New York Times: Ivanka Trump Reported to Have Stepped Down as Murdoch Trustee

By Richard Perez-Pena: 

Ivanka Trump served for several years as a trustee for a fortune set aside for the daughters of Rupert Murdoch, people familiar with the arrangement said. Her role highlights the close ties between President Trump’s family and the family that controls Fox News Channel, The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets.

Ms. Trump, the president’s daughter, stepped down in December as a Murdoch trustee, a relationship reported on Wednesday by The Financial Times. The trust for the Murdoch daughters holds some $300 million in stock in News Corporation and 21st Century Fox, companies that Mr. Murdoch, 85, leads, and in which he and his family hold controlling interests.

Mr. Trump has been a favorite topic of Mr. Murdoch’s New York Post for decades, and in the years before last year’s presidential campaign, Mr. Trump had a regular morning call-in segment on Fox News. During the campaign and since the election, Fox News has covered him far more favorably than its competitors.

The Full Story (February 8, 2017)

Washington Post: Defense, Intelligence Officials Caution White House on Terrorist Designation for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard

By Karen DeYoung:

Senior defense and intelligence officials have cautioned the White House that a proposal to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization could endanger U.S. troops in Iraq and the overall fight against the Islamic State, and would be an unprecedented use of a law that was not designed to sanction government institutions.

Defense and intelligence concerns have been expressed at the highest levels over the past several days, as the White House was preparing to roll out an executive order dealing with both Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Muslim Brotherhood, according to administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the sensitive matter.

The order would direct the State Department — in charge of the designation process — to move toward declaring them terrorist organizations.

* * *

Designating the Revolutionary Guard — a force of more than 100,000 that fields an army, navy and air force, in addition to wielding significant economic power — would mark the first time the Foreign Terrorist Organizations law has been applied to an official government institution. Created by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after the 1979 Islamic revolution as a counterweight to the suspect loyalties of the Iranian military, the Revolutionary Guard is both the guardian of internal security and a conventional fighting force that has been deployed overseas, including in Iraq and Syria.

The Revolutionary Guard, including its Quds Force, the elite international operations wing, and a number of Guard-affiliated companies and individuals, were placed on a sanctions list by the Treasury Department in 2007 for terrorist activities and support. The proposed Foreign Terrorist Organization designation by the State Department, however, would have far broader impact on the ability of Iranians to travel and access the international financial system.

Although the Obama administration considered taking such action, it ultimately decided it was “not useful,” according to a former senior national security official

This former official and others also noted that Iran is one of three countries, including Syria and Sudan, that the United States has labeled state sponsors of terrorism, a designation that brings its own strict sanctions.

The Full Story (February 8, 2017)

Rolling Stone: The End of Facts in the Trump Era

By Matt Taibbi:

Commentators wondered aloud if Conway's "Alternative Facts" routine had marked the beginning of a new Orwellian dystopia. Fears in this direction even rocked the publishing industry, where 1984 hit number one on Amazon, triggering a new printing practically overnight.

Facts are the closest thing we have to a national religion. In America, where sex-tapers become royalty and monster trucks massively outdraw Shakespeare, even advertisers aren't supposed to just lie. The truth is the last thing here that isn't openly for sale. This is why so many people responded to Conway not as if she'd said something stupid – we're used to that from our politicians – but more as though she'd said something irreligious.

The Washington Post reported with alarm on this crumbling of the Church of the Fact. As a test, they showed a group of Americans aerial photos of the Trump and Obama inaugurations. An astounding 15 percent of Trump supporters identified the clearly emptier Trump inaugural photo as the one containing a bigger crowd. We're now such a divided people that we literally see the world differently.

A primary characteristic of any authoritarian situation, from East Germany to high school, is the total uselessness of facts and evidence as a defense against anything. Trump is in the White House because he and his people understood this from the start. His movement isn't about facts. All that matters to his followers is that blame stays fixed in the right direction.

The Full Story (February 8, 2017)

Politico: Trump Blasts Nordstrom for Dropping Ivanka’s Clothing Line

By Aidan Quigley:

“My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!” Trump tweeted Wednesday morning.

Trump's team also retweeted his tweet on his official @POTUS account, which reaches 15.1 million followers. By comparison, Trump’s @realDonaldTrump account reaches 24.2 million followers.

Nordstrom had announced on Feb. 2 that it would stop carrying Ivanka Trump’s label due to its performance. “We've said all along we make buying decisions based on performance," Nordstrom said in a statement to The Associated Press. "We've got thousands of brands — more than 2,000 offered on the site alone. Reviewing their merit and making edits is part of the regular rhythm of our business."

* * *

Norm Eisen, a former Obama administration ethics czar, called the move “outrageous” on Twitter and said Nordstrom should consider suing under the California Unfair Competition Law, which forbids “any unfair” business act.

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) also replied to Trump’s tweet, by “cc”ing the Office of Government Ethics.

Casey’s press secretary Jacklin Rhoads said in an emailed statement that the senator “feels it is unethical and inappropriate for the President to lash out at a private company for refusing to enrich his family.”

Richard Painter, the former chief ethics lawyer in the Bush administration, weighed in, too, saying the tweet was “absolutely unacceptable.”

“This is misuse of public office for private gains,” he said. “And it is abuse of power because the official message is clear — Nordstrom is persona non grata with the Administration.”

The Full Story (February 8, 2017)

See also this tweet for screenshots.

CNN: WH Official [Says] We'll Say 'Fake News' Until Media Realizes Attitude of Attacking the President is Wrong

By Chris Massie:

Sebastian Gorka, deputy assistant to President Donald Trump, said Monday that the administration will continue using the term "fake news" until the media understands that their "monumental desire" to attack the President is wrong.

"There is a monumental desire on behalf of the majority of the media, not just the pollsters, the majority of the media to attack a duly elected President in the second week of his term," Gorka, a former Breitbart editor who also holds a PhD in political science, told syndicated conservative radio host Michael Medved.

"That's how unhealthy the situation is and until the media understands how wrong that attitude is, and how it hurts their credibility, we are going to continue to say, 'fake news.' I'm sorry, Michael. That's the reality," he added.

Trump and his staff have repeatedly used the term "fake news" to discredit reporting on the presidential administration from mainstream outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, often offering no evidence to back up their disputes with those outlets' stories.

* * *

Gorka also sparred with a caller who contended that "every time you call everything fake news, it just turns everyone except your hardcore fans off."

"Not everything's fake news," the caller added.

"You know, I would beg to differ," Gorka shot back. "Every single organ that generates these kinds of stories comes from the same clique of media organs that predicted that Hillary (Clinton) would win and that Brexit wouldn't occur. I know what fake news is. And it's coming from those organizations. It's time that you yourself understood that as well."

The Full Story (February 7, 2017)

Washington Post: Trump’s Loose Talk About Muslims Gets Weaponized in Court Against Travel Ban

By Fred Barbash and Derek Hawkins:

Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign and now into the first weeks of his presidency, critics suggested that he cool his incendiary rhetoric, that his words matter. His defenders responded that, as Corey Lewandowski said, he was being taken too “literally.” Some, like Vice President Pence, wrote it all off to his “colorful style.” Trump himself recently explained that his rhetoric about Muslims is popular, winning him “standing ovations.”

No one apparently gave him anything like a Miranda warning: Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law.

And that’s exactly what’s happening now in the epic court battle over his travel ban, currently blocked by a temporary order set for argument Tuesday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The states of Washington and Minnesota, which sued to block Trump’s order, are citing the president’s inflammatory rhetoric as evidence that the government’s claims — that it’s not a ban and not aimed at Muslims — are shams.

In court papers, Washington and Minnesota’s attorneys general have pulled out quotes from speeches, news conferences and interviews as evidence that an executive order the administration argues is neutral was really motivated by animus toward Muslims and a “desire to harm a particular group.”

His words, the two states say in their brief, show “that the President acted in bad faith in an effort to target Muslims.” The courts, they say, “have both the right and duty to examine” Trump’s “true motives.”

The states offer a multitude of exhibits, starting with a December 2015 release from the Trump campaign calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

They cite his August speech advocating screening out people “who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.”

Another exhibit: His Jan. 27 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he said he wanted to give priority to Christians in Syria.

They even hauled out Rudolph W. Giuliani’s comment on Fox News that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”

The Full Story (February 7, 2017)

[Special] New York Times: South Koreans Feel Cheated After U.S. Carrier Miscue

By Choe Sang-Hun:

When news broke less than two weeks ago that the Trump administration was sending the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson to the Korean Peninsula, many South Koreans feared a war with North Korea. Others cheered for Washington, calling the deployment a powerful symbol of its commitment to deterring the North.

On Wednesday, after it was revealed that the carrier strike group was actually thousands of miles away and had been heading in the opposite direction, toward the Indian Ocean, South Koreans felt bewildered, cheated and manipulated by the United States, their country’s most important ally.

“Trump’s lie over the Carl Vinson,” read a headline on the website of the newspaper JoongAng Ilbo on Wednesday. “Xi Jinping and Putin must have had a good jeer over this one.”

“Like North Korea, which is often accused of displaying fake missiles during military parades, is the United States, too, now employing ‘bluffing’ as its North Korea policy?” the article asked.

The episode raised questions about whether major allies of the United States, like South Korea and Japan, had been informed of the carrier’s whereabouts, and whether the misinformation undercut America’s strategy to contain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions by using empty threats.

Compounding their anger over the Carl Vinson episode, many South Koreans were also riled at Mr. Trump for his assertion in a Wall Street Journal interview last week that the Korean Peninsula “used to be a part of China.” Although Korea was often invaded by China and forced to pay tributes to its giant neighbor, many Koreans say the notion that they were once Chinese subjects is egregiously insulting.

“The 50 million South Koreans, as well as many common-sensical people around the world, cannot help but feel embarrassed and shocked,” said Youn Kwan-suk, spokesman of the main opposition Democratic Party, which is leading in voter surveys before the May 9 presidential election.

The Full Story (April 19, 2017)

Washington Post: Trump’s Claim That Obama First ‘Identified’ the 7 Countries in His Travel Ban

By Glenn Kessler:

So while the Obama administration expanded the list of countries, it sought to keep the focus on travel, not nationality. Trump, by contrast, has taken the opposite approach — keeping the focus on a person’s nationality.

Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who tracks Muslim American violent extremism, says that since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, only 23 percent of Muslim Americans involved in extremist plots had family backgrounds in the seven countries identified by Trump — and that “there have been no fatalities in the United States caused by extremists with family backgrounds in those countries.”

* * *

The issue is much more complex than suggested by the Trump White House. The original intent of the law was to insist on greater scrutiny of people who had traveled to Syria and Iraq, even if they were citizens of countries that qualified for a visa waiver. In other words, lawmakers were seeking to identify possible radicalization, not single out citizens.

Four countries were identified by Congress, in a bill signed by Obama, and then the Obama administration added three more. But Obama — and Democrats in Congress — wanted to require greater visa scrutiny of people who had traveled to those countries. When given a chance, the Obama administration specifically rejected the citizenship-based restrictions that Trump has now ordered. So while the names are the same, the approach is the polar opposite.


The Full Story (February 7, 2017)

L.A. Times: Betsy DeVos Squeaks Through as Education Secretary After Pence Casts First-Ever Tie-Breaking Vote

By Joy Resmovits:

Phone calls jammed congressional switchboards. Two Republican senators defected. Democrats held a last-ditch, 24-hour Senate debate in hope of shaking loose one additional vote.

But the effort was not enough to prevent Betsy DeVos from becoming U.S. secretary of Education.

DeVos squeaked through the confirmation process Tuesday with the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Mike Pence and the participation of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), whose confirmation vote for attorney general was scheduled after DeVos’ so he could vote for her.

It was the first time a vice president’s tie-breaking vote was needed to confirm a presidential Cabinet appointment.

DeVos, a Michigan-based Republican activist, former state party chairwoman and fundraiser, spent her career campaigning for school vouchers, which send tax money to families to help them pay for private and often religious schools. As the wife of the billionaire heir to the Amway fortune, she contributed millions of dollars to candidates who supported vouchers, including several of the senators who voted to confirm her.

She is the first secretary of Education since the department was created in 1979 to have neither attended nor sent her children to public school, the Education Week Research Center found.

The Full Story (February 7, 2017)

Talking Points Memo: On Trump, Keep it Simple (In 5 Points)

By Josh Marshall:

But on Trump, in trying to figure out what and how he's doing, we should keep it simple. Because at this point we know Trump quite well.

1: Trump is a Damaged Personality: Trump is an impulsive narcissist who is easily bored and driven mainly by the desire to chalk up 'wins' which drive the affirmation and praise which are his chief need and drive. He needs to dominate everyone around him and is profoundly susceptible to ego injuries tied to not 'winning', not being the best, not being sufficiently praised and acclaimed, etc. All of this drives a confrontational style and high levels of organizational chaos and drama. This need for praise and affirmation and a lack of patience for understanding the basic details of governing are a volatile and dangerous mix. They catalyze and intensify each other. Perhaps most importantly, the drive to be the best and right drives promises, claims and policy pronouncements which may contradict his already existing positions or be impossible to fulfill. Often, because of this, they are simply forgotten. That is because the need to be right, best and praised drives everything. Everything else is subsidiary and subject to change in an evolving situational context. Once this is clear, much of the chaos becomes logical and predictable. It's folly to imagine that Trump might pivot or grow up or simply be normal. It is no more likely that a chronically anxious adult would suddenly become serene or a charisma-less person would suddenly grow a charisma organ. This is Trump and he will never change.

* * *

3: Trump's Hold on His Base Is Grievance: People continue to marvel how a city-bred, godless libertine who was born to great wealth could become and remain the political avatar of small town and rural voters of middling means. The answer is simple. Despite all their differences, Trump meets his voters in a common perception (real or not) of being shunned, ignored and disrespected by 'elites'. In short, his politics and his connection with his core voters is based on grievance. This is a profound and enduring connection. This part of his constituency likely amounts to only 25% or 30% of the electorate at most. But it is a powerful anchor on the right. His ability to emerge undamaged from an almost endless series of outrages and ridiculousnesses is based on this connection. To paraphrase McLuhan, with Trump, the medium is the message and Trump is the medium.

The Full Story (February 6, 2017)

Think Progress: Melania Trump Reveals Plan to Leverage Presidency to Ink ‘Multi-million Dollar’ Endorsement Deals

By Jedd Legum:

In a lawsuit filed today, First Lady Melania Trump revealed her intention to leverage the presidency to ink new “licensing, branding, and endorsement” deals worth many millions of dollars. In the filing, Melania Trump’s lawyer described the position of First Lady as a “once-in-a-lifetime” money making opportunity. She told the court she intended to pursue deals in “apparel, accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care, and fragrance.”

These kind of endorsement deals would be especially lucrative while Melania Trump is First Lady and thus “one of the most photographed women in the world.”

The First Lady’s lawsuit is against the Daily Mail, which published a story repeating allegations in a Slovenian magazine that Melania Trump once worked as an escort. The allegations were unsupported and the Daily Mail has since issued a retraction.

According to the lawsuit, because of the Daily Mail’s inaccurate reporting, these business opportunities will be less available to her while her husband is in the White House.

The strategy Melania Trump lays out in her lawsuit is similar to the one already being executed by President Trump.

Donald Trump maintains full ownership over his businesses and recently doubled the initiation fee for his private club in Florida, Mar-a-lago, from $100,000 to $200,000. He then spent last weekend at Mar-a-lago attending events with members. Trump is effectively using his position as president to make membership at Mar-a-lago more attractive and then monetizing the increased demand.

Trump is also taking advantage of the increased prominence of his brand and plans to triple the number of hotels with his name in the United States.

The Full Story (February 6, 2017)

Washington Post: ‘If Something Happens’ - Trump Points His Finger in Case of a Terrorist Attack

By Philip Rucker:

President Trump appears to be laying the groundwork to preemptively shift blame for any future terrorist attack on U.S. soil from his administration to the federal judiciary, as well as to the media.

In recent tweets, Trump personally attacked James L. Robart, a U.S. district judge in Washington state, for putting “our country in such peril” with his ruling that temporarily blocked enforcement of the administration’s ban on all refugees as well as citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.

“If something happens blame him and the court system. People pouring in. Bad!” Trump wrote in a tweet Sunday.

Then on Monday, Trump seemed to spread that blame to include news organizations. In a speech to the U.S. Central Command, the president accused the media of failing to report on some terrorist attacks for what he implied were nefarious reasons.

“ISIS is on a campaign of genocide, committing atrocities across the world,” Trump told commanders at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, using an acronym for the Islamic State terrorist group. He added: “You’ve seen what happened in Paris and Nice. All over Europe it’s happening. It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that.”

The Full Story (February 6, 2017)

Huffington Post: Labor Nominee Andrew Puzder Has Another Problem - Undocumented Help

By Ryan Grim:

President Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Department of Labor, Andrew Puzder, employed an undocumented immigrant as household help, Puzder has informed members of the administration and officials in the Senate involved in his confirmation process.

Hiring undocumented workers has sunk nominees in the past, particularly when it reflects directly on the scope of the Cabinet position. But Trump transition officials told Puzder that the previous rules for vetting and strict ethics no longer applied. “The view in the transition was that’s the old model,” said one GOP official involved with Puzder’s nomination.

Asked for comment, a White House official forwarded the request to a spokesman for Puzder, who provided a statement on his behalf:

“My wife and I employed a housekeeper for a few years, during which I was unaware that she was not legally permitted to work in the U.S. When I learned of her status, we immediately ended her employment and offered her assistance in getting legal status. We have fully paid back taxes to the IRS and the State of California and submitted all required paperwork.”

The woman, according to a separate source, declined the offer, fearful that it would lead to detainment and deportation.

The Full Story (February 6, 2017)

New York Times: Tech Opposition to Trump Propelled by Employees, Not Executives

By David Streitfeld:

After President Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order restricting immigration, high-tech has gone full-tilt political. Companies are being pushed by their employees, by their customers and sometimes by their ideals. They are trying to go far enough without going too far.

Nearly 130 companies, most of them in the technology field, filed an amicus brief late Sunday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which declined to reinstate the travel ban after a lower court blocked it. The brief, which was signed by an unusually broad coalition of large and small tech companies that included Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Tesla, Uber and Intel, said Mr. Trump’s order “violates the immigration laws and the Constitution.”

“Silicon Valley is stepping up,” said Sam Altman, who runs the valley’s most prominent start-up incubator, Y Combinator. “The companies are working on three fronts: They are vociferously objecting to the Trump policies they think are bad, they are trying to engage with him to influence his behavior, and they are developing new technology to work against policies and political discourse they don’t support.”

It is an improvised and complicated strategy. The companies are among the richest and most popular of American brands, which means they have a good deal of leverage. Yet they are also uniquely vulnerable — not only to presidential postings on Twitter and executive orders, but to the sentiments of their customers and employees, some of whom have more radical ideas in mind.

Many of the companies initially placed their bets on engagement after an upbeat meeting with the president-elect in December. That modest approach, which even the most risk-averse executive can endorse, showed its limits last week. After widespread customer defections, Travis Kalanick, the chief executive of Uber, was forced to step down from one of the administration’s advisory councils.

“People voted with their feet, and Travis listened,” said Dave McClure, who runs the 500 Startups incubator and started the Nerdz 4 Hillary group that tried to raise the $100,000. “We need to hold the other tech leaders accountable in the same way.”

Resistance, Mr. McClure said, begins at home.

The Full Story (February 6, 2017)

Washington Post: Trump Tried and Failed to Build a Wall in Ireland.

By Griff Witte:

Before Donald Trump proposed a 1,000-mile wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to stop migrants, he tried to build a two-mile barrier on a pristine stretch of Irish coast to rein in an ocean.

He didn’t succeed. 

Irish surfers, weekend beachcombers, environmental scientists, local planners and even a microscopic snail got in his way. In December, Trump International Golf Links backed down from plans it had said were essential to protect the company’s lone Irish course — picturesquely nestled in dunes overlooking the Atlantic — from being swallowed by rising seas. 

For a man who loves to win, the defeat — just a month after his election as president — has left a bitter taste. And despite the motley nature of the resistance, Trump seems to have singled out a lone culprit: the European Union, whose rules and regulations underpinned many of the objections.

In interviews and public statements, Trump has cited his tangle over the golf-course wall as Exhibit A in justifying a jaundiced view of the E.U. that puts him at odds with decades of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy.

Previous presidents — Democrats and Republicans alike — have seen the E.U. as an essential partner in global stability and a bulwark against the self-interested nationalism that spawned two world wars. To Trump, the bloc’s environmental protection regulations were a threat to his exquisitely manicured fairways and putting greens. 

“I found it to be a very unpleasant experience,” he told British and German interviewers last month after bringing up the wall dispute, unbidden, when asked his opinion of the E.U.

“A very bad experience,” he emphasized weeks later as he raised the issue at his first White House news conference.

The bureaucratic battle over a golf-course sea wall makes for an unlikely inflection point in geopolitical history. And yet in Europe, Trump’s hostility toward the union that backers credit with keeping decades of continental peace is seen as a potentially fatal blow. 

The Full Story (February 6, 2017)

EDITOR: Added new tag "Europe" as the EU may well become a bigger issue over the remainder of this presidency.

New York Times: Justice Department Urges Appeals Court to Reinstate Trump’s Travel Ban

By Adam Liptak:

“At most,” the brief said, the court order blocking the ban should be limited to “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.” That would allow the federal government to block people who have never visited the United States.

On Monday, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said the administration stood ready to reinstate the entire ban. “Once we win the case, it will go right back into action,” he said.

Later on Monday night, Mr. Trump called threats “from radical Islamic terrorism is very real.”

“Courts must act fast!” Mr. Trump said on Twitter.

Trial judges around the country have blocked aspects of Mr. Trump’s executive order, which suspended travel from the seven countries and limited the nation’s refugee program, but none of those cases have reached an appeals court. And none of the lower-court rulings were as broad as the one under review in the case, State of Washington v. Trump.

The Full Story (February 6, 2017)

Washington Post: President Trump is Now Speculating That the Media is Covering up Terrorist Attacks

By Philip Bump:

Speaking to the U.S. Central Command on Monday, President Trump went off his prepared remarks to make a truly stunning claim: The media was intentionally covering up reports of terrorist attacks.

“You’ve seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe, it’s happening,” he said to the assembled military leaders. “It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that.”

The comment immediately harked back to comments from senior adviser Kellyanne Conway on MSNBC last week.

“I bet it’s brand-new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized and were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre,” she said. “Most people don’t know that because it didn’t get covered.”

It was brand-new information to people because there was no “Bowling Green massacre.” Conway had referred to the supposed terrorist attack previously, including in response to a question posed by TMZ. But the two Iraqis arrested in Bowling Green, Ky., in 2011 never committed an attack in the United States. She later admitted that she’d misspoken.

Trump’s comment goes far further than Conway’s, though. Her statement that “it didn’t get covered” probably referred to the alleged “six-month ban” from the Obama administration. (That this, too, didn’t happen has been somewhat swept under the rug.) Trump is positing that the media actively suppresses news of terrorist attacks to fulfill a political agenda.

The Full Story (February 6, 2017)

Politico: White House Rattled by McCarthy's Spoof of Spicer

By Annie Karni, Josh Dawsey and Tara Palmeri:

More than being lampooned as a press secretary who makes up facts, it was Spicer’s portrayal by a woman that was most problematic in the president’s eyes, according to sources close to him. And the unflattering send-up by a female comedian was not considered helpful for Spicer’s longevity in the grueling, high-profile job in which he has struggled to strike the right balance between representing an administration that considers the media the "opposition party," and developing a functional relationship with the press.

"Trump doesn't like his people to look weak," added a top Trump donor.

Trump’s uncharacteristic Twitter silence over the weekend about the “Saturday Night Live” sketch was seen internally as a sign of how uncomfortable it made the White House feel. Sources said the caricature of Spicer by McCarthy struck a nerve and was upsetting to the press secretary and to his allies, who immediately saw how damaging it could be in Trump world.

The Full Story (February 6, 2017)

Washington Post: After Trump Moves to Undo Financial Regulations, Sanders Calls Him ‘a Fraud’

By Mike DeBonis:

“This guy is a fraud,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “This guy ran for president of the United States saying, ‘I, Donald Trump, I’m going to take on Wall Street. These guys are getting away with murder.’ Then suddenly he appoints all these billionaires, his major financial adviser comes from Goldman Sachs, and now he’s going to dismantle legislation that protects consumers.”

Trump on Friday signed an executive order ordering a review of U.S. financial regulatory laws and regulations, and he acknowledged a coming assault on the 2010 package of regulatory revisions known as Dodd-Frank. His chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, and his nominee for treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, are alumni of the Goldman Sachs investment bank.

* * *

“This is a guy who ran for president saying, ‘I’m the only Republican [who’s] not going to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,’ and then he appoints all of these guys who are precisely going to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” Sanders said in an apparent reference to Trump’s nominees to lead the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Health and Human Services — both of whom have advocated for cutbacks in entitlement spending.

“Man, this guy, he is a good showman, I will give you that,” Sanders continued. “He is a good TV guy, but I think he’s going to sell out the middle class and the working class of this country. … It is one thing if you run a campaign that says, ‘Look, I think Wall Street’s great. I think the drug companies are great. I think we have to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,’ and if people want to vote for that, that’s fine. That’s democracy. But you have a president who I think in a totally fraudulent campaign said that ‘I’m going to stand up for the working people.’

“Look at his Cabinet: We’ve never had more billionaires in a Cabinet in the history in the country. Look at his appointees: These are people who are going after the needs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor. That is called hypocrisy.”

The Full Story (February 5, 2017)

Fox News: Trump Says Pence to Lead Voter Registration Fraud Probe, Leaves Door Open on Iran Deal Future

By Unattributed Fox News Website Employee: 

On the heels of his administration imposing new sanctions on Iran-tied businesses and individuals in response to recent missile tests, Trump also said Iran has “total disregard” for America and revived his criticism of the 2015 nuclear deal struck by his predecessor. The agreement with other world powers lifted billions in economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for the country curtailing its nuclear weapons program.

Trump called it “the worst deal I’ve ever seen negotiated.”

He said he wasn’t outright opposed to the deal, but claimed that it hasn’t been enforced.

“They’re sending money all over the place and weapons, and you can’t do that,” he said.

Asked whether he’d scrap it, Trump said, “We’ll see what happens.”

He continued, “That deal, I would have lived with it if they said, OK we’re all together now. But it was just the opposite, it’s like they’re emboldened.”

As for the new sanctions, Trump said, “just starting.”

* * *

As for his recent calls to foreign leaders, Trump said he has "respect" for Russian President Vladimir Putin, but that respect does not mean they'll get along.

"I say it’s better to get along with Russia than not,” he said. “And if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all over the world -- that’s a good thing. … Will I get along with him? I have no idea."

Pressed about Putin's history of violence, Trump said: "There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country’s so innocent?”

The Full Story (February 5, 2017)

Washington Post: Former Top Diplomats, Tech Giants Blast Immigration Order As Court Showdown Looms

By Matt Zapotosky, Robert Barnes and Brian Murphy:

Trump responded to the development Sunday by writing on Twitter that he had “instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY.” A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman did not immediately return messages seeking comment on how, practically, that screening would be implemented.

“Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril,” Trump wrote. “If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”

Trump further came to the defense of his stalled order Monday. In a tweet, Trump dismissed as “fake news” various polls showing opposition to the executive order. “Sorry,” Trump wrote, “people want border security and extreme vetting.”

The next few days will be telling for the future of the president’s executive order. The states of Washington and Minnesota, which are challenging the ban, asked the appeals court in the wee hours of Monday to keep the ban suspended, and Justice Department lawyers have until 6 p.m. to respond. The court will then schedule a hearing or rule whether the ban should remain on hold.

Early Monday, two former secretaries of state — John F. Kerry and Madeline Albright — joined a six-page joint statement saying Trump’s order “undermines” national security and will “endanger U.S. troops in the field.” The rare declaration, addressed to the 9th Circuit, was also backed by top former national security officials including Leon Panetta, who served as a past CIA director and defense secretary during the Obama administration.

Hours earlier, a host of technology giants — including Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Twitter, Uber — were part of a “friend of the court” legal brief by 97 companies opposing the Trump administration’s immigration order.

The brief claimed the order was a “significant departure” from U.S. immigration policies and “makes it more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to recruit, hire, and retain some of the world’s best employees.”

The Full Story (February 5, 2017)

Washington Post: Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Entry Order Nationwide

By Matt Zapotosky, Lori Aratani and Justin Jouvenal:

A federal judge in Washington state on Friday temporarily blocked enforcement of President Trump’s controversial ban on entry to the United States, and airlines planned to begin allowing passengers from banned countries to board, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Following the ruling, government authorities immediately began communicating with airlines and taking steps that would allow travel by those previously barred from doing so, according to a U.S. official. At the same time, though, the White House said in a statement that the Justice Department would “at the earliest possible time” file for an emergency stay of the “outrageous” ruling from the judge. Minutes later, it issued a similar statement omitting the word “outrageous.”

“The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people,” the White House said.

The president, however, was less cordial on Twitter.

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Trump posted in a Saturday morning tweet.ted in a Saturday morning tweet.

The Full Story (February 4, 2017)

Rolling Stone: Extreme Vetting, But Not for Banks

By Matt Taibbi:

Donald Trump, the man who positioned himself as the common man's shield against Wall Street, signed a series of orders today calling for reviews or rollbacks of financial regulations. He did so after meeting with some friendly helpers.

Here's how CNBC described the crowd of Wall Street CEOs Trump received, before he ordered a review of both the Dodd-Frank Act and the fiduciary rule requiring investment advisors to act in their clients' interests:

"Trump also will meet at the White House with leading CEOs, including JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon, Blackstone's Steve Schwarzman, and BlackRock's Larry Fink."

Leading the way for this assortment of populist heroes will be former Goldman honcho Gary Cohn, now Trump's chief economic advisor.

Dimon, Schwarzman, Fink and Cohn collectively represent a rogues gallery of the creeps most responsible for the 2008 crash. It would be hard to put together a group of people less sympathetic to the non-wealthy.

Trump's approach to Wall Street is in sharp contrast to his tough-talking stances on terrorism. He talks a big game when slamming the door on penniless refugees, but curls up like a beach weakling around guys who have more money than he does.

* * *

These companies are now so enormous that they can't keep track of their own positions. Also, in sharp contrast to the propaganda about what brainy people they all are, many of them lack even the most basic understanding of the potential consequences of deals they might be making.

The leadership of AIG, for instance, basically had no clue how its derivatives portfolio worked, despite the fact that they had $79 billion worth of exposure. Similarly, then-CEO Chuck Prince of Citigroup told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that a $40 billion mortgage position "would not in any way have excited my attention." Both companies ended up needing massive bailouts.

Not only can they not keep track of their own books, they already blow off regulators whenever they get the chance. Take JPMorgan Chase's "London Whale" episode, in which some $6.2 billion in losses in one portfolio accumulated practically overnight. In that case, Dimon simply refused to give the federal regulators routine, required reports as to what was going on with his bank's positions, probably because he himself had no idea how big the hole was at the time.

"Mr. Dimon said it was his decision whether to send the reports to the OCC," a regulator later told the Senate.

This is the same Jamie Dimon about whom Trump said today, "There's nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie Dimon, so thank you, Jamie."

The enduring lesson of the financial crisis is that in markets as complex as this one, the most extreme danger is in opacity. The big problem is that these egomaniacal Wall Street titans want markets as opaque as possible.

This is why they want to get rid of the fiduciary rule, because they don't think it's anyone's business if they choose to bet against their clients (as Cohn's Goldman famously did), or overcharge them, or otherwise screw them.

The Full Story (February 3, 2017)

Washington Post: Bannon Film Outline Warned U.S. Could Turn Into ‘Islamic States of America’

By Matea Gold:

The flag fluttering above the U.S. Capitol is emblazoned with a crescent and star. Chants of “Allahu Akbar” rise from inside the building.

That’s the provocative opening scene of a documentary-style movie outlined 10 years ago by Stephen K. Bannon that envisioned radical Muslims taking over the country and remaking it into the “Islamic States of America,” according to a document describing the project obtained by The Washington Post.

The outline shows how Bannon — years before he became a strategist for President Trump and helped draft last week’s order restricting travel from seven mostly Muslim countries — sought to issue a warning about the threat posed by radical Muslims and their “enablers among us.” Although driven by the “best intentions,” the outline says, institutions such as the media, the Jewish community and government agencies were appeasing jihadists aiming to create an Islamic republic.

The eight-page draft, written in 2007 during Bannon’s stint as a Hollywood filmmaker, proposes a three-part movie that would trace “the culture of intolerance” behind sharia law, examine the “Fifth Column” made up of “Islamic front groups” and identify the American enablers paving “the road to this unique hell on earth.”

The Full Story (February 3, 2017)

The Atlantic: Trump Begins to Chip Away at Banking Regulations

By Gillian B. White:

Hours later, as promised, the president issued a memorandum that sets in motion his plan to scale back the provisions of Dodd-Frank and repeal the upcoming fiduciary rule—the latest in his slate of executive orders aimed at decreasing regulations. Named for Senators Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the bipartisan act—formally, it’s the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act—was responsible for creating more stringent rules regarding bank capitalization (that is, the amount of money that banks must have on hand), increasing compliance and reporting standards for banks, introducing stricter mortgage requirements, creating the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and curbing excessive risk-taking and the existence of too-big-to-fail institutions on Wall Street.

Despite Trump’s calls for “cutting a lot,” Friday’s executive order is actually more of a command to review Dodd-Frank than to dismantle it. According to the order, the Treasury Secretary—Trump’s pick, the former Goldman Sachs banker Steve Mnuchin, has yet to be confirmed—will be tasked with meeting with various agencies that oversee and implement Dodd-Frank’s regulations, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, in order to find areas to be amended. That review is slated to be completed in 120 days, though there is little guidance on the what regulations or portions of the law will be most likely to change.

But while the executive order might seem less severe than others issued by Trump, that certainly doesn’t mean that the impact won’t be as important. “I think this is the opening salvo in their attack on consumer and investor protection,” says Michael S. Barr, a law professor at the University of Michigan and one of the architects of the Dodd-Frank Act. Barr says that despite the fact that the executive order on financial regulations seems gradual, the administration has already been quite aggressive when it comes to chipping away at financial-sector regulations. “They’ve already started,” he told me, citing recently-passed legislation that would get rid of one provision of Dodd Frank requiring oil companies to disclose payments to foreign governments.

The Full Story (February 3, 2017)

Washington Post: Eric Trump’s Business Trip to Uruguay Cost Taxpayers $97,830 in Hotel Bills

By Amy Brittain and Drew Harwell:

When the president-elect’s son Eric Trump jetted to Uruguay in early January for a Trump Organization promotional trip, U.S. taxpayers were left footing a bill of nearly $100,000 in hotel rooms for Secret Service and embassy staff.

It was a high-profile jaunt out of the country for Eric, the fresh-faced executive of the Trump Organization who, like his father, pledged to keep the company separate from the presidency. Eric mingled with real estate brokers, dined at an open-air beachfront eatery and spoke to hundreds at an “ultra exclusive” Trump Tower Punta del Este evening party celebrating his visit.

The Uruguayan trip shows how the government is unavoidably entangled with the Trump company as a result of the president’s refusal to divest his ownership stake. In this case, government agencies are forced to pay to support business operations that ultimately help to enrich the president himself. Though the Trumps have pledged a division of business and government, they will nevertheless depend on the publicly funded protection granted to the first family as they travel the globe promoting their brand.

The Full Story (February 3, 2017)

Talking Points Memo: It Was Never Populism. It's Nationalism.

By Josh Marshall:

Today at the White House CEO event President Trump, leaning on the say-so and presence of big Wall Street CEOs, started ripping up the reforms put in place to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis. “We have some of the bankers here. There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it,” Trump told JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon.

This should tell us several things. The most important is that 'populism' has always been the wrong name for what Trumpism represents. The unifying message of Trumpism is nationalism, and particularly an aggressive, zero-sum nationalism. It is also summed up simply in "Make America Great Again." The style may be 'populist' in some generic sense. But the message and agenda is nationalism. That is the focus around which all the actions of these rancorous 13 days come together into a unified whole - aggressive attacks on friends and foes alike, threats of tariffs against non-compliant foreign states, clampdowns on immigration, etc.

You'll notice that President Trump often talks about "workers" but it is almost always in the vein of protecting American workers from abuse by foreigners. Especially since the Trump virtually never speaks about wages. And he never spoke about wealth inequality, financial security provided by programs like Medicare and Social Security, let alone worker protections or labor unions. One might add job security, affordable education for children and retirement security generally to the list of the undiscussed. The real theme is one Trump articulated clearly yesterday in his National Prayer Breakfast speech: "We have to be tough. It's time we're going to be a little tough, folks. We're taking advantage of by every nation in the world virtually. It's not going to happen anymore. It's not going to happen anymore."

We may say that Trump is flipflopping or being hypocritical by embracing the individuals, policies and priorities of the country's financial elite, who he notionally campaigned against. Both are true in a way. But that doesn't tell us enough. The Trump message was about nationalism, power and aggression against the nations of the world who are 'taking advantage of" us and laughing at us. That kind of aggression against outsiders, with their domestic counterparts, the 'elites', can overlap with economic concerns. They're quite distinct.

But a proper understanding of Trumpism is also a political opportunity for Democrats. Trump is cozying up to the Wall Street barons he campaigned against. He's about to throw 25 million Americans off their health care. “We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because frankly I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses and they can’t borrow money,” he said again today, while he also talks about vast tax cuts for his wealthy friends and tax increases for many ordinary working and middle class families. This is a perfect evocation of government by the richest, for the richest, by the rich - and from the President's own lips. The complete indifference to the supposed interests of the people who voted for him has so many examples it's almost comical. Democrats need to be building this storyline now.

The Full Story (February 3, 2017)

The Atlantic: Kellyanne Conway and the Bowling Green Massacre That Wasn't

By Clare Foran:

On Thursday, Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to President Donald Trump, attempted to justify the administration’s restrictions on refugee admissions and travel from several predominately Muslim countries by citing a massacre that never happened.

“I bet it’s brand-new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized, and were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green Massacre. Most people don’t know that because it didn’t get covered,” Conway said during an interview on MSNBC.

Indeed, the statement was brand-new information since, as fact checkers and media outlets quickly pointed out, there is no such thing as “the Bowling Green Massacre.”

Conway herself more or less admitted that on Friday morning when she tweeted that she “meant to say ‘Bowling Green terrorists’” instead. In 2013, the Justice Department announced the sentencing of two Iraqi citizens living in Bowling Green, Kentucky, to federal prison after they confessed to attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq and tried to assist al-Qaeda in Iraq by sending money and weapons. But that is quite different, of course, from a massacre.

Beyond what Conway said about the non-existent Bowling Green Massacre, the rest of her statement was misleading as well. As The Washington Post’s fact checker has documented, President Obama did not impose a formal six-month ban on Iraqi refugees, though there was a decline in the admission of Iraqi refugees in 2011 and the Obama administration did revamp its vetting procedures in response to the arrest of the two Iraqis, who later pled guilty to federal terrorism charges.

Conway’s false statement stands out because it is simultaneously inaccurate and has the potential to be extremely inflammatory. But it fits a broader pattern of high-profile Trump administration aides marshaling inaccurate information in an attempt to defend the president, his policies, or the extent of his support, and then remaining defiant when challenged on their claims.

In this, Conway has led the charge. Most notably, she famously defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer after he made a series of false or misleading statements about the inauguration crowds by insisting that he had merely been providing “alternative facts.”

The Full Story (February 3, 2017)

Washington Post: Taunts and Threats Mark First Exchanges Between U.S. and Iran in the Trump Era

By Anne Gearan:

The United States and Iran traded threats Thursday as both nations sought new footing in a power struggle that could jeopardize the landmark international nuclear accord that President Trump has called “the worst deal ever negotiated.”

The Trump administration was preparing additional economic penalties on Iran related to the country’s recent ballistic missile test, with an announcement expected as soon as Friday, according to a U.S. official.

When asked whether his administration’s tough new posture could mean a military strike, Trump answered, “Nothing’s off the table.”

That followed the White House broadside Wednesday in which national security adviser Michael Flynn warned that Iran is “on notice” over the test launch. He also cited Iran’s support of rebels seeking to overthrow a U.S.-backed government in Yemen.

“This is not the first time that an inexperienced person has threatened Iran,” Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, was quoted by Reuters as saying Thursday. “Iran does not need permission from any country to defend itself.”

* * *

“Clearly, we wanted to make sure that Iran understood that they are on notice this is not going unresponded to,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

White House officials have refused to clarify the “on notice” statement either on record or anonymously, but it could indicate additional economic sanctions, military repositioning or the first moves to undermine the nuclear accord that the Obama administration counted as a signature foreign policy accomplishment.

The Full Story (February 2, 2017)

Reuters: Trump to Focus Counter-Extremism Program Solely on Islam [Say] Sources

By Julia Edwards Ainsley, Dustin Volz and Kristina Cooke:

The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.

The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

* * *

The Obama administration sought to foster relationships with community groups to engage them in the counterterrorism effort. In 2016, Congress appropriated $10 million in grants for CVE efforts and DHS awarded the first round of grants on Jan. 13, a week before Trump was inaugurated.

Among those approved were local governments, city police departments, universities and non-profit organizations. In addition to organizations dedicated to combating Islamic State's recruitment in the United States, grants also went to Life After Hate, which rehabilitates former neo-Nazis and other domestic extremists.

The Full Story (February 2, 2017)

The Atlantic: Are Republicans Taking a Gamble Supporting Trump on Immigration?

By Ronald Brownstein:

The divide over Trump’s protectionist trade agenda provides one measure of that split. But no issue presses at this fault line more powerfully than immigration. Today, his executive order is generating the shockwaves. But Trump’s determination to build a border wall with Mexico, his exploration of new limits on legal immigration, and his (underreported) push to intensify the deportation of undocumented immigrants are likely to spark increasing resistance over time—as would any move against the so-called “dreamers,” who were illegally brought to the United States as children.

Immigration remains an important boundary line between the “two Americas” the parties now represent. Nationwide, people born abroad now constitute over 13 percent of the total population—the most since 1910. But in both congressional and presidential elections, Republicans still rely mostly on the parts of the United States least touched by these changes. That’s one reason why, despite some defection primarily from legislators in swing states, Trump has avoided a full-scale revolt against his executive order from congressional Republicans, especially in the House.

In the House, nearly 85 percent of Republicans represent districts where the foreign-born share of the population lags below the national average, according to calculations from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey by my colleague Leah Askarinam. By contrast, over 60 percent of House Democrats represent districts where the foreign-born population exceeds the national average. In the Senate, Democrats hold most of the seats in the 20 states with the highest share of foreign-born residents—32 out of 40. Republicans hold 44 of the 60 seats in the 30 states with the fewest.

The Full Story (February 2, 2017)

Washington Post: Trump Said He’ll ‘Totally Destroy’ the Johnson Amendment. What is It and Why Should People Care?

By Julie Zauzmer:

In his address at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, President Trump made one clear policy declaration: “I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment.”

What is that? Is it in Trump’s power to destroy it? And who would want him to do that?

What the Johnson Amendment is: It’s named for Lyndon B. Johnson, who introduced it in the Senate in 1954, nine years before he became president. It bans all tax-exempt nonprofits — which includes churches and other houses of worship, as well as charities — from “directly or indirectly” participating in any political candidate’s campaign.

What Trump has against it: Trump presents this ban on participating in politicking as a restriction on the freedom of faith groups to put their religion in action, if their religion calls on them to campaign for a candidate. At Thursday’s prayer breakfast, Trump said that his reason for opposing the Johnson Amendment is that it impinges on the American “right to worship according to our own beliefs” — apparently describing campaign participation as a form of worship.

This is Trump’s first time bringing up the subject as president, but it’s a vow he has made several times before.

* * *

What Trump hasn’t talked as much about is the implication for how churches can spend their money, not just how clergy can talk about candidates.

“Most people’s concern is if you allow churches to freely allow political activity — churches, synagogues, temples, whatever the religious organization — now what you’ve done is you’ve turned those into Super PACs,” said David Herzig, a Valparaiso University tax law professor.

Churches would be freed to use their budgets to support campaigning — and citizens would get a tax deduction for contributing to the church, which would still be a 501(c)3 nonprofit. Also, Herzig pointed out, nonprofits like churches aren’t required to make the same public disclosures as PACs, so political funding could theoretically become much less transparent if campaign funding were funneled through churches.

The Full Story (February 2, 2017)

Truth-Out: Nazis Once Published List of Jewish Crimes, Trump Now Pushing to Do the Same for Immigrant Crimes

By Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh:

The Trump administration has announced plans to publish a weekly list of crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants living in so-called sanctuary cities, where local officials and law enforcement are refusing to comply with federal immigration authorities' efforts to speed up deportations. The plans for the weekly list, to be published by the Department of Homeland Security, were included in Trump's executive orders signed last week. We speak to Andrea Pitzer. Her upcoming book is called One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps.

* * *

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what President Trump has said he's going to do: keep a list of, quote, "immigrant crimes"?

ANDREA PITZER: Well, this weekly report that he has called for recalls a number of things from the past that we have seen before, which is this move to isolate and identify and then vilify a vulnerable minority community in order to move against it. When he -- I just went back last night and reread his speech from when he declared his candidacy, and the Mexican rapist comment was in from the beginning, and so this has been a theme throughout. And we see back in Nazi Germany there was a paper called -- a Nazi paper called Der Stürmer, and they had a department called "Letter Box," and readers were invited to send in stories of supposed Jewish crimes. And Der Stürmer would publish them, and they would include some pretty horrific graphic illustrations of these crimes, as well. And there was even a sort of a lite version of it, if you will, racism lite, in which the Neues Volk, which was more like a Look or a Life magazine, which normally highlighted beautiful Aryan families and their beautiful homes, would run a feature like "The Criminal Jew," and they would show photos of "Jewish-looking," as they called it, people who represented different kinds of crimes that one ought to watch out for from Jews.

So this preoccupation with focusing in on one subset of the population's crimes and then depicting that as somehow depraved and abnormal from the main population is something we've seen quite a bit in the past, even in the US Before Japanese-American internment, you had newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle running about the unassimilability of the Japanese immigrants and also the crime tendencies and depravities they had, which were distinguished from the main American population.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, of course, this flies in the face of all studies that have shown that the crime rate among immigrant populations in the United States is actually lower than it is among ordinary American citizens, but yet this is attempting to take isolated incidents or particular crimes and sort of raise them to the level of a general trend, isn't it?

The Full Story (February 2, 2017)

Washington Post: Trump Badgered, Bragged and Abruptly Ended Phone Call With Australian Leader

By Greg Miller & Phillip Rucker:

It should have been one of the most congenial calls for the new commander in chief — a conversation with the leader of Australia, one of America’s staunchest allies, at the end of a triumphant week.

Instead, President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refu­gee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.

At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladi­mir Putin — and that “this was the worst call by far.”

Trump’s behavior suggests that he is capable of subjecting world leaders, including close allies, to a version of the vitriol he frequently employs against political adversaries and news organizations in speeches and on Twitter.

The Full Story (February 2, 2017)

Reuters: U.S. Military Probing More Possible Civilian Deaths in Yemen Raid

By Ayesha Rascoe:

The U.S. military said on Wednesday it was looking into whether more civilians were killed in a raid on al Qaeda in Yemen on the weekend, in the first operation authorized by President Donald Trump as commander in chief.

U.S. Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens was killed in the raid on a branch of al Qaeda, also known as AQAP, in al Bayda province, which the Pentagon said also killed 14 militants. However, medics at the scene said about 30 people, including 10 women and children, were killed.

U.S. Central Command said in a statement that an investigating team had "concluded regrettably that civilian non-combatants were likely killed" during Sunday's raid. It said children may have been among the casualties.

Central Command said its assessment "seeks to determine if there were any still-undetected civilian casualties in the ferocious firefight."

The Full Story (February 2, 2017)

Washington Post: Trump Rants About ‘Fake News’ As He Marks Black History Month

By John Wagner:

President Trump teed off on the media Wednesday during an event held to mark Black History Month, calling CNN “fake news” and once again decrying a false report that he had removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office.

Trump’s remarks came at the top of what was billed as a “listening session” at which he sat at a conference table in the Roosevelt Room with a group of African Americans, most of whom had played a role in his campaign for president or worked on the transition.

Trump soon turned to a false report by a Time magazine writer that on his Inauguration Day a bust of King had been removed from the Oval Office. Trump and his aides have repeatedly cited the incident as evidence of media bias, despite an immediate acknowledgment of the error and an apology from the reporter.

“Somebody said I took the statue out of my office,” Trump said. “And it turned out that that was fake news. Fake news. The statue is cherished. … It was never even touched, so I think it was a disgrace, but that’s the way the press is. Very unfortunate.”

Trump later said that he didn’t watch CNN, calling the network “fake news.” By contrast, he said, “Fox has treated me very nice.”

Trump also repeated an earlier assessment, first made by White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon, that the media is “the opposition party.”

“A lot of the media actually is the opposition party,” the president said. “They’re so biased, and really it’s a disgrace. Some of the media is fantastic and fair, but so much of the media is opposition party, knowingly saying incorrect things.”

Trump noted he had won the election, suggesting that that was evidence the media might not “have the influence they think.”

“But they really need to straighten out their act,” Trump said. “They’re very dishonest people.”

During the event, Trump also thanked those around the table for helping him exceed his expectations with African American voters.

“If you remember, I wasn’t going to do well with the African American community,” Trump said. “We ended up getting substantially more than candidates who had run in the past years, and now we’re going to take that to new levels.”

Exit polls showed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly won African American votes over Trump, 89 percent to 8 percent. In 2012, exit polls showed that then-President Barack Obama garnered 93 percent of the black vote compared with Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s 6 percent.

Trump profusely thanked Ben Carson, his pick to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for his help during the campaign.

The Full Story (February 1, 2017)

Associated Press: Trump Threatens Military Incursion Into Mexico In Call With Mex Prez

By Vivian Salama:

President Donald Trump threatened in a phone call with his Mexican counterpart to send U.S. troops to stop "bad hombres down there" unless the Mexican military does more to control them, according to an excerpt of a transcript of the conversation obtained by The Associated Press.

The excerpt of the call did not detail who exactly Trump considered "bad hombres," nor did it make clear the tone and context of the remark, made in a Friday morning phone call between the leaders. It also did not contain Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's response.

Still, the excerpt offers a rare and striking look at how the new president is conducting diplomacy behind closed doors. Trump's remarks suggest he is using the same tough and blunt talk with world leaders that he used to rally crowds on the campaign trail.

The Full Story (February 1, 2017)

Washington Post: U.N. Experts Say Trump Immigration Order Violates U.S. Human Rights Obligations

By Mark Berman:

A panel of United Nations human rights experts said Wednesday that President Trump’s sweeping order restricting some travelers and refugees from entering the United States violates the country’s international human rights obligations.

The blunt assessment from the U.N. is the latest criticism it has volleyed at Trump’s ban, which temporarily closes America’s borders to people from seven Muslim-majority nations and suspends admission for almost all refugees for a 120-day period.

“Such an order is clearly discriminatory based on one’s nationality and leads to increased stigmatization of Muslim communities,” a group of U.N. Special Rapporteurs — experts appointed to study human rights issues — said in a statement. The group includes rapporteurs on migrants, human rights and counterterrorism, racism, torture and freedom of religion.

Trump and officials in his administration have argued since he signed the order last Friday that the measure is not a “Muslim ban.” During the presidential campaign, Trump called for a Muslim ban, a statement that remains on his campaign website, and he said the day he signed the order that he would prioritize Christians seeking admission as refugees.

In its statement, the group of U.N. experts alluded to people who have been detained at airports across the country, saying they were worried people flying to the United States “will be subject to detention for an undefined period of time and then ultimately deported.”

The Full Story (February 1, 2017)

Think Progress: President Trump’s Conflicts of Interest Were on Display as He Introduced His SCOTUS Pick

By Aaron Rupar:

As President Donald Trump introduced Judge Neil Gorsuch as his choice to fill an opening on the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday night, his two adult sons, Eric and Donald Jr., sat nearby.

They both tweeted photos showing their perspective on the proceedings.

Later in the evening, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Senate’s president pro tempore and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, congratulated Eric and Donald Jr. on the “great pick” of Gorsuch, according to a CNN report. Their conversation was captured in a photo shared by a BuzzFeed reporter.

But Eric and Donald Jr. aren’t supposed to have any input on their father’s selection of a Supreme Court justice. Instead, they’re supposed to be independently managing their father’s business — a business the president has refused to divest from, despite the Constitution’s emoluments clause and advice from ethics experts who worked with Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

On Tuesday night, as has been the case on other occasions since the election, the message was clear: deal with Eric and Donald Jr., and you’re doing business with two people close to the president.

Eric and Donald Jr.’s appearance in the White House came a week after two reports emerged illustrating how Trump plans to profit off the presidency. The Trump Organization is reportedly doubling the initiation fee for its Mar-a-Lago resort — the place President Trump recently described as “the Winter White House” — to $200,000 (taxes and $14,000 annual dues not included). And Trump’s hotel-management company is reportedly planning “an ambitious expansion across the U.S.” that would triple the number of Trump-branded hotels in the country.

The Trump Organization also used an image of the Environmental Protection Agency’s building in an email advertising suites in the Washington, D.C. hotel that’s doing business with foreign governments.

The Full Story (February 1, 2017)

Washington Post: President Trump Isn’t a Fan of Dissent — Inside or Outside the Government

By Karen Tumulty:

The early days of Donald Trump’s presidency have been marked by an aggressive and unapologetic effort to banish dissent.

Less than two weeks in, there are a growing number of examples of a give-no-quarter approach: Trump’s blistering language in firing the acting attorney general who refused to defend his controversial immigration order; his press secretary’s declaration that career diplomats “either get with the program or they can go;” his chief strategist’s labeling of news media as an “opposition party” that should “keep its mouth shut.”

The pattern — and particularly efforts to shut down discordant voices within the government — is raising alarms.

“The whole thing is scary,” said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute. “They have no appreciation for the Constitution, much less the unwritten norms of liberal democracy.”

To some degree, the posture reflects the management philosophy of Trump, who once described effective leadership as being “a one-man army. . . . You must plan and execute your plan alone.”

The Full Story (February 1, 2017)

Think Progress: Democrats Boycott Hearings of Two Cabinet Nominees, Demand the Truth

By Laurel Raymond:

Democrats said they were motivated to blocking the vote by reports in recent days that contradict the nominees’ sworn testimony before the committees. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) specifically said that Trump’s nominees had lied to senators in their confirmation hearings.

“We’re not going to this committee today because we want the committee to regroup, get the information, have these two nominees come back in front of the committee, clarify what they lied about — I would hope they’d apologize for that — and then give us the information that we all need for our states,” Brown told reporters.

In recent days, reporters have uncovered evidence that Mnuchin misled Senators in his hearing and in his written responses regarding foreclosures by OneWest Bank while he was the company’s chief executive.

“We need to know what in fact he did with OneWest, what his past is, what his connections are, and we just need to know it before we decide are we voting for him and if he is in fact qualified,” Brown said.

In his hearing, Mnuchin denied that OneWest used “robo-signers,” a practice where employees at financial firms sign foreclosure documents en masse. The Columbus Dispatch reported on Sunday that in an analysis of nearly four dozen foreclosure cases in Ohio, OneWest “frequently used robo-signers.”

Brown also noted that, as treasury secretary, Mnuchin would have immense control over the banking industry, including the future of Dodd-Frank — the banking reform regulation enacted under the Obama administration after the 2008 financial crisis. Trump slammed the regulation as a “disaster” on Monday and vowed to “do a big number” on it.

Senators’ cited lingering questions about Tom Price’s testimony as well. During his hearings before the Finance Committee and the Committee on Health and Human Services, Democrats grilled Price about his investments. While Price served in Congress and crafted legislation that could have massive effects on the biomedical industry, Price repeatedly made lucrative stock investments in the biomedical field.

The Full Story (January 31, 2017)

The Atlantic: Cracks Appear in the Trump-Republican Alliance

By Russell Berman:

Top lawmakers and party aides accused the White House of blindsiding them with an executive order on immigration that sowed chaos at major U.S. airports, contradicting administration officials who claimed that Capitol Hill had taken a leading role in writing the policy. Senior aides to the chairmen of the House Homeland Security, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs committees all said the White House failed to consult them on the immigration directive, which led to lawsuits and widespread protests across the country over the weekend. More Republican lawmakers issued statements critical of Trump’s action on Sunday evening and Monday, even as many said they supported a temporary halt to the refugee program and restrictions on travel from Muslim countries.

“It would have been smarter to coordinate with us,” Representative Dave Brat of Virginia, a Trump ally, said in a phone interview on Monday. “They could have done a better job announcing how the complexities were going to work in advance.”

Republicans were particularly angry that the Trump administration did not initially exempt green-card holders, or those who had served as military or diplomatic interpreters from the ban. “In the future, such policy changes should be better coordinated with the agencies implementing them and with Congress to ensure we get it right—and don’t undermine our nation’s credibility while trying to restore it,” Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement.

A senior administration official told reporters in a background briefing on Sunday night that “Republicans on Capitol Hill wrote” the policy—a statement that Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, defended on Monday. But multiple top Republican aides said the assertion was false.

“Ha! That’s my formal response,” said one senior GOP aide. “There was precisely zero coordination with us on the drafting of this executive order.” The aide said that one or two “rogue staffers” with the House Judiciary Committee had worked informally with the White House on the order, but that the administration never formally involved the relevant congressional leaders. Separately, an aide with the Judiciary Committee said that the panel’s chairman, Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, was “not consulted by the administration”—a sign that the staffers working under him had helped the White House without Goodlatte’s knowledge. Politico reported Monday night that the Judiciary Committee staffers signed nondisclosure agreements.

The aides insisted on anonymity to avoid provoking a further fight with the new president, but they spoke with more candor than the more diplomatic statements that GOP members of Congress have released in recent days. Officials said John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, will meet with a bipartisan group of lawmakers Tuesday in the Capitol to discuss the the executive order.

The Full Story (January 31, 2017)

Belly of the Beast: Trump Conflicts Plan – Part 3

By Steven J. Harper, Esquire:

But just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. And when it comes to preserving the integrity of the presidency in ways that protect it from corruption and impropriety, legal permissibility is just the beginning of the relevant inquiry. But not for Trump.

Trump’s attitude in making the deal that resulted in the Morgan Lewis Plan was that of a negotiator who held all the cards. Whatever he offered, his opposing parties — the office of the president and the country — could not refuse. He admitted it:

“[A]s you know, I have a no-conflict situation because I’m president….it’s a nice thing to have… I have something that others don’t have…”

Bigger Stakes

To counter Trump’s continuing conflation of the issues, Walter Shaub, director of the Office of Government Ethics, set him straight:

“Now, some have said that the President can’t have a conflict of interest, but that is quite obviously not true. I think the most charitable way to understand such statements is that they are referring to a particular conflict of interest law that doesn’t apply to the President…”

As Shaub explained, “Common sense dictates that a President can, of course, have very real conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest is anything that creates an incentive to put your own interests before the interests of the people you serve.”

Vox: Trump says Obama Banned Refugees Too. He’s Wrong.

By Zack Beauchamp:

“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months,” he said, echoing the arguments in conservative publications almost word for word. “The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”

This is wrong in every particular. Obama’s Iraqi visa policy in 2011 did not ban Iraqis from entering the country. Obama’s immigration policy did not treat people with passports from the seven countries as unusually dangerous terrorism threats. And Obama’s policies never approached anything like the breadth, cynicism, and incompetence of Trump’s executive order.

* * *

“While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here,” Jon Finer, an Obama administration official who worked on national security, writes at Foreign Policy.

Ben Rhodes, one of Obama’s top foreign policy aides, took a similar line.

“There was no ban on Iraqis in 2011,” Rhodes tweeted. “Anyone pushing that line is hiding behind a lie because they can't defend the EO.”

Finer and Rhodes’s account is backed up by two fact-checkers who looked into the issue, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler and FactCheck.org’s Eugene Kiely. Both concluded, in lengthy investigations that I encourage you to read, that Obama’s policy was not a six-month ban on Iraqi refugees.

The Full Story (January 31, 2017)