‘Blackmail and pressure will never work’ says China, as Donald Trump mulls 25% tariff on US$200bn imports – reports
1 August 2018 17:30 AFP2 min read
US President Donald Trump is now considering a 25 percent tariff on US$200 billion in Chinese imports, rather than the 10 percent previously touted, reports said Tuesday.
The US imposed tariffs of 25 percent on US$34 billion of Chinese products earlier this month, with plans to add another US$16 billion of imports on Tuesday.
Trump initially threatened to levy 10 percent on an additional US$200 billion but that figure may now rise to 25 percent, sources told the Washington Post and Bloomberg.
It would represent a ramping up of pressure over Washington’s trade standoff with Beijing.
In Beijing Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Wednesday that “blackmail and pressure from the US side will never work on China”.
“If the US takes measures to further escalate this situation, we will surely take counter-measures to firmly uphold our legitimate rights and interests,” he told a regular briefing.
In 2017 the United States had a US$376 billion trade deficit with China, which it is keen to reduce.
Trump recently threatened to slap punitive tariffs on all Chinese exports to the US, which amounted to more than US$500 billion last year.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
People are responding to Donald Trump's claim that 'collusion is not a crime' - Independent
August 1, 2018.
People are responding to Donald Trump's claim that 'collusion is not a crime'
Posted about 23 hours ago by Jake Hall in news
UPVOTE
There’s honestly not a lot left to say about Donald Trump’s Twitter account.
It seems that everything he ever writes is destined to make headline news - from ‘covfefe’ to sassy takedowns of Meryl Streep, there’s a wealth of meme-worthy material which rarely escapes scrutiny.
But this morning’s misstep was more concerning.
Not only did he accuse (for approximately the millionth time) Hillary Clinton of collusion, he also made a factually dubious claim: that collusion is not a crime.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
9:58 PM - Jul 31, 2018
This information seemingly came courtesy of lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who also went viral this week for tweeting the word ‘you’.
Yes, really.
There’s a lot to unpack here: if collusion isn’t a crime, why is he so determined to crucify Clinton for it? Will the nickname ‘Crooked Clinton’ ever catch on? Is this just another example of the President trying to avoid accountability for his alleged ties to Russia by arguing that the whole investigation is based on nothing?
Apparently so.
Shortly after Trump tweeted, Global News stepped in to fact-check his claims.
Although their exploration of the law acknowledges that ‘election collusion’ actually isn’t a precise legal term, it goes on to unpack the allegations made against Trump and finds that, in the context of the ongoing FBI investigation, his reported collusion could definitely have legal consequences.
The article concludes:
In other words, ‘collusion’ might be shorthand. But if it relates to Russia and U.S. elections, it can still be very much against the law.
Now that’s cleared up, it’s time to look at the inevitable slew of hilarious responses that ensued.
Some made jokes about the president’s willingness to defend his own missteps whilst simultaneously placing blame on others.
TechnicallyRon
✔
@TechnicallyRon
STEALING A TIGER FROM THE ZOO IS NOT A CRIME BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER I DIDN'T STEAL A TIGER FROM THE ZOO BUT HILARY DID AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL BECAUSE STEALING TIGERS FROM THE ZOO IS ILLEGAL.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
11:19 PM - Jul 31, 2018
Others made jokes linked to his recent claim that he would introduce tax cuts for the mega-rich, or just generally outlined his willingness to flip-flop on his statements.
TechnicallyRon
✔
@TechnicallyRon
STEALING A TIGER FROM THE ZOO IS NOT A CRIME BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER I DIDN'T STEAL A TIGER FROM THE ZOO BUT HILARY DID AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL BECAUSE STEALING TIGERS FROM THE ZOO IS ILLEGAL.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
11:19 PM - Jul 31, 2018
dylan
✔
@dyllyp
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Donald Trump in 2016: Lock Hillary up for collusion!
Donald Trump in 2017: There was no collusion with the Russians!
Donald Trump in 2018: Collusion is not a crime!
I hope they let you tweet from prison, because this shit is hysterical.
12:04 AM - Aug 1, 2018
Matthew Yglesias
✔
@mattyglesias
Small brain: No collusion
Big brain: Collusion isn’t illegal
Galaxy brain: Hillary did the collusion
10:34 PM - Jul 31, 2018 · Washington, DC
Jokes aside, people were quick to point out that the issue was related to language as opposed to actual legislation.
‘Election collusion’ might not technically be a crime, but conspiracy is.
Brian Krassenstein
@krassenstein
Trump this morning: "Collusion is not a crime."
Yeah but...
'Conspiracy to defraud the United States'
and
'Conspiracy to commit Fraud and related activity in connection with computers'
ARE CRIMES!!
11:53 PM - Jul 31, 2018
People are responding to Donald Trump's claim that 'collusion is not a crime'
Posted about 23 hours ago by Jake Hall in news
UPVOTE
There’s honestly not a lot left to say about Donald Trump’s Twitter account.
It seems that everything he ever writes is destined to make headline news - from ‘covfefe’ to sassy takedowns of Meryl Streep, there’s a wealth of meme-worthy material which rarely escapes scrutiny.
But this morning’s misstep was more concerning.
Not only did he accuse (for approximately the millionth time) Hillary Clinton of collusion, he also made a factually dubious claim: that collusion is not a crime.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
9:58 PM - Jul 31, 2018
This information seemingly came courtesy of lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who also went viral this week for tweeting the word ‘you’.
Yes, really.
There’s a lot to unpack here: if collusion isn’t a crime, why is he so determined to crucify Clinton for it? Will the nickname ‘Crooked Clinton’ ever catch on? Is this just another example of the President trying to avoid accountability for his alleged ties to Russia by arguing that the whole investigation is based on nothing?
Apparently so.
Shortly after Trump tweeted, Global News stepped in to fact-check his claims.
Although their exploration of the law acknowledges that ‘election collusion’ actually isn’t a precise legal term, it goes on to unpack the allegations made against Trump and finds that, in the context of the ongoing FBI investigation, his reported collusion could definitely have legal consequences.
The article concludes:
In other words, ‘collusion’ might be shorthand. But if it relates to Russia and U.S. elections, it can still be very much against the law.
Now that’s cleared up, it’s time to look at the inevitable slew of hilarious responses that ensued.
Some made jokes about the president’s willingness to defend his own missteps whilst simultaneously placing blame on others.
TechnicallyRon
✔
@TechnicallyRon
STEALING A TIGER FROM THE ZOO IS NOT A CRIME BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER I DIDN'T STEAL A TIGER FROM THE ZOO BUT HILARY DID AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL BECAUSE STEALING TIGERS FROM THE ZOO IS ILLEGAL.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
11:19 PM - Jul 31, 2018
Others made jokes linked to his recent claim that he would introduce tax cuts for the mega-rich, or just generally outlined his willingness to flip-flop on his statements.
TechnicallyRon
✔
@TechnicallyRon
STEALING A TIGER FROM THE ZOO IS NOT A CRIME BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER I DIDN'T STEAL A TIGER FROM THE ZOO BUT HILARY DID AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL BECAUSE STEALING TIGERS FROM THE ZOO IS ILLEGAL.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
11:19 PM - Jul 31, 2018
dylan
✔
@dyllyp
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Donald Trump in 2016: Lock Hillary up for collusion!
Donald Trump in 2017: There was no collusion with the Russians!
Donald Trump in 2018: Collusion is not a crime!
I hope they let you tweet from prison, because this shit is hysterical.
12:04 AM - Aug 1, 2018
Matthew Yglesias
✔
@mattyglesias
Small brain: No collusion
Big brain: Collusion isn’t illegal
Galaxy brain: Hillary did the collusion
10:34 PM - Jul 31, 2018 · Washington, DC
Jokes aside, people were quick to point out that the issue was related to language as opposed to actual legislation.
‘Election collusion’ might not technically be a crime, but conspiracy is.
Brian Krassenstein
@krassenstein
Trump this morning: "Collusion is not a crime."
Yeah but...
'Conspiracy to defraud the United States'
and
'Conspiracy to commit Fraud and related activity in connection with computers'
ARE CRIMES!!
11:53 PM - Jul 31, 2018
The One Man Putin Can’t Get Out of His Head - Bloomberg
The One Man Putin Can’t Get Out of His Head
Bill Browder says renewed threats from Russia mean his efforts to punish its kleptocrats are working.
By Joe Nocera
August 1, 2018, 7:00 PM GMT+10
“A real deterrent for bad behavior.” Photographer: Bertrand Guay/AFP/Getty Images
Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. He is co-author of “Indentured: The Inside Story of the Rebellion Against the NCAA.”
It’s just amazing how badly Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to put Bill Browder behind bars.
You know who Browder is, don’t you? He’s the hedge fund manager 1 who set up shop in Russia just as the country was privatizing, only to later become a critic of its oligarchs, which resulted in his being run out of the country, after which a handful of Russian officials “took over” his company and used it, in classic Russian fashion, to claim a phony $230 million tax refund. Which they received within 24 hours.
Although Browder persuaded most of his staff to move to London with him, his outside counsel, Sergei Magnitsky, refused to leave and instead investigated the tax fraud, after which he was tossed in prison, where his health deteriorated amid the brutal conditions and he died eight months later, at 37, apparently murdered by his captors.
Browder vowed to devote himself to avenging Magnitsky’s death, and began a worldwide campaign to have nations pass something called the “Magnitsky Act,” which denies visas and freezes the assets of human rights abusers, starting with the officials involved in Magnitsky’s death. It became law in the U.S. in 2012. Since then, an additional six countries have enacted their own Magnitsky Act, with nine more teed up, including Germany, Sweden and Australia. Meanwhile, Browder wrote a best-selling memoir in 2015, “Red Notice,” and has worked tirelessly to spotlight Russia’s human rights and rule-of-law abuses.
Yeah, that guy.
The Magnitsky Act has messed with the heads of Putin and the Russian elite like nothing else. The economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Europe after Russia’s takeover of Crimea scarcely compare. Economic sanctions merely hurt the Russian population. The Magnitsky Act hit Putin and his cronies where it hurt: in their pocketbooks. Any Russian with wealth keeps most of it outside the country. And most wealthy Russians own property in places like London, Miami and New York. The Magnitsky Act prevents the elites from accessing their money and visiting their property. From the Russian point of view, it is galling that this one man has been able to so humiliate the Russian elite. And Putin wants revenge.
Just a few weeks ago, during the Helsinki summit, Putin said he would be willing to allow special counsel Robert Mueller to question the Russian hackers he’d indicted if Russia could interrogate “certain U.S. officials it suspects of interfering in Russian affairs,” as the Washington Post put it. (“An incredible offer,” replied a clueless President Donald Trump before being wised up when he returned to Washington.) Who were those U.S. officials? With the exception of former ambassador Michael McFaul, they were all associated with the passage of the Magnitsky Act, starting with Browder, whom Putin ludicrously accused during the press conference of avoiding taxes on $1.5 billion and contributing $400 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Indeed, Russian prosecutors have already tried Browder twice in absentia, sentencing him to nine years in prison each time. (Prosecutors also convicted Magnistky — posthumously! — of tax fraud.) In May, during a trip to Spain, Browder was detained by the police after Russia issued an arrest warrant via Interpol. It was the sixth time the Russian government has attempted to use Interpol, the international agency that facilities police cooperation, to nab Browder. Interpol has consistently rejected Russia’s efforts, and the Spanish police released Browder once Interpol intervened.
In July, about the same time as the summit, a Russian prosecutor said that the country would redouble its efforts to capture Browder — “He shouldn’t sleep peacefully at night,” the prosecutor said — and sent out a seventh Interpol request. Late last week, the ministry of foreign affairs announced that it was opening yet another case against Browder, describing him as the head of a “criminal organization.” (A few years earlier, a Russian company hired Fusion GPS — the same political research firm that hired Christopher Steele to compile the Trump dossier — to collect “evidence” against Browder, which is now regularly cited by the government.) On Monday, Bloomberg News reported that a Supreme Court justice in Russia had rejected a settlement reached by HSBC with Russian prosecutors. HSBC’s crime? It was the trustee for Browder’s hedge fund when he operated in Russia.
After last week’s announcement by the ministry of foreign affairs, I called Browder. Over the years, I’ve written about him and the Magnitsky Act; it now occurred to me that this constant harassment by Russia had to be affecting his life. It was.
He told me that the prosecutor’s dark warning was a reminder — not that he really needed one — that he has to be constantly looking over his shoulder. He has full-time security, of course. And he is very careful when he travels — he told me that he recently decided to skip a planned trip to Italy because the new prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, is “pro-Putin.” When I asked if he was worried Putin might try to have him killed, as he has allegedly done to various others he viewed as enemies, he didn’t shrug off the idea. But he said he thought was protected by his visibility — “If they kill me, everyone will know who did it,” he said.
Then again, Browder went on to say, every time Putin and the Russian government take steps against him, it proves the potency of the law as an instrument to punish human rights abusers. “We couldn’t get better recognition of how powerful this tool is. It is a total vindication of all our efforts these past years.”
“The primary objective of Putin and his senior people,” Browder went on, “is to steal money. They are kleptocrats in the truest sense. But to do it, they have to commit grave human rights abuses. And once they have the money they have to move it to the west, where there are property rights. Because the Magnitsky Act freezes that money, it puts their business model at risk. That’s why it makes them so crazy.”
So what’s his end game?
“My goal is for every civilized country in the world to have a Magnitsky Act and to use it aggressively,” he replied. “I want this to become a pedestrian piece of policy that is enacted almost routinely, so that it becomes a real deterrent for bad behavior.”
One final thought about the Magnitsky Act. Remember the aftermath of that infamous 2016 meeting in Trump Tower, the one where Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who claimed she had dirt on Clinton? When the meeting was later exposed, Trump Jr. claimed that all they talked about was “Russian adoption policy.” That was code for the Magnitsky Act. Russia has banned adoptions of Russian children by Americans as a retaliatory measure. It seems likely that Veselnitskaya, whose clients include the company that commissioned the Fusion GPS report against Browder — and who has ties to the Kremlin — was probing to see if Trump might be willing to trade an end to the Magnitsky Act for lifting the adoption ban if he became president.
That meeting, of course, is now an important piece of Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the campaign and Russia. Which means that if, in the end, that investigation does serious damage to the Trump presidency, you may well have Bill Browder to blame.
Or thank, as the case may be.
Bill Browder says renewed threats from Russia mean his efforts to punish its kleptocrats are working.
By Joe Nocera
August 1, 2018, 7:00 PM GMT+10
“A real deterrent for bad behavior.” Photographer: Bertrand Guay/AFP/Getty Images
Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. He is co-author of “Indentured: The Inside Story of the Rebellion Against the NCAA.”
It’s just amazing how badly Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to put Bill Browder behind bars.
You know who Browder is, don’t you? He’s the hedge fund manager 1 who set up shop in Russia just as the country was privatizing, only to later become a critic of its oligarchs, which resulted in his being run out of the country, after which a handful of Russian officials “took over” his company and used it, in classic Russian fashion, to claim a phony $230 million tax refund. Which they received within 24 hours.
Although Browder persuaded most of his staff to move to London with him, his outside counsel, Sergei Magnitsky, refused to leave and instead investigated the tax fraud, after which he was tossed in prison, where his health deteriorated amid the brutal conditions and he died eight months later, at 37, apparently murdered by his captors.
Browder vowed to devote himself to avenging Magnitsky’s death, and began a worldwide campaign to have nations pass something called the “Magnitsky Act,” which denies visas and freezes the assets of human rights abusers, starting with the officials involved in Magnitsky’s death. It became law in the U.S. in 2012. Since then, an additional six countries have enacted their own Magnitsky Act, with nine more teed up, including Germany, Sweden and Australia. Meanwhile, Browder wrote a best-selling memoir in 2015, “Red Notice,” and has worked tirelessly to spotlight Russia’s human rights and rule-of-law abuses.
Yeah, that guy.
The Magnitsky Act has messed with the heads of Putin and the Russian elite like nothing else. The economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Europe after Russia’s takeover of Crimea scarcely compare. Economic sanctions merely hurt the Russian population. The Magnitsky Act hit Putin and his cronies where it hurt: in their pocketbooks. Any Russian with wealth keeps most of it outside the country. And most wealthy Russians own property in places like London, Miami and New York. The Magnitsky Act prevents the elites from accessing their money and visiting their property. From the Russian point of view, it is galling that this one man has been able to so humiliate the Russian elite. And Putin wants revenge.
Just a few weeks ago, during the Helsinki summit, Putin said he would be willing to allow special counsel Robert Mueller to question the Russian hackers he’d indicted if Russia could interrogate “certain U.S. officials it suspects of interfering in Russian affairs,” as the Washington Post put it. (“An incredible offer,” replied a clueless President Donald Trump before being wised up when he returned to Washington.) Who were those U.S. officials? With the exception of former ambassador Michael McFaul, they were all associated with the passage of the Magnitsky Act, starting with Browder, whom Putin ludicrously accused during the press conference of avoiding taxes on $1.5 billion and contributing $400 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Indeed, Russian prosecutors have already tried Browder twice in absentia, sentencing him to nine years in prison each time. (Prosecutors also convicted Magnistky — posthumously! — of tax fraud.) In May, during a trip to Spain, Browder was detained by the police after Russia issued an arrest warrant via Interpol. It was the sixth time the Russian government has attempted to use Interpol, the international agency that facilities police cooperation, to nab Browder. Interpol has consistently rejected Russia’s efforts, and the Spanish police released Browder once Interpol intervened.
In July, about the same time as the summit, a Russian prosecutor said that the country would redouble its efforts to capture Browder — “He shouldn’t sleep peacefully at night,” the prosecutor said — and sent out a seventh Interpol request. Late last week, the ministry of foreign affairs announced that it was opening yet another case against Browder, describing him as the head of a “criminal organization.” (A few years earlier, a Russian company hired Fusion GPS — the same political research firm that hired Christopher Steele to compile the Trump dossier — to collect “evidence” against Browder, which is now regularly cited by the government.) On Monday, Bloomberg News reported that a Supreme Court justice in Russia had rejected a settlement reached by HSBC with Russian prosecutors. HSBC’s crime? It was the trustee for Browder’s hedge fund when he operated in Russia.
After last week’s announcement by the ministry of foreign affairs, I called Browder. Over the years, I’ve written about him and the Magnitsky Act; it now occurred to me that this constant harassment by Russia had to be affecting his life. It was.
He told me that the prosecutor’s dark warning was a reminder — not that he really needed one — that he has to be constantly looking over his shoulder. He has full-time security, of course. And he is very careful when he travels — he told me that he recently decided to skip a planned trip to Italy because the new prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, is “pro-Putin.” When I asked if he was worried Putin might try to have him killed, as he has allegedly done to various others he viewed as enemies, he didn’t shrug off the idea. But he said he thought was protected by his visibility — “If they kill me, everyone will know who did it,” he said.
Then again, Browder went on to say, every time Putin and the Russian government take steps against him, it proves the potency of the law as an instrument to punish human rights abusers. “We couldn’t get better recognition of how powerful this tool is. It is a total vindication of all our efforts these past years.”
“The primary objective of Putin and his senior people,” Browder went on, “is to steal money. They are kleptocrats in the truest sense. But to do it, they have to commit grave human rights abuses. And once they have the money they have to move it to the west, where there are property rights. Because the Magnitsky Act freezes that money, it puts their business model at risk. That’s why it makes them so crazy.”
So what’s his end game?
“My goal is for every civilized country in the world to have a Magnitsky Act and to use it aggressively,” he replied. “I want this to become a pedestrian piece of policy that is enacted almost routinely, so that it becomes a real deterrent for bad behavior.”
One final thought about the Magnitsky Act. Remember the aftermath of that infamous 2016 meeting in Trump Tower, the one where Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who claimed she had dirt on Clinton? When the meeting was later exposed, Trump Jr. claimed that all they talked about was “Russian adoption policy.” That was code for the Magnitsky Act. Russia has banned adoptions of Russian children by Americans as a retaliatory measure. It seems likely that Veselnitskaya, whose clients include the company that commissioned the Fusion GPS report against Browder — and who has ties to the Kremlin — was probing to see if Trump might be willing to trade an end to the Magnitsky Act for lifting the adoption ban if he became president.
That meeting, of course, is now an important piece of Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the campaign and Russia. Which means that if, in the end, that investigation does serious damage to the Trump presidency, you may well have Bill Browder to blame.
Or thank, as the case may be.
Donald Trump claims Americans need ID to buy groceries at Florida rally 'Never been shopping I guess,' says critic - Independent
August 1, 2018.
Donald Trump claims Americans need ID to buy groceries at Florida rally
'Never been shopping I guess,' says critic
Harriet Agerholm
@HarrietAgerholm
Rihanna appears on British Vogue with super slim eyebrows
Trump claims Americans need ID to buy groceries at Florida rally
Ellie Soutter took own life after missing flight to training, says dad
Gay valedictorian rejected by parents going to college after campaign
Donald Trump has wrongly claimed Americans need photo identification to buy groceries, prompting a slew of accusations he is out of touch with the lives of ordinary people.
The US president made the remarks in a freewheeling speech at a Florida rally, during which he defended his trade policy and accused Democrats of obstructing his agenda.
Mr Trump was railing against the idea of non-US citizens voting and advocating stricter voting laws when he said IDs were required for everything else, including food shopping.
“Only American citizens should vote in American elections, which is why the time has come for voter ID, like everything else,” he said at the event at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa.
Manafort squares off with Mueller and could face decades in prison
“If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture.”
Photo IDs are not needed to by groceries in shops and supermarkets in the United States, although they are required for purchases such as alcohol, cigarettes or some medicines.
“Where on earth does @realDonaldTrump buy groceries?! (Just kidding, we all know he doesn’t buy groceries),” said Boston City councillor Matt O’Malley on Twitter.
“Wow, never been shopping I guess, unless he is now planning extreme grocery vetting,” actor and screenwriter Kathy Gori said.
Referring to the US president’s discontinued meat brand, Comedian Adam Heath Avitable said: ”I hate having to show photo ID, provide a blood sample, and pee into a cup before I can buy my Trump steaks at the grocery store.”
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to questions about when the billionaire president last bought groceries or anything else himself.
During a raucous rally aimed at boosting support for two Florida Republicans before the state’s primary, Mr Trump also defended his trade policy amid rising tensions with China.
He accused the country of having “targeted our farmers”, saying it was “not good, not nice”.
“You know what our farmers are saying? ‘It’s OK, we can take it,” he added.
Mr Trump’s administration last week announced plans for $12bn (£9bn) in temporary aid to help farmers deal with retaliatory tariffs from trading partners in response to new US policies.
At the Florida rally the US president backed Republican Ron DeSantis in a competitive primary for governor and backed the Senate campaign of his longtime ally, Governor Rick Scott.
“We have to make sure Rick Scott wins and wins big,” Mr Trump told the crowd. “It’s time to vote Bill Nelson out of office.”
Mr Trump, who is seeking Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court in the fall, made the case voters need to elect more Republicans, pointing to Democratic opposition to his pick.
Democrats “don’t want to give Trump any victory,” he said. “They will do anything they can to not help the Trump agenda.”
Associated Press contributed to this report
Donald Trump claims Americans need ID to buy groceries at Florida rally
'Never been shopping I guess,' says critic
Harriet Agerholm
@HarrietAgerholm
Rihanna appears on British Vogue with super slim eyebrows
Trump claims Americans need ID to buy groceries at Florida rally
Ellie Soutter took own life after missing flight to training, says dad
Gay valedictorian rejected by parents going to college after campaign
Donald Trump has wrongly claimed Americans need photo identification to buy groceries, prompting a slew of accusations he is out of touch with the lives of ordinary people.
The US president made the remarks in a freewheeling speech at a Florida rally, during which he defended his trade policy and accused Democrats of obstructing his agenda.
Mr Trump was railing against the idea of non-US citizens voting and advocating stricter voting laws when he said IDs were required for everything else, including food shopping.
“Only American citizens should vote in American elections, which is why the time has come for voter ID, like everything else,” he said at the event at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa.
Manafort squares off with Mueller and could face decades in prison
“If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture.”
Photo IDs are not needed to by groceries in shops and supermarkets in the United States, although they are required for purchases such as alcohol, cigarettes or some medicines.
“Where on earth does @realDonaldTrump buy groceries?! (Just kidding, we all know he doesn’t buy groceries),” said Boston City councillor Matt O’Malley on Twitter.
“Wow, never been shopping I guess, unless he is now planning extreme grocery vetting,” actor and screenwriter Kathy Gori said.
Referring to the US president’s discontinued meat brand, Comedian Adam Heath Avitable said: ”I hate having to show photo ID, provide a blood sample, and pee into a cup before I can buy my Trump steaks at the grocery store.”
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to questions about when the billionaire president last bought groceries or anything else himself.
During a raucous rally aimed at boosting support for two Florida Republicans before the state’s primary, Mr Trump also defended his trade policy amid rising tensions with China.
He accused the country of having “targeted our farmers”, saying it was “not good, not nice”.
“You know what our farmers are saying? ‘It’s OK, we can take it,” he added.
Mr Trump’s administration last week announced plans for $12bn (£9bn) in temporary aid to help farmers deal with retaliatory tariffs from trading partners in response to new US policies.
At the Florida rally the US president backed Republican Ron DeSantis in a competitive primary for governor and backed the Senate campaign of his longtime ally, Governor Rick Scott.
“We have to make sure Rick Scott wins and wins big,” Mr Trump told the crowd. “It’s time to vote Bill Nelson out of office.”
Mr Trump, who is seeking Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court in the fall, made the case voters need to elect more Republicans, pointing to Democratic opposition to his pick.
Democrats “don’t want to give Trump any victory,” he said. “They will do anything they can to not help the Trump agenda.”
Associated Press contributed to this report
Lloyds Bank sets aside another £460m for PPI claims - BBC News
August 1, 2018.
Lloyds Bank sets aside another £460m for PPI claims
Lloyds Banking Group has said it has put aside another £460m in costs for payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling claims.
That means it has now allocated more than £19.2bn to settle the claims. The bank said it expected 13,000 PPI complaints a week until August 2019.
The provision came as Lloyds said its profits for the first six months of the year rose by nearly a quarter.
It made pre-tax profits of £3.1bn, 23% higher than the same time last year.
Chief executive António Horta-Osório said: "We have delivered another strong and sustainable financial performance with increased statutory profits, higher returns and a strong capital build."
Lloyds said the latest PPI charge was "largely driven by a potentially higher total volume of complaints and associated administration costs due to higher reactive complaint volumes received over the past six months and ongoing volatility".
It added: "The remaining provision is consistent with an average of approximately 13,000 complaints per week through to the industry deadline of the end of August 2019."
It said that every extra 1,000 complaints a week above that level would cost it another £150m.
Branches pledge
The bank said it had sold an estimated 16 million PPI policies since 2000, including policies that were not mis-sold and those that had been successfully claimed upon.
It has already dealt with about 53% of those policies.
Analysis:
by BBC personal finance reporter Kevin Peachey
PPI mis-selling was a huge financial scandal and now, for many, the reason for a lot of unwanted calls about claiming compensation.
But it is worth stepping back for a minute to look at the staggering numbers involved.
Latest figures from the regulator show that in May alone, compensation of more than £400m was paid out by the industry.
No wonder banks were so delighted when a claims deadline was set for 29 August 2019.
On the flipside, claims management companies (CMCs) are furious. This week a trade body for CMCs claimed that half of us are unaware of the cut-off date.
They will be busy in the next 12 months, so expect more calls.
Despite those efforts, many people are missing out on compensation that is rightfully theirs and that they can claim themselves without charge.
Lloyds said it was committed to maintaining the UK's largest network of branches, despite its announcement of 49 branch closures in April.
It said it also had the largest digital bank in the UK, with active users increasing to almost 14 million, including about 10 million mobile banking users.
Lloyds said its balance sheet remained strong, with its common equity tier one capital ratio increasing to 15.1% pre-dividend.
It said it would pay an interim dividend of 1.07 pence a share.
The government sold its last shares in Lloyds in May 2017, eight years after pumping in £20bn to save it.
Lloyds' share price rose nearly 2% in early trading, but it remains lower than it was a year ago.
Laith Khalaf, senior analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "António Horta-Osório must be wondering just what he has to pull out of the bag to push the stock price up.
"Since taking over the reins in 2011, Horta-Osório has presided over a bank which has swung from an annual loss of £260m to a profit of £3.5bn. The share price, meanwhile, is at roughly the same level it stood at when he became CEO.
"That's largely because Brexit means some investors don't want to touch UK domestic companies like Lloyds with a bargepole.
"While this sentiment doesn't look like shifting any time soon, Lloyds shareholders are being paid to wait. The bank is expected to deliver a total dividend of 3.44p this year, equivalent to a 5.5% income yield. Not bad, if you can get it."
Lloyds Bank sets aside another £460m for PPI claims
Lloyds Banking Group has said it has put aside another £460m in costs for payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling claims.
That means it has now allocated more than £19.2bn to settle the claims. The bank said it expected 13,000 PPI complaints a week until August 2019.
The provision came as Lloyds said its profits for the first six months of the year rose by nearly a quarter.
It made pre-tax profits of £3.1bn, 23% higher than the same time last year.
Chief executive António Horta-Osório said: "We have delivered another strong and sustainable financial performance with increased statutory profits, higher returns and a strong capital build."
Lloyds said the latest PPI charge was "largely driven by a potentially higher total volume of complaints and associated administration costs due to higher reactive complaint volumes received over the past six months and ongoing volatility".
It added: "The remaining provision is consistent with an average of approximately 13,000 complaints per week through to the industry deadline of the end of August 2019."
It said that every extra 1,000 complaints a week above that level would cost it another £150m.
Branches pledge
The bank said it had sold an estimated 16 million PPI policies since 2000, including policies that were not mis-sold and those that had been successfully claimed upon.
It has already dealt with about 53% of those policies.
Analysis:
by BBC personal finance reporter Kevin Peachey
PPI mis-selling was a huge financial scandal and now, for many, the reason for a lot of unwanted calls about claiming compensation.
But it is worth stepping back for a minute to look at the staggering numbers involved.
Latest figures from the regulator show that in May alone, compensation of more than £400m was paid out by the industry.
No wonder banks were so delighted when a claims deadline was set for 29 August 2019.
On the flipside, claims management companies (CMCs) are furious. This week a trade body for CMCs claimed that half of us are unaware of the cut-off date.
They will be busy in the next 12 months, so expect more calls.
Despite those efforts, many people are missing out on compensation that is rightfully theirs and that they can claim themselves without charge.
Lloyds said it was committed to maintaining the UK's largest network of branches, despite its announcement of 49 branch closures in April.
It said it also had the largest digital bank in the UK, with active users increasing to almost 14 million, including about 10 million mobile banking users.
Lloyds said its balance sheet remained strong, with its common equity tier one capital ratio increasing to 15.1% pre-dividend.
It said it would pay an interim dividend of 1.07 pence a share.
The government sold its last shares in Lloyds in May 2017, eight years after pumping in £20bn to save it.
Lloyds' share price rose nearly 2% in early trading, but it remains lower than it was a year ago.
Laith Khalaf, senior analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "António Horta-Osório must be wondering just what he has to pull out of the bag to push the stock price up.
"Since taking over the reins in 2011, Horta-Osório has presided over a bank which has swung from an annual loss of £260m to a profit of £3.5bn. The share price, meanwhile, is at roughly the same level it stood at when he became CEO.
"That's largely because Brexit means some investors don't want to touch UK domestic companies like Lloyds with a bargepole.
"While this sentiment doesn't look like shifting any time soon, Lloyds shareholders are being paid to wait. The bank is expected to deliver a total dividend of 3.44p this year, equivalent to a 5.5% income yield. Not bad, if you can get it."
A US federal judge in Seattle has blocked the release of software that allows consumers to 3D-print firearms. - BBC News
August 1, 2018
US release of 3D-printed gun software blocked
A US federal judge in Seattle has blocked the release of software that allows consumers to 3D-print firearms.
Gun access advocacy group Defense Distributed published downloadable gun blueprints five days early on Friday.
The firm had reached a settlement with the Trump administration in June to allow it to legally publish the plans.
But eight states and the District of Columbia sued the government on Monday to block the settlement, arguing the untraceable guns were a safety risk.
US District Judge Robert Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order halting the release hours before the 1 August deadline, saying the blueprints could fall into the wrong hands.
3D-printed firearms, explained
Will 3D printing change my world?
"There are 3D printers in public colleges and public spaces and there is the likelihood of potential irreparable harm," he said.
Judge Lasnik scheduled another hearing for 10 August.
Although Defense Distributed had been expected to publish the blueprints on Wednesday, it uploaded files for nine types of gun to its website last week. Between Friday and Sunday, more than 1,000 people downloaded the files for building a gun apparently modelled on the AR-15 rifle - the gun used in many of America's mass shootings.
Why is the release being blocked?
The lawsuit against the Trump administration was filed in Seattle by the Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maryland and District of Columbia are involved.
The complaint calls the 1 August release of gun blueprints "a bell that cannot be un-rung".
It raises concerns about national security implications and the safety of citizens.
The Liberator became the first gun to be made wholly with 3D-printed parts in 2013
The 3-D printed guns are untraceable and no background checks are required. So there are fears that known criminals could easily access them.
Security experts also fear that the DIY guns could evade metal detectors used in public buildings and airports.
What's been the reaction?
Speaking outside the court, Washington attorney general Bob Ferguson called the judge's decision a "complete, total victory".
"Everything we asked for we got from Judge Lasnik," he said, and called on President Trump to make it "unlawful for anyone to make this information available for anyone".
The president had tweeted on Tuesday before the ruling that selling 3D guns to the public "doesn't seem to make much sense" after settling with Defense Distributed in June.
But the group's founder Cody Wilson told the BBC the 3D gun was not a threat to public safety.
"I haven't watched any crimes be committed with it," he said.
"As far as I know only one person's ever been arrested because of this gun and it was a gentleman in Japan who was curious about making it."
How was the printable gun developed?
The arguments began in 2013 when Mr Wilson, a self-styled crypto-anarchist, showed off the world's first 3D-printed gun.
Files showing how to replicate the process were immediately made available on the Defense Distributed website and downloaded hundreds of thousands of times.
It led the US State Department to order them to be removed from the internet.
There followed a four-year legal battle, with Defense Distributed joining forces with the Second Amendment Foundation - which defends the right to own guns - to sue the State Department.
Last month, in a surprise move, it won its case, with the US Justice Department ruling that Americans may "access, discuss, use and reproduce" the technical data.
Mr Wilson hailed his victory as the beginning of "the age of the downloadable gun".
But critics are concerned it will see a massive rise in so-called ghost guns, unregistered weapons the government is unaware of and is unable to trace.
Since the legal action began, Defense Distributed has been working on new gun designs and has also created a milling device - known as Ghost Gunner - that can turn parts purchased online into a fully working weapon.
US release of 3D-printed gun software blocked
A US federal judge in Seattle has blocked the release of software that allows consumers to 3D-print firearms.
Gun access advocacy group Defense Distributed published downloadable gun blueprints five days early on Friday.
The firm had reached a settlement with the Trump administration in June to allow it to legally publish the plans.
But eight states and the District of Columbia sued the government on Monday to block the settlement, arguing the untraceable guns were a safety risk.
US District Judge Robert Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order halting the release hours before the 1 August deadline, saying the blueprints could fall into the wrong hands.
3D-printed firearms, explained
Will 3D printing change my world?
"There are 3D printers in public colleges and public spaces and there is the likelihood of potential irreparable harm," he said.
Judge Lasnik scheduled another hearing for 10 August.
Although Defense Distributed had been expected to publish the blueprints on Wednesday, it uploaded files for nine types of gun to its website last week. Between Friday and Sunday, more than 1,000 people downloaded the files for building a gun apparently modelled on the AR-15 rifle - the gun used in many of America's mass shootings.
Why is the release being blocked?
The lawsuit against the Trump administration was filed in Seattle by the Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maryland and District of Columbia are involved.
The complaint calls the 1 August release of gun blueprints "a bell that cannot be un-rung".
It raises concerns about national security implications and the safety of citizens.
The Liberator became the first gun to be made wholly with 3D-printed parts in 2013
The 3-D printed guns are untraceable and no background checks are required. So there are fears that known criminals could easily access them.
Security experts also fear that the DIY guns could evade metal detectors used in public buildings and airports.
What's been the reaction?
Speaking outside the court, Washington attorney general Bob Ferguson called the judge's decision a "complete, total victory".
"Everything we asked for we got from Judge Lasnik," he said, and called on President Trump to make it "unlawful for anyone to make this information available for anyone".
The president had tweeted on Tuesday before the ruling that selling 3D guns to the public "doesn't seem to make much sense" after settling with Defense Distributed in June.
But the group's founder Cody Wilson told the BBC the 3D gun was not a threat to public safety.
"I haven't watched any crimes be committed with it," he said.
"As far as I know only one person's ever been arrested because of this gun and it was a gentleman in Japan who was curious about making it."
How was the printable gun developed?
The arguments began in 2013 when Mr Wilson, a self-styled crypto-anarchist, showed off the world's first 3D-printed gun.
Files showing how to replicate the process were immediately made available on the Defense Distributed website and downloaded hundreds of thousands of times.
It led the US State Department to order them to be removed from the internet.
There followed a four-year legal battle, with Defense Distributed joining forces with the Second Amendment Foundation - which defends the right to own guns - to sue the State Department.
Last month, in a surprise move, it won its case, with the US Justice Department ruling that Americans may "access, discuss, use and reproduce" the technical data.
Mr Wilson hailed his victory as the beginning of "the age of the downloadable gun".
But critics are concerned it will see a massive rise in so-called ghost guns, unregistered weapons the government is unaware of and is unable to trace.
Since the legal action began, Defense Distributed has been working on new gun designs and has also created a milling device - known as Ghost Gunner - that can turn parts purchased online into a fully working weapon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
