Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Reporter Stunned By What She Caught Melania Doing In Private While Following Her For Months

A closer look reveals more.

Published

on

A reporter from the New York Times, Katie Rogers, has gone on the record telling how it is to have the job of covering First Lady Melania Trump on a consistent basis. She appears to have been following the first lady, as a reporter, for quite some time and is now giving people a closer look at what Melania might be like in private. This is just one but many glimpses into the life of Melania, as told by the specific reporter covering her.

Roger’s explained:

“From Melania’s energy in photos and memes, people have really cast her on social media as cold and modelesque and icy. In person, she’s much warmer. However, she is a Trump and she supports her husband in a lot of things that would infuriate people. She smiles pretty easily, and she has a sense of humor. I do think she has her own thoughts about her role in life, but we’re still trying to uncover them.”

She also later added that Melania is no passive spouse and will defend herself vigorously if she thinks she has to.

Trending: Cop Pulls Man Over for Best Anti-Obama Sticker He’s Ever Seen – It’s Priceless!

Rogers said Melania is a warm person and went on to add more about her private life.

Here is more on this via The Cut:

“On the First Lady’s (very small) circle of trust:
I think it’s important to note that the East Wing is always pretty locked down. It’s probably one of the hardest areas of the White House to cover because the staff is smaller, and First Ladies feel as if they have a certain right to privacy. So, that part is not really unusual. What is unusual, though, is that Mrs. Trump’s circle is very small. She relies really heavily on her aides, including her director of communications, Stephanie Grisham, to control the message. Stephanie is responsive, but if you ask her something that veers into anything that is considered personal, her office can lash out. That’s a little unusual — that they don’t always confirm where the First Lady is.

On what it was like reporting on Melania’s 25-day absence:
There’s been a really long-peddled theory that she doesn’t actually live in the White House. Her team is really well-aware of these theories because they get questions about it and they’re tuned into what people are saying on social media. I mean, there are some long-running theories that aren’t crazy, but they persist. And her absence has added to the list of things we think about her or feel like we need to know about her. I think what’s important to know about the First Lady is that people tend to form an opinion about her based on what they think of the presidency itself.

On Melania’s very controlled return to the public:
When I saw that she was going to be at an event that was closed to the press, I thought two things: The White House was probably easing her back into the public eye. They knew that she’d be in photos and that she would control the message. In any other White House, I think having a First Lady who’s essentially been out of the public eye for so long with so few updates would be the biggest story. But this is not a typical White House.

On her best guess for Melania’s disappearance:
I’ve spoken to people who are close to the president, and I think that as the curiosity around her grew, the East Wing dug in and said they’re not going to put her out in public or release statements to prove a point. I don’t have any guesses, but I do know that the more you press her office and the more curiosity mounts about her, the less likely she’s going to comply with it.

On what Melania has learned from Trump:
I think people tend to not remember that she came into the White House with a history of being really comfortable behind the scenes. She’s been content to let her husband sort of take the lead, and I think she’s been really unapologetic about that.

From Melania’s energy in photos and memes, people have really cast her on social media as cold and modelesque and icy. In person, she’s much warmer. However, she is a Trump and she supports her husband in a lot of things that would infuriate people. She smiles pretty easily, and she has a sense of humor. I do think she has her own thoughts about her role in life, but we’re still trying to uncover them.

I will say that if she feels things are unfair to her, though, she adopts the Trump tactic of totally punching back. She’s not a weakling.

On the hardest part of reporting on the White House:
The hardest part of my job is the job. It’s like standing in front of a tennis-ball machine every day. You think you know what the story is at 9 a.m., and then every three hours, it’s something new, and we’re talking about used mattresses. I think Melania is super fascinating in his life, and I think it’s also wild to her that she’s in this position. I think she’s really tried to embrace it, but I don’t think it has gone as she might have hoped.

On Melania’s state of mind:
I don’t know, since I’m not inside of her head. I think this role has been really hard for any modern First Lady. Michelle Obama really struggled with it, but I think she found ways to bring parts of her old life here. She always had a tight circle of friends, so she found ways to go away with them, and she also launched a platform. I mean, Michelle Obama also faced a ton of scrutiny, too, but I think as countries become even more polarized, there’s not much the First Lady can do without being super scrutinized.

On why the public is so fascinated with the First Lady:
I think there is a large group of people that is not disturbed by [her absence], and thinks that she deserves her privacy. But she and the president live in taxpayer-funded housing, and she’s a public figure at the end of the day. Also, historically, since someone like Jackie Kennedy, who also really valued her privacy, Americans have come to expect that they deserve to know the whereabouts of the First Family. Americans expect this from people who live in the White House, but the president has made it very clear that he’s not going to run the White House like other presidents have. And I think his wife is doing the exact same thing in the East Wing.”

The most impressive statement is that Melania Trump “is no weakling” because she’s strong, independent, and appears to be doing a wonderful job as the first lady of the White House.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Dem Lawmaker Wants To Make Criminals Out Of People By Making A New ‘Hate Crime’

There seems to be some Constitutional issues with this

Right Wing News

Published

on

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by DownTrend

Well, I guess this is one way to cut down on the number of black people in jail. A New York State lawmaker is proposing making it a hate crime to call the police on black people. If you think I’m making this up or overreacting to something, check out this headline from The Patch, which says the same:

Calling 911 On Black People May Be Hate Crime Under Proposed Law

And the article backs that headline up:

New Yorkers who call 911 on law-abiding people of color are committing hate crimes and should be prosecuted, according to a state senator who was recently reported to police for campaigning in his own district.

State Senator Jesse Hamilton, who represents Brownsville, Crown Heights and Flatbush, proposed new legislation a week after a self-described Trump fan called police to report him for speaking to constituents in public. It would criminalize 911 calls against people of color without evidence of malice.

“That’s gonna be a hate crime. This pattern of calling the police on black people going about their business and participating in the life of our country has to stop,” said Hamilton.

Try to guess the race and political party of this guy. If you said white and Republican you were way off.

The deal is, there have been a handful of incidents in which white or non-black people have called the police on black people for doing things that were determined not to be a crime. The natural knee-jerk reaction is to make a law for something that isn’t even remotely a problem.

The law however would be a huge problem. If people know they could get slapped with a hate crime charge, they would be reluctant to ever call the police on a black person no matter what kind of heinous crime they appear to be committing. The onus should not be on average citizens to determine the guilt of a person they think is committing a crime. The easiest solution is for 911 operators to weed out the silly calls and not send police when someone reports something that very clearly is not a crime.

I have more than a few questions about this proposed law: Would it still be okay to call the police on white people. I’m assuming yes. Could black people call the police on other black people? How do Asians and Hispanics figure into this law? Oh, and what about illegal aliens who have sanctuary in NY and are above the law? Can they call the police on black people?

There also seems to be some Constitutional issues with this proposed law because it specifically makes it a hate crime to call the police on black people. It would still be a dumb law if it included all people of all races, but making it race-specific like this is a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

The clarification the news gave on this proposed law doesn’t make it seem any less terrible:

Hamilton’s proposal would strengthen current legislation that outlaws false reports by designating racially-motivated 911 calls as hate crimes, especially in instances where the call results in police responding with the preconception that the person might cause a threat. Read More

Continue Reading

News

Man Found Contracts Showing Obama Was Paying Trump Spy – Obama Tried To Shut Him Up By Stripping Security Clearance

Obama-appointed officials cleaned house

Published

on

A man named Adam Lovinger lost his security clearances after complaining about the questionable government contract that was awarded to Stefan Halper, who is being touted as an FBI informant whose job was to keep an eye on President Trump’s campaign. Who stripped the clearances, you might ask? It’s being reported that it was Obama-appointed officials who cleaned house and ripped Lovinger’s clearances away, presenting to us quite a concern that involves contracts and clashing forces within the government who either supported Obama then or support Trump now. Either way, it’s a mess.

Lovinger was reportedly complaining about Halper’s contracts back in 2016. He then lost his clearances on May 1, 2017. Lovinger’s lawyer, Sean M. Bigley, then complained to the Pentagon’s senior ethics official, mad that Lovinger’s “higher ups” were basically punishing him with the whole security clearance thing – punishing him for complaining about the deals that were given to Mr. Halper and apparently a “best friend” of Chelsea Clinton, as per the Washington Times.

The Washington Times called this out, as well as numerous other sites who wanted the public to be notified about what was going on behind closed doors. Since John Brennan just lost his security clearances, it was probably just another relative topic to bring up someone else who lost their clearances as well. However the big problem is why they lost their clearances and how it ties back to Obama’s administration, and perhaps even Hillary Clinton on a long stretch. Rather than point fingers at two particular names, it might just be the entire Democratic Party. However it goes, it’s up to the public to absorb the information and make their own decisions.

Anytime these news stories are breaking the headlines, it’s always important to take in all the information and figure out what’s going on. Then share the story with people who would enjoy it. If you’re up for a good bit of government drama, then this is right up your political alley!

Here’s a brief summary that details most of what happened:

“As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none other than Mr. Halper,” Mr. Bigley wrote in his ethics complaint, which called the contracts “cronyism and corruption.”

Mr. Lovinger filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint in May with the Defense Department inspector general against James Baker, director of the Office of Net Assessment. The complaint also singles out Washington Headquarters Services, a Pentagon support agency that awarded the Halper contracts totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In an internal October 2016 email to higher-ups, Mr. Lovinger wrote of “the moral hazard associated with the Washington Headquarters Services contracting with Stefan Halper,” the complaint said. It said Mr. Baker hired Mr. Halper to “conduct foreign relations,” a job that should be confined to government officials.

“It was a topic of conversation within the office,” Mr. Bigley told The Times. “What is Halper doing, and why is he being paid astronomically more than others similarly situated?”

The Office of Net Assessment conducts analyses of future threats and ways to defeat them.

“Nobody in the office seemed to know what Halper was doing for his money,” Mr. Bigley said. “Adam said Jim Baker, the director, kept Halper’s contracts very close to the vest. And nobody seemed to have any idea what he was doing at the time. He subcontracted out a good chunk of it to other academics. He would compile them all and then collect the balance as his fee as a middleman. That was very unusual.”

Mr. Bigley told The Times that the inspector general’s criminal investigative division has interviewed Mr. Lovinger about Office of Net Assessment contracting.

In all, Mr. Lovinger has four cases pending: whistleblower reprisal, criminal division, an ethics complaint and an appeal on his security clearance revocation.

A spokesman told The Times that the Pentagon would not comment on the case’s merits.

The spokesman said the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicaitons Facility reviewed Mr. Lovinger’s clearance.

It then “issued a statement of reasons stating why, under [federal guidelines] it would not be clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance, and he was provided with the opportunity to respond to the security concerns,” the spokesman said. “After considering all available information, the CAF issued an unfavorable clearance determination and Mr. Lovinger’s clearance was revoked.”

Mr. Bigley said the conflict is that the consolidated authority resides within the Washington Headquarters Services, which is the target of Mr. Lovinger’s complaint.

“The CAF’s entire ‘adjudication’ of this case was orchestrated by corrupt officials at WHS, which was demonstrated numerous times throughout the process,” he said.

To conservatives, Mr. Lovinger is a victim of the “deep state” — Obama loyalists out to harm the Trump administration.

Press reports identified Mr. Halper as a paid FBI confidential human source, whose mission was to make contacts with Trump campaign workers. The FBI was investigating any Trump ties to Moscow at a time when its intelligence officers were hacking Democratic Party computers.”

After lodging his complaints about the Office of Net Assessment’s outside research in general and Mr. Halper specifically, Mr. Lovinger sought an assignment to the Trump White House national security staff in January 2017. He was soon confronted with allegations from Mr. Baker that he failed to follow security rules. Mr. Lovinger denies any wrongdoing.

Mr. Baker was appointed chief of the Office of Net Assessment in 2015 by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Mr. Obama’s appointee.

The Washington Headquarters Services, which revoked Mr. Lovinger’s clearance, is headed by Barbara Westgate, who was appointed in 2016.

Perhaps the most intriguing narrative in the Lovinger story is the appearance of Mr. Halper, a national security consultant in the U.S. and Britain who is tied to that country’s MI6 spy agency through his business partner.”

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend