Friday, April 20, 2018
Kushner Companies Has Been Subpoenaed as Part of a Probe Into False Housing Paperwork - TIME
Kushner Companies Has Been Subpoenaed as Part of a Probe Into False Housing Paperwork
Posted: 19 Apr 2018 08:56 PM PDT
(NEW YORK) — The Kushner Cos. confirmed Thursday it was subpoenaed by federal prosecutors for information related to an Associated Press report that the company filed dozens of false documents about its buildings in New York City.
The real estate company issued a statement saying it has “nothing to hide and is cooperating fully with all legitimate requests for information, including this subpoena.”
The statement said the federal subpoena came last month, just a day after the AP reported the Kushner Cos. routinely filed false paperwork with the city stating it had zero rent-regulated tenants in buildings across the city when, in fact, it had hundreds. The AP report covered a three-year period when the real estate company was run by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law who is now a senior adviser.
Tenant advocates say such false filings allow landlords to avoid heightened city oversight designed to keep lower-paying, rent-regulated tenants from being harassed during construction and pressured to leave, freeing up apartments for higher-paying residents.
Kushner Cos. told the AP at the time of its report that the company outsources preparation of construction permit applications and fixes any mistakes immediately. Records show the company did file some amended documents, often more than a year later.
The AP report, based on work by nonprofit watchdog Housing Rights Initiative, has sparked an inquiry by the New York state attorney general’s office and a city council investigation.
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier Thursday that the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn had subpoenaed housing paperwork from the company. The office declined to comment to the AP
The Brooklyn attorney’s office also has reportedly subpoenaed the Kushner Cos. over a visa-for-investment program to raise money from Chinese investors for its real estate projects.
Congress Again Punts on Trump's War Powers - Bloomberg
Congress Again Punts on Trump's War Powers
Lawmakers love to complain that the executive branch has stolen their authority, but are too timid to actually do anything about it.
By Hal Brands
April 20, 2018, 9:00 PM GMT+10
Something odd is happening in the relationship between Congress and the executive branch regarding the use of military force. For decades, or even longer, countless senators and representatives have complained that presidents are not properly respectful of their constitutional prerogatives in making decisions on employing U.S. military power. And today, most Democrats and a number of Republicans seem to agree that President Donald Trump is an impulsive, erratic, even dangerous commander-in-chief.
Yet even at a time when so many on the Hill argue that the president cannot be trusted, Congress as a whole is showing little inclination to constrain executive authority in the use of force.
Consider two recent examples. First, earlier this month, Trump ordered U.S. forces to attack targets in Syria in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Bashar al-Assad’s government. These strikes marked the second time Trump has ordered military attacks against Assad’s regime. Yet even though they represented an expansion of U.S. intervention in Syria, even though they could not be justified on grounds of self-defense, even though they were not plausibly covered by any existing congressional authorization for use of military force, and even though the Barack Obama administration did seek congressional approval when it was considering similar strikes in 2013, the Trump administration has not offered any clear articulation of where it believes its authority to use force in this instance comes from.
This apparent indifference to Congress’s role has elicited some grumbling from individual senators and representatives. But the body writ large has shown little inclination to push back -- by passing resolutions calling on Trump to seek congressional approval for any future strikes against the Syrian regime, by making clear it will not fund future operations not explicitly authorized by Congress, or by otherwise using the legislative tools and authority the Constitution provides.
The same goes for a second example: The ongoing debate about how and whether to limit executive authority in waging the global war on terrorism. For years, congressional observers and other critics have complained that the AUMF passed just after the Sept. 11 attacks -- which has served as the legal basis for U.S. operations against terrorist groups from core al-Qaeda in 2001 to the Islamic State today -- is too expansive and has been interpreted too loosely by successive administrations. Today, after numerous false starts, there is a somewhat more tailored authorization under consideration, one that enjoys bipartisan sponsorship.
Yet this new AUMF preserves, rather than challenges, executive dominance in fighting terrorism. It gives the president great flexibility to designate what groups can be targeted with military force, and would force Congress to assemble veto-proof supermajorities to override any such designation. It does not meaningfully constrict the scope of the fight as it has been waged to date. And, although it would force a floor debate on the AUMF at least every four years, there is no formal sunset provision.
In sum, the new AUMF affirms the distinctly subordinate role Congress has played since 2001. As Lawfare’s Robert Chesney writes, the new AUMF may even “remove any lingering pressure on Congress to step up to the plate and take a share of ownership in decisions to define this conflict.”
At first glance, this deferential attitude seems puzzling, given that members of Congress have consistently voiced unease about the generations-long trend toward greater presidential latitude in foreign affairs. It seems even more puzzling given that so many members, on both sides of the aisle, are plainly uncomfortable with this particular commander in chief.
After all, it is not simply Democrats who worry about the president’s proclivity for ill-considered action. It was the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, who warned last year that Trump might blunder into “World War III.” Yet even as Democrats have pushed (without success) legislation seeking to prohibit Trump from unilaterally ordering a preventive strike on North Korea, the overall congressional response has been surprisingly muted.
So what is going on here? There are two principal reasons for this passive attitude -- the first prudential and reasonable, the second more cynical and political.
The prudential reason is that congressional deference since 2001 may simply reflect the diffuse and evolving nature of the struggle the U.S. faces. Terrorists do not respect national borders; new enemies arise and advance as others recede. The U.S. threw core al-Qaeda on its heels in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, only to see the proliferation of affiliate groups in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere thereafter.
Since 2014, the U.S. has also faced threats from ISIS -- an al-Qaeda splinter group -- and its own affiliates from Libya to Afghanistan and beyond. The threat, then, is amorphous and transnational, and it requires ongoing suppression across an array of geographic fronts.
As a result, the best model for waging the war on terrorism may very well be one in which the executive has primacy in defining the scope of that conflict, with Congress retaining -- but only very selectively using -- the right to step in should that flexibility be misused.
Yet there is also a second factor at work, having far more to do with politics than national security. In recent decades, members of Congress have repeatedly learned that there is often more political risk than profit in standing up and being counted on hard issues involving the use of force.
In 1992, the presidential aspirations of Senator Sam Nunn and several other Democrats were derailed in large part by the fact that they had opposed a successful war against Iraq the year before. In 2004 and 2008, the presidential ambitions of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats were impaired by the fact that they had supported another, much less successful, war against Iraq in 2003.
Elected officials know that votes that subsequently look unwise will be held against them, which naturally predisposes them to avoid such votes when possible. This is, arguably, an abdication of congressional responsibility, but it is politically savvy nonetheless.
The dilemma, however, is that deference now may make it harder to restrict other, more consequential, uses of force later. The Hill may find it tolerable, if distasteful, to acquiesce when Trump launches pinprick strikes against Bashar al-Assad or takes the fight to some new offshoot of ISIS.
But what if the administration had decided to undertake a more significant air campaign against the Assad regime, one that risked Russian casualties and held a higher danger of unwanted escalation? What if this or a future administration decides that a preventive attack on North Korea’s nuclear and missile facilities is, regrettably, necessary?
Having an executive that is only loosely constrained on matters involving the use of force may make sense, pragmatically and politically, in the context of a low-grade, continuing war on terrorism. But there is some danger that a pattern of acquiescence in cases where the stakes seem relatively low may make it harder to wrest back meaningful congressional authority in cases where the stakes are far higher.
Lawmakers love to complain that the executive branch has stolen their authority, but are too timid to actually do anything about it.
By Hal Brands
April 20, 2018, 9:00 PM GMT+10
Something odd is happening in the relationship between Congress and the executive branch regarding the use of military force. For decades, or even longer, countless senators and representatives have complained that presidents are not properly respectful of their constitutional prerogatives in making decisions on employing U.S. military power. And today, most Democrats and a number of Republicans seem to agree that President Donald Trump is an impulsive, erratic, even dangerous commander-in-chief.
Yet even at a time when so many on the Hill argue that the president cannot be trusted, Congress as a whole is showing little inclination to constrain executive authority in the use of force.
Consider two recent examples. First, earlier this month, Trump ordered U.S. forces to attack targets in Syria in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Bashar al-Assad’s government. These strikes marked the second time Trump has ordered military attacks against Assad’s regime. Yet even though they represented an expansion of U.S. intervention in Syria, even though they could not be justified on grounds of self-defense, even though they were not plausibly covered by any existing congressional authorization for use of military force, and even though the Barack Obama administration did seek congressional approval when it was considering similar strikes in 2013, the Trump administration has not offered any clear articulation of where it believes its authority to use force in this instance comes from.
This apparent indifference to Congress’s role has elicited some grumbling from individual senators and representatives. But the body writ large has shown little inclination to push back -- by passing resolutions calling on Trump to seek congressional approval for any future strikes against the Syrian regime, by making clear it will not fund future operations not explicitly authorized by Congress, or by otherwise using the legislative tools and authority the Constitution provides.
The same goes for a second example: The ongoing debate about how and whether to limit executive authority in waging the global war on terrorism. For years, congressional observers and other critics have complained that the AUMF passed just after the Sept. 11 attacks -- which has served as the legal basis for U.S. operations against terrorist groups from core al-Qaeda in 2001 to the Islamic State today -- is too expansive and has been interpreted too loosely by successive administrations. Today, after numerous false starts, there is a somewhat more tailored authorization under consideration, one that enjoys bipartisan sponsorship.
Yet this new AUMF preserves, rather than challenges, executive dominance in fighting terrorism. It gives the president great flexibility to designate what groups can be targeted with military force, and would force Congress to assemble veto-proof supermajorities to override any such designation. It does not meaningfully constrict the scope of the fight as it has been waged to date. And, although it would force a floor debate on the AUMF at least every four years, there is no formal sunset provision.
In sum, the new AUMF affirms the distinctly subordinate role Congress has played since 2001. As Lawfare’s Robert Chesney writes, the new AUMF may even “remove any lingering pressure on Congress to step up to the plate and take a share of ownership in decisions to define this conflict.”
At first glance, this deferential attitude seems puzzling, given that members of Congress have consistently voiced unease about the generations-long trend toward greater presidential latitude in foreign affairs. It seems even more puzzling given that so many members, on both sides of the aisle, are plainly uncomfortable with this particular commander in chief.
After all, it is not simply Democrats who worry about the president’s proclivity for ill-considered action. It was the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, who warned last year that Trump might blunder into “World War III.” Yet even as Democrats have pushed (without success) legislation seeking to prohibit Trump from unilaterally ordering a preventive strike on North Korea, the overall congressional response has been surprisingly muted.
So what is going on here? There are two principal reasons for this passive attitude -- the first prudential and reasonable, the second more cynical and political.
The prudential reason is that congressional deference since 2001 may simply reflect the diffuse and evolving nature of the struggle the U.S. faces. Terrorists do not respect national borders; new enemies arise and advance as others recede. The U.S. threw core al-Qaeda on its heels in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, only to see the proliferation of affiliate groups in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere thereafter.
Since 2014, the U.S. has also faced threats from ISIS -- an al-Qaeda splinter group -- and its own affiliates from Libya to Afghanistan and beyond. The threat, then, is amorphous and transnational, and it requires ongoing suppression across an array of geographic fronts.
As a result, the best model for waging the war on terrorism may very well be one in which the executive has primacy in defining the scope of that conflict, with Congress retaining -- but only very selectively using -- the right to step in should that flexibility be misused.
Yet there is also a second factor at work, having far more to do with politics than national security. In recent decades, members of Congress have repeatedly learned that there is often more political risk than profit in standing up and being counted on hard issues involving the use of force.
In 1992, the presidential aspirations of Senator Sam Nunn and several other Democrats were derailed in large part by the fact that they had opposed a successful war against Iraq the year before. In 2004 and 2008, the presidential ambitions of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats were impaired by the fact that they had supported another, much less successful, war against Iraq in 2003.
Elected officials know that votes that subsequently look unwise will be held against them, which naturally predisposes them to avoid such votes when possible. This is, arguably, an abdication of congressional responsibility, but it is politically savvy nonetheless.
The dilemma, however, is that deference now may make it harder to restrict other, more consequential, uses of force later. The Hill may find it tolerable, if distasteful, to acquiesce when Trump launches pinprick strikes against Bashar al-Assad or takes the fight to some new offshoot of ISIS.
But what if the administration had decided to undertake a more significant air campaign against the Assad regime, one that risked Russian casualties and held a higher danger of unwanted escalation? What if this or a future administration decides that a preventive attack on North Korea’s nuclear and missile facilities is, regrettably, necessary?
Having an executive that is only loosely constrained on matters involving the use of force may make sense, pragmatically and politically, in the context of a low-grade, continuing war on terrorism. But there is some danger that a pattern of acquiescence in cases where the stakes seem relatively low may make it harder to wrest back meaningful congressional authority in cases where the stakes are far higher.
Here's why the Comey memos hurt Trump more than help him - NBC News
Here's why the Comey memos hurt Trump more than help him
First Read is your briefing from Meet the Press and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.
by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann / Apr.20.2018 / 10:51 PM ET
President Donald Trump walks down the stairs of Air Force One during his arrival at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida on April 19, 2018.Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP
WASHINGTON — House Republicans have declared that the James Comey memos they released Thursday disprove that President Trump obstructed justice in his interactions with the former FBI director. And Trump spiked the football, too. “James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?” he tweeted.
But if anything, the memos only confirm Comey’s version of events. And the new details only raise more questions about the infamous Steele dossier and Michael Flynn.
For starters, the memos show a president who cares greatly about the salacious findings in the Steele dossier.
From January 6, 2017: “I said, the Russians allegedly had tapes involving him and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow from about 2013. He interjected, ‘There were not prostitutes; there were never prostitutes.’ He then said something about him being the kind of guy who didn’t need to ‘go there’ and laughed… He said ‘2013’ to himself, as if trying to remember the period of time, but didn’t add anything. He said he always assumed the hotel rooms he stayed in when he travels are wired in some way.”
From January 28, 2017: “At about this point, he turned to what he called the ‘golden showers thing’ and recounted much of what he had said previously on that topic. He repeated that it was a complete fabrication and ‘fake news’… He said it bothered him if his wife thought there was even a 1 percent chance it was true in any respect… He said he thought maybe he should ask me to investigate the whole thing to prove it was a lie.”
From February 8, 2017: “The president brought up the ‘Golden Showers thing’ and said it really bothered him if he wife had any doubt about it. He then explained, as he did at our dinner, that he hadn’t stayed overnight in Russia during the Miss Universe trip… The president said ‘the hookers thing’ is nonsense but that Putin had told him, ‘We have some of the most beautiful hookers in the world.’” (On MSNBC last night, Rachel Maddow asked Comey, “And he told you he'd had a personal conversation with President Putin about hookers?” Comey replied, “Yes.”)
The memos also have former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus asking Comey, on Feb. 8, 2017, if former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was under a FISA warrant. (Flynn didn’t resign until a week later, on February 13.) “He then said he wanted to ask me a question and I could decide whether it was appropriate to answer. He then asked, ‘Do you have a FISA order on Mike Flynn?’ I paused for a few seconds and then said that I would answer here, but that this illustrated the kind of question that had to be asked and answered through established channels. I said the answer REDACTED, I then explained that the normal channel was from DOJ leadership to the WH counsel about such things.”
And as NBC’s Mike Memoli adds, “Comey recalls Trump casting doubt on Flynn’s judgment during a private White House dinner, after an episode in which the president had discussed congratulatory calls from foreign leaders.”
Bottom line: You have a president who can’t stop talking about the dossier. And you have a White House that’s suspicious about Flynn — before he ultimately resigned. Those revelations don’t help the president; they hurt him.
Comey memos reveal embarrassing details for Trump, Nicolle Wallace says
02:00
HIRING GIULIANI IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR TRUMP
The other big news from yesterday: “Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is joining President Donald Trump’s legal team, providing advice on how to deal with the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election, attorney Jay Sekulow confirmed to NBC News on Thursday,” NBC’s Kristen Welker and Jane Timm report.
But Giuliani is a double-edged sword. Will he be the professional prosecutor Giuliani? Or will he be the partisan, angry Giuliani?
As someone who knows Trump well, is he exactly the kind of person who can tell the president “no” and rein in his worst instincts? Or is he someone who will only reinforce the president’s worst instincts?
By the way, don’t miss what Giuliani told the New York Post: “I’m going to join the legal team to try to bring this to a resolution,” he said. “The country deserves it. I’ve got great admiration for President Trump.
More: “I don’t know yet what’s outstanding. But I don’t think it’s going to take more than a week or two to get a resolution. They’re almost there.”
So he doesn’t think it’s going to take more than a week or two? Hmmmmm…
THE WHITE HOUSE IS CONSIDERING HAVING CONGRESS VOTE ON NAFTA — IN AN ELECTION YEAR?
Politico: “As top-level ministers gathered in Washington toward the end of this week, the Trump administration has already been thinking about how to get a new NAFTA agreement through both chambers of Congress. One strategy that has seemed to gain favor is to force a congressional approval on the new NAFTA by withdrawing from the existing pact even before the new one is ready. The thinking is that Congress will have to approve whatever terms are in the new deal quickly, lest the U.S. is left hanging without an agreement with two of its largest trading partners.”
So Team Trump wants to have Congress do this — in an election year? Have they seen how the trade issue has played on the campaign trail? And have they seen how tough it has been for a Republican Congress to pass legislation?
TRUMP BACKS MARSHA BLACKBURN: “I WILL BE THERE TO CAMPAIGN WITH HER!”
“As departing Republican Sen. Bob Corker has continued to praise the Democrat running to replace him, President Donald Trump is making clear that he's firmly in Republican Marsha Blackburn's corner,” one of us writes. "@MarshaBlackburn is a wonderful woman who has always been there when we have needed her," he tweeted. "Great on the Military, Border Security and Crime. Loves and works hard for the people of Tennessee. She has my full endorsement and I will be there to campaign with her!"
First Read is your briefing from Meet the Press and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.
by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann / Apr.20.2018 / 10:51 PM ET
President Donald Trump walks down the stairs of Air Force One during his arrival at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida on April 19, 2018.Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP
WASHINGTON — House Republicans have declared that the James Comey memos they released Thursday disprove that President Trump obstructed justice in his interactions with the former FBI director. And Trump spiked the football, too. “James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?” he tweeted.
But if anything, the memos only confirm Comey’s version of events. And the new details only raise more questions about the infamous Steele dossier and Michael Flynn.
For starters, the memos show a president who cares greatly about the salacious findings in the Steele dossier.
From January 6, 2017: “I said, the Russians allegedly had tapes involving him and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow from about 2013. He interjected, ‘There were not prostitutes; there were never prostitutes.’ He then said something about him being the kind of guy who didn’t need to ‘go there’ and laughed… He said ‘2013’ to himself, as if trying to remember the period of time, but didn’t add anything. He said he always assumed the hotel rooms he stayed in when he travels are wired in some way.”
From January 28, 2017: “At about this point, he turned to what he called the ‘golden showers thing’ and recounted much of what he had said previously on that topic. He repeated that it was a complete fabrication and ‘fake news’… He said it bothered him if his wife thought there was even a 1 percent chance it was true in any respect… He said he thought maybe he should ask me to investigate the whole thing to prove it was a lie.”
From February 8, 2017: “The president brought up the ‘Golden Showers thing’ and said it really bothered him if he wife had any doubt about it. He then explained, as he did at our dinner, that he hadn’t stayed overnight in Russia during the Miss Universe trip… The president said ‘the hookers thing’ is nonsense but that Putin had told him, ‘We have some of the most beautiful hookers in the world.’” (On MSNBC last night, Rachel Maddow asked Comey, “And he told you he'd had a personal conversation with President Putin about hookers?” Comey replied, “Yes.”)
The memos also have former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus asking Comey, on Feb. 8, 2017, if former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was under a FISA warrant. (Flynn didn’t resign until a week later, on February 13.) “He then said he wanted to ask me a question and I could decide whether it was appropriate to answer. He then asked, ‘Do you have a FISA order on Mike Flynn?’ I paused for a few seconds and then said that I would answer here, but that this illustrated the kind of question that had to be asked and answered through established channels. I said the answer REDACTED, I then explained that the normal channel was from DOJ leadership to the WH counsel about such things.”
And as NBC’s Mike Memoli adds, “Comey recalls Trump casting doubt on Flynn’s judgment during a private White House dinner, after an episode in which the president had discussed congratulatory calls from foreign leaders.”
Bottom line: You have a president who can’t stop talking about the dossier. And you have a White House that’s suspicious about Flynn — before he ultimately resigned. Those revelations don’t help the president; they hurt him.
Comey memos reveal embarrassing details for Trump, Nicolle Wallace says
02:00
HIRING GIULIANI IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR TRUMP
The other big news from yesterday: “Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is joining President Donald Trump’s legal team, providing advice on how to deal with the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election, attorney Jay Sekulow confirmed to NBC News on Thursday,” NBC’s Kristen Welker and Jane Timm report.
But Giuliani is a double-edged sword. Will he be the professional prosecutor Giuliani? Or will he be the partisan, angry Giuliani?
As someone who knows Trump well, is he exactly the kind of person who can tell the president “no” and rein in his worst instincts? Or is he someone who will only reinforce the president’s worst instincts?
By the way, don’t miss what Giuliani told the New York Post: “I’m going to join the legal team to try to bring this to a resolution,” he said. “The country deserves it. I’ve got great admiration for President Trump.
More: “I don’t know yet what’s outstanding. But I don’t think it’s going to take more than a week or two to get a resolution. They’re almost there.”
So he doesn’t think it’s going to take more than a week or two? Hmmmmm…
THE WHITE HOUSE IS CONSIDERING HAVING CONGRESS VOTE ON NAFTA — IN AN ELECTION YEAR?
Politico: “As top-level ministers gathered in Washington toward the end of this week, the Trump administration has already been thinking about how to get a new NAFTA agreement through both chambers of Congress. One strategy that has seemed to gain favor is to force a congressional approval on the new NAFTA by withdrawing from the existing pact even before the new one is ready. The thinking is that Congress will have to approve whatever terms are in the new deal quickly, lest the U.S. is left hanging without an agreement with two of its largest trading partners.”
So Team Trump wants to have Congress do this — in an election year? Have they seen how the trade issue has played on the campaign trail? And have they seen how tough it has been for a Republican Congress to pass legislation?
TRUMP BACKS MARSHA BLACKBURN: “I WILL BE THERE TO CAMPAIGN WITH HER!”
“As departing Republican Sen. Bob Corker has continued to praise the Democrat running to replace him, President Donald Trump is making clear that he's firmly in Republican Marsha Blackburn's corner,” one of us writes. "@MarshaBlackburn is a wonderful woman who has always been there when we have needed her," he tweeted. "Great on the Military, Border Security and Crime. Loves and works hard for the people of Tennessee. She has my full endorsement and I will be there to campaign with her!"
Fed official: It's too early to ease post-crisis rules on US banks - CNN Money
Fed official: It's too early to ease post-crisis rules on US banks
by Donna Borak @donnaborak
April 19, 2018: 1:49 PM ET
Big banks are raking in monster profits
A top Federal Reserve official says it's too early to ease post-crisis rules on the nation's banks, especially at a time of growing risk in the financial system.
Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard said Thursday that regulators should wait until the rules have been tested by severe stress before making changes, such as loosening requirements for how much cash banks have to keep on hand.
"Prudence would argue for waiting until we have tested how the new framework performs through a full [economic] cycle before we make judgments about its performance," Brainard said in prepared remarks at the Global Finance Forum in Washington.
Under the Fed's new leadership, regulators have taken early steps to rewrite rules for the nation's banks that would require them to hold less cash to weather a crisis.
Content by Workplace by Facebook
On-demand experiences are changing the office culture
New generation of employees have a thirst for speedy feedback at workplace
Separately, Congress is considering the most sweeping changes yet to the 2010 Dodd-Frank regulatory reform law, which would ease the burden on dozens of regional banks and thousands of community banks across the country.
Randal Quarles, the Fed's vice chair of bank supervision, who was nominated by President Trump, said this week that recent steps by the central bank were not intended to deregulate the banking industry, but to make regulations more efficient.
"It's not a question of deregulating. It's not a question of swinging the pendulum back," Quarles said Wednesday at the Bretton Woods conference in Washington. "It's a question of achieving objectives with an eye for efficiency, and I think that can significantly reduce the burden on the financial sector that doesn't impair safety and soundness."
At a hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana warned Quarles that regulators should "tread carefully" before changing rules "until we see how our banks do with a full-blown recession."
Democratic senators raised their own concerns about why the Fed pushed ahead with its recent proposals despite a lack of consensus among Fed governors and other regulators.
Last week, Brainard cast a rare "no" vote when the Fed announced plans to soften a key safeguard known as the leverage ratio that megabanks must adhere to.
"The decisions being made now may lead us to the next crash," said Senator Sherrod Brown, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee.
"When times are good, policymakers, lawmakers and regulators — if they're not vigilant — can get lulled into a sense that 'this time is different,'" he added, referencing a 2009 book on the history of financial crises.
Fed officials have said risks to financial stability are "moderate" for now, but growing. They point to lofty stock prices and ballooning corporate debt as two potential trouble spots.
Global debt, public and private, has swelled to an all-time high of $164 trillion, making it more difficult for countries to steer out of a fiscal calamity and more expensive for them to pay off debts as interest rates rise, according to the International Monetary Fund.
Some Fed officials and other world policy makers also worry that recent steps by Republicans and the Trump administration to enact tax cuts, at a time when the economy is healthy, could speed up inflation faster than anticipated.
Such a speedup could force the Fed to lift interest rates faster. And if the Fed gets the timing wrong, it could bring on a recession.
Related: Senate moves to repeal Obama-era car loan rule
Brainard said there would be "severe costs" if banks did not have enough capital to absorb losses caused by a stressful episode in the financial system.
Instead, she called for banks to hold more money than they already do to ensure they can shoulder a crisis.
"By the time losses are rising, it is generally too late to start building buffers, which becomes all too clear with devastating consequences in some some countries during the last crisis," she said.
by Donna Borak @donnaborak
April 19, 2018: 1:49 PM ET
Big banks are raking in monster profits
A top Federal Reserve official says it's too early to ease post-crisis rules on the nation's banks, especially at a time of growing risk in the financial system.
Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard said Thursday that regulators should wait until the rules have been tested by severe stress before making changes, such as loosening requirements for how much cash banks have to keep on hand.
"Prudence would argue for waiting until we have tested how the new framework performs through a full [economic] cycle before we make judgments about its performance," Brainard said in prepared remarks at the Global Finance Forum in Washington.
Under the Fed's new leadership, regulators have taken early steps to rewrite rules for the nation's banks that would require them to hold less cash to weather a crisis.
Content by Workplace by Facebook
On-demand experiences are changing the office culture
New generation of employees have a thirst for speedy feedback at workplace
Separately, Congress is considering the most sweeping changes yet to the 2010 Dodd-Frank regulatory reform law, which would ease the burden on dozens of regional banks and thousands of community banks across the country.
Randal Quarles, the Fed's vice chair of bank supervision, who was nominated by President Trump, said this week that recent steps by the central bank were not intended to deregulate the banking industry, but to make regulations more efficient.
"It's not a question of deregulating. It's not a question of swinging the pendulum back," Quarles said Wednesday at the Bretton Woods conference in Washington. "It's a question of achieving objectives with an eye for efficiency, and I think that can significantly reduce the burden on the financial sector that doesn't impair safety and soundness."
At a hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana warned Quarles that regulators should "tread carefully" before changing rules "until we see how our banks do with a full-blown recession."
Democratic senators raised their own concerns about why the Fed pushed ahead with its recent proposals despite a lack of consensus among Fed governors and other regulators.
Last week, Brainard cast a rare "no" vote when the Fed announced plans to soften a key safeguard known as the leverage ratio that megabanks must adhere to.
"The decisions being made now may lead us to the next crash," said Senator Sherrod Brown, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee.
"When times are good, policymakers, lawmakers and regulators — if they're not vigilant — can get lulled into a sense that 'this time is different,'" he added, referencing a 2009 book on the history of financial crises.
Fed officials have said risks to financial stability are "moderate" for now, but growing. They point to lofty stock prices and ballooning corporate debt as two potential trouble spots.
Global debt, public and private, has swelled to an all-time high of $164 trillion, making it more difficult for countries to steer out of a fiscal calamity and more expensive for them to pay off debts as interest rates rise, according to the International Monetary Fund.
Some Fed officials and other world policy makers also worry that recent steps by Republicans and the Trump administration to enact tax cuts, at a time when the economy is healthy, could speed up inflation faster than anticipated.
Such a speedup could force the Fed to lift interest rates faster. And if the Fed gets the timing wrong, it could bring on a recession.
Related: Senate moves to repeal Obama-era car loan rule
Brainard said there would be "severe costs" if banks did not have enough capital to absorb losses caused by a stressful episode in the financial system.
Instead, she called for banks to hold more money than they already do to ensure they can shoulder a crisis.
"By the time losses are rising, it is generally too late to start building buffers, which becomes all too clear with devastating consequences in some some countries during the last crisis," she said.
Rudy Giuliani joins Trump legal team, hoping to end probe - NBC News
Rudy Giuliani joins Trump legal team, hoping to end probe
The former mayor says he hopes to negotiate an end to the investigation, "for the good of the country."
by Kristen Welker and Jane C. Timm / Apr.20.2018 / 8:13 AM ET / Updated 9:00 AM ET
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is joining President Donald Trump’s legal team, providing advice on how to deal with the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election, attorney Jay Sekulow confirmed to NBC News on Thursday.
"Rudy is great," Trump said, according to a statement provided by Sekulow, a member of the president's personal legal team dealing with the Russia probe. "He has been my friend for a long time and wants to get this matter quickly resolved for the good of the country."
Giuliani is a longtime Trump ally who served as a bombastic campaign surrogate — at times boasting of his ties to the FBI. He joins the team as the president’s apparent frustration with the probe deepens, particularly in the wake of an FBI raid on the office and hotel room of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen.
Giuliani formerly ran the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York, the same office that conducted the raid of Cohen's office. The interim U.S. Attorney in that office, Geoffrey Berman, has been recused from the Cohen investigation; he is a former law partner of Giuliani.
He joins Sekulow and Ty Cobb, amid the ongoing debate over whether the president should sit for an interview with special counselor, Robert Mueller III, and the president's continued insistence that he could fire the special counselor if he wanted to do so.
Comey: Giuliani boasts prompted investigation into FBI leaks
"I have had the privilege of working with Mayor Giuliani for many years, and we welcome his expertise," Sekulow said in a statement, which added that Jane Serene Raskin and Marty Raskin were also joining the team. "Mayor Giuliani expressed his deep appreciation to the President for allowing him to assist in this important matter."
“I’m doing it because I hope we can negotiate an end to this for the good of the country and because I have high regard for the president and for Bob Mueller,” Giuliani said in an interview with the Washington Post.
Thursday's legal team shakeup is not the first.
Last month, John Dowd resigned from Trump’s team amid the news that the president was hiring attorneys Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing. Days later, Sekulow announced that diGenova and Toensing would not be joining the legal team, citing conflicts of interest.
The former mayor says he hopes to negotiate an end to the investigation, "for the good of the country."
by Kristen Welker and Jane C. Timm / Apr.20.2018 / 8:13 AM ET / Updated 9:00 AM ET
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is joining President Donald Trump’s legal team, providing advice on how to deal with the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election, attorney Jay Sekulow confirmed to NBC News on Thursday.
"Rudy is great," Trump said, according to a statement provided by Sekulow, a member of the president's personal legal team dealing with the Russia probe. "He has been my friend for a long time and wants to get this matter quickly resolved for the good of the country."
Giuliani is a longtime Trump ally who served as a bombastic campaign surrogate — at times boasting of his ties to the FBI. He joins the team as the president’s apparent frustration with the probe deepens, particularly in the wake of an FBI raid on the office and hotel room of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen.
Giuliani formerly ran the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York, the same office that conducted the raid of Cohen's office. The interim U.S. Attorney in that office, Geoffrey Berman, has been recused from the Cohen investigation; he is a former law partner of Giuliani.
He joins Sekulow and Ty Cobb, amid the ongoing debate over whether the president should sit for an interview with special counselor, Robert Mueller III, and the president's continued insistence that he could fire the special counselor if he wanted to do so.
Comey: Giuliani boasts prompted investigation into FBI leaks
"I have had the privilege of working with Mayor Giuliani for many years, and we welcome his expertise," Sekulow said in a statement, which added that Jane Serene Raskin and Marty Raskin were also joining the team. "Mayor Giuliani expressed his deep appreciation to the President for allowing him to assist in this important matter."
“I’m doing it because I hope we can negotiate an end to this for the good of the country and because I have high regard for the president and for Bob Mueller,” Giuliani said in an interview with the Washington Post.
Thursday's legal team shakeup is not the first.
Last month, John Dowd resigned from Trump’s team amid the news that the president was hiring attorneys Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing. Days later, Sekulow announced that diGenova and Toensing would not be joining the legal team, citing conflicts of interest.
Man linked to 9/11 attacks on US captured in Syria: Pentagon - CNBC News
April 19, 2018
Man linked to 9/11 attacks on US captured in Syria: Pentagon
A man linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S. was captured in Syria by U.S.-backed forces more than a month ago, the Pentagon said.
Mohammad Haydar Zammar, a Syrian-born German national, was said to have praised "violent jihad."
The 9/11 Commission report, a congressional account on the 2001 attacks, said Zammar was an "outspoken, flamboyant Islamist" who extolled "the virtues of violent jihad."
Published 4 Hours Ago Updated 1 Hour Ago
Reuters
A flower lies atop names of victims at the 9/11 Memorial in New York on Sept. 10
Getty Images
A flower lies atop names of victims at the 9/11 Memorial in New York on Sept. 10
A man linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, who was said to have praised "violent jihad," was captured in Syria by U.S.-backed forces more than a month ago, the Pentagon said on Thursday.
"We can confirm that Mohammad Haydar Zammar, a Syrian-born German national, was captured more than a month ago by SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) partners as part of their ongoing operations to defeat ISIS inside Syria," Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon said, using an acronym for Islamic State.
"We are working with our SDF partners to obtain additional details," Pahon said.
The 9/11 Commission report, a congressional account on the 2001 attacks, said Zammar was an "outspoken, flamboyant Islamist" who extolled "the virtues of violent jihad."
It said Zammar reportedly had taken credit for influencing Ramzi Binalshibh, who is accused of wiring money to September 11 hijackers and passing information to al Qaeda operatives, and Mohammed Atta, who led the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City.
U.S. officials have said that there are hundreds of foreign fighters and thousands of Syrian Islamic State militants in SDF custody.
Man linked to 9/11 attacks on US captured in Syria: Pentagon
A man linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S. was captured in Syria by U.S.-backed forces more than a month ago, the Pentagon said.
Mohammad Haydar Zammar, a Syrian-born German national, was said to have praised "violent jihad."
The 9/11 Commission report, a congressional account on the 2001 attacks, said Zammar was an "outspoken, flamboyant Islamist" who extolled "the virtues of violent jihad."
Published 4 Hours Ago Updated 1 Hour Ago
Reuters
A flower lies atop names of victims at the 9/11 Memorial in New York on Sept. 10
Getty Images
A flower lies atop names of victims at the 9/11 Memorial in New York on Sept. 10
A man linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, who was said to have praised "violent jihad," was captured in Syria by U.S.-backed forces more than a month ago, the Pentagon said on Thursday.
"We can confirm that Mohammad Haydar Zammar, a Syrian-born German national, was captured more than a month ago by SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) partners as part of their ongoing operations to defeat ISIS inside Syria," Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon said, using an acronym for Islamic State.
"We are working with our SDF partners to obtain additional details," Pahon said.
The 9/11 Commission report, a congressional account on the 2001 attacks, said Zammar was an "outspoken, flamboyant Islamist" who extolled "the virtues of violent jihad."
It said Zammar reportedly had taken credit for influencing Ramzi Binalshibh, who is accused of wiring money to September 11 hijackers and passing information to al Qaeda operatives, and Mohammed Atta, who led the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City.
U.S. officials have said that there are hundreds of foreign fighters and thousands of Syrian Islamic State militants in SDF custody.
Leaders approve Prince Charles to succeed Queen as Commonwealth head - Reuters ( source : Sky News )
APRIL 20, 2018 / 9:48 PM / UPDATED 33 MINUTES AGO
Leaders approve Prince Charles to succeed Queen as Commonwealth head -Sky news
Reuters Staff
LONDON (Reuters) - Prince Charles was approved as the successor to Queen Elizabeth as head of the Commonwealth at a meeting of the group’s heads of government in Windsor on Friday, Sky News reported citing unnamed sources.
Britain's Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles arrive for the formal opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the ballroom at Buckingham Palace in London, Britain, April 19, 2018. Jonathan Brady/Pool via Reuters
There have been calls for the role to be rotated around the 53 member-states, most of which are former British territories, but in recent days the queen, the British government and other leaders have backed Charles.
The Commonwealth Secretariat, which carries out the organization’s day-to-day work, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Prime Minister Theresa May’s office did not comment on the report.
Britain's Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles leave after the formal opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the ballroom at Buckingham Palace in London, Britain, April 19, 2018. Yui Mok/Pool via Reuters
The succession issue was due to be discussed at the final day of the meeting, when leaders traveled 20 miles outside London for private meetings at the queen’s Windsor Castle home.
The Commonwealth evolved out of the British empire in the mid-20th century, and the queen has been its head since her reign began in 1952. Charles had long been expected to take on the role even though it is not strictly hereditary.
This week’s Commonwealth summit has seen thousands of delegates from across the globe descend on London, debating issues such as the environment, women’s rights and trade. It ends later on Friday, when May is due to speak.
Britain's Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles pose in the Blue Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace as the Queen hosts a dinner during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London, Britain April 19, 2018. Pool/Victoria Jones/via REUTERS
Britain has sought to use its hosting of the event as a chance to reinvigorate the loose alliance of countries, which have a combined population of 2.4 billion people, eyeing increased trade and global influence as it prepares to leave the European Union.
But the summit has been overshadowed by the embarrassing treatment of Caribbean migrants who came to Britain after World War Two to help rebuild the country, but have been caught up in a tightening of immigration rules.
The biennial meeting, taking place in Britain for the first time in 20 years, could be the last attended by the 91-year-old queen as she cuts back on some of her official duties. The next summit is due to be held in Malaysia in 2020.
Reporting by William James; editing by Stephen Addison
Leaders approve Prince Charles to succeed Queen as Commonwealth head -Sky news
Reuters Staff
LONDON (Reuters) - Prince Charles was approved as the successor to Queen Elizabeth as head of the Commonwealth at a meeting of the group’s heads of government in Windsor on Friday, Sky News reported citing unnamed sources.
Britain's Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles arrive for the formal opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the ballroom at Buckingham Palace in London, Britain, April 19, 2018. Jonathan Brady/Pool via Reuters
There have been calls for the role to be rotated around the 53 member-states, most of which are former British territories, but in recent days the queen, the British government and other leaders have backed Charles.
The Commonwealth Secretariat, which carries out the organization’s day-to-day work, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Prime Minister Theresa May’s office did not comment on the report.
Britain's Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles leave after the formal opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the ballroom at Buckingham Palace in London, Britain, April 19, 2018. Yui Mok/Pool via Reuters
The succession issue was due to be discussed at the final day of the meeting, when leaders traveled 20 miles outside London for private meetings at the queen’s Windsor Castle home.
The Commonwealth evolved out of the British empire in the mid-20th century, and the queen has been its head since her reign began in 1952. Charles had long been expected to take on the role even though it is not strictly hereditary.
This week’s Commonwealth summit has seen thousands of delegates from across the globe descend on London, debating issues such as the environment, women’s rights and trade. It ends later on Friday, when May is due to speak.
Britain's Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles pose in the Blue Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace as the Queen hosts a dinner during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London, Britain April 19, 2018. Pool/Victoria Jones/via REUTERS
Britain has sought to use its hosting of the event as a chance to reinvigorate the loose alliance of countries, which have a combined population of 2.4 billion people, eyeing increased trade and global influence as it prepares to leave the European Union.
But the summit has been overshadowed by the embarrassing treatment of Caribbean migrants who came to Britain after World War Two to help rebuild the country, but have been caught up in a tightening of immigration rules.
The biennial meeting, taking place in Britain for the first time in 20 years, could be the last attended by the 91-year-old queen as she cuts back on some of her official duties. The next summit is due to be held in Malaysia in 2020.
Reporting by William James; editing by Stephen Addison
Why No One Is Taking On Pot Legalization - Bloomberg
Why No One Is Taking On Pot Legalization
Jonathan Bernstein's morning links.
By Jonathan Bernstein
November 3, 2017, 11:36 PM GMT+11
Raising the issue. Photographer: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
Why don't more politicians attempt to make marijuana legalization a national issue?
Harry Enten over at FiveThirtyEight looked at the polling last week and wondered about it. And the numbers are impressive. As he reports, almost two-thirds of Americans backed legalization in one recent poll, and while Democrats are somewhat more likely to favor it, the gap between the parties is unusually small for a policy question. Enten suspects that a big reason no politician has taken it up as a national issue is that they just haven't caught up with the rapidly moving shift in public opinion.
That's possible. But I can think of some other reasons.
Unlike the seemingly comparable issue of same-sex marriage, there's really no intense organized interest group pushing for legalization. Politicians sometimes go out looking for an issue to champion, but more often they respond to organized groups, especially among their constituents. It doesn't help, either, that support for the policy is unlikely to be concentrated geographically, which would give some members of Congress a strong reason to adopt the issue (or, if the concentration was in the right place, might push presidential candidates to support it).
Politicians might also know of the polling numbers but be wary of how stable they might be. If Democratic politicians began supporting legalization nationally, it's very likely that Republican voters would respond by turning against legalization. Beyond that, there's just no particular reason to trust that the shift in public opinion will be durable. I can't think of any reason to believe that it's a shift that will inevitably build on itself.
And on top of all that, legalization is easier said than done, as Bloomberg Businessweek's Erin Schwartz reports. Same-sex marriage was easy to implement: Change a few forms, and it's done. At most, we could call the problem of what to do about vendors who refuse to sell products to same-sex couples an implementation problem, but that's about it. Marijuana legalization, on the other hand, brings with it a whole host of regulation questions, and the states that have moved in that direction have found some of them tricky indeed. If public opinion on the subject is loosely held, that also means the possibility of a backlash if implementation goes badly is a real deterrent for politicians considering championing the issue.
Which is not to say that legalization won't happen. A state-by-state process may well teach politicians and regulators best practices, and that could wind up solidifying the shift in public opinion. The point is only that the failure of national politicians to hop on board this particular bandwagon is perfectly understandable from the nature of the policy and how political incentives work.
1. Sarah Binder and Mark Spindel at the Monkey Cage on what's in store for Jerome Powell at the Fed.
2. Seth Masket at FiveThirtyEight has a fascinating argument about why Martin O'Malley could be a contender in 2020 and what it means about the presidential nomination process.
3. Matt Glassman on why roll-call votes don't tell us very much about congressional support for Trump.
4. Dan Drezner on the Fed selection.
5. Amy Walter at the Cook Political Report on what the generic ballot polling question means, now and next year.
6. And Anna Maria Barry-Jester at FiveThirtyEight reports on how the Affordable Care Act is working in California.
World's richest self-made woman shares 3 pieces of advice for success - CNBC News
World's richest self-made woman shares 3 pieces of advice for success
Serena Lin 4:56 PM ET Mon, 16 April 2018
Zhou Qunfei, founder and CEO of Lens Technology.
Source: Lens Technology
Zhou Qunfei, founder and CEO of Lens Technology.
With a net worth of $7.4 billion, 48-year-old Zhou Qunfei, the founder and CEO of Lens Technology, is once again the world's richest self-made woman, according to Forbes.
Born in a village in Hunan province in East China, Zhou didn't have an easy childhood. She lost her mother when she was five and her father went blind and lost a finger in a factory accident. She had to learn how to survive on her own, she tells CNBC Make It via email: "I had to constantly think about where my next meal is and how I am going to get it."
To earn tuition, Zhou dropped out of high school at age 16 and went to South China's Shenzhen city to work at a watch lens factory in 1986. She was later promoted to a managerial role. However, she had bigger dreams.
Zhou Qunfei's first work badge.
Source: Lens Technology
Zhou Qunfei's first work badge.
In 1993, with 20,000 HK dollars savings (or about $2,547.80 U.S. dollars), Zhou and eight of her family members set up a screen printing workshop in a three-bedroom apartment in Shenzhen, which served both as their working and living space.
In that apartment, she launched her first company. Fast forward 10 years, Zhou had built a factory making watch lenses and employed 1,000 people. But her fate changed in 2003 when she got a call from Motorola, asking if she wanted to be a supplier.
Zhou Qunfei as the factory manager for first employer in Shenzhen, 1991-1992.
Source: Lens Technology
Zhou Qunfei as the factory manager for first employer in Shenzhen, 1991-1992.
Zhou accepted the invitation which helped launch her business internationally. Now CEO of Lens Technology, Zhou has built an empire manufacturing glass for tech giants such as Tesla, Apple, Samsung and Huawei.
Zhou attributes her success to her perseverance. "My biggest challenge was when I beat other rivals and won the contract with Motorola in 2003," Zhou says.
Zhou had just started out and had little flexibility in her company's finances but wanted to ensure the deal went through. As a result, Zhou said she sold her house and other valuables to meet the company's demands. However, she still lacked funding and said she became desperate.
Zhou Qunfei in her office at Lens Technology.
Source: Lens Technology
Zhou Qunfei in her office at Lens Technology.
Zhou admitted that it was the darkest moment of her entrepreneurial life. "I stood on the platform at Hung Hom Station in Hong Kong, almost jumped off, delirious," she said, "thinking that when I am gone, all the trouble will too be gone."
But then a phone call from her daughter pulled her back to reality. "I realized that for my family and employees, I cannot give up. I had to carry on." With Motorola's help, she overcame the financial issues.
In 2004, Zhou's Lens Technology sold over 100 million units for the Motorola V3 model alone —the flat-screen mobile phone with the iconic greeting "Hello Moto." In 2007, Zhou's cover glass beat the other Chinese vendors to become a major supplier for Apple.
On March 18, 2015, 22 years after she started the family workshop at that three-bedroom apartment, Zhou's Lens Technology went public. Today, the company is valued at $11.4 billion, with over 82,000 employees across China, according to Forbes.
Lens Technology IPO in 2015.
Source: Lens Technology
Lens Technology IPO in 2015.
In an interview with CNBC Make It via email, Zhou shared three pieces of advice for entrepreneurs:
1. Prepare well
Zhou said entrepreneurs always need to be prepared for what's to come. She says there are a few aspects to master: "First, improve your overall competitiveness. Second, you must be mentally strong. Third, strengthen your understanding of the market and your competitors," Zhou tells CNBC Make It.
She said her experience while working as an assembly line worker and later as the manager for her first employer helped her gain confidence, which was crucial to Lens Technology's early days. "You must gather the courage to face failures," Zhou added.
She also said she would prepare several backup plans when she went to visit clients during her startup years: "I was always thinking about what I am going to say if they reject my proposals, because the rejections were constant, you need to prepare well."
2. Keep the enthusiasm for learning
"The clients won't give you a better price for your products simply because you have a higher degree," Zhou said, "but your knowledge of the business will help maintain the competitiveness of your company."
As for Zhou herself, she took part-time courses while working as a factory worker and obtained her certificates in accounting, computer operations and even a commercial truck driver's license.
"When you have the ability to learn, you have the ability to continue to grow," she said.
3. Never give up easily
Zhou said many people would experience a serious blow to confidence when they encountered setbacks. But the key to success is to persevere, especially during the most difficult times.
For a team-building exercise, Zhou once took 20 of her company's executive team to climb the Dawei Mountain in Hunan Province, which is more than 5,000 feet above sea level. Some team members wanted to give up halfway up the hill. However, she insisted that they do not stop and march on.
"Because when you give up halfway, you won't have the courage to come back and start from the bottom all over again, you will still give up," she said. "Only when we persist, can we succeed. Don't give up because of a little setback."
Serena Lin 4:56 PM ET Mon, 16 April 2018
Zhou Qunfei, founder and CEO of Lens Technology.
Source: Lens Technology
Zhou Qunfei, founder and CEO of Lens Technology.
With a net worth of $7.4 billion, 48-year-old Zhou Qunfei, the founder and CEO of Lens Technology, is once again the world's richest self-made woman, according to Forbes.
Born in a village in Hunan province in East China, Zhou didn't have an easy childhood. She lost her mother when she was five and her father went blind and lost a finger in a factory accident. She had to learn how to survive on her own, she tells CNBC Make It via email: "I had to constantly think about where my next meal is and how I am going to get it."
To earn tuition, Zhou dropped out of high school at age 16 and went to South China's Shenzhen city to work at a watch lens factory in 1986. She was later promoted to a managerial role. However, she had bigger dreams.
Zhou Qunfei's first work badge.
Source: Lens Technology
Zhou Qunfei's first work badge.
In 1993, with 20,000 HK dollars savings (or about $2,547.80 U.S. dollars), Zhou and eight of her family members set up a screen printing workshop in a three-bedroom apartment in Shenzhen, which served both as their working and living space.
In that apartment, she launched her first company. Fast forward 10 years, Zhou had built a factory making watch lenses and employed 1,000 people. But her fate changed in 2003 when she got a call from Motorola, asking if she wanted to be a supplier.
Zhou Qunfei as the factory manager for first employer in Shenzhen, 1991-1992.
Source: Lens Technology
Zhou Qunfei as the factory manager for first employer in Shenzhen, 1991-1992.
Zhou accepted the invitation which helped launch her business internationally. Now CEO of Lens Technology, Zhou has built an empire manufacturing glass for tech giants such as Tesla, Apple, Samsung and Huawei.
Zhou attributes her success to her perseverance. "My biggest challenge was when I beat other rivals and won the contract with Motorola in 2003," Zhou says.
Zhou had just started out and had little flexibility in her company's finances but wanted to ensure the deal went through. As a result, Zhou said she sold her house and other valuables to meet the company's demands. However, she still lacked funding and said she became desperate.
Zhou Qunfei in her office at Lens Technology.
Source: Lens Technology
Zhou Qunfei in her office at Lens Technology.
Zhou admitted that it was the darkest moment of her entrepreneurial life. "I stood on the platform at Hung Hom Station in Hong Kong, almost jumped off, delirious," she said, "thinking that when I am gone, all the trouble will too be gone."
But then a phone call from her daughter pulled her back to reality. "I realized that for my family and employees, I cannot give up. I had to carry on." With Motorola's help, she overcame the financial issues.
In 2004, Zhou's Lens Technology sold over 100 million units for the Motorola V3 model alone —the flat-screen mobile phone with the iconic greeting "Hello Moto." In 2007, Zhou's cover glass beat the other Chinese vendors to become a major supplier for Apple.
On March 18, 2015, 22 years after she started the family workshop at that three-bedroom apartment, Zhou's Lens Technology went public. Today, the company is valued at $11.4 billion, with over 82,000 employees across China, according to Forbes.
Lens Technology IPO in 2015.
Source: Lens Technology
Lens Technology IPO in 2015.
In an interview with CNBC Make It via email, Zhou shared three pieces of advice for entrepreneurs:
1. Prepare well
Zhou said entrepreneurs always need to be prepared for what's to come. She says there are a few aspects to master: "First, improve your overall competitiveness. Second, you must be mentally strong. Third, strengthen your understanding of the market and your competitors," Zhou tells CNBC Make It.
She said her experience while working as an assembly line worker and later as the manager for her first employer helped her gain confidence, which was crucial to Lens Technology's early days. "You must gather the courage to face failures," Zhou added.
She also said she would prepare several backup plans when she went to visit clients during her startup years: "I was always thinking about what I am going to say if they reject my proposals, because the rejections were constant, you need to prepare well."
2. Keep the enthusiasm for learning
"The clients won't give you a better price for your products simply because you have a higher degree," Zhou said, "but your knowledge of the business will help maintain the competitiveness of your company."
As for Zhou herself, she took part-time courses while working as a factory worker and obtained her certificates in accounting, computer operations and even a commercial truck driver's license.
"When you have the ability to learn, you have the ability to continue to grow," she said.
3. Never give up easily
Zhou said many people would experience a serious blow to confidence when they encountered setbacks. But the key to success is to persevere, especially during the most difficult times.
For a team-building exercise, Zhou once took 20 of her company's executive team to climb the Dawei Mountain in Hunan Province, which is more than 5,000 feet above sea level. Some team members wanted to give up halfway up the hill. However, she insisted that they do not stop and march on.
"Because when you give up halfway, you won't have the courage to come back and start from the bottom all over again, you will still give up," she said. "Only when we persist, can we succeed. Don't give up because of a little setback."
James Comey Memos Offer Account of Private Conversations With President Trump - Fortune
James Comey Memos Offer Account of Private Conversations With President Trump
By BLOOMBERG - April 19, 2018
President Donald Trump praised James Comey for his honorable conduct during the 2016 campaign, sought out his loyalty, denied any involvement with prostitutes, and asked if the FBI director could let go of an investigation into his former national security adviser, according to contemporaneous memos Comey made to document those conversations.
These aspects of Comey’s conversations with Trump before he was fired by the president in May 2017 are detailed in memos the Justice Department turned over Thursday to House committees. The memos track broadly with accounts of those conversations Comey has given in public testimony to Congress and his new bestselling book.
Comey has said he wrote the memos for the FBI’s files to document his conversations with Trump because he said he found them troubling. Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Trump asked him in February 2017 to shut down the federal investigation into Michael Flynn, who served briefly as Trump’s national security adviser before being ousted.
Trump “said, ‘I hope you can see your way to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,’” Comey wrote to document a Feb. 14, 2017 conversation. “I replied by saying, ‘I agree he is a good guy,’ but said no more.”
In a memo dated March 30, Comey describes Trump complaining to him about how the cloud cast by the Russia investigation was impairing his ability to run the country and that he was eager for the FBI director to make clear publicly that the president isn’t under investigation.
Trump also said that he was going to sue Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who compiled an unverified dossier alleging links between Russia and Trump and his associates, according to Comey’s memos.
Book Factor
The Justice Department agreed to give Congress the Comey memos after House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia threatened to issue a subpoena for them.
The push by Republicans to obtain the memos came after the release this week of Comey’s memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” and interviews in which he portrays the president as a liar and immoral. Some Republicans complain that Comey has been talking about the memos in his book promotion tour even as the Justice Department withheld them from lawmakers.
Some aides to House Intelligence and Senate Judiciary members already had been permitted to read the Comey memos in secure settings.
Comey has said he wrote the memos for the FBI’s files to capture his conversations with Trump. He testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Trump asked him in February 2017 to shut down the federal investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Trump fired Comey in May 2017.
James Comey Says He Was 'Concerned' Trump Would Lie About Their Meetings
During the former FBI Director’s testimony to Congress.
Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Comey’s “contemporaneous memos provide strong corroborating evidence of everything he said about President Trump — that the president wanted his personal loyalty, that he wanted to end the Russia investigation, and that he wanted Michael Flynn to walk.”
Republicans are seeking to spur debate over whether Comey may have violated Justice Department rules by sharing memos with a law school professor, given that department officials had maintained that they hadn’t yet determined whether they contained sensitive or classified material that prevented disclosing them to Congress.
Goodlatte, joined by Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes of California and Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, wrote a letter last Friday to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein arguing there was no legal basis to withhold the documents.
Nunes, Gowdy and Goodlatte released a statement on Thursday night saying the memos showed that Comey was inconsistent and overlooked bias inside the FBI.
“As we have consistently said, rather than making a criminal case for obstruction or interference with an ongoing investigation, these memos would be Defense Exhibit A should such a charge be made,” they said.
By BLOOMBERG - April 19, 2018
President Donald Trump praised James Comey for his honorable conduct during the 2016 campaign, sought out his loyalty, denied any involvement with prostitutes, and asked if the FBI director could let go of an investigation into his former national security adviser, according to contemporaneous memos Comey made to document those conversations.
These aspects of Comey’s conversations with Trump before he was fired by the president in May 2017 are detailed in memos the Justice Department turned over Thursday to House committees. The memos track broadly with accounts of those conversations Comey has given in public testimony to Congress and his new bestselling book.
Comey has said he wrote the memos for the FBI’s files to document his conversations with Trump because he said he found them troubling. Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Trump asked him in February 2017 to shut down the federal investigation into Michael Flynn, who served briefly as Trump’s national security adviser before being ousted.
Trump “said, ‘I hope you can see your way to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,’” Comey wrote to document a Feb. 14, 2017 conversation. “I replied by saying, ‘I agree he is a good guy,’ but said no more.”
In a memo dated March 30, Comey describes Trump complaining to him about how the cloud cast by the Russia investigation was impairing his ability to run the country and that he was eager for the FBI director to make clear publicly that the president isn’t under investigation.
Trump also said that he was going to sue Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who compiled an unverified dossier alleging links between Russia and Trump and his associates, according to Comey’s memos.
Book Factor
The Justice Department agreed to give Congress the Comey memos after House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia threatened to issue a subpoena for them.
The push by Republicans to obtain the memos came after the release this week of Comey’s memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” and interviews in which he portrays the president as a liar and immoral. Some Republicans complain that Comey has been talking about the memos in his book promotion tour even as the Justice Department withheld them from lawmakers.
Some aides to House Intelligence and Senate Judiciary members already had been permitted to read the Comey memos in secure settings.
Comey has said he wrote the memos for the FBI’s files to capture his conversations with Trump. He testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Trump asked him in February 2017 to shut down the federal investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Trump fired Comey in May 2017.
James Comey Says He Was 'Concerned' Trump Would Lie About Their Meetings
During the former FBI Director’s testimony to Congress.
Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Comey’s “contemporaneous memos provide strong corroborating evidence of everything he said about President Trump — that the president wanted his personal loyalty, that he wanted to end the Russia investigation, and that he wanted Michael Flynn to walk.”
Republicans are seeking to spur debate over whether Comey may have violated Justice Department rules by sharing memos with a law school professor, given that department officials had maintained that they hadn’t yet determined whether they contained sensitive or classified material that prevented disclosing them to Congress.
Goodlatte, joined by Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes of California and Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, wrote a letter last Friday to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein arguing there was no legal basis to withhold the documents.
Nunes, Gowdy and Goodlatte released a statement on Thursday night saying the memos showed that Comey was inconsistent and overlooked bias inside the FBI.
“As we have consistently said, rather than making a criminal case for obstruction or interference with an ongoing investigation, these memos would be Defense Exhibit A should such a charge be made,” they said.
Swaziland king changes country's name to Kingdom of eSwatini - Al Jazeera
April 19, 2018
Swaziland king changes country's name to Kingdom of eSwatini
Renaming announced during celebrations marking 50 years of independence from British colonial rule.
The king of Swaziland has announced that his country's name has changed to eSwatini.
The declaration by King Mswati III on Thursday was made during celebrations marking the monarch's birthday as well as 50 years of independence from British colonial rule.
"I would like to announce that Swaziland will now revert to its original name," the king said at a packed sports stadium in Manzini, the country's second city, AFP news agency reported.
"African countries on getting independence reverted to their ancient names before they were colonised. So from now on the country will be officially be known as the Kingdom of eSwatini," he added.
The tiny landlocked nation in southern Africa gained full independence in 1968, after being a British protectorate since the early 1900s. But unlike some countries, it did not change its name.
Meaning "place of the Swazi", eSwatini is the Swazi language name for the country.
The name Swaziland angered some citizens as it is a mix of Swazi and English.
The move has been mooted for several years, with legislators considering the issue in 2015. Mswati III has used the new name in previous official speeches.
Absolute monarchy
The king, who was crowned in 1986 aged 18, rules by decree in a country widely seen as Africa's last absolute monarchy.
Since 1973, Swaziland's monarchy has banned political parties from participating in elections, although they are allowed to exist.
To run for political office, candidates stand as independents and if elected, they must be approved by the king in order to become a member of parliament.
The country, which has a population of about 1.3 million people, suffers the highest HIV rate in the world, with 27 percent of adults infected.
The name change could mean that the country's constitution is re-written, and could bring changes for the Royal Swaziland Police Force, the Swaziland Defence Force and the University of Swaziland.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES
Swaziland king changes country's name to Kingdom of eSwatini
Renaming announced during celebrations marking 50 years of independence from British colonial rule.
The king of Swaziland has announced that his country's name has changed to eSwatini.
The declaration by King Mswati III on Thursday was made during celebrations marking the monarch's birthday as well as 50 years of independence from British colonial rule.
"I would like to announce that Swaziland will now revert to its original name," the king said at a packed sports stadium in Manzini, the country's second city, AFP news agency reported.
"African countries on getting independence reverted to their ancient names before they were colonised. So from now on the country will be officially be known as the Kingdom of eSwatini," he added.
The tiny landlocked nation in southern Africa gained full independence in 1968, after being a British protectorate since the early 1900s. But unlike some countries, it did not change its name.
Meaning "place of the Swazi", eSwatini is the Swazi language name for the country.
The name Swaziland angered some citizens as it is a mix of Swazi and English.
The move has been mooted for several years, with legislators considering the issue in 2015. Mswati III has used the new name in previous official speeches.
Absolute monarchy
The king, who was crowned in 1986 aged 18, rules by decree in a country widely seen as Africa's last absolute monarchy.
Since 1973, Swaziland's monarchy has banned political parties from participating in elections, although they are allowed to exist.
To run for political office, candidates stand as independents and if elected, they must be approved by the king in order to become a member of parliament.
The country, which has a population of about 1.3 million people, suffers the highest HIV rate in the world, with 27 percent of adults infected.
The name change could mean that the country's constitution is re-written, and could bring changes for the Royal Swaziland Police Force, the Swaziland Defence Force and the University of Swaziland.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES
Australia bank inquiry ousts first executive amid fee scandal - BBC News
Australia bank inquiry ousts first executive amid fee scandal
20 April 2018
AMP is a leading financial services firm in Australia
The head of Australia's largest wealth manager has resigned after the company admitted lying to regulators for more than a decade.
AMP chief executive Craig Meller quit after an inquiry heard the business had routinely charged fees to customers for services that were not delivered.
Australia is holding a royal commission - its top form of public inquiry - into misconduct in financial institutions.
Mr Meller is the first executive to be ousted amid the inquiry.
Earlier this week the hearing was told that AMP had repeatedly misled the nation's corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic), over its collection of fees.
AMP has "unreservedly apologised" for the practice.
The royal commission was ordered by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last year following a series of scandals involving financial misconduct.
Why is Australia investigating its banks?
In announcing his resignation, Mr Meller said he was "personally devastated" by what had been exposed.
"I do not condone [the misconduct] or the misleading statements made to Asic," he said.
"However, as they occurred during my tenure as CEO, I believe that stepping down as CEO is an appropriate measure to begin the work that needs to be done to restore public and regulatory trust in AMP."
The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has also admitted to charging fees for undelivered services. On Thursday, the bank said the misconduct had extended to clients it knew were deceased.
Evidence of misconduct presented in public hearings this week has drawn condemnation from the nation's politicians and sparked growing public outrage.
Barnaby Joyce
✔
@Barnaby_Joyce
In the past I argued against a Royal Commission into banking. I was wrong. What I have heard is so far is beyond disturbing.
9:25 PM - Apr 18, 2018
Derryn Hinch
✔
@HumanHeadline
Why didn’t bank execs resign when they first found out their companies were shysters robbing dead people and had lied to ASIC? Not years later when exposed at royal commission?
9:32 AM - Apr 20, 2018
Bill Shorten
✔
@billshortenmp
What we’ve learned so far from the banking royal commission has been shocking and shameful.
7:54 PM - Apr 19, 2018
The government has proposed new 10-year jail terms for bankers and other financial executives who violate misconduct laws.
20 April 2018
AMP is a leading financial services firm in Australia
The head of Australia's largest wealth manager has resigned after the company admitted lying to regulators for more than a decade.
AMP chief executive Craig Meller quit after an inquiry heard the business had routinely charged fees to customers for services that were not delivered.
Australia is holding a royal commission - its top form of public inquiry - into misconduct in financial institutions.
Mr Meller is the first executive to be ousted amid the inquiry.
Earlier this week the hearing was told that AMP had repeatedly misled the nation's corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic), over its collection of fees.
AMP has "unreservedly apologised" for the practice.
The royal commission was ordered by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last year following a series of scandals involving financial misconduct.
Why is Australia investigating its banks?
In announcing his resignation, Mr Meller said he was "personally devastated" by what had been exposed.
"I do not condone [the misconduct] or the misleading statements made to Asic," he said.
"However, as they occurred during my tenure as CEO, I believe that stepping down as CEO is an appropriate measure to begin the work that needs to be done to restore public and regulatory trust in AMP."
The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has also admitted to charging fees for undelivered services. On Thursday, the bank said the misconduct had extended to clients it knew were deceased.
Evidence of misconduct presented in public hearings this week has drawn condemnation from the nation's politicians and sparked growing public outrage.
Barnaby Joyce
✔
@Barnaby_Joyce
In the past I argued against a Royal Commission into banking. I was wrong. What I have heard is so far is beyond disturbing.
9:25 PM - Apr 18, 2018
Derryn Hinch
✔
@HumanHeadline
Why didn’t bank execs resign when they first found out their companies were shysters robbing dead people and had lied to ASIC? Not years later when exposed at royal commission?
9:32 AM - Apr 20, 2018
Bill Shorten
✔
@billshortenmp
What we’ve learned so far from the banking royal commission has been shocking and shameful.
7:54 PM - Apr 19, 2018
The government has proposed new 10-year jail terms for bankers and other financial executives who violate misconduct laws.
Comey memos detailing conversations of Trump meetings published - BBC News
April 20, 2018
Comey memos detailing conversations of Trump meetings published
'No adequate people around Trump to contain him,' Comey says
Memos by ex-FBI director James Comey detailing his conversations with Donald Trump have been published.
The memos cover the president's concerns about a lurid intelligence dossier and also go into his relationship with his former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn.
The notes quote the president as saying Mr Flynn had "serious judgment issues".
Mr Trump tweeted that the memos showed there was no "collusion and no obstruction".
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?
1:37 PM - Apr 20, 2018
Mr Trump sacked Mr Comey last year while he was leading an FBI investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Since then the men have been locked into a bitter and public war of words.
Mr Comey has painted Mr Trump as "morally unfit" to be US president, and suggested he may have obstructed justice by trying to pressure him into dropping any investigation into Mr Flynn.
Mr Flynn was forced to resign over charges that he had lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.
Ways Comey could hurt Trump - or himself
Trump's allies trash 'lyin' FBI memoir
Analysis: Is Comey really a liar?
So what is in the memos?
Mr Comey's partially redacted memos were handed to Congress on Thursday.
Details published in Mr Comey's 15 pages of notes are consistent with allegations in his new book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.
In his memos, Mr Comey writes that he was asked by Mr Trump to drop an inquiry into links between Mr Flynn and Russia.
"I hope you can let this go," Mr Trump is reported to have said after a White House meeting. Mr Trump strongly denies Mr Comey's account.
Mr Comey's memos include conversations the pair had had alone
Other conversations documented in the memos include Mr Trump's concerns over salacious allegations in an intelligence dossier.
At a meeting in Trump Tower in New York just days before Mr Trump's inauguration in January 2017, Mr Comey spoke alone with the then president-elect about details of an alleged encounter involving prostitutes in Russia.
Mr Comey writes that he took the allegations seriously, adding that "portions of the material were corroborated by other intelligence".
The allegations claim that Russia has damaging information about Mr Trump's business interests, and that he had been filmed with prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow during the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.
According to the notes, the president told Mr Comey that he "hadn't stayed overnight" at the Ritz-Carlton but that his concern was "if his wife had any doubt about it".
How significant are the memos?
Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
The Comey memos have been made public at last. The amount of time they took to reach reporters after being handed over to Congress could be measured in minutes, if not seconds. Now both sides on the great Trump-Comey divide are claiming the documents vindicate their views of the matter.
The memos offer some additional details of the then-FBI director's interactions with the president, but they largely corroborate Mr Comey's account of the key events that have been public for almost a year. The request for loyalty over a private dinner. The Oval Office pull-aside to ask if the director could back off the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
That Mr Comey wrote these memos shortly after the events in question either provides damning substantiation of his claims of possible presidential obstruction of justice and improper pressure or proves the then-director was out to get Mr Trump from the start.
Media captionTrump's love-hate relationship with Comey over a tumultuous year
With this latest move and the Comey book media blitz, the public pretty much has the full breadth of the former director's side of the story - and, quite clearly, what he currently thinks of the president's behaviour.
What we don't know is whether this will take a lasting political toll on Mr Trump or if there's evidence - discovered by Robert Mueller in the investigation that started after Mr Comey's dismissal - that will lead to further criminal charges against Mr Trump's team.
Comey: Six claims about Trump from ex-FBI director
What does Trump think of Comey?
Mr Trump has referred to Mr Comey as "slippery" and a "slimeball" and the "worst FBI director in history".
He continues to attack him over his "many lies" - Mr Trump has even suggested he be jailed over his testimony to Congress.
"Why did he lie to Congress (jail)," Mr Trump tweeted earlier this month, adding: "How come he gave up classified information (jail)."
He has also criticised Mr Comey's new memoir, saying the "badly reviewed book" raises "big questions".
Comey memos detailing conversations of Trump meetings published
'No adequate people around Trump to contain him,' Comey says
Memos by ex-FBI director James Comey detailing his conversations with Donald Trump have been published.
The memos cover the president's concerns about a lurid intelligence dossier and also go into his relationship with his former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn.
The notes quote the president as saying Mr Flynn had "serious judgment issues".
Mr Trump tweeted that the memos showed there was no "collusion and no obstruction".
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?
1:37 PM - Apr 20, 2018
Mr Trump sacked Mr Comey last year while he was leading an FBI investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Since then the men have been locked into a bitter and public war of words.
Mr Comey has painted Mr Trump as "morally unfit" to be US president, and suggested he may have obstructed justice by trying to pressure him into dropping any investigation into Mr Flynn.
Mr Flynn was forced to resign over charges that he had lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.
Ways Comey could hurt Trump - or himself
Trump's allies trash 'lyin' FBI memoir
Analysis: Is Comey really a liar?
So what is in the memos?
Mr Comey's partially redacted memos were handed to Congress on Thursday.
Details published in Mr Comey's 15 pages of notes are consistent with allegations in his new book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.
In his memos, Mr Comey writes that he was asked by Mr Trump to drop an inquiry into links between Mr Flynn and Russia.
"I hope you can let this go," Mr Trump is reported to have said after a White House meeting. Mr Trump strongly denies Mr Comey's account.
Mr Comey's memos include conversations the pair had had alone
Other conversations documented in the memos include Mr Trump's concerns over salacious allegations in an intelligence dossier.
At a meeting in Trump Tower in New York just days before Mr Trump's inauguration in January 2017, Mr Comey spoke alone with the then president-elect about details of an alleged encounter involving prostitutes in Russia.
Mr Comey writes that he took the allegations seriously, adding that "portions of the material were corroborated by other intelligence".
The allegations claim that Russia has damaging information about Mr Trump's business interests, and that he had been filmed with prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow during the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.
According to the notes, the president told Mr Comey that he "hadn't stayed overnight" at the Ritz-Carlton but that his concern was "if his wife had any doubt about it".
How significant are the memos?
Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
The Comey memos have been made public at last. The amount of time they took to reach reporters after being handed over to Congress could be measured in minutes, if not seconds. Now both sides on the great Trump-Comey divide are claiming the documents vindicate their views of the matter.
The memos offer some additional details of the then-FBI director's interactions with the president, but they largely corroborate Mr Comey's account of the key events that have been public for almost a year. The request for loyalty over a private dinner. The Oval Office pull-aside to ask if the director could back off the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
That Mr Comey wrote these memos shortly after the events in question either provides damning substantiation of his claims of possible presidential obstruction of justice and improper pressure or proves the then-director was out to get Mr Trump from the start.
Media captionTrump's love-hate relationship with Comey over a tumultuous year
With this latest move and the Comey book media blitz, the public pretty much has the full breadth of the former director's side of the story - and, quite clearly, what he currently thinks of the president's behaviour.
What we don't know is whether this will take a lasting political toll on Mr Trump or if there's evidence - discovered by Robert Mueller in the investigation that started after Mr Comey's dismissal - that will lead to further criminal charges against Mr Trump's team.
Comey: Six claims about Trump from ex-FBI director
What does Trump think of Comey?
Mr Trump has referred to Mr Comey as "slippery" and a "slimeball" and the "worst FBI director in history".
He continues to attack him over his "many lies" - Mr Trump has even suggested he be jailed over his testimony to Congress.
"Why did he lie to Congress (jail)," Mr Trump tweeted earlier this month, adding: "How come he gave up classified information (jail)."
He has also criticised Mr Comey's new memoir, saying the "badly reviewed book" raises "big questions".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
