In the week before U.S. Vice President Mike Pence visited Brussels and pledged America's "steadfast and enduring" commitment to the European Union, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon met with a German diplomat and delivered a different message, according to people familiar with the talks.
Bannon, these people said, signalled to Germany's ambassador to Washington that he viewed the EU as a flawed construct and favoured conducting relations with Europe on a bilateral basis.
Three people who were briefed on the meeting spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. The German government and the ambassador, Peter Wittig, declined to comment, citing the confidentiality of the talks.
A White House official who checked with Bannon in response to a Reuters query confirmed the meeting had taken place but said the account provided to Reuters was inaccurate. "They only spoke for about three minutes and it was just a quick hello," the official said.
The sources described a longer meeting in which Bannon took the time to spell out his world view. They said his message was similar to the one he delivered to a Vatican conference back in 2014 when he was running the right-wing website Breitbart News.
In those remarks, delivered via Skype, Bannon spoke favourably about European populist movements and described a yearning for nationalism by people who "don't believe in this kind of pan-European Union."
Western Europe, he said at the time, was built on a foundation of "strong nationalist movements", adding: "I think it's what can see us forward".
The encounter unsettled people in the German government, in part because some officials had been holding out hope that Bannon might temper his views once in government and offer a more nuanced message on Europe in private.
By Noah Barkin | BERLIN
In the week before U.S. Vice President Mike Pence visited Brussels and pledged America's "steadfast and enduring" commitment to the European Union, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon met with a German diplomat and delivered a different message, according to people familiar with the talks.
Bannon, these people said, signalled to Germany's ambassador to Washington that he viewed the EU as a flawed construct and favoured conducting relations with Europe on a bilateral basis.
Three people who were briefed on the meeting spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. The German government and the ambassador, Peter Wittig, declined to comment, citing the confidentiality of the talks.
A White House official who checked with Bannon in response to a Reuters query confirmed the meeting had taken place but said the account provided to Reuters was inaccurate. "They only spoke for about three minutes and it was just a quick hello," the official said.
The sources described a longer meeting in which Bannon took the time to spell out his world view. They said his message was similar to the one he delivered to a Vatican conference back in 2014 when he was running the right-wing website Breitbart News.
In those remarks, delivered via Skype, Bannon spoke favourably about European populist movements and described a yearning for nationalism by people who "don't believe in this kind of pan-European Union."
Western Europe, he said at the time, was built on a foundation of "strong nationalist movements", adding: "I think it's what can see us forward".
The encounter unsettled people in the German government, in part because some officials had been holding out hope that Bannon might temper his views once in government and offer a more nuanced message on Europe in private.
One source briefed on the meeting said it had confirmed the view that Germany and its European partners must prepare for a policy of "hostility towards the EU".
A second source expressed concern, based on his contacts with the administration, that there was no appreciation for the EU's role in ensuring peace and prosperity in post-war Europe.
"There appears to be no understanding in the White House that an unravelling of the EU would have grave consequences," the source said.
The White House said there was no transcript of the conversation. The sources who had been briefed on it described it as polite and stressed there was no evidence Trump was prepared to go beyond his rhetorical attacks on the EU - he has repeatedly praised Britain's decision to leave - and take concrete steps to destabilise the bloc.
But anxiety over the White House stance led French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and Wolfgang Ischinger, chairman of the Munich Security Conference, to issue unusual calls last week for Pence to affirm during his visit to Europe that the U.S. was not aiming to break up the EU.
Pence obliged on Monday in Brussels, pledging strong ties between the United States and the EU, and making clear his message was shared by the president.
"President Trump and I look forward to working together with you and the European Union to deepen our political and economic partnership," he said.
But the message did not end the concerns in European capitals.
"We are worried and we should be worried," Thomas Matussek, senior adviser at Flint Global and a former German ambassador to the Britain and the United Nations, told Reuters.
"No one knows anything at the moment about what sort of decisions will be coming out of Washington. But it is clear that the man on top and the people closest to him feel that it's the nation state that creates identity and not what they see as an amorphous group of countries like the EU."
With elections looming in the Netherlands, France and Germany this year, European officials said they hoped Pence, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson could convince Trump to work constructively with the EU.
The worst-case scenario from Europe's point of view was described by Ischinger in an article published last week, entitled "How Europe should deal with Trump".
He said that if the U.S. administration actively supported right-wing populists in the looming election campaigns it would trigger a "major transatlantic crisis".
(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton and Alastair Macdonald in Brussels, Jeff Mason in Washington; editing by Mark John)
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
UK parliament debates cancelling Trump's state visit - Independent
A cross-party group of MPs has called on Theresa May to rescind an invitation for Donald Trump to attend a state visit to the UK later this year.
As thousands of people protested outside Westminster, MPs branded the US President “disgusting” and “immoral” as they criticised the Prime Minister for appearing to act in “desperation” by extending the offer to Mr Trump just seven days after he entered the White House.
The debate was triggered after a petition to block Mr Trump’s state visit reached almost two million signatories. A separate petition, defending the state visit, which attracted more than 300,000 signatures, also formed part of the debate.
READ MORE
Tory MP says he has seen no evidence of Donald Trump being racist
Calling on the Government to reconsider its offer, Labour's Paul Flynn compared the US President's behaviour to a "petulant child", while fellow Labour MP Daniel Zeichner branded him “a disgusting and immoral man” who “represents the very opposite of the values we hold”.
Their views appeared to echo the protesters outside Parliament. Carrying colourful placards and banners, separate groups led rallying cries, including "Hey hey, hey ho; Trump and Brexit's got to go," and "No Trump, no Brexit; no racist EU exit."
Inside the house, Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael said Ms May was left looking “desperate and craven” while Labour’s Dawn Butler said the US had a “pretty nasty virus, and it’s important that virus doesn’t spread”.
Green MP Caroline Lucas attacked Mr Trump’s “effrontery to basic climate science” and the SNP’s Alex Salmond suggested there was “desperation for a trade deal” driving Ms May’s Government.
They clashed with several Conservative MPs who insisted Ms May was right to prioritise Britain’s national interest by fostering good relations with its historic ally.
Tory Nigel Evans said he had seen no evidence from the first four weeks of the Trump administration to suggest that the President was “racist”.
"When we stand up in this country and condemn him for being racist, and I have seen no evidence of that, I have seen no evidence of him being racist, we are actually attacking the American people,” he said.
Leigh also defended Mr Trump, saying his unsuccessful travel ban on seven majority-Muslim countries did not amount to racism.
“I don’t think there is any proof that this travel ban is racist,” he said.
“Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, there is no question of a travel ban on Indonesia.
“These countries are riddled by civil war, this travel ban builds on work done by [Barack] Obama.
“So to accuse the new President of the US of racism, misogyny and all the rest is overstated.”
Much of the debate centred on the timing of the offer, coming just a week after Mr Trump was inaugurated and during a hastily-arranged visit to Washington by Ms May.
Barack Obama only received an invitation after 758 days, while his predecessor, George W Bush, waited 978 days before he was offered a state visit.
Tory MP Crispin Blunt said he was not opposed to a state visit but said it should be delayed until 2020 – the 400th anniversary of the voyage of the Mayflower.
However, Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan said Mr Trump's state visit to the UK "should happen and will happen".
He told MPs in the Westminster Hall debate: "This is a special moment for the special relationship. The visit should happen, the visit will happen and when it does I trust the United Kingdom will extend a polite and generous welcome to president Donald Trump."
The debate over the US President’s impending trip took place against the backdrop of protests across the UK against the state visit.
READ MORE
Donald Trump's state visit debate live: MPs discuss President's trip
The faint shouts of demonstrators could be heard inside Westminster Hall while outside in Parliament Square, thousands of protesters had gathered.
Organisers of the rally said they expected more than 20,000 people to take part.
Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott, addressing the crowds, warned about the "dark shadow of racism and anti-immigrant sentiment" that were beginning to emerge.
She said: "We know the values that Trump represents. With Donald Trump, you don't have to look into a crystal ball, you can read the book.
"He was supported in his presidential campaign by white supremacists. And even in the first weeks of his presidency he has had a viscerally anti-immigrant line."
Calls for the state visit to be cancelled have been backed by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, who criticised the president's "cruel and shameful" policies.
But the Government has remained steadfast in its commitment to honour the invite.
In its official response to the petitions, it stressed ministers believed "the President of the United States should be extended the full courtesy of a state visit".
As thousands of people protested outside Westminster, MPs branded the US President “disgusting” and “immoral” as they criticised the Prime Minister for appearing to act in “desperation” by extending the offer to Mr Trump just seven days after he entered the White House.
The debate was triggered after a petition to block Mr Trump’s state visit reached almost two million signatories. A separate petition, defending the state visit, which attracted more than 300,000 signatures, also formed part of the debate.
READ MORE
Tory MP says he has seen no evidence of Donald Trump being racist
Calling on the Government to reconsider its offer, Labour's Paul Flynn compared the US President's behaviour to a "petulant child", while fellow Labour MP Daniel Zeichner branded him “a disgusting and immoral man” who “represents the very opposite of the values we hold”.
Their views appeared to echo the protesters outside Parliament. Carrying colourful placards and banners, separate groups led rallying cries, including "Hey hey, hey ho; Trump and Brexit's got to go," and "No Trump, no Brexit; no racist EU exit."
Inside the house, Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael said Ms May was left looking “desperate and craven” while Labour’s Dawn Butler said the US had a “pretty nasty virus, and it’s important that virus doesn’t spread”.
Green MP Caroline Lucas attacked Mr Trump’s “effrontery to basic climate science” and the SNP’s Alex Salmond suggested there was “desperation for a trade deal” driving Ms May’s Government.
They clashed with several Conservative MPs who insisted Ms May was right to prioritise Britain’s national interest by fostering good relations with its historic ally.
Tory Nigel Evans said he had seen no evidence from the first four weeks of the Trump administration to suggest that the President was “racist”.
"When we stand up in this country and condemn him for being racist, and I have seen no evidence of that, I have seen no evidence of him being racist, we are actually attacking the American people,” he said.
Leigh also defended Mr Trump, saying his unsuccessful travel ban on seven majority-Muslim countries did not amount to racism.
“I don’t think there is any proof that this travel ban is racist,” he said.
“Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, there is no question of a travel ban on Indonesia.
“These countries are riddled by civil war, this travel ban builds on work done by [Barack] Obama.
“So to accuse the new President of the US of racism, misogyny and all the rest is overstated.”
Much of the debate centred on the timing of the offer, coming just a week after Mr Trump was inaugurated and during a hastily-arranged visit to Washington by Ms May.
Barack Obama only received an invitation after 758 days, while his predecessor, George W Bush, waited 978 days before he was offered a state visit.
Tory MP Crispin Blunt said he was not opposed to a state visit but said it should be delayed until 2020 – the 400th anniversary of the voyage of the Mayflower.
However, Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan said Mr Trump's state visit to the UK "should happen and will happen".
He told MPs in the Westminster Hall debate: "This is a special moment for the special relationship. The visit should happen, the visit will happen and when it does I trust the United Kingdom will extend a polite and generous welcome to president Donald Trump."
The debate over the US President’s impending trip took place against the backdrop of protests across the UK against the state visit.
READ MORE
Donald Trump's state visit debate live: MPs discuss President's trip
The faint shouts of demonstrators could be heard inside Westminster Hall while outside in Parliament Square, thousands of protesters had gathered.
Organisers of the rally said they expected more than 20,000 people to take part.
Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott, addressing the crowds, warned about the "dark shadow of racism and anti-immigrant sentiment" that were beginning to emerge.
She said: "We know the values that Trump represents. With Donald Trump, you don't have to look into a crystal ball, you can read the book.
"He was supported in his presidential campaign by white supremacists. And even in the first weeks of his presidency he has had a viscerally anti-immigrant line."
Calls for the state visit to be cancelled have been backed by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, who criticised the president's "cruel and shameful" policies.
But the Government has remained steadfast in its commitment to honour the invite.
In its official response to the petitions, it stressed ministers believed "the President of the United States should be extended the full courtesy of a state visit".
Monday, February 20, 2017
What a broken down White House looks like ? - New York Times
I still have trouble seeing how the Trump administration survives a full term. Judging by his Thursday press conference, President Trump’s mental state is like a train that long ago left freewheeling and iconoclastic, has raced through indulgent, chaotic and unnerving, and is now careening past unhinged, unmoored and unglued.
Trump’s White House staff is at war with itself. His poll ratings are falling at unprecedented speed. His policy agenda is stalled. F.B.I. investigations are just beginning. This does not feel like a sustainable operation.
On the other hand, I have trouble seeing exactly how this administration ends. Many of the institutions that would normally ease out or remove a failing president no longer exist.
There are no longer moral arbiters in Congress like Howard Baker and Sam Ervin to lead a resignation or impeachment process. There is no longer a single media establishment that shapes how the country sees the president. This is no longer a country in which everybody experiences the same reality.
Everything about Trump that appalls 65 percent of America strengthens him with the other 35 percent, and he can ride that group for a while. Even after these horrible four weeks, Republicans on Capitol Hill are not close to abandoning their man.
The likelihood is this: We’re going to have an administration that has morally and politically collapsed, without actually going away.
What does that look like?
First, it means an administration that is passive, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. To get anything done, a president depends on the vast machinery of the U.S. government. But Trump doesn’t mesh with that machinery. He is personality-based while it is rule-based. Furthermore, he’s declared war on it. And when you declare war on the establishment, it declares war on you.
The Civil Service has a thousand ways to ignore or sit on any presidential order. The court system has given itself carte blanche to overturn any Trump initiative, even on the flimsiest legal grounds. The intelligence community has only just begun to undermine this president.
President Trump can push all the pretty buttons on the command deck of the Starship Enterprise, but don’t expect anything to actually happen, because they are not attached.
Second, this will probably become a more insular administration. Usually when administrations stumble, they fire a few people and bring in the grown-ups — the James Baker or the David Gergen types. But Trump is anti-grown-up, so it’s hard to imagine Chief of Staff Haley Barbour. Instead, the circle of trust seems to be shrinking to his daughter, her husband and Stephen Bannon.
Bannon has a coherent worldview, which is a huge advantage when all is chaos. It’s interesting how many of Bannon’s rivals have woken up with knives in their backs. Michael Flynn is gone. Reince Priebus has been unmanned by a thousand White House leaks. Rex Tillerson had the potential to be an effective secretary of state, but Bannon neutered him last week by denying him the ability to even select his own deputy.
In an administration in which “promoted beyond his capacity” takes on new meaning, Bannon looms. With each passing day, Trump talks more like Bannon without the background reading.
Third, we are about to enter a decentralized world. For the past 70 years most nations have instinctively looked to the U.S. for leadership, either to follow or oppose. But in capitals around the world, intelligence agencies are drafting memos with advice on how to play Donald Trump.
The first conclusion is obvious. This administration is more like a medieval monarchy than a modern nation-state. It’s more “The Madness of King George” than “The Missiles of October.” The key currency is not power, it’s flattery.
The corollary is that Trump is ripe to be played. Give the boy a lollipop and he won’t notice if you steal his lunch. The Japanese gave Trump a new jobs announcement he could take to the Midwest, and in return they got presidential attention and coddling that other governments would have died for.
If you want to roll the Trump administration, you’ve got to get in line. The Israelis got a possible one-state solution. The Chinese got Trump to flip-flop on the “One China” policy. The Europeans got him to do a 180 on undoing the Iran nuclear deal.
Vladimir Putin was born for a moment such as this. He is always pushing the envelope. After gifting Team Trump with a little campaign help, the Russian state media has suddenly turned on Trump and Russian planes are buzzing U.S. ships. The bear is going to grab what it can.
We’re about to enter a moment in which U.S. economic and military might is strong but U.S. political might is weak. Imagine the Roman Empire governed by Monaco.
That’s scary. The only saving thought is this: The human imagination is vast, but it is not nearly vast enough to encompass the infinitely multitudinous ways Donald Trump can find to get himself disgraced.
Trump’s White House staff is at war with itself. His poll ratings are falling at unprecedented speed. His policy agenda is stalled. F.B.I. investigations are just beginning. This does not feel like a sustainable operation.
On the other hand, I have trouble seeing exactly how this administration ends. Many of the institutions that would normally ease out or remove a failing president no longer exist.
There are no longer moral arbiters in Congress like Howard Baker and Sam Ervin to lead a resignation or impeachment process. There is no longer a single media establishment that shapes how the country sees the president. This is no longer a country in which everybody experiences the same reality.
Everything about Trump that appalls 65 percent of America strengthens him with the other 35 percent, and he can ride that group for a while. Even after these horrible four weeks, Republicans on Capitol Hill are not close to abandoning their man.
The likelihood is this: We’re going to have an administration that has morally and politically collapsed, without actually going away.
What does that look like?
First, it means an administration that is passive, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. To get anything done, a president depends on the vast machinery of the U.S. government. But Trump doesn’t mesh with that machinery. He is personality-based while it is rule-based. Furthermore, he’s declared war on it. And when you declare war on the establishment, it declares war on you.
The Civil Service has a thousand ways to ignore or sit on any presidential order. The court system has given itself carte blanche to overturn any Trump initiative, even on the flimsiest legal grounds. The intelligence community has only just begun to undermine this president.
President Trump can push all the pretty buttons on the command deck of the Starship Enterprise, but don’t expect anything to actually happen, because they are not attached.
Second, this will probably become a more insular administration. Usually when administrations stumble, they fire a few people and bring in the grown-ups — the James Baker or the David Gergen types. But Trump is anti-grown-up, so it’s hard to imagine Chief of Staff Haley Barbour. Instead, the circle of trust seems to be shrinking to his daughter, her husband and Stephen Bannon.
Bannon has a coherent worldview, which is a huge advantage when all is chaos. It’s interesting how many of Bannon’s rivals have woken up with knives in their backs. Michael Flynn is gone. Reince Priebus has been unmanned by a thousand White House leaks. Rex Tillerson had the potential to be an effective secretary of state, but Bannon neutered him last week by denying him the ability to even select his own deputy.
In an administration in which “promoted beyond his capacity” takes on new meaning, Bannon looms. With each passing day, Trump talks more like Bannon without the background reading.
Third, we are about to enter a decentralized world. For the past 70 years most nations have instinctively looked to the U.S. for leadership, either to follow or oppose. But in capitals around the world, intelligence agencies are drafting memos with advice on how to play Donald Trump.
The first conclusion is obvious. This administration is more like a medieval monarchy than a modern nation-state. It’s more “The Madness of King George” than “The Missiles of October.” The key currency is not power, it’s flattery.
The corollary is that Trump is ripe to be played. Give the boy a lollipop and he won’t notice if you steal his lunch. The Japanese gave Trump a new jobs announcement he could take to the Midwest, and in return they got presidential attention and coddling that other governments would have died for.
If you want to roll the Trump administration, you’ve got to get in line. The Israelis got a possible one-state solution. The Chinese got Trump to flip-flop on the “One China” policy. The Europeans got him to do a 180 on undoing the Iran nuclear deal.
Vladimir Putin was born for a moment such as this. He is always pushing the envelope. After gifting Team Trump with a little campaign help, the Russian state media has suddenly turned on Trump and Russian planes are buzzing U.S. ships. The bear is going to grab what it can.
We’re about to enter a moment in which U.S. economic and military might is strong but U.S. political might is weak. Imagine the Roman Empire governed by Monaco.
That’s scary. The only saving thought is this: The human imagination is vast, but it is not nearly vast enough to encompass the infinitely multitudinous ways Donald Trump can find to get himself disgraced.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
Facebook Mark Zuckerberg on rise of Trumpism - NBC News
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is reframing his platform — at times a cesspit of political outrage — for the Trump era.
In a long letter on his Facebook pageThursday, Zuckerberg lamented the rise of isolationism and the backlash against globalization. When Facebook first launched in 2004, supporting a more connected, global community was not controversial, he wrote.
"Yet now, across the world there are people left behind by globalization, and movements for withdrawing from global connection," wrote Zuckerberg. "There are questions about whether we can make a global community that works for everyone, and whether the path ahead is to connect more or reverse course."
Facebook and the wider tech community have been reeling since the election of President Donald Trump, which seemed to underline just how out of touch Silicon Valley has been with the rest of the U.S. There's growing concern that Trumpian policies that emphasize protectionism and prioritize old technology over new will precipitate a backlash against the tech companies themselves.
The anti-globalization movement has taken hold in other countries as well, with the U.K. voting to withdraw from the European Union and rightist Marine LePen showing a strong chance of becoming France's next president.
With this post, Zuckerberg seems to be speaking directly to those who might feel disenfranchised in light of the rise of new technologies. "The best solutions for improving discourse may come from getting to know each other as whole people instead of just opinions — something Facebook may be uniquely suited to do."
He also addressed critics who believe that Facebook has not done enough to combat fake news, including posts that some people said influenced the presidential election — an idea Zuckerberg previously called "pretty crazy."
He is not, however, suggesting taking a hard-line approach against fake news: "Our approach will focus less on banning misinformation, and more on surfacing additional perspectives and information, including that fact checkers dispute an item's accuracy," he wrote.
The post — which makes no mention of Facebook as a business — is likely to fuel speculation about Zuckerberg's interests beyond steering the social media giant to greater profitability.
Related: Zuckerberg's New Year's Resolution Is to Meet You
The young CEO's annual New Year's resolution — to meet people in every U.S. state — ignited discussion about whether Zuckerberg waspositioning himself for a role in politics, something he has denied.
Zuckerberg concluded with a kind of get-out clause and attempt to reassure the community.
"Facebook is a work in progress, and we are dedicated to learning and improving," he wrote. "We take our responsibility seriously, and today I want to talk about how we plan to do our part to build this global community."
In a long letter on his Facebook pageThursday, Zuckerberg lamented the rise of isolationism and the backlash against globalization. When Facebook first launched in 2004, supporting a more connected, global community was not controversial, he wrote.
"Yet now, across the world there are people left behind by globalization, and movements for withdrawing from global connection," wrote Zuckerberg. "There are questions about whether we can make a global community that works for everyone, and whether the path ahead is to connect more or reverse course."
Facebook and the wider tech community have been reeling since the election of President Donald Trump, which seemed to underline just how out of touch Silicon Valley has been with the rest of the U.S. There's growing concern that Trumpian policies that emphasize protectionism and prioritize old technology over new will precipitate a backlash against the tech companies themselves.
The anti-globalization movement has taken hold in other countries as well, with the U.K. voting to withdraw from the European Union and rightist Marine LePen showing a strong chance of becoming France's next president.
With this post, Zuckerberg seems to be speaking directly to those who might feel disenfranchised in light of the rise of new technologies. "The best solutions for improving discourse may come from getting to know each other as whole people instead of just opinions — something Facebook may be uniquely suited to do."
He also addressed critics who believe that Facebook has not done enough to combat fake news, including posts that some people said influenced the presidential election — an idea Zuckerberg previously called "pretty crazy."
He is not, however, suggesting taking a hard-line approach against fake news: "Our approach will focus less on banning misinformation, and more on surfacing additional perspectives and information, including that fact checkers dispute an item's accuracy," he wrote.
The post — which makes no mention of Facebook as a business — is likely to fuel speculation about Zuckerberg's interests beyond steering the social media giant to greater profitability.
Related: Zuckerberg's New Year's Resolution Is to Meet You
The young CEO's annual New Year's resolution — to meet people in every U.S. state — ignited discussion about whether Zuckerberg waspositioning himself for a role in politics, something he has denied.
Zuckerberg concluded with a kind of get-out clause and attempt to reassure the community.
"Facebook is a work in progress, and we are dedicated to learning and improving," he wrote. "We take our responsibility seriously, and today I want to talk about how we plan to do our part to build this global community."
McCain on Trump : Dictators all started by attacking free press
(CNN)Sen. John McCain slammed President Donald Trump's attacks on the media this week by noting dictators "get started by suppressing free press."
It was a startling observation from a sitting member of Congress against the President of the United States, especially considering McCain is a member of Trump's party.
"I hate the press," the Arizona Republican sarcastically told NBC News' Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press." "I hate you especially. But the fact is we need you. We need a free press. We must have it. It's vital."
But he continued, "If you want to preserve -- I'm very serious now -- if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press," McCain said in the interview. "And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That's how dictators get started."
McCain has been a frequent critic of the President, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and national security, since before Trump entered the White House.
The 2008 Republican presidential nominee said Americans must pay attention to history to understand the past connections between leaders of oppressive governments and efforts to stifle the media.
"They get started by suppressing free press, in other words, a consolidation of power -- when you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press," McCain said. "And I'm not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I'm just saying we need to learn the lessons of history."
Trump tweeted Friday that CNN and other major media outlets were "the enemy of the American people."
McCain has been a frequent critic of the President, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and national security, since before Trump entered the White House.
The 2008 Republican presidential nominee said Americans must pay attention to history to understand the past connections between leaders of oppressive governments and efforts to stifle the media.
"They get started by suppressing free press, in other words, a consolidation of power -- when you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press," McCain said. "And I'm not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I'm just saying we need to learn the lessons of history."
Trump tweeted Friday that CNN and other major media outlets were "the enemy of the American people."
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!8:48 AM · Feb 18, 2017
Carl Bernstein @carlbernstein
The most dangerous 'enemy of the people' is presidential lying--always. Attacks on press by @realDonaldTrump more treacherous than Nixon's.7:04 PM · Feb 18, 2017
It was a startling observation from a sitting member of Congress against the President of the United States, especially considering McCain is a member of Trump's party.
"I hate the press," the Arizona Republican sarcastically told NBC News' Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press." "I hate you especially. But the fact is we need you. We need a free press. We must have it. It's vital."
But he continued, "If you want to preserve -- I'm very serious now -- if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press," McCain said in the interview. "And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That's how dictators get started."
McCain has been a frequent critic of the President, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and national security, since before Trump entered the White House.
The 2008 Republican presidential nominee said Americans must pay attention to history to understand the past connections between leaders of oppressive governments and efforts to stifle the media.
"They get started by suppressing free press, in other words, a consolidation of power -- when you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press," McCain said. "And I'm not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I'm just saying we need to learn the lessons of history."
Trump tweeted Friday that CNN and other major media outlets were "the enemy of the American people."
McCain has been a frequent critic of the President, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and national security, since before Trump entered the White House.
The 2008 Republican presidential nominee said Americans must pay attention to history to understand the past connections between leaders of oppressive governments and efforts to stifle the media.
"They get started by suppressing free press, in other words, a consolidation of power -- when you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press," McCain said. "And I'm not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I'm just saying we need to learn the lessons of history."
Trump tweeted Friday that CNN and other major media outlets were "the enemy of the American people."
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!8:48 AM · Feb 18, 2017
Carl Bernstein @carlbernstein
The most dangerous 'enemy of the people' is presidential lying--always. Attacks on press by @realDonaldTrump more treacherous than Nixon's.7:04 PM · Feb 18, 2017
Saturday, February 18, 2017
How Working for Yourself Can Boost Your Retirement Savings - TIME
Posted: 17 Jan 2017 06:41 AM PST
When Kathleen Keating worked for IBM, she didn’t think much about her retirement plan. She signed up for the company’s 401(k) and left it at that.
But at the age of 40, she decided to leave the corporate world and become her own boss. That meant coming up with her own retirement savings plan as well.
What she found was surprising. Working for herself for the last nine years allowed the Boston-area public relations professional to set aside thousands of dollars more per year for retirement, reducing her income tax bill substantially, while giving her more options about when and how to invest.
“I have so much more flexibility,” she said. “When you’re working for someone else, you’re locked in to their retirement plans and you have to deal with HR and all the paperwork.”
Financial advisors say that retirement plans for self-employed Americans have become more popular in recent years, thanks to a 2001 tax law that allows them to put much more money away than most people who work for someone else. But to make it work, they have to be more diligent about setting up the accounts and putting money in regularly.
If they do, the difference can be substantial. Most workers on a traditional 401(k) can set aside a maximum of $18,000 this year—or up to $24,000 if they are over the age of 50. By comparison, a self-employed worker can quickly set up a type of investment account called a SEP IRA and put away 25% of their income, up to a maximum of $54,000 this year.
Self-employed workers willing to do a little more paperwork can also set up what is called a solo or individual 401(k), which allows them to put the typical $18,000 salary deferral in as well as 25% of their income, dramatically increasing the amount they can set aside in a year.
They can also put money in on their own schedule. Workers on a traditional 401(k) at a medium- to large-sized corporation typically need to sign up at the beginning of the year to have money taken out of each paycheck. Changing the contribution amount can take a few pay cycles, making it harder to catch up at the end of the year if you realize you weren’t putting away enough.
But donations to SEP IRAs and individual 401(k)s can be made in lump sums, whenever. For self-employed workers who can see big swings each month in how much they’re making, that makes it easier to put a chunk of money in when they’re having a good month and hold off when times are tight. And if they want, they can wait until they’re doing their taxes to add another big chunk to reduce their taxable income.
David Rae is a self-employed financial planner in West Hollywood who works with a lot of people in the entertainment industry who don’t have regular jobs or access to traditional 401(k)s. He set up a SEP IRA shortly after starting his business and recommends that his clients do the same to give themselves the option to set aside money when they have it.
“If you happen to have a good month, you can write a big check,” he said.
The potential market for self-employed retirement plans is huge. According to a report from the Pew Research Center, 14.6 million Americans were self-employed in 2014, representing about 10% of the national workforce. (Another 29.4 million, or about 20% of the workforce, were hired by self-employed Americans.)
Susan Diehl, president of PenServ Plan Services, a consulting firm that works with employers and financial institutions on retirement plans, said that individual 401(k) plans became “the hottest thing since sliced bread for the self-employed” in recent years because of how much workers can save.
She gives the example of a consultant over the age of 50 making $50,000 a year. With a SEP IRA, they could set aside up to 25 percent of their income, or $12,500. With a solo 401(k), they could put in another $24,000 on top of that, for a total of $36,500—or nearly three-fourths of their income. That would dramatically reduce their income tax while also saving much for retirement more than a traditional worker could.
Some older workers may need to. A national survey commissioned by Experian in 2016 found that 71% of Americans felt they did not have enough retirement savings.
For Keating, who has maxed out her contributions most years since starting her business, working for herself has helped her catch up to her retirement goals, and forced her to take a more active role in securing her financial future.
“I think if I was on somebody else’s payroll, I don’t know if I would be as diligent about having these conversations,” she said. “I 100% feel it’s all on me.”
Click here for more articles from Time Inc.’s Looking Forward series.
Trump inspires bipartisanship between Republican & Democrats to rein him in from Russia - Huffington Post
inspiring bipartisanship on Capitol Hill, but not in a way he wants: Republicans and Democrats in Congress are teaming up to try to prevent him from unilaterally lifting sanctions on Russia.
House Republicans and Democrats introduced a bill Wednesday to require congressional approval of any sanctions relief provided to Russia. It’s the same bill, the Russia Sanctions Review Act, that Senate Republicans and Democrats introduced together last week. The measure would give Congress 120 days to approve or reject a presidential effort to lift sanctions on Russia, and the president couldn’t move forward with lifting any sanctions during that period.
The legislation comes in the midst of a scandal involving the president and his team of advisers, and their potential ties to Russian officials who interfered in last year’s U.S. election to try to help Trump win. Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned Monday amid reports that he not only talked to a Russian official in December about sanctions, but lied about it. Another report surfaced Tuesday indicating people on Trump’s campaign were in “constant” contact with Russian officials throughout the election.
Congress has been scrambling to make sense of the revelations, with questions arising about how much Trump knew about his team’s communications with Russians, and when. Trump, meanwhile, has said he’s open to easing sanctions on Russia. That’s not okay with many lawmakers, regardless of their party.
onversations with the Russian ambassador on the subject of sanctions makes this legislation all the more important,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee and a co-sponsor of the bill, told reporters.
“If there were condoned discussions that Flynn had, or if he was acting as a free agent ― in either scenario, this president should not have the unfettered capability of eliminating Russian sanctions,” Schiff said.
Republican co-sponsors on the bill include Reps. Tom Rooney (Fla.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) in the House, and Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and John McCain (Ariz.) in the Senate. Rooney and Rubio sit on the intelligence committees in their respective chambers.
in a Congress largely divided along party lines. It also comes as Republicans, now in control of the legislative and executive branches, are eager to move forward with their agenda. The fact that they’re already teaming up with Democrats to rein in Trump’s actions on Russia, just four weeks into his presidency, shows how much Trump’s problems are affecting his party’s ability to focus on priorities.
The question now is whether the bill to scale back the president’s authority gets committee hearings and floor votes. That’s up to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the lead sponsor of the bill, said Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) has “expressed interest.” Hoyer said he plans to talk to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) about becoming a co-sponsor.
Royce told HuffPost later that Russia shouldn’t get any sanctions relief until it abides by the terms of the Ukraine peace process. He didn’t endorse Hoyer’s bill, but suggested he would advance a bill like it if Trump were to lift any sanctions before Russia got in line.
“If sanctions are eased prior to Russia’s full compliance with the Minsk agreements, I will certainly move legislation to keep them in place,” Royce said in a statement.
Asked if Ryan was on board, his spokeswoman, AshLee Strong, said: “The speaker said if there were efforts to weaken sanctions he would support measures to protect against that. He hasn’t endorsed any piece of legislation at this point as the sanctions are still in place.”
As for the Senate, McCain said McConnell hasn’t indicated to him if he supports the bill. McCain said he planned to meet with McConnell later in the day.
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart echoed Strong’s position. “I don’t know that he’s said anything new recently about it other than that the White House isn’t doing any sanctions relief, so there’s nothing for Congress to approve,” Stewart said.
Of course, if Ryan and McConnell gave a green light to the bill, lawmakers would have to pass it with a veto-proof majority, since Trump would likely veto it. Hoyer, for one, predicted it would have the votes to survive a veto. Asked if he’s reached out to administration officials about his proposal, he laughed.
“The White House is not necessarily focused on this matter at this point in time, I think it’s fair to say,” Hoyer said.
House Republicans and Democrats introduced a bill Wednesday to require congressional approval of any sanctions relief provided to Russia. It’s the same bill, the Russia Sanctions Review Act, that Senate Republicans and Democrats introduced together last week. The measure would give Congress 120 days to approve or reject a presidential effort to lift sanctions on Russia, and the president couldn’t move forward with lifting any sanctions during that period.
The legislation comes in the midst of a scandal involving the president and his team of advisers, and their potential ties to Russian officials who interfered in last year’s U.S. election to try to help Trump win. Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned Monday amid reports that he not only talked to a Russian official in December about sanctions, but lied about it. Another report surfaced Tuesday indicating people on Trump’s campaign were in “constant” contact with Russian officials throughout the election.
Congress has been scrambling to make sense of the revelations, with questions arising about how much Trump knew about his team’s communications with Russians, and when. Trump, meanwhile, has said he’s open to easing sanctions on Russia. That’s not okay with many lawmakers, regardless of their party.
onversations with the Russian ambassador on the subject of sanctions makes this legislation all the more important,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee and a co-sponsor of the bill, told reporters.
“If there were condoned discussions that Flynn had, or if he was acting as a free agent ― in either scenario, this president should not have the unfettered capability of eliminating Russian sanctions,” Schiff said.
Republican co-sponsors on the bill include Reps. Tom Rooney (Fla.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) in the House, and Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and John McCain (Ariz.) in the Senate. Rooney and Rubio sit on the intelligence committees in their respective chambers.
in a Congress largely divided along party lines. It also comes as Republicans, now in control of the legislative and executive branches, are eager to move forward with their agenda. The fact that they’re already teaming up with Democrats to rein in Trump’s actions on Russia, just four weeks into his presidency, shows how much Trump’s problems are affecting his party’s ability to focus on priorities.
The question now is whether the bill to scale back the president’s authority gets committee hearings and floor votes. That’s up to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the lead sponsor of the bill, said Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) has “expressed interest.” Hoyer said he plans to talk to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) about becoming a co-sponsor.
Royce told HuffPost later that Russia shouldn’t get any sanctions relief until it abides by the terms of the Ukraine peace process. He didn’t endorse Hoyer’s bill, but suggested he would advance a bill like it if Trump were to lift any sanctions before Russia got in line.
“If sanctions are eased prior to Russia’s full compliance with the Minsk agreements, I will certainly move legislation to keep them in place,” Royce said in a statement.
Asked if Ryan was on board, his spokeswoman, AshLee Strong, said: “The speaker said if there were efforts to weaken sanctions he would support measures to protect against that. He hasn’t endorsed any piece of legislation at this point as the sanctions are still in place.”
As for the Senate, McCain said McConnell hasn’t indicated to him if he supports the bill. McCain said he planned to meet with McConnell later in the day.
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart echoed Strong’s position. “I don’t know that he’s said anything new recently about it other than that the White House isn’t doing any sanctions relief, so there’s nothing for Congress to approve,” Stewart said.
Of course, if Ryan and McConnell gave a green light to the bill, lawmakers would have to pass it with a veto-proof majority, since Trump would likely veto it. Hoyer, for one, predicted it would have the votes to survive a veto. Asked if he’s reached out to administration officials about his proposal, he laughed.
“The White House is not necessarily focused on this matter at this point in time, I think it’s fair to say,” Hoyer said.
Friday, February 17, 2017
5 Things We Learned From Listening to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett - TIME
|
Posted: 28 Jan 2017 06:27 AM PST
What makes Berkshire Hathaway’s Warren Buffet, who holds mega brands like Geico Auto Insurance and Kraft Heinz in his portfolio, such a great investor? He was “wired” for it, he says. “I’ve got the right temperament,” Buffet told journalist Charlie Rose on stage during a Jan. 27 event at Columbia University, from which he graduated in 1951. He was joined by fellow iconic business titan Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates for a wide-ranging question and answer session. Below are five key takeaways from the conversation. On why they’re optimistic about America’s future When asked what they’re most hopeful and worried about under the new Trump administration, both Gates and Buffett cited factors like America’s rich history of progress and innovation. “This country moves forward, and you can’t stop it,” Buffett said. “I say the luckiest person in the history of the world is a baby being born in this country today.” Gates, meanwhile, said it’s America’s entrepreneurial spirit and support for research that will help to continue driving innovation forward. “Whether it’s health or energy breakthroughs, every year that goes by we’re going to have more of those things,” he said. On investing Buffett shared three crucial factors he analyzes when deciding whether to invest in or acquire a company. “I’m looking for something that has a moat around it for a considerable period of time and for an honest and able management to run it,” he said. “And I’m looking for a purchase price that’s not excessive.” He added that it’s better to pay a little too much for a good business than to get a bargain on a company that doesn’t have much of a future. “The first question I ask myself when I look at a business, is it important and easy,” he said. “And a lot of [companies] don’t make it. I’m looking for the one-foot bars to step over versus the eight-foot bars to jump over.” On career advice and taking risks Gates enrolled in Harvard in the fall of 1973, but dropped out just two years later to found Microsoft. But that didn’t feel like much of a gamble, he says. “As the chip came along and made [the computer] mainstream, it became very obvious that something dramatic was going to happen,” said Gates. “So my passion, my hobby, that coincided in a nice way. I never felt it was risky.” Buffett’s advice? Find the job you would want if you didn’t have to work. “Don’t sleepwalk through life,” he said. “You really want to be doing what you love. And you can’t necessarily find it on your first job, but don’t give up until you find it.” On the impact of automation in the workplace Between the decline in manufacturing jobs and an increased focus on self-driving cars among auto and tech firms, automation and its effect on workers has become a contentious topic of debate. Buffett believes technology that makes us more productive will only benefit society, but he says job displacement is an issue that must be acknowledged. “If one person could push a button and turn out everything we turned out now, is that good for the world or bad for the world?” he said. “But people who fall by the wayside through no fault of their own should still get the chance to participate in that prosperity, and that’s where the government comes in.” On the importance of personal relationships When asked about how to distinguish the relationships one should foster from the ones to abandon throughout life, Buffett reiterated how critical it is to grow close with people you admire. “You will move in the direction of the people you associate with,” he said. “You really want to associate with the people that are better than yourself.” Gates largely agreed, saying it’s important to invest in friends that bring out the best in you. “Some friends challenge you about things you’re doing, and that level of intimacy is great,” he said. “I was so obsessed with work I didn’t invest [in friendships] in my 20s and 30s as much as I should have.” |
The One Thing Americans Get Right About Retirement Saving - TIME Business
|
Posted: 15 Feb 2017 08:00 AM PST
Americans get one thing right when it comes to retirement saving: They would like Warren Buffett to be their personal advisor. That shows they are paying attention to personal finance on one level. But they display a lot of gaps otherwise, new research shows. In general, workers have no idea how much they need to save before calling it quits; they want to live a long life in retirement but are financially ready for only a short one; and they know they should save more but don’t. These are among the discouraging findings in a report released Wednesday by Bank of America Merrill Lynch and aging consultant Age Wave. Half of those past age 50 and still at work say they have no positive role models when it comes to financial planning, the report finds. Many are flying blind. Maybe that’s why they like the idea of enlisting the world’s most famous moneyman as their personal advisor. Asked to choose from among seven “famous financially successful people” to be their “ideal hypothetical advisor,” 67% chose Berkshire Hathaway chief Buffett, who has lived modestly, given vast sums to charity and is worth $75 billion, according to Forbes. Also on the list of choices (respondents could pick more than one) were financial advisor and writer Suze Orman (selected by 38%), Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (34%), Oprah Winfrey (28%), CNBC’s Jim Cramer (17%), Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen (9%) and Beyonce (7%). I’m not sure why anyone other than Buffett would get a vote. But the order here is probably close to what it should be. Retirement is the most expensive purchase most people will ever make, costing 2.5 times more than the average home, the report finds. It places the average home value at $278,000 and the cost of retirement at $739,000. Both cost more than raising a child ($245,000). This is an interesting way to look at retirement—as a purchase as opposed to a life phase. It’s especially useful at a time when traditional pensions and guaranteed lifetime income are in short supply. Retirees increasingly will purchase this income through annuities. Most people say they want to live to age 90, the report finds. Yet only 27% of pre-retirees past age 50 feel financially prepared to make their savings last even 10 years. Workers are saving an amount equal to just 5.7% of their after-tax income, compared to the 25% they say they should be saving, according to the report. Why the big gap? It seems clear that many individuals are simply strapped. More than a third say they cannot save because they can barely afford their day-to-day expenses and the cost of paying down debt. But they are also confused about their options. Two-thirds say they find the language of finance difficult to understand. That contributes to low confidence with money matters—individuals are twice as likely to second-guess decisions related to personal finance as those related to work or health. One encouraging sign: When 401(k) plan sponsors are proactive about communicating the benefits of their plan, employees are much more likely to participate. The top trigger for saving, named by 46% of workers, is access to a tax-advantaged plan at work. The second most important trigger, named by 26%, is effective communication. The report also suggests that many people have some idea of how they might strengthen their finances, even if they aren’t doing that now. Here are some of the most common options that workers and retirees say they would consider:
If Buffett really was your advisor, he’d probably encourage you to start at the top of that list right now. It’s easy to dream about his billions. But even he started modestly and bulked up his net worth over many years.   |
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Russian spy ship 30 km off Connecticut- NBC News
A Russian spy ship was spotted off the coast of Groton, Connecticut, where Naval Submarine Base New London is located, U.S. defense officials said.
The ship, approximately 30 miles from the U.S. naval base, is still in international waters. The boundary for the ship to remain in international waters is 12 nautical miles, according to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
"We are aware of the vessel's presence," Lt. Col. Valerie Henderson, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department, told NBC News in an email. "It has not entered U.S. territorial waters. We respect freedom of navigation exercised by all nations beyond the territorial sea of a coastal State consistent with international law."
The ship, the Viktor Leonov, is expected to sail down the east coast and head to the Caribbean, according to Fox News. The White House has not commented on the presence of the ship.
Related: Trump Blames Russian Connection 'Conspiracy Theories' on Clinton Campaign 'Cover Up'
Although the Russian vessel hasn't broken any international laws with its presence, several Connecticut lawmakers have expressed concern over its proximity in light of the 2016 election hacks and outstanding questions surrounding Trump's former national security adviser's communications with Russia.
Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Connecticut, who serves on the Armed Services Committee and is the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, called it an "unacceptable, aggressive action."
"A Russian spy ship patrolling 30 miles from the Groton SUBASE underscores that the threats posed by a resurgent Russia are real," Courtney said in a press release.
On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, tweeted that Russia "is acting like it has a permission slip to expand influence" and "test limits" by placing a ship so close to the United States.
"While this is not wholly unprecedented, it's part of a series of aggressive actions by Russia that threaten U.S. national security and the security of our allies," Murphy, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation, said in a statement.
Republican members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has primary oversight of the Homeland Security Department, did not immediately respond to a requests for comment. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who is on the committee, declined to comment.
Related: Michael Flynn: A Timeline of His Rise and Fall and the Russia Call
Murphy asserted that the move was disconcerting as it came just a one day after it was reported that Russia secretly deployed a cruise missile in what officials have called a violation of a Cold War-era treaty and not long after Russian aircraft buzzed a U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea.
"President Trump and his administration must end their silence and immediately respond to these threats to our national security," Murphy said.
The ship, approximately 30 miles from the U.S. naval base, is still in international waters. The boundary for the ship to remain in international waters is 12 nautical miles, according to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
"We are aware of the vessel's presence," Lt. Col. Valerie Henderson, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department, told NBC News in an email. "It has not entered U.S. territorial waters. We respect freedom of navigation exercised by all nations beyond the territorial sea of a coastal State consistent with international law."
The ship, the Viktor Leonov, is expected to sail down the east coast and head to the Caribbean, according to Fox News. The White House has not commented on the presence of the ship.
Related: Trump Blames Russian Connection 'Conspiracy Theories' on Clinton Campaign 'Cover Up'
Although the Russian vessel hasn't broken any international laws with its presence, several Connecticut lawmakers have expressed concern over its proximity in light of the 2016 election hacks and outstanding questions surrounding Trump's former national security adviser's communications with Russia.
Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Connecticut, who serves on the Armed Services Committee and is the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, called it an "unacceptable, aggressive action."
"A Russian spy ship patrolling 30 miles from the Groton SUBASE underscores that the threats posed by a resurgent Russia are real," Courtney said in a press release.
On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, tweeted that Russia "is acting like it has a permission slip to expand influence" and "test limits" by placing a ship so close to the United States.
"While this is not wholly unprecedented, it's part of a series of aggressive actions by Russia that threaten U.S. national security and the security of our allies," Murphy, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation, said in a statement.
Republican members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has primary oversight of the Homeland Security Department, did not immediately respond to a requests for comment. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who is on the committee, declined to comment.
Related: Michael Flynn: A Timeline of His Rise and Fall and the Russia Call
Murphy asserted that the move was disconcerting as it came just a one day after it was reported that Russia secretly deployed a cruise missile in what officials have called a violation of a Cold War-era treaty and not long after Russian aircraft buzzed a U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea.
"President Trump and his administration must end their silence and immediately respond to these threats to our national security," Murphy said.
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Who told Flynn to call Putin's ambassador ? - Politico Magazine
Who Told Flynn to Call Russia?
Let’s stop focusing on the resignation, and start focusing on the real issue here: The mystery of Trump’s Russia ties.
By DANIEL BENJAMIN
Hours after national security adviser Michael Flynn resigned amid reports that he misled top officials about his pre-inauguration talks with the Russian ambassador, President Donald Trump took to Twitter to encourage everyone to move on. “The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?” he tweeted out Tuesday morning.
In a sense, Trump is right: The real story is not Flynn. But it isn’t government leaks, either. No, the “real story here” is Trump himself—and the continuing mystery of his ties to Russia.
As official Washington and the press home in on the permanent disarray in the White House, whether the disgraced Flynn broke the law and who will succeed him after his three-week tenure, the key question is getting lost in the shuffle: Who told Flynn to call Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States? Because I’m convinced Flynn didn’t do it of his own accord. Flynn is a bit player in a much larger story regarding the president’s relationship with the Kremlin, and it’s this story the press needs to focus on.
There is little doubt that Trump elevated Flynn because of his loyalty and the optics of having a recently retired three-star general parroting his views, which few other generals of that rank would consider doing. But Flynn was no grand strategist. He would not have been capable of running a complex political realignment with Russia, and he was woefully ill-cast for the role of national security adviser. An army intelligence officer who had spent most of his career in the Middle East and Afghanistan, Flynn had no background in diplomacy, not to mention Asian or European affairs. And it strains credulity that someone with such limited experience was acting on his own initiative when he spoke with Kislyak on December 29, the day of the sanctions announcement. If, as reported, he called five times in a single day, then he was on a mission, and probably not of his own devising.
My view is informed by several years of knowing and following Flynn. After being fired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency—where he was already behaving erratically—Flynn slid into ever stranger behavior.
During a weeklong visit that I arranged for Flynn here at Dartmouth College in April 2015, he repeatedly made oddball remarks. I had known Flynn as a capable and genial colleague from my time in government, and I was surprised by the change I saw. He was warm and engaging, especially with students, but his views on Islam and the terrorist threat seemed increasingly extreme—a line about Islam not being a religion but a political ideology, which he would use frequently in later months, struck me as a sign that he had moved beyond mainstream U.S. government thinking. But what stuck out most was his fixation on Iran. His visit coincided with the sprint to the end of the framework negotiations for the nuclear deal, and Flynn declared repeatedly in public events and private discussions that Iran’s perfidy was so diabolical, it “didn’t deserve a place at the negotiating table.” When asked who should negotiate on behalf of Iran, he had no answer but insisted it shouldn’t be Iran. (Full disclosure: Despite the troubling remarks, which left faculty and students bemused, Flynn was a fine guest, meeting with everyone and, remarkably, declining the negotiated honorarium for his weeklong stay.)
Over the next year and a half, his behavior became even stranger—reckless Islamophobia, chanting “lock her up” at Trump rallies (referring to Hillary Clinton)—all bizarre for a military officer, let alone a three-star general. Recent reporting suggests he was lost in his West Wing office, too, unaware, for example, that the State Department and Congress play central roles in arms sales and clueless about how to call up the National Guard in an emergency. Phoning Kislyak—inexplicably oblivious to the likelihood that his call would be heard by U.S. intelligence—is another indication that Flynn wasn’t operating at a level one would have expected for an incoming national security adviser.
Aside from his inexperience, there is another reason to doubt that Flynn was carrying on an unauthorized dialogue with the Russians: Unlike Trump, he has no longtime, demonstrated affection for Putin. While he was at DIA from 2013 to 2014, he had tried to build a better relationship with Russian intelligence, but that by itself tells us little. Out of uniform, he accepted a paid speaking gig in Moscow and wound up at an RT dinner seated next to Putin in December 2015, raising more than a few eyebrows. (How far along he was in his courtship with candidate Trump at that point is unclear.)
But Flynn was still talking tough on Russia until late 2015. In The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and its Allies, which he co-wrote with controversial foreign policy analyst (and, I would argue, conspiracy theorist) Michael Ledeen and which came out in mid-2016, Flynn counted Russia as one of those allies. Indeed, on the second page of the book’s introduction, he included Russia with North Korea, China, Cuba and Venezuela as the “countries … who though not religious fanatics, share their hatred of the West, particularly the United States and Israel.” He later added to the list: Iran, Syria, Bolivia and Nicaragua. (This litany of purported jihadist allies is just another sign of Flynn’s seriously misguided views.)
This all brings us back to the question: If Flynn didn’t initiate the discussion, who did tell him to call Kislyak? More than that, what is the nature of Trump’s relationship with Putin, and did the two collude on the hacking of the election?
Virtually all the reporters covering the Flynn imbroglio have lost track of this glaring mystery, focusing exclusively on the former general’s improprieties. In doing so, they are doing the White House a gigantic favor.
Politico Magazine
Let’s stop focusing on the resignation, and start focusing on the real issue here: The mystery of Trump’s Russia ties.
By DANIEL BENJAMIN
Hours after national security adviser Michael Flynn resigned amid reports that he misled top officials about his pre-inauguration talks with the Russian ambassador, President Donald Trump took to Twitter to encourage everyone to move on. “The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?” he tweeted out Tuesday morning.
In a sense, Trump is right: The real story is not Flynn. But it isn’t government leaks, either. No, the “real story here” is Trump himself—and the continuing mystery of his ties to Russia.
As official Washington and the press home in on the permanent disarray in the White House, whether the disgraced Flynn broke the law and who will succeed him after his three-week tenure, the key question is getting lost in the shuffle: Who told Flynn to call Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States? Because I’m convinced Flynn didn’t do it of his own accord. Flynn is a bit player in a much larger story regarding the president’s relationship with the Kremlin, and it’s this story the press needs to focus on.
There is little doubt that Trump elevated Flynn because of his loyalty and the optics of having a recently retired three-star general parroting his views, which few other generals of that rank would consider doing. But Flynn was no grand strategist. He would not have been capable of running a complex political realignment with Russia, and he was woefully ill-cast for the role of national security adviser. An army intelligence officer who had spent most of his career in the Middle East and Afghanistan, Flynn had no background in diplomacy, not to mention Asian or European affairs. And it strains credulity that someone with such limited experience was acting on his own initiative when he spoke with Kislyak on December 29, the day of the sanctions announcement. If, as reported, he called five times in a single day, then he was on a mission, and probably not of his own devising.
My view is informed by several years of knowing and following Flynn. After being fired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency—where he was already behaving erratically—Flynn slid into ever stranger behavior.
During a weeklong visit that I arranged for Flynn here at Dartmouth College in April 2015, he repeatedly made oddball remarks. I had known Flynn as a capable and genial colleague from my time in government, and I was surprised by the change I saw. He was warm and engaging, especially with students, but his views on Islam and the terrorist threat seemed increasingly extreme—a line about Islam not being a religion but a political ideology, which he would use frequently in later months, struck me as a sign that he had moved beyond mainstream U.S. government thinking. But what stuck out most was his fixation on Iran. His visit coincided with the sprint to the end of the framework negotiations for the nuclear deal, and Flynn declared repeatedly in public events and private discussions that Iran’s perfidy was so diabolical, it “didn’t deserve a place at the negotiating table.” When asked who should negotiate on behalf of Iran, he had no answer but insisted it shouldn’t be Iran. (Full disclosure: Despite the troubling remarks, which left faculty and students bemused, Flynn was a fine guest, meeting with everyone and, remarkably, declining the negotiated honorarium for his weeklong stay.)
Over the next year and a half, his behavior became even stranger—reckless Islamophobia, chanting “lock her up” at Trump rallies (referring to Hillary Clinton)—all bizarre for a military officer, let alone a three-star general. Recent reporting suggests he was lost in his West Wing office, too, unaware, for example, that the State Department and Congress play central roles in arms sales and clueless about how to call up the National Guard in an emergency. Phoning Kislyak—inexplicably oblivious to the likelihood that his call would be heard by U.S. intelligence—is another indication that Flynn wasn’t operating at a level one would have expected for an incoming national security adviser.
Aside from his inexperience, there is another reason to doubt that Flynn was carrying on an unauthorized dialogue with the Russians: Unlike Trump, he has no longtime, demonstrated affection for Putin. While he was at DIA from 2013 to 2014, he had tried to build a better relationship with Russian intelligence, but that by itself tells us little. Out of uniform, he accepted a paid speaking gig in Moscow and wound up at an RT dinner seated next to Putin in December 2015, raising more than a few eyebrows. (How far along he was in his courtship with candidate Trump at that point is unclear.)
But Flynn was still talking tough on Russia until late 2015. In The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and its Allies, which he co-wrote with controversial foreign policy analyst (and, I would argue, conspiracy theorist) Michael Ledeen and which came out in mid-2016, Flynn counted Russia as one of those allies. Indeed, on the second page of the book’s introduction, he included Russia with North Korea, China, Cuba and Venezuela as the “countries … who though not religious fanatics, share their hatred of the West, particularly the United States and Israel.” He later added to the list: Iran, Syria, Bolivia and Nicaragua. (This litany of purported jihadist allies is just another sign of Flynn’s seriously misguided views.)
This all brings us back to the question: If Flynn didn’t initiate the discussion, who did tell him to call Kislyak? More than that, what is the nature of Trump’s relationship with Putin, and did the two collude on the hacking of the election?
Virtually all the reporters covering the Flynn imbroglio have lost track of this glaring mystery, focusing exclusively on the former general’s improprieties. In doing so, they are doing the White House a gigantic favor.
Politico Magazine
Details of Trump team contacting Russian intelligence during election - TIME
New York Times Says the Trump Campaign Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence
Eric Beech / Reuters
3:21 PM AEDT
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald Trump 's presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing four current and former U.S. officials.
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said, according to the Times.
The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election, the newspaper said.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said they had seen no evidence of such cooperation so far, it said.
However, the intercepts alarmed U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Trump was speaking glowingly about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael Flynn, Trump 's former national security adviser, and Sergei I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, the Times said.
During those calls, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December. Flynn misled the White House about those calls and was asked to resign on Monday night.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for comment on the Times story.
The Times reported that the officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other Trump associates.
On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the Russian government outside the intelligence services, the officials told the Times. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified, the newspaper reported.
The officials said one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort, who was Trump 's campaign chairman for several months last year and had worked as a political consultant in Russia and Ukraine, the Times said. The officials declined to identify the other Trump associates on the calls.
Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the accounts of the U.S. officials in a telephone interview with the Times on Tuesday.
Several of Trump 's associates, like Manafort, have done business in Russia. It is not unusual for U.S. businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society, according to the Times.
Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts may have been about business, the Times said.
Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, which Russian intelligence officials were on the calls, and how many of Trump 's advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Trump himself, the Times said.TIME
Eric Beech / Reuters
3:21 PM AEDT
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald Trump 's presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing four current and former U.S. officials.
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said, according to the Times.
The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election, the newspaper said.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said they had seen no evidence of such cooperation so far, it said.
However, the intercepts alarmed U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Trump was speaking glowingly about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael Flynn, Trump 's former national security adviser, and Sergei I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, the Times said.
During those calls, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December. Flynn misled the White House about those calls and was asked to resign on Monday night.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for comment on the Times story.
The Times reported that the officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other Trump associates.
On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the Russian government outside the intelligence services, the officials told the Times. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified, the newspaper reported.
The officials said one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort, who was Trump 's campaign chairman for several months last year and had worked as a political consultant in Russia and Ukraine, the Times said. The officials declined to identify the other Trump associates on the calls.
Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the accounts of the U.S. officials in a telephone interview with the Times on Tuesday.
Several of Trump 's associates, like Manafort, have done business in Russia. It is not unusual for U.S. businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society, according to the Times.
Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts may have been about business, the Times said.
Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, which Russian intelligence officials were on the calls, and how many of Trump 's advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Trump himself, the Times said.TIME
Trump team had repeated contact with Russian intelligence during election campaign - New York Times
Trump team had repeated contact with Russian intelligence during election campaign
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing four current and former U.S. officials.
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said, according to the Times.
The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election, the newspaper said.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said they had seen no evidence of such cooperation so far, it said.
However, the intercepts alarmed U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Trump was speaking glowingly about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, and Sergei I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, the Times said.
During those calls, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December. Flynn misled the White House about those calls and was asked to resign on Monday night.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for comment on the Times story.
The Times reported that the officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other Trump associates.
On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the Russian government outside the intelligence services, the officials told the Times. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified, the newspaper reported.
The officials said one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign chairman for several months last year and had worked as a political consultant in Russia and Ukraine, the Times said. The officials declined to identify the other Trump associates on the calls.
Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the accounts of the U.S. officials in a telephone interview with the Times on Tuesday.
ALSO IN POLITICS
Trump knew for weeks that aide was being misleading over Russia: White House
Trump welcomes Israel's Netanyahu for Middle East talks
Several of Trump's associates, like Manafort, have done business in Russia. It is not unusual for U.S. businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society, according to the Times.
Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts may have been about business, the Times said.
Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, which Russian intelligence officials were on the calls, and how many of Trump's advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Trump himself, the Times said.
(Writing by Eric Beech; Editing by Paul Tait) New York Times
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing four current and former U.S. officials.
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said, according to the Times.
The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election, the newspaper said.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said they had seen no evidence of such cooperation so far, it said.
However, the intercepts alarmed U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Trump was speaking glowingly about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, and Sergei I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, the Times said.
During those calls, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December. Flynn misled the White House about those calls and was asked to resign on Monday night.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for comment on the Times story.
The Times reported that the officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other Trump associates.
On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the Russian government outside the intelligence services, the officials told the Times. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified, the newspaper reported.
The officials said one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign chairman for several months last year and had worked as a political consultant in Russia and Ukraine, the Times said. The officials declined to identify the other Trump associates on the calls.
Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the accounts of the U.S. officials in a telephone interview with the Times on Tuesday.
ALSO IN POLITICS
Trump knew for weeks that aide was being misleading over Russia: White House
Trump welcomes Israel's Netanyahu for Middle East talks
Several of Trump's associates, like Manafort, have done business in Russia. It is not unusual for U.S. businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society, according to the Times.
Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts may have been about business, the Times said.
Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, which Russian intelligence officials were on the calls, and how many of Trump's advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Trump himself, the Times said.
(Writing by Eric Beech; Editing by Paul Tait) New York Times
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
White House in turmoil - CNN
White House in turmoil
Washington (CNN)In the White House East Room Monday, President Donald Trump held a news conference with the Canadian Prime Minister that was standard and drama-free. But that belied what is going on behind the scenes: a White House in turmoil.
Multiple Trump sources describe aides as worried that on any given day they could get fired because of a leak, or because another White House staffer may be out to get them. In fact, some campaign aides initially upset about not getting jobs inside the White House now say they are relieved to not be involved in what some of their friends call a toxic environment.
As for the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, sources inside several Trump fiefdoms tell CNN that for now, he is on safe ground -- despite Trump friend, CEO of conservative Newsmax, Chris Ruddy, dissing Priebus this weekend as "weak."
reporters Monday that Preibus is doing a "great job."
One alliance that appears to be solid right now is that of Priebus and chief White House strategist Steve Bannon.
They have a close working relationship, several administration sources told CNN, and Bannon sees Priebus as a partner.
One source jokingly said Bannon and Priebus are "co-parenting."
In fact -- Priebus is with the President a lot. Even as Trump has kept a relentless schedule of meetings and photo ops, Priebus is almost always there.
The chief of staff's critics argue he should spend more time making the White House function. But sources say Priebus wants to be at the President's side so much for an important reason: President Trump is firmly in charge of his White House from the big picture to in-the-weeds decisions. Priebus feels he needs to be there, at every step, to cheer what he sees as good decisions and try to steer the President away from bad ones.
They have a close working relationship, several administration sources told CNN, and Bannon sees Priebus as a partner.
One source jokingly said Bannon and Priebus are "co-parenting."
In fact -- Priebus is with the President a lot. Even as Trump has kept a relentless schedule of meetings and photo ops, Priebus is almost always there.
The chief of staff's critics argue he should spend more time making the White House function. But sources say Priebus wants to be at the President's side so much for an important reason: President Trump is firmly in charge of his White House from the big picture to in-the-weeds decisions. Priebus feels he needs to be there, at every step, to cheer what he sees as good decisions and try to steer the President away from bad ones.
Communicating a consistent message is also challenge, even when it comes to something as sensitive as the fate of national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Monday afternoon White House counselor Kellyanne Conway went on television to declare Trump has "full confidence" in Flynn.
An hour later, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said something different.
"The President is evaluating the situation," said Spicer said in a statement.
Another dynamic inside White House staff: Trump rewards those who toe his line, especially on fact-free statements like claims of widespread voter fraud.
Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller did just that on Sunday.
"I can tell you this, voter fraud is a serious problem in the country," Miller had told ABC News.
Trump sources tell CNN that the President loves Miller who served as his campaign travel buddy and speech writer. Miller was instrumental in writing Trump's ill-fated travel ban and though the President was furious at the way that was handled, the 31-year-old Miller stays in the President's favor.
Miller's performance Sunday, warning the world not to question the President's power, didn't hurt.
"Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the President to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned," Miller had told CBS News.
After Miller appeared on four Sunday shows (CNN was not one of them), the television-watching President sent an attaboy tweet.
"Congratulations Stephen Miller- on representing me this morning on the various Sunday morning shows. Great job!" he said.
Washington (CNN)In the White House East Room Monday, President Donald Trump held a news conference with the Canadian Prime Minister that was standard and drama-free. But that belied what is going on behind the scenes: a White House in turmoil.
Multiple Trump sources describe aides as worried that on any given day they could get fired because of a leak, or because another White House staffer may be out to get them. In fact, some campaign aides initially upset about not getting jobs inside the White House now say they are relieved to not be involved in what some of their friends call a toxic environment.
As for the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, sources inside several Trump fiefdoms tell CNN that for now, he is on safe ground -- despite Trump friend, CEO of conservative Newsmax, Chris Ruddy, dissing Priebus this weekend as "weak."
reporters Monday that Preibus is doing a "great job."
One alliance that appears to be solid right now is that of Priebus and chief White House strategist Steve Bannon.
They have a close working relationship, several administration sources told CNN, and Bannon sees Priebus as a partner.
One source jokingly said Bannon and Priebus are "co-parenting."
In fact -- Priebus is with the President a lot. Even as Trump has kept a relentless schedule of meetings and photo ops, Priebus is almost always there.
The chief of staff's critics argue he should spend more time making the White House function. But sources say Priebus wants to be at the President's side so much for an important reason: President Trump is firmly in charge of his White House from the big picture to in-the-weeds decisions. Priebus feels he needs to be there, at every step, to cheer what he sees as good decisions and try to steer the President away from bad ones.
They have a close working relationship, several administration sources told CNN, and Bannon sees Priebus as a partner.
One source jokingly said Bannon and Priebus are "co-parenting."
In fact -- Priebus is with the President a lot. Even as Trump has kept a relentless schedule of meetings and photo ops, Priebus is almost always there.
The chief of staff's critics argue he should spend more time making the White House function. But sources say Priebus wants to be at the President's side so much for an important reason: President Trump is firmly in charge of his White House from the big picture to in-the-weeds decisions. Priebus feels he needs to be there, at every step, to cheer what he sees as good decisions and try to steer the President away from bad ones.
Communicating a consistent message is also challenge, even when it comes to something as sensitive as the fate of national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Monday afternoon White House counselor Kellyanne Conway went on television to declare Trump has "full confidence" in Flynn.
An hour later, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said something different.
"The President is evaluating the situation," said Spicer said in a statement.
Another dynamic inside White House staff: Trump rewards those who toe his line, especially on fact-free statements like claims of widespread voter fraud.
Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller did just that on Sunday.
"I can tell you this, voter fraud is a serious problem in the country," Miller had told ABC News.
Trump sources tell CNN that the President loves Miller who served as his campaign travel buddy and speech writer. Miller was instrumental in writing Trump's ill-fated travel ban and though the President was furious at the way that was handled, the 31-year-old Miller stays in the President's favor.
Miller's performance Sunday, warning the world not to question the President's power, didn't hurt.
"Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the President to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned," Miller had told CBS News.
After Miller appeared on four Sunday shows (CNN was not one of them), the television-watching President sent an attaboy tweet.
"Congratulations Stephen Miller- on representing me this morning on the various Sunday morning shows. Great job!" he said.
Monday, February 13, 2017
Here Are All The Companies Still Carrying Ivanka Trump’s Products - TIME Business
|
Posted: 08 Feb 2017 01:02 PM PST
In less than a week, five major retailers have dropped Ivanka Trump’s clothing, shoes and accessories from their inventory. Retail giants Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus, as well as the online stores Belk, Jet and ShopStyle, have all distanced themselves from her brand. Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus have both issued statements claiming the move was prompted by lagging sales, and not the political climate. Still, earlier this morning, the President shared a tweet defending his daughter while also lamenting Nordstrom’s decision. Shannon Coulter, a digital strategist who led the movement #GrabYourWallet last year, urges consumers to divert dollars from the companies that support the Trump family. While Ivanka has no formal role at the White House, the decision to sell or drop Ivanka’s products from retail racks facing companies is growing more urgent. “On the campaign trail, a lot of women were looking at Ivanka Trump really closely,” Coulter says. “They were willing to cut her some slack, because it was her father’s campaign.” As movements like the Women’s March fill his opponents with an “unbridled appetite to do something,” she adds, attitudes have shifted. “The way see it, [Ivanka’s] poor sales performance is the result of her actions,” she says. “The boycott is a response to that.” As a private company, the Ivanka Trump brand does not release revenue data — but Nordstrom representatives point to dwindling sales as grounds for dropping the line. “Each year we cut about 10% [of brands] and refresh our assortment with about the same amount,” according to a statement provided to the Washington Post. “In this case, based on the brand’s performance we’ve decided not to buy it for this season.” As of this writing, the #GrabYourWallet hashtag has been tweeted more than 250,000 times, according to Coulter’s metrics. The movement’s website, which is a massive spreadsheet of all the companies that stock Trump family products, has seen up to 350,000 visitors a day, she says. Still, dozens of national retailers continue to carry the Ivanka Trump brand. Here’s a running list of those companies, courtesy of #GrabYourWallet. Macy’s – clothing and shoes Bloomingdales – shoes and handbags Dillard’s – clothing, shoes, and handbags Zappos – clothing, shoes, and handbags Amazon – clothing, shoes, and handbags TJ Maxx – brick and mortar only Lord & Taylor – clothing, jewelry, and handbags Bed Bath & beyond – diaper bags 6pm.com – clothing, shoes, handbags and accessories Hudson’s bay – clothing, shoes, and accessories DSW – shoes Bluefly – shoes Burlington Coat Factory – clothing Marshall’s – brick and mortar only Overstock – shoes Ross – brick and mortar only Saks off fifth – clothing Sears – shoes, clothing, handbags, jewelry Walmart – clothing, shoes, handbags, accessories Century 21 – clothing, shoes, accessories Buy Buy Baby – diaper bag, baby shoes Bon-Ton Stores (Bon-Ton, Carson’s, Bergner’s, Boston Store, Elder-Beerman, Herberger’s, Younker’s) – clothing, shoes, and baby apparel Filene’s Basement – clothing, shoes Steinmart – accessories Winners – brick and mortar only Note: Nordstrom, Nordstrom Rack, and Belk aren’t listed because as of publish, they were in the process of phasing out Trump’s products. |
Few good options in Trump arsenal to counter defiant North Korea - Reuters
WORLD NEWS | Sun Feb 12, 2017 | 10:33pm EST
Few good options in Trump arsenal to counter defiant North Korea
By Matt Spetalnick | WASHINGTON
Despite his campaign vows to take a tougher line with North Korea, President Donald Trump's restrained public reaction to Pyongyang's first ballistic missile launch on his watch underscores that he has few good options to curb its missile and nuclear programs.
The responses under consideration - which range from additional sanctions to U.S. shows of force to beefed-up missile defense, according to one administration official - do not seem to differ significantly so far from the North Korea playbook followed by Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama.
Even the idea of stepping up pressure on China to rein in a defiant North Korea has been tried - to little avail - by successive administrations. But Beijing is showing no signs of softening its resistance under a new U.S. president who has bashed them on trade, currency and the contested South China Sea.
More dramatic responses to North Korea's missile tests would be direct military action or negotiations. But neither appears to be on the table - the first because it would risk regional war, the latter because it would be seen as rewarding Pyongyang for bad behavior. And neither would offer certain success.
"Trump's options are limited," said Bonnie Glaser, an Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington.
Trump's initial public comments on Saturday on the test launch of what was believed to be an intermediate-range Musudan-class missile were unexpectedly measured - and brief - compared to earlier bluster about another U.S. adversary, Iran, since he took office on January 20.
"I just want everybody to understand, and fully know, that the United States of America is behind Japan, our great ally, 100 percent," Trump told reporters in Palm Beach, Florida, speaking in a solemn tone alongside visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
The U.S. president did not mention North Korea or signal any retaliatory plans for what was widely seen as an early effort to test the new administration.
By contrast, Trump tweeted "It won’t happen!" in January after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said the North was close to testing an intercontinental ballistic missile.
White House adviser Stephen Miller insisted on ABC's "This Week" that Trump's one-sentence statement was an "important show of solidarity" with Japan. He told "Fox News Sunday" the administration was going to bolster its allies in the region against the "increasing hostility" of North Korea.
While no one can rule out that Trump might still take to Twitter with harsh rhetoric as he often does, some analysts said his relatively subdued initial statement could show that aides have convinced him not to be baited by Pyongyang into issuing threats that would be hard to carry out, especially while his North Korea strategy is still being formulated.
VOWING MORE ASSERTIVE APPROACH
Trump's aides have said that they will take a more assertive approach than the Obama policy dubbed "strategic patience," which involved gradually scaling up sanctions and diplomatic pressure and essentially waiting out the North Korean leadership. But the new administration has been vague about how it would do this.
The Trump administration had been expecting a North Korean "provocation" and will consider a full range of options in response, but they would be calibrated to show U.S. resolve while avoiding escalation, the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The stakes would be higher, however, if nuclear-capable North Korea makes good on its threat to test an ICBM of a kind that could someday hit the United States, analysts said.
Trump and his aides are likely to weigh new U.S. sanctions to tighten financial controls, an increase in naval and air assets and joint military exercises in and around the Korean peninsula and accelerated installation of new missile defense systems in South Korea, the official said.
Trump has also made clear that he believes China has not done enough to use its influence to help rein in Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic programs.
ALSO IN WORLD NEWS
New nuclear-capable missile test a success, North Korea says
Marchers across Mexico vent anger over Trump, and their own president
The U.S. official told Reuters that Trump would now step up pressure on Beijing, but acknowledged that there were limits to how far China would go, especially in enforcing sanctions, because of its own interests in avoiding destabilization of North Korea.
It remains to be seen, however, whether the new administration might go a step beyond Obama's approach and focus on imposing "secondary sanctions" on firms and entities that help North Korea's weapons programs, many of which are in China.
Also unclear is whether Trump's phone call last week with Chinese President Xi Jinping, in which the U.S. president backed away from his threat to break from America’s long-standing “one China” policy, would engender greater cooperation from Beijing on North Korea.
"Beijing has enormous leverage over Pyongyang thanks to being one of its only trading partners and in fact could not survive without Chinese economic assistance," said Harry Kazianis, director of defense studies at the conservative Center for the National Interest.
Riki Ellison, who heads the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, an industry group, said Trump should also move quickly to beef up missile defense in both South Korea and Japan - for which the Obama administration has already laid much of the groundwork. "He cannot ignore this," he said. "It has to be swift."
North Korea's repeated missile launches prompted Washington and Seoul to agree to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile battery in South Korea later this year, a system strongly opposed by Beijing, which worries that its powerful radar undermines its own security.
(Additional reporting by Howard Schneider in Washington, Ayesha Rascoe in Palm Beach, Andrea Shalal in Berlin; Editing by Mary Milliken)
Reuters
Few good options in Trump arsenal to counter defiant North Korea
By Matt Spetalnick | WASHINGTON
Despite his campaign vows to take a tougher line with North Korea, President Donald Trump's restrained public reaction to Pyongyang's first ballistic missile launch on his watch underscores that he has few good options to curb its missile and nuclear programs.
The responses under consideration - which range from additional sanctions to U.S. shows of force to beefed-up missile defense, according to one administration official - do not seem to differ significantly so far from the North Korea playbook followed by Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama.
Even the idea of stepping up pressure on China to rein in a defiant North Korea has been tried - to little avail - by successive administrations. But Beijing is showing no signs of softening its resistance under a new U.S. president who has bashed them on trade, currency and the contested South China Sea.
More dramatic responses to North Korea's missile tests would be direct military action or negotiations. But neither appears to be on the table - the first because it would risk regional war, the latter because it would be seen as rewarding Pyongyang for bad behavior. And neither would offer certain success.
"Trump's options are limited," said Bonnie Glaser, an Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington.
Trump's initial public comments on Saturday on the test launch of what was believed to be an intermediate-range Musudan-class missile were unexpectedly measured - and brief - compared to earlier bluster about another U.S. adversary, Iran, since he took office on January 20.
"I just want everybody to understand, and fully know, that the United States of America is behind Japan, our great ally, 100 percent," Trump told reporters in Palm Beach, Florida, speaking in a solemn tone alongside visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
The U.S. president did not mention North Korea or signal any retaliatory plans for what was widely seen as an early effort to test the new administration.
By contrast, Trump tweeted "It won’t happen!" in January after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said the North was close to testing an intercontinental ballistic missile.
White House adviser Stephen Miller insisted on ABC's "This Week" that Trump's one-sentence statement was an "important show of solidarity" with Japan. He told "Fox News Sunday" the administration was going to bolster its allies in the region against the "increasing hostility" of North Korea.
While no one can rule out that Trump might still take to Twitter with harsh rhetoric as he often does, some analysts said his relatively subdued initial statement could show that aides have convinced him not to be baited by Pyongyang into issuing threats that would be hard to carry out, especially while his North Korea strategy is still being formulated.
VOWING MORE ASSERTIVE APPROACH
Trump's aides have said that they will take a more assertive approach than the Obama policy dubbed "strategic patience," which involved gradually scaling up sanctions and diplomatic pressure and essentially waiting out the North Korean leadership. But the new administration has been vague about how it would do this.
The Trump administration had been expecting a North Korean "provocation" and will consider a full range of options in response, but they would be calibrated to show U.S. resolve while avoiding escalation, the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The stakes would be higher, however, if nuclear-capable North Korea makes good on its threat to test an ICBM of a kind that could someday hit the United States, analysts said.
Trump and his aides are likely to weigh new U.S. sanctions to tighten financial controls, an increase in naval and air assets and joint military exercises in and around the Korean peninsula and accelerated installation of new missile defense systems in South Korea, the official said.
Trump has also made clear that he believes China has not done enough to use its influence to help rein in Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic programs.
ALSO IN WORLD NEWS
New nuclear-capable missile test a success, North Korea says
Marchers across Mexico vent anger over Trump, and their own president
The U.S. official told Reuters that Trump would now step up pressure on Beijing, but acknowledged that there were limits to how far China would go, especially in enforcing sanctions, because of its own interests in avoiding destabilization of North Korea.
It remains to be seen, however, whether the new administration might go a step beyond Obama's approach and focus on imposing "secondary sanctions" on firms and entities that help North Korea's weapons programs, many of which are in China.
Also unclear is whether Trump's phone call last week with Chinese President Xi Jinping, in which the U.S. president backed away from his threat to break from America’s long-standing “one China” policy, would engender greater cooperation from Beijing on North Korea.
"Beijing has enormous leverage over Pyongyang thanks to being one of its only trading partners and in fact could not survive without Chinese economic assistance," said Harry Kazianis, director of defense studies at the conservative Center for the National Interest.
Riki Ellison, who heads the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, an industry group, said Trump should also move quickly to beef up missile defense in both South Korea and Japan - for which the Obama administration has already laid much of the groundwork. "He cannot ignore this," he said. "It has to be swift."
North Korea's repeated missile launches prompted Washington and Seoul to agree to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile battery in South Korea later this year, a system strongly opposed by Beijing, which worries that its powerful radar undermines its own security.
(Additional reporting by Howard Schneider in Washington, Ayesha Rascoe in Palm Beach, Andrea Shalal in Berlin; Editing by Mary Milliken)
Reuters
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Flynn did discuss sanctions with Russia before taking office - NBC News
National Security Advisor Mike Flynn discussed hacking-related sanctions with the Russian ambassador before the Trump administration took office, contrary to the public assertions of Vice President Mike Pence and White House spokesman Sean Spicer, a U.S. intelligence official told NBC News.
The official said he was told there was no quid pro quo and that there has been no finding inside the government that Flynn did anything illegal.
But he said he was surprised when Flynn initially denied to the Washington Post, which first reported this story, that he discussed the sanctions on Russia with the ambassador. His spokesman later said he didn't recall whether he did, according to the Post.
On Friday, a spokesperson for Flynn told NBC News that Flynn "can't be 100 percent sure," but doesn't remember talking sanctions.
The FBI and intelligence officials became aware of the contents of the conversations because they were monitoring the communications of Russian diplomats, current and former officials have said.
Democrats are furious over the disclosure, a senior congressional staffer said, and critics, such as foreign policy scholar David Rothkopf, are accusing Flynn of having "lied." The White House did not immediately respond to NBC News's request for comment.
Flynn's contacts with Sergey Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., were initially seen by critics as a potential violation of a 1799 law called the Logan Act, which prohibits a private citizen from negotiating with a foreign power in a dispute with the United States. But that law has rarely if ever been cited in a prosecution.
Flynn gave the Russian envoy any indication that the Trump administration would lift sanctions that were imposed to punish Russia for hacking and leaking emails during the U.S. presidential election, which intelligence officials say was meant to hurt Hillary Clinton and tip the election to Donald Trump.
The Russians did not respond as expected to the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S. as part of the sanctions. President Putin said he would not retaliate with expulsions of U.S. diplomats, and instead invited the children of diplomatic personnel in Russia to a Christmas and New Year's party.
As a candidate and as president-elect, President Trump repeatedly expressed doubt about whether Russia had interfered in the election, despite a unanimous "high confidence" assessment of the intelligence community. He later acknowledged Russian's role, but he has continued to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Flynn spoke to Kislyak on Dec. 29, the same day the sanctions were announced, the White House has said, adding that the two also communicated by text message. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the conversations were about routine matters such as scheduling a phone call between Trump and Putin. Spicer said the topics did not include the sanctions.
Vice President Mike Pence, appearing on the CBS program "Face the Nation," said Flynn and the Russian ambassador "did not discuss anything having to do with the United States's decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia."
An administration official told NBC News that Vice President Pence's only source for saying Flynn did not discuss sanctions with the ambassador was Flynn himself.
The Post, which based its new reporting on nine sources, said Flynn twice denied on Wednesday that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak, but then changed his answer on Thursday.
A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., told NBC News that the embassy "does not comment on our conversations with local contacts — any local contacts — which are being conducted every day. We respect them."
Flynn, a retired Army general who ran the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was forced out early during the Obama administration, has been under fire for his paid relationship with the television network RT, which is funded by the Russian government.
He said he was paid to appear at a 2015 RT dinner in Moscow, but he hasn't said how much. He likened RT — which U.S. intelligence agencies say is a Russian propaganda outlet — to CNN and MSNBC.
Last week a group of House Democrats sent a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis calling for a Pentagon investigation into the matter, given Flynn's status as a retired general.
On Friday, Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee said the possibility that Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak "raises serious questions of legality and fitness for office. If he did so, and then he and other administration officials misled the American people, his conduct would be all the more pernicious."
A few Democrats issued statements calling for Trump to fire Flynn.
"It's clear that concerns about General Flynn's ties to Russia were well warranted," said Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "The President must relieve General Flynn immediately."
Others called for further investigation.
"That General Flynn may have misled the vice president of the United States and others raises the most serious questions about his ability to continue serving as national security advisor," said Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member. "I hope federal law enforcement professionals investigate this matter immediately. Any effort to undermine our nation's foreign policy - even during a transition period — may be illegal and must be taken seriously."
The official said he was told there was no quid pro quo and that there has been no finding inside the government that Flynn did anything illegal.
But he said he was surprised when Flynn initially denied to the Washington Post, which first reported this story, that he discussed the sanctions on Russia with the ambassador. His spokesman later said he didn't recall whether he did, according to the Post.
On Friday, a spokesperson for Flynn told NBC News that Flynn "can't be 100 percent sure," but doesn't remember talking sanctions.
The FBI and intelligence officials became aware of the contents of the conversations because they were monitoring the communications of Russian diplomats, current and former officials have said.
Democrats are furious over the disclosure, a senior congressional staffer said, and critics, such as foreign policy scholar David Rothkopf, are accusing Flynn of having "lied." The White House did not immediately respond to NBC News's request for comment.
Flynn's contacts with Sergey Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., were initially seen by critics as a potential violation of a 1799 law called the Logan Act, which prohibits a private citizen from negotiating with a foreign power in a dispute with the United States. But that law has rarely if ever been cited in a prosecution.
Flynn gave the Russian envoy any indication that the Trump administration would lift sanctions that were imposed to punish Russia for hacking and leaking emails during the U.S. presidential election, which intelligence officials say was meant to hurt Hillary Clinton and tip the election to Donald Trump.
The Russians did not respond as expected to the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S. as part of the sanctions. President Putin said he would not retaliate with expulsions of U.S. diplomats, and instead invited the children of diplomatic personnel in Russia to a Christmas and New Year's party.
As a candidate and as president-elect, President Trump repeatedly expressed doubt about whether Russia had interfered in the election, despite a unanimous "high confidence" assessment of the intelligence community. He later acknowledged Russian's role, but he has continued to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Flynn spoke to Kislyak on Dec. 29, the same day the sanctions were announced, the White House has said, adding that the two also communicated by text message. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the conversations were about routine matters such as scheduling a phone call between Trump and Putin. Spicer said the topics did not include the sanctions.
Vice President Mike Pence, appearing on the CBS program "Face the Nation," said Flynn and the Russian ambassador "did not discuss anything having to do with the United States's decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia."
An administration official told NBC News that Vice President Pence's only source for saying Flynn did not discuss sanctions with the ambassador was Flynn himself.
The Post, which based its new reporting on nine sources, said Flynn twice denied on Wednesday that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak, but then changed his answer on Thursday.
A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., told NBC News that the embassy "does not comment on our conversations with local contacts — any local contacts — which are being conducted every day. We respect them."
Flynn, a retired Army general who ran the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was forced out early during the Obama administration, has been under fire for his paid relationship with the television network RT, which is funded by the Russian government.
He said he was paid to appear at a 2015 RT dinner in Moscow, but he hasn't said how much. He likened RT — which U.S. intelligence agencies say is a Russian propaganda outlet — to CNN and MSNBC.
Last week a group of House Democrats sent a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis calling for a Pentagon investigation into the matter, given Flynn's status as a retired general.
On Friday, Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee said the possibility that Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak "raises serious questions of legality and fitness for office. If he did so, and then he and other administration officials misled the American people, his conduct would be all the more pernicious."
A few Democrats issued statements calling for Trump to fire Flynn.
"It's clear that concerns about General Flynn's ties to Russia were well warranted," said Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "The President must relieve General Flynn immediately."
Others called for further investigation.
"That General Flynn may have misled the vice president of the United States and others raises the most serious questions about his ability to continue serving as national security advisor," said Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member. "I hope federal law enforcement professionals investigate this matter immediately. Any effort to undermine our nation's foreign policy - even during a transition period — may be illegal and must be taken seriously."
Saturday, February 11, 2017
Did Kellyanne Conway’s Ivanka Trump Fashion Line Plug Violate Ethics Rules? - NBC News
Did Kellyanne Conway’s Ivanka Trump Fashion Line Plug Violate Ethics Rules?
The Trump administration faced continued criticism over possible ethics violations Thursday after a White House official promoted Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a television interview.
"Go buy Ivanka's stuff," Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, told Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy.
Ivanka Trump has a "wonderful line," Conway added. "I own some of it. I fully, I'm gonna just going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today everybody. You can find it online."
Conway was immediately accused of breaking federal ethics rules.
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz sharply criticized Conway for her remarks.
"That was wrong, wrong, wrong. It is wholly unacceptable — no if, ands or buts about it," the chairman told NBC News by phone.
Chaffetz, R-Utah, and the committee's ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, are "jointly going to send a letter to the White House and Office of Government Ethics for a referral. Earlier in the day, Cummings asked the congressional panel to review Conway's actions.
they better learn this lesson very quick," Chaffetz said.
Chaffetz said he is not sure what the remedy is or whether his committee will have a hearing looking into the matter, but this letter and referral is a first step.
Two watchdogs groups, Public Citizen and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, have also asked the Office of Government Ethics to investigate.
Both cited regulations that say: "An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity."
Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said that Conway's statement could not be misinterpreted as anything but a violation.
"Since she said it was an advertisement, that both eliminates any question about whether outsiders are unfairly reading into what's being said, and two, it makes clear that wasn't an inadvertent remark," Weissman said.
Weissman said Conway's remark was "yet more evidence" that Trump's earlier assertion that he'd separate his family's business interests from White House activities "was untrue."
CREW said in a letter to the Office of Government Ethics that it was "concerned about what appears to be a pattern developing of the use of official offices, particularly the White House and the Executive Office of the President, to benefit business interests of relatives and supporters of the president."
Conway was responding to the outcry over Trump's criticism of Nordstrom for dropping his daughter's line. In a tweet on Wednesday, the president accused the retailer of treating his daughter "unfairly."
told NBC News that the brand had been selling well and that the move was in response to pressure from advocacy groups. Nordstrom has denied that.
Nordstrom stock ticked up a bit on Wednesday and Thursday.
Norm Eisen, former special counsel on ethics for Obama, told MSNBC that Trump's tweet was an abuse of power.
"He's putting the bully in the bully pulpit to attack this company on dubious factual assertions in order to promote his daughter," Eisen said.
Eisen pointed out that it remains unclear if the president has any financial stake in his daughter's business, and that there are a number of questions about his links to other parts of his family's empire.
"Literally everything he does has this miasma of conflict around it," Eisen said.
Eisen also said Trump's tweet gave Nordstrom grounds to sue.
"This is unfair business practices," he said. "There's a serious legal question. There are statutes across the country, including a very tough one in California."
But lawyer Maxwell Blecher, who specializes in unfair competition and antitrust cases, said Nordstrom did not have basis to sue under the California law.
"It's an expression of opinion," Blecher said. "It is not defamatory and it is not an unfair business act."
morning plug on Fox.
Eisen returned to MSNBC to echo Lu's accusation of an ethical breach.
"It is not allowed for a government employee to use your public office for private gain," he said. "And by doing this ad, I have never seen anything like it. It's a violation of the rule. Pure and simple."
NBC News
Asked about Conway's comments during Thursday's White House press briefing, Sean Spicer said she "has been counseled on that subject, and that's all."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
