Meryl Streep Dressed Like Diane Keaton For Diane Keaton’s AFI Gala

Just when we thought we couldn?t love Meryl Streep any more, she goes and dresses like Diane Keaton ? and now we don?t know who we love more, Meryl or Diane. Let?s just call it a draw. 

Streep honored her friend in the best way possible on Thursday night, by copying Keaton?s iconic style to celebrate the American Film Institute?s 45th Life Achievement Award Gala Tribute to the actress at the Dolby Theatre Hollywood.

Dressed in her signature black and white, Keaton was a delight as she posed next to Streep, also in black and white. Keaton rocked a hat and a wide belt over a black skirt and white coat, while Streep wore her own headgear and a black suit featuring an eclectic striped necktie. Both ladies wore glasses and huge smiles, of course. 

?Diane Keaton, arguably one of the most covered-up persons in the history of clothes, is also a transparent woman,? Streep told the crowd, according to The Hollywood Reporter, ?even though she is famously the only member of the original cast of ?Hair? on Broadway who would not take off her clothes at the end of the show.?

The gals ? who were joined by Woody Allen, Reese Witherspoon, Al Pacino, Emma Stone, Morgan Freeman, Sarah Silverman, Rachel McAdams, Steve Martin and Martin Short at the special event ? have been pals for years, with Keaton even giving her own speech at Streep?s AFI tribute in 2004. 

?By putting life before art, Meryl Streep has made the choice of a trailblazing pioneer, and in the process became my generation?s genius,? Keaton told the crowd of the Oscar-winning actress. 

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. And man, nothing beats this: 

The Diane Keaton AFI Tribute will air on TNT June 15 and then on Turner Classic Movies July 31. 

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… articlesList=593a9781e4b0c5a35c9e9d30,590b64d7e4b0e7021e9578c2

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Scissor Sisters And MNDR Release Tribute Song For Pulse Massacre Victims

What does it mean to ?SWERLK??

For Babydaddy of Scissor Sisters and musician, singer and producer MNDR, it?s a combination of five of the fiercest words being used today: twerk, twirl, werk, swerve and swirl.

But it?s also so much more than that.

?It?s not only a dance move or a song,? MNDR told HuffPost. ?It?s a way of life and a philosophy!?

?SWERLK? is a new collaboration released today via GLAAD and HuffPost by the two music powerhouses, with the intention of bringing people together and honoring the 49 lives lost one year ago on June 12 during the Pulse Nightclub Massacre.

?MNDR and I were talking about how we wouldn?t exist without the culture around the clubs and the bars and the kind of escapes they provided and complete support system for what we were both doing when we started our projects,? Babydaddy told HuffPost. ?So it was this sort of, ?we?re not just supportive but also in debt to this culture.? 

This guiding mentality is at the heart of ?SWERLK,? with 100 percent of the proceeds going toward the Contigo Fund ? a grassroots organization born out of the Pulse Massacre and dedicated to supporting and empowering the LGBTQ and Latinx communities in the Central Florida area.

?I think this is something that MNDR and I both discussed ? the way to honor what happened and the way to deal with it,? Babydaddy added. ?While being somber was a completely valid reaction to what happened, I think the most important way for us to kind of fight back and keep the spirit alive was to actually dig deeper into the spirt of what that whole scene, that community is. So, for us, that idea [consisted] of making something that hopefully people want to go out and play in the clubs and have fun with experience.?

?The spirit of being in something together and escapism and art and connecting with people ? I think that?s a big part of the song as well,? MNDR said.

Listen to ?SWERLK? above and head here to learn more about the Contigo Fund.

GLAAD will premiere ?SWERLK? videos from the Scissor Sisters and MNDR on the GLAAD Facebook page today and next week.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Comey Offered Republicans Only The Coldest Of Comfort

WASHINGTON ? Republicans went hunting for a silver lining Thursday after FBI Director James Comey testified under oath that his firing was allegedly an attempt to alter the Russia investigation ? Comey?s testimony only showed President Donald Trump had hoped to obstruct the probe, not that he did it.

Comey explained repeatedly in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that he believed Trump gave him the heave ho to try and influence the FBI?s investigation into the Russian campaign to sway the U.S. election, and especially any probe into former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

?It?s my judgment that I was fired because of the Russia investigation,? Comey told the panel. ?I was fired in some way to change, or the endeavor was to change, the way the Russia investigation was being conducted. That is a very big deal.?

According to Comey, Trump had pressed him specifically to drop the probe into Flynn, who was forced to resign after he apparently misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about his business dealings with Russians.

While some Democrats started wondering if the overall circumstances amounted to a potential obstruction of justice case ? Comey said that was a matter for Special Counsel Bob Mueller to decide ? Republicans decided to parse Trump?s specific words.

They seemed especially relieved that the president, in a one-on-one Oval Office discussion with Comey, only said ?I hope? Comey drops the Flynn investigation.

?He did not direct you to let it go; He did not order you to let it go,? said Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), who expressed pleasure that Comey?s written testimony was careful to put quote marks around the request.

?Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or, for that matter, any other criminal offense, where they said, or thought, they hoped for an outcome?? Risch continued.

Comey agreed Trump didn?t come out and say ?obstruct justice,? but he did take pains to draw the big picture, stressing repeatedly that as an investigator every detail of their conversation was important ? including Trump asking Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other advisers to leave the room.

?I mean, this is the president of the United States, with me alone, saying, ?I hope? this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do,? Comey said.

Like Risch, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said if Trump truly wanted to interfere in the investigation, his comments to Comey appeared to be ?a pretty light touch.?

What?s the difference, Lankford asked, between Trump indicating he?d like Comey to let go of his investigation into Flynn and the president tweeting his displeasure with the Russian probe as a whole.

?Is there any question that the president is not real fond of this investigation?? Lankford quipped. ?I?ve heard you share before in this conversation that you?re trying to keep the agents that are working on it away from any comment the president might have made. Quite frankly the president has informed around six billion people that he?s not real fond of this investigation. Do you think there?s a difference in that??

Again, Comey directed Republicans to recognize everything Trump did that one day during their February meeting.

?There?s a big difference in kicking superior officers out of the Oval Office, looking the FBI director in the eye, and saying ?hope you let this go,?? Comey said. ?I think if agents ? as good as they are ? heard the president of the United States did that, there?s a real risk of a chilling effect on their work.?

Although Comey often called the entire situation a ?very big deal,? some Republicans tried to suggest that the ex-FBI director?s reaction showed it was not.

After Comey testified that he told Sessions he never wanted to be alone in a room with Trump again, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) suggested Comey?s subsequent actions showed something different, including Comey being willing to take Trump?s calls.

?What is the difference in being in the room alone with him and talking to him on the phone alone?? Blunt asked.

Comey answered that it was similar, so he made sure to inform his own FBI team about them and the deputy attorney general.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wanted to know why Comey didn?t just speak up.

?At the time, did you say anything to the president about ? that is not an appropriate request, or did you tell the White House counsel, that is not an appropriate request, someone needs to go tell the president that he can?t do these things?? Rubio said.

Comey admitted that when it happened he was ?stunned? and the first thing he thought was to be careful what he said next. He ultimately told Sessions, but the attorney general never said anything.

Another tack Republicans tried was suggesting Trump was being treated unfairly. Both Rubio and Blunt argued that it was significant that of all the leaks that kept coming out about Trump, none of them included the information that Comey told Trump three times that the president was not personally under investigation.

Comey didn?t comment on the fairness, but did tell Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) that while it was technically true that Trump wasn?t under investigation, at least one of Comey?s colleagues was concerned about telling Trump that because the colleague believe Trump?s actions as head of his campaign would fall under the probe.

In perhaps the oddest case of the fairness argument, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that it was a double standard for Comey to clear HIllary Clinton in the completed investigation of her private email system, but not to clear Trump in the ongoing Russia probe. McCain seemed to suggest that Clinton?s emails had something to do with the Russian campaign to influence the election.

?She?s one of the candidates, but in her case you say there will be no charges, and in the case of President Trump, the investigation continues,? McCain said.

?I?m a little confused,? Comey professed of McCain?s complaint, noting that the Clinton investigation was long finished.

McCain was asked by reporters later why he thought Clinton should be part of the Russia probe when Russia?s alleged meddling was directed against her.

?That?s what some people say, but whatever,? McCain said. ?She was declared completely innocent of any involvement whatsoever, and there?s a whole lot of other questions out there.?

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

J. Edgar Hoover’s Oversteps Show Why FBI Directors Are Forbidden From Getting Cozy With Presidents

By Douglas M. Charles, Pennsylvania State University

How are U.S. presidents and FBI directors supposed to communicate?

A new FBI director has recently been nominated, former Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray. He will certainly be thinking carefully about this question as he awaits confirmation.

Former FBI Director James Comey?s relationship with President Donald Trump was strained at best. Comey was concerned that Trump had approached him on nine different occasions in two months. In his testimony to Congress, Comey stated that under President Barack Obama, he had spoken with the president only twice in three years.

Comey expressed concern about this to colleagues, and tried to distance himself from the president. He tried to tell Trump the proper procedures for communicating with the FBI. These policies have been enmeshed in Justice Department guidelines. And for good reason.

FBI historians like myself know that, since the 1970s, bureau directors try to maintain a discrete distance from the president. This tradition grew out of reforms that followed the often questionable behavior of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who served from 1924 to 1972.

Over this long period, Hoover?s relationships with six different presidents often became dangerously close, crossing ethical and legal lines. This history can help us understand Comey?s concerns about Trump and help put his testimony into larger context.

As the nation?s chief law enforcement arm, the FBI today is tasked with three main responsibilities: investigating violations of federal law, pursuing counterterrorism cases and disrupting the work of foreign intelligence operatives. Anything beyond these raises serious ethical questions.

From FDR to Nixon

When Franklin Roosevelt became president in 1933, Hoover worked hard to develop a close working relationship with the president. Roosevelt helped promote Hoover?s crime control program and expand FBI authority. Hoover grew the FBI from a small, relatively limited agency into a large and influential one. He then provided the president with information on his critics, and even some foreign intelligence, all while ingratiating himself with FDR to retain his job.

President Harry Truman didn?t much like Hoover, and thought his FBI was a potential ?citizen spy system.?

Hoover found President Dwight Eisenhower to be an ideological ally with an interest in expanding FBI surveillance. This led to increased FBI use of illegal microphones and wiretaps. The president looked the other way as the FBI carried out its sometimes questionable investigations.

But when John F. Kennedy became president in 1961, Hoover?s relationship with the president faced a challenge. JFK?s brother, Robert Kennedy, was made attorney general. Given JFK?s close relationship with his brother, Hoover could no longer bypass his boss and deal directly with the president, as he so often did in the past. Not seeing eye to eye with the Kennedys, Hoover cut back on volunteering political intelligence reports to the White House. Instead, he only responded to requests, while collecting information on JFK?s extramarital affairs.

By contrast, President Lyndon Johnson had a voracious appetite for FBI political intelligence reports. Under his presidency, the FBI became a direct vehicle for servicing the president?s political interests. LBJ issued an executive order exempting Hoover from mandatory retirement at the time, when the FBI director reached age 70. Owing his job to LBJ, Hoover designated a top FBI official, FBI Assistant Director Cartha ?Deke? DeLoach, as the official FBI liaison to the president.

The FBI monitored the Democratic National Convention at LBJ?s request. When Johnson?s aide, Walter Jenkins, was caught soliciting gay sex in a YMCA, Deke DeLoach worked directly with the president in dealing with the backlash.

One might think that when Richard Nixon ascended to the presidency in 1968, he would have found an ally in Hoover, given their shared anti-Communism. Hoover continued to provide a wealth of political intelligence to Nixon through a formal program called INLET. However, Hoover also felt vulnerable given intensified public protest due to the Vietnam War and public focus on his actions at the FBI.

Hoover held back in using intrusive surveillance such as wiretaps, microphones and break-ins as he had in the past. He resisted Nixon?s attempts to centralize intelligence coordination in the White House, especially when Nixon asked that the FBI use intrusive surveillance to find White House leaks. Not satisfied, the Nixon administration created its own leak-stopping unit: the White House plumbers ? which ended in the Watergate scandal.

Not until after Hoover?s death did Americans learn of his abuses of authority. Reform followed.

In 1976, Congress mandated a 10-year term for FBI directors. The Justice Department later issued guidelines on how the FBI director was to deal with the White House and the president, and how to conduct investigations. These guidelines have been reaffirmed, revised and reissued by subsequent attorneys general, most recently in 2009. The guidelines state, for example: ?Initial communications between the Department and the White House concerning pending or contemplated criminal investigations or cases will involve only the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General.?

The ConversationThese rules were intended to ensure the integrity of criminal investigations, avoid political influence and protect both the Justice Department and president. If Trump attempted to bypass these guidelines and woo Comey, that would represent a potentially dangerous return to the past.

Read More: The firing of James Comey: Psychology helps explain what Trump got wrong

Douglas M. Charles, Associate Professor of History, Pennsylvania State University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.