Saturday, November 19, 2016

Trump's ex-wife eyeing ambassador job in Czech Republic - Independent

Ivana Trump’s expertise might lie in modelling, professional socialising and of course Celebrity Big Brother but the Czech-American businesswoman is now keen to try her hand at international diplomacy. The first wife of the President-elect, who is the mother of his three children, recently announced she wanted to become an ambassador for the Czech Republic under Mr Trump's presidency.
To her no doubt delight, the President of the Czech Republic has now expressed his support for her bid. According to a statement released by the President’s office, President Milos Zeman informed Ms Trump of his enthusiasm in a phone call on Wednesday. “They could not send a better US ambassador to Prague,” Mr Zeman told her.
He also told Ms Trump that her bid for ambassador had made him “feel very happy” and he was looking forward to meeting her alongside his wife who is also called Ivana.
The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic also applauded the news, saying Ms Trump’s role could strengthen connections between the country and Mr Trump. “If Ivana feels up for it and decides to do so, it would be a nice way to underline the link between the Czech Republic and Trump,” he told Czech Radio.
Ms Trump, who was born in Zlin at the time it was called Czechoslovakia, expressed her eagerness for the role on Sunday.
“I will suggest that I be an ambassador for the Czech Republic,” Ivana, who is the mother of Ivanka, Donald Trump Jr, and Eric, told The New York Post.
“[It] is where I’m from and my language and everybody knows me. I’m quite known all around the world. Not only in America,” she continued. “I have written three books, and they were translated in 40 countries in 25 languages. I’m known by the name Ivana. I really did not need the name Trump.”
Mr Zeman, a populist politician who previously urged the international community to take military action against Isis to defend itself against a “super-holocaust”, was one of the few European politicians who was explicitly pro-Trump during the election.
“Today, I congratulate the newly elected president of the United States Donald Trump. I hope you visit soon to the Czech Republic, where are you I have the honour to invite. Once again congratulations,” a post on his Facebook read.
The Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka has also expressed his support for Mr Trump in the wake of his victory. “Trump, unlike some of his predecessors, at least knows where the Czech Republic is located,” he tweeted.
If Ms Trump, who is revered as a local girl done good in the country, were to become the ambassador, she would not be the country’s first so-called celebrity diplomat of her time. Shirley Temple went from child star to Czechoslovakian ambassador, being appointed to the role by President George Bush in 1989.

Friday, November 18, 2016

Donald Trump’s Many, Many, Many, Many Conflicts of Interest - TIME

Jeff Nesbit was the communications director to former Vice President Dan Quayle (R-IN) at the White House. He is the author of Poison Tea
And Rudy Giuliani's, too
When Donald Trump becomes the 45th president of the United States in January, it seems quite likely that he will bring hundreds of potential financial conflicts of interest with him into the Oval Office.
Yet none of it will matter. Instead, incredibly, several congressional oversight committees have said that they will continue to investigate potential financial conflicts of interest between the Clinton foundation and Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State during the Obama administration. The irony here is beyond strange. It’s also unprecedented.
What is astounding about this is that few seem to care—not the 59 million Americans who voted him into office because they wanted an outsider who has never been involved in politics to run the national government, and certainly not the new GOP Congress that will, instead, continue to investigate potential conflicts of interest of the Democratic presidential candidate who lost the 2016 election.
Donald Trump Runs for President: A Look Back
In one of the most shocking U.S. elections in modern political history, Donald Trump has defeated Hillary Clinton.Trump’s conflicts of interest range from small matters like his investment in a controversial oil and gas pipeline in North Dakota that he may ultimately have to rule on, to large trade issues with China that will affect Bank of China ties to his business organizations that will be managed by his three children.
Presidents are largely exempt from oversight from Congress on matters of financial conflict of interest, and the GOP Congress wouldn’t launch investigations of him regardless. The FBI tilted in his favor in the run-up to the presidential election, so it’s unlikely it will take an interest in this subject either. There isn’t anyone left on the playing field in Washington to investigate any of his potential conflicts of interest.
Trump didn’t release his tax returns during the presidential campaign, and he has shown no inclination to be any more transparent about potential financial conflicts of interest once he becomes president. Despite intense media pressure on Trump to be more forthcoming about his business dealings and how they might intersect with the White House, Trump has simply stonewalled. That isn’t likely to change.
Past presidents have placed their financial holdings in blind trusts and released their tax returns each year to show good faith to the American public. Trump has said he’ll simply allow his children to continue to run his varied financial interests while he’s president, and isn’t likely to allow anyone to scrutinize the inner workings of his many and varied businesses while he’s president.
His campaign personal disclosure form lists more than 500 legal business entities, as well as 21 large financial properties that he says are worth more than $50 million each. Many of the decisions he makes as president will undoubtedly affect those small and large financial interests, yet there is no mechanism that can compel him to be more transparent about how those interests might overlap—and there are no federal investigative bodies either in Congress or his own administration to conduct any meaningful oversight. The media will continue to investigate, of course, but Trump has convinced much of America that the media can’t be trusted.
Take just two examples of how this might work once he’s in office. Trump is a small investor in Energy Transfer Partners, which is one of the business interests behind the Dakota Access Pipeline that has spurred dozens of protests. The decision on the Dakota pipeline could very likely be made from the Oval Office, in favor of his investing partners. It is an obvious and clear financial conflict of interest, but Trump has shown no indication that he will avoid such conflicts—and there is no public call for him to divest his political decisions from such financial interests.
At a larger scale, the state-run Bank of China has a financial interest or stake in at least two of Trump’s large real estate properties. During the campaign, Trump said he would consider trade sanctions on China in an effort to promote American business interests. Should he follow through on those campaign threats, triggering reciprocal actions by the Chinese government, those Bank of China loans to his business interests will be squarely in the crosshairs.
No one—other than the media—has made an issue out of Trump’s potential financial conflicts of interest as president. And in yet another level of bizarre political irony, one of the central elements of Trump’s presidential campaign was a populist demand from his followers to put Clinton in jail for perceived conflicts of interest between the Clinton foundation and her time as secretary of State. “Lock her up” was a central theme of the Trump campaign, one that he often repeated from the podium. But do such potential financial conflicts interest extend to Trump when he becomes president? Apparently not.
The sheer irony of all of this doesn’t stop at the White House, either. The loudest, most vociferous cheerleader at many of those Trump rallies—where his populist movement was demanding that Clinton go to jail for any financial conflict of interest transgressions while she was serving as secretary of State—was former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Like Trump, he was a willing and eager political cheerleader for this demand that Clinton be investigated and jailed. Both he and Trump have said they would still consider appointing a special prosecutor to pursue Clinton.
Giuliani is now the leading candidate to become secretary of State in the Trump administration. He has any number of business ties that might come under intense scrutiny should he, in fact, be named to that position.
Giuliani has dismissed the questions of any potential conflicts of interest that might intersect with the State Department. “I have friends all over the world,” he told the New York Times. He’s said his financial dealings, which ranged from contracts with the government of Qatar and the huge Canadian company behind the Keystone XL pipeline to paid speeches to groups with financial interests in countries that he would deal with as secretary of State, aren’t the same as the charges that he and Trump leveled during their “lock her up” campaign tour.
And yet it is precisely the same thing. The question, at least for the foreseeable future, is whether anyone beyond the media will ever show any interest in the subject. Congress hasn’t shown any interest. The FBI isn’t likely to look into it. Trump isn’t compelled by ethics laws to list potential conflicts of interest when he becomes president. So who’s left to conduct oversight?

How Giuliani made money after leaving his office as NYC mayor ? - New York Times

By ERIC LIPTON and RUSS BUETTNER
NOVEMBER 17, 2016
WASHINGTON — It was a golden year for Rudolph W. Giuliani, a mad dash that would take him to 11 countries on four continents, and by the time 2006 was done, earn him $16 million — a princely sum compared with the $7,000 he claimed to have in 2001, when he went through a divorce.
With salaries from a law firm and a consulting firm, and most of all $10 million from 108 speeches he delivered to audiences around the world, the lucrative year of 2006 will now, along with the rest of Mr. Giuliani’s career after his tenure as New York’s mayor, be getting a new round of scrutiny if he is nominated as secretary of state by President-elect Donald J. Trump.
The blitz of activity by Mr. Giuliani in 2006 — speaking to Wall Street banks; oil, gold mining and pharmaceutical companies; and investor groups in Japan and Singapore — is public because the next year, he began a campaign for president and had to file a financial disclosure form.

But that public ledger offers the most detailed look at just how Mr. Giuliani managed to become so wealthy after he left office, with assets worth tens of millions of dollars, including homes he now owns in Palm Beach, Fla., the Hamptons and New York City.
Mr. Giuliani’s speeches and travel that year and in the decade since were often related to business deals he was pursuing, or even standing agreements he had reached, like one with backers of the dissident Iranian political party known as the Mujahedeen Khalq, which until 2012 was considered a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department.
They offer a road map of sorts to the kinds of potential conflict of interest questions that are already emerging as Mr. Giuliani’s name is floated as a possible Trump cabinet member, particularly given that Mr. Trump repeatedly mocked Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent, for the many speeches she and her husband gave after they left public office.
“When she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests in less than two years — secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public,” Mr. Trump said in June. “Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, C.E.O.s and foreign governments in the years since 2001. They totally own her, and that will never change.”
In particular, Mr. Trump criticized Mrs. Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street banks. But Mr. Giuliani, in a one-year period that ended in January 2007, earned $750,000 in speaking fees — before the 20 percent cut taken by the speakers’ agency — for eight speeches he gave to Wall Street banks and other major financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, before its collapse. As with Mrs. Clinton, there is little public record of what Mr. Giuliani said during these events.
Mr. Giuliani had rules about keeping his remarks private, as a contract “addendum” to which organizations that invited him to speak had to agree makes clear. Mr. Giuliani stipulated that his remarks could not be recorded, nor could “general press or other media coverage” of the remarks be allowed without his explicit permission. He also had some elaborate demands, including that if he traveled by private plane, it be a Gulfstream IV or bigger, a plane that costs about $40,000 for a one-day trip within the United States.
Some members of the Senate, which will hold hearings and vote on his nomination if Mr. Trump selects him, are already saying they want to learn more about Mr. Giuliani’s work in the years since he left City Hall.
“I’m concerned generally about conflicts of interest on the part of prospective members of the administration, in every role,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said when asked about Mr. Giuliani’s business ventures since he left office. “And that concern is well justified in terms of the backgrounds of some of the potential nominees that have been discussed.”
Mr. Giuliani, in an interview this week, defended his activities since he left office, saying he had been open about his dealings with private companies and foreign states or political parties, including the Iranian group.
“My ties to them are completely open,” Mr. Giuliani said.
Mr. Giuliani certainly kept up a feverish pace. In one month alone during 2006, he gave 20 speeches. From 2001 to 2008, the year he ran for president, he was on the road as much as 200 days a year, according to Anthony V. Carbonetti, a former New York City Hall aide.
“Every time I turned, he was calling me from a different country or a different city,” Mr. Carbonetti said.
For most of those trips, he had a standard speech that mixed a retelling of leadership lessons outlined in his book and memories from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which ultimately earned him the nickname “America’s mayor.”
“I heard it so many times, I could have given the speech,” Mr. Carbonetti joked.
One area of particularly focused travel was Asia. Mr. Giuliani formed a partnership with Sage Capital Growth, a Manhattan-based investment firm that was exploring business opportunities in Japan. Mr. Giuliani’s disclosure form showed a $300,000 speaking fee for one event in November 2005, the largest single fee on the form, which covered 123 speeches given over a 14-month period.
Mr. Giuliani was separately retained by Mark Advent, a Las Vegas-based casino developer, to help him with his attempt to build a resort and casino in Singapore. Mr. Giuliani personally presented parts of the plan to Singapore’s authorities in hearings during an arduous review process.

One of Mr. Giuliani most frequent employers as a speaker was HSM, a company that arranges “executive education” events around the world. In 2006, he made eight speeches for the company and was paid $550,000 (his booking agent kept 20 percent of that).
At least three times, in 2003, 2004 and 2006, Mr. Giuliani was to be among the featured speakers at HSM World Business Forums, along with Bill Clinton.
The speeches that have drawn the greatest scrutiny are those he gave from 2012 through last year at events organized by the Mujahedeen Khalq, a dissident group of Iranians that holds a rally in France every year to draw attention to the persecution of its members by the government of Iran.
Mr. Giuliani was paid for “three or four” speeches he delivered to the group, said Robert G. Torricelli, a former senator from New Jersey who served as a lawyer for the M.E.K., as the group is known, as it sought to be removed from a State Department list of terrorist organizations.
Mr. Giuliani, after receiving payments from American-based groups of Iranian immigrants who had ties to the Iranian dissidents, gave rousing speeches at these annual rallies condemning Iranian leaders and the Obama administration for negotiating with them.
“The ayatollah must go,” Mr. Giuliani yelled, referring to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, as thousands stood and cheered him. “Gone, out, no more,” he said, adding that Mr. Khamenei and other leaders of Iran should “be put on trial for crimes against humanity for the thousands and hundreds of thousands of people that they have killed.”
Paul S. Ryan, a vice president for policy and litigation at Common Cause, a nonprofit group that examines special interest influence in politics, said there would be no legal prohibition on Mr. Giuliani’s moving from being paid by the group to a government job. But he still found it troubling.
“People would reasonably question his fitness for this political appointment given that he received payments from supporters of this organization, and these are matters he would be charged with dealing with as secretary of state,” he said.
Mr. Torricelli said that Mr. Giuliani had agreed to give the paid speeches because he supported the group’s message, and that he had volunteered his time to participate in negotiations in Europe to help prevent further attacks on refugees from the group who were then living in Iraq.
Mr. Giuliani’s work earned him a spot on several lists of the highest-paid speakers in the world, just one spot below Mr. Clinton in one ranking.
In one instance in 2006, Mr. Giuliani collected $100,000 for speaking at Oklahoma State University. His contract with the university, which is public, laid out what appeared to be his standard demands beyond a fee.

Besides the requests related to air travel, his team required a sedan and an S.U.V., and an extra S.U.V. for luggage when he traveled to other countries. His room tastes were specific: a “large two-bedroom, nonsmoking suite with a king-size bed, on an upper floor, with a balcony and view if applicable.” He required four more rooms on the same floor for security and staff.
Eric C. Money, who led the speakers bureau at Oklahoma State University at the time Mr. Giuliani visited the campus, said Mr. Giuliani’s speech to students and faculty members in the university’s basketball arena had focused on leadership and Sept. 11. Mr. Money said the fee was high, but he did not recall hearing complaints.
“That is what Bill Clinton was getting at the time,” Mr. Money said. “It was on par. I did not have sticker shock.”
In the afterglow of his post-9/11 fame, Mr. Giuliani could certainly ignite large rooms.
Mr. Giuliani spoke at dozens of events with Zig Ziglar, a motivational speaker. Mr. Ziglar’s daughter, Julie Ziglar Norman, who traveled with her father in those years, said Mr. Giuliani was a crowd favorite, along with her father and Colin L. Powell. “I know everybody always loved what he had to say,” Ms. Ziglar said. “It was always very pro- American. And he was just beloved. That’s the best way I can describe him.”
Eric Lipton reported from Washington, and Russ Buettner from New York. Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting from Washington, and Susan Beachy contributed research.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

No New Trump Bull Market,’ Says Growth Plan Flawed - Bloomberg


Bill Gross doesn’t see Donald Trump making America great again.
The president-elect’s plan to reduce taxes and increase infrastructure spending is unlikely to bolster economic growth or equities, Gross, manager of the $1.68 billion Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund, wrote Wednesday in a November commentary.

Bill Gross
  
Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg

“There is no new Trump bull market in the offing,” said Gross. “Investors must drive with caution, understanding that higher deficits resulting from lower taxes raise interest rates and inflation, which in turn have the potential to produce lower earnings” and price/earnings ratios.
Since Trump’s stunning election victory money managers have been grappling to interpret the result and offer insight to clients. The vote has also whipsawed the financial markets, triggering a rally in equities and soaring bond yields on the expectation that Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress will champion programs to fuel growth.
In a piece he titled “Populism Takes a Wrong Turn,” Gross said many of the policies Trump favors represent the status quo -- and a Clinton administration would have been no better. “Neither party as they now stand has bold policies beyond the reach of K Street lobbyists,” he wrote.

‘Populist Henhouse’

Gross questioned the need for corporate tax cuts, saying that U.S. companies are among the world’s most lightly taxed. Another popular Republican idea, the repatriation of trillions of dollars of corporate profits held overseas, probably won’t lead to more investment in America, he said.
Pundits who think that Trump’s win represents a victory for middle-class America are mistaken, he said, using a fox-in-the-henhouse metaphor.
“The Trumpian Fox has entered the Populist Henhouse, not so much by stealth but as a result of Middle America’s misinterpretation of what will make America great again,” he said. Trump’s “tenure will be a short four years but is likely to be a damaging one for jobless and low-wage American voters.”
Gross, who said he didn’t vote for either major party candidate for President, said the U.S. would be better served by a jobs program that puts people to work helping other people. Government should be the employer of last resort, he said.
The Janus Global Unconstrained Bond fund gained 4.7 percent this year through Nov. 14, better than 67 percent of peers, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Dalio’s View

Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio said on Nov. 15 that he’s bullish on Trump and bearish on bonds.
“We think that there’s a significant likelihood that we have made the 30-year top in bond prices,” Dalio wrote on his LinkedIn page. “We probably have made both the secular low in inflation and the secular low in bond yields relative to inflation.”
Trump’s presidency will mark a move to the right akin to the Ronald Reagan era, he said, a period that will likely be characterized by decreasing globalization, increased U.S. growth as well as higher inflation.
Jeffrey Gundlach, co-founder of DoubleLine Capital, said yesterday the stock market is in for a "bumpy ride" as expectations are dashed that Trump can quickly spur growth.

DNA-editing breakthrough could fix 'broken genes' in the brain, delay ageing and cure incurable disease - Independent

Scientists have discovered a new way to edit DNA that could fix “broken genes” in the brain, cure previously incurable diseases and potentially even extend the human lifespan.
The breakthrough – described as a “holy grail” of genetics – was used to partially restore the sight of rats blinded by a condition which also affects humans.
Previously researchers were not able to make changes to DNA in eye, brain, heart and liver tissues.
But the new technique allows them to do this for the first time and could also lead to new treatments for a range of diseases associated with the ageing process.
One of the researchers, Professor Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, said: “We are very excited by the technology we discovered because it’s something that could not be done before.
“The possible applications of this discovery are vast.”
The cells in most of the tissues of an adult body do not divide, making it harder for scientists to introduce changes to the DNA.
But Professor Izpisua Belmonte, of the Salk Institute in the US, said: “For the first time, we can enter into cells that do not divide and modify the DNA at will.
“We now have a technology that allows us to modify the DNA of non-dividing cells, to fix broken genes in the brain, heart and liver. 
“It allows us for the first time to be able to dream of curing diseases that we couldn’t before, which is exciting.”
The researchers used the technique on rats born with a genetic disease called retinitis pigmentosa, which affects about one in 4,000 people in the UK.
By altering the genes affecting the eyes, they were able to give the rats a degree of vision.
“It should be noted, however, that although tests demonstrated improved visual responses after subretinal injection of [the DNA repair] to three-week-old … rats, the rescue was only partial and not enough to completely restore vision,” the researchers wrote in a paper about their research in the journal Nature.
The technique, known as HITI, was based on the famous CRISPR gene-editing technique.
“The ability to use HITI for in vivo [in a living animal] targeted transgene insertion into post-mitotic [non-dividing] neurons is unprecedented and will help advance basic and translational neuroscience research,” the paper added.
involved in the study hailed the breakthrough.
Professor Robert MacLaren, of Oxford University, described the research as a “significant advance”.
“Researchers are now using this mechanism to correct gene defects. Clinical trials are a long way off because the CRISPR proteins may cut DNA at other sites that may have untoward effects,” he said.
“Nevertheless, since ageing is defined as picking up DNA mutations, the ability to correct these mutations may in future provide us with a means of extending our lifespan as well as treating many diseases that relate to ageing.”
Dr Andrew Wood, of the Institute of Genetics & Molecular Medicine at Edinburgh University, was similarly impressed.
“This study is a really exciting development for therapeutic applications of genome editing,” he said.
“Although other groups have applied similar approaches in dividing cells grown in the laboratory, this is the first time that it has been used in non-dividing cells in a living animal.
“Before it can be applied to humans, it is now important to improve the efficiency with which the genome editing molecules can be delivered to the relevant cells.”
And Dr Helen O’Neill, of the Embryology, IVF and Reproductive Genetics Group at University College London, said the technique could enable doctors in the future to use gene editing to treat patients.
“This is an elegant study which establishes new means for targeted integration of DNA in cells which are no longer dividing,” she said.
“These cells have long been considered a hurdle in somatic cell therapy.
“Further work will need to be done on improving efficiencies, but this work certainly shows new avenues for alternative research into gene therapies.”
Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, of The Francis Crick Institute and one of the UK’s leading geneticists, said: “As reported, the methods are not super-efficient. For some genetic diseases it is not necessary to target all cells within the affected tissue, but levels of five per cent or so would only give marginal benefit. 
“However, with improvements in this type of technology, which seem inevitable these days, it is likely that the methods developed here could prove to be a very useful way of adding genes to non-diving cells, certainly for purposes of basic research, and perhaps eventually for gene therapy to treat otherwise incurable diseases.
“It is a complicated paper, and it does not quite reach the level as hyped in the press release, but it is indeed rather important.”

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

" Sanctuary cities " vow to protect immigrants from Trump deportation - CNBC

Democratic mayors of major U.S. cities that have long had cool relationships with federal immigration officials say they will do all they can to protect residents from deportation, despite President-elect Donald Trump's vows to withhold potentially millions of dollars in taxpayer money if they do not cooperate. 
New York City's Bill de Blasio, Chicago's Rahm Emanuel and Seattle's Ed Murray are among those in "sanctuary cities" that have tried to soothe worried immigrant populations. 
"Seattle has always been a welcoming city," Murray said Monday. "The last thing I want is for us to start turning on our neighbors."
Democratic mayors of major U.S. cities that have long had cool relationships with federal immigration officials say they will do all they can to protect residents from deportation, despite President-elect Donald Trump's vows to withhold potentially millions of dollars in taxpayer money if they do not cooperate. 
New York City's Bill de Blasio, Chicago's Rahm Emanuel and Seattle's Ed Murray are among those in "sanctuary cities" that have tried to soothe worried immigrant populations. 
"Seattle has always been a welcoming city," Murray said Monday. "The last thing I want is for us to start turning on our neighbors." 
 Sanctuary cities risk Trump confrontation 3:58
In Providence, Rhode Island, Mayor Jorge Elorza, the son of Guatemalan immigrants, said he would continue a longstanding policy of refusing to hold people charged with civil infractions for federal immigration officials. Newark, New Jersey's Ras Baraka echoed that decision, calling Trump's rhetoric on immigration "scary." 
Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck told the Los Angeles Times that he's committed to a longtime policy of staying out of immigration issues. Mayor Eric Garcetti has backed that up but stopped short of calling LA a sanctuary city because the term is "ill-defined." 
Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney restored sanctuary status when he took office in January and said last week the city would protect its residents. District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser also said it would keep the status. 
During the campaign, Trump gave a speech in which he promised to "end the sanctuary cities" and said those "that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars." He blamed such policies for "so many needless deaths." 
Trump didn't elaborate on his plans for cracking down on the cities. In a "60 Minutes" interview broadcast Sunday, he said his administration's priority will be deporting criminals and securing the border. 
But significant questions — and unease — remain about his approach to sanctuary cities. 
There is no legal definition of the term, which is opposed by some immigration advocates who say it does not reflect that people can still be deported. 
It generally refers to jurisdictions that don't cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That can mean, for example, that they don't notify immigration officials when an undocumented immigrant is about to be released from custody. 
Some cities, like San Francisco, have long declared themselves safe havens for immigrants, issuing local ID cards to allow them to access government or other services. 
The term also been used to refer to cities that bar their employees, including police, from inquiring about a person's immigration status because crime victims and witnesses might be less likely to talk to investigators if they are worried about being deported. 
"We don't want anybody to be afraid to talk to us," said Sheriff John Urquhart of Washington's King County, which includes Seattle. 
Because states and cities can't be required to enforce federal law — and there's no U.S. requirement that police ask about a person's immigration status — it's likely that any Trump effort to crack down on sanctuary cities would focus on those that refuse to comply with ICE requests, said Roy Beck, chief executive of NumbersUSA, which wants to see immigration levels reduced. 
It's also unclear what money Trump might pull. For Congress to impose conditions on federal money heading to the states, the conditions must be related to the funding's purpose, the U.S. Supreme Court has said. 
For example, the government threatened to withhold highway funds from any state that failed to adopt a 0.08 blood-alcohol limit: Both the limit and the highway funding were related to road safety. 
"If the funding is for improving childhood education, it's hard to say that's reasonably related to local law-enforcement cooperation with deportations," said Mary Fan, a University of Washington law school professor. 
However, the U.S. Justice Department's inspector general looked at some jurisdictions with sanctuary policies earlier this year and concluded some appear to violate a federal law that says state and local governments may not prohibit or restrict workers from sharing information about a person's immigration status with federal immigration officials. 
Having such policies could jeopardize millions of dollars in DOJ grant money the jurisdictions receive, the inspector general's memo said. 
About 300 jurisdictions nationwide have sanctuary-like policies, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, which calls for lower immigration levels. 

White supremaists delighted at Steve Bannon as Trump's strategist - Huffington Post

Leaders in the white nationalist movement are thrilled that President-elect Donald Trump has named Steve Bannon as his chief strategist and senior counselor. They see Bannon, the Breitbart News executive chairman denounced for anti-Semitism and peddling white nationalist views, as someone who will push Trump toward extremism.
Rocky Suhayda, chairman of the American Nazi Party, told CNN he was “a bit surprised” that Trump chose Bannon, expressing hope the president-elect would “rock the boat.”
“Perhaps The Donald IS for ‘REAL’ and is not going to be another controlled puppet directed by the usual ‘Wire Pullers,’ and does indeed intend to ROCK the BOAT? Time will tell,” Suhayda wrote in an email.
Richard Spencer, a leader in the so-called “alt-right” ― a term he coined in 2008 ― told The Huffington Post that he’s “very excited” that Trump picked Bannon, who he says is a “real fighter and a genuine nationalist.”
“Trump is signaling that he’s not going to be your father’s Republican,” Spencer said. “He’s going to be something different, and new ideological space is opening up.”
Trump is signaling that he’s not going to be your father’s Republican. He’s going to be something different, and new ideological space is opening up.Richard Spencer, alt-right leader
The alt-right is a somewhat amorphous label for a what the Southern Poverty Law Center defines as “a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals” whose core beliefs rest in the notion that “white identity” is under attack by “political correctness” and “social justice,” and that these forces are acting to “undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.” 
Bannon, whose website traffics in racist and misogynist conspiracy theories, helpedmake Breitbart News a go-to resource for the alt-right and white nationalists, according to the SPLC, which monitors hate groups.
On the white supremacist internet forum Stormfront, users cheered Bannon’s appointment, calling him “[t]he man who will have Trump’s ear more than anyone else.”
The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that claims to be America’s “#1 alt-right” news source, was only disappointed by the fact that Trump didn’t make Bannon White House chief of staff. (Trump chose Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, for that position.) One comment on that story celebrated Bannon as “our man in the White House.” 
Some white nationalists clearly view Bannon’s appointment as a signal that Trump won’t seek out a more moderate path, and see Bannon as someone who can hold the president-elect accountable for policy proposals like barring Muslims from the country and building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Former KKK grand wizard David Duke, a vocal Trump supporter, praised Trump’s choice as “a good sign” on his radio show, saying Bannon has been “right on about a lot of issues.”
Jared Taylor, editor of the white nationalist publication American Renaissance, echoed those sentiments. “I am happy that Steve Bannon will have a policy role in the White House, and I hope he helps President Trump keep the promises made by Candidate Trump,” Taylor told HuffPost. 
After festering on the margins of politics for decades, the white nationalist movement gained a significant boost during Trump’s presidential campaign ― and with the real estate mogul headed to the White House, its influence is only expected to grow. That’s in large part because white supremacist groups received a higher profile as Trump was slow to condemn them and even retweeted them on social media during his campaign.
The movement soon became so prominent that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton felt compelled to publicly denounce it during her campaign. 
Trump’s choice of Bannon “signals that White Supremacists will be represented at the highest levels in Trump’s White House,” said Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
“It is easy to see why the KKK views Trump as their champion,” he added.
White Supremacists will be represented at the highest levels in Trump’s White House.Adam Jentleson, spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
“Mr. Bannon’s confrontational style, embrace of Euronationalism and support among the fringes of the alt right leaves president elect Trump open to criticism that prejudicial stereotypes about Jews, Muslims, women and immigrants have a place in the White House,” wrote Brian Levin, director for the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, in an email. “The fact that even Conservatives are airing concerns about his expressions of racism and anti Semitism is a cause of concern.”
The SPLC and Anti-Defamation League also voiced concern, with the ADL calling Bannon and the alt-right “hostile to core American values.”
“A man who led a media empire into becoming what a former Breitbart editor called ‘a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers,’ simply has no business in the White House,” SPLC President Richard Cohen said, adding that Trump’s choice of chief strategist undermines a core element of his victory speech.
Trump pledged to be the president for “all Americans” and to “bind the wounds of division” in our country. “Appointing someone like Bannon, who will have the president-elect’s ear every single day,” Cohen said, “makes a mockery of that pledge.”