joan1984 · 281820
0 Members and 14 Guests are viewing this topic.
Triggering the president’s rage was an annual congressional hearing on global security threats, a routine event at which intelligence agency heads testified that Iran, while still a global menace, is complying with an international agreement to suspend its development of nuclear weapons. Trump ridiculed that assessment and the intelligence leaders themselves.“The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong!” Trump wrote on Twitter. “. . . They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. There [sic] economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran.”Trump added: “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!”It was hardly the first time Trump has questioned the accuracy of intelligence reports. During the campaign and transition, when he wanted to undermine intelligence findings that Russia had helped elect him, Trump reminded his Twitter followers that the intelligence community had incorrectly concluded that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.All of the Iran findings that officials gave Congress have been presented to the president at various points, said U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the president’s intelligence briefings.Tuesday’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing made Trump’s disagreements visible to the public and inflamed his long-standing disdain for the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration and five other countries, along with the European Union.“He doesn’t like the deal because Obama made it,” one U.S. official said. Trump’s attack had less to do with the substance of the intelligence agencies’ conclusions than it did with undermining public confidence in the agencies themselves as neutral purveyors of information, the official said.
A defense contractor running the Department of Defense. A self-styled tycoon who allegedly stole $120 million from his business partners. A coal lobbyist regulating coal. A senior Commerce Department official who once lobbied for whale hunters. Ivanka.Donald Trump’s improbable ascension to the American presidency was a Bat Signal to some of the most accomplished grifters and scoundrels this fine country has to offer. They jumped on the nearest airplane—preferably private, and paid for by someone else—and jetted off to Washington, D.C., to carve out their piece of the action. The United States and its territories have always been home to some of history’s great scammers, fraudsters, confidence men, and snake-oil salesmen. It is a relentless feature of the national character in a country built by people trying to make a buck, however they could, on the ragged edge of civilization. It’s just the very greasiest operators don’t often pry their way into the Cabinet of the United States president. More rarely, still, do they capture it—and the Executive Branch of government.
“Why would you want to toss billions of dollars on a useless project that would have absolutely zero impact? Zero impact. … It’s not going to stop anything. They’ll tunnel. They’ll punch holes in it and put French doors with stained glass on that wall. They’ll fly over it” (with cheap drones).
President Trump said Wednesday that he knows more about the state of key U.S. intelligence than his own top intelligence officials. But he doesn’t even appear to know that those intelligence officials spoke publicly when they contradicted him.While trying Thursday afternoon to defuse his disputes with those officials, Trump told the assembled press that they had all ironed it out. In fact, he said, those officials told him they were “totally misquoted.”“I did" talk to them, he said, "and they said that they were totally misquoted, and they were totally — it was taken out of context. I’d suggest that you call them. They said it was fake news.”The problem with this is that these officials gave their remarks in public testimony, not behind closed doors — as is often the case with briefings about intelligence matters. What they said clearly contradicted what Trump has said about the state of affairs with regard to Iran, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) and North Korea, and Trump responded in kind on Thursday.It’s theoretically possible that these officials told him their remarks were taken out of context and also that they told him they weren’t so directly disputing what Trump has said. (The evidence that they did, in fact, dispute it is abundantly clear.) But even if they were taken out of context — which is a big if — that’s not the same as being “misquoted.” For these intelligence officials to be “totally misquoted,” it would require a massive failure by numerous media outlets for which there is no evidence. There are publicly available transcripts of their testimony.The episode has plenty of precedent for Trump. Trump has claimed that he never said Mexico would cut a check for the border wall, but he has. He has claimed he didn’t say many other things of which there is video.And these officials have disagreed with Trump many times before, most notably on Russian interference in the 2016 election and the killing of Washington Post Global Opinions columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The idea that they disagree is hardly revolutionary. In fact, it’s pretty par for the course.It’s quite simply very hard to believe that intelligence officials ever told Trump they had been misquoted. They have not alleged this publicly, and we’ll wait for any evidence that they have.
As with the original lawsuit, the amended complaint alleges that the Trumps profited off the poor, seeking "to enrich themselves by systematically defrauding economically marginalized people looking to invest in their educations, start their own small business, and pursue the American dream."The suit claims that the Trumps, in fact, "deliberately misled" consumers about the likely success of their investments.The lawsuit, which runs 186 pages in its amended form, further claims the Trumps engaged in "a pattern of racketeering activity" and "were aware that the vast majority of consumers would lose whatever money they invested in the business opportunities and training programs" offered by the three companies. None of the three companies is named as a defendant.
I respectfully suggest that the time has come for the New York Bar to consider disciplinary proceedings against Rudy Giuliani. He has constantly and intentionally misrepresented both the facts and the law regarding the Mueller investigation. He has disparaged and falsely accused the FBI of misconduct and maligned its dedicated agents and lawyers. No matter one’s views of the investigation, those toiling in it deserve better. All of this conduct by Mr. Giuliani would be despicable enough if it came from any lawyer, but it is more reprehensible because it emanates from a former U.S. Attorney and current counsel to the President of the United States. I have been a member of the bar for 65 years, practiced as a lawyer, served on the United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals, and in my entire professional life, I have never witnessed such an unseemly and unprofessional performance (because that is what it is) from someone who knows better and was previously held in high esteem. In addition to his own public statements, he has remained silent in the face of his client’s own disparagement of the law enforcement community and all those who devote their lives to maintaining its integrity and our safety.The president praises a convicted felon for not cooperating with law enforcement and condemns one who has cooperated, and Mr. Giuliani remains silent. The president characterizes John Dean who was responsible for the disclosure of Richard Nixon’s criminal conduct as a “rat,” and Mr. Giuliani remains silent. The president has now added his own, longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen, to his “rat” list. The president suggests that cooperating with law enforcement might well be deemed illegal, and Mr. Giuliani remains silent.What taint will all this create on future cooperating witnesses in the eyes of jurors? Other statements made by the president that demand correction or resignation as counsel by Mr. Giuliani are too numerous to list. Furthermore, he himself has blatantly and improperly dangled a potential pardon at Paul Manafort in an obvious attempt to encourage him not to cooperate with the authorities.Most recently he has suggested that somehow the credibility of a woman asserting charges against the president should be measured by the amount of hush money she accepted to silence her. This is more than just politics as usual. He and unfortunately his client have eroded the public’s confidence in our system of justice and respect for the rule of law. In the present atmosphere of base and divisive rhetoric, members of the bar should raise the level of the discourse, not lower it.Encouragement of zealous representation of a client never contemplated such disgraceful conduct. The damage done may be beyond repair. Mr. Giuliani has rendered our noble profession ignoble and condemnation by the bar is justified; indeed, it is mandated. Mr. Giuliani has violated each of the ethical rules set forth below:New York Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility EC 1-5 A lawyer should be temperate and dignified, and should refrain from all morally reprehensible conduct.****. Obedience to law exemplifies respect for law. To lawyers especially, respect for the law should be more than a platitude. EC 1-7 A lawyer should avoid bias and condescension toward, and treat with dignity and respect, all parties, witnesses, lawyers, ***and other persons involved in the legal process. DR 1-102 [1200.3] Misconduct. A. A lawyer shall not:4. Engage in conduct involving misrepresentation. 5. Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.DR 7-102 [1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law. A. In the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:5. Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact. DR 7-107 [1200.38] Trial Publicity. A. A lawyer participating in or associated with a criminal matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in that matter.
Deutsche Bank, which has long been President Trump’s primary lender, has received an “inquiry” from two congressional House committees.The subject of the inquiry and its timing were not immediately clear, but House Democrats have sought documents from the German bank for years about whether any of the hundreds of millions of dollars in loans it made to Trump were connected to Russia.In a statement, Deutsche Bank confirmed that it has received an inquiry from two House committees: Financial Services, led by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), and Intelligence, led by Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.).“Deutsche Bank is engaged in a productive dialogue with those committees to determine the best and most appropriate way of assisting them in their official oversight functions. We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations,” the statement said.The bank had previously refused requests from Democrats that it turn over documents.This appears to be among the first steps in House Democrats' plans to launch multiple investigations into Trump, his businesses and their connections to Russia.Trump’s company owes millions of dollars to the bank, which is also facing a money laundering investigation. It has also had a long relationship with Jared Kushner, a White House special adviser and Trump’s son-in-law. Kushner’s real estate company received a $285 million loan from the bank a month before the 2016 presidential election.
Twice on Thursday, President Trump made comments that conveyed a remarkable lack of familiarity with basic aspects of the American economy.It began with remarks he made to reporters during an event in the Oval Office.“You mentioned all the economic indicators are going up,” a reporter asked. “Why, then, is the — are U.S. deficits and the financial debt increasing at a time when the economy —”Trump jumped in.“Well, the trade deals won’t kick in for a while,” he said. “You know, number one, the USMCA” — the revised version of NAFTA that Trump’s administration negotiated with Canada and Mexico — “hasn’t even been approved yet. It has to go before Congress and get approved. Now, it should get approved quickly.”Before NAFTA, Trump said, “we had huge surpluses with Mexico. With NAFTA, we have huge deficits. We lose $100 billion a year on trade with Mexico. Does that sound good? And this has been going on for many years. So I stopped it. I stopped it a lot.”You probably noticed that Trump took a question that’s obviously about the federal budget deficit and gave an answer that dealt with the country’s trade deficits. Both are deficits, sure, but they relate to each other in about the same way that a tuning fork relates to a dinner fork. The term “deficit” describes something similar in each case, and they can even share similar properties, but the two are by no means equal.If the entirety of trade between the United States and Mexico was your buying a $20,000 car from Mexico and selling someone there a $99 piece of software, the United States would have exported far less in goods than it imported, to the tune of $19,901. If, the next year, you sold another $99 software package but purchased only one $3 avocado, suddenly the United States would be running a trade surplus — $96 worth. That’s a change of nearly $20,000 in only one year!None of this money, though, affects what the government is doing. Your car or that avocado doesn’t go into the U.S. Treasury as a tax receipt.We could chalk this up to Trump mishearing the question were it not for the interview he gave to the New York Times a few hours later. Trump was asked if the tariffs he had imposed on China might remain in effect indefinitely even if the United States and China reached a broader trade agreement, as Trump hoped.“Yeah, sure,” Trump replied. “We have 25 percent now on $50 billion. And by the way . . . that’s a lot of money pouring into our Treasury, you know. We never made 5 cents with China. We’re getting, right now, 25 percent on $50 billion. And then I was putting 25 percent at a later date, which date came and went — 25 percent or $200 billion.”Now, it is true that tariffs can generate revenue for the government. In 2017, the U.S. government generated $34.9 billion in “customs duties,” taxes paid on the import of products into the country. That made up just under 1 percent of all of the taxes collected that year. (The bulk came from income taxes.)If you’re curious, assuming that the U.S. government collected 25 percent tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese products, that would be another $12.5 billion in revenue, but that’s probably not a fair assumption. The percentage of revenue that would constitute is about 1.3 percent.But, as The Washington Post’s Heather Long pointed out when Trump suggested in August that tariffs would pay down the debt, it’s not the Chinese paying those tariffs — it’s the person or company doing the importing. In our example above, Trump slapping a 25 percent tariff on cars from Mexico would mean that you’d have to pay $5,000 to the government for your $20,000 Mexican car. No wonder you stuck to that avocado in year two.Put another way: The income the country is earning from those tariffs could more directly be generated by just raising taxes. Instead, Trump cut taxes — resulting in a plunge in corporate tax payments and a surge in the deficit that then drove the debt higher. Which is why that reporter asked about deficits and the debt in the Oval Office.All of this is admittedly better than the really bizarre comment Trump made during an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity in October 2017. Hannity tossed up a softball about the economy, and Trump took a swing.“The country — we took it over and owed over $20 trillion,” Trump said, referring to the national debt. “As you know, the last eight years, they borrowed more than it did in the whole history of our country. So they borrowed more than $10 trillion, right? And yet we picked up $5.2 trillion just in the stock market. Possibly picked up the whole thing in terms of the first nine months, in terms of value. So you could say, in one sense, we’re really increasing values. And maybe, in a sense, we’re reducing debt.”There is no sense in which rising stock market valuations reduces the federal debt. The way the federal debt is reduced is either by cutting federal spending or increasing federal revenue, including through raising taxes. As president, Trump has made overtures at the former and rejected the latter, meaning that the nearly $20 trillion debt Trump inherited has now topped $21.5 trillion.But, then, the trade deals won’t kick in for a while.
After Trump nominated Jackson for the VA secretary post last April, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the ranking member of the Veterans‘ Affairs Committee, released a two-page summary of accusations against him that included freely dispensing medication, drinking on the job and creating a hostile workplace. Some former colleagues said he was nicknamed the “Candyman” because of how he dispensed medications.
Finding all migrant children separated from their families may be impossible, feds say#Resist
I hope they have a plan on how these children are going to be raised and who is going to raise them..??