Jackson and Trump: How Two Populist Presidents Compare
*
*
By PETER BAKER
MARCH 15, 2017
President Trump on Wednesday is visiting the Hermitage, Andrew Jackson’s estate near Nashville, as it begins the celebration of his 250th birthday.
Mr. Trump’s advisers have likened him to Mr. Jackson, the first populist to win the White House. The president has hung Old Hickory’s portrait in the Oval Office and called him “an amazing figure in American history.”
So how alike are the nation’s seventh and 45th presidents?
Physical stature
Mr. Trump, who relishes junk food like Doritos and disdains physical exercise, stands at 6-foot-3 and weighs 236 pounds, according to a letter from his doctor last year, qualifying him as overweight with a body mass index of 29.5. Some think he is overstating his height (his driver’s license lists him at 6-foot-2) and understating his weight (one writer estimated by 30 pounds).
Jackson, who survived diseases like smallpox, malaria, dysentery, rheumatism and dropsy and endured physical disability most of his adult life after being shot in the chest during a duel, was just shy of Mr. Trump in stature, standing 6-foot-1. But Jackson was far thinner, with estimates between 145 pounds and 154 pounds, putting his body mass index at 20 or lower.
Military service
At age 13, an unruly Mr. Trump was packed off by his frustrated parents to New York Military Academy, but he never served in the armed forces, receiving five deferments from the draft during the Vietnam War, four for education and one for bone spurs in his heels.
At age 13, Jackson fought with irregulars in the American Revolution and was captured by the British. Over the years, he rose to major general, won the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812, fought various Indian tribes and effectively conquered Florida.
Political experience
Mr. Trump is the first American elected president without having served in any political office or as a general. He won an Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton despite drawing only 46 percent of the popular vote. Although a Republican, he often fights his own party orthodoxy on issues like trade and infrastructure spending.
Jackson was the first American elected president who was not part of the Eastern elite although he had served in the House and Senate. In 1824, he won the popular vote but failed to muster a majority in the Electoral College, throwing the race to the House, which chose John Quincy Adams. Four years later, Jackson ousted Adams with 56 percent of the vote, and later won a second term with 54 percent.
Philosophy
Mr. Trump, a wealthy real estate developer known for his bombast, styled himself as a man of the people, beating the dominant political dynasty of his day to win the presidency. He is fighting what his chief strategist calls “the administrative state” and signed orders to build a wall along the Mexican border and temporarily ban visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries. Critics accuse him of having an authoritarian streak, but he thrills supporters with his forthright, bare-knuckles style.
Jackson, a wealthy slaveholding plantation owner known for his bombast, styled himself as a man of the people, beating the dominant political dynasty of his day to win the presidency. He battled the Bank of the United States and signed a law that forced the Cherokee nation out of its land in what was called the Trail of Tears. Critics called him the American Bonaparte for what they saw as his dictatorial streak, but he was popular with everyday Americans who saw him as their champion.
Courting conflict
Mr. Trump relishes fights and made his name in part with a reality television show that pitted contestants against one another, some of whom he dismissed with his classic line, “You’re fired.” He has feuded for years with various figures, including Rosie O’Donnell, whom he has called “a pig,” “a real loser” and “a mentally sick woman.”
Jackson relished fights and made a name for himself as a frequent dueler against those he contended had slighted him. He fought between five and 100 duels, according to historians. In one, he killed a man who had insulted him as “a worthless scoundrel, a poltroon and a coward.” A poltroon was not a good thing to be called.
Battles with courts
After his travel ban was blocked in court, Mr. Trump said, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”
After the chief justice of the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving the seizure of Cherokee land in Georgia, Jackson was said to have replied, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
The hair
Mr. Trump’s combed-over hair has generated endless commentary. His doctor reported that Mr. Trump takes a prostate-related drug to promote hair growth.
Jackson’s wavy hair in portraits like the one on the $20 bill has long made him stand him out in the presidential pantheon.
Bottom line
Some Jackson biographers find the parallels striking, not necessarily in the details but in the larger picture. “What Mr. Trump borrows from Jackson is not an issue, but a way of thinking about the world,” said Steve Inskeep, the host of NPR’s “Morning Edition” and author of “Jacksonland.” But Jon Meacham, author of “American Lion,” said there is “an essential difference,” noting that Jackson had political experience and could be self-aware. “We simply don’t know yet whether Trump possesses the kind of disciplinethat Jackson brought to the presidency,” he wrote.
NYT
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
China Says It Followed the Law in Approving 38 Trump Trademarks In ‘Unusually Quick’ Fashion - TIME Business
Posted: 09 Mar 2017 05:45 PM PST
(SHANGHAI)—China on Thursday defended its handling of 38 trademarks it recently approved provisionally for President Donald Trump, saying it followed the law in processing the applications at a pace that some experts view as unusually quick. Democrats in Congress were critical of Trump after The Associated Press reported Wednesday that the potentially valuable trademarks had been granted, raising questions of conflict of interest and political favoritism. One senator said the issue “merits investigation.” Trump has sometimes struggled to win trademarks from China; he secured one recently after a 10-year fight that turned his way only after he declared his candidacy for the presidency. China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in a regular briefing with reporters that Chinese authorities handle all trademark applications “in accordance with the law and regulation.” He declined to comment on speculation about political influence on Trump’s trademark approvals. Critics fear foreign governments might gain leverage from Trump’s global portfolio of brands. Democrats in Congress have been pushing Trump to sever financial ties with his global businesses to avoid potential violations of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars federal officials from accepting anything of value from foreign governments unless approved by Congress. The monopoly right to a successful brand in a market like China can be worth huge sums. Former top ethics lawyers from the administrations of Barack Obama and George W. Bush say any special treatment from Beijing in awarding Trump intellectual property protection would violate the Constitution. Concerns about political influence are particularly sharp in China, where the courts and bureaucracy are designed to reflect the will of the ruling Communist Party, and foreign companies and the lawyers that work for them regularly ask embassy staff for help lobbying Chinese officials. Spring Chang, a founding partner at Chang Tsi & Partners, a Beijing law firm that has represented the Trump Organization, declined to comment specifically on Trump’s trademarks. But she did say government relations are an important part of trademark strategy in China. She said she has worked with officials from both the U.S. and Canadian embassies to help her clients. The key, she said, is “you should communicate closely with the government to push your case.” Drawing on public records from the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the AP compiled a detailed list of 49 trademarks Trump’s lawyers applied for in 2016, even as he railed against China on the campaign trail. On Feb. 22, seven of those marks were rejected , though public records do not indicate why. China granted preliminary approval for 38 marks on Feb. 27 and Mar. 6. Four applications are pending. Matthew Dresden, a China intellectual property attorney at Harris Bricken in Seattle, said the rejections suggested that the trademark office hadn’t done Trump any special favors. “Some did not go through, that suggests it’s just business as usual,” he said. Dan Plane, a director at Simone IP Services, a Hong Kong intellectual property consultancy, said it would be difficult to draw firm conclusions without in-depth research. However, he said the efficiency of China’s trademark office in handling Trump’s caseload suggested favor for a man whose decisions could have a powerful impact on China. “For this many marks to all sail through to preliminary approval this quickly, with nary an issue in sight—that is unheard of to me, and I have been doing this for 16 years,” he said. “I wish my clients’ applications would be dealt with half as expeditiously and graciously.” If no one objects, the new marks will be officially registered after 90 days, bringing the number of Trump’s trademarks in China to 115. Nearly all are in the president’s own name; a few are registered to a Delaware company called DTTM Operations LLC. The new marks could lay the groundwork for an expanded range of branded businesses, including financial, insurance and real estate services, golf clubs, educational institutions, restaurants and bars. A number of the trademarks granted, including those for “social escort” and “body guard” services, appeared to relate specifically to hotels. Other international hotel companies whose documents were reviewed by AP sought similar trademarks. It’s unclear whether any of these Trump-brand businesses will materialize in China. Many companies here register trademarks just to prevent others from using their name inappropriately. Trump has also said he will refrain from new foreign deals while in office. Trump began to file trademark applications in China in late 2005, an effort that accelerated in 2008 as Trump’s lawyers fought for control of Chinese variations of his name, public records show. Years of ambition in China, however, have yet to yield a single marquee development. And despite all the recent activity, Trump still doesn’t have a firm hold on his brand in China. More than 225 Trump-related marks are held or sought by others in China, for an array of things including Trump toilets, condoms, pacemakers and even a “Trump International Hotel.” Trump Organization chief legal officer Alan Garten said the latest registrations were a continuation of efforts that long predate Trump’s presidential run. “Any suggestion to the contrary demonstrates a complete disregard of the facts as well as a lack of understanding of international trademark law,” he said in an email. But a growing number of Democrats disagree. After AP reported Wednesday about the sweep of new approvals, Senators Debbie Stabenow and Ben Cardin called a press conference to lambaste President Trump for his growing Chinese entanglements. Also citing AP’s report, Senator Richard Blumenthal said on the Senate floor that Trump’s intellectual property in China “merits investigation.” “This President’s conflicts of interest are creeping into every corner of the world,” he said in an email to the AP. “The consequence is that he has done nothing to counter Chinese currency manipulation, trade rules violations, military buildup, and other aggressive Chinese actions. Standing up for a great America means putting our nation before personal profit.” Democrats have written to Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urging scrutiny of Trump’s intellectual property interests in China. “It’s time for Republicans in Congress to join our efforts to hold President Trump accountable,” Senator Dianne Feinstein said in a statement Wednesday. “The Constitution demands it and the American people deserve it.” ___ Associated Press researcher Fu Ting contributed from Shanghai. |
Trading Health Care for the Poor for Tax cuts for the Rich - New York Times
Trading Health Care for the Poor for Tax Cuts for the Rich
Tom Price speaking to reporters about the Congressional Budget Office report on Monday at the White House.
STEPHEN CROWLEY / THE NEW YORK TIMES
Older people would be hard hit. The Republican plan repeals the penalty for not buying insurance. One predictable result of this change is that premiums will rise as younger, healthier people refuse to buy insurance. To hold down the cost of average premiums, the proposal would allow insurers to charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones, rather than three times, as permitted under Obamacare. The outcome would be reduced premiums for young adults, essentially paid for by charging substantially higher premiums for older people — and higher deductibles and other cost-sharing for everyone.
At the same time, the plan provides a $600 billion tax cut over 10 years for wealthy Americans, because they would no longer be subject to the taxes that pay for the health care subsidies. When the tax cuts for the rich and the spending cuts to Medicaid are combined, they would result in deficit reduction of $337 billion by 2026. That’s a small fraction of the national debt in exchange for an enormous amount of human misery.
Trump administration officials and congressional Republicans knew the C.B.O. report would be devastating, so last week they launched a pre-emptive attack on the agency, disparaging its professionalism and findings. Their insults were an impressive display of staying on message for an administration and party that has descended into infighting over the elements of the repeal plan. This might have been expected. Yet in the past President Trump himself has tweeted C.B.O. findings to attack President Obama on economic growth, tax cuts, employment and other issues.
“We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out,” Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said on Monday. “It’s just not believable.”
Well, whether Mr. Price wants to believe it or not, the numbers are the numbers. The C.B.O. has called it as it sees it, and the picture is clear: Trumpcare would throw millions of Americans off their health coverage. And no amount of spin or scorn for the C.B.O. can alter that reality.
NYT
Tom Price speaking to reporters about the Congressional Budget Office report on Monday at the White House.
STEPHEN CROWLEY / THE NEW YORK TIMES
Older people would be hard hit. The Republican plan repeals the penalty for not buying insurance. One predictable result of this change is that premiums will rise as younger, healthier people refuse to buy insurance. To hold down the cost of average premiums, the proposal would allow insurers to charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones, rather than three times, as permitted under Obamacare. The outcome would be reduced premiums for young adults, essentially paid for by charging substantially higher premiums for older people — and higher deductibles and other cost-sharing for everyone.
At the same time, the plan provides a $600 billion tax cut over 10 years for wealthy Americans, because they would no longer be subject to the taxes that pay for the health care subsidies. When the tax cuts for the rich and the spending cuts to Medicaid are combined, they would result in deficit reduction of $337 billion by 2026. That’s a small fraction of the national debt in exchange for an enormous amount of human misery.
Trump administration officials and congressional Republicans knew the C.B.O. report would be devastating, so last week they launched a pre-emptive attack on the agency, disparaging its professionalism and findings. Their insults were an impressive display of staying on message for an administration and party that has descended into infighting over the elements of the repeal plan. This might have been expected. Yet in the past President Trump himself has tweeted C.B.O. findings to attack President Obama on economic growth, tax cuts, employment and other issues.
“We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out,” Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said on Monday. “It’s just not believable.”
Well, whether Mr. Price wants to believe it or not, the numbers are the numbers. The C.B.O. has called it as it sees it, and the picture is clear: Trumpcare would throw millions of Americans off their health coverage. And no amount of spin or scorn for the C.B.O. can alter that reality.
NYT
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Top South Korean presidential candidate demands China stop retaliation over THAAD - Reuters
Top South Korean presidential candidate demands China stop retaliation over THAAD
By Jack Kim and Christine Kim | SEOUL
The South Korean politician expected to become its next president, Moon Jae-in, called on China on Tuesday to stop economic retaliation against South Korean firms over the deployment of a U.S. missile-defense system.
Moon, speaking in a debate with other presidential contenders from the main opposition Democratic Party, said South Korea must stand up to China and protest against any unjust moves, but also make diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue.
"We should complain about what needs to be complained about and we should make diplomatic efforts to persuade China," Moon said.
"It is also not desirable for China to harm our relationship with excessive retaliation," Moon said.
"I call on China to immediately stop".
By Jack Kim and Christine Kim | SEOUL
The South Korean politician expected to become its next president, Moon Jae-in, called on China on Tuesday to stop economic retaliation against South Korean firms over the deployment of a U.S. missile-defense system.
Moon, speaking in a debate with other presidential contenders from the main opposition Democratic Party, said South Korea must stand up to China and protest against any unjust moves, but also make diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue.
"We should complain about what needs to be complained about and we should make diplomatic efforts to persuade China," Moon said.
"It is also not desirable for China to harm our relationship with excessive retaliation," Moon said.
"I call on China to immediately stop".
China has increased pressure, and imposed some restrictions, on some companies doing business with and in South Korea, which many in South Korea perceive as retaliation for deployment of the missile system.
But Finance Minister Yoo Il-ho said on Monday that South Korea did not have firm evidence of Chinese retaliation and China has not directly said it is targeting South Korean firms.
South Korea will hold a presidential election by May 9 after the impeachment and dismissal last week of its former president, Park Geun-hye.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system is likely to be contentious issues in the campaign.
Moon, a human rights lawyer and prominent liberal politician who has been leading in opinion polls, said the government had mishandled the deployment plan by rushing into it and without public consensus.
China is vehemently opposed to South Korea's agreement with the United States to deploy the THAAD system in the South against North Korea's missile threat.
The United States and South Korea say THAAD is for defense against North Korea, but China fears its powerful radar can probe deep into its territory and compromise its security.
The United States began to deploy the system a week ago, a day after North Korea test-fired four missiles.
Russia also worries the deployment could compromise its security, and said it would lead to a stalemate on the Korean peninsula.
(Writing by James Pearson; Editing by Robert Birsel and Michael Perry)
By Jack Kim and Christine Kim | SEOUL
The South Korean politician expected to become its next president, Moon Jae-in, called on China on Tuesday to stop economic retaliation against South Korean firms over the deployment of a U.S. missile-defense system.
Moon, speaking in a debate with other presidential contenders from the main opposition Democratic Party, said South Korea must stand up to China and protest against any unjust moves, but also make diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue.
"We should complain about what needs to be complained about and we should make diplomatic efforts to persuade China," Moon said.
"It is also not desirable for China to harm our relationship with excessive retaliation," Moon said.
"I call on China to immediately stop".
By Jack Kim and Christine Kim | SEOUL
The South Korean politician expected to become its next president, Moon Jae-in, called on China on Tuesday to stop economic retaliation against South Korean firms over the deployment of a U.S. missile-defense system.
Moon, speaking in a debate with other presidential contenders from the main opposition Democratic Party, said South Korea must stand up to China and protest against any unjust moves, but also make diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue.
"We should complain about what needs to be complained about and we should make diplomatic efforts to persuade China," Moon said.
"It is also not desirable for China to harm our relationship with excessive retaliation," Moon said.
"I call on China to immediately stop".
China has increased pressure, and imposed some restrictions, on some companies doing business with and in South Korea, which many in South Korea perceive as retaliation for deployment of the missile system.
But Finance Minister Yoo Il-ho said on Monday that South Korea did not have firm evidence of Chinese retaliation and China has not directly said it is targeting South Korean firms.
South Korea will hold a presidential election by May 9 after the impeachment and dismissal last week of its former president, Park Geun-hye.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system is likely to be contentious issues in the campaign.
Moon, a human rights lawyer and prominent liberal politician who has been leading in opinion polls, said the government had mishandled the deployment plan by rushing into it and without public consensus.
China is vehemently opposed to South Korea's agreement with the United States to deploy the THAAD system in the South against North Korea's missile threat.
The United States and South Korea say THAAD is for defense against North Korea, but China fears its powerful radar can probe deep into its territory and compromise its security.
The United States began to deploy the system a week ago, a day after North Korea test-fired four missiles.
Russia also worries the deployment could compromise its security, and said it would lead to a stalemate on the Korean peninsula.
(Writing by James Pearson; Editing by Robert Birsel and Michael Perry)
Monday, March 13, 2017
After Pledging to Donate Salary, Trump Declines to Release Proof - CNBC
President Donald Trump pledged to forego a presidential salary, but as his second payday approaches, the White House is declining to say if the president has donated any of his earnings yet.
During the campaign, Trump promised he would take "no salary" if elected — a pledge he reiterated after he won.
"I'm not going to the take the salary," he told "60 Minutes" in November.
The Constitution, however, requires that the president receive a salary, and that it not be reduced during his term. Federal law mandates the president receive a $400,000 annual salary, paid out once a month.
Trump aides have previously said Trump would donate his salary to the Treasury Department or a charity.
MSNBC requested details and documentation about any salary donations from the White House, the Treasury Department and the Office of Personnel Management, which all declined to say whether Trump has donated any of his salary to date. (OPM referred questions to the White House.)
Last month, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders told the website Politifact that Trump "will be giving" his salary "back to Treasury or donating." The site noted the White House "declined to answer several inquiries into whether Trump has gotten a paycheck already."
Under the law, Trump would receive his first monthly paycheck for $33,333 in February, and another $33,333 on March 20.
Salary donations are not the only area where Trump's pledges to donate revenue are lacking transparency.
During the transition, Trump also unveiled a plan to "donate all profits from foreign governments' patronage of his hotels and similar businesses" to the Treasury Department. The plan was released by Trump's private law firm, Morgan Lewis, but no system or accounting has been released for how or when such donations will be processed or disclosed.
During the campaign, Trump promised he would take "no salary" if elected — a pledge he reiterated after he won.
"I'm not going to the take the salary," he told "60 Minutes" in November.
The Constitution, however, requires that the president receive a salary, and that it not be reduced during his term. Federal law mandates the president receive a $400,000 annual salary, paid out once a month.
Trump aides have previously said Trump would donate his salary to the Treasury Department or a charity.
MSNBC requested details and documentation about any salary donations from the White House, the Treasury Department and the Office of Personnel Management, which all declined to say whether Trump has donated any of his salary to date. (OPM referred questions to the White House.)
Last month, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders told the website Politifact that Trump "will be giving" his salary "back to Treasury or donating." The site noted the White House "declined to answer several inquiries into whether Trump has gotten a paycheck already."
Under the law, Trump would receive his first monthly paycheck for $33,333 in February, and another $33,333 on March 20.
Salary donations are not the only area where Trump's pledges to donate revenue are lacking transparency.
During the transition, Trump also unveiled a plan to "donate all profits from foreign governments' patronage of his hotels and similar businesses" to the Treasury Department. The plan was released by Trump's private law firm, Morgan Lewis, but no system or accounting has been released for how or when such donations will be processed or disclosed.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Manufacturers Say They’re Already Seeing a ‘Trump Bump.’ But It’s Not That Simple - TIME Business
|
Posted: 10 Mar 2017 12:53 PM PST
Two industries that President Donald Trump repeatedly vowed to revitalize during his campaign, coal mining and manufacturing, saw employment gains in the February jobs report. But one analyst says his nascent presidency is not necessarily responsible for those gains. “There’s a perception that just because things are happening now that it’s associated with other events that are happening now and that’s not at all the case,” said Tara Sinclair, an Associate Professor of Economics and International Affairs at George Washington University. “A lot of this is build up of several years from economic improvement.” Manufacturing jobs increased by 28,000 in February, for a total increase of 57,000 over the last three months dating back to the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday. At this time last year, the United States had lost 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, according to CNN. Jobs in the mining industry increased by 8,000 in February, the same month Trump rolled back an Obama-era coal mining regulation aimed at preventing the industry from putting mining waste in nearby water. Mining jobs have increased by 20,000 since hitting a recent low in October 2016. Workers in these industries are the type of people Trump appealed to frequently on the campaign trail, vowing to bring back their jobs. So are they getting what they wished for? It’s not quite that simple,. Sinclair acknowledged the positive trends for these two industries, but said it wasn’t as if Trump entered the Oval Office, waved a magic wand, and revitalized them. “That is definitely the wrong takeaway,” Sinclair said. “It’s going to take a lot more than that.” Rather, Sinclair said, the increases could be the result of an economy that was already during Obama’s presidency, long before the first jobs report of Trump’s presidency beat economists’ expectations.
Milder than usual winter weather has also been credited for the positive jobs report overall.
Trade organizations like the National Mining Association and National Association of Manufacturers, however, were inclined to give more credit to the Trump Administration’s emphasis on promoting deregulation and domestic manufacturing as a cause for these gains.
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons released a statement praising the “Trump bump” in the jobs report. “Across America, manufacturers’ confidence is high, and business optimism continues to soar, because of President Donald Trump’s laser focus on policies that will accelerate a jobs surge in America,” Timmons said.
Chad Moutray, chief economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, said that in anticipation of these policies, manufacturing companies were hiring more.
“When I talk to a bunch of manufacturers they are optimistic about things coming down the pipe,” he said in an interview. “It’s too early to say if he is fulfilling campaign promises because it’s February but you’ve seen regulatory rollback that I think gives manufacturers reasons for hope.”Moutray did echo Sinclair, though, in noting that the gains were also partially due to an expanding global economy. Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, said the increase in coal jobs is further proof the industry is on the upswing. “Our industry has noticed an improvement in fortunes since he [Trump] was elected and the regulatory relief that he offered,” said Popovich, who wrote shortly after the election about the positive impact Trump’s presidency could have on the coal industry. Sinclair did not rule out the possibility that deregulation could improve employment prospects in coal mining. But overall, she said, these gains are only a fraction of the lost jobs Trump has pledged to bring back. “Particularly with manufacturing, we’re never going back to the peaks that we saw before, particularly in terms of employment,” she said. “There are still people who didn’t see job gains that voted for Trump and he is going to have a hard time meeting those expectations.” |
Questions of Profit in Politics Raised by Trump Administration Are Older Than You May Think - TIME
|
Posted: 10 Mar 2017 08:00 AM PST
In theory, what’s prohibited is clear: “using one’s official position to endorse any product or service,” as the director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics put it in a letter on Thursday. The letter expressed his disappointment that the White House would not be disciplining Presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway over her having told FOX News viewers in February to “go buy” Ivanka Trump’s fashion line in what she described as a “free commercial.” In practice, things can get a little murky. The ongoing dispute over Conway’s statement is just one of the many ways in which President Donald Trump’s short time in office has already been marked by several conflicts between the business of governing and business in the more typical sense. Not only has he nominated an extraordinarily business-oriented cabinet — which has presented its own problems for the Office of Government Ethics — but some legal scholars and bipartisan ethics watchdogs still don’t think he has done enough to distance himself from his family’s business. Also on Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson would recuse himself from working on issues related to the Keystone XL pipeline, due to his history as an oil-business executive. At its core, the debate is about whether the President’s having a foot in the business world might sway his official decisions and, conversely, whether his political power and those of his associates might improperly help his business.
But, despite the trouble caused by business interests in the Trump administration, experts say that this debate is in many ways just more of the same. Since the early days of the Republic, the question of whether government officials can do well for the nation and themselves at the same time has simmered — occasionally boiling over.
Good Behavior?
That said, for a couple of reasons, the first decades of U.S. history were relatively scandal-free in terms of conflicts of interest and corruption.“Between 1789 and 1820, there were hardly any records of ethics scandals or widespread corruption in the federal government,” says Robert Roberts, author of White House Ethics: The History of the Politics of Conflict of Interest Regulationand professor of political science at James Madison University. “That had a lot to do with who went into the federal government — primarily elites, recruited from very wealthy families, because they were the only ones who had the education to perform the functions of leading government.” But it wasn’t just a matter of wealth insulating the Founding Fathers from the financial concerns that might lead to conflicts of interest. The founders were also adamant about establishing safeguards to make sure American leaders were not tempted to profit personally from their positions of political power. They had seen the bribery that was common in Europe at the time, and they knew they knew that their relatively weak, young nation would be a tempting target for the monarchies of France, Great Britain, and the Eastern European regions that now include Austria, Hungary and Russia. (Yes, concerns about foreign intervention and influence in U.S. politics are as old as America is.) That was why the founders ended up including ideas like the Emoluments Clause, which prevents officeholders from accepting payment from foreign states, in the Constitution. Eventually, however, the founders’ fears — and their personal wealth — weren’t enough to prevent conflicts of interest and corruption from becoming a thing. Mass Politics and Mass Corruption In some ways, it starts with Alexander Hamilton. He was the one who decided to issue bonds to deal with America’s Revolutionary War debt, a system that — though risky — ended up making the wealthy wealthier. So it was that, when Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans came to power in the election of 1800, explains Roberts, they did so on a wave of “populist anger” that had been simmering in the 1780s and 1790s. Many felt that the Federalist government had been too close to the rich merchants and other financial speculators who had benefited from Hamilton’s system. So, by the 1820s, government service was no longer seen exclusively as the province of the elite. However, it took some adjusting to figure out what kind of pipeline to office would replace the old one. One early possibility, which was exemplified under the presidency of Andrew Jackson, was the “spoils system.” This system rewarded party loyalists with federal government jobs. Though some Americans were happy that Jackson was bringing new blood to Washington — in keeping with his campaign promises — the scramble for jobs and profit helped to spread a culture of corruption within government circles. Eventually, it was simply seen as par for the course that government officials would try to make some money on the side. Customs officials cleaned up especially well, such as Samuel Swartwout, the chief customs officer for the Port of New York from 1829 to 1838, who stole $1,225,705.67 during his eight years of office, according to Roberts’ book. In another particularly flagrant example, when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War in 1848 and included a provision to compensate those whose property had been damaged by the war, Sen. Thomas Corwin of Ohio —who went on to become President Millard Fillmore’s Treasury Secretary — was paid to serve as an attorney representing a fraudulent claim before the Mexican War Commission. Thus, a law enacted on Feb. 26, 1853, first prohibited members of Congress and federal employees from receiving anything of value for helping private citizens pursue claims against the government, and secondly, prohibited federal employees from assisting in the prosecution of a claim if they were paid for their efforts. Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter Civil War and Uncivil Service The Civil War, however, was where these conflicts of interest really came into focus as something that was both prevalent and problematic. After all, a financial conflict of interest was directly tied to the fight over slavery: elected officials and U.S. presidents who also managed large plantations clearly had a bias when it came to addressing slavery as lawmakers. “We didn’t deal with the issue that caused one of our worst constitutional crises, the Civil War, because of this financial conflict of interest,” Richard Painter, who was chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush and now teaches corporate law at the University of Minnesota Law School, argues. Secondly, on a much narrower level, supplying the Union Army was big business, and the 1853 statute did nothing to stop the widespread corruption among contractors hired to do that. “This was an opportunity for people to get rich quick by promising to sell the federal government horses, arms and uniforms, getting paid for those things and then supplying them with junk,” says Kathleen Clark, a professor of law at Washington University School of Law and a member of the D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Review Committee. And, she says, because many federal employees worked other jobs, too, that meant they were involved with such fraud too. For example, a federal employee who also owned a horse farm might profit by being able to influence a decision on a source of military horses. Or, a person might put in a claim for services rendered when no such services had been supplied, and a government official who helped see the claim through might get a cut of the profit. (One response to this widespread problem was the False Claims Act of 1863, considered the nation’s oldest whistle-blower law.) After the war, under the Ulysses S. Grant administration, officials were said to have lined their pockets and traded favors with private-sector representatives. During the era of railroads — a time when government had the power to decide whose rail company got to do what — deals flowed between executives and officials. Despite the laws that had been passed, the spoils system and the culture of corruption persisted. In fact, President James Garfield was assassinated in 1881 by Charles Guiteau, a man who believed the Republican leader “owed him a patronage position in the diplomatic corps,” according to the National Museum of American History. All of these problems led to the civil-service reform movement of the 1880s. For example, in 1883, a civil-service reform act — better known as the Pendleton Act — established a testing requirement for certain offices to ensure better-qualified officeholders. And eventually, says Painter, a perhaps more important step was taken: the federal government started paying legislators enough, in theory, to prevent them from needing to keep open any side businesses that could lead to potential conflicts of interest. Holding The Revolving Door Open And yet government officeholders continued to raise eyebrows — and more — with the ways they were seen to profit from their positions.
For example, Andrew Mellon of Mellon Bank and Gulf Oil was the Treasury Secretary for Republican Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Some, like Texas’ Rep. Wright Patman, argued at the time that Mellon’s simultaneous roles in the cabinet and the business world violated a prohibition on Treasury officials being “directly or indirectly be concerned or interested in carrying on the business of trade or commerce, or be owner in whole or in part of any sea-vessel.” (Mellon became a particular target of public ire after the stock market crash of 1929, which his bank survived relatively well.)
Some presidents had profitable businesses themselves, which could cause problems. For example, Herbert Hoover, who cashed out on his mining business after World War I, claimed publicly throughout the years that his money was in what we would consider a blind trust — but his story shows how hard it is to separate the politician for his business life. Congress investigated whether his son Herbert Clark Hoover Jr. was using his White House connection to benefit his radio-technology business. Nothing came of the probe, but as Fortune put it in 1932, the president’s wealth and that of his family remained “naturally” and “logically” an “object of interest” to the citizenry. “Hoover made careful that he didn’t look like he had conflict of interest,” according to Spencer Howard, the archives technician at the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum. “He removed all appearances of impropriety as best he could, but there’s really strong circumstantial evidence that his financial advisor was more active than he was claiming. Even if you have divested yourself, you still know people.”
In the middle of the Cold War-era defense buildup after the second World War II, scandal racked the Truman administration, in which “influence peddlers” nicknamed “five percenters” by New York Herald Tribune secured government contracts for clients willing to pay them 5% of the value of the contract.
After Truman, President Dwight D. Eisenhower filled his cabinet with business leaders, Roberts points out, which progressives argued meant they would “use their power to favor interests of the industries they come from.” He says scandals “exploded” during the Eisenhower era. For example, in what TIME called the “highest-voltage power controversy of the Eisenhower era,” a utility combine’s claim for damages over a canceled contract was eventually tossed out by the Supreme Court because one banker served as both a vice-president of a bank and a financing expert for the Bureau of the Budget, which both selected the utility company for the project and chose that particular bank to finance it.
On Oct. 23, 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed into law the first major attempt to reorganize America’s criminal conflict-of-interest statutes, some of which were a century old. The revisions expanded the types of government matters in which potential conflicts of interest could arise and in which conflicts of interest are prohibited. It also designated a category of “special Government employees” to cover the growing number of people who may do part-time consulting work for the government on occasion, and it hammered out a way that the government could receive advice from these individuals while not unduly restricting what they could do in their day jobs.
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (signed into law after Watergate) created the Office of Government Ethics. Further changes in 1989 made it easier for business executives to work in government by letting them sell off their financial assets without facing a tax penalty.
Conflict-of-interest statutes continued to be revisited to this day — and yet it is clear that the question of propriety is far from settled. If American history is any indication, concerns about the role of money in government won’t go away any time soon.
|
Barack Obama-appointed US attorney fired after refusing calls from Donald Trump's administration to resign - Independent
An outspoken federal prosecutor in New York known for fiercely railing against public corruption has been fired after he refused an order from Donald Trump's administration to stand down.
It emerged on Friday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was seeking the resignations of 46 US attorneys who served under the leadership of Barack Obama.
However, US Attorney Preet Bharara refused to resign, announcing on Twitter on Saturday that he was instead sacked from his position.
"I did not resign," he said. "Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honour of my professional life."
His dismissal comes months after he met with the President at Trump Tower, telling reporters afterwards the president had asked him to stay on and he was intending to do so.
Many of the federal prosecutors who were nominated by Mr Obama had already left their positions before the request, but some had stayed on in the first weeks of the Trump administration.
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said on Friday the forced resignations were necessary “in order to ensure a uniform transition”.
READ MORE
Sessions asks 46 Obama-era prosecutors to resign
“Until the new US attorneys are confirmed, the dedicated career prosecutors in our US attorney's offices will continue the great work of the department in investigating, prosecuting and deterring the most violent offenders,” she said in a statement.
Within hours of the order, US attorneys around the country — including in New Jersey, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Montana — had publicly announced their resignations.
Although it is customary for the 93 US attorneys to leave their positions when a new President enters the office, the changes do not usually happen all at once. Mr Sessions lost his position as US attorney for the Southern District of Alabama in a similar sweep by then-Attorney General Janet Reno in 1993.
Questions about Mr Bharara were directed to the Justice Department by the White House on Saturday.
Mr Bharara was appointed by Mr Obama in 2009. In frequent public appearances, Mr Bharara has decried public corruption after successfully prosecuting over a dozen state lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans alike.
One US attorney appointed by President George W Bush – Rod Rosenstein of Maryland – remained in his position for the duration of the Obama administration.
A Justice Department spokesman, Peter Carr, said Mr Trump has asked Rosenstein and Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, who has served as US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to stay on.
Tim Purdon, a former US attorney for North Dakota in the Obama administration, recalled that President Barack Obama permitted Bush appointees to remain on until their successors had been appointed and confirmed.
READ MORE
Assad says he is open to cooperation with Trump on Syrian war
Donald Trump's new travel ban suffers first legal setback
Obsession with Trump's alleged Russia links is a dangerous distraction
“The way the Obama administration handled it was appropriate and respectful and classy,” he said. “This saddens me because many of these people are great public servants and now they are being asked to leave.”
Montana's US Attorney Mike Cotter said he received a phone call from Acting Attorney General Dana Boente telling him “the president has directed this".
“I think it's very unprofessional and I'm very disappointed,” he said. “What happened today on Friday, March 10, that was so important that all Obama appointees who are US attorneys need to be gone?”
“I gotta write that [resignation] letter. It's going to be a one-liner,” he added.
New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, said in a statement last week that he was “troubled to learn” of the resignation demands, particularly of Mr Bharara, since Mr Trump called him in November and assured him that he wanted Bharara to remain Manhattan's top federal prosecutor.
Mr Schumer said that by requesting immediate resignations, Mr Trump was “interrupting ongoing cases and investigations and hindering the administration of justice.”
Mr Bharara, who was once lauded on the cover of Time magazine as the man who is “busting Wall Street” after successfully prosecuting dozens of insider traders, has in the past few years set his sights on prosecuting over a dozen state officeholders — Democrats and Republicans — including New York's two most powerful legislators.
The request from Mr Sessions came as Bharara's office is prosecuting former associates of Democratic Govenor Andrew Cuomo in a bribery case. Also, prosecutors recently interviewed New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as part of a probe into his fundraising. The mayor's press secretary has said the mayor is cooperating and that he and his staff had acted appropriately.
Mr Sessions' decision to include Mr Bharara's name on the list of resignations of holdovers from the Obama administration surprised Manhattan prosecutors and other political figures.
New York State Assemblyman Steven McLaughlin, a Republican, had urged Mr Trump and Mr Sessions to reconsider. “Big mistake,” he wrote on Twitter.
The request for resignations came just days after Mr Trump claimed that Mr Obama tapped his telephones during last year's election. FBI Director James Comey privately asked the Justice Department to dispute the claim because he believed the allegations were false. Mr Bharara worked for Mr Comey when he was US attorney in Manhattan under President George W Bush.
It emerged on Friday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was seeking the resignations of 46 US attorneys who served under the leadership of Barack Obama.
However, US Attorney Preet Bharara refused to resign, announcing on Twitter on Saturday that he was instead sacked from his position.
"I did not resign," he said. "Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honour of my professional life."
His dismissal comes months after he met with the President at Trump Tower, telling reporters afterwards the president had asked him to stay on and he was intending to do so.
Many of the federal prosecutors who were nominated by Mr Obama had already left their positions before the request, but some had stayed on in the first weeks of the Trump administration.
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said on Friday the forced resignations were necessary “in order to ensure a uniform transition”.
READ MORE
Sessions asks 46 Obama-era prosecutors to resign
“Until the new US attorneys are confirmed, the dedicated career prosecutors in our US attorney's offices will continue the great work of the department in investigating, prosecuting and deterring the most violent offenders,” she said in a statement.
Within hours of the order, US attorneys around the country — including in New Jersey, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Montana — had publicly announced their resignations.
Although it is customary for the 93 US attorneys to leave their positions when a new President enters the office, the changes do not usually happen all at once. Mr Sessions lost his position as US attorney for the Southern District of Alabama in a similar sweep by then-Attorney General Janet Reno in 1993.
Questions about Mr Bharara were directed to the Justice Department by the White House on Saturday.
Mr Bharara was appointed by Mr Obama in 2009. In frequent public appearances, Mr Bharara has decried public corruption after successfully prosecuting over a dozen state lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans alike.
One US attorney appointed by President George W Bush – Rod Rosenstein of Maryland – remained in his position for the duration of the Obama administration.
A Justice Department spokesman, Peter Carr, said Mr Trump has asked Rosenstein and Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, who has served as US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to stay on.
Tim Purdon, a former US attorney for North Dakota in the Obama administration, recalled that President Barack Obama permitted Bush appointees to remain on until their successors had been appointed and confirmed.
READ MORE
Assad says he is open to cooperation with Trump on Syrian war
Donald Trump's new travel ban suffers first legal setback
Obsession with Trump's alleged Russia links is a dangerous distraction
“The way the Obama administration handled it was appropriate and respectful and classy,” he said. “This saddens me because many of these people are great public servants and now they are being asked to leave.”
Montana's US Attorney Mike Cotter said he received a phone call from Acting Attorney General Dana Boente telling him “the president has directed this".
“I think it's very unprofessional and I'm very disappointed,” he said. “What happened today on Friday, March 10, that was so important that all Obama appointees who are US attorneys need to be gone?”
“I gotta write that [resignation] letter. It's going to be a one-liner,” he added.
New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, said in a statement last week that he was “troubled to learn” of the resignation demands, particularly of Mr Bharara, since Mr Trump called him in November and assured him that he wanted Bharara to remain Manhattan's top federal prosecutor.
Mr Schumer said that by requesting immediate resignations, Mr Trump was “interrupting ongoing cases and investigations and hindering the administration of justice.”
Mr Bharara, who was once lauded on the cover of Time magazine as the man who is “busting Wall Street” after successfully prosecuting dozens of insider traders, has in the past few years set his sights on prosecuting over a dozen state officeholders — Democrats and Republicans — including New York's two most powerful legislators.
The request from Mr Sessions came as Bharara's office is prosecuting former associates of Democratic Govenor Andrew Cuomo in a bribery case. Also, prosecutors recently interviewed New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as part of a probe into his fundraising. The mayor's press secretary has said the mayor is cooperating and that he and his staff had acted appropriately.
Mr Sessions' decision to include Mr Bharara's name on the list of resignations of holdovers from the Obama administration surprised Manhattan prosecutors and other political figures.
New York State Assemblyman Steven McLaughlin, a Republican, had urged Mr Trump and Mr Sessions to reconsider. “Big mistake,” he wrote on Twitter.
The request for resignations came just days after Mr Trump claimed that Mr Obama tapped his telephones during last year's election. FBI Director James Comey privately asked the Justice Department to dispute the claim because he believed the allegations were false. Mr Bharara worked for Mr Comey when he was US attorney in Manhattan under President George W Bush.
Friday, March 10, 2017
A Popular Cure for the Retirement Crisis Isn’t Making Much Headway - TIME Business
Posted: 09 Mar 2017 03:00 AM PST
Automatic enrollment in company-sponsored savings plans has been hailed as a key part of the solution to our retirement savings crisis. But new evidence suggests this feature may be far less pervasive than previously believed.
U.S. Census Bureau researchers recently studied participation in workplace savings plans by gathering data from the annual W-2 wage and tax forms that employers send to employees. That encompassed a huge pool of small businesses likely missed in most surveys on employee benefits, which tend to focus on large employers. Incorporating data on this cache of small businesses changes the statistics on plan participation dramatically.
The researchers found that smaller employers are far less likely to offer plans than big companies. For instance, while 93% of companies with more than 10,000 employees offered 401(k)-type plans, the percentages were only 33% for companies with 25 to 49 workers and 20% for businesses with 10 to 24 employees.
Most alarming: The gap between those who are offered a 401(k) plan and those who participate is far wider than commonly believed. Some 79% of Americans are eligible to contribute to a 401(k) but only 41% of eligible workers do so, the Census Bureau research shows. By contrast, the American Benefits Council has estimated that 80% of eligible workers participate in their defined-contribution plan, the vast majority of which are 401(k) plans.
In a nutshell, the Census data suggests participation rates are half what was previously believed. And it runs counter to the thesis that automatic enrollment is on the rise and making a big difference in the retirement security of most Americans.
How do we account for this sobering news? Start with the sheer volume of small businesses. In the U.S., employers with fewer than 500 workers number 28 million while larger employers number just 18,500. Small businesses employ nearly half of all workers. Some 20 million small businesses are sole proprietors, meaning their lone employee is the owner.
Benefits surveys try to account for small businesses. But because large companies set the pace for benefits and employ so many people, these companies’ benefits plans may get overweighted in surveys. Meanwhile, small businesses are less likely to offer a 401(k) plan in the first place and even less likely to offer one with automatic enrollment.
Only 12.1% of businesses that employ fewer than 500 workers have a 401(k) plan with auto enrollment, according to the Urban Institute. That compares to 21% of companies that employ more than 1,000.
It stands to reason that if small businesses generally do not offer 401(k) plans with auto enrollment—and survey data miss millions of small businesses—the spread of this feature probably has been overstated.
That doesn’t change the fact that auto enrollment has been a success where it is offered. Bank of America Merrill Lynch found that plans with auto enrollment had 32% more participants than those that did not include the feature.
At the same time, sole proprietors have many savings options, like the tax-advantaged SEP IRA where they can sock away as much as $54,000 this year—even if they must opt in on their own. And workers at small businesses increasingly have access to state-sponsored tax-advantaged savings plans like those being rolled out in California, Oregon, Illinois, Maryland, and Connecticut.
But from a policy perspective, if we’re counting on auto enrollment to solve the retirement savings crisis, we should probably find a way to hook in more small businesses.
One in Six May Lose Health Insurance Under the GOP’s Obamacare Replacement - TIME
Posted: 08 Mar 2017 12:26 PM PST
Average health care insurance premiums would go down for marketplace customers, but at least one out of six consumers covered under the Affordable Care Act’s individual marketplace would no longer have their insurance under the GOP’s replacement, according to a new report from S&P Global Market Intelligence.
Republican lawmakers debuted their proposal on Monday, potentially ending the ACA’s current mandate to buy insurance, while reorganizing Medicaid funding.
S&P, which expects a decline in enrollment in the individual marketplace and in those covered under Medicaid, estimates that the GOP’s changes would result in 2 million to 4 million fewer open marketplace enrollees, as compared to an estimated 12.2 million who opted into the ACA’s individual marketplace in 2017.
S&P is also expecting a 4 million to 6 million decrease in those covered by Medicaid between 2020 and 2024 if the new proposal passes. Roughly 51.6 million in 32 states and Washington, D.C. that participated in the Medicaid expansion were covered by Medicaid at the end of 2016, S&P reported.
Those lower enrollment figures would decrease premiums for consumers, but only for some groups.
The declines will result in “increased affordability for the eligible younger population, and reduced affordability for the older population,” the report stated.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Trump: Psychiatry professors say 'dangerous' US President must be removed from post for public - Independent
Donald Trump: Psychiatry professors say 'dangerous' US President must be removed from post for public safety
Trump is " dangerous " and drastic steps must be taken to protect the public from him, two leading psychiatrists have warned.
The President’s erratic behaviour, including “repeated failure to distinguish between reality and fantasy” and “paranoid claims of conspiracy”, cast doubt over his ability to react rationally in a crisis, they said.
In a letter to the New York Times, Judith Herman, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and Robert Lifton, a lecturer in psychiatry at Columbia University, said they were not attempting to diagnose Mr Trump.
READ MORE
Barack Obama 'rolled his eyes' at wiretapping claims
More Americans oppose Trump than support him on almost every issue
Donald Trump does not want Obamacare replacement named 'Trumpcare'
“We are in no way offering a psychiatric diagnosis, which would be unwise to attempt from a distance," they wrote.
"Nevertheless, as psychiatrists we feel obliged to express our alarm. We fear that when faced with a crisis, President Trump will lack the judgment to respond rationally.
“The military powers entrusted to him endanger us all. We urge our elected representatives to take the necessary steps to protect us from this dangerous president.”
Last month, 35 mental health professionals wrote to the newspaper warning the “grave emotional instability” indicated by Mr Trump’s behaviour made him incapable of serving safely as President.
This drew some criticism as it is usually frowned upon among psychiatrists to give a professional opinion of the mental state of someone they have not examined in person, as dictated by a passage in the American Psychiatric Association’s code of ethics known as the Goldwater rule.
Lifton gave the President’s unsubstantiated claim that Barack Obama ordered a wiretap of his phones during the presidential campaign as an example of his irrational behaviour.
“Even within the space of a few weeks, the demands of the presidency have magnified his erratic patterns of behaviour,” they wrote.
“We are struck by his repeated failure to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and his outbursts of rage when his fantasies are contradicted. Without any demonstrable evidence, he repeatedly resorts to paranoid claims of conspiracy.
“Most recently, in response to suggestions of contact between his campaign and agents of the Russian government, he has issued tirades against the press as an “enemy of the people” and accusations without proof that his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, engaged in partisan surveillance against him.”
Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman said if Mr Trump’s allegations regarding Mr Obama were proved false, a major scandal would arise that could lead to his impeachment.
The President recently posted a series of early-morning tweets in which he accused his predecessor of ordered the wiretap.
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” he wrote.
“Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!”
“How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”
Mr Trump did not provide any evidence for his claims and his spokespeople have consistently refused to do so.
Professor Feldman said that, if the allegations are true, the scandal would be of “Watergate-level proportions” – but that a similar sized controversy would also result if they are proved to be unsubstantiated.
Trump is " dangerous " and drastic steps must be taken to protect the public from him, two leading psychiatrists have warned.
The President’s erratic behaviour, including “repeated failure to distinguish between reality and fantasy” and “paranoid claims of conspiracy”, cast doubt over his ability to react rationally in a crisis, they said.
In a letter to the New York Times, Judith Herman, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and Robert Lifton, a lecturer in psychiatry at Columbia University, said they were not attempting to diagnose Mr Trump.
READ MORE
Barack Obama 'rolled his eyes' at wiretapping claims
More Americans oppose Trump than support him on almost every issue
Donald Trump does not want Obamacare replacement named 'Trumpcare'
“We are in no way offering a psychiatric diagnosis, which would be unwise to attempt from a distance," they wrote.
"Nevertheless, as psychiatrists we feel obliged to express our alarm. We fear that when faced with a crisis, President Trump will lack the judgment to respond rationally.
“The military powers entrusted to him endanger us all. We urge our elected representatives to take the necessary steps to protect us from this dangerous president.”
Last month, 35 mental health professionals wrote to the newspaper warning the “grave emotional instability” indicated by Mr Trump’s behaviour made him incapable of serving safely as President.
This drew some criticism as it is usually frowned upon among psychiatrists to give a professional opinion of the mental state of someone they have not examined in person, as dictated by a passage in the American Psychiatric Association’s code of ethics known as the Goldwater rule.
Lifton gave the President’s unsubstantiated claim that Barack Obama ordered a wiretap of his phones during the presidential campaign as an example of his irrational behaviour.
“Even within the space of a few weeks, the demands of the presidency have magnified his erratic patterns of behaviour,” they wrote.
“We are struck by his repeated failure to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and his outbursts of rage when his fantasies are contradicted. Without any demonstrable evidence, he repeatedly resorts to paranoid claims of conspiracy.
“Most recently, in response to suggestions of contact between his campaign and agents of the Russian government, he has issued tirades against the press as an “enemy of the people” and accusations without proof that his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, engaged in partisan surveillance against him.”
Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman said if Mr Trump’s allegations regarding Mr Obama were proved false, a major scandal would arise that could lead to his impeachment.
The President recently posted a series of early-morning tweets in which he accused his predecessor of ordered the wiretap.
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” he wrote.
“Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!”
“How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”
Mr Trump did not provide any evidence for his claims and his spokespeople have consistently refused to do so.
Professor Feldman said that, if the allegations are true, the scandal would be of “Watergate-level proportions” – but that a similar sized controversy would also result if they are proved to be unsubstantiated.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
AARP comes out against House GOP health care bill - CNN
* The AARP comes out against the bill
* It's the latest heavyweight to join opposition to the House GOP plan
Washington (CNN)The AARP issued a statement on Tuesday declaring its opposition to the health care bill touted by GOP leadership this week.
The letter -- from one of the most influential groups in domestic policy -- is the latest blow for a bill that has already seen opposition from many conservative leaders, media organizations and interest groups.
"This bill would weaken Medicare's fiscal sustainability, dramatically increase health care costs for Americans aged 50-64 and put at risk the health care of millions of children and adults with disabilities, and poor seniors who depend on the Medicaid program for long-term services and supports and other benefits," said the letter, signed by Joyce A. Rogers, a senior vice president at AARP.
The GOP's Obamacare replacement bill: Dead on arrival?
The group represents millions of seniors across the country and has long opposed any policy it perceives as weakening Medicare, a government health care program exclusively available to the nation's elderly.
AARP was a crucial backer of the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, and has repeatedly defended the law over the years.
The AARP letter said Obamacare helped strengthen Medicare, and that a tax cut for higher income workers in the American Health Care Act "could hasten" the program's insolvency.
When he was on the campaign trail, President Donald Trump pledged to protect Medicare and other major entitlement programs. However, the AARP has said the bill would do the opposite. Still, Trump has backed the proposal from House leadership and called on the country to unite around it, including the conservative factions of his party fighting to bring the bill down.
Trump warns House GOP members of electoral 'bloodbath' if repeal and replace fails
Under Obamacare's individual mandate, people must purchase health insurance, including young, relatively healthy people, or pay a fine. The forced inclusion of more people in the market was an attempt to balance out insurance markets for older people and those with pre-existing conditions. However, insurance providers are allowed to offer insurance at different rates depending on age.
AARP said the changes in age rating as well as reductions to subsidies would "dramatically increase health care costs for 50-64 year olds" who purchase insurance through government exchanges.
The group also railed against a slew of proposed changes to Medicaid, a government program aimed at helping people with low incomes and disabilities get health care.
Finally, the letter praised Republicans for what the bill did not aim to repeal from Obamacare, for example, protections for persons with pre-existing conditions and allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance plans until age 26.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Kelly: DHS is considering separating undocumented children from their parents at the border - CNN
Kelly: DHS is considering separating undocumented children from their parents at the border
Washington (CNN)Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly confirmed that the department is considering separating children from their parents at the border.
"We have tremendous experience of dealing with unaccompanied minors," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." "We turn them over to (Health and Human Services) and they do a very, very good job of putting them in foster care or linking them up with parents or family members in the United States."
He continued: "Yes I'm considering (that), in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network. I am considering exactly that. They will be well cared for as we deal with their parents. ... It's more important to me, Wolf, to try to keep people off of this awful network."
A senior DHS official had previously told CNN that the department was considering a proposal to separate children from adults when they are trying to enter the country illegally at the southern border.
The official told CNN the proposal is meant to deter the exploitation of children.
Currently, when adults enter the country accompanied by children, they are generally released into the US and able to stay in the country, pending disposition of their cases, the official said.
The proposal would allow US immigration officials to separate children from the adults they came here with. The adults could be kept in detention, and the children could be moved elsewhere under protected status, possibly with family members already in the country or to state protective custody such as child protective services.
In a statement to CNN last week, DHS spokesman David Lapan said the agency "continually explores options that may discourage those from even beginning the journey."
"The journey north is a dangerous one, with too many situations where children -- brought by parents, relatives or smugglers -- are often exploited, abused or may even lose their lives," Lapan said at the time.
Leon Fresco, a former DOJ official in President Barack Obama's administration, said the previous administration considered, but ultimately rejected, the move.
"It was never implemented because the idea was that it was too detrimental to the safety of the children to separate them from their parents, and the thinking was it was always preferable to detain the family as a unit or release the family as the unit," Fresco said.
Washington (CNN)Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly confirmed that the department is considering separating children from their parents at the border.
"We have tremendous experience of dealing with unaccompanied minors," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." "We turn them over to (Health and Human Services) and they do a very, very good job of putting them in foster care or linking them up with parents or family members in the United States."
He continued: "Yes I'm considering (that), in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network. I am considering exactly that. They will be well cared for as we deal with their parents. ... It's more important to me, Wolf, to try to keep people off of this awful network."
A senior DHS official had previously told CNN that the department was considering a proposal to separate children from adults when they are trying to enter the country illegally at the southern border.
The official told CNN the proposal is meant to deter the exploitation of children.
Currently, when adults enter the country accompanied by children, they are generally released into the US and able to stay in the country, pending disposition of their cases, the official said.
The proposal would allow US immigration officials to separate children from the adults they came here with. The adults could be kept in detention, and the children could be moved elsewhere under protected status, possibly with family members already in the country or to state protective custody such as child protective services.
In a statement to CNN last week, DHS spokesman David Lapan said the agency "continually explores options that may discourage those from even beginning the journey."
"The journey north is a dangerous one, with too many situations where children -- brought by parents, relatives or smugglers -- are often exploited, abused or may even lose their lives," Lapan said at the time.
Leon Fresco, a former DOJ official in President Barack Obama's administration, said the previous administration considered, but ultimately rejected, the move.
"It was never implemented because the idea was that it was too detrimental to the safety of the children to separate them from their parents, and the thinking was it was always preferable to detain the family as a unit or release the family as the unit," Fresco said.
Monday, March 6, 2017
A Guide to the Federal Government’s Wiretap Powers - Wall Street Journal
A Guide to the Federal Government’s Wiretap Powers
Donald Trump claims Barack Obama tapped his phones. How would that have been possible?
President Donald Trump made shocking allegations on Saturday morning that President Barack Obama tapped his phones in the Trump Tower skyscraper. His comments, offered without any proof, fanned interest in a continuing FBI investigation of ties between Mr. Trump’s allies and Russian officials.
The allegations appeared to be taken from media reports alleging the Obama administration received authorization to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign. How would that have been possible?
Below is guide to the federal government’s power to snoop in criminal investigations and intelligence collection.
Which laws authorize the use of wiretaps in the U.S.?
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act guides the use of wiretaps in service of intelligence collection, while Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, also known as the Wiretap Act, dictates the use of wiretaps in criminal investigations.
What’s the difference?
The purpose of intelligence is to gain information about the activities of foreign powers. The purpose of a criminal investigation is to collect evidence to support prosecution in court. Under Title III, federal prosecutors can seek a warrant to tap the phones of suspects of a range of crimes, from bribery to espionage, but only with authorization by the attorney general or other high-level Justice Department officials. They then must satisfy a federal judge that they have probable cause that a crime occurred or will occur, through the filing of applications that detail the “facts and circumstances” of alleged offenses and targets. Prosecutors must also justify the necessity of a wiretap instead of less intrusive investigative techniques.
What is FISA used for?
The Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation can obtain warrants and orders from a secret court that allows them to conduct surveillance of and collect information about suspected spies and terrorists.
Prosecutors and agents seeking a wiretap under FISA need a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to tap a phone in the U.S., with limited exceptions. To tap the phone of a foreigner living in the U.S., they have to demonstrate probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power. Any employee of a foreign government—like, say, the Russian ambassador—would qualify. But to get a warrant for a U.S. person, they must show probable cause to believe something close to espionage or other national security crimes, like terrorism, occurred, said Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
How could we know if Mr. Trump’s wiretaps allegations are true?
FISA orders are classified as a general rule, said Todd Hinnen, a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and former acting head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. But nothing would stop Mr. Trump from declassifying FISA orders, he said.
“If there were such an order regarding Trump obtained by the Obama administration, for instance, President Trump could have it declassified and release it to the press,” he said.
Can FISA be used for more than just wiretaps?
Yes. Under FISA, federal agents can also seek warrants to search premises and orders for certain business records, such as which websites a target visits. Emails generally require a warrant, but the law is unsettled about whether investigators can obtain stored email without one.
Can evidence collected under FISA be used in a regular court?
Yes. The Justice Department can use FISA to gather evidence for criminal prosecution as long as foreign intelligence is a significant component of the investigation, Mr. Sanchez said. But it doesn’t have to be the primary purpose. The government has to tell the defense that it intends to use evidence collected under FISA in a criminal case, offering the defendant a chance to challenge it as unlawful or unconstitutional and try to have it suppressed by a judge.
What is FISA’s back story?
Congress established FISA to guard against surveillance abuses in the name of national security. It passed in 1978 following revelations of an FBI surveillance program that targeted anti-Vietnam War protesters and civil-rights organizers, including Martin Luther King Jr., as well as the Watergate scandal that ultimately forced President Richard Nixon’s resignation.
More recently, a George W. Bush-era program authorized the National Security Agency to wiretap communications between foreigners suspected of having links to terrorist groups and people in the U.S. without a warrant. The government halted the practices for a time, but resumed them in the Bush and Obama administrations after the law governing wiretaps was changed.
—Bob Davis contributed to this article
Donald Trump claims Barack Obama tapped his phones. How would that have been possible?
President Donald Trump made shocking allegations on Saturday morning that President Barack Obama tapped his phones in the Trump Tower skyscraper. His comments, offered without any proof, fanned interest in a continuing FBI investigation of ties between Mr. Trump’s allies and Russian officials.
The allegations appeared to be taken from media reports alleging the Obama administration received authorization to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign. How would that have been possible?
Below is guide to the federal government’s power to snoop in criminal investigations and intelligence collection.
Which laws authorize the use of wiretaps in the U.S.?
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act guides the use of wiretaps in service of intelligence collection, while Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, also known as the Wiretap Act, dictates the use of wiretaps in criminal investigations.
What’s the difference?
The purpose of intelligence is to gain information about the activities of foreign powers. The purpose of a criminal investigation is to collect evidence to support prosecution in court. Under Title III, federal prosecutors can seek a warrant to tap the phones of suspects of a range of crimes, from bribery to espionage, but only with authorization by the attorney general or other high-level Justice Department officials. They then must satisfy a federal judge that they have probable cause that a crime occurred or will occur, through the filing of applications that detail the “facts and circumstances” of alleged offenses and targets. Prosecutors must also justify the necessity of a wiretap instead of less intrusive investigative techniques.
What is FISA used for?
The Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation can obtain warrants and orders from a secret court that allows them to conduct surveillance of and collect information about suspected spies and terrorists.
Prosecutors and agents seeking a wiretap under FISA need a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to tap a phone in the U.S., with limited exceptions. To tap the phone of a foreigner living in the U.S., they have to demonstrate probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power. Any employee of a foreign government—like, say, the Russian ambassador—would qualify. But to get a warrant for a U.S. person, they must show probable cause to believe something close to espionage or other national security crimes, like terrorism, occurred, said Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
How could we know if Mr. Trump’s wiretaps allegations are true?
FISA orders are classified as a general rule, said Todd Hinnen, a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and former acting head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. But nothing would stop Mr. Trump from declassifying FISA orders, he said.
“If there were such an order regarding Trump obtained by the Obama administration, for instance, President Trump could have it declassified and release it to the press,” he said.
Can FISA be used for more than just wiretaps?
Yes. Under FISA, federal agents can also seek warrants to search premises and orders for certain business records, such as which websites a target visits. Emails generally require a warrant, but the law is unsettled about whether investigators can obtain stored email without one.
Can evidence collected under FISA be used in a regular court?
Yes. The Justice Department can use FISA to gather evidence for criminal prosecution as long as foreign intelligence is a significant component of the investigation, Mr. Sanchez said. But it doesn’t have to be the primary purpose. The government has to tell the defense that it intends to use evidence collected under FISA in a criminal case, offering the defendant a chance to challenge it as unlawful or unconstitutional and try to have it suppressed by a judge.
What is FISA’s back story?
Congress established FISA to guard against surveillance abuses in the name of national security. It passed in 1978 following revelations of an FBI surveillance program that targeted anti-Vietnam War protesters and civil-rights organizers, including Martin Luther King Jr., as well as the Watergate scandal that ultimately forced President Richard Nixon’s resignation.
More recently, a George W. Bush-era program authorized the National Security Agency to wiretap communications between foreigners suspected of having links to terrorist groups and people in the U.S. without a warrant. The government halted the practices for a time, but resumed them in the Bush and Obama administrations after the law governing wiretaps was changed.
—Bob Davis contributed to this article
Does Obama Have Grounds to Sue Trump for Libel? - NBC News
Analysis: Does Obama Have Grounds to Sue Trump for Libel?
President Donald Trump's newest pivot might be his way to divert attention from his own Russia troubles by leveling a Watergate-level conspiracy allegation at former President Barack Obama.
But this latest assertion that Obama ordered illegal surveillance of Trump Tower during the 2016 election — tweeted without evidence — could build and get the president into some legal hot water.
Although the law provides a great deal of leeway for political speech, that protection is not all encompassing. And because of the way Trump has leveled unsubstantiated accusations at Obama, he may have libeled his predecessor.
"He's basically stating that Mr. Obama committed crimes, and to state that somebody has committed a crime when it's false is clearly defamatory," said Benjamin Zipursky, who teaches defamation law at Fordham University Law School in New York.
"The question is: Is there enough evidence of serious reckless disregard to send that case to a jury?" Zipursky added. "I don't know what a court would decide on that, but there is some evidence of recklessness."
It's difficult for public figures to win libel cases. Most courts rule against them because the assumption is that they have chosen to make their lives an open book, which means people will talk about them. But past Supreme Court cases have created a basic standard that seeks to answer two legal questions:
* Was the statement false?
* Did the person know it was false or was he or she reckless about whether it was false?
The answer to both questions must be yes, and that could be a difficult conclusion to draw.
"What the plaintiff has to show is that the defendant has said, written or tweeted something that is a false statement of fact that harms the reputation of the defendant, and because Obama is a public official, you have to show that it was done with some sort of intent to harm," said Jay Wexler, a professor of constitutional law at Boston University Law School.
Despite that high threshold, a fair amount of evidence is beginning to build that Trump might have crossed the legal line.
A senior U.S. official told NBC News that FBI Director James Comey asked the Justice Department over the weekend to publicly reject Trump's claims because they were untrue.
FBI Director James Comey asked Justice Department officials to publicly reject President Donald Trump's claims that former President Barack Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower, The New York Times reported Sunday. A senior U.S. official confirmed the newspaper's reporting to NBC News.
The Times reported that Comey requested that the Justice Department publicly rebut the president's allegations — which he posted on Twitter without evidence — because the claims are untrue and suggest that the FBI broke the law. Comey's appeal pits him against the president.
Related: White House Calls for Probe, Offers No Proof of Wiretapping
But, The Times added, Comey is having difficulty knocking the story down because there are only a few politically appointed Justice Department officials who could approve a statement, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from anything pertaining to the government's investigation into alleged connections between Russia and the Trump campaign.
President Donald Trump leaves the Oval Office to board Marine One at the White House on Friday. Erik S. Lesser / EPA
Despite Comey's request, Trump's White House did not back off on Sunday and called for Congress to investigate.
"President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement. He offered no evidence to back up the allegations, which Trump compared to a scandal of "Nixon/Watergate" proportions.
NBC News has found no evidence that would support his claims, which have been flatly dismissed by the previous administration.
An Obama spokesman called Trump's tweets "unequivocally false," and James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he had no knowledge of any surveillance of Trump Tower.
Later Sunday, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee demanded that White House counsel Donald McGahn respond to The Times' report that his office had sought to gain access to what he "believed to be an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing some form of surveillance related to Mr. Trump and his associates."
Such an effort would be "inappropriate" and "improper," the lawmakers said in a letter to McGahn obtained by NBC News.
"The independence of the Department of Justice and the FBI is a particular concern when individuals associated with both the Administration and the President's campaign may be the targets of the investigation," the lawmakers said.
Meanwhile, politicians on both sides of the aisle said the White House needed to provide evidence to back up the president's allegations.
"Suffice it to say I don't have any basis — I've never heard that allegation made before by anybody," Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, said Sunday.
"I've never seen anything about that anywhere before," Rubio said. "But again, the president put that out there, and now the White House will have to answer as to exactly what he was referring to."
NBC
President Donald Trump's newest pivot might be his way to divert attention from his own Russia troubles by leveling a Watergate-level conspiracy allegation at former President Barack Obama.
But this latest assertion that Obama ordered illegal surveillance of Trump Tower during the 2016 election — tweeted without evidence — could build and get the president into some legal hot water.
Although the law provides a great deal of leeway for political speech, that protection is not all encompassing. And because of the way Trump has leveled unsubstantiated accusations at Obama, he may have libeled his predecessor.
"He's basically stating that Mr. Obama committed crimes, and to state that somebody has committed a crime when it's false is clearly defamatory," said Benjamin Zipursky, who teaches defamation law at Fordham University Law School in New York.
"The question is: Is there enough evidence of serious reckless disregard to send that case to a jury?" Zipursky added. "I don't know what a court would decide on that, but there is some evidence of recklessness."
It's difficult for public figures to win libel cases. Most courts rule against them because the assumption is that they have chosen to make their lives an open book, which means people will talk about them. But past Supreme Court cases have created a basic standard that seeks to answer two legal questions:
* Was the statement false?
* Did the person know it was false or was he or she reckless about whether it was false?
The answer to both questions must be yes, and that could be a difficult conclusion to draw.
"What the plaintiff has to show is that the defendant has said, written or tweeted something that is a false statement of fact that harms the reputation of the defendant, and because Obama is a public official, you have to show that it was done with some sort of intent to harm," said Jay Wexler, a professor of constitutional law at Boston University Law School.
Despite that high threshold, a fair amount of evidence is beginning to build that Trump might have crossed the legal line.
A senior U.S. official told NBC News that FBI Director James Comey asked the Justice Department over the weekend to publicly reject Trump's claims because they were untrue.
FBI Director James Comey asked Justice Department officials to publicly reject President Donald Trump's claims that former President Barack Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower, The New York Times reported Sunday. A senior U.S. official confirmed the newspaper's reporting to NBC News.
The Times reported that Comey requested that the Justice Department publicly rebut the president's allegations — which he posted on Twitter without evidence — because the claims are untrue and suggest that the FBI broke the law. Comey's appeal pits him against the president.
Related: White House Calls for Probe, Offers No Proof of Wiretapping
But, The Times added, Comey is having difficulty knocking the story down because there are only a few politically appointed Justice Department officials who could approve a statement, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from anything pertaining to the government's investigation into alleged connections between Russia and the Trump campaign.
President Donald Trump leaves the Oval Office to board Marine One at the White House on Friday. Erik S. Lesser / EPA
Despite Comey's request, Trump's White House did not back off on Sunday and called for Congress to investigate.
"President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement. He offered no evidence to back up the allegations, which Trump compared to a scandal of "Nixon/Watergate" proportions.
NBC News has found no evidence that would support his claims, which have been flatly dismissed by the previous administration.
An Obama spokesman called Trump's tweets "unequivocally false," and James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he had no knowledge of any surveillance of Trump Tower.
Later Sunday, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee demanded that White House counsel Donald McGahn respond to The Times' report that his office had sought to gain access to what he "believed to be an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing some form of surveillance related to Mr. Trump and his associates."
Such an effort would be "inappropriate" and "improper," the lawmakers said in a letter to McGahn obtained by NBC News.
"The independence of the Department of Justice and the FBI is a particular concern when individuals associated with both the Administration and the President's campaign may be the targets of the investigation," the lawmakers said.
Meanwhile, politicians on both sides of the aisle said the White House needed to provide evidence to back up the president's allegations.
"Suffice it to say I don't have any basis — I've never heard that allegation made before by anybody," Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, said Sunday.
"I've never seen anything about that anywhere before," Rubio said. "But again, the president put that out there, and now the White House will have to answer as to exactly what he was referring to."
NBC
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Trump's baseless wiretap claim - CNN
Trump's baseless wiretap claim
Story highlights
* A former senior US official with direct knowledge of Justice Department investigations under Obama said Trump's phones were never tapped
* Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed "to get to the bottom of this" at a town hall event on Saturday
West Palm Beach, Fla. (CNN)President Donald Trump made a stunning claim Saturday, alleging without offering evidence that his predecessor, Barack Obama, wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower ahead of the 2016 election.
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" Trump tweeted early Saturday morning in one part of a six-tweet tirade that began just after 6:30 a.m.
Trump :- " Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! "
" Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! "
The President went on to compare the alleged tapping of his phones to Watergate and called Obama "bad (or "sick)."
"How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy," Trump tweeted.
Trump :- " How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy! "
11:02 PM - 4 Mar 2017
* 46,427
But two former senior US officials quickly dismissed Trump's accusations out of hand.
"Just nonsense," said one former senior US intelligence official.
Another former senior US official with direct knowledge of investigations by the Justice Department under the Obama administration said Trump's phones were never tapped.
"This did not happen. It is false. Wrong," the former official told CNN.
A spokesman for Obama, Kevin Lewis, called "any suggestion" that Obama or any White House official ordered surveillance against Trump "simply false."
"A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice," Lewis said in a statement early Saturday afternoon. "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
The former senior US official with direct knowledge of the Justice Department's investigations said Obama could not have ordered such a warrant. It would have been taken to a judge by investigators, but investigators never sought a warrant to monitor Trump's phones, the former official said.
A federal judge would only have approved a warrant to wiretap Trump's phones if he or she had found probable cause that Trump had committed a federal crime or was a foreign agent.
Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes echoed the point in a tweet responding to Trump on Saturday morning.
"No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you," he said in his Twitter post.
Ben Rhodes wrote :- " No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you. "
Warrants to tap into someone's phones in the course of a federal investigation would be sought by the Department of Justice, which conducts investigations independent of the White House and the President.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, an independent and secretive federal court, is responsible for issuing surveillance warrants in cases concerning foreign intelligence. The FBI has been investigating contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russians known to US intelligence, and that court would likely be the forum to petition for such a warrant.
When asked if the White House is seeking any possible FISA court documentation to back up the President's claims, several senior administration officials confirmed to CNN that White House Counsel Donald McGahn "is reviewing what options, if any, are available to us." But White House officials could not say whether any such documentation exists.
There is no evidence such a document on surveillance of Trump himself exists, according to sources with knowledge of the situation whom CNN spoke to Saturday.
The FISA court's records are some of the most secretive intelligence documents. The White House could seek possible records from the Justice Department. If it did that, it would be unheard of and a breach of protocol, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, an expert on national security law, told CNN. Protocol has dictated that the Justice Department would be insulated from such White House requests for these types of documents.
The New York Times first reported on McGahn's review.
A senior administration official in Washington said colleagues learned of the tweet storm about Obama only after Trump sent them. They were not expecting the President to make any news this morning before golfing in Palm Beach, Florida.
The official said they don't believe Trump is trying to get ahead of any particular story that's about to come out, but rather he is furious about how the Russia storyline is playing out.
The official pointed to a story on the conservative website Breitbart News that was circulating in the West Wing, which followed up on comments from radio talk show Mark Levin claiming Obama worked to undermine Trump's presidential campaign and his administration, including various investigations on Russia and possible ties between Russians and Trump associates.
That story infuriated him, the official said.
Trump's tweets came two days after his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from any investigation related to the Trump campaign. Some Democrats have continued to call for Sessions' resignation after he acknowledged meeting multiple times with the Russian ambassador to the US during the campaign despite denying any contacts during his Senate confirmation hearing.
A pattern
Trump's tweets Saturday morning are just the latest in a string of wild accusations he has made since taking office that either directly contradicted the facts or lacked evidence to substantiate his claims, and they come just days after Trump was widely praised for the unifying tone of his joint address to Congress.
While past presidents have spoken prudently about sensitive matters to ensure that any claims they make are backed up by carefully vetted facts, Trump has instead maintained his pre-presidency style: one defined by unsubstantiated claims bellowed off the cuff or tweeted at odd hours of the day.
Trump has made dozens of verifiably false or misleading claims since taking office, often with an eye on gaining a political advantage or blunting criticism.
The President has repeatedly trumpeted the debunked claim that millions of illegal votes were cast in the 2016 election and accused journalists of inventing a rift between him and the US intelligence community, despite his own statements to that effect.
And last month, he accused a Democratic senator of misrepresenting his Supreme Court nominee's criticism of him, even after the nominee's White House-appointed spokesman corroborated the senator's account of the conversation.
Meanwhile, Trump and his advisers have falsely accused the media of leading a "fake news" campaign to smear his presidency, all the while arguing in favor of "alternative facts."
Congressional reaction
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has been critical of Trump, said during a town hall forum Saturday that he didn't know if Trump's claim was true, but said he was "very worried" about the allegation.
"I'm very worried. I'm very worried that our President is suggesting that the former President's done something illegally," Graham said. "I would be very worried if in fact the Obama administration was able to obtain a warrant lawfully about Trump campaign activity with foreign governments. So it's my job as a United States senator to get to the bottom of this. I promise you I will."
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, which is also probing the scope of Russia's influence on the US election, said in a statement Saturday afternoon in reference to one of Trump's tweets: "If there is something bad or sick going on, it is the willingness of the nation's chief executive to make the most outlandish and destructive claims without providing a scintilla of evidence to support them.
"No matter how much we hope and pray that this President will grow into one who respects and understands the Constitution, separation of powers, role of a free press, responsibilities as the leader of the free world, or demonstrates even the most basic regard for the truth, we must now accept that President Trump will never become that man," Schiff said.
"Just nonsense," said one former senior US intelligence official.
Another former senior US official with direct knowledge of investigations by the Justice Department under the Obama administration said Trump's phones were never tapped.
"This did not happen. It is false. Wrong," the former official told CNN.
A spokesman for Obama, Kevin Lewis, called "any suggestion" that Obama or any White House official ordered surveillance against Trump "simply false."
"A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice," Lewis said in a statement early Saturday afternoon. "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
* JUST WATCHEDSen. Sasse: Trump should provide wiretap proof
ReplayMore Videos ...
Sen. Sasse: Trump should provide wiretap proof 01:01
The former senior US official with direct knowledge of the Justice Department's investigations said Obama could not have ordered such a warrant. It would have been taken to a judge by investigators, but investigators never sought a warrant to monitor Trump's phones, the former official said.
A federal judge would only have approved a warrant to wiretap Trump's phones if he or she had found probable cause that Trump had committed a federal crime or was a foreign agent.
Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes echoed the point in a tweet responding to Trump on Saturday morning.
"No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you," he said in his Twitter post.
Ben Rhodes
✔
@brhodes
No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.
https://
twitter.com/realdonaldtrum
p/status/837989835818287106
…
1:25 AM - 5 Mar 2017
* 51,528 51,528 Retweets 92,991 92,991 likes
Warrants to tap into someone's phones in the course of a federal investigation would be sought by the Department of Justice, which conducts investigations independent of the White House and the President.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, an independent and secretive federal court, is responsible for issuing surveillance warrants in cases concerning foreign intelligence. The FBI has been investigating contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russians known to US intelligence, and that court would likely be the forum to petition for such a warrant.
When asked if the White House is seeking any possible FISA court documentation to back up the President's claims, several senior administration officials confirmed to CNN that White House Counsel Donald McGahn "is reviewing what options, if any, are available to us." But White House officials could not say whether any such documentation exists.
There is no evidence such a document on surveillance of Trump himself exists, according to sources with knowledge of the situation whom CNN spoke to Saturday.
Trump angry and frustrated at staff over Sessions fallout
The FISA court's records are some of the most secretive intelligence documents. The White House could seek possible records from the Justice Department. If it did that, it would be unheard of and a breach of protocol, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, an expert on national security law, told CNN. Protocol has dictated that the Justice Department would be insulated from such White House requests for these types of documents.
The New York Times first reported on McGahn's review.
A senior administration official in Washington said colleagues learned of the tweet storm about Obama only after Trump sent them. They were not expecting the President to make any news this morning before golfing in Palm Beach, Florida.
The official said they don't believe Trump is trying to get ahead of any particular story that's about to come out, but rather he is furious about how the Russia storyline is playing out.
The official pointed to a story on the conservative website Breitbart News that was circulating in the West Wing, which followed up on comments from radio talk show Mark Levin claiming Obama worked to undermine Trump's presidential campaign and his administration, including various investigations on Russia and possible ties between Russians and Trump associates.
That story infuriated him, the official said.
Dan Scavino Jr.
✔
@DanScavino
Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump:
http://www.
breitbart.com/big-government
/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/
…
5:53 AM - 5 Mar 2017
Mark Levin to GOP: Investigate Obama's 'Silent Coup' vs. Trump
Mark Levin outlined the known steps taken by the Obama administration to undermine Donald Trump's presidential campaign and administration.
breitbart.com
* 2,438 2,438 Retweets 3,626 3,626 likes
Trump's tweets came two days after his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from any investigation related to the Trump campaign. Some Democrats have continued to call for Sessions' resignation after he acknowledged meeting multiple times with the Russian ambassador to the US during the campaign despite denying any contacts during his Senate confirmation hearing.
A pattern
* JUST WATCHEDStelter: Far-right media may fuel Trump claims
ReplayMore Videos ...
Stelter: Far-right media may fuel Trump claims 02:09
Trump's tweets Saturday morning are just the latest in a string of wild accusations he has made since taking office that either directly contradicted the facts or lacked evidence to substantiate his claims, and they come just days after Trump was widely praised for the unifying tone of his joint address to Congress.
While past presidents have spoken prudently about sensitive matters to ensure that any claims they make are backed up by carefully vetted facts, Trump has instead maintained his pre-presidency style: one defined by unsubstantiated claims bellowed off the cuff or tweeted at odd hours of the day.
Trump has made dozens of verifiably false or misleading claims since taking office, often with an eye on gaining a political advantage or blunting criticism.
The President has repeatedly trumpeted the debunked claim that millions of illegal votes were cast in the 2016 election and accused journalists of inventing a rift between him and the US intelligence community, despite his own statements to that effect.
And last month, he accused a Democratic senator of misrepresenting his Supreme Court nominee's criticism of him, even after the nominee's White House-appointed spokesman corroborated the senator's account of the conversation.
Meanwhile, Trump and his advisers have falsely accused the media of leading a "fake news" campaign to smear his presidency, all the while arguing in favor of "alternative facts."
Congressional reaction
* JUST WATCHEDSen. Graham talks Trump wiretap tweets
ReplayMore Videos ...
Sen. Graham talks Trump wiretap tweets 01:45
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has been critical of Trump, said during a town hall forum Saturday that he didn't know if Trump's claim was true, but said he was "very worried" about the allegation.
"I'm very worried. I'm very worried that our President is suggesting that the former President's done something illegally," Graham said. "I would be very worried if in fact the Obama administration was able to obtain a warrant lawfully about Trump campaign activity with foreign governments. So it's my job as a United States senator to get to the bottom of this. I promise you I will."
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, which is also probing the scope of Russia's influence on the US election, said in a statement Saturday afternoon in reference to one of Trump's tweets: "If there is something bad or sick going on, it is the willingness of the nation's chief executive to make the most outlandish and destructive claims without providing a scintilla of evidence to support them.
"No matter how much we hope and pray that this President will grow into one who respects and understands the Constitution, separation of powers, role of a free press, responsibilities as the leader of the free world, or demonstrates even the most basic regard for the truth, we must now accept that President Trump will never become that man," Schiff said.
The President of the United States traffics in conspiracy theories (Opinion)
Amid criticism that Trump's allegations were meritless, one GOP senator called on Trump to release proof about his accusation, saying the President's allegations were "very serious."
Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, a frequent Trump critic, said the President should publicly release the FISA Court order that would have been needed if his phones were legally tapped by the government.
And, if Trump believes his phones were illegally monitored, he "should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this," Sasse said in a statement.
"We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President's allegations today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots," Sasse said. "A quest for the full truth, rather than knee-jerk partisanship, must be our guide if we are going to rebuild civic trust and health."
Story highlights
* A former senior US official with direct knowledge of Justice Department investigations under Obama said Trump's phones were never tapped
* Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed "to get to the bottom of this" at a town hall event on Saturday
West Palm Beach, Fla. (CNN)President Donald Trump made a stunning claim Saturday, alleging without offering evidence that his predecessor, Barack Obama, wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower ahead of the 2016 election.
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" Trump tweeted early Saturday morning in one part of a six-tweet tirade that began just after 6:30 a.m.
Trump :- " Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! "
" Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! "
The President went on to compare the alleged tapping of his phones to Watergate and called Obama "bad (or "sick)."
"How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy," Trump tweeted.
Trump :- " How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy! "
11:02 PM - 4 Mar 2017
* 46,427
But two former senior US officials quickly dismissed Trump's accusations out of hand.
"Just nonsense," said one former senior US intelligence official.
Another former senior US official with direct knowledge of investigations by the Justice Department under the Obama administration said Trump's phones were never tapped.
"This did not happen. It is false. Wrong," the former official told CNN.
A spokesman for Obama, Kevin Lewis, called "any suggestion" that Obama or any White House official ordered surveillance against Trump "simply false."
"A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice," Lewis said in a statement early Saturday afternoon. "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
The former senior US official with direct knowledge of the Justice Department's investigations said Obama could not have ordered such a warrant. It would have been taken to a judge by investigators, but investigators never sought a warrant to monitor Trump's phones, the former official said.
A federal judge would only have approved a warrant to wiretap Trump's phones if he or she had found probable cause that Trump had committed a federal crime or was a foreign agent.
Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes echoed the point in a tweet responding to Trump on Saturday morning.
"No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you," he said in his Twitter post.
Ben Rhodes wrote :- " No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you. "
Warrants to tap into someone's phones in the course of a federal investigation would be sought by the Department of Justice, which conducts investigations independent of the White House and the President.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, an independent and secretive federal court, is responsible for issuing surveillance warrants in cases concerning foreign intelligence. The FBI has been investigating contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russians known to US intelligence, and that court would likely be the forum to petition for such a warrant.
When asked if the White House is seeking any possible FISA court documentation to back up the President's claims, several senior administration officials confirmed to CNN that White House Counsel Donald McGahn "is reviewing what options, if any, are available to us." But White House officials could not say whether any such documentation exists.
There is no evidence such a document on surveillance of Trump himself exists, according to sources with knowledge of the situation whom CNN spoke to Saturday.
The FISA court's records are some of the most secretive intelligence documents. The White House could seek possible records from the Justice Department. If it did that, it would be unheard of and a breach of protocol, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, an expert on national security law, told CNN. Protocol has dictated that the Justice Department would be insulated from such White House requests for these types of documents.
The New York Times first reported on McGahn's review.
A senior administration official in Washington said colleagues learned of the tweet storm about Obama only after Trump sent them. They were not expecting the President to make any news this morning before golfing in Palm Beach, Florida.
The official said they don't believe Trump is trying to get ahead of any particular story that's about to come out, but rather he is furious about how the Russia storyline is playing out.
The official pointed to a story on the conservative website Breitbart News that was circulating in the West Wing, which followed up on comments from radio talk show Mark Levin claiming Obama worked to undermine Trump's presidential campaign and his administration, including various investigations on Russia and possible ties between Russians and Trump associates.
That story infuriated him, the official said.
Trump's tweets came two days after his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from any investigation related to the Trump campaign. Some Democrats have continued to call for Sessions' resignation after he acknowledged meeting multiple times with the Russian ambassador to the US during the campaign despite denying any contacts during his Senate confirmation hearing.
A pattern
Trump's tweets Saturday morning are just the latest in a string of wild accusations he has made since taking office that either directly contradicted the facts or lacked evidence to substantiate his claims, and they come just days after Trump was widely praised for the unifying tone of his joint address to Congress.
While past presidents have spoken prudently about sensitive matters to ensure that any claims they make are backed up by carefully vetted facts, Trump has instead maintained his pre-presidency style: one defined by unsubstantiated claims bellowed off the cuff or tweeted at odd hours of the day.
Trump has made dozens of verifiably false or misleading claims since taking office, often with an eye on gaining a political advantage or blunting criticism.
The President has repeatedly trumpeted the debunked claim that millions of illegal votes were cast in the 2016 election and accused journalists of inventing a rift between him and the US intelligence community, despite his own statements to that effect.
And last month, he accused a Democratic senator of misrepresenting his Supreme Court nominee's criticism of him, even after the nominee's White House-appointed spokesman corroborated the senator's account of the conversation.
Meanwhile, Trump and his advisers have falsely accused the media of leading a "fake news" campaign to smear his presidency, all the while arguing in favor of "alternative facts."
Congressional reaction
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has been critical of Trump, said during a town hall forum Saturday that he didn't know if Trump's claim was true, but said he was "very worried" about the allegation.
"I'm very worried. I'm very worried that our President is suggesting that the former President's done something illegally," Graham said. "I would be very worried if in fact the Obama administration was able to obtain a warrant lawfully about Trump campaign activity with foreign governments. So it's my job as a United States senator to get to the bottom of this. I promise you I will."
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, which is also probing the scope of Russia's influence on the US election, said in a statement Saturday afternoon in reference to one of Trump's tweets: "If there is something bad or sick going on, it is the willingness of the nation's chief executive to make the most outlandish and destructive claims without providing a scintilla of evidence to support them.
"No matter how much we hope and pray that this President will grow into one who respects and understands the Constitution, separation of powers, role of a free press, responsibilities as the leader of the free world, or demonstrates even the most basic regard for the truth, we must now accept that President Trump will never become that man," Schiff said.
"Just nonsense," said one former senior US intelligence official.
Another former senior US official with direct knowledge of investigations by the Justice Department under the Obama administration said Trump's phones were never tapped.
"This did not happen. It is false. Wrong," the former official told CNN.
A spokesman for Obama, Kevin Lewis, called "any suggestion" that Obama or any White House official ordered surveillance against Trump "simply false."
"A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice," Lewis said in a statement early Saturday afternoon. "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
* JUST WATCHEDSen. Sasse: Trump should provide wiretap proof
ReplayMore Videos ...
Sen. Sasse: Trump should provide wiretap proof 01:01
The former senior US official with direct knowledge of the Justice Department's investigations said Obama could not have ordered such a warrant. It would have been taken to a judge by investigators, but investigators never sought a warrant to monitor Trump's phones, the former official said.
A federal judge would only have approved a warrant to wiretap Trump's phones if he or she had found probable cause that Trump had committed a federal crime or was a foreign agent.
Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes echoed the point in a tweet responding to Trump on Saturday morning.
"No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you," he said in his Twitter post.
Ben Rhodes
✔
@brhodes
No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.
https://
twitter.com/realdonaldtrum
p/status/837989835818287106
…
1:25 AM - 5 Mar 2017
* 51,528 51,528 Retweets 92,991 92,991 likes
Warrants to tap into someone's phones in the course of a federal investigation would be sought by the Department of Justice, which conducts investigations independent of the White House and the President.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, an independent and secretive federal court, is responsible for issuing surveillance warrants in cases concerning foreign intelligence. The FBI has been investigating contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russians known to US intelligence, and that court would likely be the forum to petition for such a warrant.
When asked if the White House is seeking any possible FISA court documentation to back up the President's claims, several senior administration officials confirmed to CNN that White House Counsel Donald McGahn "is reviewing what options, if any, are available to us." But White House officials could not say whether any such documentation exists.
There is no evidence such a document on surveillance of Trump himself exists, according to sources with knowledge of the situation whom CNN spoke to Saturday.
Trump angry and frustrated at staff over Sessions fallout
The FISA court's records are some of the most secretive intelligence documents. The White House could seek possible records from the Justice Department. If it did that, it would be unheard of and a breach of protocol, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, an expert on national security law, told CNN. Protocol has dictated that the Justice Department would be insulated from such White House requests for these types of documents.
The New York Times first reported on McGahn's review.
A senior administration official in Washington said colleagues learned of the tweet storm about Obama only after Trump sent them. They were not expecting the President to make any news this morning before golfing in Palm Beach, Florida.
The official said they don't believe Trump is trying to get ahead of any particular story that's about to come out, but rather he is furious about how the Russia storyline is playing out.
The official pointed to a story on the conservative website Breitbart News that was circulating in the West Wing, which followed up on comments from radio talk show Mark Levin claiming Obama worked to undermine Trump's presidential campaign and his administration, including various investigations on Russia and possible ties between Russians and Trump associates.
That story infuriated him, the official said.
Dan Scavino Jr.
✔
@DanScavino
Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump:
http://www.
breitbart.com/big-government
/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/
…
5:53 AM - 5 Mar 2017
Mark Levin to GOP: Investigate Obama's 'Silent Coup' vs. Trump
Mark Levin outlined the known steps taken by the Obama administration to undermine Donald Trump's presidential campaign and administration.
breitbart.com
* 2,438 2,438 Retweets 3,626 3,626 likes
Trump's tweets came two days after his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from any investigation related to the Trump campaign. Some Democrats have continued to call for Sessions' resignation after he acknowledged meeting multiple times with the Russian ambassador to the US during the campaign despite denying any contacts during his Senate confirmation hearing.
A pattern
* JUST WATCHEDStelter: Far-right media may fuel Trump claims
ReplayMore Videos ...
Stelter: Far-right media may fuel Trump claims 02:09
Trump's tweets Saturday morning are just the latest in a string of wild accusations he has made since taking office that either directly contradicted the facts or lacked evidence to substantiate his claims, and they come just days after Trump was widely praised for the unifying tone of his joint address to Congress.
While past presidents have spoken prudently about sensitive matters to ensure that any claims they make are backed up by carefully vetted facts, Trump has instead maintained his pre-presidency style: one defined by unsubstantiated claims bellowed off the cuff or tweeted at odd hours of the day.
Trump has made dozens of verifiably false or misleading claims since taking office, often with an eye on gaining a political advantage or blunting criticism.
The President has repeatedly trumpeted the debunked claim that millions of illegal votes were cast in the 2016 election and accused journalists of inventing a rift between him and the US intelligence community, despite his own statements to that effect.
And last month, he accused a Democratic senator of misrepresenting his Supreme Court nominee's criticism of him, even after the nominee's White House-appointed spokesman corroborated the senator's account of the conversation.
Meanwhile, Trump and his advisers have falsely accused the media of leading a "fake news" campaign to smear his presidency, all the while arguing in favor of "alternative facts."
Congressional reaction
* JUST WATCHEDSen. Graham talks Trump wiretap tweets
ReplayMore Videos ...
Sen. Graham talks Trump wiretap tweets 01:45
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has been critical of Trump, said during a town hall forum Saturday that he didn't know if Trump's claim was true, but said he was "very worried" about the allegation.
"I'm very worried. I'm very worried that our President is suggesting that the former President's done something illegally," Graham said. "I would be very worried if in fact the Obama administration was able to obtain a warrant lawfully about Trump campaign activity with foreign governments. So it's my job as a United States senator to get to the bottom of this. I promise you I will."
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, which is also probing the scope of Russia's influence on the US election, said in a statement Saturday afternoon in reference to one of Trump's tweets: "If there is something bad or sick going on, it is the willingness of the nation's chief executive to make the most outlandish and destructive claims without providing a scintilla of evidence to support them.
"No matter how much we hope and pray that this President will grow into one who respects and understands the Constitution, separation of powers, role of a free press, responsibilities as the leader of the free world, or demonstrates even the most basic regard for the truth, we must now accept that President Trump will never become that man," Schiff said.
The President of the United States traffics in conspiracy theories (Opinion)
Amid criticism that Trump's allegations were meritless, one GOP senator called on Trump to release proof about his accusation, saying the President's allegations were "very serious."
Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, a frequent Trump critic, said the President should publicly release the FISA Court order that would have been needed if his phones were legally tapped by the government.
And, if Trump believes his phones were illegally monitored, he "should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this," Sasse said in a statement.
"We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President's allegations today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots," Sasse said. "A quest for the full truth, rather than knee-jerk partisanship, must be our guide if we are going to rebuild civic trust and health."
Saturday, March 4, 2017
Trump’s Many Shades of Contempt - New York Times
Trump’s Many Shades of Contempt
MARCH 3, 2017
Roger Cohen
This is a column about contempt. Let’s start with the utter contempt that President Trump has shown for the State Department since taking office six weeks ago. Some 70,000 American patriots across the globe, dedicated to the American idea as a force for good in the world, have been cast adrift.
Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, is a near phantom. He has no deputy, having seen his first choice nixed by Trump. No State Department press briefing, once a daily occurrence, has been held since Trump took office. The president has proposed a 37 percent cut in the State Department budget. An exodus of senior staff members continues. The State Department has taken on a ghostly air.
The message is clear. America has no foreign policy so nobody is needed to articulate it. All we have are the feverish zigzags of the president, a man who thinks NATO is obsolete one day and glorious the next. There is no governing idea, only transactional hollowness. One midlevel officer told Julia Ioffe of The Atlantic: “It’s reminiscent of the developing countries where I’ve served. The family rules everything, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs knows nothing.”
Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, has become the foreign service of the United States of America.
Trump does not buy into the American idea. He buys, if anything, into Vladimir Putin’s macho authoritarianism and spheres of influence for the great powers. This amounts to a dramatic break with American policy as superbly articulated last month by one of the departing diplomats, Daniel Fried, who joined the Foreign Service in 1977 and served with great distinction, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe.
Fried had this to say in his parting remarks: “Few believed that Poland’s Solidarity movement could win, that the Iron Curtain would come down, that the Baltic States could be free, that the second of the 20th century’s great evils — Communism — could be vanquished without war. But it happened, and the West’s great institutions — NATO and the E.U. — grew to embrace 100 million liberated Europeans. It was my honor to have done what I could to help. I learned never to underestimate the possibility of change, that values have power, and that time and patience can pay off, especially if you’re serious about your objectives. Nothing can be taken for granted, and this great achievement is now under assault by Russia, but what we did in my time is no less honorable. It is for the present generation to defend and, when the time comes again, extend freedom in Europe.”
Donald Trump, our ahistorical Russophile president, should frame these words and hang them in the Oval Office as his first history lesson.
Fried noted America’s long-held opposition to spheres of influence, a recipe for war, and made this critical point: “We are not an ethno-state, with identity rooted in shared blood. The option of a White Man’s Republic ended at Appomattox. On the contrary, we are ‘a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.’ ” And so, “that rough sense of equality and opportunity, embedded in us, informed the way that we brought our American power to the world, America’s Grand Strategy. We have, imperfectly, and despite detours and retreat along the way, sought to realize a better world for ourselves and for others, for we understood that our prosperity and our values at home depend on that prosperity and those values being secure as far as possible in a sometimes dark world.”
NYT
MARCH 3, 2017
Roger Cohen
This is a column about contempt. Let’s start with the utter contempt that President Trump has shown for the State Department since taking office six weeks ago. Some 70,000 American patriots across the globe, dedicated to the American idea as a force for good in the world, have been cast adrift.
Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, is a near phantom. He has no deputy, having seen his first choice nixed by Trump. No State Department press briefing, once a daily occurrence, has been held since Trump took office. The president has proposed a 37 percent cut in the State Department budget. An exodus of senior staff members continues. The State Department has taken on a ghostly air.
The message is clear. America has no foreign policy so nobody is needed to articulate it. All we have are the feverish zigzags of the president, a man who thinks NATO is obsolete one day and glorious the next. There is no governing idea, only transactional hollowness. One midlevel officer told Julia Ioffe of The Atlantic: “It’s reminiscent of the developing countries where I’ve served. The family rules everything, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs knows nothing.”
Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, has become the foreign service of the United States of America.
Trump does not buy into the American idea. He buys, if anything, into Vladimir Putin’s macho authoritarianism and spheres of influence for the great powers. This amounts to a dramatic break with American policy as superbly articulated last month by one of the departing diplomats, Daniel Fried, who joined the Foreign Service in 1977 and served with great distinction, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe.
Fried had this to say in his parting remarks: “Few believed that Poland’s Solidarity movement could win, that the Iron Curtain would come down, that the Baltic States could be free, that the second of the 20th century’s great evils — Communism — could be vanquished without war. But it happened, and the West’s great institutions — NATO and the E.U. — grew to embrace 100 million liberated Europeans. It was my honor to have done what I could to help. I learned never to underestimate the possibility of change, that values have power, and that time and patience can pay off, especially if you’re serious about your objectives. Nothing can be taken for granted, and this great achievement is now under assault by Russia, but what we did in my time is no less honorable. It is for the present generation to defend and, when the time comes again, extend freedom in Europe.”
Donald Trump, our ahistorical Russophile president, should frame these words and hang them in the Oval Office as his first history lesson.
Fried noted America’s long-held opposition to spheres of influence, a recipe for war, and made this critical point: “We are not an ethno-state, with identity rooted in shared blood. The option of a White Man’s Republic ended at Appomattox. On the contrary, we are ‘a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.’ ” And so, “that rough sense of equality and opportunity, embedded in us, informed the way that we brought our American power to the world, America’s Grand Strategy. We have, imperfectly, and despite detours and retreat along the way, sought to realize a better world for ourselves and for others, for we understood that our prosperity and our values at home depend on that prosperity and those values being secure as far as possible in a sometimes dark world.”
NYT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
