Hamilton Mourão, a retired army general, have openly talked “about constraining civil liberties and rewriting the Constitution in a authoritarian way,” de Bolle said.

Mourão has said the armed forces should carry out a coup if the country’s judiciary cannot end political corruption.

“They are not shying away from saying these things openly and they are not being criticized for saying them,” she added.


Amid rising crime and continued revelations of corruption, the Bolsonaro ticket offers a simple formula for voters. While enticing powerful business sectors with promises of liberal economic policies it offers, above all, to stop the return of Lula’s party and its state-led plans for the economy.

“What I find really surprising is that there is a large segment of the Brazilian population, the elite, the people who should know better, who are basically throwing risk aside and saying ‘you know, I don’t care. I just don’t want the PT back in power,’” de Bolle said.

Slideshow (7 Images)

That is seen in the open arms that influential Brazilian economic groups are offering to Bolsonaro’s team.

On Monday, Mourão, who last week said Brazil’s 1988 Constitution could be re-written without direct input from voters, addressed a luncheon of Sao Paulo business leaders, who interrupted his 40-minute address on several occasions with applause. He again talked about the Constitution, calling it “terrible and outdated” and underscoring “that we need a new one.”

“I consider it the mother of all reforms,” he added.

When asked during a panel discussion if he believed in the democratic process, Mourão said “if I were anti-democratic, I would not be participating in this election. I’d be home polishing my .45 pistol and waiting for better days.”

The line drew laughter from the crowd.

Asked about Bolsonaro’s allegation the PT would try to rig the voting system to win, Mourão said “you have to take into account he is a man who practically died just over a week ago.”

However, Carlos Melo, a political scientist with Insper, a Sao Paulo business school, said Bolsonaro had raised his concern about electoral fraud before and was doing so now as a “preemptive measure … anticipating any defeat so he can question the results.”

“Bolsonaro is a political actor who has never fully supported Brazilian democracy,” Melo said. “His choice of Mourão as a running mate obviously adds another element that puts pressure on our democracy.”

For Sergio Praça, a political scientist at the Getulio Vargas Foundation, a leading Brazilian university, the most present danger would be any attempt by Haddad to pardon Lula.

“Until a few days ago, I would have said that any threat against Brazilian democracy was a joke,” he said. “Now, there is a tense vibe. The rhetoric from Bolsonaro’s running mate is highly unusual, it is not normal.

“But what worries me the most is any pardon of Lula. Not because I want to see Lula in prison for a long time, but because it would be a serious blow against the judicial system that would provoke enough support within civil society for a military coup.”

Reporting by Brad Brooks in Sao Paulo and Anthony Boadle in Brasilia; Writing by Brad Brooks; Editing by Steve Orlofsky and Tom Brown






Hilary’s Hypocrisy.

Robert Massimi .

This one is the best yet. Crooked Hilary says that we should give the Kavanagh accuser the benefit of the doubt.  Is this lady kidding us? Hillary Clinton was the first to go after the woman who accused her husband of rape, sexual harassment and other accusations.  Hilary Clinton is a phony and a joke. She is on socialist Rachel Maddow s show saying that we need to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt,  wait for a d er democratic majority then decide. She said the last Supreme Court Justice was put in to fast. That’s because he had an impeccable record you moron. Hil as RT spins things and tells fabrications like it is normalasey.  Hilary Clinton is such a liar it is now comical.  For her to sit there and tell Maddow that she wants thos accuser the benefit of the doubt just makes me want to vomit. She is so used to distorting facts with fiction it is sickening.

I have always hated Hillary Clinton.  I hate her because her power grab is voracious.  She cares nothing about others, she is a foul mouthed rude women. She believes in nothing and stands for nothing only her pocket book being lined. Her speeches had no warmth, censerity or meaning. She was cut down twice when she ran for president because the American people not only dislike her but they distrust her.

Hispanics Are Seeing Record Growth.

Robert Massimi.

Add the Hispanic population to people doing better under The Trump Administration. It was reported that more Hispanics are moving upward in the class system then the reverse. Under Obama, however, it took Hispanics under till 2015 to get back to the 2005 levels. Obama in his inauguration said he wanted to be champion of the minorities. Obama wallowed in growth and many minorities actually fell behind. Blacks, women and Latinos were buried in debt when Obama was president, today, all enjoy higher wages and growth. Obama tries to take credit for the economy but we all know better.

Look for Trump to gain big MO as November roles around. With the Feinstein letter and the delay with the Kavanagh appointment, the American people are starting to see who the real leaders are and who just give lip service. Americans are waking up to reality and are getting behind the president. More people are getting impatient over Mueller and the Russian investigation as well. Real leadership is taking over. We are seeing Trump meet with North Korea, we saw Kerry in Iran telling the leaders their not to listen to this administration. Many see Kerry’s move as deep state global tactics that are wearing the American people thin.

Hispanics flourishing in Trump economy


Hispanics flourishing in Trump economy
© Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images

President Trump‘s economy is the rising tide that is lifting all boats. This is especially true for Hispanics, who were among the biggest victims of the low-growth, high-regulation economy under President Obama.

Last week, the Census Bureau announced new household income numbers, which showed that median income for Hispanic households grew by 3.7 percent, adjusted for inflation, last year. That’s more than double the increase seen by all households. More Hispanics moved into the upper-income brackets, and fewer remained in the lower ones. That’s welcome news as the nation celebrates Hispanic Heritage Month.

Contrast this to the Obama economy. It took until 2015 for Hispanic household incomes to finally get back to their 2006 levels. For the population as a whole, household incomes remained flat between 2010 and 2014, as President Obama rolled out one job-killing policy after the next.

In addition to rising incomes, there are more job opportunities than ever today for Hispanics. This month, the Labor Department announced that the Hispanic unemployment rate remained at a record low — below 5 percent for the fifth consecutive month. This is less than half the unemployment rate that Hispanics faced as recently as President Obama’s second term. Median weekly earnings for full-time Hispanic employees have grown by 4.3 percent, adjusted for inflation, over the past two years.

So why are Hispanics doing so well under the Trump economy?

President Trump’s pro-growth policies have had a disproportionately positive impact on Hispanics because they are more entrepreneurial than the general population. Hispanics start businesses at a faster rate than any other ethnic group. Since 2007, the number of Latino-owned businesses has grown by nearly 50 percent, nearly double the rate of all other ethnic groups combined. By a far higher margin than the general public, Hispanics believe that you can get ahead by hard work, according to Pew polling.

President Trump’s deregulation and pro-business policies have made it far easier to be entrepreneurial. Exhibit A are the tax cuts that took effect this year. They contain numerous provisions that specifically help entrepreneurs. These include a new 20 percent small business tax deduction that allow entrepreneurs to protect one-fifth of their earnings from taxes, funds that can be used to help their businesses survive and thrive. Most small businesses describe this provision as a “game changer,” according to a recent Bank of America survey.

With Trump unleashing the economy’s animal spirits, entrepreneurs — led by Hispanics — are increasing the long-depressed small business start-up rate. These businesses are more likely to provide good job opportunities to Hispanic job seekers. In fact, one survey shows they plan to hire workers at twice the rate of their non-Hispanic counterparts.

Hispanics also have benefited generally from the growing economy. For example, the number of full-time jobs is rapidly increasing at the expense of part-time jobs. This has helped Hispanics, who also disproportionately work in the service sector, to raise their incomes to a middle-class level because they are able to work more hours.

Given this success, it’s no surprise that Hispanic approval of President Trump is rising. According to a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll this summer, Trump’s approval among Hispanics jumped by 10 percentage points in one month.

President Trump and Republicans can build on this support by continuing to focus on a uniting pro-growth, pro-opportunity message. Like most Americans, Hispanics care about the economy, education and jobs. Republicans shouldn’t get swayed by the siren song of pursuing divisive social issues that may drive up turnout in rural areas but will repel Hispanics and independents in the suburbs where voters will decide control of the House of Representatives.

Electoral success will allow Trump to continue his policy agenda that is delivering historic economic benefits to Hispanics and all Americans.

Alfredo Ortiz is the president and CEO of the Job Creators Network.


Sponsored Con