By Josh Marshall:
Sater’s business relationship with Trump were extensive enough that there’s little doubt that his FBI and likely CIA handlers would have had some knowledge of them since he carried on this relationship while working as an FBI/CIA informant and awaiting sentencing – at least from 2003 to 2009 and perhaps going back to 2000.
Trump’s longstanding ties to Sater probably wouldn’t have mattered much as long as Trump was just a flashy real estate developer and reality TV star. But one can readily imagine that US law enforcement and perhaps intelligence would have become highly concerned once Trump – with his reliance on money from Russian oligarchs and the post-Soviet criminal underworld – started edging his way toward the presidency and especially after he won election on November 8th, 2016.
My point here is that before US law enforcement and intelligence agencies learned about the Russian hacking campaign, received intercepts about communications between Trump advisors and Russian state officials or got hold of that ‘dossier’ from the former MI6 agent, they may well have had concerns about Trump and the people around him that stemmed from things they learned long before he ever decided to run for President.
The Full Story (February 20, 2017)
Showing posts with label business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business. Show all posts
Monday, June 19, 2017
Friday, June 9, 2017
Talking Points Memo: Learning Eye-Popping Details About Mr Sater
Sater is a Russian emigrant who was jailed for assault in the mid-90s and then pulled together a major securities fraud scheme in which investors lost some $40 million. He clearly did something for the US government which the feds found highly valuable. It seems likely, though not certain, that it involved working with the CIA on something tied to the post-Soviet criminal underworld. Now Bayrock and Trump come into the mix.
According to Sater’s Linkedin profile, Sater joined up with Bayrock in 1999 – in other words, shortly after he became involved with the FBI and CIA. (The Times article says he started up with Bayrock in 2003.) In a deposition, Trump said he first came into contact with Sater and Bayrock in the early 2000s. The Trump SoHo project was announced in 2006 and broke ground in November of that year. In other words, Sater’s involvement with Bayrock started soon after he started working with the FBI and (allegedly) the CIA. Almost the entire period of his work with Trump took place during this period when he was working for the federal government as at least an informant and had his eventual sentencing hanging over his head.
What about Salvatore Lauria, Sater’s accomplice in the securities swindle?
He went to work with Bayrock too and was also closely involved with managing and securing financing for the Trump SoHo project. The Times article I mentioned in my earlier post on Trump SoHo contains this …
Mr. Lauria brokered a $50 million investment in Trump SoHo and three other Bayrock projects by an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians “in favor with” President Vladimir V. Putin, according to a lawsuit against Bayrock by one of its former executives. The Icelandic company, FL Group, was identified in a Bayrock investor presentation as a “strategic partner,” along with Alexander Mashkevich, a billionaire once charged in a corruption case involving fees paid by a Belgian company seeking business in Kazakhstan; that case was settled with no admission of guilt.
All sounds totally legit, doesn’t it?
But there’s more!, as they say.
Sater’s stint as a “Senior Advisor” to Donald Trump at the Trump Organization began in January of January 2010 and lasted roughly a year. What significance that has in all of this I’m not sure. But here’s the final morsel of information that’s worth knowing for this installment of the story.
How exactly did all of Sater’s secret work and the federal government’s efforts to keep his crimes secret come to light?
During the time Sater was working for Bayrock and Trump he organized what was supposed to be Trump Tower Ft Lauderdale. The project was announced in 2004. People paid in lots of money but the whole thing went bust and Trump finally pulled out of the deal in 2009. Lots of people who’d bought units in the building lost everything. And they sued.
So far it’s your typical Trump story of small investors screwed out of their money and winding up in court. But this time there was a key difference. Someone leaked documents to the plaintiffs detailing Sater’s criminal record and his conviction for securities fraud. The investors argued, quite reasonably, that they never would have invested in Trump Tower Fort Lauderdale if they had known that the key executive organizing the project had been convicted of cheating investors out of $40 million. The federal government had prevented them from learning this information by keeping the securities fraud case secret. This sparked a highly complex and dramatic legal case in which the federal government used all the full force of its need to protect national security in defense of keeping Sater’s crimes secret. For this part of the story, the plaintiffs efforts to loop the federal government into their suit against the organizers of the Florida building project, see this article from The Miami Herald.
Monday, June 5, 2017
New York Times: Trump’s ‘Winter White House’ - A Peek at the Exclusive Members’ List at Mar-a-Lago
By Nicholas Confessore, Maggie Haberman and Eric Lipton:
On any given weekend, you might catch President Trump’s son-in-law and top Mideast dealmaker, Jared Kushner, by the beachside soft-serve ice cream machine, or his reclusive chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, on the dining patio. If you are lucky, the president himself could stop by your table for a quick chat. But you will have to pay $200,000 for the privilege — and the few available spots are going fast.
Virtually overnight, Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s members-only Palm Beach, Fla., club, has been transformed into the part-time capital of American government, a so-called winter White House where Mr. Trump has entertained a foreign head of state, health care industry executives and other presidential guests.
But Mr. Trump’s gatherings at Mar-a-Lago — he arrived there on Friday afternoon, his third weekend visit in a row — have also created an arena for potential political influence rarely seen in American history: a kind of Washington steakhouse on steroids, situated in a sunny playground of the rich and powerful, where members and their guests enjoy a level of access that could elude even the best-connected of lobbyists.
Membership lists reviewed by The New York Times show that the club’s nearly 500 paying members include dozens of real estate developers, Wall Street financiers, energy executives and others whose businesses could be affected by Mr. Trump’s policies. At least three club members are under consideration for an ambassadorship. Most of the 500 have had memberships predating Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and there are a limited number of memberships still available.
William I. Koch, who oversees a major mining and fuels company, belongs to Mar-a-Lago, as does the billionaire trader Thomas Peterffy, who spent more than $8 million on political ads in 2012 warning of creeping socialism in America.
Another member is George Norcross, an insurance executive and the South Jersey Democratic Party boss, whose friendship with Mr. Trump dates to the president’s Atlantic City years, when Mr. Norcross held insurance contracts with Mr. Trump’s casinos, and Mr. Trump wrangled with the state’s Democratic leaders over tax treatment of the properties. Yet another member is Janet Weiner, part owner and chief financial officer of the Rockstar energy drink company, which has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying federal officials to avoid tighter regulations on its products.
Bruce Toll, a real estate executive who co-founded Toll Brothers, one of the nation’s largest home builders, and who is still active in the industry, owns a home nearby and frequently sees Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago, he said. While they did not discuss any of Mr. Toll’s specific projects, he said, the two would occasionally discuss national issues, such as Mr. Trump’s plans to increase spending on highways and other infrastructure projects.
“Maybe you ought to do this or that,” Mr. Toll said of the kind of advice that Mr. Trump got from club members.
On any given weekend, you might catch President Trump’s son-in-law and top Mideast dealmaker, Jared Kushner, by the beachside soft-serve ice cream machine, or his reclusive chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, on the dining patio. If you are lucky, the president himself could stop by your table for a quick chat. But you will have to pay $200,000 for the privilege — and the few available spots are going fast.
Virtually overnight, Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s members-only Palm Beach, Fla., club, has been transformed into the part-time capital of American government, a so-called winter White House where Mr. Trump has entertained a foreign head of state, health care industry executives and other presidential guests.
But Mr. Trump’s gatherings at Mar-a-Lago — he arrived there on Friday afternoon, his third weekend visit in a row — have also created an arena for potential political influence rarely seen in American history: a kind of Washington steakhouse on steroids, situated in a sunny playground of the rich and powerful, where members and their guests enjoy a level of access that could elude even the best-connected of lobbyists.
Membership lists reviewed by The New York Times show that the club’s nearly 500 paying members include dozens of real estate developers, Wall Street financiers, energy executives and others whose businesses could be affected by Mr. Trump’s policies. At least three club members are under consideration for an ambassadorship. Most of the 500 have had memberships predating Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and there are a limited number of memberships still available.
William I. Koch, who oversees a major mining and fuels company, belongs to Mar-a-Lago, as does the billionaire trader Thomas Peterffy, who spent more than $8 million on political ads in 2012 warning of creeping socialism in America.
Another member is George Norcross, an insurance executive and the South Jersey Democratic Party boss, whose friendship with Mr. Trump dates to the president’s Atlantic City years, when Mr. Norcross held insurance contracts with Mr. Trump’s casinos, and Mr. Trump wrangled with the state’s Democratic leaders over tax treatment of the properties. Yet another member is Janet Weiner, part owner and chief financial officer of the Rockstar energy drink company, which has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying federal officials to avoid tighter regulations on its products.
Bruce Toll, a real estate executive who co-founded Toll Brothers, one of the nation’s largest home builders, and who is still active in the industry, owns a home nearby and frequently sees Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago, he said. While they did not discuss any of Mr. Toll’s specific projects, he said, the two would occasionally discuss national issues, such as Mr. Trump’s plans to increase spending on highways and other infrastructure projects.
“Maybe you ought to do this or that,” Mr. Toll said of the kind of advice that Mr. Trump got from club members.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Rolling Stone: Trump's Repeal of Bipartisan Anti-Corruption Measure Proves He's a Fake
By Matt Taibbi:
Among the measures proposed: new restrictions on lobbying, including a five-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists after leaving office.
Months later, with the self-proclaimed "existential threat" to special interests in office, the "establishment" has it better than ever. Not only has the money-over-principle dynamic not changed inside the Beltway, it's ascendant. Under "outsider" rule, Washington has never been more Washington-y.
Tuesday, for instance, Trump signed a repeal of a bipartisan provision of the Dodd-Frank bill known as the Cardin-Lugar Amendment. The absurd history of this doomed provision stands as a perfect microcosm of how Washington works, or doesn't work, as it were.
The election of a billionaire president who killed the anti-corruption measure off is only the brutal coup de grace. The rule was stalled for the better part of six years by a relentless and exhausting parade of lobbyists, lawyers and other assorted Beltway malingerers. It then lived out of the womb for a few sad months before Trump smothered it this week.
* * *
Ask Trump supporters about this episode, and many would say they won't weep for the loss of any government regulation.
But they should ask themselves if, when they were whooping and hollering for the man who promised to end special interest and lobbyist rules in Washington, they imagined the ExxonMobil chief in charge of the State Department cheering as the new president wiped out anti-bribery laws. The "establishment" sure is on the run, isn't it?
The Full Story (February 16, 2017)
Among the measures proposed: new restrictions on lobbying, including a five-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists after leaving office.
Months later, with the self-proclaimed "existential threat" to special interests in office, the "establishment" has it better than ever. Not only has the money-over-principle dynamic not changed inside the Beltway, it's ascendant. Under "outsider" rule, Washington has never been more Washington-y.
Tuesday, for instance, Trump signed a repeal of a bipartisan provision of the Dodd-Frank bill known as the Cardin-Lugar Amendment. The absurd history of this doomed provision stands as a perfect microcosm of how Washington works, or doesn't work, as it were.
The election of a billionaire president who killed the anti-corruption measure off is only the brutal coup de grace. The rule was stalled for the better part of six years by a relentless and exhausting parade of lobbyists, lawyers and other assorted Beltway malingerers. It then lived out of the womb for a few sad months before Trump smothered it this week.
* * *
Ask Trump supporters about this episode, and many would say they won't weep for the loss of any government regulation.
But they should ask themselves if, when they were whooping and hollering for the man who promised to end special interest and lobbyist rules in Washington, they imagined the ExxonMobil chief in charge of the State Department cheering as the new president wiped out anti-bribery laws. The "establishment" sure is on the run, isn't it?
The Full Story (February 16, 2017)
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Washington Post: Andrew Puzder Withdraws Labor Nomination, Throwing White House Into More Turmoil
By Ed O'Keefe and Jonnelle Marte:
Andrew Puzder, President Trump’s labor secretary nominee, withdrew from consideration Wednesday amid growing resistance from Senate Republicans centered primarily on Puzder’s past employment of an undocumented housekeeper.
The collapse of Puzder’s nomination threw the White House into further turmoil just two days after the resignation of Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, amid revelations that Flynn had spoken repeatedly, and possibly illegally, with the Russian ambassador last year about lifting U.S. sanctions.
Puzder’s fate amplified the deteriorating relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill, where bipartisan support grew Wednesday for expanded investigations into ties between Trump, his presidential campaign and Russian officials.
The White House, including Trump, offered no comment on Puzder’s withdrawal nor any indication of whom the president would nominate in the restaurant executive’s place. Puzder issued a statement saying he was “honored” to have been nominated. “While I won’t be serving in the administration, I fully support the President and his highly qualified team,” he said.
A top Trump campaign supporter, Puzder had attracted widespread criticism regarding his business record and personal background. He was set to testify Thursday at a confirmation hearing that had been delayed for weeks to allow for the completion of an ethics review of his vast personal wealth.
But it was Puzder’s hiring of an undocumented worker for domestic work — as well as his support for more liberalized immigration policies — that pushed several Senate Republicans away, they said.
The Full Story (February 15, 2017)
Andrew Puzder, President Trump’s labor secretary nominee, withdrew from consideration Wednesday amid growing resistance from Senate Republicans centered primarily on Puzder’s past employment of an undocumented housekeeper.
The collapse of Puzder’s nomination threw the White House into further turmoil just two days after the resignation of Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, amid revelations that Flynn had spoken repeatedly, and possibly illegally, with the Russian ambassador last year about lifting U.S. sanctions.
Puzder’s fate amplified the deteriorating relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill, where bipartisan support grew Wednesday for expanded investigations into ties between Trump, his presidential campaign and Russian officials.
The White House, including Trump, offered no comment on Puzder’s withdrawal nor any indication of whom the president would nominate in the restaurant executive’s place. Puzder issued a statement saying he was “honored” to have been nominated. “While I won’t be serving in the administration, I fully support the President and his highly qualified team,” he said.
A top Trump campaign supporter, Puzder had attracted widespread criticism regarding his business record and personal background. He was set to testify Thursday at a confirmation hearing that had been delayed for weeks to allow for the completion of an ethics review of his vast personal wealth.
But it was Puzder’s hiring of an undocumented worker for domestic work — as well as his support for more liberalized immigration policies — that pushed several Senate Republicans away, they said.
The Full Story (February 15, 2017)
Monday, May 22, 2017
CNN: Ethics Office [Says] White House Should Investigate Conway for Ivanka Trump Plug
By Jill Disis:
The Office of Government Ethics is recommending that the White House take disciplinary action against Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to President Trump, for endorsing Ivanka Trump's products in a TV interview.
Walter Shaub, the director of the ethics office, wrote in a letter to the White House that there is "strong reason to believe" Conway violated ethics standards and that disciplinary action is warranted. He suggested that the White House open an investigation.
Shaub likened what Conway did to appearing in a TV commercial.
Conway gave the endorsement on Fox News Channel last week, one day after the president attacked the Nordstrom department store chain for treating his daughter unfairly. Nordstrom has said it dropped her line of clothing and accessories because they weren't selling well.
"Go buy Ivanka's stuff, is what I would tell you," Conway told Fox News. "It's a wonderful line. I own some of it. I fully -- I'm going to just, I'm going to give a free commercial here: Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online."
Shaub sent the letter to the White House after a bipartisan group of lawmakers from the House Oversight Committee asked the agency to look into Conway.
The Office of Government Ethics is recommending that the White House take disciplinary action against Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to President Trump, for endorsing Ivanka Trump's products in a TV interview.
Walter Shaub, the director of the ethics office, wrote in a letter to the White House that there is "strong reason to believe" Conway violated ethics standards and that disciplinary action is warranted. He suggested that the White House open an investigation.
Shaub likened what Conway did to appearing in a TV commercial.
Conway gave the endorsement on Fox News Channel last week, one day after the president attacked the Nordstrom department store chain for treating his daughter unfairly. Nordstrom has said it dropped her line of clothing and accessories because they weren't selling well.
"Go buy Ivanka's stuff, is what I would tell you," Conway told Fox News. "It's a wonderful line. I own some of it. I fully -- I'm going to just, I'm going to give a free commercial here: Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online."
Shaub sent the letter to the White House after a bipartisan group of lawmakers from the House Oversight Committee asked the agency to look into Conway.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Talking Points Memo: Flynn Doesn’t Matter. This Is About Trump.
By Josh Marshall:
Step back for a second and look at this. While certainties are hard to come by, it seems clear that Russia broke into computer networks and selectively released private emails to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. When President Obama took a series of actions to punish the Russian government for this interference, President-Elect Trump’s top foreign policy advisor made a series of calls to the Russian government’s representative in the United States to ask him to have his government refrain from retaliation and suggested that the punishments could be lifted once the new government was sworn in. Then he lied about the calls both publicly and apparently within the White House. What has gotten lost in this discussion is that these questionable calls were aimed at blunting the punishment meted out for the election interference that helped Donald Trump become President. This is mind-boggling.
Consider another point.
Through the course of the campaign, transition and presidency, three top Trump advisors and staffers have had to resign because of issues tied to Russia. Paul Manafort, Carter Page and now Michael Flynn. Page might arguably be termed a secondary figure. Manafort ran Trump’s campaign and Flynn was his top foreign policy advisor for a year. The one common denominator between all these events, all these men is one person: Donald Trump.
As I said above, this has all been happening before our eyes, the train of inexplicable actions, the unaccountable ties and monetary connections, the willful, almost inexplicable need to make the case for Vladimir Putin even when the President knows the suspicion he’s under. When I was writing my first post on this topic more than 6 months ago, I had the uncanny feeling of finding what I was writing impossible to believe as I wrote it. And yet, I would go through the list of unexplained occurrences and actions, clear business and political connections, sycophantic support and more and realize there was too much evidence to ignore. It was fantastical and yet in plain sight.
Consider another point.
Through the course of the campaign, transition and presidency, three top Trump advisors and staffers have had to resign because of issues tied to Russia. Paul Manafort, Carter Page and now Michael Flynn. Page might arguably be termed a secondary figure. Manafort ran Trump’s campaign and Flynn was his top foreign policy advisor for a year. The one common denominator between all these events, all these men is one person: Donald Trump.
As I said above, this has all been happening before our eyes, the train of inexplicable actions, the unaccountable ties and monetary connections, the willful, almost inexplicable need to make the case for Vladimir Putin even when the President knows the suspicion he’s under. When I was writing my first post on this topic more than 6 months ago, I had the uncanny feeling of finding what I was writing impossible to believe as I wrote it. And yet, I would go through the list of unexplained occurrences and actions, clear business and political connections, sycophantic support and more and realize there was too much evidence to ignore. It was fantastical and yet in plain sight.
Monday, May 8, 2017
New York: Kellyanne Conway’s Endorsement of Ivanka Products Apparently Violates Federal Law
By Jonathan Chait:
President Trump has been obliterating existing norms about using his office for personal enrichment. “Norms” is the key word — federal law strictly regulates conflicts of interest of every federal employee except the president, who is assumed (or was assumed, before Trump came along) to refrain from using his office for personal gain. In their few weeks in office, Trump’s staff have apparently gotten comfortable enough with the arrangement that they are now routinely blending their roles as spokespeople for Trump the president and Trump the brand. Kellyanne Conway used an interview from the White House this morning to officially endorse the Ivanka Trump product line.
* * *
Update: The Washington Post adds more reporting, confirming that Conway appears to have clearly violated federal ethics laws. While the violation seems undisputable, enforcement is typically handled by the employee’s federal agency: “Enforcement measures are largely left to the head of the federal agency — in Conway’s case, the White House,” reports the Post, “One lawyer said a typical executive-branch employee who violated the rule could face significant disciplinary action, including a multi-day suspension and loss of pay.”
President Trump has been obliterating existing norms about using his office for personal enrichment. “Norms” is the key word — federal law strictly regulates conflicts of interest of every federal employee except the president, who is assumed (or was assumed, before Trump came along) to refrain from using his office for personal gain. In their few weeks in office, Trump’s staff have apparently gotten comfortable enough with the arrangement that they are now routinely blending their roles as spokespeople for Trump the president and Trump the brand. Kellyanne Conway used an interview from the White House this morning to officially endorse the Ivanka Trump product line.
* * *
Update: The Washington Post adds more reporting, confirming that Conway appears to have clearly violated federal ethics laws. While the violation seems undisputable, enforcement is typically handled by the employee’s federal agency: “Enforcement measures are largely left to the head of the federal agency — in Conway’s case, the White House,” reports the Post, “One lawyer said a typical executive-branch employee who violated the rule could face significant disciplinary action, including a multi-day suspension and loss of pay.”
Monday, May 1, 2017
Politico: Saudis Foot Tab at Trump Hotel
By Isaac Arnsdorf:
A lobbying firm working for Saudi Arabia paid for a room at Donald Trump’s Washington hotel after Inauguration Day, marking the first publicly known payment on behalf of a foreign government to a Trump property since he became president.
Qorvis MSLGroup, a communications firm that lobbies for the Saudis, has been organizing veterans and other activists to come to Washington to urge Congress to repeal the law letting 9/11 victims’ families sue the kingdom. Between 20 and 40 veterans, with the assistance of the advocacy group NMLB, stayed at the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue in December and January.
One of those veterans checked in on Jan. 23 and left on Jan. 26 at a rate of $250 to $325 a night plus tax, according to NMLB president Jason Johns. The bill was paid by Michael Gibson, a subcontractor to Qorvis representing the Saudis, according to disclosures filed with the Justice Department.
The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits U.S. officials from receiving payments from foreign governments. Lawyers started warning about the potential for violations at Trump’s Washington hotel and overseas properties after he won the election, but the clause didn’t start applying to Trump until he took office on Jan. 20.
The Jan. 23-26 hotel stay paid by the Saudis raises questions about whether it represents a violation of the foreign emoluments clause.
“The problem with Donald Trump’s constitutionally forbidden foreign government cash and other benefits is not just that any one particular payment is problematic — it’s also a systemic problem,” said Norm Eisen, who was President Barack Obama’s ethics czar and is now part of a lawsuit accusing Trump of violation the Emoluments Clause. “It’s another tile in the mosaic of unconstitutional behavior.”
While the payment passed through several hands, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s ultimately Saudi money, Eisen said. Lobbying firms typically bill expenses to their client.
A lobbying firm working for Saudi Arabia paid for a room at Donald Trump’s Washington hotel after Inauguration Day, marking the first publicly known payment on behalf of a foreign government to a Trump property since he became president.
Qorvis MSLGroup, a communications firm that lobbies for the Saudis, has been organizing veterans and other activists to come to Washington to urge Congress to repeal the law letting 9/11 victims’ families sue the kingdom. Between 20 and 40 veterans, with the assistance of the advocacy group NMLB, stayed at the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue in December and January.
One of those veterans checked in on Jan. 23 and left on Jan. 26 at a rate of $250 to $325 a night plus tax, according to NMLB president Jason Johns. The bill was paid by Michael Gibson, a subcontractor to Qorvis representing the Saudis, according to disclosures filed with the Justice Department.
The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits U.S. officials from receiving payments from foreign governments. Lawyers started warning about the potential for violations at Trump’s Washington hotel and overseas properties after he won the election, but the clause didn’t start applying to Trump until he took office on Jan. 20.
The Jan. 23-26 hotel stay paid by the Saudis raises questions about whether it represents a violation of the foreign emoluments clause.
“The problem with Donald Trump’s constitutionally forbidden foreign government cash and other benefits is not just that any one particular payment is problematic — it’s also a systemic problem,” said Norm Eisen, who was President Barack Obama’s ethics czar and is now part of a lawsuit accusing Trump of violation the Emoluments Clause. “It’s another tile in the mosaic of unconstitutional behavior.”
While the payment passed through several hands, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s ultimately Saudi money, Eisen said. Lobbying firms typically bill expenses to their client.
Friday, April 28, 2017
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.
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.
Thursday, April 27, 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.
“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.
Thursday, April 20, 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)
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)
Thursday, April 13, 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)
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)
Tuesday, April 11, 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)
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)
Monday, April 10, 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.”
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.”
Monday, April 3, 2017
CNBC: Mar-a-Lago Membership Fee Doubles to $200,000
By Robert Frank:
Mar-a-Lago, the Palm Beach resort owned by the Trump Organization, doubled its initiation fee to $200,000 following the election of Donald Trump as president.
Mar-a-Lago, the Palm Beach resort owned by the Trump Organization, doubled its initiation fee to $200,000 following the election of Donald Trump as president.
People close to the Florida resort said the increase took effect Jan. 1. The resort had been considering an increase for some time, said those people, who declined to provide their names because they were not authorized to speak on behalf of the company.
A spokesperson for the Trump Organization did not respond to CNBC's request for comment. But the timing is likely to add to criticism that the Trump Organization is trying to benefit from the president's election.
Indeed, shortly after the fee hike was revealed, Barack Obama's former top ethics lawyer told MSNBC that the increase is a "not very subtle exploitation of the fact that the club's figurehead is now president of the U.S."
The Full Story (January 25, 2017)
Indeed, shortly after the fee hike was revealed, Barack Obama's former top ethics lawyer told MSNBC that the increase is a "not very subtle exploitation of the fact that the club's figurehead is now president of the U.S."
The Full Story (January 25, 2017)
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Talking Points Memo: Democrats To GSA - Trump Is Now In Violation Of His DC Hotel Lease
By Allegra Kirkland:
President Donald Trump has officially violated the lease agreement he entered into with the federal government for his Washington, D.C. hotel, Democratic lawmakers charged Monday.
The General Services Administration, which manages the Old Post Office building in which his Trump International Hotel is housed, until now declined to take a position on whether Trump was violating a clause preventing elected officials from benefiting from the contract. Now that he has been sworn in and has formally announced that he will not divest ownership interest in the Trump Organization, House and Senate Democrats want answers.
In twin letters to GSA Acting Administrator Timothy Horne, House and Senate Democrats asked what steps the agency was taking to address this apparent breach of contract.
“The violation of the terms of the lease is no longer hypothetical, as President Trump will soon oversee GSA and appoint a new GSA administrator, effectively making him simultaneously landlord and tenant of the Old Post Office building,” Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tom Carper (D-DE) wrote.
In another letter, Democratic Reps. Elijah Cummings (DE), Peter DeFazio (OR), Gerald Connolly (VA) and Andre Carson (IN) asked Horne to turn over correspondence with the Trump team to prove it is working to address the issue.
"Our hope has always been that President Trump would resolve these breach-of-lease and conflict of interest issues prior to being sworn in as President on January 20,” the Democrats said. "Unfortunately, President Trump has refused to address these concerns, and taxpayer dollars may now be squandered as career public servants are forced to take remedial action to cure this breach.”
President Donald Trump has officially violated the lease agreement he entered into with the federal government for his Washington, D.C. hotel, Democratic lawmakers charged Monday.
The General Services Administration, which manages the Old Post Office building in which his Trump International Hotel is housed, until now declined to take a position on whether Trump was violating a clause preventing elected officials from benefiting from the contract. Now that he has been sworn in and has formally announced that he will not divest ownership interest in the Trump Organization, House and Senate Democrats want answers.
In twin letters to GSA Acting Administrator Timothy Horne, House and Senate Democrats asked what steps the agency was taking to address this apparent breach of contract.
“The violation of the terms of the lease is no longer hypothetical, as President Trump will soon oversee GSA and appoint a new GSA administrator, effectively making him simultaneously landlord and tenant of the Old Post Office building,” Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tom Carper (D-DE) wrote.
In another letter, Democratic Reps. Elijah Cummings (DE), Peter DeFazio (OR), Gerald Connolly (VA) and Andre Carson (IN) asked Horne to turn over correspondence with the Trump team to prove it is working to address the issue.
"Our hope has always been that President Trump would resolve these breach-of-lease and conflict of interest issues prior to being sworn in as President on January 20,” the Democrats said. "Unfortunately, President Trump has refused to address these concerns, and taxpayer dollars may now be squandered as career public servants are forced to take remedial action to cure this breach.”
Sunday, March 26, 2017
[Special] NPR: Can Trump Take The Money?
By Planet Money (Episode 758):
In 1776, just after the U.S. declared independence, Benjamin Franklin traveled to France to serve as an ambassador. Franklin was a hit in Paris. When he returned home, King Louis XVI gave Franklin an extravagant gift - a portrait of the king ringed by 408 fine diamonds.
This gift from kicked off a conversation among the Founding Fathers as as they were drafting the constitution: Should politicians be able to benefit from their offices? How would we ensure elected officials stay independent? How do we prevent them from being influenced by foreign governments?
The founders wrote the Emoluments Clause into the U.S. Constitution.
It reads:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
Now, these 49 words have been thrust into the spotlight.
A group of lawyers filed a suit against President Trump, days after he took office. They claim he is violating the Emoluments Clause. That he's profiting from his office: foreign diplomats are paying to stay in his hotels, the Apprentice airs on state-owned networks abroad, and China just granted the Trump name trademark protection.
We've never had a president like Donald Trump, and so we're only now testing the limits of the emoluments clause.
Today on the show: profits, diplomacy, ancient Rome, and a lawsuit against the president.
In 1776, just after the U.S. declared independence, Benjamin Franklin traveled to France to serve as an ambassador. Franklin was a hit in Paris. When he returned home, King Louis XVI gave Franklin an extravagant gift - a portrait of the king ringed by 408 fine diamonds.
This gift from kicked off a conversation among the Founding Fathers as as they were drafting the constitution: Should politicians be able to benefit from their offices? How would we ensure elected officials stay independent? How do we prevent them from being influenced by foreign governments?
The founders wrote the Emoluments Clause into the U.S. Constitution.
It reads:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
Now, these 49 words have been thrust into the spotlight.
A group of lawyers filed a suit against President Trump, days after he took office. They claim he is violating the Emoluments Clause. That he's profiting from his office: foreign diplomats are paying to stay in his hotels, the Apprentice airs on state-owned networks abroad, and China just granted the Trump name trademark protection.
We've never had a president like Donald Trump, and so we're only now testing the limits of the emoluments clause.
Today on the show: profits, diplomacy, ancient Rome, and a lawsuit against the president.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Talking Points Memo: First Lady Melania Trump’s White House Bio Promotes Her Products
By Matt Shuham:
A lengthy biography posted on whitehouse.gov highlights Melania Trump’s jewelry line, yet another example of the newly-minted first family plugging their product in political, and now official, settings.
“In April 2010, Melania Trump launched her own jewelry collection, ‘Melania™ Timepieces & Jewelry’, on QVC,” the bio notes, after listing a slew of modeling gigs and philanthropic positions.
Previously, President Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, came under fire for plugging her own products following campaign appearances. After her speech at the Republican National Convention, Ivanka Trump advertised the dress she'd worn during the speech on her Twitter page. Reporters also received an email from a representative of her company advertising the bracelet she wore during the Trump family's first post-election interview.
The Full Story (January 20, 2017)
A lengthy biography posted on whitehouse.gov highlights Melania Trump’s jewelry line, yet another example of the newly-minted first family plugging their product in political, and now official, settings.
“In April 2010, Melania Trump launched her own jewelry collection, ‘Melania™ Timepieces & Jewelry’, on QVC,” the bio notes, after listing a slew of modeling gigs and philanthropic positions.
Previously, President Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, came under fire for plugging her own products following campaign appearances. After her speech at the Republican National Convention, Ivanka Trump advertised the dress she'd worn during the speech on her Twitter page. Reporters also received an email from a representative of her company advertising the bracelet she wore during the Trump family's first post-election interview.
The Full Story (January 20, 2017)
[Special] Revisiting Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017
All articles from January 20, 2017.
The Atlantic: 'America First' - Donald Trump's Populist Inaugural Address by David A. Graham
Reciting a litany of horribles including gangs, drugs, crime, poverty, and unemployment, Trump told the nation, “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”
The Atlantic: 'America First' - Donald Trump's Populist Inaugural Address by David A. Graham
Reciting a litany of horribles including gangs, drugs, crime, poverty, and unemployment, Trump told the nation, “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”
The inaugural address was unusually dark and political, delivered in a forum where new presidents have tended to reach for a language of unity, positivity, and non-partisanship. In many ways, the speech drew directly from the tone and approach of Trump’s often very-negative campaign rally speeches, once again showing that the “pivot” many observers have long expected Trump to make toward a more unifying and detached tone, is not coming. President Trump so far looks much the same as candidate Trump, and his speech was a strange milestone in a strange rise to power, one that was viewed as impossible just months ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)