|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 14, 2020 23:10:27 GMT
Here Are All the Billionaires Backing Donald Trump
By ROBERT HACKETT August 3, 2016 On Monday, Warren Buffett attacked Donald Trump’s business acumen, saying a monkey could have done far better running a public company than the Republican nominee did. Buffett also challenged Trump to release his tax returns.
Buffett is one of a number of billionaires who have lined up in support of the Democratic party contender, Hillary Clinton. Her endorsers also include mogul and former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg and Apple CEO Tim Cook.
Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter.
Still others are dissatisfied with both options for the executive office. At Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference in Aspen, Colo., this summer, the mega-wealthy industrialist Charles Koch, a longtime conservative backer, likened voting for either candidate to choosing between “cancer or a heart attack.” (We left him off the list.)
But when it comes to big bucks donors, Donald Trump is not going it alone, either.
For more billionaires’ thoughts on Trump, watch:
Michael Bloomberg: Trump Is 'Risky, Reckless, and Radical' Brought to you by our partners at TIME
AN INDEPENDENT DONALD TRUMP HELPS ALMOST NO ONE BUT DONALD TRUMP The Republican party candidate for president has more than a dozen of billionaire backers supporting his campaign. Though Fortune and others have questioned Trump’s own personal wealth claims, other members of the three comma club have thrown their weight behind him.
Who among them has raised the Trump banner? People on the list range from Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley investor of PayPal (PYPL, -0.55%) and Facebook (FB, +0.99%) fame who keynoted this year’s Republican National Convention, to Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas Sands Casino (LVS, -0.76%) impresario, to Woody Johnson, owner of the New York Jets football team and heir to the Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, +0.08%) fortune, to Carl Icahn, the rough-and-tumble activist investor and chairman of the eponymous Icahn Enterprises (IEP, +0.53%). (Sorry, Martin Shkreli, the ex-CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, did not make the cut.)
Here’s the lineup of ultra-rich bigwigs championing the reality television star-turned-politician in the 2016 election.
1. Peter Thiel “Fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline, and no one in this race is being honest about it except Donald Trump,” the Silicon Valley venture capitalist said onstage at this year’s Republican National Convention.
2. Carl Icahn “I think you need somebody to shake up the establishment in Washington just like you do in corporate America,” Icahn told Fortune earlier this year.
3. Tom Barrack The private equity veteran endorsed Trump, even though he said Trump once “played [him] like a Steinway piano” during a business deal.
4. Woody Johnson The Johnson & Johnson jet-setter plans to host a fundraiser for Trump at his estate in East Hampton.
5. Stephen Feinberg The cofounder and CEO of private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management previously pumped $200,000 into the political action committee that supported Jeb Bush.
6. Steven Mnuchin The hedge fund manager serves as Trump’s chief fundraiser and as head of his national finance committee.
7. Sheldon Adelson “He’s our nominee,” the Sands casino magnate told the New York Times in May. “He won fair and square.”
8. Robert Mercer This hedge fund manager and his daughter Rebekah have reportedly donated nearly $500,000 each to the Trump campaign.
9. T. Boone Pickens The 87-year-old Texas oil baron said that he’s “ready to take a chance on it,” and “just in case it’s a mistake, [I’ll] be gone.”
10. Stanley Hubbard “I think anybody would be better than Clinton,” the media mogul told MinnPost, an online news outlet focused on all things Minnesota. “I think he’ll moderate himself.”
11. Darwin Deason The tech entrepreneur and his wife Katerina have reportedly donated nearly $500,000 each to Trump’s cause.
12. Wilbur Ross The cost of a plate at a Trump fundraising luncheon held at the investor’s Southampton estate was $25,000.
13. Andrew Beal “All these politicians with all these specific plans,” the banker groused to the New York Times when explaining his support for Trump. “I think it’s total [expletive].”
14. John Paulson Paulson, who made his fortune betting against the housing market before its collapse a decade ago, co-hosted a supremely pricey Trump fundraising event at Le Cirque, a French restaurant in Manhattan.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 14, 2020 23:11:01 GMT
Trump: No statehood for Puerto Rico with critics in officeAssociated Press KEN THOMAS,Associated Press 5 hours ago.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Monday declared himself an "absolute no" on statehood for Puerto Rico as long as critics such as San Juan's mayor remain in office, the latest broadside in his feud with members of the U.S. territory's leadership.
Trump lobbed fresh broadsides at San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, a critic of his administration's response to hurricanes on the island last year, during a radio interview with Fox News' Geraldo Rivera that aired Monday.
"With the mayor of San Juan as bad as she is and as incompetent as she is, Puerto Rico shouldn't be talking about statehood until they get some people that really know what they're doing," Trump said in an interview with Rivera's show on Cleveland's WTAM radio.
Trump said that when "you have good leadership," statehood for Puerto Rico could be "something they talk about. With people like that involved in Puerto Rico, I would be an absolute no."
Gov. Ricardo Rossello, an advocate of statehood for the island, said Trump's remarks had trivialized the statehood process because of political differences.
"The president said he is not in favor of statehood for the people of Puerto Rico based on a personal feud with a local mayor. This is an insensitive, disrespectful comment to over 3 million Americans who live in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico," Rossello said.
He also questioned how the president of the United States could be at the U.N. General Assembly promoting democracy around the world while "in his own home there is the oldest and most populated colonial system in the world."
The San Juan mayor dismissed Trump's comments about statehood in an Associated Press interview, calling it just another effort to avoid responsibility for his administration's "negligence" in its widely criticized response to last year's Hurricane Maria. "He looks for any excuse to divert attention," she said.
Cruz called it a "great honor" to be singled out by Trump. "It highlights that he knows that while he was playing golf at Mar-a-Lago, I was up to my waist in water and human waste," during the storm.
Jenniffer Gonzalez, Puerto Rico's non-voting representative in Congress, tweeted: "Equality 4 Puerto Ricans shouldn't be held up by one bad mayor who's leaving office in 2020 & do not represent the people who voted twice for statehood."
Trump's position on statehood for the island puts him at odds with the Republican Party's 2016 platform during its national convention, in which it declared support for Puerto Rican statehood.
The president's remarks followed his claims earlier this month that the official death toll from last year's devastating storm in Puerto Rico was inflated. Public health experts have estimated that nearly 3,000 people died in 2017 because of the effects of Hurricane Maria.
But Trump falsely accused Democrats of inflating the Puerto Rican death toll to make him "look as bad as possible."
Trump's pronouncements have roiled politics in Florida, which has crucial races for governor and U.S. Senate. The state was already home to more than 1 million Puerto Ricans before Hurricane Maria slammed into the island a year ago. Tens of thousands of residents fled Puerto Rico in the aftermath, with many of them relocating to Florida.
The issue of statehood for Puerto Rico — or some form of semi-autonomous relationship — has divided island residents in recent years. The debate over the island's "status" is the central feature of its politics and divides its major political parties.
The federal government has said previously it would accept a change in the status of Puerto Rico if the people of the island clearly supported the decision. But for decades, Puerto Ricans have been divided between those who favor statehood and those who want to maintain the commonwealth, perhaps with some changes. A small minority continue to favor independence.
The last referendum, in 2017, strongly supported statehood but opponents questioned the validity of the vote because of low turnout.
Any changes would need to be approved by Congress. Statehood legislation, with support from Republicans and Democrats, was introduced in June but appears unlikely to gain momentum as politicians remain hesitant to take up such a thorny issue.
___
Associated Press writer Maricarmen Rivera in San Juan, Puerto Rico, contributed.
www.yahoo.com/news/trump-no-statehood-puerto-rico-critics-office-144107537--politics.html
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 14, 2020 23:11:41 GMT
Interesting article as the corporate media struggles how to cover Donald Trump.How Can Cable News Better Cover Trump? Politicos Weigh In 6:35 AM PDT 10/22/2018 by Jeremy Barr
Michael S. Schwartz/Getty Images Michael Steele, Zerlina Maxwell and James Carville onstage at Politicon.
Strategists and television personalities had no shortage of ideas at the annual Politicon conference in Los Angeles: "I think we have to be careful about the breathlessness." Cable news programming is either must-see entertainment or splintering the fabric of the country, depending on whom you ask. Over the first 21 months of Donald Trump's presidency, the medium's three biggest players — Fox News, CNN and MSNBC — have achieved record ratings while struggling to keep up with a fast-paced news cycle that seems to turn on a dime — or a tweet.
Over a weekend of programming at the fourth annual Politicon convention in Los Angeles, The Hollywood Reporter spoke with people who know cable firsthand about how it can better cover the Trump administration and the president's orbit. Here's what they had to say:
Former presidential candidate Chris Christie (ABC News contributor): "The networks could do better by just listening a little bit, and not feeling as if they need to be an advocate for a position. But, I don't anticipate that's going to happen anytime soon."
Kasie Hunt (MSNBC anchor): "I think we have to be careful about the breathlessness.... I think it's important to try to keep your perspective."
David Urban (CNN pro-Trump contributor): "I think cable news in general could kind of stop the hysteria. Every time the president does something, it's not the end of the world.... I think these networks should try to stick to a little bit more news, less opinion. There's a dearth of hard news anymore."
Ari Melber (MSNBC anchor): "On The Beat, we try to be careful to assess whether any given fireworks have significance. News value has to mean something more than 'this is wild' or entertaining. I think that's a challenge for all reporters.... 'OMG Donald Trump insulted someone or said something wild' may work up to a point, but I don't believe that's a good foundation for a news reporter segment. Second to that would be, we should always keep an eye on the pressures within both parties or in any other political movements, but the endless checking of whether a Republican politicians are standing up to him on any given issue doesn't move the ball that much, or doesn't inform the audience that much."
James Carville (Former CNN, Fox News personality): "Like everything else in the world, some of it is really good, some of it is pretty vapid. I just think there's a lot of difference in the knowledge and experience of a lot of guests out there, and that's what drives a lot of cable TV, are the guests. You can imagine what I think of [Fox News'] coverage, but their people like it."
Former Republican Party chairman Michael Steele (MSNBC contributor): "Don't follow every bright-shining object that he throws out there, because they're all distractions. They're all distractions.... You're already beginning to see that change. Even Fox News now is like, we're not covering these rallies to the fullest extent that they have in the past. So, I think that awakening is happening with the media a little bit, because it is about, at the end, self-respect. You can't just be just another sycophant, who is pushing back what Trump is saying and tweeting."
Dan Bongino (NRATV contributor, Fox News guest): "When I go to Fox and they put a liberal on, I promise you that's a real liberal.... The problem with CNN and MSNBC is they get these fake conservatives on there and everybody's like, 'OK, Trump stinks,' and everybody agrees. What kind of debate is that? You're not getting a real take on what Trump's doing, if you're interested. If you're not, and you just hate the guy, by all means keep feeding this garbage in."
Gianno Caldwell (Fox News contributor): "With other networks outside of Fox, sometimes it appears there's a stacking of the deck of people that hate Trump.... It seems as though there is a little more animus when it comes to other networks with regard to the Trump presidency."
www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-can-cable-news-better-cover-trump-politicos-weigh-1154052?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_3348083
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 14, 2020 23:12:24 GMT
Trump Attacks Press As 'True Enemy Of The People' Days After Bomb Sent To CNNPresident Donald Trump on Monday attacked the “fake news media” as the “true enemy of the people” following a week of terror and violence in the United States.
Five days after a pipe bomb was sent to CNN, a network frequently bashed by the president, Trump tweeted that “inaccurate” reporting is partially to blame for the “great anger in our country.”
“The Fake News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly,” he tweeted. “Fake News Must End!”
Lawmakers and commentators on both sides of the aisle have called on Trump to refrain from making divisive comments in the wake of last week’s mail bomb attacks on CNN and prominent Democrats, as well as the deadly mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh on Saturday.
Anthony Scaramucci, who was ousted as White House communications director after just 11 days last year, told CNN on Sunday that Trump should “tone down” his rhetoric.
“There’s no need to have a war with the media,” Scaramucci said. “You know, as far as I’m concerned, you can have an adversarial relationship, but we should be de-escalating this stuff.”
Still, despite calling for civility from “all sides” last week, Trump has continued to attack the media in recent days. CNN President Jeff Zucker slammed the White House over its hostile stance toward the press last week.
“There is a total and complete lack of understanding at the White House about the seriousness of their continued attacks on the media,” Zucker said in a statement. “The President, and especially the White House press secretary, should understand their words matter. Thus far, they have shown no comprehension of that.”
Several CNN staffers on Monday condemned Trump over his aggressive tweets.
“I watched my team escorted out of our NY HQ five days ago as the NYPD isolated a bomb in our building,” CNN’s Jim Sciutto tweeted. “We reported the facts, as we always do. We are not fake news. We are journalists doing our jobs as best we can every day.”
Hours later, CNN reported another “suspicious package” addressed to the network had been intercepted Monday at an Atlanta mail facility. The package was similar to others sent to the network and high-profile Democrats last week, CBS News reported.
www.yahoo.com/news/trump-attacks-press-apos-true-132352334.html
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 14, 2020 23:12:59 GMT
Trump Threatens to Investigate Democrats if They Probe His Administration © AP Photo / Alex BrandonUS 16:21 07.11.2018(updated 16:47 07.11.2018) Get short URL451 WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - US President Trump said in a statement on Wednesday that if Democrats in the US House of Representatives start to investigate him and his administration, he will make sure Republicans in the Senate investigate the Democratic Party.
"If the Democrats think they are going to waste taxpayer money investigating us at the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of classified information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can play that game!" the president Donald Trump said via Twitter.
READ MORE: US Democrats Seize House, Republicans Keep Senate in Midterm Split
Trump's statement comes after House Intelligence Committee member Eric Swalwell said at NBC's Today Show earlier in the day that Democrats in the US House of Representatives planned to conduct investigations of President Donald Trump that Republicans did not want to carry out, once they take over in January of 2019.
"We will conduct the investigations Republicans didn't want to conduct. We will fill in the gaps on the Russian investigations. The American people will see his tax returns, not because of any voyeuristic interest, but because they should know if he's corrupt," Swalwell said. "And we will look at the cashing in of access to the Oval Office and that has been concerning, and his financial entanglements overseas."
Loud & Clear What’s at Stake in US Midterm Elections?
The Democrats won a majority of the US House of Representatives in Tuesday's midterm elections, and will officially take over when the new Congress takes office in January 2019. Republicans will still be in control of the US Senate in January, as they were able to hold their majority of seats in the election. According to the latest media reports, Republicans hold a 52-44 seat majority in the Senate. In the lower chamber of Congress, Democrats so far have 219-193 seat majority.
sputniknews.com/us/201811071069593361-trump-democrats-probe/HERE IS WHAT MAXINE WATERS PROMISED IF DEMS WIN THE HOUSE:MAXINE WATERS THREATENS TO REVERSE TRUMP’S ‘TAX SCAM’ IF DEMOCRATS WIN CONGRESS8:20 PM 07/29/2018 | POLITICS Scott Morefield | Reporter
Rep. Maxine Waters promised on Sunday to reverse the GOP tax cuts — or “tax scam,” as she called them — if Democrats retake control of Congress. The California lawmaker also said President Trump would be “in trouble” if that happens.
“Of course, the economy has improved, and of course, he would like to take credit for all of that,” Waters told MSNBC’s David Gura. “But in the final analysis, when this country understands and feels what has been done with the tax scam and what that’s going to do for our deficit in this country, it’s going to be reversed. A combination of the tax scam and the tariffs will undermine all that has been done in the economy that was started by Obama.” (RELATED: Dershowitz Explains Why Trump-Cohen Tape Couldn’t Contain Evidence Of A Crime)
Waters acknowledged the economic improvement touted by President Trump, but contended that the “other mess” will eventually be his downfall, especially if Democrats retake Congress.
“This president is wreaking havoc on this country,” Waters said. “And so while there is some improvement in the economy, we have all of this other mess that we have to take a look at and what is, you know, in the forefront of what is being talked about in the media.”
“Democrats are working very hard,” she said. “We have a lot of enthusiasm. We have good candidates. We have raised an awful lot of money, and I think we’re in a good position not only to take back the House, but I believe even possibly the Senate. Of course, if we do that, look out, president. You’re in trouble.”
Follow Scott on Facebook and Twitter
dailycaller.com/2018/07/29/maxine-waters-trump-tax-scam/
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 15, 2020 8:11:45 GMT
If only the below quote were true. Even the media doesn't get it that the system is rigged to favor Republicons and rural areas. It's the old TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY rule.Trump Threatens Violence Against Democrats If They Continue To Protest Him When asked on Fox News about bringing the country together, Trump threatened to use his political base violently against Democrats.
Video:
Trump said in response to a question about bringing the country together, “I think some of the things that are said are terrible. And you know, it’s our people are so incredible — do you know, there’s probably never been a base in the history of politics in this country like my base. I hope the other side realizes that they better just take it easy. They better just take it easy because some of the language used, some of the words used, even some of the radical ideas I really think they are very bad for the country. I think they are actually very dangerous for the country.” Trump is suggesting that his base will do something if Democrats continue to speak out
Instead of talking about bringing the nation together, Trump threatened his opponents with his political base. There have been political bases like Trump’s before. They supported Pat Buchanan in 1992. Donald Trump has not created anything special or new. All he did was take all of the racial resentment against Obama in the Republican Party and channel it into his campaign.
Trump used a similar threat against Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) after she spoke out against him last week.
Donald Trump’s natural impulse, when confronted with protest and dissent, is to threaten to crush it with violence. Trump is trying to intimidate the American people into silence by warning them that his MAGA hat wearing thugs will shut them up if they aren’t careful.
Trump doesn’t want to hear the concerns of Democrats, and if he thinks that he can bully his way toward victory in 2018 and 2020, the president is in for a surprise, because he and his base are outnumbered. Democrats don’t need violence to win. They just need to show up at the polls in November.
www.politicususa.com/2018/07/01/trump-threatens-violence-against-democrats-if-they-continue-to-protest-him.html
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 15, 2020 8:12:12 GMT
Trump finally makes good on his threat to fire his attorney general Jeff Sessions... Watch Live: Jeff Sessions resigns as Attorney General today after Trump's requestCBS News Streamed live 103 minutes ago President Trump tweeted Wednesday afternoon that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has resigned. Matthew G. Whitaker, Sessions' chief of staff, will become acting attorney general.
"At your request, I am submitting my resignation," Sessions wrote to the president Wednesday. He touted the department's initiatives, saying that the Justice Department had taken on "transnational gangs that are bringing violence and death across our borders and protected national security" and noted efforts on immigration enforcement and the opioid epidemic.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 15, 2020 8:12:43 GMT
Protect the Nation: Checking the President and Preventing a Trumpian Civil WarBy Andy Schmookler - November 7, 2018 161 1
Yesterday, the American people gave the Democrats a mandate to act as a check on this lawless President.
Today, the Washington Post reports that this shameless man in the Oval Office declared that “he would react aggressively to any attempt to probe his administration.”
He referred to adopting a “warlike posture” if the Democrats use their position in the House to investigate him.
That is, in a move that would have been unthinkable from any previous President, Trump threatened some kind of “war” if the Democrats were to act to fulfill their “check-and-balance” role of overseeing the executive branch, and their constitutional duty to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Make no mistake, an intensification of the Trump Wars is on the horizon, and likely not so far off.
Besides the new reality that at last there’s some power — including the power of subpoena — in the hands of a Party that is not subservient to this atrocious President, there is also the fact that we’re back to “Game On” in the Mueller investigation. Additionally, Trump has given us good reason to suspect there’s nothing he will not do to protect himself from that investigation.
So an escalation of conflict is foreseeable. Perhaps inevitable.
Thus the question arises: How can the Democrats best work to fulfill their mandate, while minimizing the damage that Trump might inflict on the nation as he quite predictably wages a kind of “war” that puts his own interests ahead of the good of the nation?
The danger here can hardly be over-estimated.
Former Republican strategist Steve Schmidt described Trump as fomenting a “cold Civil War.”
Similarly, Democratic Virginia Delegate Mark Levine has predicted that Trump “will work like hell to drive our country closer to a second Civil War.”
Such a “Civil War” does not need to be physical — involving armies — to do great damage. Just the intensity of division, conflict, and hatred can suffice.
(What a coup Trump’s presidency has been for Putin and his Russian kleptocratic minions!)
It is a matter of the greatest importance, therefore, for the Democrats’ to plan well, and execute well, as this conflict unfolds.
And the strategic challenge here is made more complex by the fact that the overriding goal — the goal of PROTECTING THE NATION at this dangerous moment — has two chief components.
The first of these is to CHECK THE PRESIDENT. The second is to MINIMIZE the damage that President can inflict on America as he attempts to foment “civil war” to save himself.
Are the Democrats up to this difficult challenge?
When Trump spoke of his readiness for war against the Democrats if they should dare to do their jobs, he expressed confidence.
“The Democrats, Trump said, “can play that game, but we can play it better… I could see it being extremely good for me politically because I think I’m better at that game than they are, actually…”
There’s good reason to fear that he might be right about his being better than the Democrats at playing that “game” — i.e. waging the kind “war” he’s threatening. Picking fights and exploiting divisions is really the only way that Trump ever operates.
Engaging in such a war puts Trump in his element (like Brer Rabbit being thrown into the briar patch).
By contrast, the Democrats (and Liberal America generally) don’t relish conflict. Hatred — the fuel that Trump feeds his base — is a dirty word in liberal circles.
(Indeed, over the past quarter century, the Democrats’ insistence on pursuing cooperation and maintaining cordiality even as the Republican Party became the ugliest, most dishonest, most destructive major political party in American history, has played an important role in allowing a political force so ugly as this GOP to gain power over the past quarter century.)
So, at this crucial moment of a new starting point in the battle, we have reason to step back and ask questions about how the Democrats might best go about the daunting task of protecting the nation at this dark time.
It is such questions that preoccupy me right now. And in the days/weeks ahead I intend to share here a series of pieces laying out what I hope will be useful contributions to such a discussion.
bluevirginia.us/2018/11/protect-the-nation-checking-the-president-and-preventing-a-trumpian-civil-war
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 15, 2020 8:13:15 GMT
King threatens 9th Circuit Court:
Chief Justice Roberts: We don't have Obama, Trump judges Roberts should hope he won't have to eat those words one of these days, because two "Trump judges" do sit next to him on the SCOTUS bench, namely Neil Gorsuch and the dreaded Brett Kavanaugh. But does this mean that Roberts could make Trump's life extremely hard on him if the Mueller probe and its attendant findings make it all the way into his arena? As Rachel Maddow says: " Watch this space."
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 15, 2020 8:14:10 GMT
Trump Threatens to Declassify 'Devastating' Documents if House Democrats Launch ProbesLeah Millis/ Reuters
President Donald Trump threatened to declassify “devastating” documents next year if House Democrats launch probes into his administration. “If they want to play tough, I will do it,” he said during an Oval Office interview Wednesday with the New York Post.
"They will see how devastating those pages are." Trump told the paper he would declassify FISA warrant applications and other confidential documents from Robert Mueller’s investigation, which he said would expose efforts by the FBI, the Justice Department and the Clinton campaign to set him up. “If they go down the presidential harassment track, if they want to go and harass the president and the administration, I think that would be the best thing that would happen to me,” he said.
“I’m a counter-puncher and I will hit them so hard they’d never been hit like that.” Trump also told the tabloid he would wait to reveal such documents until they are absolutely needed, saying, “It’s much more powerful if I do it then.”
www.thedailybeast.com/trump-promises-to-declassify-devastating-documents-if-house-democrats-launch-probe
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 15, 2020 8:14:37 GMT
Watch the full, on-camera shouting match between Trump, Pelosi and Schumer
Washington Post Published on Dec 11, 2018 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) clashed Dec. 11 with President Trump over border security, during a meeting in the Oval
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 15, 2020 8:15:05 GMT
Schumer and Pelosi likely went into this thinking that they could handle Trump as if he were a rational man. After two years of this nut job, they probably ought to have known what they were in for. But Trump, the first (and, if we're so lucky, the only) president in our history with 100% provable s*** for brains, invited the cameras in, like the reality show carnival barker that he is, and made himself out to be a manifestly irresponsible man-child, not only in front of the American people, but in front of the whole freaking world, making this country the laughingstock of the planet. All Schumer and Pelosi could do was look and behave like the rational people that they are, while the Trumpster Fire not only burned, he exploded. Lawrence O'Donnell, on his MSNBC program last night, said that the only mistake they made with Trump was in not asking him, out front and in front of the cameras, "Well, wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for The Wall?". He's probably right; if you wanted to strip Trump naked to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the S.O.B. has no real Armani suit on, that likely would have done it. It doesn't matter that his followers would have cared; they're beyond help, so f*** 'em all. But in a way, maybe they got him to admit that Mexico wasn't going to pay for the wall (though they likely did so unintentionally [IMHO]) by Trump sticking his foot into his mouth (and tasting shoe leather in the bargain) and saying that he'd be proud to shut the U.S. government down over funding for a wall that he knows godd***ed good and well is never going to be completed, and which a vast majority of this country does not want.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 15, 2020 8:15:38 GMT
The meeting was a trap for a campaign photo op and to shore up support from Trump's base. Pelosi and Schumer fell right into his spider web. A government shutdown would backfire on Trump if he were to do so, especially now with the Mueller investigation report on the verge. A shutdown ends up costing more than it would if the government weren't shutdown because everyone on furlough still gets back pay although it is disruptive to their lives and ours. Trump doesn’t want the wall. He wants a fight about the wall.If Trump really wanted the wall he’d make a deal to get it. By Ezra Klein@ezraklein Dec 12, 2018, 11:40am EST www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/12/18137651/trump-wall-pelosi-schumer-white-house-immigration
What became clear in Tuesday’s Oval Office fiasco is that President Donald Trump doesn’t want the wall.
As my colleague Tara Golshan writes, the difference between the $1.3 billion in wall funding Trump has and the $5 billion in wall funding Trump wants is $3.7 billion — peanuts in the context of the $4 trillion federal budget. There’s plenty Trump could offer House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in return. Trump is, after all, the great dealmaker.
But Trump’s offer is, well, nothing. Rather than invite Pelosi and Schumer for a private negotiation, Trump asked them to the Oval Office for a public showdown in front of live cameras. “It’s called transparency,” Trump said. But it’s not transparency. It’s posturing.
This comes even clearer when you consider the wall’s true costs. The $5 billion in funding Trump is demanding isn’t actually enough to build the wall. Estimates of the total cost range from about $20 billion to $70 billion. Securing funding at either level would require a much bigger deal, with much more significant concessions from Trump.
But Trump isn’t offering a deal, and he isn’t constructing the kind of process where anyone might offer him a deal. Instead, he’s looking for a photo op. He’s looking for a clip of himself he can see played, and praised, on Fox & Friends.
Trump has a tendency to view his presidency as a reality television show where what’s important are storylines, confrontations, and plot twists. What he made yesterday was good television. But good television is about the fight, not the deal. The deal happens behind closed doors, it requires giving things up and seeing the other side’s perspective.
The deal often hurts. It often disappoints some of your supporters. The reason politicians make deals, though, is that they care about the thing they’re trying to get done. They care about it enough to give up something of value in order to get it.
Trump doesn’t care enough about the wall to give up anything in order to get it. He didn’t care enough when Democrats offered to fund the wall if Trump would protect DREAMers, and he doesn’t care enough now.
If Trump can get the wall by winning a public showdown, he’d love that. But it’s the winning, not the wall, that drives him. It’s showing his supporters he’s fighting for them that powers his presidency, not actually getting anything done. Tuesday’s Oval Office meeting was meant to give Trump what he at least thinks he wants — not the wall, but a fight over the wall.
According to the LA Times White House reporter Eli Stokol, however, Trump didn’t like what he ultimately got. He stormed out of the meeting with Schumer and Pelosi and threw a package of briefing papers across the room in frustration. So perhaps he’ll reconsider.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 15, 2020 8:16:06 GMT
Trump threatens 'very long' government shutdownReuters By Ginger Gibson, Roberta Rampton and Susan Heavey,Reuters 28 minutes ago
Trump Threatens a Government Shutdown over His Wall: A Closer Look
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (C) arrives at his offices, as members of the legislative branch are facing deadlines for a potential federal government shutdown, in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. December 21, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst By Ginger Gibson, Roberta Rampton and Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday threatened a "very long" government shutdown just hours ahead of a midnight deadline, calling on the Senate to pass spending legislation with his $5 billion demand for border wall funding and seeking to shift blame for a holiday showdown to Democrats.
Republican senators were to meet with Trump at the White House at 10:30 a.m. to discuss the dilemma.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed he would attend the meeting, as did Senator Richard Shelby, although he said he doubted the issue would be resolved on Friday.
The Republican-led Senate already had approved funds for the government through Feb. 8 without money for the wall. But on Thursday Trump pushed fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives to use the short-term funding bill as leverage to force through the border wall money despite Democratic objections.
In a series of early-morning tweets on Friday, Trump urged McConnell to take up the amended bill from the House. Trump, who last week said he would be "proud" to preside over a shutdown, sought to blame Senate Democrats, whose support is needed to reach the 60 votes needed for passage.
"If the Dems vote no, there will be a shutdown that will last for a very long time," he wrote on Twitter.
"Senator Mitch McConnell should fight for the Wall and Border Security as hard as he fought for anything," Trump tweeted. "He will need Democrat votes, but as shown in the House, good things happen."
He also urged McConnell to use the "nuclear option" to force a Senate vote on legislation with a simple majority, rather than the standard "supermajority" of 60 votes. McConnell has resisted doing that, and Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Orrin Hatch indicated on Friday they would not support it.
The threat of a U.S. government shutdown continued to fuel investor anxieties on Friday over the trajectory of global economic growth as world stocks extended a steep sell-off.
TENSE TIMES
The showdown added to tensions in Washington as lawmakers also grappled with Trump's sudden move to pull troops from Syria, which prompted Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to resign, and furthered concerns over the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election that Trump won.
Three-quarters of government programs are fully funded through the end of the federal fiscal year next Sept. 30, including those in the Defense Department, Labor Department and Health and Human Services.
But funding for other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the Agriculture Department, is set to expire at midnight on Friday. A shutdown would leave a number of federal workers without a paycheck at Christmas.
If the House measure is put to a vote in the Senate, Democrats have pledged to deny it passage.
The Senate was set to convene at noon EST, and it remained unclear what would happen if the House measure fails there.
A partial government shutdown could begin, with affected agencies limiting staff to those deemed "essential" to public safety. Such critical workers, including U.S. border agents, and nonessential employees would not get paid until the dispute ends. National parks also would close unless the government declares them essential.
Alternatively, lawmakers could seek a solution that Trump finds acceptable, although it was unclear what that would be.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said Trump was "not going to back down on this fight" and would stay in Washington rather than go to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for the holidays as planned.
Asked how long any potential shutdown would last, Sanders said: "Let's hope that that doesn't have to happen."
Trump's border wall was a key campaign promise in the 2016 election, when he said it would be paid for by Mexico, and sees it as a winning issue for his 2020 re-election campaign.
Democratic U.S. Senator Chris Coons on Friday said he hoped Trump would change course and support the Senate-passed bill, which includes funds for border security but not specifically for the wall.
"This is a fight more over message and the president trying to fulfill a campaign promise rather than substance," Coons told CNN in an interview on Friday.
(Reporting by Richard Cowan, Ginger Gibson, Roberta Rampton and Susan Heavey; Writing by Bill Trott; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe and Jonathan Oatis)
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 15, 2020 8:16:33 GMT
Excerpt from Reuters article: That is what this is all about: the petulant man-child that we somehow got for a commander-in-chief, shutting down the government if he doesn't get what he wants, which is his precious f***ing border wall which won't stop migrants from getting here, nor stop drug cartels from smuggling their wares onto our streets. This is pure bulls**t posturing, and it's a shame that federal workers, the vast majority of whom are actually trying to serve their country one way or another, are going to get shafted. But again, this is all on Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and, most importantly, on Trump. All three of these stooges will own this government shutdown forever, regardless of how long it may last.
|
|