By Steve Edler:
Donald J. Trump has reversed course and agreed on Friday to pay $25 million to settle a series of lawsuits stemming from his defunct for-profit education venture, Trump University, finally putting to rest fraud allegations by former students, which have dogged him for years and hampered his presidential campaign.
The settlement was announced by the New York attorney general just 10 days before one of the cases, a federal class-action lawsuit in San Diego, was set to be heard by a jury. The deal averts a potentially embarrassing and highly unusual predicament: a president-elect on trial, and possibly even taking the stand in his own defense, while scrambling to build his incoming administration.
It was a remarkable concession from a real estate mogul who derides legal settlements and has mocked fellow businessmen who agree to them.
But the allegations in the case were highly unpleasant for Mr. Trump: Students paid up to $35,000 in tuition for a programs that, according to the testimony of former Trump University employees, used high-pressure sales tactics and employed unqualified instructors.
The Full Story (November 18, 2016)
Monday, December 12, 2016
Saturday, December 10, 2016
[Special] Talking Points Memo: Maybe The Answer Is That He Can't Divest
By Josh Marshall
After Trump got into that scuffle with Boeing, reporters asked about his ownership of Boeing stock. Trump replied that he'd already sold that stock. So there was no problem. But there's a bit more to it than that.
According to his spokesman, Trump sold all of his stock back in June, a portfolio which his disclosures suggest was worth as much as $38 million. Trump told Matt Lauer that he sold the stock because he was confident he'd win and "would have a tremendous ... conflict of interest owning all of these different companies" while serving as President.
Now, c'mon. Donald Trump sold off all his equities more than six months before he could become president because he was concerned about conflicts of interest? Please. That doesn't pass the laugh test.
But consider this. During the primaries Donald Trump loaned his campaign roughly $50 million. Over the course of the spring, as it became increasingly likely he'd be the nominee, that loan became increasingly conspicuous. Donors were wary of donating big money because they didn't want him to use it to pay himself back for that loan. Many suggested that he might not actually be able to part with that money. It became a big issue and Trump refused to forgive the loans.
It was only in June that Trump finally gave in and forgave the loan; this was confirmed in the June FEC disclosure that came out in late July. Who knows why Trump sold off all his stock holdings? Maybe he just had a feeling. Maybe he thought the market was too hot. Maybe he just had a spasm of prospective ethical concern. But let's be honest. The most obvious explanation is that forgiving that debt from his campaign required him — through whatever mix of contingencies — to free up more cash, either for the campaign or personal expenses or perhaps to have a certain amount of cash on hand because of terms of other debts. It does not seem plausible at all that the timing is coincidental.
Since we don't have Trump's tax returns, there's just a huge amount we don't know about his businesses. What we do know is that Trump appears to wildly exaggerate the scale of his wealth and exhibit a stinginess that is very hard to square with a man of the kinds of means he claims. A heavily leveraged business, one that is indebted and dependent on cash flow to keep everything moving forward, can be kind of like a shark. It has to keep moving forward or it dies.
Perhaps Trump simply doesn't feel like he can trust anyone else to keep the whole shambling enterprise afloat. More plausibly, and consistent with Trump's history over the last couple decades, Trump's business is dependent on an ever expanding number of deals not just to grow but to stay afloat at all. It is certainly plausible that if Trump simply sold off his company in toto, he'd be in debt. Maybe there wouldn't be anything left to put in a blind trust.
The Full Story (December 8, 2016)
See also: He Won't Because He Can't from December 9, 2016.
After Trump got into that scuffle with Boeing, reporters asked about his ownership of Boeing stock. Trump replied that he'd already sold that stock. So there was no problem. But there's a bit more to it than that.
According to his spokesman, Trump sold all of his stock back in June, a portfolio which his disclosures suggest was worth as much as $38 million. Trump told Matt Lauer that he sold the stock because he was confident he'd win and "would have a tremendous ... conflict of interest owning all of these different companies" while serving as President.
Now, c'mon. Donald Trump sold off all his equities more than six months before he could become president because he was concerned about conflicts of interest? Please. That doesn't pass the laugh test.
But consider this. During the primaries Donald Trump loaned his campaign roughly $50 million. Over the course of the spring, as it became increasingly likely he'd be the nominee, that loan became increasingly conspicuous. Donors were wary of donating big money because they didn't want him to use it to pay himself back for that loan. Many suggested that he might not actually be able to part with that money. It became a big issue and Trump refused to forgive the loans.
It was only in June that Trump finally gave in and forgave the loan; this was confirmed in the June FEC disclosure that came out in late July. Who knows why Trump sold off all his stock holdings? Maybe he just had a feeling. Maybe he thought the market was too hot. Maybe he just had a spasm of prospective ethical concern. But let's be honest. The most obvious explanation is that forgiving that debt from his campaign required him — through whatever mix of contingencies — to free up more cash, either for the campaign or personal expenses or perhaps to have a certain amount of cash on hand because of terms of other debts. It does not seem plausible at all that the timing is coincidental.
Since we don't have Trump's tax returns, there's just a huge amount we don't know about his businesses. What we do know is that Trump appears to wildly exaggerate the scale of his wealth and exhibit a stinginess that is very hard to square with a man of the kinds of means he claims. A heavily leveraged business, one that is indebted and dependent on cash flow to keep everything moving forward, can be kind of like a shark. It has to keep moving forward or it dies.
Perhaps Trump simply doesn't feel like he can trust anyone else to keep the whole shambling enterprise afloat. More plausibly, and consistent with Trump's history over the last couple decades, Trump's business is dependent on an ever expanding number of deals not just to grow but to stay afloat at all. It is certainly plausible that if Trump simply sold off his company in toto, he'd be in debt. Maybe there wouldn't be anything left to put in a blind trust.
The Full Story (December 8, 2016)
See also: He Won't Because He Can't from December 9, 2016.
Friday, December 9, 2016
Washington Post: For Foreign Diplomats, Trump Hotel is Place to Be
By Jonathan O'Connell and Mary Jordan:
“Believe me, all the delegations will go there,” said one Middle Eastern diplomat who recently toured the hotel and booked an overseas visitor. The diplomat said many stayed away from the hotel before the election for fear of a “Clinton backlash,” but that now it’s the place to be seen.
In interviews with a dozen diplomats, many of whom declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak about anything related to the next U.S. president, some said spending money at Trump’s hotel is an easy, friendly gesture to the new president.
“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’ ” said one Asian diplomat.
Guests at the Trump hotel have begun parking themselves in the lobby, ordering expensive cocktails, hoping to see one of the Trump family members or the latest Cabinet pick. One foreign official hoped Trump, famous for the personal interest he takes in his businesses, might check the guest logs himself.
But several expressed concern that spending thousands of dollars on a Trump property could look like an attempt to buy access or favors.
“The temptation and the inclination will certainly be there,” said Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States. “Some might think it’s the right way to engage, to be able to tell the next president, ‘Oh, I stayed at your hotel.’ If I were still in government, I would discourage it, among other reasons because it can be questioned and looked at in a very poor light, as though you are trying to buy influence via a hotel bill.”
“Believe me, all the delegations will go there,” said one Middle Eastern diplomat who recently toured the hotel and booked an overseas visitor. The diplomat said many stayed away from the hotel before the election for fear of a “Clinton backlash,” but that now it’s the place to be seen.
In interviews with a dozen diplomats, many of whom declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak about anything related to the next U.S. president, some said spending money at Trump’s hotel is an easy, friendly gesture to the new president.
“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’ ” said one Asian diplomat.
Guests at the Trump hotel have begun parking themselves in the lobby, ordering expensive cocktails, hoping to see one of the Trump family members or the latest Cabinet pick. One foreign official hoped Trump, famous for the personal interest he takes in his businesses, might check the guest logs himself.
But several expressed concern that spending thousands of dollars on a Trump property could look like an attempt to buy access or favors.
“The temptation and the inclination will certainly be there,” said Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States. “Some might think it’s the right way to engage, to be able to tell the next president, ‘Oh, I stayed at your hotel.’ If I were still in government, I would discourage it, among other reasons because it can be questioned and looked at in a very poor light, as though you are trying to buy influence via a hotel bill.”
[Special] Talking Points Memo: After Savaging Goldman Sachs, Trump Stocks His Admin With Goldman Alums
By Matt Shuham:
Goldman Sachs president Gary Cohn has been offered the directorship of the Trump White House's National Economic Council, anonymous sources told NBC News and Bloomberg Politics Friday. It is the most recent in a series of potential Trump hires from the financial services giant that Trump himself criticized heavily during the presidential campaign and tried to hang around Hillary Clinton's neck.
In Trump’s closing advertisement before Election Day, a two-minute spectacular focused on blood-sucking elites, Cohn’s only senior at Goldman, CEO Lloyd Blankfein, flashed on screen while Trump said: “It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.”
Cohn joins several Goldman Sachs alumni already expected to be in the new administration.
Steve Mnuchin, Trump’s pick for Treasury secretary, spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs before striking out on his own. His father and brother also had high-profile careers at the investment bank. Steve Bannon, formerly Trump’s campaign CEO and now his chief strategist, worked at Goldman Sachs in the 1980s in mergers and acquisitions.
Anthony Scaramucci, one of Trump’s top transition advisers and a frequent cable news talking head, had two separate stints at Goldman Sachs, most recently as vice president in private wealth management, according to CNN Money. Cohn became a partner at Goldman Sachs in 1994, four years into a lengthy career there.
Asked on CNN Friday about Goldman Sachs’ increasing influence in Trump’s inner circle, Scaramucci said, “I think the cabal against the bankers is over.”
The Full Story (December 9, 2016)
Goldman Sachs president Gary Cohn has been offered the directorship of the Trump White House's National Economic Council, anonymous sources told NBC News and Bloomberg Politics Friday. It is the most recent in a series of potential Trump hires from the financial services giant that Trump himself criticized heavily during the presidential campaign and tried to hang around Hillary Clinton's neck.
In Trump’s closing advertisement before Election Day, a two-minute spectacular focused on blood-sucking elites, Cohn’s only senior at Goldman, CEO Lloyd Blankfein, flashed on screen while Trump said: “It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.”
Cohn joins several Goldman Sachs alumni already expected to be in the new administration.
Steve Mnuchin, Trump’s pick for Treasury secretary, spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs before striking out on his own. His father and brother also had high-profile careers at the investment bank. Steve Bannon, formerly Trump’s campaign CEO and now his chief strategist, worked at Goldman Sachs in the 1980s in mergers and acquisitions.
Anthony Scaramucci, one of Trump’s top transition advisers and a frequent cable news talking head, had two separate stints at Goldman Sachs, most recently as vice president in private wealth management, according to CNN Money. Cohn became a partner at Goldman Sachs in 1994, four years into a lengthy career there.
Asked on CNN Friday about Goldman Sachs’ increasing influence in Trump’s inner circle, Scaramucci said, “I think the cabal against the bankers is over.”
The Full Story (December 9, 2016)
Thursday, December 8, 2016
Talking Points Memo: The Calamity of Jeff Sessions
By Josh Marshall:
[T]he single most distinguishing feature of Sessions public career is his hostility to African-American voting and the laws put in place to protect African-American voting rights. That stretches from bringing predatory voter fraud indictments with the fairly obvious aim of discouraging efforts to mobilize black voters in Alabama. You can see it in his long-running hostility to the Voting Rights Act. You can see it in his opposition to laws intended to end or the reduce the practice of permanently disenfranchising felons. Again, read Tierney's article. The list goes on and on.
I would say there is much, much more evidence that Jeff Sessions is a racist than that Steve Bannon is anti-Semite. But it's the same difference in both cases. Their actions are what matter, not their personal feelings and prejudices.
The Justice Department has been the historic ally of minority voting around the country. Much less during Republican administrations than Democratic ones, of course. But the raison d'etre of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division has held up that commitment to a significant degree even under administrations that were generally indifferent to voting rights. Again, the backstory of the Bush-era US Attorney scandal is an instructive one here.
Reducing minority voting has been a major part of the Republican policy agenda at the state level since 2011. I don't think it led to Hillary Clinton's defeat. But I don't think there's any question that it contributed to reduced minority voting in several key states. So it was a contributor to her defeat - in addition to numerous other factors.
Over the last eight years, the Obama Justice Department has been an aggressive defender of voting rights. Under Jeff Sessions, the federal government will unquestionably abandon that battle and join sides with GOP controlled states to further limit voting rights. They will most likely also use the power of the DOJ to attack voting rights in states where Democrats are in power. They will almost certainly reorient the DOJ's focus to trumped up voter fraud investigations.
The Full Story (November 18, 2016)
[T]he single most distinguishing feature of Sessions public career is his hostility to African-American voting and the laws put in place to protect African-American voting rights. That stretches from bringing predatory voter fraud indictments with the fairly obvious aim of discouraging efforts to mobilize black voters in Alabama. You can see it in his long-running hostility to the Voting Rights Act. You can see it in his opposition to laws intended to end or the reduce the practice of permanently disenfranchising felons. Again, read Tierney's article. The list goes on and on.
I would say there is much, much more evidence that Jeff Sessions is a racist than that Steve Bannon is anti-Semite. But it's the same difference in both cases. Their actions are what matter, not their personal feelings and prejudices.
The Justice Department has been the historic ally of minority voting around the country. Much less during Republican administrations than Democratic ones, of course. But the raison d'etre of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division has held up that commitment to a significant degree even under administrations that were generally indifferent to voting rights. Again, the backstory of the Bush-era US Attorney scandal is an instructive one here.
Reducing minority voting has been a major part of the Republican policy agenda at the state level since 2011. I don't think it led to Hillary Clinton's defeat. But I don't think there's any question that it contributed to reduced minority voting in several key states. So it was a contributor to her defeat - in addition to numerous other factors.
Over the last eight years, the Obama Justice Department has been an aggressive defender of voting rights. Under Jeff Sessions, the federal government will unquestionably abandon that battle and join sides with GOP controlled states to further limit voting rights. They will most likely also use the power of the DOJ to attack voting rights in states where Democrats are in power. They will almost certainly reorient the DOJ's focus to trumped up voter fraud investigations.
The Full Story (November 18, 2016)
CNN: Trump Picks Sessions For Attorney General
By Phil Mattingly, Eric Bradner and Tal Kopan
The former US attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and Alabama attorney general isn't without controversy. His appointment to a federal district court by then-President Ronald Reagan sank when a former Justice Department employee testified that Sessions had made racially tinged remarks.
He had denounced the 1965 Voting Rights Act and had labeled the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP "un-American" and said the organizations "forced civil rights down the throats of people."
A black Justice Department staffer said Sessions had called him "boy" and claimed he had thought the Ku Klux Klan "were OK until I found out they smoked pot."
Sessions was mentioned as a potential running mate for Trump and advised him on his selection of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who is now helming Trump's transition effort.
* * *
Sessions has also defended one of Trump's most controversial policy proposals: His ban on Muslims traveling into the United States.
The former US attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and Alabama attorney general isn't without controversy. His appointment to a federal district court by then-President Ronald Reagan sank when a former Justice Department employee testified that Sessions had made racially tinged remarks.
He had denounced the 1965 Voting Rights Act and had labeled the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP "un-American" and said the organizations "forced civil rights down the throats of people."
A black Justice Department staffer said Sessions had called him "boy" and claimed he had thought the Ku Klux Klan "were OK until I found out they smoked pot."
Sessions was mentioned as a potential running mate for Trump and advised him on his selection of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who is now helming Trump's transition effort.
* * *
Sessions has also defended one of Trump's most controversial policy proposals: His ban on Muslims traveling into the United States.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)