Trump Predicted NY’s Attorney General’s Sexual Downfall In 2013 – And He Was Spot On
Published by ClashDaily.com | on May 8, 2018
If Trump has proven one thing time and again, it is his uncanny ability to outlast his enemies and rivals. Over a lifetime, a man such as him has crossed swords with any number of people. Among them was New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
Schneiderman took Trump to court, wanting to settle, but Trump fought it.
How did our President Characterize the AG? As a ‘lightweight’. Schneiderman’s past drug use came up, and The Donald said it ‘wouldn’t have surprised him’ if he still did drugs.
That interview (from 2014) here:
Trump’s fans point out that he comes off looking a little like Nostradamus by tweeting this in 2013.
Schneiderman just stepped down.
Why? Well, you know a leftist is in real trouble when the NYTimes is throwing you under the bus. In their words:
Until Monday evening New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was a public champion of the #MeToo movement. Now he appears to be the latest sickening example of the scale and insidiousness of the cruelty that movement is confronting. He resigned late Monday after The New Yorker magazine published an article in which four women accused him of abusing them physically and emotionally.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo should appoint a responsible, independent prosecutor to investigate any possible criminal charges against Mr. Schneiderman and abuses of his office.
Source: NewYork Times
What’s that? Another liberal whose virtue signaling was used as a screen to cover deprived moral character?
The article continues:
Two women who had been in relationships with Mr. Schneiderman — Michelle Manning Barish, a liberal activist, and Tanya Selvaratnam, an author — told the magazine that he choked and hit them, often during sex, and subjected them to verbal abuse. They said he slapped them so hard that Ms. Manning Barish bled from her ear long after the blow, while Ms. Selvaratnam suffered from episodes of vertigo.
Both said Mr. Schneiderman threatened to kill them, while Ms. Selvaratnam said the state attorney also warned her he could have her followed and her phone tapped.
The women told The New Yorker that Mr. Schneiderman drank heavily, and would often force them to drink alcohol. Ms. Selvaratnam told the magazine Mr. Schneiderman called her his “brown slave,” and forced her to say that she was, “his property.”
Source NYT
If some high-profile person with an (R) after his name did the same thing, do you really think the so-called Social-Justice warriors would let him quietly resign? Or would they set out to destroy him on a personal and professional level?
On Twitter, way back in 2013, Trump was beating him like a rented mule.
As it turns out, Trump’s instincts were pretty good. Trump is president, and Schneiderman has resigned in disgrace.
Trump has a knack for outliving his pallbearers. (So much winning.)
Reported by Hans von Spakovsky 
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. 
What Did You Say? 
California Attorney General Kamala Harris has joined New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in trying to prosecute ExxonMobil for supposedly lying to its shareholders and the public about climate change, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Times reported that Harris is investigating what ExxonMobil “knew about global warming and what the company told investors.”
Neither Harris nor Schneiderman recognizes the outrageousness of what they are doing—which amounts censoring or restricting speech and debate on what is a contentious scientific theory. In fact, they want not just to stop anyone who questions the global warming theory from being able to speak; they want to punish them with possible civil sanctions or even criminal penalties. As I said before about Schneiderman, Harris needs a remedial lesson in the First Amendment.
Perhaps we should investigate what Harris “knows” about global warming or climate change, which Harris (and Schneiderman) treats as if it is a proven, unassailable, incontrovertible fact. However, as the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris has pointed out, “flaws discovered in the scientific assessment of climate change have shown that the scientific consensus is not as settled as the public had been led to believe.”
According to Loris, leaked emails and documents from various universities and researchers have “revealed conspiracy, exaggerated warming data, possibly illegal destruction and manipulation of data, and attempts to freeze out dissenting scientists from publishing their work in reputable journals.” Furthermore, the “gaffes” that have been exposed in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports “have only increased skepticism” about the credibility of this scientific theory.
These investigations are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin persecuted those who he thought had the “wrong” scientific views on everything from linguistics to physics. Besides sending them a copy of the Constitution so they can review the First Amendment, residents of both New York and California might also want to include a copy of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book, “In the First Circle,” in which he outlined the Soviet government’s suppression of dissenting scientists and engineers.
What makes this even worse is the fact that other public officials also want those who question this scientific theory investigated, prosecuted, and punished. According to the Times story, these include Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., who have sent letters to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Securities and Exchange Commission “calling for federal investigation of securities fraud and violations of racketeering, consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, shareholder protection or other laws.”
The bottom line is that the state attorneys general of New York and California are not acting like level-headed, objective prosecutors interested in the fair and dispassionate administration of justice. They are instead acting like Grand Inquisitors who must stamp out any heresy that doubts the legitimacy of the climate change religion. They are treating an unproven scientific theory as if it is a creed than cannot be questioned, probed, examined, or doubted.