Trump enters the stage

Los Angeles Times
Suddenly conservative lawyers are condemning Trump for abuses of power
By DOYLE MCMANUS
MAY 12, 2019 | 4:00 AM
WASHINGTON

Suddenly conservative lawyers are condemning Trump for abuses of power
George Conway is a prominent conservative lawyer and frequent critic of President Trump. His wife is Kellyanne Conway, a top advisor to Trump. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)
Washington seems to be barreling toward a constitutional crisis.

Democrats are barraging President Trump with demands for witnesses and documents. Trump has answered by stonewalling, vowing to fight “all the subpoenas.”

ADVERTISEMENT
As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned, Trump seems to be goading the Democratic-controlled House toward impeachment, perhaps because it’s a battle he thinks he can win.

Politicians on both sides are repairing to their tribal corners.

Is there anyone who can serve as honest referees in this partisan standoff?

One answer — don’t laugh — is lawyers. Specifically, Republican lawyers.

Even as Republicans in Congress have fallen in line to defend Trump at every turn, a surprising number of conservative lawyers have broken ranks and are condemning the president for abuses of power and denouncing his blanket claims of executive privilege.

Last week, John Yoo, the former Justice Department official who drafted a notorious memo justifying the torture of detainees under President George W. Bush, warned that Trump had gone too far in asserting unbridled presidential power.

Al
“That’s what Nixon did,” Yoo told NPR. “That’s what other presidents who have failed have done.”

In an email exchange, Yoo told me he stands by the comparison, and added that Trump’s actions are sufficient grounds for the House to consider impeachment.

“Impeachment [is] the only solution to Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order,” he wrote.

Trump says Mueller shouldn’t testify to Congress, escalating fight with Democrats
MAY 05, 2019 | 1:45 PM
Yoo isn’t alone. George Conway, a leading conservative lawyer (and dissenting husband of Trump aide Kellyanne Conway), declared that Trump is “a cancer on the presidency,” echoing White House Counsel John Dean’s famous warning to Nixon during Watergate. Conway urged Congress to remove Trump from office.

“Presidential attempts to abuse power by putting personal interests above the nation’s can surely be impeachable,” Conway wrote in the Washington Post. Last year, he changed his voter registration from Republican to “unaffiliated,” saying the GOP had become a “personality cult.”

Other attorneys have been more restrained, but only a little.

“The president’s conduct demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the rule of law— a disregard that is in direct conflict with his constitutional responsibilities,” 11 conservative lawyers wrote last month. They urged the House to continue its investigations, but stopped short of endorsing impeachment.

“This president is undermining the basic principle of checks and balances,” one of the 11, former Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald B. Ayer, told me. “It’s really kind of tyrannical. It’s un-American. It’s the sort of expansion of government power you would expect Republicans to worry about.”
In addition, more than 800 former federal prosecutors, many of them Republicans, signed a statement declaring that the report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, far from exonerating Trump, showed that he deserved to be indicted for obstruction of justice.

“It seems to me important, especially today, for lawyers to speak with consistency about the rule of law and apply it without consideration of party,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former assistant to independent counsel Kenneth Starr in the investigation of President Clinton that led to his impeachment by the House in 1998. The Senate did not convict, and Clinton served out his term.

The existence of dissident Republican voices shouldn’t be noteworthy — but it is. There aren’t many institutions in Washington that have resisted the descent into tribalism.

To take the most glaring example, the Republican caucus in the Senate — home to Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who once called Trump “a complete idiot” and “a race-baiting bigot,” and Ted Cruz of Texas, who called him a “pathological liar” — is now, on most working days, a chorus of Trumpolatry.

Why are so many Republican lawyers standing against their party’s prevailing tide?

Maybe they just take their professional canons seriously.

“You are the guardians of the rule of law,” Rod Rosenstein, then Trump’s deputy attorney general, told the American Bar Assn.’s annual meeting last year. “Honorable lawyers defend the rule of law, even when it is difficult, so it will be there when we need it.”

On a more visceral level, some are offended by Trump’s disdain for lawyers. After all, two of Trump’s, Roy Cohn and Michael Cohen, were disbarred.

“There’s a point in the Mueller report where Trump complains that [then-White House Counsel] Don McGahn is always taking notes, and McGahn explains that real lawyers do that,” Ayer said. “If you want to be an autocrat, you don’t want people who care about what’s legal looking over your shoulder. They’re out to get the lawyers.”

And they know that this constitutional crisis, like most, is likely to end up in the courts.

In their recent book “How Democracies Die,” Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt noted that one way autocratic regimes rise to power is by undermining the media, the legal profession and the judiciary. All are potential independent checks on government.

“Democracy no longer ends with a bang, but with a whimper: the slow, steady weakening of critical institutions,” they wrote.

Trump has often described the courts in partisan terms. He has condemned judges appointed by Democratic presidents as biased against him, while extolling the Supreme Court as a Republican-led refuge.

ADVERTISEMENT
“If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he tweeted recently.

The president seems to think government lawyers are duty-bound to defend his every whim, and that Republican judges are duty-bound to decide cases in his favor.

These GOP lawyers are reminding their colleagues — justices as well as attorneys — that their real duty lies elsewhere.

Doyle McManus is a Washington columnist for the Los Angeles Times and director of the journalism program at Georgetown University. During his long career at The Times, he has been a foreign correspondent in the Middle East, a White House correspondent and a presidential campaign reporter.

U.S. and China break off talks without deal to end widening trade war
MAY 10, 2019

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times


ABCNews
Trump repeats unsubstantiated claims of ‘coup’ attempt after former FBI lawyer knocks them down
By Cheyenne Haslett
May 13, 2019, 9:10 AM ET

WATCH: Meanwhile, his chief economic adviser says American businesses and consumers will pay for tariffs on Chinese imports, not China. ABC News’ Trevor Ault reports.
President Donald Trump on Monday repeated unsubstantiated claims that efforts by law enforcement to investigate the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia were part of a “coup.”

The president’s tweeted reference to a “coup” – short for “coup d’etat,” the French phrase for a government overthrow – elevates claims from conservative voices including Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton and pro-Trump commentator Dan Bongino.

The president also attacked the FBI as having “no leadership,” an insult aimed at FBI Director Chris Wray, whom Trump nominated to replace former FBI Director James Comey. Wray testified before Congress last week that he wouldn’t use the word “spying” to describe the bureau’s investigative activity.

Trump retweeted a claim that Wray was “trying to protect the same gang.”

Wray’s comments stood in contrast to Attorney General William Barr’s, who told Congress in April that he thought “spying did occur.” Barr also said he wasn’t suggesting that it “wasn’t adequately predicated,” but that he needed to “explore” that.

The president’s comments, issued in a late-night Twitter thread quoting Judicial Review’s Fitton last week on one of the president’s favorite Fox News shows, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” followed public push-back on his allegations of spying and a coup from a former senior aide and lawyer for the FBI, James Baker.

FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies during a hearing on Capitol Hill, May 7, 2019 in Washington, D.C.
Last week, Baker spoke out against the president publicly for one of the first times.

“There was no attempted ‘coup,'” Baker, the FBI’s former general counsel, said in an interview at the Brookings Institution on Thursday. “There was no way in hell that I was going to allow some coup or coup attempt to take place on my watch.”

“I want to talk about the origin of the investigation to reassure the American people that it was done for lawful legitimate reasons and was apolitical throughout in my experience,” Baker said in an interview with Lawfare’s Benjamin Wittes.

The president also tweeted about the House Judiciary Committee’s vote to hold Barr in contempt of Congress, which Trump quoted Fitton describing as “just another abuse of power in a long series of abuses of power by the Democrats.”

The vote came after the attorney general’s refusal to produce the full, unredacted report from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, along with all of the underlying documents. Ahead of the vote, Trump asserted executive privilege over the report and its underlying evidence.

© 2019 ABC News Internet Ventures. All rights reserved

Some background-

May/June 2018 Issue
Eastern Europe’s Illiberal Revolution
The Long Road to Democratic Decline
By Ivan Krastev
In 1991, when the West was busy celebrating its victory in the Cold War and the apparent spread of liberal democracy to all corners of the world, the political scientist Samuel Huntington issued a warning against excessive optimism. In an article for the Journal of Democracy titled “Democracy’s Third Wave,” Huntington pointed out that the two previous waves of democratization, from the 1820s to the 1920s and from 1945 to the 1960s, had been followed by “reverse waves,” in which “democratic systems were replaced . . . by historically new forms of authoritarian rule.” A third reverse wave was possible, he suggested, if new authoritarian great powers could demonstrate the continued viability of nondemocratic rule or “if people around the world come to see the United States,” long a beacon of democracy, “as a fading power beset by political stagnation, economic inefficiency, and social chaos.”

Huntington died in 2008, but had he lived, even he would probably have been surprised to see that liberal democracy is now under threat not only in countries that went through democratic transitions in recent decades, such as Brazil and Turkey, but also in the West’s most established democracies. Authoritarianism, meanwhile, has reemerged in Russia and been strengthened in China, and foreign adventurism and domestic political polarization have dramatically damaged the United States’ global influence and prestige.

Perhaps the most alarming development has been the change of heart in eastern Europe. Two of the region’s poster children for postcommunist democratization, Hungary and Poland, have seen conservative populists win sweeping electoral victories while demonizing the political opposition, scapegoating minorities, and undermining liberal checks and balances. Other countries in the region, including the Czech Republic and Romania, seem poised to follow. In a speech in 2014, one of the new populists, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, outlined his position on liberalism: “A democracy is not necessarily liberal. Just because something is not liberal, it still can be a democracy.” To maintain global competitiveness.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

GRADUATE SCHOOL FORUM
Council on Foreign Relations
From the
publishers
of Foreign Affairs

by Stewart M. Patrick

Privacy PolicyTerms of Use
©2019 Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Foreign Affairs

World War 3 ALERT: Iran sends stark warning to Trump - ‘We will HIT you in the HEAD!’
US-Iran relations have taken a severe downturn after Trump deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln

US-Iran relations have taken a severe downturn after Trump deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln
IRAN has warned if the US makes a military move against the Middle Eastern nation it will “hit them in the head” as tensions between the two powers continue to rise.

PUBLISHED: 00:12, Mon, May 13, 2019
UPDATED: 00:15, Mon, May 13, 2019

Amirali Hajizadeh, head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ aerospace division, boasted to the Iranian Students’ News Agency: “An aircraft carrier that has at least 40 to 50 planes on it and 6,000 forces gathered within it was a serious threat for us in the past but now… the threats have switched to opportunities. If the Americans make a move we will hit them in the head.” His words come shortly after an Iranian leader warned US President Donald Trump the US fleet dispatched to the Persian Gulf will face “dozens of missiles” if it “attempts any move”, raising the prospect of a direct, explosive military confrontation.

Trump warned Iran has ‘means and will’ to cause worldwide CATASTROPHE
Trump sends a missile, warship and bombers to Middle East as tensions

And US officials have said there was an “increasing possibility” of Tehran or its regional proxies launching strikes against US commercial ships including oil tankers as the situation continues to deteriorate.

The ISNA news agency quoted hardliner Ayatollah Tabatabai-Nejad in the city of Isfahan as saying: "Their billion-dollar fleet can be destroyed with one missile.

"If they attempt any move, they will face dozens of missiles because at that time government officials won’t be in charge to act cautiously, but instead things will be in the hands of our beloved leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.”

In the latest tense exchange between Tehran and Washington, Iran’s hardline Revolutionary Guards separately said Iran would not negotiate with the United States, a stance likely in part to be intended to discourage Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his moderate allies from taking up a US offer of talks.

Mr Trump on Thursday urged Iran’s leaders talk with him about giving up their nuclear program and said he could not rule out a military confrontation.

Trump made the offer as he increased economic and military pressure on Iran, moving to cut off all Iranian oil exports this month while beefing up the US Navy and Air Force presence in the Gulf.

Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan approved a new deployment of Patriot missiles to the Middle East, an official said on Friday.

The US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, deployed as a warning to Iran, passed through Egypt’s Suez Canal on Thursday and American B-52 bombers have also arrived at a US base in Qatar, US Central Command said.

Iran has dismissed both moves - which the United States said it took after US intelligence signaled possible preparations by Tehran to attack U.S. forces or interests - as “psychological warfare” designed to intimidate it.

In an advisory posted on Thursday, the US Maritime Administration (MARAD) said that since early May there had been an increased possibility of Iran or its regional proxies taking action against US and partner interests.

These included oil production infrastructure, after Tehran threatened to close the vital Strait of Hormuz chokepoint through which about a fifth of oil consumed globally passes.

US-Iranian tensions have risen since Mr Trump withdrew a year ago from a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and major powers and began ratcheting up sanctions to throttle Tehran’s economy, and these were further tightened this month.

RELATED ARTICLES
IRAN ALERT: US tensions with Tehran SOAR ahead of nuclear anniversa…
World War Three: How to survive nuclear attack amid ‘troubling’ threat
Iraq WARNED of ‘imminent’ attacks from Iran by US Sec. of State Pom…

Copyright ©2019 Express Newspapers. “Daily Express” is a registered trademark.


Dave Lawler
2 hours ago
Trump pushes China and Iran to the brink

President Trump is pushing both China and Iran to the brink, betting they’ll capitulate and warning of dire consequences if they don’t.

Why it matters: The stock market is already taking a beating as China retaliates to Trump’s tariff hikes on $200 billion in Chinese goods, and analysts are warning of a possible global recession if he follows through with his threat to extend them to all Chinese imports. Meanwhile, Trump’s warnings that Iran will “suffer greatly” if “they do anything” to provoke the U.S., paired with bellicose statements from senior officials, are deepening fears of another war in the Middle East.

Even short of war, Trump’s pressure campaign will likely mean higher oil prices, more suffering for the Iranian people and the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal.
Between the lines: This is how Trump negotiates, Axios’ Jonathan Swan emails:

“He believes in grand displays of hard power — extreme threats of military force (‘fire and fury’ for North Korea, sending the carrier to Persian Gulf) and punitive measures (tariffs and sanctions) — more than he does the subtler tools of statecraft.”
“He believes the only way to get what you want from another country is to first force them into a begging position. The leaders in both China and Iran are hardliners who put a premium on maintaining national pride and, as the Chinese explicitly said, ‘dignity.’"
“Both countries’ leaders have indicated they’re willing to be patient with Trump and intend to wait him out. The question is how impatient Trump becomes and how he reacts to the negative domestic effects of some of his punitive policies.”
The latest: China announced tariff hikes today on $60 billion in U.S. goods. Meanwhile, the Communist Party’s propaganda machine kicked into high gear, Bill Bishop reports in his Sinocism newsletter.

Chinese media “has struck a defiant tone since Friday, blaming the US for the failure, playing the victim with its usual shrill skill, talking tough about being able to outlast the US in any prolonged trade fight, and … threatening non-tariff retaliatory measures,” Bill notes.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added a last-minute stop in Brussels to his schedule today in order to warn leaders there of the “escalating threat” from Iran.

Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton have continued to raise such threats over the past week without offering specifics. Trump told reporters today that he’d been “hearing little stories about Iran,” adding: “If they do anything, they will suffer greatly.”
“Today, the question in Washington — and surely in Tehran, too — is whether President Trump is making moves that will provoke, instigate, or inadvertently drag the United States into a war with Iran,” Robin Wright argues today in the New Yorker.

“The Administration has vowed to keep increasing pressure until Iran changes its behavior. … So far, Tehran has not changed course.”
The stated position from both civilian and military leaders is that the U.S. isn’t seeking a military confrontation with Iran but is prepared for one if necessary.
“The problem, as U.S. history proves, is that the momentum of confrontation is harder to reverse with each escalatory step,” Wright contends.
What to watch: Last month, as the U.S. stepped up its attempts to block all Iranian oil exports, Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil chokepoint,” per Fortune.

Today, Saudi Arabia announced that two Saudi tankers were damaged by an “act of sabotage” over the weekend in the Gulf, without identifying any suspects. Iran’s foreign ministry distanced itself, calling the incident “worrisome” and “regretful."
But now, AP is citing an anonymous U.S. official as saying an “initial assessment is that Iranian or Iranian-backed proxies” were responsible.
FOREIGN POLICY

59 mins ago
NYT: Pentagon presented plan to deploy 120,000 troops in case of Iran escalation

At the direction of national security adviser John Bolton, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan last week presented top White House national security officials with a plan to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East in the event that Iran “attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons,” the New York Times reports.

Details: The plan was reportedly presented during a meeting about the Trump administration’s broader Iran policy, attended — among others — by Bolton, CIA director Gina Haspel, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. It’s unclear if President Trump has been briefed on the details of the plan, which did not call for a land invasion of Iran, but requested a similar number of troops involved the U.S.’ 2003 invasion of Iraq, per the Times.

Fears of social media manipulation rock the developing world
People in emerging economies around the globe are becoming wary of using social media for political news due to the rampant amount of misinformation spreading on those platforms, according to a new Pew Research Center study.

Adapted from a Pew Research Center chart

© Copyright Axios 2019

And isn’t it a coincidence that this now happens to take away attention from the Turd’s fight with congress? Still, the dingleberries will follow him even if it means the lives of those in the Armed Forces. Too bad we can’t have a U.S. Military coup on the White House.

(Meno, I know this is your, ‘news network’. Just consider this one of those quick, man-on-the-street video clips.)

Attorney General taps top Connecticut federal prosecutor for review of Trump-Russia inquiry
KEVIN JOHNSON | USA TODAY | 38 minutes ago

Attorney General William Barr told a Senate panel that he believes “spying did occur” on Trump campaign. He said “it’s my obligation” to explore that.
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William Barr tapped Connecticut’s chief federal prosecutor, John Durham, to assist in an investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation and the FBI’s surveillance activities, a person familiar with the matter said Monday.

The person, who is not authorized to comment publicly, said that Durham has been assisting the attorney general for at least a couple of weeks to determine whether federal investigators acted appropriately in the early stages of the now-completed inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

Barr announced that he had launched the review last month during an appearance before a Senate subcommittee. He expressed concern about the FBI’s use of surveillance involving associates of then-candidate Donald Trump as authorities sought to understand Russia’s interference efforts, though Barr also said he did not know whether officials had done anything wrong.

“Spying on a campaign is a big deal,” Barr told lawmakers then. “I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated.”

At that time, the attorney general said he planned to examine the “genesis and the conduct” of the FBI’s investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In this April 25, 2006, file photo, John Durham speaks to reporters on the steps of U.S. District Court in New Haven, Conn.
In this April 25, 2006, file photo, John Durham speaks to reporters on the steps of U.S. District Court in New Haven, Conn.
BOB CHILD, AP
“I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred,” Barr told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee. “I am concerned about it. There is a basis for my concern.”

Democrats have seized on Barr’s use of the term “spying,” asserting that the attorney general has sided with President Trump to disparage the 22-month investigation that the president has repeatedly described as a “witch-hunt.”

As recently as last week, however, FBI Director Christopher Wray said he was unaware of any evidence indicating that the FBI had abused its surveillance authority, distancing himself from the attorney general. “That’s not the term I would use,” Wray told the same Senate committee, referring to the “spying” reference.

Rod Rosenstein, until recently the department’s second-in-command, said in a speech Monday that based on what he knew in 2017, “the investigation of Russian election interference was justified, and closing it was not an option.”

The review involving the attorney general and Durham, a longtime Justice Department official, marks the third such inquiry into aspects of the Russia investigation that was led by special counsel Robert Mueller. It was first reported late Monday by the New York Times.

The department’s inspector general is conducting a review of surveillance warrants authorities used to eavesdrop on a former campaign aide, Carter Page, in October 2016. Barr has said that effort should be completed by late May or perhaps June. The chief federal prosecutor in Utah, John Huber, also is in the midst of a separate review.

Trump and Republicans in Congress have complained repeatedly that the FBI targeted the president’s campaign for political reasons, revealing text messages between two senior officials involved in the probe who expressed their personal contempt for Trump. And they have focused on the FBI’s reliance on information from a former British spy who had been hired indirectly by Clinton’s campaign to conduct research on Trump before the election.

During his long career at the Justice Department, Durham has taken on a number of special investigations, including an appointment during the George W. Bush administration to investigate the CIA’s destruction of videotapes depicting the torture of terror suspects.

“Snitty.” That’s the way William Barr described a letter from Robert Mueller expressing concerns about his portrayal of the Russia probe. (May 1)
AP
Originally Published 49 minutes ago
Updated 37 minutes ago

© Copyright Gannett 2019

Del Ivers wrote:


Meno, I know this is your, ‘news network’. Just consider this one of those quick, man-on-the-street video clips.)

Its something I’ve been thinking all along .

youtu.be/6maAotylNH0

POLITICO

Judge set to rule on Trump’s subpoena challenge
The decision could provide a blueprint for other judges deciding on the president’s attempts to stop congressional investigations.

By ANDREW DESIDERIO and KYLE CHENEY

05/14/2019 05:12 AM EDT

The ruling from Judge Amit Mehta (left) will represent a flashpoint in the myriad disputes between the White House and Congress. | Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images

Facebook Twitter Email Print
President Donald Trump’s strategy of outright resistance to House subpoenas will face its first test in federal court on Tuesday, setting up a ruling that could boost Democrats’ efforts to investigate the president’s business dealings.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta is set to rule on the Democrat-led House Oversight and Reform Committee’s subpoena to accounting firm Mazars USA for eight years of Trump’s financial records. The committee’s demand is part of its investigation into alleged financial crimes committed by Trump.

Trump filed suit seeking to invalidate the subpoena three weeks ago — the first of two lawsuits aimed at hobbling House Democrats’ investigations targeting his administration, presidential campaign and business empire.

Mehta’s ruling will represent a flashpoint in the myriad disputes between the White House and Congress — marking the first time the judiciary weighs in on Trump’s blanket strategy of refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas and oversight requests from House Democrats.

Trump and his Republican allies have argued that the subpoena was politically motivated and amounts to an abuse of Congress’ authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Democrats have said Trump’s court challenges are frivolous efforts to delay legitimate probes, part of what they say is a broad “stonewalling” effort by the Trump administration.

CONGRESS

Nadler squeezed with calls for ‘inherent contempt’
By JOHN BRESNAHAN and KYLE CHENEY
Mehta is expected to deliver his decision after an 11 a.m. hearing at a Washington federal district courthouse. The judge decided to expedite the process, contending he already learned enough to rule without hearing in-person arguments by Trump lawyers or the House general counsel.

That move bodes poorly for Trump. It suggests the judge didn’t want to drag out the case as Democrats seek to quickly gather evidence of Trump’s alleged financial impropriety. On Monday, ahead of the hearing, Trump’s attorneys telegraphed those concerns in a new court filing and asked Mehta to cancel the hearing altogether and set a trial date.

“While Plaintiffs understand the Court’s desire to decide this case efficiently, resolving it in this way—and on this schedule—will severely prejudice Plaintiffs,” Trump attorney William S. Consovoy wrote.

Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House of Representatives, backed Mehta’s plan to rule from the bench, saying in a court filing that Consovoy’s “complaint lacks merit and an expeditious resolution of the subpoena’s validity is necessary for the committee’s investigations to continue.”

Mehta later formally denied Consovoy’s request, writing in a brief order Monday night: “The hearing will proceed tomorrow as scheduled.”

Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued the so-called friendly subpoena to Mazars, which asked for the subpoena so that it could comply with the request. He issued it just days after Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and fixer, provided documents to the Oversight panel purportedly showing that the president artificially inflated and deflated the value of his assets in order to benefit financially.

CONGRESS

Democrats subpoena Trump’s tax returns in escalating fight with White House
By BRIAN FALER and AARON LORENZO
Cohen in February disclosed several of Trump’s financial statements which were submitted to Deutsche Bank in 2014 as Trump was seeking a loan to buy the Buffalo Bills NFL team. Cohen told lawmakers that the documents showed that Trump inflated the value of certain assets in order to secure the loan.

The committee says it needs Trump’s financial records from Mazars as part of its efforts to corroborate Cohen’s allegations.

Trump’s lawyers argue the subpoena is defective because it relies so heavily on Cohen’s testimony.

“Chairman Cummings requested this information because Michael Cohen—a felon who has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress—told the House Oversight Committee that the President had misrepresented his net worth while he was a private citizen,” Trump’s attorneys wrote, calling it “one of the worst examples of the House Democrats’ zeal to attack President Trump.”

Mehta’s ruling could provide a blueprint for other judges deciding on Trump’s attempts to thwart congressional investigations. Trump has also filed suit to block the House Intelligence and Financial Services Committees from subpoenaing Deutsche Bank and Capital One, where many of his business and personal financial records are housed.

CONGRESS

Here’s why Democrats may rethink impeaching Trump
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN and JOSH GERSTEIN
Trump’s attorneys have argued that House Democrats’ efforts to obtain Trump’s records are political grenades masked as efforts to conduct legitimate investigations. Democrats just want to damage the president politically ahead of his reelection fight, they argue, and their subpoenas are illegitimate because there’s no underlying effort to support possible legislation that could arise.

“Democrats are using their new control of congressional committees to investigate every aspect of President Trump’s personal finances, businesses, and even his family,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “Instead of working with the President to pass bipartisan legislation that would actually benefit Americans, House Democrats are singularly obsessed with finding something they can use to damage the President politically.”

Story Continued Below

If Mehta, an appointee of President Barack Obama, rules in favor of House Democrats, it may be House Republicans’ previous court battles that helped provide the road map. In 2017, House Intelligence Committee Republicans successfully sued Fusion GPS — a research firm hired by Democrats that commissioned the so-called Steele dossier alleging a vast Trump-Russia conspiracy to influence the 2016 election — for the firm’s financial records.

In that case, Judge Richard Leon — a George W. Bush appointee — indicated that Congress had broad authority to define the legitimate “legislative purpose” of its demands for information.

“This court will not — and indeed, may not — engage in a line-by-line review of the committee’s requests,” Leon wrote at the time.

© 2019 POLITICO LLC


And relevance re executive privilege :

ABCNews
House panel opens inquiry into claims Trump legal team edited Michael Cohen’s testimony
By Lucien Bruggeman
May 14, 2019, 6:55 PM ET

WATCH: The president said Michael Cohen, his former personal attorney, lied “a lot” but added that he was surprised his former fixer did not lie about the Russia probe.
The Democrat-led House Intelligence Committee has launched an investigation into claims brought forth by Michael Cohen, the president’s former personal attorney, who has suggested that members of President Donald Trump’s legal team edited his statement to Congress about a prospective Trump Tower-Moscow project.

During public testimony in March, before the House Oversight Committee, Cohen said Trump’s current personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, changed his statement to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees regarding the duration of those discussions before he submitted it to Capitol Hill.

In his initial statement to Congress, Cohen said discussions about the Moscow project ended in January of 2016, when in reality conversations about the prospective deal continued through the summer of 2016 – well after Trump became the Republican nominee for president. Federal prosecutors in special counsel Robert Mueller’s office later wrote that Cohen also sought to “minimize links between the Moscow Project and Individual 1,” referring to then-candidate Trump.

Rep. Adam Schiff appears on a Washington Post Live discussion on the Mueller Report, April 30, 2019, in Washington, D.C.
Cohen, who is currently serving a three-year prison term at the federal corrections facility in Otisville, New York, pleaded guilty late last year to lying to Congress about the content of that statement. Sekulow has denied the claims, writing in a statement at the time that “today’s testimony by Michael Cohen that attorneys for the President edited or changed his statement to Congress to alter the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is completely false.”

Since March, the House Intelligence Committee’s chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has exchanged a series of letters with attorneys representing members of Trump’s legal team. News of the nascent investigation and Schiff’s letters to the attorneys was first reported Tuesday by the New York Times.

Schiff, in a statement released Tuesday, said his committee would be “negligent not to pursue” Cohen’s claims.

“The materials we are requesting in these letters go to the heart of that investigation and to Congress’s ability to conduct meaningful oversight,” Schiff said.

Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney of President Donald Trump, arrives to testify to the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., March 6, 2019.

An attorney representing the president’s legal team, Patrick Strawbridge, said in a statement of his own that his clients intend to resist complying with the committee’s request, citing “one of the oldest and most sacred privileges in the law … attorney-client privilege.”

In a letter addressed to Schiff in April, Strawbridge wrote, “we are at a loss to see how that charge justifies your sweeping and unprecedented requests to our clients.”

Schiff, in response, wrote that a “bare assertion of privilege without any particularized discussion of specific documents or communications is woefully inadequate to meet your burden of establishing the elements necessary to support a valid claim of privilege.”

During his closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in March, Cohen shared documents and emails with committee members showing what he said were edits to the false statement he provided to Congress in 2017, in an effort to bolster his public testimony, two sources familiar with the matter said at the time. ABC News has not independently reviewed the nature of those edits.

In addition to the charges of lying to Congress, Cohen also pleaded guilty late last year to campaign finance violations and a slew of tax- and bank-fraud.

ABC News’ John Santucci and Benjamin Siegel contributed reporting

© 2019 ABC News Internet Ventures. All rights reserved.

Iran says Trump playing ‘very dangerous game’ and risking ‘devastating war’
KIM HJELMGAARD | USA TODAY | 28 minutes ago

President Donald Trump is warning Iran, saying that if Tehran does “anything” in the form of an attack “they will suffer greatly.”
AP
LONDON – The United States is playing a “very dangerous game” as it attempts to “drag Iran into an unnecessary war,” a senior Iranian official said Tuesday.

Hamid Baeidinejad, Iran’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, told reporters here that the Trump administration’s deployment of an aircraft carrier strike group, B-52 bombers and other military personnel and equipment to the Persian Gulf to counter alleged, unspecified Iranian threats risked “serious miscalculation.”

Baeidinejad denied that Iran or its “proxies” were behind what Washington has described as the possible Iranian-backed “sabotage” of oil tankers in the Gulf belonging to Saudi Arabia, Norway and the United Arab Emirates. On Tuesday, Saudi Arabia said that drones also attacked one of its oil pipelines and other energy infrastructure, an incident that caused global oil price benchmarks to jump.

“We are prepared for any eventuality, this I can tell you,” Baeidinejad said, amid growing tensions between the U.S. and Iran that have appeared to bring the two longstanding foes to the brink of war. The two countries have no formal diplomatic channel of communication, contributing to fears war could be started by accident.

Baeidinejadsaid said from the Iranian perspective it appeared that some of President Donald Trump’s closest advisers such as National Security Adviser John Bolton were actively “trying to convince” Trump to start a military confrontation that neither country wants and would be “devastating” for both Iran, the U.S. and the region.

‘They’re not going to be happy’: Trump threatens Iran over reports of ‘sabotage’

This handout picture released by the U.S. Navy on May 8, 2019, shows the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln conducting exercises in the Persian Gulf.

Baeidinejad’s comments came as Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan reportedly presented a military plan at a meeting of top national security officials that would send as many as 120,000 U.S. troops to the Middle East in the event Iran strikes U.S. forces in the region or speeds up its development of nuclear weapons, according to a report published in The New York Times on Monday. The plan was partly ordered by Bolton, the report said. It does not call for a land invasion of Iran.

Trump dismissed the report but also said he would send U.S. troops if needed.

Since last week the Trump administration has been insisting that is has “specific and credible” intelligence indicating Iran or its regional supporters may be preparing attacks against American forces or targets in the region. “It’s going to be a bad problem for Iran if something happens,” Trump said Monday outside the White House.

However, the details of that intelligence remain murky and potentially wrapped up in what seasoned Iran-watchers and security experts believe may be part of attempts by Trump administration hawks to find a pretext for a military conflict with Iran following the president’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 landmark nuclear deal between Iran and world powers. The accord was viewed by former President Barack Obama as one his signature foreign policy accomplishments and Trump campaigned on abolishing it.

“As we read of Bolton’s plan to send 120,000 U.S. troops to go to with Iran, we should remind ourselves that this is a TOTALLY UNNECESSARY CRISIS!” wrote Trita Parsi, the founder of the National Iranian American Council, on Twitter.

“We’re only here cuz Trump quit the deal and put Bolton in charge of Iran policy,” he said. The NIAC seeks improved relations between Washington and Tehran.

“This is politics, and this is about Bolton and others who have had a bee in their bonnet about Iran for as long as they have been in politics,” said Robert Muggah, a specialist in international security and co-founder of The SecDev Group, an Ottawa, Canada-headquartered consultancy that analyses open-source intelligence.

Trump has pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran, a strategy that has seen the U.S. slap the Middle East country with a series of increasingly onerous economic sanctions that have crippled its economy, led to runaway inflation and caused some food and medicine shortages. Last week, Tehran announced that it was abandoning two of its nuclear-deal-related obligations: exporting excess uranium and “heavy water” used in nuclear reactors. The Trump administration characterized this move as an attempt by Iran to hold the U.S. “hostage” and an example of “nuclear blackmail.”

However, Iran’s partial breach of the accord was a direct response to the U.S. ending exemptions from nations that purchase these stockpiles. In other words: It did it to comply with U.S. sanctions. “The (nuclear deal) is becoming meaningless because of the U.S.,” Baeidinejad said, noting that Iran has given the three European signatories to the deal – the United Kingdom, Germany and France – 60 days to “salvage” it.

Otherwise, he said, “there will be consequences from our side” that could include suspending modernization of Iran’s Arak nuclear facility. Modernization of the “heavy water” plant has ensured it produces less plutonium, needed for a nuclear bomb. The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog has verified 14 times that Iran has been complying with the terms of the agreement – even after the U.S. withdrew from it in May last year.

Baeidinejad refused to be drawn on whether Iran would consider Trump’s apparent offer to hold talks with Tehran. “I’d like to see them call me,” Trump said last week. On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reiterated while on a trip to Moscow where he met with his Russian counterpart that the U.S. isn’t seeking a war with Iran.

Still, inside Iran, the U.S. military moves were being taken seriously.

“You wanted a better deal with Iran. Looks like you are going to get a war instead,” wrote Hesameddin Ashena, an adviser to Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, on Twitter.

Yet Ashena also found room for a moment of levity on the social media platform.

“That’s what happens when you listen to the mustache,” he added in the tweet, referring to Bolton, who is known for his bushy facial hair above the upper lip, and who Trump sometimes reportedly refers to as “the Mustache.”

Middle East in turmoil: Saudi Arabia says 2 oil tankers damaged by sabotage attacks

© Copyright Gannett 2019

!!!

Rolling Stone
The Trump Administration Is Thirsty for War, Intelligence Be Damned
The United States is goading Iran into taking action so it can justify an invasion

RYAN BORT
MAY 15, 2019 8:57AM EDT

It was reported on Monday that the Trump administration has concocted a plan that involves sending 120,000 troops to the Middle East to counter a potential Iranian attack on American forces. Whatever threat may exist is almost entirely of the president’s own design. Since Trump rebuffed allies, experts and his own administration in removing the United States from the Iran nuclear deal last year, tension between the two nations has escalated steadily. Both have seemed especially jittery in the past few months as the U.S. continues to ramp up sanctions aimed at crippling Iran’s economy.

But it seems like the threat of military aggression from Iran isn’t what the Trump administration wants people to believe. On Tuesday, a British military official told reporters at the Pentagon that there isn’t evidence Iran is any more of a threat that it has been in the past. “We are aware of their presence clearly and we monitor them along with a whole range of others because of the environment we are in,” said Major General Chris Ghika, adding that “there has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or Syria.”

Related

It Sure Looks Like the Trump Administration Is Preparing for War With Iran
Are We in a Constitutional Crisis?
According to the New York Times, these early machinations for conflict have largely been set in motion by National Security Adviser John Bolton, a war hawk who supported the invasion of Iraq and unsuccessfully pushed George W. Bush to take action against Iran. The plan to send 120,000 troops was reportedly his idea, as has been the idea that military action against Iran could soon be warranted. The Times notes that, according to intelligence and military officials in both the United States and Europe, “most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran but in Washington — where Bolton has prodded Trump into backing Iran into a corner.”

One American official said, according to the paper, that the intelligence supporting the idea that Iran is a threat is “small stuff,” and that Bolton wants to goad Iran into taking action against American forces, thus, in his mind, justifying a military response. Vali Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, told the Times the current tension with Iran is “a crisis that has entirely been manufactured by the Trump administration.”

Democratic politicians feel similarly. When asked by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes whether he trusts the administration to not manipulate intelligence reports, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said he doesn’t. “As a member of the Senate, I actually also have information about the things the U.S. is doing to provoke and poke Iran,” he said. “I think there is an effort underway by the U.S. to try to instigate Iran into doing something, and if they do something in response to U.S. provocation, the administration … will use that as their pretext for 125,000 troops, or as the president said today, more.”

Though some Republicans have cautioned against the administration getting ahead of itself in regard to Iran, others practically seem giddy at the idea of unleashing America’s military might on the nation. “Two strikes, the first strike and the last strike,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said flatly of how the United States would wipe out the nation during an appearance on Firing Line With Margaret Hoover.

As Daily Beast reporter Lachlan Marchly noted on Twitter, former defense secretary Jim Mattis gave a more tempered response when asked about a potential conflict in Iran before Trump took office. “We can handle Iran. I have no doubt,” he said. “It would be bloody awful. It would be a catastrophe if we have to have another war in the Middle East like that. But could we handle it from a military point of view? Absolutely.”

But Mattis, who also advocated for remaining in the Iran nuclear deal, is gone now. He resigned late last year out of frustration with the president continually undermining him. In his place is Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, a former Boeing executive who, as Politico recently reported, is being “overpowered” in internal debates by war-crazy officials like Bolton. Unlike Mattis, Shanahan doesn’t seem to have any inclination to push back against Trump, who seems perfectly willing to indulge Bolton’s thirst for conflict.

When asked on Tuesday about the report that the administration’s devised a plan to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East, Trump naturally called it “fake news” but then said he “absolutely” would do it, and that “if we did that we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that.”

In December, the president, who now doesn’t seem to mind the idea of sending “a hell of a lot more” than 120,000 troops to fight Iran, made a big show of opposing foreign wars, abruptly deciding he wanted to pull American troops out of Syria and Afghanistan. He justified the move by repeatedly and falsely claiming ISIS had been defeated, and that there was no longer any reason for troops to be over there. “We’re no longer the suckers, folks,” he explained during a brief visit to Iraq later that month.

If his stated opposition to entanglements in the Middle East and his administration’s strategy toward Iran don’t seem to jibe, it’s because they don’t. Trump has no overarching foreign policy philosophy. Everything he does is done according to what he thinks is most politically expedient in the moment. One would hope that he’d stop short of going to war for political purposes, but this is of course not true. Years ago, he repeatedly theorized that a “desperate” President Obama was planning to attack Iran in order to “save face” and “get re-elected.” This is just how Trump thinks. Everything is done solely for one’s own self interest, nothing more.

What political purpose would be served by going to war with Iran? Plenty, but most pressing for Trump is probably the onslaught of investigations Democrats have launched into his administration. You probably didn’t think about any of them over the course of reading this article. That’s the point.

© 2019 PMC. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL SECURITY
Senators demand answers from Trump administration on Iran threat
Democrats accuse the Trump administration of taking reckless steps that could lead to war with Iran.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., called on the administration to explain to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee why it had decided to evacuate U.S. diplomatic missions in Iran.Andrew
May 15, 2019, 12:29 PM ET
By Dan De Luce
WASHINGTON — Senators from both sides of the aisle demanded Wednesday that the Trump administration explain why it had evacuated U.S. diplomatic missions in Iraq and brief lawmakers on the alleged threats from Iran that prompted the move.

Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called on the administration “to immediately provide this committee with a briefing on the decision to order the departure of embassy staff, the intelligence on what Iran may be planning to do and any plans to go to war with Iran.”

Speaking at a committee hearing, Menendez said there were only two reasons to evacuate the U.S. missions in Iraq: Americans working at the missions are at risk, or it is “in preparation for military action in Iran.”

The senator said it was the committee’s duty to help write laws to authorize the use of military force and to oversee the State Department and the safety of its employees.

“And yet the Trump administration has not provided any information to this committee on the intelligence behind their decisions and what they plan to do in Iraq or Iran,” he said.

Menendez added that Congress has not authorized war with Iran and if the Trump administration was contemplating military action with Iran, it must come to Congress to seek approval.

At the same hearing, Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said he agreed with Menendez “about the need for a classified briefing on the matters in Iraq” and that “I hope that either the entire committee or perhaps the chair and the ranking member would be able to have that kind of briefing”

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said a full briefing for the entire Senate was “in the works.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an outspoken advocate for tough action toward Iran and a frequent defender of President Donald Trump, also said the State Department and the Defense Department needed to brief lawmakers about why it had chosen to evacuate the U.S. missions in Iraq.

“I would urge the State Department and DoD to come down here and explain to us what’s going on,” Graham told reporters. “Because I have no idea what the threat stream is beyond what I read in the paper.”

He added: “I think there are a lot of people in my shoes that are going to support standing up to Iran, but we need to understand what we’re doing.”

The State Department earlier Wednesday ordered the departure of nonemergency employees from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and the U.S. consulate in the northern city of Erbil, and renewed a warning to American citizens not to travel to Iraq.

The announcement did not say how many personnel were affected, and did not offer more details about the threat posed to Americans in Iraq.

The move came days after the administration said it was deploying an aircraft carrier strike group and bombers to the Middle East due to an unspecified threat posed by Iran and its proxies to American interests in the region.

But a senior British military officer directly contradicted the U.S. assessment on Tuesday, saying there was no heightened danger from Iran or its proxies in Iraq and Syria.

Maj. Gen. Christopher Ghika, deputy commander of Operation Inherent Resolve — the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — said “there’s been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria.”

U.S. Central Command issued a statement disputing the British general’s comments.

Democrats in Congress have accused the Trump administration of taking reckless actions and engaging in rhetoric that could trigger an unnecessary war with Iran.

The administration has defended its approach, saying it is merely seeking to safeguard U.S. personnel and making clear that it will respond if Iran or its proxies target Americans.

Dan De Luce

© 2019 NBC UNIVERSAL


WORLD
Trump administration’s Iran threat claim disputed by foreign officials
“There’s been no increased threat from Iranian backed forces in Iraq and Syria,” said British Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika.

A Patriot missile defense system on board the U.S.S. Arlington was sent to the Middle East this week amid rising tensions with Iran.MCSN Jason Waite / AFP - Getty Images
SHARE THIS —
May 16, 2019, 6:43 AM ET / Updated May 16, 2019, 8:05 AM ET
By Linda Givetash and Abigail Williams
The Trump administration’s claims that the threat of an attack by the Iranian regime on U.S. targets in the Middle East is increasing has been disputed by allies in Europe.

On Wednesday the State Department ordered all nonemergency government employees to leave its embassy in Baghdad and its consulate in Erbil and advised Americans against travelling to Iraq. Earlier this month national security adviser John Bolton said the U.S. was preparing for possible attacks by Iran or its proxies.

However, a British deputy commander in the global coalition against the Islamic State contradicted the risk of an attack.

“There’s been no increased threat from Iranian backed forces in Iraq and Syria,” Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika told reporters Wednesday. “We’re aware of their presence, clearly, and we monitor them, along with a whole range of others because that’s the environment we’re in.”

Related
NEWS
U.S. deploying carrier strike group to send ‘message’ to Iran
Ghika said the anti-ISIS task force had no intention to change protection measures or its escalation processes despite the developments in the Persian Gulf this week.

“There are a substantial number of militia groups in Iraq and Syria and we don’t see any increased threat from many of them at this stage,” he said.

Army Lt. Col. CJ Kirkpatrick, right, escorts British Maj. Gen. Christopher Ghika, Combined Joint Task Forces Operation Inherent Resolve Deputy Commander, through the streets of Mosul on Oct. 9.U.S. Army / AP
NBC News asked the British Ministry of Defence on Thursday whether it would raise the threat level for U.K. forces and diplomats in Iraq. A spokesperson would not be drawn on that question but said the ministry "has long been clear about our concerns over Iran’s destabilizing behavior in the region” and that the security of personnel and assets is under constant review.

Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also said Wednesday that he made it clear to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a meeting earlier this week that a unilateral strategy of increasing pressure against Iran was ill-advised.

“Maximum pressure always carries the risk of an unintended escalation,” Maas said. “If you take a look at what other hot spots and sources of conflict are there in this region, then we certainly do not need one thing at the moment: an additional fuse.”

U.S. senators from both sides of the aisle called on the Trump administration to explain why it had removed diplomatic staff from Iraq.

The dispute over the risks is a reflection in the diverging tactics of the U.S. and Europe to maintain productive relations with Iran, said Sanam Vakil, senior research fellow for the Middle East North Africa program at the London think tank Chatham House.

While Europe opts for a more cautious approach in engaging the Iranian regime, in part due to its close proximity to the Middle East, the U.S. has adopted a strategy of “fear-mongering and posturing,” she said.

“[Europeans] ultimately believe the Trump administration has manufactured a crisis and this crisis has prevented them from addressing the other equally important issues that impact European security,” she said.

The current situation stems from the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, she said, adding that the deal was working and Iran was in compliance.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani delivers a speech during the ceremony of the National Army Day parade in Tehran, Iran on April 18.Tasnim News Agency / Reuters file
Europe and other allies could attempt to kickstart diplomacy with Iran to protect the nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, Vakil said, but it would require a very public and meaningful effort with no guarantee the U.S. wouldn’t obstruct the process.

U.S. senior state department officials told NBC News on Wednesday that intelligence on threats to peace and security have been shared with British, French and German allies, who were also were asked to use their influence with the Iranian regime to deescalate the situation.

“I would say it would be an act of gross negligence if we did not take the necessary precautions in the light of credible threat streams,” said one senior State Department official. “That does not mean we are rushing to a conflict.”

Related
POLITICS
Senators demand answers from Trump administration on Iran threat
Ahmed al-Sahaf, spokesman to Iraq’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, told NBC News that the situation in Iraq remains stable. The government “is cooperating with all countries that are part of the latest development in the region to reach a balanced solution,” he said.

Linda Givetash
Linda Givetash is a reporter based in London. She previously worked for The Canadian Press in Vancouver and Nation Media in Uganda.

2019 NBC UNIVERSAL

Possible policy struggle betwewn Trump and Bolton.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday that President Donald Trump would like to see “behavioral change” from Iran. She also warned that if Tehran takes any action, “they’re not going to like what he does in response.” (May 16)

AP, AP

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump had a pithy response Thursday to what has become a pressing question around the world: Is his administration marching the United States into a war with Iran?

“I hope not,” the president told reporters at the White House.

The three-word response was the latest case of the president adopting a wait-and-see stance amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The Trump administration deployed an aircraft carrier ahead of schedule and B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf to counter what the administration has described as threats from Tehran.

Yet Trump has struggled to present a unified message on Iran. On the one hand the administration has sought to tamp down talk of a military confrontation with the country. On the other, Trump has said he would “absolutely” send ground troops to the region if needed.

Trump and his aides have downplayed the prospects of military action with Iran in recent days. That includes a Wednesday tweet in which the president raised the prospect of diplomatic negotiations with the country’s leaders.

The United States and Iran have been lobbing threats, fighting proxy wars, and imposing sanctions for decades. USA Today looks at over 60 years of this back-

DONALD TRUMP
White House rejects House panel’s demands, says investigation amounts to ‘unauthorized do-over’ of Mueller probe
“Unfortunately, it appears that you have already decided to press ahead with a duplicative investigation,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote.

President Donald Trump leaves the White House on May 14, 2019.Carlos Barria / Reuters

May 15, 2019, 1:18 PM ET / Updated May 15, 2019, 3:22 PM ET
By Allan Smith
The White House told the House Judiciary Committee in a letter Wednesday that it will not comply with a broad range of the panel’s requests and called on it to “discontinue” its inquiry into President Donald Trump.

“Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized ‘do-over’ of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the Department of Justice,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote, citing special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report on his probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether Trump sought to obstruct the investigation.

Cipollone wrote, however, that he was not exerting executive privilege, adding that he would consider more narrow requests from the committee if it can provide the legal support and legislative purpose for such requests.

“The appropriate course is for the Committee to discontinue the inquiry,” Cipollone wrote to the panel’s chairman, Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. “Unfortunately, it appears that you have already decided to press ahead with a duplicative investigation, including by issuing subpoenas, to replow the same ground the Special Counsel has already covered.”

In early March, Nadler requested information from 81 individuals or entities connected to the president as part of a broad investigation into whether Trump abused his power or acted corruptly. Cipollone wrote his letter in response to Nadler’s March letter requesting documents from the White House as part of that broad push.

Responding to the White House on Wednesday, Nadler told reporters that the claims in the letter were “outrageous,” “ridiculous,” “preposterous,” and “un-American,” and vowed that his panel would continue its investigations.

“Taking that position that a president cannot be indicted, they are saying only Congress can hold a president accountable, and now they’re saying that Congress can’t, which means nobody can, which means the president is above the law,” Nadler said. “And that is an un-American, frankly un-American claim.”

“I don’t know whether they’re trying to taunt us towards an impeachment or anything else," Nadler added. “All I know is that they have made a preposterous claim.”

Cipollone homed in on a rationale that the White House and Trump’s business have made elsewhere: that Congress cannot conduct such oversight of the president unless it has a specific legislative purpose.

In his letter, Cipollone wrote that “it appears that the committee’s inquiry is designed not to further a legitimate legislative purpose, but rather to conduct a pseudo law enforcement investigation on matters that were already the subject of the Special Counsel’s long-running investigation and are outside the constitutional authority of the legislative branch.”

“The only purpose for this duplication seems to be harassing and seeking to embarrass political opponents after an exhaustive two-year investigation by the Department of Justice did not reach the conclusion that some members of the Committee apparently would have preferred,” he continued. “That, of course, is not a permissible purpose for demanding confidential information from the Executive.”

Congress has broad oversight powers that have been affirmed by the Supreme Court. In McGrain v. Daugherty, the court ruled the “potential” for legislation to come about as a result of a congressional inquiry was sufficient rationale to launch one. And in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, the court ruled, “To be a valid legislative inquiry there need be no predictable end result.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress generally enjoys “extremely broad” power “to obtain information, including classified and/or confidential information.”

“While there is no express provision of the Constitution or specific statute authorizing the conduct of congressional oversight or investigations, the Supreme Court has firmly established that such power is essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative powers in Congress,” CRS wrote.

Despite that broad interpretation of legislative purpose, “its scope is not without limits,” the agency added. “Courts have held that a committee lacks legislative purpose if it appears to be conducting a legislative trial rather than an investigation to assist in performing its legislative function.”

And although “‘there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure,’ ‘so long as Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power, the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power,’” CRS said.

A federal judge expressed skepticism at a hearing Tuesday about Trump’s efforts to block Congress from getting some of his financial records.

Amit Mehta, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, told Trump lawyer William Consovoy that he would have trouble ruling that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to obtain Trump’s taxes due to a lack of explicit legislative purpose because of prior Supreme Court rulings.

In a conference call with reporters Wednesday after Cipollone sent his letter, a senior administration official said Nadler should “rethink this oversight or investigation,” accusing him of “brushing aside the conclusions of the Department of Justice, and doing so in favor of political theater.”

Democrats argued that Mueller’s report made clear that it was up to Congress to further any inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice; Mueller wrote in his report that he neither concluded Trump had committed a crime nor exonerated him of having done so.

The senior administration official said Nadler “has to do a better job of setting out a legitimate legislative purpose for what” he’s doing," and called on him to make clear “some type of public law he intends to introduce” alongside his committee’s investigation.

When asked, the official said Trump was not “above the law.”

“But he also is not below the law,” the official said. “He has rights and privileges as the rest of us do.”

And as president, the official said, Trump “has a couple more rights that the rest of us don’t have.”

Allan Smith
Allan Smith is a political reporter for NBC News.

NBCNEWS
© 2019 NBC UNIVERSAL

$$$$ ******* $$$$$* $$$*$$$$$***** $$$$$$$$

Live TV
Trump’s wealth in the spotlight with new disclosure forms
Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN
Updated 10:33 AM EDT, Thu May 16, 2019

article video
CNN Special Report “The Trump Family Business,” hosted by Erin Burnett, will air Friday, May 17 at 9 p.m. ET.

Washington(CNN) America is about to get a tantalizing look into the hidden fortune on which Donald Trump made his name but is at the root of some of the most mysterious unresolved questions about his presidency.

The expected release of the President’s latest financial disclosure forms on Thursday will trigger a now annual controversy about Trump’s wealth, including the question of whether he is adding to it while in office.

The former real estate baron anchored his political appeal on his multi-billion dollar pile, claiming it showed he had the kind of ruthless deal maker’s instincts that insulated him from political pressure and enabled him to thumb his nose at elites.

“I am smarter than they are, I am richer than they are,” Trump said at a rally in 2018, showing how he uses money as a barometer of his own success and as a badge of honor to wield against an establishment that has never really accepted him.

But Trump’s largesse has also been a liability as a politician. He goes to extreme lengths to keep his financial affairs private. He won’t release his tax returns like his predecessors and is even suing a congressional committee that is trying to muscle his business records away from his accounting firm.

Mounting questions about his money have tarnished Trump’s legend, including a recent New York Times report that suggested the supposed business genius lost more cash than any other American over a 10-year period in the 1980s and 1990s. The report said he lost more than $1 billion in the decade.

Is the presidency costing Trump?
There are also signs that Trump’s controversial presidency could be eating into his bottom line.

On Wednesday, The Washington Post reported that Trump’s Doral golf resort in Florida was in steep decline. His Trump Tower landmark in Manhattan also seems to be a fading asset.

Earlier this year, it became clear that new development deals have slowed badly at the Trump Organization since the President was elected. The company has also shelved plans for two hotel licensing concepts. Trump’s son Eric blamed politics for the sluggish business prospects.

Trump’s refusal to fully divest himself of his business in office has prompted unwelcome questions about potential conflicts of interests involving foreign investors.

The documents to be released on Thursday are unlikely to fully light up Trump’s labyrinthine financial affairs.

But they will offer a picture of Trump’s income last year – potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars. In last year’s disclosure form, the President reported income of $450 million.

They will detail other income from assets including properties, retirement accounts, book royalties and investments.

More controversially, the forms will also likely reveal a glimpse of Trump’s liabilities.

In 2017, for instance he declared $311 million in mortgages and loans. The actual number could actually be higher due to technicalities in reporting requirements.

Or is Trump enriching himself?
The documents are likely to revive the debate over whether the President is in effect using the symbolism of the presidency to enrich himself and his sprawling business operation.

Trump reported last year that his private Florida resort brought in revenue of $25 million in 2017.

The club doubled its membership fee after he took office and critics claim his repeated visits – offering guests a chance to rub shoulders with the President – boost business.

Similarly, Trump’s opponents will seize on his disclosure to assess the impact of his presence on Trump International Hotel in Washington, a few blocks from the White House.

On his disclosure last year, Trump reported $75 million in income from the property, which has been at the center of conflict of interests concerns over the possibility that foreign governments can curry favor with the President by booking rooms.

Trump’s disclosures could also force him into revealing information about his private affairs he would rather keep secret.

Last year, he acknowledged for the first time that he repaid his former lawyer Michael Cohen more than $100,000 for expenses incurred during the 2016 presidential election.

The document did not explicitly state what the payments were for. But Trump’s lawyers had previously said that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 hush money payment he made to porn actress Stormy Daniels.

The Office of Government Ethics confirmed on Wednesday that Trump had filed the disclosure forms.

While the documents offer some details of Trump’s financial fortunes from year to year, they do not contain details of how much tax he has paid.

They also do not reveal in depth information about the sources of his wealth or identify customers for his real estate business, a fact that concerns ethics campaigners.

The President bucked tradition by refusing to release his tax returns as a candidate and after winning the White House.

He insists that he is under audit but his opponents charge he is worried about revealing advantageous tax arrangements, an assessment of his wealth that does not match his inflated claims, or is worried about declaring incriminating sources of income.

The release of the less comprehensive financial disclosure will likely be used by the White House to rebut claims he is not meeting minimum standards of transparency.

This year’s disclosure was filed with the President locked in showdown over his taxes with a Democratic-led committee in Congress that is seeking six years of returns.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin hinted on Wednesday that his department would not comply with a subpoena for the returns.

The comment escalated a confrontation with Democrats who will likely now have to go to court in an effort to force the turnover of the elusive documents.

This story has been updated.

View on CNN
© 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Presidents who gambled and lost.

The New York Times
Thursday, May 16, 2019
NYTimes.com/David-Leonhardt »
Op-Ed Columnist

Twenty-eight years ago this month, President George Bush took a break from his vacation in Kennebunkport, Maine, to deliver a big speech about China. Bush flew from his family’s compound on the Maine coast to his alma mater, Yale, and gave a graduation speech that doubled as a policy announcement.
It was 1991, only two years after the Tiananmen Square massacre. Some members of Congress were trying to persuade Bush to punish China’s human rights atrocities by refusing to renew its status as a “most favored” trading partner of the United States. But Bush said no.
He justified the decision with soaring language about the morality of engaging with China rather than punishing it. “It is wrong to isolate China if we hope to influence it,” he said.
That same view would guide the next three presidents — Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And their approach certainly had some benefits. Hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens have emerged from abject poverty.
But there have also been downsides. China has gotten away with cheating the international trading system, stealing intellectual property, blocking foreign countries from entering its market, heavily subsidizing Chinese companies, bullying other Asian countries and repressing its own citizens.
President Trump is now taking a more hawkish approach to China. I think his approach is clumsy, highly flawed and likely to fail. (My colleague Bret Stephens has a good explanation of why.) But unlike in so many other policy areas, Trump’s instincts are at least directionally correct. I hope that whoever succeeds him as president recognizes the problems not only with Trump’s strategy but also with that of his predecessors.
Back in 1991, Bush was making a bet — that treating China favorably would cause it to become a less repressive, more open society. “We want to advance the cause of freedom, not just snub nations that aren’t yet wholly free,” he said. He lost that bet.
Go deeper on China
On this week’s episode of “The Argument” podcast, Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and I debate the wisdom of Trump’s China policy. We also talk about a potential comeback for organized labor, and I tell a story about my experience in The New York Times’s union.
Elsewhere, on China: The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent and the Brookings Institution’s Thomas Wright both have advice for the Democratic presidential candidates. Sargent says Democrats should cast Trump’s tariffs on China as a failure of “unilateral America-First Trumpism.” He argues: “This isn’t a debate Democrats need to fear.”
Wright, in The Atlantic, advises Democrats to cast China as a threat to America’s economy, security and values. “Democrats need a powerful foreign-policy message that connects with domestic politics,” he writes. “Competing responsibly and effectively with China is the best one they have.”
Robert Rubin, a former Treasury secretary, and Kishore Mahbubani, a former Singaporean diplomat, both think there are better alternatives than confrontation. Mahbubani argues in Harper’s that the United States should match China’s investments in research and education, while limiting its rise through international organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank.
Rubin, in The Times earlier this year, wrote, “For the future of humanity, not to mention our immediate economic interests, our two countries must recognize our mutual self-interest in a constructive relationship.”
Trump’s failure to press China on human rights abuses against the country’s minority Muslim population is both a moral and strategic failure, says CNN’s Frida Ghitis: Highlighting those abuses would give Trump more leverage.
“China is now an adversary of the United States. A wise U.S. policy should treat it as one. But it should also do everything possible to keep it from becoming an enemy,” Bret Stephens writes, in the column I mentioned above. “How do we gradually deflect and deflate the ambitions of an immense rival power, without quite bursting them? That will be America’s central geopolitical challenge for years to come.”


A reversal? And acknowledgement of failure to gather popular support , in advance of re-election?

He declared to the joint chiefs of his opposition to start a war with Iran, and today, those o 'll surely rattle bible thumping supporters, somewhat:

Subscribe
Trump supports Buttigieg campaigning with his husband: ‘It’s good’
REBECCA MORIN | USA TODAY | 24 minutes ago

President Donald Trump used an official government speech at a liquefied natural gas export facility to handicap his potential 2020 Democratic opponents and attack the Green New Deal proposal for aggressively cutting carbon emissions. (May 14)
AP, AP
President Donald Trump has repeatedly mocked South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, making fun of his name — “Boot-edge-edge” — and deriding the Rhodes Scholar as Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Neuman.

But the president didn’t take an opportunity to insult the 2020 Democratic White House hopeful in a video clip released Thursday. Instead, he praised Buttigieg for campaigning with his husband, Chasten.

“I think it’s good,” Trump said.

During an interview with the president, Fox News host Steve Hilton commented how he thinks it’s great to see Buttigieg on stage with his husband as the couple normalizes same-sex marriage amidst the ever-present media spotlight of a presidential campaign.

“I think it’s absolutely fine," Trump replied. “I do.”

An interactive guide: Who is running for president in 2020?

Hilton noted that it’s “a sign of great progress in the country,” to which the president interrupted and said “I think it’s great.”

He added, however, that he believes some people in America will take issue with seeing the couple campaigning together.

“I think that’s something that perhaps some people will have a problem with,” he said, quickly adding, “I have no problem with it whatsoever.” The Fox News interview with Trump will air 9 p.m. ET on Sunday, an hour after Buttigieg has a live town hall on the network.

Buttigieg, who is one of 23 Democrats running for president, has repeatedly talked about being gay and has campaigned with his husband, which has sparked backlash from some conservative figures. Chasten Buttigieg, a former middle school teacher, is an avid social media user, who frequently posts on Twitter and Instagram about his life with his husband and on the campaign trail.

The Indiana Democrat over the past couple of weeks has also called out Vice President Mike Pence over his stance on LGBTQ issues. Pence, the former Indiana governor, during his tenure leading the state signed into law a “religious freedom” bill that critics said was a license to discriminate against gay people. But soon after he signed the measure he also signed an amendment intended to make it clear that businesses in the state could not discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Buttigieg, who has repeatedly touted his Episcopalian faith, last month called out Pence, saying that it was not his choice that he is gay.

More: Buttigieg blasts Trump Iran escalation: ‘This is not a game. This is not a show.’

More: Pete Buttigieg made $75K on his book deal, but owes much more in student loans, disclosure finds

Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg responds to anti-gay hecklers at a rally in Iowa.
USA TODAY
“If me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade,” Buttigieg said during the LGBTQ Victory Fund National Champagne Brunch in Washington. “And that’s the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand. That if you got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me — your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”

In addition, Buttigieg has also questioned how a devout Christian like Pence “could allow himself to become the cheerleader of the porn star presidency.”

Since then, Pence has said that Buttigieg “knows better.” Earlier this week, the vice president also suggested he was holding back with regard to the 37-year-old politician.

“If he wins their party’s nomination, we’ll have a lot more to say about him,” Pence said of Buttigieg during an interview on Fox News
2020 Presidential candidates
Originally Published 13 hours ago
Updated 22 minutes ago

© Copyright Gannett 2019

POLITICO

Administration rejects subpoena for Trump’s tax returns, upping stakes in battle with Democrats
The decision was no surprise, with Mnuchin indicating earlier this week that he expected the dispute to be settled by the courts.

By BRIAN FALER

05/17/2019 04:08 PM EDT

Updated 05/17/2019 05:32 PM EDT

Donald Trump
Republicans say Democrats just want to search President Donald Trump’s taxes for things they can use to embarrass him politically.

Facebook Twitter Email Print
The Trump administration on Friday rejected House Democrats’ subpoena for the president’s tax returns, pushing the two sides closer to a major court fight.

In a letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), who issued the subpoena last week, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin reiterated what he told Neal in earlier letters: The administration does not believe Democrats have a “legitimate legislative” reason for seeking the tax filings.

“For the same reasons, we are unable to provide the requested information in response to the committee’s subpoena,” he said.

The decision was no surprise, with Mnuchin indicating earlier this week that he expected the dispute to be settled by the courts. Also, the administration is defying subpoenas from Democrats on several other fronts.

The announcement shifts the focus back to the House, where Democrats intend to try to enforce their subpoena.

They have not said exactly how they intend to do that — that will be up to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She could have the entire chamber vote to authorize the House general counsel, Douglas Letter, to file suit against the administration. Another potential, and likely faster, option would be to have a group of House leaders known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group vote to authorize the suit, though there are questions about whether that is allowable under the chamber’s rules.

Either way, a Democratic aide said, it will likely be weeks before a suit is filed in court.

“Given the Treasury Secretary’s failure to comply today, I am consulting with counsel on how best to enforce the subpoenas moving forward,” Neal said in a statement Friday, noting that a subpoena was also issued to IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig.

“Issuance of these subpoenas should not have been necessary,” he said. “The law provides clear statutory authority for the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee to request and receive access to tax returns and return information.”

Neal has been demanding six years worth of Trump’s personal tax records, along with those of several of his businesses, since early April.

Democrats, complaining Trump has thumbed his nose at a decades-old tradition of presidents voluntarily releasing their tax filings, are trying to seize his records by relying on a 1924 law allowing the heads of Congress’s tax committees to examine anyone’s confidential tax information.

Republicans say Democrats just want to search Trump’s taxes for things they can use to embarrass him politically. They are pointing to court decisions in which judges have said lawmakers’ investigations must have some purpose related to their official duties as policymakers.

The administration is likely to try to drag out any court fight in hopes of pushing the issue beyond the 2020 elections. By then, Republicans may retake the House, allowing them to quash the suit. Trump could be in his second term by then, when the issue will be less important, or he could be voted out of office next year.

TAX

What we know — and don’t know — about Trump’s taxes
By TOBY ECKERT
A case would likely begin in federal court in Washington, D.C. If the administration loses there, it could appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court and, from there, to the Supreme Court.

Although a legal fight is likely to be lengthy, it’s conceivable that delaying could prove a bad strategy for the administration if it is forced to turn over the documents just ahead of next year’s elections.

It also would not be unusual if a judge were reluctant to decide such a politically charged case, and instead pushed the two sides to compromise.

The House has only sued the executive branch a handful of times in its history.

“In the last 20 years, there have been maybe five suits, and, prior to that time, there had been none,” said Michael Stern, a former senior counsel in the House’s Office of General Counsel.

“It is obviously something that is happening much more frequently now, but it is still, historically, extremely rare,” he said.

Democrats have other options when it comes to trying to enforce their subpoena, though they are generally considered less appealing.

They could vote to hold Mnuchin in criminal contempt, though that would ultimately be referred to the Justice Department, which is unlikely to prosecute him.

There is an "inherent contempt” option where lawmakers could have the House’s Sergeant at Arms arrest Mnuchin, though that is improbable, not least because he has Secret Service protection.

They could try to attach riders to the annual budget bill funding Treasury that dock Mnuchin’s salary, though they’d need Republicans to agree to go along with that. Democrats could also impeach Mnuchin and Rettig.

This story tagged under:
Donald Trump Donald Trump 2020 Finance & Tax Tax Returns Donald Trump tax returns

© 2019 POLITICO LLC
!!! $$$$$$$ ??? !!! $$$$$

What threatens democracy? Legendary Navy SEAL warns of Trump’s attacks on US institutions

SUSAN PAGE | USA TODAY | 12 hours ago

Admiral McRaven is the man who got Osama bin Laden and Captain Phillips. He wants you to make your bed… and take your shoes off at airport security.

USA TODAY

AUSTIN — Once the longest-serving Navy SEAL on active duty, Admiral William McRaven played a key role in thousands of dangerous missions abroad, including commanding the one that cost Osama bin Laden his life.

Now retired, McRaven warns that the greatest threat to American democracy he’s seen during his decades in national security comes not from a rogue regime or a terrorist group but from the caustic rhetoric of President Donald Trump.

“An attack on the press or an attack on the Department of Justice, or to imply that there are dirty cops at the FBI or to ignore the intelligence community, I think, really undermines our institutions,” McRaven told USA TODAY in an interview about his memoir, Sea Stories: My Life in Special Operations, out Tuesday. “And that makes me fearful of the future direction of the nation.”

McRaven: Trump’s media attacks ‘greatest threat to our democracy’

Five years after retiring as commander of U.S. Special Operations, McRaven retains the ramrod bearing and the reserve of a career officer with more than 37 years in uniform. In his new book, being published by Grand Central Publishing, he also reflects the military tradition of expressing nothing but regard for the presidents he served in top jobs, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

His account of daredevil missions — to intercept Somali pirates, free American missionaries held hostage in the Philippines, interrogate Saddam Hussein and recover long-frozen military remains in British Columbia — ends with his final salute in dress whites in 2014.

Donald Trump’s name doesn’t appear in the 335-page memoir.

William H. McRaven, a retired Navy admiral, was commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014.

ERICH SCHLEGEL, FOR USA TODAY

But in 2017, during a stint as chancellor of the University of Texas, McRaven began raising objections to Trump’s attacks on the press in an address that also called on journalists to hold themselves accountable for accuracy and fairness. Last year, he wrote an open letterprotesting the president’s decision to revoke the security clearance of a frequent critic, former CIA director John Brennan, and asking that his own security clearance be revoked as well.

That brought a rebuke from the president — he dismissed McRavenas a “Hillary Clinton fan” who should have caught bin Laden faster — and blowback from some of his former military colleagues, who argued it was inappropriate for him to publicly criticize the commander in chief.

“It has been an unwritten rule that senior military officers don’t come out against the president, and I think that’s a good unwritten rule,” McRaven said. “But I’ve got to look myself in the mirror and make sure I’m doing what I think is the right thing.”

Who is James Comey?: Ex FBI director called Trump a ‘chronic liar.’ What his politics mean for the FBI

His concerns about Trump’s attacks on democratic institutions have only deepened, he said, noting the president’s increasingly defiant response to congressional investigations.

“When the lawmakers of this nation ask for a person to testify or ask for certain documents, I think sooner or later, the White House needs to comply, as does the military or anybody else that’s being subpoenaed to provide information,” he said.

At stake, in his view, is faith in the foundations of democracy.

“If the American people feel like they can’t trust those institutions, then what do they turn to?” he asked. “Our institutions really have got to be able to survive whoever’s in the White House.”

He said he doesn’t plan to play a role in the 2020 presidential campaign but added that he’s “learned never to say ‘never.’”

Legendary Navy SEAL has served his country for decades

Climbing the walls

When the Navy SEALS were established in 1962, McRaven was 6 years old and to all appearances already in training for the special operations force.

His father was a Spitfire combat pilot in World War II who was then assigned to the military arm of NATO, based in France. The youngster would terrify his older sister by scaling from window to window on the outside of their three-story chateau, or by climbing down the well in the backyard. When their father was assigned to Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, McRaven became a regular visitor to the Wilford Hall Air Force Hospital emergency room to have gashes stitched up and broken bones set in the aftermath of adventures.

At the University of Texas, he graduated with a bachelors degree from the journalism school, but only because he saw the subject as easier to ace than his previous majors, in pre-med and then accounting, where his grades were so borderline that they might have made it difficult for him to get the Navy commission he wanted.

He joined the elite SEALS (an abbreviation for Sea, Air and Land teams), was pushed out of SEAL Team Six when he complained about a lack of military discipline, then thrived. He would hold command at every level. Finally, in 2011, he designed and executed the special-ops raid in Pakistan that led to the death of bin Laden a decade after the 9/11 terror attacks on New York and Washington.

Osama bin Laden’s son: Hamza emerging as new al-Qaeda leader

In some ways, he said, the experiences of his long career seemed to be in preparation for Operation Neptune’s Spear.

“I was at the top of my game,” he said, having run Special Operations longer than anyone else. “I had seen thousands of missions. I knew the personalities of the people involved. I knew how to do this mission. I knew how to command this mission, because my life had brought me to that point.” The mission succeeded even though one of the stealth helicopters crash-landed during the assault and had to be abandoned.

When the other Black Hawk helicopter carrying the body of the man they believed to be bin Laden returned to the Jalalabad airfield in Afghanistan, McRaven went to the hangar to confirm his identify. He unzipped the rubberized bag, pulled out the body and stretched it to its full length. He looked like bin Laden, but McRaven wanted to double-check before he informed President Obama.

“Son, how tall are you?” he asked one of the SEALS, who told him he was 6’2". “Good,” McRaven said. “Lie down next to the body.” Bin Laden was reported to be 6’4", and unorthodox way of measuring the corpse indicated it was him.

In the office of his home, in a leafy area of Austin, McRaven has a plaque that Obama presented him a few days later. On it is mounted a bright yellow 25-foot metal tape measure. “If we can afford a $60 million helicopter,” the inscription reads, “I think we can afford a tape measure.”

‘Which time was that?’

McRaven already is a best-selling author. His 2014 commencement address detailing 10 principles he followed as a Navy SEAL was published in 2017 as a self-help volume titled Make Your Bed. (The title of Chapter One: “Start Your Day with a Task Completed.”) It has sold more than a million copies.

In his new book, being published by Grand Central Publishing, retired Admiral William McRaven reflects on the military tradition of expressing nothing but regard for the presidents he served in top jobs, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

GRAND CENTRAL PUBLISHING

He was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 2010, when he was on duty in Afghanistan. He managed the symptoms of the blood cancer for years but hit “a perfect storm of bad health” in 2017 that forced him to retire as chancellor of the University of Texas the next spring. Exposure to Agent Orange and other toxic chemicals has been tied to the disease.

“I’ve been exposed to so many things over the course of my career,” McRaven, now 63, said. “I used to dive under nuclear submarines and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. You’re diving in waters that are hardly crystal-clear.”

But he expressed no regrets. “I wouldn’t change it for anything.”

It was dangerous duty from the start.

Asked in the USA TODAY interview to describe more details about “that time when you were sure you were going to die,” McRaven replied, brow furrowed, “Which time was that?”

President Donald Trump went after retired four star Admiral William McRaven after he criticized Trump for undermining the media. Veuer’s Sam Berman has the full story


Constitutional crisis approach?

The US treasury secretary of treasury, Steve Mnuchin, in Washington DC.
Show caption
Trump tax returns: Steven Mnuchin refuses to comply with subpoena
House Democrat demands six years of tax returns and expects to take matter to court as early as next week

Julia Carrie Wong and agencies
@juliacarriew
Fri 17 May 2019 22.00 EDT
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
The US treasury secretary defied a House subpoena for Donald Trump’s tax returns on Friday, setting up another potential court battle between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

Steven Mnuchin said in a letter that the subpoena from the House ways and means committee chairman, Richard Neal, a Democrat, was “unprecedented” and “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose”.

When Neal issued the subpoena on 10 May, he noted in a letter that the Internal Revenue Service had an “unambiguous legal obligation” to comply with his committee’s requests for information, noting that such a request “never has been denied”.

Mnuchin’s rejection of the subpoena had been expected. Earlier on Friday, Neal had said: “We will likely proceed to court as quickly as next week.”

Asked if he might seek to hold Mnuchin in contempt of Congress for his refusal to supply the tax returns, Neal said: “I don’t see that right now as an option. I think that the better option for us is to proceed with a court case.”

Democrats are seeking Trump’s tax returns under a 1924 law that directs the IRS to furnish such information when requested to the chairs of Congress’ tax-writing committees.

“The law, by its terms, does not allow for discretion as to whether to comply with a request for tax returns and return information,” Neal said in a statement after Mnuchin’s decision was announced. “Given the Treasury Secretary’s failure to comply today, I am consulting with counsel on how best to enforce the subpoenas moving forward.”

With the exception of Trump, every president since Richard Nixon has made his tax returns public.

#ConstitutionalCrisis? Trump’s battle with Congress comes to a head
In a tweet on 10 May, Trump said that he had won the presidency in 2016 “partially based on no Tax Returns while I am under audit (which I still am), and the voters didn’t care. Now the Radical Left Democrats want to again relitigate the matter. Make it part of the 2020 Election!”

When he issued the subpoena last week, Neal said he was seeking six years of Trump’s personal and business tax returns to aid a committee investigation into whether the IRS was doing its job properly to audit a sitting president and whether the law governing such audits needed to be strengthened.

In his letter Friday saying he would not comply with the subpoena, Mnuchin said he had consulted with the justice department and had been advised that he was not authorized to turn over the tax returns because Neal’s request did not represent a legitimate congressional purpose.

The fight with Congress over Trump’s tax returns is one of a number of battles House Democrats are having with the administration over the release of information. The House judiciary committee has voted to hold the attorney general, William Barr, in contempt and is fighting to obtain an unredacted report prepared by the special counsel Robert Mueller on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.






U.S.
EX-FEDERAL PROSECUTOR SAYS TRUMP’S ‘TREASON’ TWEET ‘TERRIFIES ME’: ‘NOTHING SEEMS INCONCEIVABLE ANYMORE’
By Jason Le Miere On 5/17/19 at 12:16 PM EDT

President Donald Trump salutes as he walks from Marine One after arriving from a one-night trip to New York, on the South Lawn of the White House, on May 17. A former federal prosecutor reacted with alarm to Trump tweeting that those investigating his campaign for president were guilty of “treason” and should face “long jail sentences.”

U.S. DONALD TRUMP RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

One former federal prosecutor has reacted with alarm to President Donald Trump tweeting Friday morning that those involved in investigating his campaign for president were guilty of “treason” and should face “long jail sentences.”

Mimi Rocah, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, tweeted that Trump’s latest broadside at those responsible for what he claims was “spying” on his campaign “terrifies” her.

“First I was outraged at these kinds of tweets-how could a POTUS talk like this?” Rocah, now an analyst for MSNBC and NBC News, wrote. “After a while, I rolled my eyes & shrugged them off as meaningless & repetitive nonsense. Now, especially because of Barr, this gives me chills & terrifies me. Nothing seems inconceivable anymore.”

Rocah wasn’t alone in her alarm among legal experts.

“‘Treason’ is defined very narrowly in the Constitution, so his tweet is meaningless legally,” wrote former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. “But the message is clear nonetheless. Barr is not only failing to stand up to this dangerous rhetoric—he’s stoking it.”

The comments came in response to Trump’s latest missive against the Russia investigation,

“My Campaign for President was conclusively spied on,” Trump exclaimed. “Nothing like this has ever happened in American Politics. A really bad situation. TREASON means long jail sentences, and this was TREASON!”

Despite special counsel Robert Mueller’s report being released a month ago and clearing the Trump campaign of a conspiracy with Russia, the president has shown no signs of letting the issue die. While Republican leaders have urged the country to move on, despite Mueller not exonerating Trump on obstruction of justice, Trump has focused his attention on the source of the investigation.

Trump has long called for the investigators to be investigated and complained of “spying” on his campaign. In William Barr, Trump has found an attorney general willing to heed his calls.

Barr, who was confirmed as the replacement for Jeff Sessions in February, caused a stir among Democrats when he said during congressional testimony last month that he believes “spying” did occur on the Trump’s 2016 campaign. The comment led to accusations from Democrats that Barr was acting more like the president’s personal attorney than the nation’s highest-ranking law enforcement official.

Despite that assessment subsequently being rejected by FBI Director Christopher Wray, Barr earlier this week appointed a U.S. attorney to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation.

RELATED STORIES
Carl Bernstein: Barr Abetting ‘Authoritarian’ Trump in a ‘Cover-up’
Fox News Judge Says Barr Guilty of Trying to ‘Sanitize’ Mueller Report
Fox News Analyst: Barr’s Response to Congress ‘Was Not a True Answer’
“It wasn’t handled in the ordinary way that investigations or counterintelligence activities are conducted,” Barr said in a Fox News interview that aired Friday. “It was sort of an ad hoc small group. Most of these people are no longer with the F.B.I. Or the C.I.A. Or the other agencies involved.”

© Copyright 2019 NEWSWEEK

WHITE HOUSE
The Trump administration has already built its case for Iran war
Analysis: U.S. officials’ words and actions suggest they may turn to the 2001 use-of-force resolution as justification to bypass Congress.

There’s little question that Trump administration hawks like John Bolton are getting ready to take action on Iran — and getting ready to go it alone.Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
SHARE THIS —
May 18, 2019, 9:23 AM ET / Updated May 18, 2019, 12:01 PM ET
By Jonathan Allen
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump may not need Congress to go to war with Iran.

That’s the case his lieutenants have been quietly building as tensions between the two nations have escalated.

The key elements involve drawing links between al Qaeda and Iran and casting Iran as a terrorist threat to the U.S. — which is exactly what administration officials have been doing in recent weeks.

That could give Trump the justification he needs to fight Iran under the still-in-effect 2001 use-of-force resolution without congressional approval.

That prospect is unsettling to most Democrats, and even some Republicans, in part because there is a reluctance to engage U.S. forces in another theater of war, and in part because many lawmakers believe Congress has given too much of its war-making authority to the president over the years.

With Congress unlikely to grant him new authority to strike Iran under the current circumstances, and amid a campaign of “maximum pressure” against the regime in Tehran that has escalated tension between the two countries, Trump administration officials have sent strong signals that they will be ready to make an end run around lawmakers, using the 2001 authorization for the use of military force — or “AUMF” in Washington-speak — if necessary.

That law gave the president the power to use force against “nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Earlier this month, the U.S. deployed an aircraft carrier strike group to the region. Three U.S. officials told NBC that a surge in American forces in the region was a response in part to intelligence-gathering suggesting that the Iranian regime had given proxies a green light to attack U.S. personnel and assets in the region.

And in recent weeks, the Trump administration has accused Iran of assisting al Qaeda, designated an arm of the Iranian military as a foreign terrorist organization and accused Iran of being linked to a terrorist threat against the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.

National Security Council officials declined to speak on the record with NBC about whether such incidents would satisfy the legal threshold necessary for the president to determine he had the authority to use force against Iran.

But former government lawyers familiar with the 2001 law and its applications say it’s obvious from those moves what the Trump administration is trying to do.

“The whole thing is building up to the notion that they don’t have to go to Congress for approval,” Yale University law professor Harold Koh, who served as the State Department’s top lawyer under Secretary Hillary Clinton, said in a telephone interview with NBC News.

Yet Koh said an attempt to shoehorn Iran into the 2001 AUMF is absurd and shouldn’t pass legal muster.

“The theory of war powers has to be that Congress doesn’t just sign off once,” he said. “The suggestion now that Iran attacked us on 9/11 is ridiculous.”

The original law essentially creates a two-part test for the president to make a determination that force is warranted: a country, group or person has aided al Qaeda and force is necessary to prevent a terrorist attack against the U.S. from that entity.

Under questioning from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a critic of the executive branch’s expansive view of its war powers under both Presidents Barack Obama and Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last month that he would “leave it to the lawyers” to sort out whether Trump had the authority to go to war with Iran absent a new authorization from Congress.

But he also forwarded an argument that he has been making since the early days of the administration that is tantamount to a case that the first part of the test has been met.

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

"The factual question with respect to Iran’s connections to Al-Qaeda is very real. They have hosted al Qaeda, they have permitted al Qaeda to transit their country,” he said at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “There is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and al Qaeda. Period, full stop.”

There has been intense debate in recent years about the extent to which the remnants of al Qaeda have found assistance in Iran, with Iran hawks taking the position that the ties are deep and significant and others contending that attempts to link the Shia regime to terrorism carried out by Sunni groups are wrong or disingenuous.

But the deployment of more forces to the region to counter the threat of attacks on American personnel and assets, as well as the partial evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, could be seen as satisfying the second part of the use-of-force test. That is, the idea that force is appropriate to prevent a terrorist threat from a country that has given assistance to al Qaeda.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said last week that she appreciates that Trump has generally been reluctant to go to war and cast his advisers as the drivers of the current escalation of tensions. She said the president doesn’t currently have the power to go to war with Iran.

“The responsibility in the Congress is for Congress to declare war,” she said. “So I hope the president’s advisors recognize that they have no authorization to go forward in any way. They cannot call the authorization, AUMF, the authorization for the use of military force, that was passed in 2001, as any authorization to go forward in the Middle East now,”

Trump himself has left the door open.

Asked about the possibility this week, he said, “I hope not.”

But there’s little question that his administration is getting ready — and getting ready to go it alone.

Jonathan Allen
Jonathan Allen is a Washington-based national political reporter for NBC News who focuses on the presidency
© 2019 NBC UNIVERSAL

!!! !!! !!!

ABCNews

‘Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct,’ says Rep Justin Amash

By Benjamin Siegel,Mina KajiMay 18, 2019, 7:44 PM ET

WATCH: With the public release of the special counsel’s highly anticipated and redacted report, pundits and politicians are parsing its findings, analyzing whether the report exonerates Trump and more.

Rep. Justin Amash has become the first congressional Republican to call for the president’s impeachment based on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

The self-identifying libertarian Republican and frequent Trump critic shared his “principal conclusions” on Saturday, including his assertion that “President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct” in a Twitter thread on Saturday after reading the full redacted report.

The special counsel did not establish that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia. He also provided no conclusion on the matter of possible obstruction of justice, choosing instead to leave that decision for Congress.

Amash said that the 448-page report “identifies multiple examples” of the president’s conduct “satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice.”

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stopped short of calling for impeachment but left the door open to the prospect, though Democratic leaders are reluctant to launch a divisive effort that would likely end with the president’s acquittal in the GOP-led Senate.

In his lengthy post, Amash stated that partisanship is getting in the way of our system’s checks and balances.

“When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles,” he said.

Amash has frequently been one of the few Republicans willing to call out Trump when he feels the president has crossed the line.

Amash was one of 13 Republicans to vote with Democrats against Trump’s national emergency to fund the border wall. Amash also took a different approach than his fellow Republicans in his questioning of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. He asked Cohen softer, open questions instead of trying to delegitimize Cohen’s testimony and criticize Democrats.

Another one of Amash’s primary conclusions from the redacted report was that Attorney General Bill Barr “deliberately misrepresented” Mueller’s findings.

“It is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings,” Amash wrote.

Attorney General Barr said he had determined that a case for obstruction was not warranted. In his statement to lawmakers, Barr underscored that the report stated that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Amash has said as recently as last monththat he hasn’t ruled out seeking the Libertarian nomination for presidency in 2020.

ABC News’ John Parkinson, Will Steakin contributed to this report.

© 2019 ABC News Internet Ventures. All rights reserved.

The Latest: Trump Warns Iran of Ruin if It Starts Fight

Associated Press • May 19, 2019, at 5:06 p.m.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The latest on developments in the Persian Gulf region and elsewhere in the Mideast amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran (all times local):

1:05 a.m.

Days after saying he hoped the U.S. and Iran would not go to war, President Donald Trump threatened Iran with destruction if it seeks a fight.

Trump issued the warning after a rocket landed less than a mile from the U.S. Embassy on Sunday in Baghdad’s Green Zone, further stoking tensions in the region.

Trump tweeted: “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!”

Iranian officials say the country is not looking for war.

Trump had seemed to soften his tone after the U.S. recently sent warships and bombers to the region to counter an alleged, unexplained threat from Iran. On Thursday, when asked if the U.S. and Iran were headed toward armed conflict, he answered: “I hope not.”


9:55 p.m.

An apparent rocket attack has exploded in the Iraqi capital’s heavily fortified Green Zone, home to government headquarters and the U.S. Embassy.

Iraq’s state-run news agency says a Katyusha rocket crashed inside the area without causing any casualties.

Alert sirens sounded briefly in Baghdad after the explosion was heard, according to Associated Press reporters on the east side of the Tigris River.

The apparent attack comes amid heightened tensions across the Persian Gulf, after the White House ordered warships and bombers to the region earlier this month to counter an alleged, unexplained threat from Iran. The U.S. also has ordered nonessential staff out of its diplomatic posts in Iraq.

Iraq hosts more than 5,000 U.S. troops, and is home to powerful Iranian-backed militias, some of whom want those U.S. forces to leave.

6:50 p.m.

The U.S. Navy says it has conducted exercises in the Arabian Sea with an aircraft carrier strike group ordered to the Persian Gulf to counter an alleged, unspecified threat from Iran.

The Navy said Sunday the exercises and training were conducted with the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group in coordination with the U.S. Marine Corps, highlighting U.S. “lethality and agility to respond to threat,” as well as to deter conflict and preserve U.S. strategic interests.

Also taking part in exercises were the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, both deployed to the U.S. Fifth Fleet area of operations in the Persian Gulf.

The Navy says the exercises, conducted Friday and Saturday, included air-to-air training and steaming in formation and maneuvering.


11:10 a.m.

A top Saudi diplomat says the kingdom does not want war but will defend itself, amid a recent spike in tensions with archrival Iran.

Adel al-Jubeir, the minister of state for foreign affairs, spoke early Sunday, a week after four oil tankers were targeted in an alleged act of sabotage off the coast of the United Arab Emirates and days after Iran-allied Yemeni rebels claimed a drone attack on a Saudi oil pipeline.

Saudi Arabia has blamed the pipeline attack on Iran. Gulf officials say an investigation into the tanker incident is underway.

A-Jubeir told reporters: “We want peace and stability in the region, but we won’t stand with our hands bound.”

Ministers from major oil-producing countries were to meet in Saudi Arabia later Tuesday.

Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2019 © U.S. News & World Report L.P.

Monday, May 10 : the ice is getting very thin:

Trump news - live: Democrats threaten ‘serious consequences’ as former White House aide refuses to testify to congress over Russia

Follow the latest updates from Washington

Chris Baynes

3 minutes ago

Click to follow
The Independent

Donald Trump has lost a lawsuit seeking to stop his accounting firm handing over financial records to a US House of Representatives committee.

US district judge Amit Mehta said it was “simply not fathomable that a constitution that grants congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behaviour would deny congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct”.

Accountants Mazars LLP have been ordered to comply with a House of Representatives Oversight Committee subpoena within seven days.

TOP ARTICLES1/5Your morning briefing: Whatyou should know for Tuesday, May 21

The ruling came as the US president hit the campaign trail for a rally in Montoursville, Pennsylvania, where he joked about serving five terms in the White House.

“Now we’re going to have a second time,” he told supporters. “Maybe if we really like it a lot and if things keep going like they’re going, we’ll go and we’ll do what we have to do. We’ll do a three and a four and a five.”

KEY POINTS

Trump loses legal bid to block release of financial records

Congress to question national security officials over Iran tensions

White House to defy request to testify to judiciary committee after Trump pressure

Democrats threaten ‘serious consequences’ as president attempts to stonewall Russia probe

3 minutes ago

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says that it is “quite possible” that Iran is behind the sabotage of Gulf oil interests.

It’s the latest sign of strife as the US and Iran have grown further and further apart, and as Donald Trump has threatened war.

Clark Mindock

21 May 2019 15:17

6 minutes ago

Iranians are reportedly working hard to enrich uranium after Donald Trump pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal.

The news comes as the US and Iran have seen heightened tensions, with the president outright threatening Iran in the past week.

Here’s our report:

Iran quadruples production of enriched uranium, officials say

‘This is part of Iran’s pushback strategy against the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign’, expert says

Clark Mindock

21 May 2019 15:14

50 minutes ago

Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani has called the US administration “novice politicians with naive ideas”, saying Donald Trump had stepped back from his threats against Tehran after military aides advised him against a war with the Islamic Republic.

In a speech broadcast live on state television, Rouhani also claimed the unity of the Iranian nation changed Trump’s decision to wage war.

Chris Baynes

21 May 2019 13:58

1 hour ago

China’s foreign ministry spokesman has accused Washington of misusing “state power” to hurt overseas companies and interfere in commercial markets.

Spokesman Lu Kang said in a routine briefing on Tuesday that “the Chinese government has determination and ability to safeguard its legitimate and lawful rights and interests.”

Responding to a question about Donald Trump’s comment that a trade deal with Beijing has to be more beneficial to the US than China, Lu said it was “unscientific and unprofessional” to assume that there must always be a winner and a loser in trade relations between the two countries.

He said any agreement must be balanced, equal and mutually beneficial.

Lu also said that using government power to “crackdown” on foreign companies and interfere in markets would not be in the interest of the US.

Chris Baynes

21 May 2019 14:13

1 hour ago

A further escalation of Donald Trump’s trade war with China risks damaging the US and wider global economy, a major international organisation has warned.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) cautioned that if the dispute intensified, it could knock as much as 0.7 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2021-22.

It comes as the Paris-based think tank cut its outlook for global growth to 3.2 per cent in 2019 and 3.4 per cent in 2020.

Growth in China and the United States could come in 0.2 per cent to 0.3 per cent lower on average by 2021 and 2022 if the countries do not resolve their long-running dispute, the OECD predicted.

In the worst-case scenario, America’s GDP could be more than 0.8 per cent lower and Chinese GDP over 1.1 per cent lower if tensions escalate further, it added.

A former White House aide is to defy a request to testify before the US Congress after being ordered by Donald Trump to help stonewall investigations into the president.

A lawyer for Donald McGahn, former White House counsel, has confirmed he will follow the president’s directive and skip the House Judiciary Committee hearing this week in defiance of a subpoena.

Democrat committee chairman Jerrold Nadler said would the committee would vote to hold McGahn in contempt and take the issue to court.

In a letter sent today, on the eve of the hearing, Nadler told McGahn: “You face serious consequences if you do not appear.”

Chris Baynes

21 May 2019 14:13

3 hours ago

Justin Amash, the first Republican in the US congress to say openly that Donald Trump has committed impeachable offenses, has fired back at his critics in the party.

Standing behind his earlier remarks, Amash issued a string of tweets that challenged some of the most common arguments of those who defend Trump over special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 US election.

Amash said people who claim Trump could not have intended to illegally obstruct Mueller’s investigation relied on several falsehoods, including a claim that there were no underlying crimes.

“In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not,” he tweeted.

Responding to Amash’s initial comments on Sunday, Trump tweeted that the representative for Michigan was “a total lightweight” and “a loser.”

Top national security officials are heading to Capitol Hill today to discuss Donald Trump’s bombast over Iran.

The officials will hold separate behind-closed-doors briefings with Republicans and Democrats in congress, following weeks of escalating tensions in the Gulf that have raised alarms over possible military confrontation.

The Trump administration has been warned it cannot take the country into war without congressional approval.

The back-to-back briefings show the wariness among Democrats, and some Republicans, over the White House’s sudden policy shifts in the Middle East.

Trump on Monday threatened to meet any provocations by Iran with “great force,” but also said he was willing to negotiate.

Donald Trump reckons he’s so popular he could serve five terms as president, if not for that pesky US constitution.

Recalling his election victory in 2016, joked to a rally in Montoursville, Pennsylvania, last night:

Now we’re going to have a second time.

And then we’ll drive them crazy. Ready?

And maybe if we really like it a lot and if things keep going like they’re going, we’ll go and we’ll do what we have to do. We’ll do a three and a four and a five.

The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution limits presidents to two terms in the White House, which I think we can all agree is probably for the best.

21 May 2019 10:48

4 hours ago

A US judge has ruled in favour of a House of Representatives committee seeking to obtain president Donald Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm.

Washington district iudge Amit Mehta, who heard oral arguments in the case last week, said the Oversight Committee had “shown that it is not engaged in a pure fishing expedition for the president’s financial records”.

“It is simply not fathomable that a constitution that grants congress the power to remove a resident for reasons including criminal behavior would deny congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct - past or present - even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” he said in Monday’s ruling.

The documents from accountants Mazars LLP might assist congress in passing laws and performing other core functions, he added.

The judge also denied a request by Trump to stay his decision pending an appeal.

Mehta said Mazars had seven days to comply with the subpoena.

US POLITICSTrump turns on Fox News and suggests jailing Democrats in wild speech

Trump news - live: Democrats threaten ‘serious consequences’ as former White House aide refuses to testify to congress over Russia

Follow the latest updates from Washington

Chris Baynes

3 minutes ago

Click to follow
The Independent

Donald Trump has lost a lawsuit seeking to stop his accounting firm handing over financial records to a US House of Representatives committee.

US district judge Amit Mehta said it was “simply not fathomable that a constitution that grants congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behaviour would deny congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct”.

Accountants Mazars LLP have been ordered to comply with a House of Representatives Oversight Committee subpoena within seven days.

TOP ARTICLES1/5Your morning briefing: Whatyou should know for Tuesday, May 21

The ruling came as the US president hit the campaign trail for a rally in Montoursville, Pennsylvania, where he joked about serving five terms in the White House.

“Now we’re going to have a second time,” he told supporters. “Maybe if we really like it a lot and if things keep going like they’re going, we’ll go and we’ll do what we have to do. We’ll do a three and a four and a five.”

KEY POINTS

Trump loses legal bid to block release of financial records

Congress to question national security officials over Iran tensions

White House to defy request to testify to judiciary committee after Trump pressure

Democrats threaten ‘serious consequences’ as president attempts to stonewall Russia probe

3 minutes ago

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says that it is “quite possible” that Iran is behind the sabotage of Gulf oil interests.

It’s the latest sign of strife as the US and Iran have grown further and further apart, and as Donald Trump has threatened war.

Clark Mindock

21 May 2019 15:17

6 minutes ago

Iranians are reportedly working hard to enrich uranium after Donald Trump pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal.

The news comes as the US and Iran have seen heightened tensions, with the president outright threatening Iran in the past week.

Here’s our report:

Iran quadruples production of enriched uranium, officials say

‘This is part of Iran’s pushback strategy against the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign’, expert says

Clark Mindock

21 May 2019 15:14

50 minutes ago

Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani has called the US administration “novice politicians with naive ideas”, saying Donald Trump had stepped back from his threats against Tehran after military aides advised him against a war with the Islamic Republic.

In a speech broadcast live on state television, Rouhani also claimed the unity of the Iranian nation changed Trump’s decision to wage war.

Chris Baynes

21 May 2019 13:58

1 hour ago

China’s foreign ministry spokesman has accused Washington of misusing “state power” to hurt overseas companies and interfere in commercial markets.

Spokesman Lu Kang said in a routine briefing on Tuesday that “the Chinese government has determination and ability to safeguard its legitimate and lawful rights and interests.”

Responding to a question about Donald Trump’s comment that a trade deal with Beijing has to be more beneficial to the US than China, Lu said it was “unscientific and unprofessional” to assume that there must always be a winner and a loser in trade relations between the two countries.

He said any agreement must be balanced, equal and mutually beneficial.

Lu also said that using government power to “crackdown” on foreign companies and interfere in markets would not be in the interest of the US.

Chris Baynes

21 May 2019 14:13

1 hour ago

A further escalation of Donald Trump’s trade war with China risks damaging the US and wider global economy, a major international organisation has warned.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) cautioned that if the dispute intensified, it could knock as much as 0.7 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2021-22.

It comes as the Paris-based think tank cut its outlook for global growth to 3.2 per cent in 2019 and 3.4 per cent in 2020.

Growth in China and the United States could come in 0.2 per cent to 0.3 per cent lower on average by 2021 and 2022 if the countries do not resolve their long-running dispute, the OECD predicted.

In the worst-case scenario, America’s GDP could be more than 0.8 per cent lower and Chinese GDP over 1.1 per cent lower if tensions escalate further, it added.

A former White House aide is to defy a request to testify before the US Congress after being ordered by Donald Trump to help stonewall investigations into the president.

A lawyer for Donald McGahn, former White House counsel, has confirmed he will follow the president’s directive and skip the House Judiciary Committee hearing this week in defiance of a subpoena.

Democrat committee chairman Jerrold Nadler said would the committee would vote to hold McGahn in contempt and take the issue to court.

In a letter sent today, on the eve of the hearing, Nadler told McGahn: “You face serious consequences if you do not appear.”

Chris Baynes

21 May 2019 14:13

3 hours ago

Justin Amash, the first Republican in the US congress to say openly that Donald Trump has committed impeachable offenses, has fired back at his critics in the party.

Standing behind his earlier remarks, Amash issued a string of tweets that challenged some of the most common arguments of those who defend Trump over special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 US election.

Amash said people who claim Trump could not have intended to illegally obstruct Mueller’s investigation relied on several falsehoods, including a claim that there were no underlying crimes.

“In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not,” he tweeted.

Responding to Amash’s initial comments on Sunday, Trump tweeted that the representative for Michigan was “a total lightweight” and “a loser.”

Top national security officials are heading to Capitol Hill today to discuss Donald Trump’s bombast over Iran.

The officials will hold separate behind-closed-doors briefings with Republicans and Democrats in congress, following weeks of escalating tensions in the Gulf that have raised alarms over possible military confrontation.

The Trump administration has been warned it cannot take the country into war without congressional approval.

The back-to-back briefings show the wariness among Democrats, and some Republicans, over the White House’s sudden policy shifts in the Middle East.

Trump on Monday threatened to meet any provocations by Iran with “great force,” but also said he was willing to negotiate.

Donald Trump reckons he’s so popular he could serve five terms as president, if not for that pesky US constitution.

Recalling his election victory in 2016, joked to a rally in Montoursville, Pennsylvania, last night:

Now we’re going to have a second time.

And then we’ll drive them crazy. Ready?

And maybe if we really like it a lot and if things keep going like they’re going, we’ll go and we’ll do what we have to do. We’ll do a three and a four and a five.

The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution limits presidents to two terms in the White House, which I think we can all agree is probably for the best.

21 May 2019 10:48

4 hours ago

A US judge has ruled in favour of a House of Representatives committee seeking to obtain president Donald Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm.

Washington district iudge Amit Mehta, who heard oral arguments in the case last week, said the Oversight Committee had “shown that it is not engaged in a pure fishing expedition for the president’s financial records”.

“It is simply not fathomable that a constitution that grants congress the power to remove a resident for reasons including criminal behavior would deny congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct - past or present - even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” he said in Monday’s ruling.

The documents from accountants Mazars LLP might assist congress in passing laws and performing other core functions, he added.

The judge also denied a request by Trump to stay his decision pending an appeal.

Mehta said Mazars had seven days to comply with the subpoena.

US POLITICSTrump turns on Fox News and suggests jailing Democrats in wild speech

Rolling Stone
HOME
POLITICS
POLITICS NEWS
Trump Took Another Terrifying Step Toward Authoritarianism at His Rally in Pennsylvania
Jailing one’s political enemies doesn’t seem plausible in America — until it does

RYAN BORT
MAY 21, 2019 9:57AM EDT

President Donald Trump pumps his fist to the crowd after speaking to a campaign rally in Montoursville, PaTrump, Montoursville, USA - 20 May 2019
Evan Vucci/AP/REX/Shutterstock
President Donald Trump traveled to Pennsylvania on Monday to stand in front of Air Force One and speak to a fired-up crowd of supporters. Some of his time onstage was spent hammering 2020 election talking points, like immigration (“We don’t want people coming up here! Our country is full!”); the rest was spent rambling about whatever happened to cross his mind. The president is expected to officially launch his reelection campaign next month, for instance, and he’s been wondering about a new slogan. “Do we want Keep America Great or Make America Great Again?” he said before asking the audience to judge each option with applause. Keep America Great won. Trump agreed: “I like it because we’ll sell many, many more hats that way.”

Related
U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, speaks during a campaign rally announcing her candidacy for president in Waikiki, in HonoluluElection 2020 Tulsi Gabbard, Honolulu, USA - 02 Feb 2019
We’ve Hit a New Low in Campaign Hit Pieces
Republican Congressman Destroys Arguments That Trump Didn’t Obstruct Justice
Trump’s rallies are also where some of the president’s most dangerous impulses get fleshed out into the open, like earlier this month in Panama City Beach, Florida, when he joked about shooting migrants at the border. His appearance at the Williamsport Regional Airport on Monday was no exception, providing the latest, terrifying look into the president’s tendency toward authoritarianism, which is becoming less of a tendency and more of an full-throated embrace as he continues to bend the government to his will.

One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism is jailing one’s political enemies, an idea to which Trump is no stranger. He’s called for an investigation into Hillary Clinton for years now — especially at rallies, where he knows he can get the crowd lathered into a “Lock Her Up!” frenzy — but actually doing so seemed implausible, like something that couldn’t actually happen in America. This is no longer the case.

After Trump accused Democrats and the FBI of treason Monday night, he stepped away from the podium to bask in a “Lock Them Up!” chant. When he returned to the microphone, he reminded his supporters that Attorney General William Barr is in his pocket, and that the new, compliant head of the Justice Department is going to “give it a very fair look” to jailing of those involved in the Russia investigation for treason.

@SpeakerPelosi @TeamPelosi I would be pleased to speak to you as an expert on how authoritarian regimes take hold, with this as a warning sign,” tweeted Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an authoritarianism historian at New York University. “This is scary to watch,” added Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT). Others, like former Office of Government Ethics Director Walter Shaub, likened the comments to something out of Nazi Germany. “Shades of 1937,” he wrote.

Barr has come under widespread scrutiny for his efforts to protect the president in the wake of the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings, particularly those regarding obstruction of justice. Despite the Mueller report containing overwhelming evidence that the president sought to obstruct the inquiry, the attorney general took it upon himself to clear the president of any wrongdoing. On Saturday, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) became the first Republican lawmaker to call out Barr’s handling of the report, alleging that he deliberately misrepresented the special counsel’s findings. Amash also wrote that the report makes clear that Trump deserves to be impeached. On Monday, he doubled down by dismantling several popular arguments that the president did not obstruct justice.

Last week, Barr took the offensive in his ostensible role as Trump’s unofficial personal attorney, ordering a U.S. attorney in Connecticut to begin investigating the origins of the Russia investigation. In other words, the “very fair look” is already underway.

Another hallmark of authoritarianism is refusing to give up power. Again, Trump is no stranger to entertaining the idea of hanging around the White House for longer than the Constitution stipulates. He has on several occasions “joked” about staying in office for more than two terms. This, too, seems like something that could never actually happen in America. As with jailing one’s political enemies, that’s only true until it isn’t.

“We’re going to have a second [term], and then we’re going to have another one,” Trump said Monday night. “We’ll drive them crazy. And maybe if we really like it a lot, and if things keep going like they are going, we’ll go and we’ll do what we have to do, and a three [terms] and a four, and a five.”

Though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to come around to the idea of impeaching the president, she has expressed concern that he will not voluntarily give up power. This is why, she has said, she doesn’t want to get bogged down with impeachment proceedings, instead preferring to focus on winning 2020 by such a large margin that Trump won’t be able to contest the results. “We have to inoculate against that, we have to be prepared for that,” she told the New York Times earlier this month, speaking of the prospect that Trump will refuse to cede power should he lose. “He would poison the public mind,” she added of her thinking prior to the 2018 midterm election. “He would challenge each of the races; he would say you can’t seat these people. We had to win. Imagine if we hadn’t won — oh, don’t even imagine. So, as we go forward, we have to have the same approach.”

Two days after the Times ran Pelosi’s comments, Trump retweeted a frightening idea from Jerry Falwell, Jr., his most prominent supporter in the evangelical community. “I now support reparations,” he wrote. “Trump should have 2 yrs added to his 1st term as pay back for time stolen by this corrupt failed coup.”

It sounds like a joke. Don’t be fooled.

© 2019 PMC. All rights reserved.

Fox News

DONALD TRUMP

Published May 21, 2019

Last Update 3 hrs ago

Angry Dem says Trump ‘raping the country,’ as impeachment push nears critical mass

By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News

A rapid-fire string of developments has congressional Democrats putting increased pressure on party brass to launch impeachment proceedings against President Trump, with one rank-and-file lawmaker reportedly saying the president is “raping the country” and others indicating it’s only a matter of time before leadership changes course on the politically fraught issue.

Amid the internal tensions, Speaker Nancy Pelosi called a special meeting of House Democrats for Wednesday morning, where the impeachment issue and other battles are expected to be discussed.

Prior meetings involving Pelosi and top Democrats held Monday evening escalated into heated exchanges, with the party torn over how to address Trump controversies – most recently, the decision to block the former White House counsel from testifying. Democratic leaders, who for the most part have not been publicly in favor of impeachment, are now finding it difficult to maintain their position as calls grow from the ranks to flip that switch.

HOUSE JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN NADLER: TRUMP IS MAKING IT ‘MORE DIFFICULT’ NOT TO CONSIDER IMPEACHMENT

A senior House Democrat told Fox News late Monday that Pelosi “isn’t going to be able to hold off on impeachment much longer,” and that the speaker may have to change her position “within the next two weeks.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., while saying Pelosi is working to bring the party together, suggested Tuesday that politics

   ------'
           --------------
                           --------------------

The wall become symbol of conflicting parties pushed to the wall:

Pelosi:

"Under increased pressure from progressive members of the Democratic caucus and constituents to move more aggressively toward impeachment proceedings, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday morning used her strongest language to date against President Donald Trump as she accused him of being “engaged in a cover-up.”

“We do believe that it is important to follow the facts,” Pelosi told reporters in the nation’s capitol following a closed-door meeting with House Democrats. “We believe that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States, and we believe the president of the United States is engaged in a cover up, in a cover up.”

POLITICO

‘Extremely stable genius’: Trump defends his mental fitness as he tears into Pelosi

The speaker says he needs ‘an intervention.’ The president says ‘she’s lost it.’

By QUINT FORGEY and DANIEL LIPPMAN

05/23/2019 04:47 PM EDT

Washington’s political chaos descended into farce on Thursday when the speaker of the House and the president of the United States accused one another of being mentally unwell.

Hijacking an afternoon White House event with American farmers and agriculture industry leaders, President Donald Trump began calling on his top aides to state for the public record that he was “calm” during a disastrous meeting with Democratic leaders the day before.

“I’ve been watching her. I have been watching her for a long period of time. She’s not the same person. She’s lost it,” Trump said of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, just moments after he announced $16 billion in federal aid to growers hammered by the U.S.-China trade conflict.

In a remarkable scene, the president proceeded to name-check senior White House staff and advisers in the Roosevelt Room whom he said had attended Wednesday’s session on infrastructure initiatives with top congressional Democrats — which Trump abandoned after declaring that the lawmakers could not simultaneously negotiate legislation while investigating and threatening to impeach him.

“Kellyanne, what was my temperament yesterday?” Trump asked White House counselor Kellyanne Conway.

“Very calm. No tamper tantrum,” she replied before criticizing journalists’ coverage of the meeting, which Trump has complained portrayed him with a “rage narrative.”

“The whole Democrat Party is very messed up. They have never recovered from the great election of 2016 — an election that I think you folks liked very much, right?” Trump said, addressing the farmers flanking his lectern. “Well, Nancy Pelosi was not happy about it, and she is a mess.”

Not even the leaders’ families were spared from the sniping and accusations of poor physical well-being. Christine Pelosi, the speaker’s daughter, sought to defend her mother on Twitter earlier Thursday, commenting on a Washington Post reportdetailing how a conservative Facebook page had posted a doctored video of the California Democrat in which she appears to drunkenly slur her words.

“Republicans and their conservative allies have been pumping this despicable fake meme for years! Now they are caught,” Christine Pelosi wrote online. “#FactCheck: Madam Speaker doesn’t even drink alcohol!”

Pelosi herself on Thursday invoked the president’s wife and children in appearing to question Trump’s fitness for office, telling reporters in the Capitol: “I wish that his family or his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country.”

At that same news conference, the speaker questioned whether Trump was truly in charge of his White House and seemed to jokingly reference the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, which allows the Cabinet to remove a president from office if he can’t perform his duties.

It was a reporter’s question at the White House about Pelosi’s “intervention” remark — which Trump dubbed “a nasty-type statement” — that put the president on the defensive Thursday. He began turning to aides such as Mercedes Schlapp, the White House director of strategic communications, and pressing them for first-hand accounts of his scuttled meeting with Democrats.

“You were very calm and you were very direct, and you sent a very firm message to the speaker and to the Democrats,” Schlapp said.

Next up was Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, who said the president’s conversation with Democrats was “much calmer than some of our trade meetings,” followed by White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who described the president’s demeanor as “very calm and straightforward and clear.”

But the greatest praise for the commander in chief came from Trump himself, who told the assembled members of the media during one non-sequitur: “I’m an extremely stable genius. OK?”

Minutes after the event concluded, Pelosi had already fired back a retort from the speaker’s official Twitter account.

“When the ‘extremely stable genius’ starts acting more presidential,” she wrote online, “I’ll be happy to work with him on infrastructure, trade and other issues.”

The bizarre exchange of insults between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue comes amid growing pressure on Speaker Pelosi to pursue an impeachment inquiry into the president’s conduct.

At a closed-door meeting Thursday morning with her Democratic colleagues, Pelosi claimed that Trump “wants to be impeached” by the House so that he can notch a victory during a trial in the Senate, which is controlled by a healthy Republican majority.

Close associates and Republicans close to the president, interviewed in recent weeks, dispute the idea that Trump welcomes impeachment. But with impeachment talk increasingly in the air in Washington and Trump seeming to goad Democrats into moving in that direction, the president may be taking the threat more seriously now.

“In the past he’s always pooh-poohed the idea of impeachment and he always thought that they’re not really serious about it,” said a Republican close to the White House who has discussed the issue with Trump. “That this is sort of a game that they’re putting out there. Even the media, his view was, ‘They need me, I’m the biggest star they ever had and I’m helping the New York Times, MSNBC and CNN.’”

A former senior White House official said Trump doesn’t want to get impeached “in his heart of hearts,” but “the specter of [impeachment] creates that production value that’s so important to him.”

Drag-out fights with Democrats “creates the diametric choice between us and them,” the former official added. “That’s why he does those rallies. It is what motivates his base, it’s what motivates him and he’s ‘producing’ the presidency.”

Trump also sees impeachment as a political wedge he can wield against Pelosi’s newly expanded caucus, this person said: “He thinks that this is just going to rip the Democrats apart because some want to [impeach] and some don’t.”

© 2019 POLITICO LLC

A RIVAL MONSTER
JURISPRUDENCE
Trump’s Judge Whisperer Promised to Take Our Laws Back to the 1930s
By JAMAL GREENE

MAY 27, 20198:30 AM
Leonard Leo.
Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo speaks to media at Trump Tower on Nov. 16, 2016.
Carolyn Kaster/AP
One week before the 1980 presidential election, toward the end of his lone debate against Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan stared into the camera and implored Americans to ask themselves, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The question is widely believed to have ended Carter’s presidency.

ADVERTISEMENT

Last week, the Washington Post published a profile of Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo, focusing in part on a speech he gave to the Council for National Policy in which he warmly predicted the Supreme Court would soon return to the pre–New Deal era of “limited, constitutional government.” Leo believes, in other words, that the court’s view of the Constitution was better off 85 years ago than it is today.

“I think we stand at the threshold of an exciting moment in our republic,” Leo told the council at a closed-door meeting in February, audio of which was obtained by the Post. “This is really, I think, at least in recent memory, a newfound embrace of limited constitutional government in our country. I don’t think this has really happened since probably before the New Deal.”

The average American doesn’t know who Leo is, but as the Post piece makes clear, he‘s one of the most influential lawyers in the country. A longtime leader within the Federalist Society, Leo has had Donald Trump’s ear on judicial appointments and has been the main curator of the president’s list of Supreme Court candidates. Two of Leo’s personal picks, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, have been elevated to the highest court in the country since Trump’s election. So when Leonard Leo says he wants to return to a pre–New Deal Constitution, you should listen. And you should be alarmed.

As Leo knows, constitutional law was very different in the 1930s from what it is today. And in a word, it sucked.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the 1930s, the courts were fully complicit in maintaining the country as a thoroughgoing ethnocracy, governed openly for the benefit of white men. Public schools in 21 states were racially segregated by law. “Separate but equal” schools had been affirmed by the Supreme Court as late as 1927, in a unanimous decision allowing Mississippi to kick a Chinese American girl out of her local “white” school for being a member of the “yellow” race. The outlawing of segregation is settled law in our country, and nobody would dare dream of returning to those antiquated judicial interpretations, you might say? Several of Trump’s judicial nominees have conspicuously, outrageously, refused to say whether they thought Brown v. Board of Education, which ended legal school segregation in 1954, was correctly decided.

In the 1930s, through a combination of discriminatory literacy tests, poll taxes, “good character” requirements, and straight-up violence, less than 1 percent of black people in the Deep South—where they represented more than a third of the population—were registered to vote. The Supreme Court had blessed these intimidation practices for decades, ever since a 1903 decision in which the court said it couldn’t do anything about Alabama’s self-described effort “to establish white supremacy in this state” by refusing to register black voters. Discriminatory voting practices of this sort weren’t banned until the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the most significant provision of which was gutted six years ago in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts (whom Leo also helped elevate to the court).

In the 1930s, women had no constitutional right to equality. They could legally be kept off of juries, given different work hours, paid less money, and imprisoned for using birth control. It would be another four decades before the Supreme Court struck down even a single law for discriminating against women. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch—again, both products of Leo’s vetting—recently dissented from the court’s temporary blocking of a Louisiana law that would have left the entire state with just a single doctor able to perform abortions.

ADVERTISEMENT
In the first half of the 20th century, the police could beat confessions out of arrestees. Poor defendants had no right to a lawyer. Evidence could be illegally seized and used in prosecutions. In 1944, for example, South Carolina executed a 14-year-old black boy named George Stinney for the murders of two white girls. He was questioned alone, without his parents or a lawyer present, and convicted by an all-white jury after a two-hour trial and 10 minutes of deliberation. He wasn’t allowed to appeal. He had to sit on books to fit into the headpiece of the electric chair. Only in 2014, 70 years too late, did a circuit court judge vacate the 14-year-old Stinney’s murder conviction. The Stinney case tells you all you need to know about criminal justice in the age Leo wants to bring back.

The 1930s was of course the decade of the Great Depression, when unemployment hit 25 percent and most Americans lived in poverty. The post–New Deal court decisions Leo wishes to repudiate are the ones that gave the government the power to enact minimum wage laws, to create unemployment insurance and Social Security, to provide health insurance to the aged and destitute, and to give workers collective bargaining rights. In the 1930s, those too old to work and too poor not to could often expect a quick but painful death. This is the human toll of “limited government.”

If we’re looking for Reagan’s shining city upon a hill, we won’t find it in America’s now-distant past. Not most of us, anyway. And if it’s what Leo is promising us, we can only hope it’s not in America’s future.

Brett Kavanaugh Donald Trump History John Roberts Judiciary Law Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court
Reprints

All contents © 2019 The Slate Group LLC. All rights reserved.

Below the level of rationality , there exists the primal question, -what shadows follow is from the choice between the evil genius , or the managed one?

Can this, does this question signal some kind of doubly vested metaphor in the new schemal working of things, of deciding what route best describes
venturing into the proper road to peace, rather than war?

For the former describes a split between good and evil, while the later above it and beyond.

And now:


TheHill

CAMPAIGN
May 27, 2019 - 01:57 PM EDT
3 modelers predict Trump reelection: report

BY ZACK BUDRYK
TWEET SHARE EMAIL

Three modelers are predicting President Trump will win reelection in 2020 based on a combination of economic data and incumbent advantages, according to a column in The New York Times.

Steven Rattner wrote that Ray Fair of Yale favors Trump to win based on a model that combines incumbency and gross domestic product growth rates.

The model predicted Barack Obama’s 2008 popular vote margin within a fraction of a percentage point and got within two-tenths of a point for his 2012 vote share, Rattner, who served as a counselor to the Treasury secretary during the Obama administration, added.

The model correctly predicting an electoral victory for Trump in 2016, but overestimated his popular vote share by about 5.5 points, which Rattner attributed to Trump’s personal unfavorables.

“In other words, a more ‘normal’ Republican would likely have won the popular vote by a substantial margin (instead of losing it by three million votes),” Rattner wrote.

Trump’s status as the incumbent also puts the odds in his favor for 2020, according to the Obama-era official.

Mark Zandi, Moody’s Analytics’s chief economist, has also said Trump is poised to win based on an analysis of 12 models, while Donald Luskin of Trend Macrolytics made a similar prediction based on an Electoral College analysis, Rattner noted.

“So the question for 2020 may well be whether Mr. Trump can overcome the majority of voters’ poor perception of him and use a good economy and incumbency to win re-election,” he writes.

The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are ©2019 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

©


International :

Unfit To Lead

Why Did UK Parliament Bar Trump Addressing Them?

By

johnnyfreedom / Daily Kos (05/27/2019)

On the Quora UK website, Nate White–an articulate & witty writer–proffered this written response a couple months ago to the query “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” There’s a link to the website at the end of his response.

“A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a sniveling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

  • Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
  • You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

‘My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.”

Daily dose of outrage at what is going on in Washington.

Contact us: contact@dailysoundandfury.com

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

The. Problem with the Trump’s transcendentalism is that it is predicated on objective criteria which he lacks.