Connect with us

Latest

News

Wife of US Treasury Secretary creates PR disaster for Trump White House with this Instagram post

This was a big social media mistake on the part of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s wife.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

5,445 Views

Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s 36-year-old “trophy wife”, Louise Linton, has managed to land the entire Trump administration into a big social media mess.

Just when Trump seemed to have moved past the Charlottesville controversy…52 year old (ex-Goldman Sachs), Mnuchin’s wife got into it on Instagram with a user who took issue with one of her ill-thought out Instagram posts…

Via Zerohedge…

Apparently @jennimiller29 didn’t appreciate Linton hastagging her entire expensive wardrobe (including #rolandmouret, #tomford, #hermesscarf, and #valnetinorockstudheels) while traveling on a taxpayer funded private plane, during her husband’s trip to “check” if the gold at Fort Knox is still there, which prompted the following snarky comment:

“Glad we could pay for your little getaway.”

Feeling as if she had to reply to the social media trolling, Linton dug herself into a very deep hole with this terrible, PR disaster reply…which will surely make many Americans on the left hate Goldman Sachs a bit more, hedge fund managers much more, and Donald Trump exponentially more…

“Cute! Aw!!! Did you think this was a personal trip?! Adorable! Do you think the US govt paid for our honeymoon or personal travel?! Lololol. Have you given more to the economy than me and my husband? Either as an individual earner in taxes OR in self sacrifice to your country? I’m pretty sure we paid more taxes toward our day ‘trip’ than you did. Pretty sure the amount we sacrifice per year is a lot more than you’d be willing to sacrifice if the choice was yours. You’re adorably out of touch. Thanks for the passive aggressive nasty comment. Your kids look very cute. Your life looks cute. I know you’re mad but deep down you’re really nice and so am I. Sending me passive aggressive Instagram comments isn’t going to make life feel better. Maybe a nice message [sic], one filled with wisdom and hunanity [sic] would get more traction. Have a pleasant evening. Go chill out and watch the new game of thrones. It’s fab!”

One twitter user wrote, “Curiously this Instagram post is no longer available. F–king hedge funders” while another twitter post read, “Louise Linton is a hideous person, growing fat off of our tax dollars.” 

Zerohedge notes that at one point during the evening, someone even went so far as to change Linton’s Wikipedia page to reflect her IG comment. “Never forget she posted this on Instagram,” the page read as of 10:30 p.m.

Alas, in the end, it seems that only the President is permitted to post outlandish social media rants as Linton’s post has since been deleted and her account turned private.

Replying to this Instagram reply was a very stupid move on the part of Linton.

Posting the initial Instagram post was equally, if not more stupid…and twitter users proceeded to make Linton, and in extension President Trump, pay the price for such foolish actions…

You can view Linton’s complete Maxim photoshoot by clicking this link…

Blonde bombshell Louise Linton had a guest role in Robert Redford’s Lion fro Lambs, then followed it up with leading roles in Banking on Love and Wiffler: The Ted Whitfield Story.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Respectfulguest
Guest
Respectfulguest

Why do women today all have this egotistical, narcissistic trait to play act that they are Hollywood starlets ala Marilyn Monroe on social media outlets?!?

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

Media and Hollywood Conditioning on how to “behave”

Manimal
Guest
Manimal

And then they say that those jokes about blond are jokes ;-).

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

For anglo saxon blondes, definitely;)

Manimal
Guest
Manimal

And they are not as near good looking as ours ;-).

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

Nowhere near 😉

Nofearorfavor
Guest
Nofearorfavor

In the US perhaps maybe they mostly are … but in the relatively unspoilt regions of the world they are not jokes — they are for real.

Manimal
Guest
Manimal

A bit confused…
Are you saying that ussa blondes have brains?!?

Nofearorfavor
Guest
Nofearorfavor

No matter the shade of a woman’s hair or to what nation she’s born– real women thank God, are still found all over the world– for them, the love and care of their families come first and they’re not concerned whether others consider them brainy or not…. Thank God too, there are still real guys in our troubled world, putting their families first and are exemplary husbands and fathers.

richardstevenhack
Guest
richardstevenhack

She IS a “Hollywood starlet” – or more precisely a Scottish actress… 🙂

Nofearorfavor
Guest
Nofearorfavor

Hey matey– be fair. Far from it, most women are ordinary hard working souls who love and live for their husbands and children.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

It’s only the trash who do that.

DarkEyes
Guest
DarkEyes

Well, we do know in the meantime who runs Hollywood, don’t we?

Simon
Guest
Simon

So they could tweet detailed pics of her outfit…..but NOT ONE of all the ‘gold’ they went to see?

Seán Murphy
Guest
Seán Murphy

Unless….? I’m thinking what you’re thinking.

Nofearorfavor
Guest
Nofearorfavor

No gold?

Anne Felippe
Guest
Anne Felippe

Designer clothes cannot buy class. She is inherently classless and very obviously not very bright. Doesnt say much for her husband.

cstahnke
Guest
cstahnke

So what? The rich are the rich because they like being rich–they get some kind of pleasure out of flaunting it but that’s normal and I see it all the time with cars, houses, vacation homes, clothes. Find your favorite rich people watering hole and go see. Our culture worships the rich and thus the rich feel justified in their lifestyles–why shouldn’t they be? We always need to be reminded that we are ruled by an aristocracy and I think the woman is doing just that and I think it’s great, I always enjoy being reminded.

Thomas
Guest

Her money is her god, one day she’ll find out that God can’t be bought. Until then she’s a private citizen and she should be left alone.

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

Looks like she belongs in an escort service. Trashy clothing…WOW, speaks book volumes about Mnuchin.

Oh well……

TecumsehUnfaced
Guest
TecumsehUnfaced

Don’t you love the way he just gloats so charmingly? You would think that he doesn’t owe a thing to Kamala Harris, our next Barack Obama.

John R. Nolan
Guest
John R. Nolan

I think Amazia has a lot more to worry about, waste their thought processes on, than this tacky piece of non information.
Why is the world so hung up on tits, rectums, all soon to be dust, when there are a lot more confronting issues we need consider?
Is this just a continuation of the old epitaph of Rome burning whilst Nero fiddled?

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Mnuchin is likely a yiddish variant of Menachem. The Odessa Mafia flows in Goldman Sucks’s (gold) veins. Vulgarity does not cover it. ‘Cuntery’ is closer. And I refer to him… she is just a cheap ho.
So this is what draining the swamp looks like.
Lock and load Americans. Lock and load.

Voltaire
Guest
Voltaire

She is just a cheap ho….ho ho ho…

I think he bought her on E Bay….

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

At least America’s First Trollop (Melania) has the decency to keep her mouth shut, as does Donny’s #2 wife, Ivanka.

They and Mnuchin’s expensive little toy are all the same, though – arm/bed candy that would vanish in a moment in the absence of $$$.

They all have the taste/behavior of trailer park denizens who have just won the Mega Million Lottery.
comment image

TecumsehUnfaced
Guest
TecumsehUnfaced
tapatio
Guest
tapatio

ROTFLMFAO!! That’s cute. Haven’t seen much of you on MPN since the format change.

TecumsehUnfaced
Guest
TecumsehUnfaced

1st time I saw the format change, they wouldn’t let me get to the comments without taking a survey, so I just dumped it for a while.

But when I saw your “First Trollop”, I had to offer something in reciprocation.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

That’s odd. I never got a survey. I did e-mail Mnar b!tching about the new format (she never answers). I don’t like it, but I’ll deal with it.

TecumsehUnfaced
Guest
TecumsehUnfaced

I complained about that too. It’s too gaudy. I said that it was nothing I had agreed to pay for, and stopped the subscription for a day.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Well, I’m sticking with MPN. I like what they publish and don’t want to see them go under. I do wish they’d go back to a more useful format, though.

TecumsehUnfaced
Guest
TecumsehUnfaced

Same here, I think that Mnar got conned.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

When somebody shows you a nifty new page layout, it’s easy to fall for the idea. Common sens says to test out the new format first – before committing. It’s the easy, useful sites that have the traffic, like Duran, Ri, RT, etc.

Nofearorfavor
Guest
Nofearorfavor

Melania is anything but a trollop!– she’s a highly intelligent and charming woman and beautiful to boot, she’s an excellent mother. Yes, she had a good fling in her day– but most of us do when we’re young. But as Melania matured she gained depth — comes from a loving family too and whenever she speaks, she speaks sense. Best US First Lady in many a moon. I think Trump has plenty of good in him, but the cabal knows its now or never — decisions we see are not from him. The cabal is desperate and know its their… Read more »

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Reading your comment, I’m amazed that you are bright enough to use a computer.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Washington has become not simply a swamp but a Khazar fake-jew Odessa Mafia swamp.

7.62x54r
Guest
7.62x54r

That is the view of the US-EU elite ruling class wherein 90% of all other people are relegated to being ‘deplorables’, as Hillary said in 2016.

Thomas
Guest

She’s a private citizen, irregardless if her hubby makes his money via the govt., leave her alone.

Aussie battler
Guest
Aussie battler

All you can say is (classic parasite comments).
Just what I would expect to hear from such people!.

Valerianus Maximus
Guest
Valerianus Maximus

The braying Bolsheviks think they scored a Marie Antoinette victory with this. She pwned that twit.

FlorianGeyer
Guest
FlorianGeyer

This is why the US needs a real revolution.

richardstevenhack
Guest
richardstevenhack

Thanks for the Maxim link! Always ready to view hot blondes! LOL

Nofearorfavor
Guest
Nofearorfavor

Wind tunnel serves as a brain … not a grain of brain. Poor thing. What is it with these people! Have they no idea how the world mocks them– how they fill people with disgust to the point of vomiforia! Its just unbelievable.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

At least America’s First Trollop has the decency to keep her mouth shut. But, the entire “administration” is like Duck Dynasty won the Mega Million lottery – all bling and no dignity.

Gordon
Guest
Gordon

Living in the UK, I may be speaking out of turn, BUT, in comparison to the tranny Michael/Michel whatever its name was, that the straight (supposed) pres Obami was dragging around!!! OMG.
And please, It goes without saying that we all detest Goldman Sachs and all who have sailed on that ship.

Shakesvshav
Guest
Shakesvshav

The lady protests too much. Indicates a guilty conscience, resulting from awareness that she is essentially a parasite.

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending