Bryan Singer Fired From Queen Biopic Amid Reports of Erratic Behavior
The out director reportedly clashed with star Rami Malek before going missing from set. One source attibutes his absence to post-traumatic stress disorder.
www.advocate.com/film/2017/12/04/bryan-singer-fired-queen-biopic-amid-reports-erratic-behavior
Paul Manafort Planned to Publish Op-Ed Ghostwritten by Russian Spy to Sway Public Opinion About Case
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has withdrawn support for a bail agreement struck last week with lawyers for Paul Manafort following revelations that Trump’s former campaign manager was planning to publish an op-ed in order to sway public opinion about his case.
Manafort is facing multiple felony charges.
The op-ed was reportedly being ghostwritten by a man with ties to Russian intelligence,
Special counsel Robert Mueller has abruptly reversed course on a bail agreement his office struck with Paul Manafort’s legal team last week that would have allowed him to be released from GPS monitoring…
…”Even if the ghostwritten op-ed were entirely accurate, fair, and balanced, it would be a violation of this Court’s November 8 Order if it had been publish,” the government argued. “The editorial clearly was undertaken to influence the public’s opinion of defendant Manafort, or else there would be no reason to seek its publication.”
The filing continued: “Because Manafort has now taken actions that reflect an intention to violate or circumvent the court’s existing orders … the government submits that the proposed bail package is insufficiently reasonable to assure his appearance as required. The government’s prior general consent to the bail package presupposed that Manafort was complying with the Court’s existing orders.”
In the court filing, prosecutors say Manafort and the colleague sought to publish the op-ed under someone else’s name and intended it to influence public opinion about his work in Ukraine. The op-ed was being drafted as late as last week, with Manafort currently under house arrest. Prosecutors did not name the colleague but noted the person is based in Russia.
The post Paul Manafort Planned to Publish Op-Ed Ghostwritten by Russian Spy to Sway Public Opinion About Case appeared first on Towleroad.
Paul Manafort Planned to Publish Op-Ed Ghostwritten by Russian Spy to Sway Public Opinion About Case
Bryan Singer fired from Queen biopic after on-set chaos
Drama.
‘Family Guy’ Takes A Jab at Kevin Spacey
You knew a show like Family Guy—which is run by noted Harvey Weinstein antagonizer Seth McFarlane—was going to hit the Kevin Spacey situation head on. And hit it Family Guy did. On Sunday’s episode, “Crimes and Meg’s Demeanor” (Season 16, Episode 8), Peter, Lois and Meg catch the end of The Usual Suspects on TV. Anyone…
The post ‘Family Guy’ Takes A Jab at Kevin Spacey appeared first on Towleroad.
Supreme Court Allows Full Enforcement Of Donald Trump’s Travel Ban
The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.
The justices, with two dissenting votes, said Monday that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts. The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.
The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a “bona fide” relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have left the lower court orders in place.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, will be holding arguments on the legality of the ban this week.
Both courts are dealing with the issue on an accelerated basis, and the Supreme Court noted it expects those courts to reach decisions “with appropriate dispatch.”
Quick resolution by appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide the issue this term, by the end of June.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban_uk_5a25be96e4b07324e83ff3e4
Debunking ADF’s bad logic is piece of cake (*but not art)
At a recent meeting before a group of fellow lawyers, Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who will be representing Jack Phillips before the United States Supreme Court, is quoted as saying that the discriminatory baker’s case isn’t “about the who, it’s about the what.” To which I reply: what?
You’ve likely heard about this case. This is the one out of Colorado where the owner of a business called Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. The couple in question, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, didn’t even get the chance to specify what sort of design they might want on the cake, so there wasn’t any one message or theme to which Mr. Phillips objected. The baker simply refused to consider the request to sell the couple the very same product that he has gladly sold to straight couples for decades prior. It’s a very straightforward case of discrimination, and up to this point, every panel to weigh in on the case has sided with fairness.
The Supreme Court is a different beast, however. The high court has long tilted toward the conservative, and even more so with the addition of Neil Gorsuch. The Alliance Defending Freedom knows this is a major chance for them to regain the miles of ground they lost when marriage equality was legalized across the nation, and they are carefully crafting their arguments so that they seem persuasive, mainstream, and on the right side of history.
Of course, the truth is that this case is all about “the who.” It’s about one man who purported to sell wedding cakes to all-comers, but who didn’t uphold his commitment as a business owner. It’s about a loving couple whose money was rendered no good by nothing more than their sexual orientation. And in the broadest sense, it’s about every “who” in this country who believes nondiscrimination policies are a net good for our communities and our economies, as an ADF win in this case would place every such policy, and every minority population, under severe threat.
On one hand, it’s no surprise that the ADF lawyer is attempting to distance her client from the gay couple that he pointedly rejected, since denying discriminatory intent is the only chance they have of winning before the high court. But still, one does have to marvel at this, an attempt by an organization whose long record of anti-LGBTQ animus has landed it on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of known hate groups, to say that a cruel act in which a loving couple was turned away is really not about the couple at all, but rather about a cake. And it’s just one of ADF’s many flawed talking points in this case.
.@AllianceDefends will appear before SCOTUS tomorrow in the #MasterpieceCakeshop case. Here’s your reminder that they’ve spent DECADES targeting LGBTQ rights t.co/DVqyiUsY0j
— GLAAD (@glaad) December 4, 2017
As a way to sell the idea that this case is about a product rather than fair business practices, ADF has also made central to its case the claim that a wedding cake is really more like art than like commerce. But the truth is that even gallery art is a commodity if that art is put on sale in a shop. Mr. Phillips advertised himself as a man who sells a commodity commonly known as a wedding cake. The couple at the center of this case requested that very commodity, without even offering up any details about how they would like to customize that commodity. Mr. Phillips told them they couldn’t have that commodity, and the sole reason he denied them the request is because they were two men. And what he denied them was a business product that he purports to sell.
Most of us are asking “Is it discrimination?” while ADF is asking “but isn’t it pretty?” The product might be gorgeous, but the discrimination is quite ugly.
In other commentaries, ADF staff members have pushed the notion that vendors like Mr. Phillips should be enthusiastic about an event if they are going to agree to work on it. Sure, it’s a nice idea. It’s also a legally meaningless one. In a perfect world, everyone who ever sells you anything, be it a good or a service or somewhere in-between, would be enamored with you and every aspect of your life. But a business owner’s excitement is an untenable standard, even more so for the business owners themselves than for the customers.
One can discriminate “nicely” or accommodate rudely, and it won’t change the issue. The issue is the discrimination or accommodation, not the smile or frown attached to those choices. It is silly to suggest that wedding professionals are somehow lacking in their job if they fail to make a “special and unique” connection to a person who is paying them for their services.
The other major claim that ADF likes to tout is one about coercive government. ADF Senior Counsel Jim Campbell insists that “if the government has its way, it would compel not just cake artists to celebrate what their faith prohibits, but other professionals who create art for a living, such as graphic designers, filmmakers, photographers, and painters.” And he’s right that this is not the role of government. But it’s also not anyone’s goal in this or any related case.
No, the government cannot tell a painter he has to paint something he doesn’t wish to paint, a sculptor that he must design a statue outside of his interest area, or a soloist that she must sing an opera for which she doesn’t seek an audition. Every artist, and every business owner, has the right to set his or her own performance slate, gallery presentation, menu, or product line. The Jewish chef need not sell pork, and the Christian baker does not have to purchase cake pans that are shaped like menorahs. Champions of fair-minded nondiscrimination policy don’t want to change this, and progressives would be the first ones to speak out of the government did have this goal.
But Jack Phillips does indeed choose to sell wedding cakes. No government told him to do so. He loves selling wedding cakes. They are kind of his thing. He just doesn’t want to sell one to a gay couple. He loves mixing together the eggs and the milk and the flour and the sugar and then baking it all up into a pretty pastry suitable for a wedding reception’ s silver platter. He just refuses to make that product—the very same product that he does, in fact, sell—for customers who love in a way with which he disagrees.
We have a word for that in society. That word is discrimination.
To learn more about this case and what’s at stake, visit glaad.org/DroptheFWord
Joy Reid Was Tone-Deaf, But She’s No Homophobe
Calling Florida’s then-governor, Charlie Crist, “Miss Charlie” in 2007 was insensitive, but the journalist has long been one to chafe at hypocrisy.
www.advocate.com/media/2017/12/04/joy-reid-was-tone-deaf-shes-no-homophobe
So that sheriff on ‘Riverdale’ is one hot daddy… wouldn’t you agree?
Arrest this man for being just too handsome.
What Is Going On With Brexit After ‘No Deal’ On The EU ‘Divorce’?
Theresa May went to Brussels on Wednesday in order to seal a deal to take the UK a big step closer to quitting the European Union. Everyone thought it was a formality. It wasn’t.
As it was confirmed there was no agreement on the Brexit ‘divorce’ settlement, here’s where everyone stands after a day of high political drama:
What is the issue with the Irish border?
The Irish border – specifically the border between EU-member Ireland and the British region of Northern Ireland – is proving to be a major obstacle. Protracted talks over its future status is preventing negotiations between the UK government and the EU to start over a future trade agreement.
Dublin fears the creation of a ‘hard border’, replacing the existing ‘soft’ arrangement, could disrupt 20 years of delicate peace in Northern Ireland and put the Good Friday Agreement in jeopardy.
Some have alluded to the the army checkpoints and watchtowers that dotted the 310-mile border during the Troubles, and Ireland has sought assurances that nothing similar will be revived.
However, there has been a stalemate.
Ireland has called on Theresa May to keep Northern Ireland in the EU’s customs union – essentially a free trade area – in order to avoid the ‘hard’ border. But, as the UK government is at pains to argue, this goes against the principles of Brexit, which it says must include the UK leaving both the customs union and the single market.
That’s enough of a catch-22 without the Democratic Unionist Party potentially bringing down the minority Conservative government.
Why is the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) having an influence?
The Northern Irish DUP and its 10 MPs in Westminster has been propping up the Tories after signing a ‘confidence and supply’ agreement following May’s disastrous snap General Election. Walking away from the deal is the Northern Irish party’s trump card.
Last week, speculation mounted that a deal was being thrashed out to harmonise trading relations in some areas between Northern Ireland and the EU (or, in other words, the Irish republic). The DUP appeared willing play its hand, hinting that any deal to “placate Dublin and the EU” would mean the Conservatives “can’t rely on our vote”.
So how does the UK government satisfy both the north and south of Ireland?
With great difficulty.
On Monday, it was reported the UK had agreed that Northern Ireland would maintain ‘regulatory alignment’ with the EU to prevent the need for customs checks at the border.
A draft 15-page joint statement from the European Commission and the UK stated that “in the absence of agreed solutions the UK will ensure that there continues to be continued regulatory alignment” with the internal market and customs union.
This is where confusion reigned supreme. As the text was passed around Brussels, London, Dublin and Belfast, debate raged over whether ‘regulatory alignment’ constituted effectively still being an EU member. A former Treasury adviser did not think so:
To save a week of pointless commentary can we all agree that “regulatory alignment” in some key areas is not the same as staying in the single market or the customs union?
December 4, 2017
In any case, as press conferences and lunches were arranged and cancelled as reports varied as to whether the DUP and the Irish government had agreed the deal, it was soon clear the unionists would not buy it.
“Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK, we will not accept any form of regulatory divergence” – DUP leader Arlene Foster on #Brexit talks t.co/VKDYRXgOLk pic.twitter.com/e0FqI0NDq0
December 4, 2017
DUP leader Arlene Foster told reporters they could not back the proposal.
“We will not accept any kind of regulatory divergence which separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the UK,” she said.
“Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom.”
Why is the Irish border dispute blocking wider Brexit negotiations?
Meanwhile in Brussels, May was hoping to announce that a deal had been agreed on Northern Ireland, as well as the rights of EU citizens after Brexit and how much the UK is willing to pay as part of the ‘divorce’ bill.
So with the DUP effectively nixing the border solution, the UK Prime Minister was left in limbo.
Standing side-by-side with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, she was forced to admit there was no agreement with Brussels on the entire divorce package.
But they remained confident on getting agreement, saying differences remain only on a “couple of issues” – with the Irish question still outstanding.
Negotiations over the ‘divorce’ settlement is known as Phase One, and is crucial to pushing on with Brexit. The EU insists Phase One has to be completed before moving on to Phase Two – namely the talks about fresh trading relationships between the UK and Europe.
Negotiators are working to a strict timetable, with the hope from the UK side being that Phase One is wrapped up before the December 14 summit of EU leaders. This, in turn, is seen as important to providing enough time for new trading arrangements to be thrashed out by March 29, 2019 – the day the UK official leaves the bloc.
Why has a ‘special’ deal for Northern Ireland prompted Scotland, Wales and London to ask for the same?
Both Nicola Sturgeon and Sadiq Khan demanded ‘special’ Brexit deals for Scotland and London, arguing there was no reason why other parts of the UK can’t get different treatment if Northern Ireland does.
Scotland’s Fist Minister said that if a Brexit deal can be done that “effectively” keeps Northern Ireland in the single European market, there is “surely no good practical reason” why others should not benefit from the same.
If one part of UK can retain regulatory alignment with EU and effectively stay in the single market (which is the right solution for Northern Ireland) there is surely no good practical reason why others can’t.
December 4, 2017
Both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain part of the EU in the referendum.
The Mayor of London, buoyed by the capital voting by a margin of 59.9 percent to remain within the EU, followed suit:
Huge ramifications for London if Theresa May has conceded that it’s possible for part of the UK to remain within the single market & customs union after Brexit. Londoners overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU and a similar deal here could protect tens of thousands of jobs.
December 4, 2017
The domino effect continued, with Welsh first minister Carwyn Jones also calling for Wales to be allowed to stay in the single market if other parts of the UK could.
We cannot allow different parts of the UK to be more favourably treated than others. If one part of the UK is granted continued participation in the Single Market & Customs Union, then we fully expect to be made the same offer.
December 4, 2017
She hasn’t Text says: In absence of agreed solutions UK will ensure that there is continued regulatory alignment from those rules of internal market and customs union which, now or in the future, support North South co-operation and protection of the Good Friday agreement t.co/pXWIrk2xUR
December 4, 2017
Huge “if” rather. @theresa_may has *not* conceded that NI would remain in CU/SM. The “alignment” language is a classic #EU fudge. Compromise on both sides, but Ireland definitely climbed down from demanding hard guarantees. Only final #Brexit deal will spell it out – in 2019. t.co/JUOUS1cjZc
December 4, 2017
So is Brexit actually going to happen?
Despite the many moving parts, Brexit is moving forward – but at a glacial speed that has led many to question whether it will lead to a decent deal given the multiple compromises already made.
A damning editorial in the London Evening Standard, edited by former chancellor George Osborne, pointed to the series of concessions the UK has made since the EU insisted the terms of trade couldn’t be negotiated until the divorce settlement was agreed. It pointed to:
– Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson telling Europe to “go whistle” if it wanted a generous divorce settlement, only for the UK now being close to agreeing to pay a £50 bn in return for favourable trade talks. – Conceding to all the demands on future status of EU citizens living in the UK, which has included accepting involvement of the European Court of Justice – crossing one of May’s apparent ‘red lines’. – The Irish border, and which Brexiteers “were publicly telling everyone it was a trivial issue which a clever camera could solve”.
Compromises aside, Donald Tusk, the chairman of EU leaders, said today that while time to reach an agreement on divorce terms is “getting very short”, a deal that would unblock talks on a future trade agreement is “still possible” by next week. In short, it’s still on.
Met with PM @theresa_may. I was ready to present draft EU27 guidelines tomorrow for #Brexit talks on transition and future. But UK and Commission asked for more time. It is now getting very tight but agreement at December #EUCO is still possible. pic.twitter.com/oLQQHs9F8q — Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) December 4, 2017
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/what-is-going-on-with-brexit-after-no-deal-on-the-eu-divorce_uk_5a2572aae4b03c44072f26e2
You must be 18 years old or older to chat
