Mediaboss Marketing

Whats the story?

With rain almost playing spoilsport, the match between Sunrisers Hyderabad and Kolkata Knight Riders went until the wee hours of Thursday morning. The cut-off rulethat allowed the game to be played till 1:30 amwas lambasted by Nathan Coulter-Nile, the star for the KKR side.

KKR pacer Coulter-Nile brought it to light thata nasty concussion sidelined him for the latter stages of the regular season in the IPL, after the player-of-the-match performance in the eliminator against Sunrisers Hyderabad.

In the match against Rising Pune Supergiant, Coulter-Nile was welcomed to the crease with an icky blow on the grillfrom a Dan Christian short ball and did not play the following three games as he was diagnosed with a concussion.

Also read:IPL 2017, Eliminator: SRH vs KKR, Player Ratings

Speaking of the match going on till late, he said: I think there is so much time, rules probably need to be looked at, I mean its 2 am, you cant be playing cricket at 2 oclock.

When asked about how things went for him post that game, he said, "It was a tough one, I'd never had a concussion before so I didn't know what to expect or what was going on."

"I was just really tired, headaches, I got a bit sick but there wasn't rehab or anything like that, I just had to lay in bed and wait to get right. I wasn't playing this morning, but I woke up and felt pretty good so I put my hand up for selection and the coaching staff went with me.

Coulter-Nile has been through an injury-plagued few years, the concussion being the latest intrusion. In his first IPL match this season against Daredevils, his figures were 3-22, which was his first spirited performance in almost a year.

The fast bowler had not been able to cement himself in Australias playing XI when they toured Sri Lanka and was mostly confined to training tracks during the Tests. He was sent home during the ODI series of the same tour as he was diagnosed with what was a bone stress fracture.

Against the Sunrisers Hyderabad, Coulter-Nile picked up three wickets, restricting them to 128, which after rain, revised KKRs target to 48 off six overs.

Coulter-Niles appearance for KKR in the eliminator was his first since theirloss to RPS in early May. It was a timely return for the pacer, who came back making a statement, taking 3-20.

He bagged the wickets of crucial players, Kane Williamson and Vijay Shankar. Not only was he handy with the ball but also showed how good an athlete he was by taking a stunning diving catch in his follow-through dismissing Chris Jordan.

He considers himself a tad bit lucky for he claims most of the credit for the wickets he grabbed goes to the pitch since the wicket wasntone where batsman could hit freely.

After outperforming the Sunrisers in the Eliminator, the Knight Riders will be facing the Mumbai Indians in the 2nd Qualifier at the Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bengaluru on the 19th of May. Coulter-Nile will be the aggressor with the ball for KKR and will be hoping to continue in the supreme form that he is in at present.

It indeed has been abumpy year or so for Coulter-Nile. However, his return has been exemplaryand he will be hoping the rough patch has passed him by. The KKR skipper, Gautam Gambhir and the team management including Coulter-Nile in the playing XI after he said he was well and up for the tie hours before the game commencedonly goes to show how much they needed the talented bowler for the knockout game.

Considering his present form, a clinical performance is expected from the speedster in the game(s) ahead for the Knight Riders.

Read more from the original source:
IPL 2017: KKR's eliminator hero Nathan Coulter-Nile not amused by cut-off rule - Yahoo Cricket

Sadly, the alleged Obama quote about Trump we're reporting on today is not, simply, "Fuck that guy." But it's pretty close. According to People, former POTUS Barack Obama told "two friends" shortly after the election how he really felt about the Home Alone 2: Lost in New York ruiner who's currently occupying the White House.

"He's nothing but a bullshitter," Obama reportedly told the friends last November when discussing an election night phone conversation he had with Trump. As for how Obama's views of a POTUS who can't even spell basic words correctly on Twitter have changed in the months since that alleged quote, People's sources have some clarity. "Well," one said, "it hasn't gotten any better."

The "bullshitter" distinction is obviously apt, especially when considering all the absolute drivel Trump has (publicly, mind you) hurled at Obama.For years, Trump attempted to discredit Obama by questioning the legitimacy of his birth certificate. Despite Obama's publication of his birth certificate in 2011, Trump continued to press the non-issue in interviews and, of course, on Twitter:

For the bullshitter-in-chief's latest delivery of bullshit, America was burdened with some early morning whining about the investigation into alleged ties between Russian officials and the Trump team.This week, the Justice Department appointed a special counsel (i.e. not"councel"). Predictably, Trump responded by tweeting claims about Obama and Clinton that he didn't bother backing up with evidence:

Follow this link:
Apparently This Is How Obama Really Feels About Trump - Complex

Getty Images

BY: Elizabeth Harrington May 18, 2017 3:33 pm

Former President Barack Obama's travel cost taxpayers roughly $100 million in his two terms in office, according to Judicial Watch.

The conservative foundation recently received additional Freedom of Information Act records of Obama and his family travel that shows a total of $99,714,527.82.

The Secret Service and Air Force records show Obama's spring break trip to Key Largo in 2014 cost over $1.1 million alone. The Obama's stayed at the "exclusive" Ocean Reef Club, a private social club that offers lavish luxury rentals.

The former first lady also cost taxpayers $121,876 for an Aspen vacation in February 2015. Michelle Obama once spent more than $600,000 for a one-night stay in Morocco.

The former first family also spent over $2.5 million to travel to Honolulu for Christmas vacation just before leaving office.

Judicial Watch is still keeping tabs on the Obama's taxpayer-funded travels, such as a vacation on David Geffin's luxury yacht in Tahiti with Tom Hanks and Oprah, as the first family still receives Secret Service protection.

The watchdog group announced Wednesday it has filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for records relating to Obama's taxpayer-funded travel since he has left office.

"For eight long years, the Obamas spent our tax dollars for a lavish jet-setting lifestyle," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Many in the media would only focus on President Trump's travel, but Barack Obama continues to cost taxpayers with his luxury travel and we aim to get the facts."

Here is the original post:
Obama Travel Cost Taxpayers $100 Million - Washington Free Beacon

Two former senior administration officials said it was retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, who rejected such a move, telling the Obama team that the Trump team first wanted to conduct its own review of an ISIS strategy.

One former US defense official explained to CNN the Obama administration offered to green light arming the Kurds during the transition in order to spare Trump the fallout with Ankara. At the time, this official had the impression Trump's people vetoed it because they wanted to do their own strategic review. The official did not speak to Flynn's role in this.

Prior to Flynn making this decision, the Flynn Intel Group received $530,000 in payments from a Turkish-owned company based in the Netherlands and in March registered as a foreign agent with the Justice Department, acknowledging that the work may have benefited the Turkish government, according to foreign agent registration paperwork filed with the department.

Flynn's firm was not compensated directly by the Turkish government. Flynn Intel had a contract with a Dutch firm, Inovo BV, a Dutch firm owned by a prominent Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim Alptekin.

Alptekin, the chair of the semi-official Turkish-American Business Council helped organize Turkish President Recep Erdogan's 2015 visit to Washington. In an email to CNN, Alptekin said that his firm works to strengthen "the transatlantic relationship and Turkey's future in that alliance."

The decision to arm Syrian Kurds was something even the Obama administration struggled with in order to save the fragile US-Turkey relationship. Two Kurdish allies of the US -- the YPG and the Syrian Democratic Forces -- are enemies of Turkey.

The Pentagon finally announced last week that Trump had authorized the limited arming of Syrian Kurds to help in the fight against ISIS in Raqqa, despite strong opposition from US NATO ally Turkey.

A current senior defense official told CNN there was no delay in the military planning or operations to isolate Raqqa and continue to train local fighters. The official did not speak to Flynn's actions.

View original post here:
Flynn rejected Obama's offer to arm Syrian Kurds, something Turkey would oppose - CNN

On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown carelessness in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clintons server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been extremely careless in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clintons server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved.

Case dismissed.

Could there be more striking parallels? A cynic might say that Obama had clearly signaled to the FBI and the Justice Department that he did not want Mrs. Clinton to be charged with a crime, and that, with this not-so-subtle pressure in the air, the presidents subordinates dropped the case exactly what Obama wanted, relying precisely on Obamas stated rationale.

Yet the media yawned.

Of course, theyre not yawning now. Now it is Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, sending Comey signals. So now, such signals are a major issue not merely of obstruction of justice, but of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Trump hysteria seems to be a permanent condition, a combustive compound of media-Democrat derangement surrounding a president who keeps providing derangement material. Lets try to keep our feet on the ground, but with a commitment to get the evidence and go wherever it takes us.

For now, we dont have much evidence. Essentially, weve got single statement, mined by the New York Times from a memo that no one outside a tight circle inside the FBI has seen indeed, that the Times has not seen. According to anonymous sources, the memo was written by thenFBI director Comey shortly after a private meeting with President Trump only two of them in the room after Trump asked other officials to leave. This was on February 14, the day after National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned over inaccurate statements he made to senior administration officials in recounting conversations hed had with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

Trump is said to have told Comey, I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.

Other than telling us that Comey replied, I agree he is a good guy, the Times provides no context of the conversation. Its report gives no indication of whether the memo provides such context.

On its face, the statement does not amount to obstruction of justice. Trump could be said to be putting pressure on his subordinate, just as Obama was putting pressure on his subordinates (Comey included) last April. But assuming the Times is right about the memo, Trump did not order Comey to drop the case. In fact, Trumps statement is consistent with encouraging Comey to use his own judgment, with the understanding that Trump hoped Comey would come out favorably to Flynn.

But of course, also with the understanding that if Comey pushed to prosecute Flynn, the president who had the power to fire Comey was going to be very unhappy. Just as President Obama would have been very unhappy, and in a position to fire Comey, if Mrs. Clinton had been indicted.

It is not frivolous to infer that Trumps statement to Comey was a veiled order. If that is your interpretation, though, you cannot avoid the conclusion that Obamas public statements were also veiled orders not to indict Clinton. Up until now, veiled orders have not been thought the equivalent of obstruction of justice.

In light of what Ive previously contended (viz., that obstruction of justice is a concept irrelevant to a counterintelligence investigation), I must note here that concerns about obstruction of justice in the context of the reported Trump-Comey conversation are legitimate. That is because the conversation does not directly relate to the so-called Russia investigation, which Comey has explained is a counterintelligence inquiry regarding Kremlin interference in the 2016 election. Rather, Trump and Comey were speaking about a criminal investigation of Flynn, ancillary to but separate from the Russia investigation. We are informed that a grand jury in Virginia is considering evidence of transactions involving Flynn, although it is not clear that this was the case on February 14, when Trump and Comey spoke.

There is good reason to believe veiled orders, while inappropriate, are not criminal i.e., they do not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction of justice. Obstruction can be a tough crime to prove. It is necessary to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the suspect acted corruptly in impeding or influencing a criminal investigation. That means acting with knowledge that ones conduct was unlawful, and with a specific intent to undermine the truth-seeking function.

Context is critical, and we dont have it. All we know is that Trump hoped the criminal investigation would be dropped but again, did not order it to be dropped and vouched for Flynns character. That may have been inappropriate under the circumstances, but it was not corrupt. Comey surely found it awkward, but he clearly did not perceive it as obstruction. The former director is a highly experienced and meritoriously decorated former prosecutor and investigator. He knows what obstruction of justice is. And the Jim Comey Ive known for 30 years would not stand for political interference in law enforcement. If he had understood Trumps remarks as a directive or, worse, a threat, he would have resigned.

It is not enough to say that he did not resign. Unlike the investigation of Mrs. Clinton, the investigation of Flynn has continued. Plus, Comey does not appear to have indicated to his subordinates, to his Justice Department superiors, or to Congress that he felt threatened. Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and Comeys former deputy (now acting director) Andrew McCabe have not intimated, even vaguely, that their investigative activities have been hampered. Again, the investigation is proceeding apace.

There is no question that obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. But media hyperventilating notwithstanding, the basis for claiming at this point that President Trump obstructed justice is not there...unless you also think President Obama obstructed justicelast April.

READ MORE: Trumps Russian Leak Defense is Not Reassuring Donald Trumps Republican Support is Waning Trump Firing James Comey Means its Time for the President to Change

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Go here to read the rest:
Under the Obama Precedent, No Trump Obstruction of Justice - National Review