An anonymous “Jane Doe” filed a federal lawsuit against GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump last week, accusing him of raping her in 1994 when she was thirteen years old. The mainstream media ignored the filing.

If the Bill Cosby case has taught us anything, it is to not disregard rape cases against famous men. Serious journalists have publicly apologized for turning a blind eye to the Cosby accusers for over a decade, notwithstanding the large number of women who had come forward with credible claims. And now history is repeating itself.

In covering a story, a media outlet is not finding guilt. It is simply reporting the news that a lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Trump, and ideally putting the complaint in context. Unproven allegations are just that - unproven, and should be identified that way. (Mr. Trump’s lawyer says the charges are “categorically untrue, completely fabricated and politically motivated.”) Proof comes later, at trial. But the November election will come well before any trial. And while Mr. Trump is presumed innocent, we are permitted — no, we are obligated — to analyze the case’s viability now.

No outsider can say whether Mr. Trump is innocent or guilty of these new rape charges. But we can look at his record, analyze the court filings here, and make a determination as to credibility — whether the allegations are believable enough for us to take them seriously and investigate them, keeping in mind his denial and reporting new facts as they develop.

I have done that. And the answer is a clear “yes.” These allegations are credible. They ought not be ignored. Mainstream media, I’m looking at you.

1. Consider the context: Mr. Trump’s overt, even proud misogyny.

The rape case must be viewed through the lens of Mr. Trump’s current, longstanding and well documented contempt for women. Men who objectify women are more likely to become perpetrators of sexual violence, just as one with a long history of overtly racist comments is more likely to commit a hate crime.

Mr. Trump has relished calling women “dogs,” “slobs” and “pigs,” and cyberstalked and derided journalist Megyn Kelly for having the temerity to ask him to defend his own words. He threw out the most misogynist of attacks, attempting to undermine her professionalism by accusing her of menstruating. He’s cruelly ridiculed the appearance of a female opponent (Carly Fiorina) and an opponent’s wife (Heidi Cruz). His campaign even openly acknowledged that it disqualified all women for consideration as his vice-president.

Mr. Trump has a long history of debasing women he’s worked with, crossing the line on a regular basis. He’s taken lifelong joy in objectifying women, including his proclamation: “Women, you have to treat ‘em like shit.”

This cannot be ignored. Decades of abusive language does not make him a rapist. But it does show us who the man is: a callous, meanspirited misogynist who no sane person would leave alone with her daughter. As Dr. Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they really are, believe them.”

CONTINUES IN LINK: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

Russia depends on its revenue from oil and gas for more than half of its federal budget, according to its Ministry of Finance. That, combined with weak energy prices in recent years and Russia being stuck in its longest recession in two decades, leaves the country and Putin in a very precarious position. Much of its petroleum export revenue comes from countries in the European Union, many of which are U.S. allies. Mindful of this, Clinton told Deutsche Bank in October 2014, “I want to export gas, especially to our friends in order to undercut, in Europe’s case, the pressure from Russia.”

Moscow is well aware of this vulnerability. As Clinton noted in mid-2014, Russian state-owned company Gazprom was taking over strategic energy infrastructure across Europe, including its largest underground gas storage facility in Germany and engaging in what she called “pure power politics.”

“That’s why, as secretary of state, starting in March 2009, I pushed the Europeans to get serious about finding alternative energy sources and to invest in real resources in their infrastructure, so they wouldn’t be at Putin’s mercy,” she said in the July 2014 speech. March 2009 was also when Clinton presented her Russian counterpart with a symbolic “reset” button in what turned out to be an ill-fated attempt at mending relations.

Why would Clinton pursue a Russian reset while embarking on an energy war? A speech in April 2014 reveals a possible reason: While secretary of state, she witnessed an abuse of power by Putin so severe it led to civilian deaths. “I cannot say I saw this coming, but what I saw was that in 2006 in January, he cut off gas to Eastern Europe. I think like a dozen people froze to death in Poland,” she said. “He did it again in 2009, primarily focused on Ukraine. He has used his energy as a weapon to intimidate Europe.”

Clinton’s speeches even outlined where pipelines would need to be built to ease Europe off its Russian oil and gas fix, including sites in the former Soviet Russia. “How far this aggressiveness goes I think is really up to us,” she said in March 2014. “I would like to see us accelerating the development of pipelines from Azerbaijan up into Europe. I would like to see us looking for ways to accelerate the internal domestic production.”

MORE IN LINK: http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-energy-oil-natural-gas-ukraine-europe-fracking-516397

On Monday evening, two potentially Category 5 stories broke concerning Donald Trump and his many ties to Russia. At 5:36 PM, Slate was up with an analysis of a server in Trump Tower that seemed to be directly, and exclusively, connected to an oligarch-controlled bank in Russia.

It dawned on the researchers that this wasn’t an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank.

At 7:52 PM, Mother Jones was up with a reveal from a former spy who claimed to have seriously shocking information.

"Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance."

But by 9:14 PM, the New York Times was ready not only to dismiss the Russian connection to Trump, but paint the Russian hacking of Democratic emails—and only Democratic emails—as a random prank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

And just like that, stories that might have dominated the morning news were strangled in their crib. But … by who? Who gave the Times the very timely information it needed to attack the Trump/Russia connection at just the right moment?

Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 13m13 minutes ago
Comey is “acting like he’s trying 2 throw the election,” Reagan era prosecutor re: FBI release of Trump/Clinton docs

0 replies 63 retweets 49 likes
Reply Retweet 63 Pocket
Like 49
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 16m16 minutes ago
I think I have been linking to wrong story. This is one about FBI releasing docs on Clinton and Fred Trump.

0 replies 78 retweets 83 likes
Reply Retweet 78 Pocket
Like 83
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 21m21 minutes ago
WIth release of decade old Trump/Clinton docs by FBI, Dems & Repubs have 2 join together to protest this blatant attempt to impact election.
0 replies 179 retweets 272 likes
Reply Retweet 179
Like 272
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 24m24 minutes ago
Story on FBI's releasing decades old docs 7 days before election w/ tweet praising fred trump & attacking clintons.

0 replies 124 retweets 125 likes
Reply Retweet 124 Pocket
Like 125
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 28m28 minutes ago
Real life: Fred Trump, Klan member arrested in riot and sued for housing racial discrim. Comey's FBI today: Calls philanthropist, no more.
0 replies 403 retweets 429 likes
Reply Retweet 403
Like 429
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 31m31 minutes ago
Former Dep of Justice top official 2 me re: Trump/Clinton doc releases by FBI just now. "Are we witnessing an attempted coup? Its like USSR"
0 replies 492 retweets 498 likes
Reply Retweet 492
Like 498
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 34m34 minutes ago
Given DOJ had 4 year prosecution against Fred/Don Trump on housing discrimination why wuld TODAY's FBI call Fred "philanthropist" & no more?
0 replies 294 retweets 418 likes
Reply Retweet 294
Like 418
More
In reply to Lori
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 37m37 minutes ago
.@lorismile1 The Russians couldn't find files, post them on http://FBI.gov , then use phrase to praise Fred Trump that isn't true.

0 replies 62 retweets 102 likes
Reply Retweet 62 Pocket
Like 102
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 38m38 minutes ago
In its first tweet in a year, @FBIRecordsVault calls Fred Trump a "philanthropist." A long word 4 a tweet. Files dont say he was & he wasn't
0 replies 276 retweets 369 likes
Reply Retweet 276
Like 369
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 44m44 minutes ago
I am eager to hear Comey explain why documents praising Fred Trump and attacking Clintons were released by @FBI 7 days before election.
0 replies 684 retweets 919 likes
Reply Retweet 684
Like 919
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 46m46 minutes ago
.@FBIRecordsVault, silent a yr, starts tweeting 2 days ago. On Trump docs, say nothing of housing violation invest, calls him philanthropist
0 replies 282 retweets 392 likes
Reply Retweet 282
Like 392
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 48m48 minutes ago
.@FBIRecordsVault only calls Fred Trump -cited 2x by Dep of Justice 4 federal discrim violations, as "philanthropist." And attacks Clintons.
0 replies 232 retweets 303 likes
Reply Retweet 232
Like 303
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 50m50 minutes ago
With @FBIRecordsVault tweets after a year of silence re: docs on Fred Trump and Clintons 7 days before election, FBI needs 2 be investigated
0 replies 545 retweets 760 likes
Reply Retweet 545
Like 760
More
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald 52m52 minutes ago
.@FBIRecordsVault silent a yr. 2 days ago, starts tweets doc release: praising Fred Trump, attacking Clintons

FBI NOW RELEASING DOCUMENTS ABOUT BILL CLINTON AND MARC RICH
BY MATTHEW COOPER AND NINA BURLEIGH ON 11/1/16 AT 3:48 PM

Flash plugin failed to load


With the election just a week away, the FBI has released a tranche of 15-year-old documents dealing with Bill Clinton’s pardon of a fugitive financier—a move that the bureau made without explanation and that only adds to the confusion surrounding its controversial role in the presidential contest.

While they offer some tantalizing tidbits, the documents are heavily redacted and they don’t seem to offer any substantial new information about the criminal inquiry launched by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York after Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who was living overseas to escape charges related to exporting goods to Iran (which even now remains under a U.S. embargo to some extent). His wife, Denise Rich, a singer-songwriter, was a major donor to the Clintons.

The timing of the document dump—just seven days before the election—is giving fodder to critics of FBI Director James Comey. While the Clinton campaign has not released a formal statement about these documents from the winter of 2001, Brian Fallon, a Clinton spokesman tweeted: "Absent a FOIA litigation deadline, this is odd. Will FBI be posting docs on Trump's housing discrimination in '70s?”


http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-releasing-documents-clinton-marc-rich-515921

Seth FiegermanVerified account
‏@sfiegerman


Facebook cofounder and early Facebook exec are worried about an Internet attack on Election Day
https://twitter.com/sfiegerman/status/792863979219681280/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw