Trump 43: King of Chaos

[Audrey2]

43 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Lying about people crying, when you know there is video evidence. 

 Colorado?  

Note: this comes from a place of being extremely fed up with Trump and Trumpkins. I'm not truly serious that we should do this.

I am fed up! Let's just give Trump and his minions their wall! Let's pick two or three states of the United States give them to Trump and his minions, move everyone else out for free and they can live with all of his ridiculousness and policies. We'll even build a massive wall to keep them all in! Let all of the Trump supporters from the rest of the states move there before the wall is built. Of course we will move Fox news in there as well. Trumplandia needs its state-run news after all.

Rant over.

[AnywhereButHere]

2 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

Note: this comes from a place of being extremely fed up with Trump and Trumpkins. I'm not truly serious that we should do this.

I am fed up! Let's just give Trump and his minions their wall! Let's pick two or three states of the United States give them to Trump and his minions, move everyone else out for free and they can live with all of his ridiculousness and policies. We'll even build a massive wall to keep them all in! Let all of the Trump supporters from the rest of the states move there before the wall is built. Of course we will move Fox news in there as well. Trumplandia needs its state-run news after all.

Rant over.

I guess we can move them all to Colorado. Since he’s gonna build a wall there. 

[Audrey2]

I just read an article on Yahoo about Trump's building a wall in Colorado and these were some fake tweets that came up at the end of the article. All these aren't real I still thought they were really funny and not too far off from what he would say. I will place them under spoilers, I hope.

Spoiler

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by laPapessaGiovanna
Fixed spoiler

[fraurosena]

Somehow I don’t think this one will be on tomorrow’s print out...

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Lol

But I fear that they are in a safe at the Kremlin.

[fraurosena]

And why is it that ISIS is reconstituted again? That's right, it's because of YOU, by being a yellow-belly coward and giving way to Erdogan (and Putin) so Turkey could invade and commit genocide, leaving the oil fields and nukes (funny how you don't mention them) unprotected.

Your BIG words don't hide your culpability. Or your cowardice.

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by fraurosena

[apple1]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

And why is it that ISIS is reconstituted again? That's right, it's because of YOU, by being a yellow-belly coward and giving way to Erdogan (and Putin) so Turkey could invade and commit genocide, leaving the oil fields and nukes (funny how you don't mention them) unprotected.

Your BIG words don't hide your culpability. Or your cowardice.

 

He doesn't know the definition of "reconstituted" - apparently.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

I actually thought that the tweet that Jimmy Fallon quoted was fake.... silly me. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump Organization said to be weighing sale of D.C. hotel lease"

Spoiler

President Trump’s company is considering selling the lease of its D.C. hotel, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

The people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss plans they were not permitted to make public, said the Trump Organization had hired the firm JLL to market the project.

Trump’s Washington hotel has been a center of controversy since he entered office. Trump continues to own his business, which operates properties including the hotel, leading to charges of conflict of interest. Several lawsuits have alleged that Trump is violating the Constitution’s ban on “emoluments,” or payments by foreign governments, when foreign government officials visit the hotel.

The company leases the building, the Old Post Office Pavilion, from the federal government’s General Services Administration (GSA), but the terms allow for the sale of the lease under certain conditions. The Trumps are trying to sell the lease at the earliest they are allowed. According to lease documents, the Trumps were not allowed to sell their interest until three years after the hotel’s opening date, which was Oct. 26, 2016.

Trump’s son Eric Trump told the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the sale, that, “People are objecting to us making so much money on the hotel, and therefore we may be willing to sell.” Officials from the Trump Organization and JLL declined to comment.

The president recently referred to the issue of whether foreign spending at the hotel violates the Constitution as “the phony emoluments clause.” His statement was part of a discussion about his decision to hold the 2020 Group of Seven summit of world leaders at his Trump National Doral Miami golf resort in Florida. Days after announcing that plan, the White House reversed course after criticism from across the political spectrum.

Opening weeks before Trump won the 2016 election, the hotel has become a popular place for customers and clients aligned with the president’s politics and a go-to place for Republican campaigns to hold fundraisers, Christian groups to hold conventions and conservative authors to host book parties. Members of Trump’s Cabinet have often been spotted there, and Trump has visited there 23 times as president, according to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

But the property has also suffered from the unwillingness of many mainstream corporations, embassies and associations to book business there, narrowing the pool of candidates to fill the hotel’s massive ballroom and its 263 guest rooms.

The hotel’s dealings with foreign governments have led to multiple lawsuits, congressional inquiries and investigations. In three lawsuits winding their way through the federal court system, plaintiffs argue that Trump is violating the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution, which bars the president from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments.

Plaintiffs in the cases repeatedly cite instances in which government officials — from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and other nations — have booked business at the hotel. The judge in one case, in which the D.C. and Maryland attorneys general sued the president, narrowed the arguments strictly to Trump’s D.C. hotel.

Justice Department attorneys have argued in court that the president cannot be charged with a crime while in office and that the president does not violate the Constitution by charging market rates to foreign governments. The Trump Organization has also donated money to the U.S. Treasury each of the past two years, money it says equates to the amount of profits it has received from foreign governments and political leaders.

House Democrats are looking more aggressively into the hotel project. The House committee that oversees the GSA issued a subpoena Thursday to the agency for financial records, legal memos and correspondence related to the project, including material relating to any communications between the GSA and Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump or Eric Trump.

Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.), who issued the subpoena, released a statement Friday calling the possible sale a “good place to start” in terms of addressing ethical concerns but said he was “skeptical that this latest development isn’t an attempt to make a massive profit that directly benefits the Trump family so I will be following this marketing attempt closely.”

When Trump was bidding for the deal in 2012, he told The Washington Post he planned to hold onto it long-term.

“We will not be selling any portion of the real estate,” Trump told The Post at the time. The next year, he signed a 60-year lease with three 10-year options on the building, giving his company control over the property until 2103.

Ivanka Trump, then an executive at her father’s real estate company and now a senior adviser to him in the White House, so coveted the building that she suggested at the time to GSA officials that her daughter, Arabella Rose, then not yet 5 months old, would one day oversee it.

Trump’s company is permitted to sell the lease under certain conditions and with the GSA’s approval, according to lease documents. The company is required to retain the lease for a “Minimum Hold Period” of three years from the hotel’s opening, according to lease documents. The documents say that Trump may receive a 20 percent return on his investment from a sale and that the GSA would then receive 15 percent of any additional proceeds.

Because the sale would take place while Trump is in office — rather than before he entered office, in the way previous presidents have sold private interests — any deal may carry its own ethical questions. For instance, foreign investors and sovereign wealth funds often acquire U.S. real estate, particularly hotels, possibly raising concerns about the foreign emoluments clause.

Because the GSA would have to approve the deal while Trump is president, critics may also raise questions about whether taxpayers are receiving a fair deal.

A GSA spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment. Agency officials have said in the past that they have provided thousands of documents to the House committee and that it is up to the courts to determine whether any emoluments violations have taken place.

It is difficult to determine how well the hotel is performing and what role that may have had in the decision to explore a sale. Financial information on other Trump-branded properties, in New York and Chicago, has shown signs of declining business since Trump entered office, but the GSA has not released financial information about the D.C. property.

Trump has an enormous financial stake in the project. He bested 10 other competitors to win the deal by offering to spend $200 million to renovate the building, far more than some other bidders were willing to offer. He borrowed $170 million from Deutsche Bank to do it. His company is now looking for a sale price of around $500 million, according to the Journal.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

The emperor is unhappy: "Trump frustrated as White House effort to defy impeachment inquiry fails to halt witness testimony, advisers say"

Spoiler

After weeks of dismissing the impeachment inquiry as a hollow partisan attack, President Trump and his closest advisers now recognize the snowballing probe poses a serious threat to the president — and that they have little power to block it, according to multiple aides and advisers.

The dawning realization comes as Democrats rapidly gather evidence from witness after witness testifying about the pressure put on Ukraine to investigate Trump’s political rivals. The president is increasingly frustrated that his efforts to stop people from cooperating with the probe have so far collapsed under the weight of legally powerful congressional subpoenas, advisers said.

The Democratic strategy got a boost Friday from a federal judge, who ruled that the House impeachment inquiry is legal. In the coming week, House investigators are scheduled to hear testimony from five more witnesses, including on Saturday from a Foreign Service officer stationed in Kyiv, who is expected to testify about the efforts to oust the previous U.S. ambassador.

In a sign of the growing realization of his potential jeopardy, Trump has brought back Jane and Marty Raskin, criminal defense attorneys who were part of his legal team during the Mueller investigation, to help him navigate the impeachment investigation, along with his attorney Jay Sekulow and White House lawyers. Their return is a late acknowledgment, some White House advisers say, that the facts coming out are bad for the president, and both his White House and personal attorneys need to try to get in front of what else may emerge.

The president’s reconstituted legal team is racing to master details about the administration’s dealings with Ukraine, along with the efforts of their longtime co-counsel, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to push Ukraine officials to investigate Trump’s foes.

Meanwhile, White House officials have begun holding regular impeachment strategy meetings, often in the Situation Room. Some advisers are discussing bringing in a veteran lawyer with impeachment experience, and actively seeking a communications strategist, according to advisers and officials.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment. Sekulow and the Raskins declined to comment.

The belated scramble — a month after the House formally launched its impeachment inquiry — serves as a recognition that the White House’s strategy of refusing to cooperate with the probe has failed to stymie it, according to multiple Trump advisers and people involved in responding to House requests.

That posture was driven by Trump, who dictated much of a defiant letter sent by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to House leaders earlier this month that claimed the inquiry was constitutionally invalid, according to people familiar with his role.

Although Democrats have not yet been able to secure the participation of all the witnesses they have sought, nine key figures have testified so far, including two current ambassadors and a Pentagon official.

That’s largely because attorneys for officials who have been called for depositions concluded that the White House’s legal arguments are weak compared with a congressional subpoena, according to people familiar with the conversations.

While senior White House advisers have a reason to claim they legally can ignore a congressional subpoena because of executive privilege concerns, that is not the case with career employees, legal experts said.

As a result, civil servants within the bureaucracy that Trump decries as the Deep State are giving Congress a series of damaging accounts about the extent of the effort to pressure Ukraine.

“These are civil servants who realize their duty is public service and honoring the Constitution . . . and [some] are deeply disturbed by the horrendous abuses they have witnessed,” said Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, a nonprofit organization that promotes transparency in government and campaigns.

A number of outside advisers are perplexed that the White House hasn’t filed an injunction or taken some other legal step to stop the parade of officials sharing what they saw and heard.

“Many Trump allies are concerned and don’t understand the strategy of not filing an injunction,” said Jason Miller, an informal Trump adviser. “It’s a head-scratcher. President Trump and the administration have clearly said they don’t want folks participating in this sham process and stepping all over presidential privilege.”

The success the Democrats have had in securing powerful witness testimony is a stark contrast with their efforts earlier in the year, when they sought to interview former White House advisers about Trump’s efforts to block the Russia investigation.

At the time, the White House invoked the risks to executive privilege — directing witnesses such as former White House counsel Donald McGahn and former communications director Hope Hicks that they could not share their accounts with Congress without jeopardizing confidential conversations they had with the president.

The assertion wasn’t settled law, but it worked: Despite a subpoena, McGahn declined to testify and Hicks agreed to appear in a closed-door session accompanied by White House lawyers, but then declined to answer any questions about her time in the White House.

In the impeachment inquiry, the administration has sought to use that same playbook, warning witnesses that they should not participate, according to White House talking points and letters sent by top agency officials to their employees.

Cipollone’s main argument: The House impeachment inquiry was not legally “authorized” by a House vote, and so the administration was not required to participate.

“Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process,” he wrote in his Oct. 8 letter to House leaders. “For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people.”

However, the House can make its own rules and can conduct investigations under its own terms, legal experts said. On Friday, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington dismissed arguments by Republicans that the House must first vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry, calling the notion politically “appealing” but legally “fatally flawed.”

“No governing law requires this test — not the Constitution, not House Rules, and not [the grand jury secrecy rule], and so imposing this test would be an impermissible intrusion on the House’s constitutional authority,” Howell wrote.

White House lawyers also have argued that witnesses should not testify unless an administration lawyer is present — an argument the White House made in talking points distributed to Republicans when ousted ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was facing requests from the House.

Without a government lawyer by her side, the White House claimed, “there is serious danger that she could breach her obligations as a current employee not to reveal such information without authorization.”

The House Intelligence Committee responded with a subpoena, saying “the illegitimate order from the Trump Administration not to cooperate has no force.”

Yovanovitch complied, and laid out in her testimony details about her abrupt ouster from Ukraine.

“Today, we see the State Department attacked and hollowed out from within,” she said in prepared remarks obtained by The Washington Post, warning that U.S. adversaries such as Russia stand to benefit “when bad actors in countries beyond Ukraine see how easy it is to use fiction and innuendo to manipulate our system.”

A similar effort to prevent this week’s testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper also failed. In a letter to her attorney, the Pentagon urged her not to participate in the inquiry, according to a copy obtained by The Post.

“This letter informs you and Ms. Cooper of the Administration-wide direction that Executive Branch personnel ‘cannot participate in [the impeachment] inquiry under these circumstances,’ ” Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist wrote. “In the event that the Committees issue a subpoena to compel Ms. Cooper’s appearance, you should be aware that the Supreme Court has held . . . that a person cannot be sanctioned for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena unauthorized by House Rule or Resolution.”

She nevertheless showed up to give testimony. Her interview was delayed for hours when GOP lawmakers barged into the deposition room, a tactic encouraged by Trump, according to people familiar with his role.

As the inquiry has plowed forward, Trump has expressed anger at the number of people who are testifying, asking why they can’t be stopped, according to advisers.

White House officials are discussing the need to bring in another high-level attorney, someone with the skills of former White House attorney Emmet Flood, who worked on President Bill Clinton’s impeachment team.

Earlier in the month, White House officials had said that former congressman Trey Gowdy was coming aboard to assist the legal team, but later said he was unable to begin until January because of federal lobbying rules.

Meanwhile, the president has ramped up calls to lawmakers in recent days, trying to make his case individually to every Republican senator, according to a senior administration official.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who met with Trump at White House on Thursday for lunch, said the president was defiant. “He just kept saying he did nothing wrong, he did nothing wrong,” Graham said in an interview. “He said it over and over.”

Graham said he wanted to see a more aggressive legal and communications team: “I was on the receiving end on the Clinton team. They were good. They knew what they were doing.”

“I hope we can get a more coordinated message,” Graham added. “They are working on it.”

 

[47of74]

Fuck head goes to speak at a historically black college.  As expected, it was largely an astro-turfing event.

 

Quote

More than 200 people attended President Donald Trump's speech at Benedict College, but only about 10 actual students were invited to the event -- his first appearance at a historically black college, and an effort to reach out beyond his usual base of support.

Columbia, South Carolina, Mayor Stephen Benjamin told CNN that out of the more than 200 invitees to the President's speech, only about 10 were actual students from the college. The others, Benjamin said, were "brought in" from somewhere else. More than 2,100 attend the school, according to its website.

Benedict College spokeswoman Kymm Hunter later told reporters that only seven students ultimately attended the speech.

"This should have been an opportunity for at least scores of students to attend this event," Benjamin told CNN. He said the president of the college requested more students be able to attend, but that the White House maintained control of organizing the event.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"What I’ve Learned Staking Out Trump’s Washington Hotel"

Spoiler

The Trump family is reportedly exploring a sale of the Trump Hotel in Washington D.C., partly out of concerns raised by ethics watchdogs and emoluments lawsuits that the president is profiting off of his presidency. The Trumps are right to be (belatedly) worried. I know the Trump Hotel D.C. pretty well, and I feel confident saying there is plenty more where those red flags came from.

My daily look at who is patronizing the president’s D.C. hotel started as research in July 2017 for what became one sentence in a 5,500-word feature for Condé Nast Traveler. A few minutes on Instagram revealed that if you had concerns about the U.S. president doubling as a hotelier, they were well-founded. I found photos of Rep. Duncan Hunter (R–Calif.) crashing a Vapor Technology Association’s conference; a guest posing with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, captioning her photo, “He's still calling the shots”; and the president’s attorney Rudy Giuliani enjoying a cigar in a wine-stained tux the night of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s wedding. Lawmakers, lobbying groups and would-be powerbrokers were taking full advantage of the chance to better their lot by throwing a few bucks the president’s way.

More than two years later, I haven’t stopped scrolling through photos from the Trump Hotel D.C. For two years, I’ve read through every Instagram, Facebook and Twitter post geo-located to the Trump Hotel D.C. I’ve also made several visits and done some more sleuthing around the internet, then published my findings, first on a Twitter thread and now in a newsletter that comes out five days a week.

After two years of observation, I’ve learned three big things about how people use the Trump hotel to curry favor with the president, all while he profits.

Social media from the Trump Hotel can tip us off to major stories months in advance.

Despite being known as the “guy who's always at the Trump Hotel,” I visit about once a month, usually to meet with other journalists, in response to a tip or because friends from out of town want a justification for grabbing a drink there. Instead, most sightings come from the 80-plus websites and social-media pages I‘ve bookmarked—Twitter feeds and lists and a dozen Google alerts. If you want it to be known that you’re sending money the president’s way, social media is an easy way to do that, after all—and that online advertising makes it fairly easy to find the Trump Hotel’s big spenders. Instagram, LinkedIn and a website of a person’s employer are more helpful for identifying lobbyists than watching them work in situ.

Social media can be especially useful in combination with real-time observation. For instance, take the evening this past March when I spotted Romania’s prime minister, Viorica Dancila, at the hotel.

That spotting got a lot more interesting later. I’d seen Giuliani at the Trump Hotel D.C. earlier that same weekend, but not with the Romanian prime minister. We already knew that Giuliani had reached out to Romania’s president “about continuing damage to the rule of law” in the country, so there was reason to think at the time that the two would know each other. But a Giuliani spokesperson didn’t respond to my inquiry asking if he had met with Dancila.

But later that same week, Giuliani tweeted a photo of himself dining in the hotel's steakhouse with other members of Trump's “All Star legal team.” There, seated at an adjacent table, within arm’s reach of the president's attorney, was Romania’s prime minister. It was just her rear profile, though; if I hadn't seen her hairstyle and outfit in person that same evening, I would not have recognized her. (Giuliani has since implied in an interview that Romania is connected to his efforts regarding former Vice President Joe Biden and “corruption.”) Later, an Instagram post the Wall Street Journal uncovered showed that Lev Parnas, Giuliani’s associate who was recently arrested on campaign finance violations, was there that night, too.

Scoping out social media also allows me to report immediately on what’s happening at the hotel that’s not often available through other channels. Even if he wins a second term, Trump probably will be out of office before all my Freedom of Information Act requests regarding government officials’ visits are answered. Campaigns and committees sometimes don’t report a disbursement at the hotel to the Federal Election Commission until months after the event—and they don’t provide any insight into who attended. For instance, while a tip helped the Washington Post expose the extent of T-Mobile’s Trump Hotel D.C. patronage in the eight months following its unveiling of controversial plans to merge with Sprint, a Facebook post the day after the announcement gave an immediate glimpse of CEO John Legere’s strategy for winning administration approval: frequent and highly visible trips to the Trump hotel in Washington.

The profits from foreign governments are especially opaque.

All told, officials from at least 29 different foreign countries have stopped by or stayed at the U.S. president’s D.C. hotel since opening, a number I arrived at through my reporting combined with that of other outlets. And the money coming from those guests is a lot harder to track than the money coming from U.S. lawmakers.

Between my and others’ reporting on the peculiar-to-this-administration reporting, we know Trump’s D.C. hotel has already hosted government officials from at least three G7 countries. Ontario Premier Doug Ford lunched there last September at the invitation of Kelly Craft, then U.S. ambassador to Canada and currently the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Not only was Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage’s patronage of the Trump Hotel cited in a 2018 emoluments suit—for diverting business from a Maryland hotel and toward one owned by the president—but he also served as a featured attraction for 800 hotel customers at a Turning Point USA gala this year. In January, Italy’s deputy minister for foreign affairs, Guglielmo Picchi, met at the Trump Hotel with two senior officials in the president’s shadow cabinet: Lewandowski and Giuliani.

And while no Japanese officials have been spotted at the Trump Hotel D.C. (yet), Prime Minister Shinzo Abe might one day have a sand trap on a Trump golf course named after him: The prime minister has visited at least five different Trump properties since their owner’s election.

Nigerian dignitaries are such fans of the place that it wouldn’t be a surprise to learn a Trump Hotel Lagos was in the pipeline. And sometimes they come for reasons related to politics back home more than Trump’s approval. The Trump Hotel D.C. seemed like a swing state last year when—a month before Nigeria’s presidential election—the main opposition candidate, the scandal-plagued former vice president Atiku Abubakar, entered the lobby with an entourage of Nigerian lawmakers and supporters posting videos of his every move. At the same time, and apparently coincidentally, another longshot presidential candidate was also bunking at the U.S. president’s hotel. The U.S. State Department’s willingness to allow Abubakar to even enter the United States was an election issue. He may not have been able to land an audience with Trump, but a town hall he held for Nigerian immigrants in the United States in Trump’s hotel and streamed for voters back home was intended to make him look more legitimate and help his election chances. (It didn’t work—he later lost.)

Whatever a foreign official’s reasons are for visiting the Trump Hotel D.C., the president gets paid—but we don’t really know how much. While the Trump Organization has donated more than $340,000 to the U.S. Treasury, which it says are its profits from foreign governments for 2017 and 2018, the organization won’t disclose the governments themselves or if the figure has been independently audited. But there are two big reasons to be skeptical of that number. The Trump Organization relies on the foreign government official to self-report to the hotel, and all of us rely on the Trump Organization to calculate profit per hotel room correctly.

More than half of Republican senators have visited or spent campaign or committee funds there.

The Nigerians, of course, may have just taken their cues from Trump’s Cabinet: By my count, 25 of the 33 different officials who have served in it have dropped in on Trump Hotel, D.C., often to headline events for their boss’ paying customers. It can only help in a world where a humiliating termination is just a tweet away.

Lawmakers do the same. FEC filings and social media posts combine to show that 28 of the 53 Republicans in the Senate have visited the Trump Hotel D.C. or spent campaign or committee funds there. So have seven of the 17 GOP members on the House Judiciary panel and six of the 17 GOP members on the House Oversight Committee.

Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R–Calif.) is the top spender at the hotel of any member of Congress, according to FEC filings. Photos of him on social media provide only glimpses of what he’s up to there, like smiling in the lobby with a supporter, speaking in a private room behind a Trump Hotels lectern and posing during his PAC’s Trump inauguration party with a Ukrainian billionaire and parliamentarian (as one does). Altogether, the leader’s campaign, joint-fundraising committees and PAC have spent more than $245,000 at Trump properties since the 2016 election, mostly on catering and facility rentals. It appears to have paid off: Trump has repeatedly endorsed him for speaker.

Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R–Ohio) campaign has spent more than $22,000 at the hotel. He went a step further than just spending there when he wrote to the General Services Administration, the D.C. hotel’s landlord, criticizing an inspector general’s report that said the agency ignored the Constitution when allowing Trump to keep the lease upon assuming office. So when the president commented, “Thank you Jim!” while retweeting Jordan last month, you had to wonder if it was for more than just the lawmaker’s attack on the impeachment proceedings.

Despite everything I’ve learned, there are personal drawbacks to this kind of reporting—and no, being blocked on Twitter by Eric Trump is not among them. False accusations of doxing by Trump supporters are a common nuisance. (The information I publish is almost always culled from what these hotel guests chose to share publicly, and never includes a home address.) The project also has zapped whatever joy and personal utility I got out of social media. And it does seem a bit hypocritical that, like the president, I too am benefiting from his ownership of the hotel—for example, with this assignment.

Then there’s the matter of the $3,000 or so I’ve spent at the president’s business, mostly media outlets’ money, but some of it my own. It’s easy to justify those expenses, though. Through the customers I’ve spotted at the Trump Hotel D.C.—and a whole bunch of patrons whose identities will never be public—the U.S. president reported $81 million in revenue for 2017 and 2018. Even if the hotel changes hands sometime soon, that’s still a pretty good haul for half a presidential term.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Because of course: "Company with ties to Trump’s brother Robert awarded $33 million government contract"

Spoiler

A company in which President Trump’s brother has a financial stake received a $33 million contract from the U.S. Marshals Service earlier this year, an award that has drawn protests from two other bidders, one of which has filed a complaint alleging possible favoritism in the bidding process.

The lucrative government contract, to provide security for federal courthouses and cell blocks, went to CertiPath, a Reston, Va.-based company that has since 2013 been owned in part by a firm linked to Robert S. Trump, the president’s younger brother.

After the contract was awarded, an anonymous rival bidder filed a complaint with the Justice Department’s office of the inspector general, alleging that CertiPath failed to disclose that “one of the President’s closest living relatives stood to benefit financially from the transaction,” according to a copy of the July 22 complaint letter obtained by The Washington Post. 

“The circumstances of this contract award, and what appear to be CertiPath’s efforts to obscure Mr. Robert Trump’s financial interest in the company even as it trades on the Trump name, present the appearance of preferential treatment for those who are close to the President,” said the complaint, which was sent by Venable, a Washington law firm, on behalf of the client.

Dismas N. Locaria, a Venable lawyer who signed the complaint letter, declined to disclose the name of his client.

A phone message left for Robert Trump through Trump Management, of which he is president, was not returned.

CertiPath’s president and founder, Jeff Nigriny, said in a statement that Robert Trump “is one investor in an entity which holds a minority interest in Certipath” and that “he is exclusively a passive investor, has no management role whatsoever, is not an officer or director, and his name has never been used or mentioned by Certipath in any solicitation for a government contract, whether state or federal.” 

Nigriny said that the company is unaware of the complaint filed with the Justice Department’s inspector general. 

The company specializes in digital security and verifying online identities.

“Certipath has never used the Trump name in any way, and to do so would be completely inconsistent with our business practices and ethics,” Nigriny added.

While the contract has been awarded, so far no money has been paid out. That’s because a second company, NMR Consulting of Chantilly, Va., also filed a protest against the bid with the Government Accountability Office on July 1.

That bid protest has led to a “stop work order” on the contract, said Drew Wade, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service. 

“There’s no money being spent with CertiPath until this issue is resolved,” Wade said. 

Wade added that the U.S. Marshals Service had no knowledge of the allegations that a member of the president’s family has a financial interest in CertiPath, nor about the complaint to the inspector general.

The NMR complaint is about a separate issue and “has nothing to do with the president or his relationships,” Wade said. 

NMR did not respond to calls and emails seeking comment. 

The inspector general has not initiated a review of the matter, according to a public listing of their reviews regarding the Marshals Service. A spokeswoman for the inspector general declined to comment further.

Once regularly spotted in New York society circles, Robert Trump has spent his recent years largely out of the limelight.

He followed Donald Trump into the family real estate business in New York and held senior positions in the Trump Organization. In the 1980s, he served as an executive vice president at the company and was involved in the Trump Organization’s casino operations in Atlantic City. 

One recent book about Trump’s litigious history cites an anecdote about Robert Trump enduring Donald Trump’s wrath in a meeting with bankers from Bear Stearns about the Trump Taj Mahal casino.

After a comment Donald Trump didn’t like, “Trump stood up and pointed his finger near Robert’s face, angrily saying, ‘You talk when I tell you to talk!’” according to the book by James D. Zirin, called “Plaintiff in Chief: A portrait of Donald Trump in 3500 lawsuits.” 

Robert Trump has been a steady donor to Republican candidates and state committees over the years, including a $100,000 donation to the “Trump Victory” political action committee in 2016, according to Federal Election Commission data.

“I support Donald one thousand percent,” he told the New York Post that year. 

Robert Trump, who reportedly lives in New York’s Dutchess County, is also the president of Trump Management, a company that is listed on President Trump’s financial disclosure form.

Through this company, the two brothers appear to have a financial relationship: the company is 25 percent owned by the “Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust,” which is a trust fund of the president’s assets that Trump can withdraw money from at any time. The other 75 percent of Trump Management is owned by “Trump Family Members,” according to the president’s financial disclosure form. 

Robert Trump has also invested in other companies outside of real estate; he is listed as a board member of ZeniMax Media, a Rockville, Md.-based video game maker.

Robert Trump’s stake in CertiPath is through SHiRT LLC, an investment partnership including the younger Trump and CertiPath’s chief executive, Shawn R. Hughes. On the CertiPath website, Hughes’s biography mentions that he is the managing partner of SHiRT LLC. It does not indicate Robert Trump’s percentage of ownership.

In 2013, CertiPath was acquired by two entities; one of them was SHiRT LLC, according to a CertiPath news release from October of that year.

Since then, CertiPath has been paid at least $13 million in U.S. government contracts, more than $6 million of which came after Trump took office, according to an analysis of data from the Federal Procurement Data System.

But the contract announced on June 25 by CertiPath appears to be the company’s biggest haul yet: a “highly-coveted contract,” as the company described in its announcement at the time, to upgrade and manage “physical access control systems” for the U.S. Marshals Service including at judges chambers, courtrooms, cell blocks, and firing ranges. 

“Our decade-long strategy is being validated,” Nigriny said in a statement at the time. 

But the award was quickly challenged by other bidders.

Locaria, the Venable lawyer, said that he has made follow-up calls to the inspector general’s office since he sent the letter in July, but he has yet to receive a response. He said his client’s motivation was “shining a light on whether this was appropriate.” 

Beyond the potential conflict of interest, the complaint letter also alleges that CertiPath should not have won the contract based on the company’s experience. 

“CertiPath, which primarily provides information technology products related to digital identification, appears to lack the basic program management skills and experience required to provide the physical security” for these U.S. Marshals Service needs, the letter said. 

Nigriny disputed that and said the company’s “technical abilities and operational history are, in our opinion, more than adequate to perform under the contract in an exemplary manner.” 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is a great analysis: "Three years later, evaluating the 10 laws Trump said he’d pass in his first 100 days"

Spoiler

In the last few weeks of the 2016 presidential election, trailing Democrat Hillary Clinton by a daunting margin, Donald Trump’s campaign lifted a play from the 1994 Republican playbook. On Oct. 22, 2016, Trump unveiled his “Contract with the American Voter,” a list of 60 promises meant to persuade voters to back his candidacy.

Three years ago Thursday, Trump tweeted out the 10 proposed pieces of legislation included in the “contract.”

For the first two years of Trump’s presidency, his party enjoyed unified control of Washington. Despite that — and despite Trump’s reelection campaign refrain of “promises made, promises kept” — almost none of his proposed 100-day legislative agenda has seen the light of day, even 1,000 days into his presidency.

Here’s where each proposed law stands.

Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act

An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with two children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from seven to three, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35% to 15%, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate.

Status: Passed in part. Trump did sign into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017. But it only loosely resembled the description above.

The largest tax rate reductions in the law, according to analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, went to those making $1 million a year or more. Well, really, the biggest reductions were for corporations, though not to 15 percent — and, unlike for individuals, the corporate cuts are permanent. Off-shored profits got a 15.5 percent tax rate on returning to the United States. (A lot of that repatriated money was used to buy back stock.) The number of tax brackets remained unchanged.

Trump’s frequent prediction that the tax cuts would spur 4 percent annual growth remains unfulfilled. Critics’ predictions that the deficit would spike, however, have been borne out.

This was the closest Trump got to enacting promised legislation. It came more than 300 days into Trump’s presidency.

End the Offshoring Act

Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.

Status: Not passed. Trump has acted unilaterally to impose tariffs on foreign countries but generally in an effort to affect trade negotiations. For a while, congressional Republicans flirted with a border-adjustment tax that would target some of Trump’s goals, but it was eventually dropped.

American Energy and Infrastructure Act

Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over ten years. It is revenue neutral.

Status: Not passed. Despite numerous weeks ostensibly dedicated to infrastructure, there’s been no significant new infrastructure legislation proposed by the White House or passed by Congress.

School Choice and Education Opportunity Act

Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends Common Core and brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and makes two- and four-year college more affordable.

Status: Not passed. Common Core, a boogeyman of conservative media in the years leading up to 2016, has faded from the spotlight. Trump hasn’t proposed any legislation curtailing it, though he did sign an executive order to mandate that the secretary of education assess possible federal overreach in curriculum development.

There has also been no legislation passed that would bolster nonpublic education. He signed an executive order on vocational education in July 2018.

Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act

Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.

Status: Not passed. House Republicans spent much of 2017 trying to figure out legislation that could replace Obamacare, without success. A vote that summer that would have ended the Affordable Care Act (as Obamacare is officially known) failed in the Senate when then-Arizona Sen. John McCain voted against it. The individual mandate component of Obamacare was repealed in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act.

Trump did have some success in speeding drug approval times, though not through legislation.

Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act

Allows Americans to deduct childcare and eldercare from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-site childcare services and creates tax-free dependent care savings accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.

Status: Not passed. The tax bill did increase the child tax credit (thanks to the advocacy of two Republican senators) but none of the other components of this proposed legislation have been enacted.

End Illegal Immigration Act

Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a two-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a five-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.

Status: Not passed. Trump’s efforts to get full funding for a wall on the border with Mexico resulted in a dramatic fight late last year, as the president allowed the government to shut down in lieu of signing a funding bill that didn’t include the wall. Eventually, Trump declared a national emergency, allowing him (after some legal fights) to move Defense Department spending to wall construction.

His administration has also enacted other reforms aimed at discouraging immigration into the United States from Mexico, including revisions to the asylum process. The criminal statutes described in his “contract” have not been enacted, though some new restrictions did pass the House in 2017.

Restoring Community Safety Act

Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a task force on violent crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.

Status: Not passed. A task force on violent crime was created, but by executive order. Trump’s proposed budgets have included cuts to Justice Department grant programs.

Restoring National Security Act

Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values.

Status: Passed in part. In August 2018, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act became law, increasing military funding. (The sequester overall ended with a spending bill passed in July.) While Trump regularly touts the passage of a VA Choice bill, it was initially passed under President Barack Obama.

The screening procedures for immigration are still under consideration but, as with so many other goals of Trump’s, are not being enacted legislatively.

Clean Up Corruption in Washington Act

Enacts new ethics reforms to drain the swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

Status: Not passed. This has not been a big focus of Trump’s presidency. (Note from GreyhoundFan -- I loved the line about it not being a big focus. That is the understatement of the millennium)

So how does Trump argue that he’s kept the promises he made? By reframing the promises he focuses on. Take a pair of tweets from last month in which Trump walked through his various reasons that his presidency has been a success.

“All time best unemployment numbers, especially for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians & Women. More people working today than ever before. Rebuilt Military & Choice for Vets,” he wrote. “Became Number 1 in World & Independent in Energy. Will soon have record number of Judges, 2 SC Justices. Done more than any President in first 2 1/2 years...”

The military and choice for veterans were part of his 10 proposed bills. The others are successes that Trump seems to be highlighting mostly because he can.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I wish cities would refuse to permit the klan pep rallies:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[fraurosena]

Trump is taking credit, of course.

I'm posting this as he's speaking, and it's one rambling, self-aggrandizing speech. Funnily enough, he's taking questions, and he doesn't seem doped up. He's admitting that he's leaving the rest to Russia, because they hate ISIS as much as we do, and they can do the fighting now... 

Awww... "the canine was hurt" ?

 

But, as always, the internet is forever.

 

This is just a stunt to deflect from his impending impeachment, and to heighten his chances of re-election.

[fraurosena]

Sweet Rufus.

What a 'tough' guy... to US allies.

Us enemies though? He's fawning over Russia so much it's nauseating.

[fraurosena]

If it isn't clear now where Trump's allegiances lie, then you're either brain dead or a BT... which is the same thing, come to think of it.

As I've said before, as his removal from office looms nearer, Trump will be amping up his favors to Putin. 

 

[fraurosena]

 

[fraurosena]

I can't say I'm surprised the tangerine toddler put the whole operation at risk.

 

[WiseGirl]

Sweet Rufus I listened to him this morning what a moron. Praising enemies, lambasting allies, "very fine" is the only adjective he knows. I don't usually listen to him for very long because he is so inarticulate and (my apologies to "Wicked")

"I can't stand his face, his voice ... Let's just say, I loathe it all!
Every little trait, however small
Makes my very flesh begin to crawl
With simple utter loathing
...
Though I do admit it came on fast
Still I do believe that it can last
And I will be loathing
Loathing you
My whole life long!"

--but this song always pops into my head when trying to describe my feelings about 45 and explains why I can't listen to his pompous ass voice.

Edited October 27, 2019 by WiseGirl
added text

[47of74]

That orange fuck got a proper greeting at the World Series today

Quote

President Donald Trump was greeted with a thunderous chorus of boos from the sold-out crowd attendance at Game 5 of the World Series between the Nationals and Astros.

Trump, who showed up shortly after the first inning, was introduced to the crowd after the third inning during the Nationals' salute to veterans, a regular feature at Nats’ games.

As the next inning began, fans chanted "lock him up," a nod to chants that Trump supporters began in 2016 directed at Hillary Clinton.

Trump and wife Melania sat in the Washington Suite and were joined by a number of other politicians including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Reps. Steve Scalise (R-La.), Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), among others.

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by 47of74
linky, linky