Thursday, 29 December 2016

Brother of JonBenet Ramsey sues CBS for $750M over series




DENVER (AP) -- The older brother of JonBenet Ramsey is suing CBS and others for $750 million, saying his reputation was ruined after a television series that concluded he killed his 6-year-old sister two decades ago.
In the lawsuit filed Wednesday, Burke Ramsey claims that the network, its production company and the experts interviewed in the series on the unsolved murder conspired to defame him for publicity and profit. The series, called "The Case of JonBenet Ramsey," aired in September ahead of the 20th anniversary of JonBenet's death.
The beauty pageant star was found dead in the basement of her family's home in Boulder, Colorado, the day after Christmas in 1996. A prosecutor cleared her parents and brother in 2008 based on DNA evidence. But the district attorney currently overseeing the case has said it was premature to exonerate the Ramseys and ordered additional tests using new DNA testing technology that authorities hope will further the investigation.
Police have collected and studied thousands of pieces of evidence and say the case remains open.
CBS spokesman Dustin Smith declined to comment on the lawsuit, which is the second Burke Ramsey has filed over the television series.
In October, Ramsey, 29, sued a forensic pathologist featured on the show who said he bludgeoned his sister to death. The pathologist is also named in the latest lawsuit, which was filed in Michigan, where Burke Ramsey lives.
The new lawsuit says CBS and its featured experts set out to conduct a "sham reinvestigation" of the murder with "the preconceived the story line" that Ramsey killed his sister and conspired with his parents to cover it up.
"The accusation that Burke Ramsey killed his sister was based on a compilation of lies, half-truths, manufactured information, and the intentional omission and avoidance of truthful information about the murder of JonBenét Ramsey," the lawsuit says.

A military-themed restaurant chain with scantily-clad waitresses is ready to take over America

A restaurant chain where waitresses wear crop tops and bullet belts is ready to take over America, thanks to the rise of the "breastaurant" and the election of Donald Trump. 
The military-themed sports bar and restaurant chain Bombshells is preparing to expand from four locations in Texas to up to 100 restaurants across the country in the next five years, the New York Post reported on Tuesday. 
Bombshells' sales grew a whopping 10.5% in the fourth quarter, parent company RCI Hospitality Holdings reported earlier in December. 
The chain is benefitting from two factors — the popularity of racy breastaurant chains and the election of Donald Trump. 
Bombshells' representative told the New York Post that the chain is not a breastaurant. However, with scantily-clad waitresses and annual "Snow Bunny Pageants," the concept has some clear similarities to chains like Hooters and Twin Peaks. 
These similarities put Bombshells in a good position to thrive as the wider restaurant industry struggles. The breastaurant business has exploded in the last few years. By providing a provocative dining experience customers can't get elsewhere, chains like Twin Peaks (the fastest-growing American restaurant chain in 2014) and Bombshells have found a way to attract customers — something that's crucial as more and more customer are eating at home. 


A more recent boost for Bombshells' business was the election, according to the company's most recent earnings call. 
"I think overall the election is turning out to be very, very positive for us so far," Eric Langan, the CEO of RCI (which also owns six nightclub concepts), said on a call with analysts in December. 
Langan said that the company is "very excited" about the nomination of Andy Puzder, the CEO of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's parent company, as secretary of labor. Puzder, who is no stranger to utilizing scantily-clad women in advertising himself, is expected to cut regulation and reduce costs in the restaurant industry.

Obama names Utah, Nevada monuments despite GOP opposition


SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- President Barack Obama designated two national monuments Wednesday at sites in Utah and Nevada that have become key flashpoints over use of public land in the U.S. West, marking the administration's latest move to protect environmentally sensitive areas in its final days.

The Bears Ears National Monument in Utah will cover 1.35 million acres in the Four Corners region, the White House said. In a victory for Native American tribes and conservationists, the designation protects land that is considered sacred and is home to an estimated 100,000 archaeological sites, including ancient cliff dwellings.

It's a blow for state Republican leaders and many rural residents who say it will add another layer of unnecessary federal control and close the area to new energy development, a common refrain in the battle over use of the American West's vast open spaces. Utah's attorney general vowed to sue.

In Nevada, a 300,000-acre Gold Butte National Monument outside Las Vegas would protect a scenic and ecologically fragile area near where rancher Cliven Bundy led an armed standoff with government agents in 2014. It includes rock art, artifacts, rare fossils and recently discovered dinosaur tracks.

The White House and conservationists said both sites were at risk of looting and vandalism.

"Today's actions will help protect this cultural legacy and will ensure that future generations are able to enjoy and appreciate these scenic and historic landscapes," Obama said in a statement.
 His administration has rushed to safeguard vulnerable areas ahead of President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration. It has blocked new mining claims outside Yellowstone National Park and new oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean. Obama's creation and expansion of monuments covers more acreage than any other president.

But Trump's upcoming presidency has tempered the excitement of tribal leaders and conservationists, with some worrying he could try to reverse or reduce some of Obama's expansive land protections.

Utah's Republican senators vowed to work toward just that.

"This arrogant act by a lame duck president will not stand," U.S. Sen. Mike Lee tweeted about Bears Ears, which is named for a set of rock formations.

Sen. Orrin Hatch said Obama showed "an astonishing and egregious abuse of executive power" and that "far-left special interest groups matter more to him than the people who have lived on and cared for Utah's lands for generations."

Christy Goldfuss, managing director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the Antiquities Act that allows a president to create monuments does not give a president authority to undo a designation, a rule the courts have upheld. She acknowledged that Congress could take action, though.

Opponents agreed the area is a natural treasure worth preserving but worried the designation would restrict oil and gas development as well as residents' ability to camp, bike, hike and gather wood.

New mining or energy development will be banned, but existing operations won't be affected, federal officials said. Wood and plant gathering is still allowed as well as hunting, fishing and other recreation, they said.

Members of Utah's all-GOP congressional delegation had backed a plan to protect about 1.4 million acres at Bears Ears, while opening up other areas of the state for development.

The boundaries of the monument are roughly based on that plan — significantly smaller than what a coalition of tribes had sought.

But Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye called it an exciting day for his tribe and people of all cultures.

"We have always looked to Bears Ears as a place of refuge," Begaye said. "The rocks, the winds, the land — they are living, breathing things that deserve timely and lasting protection."

The Navajo Nation is one of five tribes that will get an elected official on a first-of-its-kind tribal commission for the Bears Ears monument. It will provide federal land managers with expertise about the area, officials said.

Tucked between existing national parks and the Navajo reservation, the monument features stunning vistas at every turn, with a mix of cliffs, plateaus, towering rock formations, rivers and canyons across wide expanses covered by sagebrush and juniper trees.

At the Gold Butte site, Native American rock art and artifacts are scattered amid rugged mountains, sandstone formations and Joshua tree forests. Pioneers used the area for cattle ranching and mining, while campers and ATV riders enjoy it today. It's named for an early 1900s mining town.

Retiring Democratic Sen. Harry Reid pushed for protection of the remote area northeast of Lake Mead, but GOP members of Nevada's congressional delegation have been vocal opponents.

The "designation is a wonderful capstone to a career of fighting to protect Nevada's pristine landscapes," Reid said in a statement.
 Nevada Sen. Dean Heller and Gov. Brian Sandoval, both Republicans, said Congress should make land designations.

But the governor said he "recognized the inevitability" of the move and met with landowners and White House officials to ensure it aligned with state water law and the land would be open to recreation.

Debbie Reynolds, ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ Star and Mother of Carrie Fisher, Dead at 84


Sunday, 25 December 2016

Celebrity Husband of Man Who Harassed Ivanka Trump Trolled on Amazon



Ivanka Trump at Trump Tower lobby in New York City. (Photo: Getty Images)
Two men and their child were kicked off a JetBlue flight from New York to San Francisco on Thursday after one of the men recognized Ivanka Trump and allegedly harassed her before takeoff.
Daniel Goldstein, an attorney from Brooklyn, accosted Ms. Trump who was traveling with her husband Jared Kushner and their three children.
“Why is she on our flight? She should be flying private.” Goldstein reportedly said. It’s unclear whether the comment was made directly to Ivanka or simply said aloud.
The ordeal was captured in images published to Twitter by Goldstein’s husband, Matthew Lasner, and a backlash is costing him on Amazon.
Lasner, a professor at Hunter College’s department of urban policy and planning in New York City, is the author of “High Life: Condo Living In The Suburban Century” and his book is being flooded with 1-star reviews, most containing plane-related puns.
Amazon user Tom Wellborn writes: “An oddly written book. Seems to start in one direction, then flys over to another unrelated subject, then jets back to yet another area, left me feeling Blue….” user fmp4369 writes: “Book left me feeling like I was stuck at an airport. Story didn’t have any altitude. Hopefully it’s not made into an in flight movie.”
Some are less subtle with their critiques: “Should be called Low Life.” writes Anthony S. “Author Matthew Lasner is one of the two angry men (married) who publicly harassed Ivanka Trump and her family on a JetBlue flight in December 2016. Do not support or purchase anything this man touches.” says Terrance Wilson.
Only one review on the Amazon product page is from someone who made a registered purchase. Someone did fire back a review in Lasner’s defense, user Axisofevil said: “Well written and researched. A thorough examination of suburban v urban existence. Not recommended for white supremacists.”
The plane altercation set off a firestorm on social media and became national news thanks mostly to Lasner’s tweets. Lasner’s tweets, all of them, have since been deleted.
A fellow passenger, Marc Scheff, who was sitting in the next row up from Trump, shared his story with facebook:

Russian plane with 92 aboard crashes into the Black Sea

Russian plane with 92 aboard crashes into the Black Sea

Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press,Associated Press 42 minutes ago 

Saturday, 17 December 2016

Trump in Denial as Evidence Grows Spymaster Putin Behind Election Hacks



With intelligence officials convinced that Russian spook-turned-presidentVladimir Putinpersonally directed cyber-attacks aimed at interfering with the U.S. election, President-electDonald Trump continues to downplay and dismiss growing hacking concerns as politically motivated.
The hacks saw the systems and accounts of political organizations and figures like the Democratic National Committee breached, and private data – in the most notable cases, emails – spilled out into public view.
“The primary goal of this attack on our election system was to sow chaos and apparently to help the candidate Donald Trump,” Olsen, an ABC News consultant, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center and a supporter of Hillary Clinton, said.
But Trump is having none of it.
“If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act?” Trump tweeted on Thursday. “Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?”
But that’s not the case, and sources say that intelligence operatives are seething that their future boss is so outwardly dismissing their work.
The Obama administration began publicly sounding the alarm well before the election.
A joint statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department ofHomeland Security in on Oct. 7 was clear: “The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”
With uncharacteristic transparency, the agencies went on to say that they “believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
Fast-forward two months to today, when White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest went further.
“Based on my personal reading…they were referring to the senior most government official in Russia,” Earnest said.
“It was not intended to be subtle.”
The concerns weren’t just raised by the Obama administration.
Well before she lost to Trump in early November, Clinton was sounding off about Russian hackers targeting her party and staff.
“There's no doubt now that Russia has used cyber-attacks against all kinds of organizations in our country, and I am deeply concerned about this. I know Donald is very praise worthy of Vladimir Putin,” she said during the first presidential debate in September.

Trump angrily dismissed those concerns later in the evening, retorting “She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don't—maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?”
Four days ago, Trump – now president-elect and capable of receiving classified intelligence briefings – used a similar line.
“They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News last Sunday. “I mean, they have no idea.”
Despite the incoming president’s dismissals, American authorities said on Thursday that they now have new, significant evidence proving Putin directed the cyber operation.
“They know with a near certainty that Putin was involved – that’s not something they say lightly,” Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant who served in the administrations of Presidents Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes. “That's something they say when they do have a smoking gun.”
Trump is becoming increasingly alone in his skepticism of the intelligence community’s conclusions.
On Wednesday, leading Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) called on Trump to impose sanctions that would punish Russia for its hacking of the Democrats’ systems.

“It could be us the next time – this is not a Republican, Democratic issue,” Graham said in an interview. “My goal is to put on President Trump’s desk crippling sanctions based on the fact that they interfered in our elections.”
“They need to pay a price,” he added.
And what that price will be isn’t yet clear, though President Barack Obama has vowed action.
“That response could be through the use of treasury department sanctions, it could be covert action, it could be forms of public diplomacy,” John Carlin, the former head of the Justice Department’sNational Security Division, told ABC News. “If you mess with the United States, we will mess with you back.”
For his part, Obama is playing coy.
In an interview with NPR that was released on Thursday night, Obama said that he thinks that “there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... that we need to take action and we will. At a time and a place of our own choosing.
“Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be," Obama said.

President Obama Says Hillary Clinton Was Not 'Treated Fairly' During Presidential Election


President Obama said today that he did not think Hillary Clinton was “treated fairly” during the presidential election.
Obama was asked specifically during a news conference whether his former secretary of state lost because of Russia’s reported hacking of the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign computer servers. The president pivoted on that question, and instead lobbed a critique of the media. He said he found the coverage of Clinton “troubling.”
“I think she's worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and I don't think she was treated fairly during the election, I think the coverage of her -- and the issues -- was troubling,” he said.
Clinton and her campaign in recent days have also expressed disappointment with news outlets' focus on her private email server during the campaign over Russia’s involvement in the data breaches. Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta, called the coverage of the Russia story “lackadaisical,” and Clinton last night reportedly told donors in New York that she was glad the press was catching onto the issue.
Looking ahead, President Obama said that perhaps he can give “counsel and advice” to the Democratic Party.
“The question is how do we rebuild that party as a whole so that there's not a county in any state -- I don't care how red -- where we don't have a presence and we're not making the argument because I think we have the better argument,” he said of the Democratic Party.
He added that he would have liked to have helped more to build a national and successful party but struggled to contribute more time because of his primary responsibilities at the White House.