Former Trump personal attorney Cohen departs after House Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington
FILE PHOTO: Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney of U.S. President Donald Trump, talks to reporters as he departs after testifying before a closed House Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 6, 2019. REUTERS/Jim Young

March 19, 2019

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Federal authorities sought warrants to investigate Michael Cohen’s email accounts in July 2017, nine months before the office and hotel room of U.S. President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer were raided, according to documents made public on Tuesday.

Emails were sought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, which is probing Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as well as by the FBI, dating back as far as June 2015, according to the documents.

The nearly 900 pages of documents provide new insights into the investigations into Cohen, who had been Trump’s personal lawyer and self-described fixer for more than a decade, and more detailed accounts of his financial dealings.

They were released after U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan on Monday ordered federal prosecutors to make redacted versions public, in response to requests by various news media organizations.

Cohen began cooperating with federal investigators soon after the April 2018 raids on his office and hotel room.

He eventually pleaded guilty to multiple crimes, including campaign finance violations in connection with payments of hush money to silence two women who claimed to have had sexual relationships with Trump.

The women included Stormy Daniels, a porn actress whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, who later sued Trump unsuccessfully to end her hush money agreement.

Cohen was sentenced in December to serve three years in prison. Since pleading guilty, he has publicly turned on Trump, telling a U.S. House of Representatives committee last month that his former boss was a “con man” and “cheat.”

Trump has denied having sexual relationships with the women, and said his campaign did not collude with Russia. Moscow has denied meddling in the 2016 election.

The filings showed how the FBI made extensive use of its access to Cohen’s Apple iCloud account, which allowed him to coordinate his work across several devices including an iPhone, iPad Mini and laptop.

They detailed how investigators believed money going to Cohen, including to his firm Essential Consultants, was for political consulting, including from international clients with issues pending before the Trump administration.

Among the payments Cohen was believed to have received was $600,000 from AT&T Inc for consulting about “political issues, including net neutrality, the merger between AT&T and Time Warner and tax reform,” and $583,333 from an investment firm controlled by Russian businessman Viktor Vekselberg.

FBI agents said they were able to locate where Cohen was staying by using internet protocol, or IP, addresses attached to those devices.

Much of the discussion about campaign finance issues was redacted.

(Reporting by Ginger Gibson, Anthony Lin, David Morgan and Andy Sullivan in Washington, and Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Source: OANN

Police officers are seen in front the building where the main suspect of the shooting has been arrested in Utrecht
Police officers are seen in front the building where the main suspect of the shooting has been arrested in Utrecht, Netherlands, March 18, 2019. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw

March 19, 2019

By Toby Sterling

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – Flags flew at half mast on government buildings across the Netherlands on Tuesday, a day after a gunman opened fire on a tram on the outskirts of Utrecht, killing three people.

A suspect – 37-year-old Turkish-born Gokmen Tanis – was detained after a seven-hour manhunt on Monday, and by Dutch law must be brought before a judge by Thursday.

Authorities said they were still trying to establish the motive for the attack in the quiet residential neighborhood which also wounded five people.

Regional police commissioner Rob van Bree said on a late night talk show that there was no connection known yet between the suspect and the victims, while Prime Minister Mark Rutte said “terrorist” motives could still not be ruled out.

But in an evening press conference, Utrecht’s top prosecutor, Rutger Jeuken, said family issues could also be involved.

The suspect had previously been arrested, Jeuken told reporters, without giving further details.

There was no immediate comment from Tanis or any lawyer representing him.

Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad identified one of the victims as a 19-year-old woman who worked in a cafe and another as a local football coach who was the father of two young children. Both have Dutch surnames.

The third victim has not been identified by police or press. Utrecht police did not answer telephone calls early on Tuesday but said in a Tweet they would issue a press statement “in the course of the morning.”

Utrecht, the Netherlands’ fourth largest city with a population of around 340,000, is known for its picturesque canals and large student population. Gun killings are rare there, as elsewhere in the Netherlands.

(Reporting by Toby Sterling; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

Source: OANN

Kevin Daley | Supreme Court Reporter

  • Five Democratic presidential candidates are contemplating proposals to expand the Supreme Court. 
  • The push to “pack the courts” follows a concerted Republican effort to install judicial conservatives at every level of the federal judiciary.
  • The threat of court expansion could itself deter the Supreme Court’s conservatives from moving the law sharply in new directions.

A growing number of Democratic presidential candidates are entertaining a push to add seats to the Supreme Court, as Republican success at filling the courts with judicial conservatives has infuriated progressive voters.

Democratic presidential candidates Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, and Kirsten Gillibrand have expressed willingness to consider proposals for expanding the composition of the Supreme Court as of this writing.

The Trump campaign charged that those suggestions, called court-packing, keeps with other structural reforms to the U.S. political system some Democrats have endorsed since the 2016 election.

“This is just what the Democrats always do,” the Trump campaign told TheDCNF. “When they lose, they try to change the rules. This is no different from when they attack the Electoral College every time they lose the White House. Now it’s court-packing. They want to change our institutions to fit their own political desires.”

Another presidential candidate, Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, advanced a more modest proposition. Speaking Monday night on MSNBC, the senator said term limits for Supreme Court justices might be appropriate, but he seemed reluctant to endorse expansion of the Court.

Democrats frame the issue as a credibility problem. By their telling, the campaign began when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to fill the vacancy occasioned by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death until after the 2016 election, and continued apace with the abolition of the filibuster for high court nominees.

“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris told Politico. “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

O’Rourke struck a similar note Friday at a Burlington, Iowa coffee shop, telling onlookers that an expanded Court is “an idea that we should explore” to curb partisanship and political dysfunction. The former El Paso congressman floated a proposal to add six justices to the high court. Under that system, Democrats and Republicans would each appoint five justices. Those 10 would then unanimously select the remaining five.

Other procedural changes for lower court nominations have inflamed Democratic anger, such that packing the courts — once thought radical — is now a viable political position.

“The GOP has also undermined virtually all of the customs that protected the minority and home state senators in the judicial selection process, such as White House consultation and blue slips, while ramming through circuit nominees with little process,” Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

After President Donald Trump took office, the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee began holding confirmation hearings in which multiple circuit court nominees appear for testimony. Democrats say that’s a break with historical practice. (RELATED: Is Chief Justice John Roberts Tacking Left?)

The committee has also effectively abandoned the minority party’s blue slip veto for appeals court nominations, which allows senators to block nominees tapped for judgeships in their state. Republicans say the blue slip process has not been consistently observed for circuit court confirmations and makes little sense for appellate nominees.

Interest in court-packing has also waxed due to a sustained interest group campaign. Career Democratic operatives, attempting to put liberal interest in the judiciary at parity with conservatives, founded a dark money political group that is urging Democratic candidates to endorse court-expansion ideas.

A Democratic Court-packing bid would likely require a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Given that daunting prospect, a near-term effort to expand the Court is unlikely to succeed. Yet the Democratic flirtation with court-packing might itself bring the justices to heel. Tobias suggested that a threat to the institution’s composition, even if unlikely, could deter the justices from moving the law rightward.

“Discussing that prospect and other proposals like term limits for justices or adding lower court judges may signal to the Court that it should not veer sharply to the right, as Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to be signaling to Trump and the nation with his rebuff of Trump regarding ‘Obama judges,’” Tobias said, referencing an episode in 2018 in which Roberts rebuked Trump for deriding a district court judge who enjoined the administration’s asylum reforms.

The justices of the Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on November 30, 2018. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

The justices of the Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on November 30, 2018. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, accused Democrats of browbeating the Court’s newly entrenched conservative majority.

“Democrats will try anything to politicize the judicial selection process and the courts,” Severino told TheDCNF. “Now they are trying to bully and intimidate the Supreme Court’s justices into serving as a rubber stamp for a liberal political agenda.”

Popular history holds that a similar tactic animated an important change on the Supreme Court during the 1930s. A conservative coalition on the high court struck down much of President Franklin Roosevelt’s domestic economic program during his first term. Flush with victory after his landslide reelection in 1936, Roosevelt asked Congress for authority to appoint as many as six new justices.

Though the Democratic Congress overwhelmingly repudiated that request, Justice Owen Roberts, then the “swing vote” on the bench, began voting to uphold progressive economic measures, like the constitutionality of minimum wage laws. That shift was widely interpreted as a strategic move to protect the Court from Roosevelt’s scheme. Recent scholarship questions the accuracy of this view, sometimes called “the switch in time that saved nine.”

Still, Roosevelt’s plot is widely seen as notorious and misguided, and may explain why no candidate has yet given a court-packing alternative their unqualified endorsement. Instead, the Democratic 2020 contenders urge further discussions or decline to rule out the possibility.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Source: The Daily Caller

FILE PHOTO - Natalie Jaresko, Executive Director of the Federal Fiscal Control Board of Puerto Rico attends a meeting of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico at the College of Engineers and Land Surveyors in San Juan
FILE PHOTO – Natalie Jaresko, Executive Director of the Federal Fiscal Control Board of Puerto Rico attends a meeting of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico at the College of Engineers and Land Surveyors in San Juan, Puerto Rico October 31, 2017. REUTERS/Alvin Baez

March 19, 2019

SAN JUAN (Reuters) – The executive director of Puerto Rico’s federally created financial oversight board said on Monday that a plan to restructure the U.S. commonwealth’s core government debt likely cannot be done by the end of April.

An attorney for the board last week told a U.S. judge who is hearing Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy cases that a draft plan was expected next month, according to local media reports.

But on Monday, the oversight board’s executive director, Natalie Jaresko, said the attorney meant to say that the plan could be filed with the court “at best” in April.

“I don’t think it’s highly realistic to do this by the end of April,” Jaresko said, adding that board’s goal is to seek court confirmation of a plan before year end.

Negotiations are ongoing with creditors over a plan of adjustment for roughly $13 billion of general obligation debt and almost $50 billion in unfunded pension obligations, although the board has asked the court to void more than $6 billion of GO bonds issued in 2012 and 2014.

“We’re trying not to do a cramdown, but I don’t know where that’s going to end up in the end,” Jaresko said, referring to a process where an adjustment plan could be imposed on certain creditors.

She took questions from the media following a meeting on Monday with members of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, which oversees U.S. territories and which has raised concerns over the 2016 federal Promesa law that created the oversight board.

“I think the Promesa law is working right now,” Jaresko said, adding that she cannot predict whether Congress would seek to revise it.

A committee spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The privatization of Puerto Rico’s bankrupt power utility, PREPA, is “moving forward,” but its pace “needs to improve,” Jaresko warned.

Governor Ricardo Rosselló announced in January 2018 his plans to privatize PREPA, a process that was expected to take 18 months. It was not until earlier this year, however, that the government selected companies to bid on taking over the distribution and transmission of power on the island. The utility, which filed for bankruptcy in the summer of 2017, continues to negotiate with its creditors to restructure roughly $9 billion in debt.

Puerto Rico has won court approval for restructurings of debt from its Government Development Bank and Sales Tax Financing Corporation known as COFINA.

(Reporting by Karen Pierog in Chicago and Luis Valentin Ortiz in San Juan; Editing by Matthew Lewis)

Source: OANN

FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO Elon Musk attends the Tesla Shanghai Gigafactory groundbreaking ceremony in Shanghai
FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO Elon Musk attends the Tesla Shanghai Gigafactory groundbreaking ceremony in Shanghai, China January 7, 2019. REUTERS/Aly Song

March 19, 2019

(Reuters) – A tweet about Tesla Inc production targets by Elon Musk was “a blatant violation” of a court order to get his written communications pre-approved, U.S. securities regulators told a judge on Monday, doubling down on the government’s demand to find the Tesla CEO in contempt of a previous fraud settlement.

The Securities and Exchange Commission wrote in a filing in federal court in Manhattan that Musk’s Feb. 19 tweet to his more than 24 million Twitter followers claiming the electric vehicle-maker would build around 500,000 cars in 2019 contained or could have contained information material to Tesla or its shareholders.

The ongoing public battle between Tesla’s chief executive and the top U.S. securities regulator adds pressure on Musk, the public face of Tesla, who is struggling to make the company profitable after cutting the price of its Model 3 sedan to $35,000.

The regulator last month alleged that Musk had violated a September settlement of fraud charges by tweeting material information about Tesla without pre-approval from the company.

In response, Musk had argued that his “single, immaterial” tweet was in compliance with the settlement, and that the SEC’s push to find him in contempt infringed on his free speech..

The fraud settlement between Musk, Tesla and the SEC resolved a lawsuit brought by the regulator over claims Musk made on Twitter in August that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 per share. The SEC called those tweets “false and misleading” and a go-private deal never materialized.

As part of that settlement, Musk stepped down as the company’s chairman and he and Tesla agreed to pay $20 million each in fines.

He also agreed to submit written communications that could materially impact Tesla for pre-approval to the company before publishing them.

“It is therefore stunning to learn that, at the time of filing of the instant motion, Musk had not sought pre-approval for a single one of the numerous tweets about Tesla he published in the months since the court-ordered pre-approval policy went into effect,” the SEC said in Monday’s filing.

Tesla has backed off a plan to close all its U.S. stores and said it will instead raise prices of its higher-end vehicles by about 3 percent on average. Last week, Tesla unveiled its Model Y crossover SUV, targeted to begin production in 2020.

Musk called the regulator the “Shortseller Enrichment Commission” on Twitter after the settlement, and tweeted that “something is broken with SEC oversight” just one day after the agency started pursuing the contempt order.

Legal experts have said the SEC could pursue multiple avenues, including a higher fine, imposing further restrictions on Musk’s activities or removing him from Tesla’s board or helm.

Tesla published a new communications policy in December for senior executives as part of the settlement. It called for Tesla’s general counsel and a newly designated in-house securities law attorney to pre-approve any written statements about Tesla that could be material.

A disclosure controls committee, made up of board members Brad Buss, Antonio Gracias and James Murdoch, was tasked with overseeing compliance with the new policy.

The case is U.S. SEC v Elon Musk, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 1:18-cv-8865-AJN-GWG

(Reporting by Alexandria Sage in San Francisco; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Source: OANN

Virginia Kruta | Associate Editor

Democratic New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker has a complicated relationship with sleep — and coffee — according to a series of tweets unearthed Monday. And he’s not above using the same joke more than once. Or more than 10 times.

Writer Anna Fitzpatrick discovered the tweets in what initially appeared to be an effort to explain why 10-year-old tweets should not be used to judge presidential candidates.

“we should vet every presidential candidate but digging up their tweets from 2009 is a low blow. every tweet from 2009 is bad,” she tweeted.

She then made an example of Booker, citing a 2009 tweet in which he lamented a lack of sleep. “‘Sleep’ and I broke up a few nights ago. I’m dating ‘Coffee’ now. She’s Hot!”

But then Fitzpatrick realized that Booker had repeated the same joke just two years ago.

That’s when she realized there might just be a pattern. (RELATED: Cory Booker Confirms He’s Dating, And The Rumor Mill Points To A Hollywood Actress)

Booker, who recently tossed his hat into the ring for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, also announced some personal news: he has severed ties with both coffee and sleep, and is currently seeing actress Rosario Dawson.

Follow Virginia on Twitter

Source: The Daily Caller

Neetu Chandak | Education and Politics Reporter

A Virginia student accused of sexual misconduct said Fairfax County Public Schools treated male students “disproportionately harsher” than female students in sexual harassment cases.

The 18-year-old male student, referred to as “John Doe” in the lawsuit, said the district violated his free speech, due process rights and did not investigate the situation properly. Doe was suspended and sent to a different school, according to the lawsuit given to The Daily Caller News Foundation by attorney Jesse Binnall.

A Robinson Secondary School female accused two male students of sexual harassment after her buttocks were allegedly slapped in December 2018. Surveillance video reportedly showed Doe did not hit the female student, according to the lawsuit.

Doe befriended the female student who was new to the school.

“Doe and Student A had classes together and would see each other at school outside of class,” the lawsuit said. “Doe flirted with Student A, which included friendly conversations, putting his arm around her and playfully poking her in class. Student A did not reject these overtures. In fact, she would often seek out Doe’s company and return his flirtations.”

The lawsuit claims the female student “colluded” with her friends to make false statements and the assistant principal was allegedly “seeking evidence that was inculpatory and ignored exculpatory evidence,” according to the lawsuit.

Binnall told TheDCNF one of the witnesses changed her story.

“If a male student and female student are both engaged in mutual sexual contact or touching on school grounds, it is common for the male student to be punished and for the female student not to be punished, based on gender,” the lawsuit said.

Pictured is a hand on a shoulder. SHUTTERSTOCK/Andrey_Popov

Pictured is a hand on a shoulder. SHUTTERSTOCK/Andrey_Popov

Doe’s punishment could affect his college wrestling scholarship and entry to a “prestigious” university unless his record gets cleaned by a judge, The Washington Post reported Sunday. A hearing is expected March 22. (RELATED: Education Department’s Budget Proposal Includes First Ever Teacher Voucher Program)

“He was never given a fair shot to make his case to prove that he was innocent in a school district that doesn’t even have a presumption of innocence,” Binnall said to TheDCNF.

John Torre, a spokesman for FCPS, would not comment on the specifics of the case to WaPo, but said the school district “thoroughly investigates all allegations of Title IX violations and takes action, where appropriate.”

Title IX does not allow sex-based discrimination to education programs receiving federal funding. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos proposed sweeping changes to Title IX to clarify students’ rights and schools’ legal obligations in November 2018.

FCPS is dealing with two other federal lawsuits over mishandling of sexual allegation cases, according to WaPo.

The district is the 10th largest in the U.S. and serves more than 187,000 students.

Robinson Secondary principal Matt Eline could not provide comment on the case.

FCPS did not immediately respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Follow Neetu on Twitter

Send tips to: neetu@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Source: The Daily Caller

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk claimed on Twitter that Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar once voted against a bill that blocked payments to the families of terrorists.

“In 2017, @IlhanMN voted no on a bill in the Minnesota Legislature that blocked payments to the children & spouses of known terrorists,” Kirk tweeted March 5.

Verdict: True

According to state records, Omar was one of two members in the Minnesota legislature who voted against H.F. 1397, a 2017 bill that sought to block life insurance payouts to the families of terrorists. It’s unclear why Omar voted against this bill.

Fact Check:

Omar, the freshman lawmaker from Minnesota’s fifth congressional district, is the first Somali American elected to Congress and one of three Muslims currently serving. Prior to her election, Omar served one term in Minnesota’s House of Representatives.

Voting records show that as a state representative, Omar was one of two members to vote against H.F. 1397, a 2017 bill that sought to allow life insurance companies the ability to deny payouts to beneficiaries “if the insured’s death occurs directly or indirectly as a result of the insured’s furtherance of terrorism.”

The bill was in response to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting. Syed Rizwan Farook, a California man who, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, shot and killed 14 people, had previously taken out two life insurance policies worth a combined total of $275,000. After Farook was killed in a shootout with law enforcement, his mother was to be the primary beneficiary of the policies.

However, the federal government filed a lawsuit to seize the money, saying it planned to disperse the funds among the surviving victims and the families of those killed in the attack.

“Terrorists must not be permitted to provide for their designated beneficiaries through their crimes,” said then- U.S. Attorney Eileen M. Decker in a statement. “My office intends to explore every legal option available to us to ensure these funds are made available to the victims of this horrific crime. We will continue to use every tool available to seek justice on behalf of the victims.”

A federal judge ruled in August 2016 that the government could seize the funds, The San Bernardino Sun reported.

The Minnesota bill passed the House in a 127-2 vote. Omar and fellow state Rep. John Lesch were the only members to vote against the bill. Lesch voiced concern that the wording of the bill might give insurance companies too much discretion over what constitutes terrorism.

“[The bill] allows an insurance company, not a court, to decide what constitutes an act of terrorism under the cited statute, and it lowers the burden on that call to preponderance of the evidence,” Lesch told Alpha News, a Minnesota-based news outlet.

He expressed that he was not opposed to the idea behind the bill: “Terrorists should not be able to send life insurance benefits to beneficiaries based on bad faith recent policy purchases. I think we can all agree on that.”

It’s unclear why Omar voted against the bill. Her office did not respond to a request for comment. (RELATED: Did Ilhan Omar Vote Against A Bill Making Female Genital Mutilation A Felony?)

Omar has been criticized by some on the political right for a letter she sent a judge back in 2016 asking for leniency to be shown to nine Minnesota men charged with planning to join ISIS. “The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion,” reads one portion of the letter. “We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to affect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation.”

Minneapolis, a city within Omar’s congressional district, has witnessed some of its young male residents join, or attempt to join, terror groups such as ISIS and Somalia-based al-Shabab, according to one Fox News story.

Omar has faced calls to be removed from her position on the House Foreign Affairs Committee over comments she made that were perceived by some to be anti-Semitic.

Follow Brad on Twitter

Have a fact check suggestion? Send ideas to [email protected]

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

Oyub Titiev, the head of human rights group Memorial in Chechnya, attends his verdict hearing at a court in the town of Shali, in Chechnya
Oyub Titiev, the head of human rights group Memorial in Chechnya, attends his verdict hearing at a court in the town of Shali, in Chechnya, Russia, March 18, 2019. REUTERS/Said Tsarnayev

March 18, 2019

By Maria Vasilyeva

SHALI, Russia (Reuters) – A court in Chechnya on Monday sentenced Oyub Titiev, a prominent human rights activist, to four years in a penal settlement after finding him guilty of possessing illegal drugs, a charge his supporters say was trumped up.

Titiev, who runs the office of the Memorial Human Rights Centre in the southern Russian region, was detained in January last year by police who said they had found 206.9 grams (7.3 oz) of cannabis in his car after stopping him to check his documents. Titiev said the cannabis was planted.

He and his supporters allege he was framed in order to punish him for his human rights work and to stop Memorial working in Chechnya.

“They fabricated the criminal case for five months and they fabricated the sentence for eight months,” Titiev told reporters after the verdict.

Reporters, diplomats and Titiev’s neighbors and relatives packed the courtroom to hear the verdict. Titiev watched proceedings from inside a cage, leaning on the white bars as he listened to the judge read the verdict in the trial for over nine hours.

The majority-Muslim republic of Chechnya is governed by Kremlin-backed leader Ramzan Kadyrov whom human rights workers accuse of widespread abuses in the region, allegations he denies.

Kadyrov’s supporters credit him with bringing relative calm and stability to a region dogged for years by a simmering insurgency following two wars between Moscow and separatists after the 1991 Soviet break-up.

(Additional reporting by Maria Tsvetkova; writing by Tom Balmforth; editing by Andrew Osborn)

Source: OANN

Hailey Clauson dropped some straight fire on Instagram with a recent snap.

Clauson, who we all love here at The Smoke Room, posted a photo of herself in a green bikini-top, and you don’t want to miss this snap. (SLIDESHOW: These Women On Instagram Hate Wearing Clothes)

It’s, without a doubt, one of the best things that we’ve seen all day. You’d have to be crazy in order to not agree. (SLIDESHOW: 142 Times Josephine Skriver Barely Wore Anything)

Take a glance for yourself. I’m sure most of you will judge my assessment. (SLIDESHOW: 71 Times Samantha Hoopes Stripped Down)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Hailey Clauson (@haileyclauson) on

Has Clauson ever disappointed us on Instagram? I really think the answer to that question is no. (SLIDESHOW: This Blonde Bombshell Might Be The Hottest Model On The Internet) 

Luckily, we have plenty of evidence to dig into to find out for ourselves just how great her Instagram is. (SLIDESHOW: 60 Times Abigail Ratchford Wore Almost Nothing)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Hailey Clauson (@haileyclauson) on

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Hailey Clauson (@haileyclauson) on

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Hailey Clauson (@haileyclauson) on

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Hailey Clauson (@haileyclauson) on

Source: The Daily Caller

Current track