╌>

Exclusive | Huma Abedin and billionaire Alex Soros are engaged

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 days ago  •  56 comments

By:   Mohris (Page Six)

Exclusive | Huma Abedin and billionaire Alex Soros are engaged
Huma Abedin and Alex Soros are engaged. Sources spotted the pair celebrating the happy news in Italy after Soros popped the question six weeks ago.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Huma Abedin and Alex Soros are engaged, Page Six has exclusively learned.

Sources tell us Soros popped the question six weeks ago, and the couple were spotted recently celebrating the happy news in Italy.

"The best way I can describe the relationship is effortless," a friend of Abedin's for over 15 years tells Page Six.

"After a lot of tumultuous years for Huma, she's relaxed and happy and in love," the insider added.

The Democratic political insider and the son of billionaire Democratic donor George Soros were first linked earlier this year when the duo posted a cozy pic from a Paris restaurant for Valentine's Day.

The "Both/And: A Life in Many Worlds" author confirmed she was dating Soros with the sweet pic, and the message, "Happy Valentine's Day."

They subsequently attended the 2024 Met Gala together in May, where Abedin, 47, wore a green gown with butterfly appliques designed by Erdem. Soros, 38, went with a gray tuxedo and added a gold bug pin to his bowtie to match.

He cheekily captioned an Instagram Stories shot from the gala, "A little buggy out" — referring to their matching insect accoutrements for the glam event where the theme was "The Garden of Time."

Hillary Clinton's former deputy chief of staff has also been seen leaving her now-fiance's apartment downtown in NYC.

One former senior Clinton aide had previously told Page Six of the pair, "It's a classic Clinton World couple. Alex is the perfect match for Huma."

Abedin has long been considered a "second daughter" to Hillary, and Alex's dad, George Soros — who made his money in hedge funds and is worth $6.7 billion, according to Forbes — was one of the top 10 donors to Hillary's presidential run in 2016, contributing more than $9.5 million to the campaign.

"I'm thrilled for her," an Abedin friend previously told Page Six of her relationship with Soros. "She works so hard and she deserves happiness. I just hope she's happy — she's been through so much."

We hear that the engaged couple — who met through a mutual friend who was dating one of Alex's cousins — have been recently traveling together, and sources told us that Abedin was appearing in the Balkans for a talk.

11Sources have said the pair met through a mutual friend. GC Images11Abedin has been spotted leaving Soros' NYC apartment. MEGA

They'd previously gone to Munich, Germany, at the same time as the Munich Security Conference, an annual gathering on international security policy that attracts world leaders.

They've mostly kept a low profile but were also spotted in April sitting courtside at a Knicks playoffs game.

It's certainly a happy ending for Abedin, who has a son with her ex, disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner. They were married from 2010 to 2017.

It will be Soros' first marriage.

A source previously told Page Six of the scion: "Alex started to get more politically active 10 years ago when he was still finishing college. He started hosting his own events, not just for the Clintons, but for congressional candidates."

"He literally grew up with his dad hosting and being the biggest Democratic donor in American politics," the source added.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 days ago

"Birds of a feather ...

I wish I could say there were fine people on both sides.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 days ago

No, you'll save that for the 34 times convicted felon, "grab 'em by the pussy" sexual assaulter.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @1.1    3 days ago

He won't be for long.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 days ago

Fantasize all you want.  That's not going to change a thing.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.2    3 days ago

I'll put up my house against your house, that verdict gets overturned on appeal.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    3 days ago

Uh, no.  Besides, I have a feeling that you would have to put up many multiples of your house in order for it to be an even exchange.  Probably the fair market value of my garage and the fair market value of your house would be a dollar equivalent.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.4    3 days ago

lol …. Yup, the self appointed defenders of the little man always seem to live in mansions.    

Funny how that works but useful idiots do eat that shit up with a serving spoon.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Gsquared  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.5    3 days ago

The lesson is that with hard work one can realize the American dream, even someone who came from an average working class family like me.  It's a lesson you might want to learn, although some seem to prefer wallowing in envy rather than applying themselves and taking advantage of the opportunities this country has to offer.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.5    3 days ago

Don't worry. He got it!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.5    3 days ago
Yup, the self appointed defenders of the little man always seem to live in mansions.

melania-trump-donald-trump-manhattan-apartment2.jpg

trump-tower-penthouse-columns-PENTHOUSE1116-df5841b24fb14fc18f8dd4532854d7ad.jpg

melania_trump2-f7fae57e0aa447f29cff8dadde8d568b.jpg

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    3 days ago
He got it!

Yes, it's exactly as I said in response.  See Comment 1.1.6.  

Although you will have to admit that his second sentence was complete gibberish.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.6    2 days ago

lol, envy?    Wishful thinking.   I could say that I probably could buy and sell you several times over, which I probably could, but that would be about as useless a comment here as you bragging up your net worth. 

But you keep doing you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.9    2 days ago
Although you will have to admit that his second sentence was complete gibberish.

Only to the target audience ….

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.8    2 days ago

Yeah, Obama did pretty good for a community organizer.    Net worth over 70 million.    Same with the Clintons, considering according to them they were broke when they left the Whitehouse.    Net worth over 120 million.

At least Trump produced something.    Those two above just sucked off the public teet their whole careers.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.8    2 days ago

All faux gold - all that glitters is not gold in trump world - more like golden showers

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.8    2 days ago

Is that last picture when the former 'president' convicted felon and rapist was doing Stormy Daniels?  It's right around that time frame - infant Barron there.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Gsquared  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.10    2 days ago
envy

Your comment is dripping with it.

which I probably could

Talk about wishful thinking.  

useless

The best possible description of your comment.  It almost shows a bit of self-awareness.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.15    2 days ago

[]

 
 
 
fineline
Freshman Silent
1.1.17  fineline  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.5    2 days ago

[removed][]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.18  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    yesterday

I'll put up my house against your house, that verdict gets overturned on appeal.

Won't change the fact that he was found guilty. Sorry! 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.9    yesterday
Yes, it's exactly as I said in response. 

No, you know I'm right, but you don't care.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.18    yesterday
Won't change the fact that he was found guilty. Sorry! 

It absolutely will. Don't you understand the law?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.19    yesterday
you know I'm right

I know you are very far right.

but you don't care

It's a free country, so you are entitled to whatever extremist political positions you may want to take.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.22  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    yesterday

It absolutely will. Don't you understand the law?

You are confused.. They are not going to overturn a jury decision. Not going to happen. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.22    yesterday
They are not going to overturn a jury decision. Not going to happen.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that.

Some 31% of appeals after jury trials are successful.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.24  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.22    yesterday
They are not going to overturn a jury decision. Not going to happen. 

I beg to differ.

I am certain of it.

It might be good to take a look at the Enron verdict.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.25  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.24    yesterday

It might be good to take a look at the Enron verdict.

Wow, they are totally the same thing LOL 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.26  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.25    yesterday

In a sense they are. When you do dirty things like Andrew Weissmann did, you get overturned eventually.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.27  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.26    yesterday

In a sense they are. When you do dirty things like Andrew Weissmann did, you get overturned eventually.

Trump is a convicted felon, that's not going to change. Sorry. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Gsquared  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.22    yesterday
They are not going to overturn a jury decision.

It's possible but statistically unlikely. 

Based on analyses of the contemporary data, the chance of winning an appeal from a criminal conviction is from 7% to at most about 20%, depending on the jurisdiction.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.26    yesterday

'dirty things'?

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.30  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.24    yesterday
I am certain of it.

That's persuasive authority.  You should bet your house on it.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.31  MrFrost  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.28    yesterday
It's possible but statistically unlikely. 

True, I get that but I think it's pretty unlikely, in my non-professional opinion. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Gsquared  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.31    yesterday

You're correct.  There needs to be a finding of reversible error for an appeal to succeed.  I haven't read of any reversible error in this case.  

Trump is apparently basing his appeal on the new Supreme Court case.  He would need to show, and the court would have to accept, that he was convicted for a crime committed while engaging in an "official act", or that the conviction was somehow tainted by the introduction of forbidden evidence related to an "official act".  In a nutshell, that's what I understand the new case to mean, although there is a bit more to it.  Was Trump engaging in an "official act"?  Certainly not for anything that occurred before he became President.  I believe that it would be tough sell to convince a court that any of his conduct involved an "official act", but we shall see.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.33  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.32    yesterday
Trump is apparently basing his appeal on the new Supreme Court case.

Wrong again. Trump had already appealed the New York conviction based on a litany of actions by the judge.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.34  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.33    yesterday

Trump had already appealed the New York conviction based on a litany of actions by the judge.

Provide us with a link to the notice of appeal or appeal pleadings Trump has filed, other than his recent letter to the Judge regarding the Supreme Court ruling, or admit that you are completely wrong, again.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.35  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.33    yesterday
Trump had already appealed the New York conviction based on a litany of actions by the judge.

The highest court he can appeal to is the Supreme Court of NY. Here is their photo...

512

Good luck. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.36  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.34    17 hours ago

I'm going to give you the most important one:

"New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan , who presided over the hush money trial of former president  Donald Trump  that  returned 34 felony convictions , ought never to have accepted the case. And Merchan surely should have stepped away once Trump’s lawyers moved that he disqualify himself.

Yes, in response to that request, an appeals court   ruled last month   that Trump “has not established that he has a clear right to recusal.” But I expect that such clarity will emerge in the   appeal of Trump’s conviction , which will be filed soon after his sentencing next month.

Many legal analysts who have assessed the case, finding it a disturbing aberration in how criminal law ought to be used and criminal trials conducted, have nominated their favorite “most compelling” argument for Trump’s success on appeal. Mine goes to Merchan’s astonishing decision to preside in the first place.

Begin in July 2023, when New York state’s  Commission on Judicial Conduct  reprimanded Merchan, sending him a “caution” because the judge had made contributions to President Biden’s reelection campaign and to two anti-Republican and anti-Trump political action committees: Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans. New York absolutely prohibits its judges from making such political contributions (see below), and while the rebuke delivered to Merchan was not made public — Reuters broke the story last month — it will be much discussed in the months between now and the election.

In a recent episode of the podcast “The McCarthy Report,” former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy and National Review editor Rich Lowry detailed 10 grounds on which the Trump legal team could demand that the verdicts against Trump be tossed out. An appeal that stays the   sentencing (which is   set for July 11 ) requires a “colorable” claim of error, and McCarthy opined that the Merchan’s conduct   amounted to a “coloring book”   of such claims.

Just for starters, appeals courts must reassess the significance of Merchan’s $35 in   political donations. The advisory committee’s opinion is not dispositive on the issue of recusal nor is the first appeals court’s decision. Those refusals to recuse will have to be studied in light of Merchan’s many rulings against Trump in the course of the trial.

Is there any doubt, outside feverish anti-Trump circles, that Merchan was compromised by his donations? He got a slap on the wrist from the judicial conduct commission, perhaps because the offense was Merchan’s first and the amount of the donations was so small. The judge’s lack of awareness regarding the appearance of impropriety arising from his contributions, or simple indifference to it, was abetted by the advisory committee, but the commission clearly rebuked the judge last summer for the contributions. Merchan’s decision   not   to recuse is mystifying.

Consider these particulars from New York’s rules governing judicial conduct:

Section 100.2 provides “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.”

Section 100.4(A) provides “A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extra-judicial activities so that they do not: (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge …”

Section 100.5(A)(1) provides “Neither a sitting judge nor a candidate for public election to judicial office shall directly or indirectly engage in any political activity except (i) as otherwise authorized by this section or by law, (ii) to vote and to identify himself or herself as a member of a political party …”

Section 100.5(A)(1)(h) spells it out: A New York judge may not make “a contribution to a political organization or candidate.”

Merchan is a partisan, and a robe doesn’t disguise the team jersey with the great big “D” he is wearing underneath it."

Opinion | Why Trump will win on appeal: Judge Merchan should have recused - The Washington Post


And why don't you just admit you don't see anything outside of a progressive bubble.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.37  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.36    14 hours ago

Judge Merchan didn't need to recuse himself - he checked - and was not advised to do so.

ginny, I mean token thomas and alito SHOULD have recused themselves.

Why didn't they??

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.38  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.36    14 hours ago

So, Merchan was compromised by donating $15?

How stupid

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.39  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.19    14 hours ago

You may be 'right' but not correct.  I've never seen that to be the case.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.40  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.33    14 hours ago

I'll take his expertise and knowledge and experience any day..

Never yours or the armchair lawyers graduates of trumpU

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.41  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.34    14 hours ago

Not gonna happen.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.42  Right Down the Center  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.35    14 hours ago
Here is their photo... Good luck. 

That is a rather racist insinuation.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.43  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.36    8 hours ago

Your comment:

Trump had already appealed the New York conviction based on a litany of actions by the judge.  (Emphasis added)

My reply:

Provide us with a link to the notice of appeal or appeal pleadings Trump has filed

Your response:

the appeal of Trump's conviction , which will be filed soon after his sentencing next month  (Emphasis added)

So, you failed to provide a link to Trump's appeal pleadings because you can't, since an appeal "based on a litany of actions by the judge" has not been filed, contrary to what you stated.  Instead, you attempted to deflect by quoting from the opinion of a right wing propagandist and by making a spurious claim about me, when in reality, you are the one who never sees anything outside of your reactionary pipe dream.

Why don't you just man up and admit you were wrong?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.44  Gsquared  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.41    8 hours ago

It didn't happen because what he is claiming to exist doesn't.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.45  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.44    7 hours ago

That's usually the case

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
1.2  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 days ago
I wish I could say there were fine people on both sides.

You could, but you won't.

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 days ago

The useful idiots are just too dull to make the connection

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    14 hours ago

There are no fine people on the 'right' except maybe the few republicans with a spine, such as Liz Cheney.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 hours ago

She has my sympathies, but she's probably just like him.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    3 days ago
Lawfare is the use of  legal systems  and  institutions  to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights. The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or  delegitimizing  them, wasting their time and money (e.g.,  strategic lawsuits against public participation ), or winning a  public relations  victory.
wikipedia
-==================================================

USA TODAY Network: Dive into Donald Trump's …

WEB A deep dive by USA TODAY shows how   Trump  amassed  thousands  of  lawsuits  over three decades , unprecedented for a presidential nominee.

================================================================

James D. Zirin illuminates more than 45 years of Trump’s legal disputes in his new book,  Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits , published in September 2019.

As Zirin points out, Trump learned how to use the law from his mentor, notorious lawyer Roy Cohn. Trump took Cohn’s scorched-earth strategy to heart.

“Trump saw litigation as being only about winning,” Zirin writes. “He sued at the drop of a hat. He sued for sport; he sued to achieve control; and he sued to make a point. He sued as a means of destroying or silencing those who crossed him. He became a plaintiff in chief.”

Trump and his 3,500 suits: Prosecutor and author reveals in interview his portrait of 'Plaintiff in Chief' (abajournal.com)
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 days ago

Trump is not a victim of lawfare he is a perpetrator of it. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 days ago

Exactly.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
3  Hallux    yesterday

Ah Page Six wherein one can find much news of import such as Meghan Markle looks good in white.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4  Sparty On    14 hours ago

Interesting, she went from wiener to another one.

 
 

Who is online




Sparty On


29 visitors