Write an article based on this summary:

– No modern candidate can run a legit campaign without help from a super PAC with deep pockets, yes? The New York Times reports that Bernie Sanders is providing a real test of that accepted wisdom. He's managed to build a "formidable" sum of $15.2 million while eschewing super PACs, with the average donation to his campaign at $31.30. The vast majority of that total comes from small donations routed through the ActBlue website, which handles donations for Democrats. Sanders knows he will still be widely outspent, but thinks he'll have plenty of money to run a smart, frugal, and "winning" campaign. Some other political stories from the wires today: 'Not himself': A Politico story on Joe Biden quotes a longtime friend as saying that "he's just not himself" as he considers a run. "He’s sort of all over the place. He’s engaged but not in that child-like, manic way he usually is. He’s taking it all in and soaking up information, but he’s hard to read. And Joe Biden isn’t usually that hard to read.” 'Out of line': After his run-in with Univision reporter Jorge Ramos last night, Donald Trump tells Today.com that Ramos was "totally out of line" when he began calling out questions and deserved to be ejected. "I would have gotten to him very quickly." Ramos tweets that it was Trump who was out of line. Unwanted endorsement: Former KKK grand wizard David Duke has weighed in on the 2016 race, and he thinks Trump is the only candidate who "understands the real sentiment of America," reports BuzzFeed. Trouble for the Ricks: The AP reports that Rick Perry and Rick Santorum are having serious trouble keeping the donors who supported them in the last presidential race. Most of those 2012 donors have defected to other candidates.

Photo Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 WASHINGTON — Donna Mae Litowitz, a Miami Beach retiree, likes Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont so much that three months ago she sent his presidential campaign $10,000. His campaign sent back all but $2,700 because it was more than he was allowed to take under federal election law, but she wishes he had kept it all.

 “I like what Sanders stands for, and he says what needs to be said,” said Ms. Litowitz, who gave money in 2008 to Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. “And I don’t like Hillary Clinton.”

 In an election dominated by million-dollar donations to “super PACs,” Ms. Litowitz qualifies in Mr. Sanders’s insurgent campaign as a big donor. Unlike almost all of the other major Democratic and Republican candidates this year, Mr. Sanders has refused to accept support from super PACs, relying instead on supporters like Ms. Litowitz as well as tens of thousands of small donors giving as little as $5 or $10.

 The average donation, according to campaign officials, is $31.30.

 The result is a campaign built on populist issues like income inequality that appears to be drawing even more rank-and-file support than Mr. Obama did in 2008, when he used a network of smaller donors to win the White House.

 About a quarter of Mr. Obama’s donors over the course of that campaign gave a total of $200 or less, according to a study by the Campaign Finance Institute. While direct comparisons are difficult at this early stage in the 2016 race, Mr. Sanders’s small-dollar support appears significantly higher than Mr. Obama’s in 2008, and more than any other candidate this cycle.

 Mr. Sanders has raised more money in gifts of $200 or less than any candidate, Democrat or Republican, an analysis of campaign finance reports shows. A huge chunk of his money — $11.4 million, or about 75 percent of all his contributions — has come from small donations routed through ActBlue, an online site that facilitates contributions to Democrats, records show.

 The influx of support has helped Mr. Sanders build a formidable war chest, with his campaign raising $15.2 million as of the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission in July. Campaign officials say he has raised millions more since then and will far surpass that total this quarter. That still puts him far behind Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising juggernaut, but Mr. Sanders said in an interview that he was unbowed.

 “We will be greatly outspent, yes, but we will raise enough money to wage a winning campaign,” he said.

 Democratic strategists are beginning to take notice.

 “His money is very impressive,” said Bill Burton, a former aide to Mr. Obama who helped found Priorities USA, a super PAC that is now supporting Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the Democratic nomination and has received donations of at least $1 million each from a number of big Democratic donors like Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, George Soros and Haim Saban.

 But Mr. Sanders’s fund-raising strategy will test the prevailing notion in Washington that no candidate can successfully compete on the national stage without tapping into the many millions of dollars that have poured into super PACs since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Super PACs supporting Mrs. Clinton have already raised more than $20 million, records show; on the Republican side, two super PACs backing Jeb Bush raised about $108.5 million.

 Yet when a Vermont legislator, Chris Pearson, offered to set up a super PAC to support the Sanders campaign, Mr. Sanders told him to “kill it,” Mr. Sanders said, because did not want to be beholden to “the millionaires and billionaires.”

 Continue reading the main story First Draft Newsletter Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday - Friday.

 Mr. Sanders said that it was “a difficult decision” to opt out of such a powerful and quick way to raise money. In doing so, he said, “we’re giving up millions and millions of dollars, no doubt, but we will sink or swim based on what we get from the middle class of the country.”

 Nor has Mr. Sanders held many of the kind of fund-raisers that presidential candidates traditionally devote much of their time to. He has held only five, and they have been more like political rallies, held at places like a Washington, D.C., brewery and a Seattle tavern, with a contribution of $100 or less sometimes required.

 Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager for Mr. Sanders, said in an interview that “it’s absolutely possible to win without the super PACs.”

 Mr. Weaver said that the campaign had been able to leverage the big turnouts seen at rallies — he estimated the combined crowds at three recent West Coast events at 70,000 — by following up by phone or email seeking donations.

 “The fund-raising from our standpoint is going phenomenally,” Mr. Weaver said. “We’re way ahead of where we thought we would be.”

 Even so, Mr. Sanders in the last quarter raised less than a third as much as Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign reported contributions of $47.5 million in the spring quarter.

 But Mr. Sanders and his aides say they can blunt the effect of Mrs. Clinton’s financial advantage by running a more frugal campaign, even as they build campaign operations in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

 So far, the more-with-less approach is holding up.

 In his filings to the election commission, Mr. Sanders reported spending only about $3 million — or less than 20 percent of the money he had raised. Mrs. Clinton, in comparison, reported spending at about twice that rate, or about $18.7 million — nearly 39 percent of her contributions — on things like catering at fund-raisers and slick media productions. (Her campaign asked for approval from the election commission this month to allow donors to pay for their own food, drinks and valet parking at some events.)

 Mr. Sanders was left with $12.1 million in cash on hand at the end of June, and Mrs. Clinton had $28.9 million.

 “When you know you’re not going to raise as much as your opponent, you have to make every dollar count,” Mr. Weaver said. ||||| David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and self-described "racial realist," says Donald Trump is the best Republican candidate for president because he "understands the real sentiment of America."

 Duke, who unsuccessfully ran for president as a Democrat in 1988 and later served in the Louisiana House of Representatives, noted Trump's experience as a salesman and his "great sense" of what people want to buy.

 "I praise the fact that he's come out on the immigration issue. I'm beginning to get the idea that he's a good salesman. That he's an entrepreneur and he has a good sense of what people want to hear what they want to buy," said Duke on his radio program last week after noting that he had previously been critical of Trump's run.

 "And I think he realizes that his path to popularity toward power in the Republican Party is talking about the immigration issue. And he has really said some incredibly great things recently. So whatever his motivation, I don't give a damn. I really like the fact that he's speaking out on this greatest immediate threat to the American people."

 Later in his show, Duke said his view on Trump was evolving.

 "I've said from the beginning I think his campaign is good in the sense that it's bringing these issues to a discussion which we have to have in America. And he's continuing to move the envelope further and I think he understands the real sentiment of America."

 Duke, who said he wasn't sure if Trump's proposals are sincere or are just a means to getting the nomination, spoke favorably of Trump's policy calling for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, saying it was the government's role.

 After going on a rant about "Jewish domination" of the media, Duke said Trump is saying things few other Republicans say about immigration

 "Trump, he's really going all out. He's saying what no other Republicans have said, few conservatives say. And he's also gone to point where he says it's not just illegal immigration, it's legal immigration," Duke said, adding Trump has also talked about companies are taking advantage of the H1B visa program. Duke added that he felt the big technology companies were headed by "Zios."

 Duke said The Donald, while untrustworthy, was "the best of the lot" running.

 "So this is a great opportunity," Duke said. "So although we can't trust him to do what he says, the other Republican candidates won't even say what he says. So he's certainly the best of the lot. And he's certainly somebody that we should get behind in terms, ya know, raising the image of this thing." ||||| "I would have gotten to him very quickly," the Republican presidential front-runner told TODAY's Matt Lauer in an exclusive interview Wednesday. "This man gets up and starts ranting and raving and screaming, and honestly being very disrespectful to all the other reporters."

 WATCH: Jorge Ramos is kicked out of Donald Trump's press conference

 "Sit down, you weren't called," a combative Trump said as the newsman tried to ask a question that the candidate saw as being out of turn. "Go back to Univision," Trump later added. Ramos was then escorted out of the room by security, but later returned to ask two questions.

 Donald Trump spars with Univision reporter Jorge Ramos at the Grand River Center in Dubuque, Iowa, on Monday. Scott Olson / Getty Images

 On Wednesday morning, Ramos took to Twitter to respond to Trump.

 I'm a reporter. My job is to ask questions. What's "totally out of line" is to eject a reporter from a press conference for asking questions — JORGE RAMOS (@jorgeramosnews) August 26, 2015

 Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly has also been on the receiving end of some controversial comments by Trump, who continued to attack her on Twitter Monday after she returned from a 10-day vacation. He tweeted she was "off her game" and that her show would be better off without her, while retweeting comments criticizing her appearance and calling her a "bimbo."

 I liked The Kelly File much better without @megynkelly. Perhaps she could take another eleven day unscheduled vacation! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 25, 2015

 "@mstanish53: @realDonaldTrump @megynkelly The bimbo back in town . I hope not for long ." — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 25, 2015

 Lauer asked Trump why he was letting Kelly get under his skin.

 "I haven't,'' he said. "You tweet a few tweets, or retweets in this case, that's not getting under your skin. I personally am not a fan. I don't think she does a good job. I don't think she's a very good professional. I think frankly the show's better without her, but that's up to them and they can do whatever they want. I respect [Fox News chief] Roger Ailes, he can do whatever he wants. I don't care." ||||| The Joe Biden who has been reaching out to Democratic operatives and would-be donors for a potential 2016 bid isn’t quite the happy warrior of bygone days.

 Mourning the loss of his eldest son Beau, who succumbed to a brain tumor three months ago, and under intense pressure from the presidential hype he’s helped stoke, Biden is more subdued, grayer and grimly on-task than usual — this while occupying political center stage for the first time since the promising opening days of his doomed 1988 campaign.

 Story Continued Below

 For all the breathless reporting on Biden’s every move and meeting, he is, at core, a 72-year-old man presented with an unexpected, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity at one of the worst times of his life.

 Several people Biden has talked to in the past month say he starts off conversations by conceding that “some days are better than others,” mixing recollections of Beau with logistical questions about mounting a state-by-state challenge to a vulnerable yet still formidable Hillary Clinton.

 “He’s just not himself,” says a longtime friend of Biden’s. “He’s sort of all over the place. He’s engaged but not in that childlike, manic way he usually is. He’s taking it all in and soaking up information, but he’s hard to read. And Joe Biden isn’t usually that hard to read.”

 That isn’t to say Biden won’t decide to run — he clearly sees Clinton’s struggles with her email scandal as an opportunity, and no politician in recent history has proven to be as resilient in the face of personal tragedy.

 To the annoyance of the Clinton campaign, Biden’s allies have strategically leaked his modest, noncommittal doings to the media, which have given otherwise ho-hum confabs with Elizabeth Warren and President Barack Obama’s former counsel Bob Bauer bombshell treatment. (Warren, according to a person with knowledge of the interaction, offered her usual warning against bringing more Wall Street executives into the White House; the talk with Bauer, an old Biden friend who worked with him closely in the White House, was intended to be an informal, personal check-in session that was leaked against the wishes of the participants.)

 But reports that the vice president has all but made up his mind to run are simply not true, according to a half-dozen people in his inner circle interviewed by POLITICO. “He’s not leaning one way or the other,” says one former aide who remains part of the extended Biden political family.

 What he has done is accelerated the pace of his deliberations, making personal overtures to Democratic donors — though Clinton’s team has yet to suffer any significant defections. So far he’s attracted a handful of former Obama supporters who have gravitated to a “Draft Biden” startup, including veteran Florida operative Steve Schale and Jon Cooper, a Long Island businessman who was one of Obama’s top New York fundraisers.

 But he’s behaved more like a staffer than a principal — sounding out potential supporters without striding into the race with a distinct message or specific policy challenge to Clinton.

 “I don’t know what he’s going to do,” said Jim Kreindler, a 2008 Biden fundraiser who is encouraging the vice president to run. “Everybody knows it’s going to be hard to challenge Hillary for money. … But I think he knows that he needs to be positioned to jump in if she really stumbles.”

 As he embarks on a fact-finding project most other candidates completed months ago, Biden’s greatest concern remains his family. He’s especially worried about his wife, Jill, who was hit hard by the death of 46-year-old Beau, who she raised after Biden’s first wife and infant daughter were killed in a car crash in 1972.

 Beau urged his father to run for years, but Jill is deeply skeptical of another run, according to people close to Biden; she re-upped to teach a full-time load of five English classes at Northern Virginia Community College next semester, as first noted by Bloomberg News, not exactly the action of a woman who planned to hit the campaign trail.

 Joe Biden wants to run — he always has. But that doesn’t mean he actually will, and those who have spoken with him say he seems far from making a decision. He’s playing the same wait-and-see game he’s played for the past 18 months, telling potential backers he’ll make a decision as late as early October. Since his 2012 reelection, Biden had opted for inaction over action — he opted not to create a leadership PAC for the 2014 midterms, he balked at forming a presidential super PAC, he didn’t seriously sound out donors until this summer.

 On the other hand, his numbers are too good to ignore. Without even being in the race, he consistently polls in double digits — and narrowly bested Clinton in head-to-head matchups against top Republicans in the key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Moreover, he’s regarded as much more trustworthy than the former secretary of state, enjoying a 20-point lead over Clinton in that metric among battleground state voters.

 Obama, according to current and former West Wing officials, is more inclined to support Clinton’s candidacy. Despite her woes, he sees her as a more electable candidate and a more effective keeper of his policy legacy. He’s done everything but endorse her already, putting his vast fundraising network in the hands of Clinton’s super PAC allies. Two of Obama’s top White House aides, John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri, are running Clinton’s campaign and report regularly to their old West Wing friends — including the president.

 But Obama has told people around him to give the vice president “space” to make his decision, and urged his staff not to make Biden feel pressured not to run.

 White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday that the president wouldn’t rule out making an endorsement in the primaries — and other West Wing officials told POLITICO that Obama has privately expressed a preference for Clinton as his successor, while keeping up the pretense of being undecided in public. (“I love ’em both,” Obama said on NBC’s “Today” show in February when asked who he would back.)

 Clinton’s camp, hands full with the email controversy and a surprisingly stout challenge from independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, isn’t in a patient mood. Bill Clinton, according to a person who has spoken with the former president in the past couple of weeks, is “very agitated” by the possibility of a Biden candidacy and incensed at the press hype around a possible bid.

 Hillary Clinton, Democrats in her orbit tell POLITICO, is less concerned — and several top Clinton campaign officials have told associates they think a Biden bid would energize what has been a fairly lackluster performance by the candidate thus far.

 Either way, the Clinton campaign is monitoring Biden’s activities closely — and Biden’s small team is acutely sensitive to slights against him, and to the possibility that her operation — including Correct the Record and other Clinton-friendly outside groups — would push anti-Biden opposition research to reporters in order to dissuade the vice president from running. “They better not do that,” said a Biden confidant. “That would bring really out his Irish.”

 People close to Clinton say their boss wouldn’t let them push negative information on Biden even if they wanted to — and it would backfire anyway, considering Biden’s tragic family circumstances.

 Biden’s decision will ultimately come down to convincing his family that embarking on one last long-shot campaign is worth the emotional toll, those close to him say. His staff, small as it is, already seems to be on board: Chief of staff Steve Ricchetti, a onetime Clinton aide, has arranged many of Biden’s recent meetings, and longtime staffer Mike Donilon — who was close to Beau — has been the most enthusiastic proponent of a 2016 bid, according to Democrats with knowledge of the situation.

 Hunter Biden, the vice president’s surviving son, is said to be generally supportive of his father’s wishes, whatever they might be, but not a cheerleader — Biden’s sister Val, long his closest political adviser, is equally ambivalent. Jill Biden will be a hard sell.

 Many of Joe Biden’s friends and family — people who deeply love the man, even if they don’t share his unquenchable presidential ambitions — quietly hoped the vice president would never be forced to decide whether or not to run in 2016.

 Beau Biden had been expected to survive into the fall, according to several people in the vice president’s orbit. Friends who wanted Biden to bow out gracefully prayed the ailing son would rally — and hoped his devoted father would be so focused on his recovery he wouldn’t have time to contemplate a campaign until it was too late.

 But as has happened so often in Biden’s four decades in the public eye, fate intervened, cruelly.

 Experimental treatments to slow the cancer failed, and the former National Guard major and Iraq War veteran — so upright he refused to wear his uniform in political ads — faded quickly. That left his grieving father, who could use Beau’s steadfast support now more than ever, alone to confront one of the most wrenching political decisions of his life.

 “We do not know how long we’ve got here. We don’t know when fate will intervene,” Obama said at Beau Biden’s funeral — words that seem to apply to father as well as son. “We cannot discern God’s plan. What we do know is that with every minute that we’ve got, we can live our lives in a way that takes nothing for granted.”

 Annie Karni contributed to this report. ||||| Single-Click Donating

 Meet ActBlue Express Lane

 5,869,981 Democratic donors have saved their payment information with us via an ActBlue Express account.

 The best part? Express users can use their account to give to any candidate or organization on ActBlue. And with our ActBlue Express Lane toolset, you can build single-click automatic payment links for your fundraising emails. That means happier supporters and higher conversion rates. ||||| WASHINGTON (AP) — The two returning Republican presidential candidates have struggled to keep their own donors interested.

 FILE - In this Aug. 20, 2015 file photo, Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum speaks at the National Press Club in Washington. The two returning Republican presidential... (Associated Press)

 In this photo taken Aug. 22, 2015, Republican presidential candidate, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry speaks in Columbus, Ohio. The two returning Republican presidential candidates are struggling to keep... (Associated Press)

 A majority of the 2012 donors to former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum who've given this time have defected to other candidates, according to an analysis by Crowdpac.com, a nonpartisan political research company.

 The donor disloyalty is contributing to financial woes in both of their campaigns. Perry stopped paying most of his staffers, and much of Santorum's top staff left to start a super PAC, which is free of contribution limits.

 As the only two members of a 17-person presidential field who competed in 2012, Perry and Santorum should have among the strongest, most up-to-date fundraising bases. Santorum won 11 primary states, lasting until April 2012 when Mitt Romney secured the nomination. Perry bowed out in January but was a strong early fundraiser.

 But four years later, many of their donors have eyes for others: Perry counted 470 return supporters, while 557 went with other candidates. For Santorum, 257 of his past presidential contributors gave to him again, while 414 put their money elsewhere, the data show.

 For its donor loyalty assessment, Crowdpac reviewed Federal Election Commission data on contributors to the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns. The data included only named donors, typically those who give at least $200 per election cycle. The figures are current through the end of June.

 For both Perry and Santorum, the most popular 2016 alternative is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who welcomed 380 of their previous contributors. One oddity: two 2012 Perry donors decided to support Santorum this time.

 Perry's campaign raised just over $1 million and Santorum about $600,000 in the first month of their campaigns. By comparison, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush raised $11.4 million in the initial two weeks of his campaign, and Cruz raised $4.3 million in his opening week.

 __

 Follow Julie Bykowicz on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/bykowicz ||||| Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more |||||


Article:

Pippi Longstocking Porn Movie Studio Cracks Down Stop Using 14-Year-Old to Promote Sex Tape

 Pippi Longstocking Porno -- Movie Studio Cracks Down ... Stop Using 14-YEAR-OLD to Promote Sex Tape

 EXCLUSIVE

 Images of a 14-year-oldhave no business on a Pippi Longstocking sex tape website ... and now a major Hollywood movie studio is gearing up for war, TMZ has learned.We know ... Columbia Pictures, the studio behind "The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking," learned that multiple websites associated with thesex tape are using images from the 1988 movie to promote the XXX footage.Obviously, that ain't sitting well with Columbia ... so lawyers stepped in and fired off an email, warning the websites to take down shots of the freckle-faced red head girl immediately, or face a big, fat lawsuit.The sites complied for the most part -- removing images of the DVD as well as links to purchase it -- but it still includes many Pippi references, as well as a screenshot from the original movie (in which Tami is 14).We've learned ... one of the XXX sites responded by adding a disclaimer on the home page, saying the sex tape is not sponsored, endorsed by or affiliated with the studio.So far, it's unclear how Columbia feels about the compromise.FYI, you won't believe how popular the Pippi porno websites are -- we're told they both average over 200k views per day. Curiously, the biggest chunk of traffic comes from Sweden.Bork, bork, bork! ||||| Pippi Longstocking BUSTED ... FOR FELONY HIT AND RUN

 Pippi Longstocking -- Arrested for Felony Hit and Run

 EXCLUSIVE

 Tami Erin -- the actress who played-- was arrested Saturday afternoon for felony hit and run and drunk driving ... TMZ has learned.Erin was driving in L.A. when she allegedly hit 3 cars and took off. Law enforcement sources say at least one person was taken to the hospital.And get this ... Erin didn't hit them all at once -- we're told she hit the first car then drove off ... then hit another car and drove off ... and then she hit the last.When cops found her they did a field sobriety test and then arrested her for both the felony hit and run and DUI. One source says she was "totally out of control ... just out of it."Erin refused to submit a blood alcohol test ... and her bail was set at $100K.As TMZ first reported ... Erin's latest screen credit is a gnarly sex tape.-- Tami just bailed out of jail. |||||
What is a summary?

– Things seem to have gone downhill for Tami Erin since she played Pippi Longstocking in the '80s: The actress was arrested yesterday for felony hit and run ... while allegedly driving drunk, TMZ reports. Erin is accused of hitting three cars in LA—in three separate incidents, not all at the same time—and leaving the scenes. A source says she was "totally out of control ... just out of it." At least one person had to go to the hospital, according to law enforcement sources. Erin last appeared on TMZ because her sex tape was being marketed with images of her as a 14-year-old Pippi.


Write a summary based on this article:

In this Nov. 14, 2018, photo, CNN's Jim Acosta walks into federal court in Washington, to attend a hearing on a legal challenge against President Donald Trump's administration. A judge is expected to... (Associated Press)

 In this Nov. 14, 2018, photo, CNN's Jim Acosta walks into federal court in Washington, to attend a hearing on a legal challenge against President Donald Trump's administration. A judge is expected to announce Friday whether he will order the Trump administration to return the White House press credentials... (Associated Press)

 In this Nov. 14, 2018, photo, CNN's Jim Acosta walks into federal court in Washington, to attend a hearing on a legal challenge against President Donald Trump's administration. A judge is expected to announce Friday whether he will order the Trump administration to return the White House press credentials... (Associated Press) In this Nov. 14, 2018, photo, CNN's Jim Acosta walks into federal court in Washington, to attend a hearing on a legal challenge against President Donald Trump's administration. A judge is expected to... (Associated Press)

 WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to immediately return the White House press credentials of CNN reporter Jim Acosta.

 U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, an appointee of President Donald Trump, announced his decision following a hearing in Washington. The judge said Acosta's credentials would be returned immediately and reactivated to allow him access to the White House.

 CNN had asked the judge to force the White House to immediately hand back the credentials that give Acosta, CNN's chief White House correspondent, access to the White House complex for press briefings and other events. CNN asked for Acosta's credentials restored while a lawsuit over his credentials' revocation goes forward.

 The judge granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order. A lawsuit that CNN brought against the Trump administration over the issue is continuing.

 The White House revoked Acosta's credentials after he and Trump tangled during a press conference last week.

 The judge said the government could not say who initially decided to revoke Acosta's hard pass. The White House had spelled out its reasons for revoking his credentials in a tweet from White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and in a statement after CNN filed its lawsuit. But the judge said those "belated efforts were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process."

 The judge also found that Acosta suffered "irreparable harm," dismissing the government's argument that CNN could just send other reporters to cover the White House in Acosta's place.

 The judge told attorneys to file additional court papers in the case by Monday.

 Trump has made his dislike of CNN clear since before he took office and continuing into his presidency. He has described the network as "fake news" both on Twitter and in public comments.

 At last week's press conference, which followed the midterm elections, Trump was taking questions from reporters and called on Acosta, who asked about Trump's statements about a caravan of migrants making its way to the U.S.-Mexico border. After a terse exchange, Trump told Acosta, "That's enough," several times while calling on another reporter.

 Acosta attempted to ask another question about special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and initially declined to give up a hand-held microphone to a White House intern. Trump responded to Acosta by saying he wasn't concerned about the investigation, calling it a "hoax," and then criticized Acosta, calling him a "rude, terrible person."

 The White House pulled Acosta's credentials hours later.

 The White House's explanations for why it seized Acosta's credentials have shifted over the last week.

 Sanders initially explained the decision by accusing Acosta of making improper physical contact with the intern seeking to grab the microphone.

 But that rationale disappeared after witnesses backed Acosta's account that he was just trying to keep the microphone, and Sanders distributed a doctored video that made it appear Acosta was more aggressive than he actually was. On Tuesday, Sanders accused Acosta of being unprofessional by trying to dominate the questioning at the news conference. ||||| A federal judge on Friday ruled in favor of CNN and reporter Jim Acosta in a dispute with President Trump, ordering the White House to temporarily restore the press credentials that the administration had taken away from Acosta last week.

 In a victory for the cable network and for press access generally, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly granted CNN’s motion for a temporary restraining order that will prevent the administration from keeping Acosta off the White House grounds.

 The White House revoked the reporter’s press pass last week after a heated exchange between him and Trump and a brief altercation with a press aide at a news conference. Acosta, CNN’s chief White House correspondent, is the first reporter with a “hard pass” granting White House access to be banned.

 CNN sued Trump and other White House officials Tuesday over the revocation. Kelly’s ruling was the result of the first legal skirmish in that lawsuit. It has the immediate effect of sending Acosta back to the White House, pending further arguments and a possible trial. The litigation is in its early stages, and a trial could be months away.

 Hours after the judge’s decision, Acosta resumed his post at the White House.

 Kelly, whom Trump appointed to the federal bench last year, handed down his ruling two days after the network and government lawyers argued over whether the president had the power to revoke a reporter’s access.

 President Trump and CNN’s Jim Acosta square off at a Nov. 7 news conference. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

 In explaining his decision, Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied.

 Kellly’s ruling, however, primarily emphasized evidence indicating that the White House’s decision to boot Acosta had violated the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process in government actions. He said the White House’s decision-making was “so shrouded in mystery that the government could not tell me . . . who made the decision.” The White House’s later written arguments for banning Acosta were belated and were not sufficient to satisfy due process, Kelly said.

 “We are gratified with this result and we look forward to a full resolution in the coming days,” CNN said in a statement. “Our sincere thanks to all who have supported not just CNN, but a free, strong and independent American press.”

 Acosta added: “I just want to thank all my colleagues in the press who supported me this week. I want to thank the judge [for this ruling]. And let’s go back to work.”

 In comments made in the Oval Office afterward, Trump said the White House would write rules to satisfy the court’s due-process concerns. He also suggested his administration would keep up the legal fight with CNN. “We will end up back in court, and we will win,” he said.

 “We want total freedom of the press,” Trump said. “. . . But you have to act with respect when you’re at the White House, and when I see the way some of my people get treated at news conferences, it’s terrible. So we’re setting up a certain standard, which is what the court is requesting.”

 He added, “We always have the option of leaving, . . . and the other media and press in the room won’t be happy.”

 White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement after the ruling that “the court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House,” although the judge actually said reporters have such rights once admitted.

 Sanders announced Acosta’s “indefinite” suspension last week after the confrontation at the news conference. Trump and Sanders have had several run-ins with Acosta, stretching back to before Trump became president.

 Acosta watched Friday’s proceedings from the courtroom in Washington, joined by a team of attorneys who included Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general in George W. Bush’s administration, and Theodore Boutrous, a star litigator and media-law specialist.

 CNN had argued that the ban on Acosta violated his First Amendment rights because it amounted to “viewpoint discrimination” — that is, the president was punishing the reporter for statements and coverage he did not like. The network has also said the action violated Acosta’s Fifth Amendment rights because his exclusion followed no written guidelines or rules and had no appeal or review procedures.

 CNN had requested “emergency” relief from the judge, arguing that Acosta’s rights were being violated with each passing hour.

 Until the White House’s action last week, no reporter credentialed to cover the president had ever had a press pass revoked.

 A government attorney, James Burnham, argued in a hearing before Kelly on Wednesday that the president was within his rights to ban any reporter from the White House at any time, just as he excludes reporters from interviews in the Oval Office. He said Acosta could report on the president “just as effectively” by watching the president on TV or by calling people within the White House. Burnham also said CNN would not be injured by Acosta’s exclusion, since CNN has dozens of other journalists credentialed for the White House.

 Burnham said Trump’s rationale for Acosta’s ban was his “rudeness” at last week’s news conference, in effect arguing that Acosta’s conduct, not his right to free speech, was the relevant issue.

 The assertions drew a rebuttal from Boutrous, CNN’s attorney, who described the ban on the reporter as arbitrary, capricious and unprecedented. He said that White House reporters need access to the premises to meet with officials and to report on untelevised “gaggles,” impromptu discussions with press aides and other officials, and that banning reporters from the grounds harms their ability to do their jobs.

 Media organizations have been alarmed by the White House’s treatment of Acosta, saying that revoking his “hard pass” to enter the White House is a threat to other journalists who might be similarly banned. Trump has suggested other reporters could face a similar fate if they displease him in some unspecified way. Thirteen news organizations, including The Washington Post and Fox News, jointly filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting CNN’s position.

 The White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents journalists in their negotiations over access to the president, filed a brief Thursday that urged the court “to roundly reject the president’s dangerous legal position.” It disputed the government’s claim that the president has “absolute, unbridled discretion to decide who can report from inside the White House.”

 During the presidential campaign in 2015 and 2016, Trump banned more than a dozen news organizations from his rallies and public events, including The Post. He said he would not do something similar as president. Last week, he went back on that statement.

 Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign has used the CNN lawsuit to drum up contributions, portraying the suit as evidence of “liberal bias” — an assertion Boutrous brought up Wednesday in asserting that Trump had political reasons for banning Acosta.

 “CNN is SUING President Trump, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a Secret Service agent, and other White House officials,” the fundraising email says. “ . . . All because they REVOKED Jim Acosta’s press badge after his continuous grandstanding and inappropriate refusal to yield to other reporters.

 “President Trump will NOT put up with the media’s liberal bias and utter disrespect for this Administration and the hardworking Americans who stand with us.” |||||

– Score one for CNN over the White House. A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to immediately return the White House press credentials of reporter Jim Acosta, per the AP. US District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, an appointee of President Trump, announced his decision following a hearing in Washington. CNN had asked for Acosta's credentials restored while a lawsuit over his credentials' revocation goes forward. “I just want to thank all my colleagues in the press who supported me this week," said Acosta, per the Washington Post. "I want to thank the judge [for this ruling]. And let’s go back to work.” The White House revoked Acosta's credentials after he and Trump tangled during a press conference last week. The judge said the government could not say who initially decided to revoke Acosta's hard pass. The White House had spelled out its reasons for revoking his credentials in a tweet from White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, who accused Acosta of "placing his hands" on a female intern trying to take away his microphone. But the judge said those "belated efforts were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process." The judge also found that Acosta suffered "irreparable harm," dismissing the government's argument that CNN could just send other reporters to cover the White House in Acosta's place. (Video of the dispute was controversial, too.)


So, far from gaining the confidence to develop a more mature adult relationship, Sam is apparently so crippled by neurosis -- thanks to the trauma of his mother's death and his father's sublimation of his own grief into the wacky micromanagement of his son's love life -- that he's unable to form a connection with anyone but the girl he was obsessed with for two minutes in 2003. And what do you think the odds are that these two young people happened to bump into each other in a city, oceans away from where they met, where you can't even meet up with someone on purpose without a compass and a machete to hack your way through the hordes of undead subway riders? One of them must have tracked the other down, and I think we all know which one. (Hint: It's the one with the "I'm on a list" mustache.) It's entirely possible that he moved to America in order to find her. Again, a girl he barely knew even when they were kids. And she's either OK with that, and therefore equally as messed up, or bound to find out eventually exactly what she agreed to spend the rest of her life with. There's a lesson here, parents: Don't make your kids think about Meat Loaf's penis. It'll fuck them up for life.

 ↓ Continue Reading Below Advertisement

 Then there's Colin Firth's character, the lovelorn writer who retreats to the French countryside and ends up falling for the Portuguese maid he's hired even though they've never truly spoken, as she doesn't speak English and he doesn't speak Portuguese. People thought it was moving a little too fast when, by the end of the film, he's asked her to marry him in broken Portuguese. But guess what, bitches? They're still going strong! Not only did they get married, they have three beautiful children! Don't you see? By knowing the other person couldn't understand them, they could be truly honest, and that habit didn't go away after they started comprehending each other. Suck it, cynics!

 BBC

 Then this happened and my heart-boner audibly retreated right into my chest-sack:

 BBC

 *Play For Full Effect*

 ↓ Continue Reading Below Advertisement

 Not because he doesn't look terribly happy about it, or because four kids in 13 years seems like a bit much, but because she says it in Portuguese and his response is, "That's great, can we have rice with it this time? I'm tired of stir fry." I get it, it's supposed to be funny, but are you telling me he's had 13 years to learn her language and he's still no better than he was at the end of the first movie? She must know that, so why does she insist on speaking Portuguese to him when we know she was learning English, too? That seems kind of passive-aggressive, possibly resentful of his inconsideration.

 Or, maybe they both gave it a go for a few months and then realized that their relationship was better when they couldn't understand each other. Panicked when the bloom started to come off the rose, they silently agreed to stop trying, hoping to keep the spark alive through mutual incomprehension. Because if you don't understand what your partner is saying, they can be saying whatever you want them to. And they've kept that going for 13 years. Because love actually is more complicated than a slightly overlong Christmas movie, and that's kind of terrifying.

 But how great is Hugh Grant? Right? How great?

 BBC

 For more check out 5 Little-Known Sequels That Ruined Iconic Stories and 5 Sequels That Ruined The Original Movie's Point.

 Subscribe to our YouTube channel and check out Why JK Rowling Is Ruining Harry Potter - Cracked Responds and watch other videos you won't see on the site!

 Also follow us on Facebook, follow your heart. ||||| It’s a shame, but the Comic Relief Red Nose Day Actually reprise of Love Actually was Guff Actually. The cast was there, everyone from Hugh Grant, Bill Nighy and Colin Firth to Keira Knightley, Rowan Atkinson, Liam Neeson and more. So you could applaud the logistics and goodwill of pulling it all together.

 However, it was all lousy jokes and texted-in performances and looked as though it had been cobbled together by fourth formers as an end-of-term project. Even at just 12 minutes, it felt far too long.

 Admittedly, I didn’t like the original film. Watching it made me feel as if I was having cold, stale treacle poured over my head by a large mob of demented carollers.

 But I still rate Richard Curtis for Blackadder, and I love Comic Relief, and always donate. Maybe the failure of Red Nose Day Actually partly lay in the weight of expectation? Had they kept the venture a secret until, say, a couple of days before, perhaps there wouldn’t have been such a build-up and viewers would have been more forgiving?

 As it is, I’m glad that people donated. But I doubt that anyone laughed. ||||| Despite all the celeb cameos the charity update of Richard Curtis’s romcom was bafflingly weak. But ultimately its job wasn’t to get laughs - it was to help people

 The best will in the world is what we all have for Red Nose Day — and for Richard Curtis’s monumental effort over decades in helping to make it a great national instutition. I’m very happy to have got my debit card out on the night, like so many others. The convention is that you cheerfully overlook some of the gags that don’t come off on account of the wacky gang-show spirit and live-TV hijinks and because it’s all in a good cause. But the awful truth is that Red Nose Day Actually, the much-trumpeted special featurette update of Curtis’s 2003 romcom box office smash, really was bafflingly weak.

 Behind the scenes of Comic Relief’s Love Actually: Andrew Lincoln’s creepy cards return Read more

 We knew in advance that Curtis had (understandably) decided not include the best bit from the original — Emma Thompson’s agonised secret tears over her husband’s infidelity — because the much-loved Alan Rickman, who played the part had passed away last year. But why should the script go out of its way to say that Joe, the long-suffering rock manager played by Gregor Fisher, and best friend of Bill Nighy’s outrageously incorrect star Billy Mac, had died? Mr Fisher is very much still with us. It seemed a superfluous moment of contrived poignancy.

 We started with Andrew Lincoln showing up on Keira Knightley’s doorstep with his famous cards, with Chiwetel Ejiofor watching telly. The gag was basically the same, only this time Kate Moss pitched up as his new bride, standing next to him with cards of her own. Nice enough cameo.

 Hugh Grant returned as the Prime Minister, who did his level best to rescue the situation by gamely reprising his silly dad-dancing routine down the No 10 staircase, falling over and spraining his arm. Incidentally, on the question of who has aged the best of the LA cast, that is definitely Martine McCutcheon playing his tea-lady-turned-wife. She genuinely doesn’t look any different from 2003. As for Grant, he looks distinguished, soigné. He could play Edward VIII.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Hugh Grant during filming for Red Nose Day Actually. Photograph: Nick Briggs

 Grant’s PM gave a press conference speech, with Robert Peston doing a cheeky walk-on and BBC Breakfast’s Charlie Stayt contributing an enigmatically silent cameo. Here, expectations were very high. In the original movie, Hugh Grant’s role was notable for a very feisty pro-British speech which proclaimed that we shouldn’t just be America’s poodle. Surely now was the time for some Trump material? No. Red Nose Day Actually steered clear of politics, except for saying how sad it was that Piers Morgan was still alive.

 We had Radio Watford’s DJ, played by Marcus Brigstocke, on to interview the uproarious and incorrigible veteran singing sensation Billy Mac. The mere presence of Bill Nighy is enough to cheer any film up, and Nighy brought his languorous charisma to bear. He’s always funny, and I liked the idea of Billy covering ZZ Top’s Give Me All Your Lovin’ with the word “lovin” replaced by “money”.

 Colin Firth was seen at the wheel of his family car, with his Portuguese wife Lucia Moniz next to him, and the gag was that he was terrible at Portuguese and didn’t understand when his wife told him she was pregnant again. Hmm. A lot Red Nose Day tolerance was needed to wave that joke through.

 Liam Neeson (who himself hardly seems to have aged a day) was emotionally reunited with his son, the love of whose life turned out not to have changed. A sweet enough moment. But the only person who came close to delivering some actual comedy was Rowan Atkinson, reprising his role as the smarmy shop assistant taking an inordinate amount of time packing a simple red nose.

 Red Nose Day Actually presumed a very great deal on the affectionate loyalty of the fans: I personally would have preferred a Red Nose update of Four Weddings or Notting Hill or The Tall Guy, the real Curtis gems. Perhaps there is something in the Red Nose Day atmosphere which actually militates against comedy — something in the fact that irony and cynicism have to be banished for the evening. Well, who cares? Even subjecting this well-intentioned squib to critical inspection seems obtuse. Red Nose Actually was not there to get laughs — it was there to get money to help people. And on that basis I am certain it was a great success.

  ||||| We’ve been waiting thirteen years, but finally we got our sequel to Love Actually.

 Advertisement

 It might have been short, but it was a funny, poignant tribute to the much-loved Richard Curtis romcom. Here’s what has happened to some our favourite characters in Red Nose Day Actually…

 Juliet, Peter and Mark (Keria Knightley, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Andrew Lincoln)

 Yep, those cue cards were back. As the doorbell rang again at Juliet and Peter’s house, Mark was standing on the doorstep trying to insist he was a carol singer. “He’s not going to believe that, it’s March,” said Juliet as Mark played Silent Night (did he not get this March memo at all?) on a totally retro iPod dock and asked what she thought of his facial fuzz.

 We found out that Juliet and Peter were still very happily married (awh) and that Mark hasn’t done too badly himself. After saying he was going to marry a model, it turns out he did in the shape of Kate Moss. Mossy put in a nice cameo herself as she sidled up with her own cue cards and confirmed that no, she doesn’t really like her husband’s beard either.

 The Prime Minister and Natalie (Hugh Grant and Martine McCutcheon)

 It turns out that the PM had been re-elected into Downing Street. After five years out of office, he was voted back in. Jo Whiley dedicated Drake’s Hotline Bling to him, prompting an altogether more sultry dance performance from the country’s leader.

 There was a lot of shimmying as he recreated the moves from the video – well, until he fell down the stairs and hurt his arm. He is now married to Natalie and is still giving heart-warming and impassioned speeches during press conferences to the nation. What happened to Billy Bob Thornton’s US President remains a mystery.

 Billy Mack, DJ Mikey and Joe (Bill Nighy, Marcus Brigstocke and Gregor Fisher)

 Thirteen years on and Mikey is still working at Radio Watford. And Billy Mack is still plugging cheap cash-in charity singles – this time a cover of ZZ Top’s Give Me All Your Lovin’, with the word Lovin’ changed to Money. He’s only doing this because his autobiography (which he hasn’t actually read) called Macknificent is coming out and he needs the publicity.

 However there was some sad news. His manager Joe who had “a big heart” died from a big heart attack, leaving a big hole in Billy’s life.

 Rufus (Rowan Atkinson)

 Rufus hasn’t fared too well selling posh jewellery. Instead of still working in the luxury sector, he is now behind the counter at Sainsbury’s flogging red noses to children for £1. He is still taking his job very seriously and spending a long time gift-wrapping his noses.

 Tissue paper goes into the presentation box along with the nose which is then placed in “so much more than just a bag” alongside jelly beans, a bit of glitter and yoghurt-coated raisins as a queue forms across the carpark.

 Jamie and Aurelia (Colin Firth and Lucia Moniz)

 After proposing in the restaurant, Aurelia is now “inhabit with me in England,” as Jamie suggested all those years ago. The pair are now happily-married with three children, Jamie is still wearing turtle neck jumpers and his Portugese has come on leaps and bounds.

 It’s still not perfect, though. When Aurelia tells him the news that she’s pregnant for the fourth time, he replies that he wants rice with it because he’s getting a bit tired of stir fry. Oh, Jamie!

 Daniel, Sam and Joanna (Liam Neeson, Thomas Brodie-Sangster and Olivia Olson)

 Daniel is still spending his days sitting on park benches looking melancholic, but his son Sam is now 26 years old and spending time in New York. He flew back to surprise him with news of his love life.

 Advertisement

 He is now dating Joanna – the girl he wanted for Christmas when he was 12 years old. They met up in New York and now she’s in London to ask Daniel if she can marry Sam. He said he was thinking about it, but we never got a proper answer. We’re taking it as a yes. ||||| This heavily hyped centrepiece of Comic Relief 2017 reunited stars from Richard Curtis’s irresistibly schmaltzy Christmas 2003 romcom, notably Grant, Liam Neeson, Colin Firth, Bill Nighy and Keira Knightley. And notably not Martin Freeman (too busy – or perhaps too embarrassed about his nudity in the original), Kris Marshall (too cringe-worthy a character) or Emma Thompson, who demurred out of respect for her co-star Alan Rickman, who sadly died last year.

 This pacy sketch enabled us to see what happened to the characters after the credits rolled. It was packed with shot-for-shot nods and in-jokey callbacks to the notoriously polarising original. While Love Actually’s storylines were neatly interwoven, this reprise revisited them each in turn but was no less grin-inducing for its structural clumsiness. ||||| When Love Actually premiered in 2003, the ensemble rom-com featured one very special supermodel cameo—Claudia Schiffer—as a potential love match for Liam Neeson. And when the long-awaited, sequel premiered on Friday, as part of Red Nose Day in the U.K., the 10-minute follow-up featured another surprise cameo from the catwalk. This time around, though, the supermodel in question only had eyes for Mark (Andrew Lincoln) and his beard. Sorry, Juliet (Keira Knightley).

 Take a look at the first snippet below.

 And if you’re a sucker for spoilers, you can also catch a few other excerpts posted by fans on Twitter. (The full special won’t air in the U.S. until May.) The first shows that Hugh Grant’s prime minister is well acquainted with Drake’s discography.

 The second shows what happens when one is well acquainted with Drake’s discography. . . and not 10 Downing Street’s steps. (Even after all of these years, we know.)

 The third shows that Thomas Brodie-Sangster’s Sam is not in jail for blowing past multiple airport security checkpoints to meet Olivia Olson’s character.

 In a statement, Love Actually writer/director Richard Curtis explained of the follow-up’s format, “I would never have dreamt of writing a sequel to Love Actually, but I thought it might be fun to do 10 minutes to see what everyone is now up to. Who has aged best?—I guess that's the big question. . .or is it so obviously Liam [Neeson]?”

 In a behind-the-scenes video released last week, Hugh Grant joked that he has been refusing annual invitations for Love Actually reunions for years.

 “This nightmare with Richard happens every bloody year,” Grant deadpanned. (Love Actually writer/director Richard Curtis is the long-time romantic partner of Red Nose Day’s director Emma Freud—which might explain why Curtis & the Love Actually Co. were tempted to reunite in the past.)

 “Some years I can fob him off with money,” Grant says. “‘I’m not doing that. Here’s a check.’”

 Not everyone was as much of a Love Actually grinch, though. McCutcheon had a more rom-com appropriate response to the news that there would be a reunion: “My heart—there was a little skip, a little jump.”

 Stateside fans can watch the complete Love Actually reunion when it airs on May 25 on NBC.

 Do you have what it takes?

 Test your knowledge of the Seven Kingdoms with Vanity Fair ’s Game of Unknowns.

 Make your predictions ||||| Get celebs updates directly to your inbox + Subscribe Thank you for subscribing! Could not subscribe, try again later Invalid Email

 Oh boy. I’ve seen some Red Nose Days in my time – but never anything like this.

 Half-naked Greg Davies in a hot tub on the roof of the O2 arena “for absolutely no reason”.

 Miranda Hart dressed as a tea lady, gate-crashing (ruining) everyone’s scenes.

 Smack The Pony, still not being funny.

 The much-hyped showpiece, of course, was the Love Actually reboot.

 A mystery, to my mind. A poor man’s Four Weddings and a Funeral that delivered precisely nothing.

 (Image: BBC)

 But Comic Relief is Richard Curtis ’s baby. So what he says goes. And no one can dispute that its cause is good.

 The highlight was Ed Sheeran rescuing a bunch of Liberian street kids from physical and sexual abuse when the crew were about to abandon them to a thug.

 Heroic. But, alas, completely out of kilter with the rest of the night.

 Video Loading Video Unavailable Click to play Tap to play The video will start in 8 Cancel Play now

 The serious point being, how on earth can viewers donate if they’ve already switched off? I can’t blame them because it was an utter shambles.

 Some echoey, unsuitable building in the O2. Dreadful links. Technical gremlins all over the shop. But worst of all, a crowd that just wanted to be on telly.

 Sir Lenny Henry had to actually go over to one particularly chattery section and plead: “Can you shut up over there, please? You have to be quiet. We’re trying to make television over here. Shut up.”

 (Image: Youtube/NBC)

 But I don’t blame the audience for making their own entertainment.

 The supposed talents of the “trendy” comics booked, like Joe Lycett and Luisa Omielan (somewhere a Blue Peter episode is missing its sticky-back plastic creative), were brutally exposed.

 The entire first three hours felt like late-night fringe comedy, despite some notable bookings.

 Video Loading Video Unavailable Click to play Tap to play The video will start in 8 Cancel Play now

 C4’s Toast. Vic and Bob wheeling out the never-missed Stotts to interview Susanna Reid. Micky Flanagan throwing a pizza to Pat Sharp. Two grown men laughing out mouths of water in each other’s faces at the word “willy”.

 It wasn’t until 10.35pm that I realised why it felt so cheap.

 BBC1 had saved the entire two-hour, post-news slot for Graham Norton and his massive sofa. Good thinking, I thought, until he tried to talk to guest number 35, who was in another time zone.

 (Image: BBC)

 Red Nose Day didn’t truly shoot itself in the foot, however, until after Richard Osman’s World Cup of Biscuits semi-final: “Are the Chocolate Digestives going through or the controversial Jaffa Cakes?”

 A sombre Lenny Henry piped up: “I just wanted to take a moment to talk about the terrible famine in the news.

 “More than half of the population of Yemen are hungry.”

 So do dig deep. Any unwanted biscuits welcome. #TeamChocolateHobnobs. ||||| Comic Relief's hotly-anticipated mini reboot of romantic-comedy, Love Actually, finally made its way to our TV screens and fans were quick to praise the follow-up for keeping the charm and heart of the original.

 Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson, Keira Knightley, Bill Nighy, Rowan Atkinson and Colin Firth were among the stars who reprised their much-loved roles for the short film dubbed, Red Nose Day Actually.

 The 2003 film's creator and director Richard Curtis, who is also the co-founder of Comic Relief and has co-produced the event for the BBC since 1988, created the ten-minute short, which revisited some of the famous storylines 14 years on from the original film - including a final resolution to the film's famous love triangle between the characters played by Andrew Lincoln, Knightley, and Ejiofor.

 Fans took to social media in their droves to comment on Hugh Grant's new dance moves and a surprise cameo from none other than Kate Moss.

 😂😂😂 Hugh Grant dancing hasn't improved in 13 years #loveactually #RedNoseDay — Natascha (@Natascha_Kilts) March 24, 2017

 Hugh Grant dancing to Drake is amazing #RedNoseDay #loveactually — Mini Fish (@LizzFisher) March 24, 2017

 This is the best thing that's happened in ages #LoveActually #ComicRelief — amelia (@ameliacolthart) March 24, 2017

 Curtis previously said the TV special would be a "nostalgic moment" for the old cast, and joked that he is most interested to see who has aged the most gracefully.

 "I guess that's the big question...or is it so obviously Liam?" he said.

 "Over the years I've enjoyed doing Red Nose Day specials of TV things I've worked on - Blackadder, The Vicar Of Dibley and Mr Bean - it seemed like a fun idea this year to do a special sketch based one of my films."

 "I would never have dreamt of writing a sequel to Love Actually, but I thought it might be fun to do 10 minutes to see what everyone is now up to.

 "We hope to make something that'll be fun - very much in the spirit of the original film and of Red Nose Day - and which we hope will help bring lots of viewers and cash to the Red Nose Day shows," he added.

 Emma Freud, director of Red Nose Day, delighted fans with some behind-the-scenes photos on Twitter on the run-up to the eagerly-awaited sequel.

 Our pm is still married. And she's still lovely. #rednosedayactually pic.twitter.com/MGtUVDGiBE — emma freud (@emmafreud) March 5, 2017

 However, the special was tinged with some sadness as the much-loved Alan Rickman was absent following his sudden death last year.

 The only thing that makes me sad is that Alan Rickman didn't get to witness this or be a part of this 💔 #LoveActually #RedNoseDay — Kaja 😈🐾 (@blackrose1002) March 24, 2017

 Emma Thompson, who played his wife who was cheated on in the original movie, recently said it would be "too sad and too soon" after Rickman's death for her to take part in the film's Comic Relief sequel.

 Kris Marshall, who played the hopeless-in-love Colin Frissell , who moves to America to try his luck with the ladies in the 2003 movie, also revealed he wouldn't be starring in the movie's second outing.

 Other highlights of the Comic Relief special included Take That’s Carpool Karaoke, some live rapping from Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders, and appearances from Alan Partridge and Mrs Brown. ||||| After weeks of hype, the Love, Actually Comic Relief short sequel, Red Nose Day, Actually, finally aired tonight. It might not compare to Stephen’s version of events, but was exactly what you’d expect, really – the most memorable elements of each plotline recreated and recycled, with lots of jokes about the charity added in. So what did Red Nose Day, Actually actually teach us?

 Andrew Lincoln’s character was always a creep

 It was weird to show up outside Keira Knightley’s house in 2003, and it’s even weirder now, when you haven’t seen each other in almost a decade. Please stop.

 It’s also really weird to bring your supermodel wife purely to show her off like a trophy. She doesn’t even know these people. She must be really confused. Let her go home, “Mark”.

 Kate Moss is forever a great sport

 Judging by the staggering number of appearances she makes at these things, Kate Moss has never said no to a charity appearance, even when she’s asked to do the most ridiculous and frankly insulting things, like pretend she would ever voluntarily have sex with “Mark”.

 Self-service machines are a gift and a curse

 In reality, Rowan Atkinson’s gift-wrapping enthusiast would have lasted about one hour in Sainsbury’s before being replaced by a machine.

 Colin Firth’s character is an utter embarrassment, pull yourself together man

 You’re a writer, Colin. You make a living out of paying attention to language and words. You’ve been married to your Portuguese-speaking wife for almost fourteen years. You learned enough to make a terrible proposal all those years ago. Are you seriously telling me you haven’t learned enough to sustain a single conversation with your family? Do you hate them? Kind of seems that way, Colin.

 Even gay subtext is enough to get you killed

 As Eleanor Margolis reminds us, a deleted storyline from the original Love, Actually was one in which “the resplendent Frances de la Tour plays the terminally ill partner of a “stern headmistress” with a marshmallow interior (Anne Reid).” Of course, even in deleted scenes, gay love stories can only end in death, especially in 2003. The same applies to 2017’s Red Nose Day actually. Many fans speculated that Bill Nighy’s character was in romantic love with his manager, Joe – so, reliably, Joe has met a tragic end by the time the sequel rolls around.

 Hugh Grant is a fantasy Prime Minister for 2017

 Telling a predatory POTUS to fuck off despite the pressure to preserve good relations with the USA? Inspirational. No wonder he’s held on to office this long, despite only demonstrating skills of “swearing”, “possibly harassing junior staff members” and “somewhat rousing narration”.

 If you get together in Christmas 2003, you will stay together forever. It’s just science.

 Even if you’ve spent nearly fourteen years clinging onto public office. Even if you were a literal child when you met. Even if you hate your wife so much you refuse to learn her first language.

 Now listen to the SRSLY Love, Actually special: |||||

Write a summary.

– Love Actually fans went nuts when it was announced that a 12-minute sequel would air during the UK's Red Nose Day as part of its Comic Relief special last Friday. The spot doesn't officially air in the US until May, but this being 2017 and all, video snippets and recaps abound. And, well, bad news for those aforementioned fans—many people say the Love Actually bit was not so great. Spoilers ahead: On Cracked, Amanda Mannen writes that the sequel "destroys" the original movie. You find out that Mark apparently hasn't seen his one-time best friend Peter at all in the 13 years since he declared his love for Peter's new bride in the film, then-little-boy Sam never did move on from Joanna and may in fact have creepily followed her to the United States, and Jamie and Aurelia still don't speak one another's languages. Bottom line? "Love actually is more complicated than a slightly overlong Christmas movie, and that's kind of terrifying." At the Mirror, Adam Postans describes the sequel bit as "a poor man’s Four Weddings and a Funeral that delivered precisely nothing." At the Guardian, Barbara Ellen suggests the sequel should have been named Guff Actually. "It was all lousy jokes and texted-in performances and looked as though it had been cobbled together by fourth formers as an end-of-term project," she writes. Another Guardian reviewer, Peter Bradshaw, calls the spot "bafflingly weak." He does note that, as to the inevitable question of who aged the best, it's clearly Martine McCutcheon, who played the prime minister's wife—"she genuinely doesn't look any different from 2003." The sequel has taught us that "if you get together in Christmas 2003, you will stay together forever. It’s just science," writes Anna Leszkiewicz at the New Statesman. "Even if you’ve spent nearly 14 years clinging onto public office. Even if you were a literal child when you met. Even if you hate your wife so much you refuse to learn her first language." But not everyone was disappointed. Radio Times calls the sketch "funny" and "poignant," the Telegraph calls it "winningly nostalgic and a triumphant return," and Vanity Fair and RTE round up tweets from satisfied viewers (who especially loved Hugh Grant dancing again).


– There's plenty of speculation in DC about whether President Trump might fire special counsel Robert Mueller. But Mike Allen of Axios reports on another strategy being explored by the president's legal team: Appoint a second special counsel to investigate Mueller's investigation. The story suggests that Trump's attorneys trust Mueller himself but not others in the Justice Department. For example, they point to a Fox News story Monday detailing how the wife of a Justice Department official named Bruce Ohr worked for the company behind the infamous anti-Trump dossier that emerged during the election. Ohr was recently demoted for concealing his own meetings with the company, Fusion GPS. "The Department of Justice and FBI cannot ignore the multiple problems that have been created by these obvious conflicts of interests," Trump attorney Jay Sekulow tells Axios. "These new revelations require the appointment of a special counsel to investigate." It's not clear how likely this is to happen, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions has previously floated the idea of a second special counsel to cover a wide range of GOP concerns. Meanwhile, the Washington Post has a profile of Trump's legal trio: Sekulow (the TV presence), Ty Cobb (a White House attorney), and John Dowd (Trump's personal attorney). They "serve not only as Trump's lawyers but also as his strategists, publicists, therapists—and, based on Dowd's claim that he wrote a controversial presidential tweet, ghostwriters," per the Post.

Expand this summary.

President Trump's legal team believes Attorney General Jeff Session's Justice Department and the FBI — more than special counsel Robert Mueller himself — are to blame for what they see as a witch hunt.

 The result: They want an additional special counsel named to investigate the investigators.

 Trump officials outlined their new line of thinking to me last night. ||||| Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team of a dozen-plus lawyers and investigators have proven stealthy in their wide-ranging Russia probe. They have surprised the White House with one indictment after another, and summoned President Trump's confidants for lengthy interviews. In the case of former campaign chairman Paul Manafort alone, court filings show, they have collected more than 400,000 documents and 36 electronic devices.

 Mueller and his deputies are, in the fearful word of some Trump loyalists, "killers."

 Trump's response, by contrast, is being directed by John M. Dowd, the president's personal lawyer retired from a large firm who works essentially as a one-man band, and Ty Cobb, a White House lawyer who works out of a small office in the West Wing basement, near the cafeteria where staffers get lunch.

 Dowd and Cobb, along with attorney Jay Sekulow, serve not only as Trump's lawyers but also as his strategists, publicists, therapists and — based on Dowd's claim that he wrote a controversial presidential tweet — ghostwriters.

 When Mueller requests documents, they provide them. When Trump reacts to new twists in the Russia saga, they seek to calm him down. When he has questions about the law, such as the Logan Act or Magnitsky Act, they explain it. And when the president frets that Mueller may be getting too close to him, they assure him he has done nothing wrong, urge him to resist attacking the special counsel and insist that the investigation is wrapping up — first, they said, by Thanksgiving, then by Christmas and now by early next year.

 As lawyers for the world's highest-profile client, Dowd and Cobb have come under scrutiny for their every move and utterance — and the criticism has been harsh.

 Many in the Washington legal community chide them as being indiscreet, error-prone and outmatched. They say public blunders — such as Dowd and Cobb casually chatting about their legal strategy on the patio of a downtown Washington steakhouse in September within earshot of a reporter — suggest a lack of discipline.

 Critics also question why, seven months into Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, they have not assembled a battalion of lawyers as President Bill Clinton had when he was being investigated by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. And some Trump loyalists, spoiling for a fight, say the president's lawyers should be combative rather than cooperative with Mueller.

 "There certainly have been gaffes," said Alan Dershowitz, a criminal defense attorney and Harvard Law School professor who has won praise from Trump for his television appearances defending a president's constitutional prerogative to fire his FBI director.

 "These are not the kinds of things that one would expect from the most powerful man in America, who has a choice of anybody to be his defense counsel," Dershowitz said. "Well — almost anybody," he added, saying that he is not interested in the job.

 [Trump’s legal team faces tensions — and a client who often takes his own counsel]

 Lawyer Ty Cobb, left, in 2004 and Jay Sekulow, in 2015. The two, along with John Dowd, are representing President Trump in the Russia probe, serving as his strategists, publicists and therapists. (AP photos/AP photos)

 This portrait of Trump's legal team and defense strategy is based on interviews with more than two dozen White House officials, lawyers and other people connected to the Russia probe, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

 The chorus of criticism may be growing louder, but Trump is not singing along. By most accounts, the president is satisfied with his representation — and talks to Cobb several times a day — though advisers say he has occasionally discussed bringing on new lawyers.

 Trump, 71, connects with Dowd, 76, and Cobb, in his mid-60s, as contemporaries. He appreciates their no-nonsense old-school style, and likes that neither appears on television, believing their absence from the airwaves deprives what he calls the Russia "witch hunt" of oxygen, according to Trump's advisers.

 A former Marine Corps captain, Dowd has a gruff demeanor and has proven able at times to cool Trump's temper and convince him of the virtues of pragmatism over pugnacity, aides said.

 Some Trump advisers dismiss Cobb's predictions that the Mueller probe is nearing its conclusions as misleading happy talk, but the president has internalized it as reality. One reason for Trump's faith is his belief that his lawyers are plugged in. Cobb tells him he is in frequent, and sometimes daily, contact with the special counsel's office, according to people familiar with the dynamic.

 Over Thanksgiving at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., Trump boasted to friends that Cobb was "brilliant" and that he was certain Mueller would soon exonerate him.

 Cobb declined to comment, and Dowd responded to an email inquiry with two words: "No, thanks."

 White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, "The president is happy with his legal team."

 Cobb works as a White House lawyer whose salary is paid by the government, and his duty is to the office of the presidency, whereas Dowd and Sekulow are employed by Trump and represent him personally. Dowd and Sekulow enjoy attorney-client privilege, but Cobb does not — meaning that Mueller could seek access to Cobb's notes or ask to interview him about his interactions with the president.

 [Trump lawyer John Dowd brought down Pete Rose. Almost 30 years later, they’re still fighting.]

 Mark Corallo, a Justice Department official under President George W. Bush, served as spokesman for Trump's legal team earlier this year. Corallo is no longer involved, but he praised Dowd and Cobb as "titans."

 "They've been at the top of their profession and were on the shortlist of the top 10 attorneys you would call if you got your knickers in a twist," Corallo said. He added, "One thing I like is Cobb and Dowd are of the same generation as the president. They are contemporaries. There is a comfort that comes with being able to talk with somebody who shares your experience in the world."

 Still, there have been moments of tension. Last Tuesday, anxiety ran high early in the morning because of a report out of Germany that Mueller's office had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for records related to the transactions of Trump and people close to him.

 Trump was unnerved, but his lawyers tried to soothe his irritation and scrambled to determine whether the report was accurate, aware that if Mueller were digging into Trump's finances, he would be crossing a red line the president had publicly set, according to three people familiar with the discussions. After the lawyers consulted with the special counsel's office, Sekulow issued a statement that afternoon saying that Trump's team had confirmed there was no subpoena for Trump's records.

 The Trump administration's key people in the Russia investigation — including the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., and son-in-law, Jared Kushner — are represented by different attorneys. But some of the various lawyers, along with Dowd and Cobb, cooperate by sharing information on regular conference calls about questions their clients have been asked and documents they have turned over.

 Witnesses in Mueller's probe and their lawyers have reported back to Cobb and Dowd that the special counsel's team has asked detailed questions about Trump's May firing of James B. Comey as FBI director, leading them to believe that Mueller may be gathering evidence of obstruction of justice, according to one witness.

 But Cobb and Dowd have told Trump he has no vulnerability, officials said. Dowd went so far as to posit last week to Axios that a president cannot obstruct justice because of his constitutional powers as the chief law enforcement officer — an interpretation that was mocked by some legal scholars.

 [A bold new legal defense for Trump: Presidents cannot obstruct justice]

 On Dec. 2, Trump tweeted that he fired Michael Flynn as national security adviser in part because he had lied to the FBI — an admission that could become evidence in an obstruction investigation. Dowd claimed he drafted the tweet, and fellow lawyers privately said they could not believe a statement so careless was written not by the impulsive president but by his lawyer.

 One of Trump's advisers told the president that weekend: "The first job of a lawyer is to shut up. The second job of a lawyer is to keep their client's mouth shut. I don't know why they're tweeting and talking and trying to explain the tweet," according to someone with knowledge of the conversation.

 People close to the Trump legal team argue that additional lawyers could result in a more proactive and careful approach. "It's amazing the stress and magnitude of representing the president of the United States," said one person familiar with the inner workings. "You'd have to be super human to do it alone. You've got 16 of the best lawyers in the country going up against you."

 For Trump, being under the glare of a legal investigation is familiar territory. A real estate developer and reality-television star before becoming a politician, he has spent much of his professional life enmeshed in litigation.

 When Mueller's Russia investigation began in May, Trump hired as his lead attorney Marc Kasowitz, a litigator from New York with a brawler reputation who had represented Trump and his companies off and on for years in divorce, bankruptcy and other proceedings.

 In the early weeks of the Mueller probe, the hard-charging Kasowitz would scurry in and out of the Oval Office and the adjoining dining room in what aides described as a running — and at times frenzied — commentary with Trump about all things Russia.

 But Kasowitz had scant experience in Washington and with investigations like Mueller's. After he caused a kerfuffle by sending an expletive-laced and disparaging email to a stranger who had criticized him, Kasowitz departed the Russia legal team. He continues to represent Trump in some other matters.

 [When Trump goes looking for a media brawl, this feared lawyer steps in]

 Trump tried to hire or has considered hiring more than a half dozen top litigators to help manage the Russia probe, including William A. Burck, Mark Filip, Emmet Flood, Robert J. Giuffra, Ted B. Olson and Brendan V. Sullivan Jr., according to several people with knowledge of the president's deliberations. For various reasons, none took the job.

 "If you're the president of the United States, typically the top lawyers are lining up to pitch you," said one person close to the White House and familiar with the legal team's dynamics. "Here, you have the opposite."

 Bob Bauer, who was President Barack Obama's White House counsel, said in assessing the Trump legal team: "Some people may want to blame the lawyers, but my principal question is, 'How do you represent a client like Trump?' And at what point do these lawyers decide they're so hemmed in, so compromised by his behavior, his impulses, his tweets, that they just can't represent him effectively?"

 The face of the legal team has been Sekulow, who has deep ties to the Christian right, though he has adopted a lower profile since the spring and summer when he was a frequent television presence.

 Cobb, who had been a partner at Hogan Lovells, enjoys a reputation as a seasoned white-collar advocate whose last high-stakes legal case involving Washington politics was in the 1990s. Dowd has been a higher-profile criminal defender and represented Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during a 1990 ethics investigation into whether McCain had improperly intervened in a savings and loan probe. He is perhaps best known for representing the commissioner of baseball in the late 1980s and producing the "Dowd Report," a document that resulted in Pete Rose's lifetime suspension from the sport.

 Dowd was widely perceived by other lawyers to be in the twilight of his career, having formally retired in 2015 from Akin Gump, where he had worked since 1990.

 Dowd lost one of his most recent big cases when his client, hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam, was convicted in 2011 on insider trading charges in New York. Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney prosecuting Rajaratnam, reflected on facing Dowd in that trial in an episode last week of his podcast, "Stay Tuned with Preet."

 "John Dowd said a lot of — how shall I put it? — ludicrous, silly things," said Bharara, who was fired as U.S. attorney two months into the Trump administration.

 At one point, Dowd was filmed swearing at and flashing his middle finger at reporters covering the trial. It garnered him unflattering press coverage — but it was the kind of dramatic move that a client like Trump could see as an attribute.

 Sari Horwitz and Tom Hamburger contributed to this report. ||||| EXCLUSIVE: A senior Justice Department official demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the anti-Trump “dossier” had even closer ties to Fusion GPS, the firm responsible for the incendiary document, than have been disclosed, Fox News has confirmed: The official’s wife worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election.

 Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G. Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr’s duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016.

 Fusion GPS has attracted scrutiny because Republican lawmakers have spent the better part of this year investigating whether the dossier, which was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, served as the basis for the Justice Department and the FBI to obtain FISA surveillance last year on a Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page.

 “The House Intelligence Committee,” Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox News in a statement on Monday, “is looking into all facets of the connections between the Department of Justice and Fusion GPS, including Mr. Ohr.”

 Until Dec. 6, when Fox News began making inquiries about him, Bruce Ohr held two titles at DOJ. He was, and remains, director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force; but his other job was far more senior. Mr. Ohr held the rank of associate deputy attorney general, a post that gave him an office four doors down from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The day before Fox News reported that Mr. Ohr held his secret meetings last year with the founder of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, and with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the dossier, the Justice Department stripped Ohr of his deputy title and ousted him from his fourth floor office at the building that DOJ insiders call “Main Justice.”

 The Department of Justice has provided no public explanation for Ohr’s demotion. Officials inside the Department have told Fox News his wearing of two hats was “unusual,” but also confirm Ohr had withheld his contacts with the Fusion GPS men from colleagues at the DOJ.

 Former FBI Director James Comey has described the dossier as a compendium of “salacious and unverified” allegations about then-candidate Donald Trump and his associates, including Page, a foreign policy adviser. The dossier was provided to the FBI in July 2016, shortly before then-candidate Donald Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination. As Comey later testified, it was in that same month that the FBI began a counterintelligence probe of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

 The disclosure by Fox News that Bruce Ohr met with Simpson and Steele last year expanded the reach of the dossier’s creators from the FBI into the top echelons of the Justice Department. Initial investigation suggested that Steele, a longtime FBI informant whose contacts with Mr. Ohr are said to date back a decade, might have played the central role in putting Simpson together with the associate deputy attorney general. Now, the revelation that Mrs. Ohr worked for Simpson calls that account into question.

 A review of open source materials shows Mrs. Ohr was described as a Russia expert at the Wilson Center, a Washington think tank, when she worked there, briefly, a decade ago. The Center’s website said her project focused on the experiences of Russian farmers during Stalin’s collectivization program and following the invasion of Russia by Nazi forces in 1941. She has also reviewed a number of books about twentieth century Russia, including Reconstructing the State: Personal Networks and Elite Identity in Soviet Russia (2000), by Gerald Easter, a political scientist at Boston College, and Bertrand M. Patenaude’s The Big Show in Bololand: The American Relief Expedition to Soviet Russia in the Famine of 1921 (2002).

 Contacted by Fox News late Monday, DOJ officials declined to comment.

 Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, declined to comment on the original disclosure about Mr. Ohr’s secret meetings, and did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Mrs. Ohr.

 While Nunes has issued numerous subpoenas to DOJ and FBI relating to the dossier, and has threatened contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray for what congressional Republicans have termed “stonewalling” by the two agencies, Schiff has mostly objected to the demands for documents and witnesses, casting the entire dossier probe as innately political. “I think there's a hope that if they can impeach Christopher Steele, and they can impeach the FBI and DOJ, maybe they can impeach the whole Russia investigation,” Schiff told MSNBC in September.

 James Rosen joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 1999 and is the network’s chief Washington correspondent. |||||