Why Trump's contempt for facts is dangerous:Fake News Onslaught Targets Pizzeria as Nest of Child-Trafficking

NY Times   Days before the presidential election, James Alefantis, owner of a local pizza restaurant called Comet Ping Pong, noticed an unusual spike in the number of his Instagram followers.

Within hours, menacing messages like “we’re on to you” began appearing in his Instagram feed. In the ensuing days, hundreds of death threats — one read “I will kill you personally” — started arriving via texts, Facebook and Twitter. All of them alleged something that made Mr. Alefantis’s jaw drop: that Comet Ping Pong was the home base of a child abuse ring led by Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief, John D. Podesta.

When Mr. Alefantis discovered that his employees were getting similar abusive messages, he looked online to unravel the accusations. He found dozens of made-up articles about Mrs. Clinton kidnapping, molesting and trafficking children in the restaurant’s back rooms. The articles appeared on Facebook and on websites such as The New Nationalist and The Vigilant Citizen, with one headline blaring: “Pizzagate: How 4Chan Uncovered the Sick World of Washington’s Occult Elite.”

None of it was true. While Mr. Alefantis has some prominent Democratic friends in Washington and was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, he has never met her, does not sell or abuse children, and is not being investigated by law enforcement for any of these claims. He and his 40 employees had unwittingly become real people caught in the middle of a storm of fake news.

John Podesta Says Russian Spies Hacked His Emails to Sway Election OCT. 11, 2016

“From this insane, fabricated conspiracy theory, we’ve come under constant assault,” said Mr. Alefantis, 42, who was once in a relationship with David Brock, a provocative former right-wing journalist who became an outspoken advocate for Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Alefantis suspects those relationships may have helped to make him a target. “I’ve done nothing for days but try to clean this up and protect my staff and friends from being terrorized,” he said.

Fake news online has been at the center of a furious debate for the past few weeks over how it may have influenced voters in the presidential election. President Obama warned last week that we are “in an age where there’s so much active misinformation and it’s packaged very well” on social media sites. The criticism has buffeted web companies such as Google and Facebook, whose chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has promised to work on technology tools to slow the gusher of false digital information.

But Mr. Alefantis’s experience shows it is not just politicians and internet companies that are grappling with the fake news fallout. He, his staff and friends have become a new kind of private citizen bull’s-eye for the purveyors of false articles and their believers.

For more than two weeks, they have struggled to deal with the abusive social media comments and to protect photos of their own children, which were used in the false articles as evidence that the pizza restaurant was running a pedophilia ring. One person even visited Comet Ping Pong to investigate the allegations for himself. [...]

Donald Trump is making a strong case for a recount of his own 2016 election win

Washington Post   Trump, of course, is pointing only to “fraud” that benefited Clinton; Virginia, New Hampshire and California are all states she won, and the baseless idea that illegal immigrants voted by the millions is supposed to have helped Clinton, given the fact that immigrants — and specifically undocumented ones — overwhelmingly favor Democrats.

Trump was doing this to make the case that he didn't actually lose the popular vote, which has become a Democratic rallying cry following Clinton's loss. It's clearly a sore spot for Trump.

But the president-elect is also, unwittingly and amazingly, calling into question the results of an election that he won nearly three weeks ago. The logical extension of his argument is that all results should not be trusted. In effect, Trump is lending credence to the very same recount effort that he criticized as superfluous.

A caveat on all of this: There is absolutely no evidence of Trump's alleged large-scale voter fraud. And even Clinton's campaign, while joining in recount efforts initiated by Green Party nominee Jill Stein, has acknowledged as much. So I am not saying that there is suddenly a real reason to doubt the fact that Trump won the 2016 election.[...]

What I am saying is that, if the system was susceptible to the kind of pro-Clinton fraud that Trump is alleging, who is to say that it wasn't also susceptible to manipulation that might have benefited Trump? Trump's argument is that our electoral system was vulnerable to all kinds of shenanigans that could have changed the results in specific states. Why not shenanigans instigated by Russia, which experts say aided Trump during the campaign with fake-news propaganda? Or something else? There is also no evidence of this, but apparently evidence is not required for our next president to make a charge.

Trump is alleging that these shenanigans (yes, I said it again) accrued to Clinton's benefit, but if our system has so many holes in it, why couldn't those holes have helped Trump in the states that mattered? If illegal immigrants can vote and there was real voter fraud in states such as California, New Hampshire and Virginia, why couldn't these things have happened in circumstances and places that didn't hurt Trump? Why not in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where Trump won the presidency by a margin of about a point or less? If the system is that shoddy, it's probably shoddy everywhere.

Trump is saying that something happened — on a large scale. He's basing this on dubious Internet sources, but he's raising doubts about results of an election that made him the president-elect. It's hard to argue, from that point, that it's not worth examining just how many real irregularities there are and whether they all just happened to accrue to Clinton's benefit. This is the president-elect and the soon-to-be leader of the free world, after all, and his words are supposed to carry weight.

This is just Trump being Trump, of course. He is the president-elect, yes, but he's also a bona fide conspiracy theorist. (Remember how Ted Cruz's dad might have been involved in JFK's assassination?) We can no longer dismiss his fomenting of these baseless theories as some political ploy; it's who he is. And he's willing to call into question anything that doesn't show him to be the clear winner. Given that he will lose the popular vote by as much as two full points, he's in desperate search of an excuse for this fact.

But in doing so, he's also calling into question his win. He can't have it both ways, and he's letting his pride get the better of him.

A Paranoid Trump Claims, With No Evidence, That ‘Millions of People’ Voted Illegally

If he really believes the nonsense he is spouting about widespread voter fraud - he should welcome an official recount

NY Times

President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Sunday that he had fallen short in the popular vote in the general election only because millions of people had voted illegally, leveling the baseless claim as part of a daylong storm of Twitter posts voicing anger about a three-state recount push.

“In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” Mr. Trump wrote Sunday afternoon.

The series of posts came one day after Hillary Clinton’s campaign said it would participate in a recount effort being undertaken in Wisconsin, and potentially in similar pushes in Michigan and Pennsylvania, by Jill Stein, who was the Green Party candidate. Mr. Trump’s statements revived claims he made during the campaign, as polls suggested he was losing to Mrs. Clinton, about a rigged and corrupt system.

The Twitter outburst also came as Mr. Trump is laboring to fill crucial positions in his cabinet, with his advisers enmeshed in a rift over whom he should select as secretary of state. On Sunday morning, Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser, extended a public campaign to undermine one contender, Mitt Romney — a remarkable display by a member of a president-elect’s team. In television appearances, she accused Mr. Romney of having gone “out of his way to hurt” Mr. Trump during the Republican primary contests.

Claims of wide-scale voter fraud have been advanced for years by Republicans, though virtually no evidence of such improprieties has been discovered — especially on the scale of “millions” that Mr. Trump claimed.

Late on Sunday, again without providing evidence, he referred in a Twitter post to “serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California.”

A day earlier, Mr. Trump’s transition team ridiculed the idea that recounts were needed. “This is a scam by the Green Party for an election that has already been conceded,” it said in a statement, “and the results of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused.”

That message runs counter to the one Mr. Trump sent on Sunday with his fraud claims — if millions of people voted illegally, presumably officials across the country would want to pursue large-scale ballot recounts and fraud investigations.

But the Twitter posts could energize some of his supporters, who have claimed online that Mrs. Clinton’s two million-vote lead in the popular vote has been faked. Mr. Trump at times promoted other conspiracy theories during the campaign, including claiming that Senator Ted Cruz’s father was somehow tied to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. [...]

Through the day, Mr. Trump appeared fixated on the recount and his electoral performance. In a series of midafternoon Twitter posts, not long before he boarded his flight, Mr. Trump boasted that he could have easily won the “so-called popular vote” if he had campaigned only in “3 or 4” states, presumably populous ones.

“I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!” he wrote.[...]

FREE JASMIJN Horrible allegations by her mother that the court did not decide custody in the best interests of the child

Someone sent me a link to this site Free Jasmijn. Assuming what the mother says is true - it is a horrid case of injustice. At the present time I have no independent verification of verify the story and I am willing to post the father's version of events. It does seem to have points in common with the injustice of the Schlesinger Twins in Austria. The site has important information about cases of children clearly being given to the wrong parent and custody arrangements that are not in the best interest of the children. It also offers advice to the children how to survive this situation [see below]

======================================

In April 2014, when my daughter Jasmijn was 10 years old, she was brutally deported from The Netherlands to her father Dave H. in Marin County, California despite expert evidence of abuse, molestation and neglect by him, despite the fact that he admitted to the court that he has a severe drug addiction to heroin and cocaine and despite the fact that he has been diagnosed with Narcissistic and Histrionic personality disorders.

Her father, with whom she has not lived since she was 1 year old, keeps her hostage at an undisclosed location, demanding money. He has terminated all contact since May 9th, 2015, thereby breaking all court orders.

Not only have I been bankrupted trying to fight this in Marin County Superior Court, Judge Wood has threatened me that if I were to pursue a custody trial she would make sure I would lose it, I would never see Jasmijn again and she would seize my mother’s assets in The Netherlands (there are none!). Judge Adams ruled that she allows the father to get away with breaking her own court orders and is not willing to investigate the matter through a 3118 child sexual abuse investigation and drug testing of the father. She is not facilitating contact between my daughter and me and she is not allowing me to know where my daughter lives either.

How come the father has not been detained yet for criminal custodial interference Cal Penal Code 278.5?

How in the world could this have happened? If you really want to know the truth then this site is for you. Instead of arriving at conclusions based on hearsay and wild allegations, allow me to introduce you to all the people involved in this court-ordered child trafficking case and present you with all the evidence so you can make up your own mind. Then confront the folks responsible for this situation.

Or will you choose to stand by and allow Jasmijn to remain a hostage?

The Summary gives you the overall story, while the Sordid History allows you to access the evidence year by year, play by play. You can also watch this CCN Live archived interview:

========================================

While the following is written from the mother's perspective - it applies equally to cases where the kids have been unjustly removed from the father.

======================================================

Message for the Stolen Kids

http://www.freejasmijn.com/?p=2523

Are you a kid and are you made to live with your abusive dad? Are you not allowed to have contact with your mom? Or can you only see her supervised? You probably wonder why on earth this is happening to you.

Message for the Stolen Kids

Your dad might be telling you that your mom is crazy and/or dangerous, or that the Judge said that, and that you need to be protected from her. The Judge has made you live with your dad, so everyone around you thinks your dad must be right. After all, don’t kids always live with their mom?

If you told your mom that your dad said mean things to you, yelled at you, hurt you, touched you were he is not supposed to, locked you up etc. and told you to keep it all a secret and your mom has done everything she could to protect you, then she is a very brave Protective Mother.

The Worst Thing A Woman Can Do In Divorce Proceedings - The Abuse Of Orders of Protection

Huffington Post by Liz Mandarano,  a New York Family and Matrimonial Lawyer and a feminist

Orders of Protection are critical to the safety of many. Some people claim that they are simply pieces of paper that mean nothing. Detractors point to horrible stories where people are abused or murdered despite having an order in place.

I disagree—although we only hear of the tragic endings, orders of protection carry an authority that at least some, if not many, abusers grudgingly respect. I believe these orders have saved countless from horrible mistreatment that would otherwise have occurred.

However, it is also an unfortunate truth that because they are incredibly easy to obtain, orders of protection are misused, often against men. And this false practice clogs the system unnecessarily, preventing true victims from having their cases thoroughly examined and depleting victim-assistance resources.

In matrimonial practice, men are drastically more likely to be the spouse who has an order enforced against them at the beginning of a separation or divorce. When a man has had an order of protection issued against him, many automatically think that he must have done something horribly threatening or dangerous to his partner or family in order to have a judge feel compelled to issue an order.

Orders of protection can be “stay away” or “refrain from” in topic. “Refrain from” orders direct a person to behave in a certain way. For example, a refrain from order may direct a person not to threaten another person.

“Stay away” orders are weightier. They force the accused to leave the marital residence and stay away from his partner, home, workplace, and family lest they face prosecution. Notably, stay away orders can remove a person from his home even if his name is on the lease or deed.

There are between 2 and 3 million temporary restraining orders issued in the United States annually*. Despite their huge impact on a person’s emotional and financial well-being, in order to receive a temporary “stay away” order of protection, one needs only to allege that he or she “feels” threatened by their partner. There does not need to be any history of domestic violence whatsoever. There does not have to be an actual verbal threat of domestic violence either. Likewise, there does not need to be evidence of a major overt act, such as stalking or purchasing a weapon.

The modern extreme example of a ruling gone awry involved David Letterman. In 2005, a New Mexico judge granted a woman’s request for a temporary restraining order against Mr. Letterman, claiming that he wanted to marry her and employ her as a co-host. She also alleged that Mr. Letterman forced her to go bankrupt and talked in “code” to her via his show since 1994, causing her sleep deprivation and mental anguish. Thankfully, another judge ultimately quashed that order. However, the issuing judge stood by his ruling.



These orders are issued ex parte, which means the accused has no notice of the proceeding and does not have the opportunity to defend himself prior to its issuance. The burden of proof is the lowest legal standard available- by a preponderance of the evidence, which basically means that a judge has to believe that there is a 51% chance (“more likely than not”) that the allegations are true.

These orders are granted with barely any accountability as to the facts alleged, although they often include a “stay away” provision from minor children.

A temporary order of protection lasts until you have the opportunity for a full court hearing—which unfortunately does not necessarily get scheduled for up to six weeks. Due to clogged judicial systems, sometimes a full hearing can take months. Nor does the hearing necessarily occur at the first court date- adjournments from both sides trying to gather evidence for and against the order are common.

Notably, there is no right to discovery prior to the hearing. And once a hearing takes place, the burden of proof remains the same low standard.

When a false or exaggerated allegation results in a stay away order, many innocent men are suddenly tossed from their homes without any notice. Additionally, they face a sudden and profound financial stress— they must quickly set up another residence to provide for their needs as well as to prove to a court that they have adequate provisions for future child visitations. Many rapidly find themselves having to pay for two households to avoid being accused of shirking their responsibilities. Furthermore, these men often have lost access to necessary legal and personal papers necessary to function or defend themselves.

It is a well-known fact within the matrimonial legal community that many lawyers and their clients use these orders of protection to gain a strategic advantage over their spouse from which it is difficult to recover. And since no judge wants to be the one who “gets it wrong” leading to a tragic result, these orders are easily obtained.

What does the accuser have to gain in misusing orders of protection? A lot of things, including the following:

Judicial requests for exclusive use and occupancy of a marital residence are not often granted, and can take up to six months for a ruling. Therefore, unless an allegation of threat of immediate harm is claimed, couples are forced to live under the same roof unless they can come to some form of agreement. Orders of protection force the accused to immediately leave the residence.

It sets a precedent for custody. Joint custody is presumed. However, if a permanent order of protection is issued containing a finding of domestic abuse, that finding cannot later be disputed. As a result, in many jurisdictions, there is suddenly a rebuttable presumption that the victim should have legal custody. Also, the longer a parent’s access to a child is limited, the less likely that person will be deemed the primary caregiver. In fact, often the accused spouse’s children are now afraid of their father. Many upstanding citizens are shocked to find themselves automatically subject to supervised visitation with a social worker. This may confuse children, wishing to “please” their mother, and scar them unnecessarily for life.

It serves as a bargaining chip—many men are forced to agree to a permanent order of protection either of the same or more limited scope in return for something else such as lower spousal support or more access to children.

It drains resources. It gives the accuser the upper hand in property litigation and spousal support. The ousted spouse has no access to their financial documents, tax forms, personal property, safe deposits, deeds, etc. Although he can always request from his wife’s attorney or the court that these items be made available, the process often takes time, and requests for compliance are often ignored.

It emotionally puts men on the defense. They have no access to their belongings and family. There is the mad dash to find a new place, new clothes, furniture, etc. He is now known as the “bad guy.” And, if he acts too aggressively to refute the allegations, it may make him suddenly seem more menacing. The innocent who are accused are therefore thrown into overwhelming turmoil from which it is difficult to recover.

It creates a windfall for the attorneys. Once a stay away order is issued, the parties cannot communicate with each other. All communications must therefore be carried out via the parties’ lawyers. As a result, there is a strong incentive for the less ethically minded lawyer to protract a legal battle by encouraging this tactic. [...]

What is the justification for the Torah saying lashon harah about our deceased ancestors: Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky

The issue of speaking lashon harah about the deceased comes up over and over again. Recently I was challenged why I publicized the fact that Shlomo Carlebach sexually abused women. After all he was a great tzadik and even though he did disgusting things - why should his name be disgraced by telling people the bad things that he did. Why should people have their enjoyment of his music be interfered with by the disturbing reality of what he did?

There are a number of reasons for being concerned with the Truth. Of course if he were still alive - it would allow people to protect themselves so he would not molest them. But there is also a benefit for the victims - even after his passing. According to those who insist that rose colored glasses must always be worn and that we should not think bad thoughts about rabbis and tzadikim. According to those who insistent we should suppress all information about disgusting deeds so that rabbis and tzadikim are always perceived in a good light there is definitely a problem. But that suppression of the truth means that the victims need to suppress their humiliation and shame. They can not mention the outrage that was done to them. In fact if they say anything they would be told that they should shut their mouths - how dare they say anything about the Great Man. Therefore by telling the truth, it helps these victims to be able to talk about what happened and hopefully help them recover.

It also is important that the reality of the nature of abusers be publicized. People need to know that an abuser is not only the twisted sick monster of nightmares - but that they might not only be normal people but even tzadikim.  That a distinguished rav or talmid chachom can be a molester. That a friend of the family, a neighbor or uncle or brother or even a father. By mentioning the names of those who have done disgusting things - even if they are deceased - it protects people from becoming additional victims. There is much to talk about the importance of knowing reality - but that will be for another time.

Here is a relevant comment made by Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky in Emes L'Yaakov (Bereishis 34:37): 

 I was asked by a student  how to explain the fact that the Torah includes descriptions of what happened with Yosef and his brothers. Isn't this a violation of the prohibition of the laws of lashon harah? Initially I answered that in truth the prohibition of lashon harah only applies when mentioning the living. Talking lashon harah about the dead is permitted according to Torah law and is prohibited only by an ancient cherem [see Orech Chaim 606:3]. However the prohibition of the cherem is only against saying false slander  (motzi shem rah) and doesn't apply to negative true statements (lashon harah). However in truth this question of lashon harah in the Torah simply isn't a question. That is because Yosef's brothers in fact judged Yosef and sentenced him to death following the correct legal procedure. They paskened this way because they thought that that in fact was the law of the Torah and not because they were perverting the law...

The cherem is mentioned here:

Berachos(19a): R. Joshua b. Levi said: Whoever makes derogatory remarks about scholars after their death is cast into Gehinnom, as it says, But as for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity. Peace be upon Israel: even at a time when there is peace upon Israel, the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity. It was taught in the school of R. Ishmael: If you see a scholar who has committed an offence by night, do not cavil at him by day, for perhaps he has done penance. ‘Perhaps’, say you? — Nay, rather, he has certainly done penance. This applies only to bodily [sexual] offences, but if he has misappropriated money, [he may be criticised] until he restores it to its owner.

שו"ע אורח חיים סימן תרו:ג

 תקנת קדמונינו וחרם, שלא להוציא שם רע על המתים

 

Texas women exonerated after nearly 15 years in prison for sexual assault

CBS News

Texas’ highest criminal court on Wednesday exonerated four San Antonio women who spent almost 15 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of sexually assaulting two girls, opening the door for the women to seek potentially millions of dollars in state compensation.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the so-called “San Antonio 4” -- Elizabeth Ramirez, Kristie Mayhugh, Cassandra Rivera and Anna Vasquez -- were innocent. The decision will allow the criminal records of all four women to be expunged.

The women were convicted in 1998, after two of Ramirez’s nieces, ages 7 and 9, accused them of holding them by the wrists and ankles, sexually assaulting and threatening to kill them in 1994. One of the nieces later recanted, saying another family member threatened her into making the statements.

“Those defendants have won the right to proclaim to the citizens of Texas that they did not commit a crime. That they are innocent. That they deserve to be exonerated,” Judge David Newell wrote in the majority opinion. “These women have carried that burden. They are innocent. And they are exonerated.”

CBS affiliate KENS reports that Ramirez was babysitting her two nieces, who were 7 and 9 years old at the time, while the other three women were visiting at her apartment.

About four months after that night, in November 1994, the 20-year-old and pregnant Ramirez remembers a knock at her door.

“I was at home in my apartment, and a detective came knocking at the door and asked to speak to me,” Ramirez previously told KENS. “He asked if I knew Javier, Stephanie and Vanessa, and I was like, ‘Yeah, that’s my brother-in-law and my nieces.’ And he said, ‘Do you know they accused you of sexually assaulting them?’ And I was like, ‘No.’ And he said, ‘Do you know why they would do that?’ And I said, ‘No, I have no idea because it never happened.’”[...]

But the court’s opinion on Wednesday relied heavily on the niece who recanted her testimony. The opinion said the two girls’ testimony was so intertwined that a jury could not rely on one without the other. The court also said the “newly available evidence of innocence undermines the legally sufficient, but hard-to-believe versions of events that led to the convictions of these four women.”

A concurring opinion by two other Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judges would also grant exoneration based on the challenges to the expert testimony and recantation. The opinion said “no reasonable juror would have convicted them” considering those factors and other “weak and contradictory” testimony presented at their trials.

The science behind why you shouldn’t stop giving thanks after Thanksgiving

Washington Post

Every year, Americans set aside one day for gratitude. But why shouldn’t every day be Thanksgiving?

Not the part of the holiday that calls for gorging on turkey and pumpkin pie or lazing about with family and friends, but the part where people deliberately pause to reflect and count their blessings.

On most days, gratitude manifests as an emotional reaction to a favorable event or outcome. But it also can be a way of life. People who consciously choose daily to seek out things in their lives to be thankful for are, research has shown, happier and healthier.

In one 2003 study, gratitude experts Robert Emmons of the University of California at Davis and Michael McCullough of the University of Miami asked some participants to keep a record of what they were grateful for, while others were asked to list the hassles in their lives. After several weeks, those in the gratitude group had a more positive outlook on life, exercised more and reported fewer physical problems.

Emmons also has compiled a list of health data points from his and others’ studies on gratitude that show there are many emotional and physical health benefits of being consciously thankful. For example, practicing gratitude is related to 23 percent lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol and led to a 7 percent reduction in biomarkers of inflammation in patients with congestive heart failure. There are studies that suggest gratitude led to reductions in depression and blood pressure and improvement in sleep quality among those with chronic pain and insomnia. In one study, 88 percent of suicidal patients reported feeling less hopeless after writing a letter of gratitude.

Although it’s busy season for a gratitude expert, Emmons, author of “The Little Book of Gratitude,” took the time this week to answer our questions by email about the practice of giving thanks and why we should be doing it year round.[...]

School for life David Brooks on Character

Trump shifts on at least 3 prominent issues: Climate, torture and prosecution of Clinton

People voted for Trump for what he promised. But now that he is significantly backtracking on those promises they are not bothered by the deception - because "at least he said what I wanted to hear and his heart is clearly in the right place. Such a good man - not like that wicked liar Clinton". 

This similar to the explanation that a woman - whose husband cheats on her and beats her regularly - will use to explain why she hasn't left him. "He always promises that he will be better and never beat me again. And then after he beats me he apologizes sincerely for not keeping his promises and he is so nice to me after he beats me. He is such a good man"

LA Times  Donald Trump tweaked the script of his transition again Tuesday, appearing to shift his stance on at least three major issues in the course of an afternoon but defending his right to continue involvement in his worldwide businesses despite the potential for conflicts of interest.

What seemed to be Trump’s ironclad belief that America must withdraw from the international climate change accord reached last year suddenly wasn’t so ironclad. He demurred when pressed on whether he would pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton — a signature promise of his campaign. And he backed off on his commitment to torturing enemies of state, saying a single conversation with a retired Marine general changed his mind.

The day marked yet another in which Trump’s agenda bounced around like a pinball. Much of the repositioning played out during a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times — a meeting that Trump had angrily said in the morning that he would cancel over what turned out to be a misunderstanding over the ground rules. By afternoon, Trump was on a full-fledged charm offensive in the mothership of the news organization he had just hours earlier derisively labeled “failing.”

Whether Trump’s remarks reflected a genuine pivot in his thinking or just the president-elect playing to the room he was in will become clearer when he starts governing. Trump made sure to leave himself wiggle room, as he often does.

Still, some of the shifts were jarring. The president-elect, who had branded climate change a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese and dismissed efforts to fight it as a massive, politically motivated waste of time and money, now said that perhaps action was needed, and that he might follow through with America’s commitments in the international climate agreement that he repeatedly vowed during the campaign to disregard.

“I’m looking at it very closely,” he said. “I have an open mind to it.”

The comments put Trump at odds not just with his own campaign pledge, but also with his transition team. The man charged with readying the Environmental Protection Agency for the Trump administration, Myron Ebell, is a renowned climate contrarian who regularly attacks the consensus of mainstream science that global warming is a crisis that must be addressed immediately. Ebell has crusaded against every major effort the U.S. has embarked on to slow warming. The Trump transition plan, posted online, states the president-elect will “scrap the $5-trillion Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan.”

Environmentalists were skeptical of Trump’s altered tone. “As long as Trump has a climate change denier like Myron Ebell running his [EPA] transition team, you know this is all a bunch of empty rhetoric,” said May Boeve, executive director of the climate change advocacy group 350.org.

Trump also got blowback from the right, whose activists were irked by his decision not to pursue prosecution of Clinton.

“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons — I really don’t,” Trump said. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.” When he was pushed on whether prosecution is off the table, Trump responded: “It’s just not something that I feel very strongly about.”

The conservative group Judicial Watch, which has committed itself to exposing alleged Clinton law-breaking, warned Trump against “a betrayal of his promise to the American people.”

But Trump said he would use his influence over law enforcement to argue it is time to move past Clinton investigations, though that too would suggest undue sway over agents who are supposed to be independent of politics when deciding which targets to investigate.

He allowed there is even a case to be made that the Clinton Foundation does “good work.”

The remarks came on a day when Trump’s own foundation was once again in the spotlight. It acknowledged in a fresh tax filing Tuesday that it broke rules prohibiting self-dealing, which will likely trigger a fine. The tax document emerged after the Washington Post reported on multiple instances in which Trump used foundation money to cover the cost of legal settlements his businesses entered into.

The Trump Foundation did not disclose on its new tax filing what payments were inappropriate. Foundation attorneys declined to comment and the Trump transition team did not respond to emails.

The continued negative attention on Trump’s financial entanglements, though, did not appear to be motivating him to more quickly step away from his business empire. Trump made a point of noting that while he is working to transfer control of his businesses over to his children, he does not have to.

“The law's totally on my side; the president can't have a conflict of interest,” Trump said.

He elaborated: “In theory, I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly.”

Trump’s indifference to being perceived as using the presidency to enrich himself flouts all White House convention.

He pushed back against concerns that turning over his business empire to his children doesn’t free him from conflicts, as they are also his advisors in government and will be in constant contact. “If it were up to some people, I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again,” he scoffed.

In another significant turnabout, he backpedaled from his repeated calls for a return to waterboarding and other discredited torture techniques to fight terrorism. Trump indicated he had reversed his view after a discussion with retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, considered a possible pick for secretary of Defense.[...]

Donald Trump’s Early Thanksgiving – An Incredible Story About Anonymous Chessed That Trump Did

Yeshiva World News by Rabbi Hershy Ten is the president of Bikur Cholim Los Angeles.

Hamodia  

Facebook

[...] My history with Donald Trump began in July 1988. At that time, my wife and I had been living in Los Angeles for 5 years after moving here from New York. Our beautiful 3 year-old son Avraham Moshe was suffering from a severe lung condition.

When Avraham Moshe’s doctors found themselves at a loss to remedy his pain and suffering, I looked to my former home of New York with the hope that a set of fresh eyes could offer a chance at recovery. However, in order to pursue this we needed to fly my son across the country, but no private or commercial airline would do so due to potential liabilities, and our health insurance wouldn’t cover the cost. So there we were, with seemingly nowhere else to turn; but the thought of doing nothing was not an option. In the 1980s, Donald Trump’s fame was well-known to me, and well-known to most of the world. So when I once again awoke early one morning to the familiar sight of my son struggling to breathe, I decided to take a bold step – I picked up the phone and called Donald Trump’s office, spoke with him, and bluntly asked him to lend us his private plane for this mission of mercy. Without knowing me and without hesitation, he said yes.

A week later, Donald Trump’s 727 landed in Los Angeles and flew me, my wife, and my son along with 3 ICU nurses to LaGuardia Airport. We landed at sunrise and were greeted by our family-members on the tarmac, as well as an army of reporters. You must bear in mind that at this time there was no social media or internet; nevertheless the news was out and the NY press was abuzz with the story of the famous entrepreneur’s generosity with dozens of headlines such as, “Trump to the rescue of tyke” and “On two wings and a prayer”. Sadly, there was no new hope that could be provided to our son, and weeks later we returned home on the same plane. Though Avraham Moshe bravely battled for his life for years to come, he passed away just months shy of his bar mitzvah – yehi zichro baruch.

While my son’s z”l outcome was devastating, Mr. Trump’s enormous act of chesed rendered me forever grateful and gave me a unique insight of his character. Since that first contact, we were indelibly connected and remain so to this day. For almost 3 decades I’ve dropped by his office to say “hello” and not a year has passed without he and I exchanging wishes of a L’shana Tova and a Gut Yor. Those who know me both personally and in my role as president of Bikur Cholim (Los Angeles) know that I’ve carried the impact of his kindness with me every day. However, for many years I had often wondered as to what personal impact this may have had on him. [...]