• Floyd Mayweather Accuses Ex-Girlfriend Shantel Jackson of Illegally Recording Him While They Were Engaged

    Floyd Mayweather is accusing his ex-girlfriend, Shantel Jackson, of illegally recording their conversations in an attempt to keep dirt on him in case they broke up. According to newly filed court documents, Mayweather is asking a judge permission to amend a lawsuit he filed against Jackson to now include claims against her for the alleged […] The post Floyd Mayweather Accuses Ex-Girlfriend Shantel Jackson of Illegally Recording Him While They Were Engaged appeared first on The Blast.

  • University of Georgia fraternity suspended after racist video shared on social media

    The video depicts one student playfully slapping another member of the fraternity with a belt and using the N-word.

  • 'Horrible attack': Catholic priest stabbed during livestreamed church service in Canada as stunned parishioners look on

    A Catholic priest was stabbed while celebrating Mass in Montreal Friday morning as stunned parishioners looked on, according to officials and video footage. The horrifying incident, which authorities said was not terror-related, unfolded just before 9 a.m. at the historic St. Joseph's Oratory, leaving Father Claude Grou, 77, with lacerations to his upper body, according to Montreal police spokeswoman Caroline Chevrefils.

  • Viking Sky: Passengers airlifted to safety after cruise ship breaks down off Norwegian coast

    A cruise ship that broke down in rough seas off the Norwegian coast with some 1,300 passengers and crew on board has restarted three of its four engines and will be towed to port, emergency services said Sunday. "Three of the four engines are now working which means the boat can now make way on its own," emergency services spokesman Per Fjeld said. The Viking Sky sent out a mayday signal on Saturday, after it began drifting towards land, prompting a huge evacuation operation in which rescue helicopters evacuated passengers and crew to safety. Among those airlifted were believed to many British tourists.  The airlift was continuing in the early morning, Fjeld said. Nearly 338 of the 1,373 onboard were evacuated by helicopter by early Sunday morning. They were flown to a village just north of the town of Molde, on Norway's west coast. According to the latest figures from the rescue services, 17 people had been taken to hospital with injuries. We’re waiting for evacuation by helicopter VikingSkyMaydaypic.twitter.com/rqSYaWGi0k- Alexus Sheppard ��️‍�� (@alexus309) March 23, 2019 Earlier on Saturday lifeboats were forced to turn back en route to the ship due to the "brutal" conditions. Later, reports emerged that a cargo ship with nine crew members was in trouble nearby, and the local Norwegian rescue service diverted two of the helicopters to that rescue. Two hundred Britons were believed to be among those on board the Viking Sky ship with Norwegian media suggesting the majority of  passengers were British and American tourists.  Derek and Esther Browne, from Hampshire, said the "whole boat was swaying, it was very rough" before they were airlifted to safety. Mr Browne told BBC Radio 5 Live's Stephen Nolan: "We had a few people on stretchers, several with cuts, two with broken limbs, but fortunately we were alright. We were airlifted onto the helicopter which was quite a frightening experience." He added: "I'd never been in a helicopter before, there were a lot of high winds, hovering overhead and the winchman came down and we were then collected up and so I shut my eyes as we arrived into the helicopter and there were 15 of us for about a 20-minute ride." Norway cruise rescue, in pictures The stretch of water known as Hustadvika is known for its fierce weather and the shallow waters are dotted with reefs. The Norwegian government is currently deciding whether to build a giant ocean tunnel through a nearby mountain to improve safety. The Viking Sky, built in 2017, belongs to Viking Ocean Cruises, part of the Viking Cruises group founded by Norwegian billionaire Torstein Hagen. Several vessels and four helicopters took part in the rescue and extensive facilities were set up on land to receive passengers. All search and rescue teams in the region were mobilised, including 60 volunteers from the Norwegian Red Cross, a spokesman said. Passengers on board the Viking Sky, waiting to be evacuated, off the coast of Norway on Saturday Credit:  Michal Stewart The ship, built in 2017, belongs to Viking Ocean Cruises, part of the Viking Cruises group founded by Norwegian billionaire Torstein Hagen. According to the company website, its passenger capacity is 930. Several vessels and four helicopters took part in the rescue and facilities to receive passengers have been set up on land, the rescue service said. Wind was blowing at a speed of 38 knots, police told Norwegian newspaper VG. All search and rescue teams in the region are mobilising, including 60 volunteers from the Norwegian Red Cross, a spokesman said. A Viking Sky spokesperson said: "We can confirm that as of 10am (Norwegian time) today, 24 March 2019, the vessel, Viking Sky, is safely travelling to Molde under its own power. The ship is being  accompanied by two offshore supply ships and one tug assist vessel. The evacuation of passengers has ended and there are currently 436 guests and 458 crew onboard.   "The 479 passengers who were airlifted from the vessel are currently on shore and arrangements have been made to fly them home, with the first passengers leaving today. Currently we understand 20 people suffered injuries as a result of this incident, and they are all receiving care at the relevant medical centres in Norway, with some already having been discharged.  "Throughout all of this, our first priority was for the safety and wellbeing of our passengers and our crew. We would like to thank the Norwegian Redningssentral and the Norwegian emergency services for their support and skill displayed in managing the situation in very challenging weather conditions. We would also like to thank the local residents who throughout the whole process have been extremely supportive and hospitable. "We are in the process of updating the website with the latest information.  If you have questions or concerns about any guests, please visit  https://www.vikingcruises.com/ oceans/my-trip/current- sailings/index.html" Family members search for passengers on board As the phone batteries of passengers dwindled and died, and some on board were injured and taken to hospital, the relatives anxiously waited for news. Many used Twitter in the hope of contacting missing loved ones. While some remained missing:   Our Mom and Aunt (twins) are aboard vikingsky and we haven't been able to contact them. If anyone on board has seen Marcy Bell or Mary Fislar please let us know they are OK.- shannon milton (@shanhawk2) March 24, 2019  Others were found safe and sound, and were enjoying free wine and food in a local hotel as they made plans to return home after the ordeal: My dad and stepmom just took their helicopter ride off of the VikingSky and are safe and sound at a hotel in Molde as of a few minutes ago, where there is free food and wine apparently. She said “the hoist up was something.” VikingSkyMayday- @DaniTal (@DaniTal54803917) March 24, 2019 There were complaints about lack of information from the cruise operator, as family members of passengers complained that they were not told about the injury status of their loved ones: I cannot thank the Twitter community enough. We had a happy ending, with both of my parents recovering at a hospital. Based on my moms texts, I knew they were injured; hence my frantic tweets. My best wishes are with all those who are still waiting for news VikingSky- rebecca (@rebeccasunshine) March 24, 2019 Dear @VikingCruises, you can’t even begin to “appreciate” my “concern” abt my parents’ condition aboard your ship. Your canned response is cheap & your fake care is revolting. Thanks for telling me my parents were on the non-injured list AFTER they were med-evac’d off. VikingSky- rebecca (@rebeccasunshine) March 24, 2019  Passengers show chaos on the ship Pictures posted to social media show the chaotic sleeping arrangements as passengers curled up in life jackets to try to get some sleep as they waited to be airlifted to safety. Battery dying and people sleeping everywhere. Probably my last tweet of the night. VikingSkyMaydaypic.twitter.com/ouzegYmHOD- Alexus Sheppard ��️‍�� (@alexus309) March 24, 2019 Destruction on the ship was also plain to see, with broken glass on the floor and doors torn off their hinges. My sister send me some pictures from inside of the ship . She can see the boat that is going to pull them over vikingskypic.twitter.com/Fsbc5EKy3i- VERONIKA (@VERONIK57881586) March 24, 2019

  • After Mueller's Exoneration of Trump, Full Disclosure

    The news that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has closed his investigation without recommending criminal charges against President Trump is a relief. It is not a surprise.Nor is it a surprise that the news has Trump antagonists clamoring for full disclosure of the special counsel’s final report. Mind you, when skeptics of the Trump-Russia investigation asked what the criminal predicate for it was, and on what basis the Obama administration had decided to monitor the opposition party’s presidential campaign, we were admonished about the wages of disclosure -- the compromise of precious defense secrets, of deep-cover intelligence sources and methods. Why, to ask for such information was to be an insurrectionist seeking to destroy the FBI, the Justice Department, and the rule of law itself. Now, though, it’s only the uncharged president of the United States at issue, so disclose away!Well, if we’re going to have disclosure, fine. But let’s have full disclosure: Mueller’s report in addition to the FISA applications; the memoranda pertinent to the opening and continuation of the investigation; the testimony in secret hearings; the scope memorandum Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein issued on August 2, 2017, after failing to cite a crime when he appointed Mueller -- let’s have all of it.As far as the special counsel’s report goes, because of the way the regulations work (at least when the Justice Department deigns to follow them), we now have Mueller’s bottom line, but not his reasoning and the underlying facts. It is the opposite of the Trump opposition’s preferred Roger Stone and George Papadopoulos scenario, where Mueller’s team spins pages and pages of “Gee, sure seems like a lot of almost-collusion here” before you flip to the end and find that there’s no case -- just a campaign hanger-on who lied to an investigator long after the imaginary espionage conspiracy occurred. At the moment, we just have Mueller’s conclusion: There is no basis to indict the president for a crime -- not collusion, not obstruction, not false statements. The collusion-peddlers, who took great umbrage at the suggestion that “VERIFIED” FISA surveillance-warrant applications should be disclosed, now demand Mueller’s full report so they can get to the familiar work of obscuring the bottom line and spinning the spin.As we’ve noted before, unlike Mueller, who needs a crime to indict, Congress does not need a crime to impeach. The media-Democrat alliance does not need a crime to inflate Mueller’s not-quite-so stories into treason. To keep this carnival rolling on for another year and a half, they just need fodder for the narrative -- which is so predictably morphing from the collusion narrative to the impeachment narrative to the campaign narrative.Since before Robert Mueller was appointed, I have been contending that there was no legal basis for the appointment of a special counsel because there was no evidence that the president had committed a crime. For nearly a year and a half, I’ve maintained that Mueller had nothing close to an actionable “collusion” case, that he had no prosecutable obstruction case, and that this exercise was an impeachment investigation geared more toward rendering Trump unelectable in 2020 than toward actually removing him from office.This was not to dismiss Russia’s provocations (which Democrats spent most of the Obama years ignoring, and -- when it comes to hacking -- which Obama himself spent the 2016 campaign mostly ignoring). It was always essential that the FBI use its counterintelligence authorities for their proper purpose -- to monitor and undermine foreign powers. It still is.But investigations targeting Americans for violating the law have to be premised on crime. Even FISA, which allows a court to authorize spying on an American citizen suspected of being an agent of a foreign power, requires the Justice Department and the FBI to show probable cause that the American is knowingly engaged in clandestine activity on behalf of the foreign power -- and that this clandestine activity is a probable violation of American criminal law. (See FISA, section 1801(b)(2) of Title 50, U.S. Code -- the definition of “agent of a foreign power” that applies to American citizens.)That is why, as we have repeatedly pointed out, “collusion” is a weasel word. “Collusion” is just association -- concerted activity that could be benign, sinister, or somewhere in between. It is not a crime to have relationships, even troubling ones, with Russians. Fortunately for the Clinton campaign, it is not a crime to attempt to gather opposition research from foreign sources -- even former British spies who purport to have Kremlin-connected sources. When Americans are involved, the only collusion that federal criminal and counterintelligence law trouble themselves over involves conspiracy (or its close cousin, aiding and abetting). There must be knowing complicity in a crime. If you don’t have a good-faith basis to believe a crime has been committed, you don’t have an investigation.Again, we were pointing that out before Mueller was appointed. In order to justify a special-counsel appointment, the regulations require two things: (1) the attorney general (or the deputy AG when, as here, the AG is recused) must be able to articulate the factual basis for a criminal investigation or prosecution; (2) that investigation or prosecution must create a conflict of interest so profound that the Justice Department cannot ethically conduct the investigation -- a lawyer must be brought in from outside the government. It is the alleged crime that determines what is to be investigated and whether there is a conflict.Here, the issue was solely the president. The Justice Department and FBI did not need a special counsel to conduct a counterintelligence investigation of Russia, or a criminal investigation of, say, Michael Flynn or Paul Manafort. Indeed, such investigations were underway before Mueller’s appointment. A special counsel would have been needed only for the president, on the rationale that the president cannot credibly be investigated by his own Justice Department. That is fine: The president is not above the law, and if there is evidence that he committed a crime, he should be investigated. But there has to be evidence that he committed a crime.There wasn’t. Even in his shocking public announcement that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for possible “coordination” in Russia’s election interference, former FBI director James Comey never actually accused the president of a crime. While privately assuring Trump that he was not a suspect, Comey publicly stated that the FBI was conducting a counterintelligence probe. You can believe, as I do, that this was a pretext for a criminal investigation that lacked a crime; but for present purposes, that’s irrelevant. The point is: There was no crime.In May 2017, in the wake of Trump’s firing of Comey (which acting FBI director Andrew McCabe wrongly concluded could be the basis for an obstruction investigation), Rosenstein appointed Mueller. But, again, no crime was cited (Rosenstein obviously knew better than McCabe). Perforce, there was no need for a special counsel. In the Justice Department, the FBI -- not a prosecutor -- conducts counterintelligence investigations. And there was palpably no conflict of interest requiring an outside lawyer. How could there be? There was no factual basis for a crime, and you can’t know whether there is a conflict unless you know what the suspected crime is. Plus, Mueller recruited his staff from the Justice Department’s top echelon, and later transferred cases he brought to Justice Department components; these actions would have been inappropriate if the Justice Department had actually been conflicted.There was no need for a special counsel. And there was no case -- again, obviously. Mueller never charged any Trump associate with any kind of espionage conspiracy. As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, when prosecutors have a conspiracy case, they induce the cooperating accomplice witnesses to plead guilty to the conspiracy and implicate the other conspirators at the time of the plea. Mueller, instead, pled his putative accomplices to process crimes of lying to investigators, and to massive fraud crimes that had nothing to do with Trump or Russia. No competent prosecutor builds a case that way -- and Mueller is an exceptionally competent prosecutor.Moreover, wholly apart from Mueller’s evidence-based decision not to accuse Trump associates of complicity in Russia’s election interference, there are also Mueller’s two indictments of Russian operatives -- the hacking and troll-farm cases. These charges not only fail to suggest a conspiratorial link to the Trump campaign; they positively indicate that the Russian operatives neither needed nor wanted American partners. They wanted deniability. Their operations predated Trump’s entry into the campaign, and some of them were anti-Trump in nature.Did Putin want Trump to win the election? Who knows? But there is no reason to think Putin (unlike any other informed observer) believed Trump would win the election. What Russia was aiming for is what Russia is always aiming for: to sow discord in American society and make it more difficult for the American government to pursue American interests. In any event, Mueller’s Russia indictments, like his charges against Trump associates, appeared to preclude the possibility of a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy. If Mueller had suddenly found Trump guilty of “collusion,” his prior prosecutions would have been incomprehensible.And, to reiterate another oft-made point, a federal prosecutor cannot properly charge an obstruction case against the president based on lawful exercises of the chief executive’s constitutional prerogatives. To be sure, a president may be cited for obstruction based on acts that the Constitution does not endorse and that corruptly tamper with evidence or witnesses. But because prosecutorial power is executive in nature, a president -- like a prosecutor -- is permitted by the Constitution to take actions that negatively affect an investigation. A president is permitted to weigh in on the merits of an investigation; he may fire the investigators (including the FBI director); he may issue pardons.Clearly, these powers can be abused, and if they are, Congress may impeach the president. But it is not the place of a prosecutor, an inferior federal officer, to second-guess the chief executive’s exercise of executive discretion just because the inferior officer suspects improper motivation. The president should suffer politically for inappropriately insinuating himself in law-enforcement activities; but it is not a crime for him to do so.Finally, unlike criminal investigations, which are conducted to vindicate the rule of law in judicial proceedings and which should be insulated from politics, counterintelligence investigations are done strictly for the president -- to assist him in carrying out his national-security duties. If a president were to shut down a counterintelligence investigation -- which Trump has never done in connection with Russia, even after the FBI director publicly portrayed Trump’s campaign as a suspected collaborator -- that could not be an obstruction crime, even if it were a reckless decision. It is the politically accountable president, not the administrative state, who determines the nation’s intelligence needs.In sum, we have endured a two-year ordeal in which the president of the United States was forced to govern under a cloud of suspicion -- suspicion of being a traitor, of scheming with a foreign adversary to steal an election. This happened because the Obama administration -- which opened the probe of the Trump campaign, and which opted to use foreign counterintelligence spying powers rather than give Trump a defensive briefing about suspected Russian infiltration of his campaign -- methodically forced its suspicions about Trump into the public domain.It is not just that FISA warrants were sought on the basis of the Steele dossier, an uncorroborated Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed that the Obama Justice Department and FBI well knew was being peddled to the media at the same time. There was a patently premeditated stream of intelligence leaks depicting a corrupt Trump-Russia arrangement.After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, Obama, after doing virtually nothing about Russian aggression for most of eight years, suddenly made a show of issuing sanctions, seizing Russian assets, and expelling Russian operatives. He then rushed the completion of an intelligence assessment that would ordinarily have taken months to complete, so that it would be issued on his watch; and presto: The public was told not only that Russia interfered in the campaign, but that Russia did so because Putin was trying to get Trump elected. (Of course, the public was not told that Obama had known what Russia was doing during the campaign, but concluded it was too trivial to warrant a response; and the public was not reminded that, just days before the election -- when Russia’s perfidy was well known to the Obama administration -- both Obama and Hillary Clinton chastised Trump for daring to suggest that an American presidential election could be rigged.)The intelligence assessment provided Obama’s intelligence agencies with a pretext to brief President-elect Trump on the Steele dossier. That, in turn, gave the media -- previously skittish about the dossier’s sensational, unverified allegations -- exactly the news hook they needed to publish it. Weeks later, as the FBI continued relying on the unverified Steele dossier in FISA-warrant applications, the FBI director, in public testimony, not only disclosed the existence of a classified counterintelligence investigation but gratuitously added that Trump’s campaign was a subject of the probe and that an assessment would be made of whether any crimes were committed -- signaling to the world that Trump was a suspect in what would be, if proved, one of the most heinous crimes in American history. Then, finally, more leaks to the media triggered the appointment of a special counsel in the absence of actual evidence that the president had committed a crime.You want disclosure? Me too. But let’s see all of it. Not just Mueller’s report. Let’s see everything: all of the memoranda relevant to the opening of the investigation, all of the testimony at closed hearings, all of the FISA-warrant applications, all of Rosenstein’s scope memo. (A year ago, I surmised that scope memo is redacted because it relies on the Steele dossier -- as did the FISA-warrant application Rosenstein had approved just a few weeks earlier; anyone want to bet me on that?)If a victorious Democratic nominee had been subjected to such an investigation, there would never have been a special counsel, but we would already have chapter and verse on every investigative action. If we’re going to have accountability, let’s have complete accountability.

  • 16 British hotels to visit before you die

    From spa hotels to castle retreats, add these to your bucket list... From Country Living