Monday, June 26, 2017


Trump is Right, DNC Did ‘Collude’ With Clinton — They Basically Admitted It

Law Newz ^ | 6/25/17 | Rachel Stockman 

In another early morning tweet, President Donald Trump once again harkened back to the election — this time to accuse the Democratic National Committee of colluding with the Clinton campaign. While critics have blasted Trump for his “fake news” tweets, this time he might actually have a point. In fact, in recent court filings, attorneys for the Democratic National Committee basically conceded this point.

A lawsuit, filed by Bernie backers in Florida, seeks to answer that very question. Is the DNC legally allowed to collude with Clinton? Did they violate DNC rules by allegedly favoring her?
“The DNC was biased in favor of one candidate – Hillary Clinton – from the beginning and throughout the process,” the plaintiffs wrote in their original lawsuit filed last July. The complaint alleges fraud, as well as negligence as it relates to a Russian Hack on the DNC server. The Bernie backers contend that the trove of DNC emails posted by Wikileaks further proves that the Democratic Party was working against Bernie Sanders from the start.
In order to get the case dismissed, attorneys for the DNC have utilized some very clever lawyering — and in the process basically confirmed every Bernie backers’ worst fear — that the DNC was biased against their man. The attorneys, in a motion to dismiss, argued that Sanders’ supporters donated knowing that the DNC favored Hillary Clinton, and therefore the lawsuit should be thrown out.
“Indeed, publicly available information demonstrates that several proposed class representatives made donations in spite of—indeed, in many cases likely because they accepted as true—the claims of bias,” the DNC’s response reads.
The filing goes on to give some examples:
For example, Rick Washik, donated to the Sanders Campaign between February 2016 and June 2016, months after posting a link to a petition that claimed that Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz was biased. Catherine Cyko, donated to the Sanders Campaign between February 28, 2016 and June 30, 2016, after she posted an article accusing the DNC of bias Marlowe St. Cloud Primacy made her first reported donation to the Sanders Campaign on March 8, 2016, several days after posting an article accusing the DNC of bias. H. Rosalie Consiglio, made her first reported donation to the Sanders Campaign a week after posting an article accusing the DNC of bias. And Sean Lynch, a proposed class representative for the DNC Donor Class, announced in a June 17, 2016 post he “donated three bucks to the Dem party so [he] can participate in the class action law suit against them.” Ex. K. This sample demonstrates that, aside from not being actionable, Plaintiffs’ theory that donors relied upon Defendants’ statements about neutrality to make donations they would not have otherwise made is not plausible
So basically, the theory is that because there Bernie backers knew that the DNC was biased (or thought it was), they weren’t duped, and therefore the lawsuit has no merit. At last check, a judge has not made a ruling on the motion to dismiss, and the litigation is ongoing. Trump has been accused of forgetting to consult his lawyers before he tweets, but this time it appears the DNC lawyers did the same with their P.R. team before picking that legal strategy. The legal maneuver might work for a judge, but in the court of public opinion, it reeks of collusion.

In 10-years Your IPhone Won't Be A Phone Anymore

wsj ^ | June 25, 2017 | Christopher Mims 

It's 2027, and you're walking down the street, confident you'll arrive at your destination even though you don't know where it is. You may not even remember why your device is telling you to go there.
There's a voice in your ear giving you turn-by-turn directions and, in between, prepping you for this meeting. Oh, right, you're supposed to be interviewing a dog whisperer for your pet-psychiatry business. You arrive at the coffee shop, look around quizzically, and a woman you don’t recognize approaches. A display only you can see highlights her face and prints her name next to it in crisp block lettering, Terminator-style. Afterward, you'll get an automatically generated transcript of everything the two of you said.
As the iPhone this week marks the 10th anniversary of its first sale, it remains one of the most successful consumer products in history. But by the time it celebrates its 20th anniversary, the "phone" concept will be entirely uprooted: That dog-whisperer scenario will be brought to you even if you don’t have an iPhone in your pocket.
Sure, Apple AAPL 0.45% may still sell a glossy rectangle. (At that point, iPhones may also be thin and foldable, or roll up into scrolls like ancient papyri.) But the suite of apps and services that is today centered around the physical iPhone will have migrated to other, more convenient and equally capable devices—a "body area network" of computers, batteries and sensors residing on our wrists, in our ears, on our faces and who knows where else. We'll find ourselves leaving the iPhone behind more and more often.
Trying to predict where technology will be in a decade may be a fool's errand, but how often do we get to tie up so many emerging trends in a neat package? VIDEO

Put these on!




Doing Great?






A Certain Status?


A Win?