President Donald Trump came up with a nickname Friday for Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg: Alfred E. Neuman — the freckle-faced, gap-toothed nerdy cover boy of Mad Magazine.

But Buttigieg came back with his own zinger, slying dinging the 72-year-old president’s age, saying the outdated reference was a “generational thing.”

Trump told Politico Friday that “Alfred E. Neuman cannot become president of the United States,” when he was asked in a phone interview what he thought of the mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

Asked later about his new moniker, Buttigieg, 37, said he had “to Google” the reference to the mascot of a humor magazine launched in 1952.

“I guess it’s just a generational thing. I didn’t get the reference. It’s kind of funny, I guess,” said Buttigieg.

RELATED: Democratic Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, center, speaks with attendees during a campaign stop in Ankeny, Iowa, U.S., on Friday, Feb. 8, 2019. A flurry of proposals to slap new taxes on the ultra-wealthy, extend Medicare to all Americans and make college debt-free reflect a rapidly changing Democratic Party that sees a sharp left turn as the path to defeating President Donald Trump. Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images




 

He added that he was “surprised” Trump wasn’t “spending more time trying to salvage this China deal.”

Others also piled on Trump. New York Times political reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted that the Neuman reference would have worked better 20 years ago.

Mad got a bit of dig in at Buttigieg:

Trump appeared to imply in the Politico interview that Buttigieg, who is gay, isn’t tough enough to take on America’s international rivals. “He’ll be great representing us against President Xi of China,” Trump said sarcastically. “That’ll be great. I want to be in that room, I wanna watch that one.” 

Buttigieg, a former Rhodes scholar and Navy Reserve intelligence officer,  served in Afghanistan. Trump dodged the draft decades earlier because of “bone spurs.” He told shock jock Howard Stern that he suffered his own “personal Vietnam” during that time dodging sexually transmitted diseases sleeping with women. “I feel like a great and very brave soldier,” he said (video below).

  • This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/05/11/trump-insults-buttigiegs-look-buttigieg-calls-him-old/23724719/

It’s ‘crazy talk’ to say the US isn’t tough on Russia: Mike…

The Trump administration has “put real money into our Defense Department,” Pompeo says, adding that “Vladimir Putin can’t possibly think that’s a good thing for him.”

read more

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/11/trump-tells-china-to-act-now-on-trade-or-face-a-far-worse-deal-in-his-second-term.html

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney, said Friday on “Fox News @ Night” that he will not be traveling to Ukraine as previously announced.

Giuliani, a former Republican mayor of New York City, said that he believed he would be “walking into a group of people that are enemies of the president, and in some cases, enemies of the United States and in one case, an already convicted person who has been found to be involved in assisting the Democrats with the 2016 investigation.

“There was a great fear that the new [Ukrainian] president would be surrounded by, literally, enemies of the president [of the United States] who were involved in that and people who are involved with other Democratic operatives,” he told host Shannon Bream.

GIULIANI WILL TRAVEL TO UKRAINE, SAYING COUNTRY’S PROBES MAY BE ‘VERY, VERY HELPFUL’ FOR TRUMP

“I’m convinced from what I’ve heard from two very reliable people tonight that the president [Ukrainian President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky] is surrounded by people who are enemies of the president [Trump], and people who are — at least [in] one case — clearly corrupt and involved in this scheme,” Giuliani said.

Giuliani said that his decisions had nothing to do with the upcoming 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Bream asked about “pushback” Giuliani received for announcing his original decision to go, including from U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who demanded that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee open an inquiry into the situation.

“Rudolph Giuliani, the President’s personal lawyer, has apparently held meetings with Ukrainian officials in the United States and plans to travel to Ukraine for further discussions,” Murphy wrote, in a letter to committee chairman Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, according to NBC News.

“As far as we know, none of these meetings are being coordinated with the U.S. State Department or other government agencies,” Murphy wrote.

RUDY GIULIANI APOLOGIZES FOR HAVING HIRED JAMES COMEY YEARS AGO: ‘I’M VERY EMBARRASSED ABOUT THAT’

Giuliani said that he would welcome Murphy’s proposed hearing, saying that he could lay out what he said was alleged “unbelievably incriminating evidence about members of the [Democratic National Committee], members of the Clinton campaign who were involved in gathering information there that was negative to the Trump campaign.”

The former mayor also pointed to evidence that 2020 hopeful and former Vice President Joe Biden improperly pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and the country’s parliament to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, in March 2016.

At the same time, Biden’s son, Hunter, served on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings — which was owned by an oligarch, Mykola Zlochevsky, who in turn was being investigated by that same prosecutor.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Shokin was soon voted out by the Ukrainian parliament. After leaving office, Biden admitted on video that he had threatened that the U.S. would pull $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was terminated.

“That stinks, the facts are stubborn, and eventually this is going to have to be investigated,” Giuliani said, adding that in order to prevent any “political suggestions” he is going to “step back and just watch [the situation] unfold.”

Fox News’ Gregg Re contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-i-am-not-going-to-ukraine-because-id-be-walking-into-a-group-of-people-that-are-enemies-of-the-us

Mark Zuckerberg dismisses co-founder’s call to break up Facebook

Zuckerberg, in an interview with French broadcaster France 2, was responding to an op-ed written by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes.

read more

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/11/trump-tells-china-to-act-now-on-trade-or-face-a-far-worse-deal-in-his-second-term.html

Source Article from https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/05/11/harvey-weinstein-lawyer-loses-post-dean-harvard/sOdUgXc2YxRREahAZQG4yI/story.html

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-predicts-shorter-race-rivals-dig-long-fight-n1004481

A federal judge on Friday struck down a Kentucky law that would have effectively ended abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. ruled that the 2018 law, which required women seeking an abortion at or beyond 15 weeks of pregnancy to first undergo a “fetal demise” injection, was “unconstitutional.” He also issued a permanent injunction against the law.

“The court finds that under the Act, all women seeking a second-trimester abortion at and after 15 weeks would have to endure a medically unnecessary and invasive procedure that may increase the duration of an otherwise one-day standard D&E abortion,” McKinley wrote.

A Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion is the standard second-trimester method of abortion used nationally.

Dylan Lovan/AP, FILE
Escort volunteers line up outside the EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville, Ky., July 17, 2017.

The law had been signed by Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican, whose office immediately told the Associated Press it would appeal McKinley’s decision. His office did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment.

The injection, which would kill the fetus, would not evacuate the fetus from the woman’s body, so an abortion would still be necesary. The law was challenged by the state’s only abortion clinic and the two doctors — Ashlee Bergin and Tanya Franklin — who practice there, on the day it was signed.

Moreover, Bergin and Franklin said they would “stop performing standard D&E abortions altogether due to ethical and legal concerns regarding compliance with the law, thereby rendering abortions unavailable in the Commonwealth of Kentucky starting at 15.0 weeks from the date of a woman’s last menstrual period,” according to the ruling.

“The Commonwealth’s legitimate interests do not allow the imposition of an additional required medical procedure—an invasive and risky procedure without medical necessity or benefit to the woman—prior to the standard D&E abortion. Here, Kentucky’s legitimate interests must give way to the woman’s right,” McKinley wrote.

Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the abortion clinic and its doctors, praised the judge’s ruling.

“It is a huge victory for women and families in Kentucky,” Kolbi-Molinas told ABC News. “Not only can women get the care they need, because it would have ended abortion at 15 weeks, but [it said] that women who wanted an abortion, starting at 15 weeks, would have had to go through unnecessary, painful, and, in some cases, experimental medical procedures just to get an abortion.”

Despite a growing number of laws limiting abortion in several U.S. states, Kolbi-Molinas said she was confident that McKinley’s ruling would not be overturned.

“The only court of appeals that has addressed one of these [fetal demise injection] cases so far has found it unconstitutional and we’re optimistic that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals would do the same,” she said.

In practical terms, the law had been blocked by a consent decree, so there has been no change for women seeking to have an abortion in Kentucky throughout the past year.

“There is no change. Abortion remains safe and legal in Kentucky,” Kolbi-Molinas said.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-judge-strikes-kentucky-law-curtail-trimester-abortions/story?id=62978131

Leaked documents show the National Rifle Association racked up millions in legal bills in the last year.

The documents include a memo written by the group’s former president Oliver North and NRA official Richard Childress to the NRA’s general counsel and audit committee chairman that warned of high legal fees posing “an existential threat to the financial stability of the NRA.”

“The Brewer invoices are draining NRA cash at mindboggling speed,” North and Childress wrote in the memo that the Daily Beast verified as authentic. “This is a fiscal emergency.”

Attorney Bill Brewer represents the NRA and defended his fees in April. “We’re a premium law firm, we make no bones about that,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

The memo, dated April 18, 2019, one week before North was ousted as the organization’s leader after clashing with CEO Wayne LaPierre, said Brewer charged the NRA more than $24 million since they retained him last year. Some of that was covered by a settlement against an insurance company, though the NRA was still responsible for more than $18 million.

North and Childress said the NRA is paying about $100,000 in legal fees per day.

“$97,000+ a day is a stunning amount of money for any organization to pay,” they wrote. “It cries for an outside, independent review.”

The pair said they had asked for an outside audit of the fees but LaPierre refused the request.

NRA officials pushed back on the claims and suggested it was being pushed by people with personal agendas.

“The memo on the Brewer firm’s legal fees is inaccurate — it reflects a misinformed view of the firm, its billings, and its advocacy for the NRA,” said Charles L. Cotton, first vice president and chairman of the NRA’s Audit Committee.

“It is troubling and a bit pathetic that some people would resort to leaking information to advance their agendas. This has no bearing on the board’s support of Wayne — and the work the NRA does to protect America’s constitutional freedoms,” NRA president Carolyn Meadows said.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/leaked-memo-legal-fees-draining-nra-cash-at-mindboggling-speed

The latest on the political crisis in Venezuela (all times local):

2:25 p.m.

Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó says he’s instructed his political envoy in Washington to immediately open relations with the U.S. military.

Guaidó said Saturday that he’s asked his ambassador Carlos Vecchio to open “direct communications” toward possible coordination.

U.S.-backed Guaidó is leading a campaign to oust President Nicolás Maduro.

In recent days Venezuelan security forces arrested National Assembly Vice President Edgar Zambrano, the body’s No. 2 leader. Other lawmakers also scrambled for refuge in foreign embassies amid renewed fears of a crackdown following an unsuccessful military rebellion.

Guaidó says he’s keeping “all options on the table” to remove Maduro, repeating language used by U.S. President Donald Trump and his chief advisers.

Earlier this week, U.S. Navy Adm. Craig Faller said he would meet with Guaidó when invited to discuss the future role of Venezuela’s armed forces.

___

2:15 p.m.

A modest crowd of Venezuelans took to the streets Saturday to show support for the opposition-led congress which is coming under increasing pressure from the government of President Nicolás Maduro.

Opposition leader Juan Guaidó addressed several hundred people who had gathered in the capital in support of his bid to oust the socialist president.

But the noticeably diminished crowds reflected a growing fear and demoralization that has permeated Guaidó’s ranks of supporters after he led a failed military uprising on April 30. In previous months, thousands of demonstrators heeded his calls to protest.

“We live in dictatorship,” Guaidó said. “We don’t have the option to stay at home waiting, but to keep demanding our rights in the streets.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/world/the-latest-guaido-asks-for-relations-with-us-military

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said he is concerned President Trump is crossing a line in refusing to comply with House subpoenas.

“I think there are things we should be concerned about, there’s no doubt about that,” the 99-year-old told the Wall Street Journal.

“The president is exercising powers that do not really belong to him. I mean, he has to comply with subpoenas and things like that,” he said.

The standoff between the Trump administration and the Democratic-controlled House has escalated in recent weeks after the White House ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn and the former personnel security director to not comply with subpoenas.

The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after Trump asserted executive privilege over special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and the underlying evidence.

If the dispute ends up at the Supreme Court, Stevens said it’s obvious the justices should rule in favor of the House.

“I wouldn’t want to predict that anybody’s going to take the incorrect view,” he said. “But certainly, the correct view is pretty clear.”

Stevens, who retired in 2010, was nominated by Republican President Gerald Ford and went on to be part of the court’s liberal bloc.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-supreme-court-justice-trump-exercising-powers-that-do-not-really-belong-to-him

Trump had been wagering he had greater leverage because of the strong U.S. economy, with growth at 3.2% and unemployment at historic lows. At the same time, he reckoned the Chinese economy was fragile, based on its 2018 performance, and that its leaders ultimately would make the required concessions.

By contrast, XI represented a conviction among many in China that Trump would need a “win” that would reduce the deficit and create U.S. jobs before 2020 elections, and thus his negotiators would blink first. Xi also had grown more confident after a first quarter economic rebound as his government’s stimulus measures took hold and helped produce 6.4% growth.

Tweets from Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of the Chinese state-run Global Times, showed how China’s position hardened throughout the week. While Hu’s posts aren’t as authoritative as Trump’s tweets, he has become a fairly accurate indicator of what Chinese leaders are thinking.

At 8:47 a.m. Thursday, he tweeted that someone from the Chinese side “who knows the trade talks well” said that there was zero chance of a deal by Friday.

At 11:09 a.m. he tweeted: “China has fully prepared for an escalated trade war. It is a new strategy of China to engage in trade talks while fighting a trade war. I think China bets on the fact its politics is more powerful than US politics. Trade war will be decided by domestic politics eventually.”

Then a little more than two hours after that, at 1:17 p.m., he put it all into perspective: “More and more Chinese now tend to believe the current US government is obsessed with comprehensively containing China. A trade deal, even if reached, will be limited in actual meaning and could be broken constantly. So they support being tough on the US, giving up an illusion.”

A lot of illusions are dying this week.

After talks ended on Friday without progress, Hu brought down the curtain on the week: “Based on what I know, Chinese side insists on a few core points: US side should remove all additional tariffs, amount of purchase the US requests should be in line with reality; the text of the agreement must respect sovereignty and dignity.”

Frederick Kempe is a best-selling author, prize-winning journalist and president & CEO of the Atlantic Council, one of the United States’ most influential think tanks on global affairs. He worked at The Wall Street Journal for more than 25 years as a foreign correspondent, assistant managing editor and as the longest-serving editor of the paper’s European edition. His latest book – “Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place on Earth” – was a New York Times best-seller and has been published in more than a dozen languages. Follow him on Twitter and subscribe here to Inflection Points, his look each Saturday at the past week’s top stories and trends.

For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/its-time-for-markets-to-end-their-illusions-about-us-china-trade-deal.html

NEW YORK (AP) — Democrats denounced a plan by President Donald Trump’s personal attorney to push Ukraine to open investigations that he hopes could benefit Trump politically, decrying it as an overt attempt to recruit foreign help to influence a U.S. election.

But Rudy Giuliani late Friday said he does not plan to go to the Ukraine because of concerns about who he would be dealing with there.

“I’ve decided … I’m not going to go to the Ukraine,” Giuliani told Fox News Friday night. “I’m not going to go because I think I’m walking into a group of people that are enemies of the president … in some cases enemies of the United States, and in one case an already convicted person who has been found to be involved in assisting the Democrats with the 2016 election.”

His statement left many unanswered questions about what Giuliani might do about his Ukraine concerns.

Earlier, Giuliani had said he would to travel to Kiev in the coming days to urge the Ukrainian government to conduct a pair of investigations: one on the origins of special counsel Robert Mueller’s recently concluded investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, the other on the involvement of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son in a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.

Giuliani’s plan had seemed poised to create an unprecedented moment, that of the lawyer of the president of the United States seeking foreign assistance in damaging his political rivals. To Democrats, it was a blatant evocation of Russia’s meddling on behalf of Trump when he defeated Hillary Clinton.

Related: Rudy Giuliani and President Donald Trump through the years




“It’s stunning that the Trump administration is going down the same tragic path they did in 2016 seeking help from a foreign government again to influence an American presidential election. It’s appalling,” said Rep. Adam Schiff of California, who chairs the House intelligence committee. He said Trump allies were indicating, “‘We’re going to do everything short of what’s downright criminal. Ethics don’t matter. Patriotism doesn’t matter.'”

Giuliani, a former New York City mayor who often acted as a smokescreen for Trump during the Mueller probe, pushed back against the criticism.

“Explain to me why Biden shouldn’t be investigated if his son got millions from a Russian loving crooked Ukrainian oligarch while He was VP and point man for Ukraine,” Giuliani tweeted at Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who criticized him. “Ukrainians are investigating and your fellow Dems are interfering. Election is 17 months away. Let’s answer it now.”

Giuliani’s trip, which was first reported by The New York Times, would have been the most high-profile effort yet by Republicans to call attention to growing talking points in conservative circles. They are trying to undermine the special counsel’s investigation, call into question the case against Paul Manafort, Trump’s imprisoned former campaign chairman, and wound Biden, the early Democratic front-runner in the 2020 presidential race.

Trump and Giuliani have urged scrutiny of Hunter Biden and have raised questions about whether the former vice president helped oust a Ukrainian prosecutor whose office was investigating the oligarch whose company paid his son. Some Trump allies have suggested they can tarnish Biden with questions about corruption, founded or not, much like they did to Clinton in 2016.

Giuliani has said he updated the president about his findings on Ukraine, a nation deeply reliant on the Trump administration for U.S. military and financial aid.

“I’m hearing it’s a major scandal, major problem,” Trump said on Fox News recently. “I hope for (Biden) it is fake news. I don’t think it is.”

The Biden campaign has denied that the candidate or his son did anything improper.

The president has also tried to push claims that Ukrainian officials tried to help Clinton by focusing attention on Manafort’s business in Ukraine. That attention forced Manafort to resign from the campaign, and he was later convicted of financial crimes and sentenced to prison. Ukrainian officials have denied involvement, but Trump has latched onto the idea that Kiev “colluded” with Democrats and that the origins of Mueller’s probe were fraudulent.

Meanwhile, the president’s re-election campaign distanced itself from Giuliani’s efforts, saying it had nothing to do with the lawyer’s inquiry. Giuliani himself downplayed, sort of, questions about whether what he was doing was inappropriate.

“We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do,” Giuliani told The Times. “There’s nothing illegal about it. Somebody could say it’s improper.”

But the whole episode could trigger uncomfortable questions about foreign entanglements for the White House, which is still grappling with the aftermath of the special counsel probe.

“We’ve come to a very sorry state when it is considered OK for an American politician, never mind an attorney for the president, to go and seek foreign intervention in American politics,” Rep. Jerrod Nadler, D-N.Y., the head of the House Judiciary Committee, said to CNN on Friday.

Mueller did not conclude that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and did not determine whether or not Trump obstructed justice.

But House Democrats are pushing the inquiry further on a number of fronts, including issuing subpoenas for the probe’s witnesses and documents. Trump this week announced that he would invoke executive privilege to shield the material, certain to prompt a lengthy legal fight.

Throughout the investigation, Giuliani attacked Mueller’s credibility and often tried to change the public discourse by advancing conspiracy theories about the special counsel or Democratic investigators. In the probe’s final days, he began to zero in on the possible Ukraine connection.

 

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/05/11/trump-lawyer-giuliani-abandons-ukraine-trip/23724584/

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., is a hero. Or at least, he’s the one guy actually doing his job, while fellow Republican officeholders attacking him are party hacks.

They are hacks in the same way House Judiciary Committee Democrats wrongly holding Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress are hacks. Both sides — indeed, almost all members of Congress these days — repeatedly put party over country and politics over principle.

House Democrats literally want Barr to break the law in order to comply with the meritless subpoena they issued to him. The Republican critics of Burr want him to ignore important questions of national security so they can declare “case closed” on all matters of Russian perfidy related to the 2016 elections.

Shame on all of them.

In the midst of all this, Burr looks like a rare officeholder who understands the requirements of statesmanship. At some point in the last few weeks, Burr, as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, signed off on a subpoena to the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. Burr’s committee has been investigating the intelligence issues involved in Russia’s indisputable efforts to subvert the 2016 elections.

The committee’s job is different from that of special counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller was conducting a criminal investigation that spun off, quite rightly, from a counterintelligence investigation. The Senate Intelligence Committee is not a prosecutorial body. Its job is to conduct oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies and of breaches of American interests.

The public does not know specifically why the committee has subpoenaed the younger Trump. Intelligence Committee deliberations, for obvious reasons, are more confidential than those of other committees. The whole world knows, though, that Trump Jr. was the person in the president’s inner circle who clearly was willing to conspire with Russian government interests if it would help his father’s campaign.

Trump Jr. eagerly accepted the invitation to what became the notorious Trump Tower meeting with several Russians when it was sold to him as a chance to acquire information for the campaign from Russia’s “crown prosecutor” (a misnomer), that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

The meeting apparently produced nothing of the sort, so Trump Jr. and his campaign compatriots were not charged with conspiring after all. But if the Trump inner circle was so cognizant that the Russian government was trying to help their campaign, then even if they did not actively conspire with it, there remains the chance that Trump Jr. knows more than he so far has told about how the Russians operated. Perhaps he even knows it only unwittingly. Perhaps the committee now has information that Trump Jr. had other contacts with Russian nationals that he thought was innocent, or business-related, but that actually might reveal Russian intelligence sources and methods.

The point is, we don’t know exactly what information the committee has, or what it’s looking for. What we do know is that Burr, long a party loyalist, has nothing obvious to gain from bucking his own party here by following a lead involving the president’s son. The only realistic conclusion, then, is that Burr is doing his job and pursuing a valid line of inquiry, not just trying to nail Trump Jr.’s hide to the wall. Doesn’t Burr, as committee chairman and as someone not previously known as a major critic of the president, deserve the benefit of the doubt that his aims are reasonable?

Instead, Burr’s fellow Republican senators had snit fits. Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, former presidential candidate Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Burr’s North Carolina colleague Thom Tillis, along with several members of the House Republican leadership as well, were among those blasting Burr for daring to subpoena the president’s son. Indeed, the only other Republican in Congress willing to make a thorough defense of Burr was Iowa’s old bull Chuck Grassley, who understands that the national interest supersedes narrow partisan concerns.

Here’s a novel idea: Why not wait until we see what Burr is trying to accomplish before spouting off, on either side? Russian interference in American elections is a serious issue, and Burr is proving himself serious enough to tackle it.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/hes-right-to-be-a-burr-under-trumps-saddle

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., answers questions during a press conference at the Capitol on Thursday. The House is expected to vote on whether to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress.

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., answers questions during a press conference at the Capitol on Thursday. The House is expected to vote on whether to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The executive branch and the legislative branch are deadlocked. The House could vote soon about whether to hold the attorney general — and maybe others — in contempt of Congress.

What does that mean? How did this happen? What could happen next?

Here’s what you need to know:

What’s behind it all?

Information. Democrats who control the House of Representatives want it. The Republican administration of President Trump doesn’t want to give it up.

What do members of Congress want?

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., wants the full, unredacted report of special counsel Robert Mueller. The Justice Department says it can’t comply under federal regulations.

Nadler also wants Mueller himself to testify, as well as documents from former White House counsel Don McGahn — and, potentially for McGahn or others to testify, too.

The White House says McGahn cannot give up the documents the Judiciary Committee has requested, and McGahn’s lawyer says he’s not going to do anything until this dispute is resolved.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Richard Neal, D-Mass., wants Trump’s tax returns. The Treasury Department won’t provide them. So Neal issued subpoenas on Friday to try to compel their release.

The leaders of the House intelligence and the House financial services committees want financial records about Trump’s business dealings from some of his creditors, Deutsche Bank and Capital One. Trump and his family are suing those banks, seeking to block them from complying.

There could be other requests for documents or testimony — and Trump has made clear they’ll likely be challenged by the administration.

Why does Congress want all this?

Lawmakers say they have a duty under the Constitution to conduct oversight of the administration, and there are many lingering questions about the president, even after the conclusion of the Mueller investigation.

What is contained in the redacted portions of Mueller’s report? Is Trump subject to coercion based on his finances? Did Trump and his family break any laws in the conduct of their business?

The president’s decision not to release his tax returns, as all his recent predecessors have done, suggest to critics that he may be hiding something.

The account of his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, also led opponents to believe there may be evidence of wrongdoing.

Cohen told members of Congress earlier this year that Trump routinely inflated the real value of his assets in order to qualify for bank loans or misrepresent his apparent wealth — and also that Trump deflated the value of property he reported to authorities in order to pay less taxes.

Financial records from Trump’s creditors, evidence from his tax records or now-secret findings by Mueller all could reveal more — and Democrats are eager for as much political ammunition as they can fire.

Why won’t the administration comply?

Trump calls all this “presidential harassment.”

Democrats didn’t get what they wanted from Mueller’s investigation, he argues, and so they’re desperate to scrape together whatever else they can.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the House leaders want to distract from the good news Trump continues to deliver about the economy and drag out the Russia investigation.

Administration officials also say they have the law on their side.

Attorney General William Barr argues that he’s prohibited from revealing the grand jury material in the Mueller report to anyone, including members of Congress, because of the vital principle that the workings of a grand jury must be secret.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and others argue that Congress’ power of oversight under the Constitution doesn’t amount to a license to snoop into the affairs of private Americans for no reason — as he says lawmakers are doing with Trump’s taxes.

The request, he said, does not have a “legitimate legislative purpose.”

Also, there is a longstanding practice that enables an administration to shield some of its workings form the public under “executive privilege,” the doctrine that emphasizes the importance of those within government being able to confer among themselves confidentially.

Barr argued that privilege is what protects the underlying material from the Mueller report and White House counsel Pat Cipollone argued it means McGahn’s notes are beyond the reach of the Judiciary Committee.

Mueller’s report describes Trump asking McGahn to fire Mueller — which McGahn didn’t agree to do — and then Trump asking McGahn later to lie about the earlier request. Democrats want to reveal more about those incidents.

What’s going to happen next?

The Judiciary Committee has voted to recommend that the full House find Barr in contempt.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., hasn’t said when the chamber may take that vote, but it could happen later this month — and it could include more subjects than just the attorney general.

Mnuchin, McGahn or others also could find themselves in contempt of Congress, depending on the way this dispute runs.

The Justice Department argues that Barr can’t be in contempt because he continued negotiating with Nadler’s committee to try to reach an accommodation about Mueller’s material.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee made the same point — and ranking member Doug Collins of Georgia also observed how much more time had elapsed before Congress held then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt in 2012.

Democrats are just speeding ahead for the sake of a rabble-rousing political scrap, he said — not with any real interest in negotiating. When these cases go to court, a judge could decide as much, Collins said, and rule against the Congress.

Will there be court battles?

Oh yes — and they likely will be where these disputes ultimately are resolved. Members of Congress could ask a judge to order the administration to comply with their wishes; administration lawyers would ask to stand by their earlier positions.

It’ll take awhile, though. Holder’s case was still active until a settlement last week.

The time issue is part of the political strategy for both sides. Democrats want to strike while the iron is hot and keep their investigations into Trump in the headlines ahead of next year’s election.

Trump and Republicans know that a court fight will take years, especially one involving big Constitutional questions about the powers of co-equal branches of government. Meanwhile, much the material in question likely will remain under wraps.

At least one dispute could be resolved before next year’s election — a federal judge in Washington, D.C., said Thursday that he wanted to expedite the dispute over Trump’s records from an accounting firm.

Is this a “Constitutional crisis”?

Some Democrats are calling it that; others call it a “Constitutional confrontation.”

A truly unprecedented impasse might open if a judge were to order the administration to give Congress material under dispute and it refused. In past showdowns like this one, court have usually resolved them one way or another.

There is always tension between Congress and the executive branch, even at times when those on either side belong to the same party.

That push-and-pull relationship is built into the Constitution and it often becomes exacerbated when one party controls the White House and another controls one or both chambers of Congress, as now.

Democrats battled the administration of President George W. Bush when Pelosi was last the speaker. Republicans in Congress voted Holder in contempt over a gun investigation scandal and spent months pursuing the administration of President Barack Obama over the Benghazi attack.

Each time, each side accused the other of doing what Republicans and Democrats are accusing the others of doing now: disregarding the other’s powers and responsibilities under the Constitution in an attempt to win in the political arena.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/05/11/722106580/congress-showdown-with-the-executive-branch-here-s-what-you-need-to-know

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-sending-patriot-missile-system-another-warship-middle-east-n1004616

President Trump on Friday offered his take on how the Democratic presidential primary race is shaping up. 

“Looks to me like it’s going to be SleepyCreepy Joe over Crazy Bernie. Everyone else is fading fast!” he tweeted

That prediction is in line with recent polling and some expert analysis. 

In a recent Morning Consult poll, 40% of Democrats voiced a preference for former Vice President Joe Biden, compared to 19%, who opted for Senator Bernie Sanders. 

The remainder of the many, many hopefuls ended up with numbers in the single digits. 

CNN’s Chris Cillizza and Harry Enten also see Biden as the strongest candidate, giving him the top spot in their recent “power rankings” for Democrats. 

Sanders, who previously held the number one position, slipped to second. 

Related: Donald Trump White House’s reported list of potential foes in 2020 election




Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/05/11/trump-predicts-joe-biden-in-2020/23724594/

President Cyril Ramaphosa and his party, the African National Congress (ANC), have won reelection in South Africa, maintaining its control of government.

The ANC, which has led South Africa’s government since the fall of apartheid in 1994, was expected to prevail in these elections. But corruption and the country’s stagnant economy tested the party’s standing. In the end, it won slightly more than 57 percent of the vote — the first time in 25 years the party has failed to win at least 60 percent in national elections.

Even though the ANC still has no serious challengers — the main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, came in second place with just 20 percent of the vote its dip in support is notable.

The ANC is unique in politics because of its history as the party of liberation in South Africa. The majority of black voters identify with the party, and it has dominated the political landscape since South Africa became a full democracy in 1994.

Yet the election indicates that a least a share of voters — which likely includes black South African voters — may be losing some trust in the ANC.

The ANC won, but Ramaphosa has tough challenges on corruption and the economy

South Africa’s 2019 election shaped up to be a referendum on Ramaphosa’s promise to clean up the government and his party, and deliver a “new dawn” for the country.

The 66-year-old leader came to power in February 2018 after the scandal-plagued former President Jacob Zuma was forced to resign.

Ramaphosa himself remains fairly popular, and campaigned on the anti-corruption message that he first embraced when he took office in 2018. That may have helped limit ANC’s losses, as South African voters appeared willing to give Ramaphosa a full five-year term to make good on his reform efforts.

But he will face challenges in his new term on the major issues for voters: that anti-corruption push and the economy.

ANC officials tainted by scandals remain in government, and some officials within the ANC are less enthusiastic about his reforms. The damage done to institutions by his predecessor, Zuma, won’t be easily fixed.

South Africa’s economy is also struggling, and Ramaphosa has promised to tackle its current challenges. The unemployment rate is currently 27 percent, and it’s one of the world’s most unequal countries: White South Africans, who make up less than a tenth of the population, still control most of the country’s wealth.

Voters were willing to give Ramaphosa and the ANC another chance to tackle corruption and the economy. But, as experts pointed out, voters — especially younger voters — may have limited patience.

Kealeboga Maphunye, chair of the department of political sciences at the University of South Africa, told me on Wednesday that South Africa’s younger generation, which grew up after apartheid ended in 1994, is more likely to vote “with a sense of caution and concern” not quite shared by the older generation, which lived through the struggle for liberation and are deeply connected to the ANC.

These younger voters, Maphunye said, “are not so optimistic that the future looks bright, that the ANC will deliver the goods.”

The ANC doesn’t face any significant challenge to its power. But these next five years will be a test.

The ANC continues to dominate politics, and the results were mixed for the opposition party and smaller parties that also sought seats in South Africa’s National Assembly.

Ahead of the election, the radical Economic Freedom Fighters, or EFF, tried to capitalize on some of the disillusionment with the ANC. It embraced a far-left platform of state control of the economy and revolutionary rhetoric, and it has managed to push the ANC left on economic issues, including the thorny issue of land reform.

The EFF won a little more than 10 percent of the vote, That’s a big jump from its first national election (6.35 percent), but its 2019 showing fell short of some predictions.

The main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), won more than 20 percent of the vote, a decrease from 2014. The DA made big gains in local elections in 2016 under the leadership of Mmusi Maimane, the party’s first black leader, who took charge in 2015. But the party still has an image of mostly attracting liberal white voters, and though it’s changing, internal squabbles over that transformation have hampered the party.

But the DA may have also lost votes to a right-wing, conservative, and mainly white party called the Freedom Front Plus (FF+), which received about 2 percent of the vote. The party more than doubled its support since the last election.

Support for the FF+ likely grew over the issue of land reform in South Africa — programs that would redistribute land owned by the white minority, which many see as critical to remedying South Africa’s economic disparities. The issue has become a pet cause for the alt-right worldwide, and FF+’s small surge mirrors the rise of the right-wing in other countries in Europe and elsewhere.

These smaller parties, like the EFF on the left, or FF+ on the right, are influencing South Africa’s political landscape, at least for now. But the ANC remains strongly in power — though the next five years will be a test for it, and its leader, Ramaphosa.

Correction: An earlier version of the post incorrectly stated the name of the Freedom Front Plus (FF+). It has been corrected, and we regret the error.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/world/2019/5/11/18563327/south-africa-election-anc-ramaphosa

The Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday issued subpoenas to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig for six years of President Trump’s personal and business tax returns.

“While I do not take this step lightly, I believe this action gives us the best opportunity to succeed and obtain the requested material,” Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Richard Neal said in a statement. “I sincerely hope that the Treasury Department will furnish the requested material in the next week so the committee can quickly begin its work.”

TRUMP LEGAL TEAM ASKS FEDERAL COURT TO BLOCK HOUSE OVERSIGHT SUBPOENAS FOR FINANCIAL DOCS, AUDITS

The White House did not immediately comment.

Last month, Neal requested the returns from the Treasury Department, but Mnuchin denied the request saying that it lacked a “legitimate legislative purpose.”

“As you have recognized, the Committee’s request is unprecedented, and it presents serious constitutional questions, the resolution of which may have lasting consequences for all taxpayers,” Mnuchin wrote in a letter this week.

The topic has been a contentious one for the president since his time on the campaign trail in 2015, and throughout his administration, as he has refused to release his financial information. Trump repeatedly has claimed that his tax returns are complicated, and he has maintained that he will not release them while they are under audit by the IRS.

TREASURY SECRETARY MNUCHIN DENIES HOUSE DEM’S REQUEST FOR TRUMP’S TAX RETURNS

But this week, “The New York Times” obtained Trump’s federal income tax returns between 1985 and 1994. The documents revealed that Trump claimed to have lost $1.17 billion from his real estate businesses during that decade. The Times added that it had compared Trump’s tax information with other high-income earners and found that Trump “appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer. The newspaper also reported that the losses were so substantial, that in the eight of the ten years in question, Trump was able to avoid paying income tax.

House Democrats have been targeting Trump’s tax returns and financial documents since they took the majority in Congress in January. As part of their lead-off ethics package, which Trump’s lawyers cited in their filing Wednesday, Democrats’ legislation required presidents to disclose at least 10 years of their tax returns to the public, in what was an apparent swipe at Trump.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram, John Roberts and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democrat-subpoenas-mnuchin-irs-for-trumps-tax-returns

Former White House counsel Don McGahn reportedly rebuffed a request from the White House last month to affirm publicly that the president did not obstruct justice.

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that McGahn was asked within days of the release last month of special counsel’s Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud choice of Mueller to lead Russia probe MORE‘s report to declare that the president had not taken steps to impede or obstruct the federal Russia probe.

But McGahn rebuffed those efforts, multiple sources told the Journal, saying the former counsel declined because he did not want to weigh in on the totality of the evidence uncovered by Mueller’s probe beyond the testimony he had already given to the special counsel.

McGahn’s lawyers told the news outlets Friday that the request from White House lawyers had not been perceived as a threat.

“We did not perceive it as any kind of threat or something sinister. It was a request, professionally and cordially made,” said William Burck.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment Friday from The Hill on the reports.

News of the request comes as the House Judiciary Committee has been seeking to compel McGahn’s testimony in the face of White House instructions for the former counsel to ignore the panel’s requests for documents.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerThe Hill’s Morning Report – Can Barr and House Dems avert contempt clash? CNN, Fox, MSNBC air split-screens of Nadler and empty chair for Barr Any infrastructure program will be swallowed by the swamp MORE (D-N.Y.) said earlier this week in a letter to Burck that he would move to hold the former counsel in contempt of Congress if he doesn’t comply with Nadler’s demands for testimony.

“Mr. McGahn is required to appear and provide testimony before the Committee absent a court order authorizing non-compliance, as well as provide a privilege log for any documents withheld,” Nadler wrote. 

“Otherwise, the Committee will have no choice but to resort to contempt proceedings to ensure that it has access to the information it requires to fulfill its constitutionally mandated duties,” he added.

Democrats have asserted that the president should face investigation and possible prosecution for obstruction of justice after Mueller wrote in his report that Justice Department policy prevented the agency from taking up prosecution of such allegations.

McGahn left the administration in 2018 after multiple news reports earlier that year revealed the president had asked him to shut down the Mueller investigation, only to back down when McGahn threatened to resign.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/443210-mcgahn-rebuffed-white-house-request-to-say-trump-did-not-obstruct

In recent weeks, however, Mr. Trump’s campaign advisers have also started to echo the no-compromise approach, according to a former official. That, combined with Mr. Biden’s potential political weakness on China, has shifted Mr. Trump’s thinking away from those who urged a deal.

At his rally this week in Panama City Beach, Fla., Mr. Trump claimed that Mr. Biden was telling supporters that foreign leaders told him they hoped he would defeat Mr. Trump in 2020. “Of course they do,” the president told his crowd, “so they can continue to rip off the United States.”

For Mr. Trump, the decision on whether to abandon trade talks with China will hinge on more than politics. Trade is one of the few issues where he has deeply rooted ideological convictions, dating back to the 1980s. Mr. Trump views his aggressive tactics with Beijing as a way to break a pattern of Chinese dissembling that he contends has characterized China’s negotiations with the last three American presidents.

From the earliest days of Mr. Trump’s presidency, he has viewed a deal as a major political victory and made it one of his top priorities.

By the beginning of this year, he had grown impatient with the pace of negotiations and began pressing his advisers for a deal. In February, as negotiators were still early in the process of drawing up a text, he broached the idea of a “signing summit” with President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, his club in Palm Beach, Fla.

Mr. Trump’s eagerness for a deal encouraged Mr. Mnuchin and Robert Lighthizer, the United States trade representative, to give him overly optimistic reports about their progress, according to a person familiar with the talks, to avoid both his anger and an impulsive tweet or statement that might complicate the talks.

Last Friday evening, after yet another visit by Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. Lighthizer to Beijing, the Chinese sent the Americans a diplomatic cable containing a heavily redacted version of the text that the two sides had been working on, with modifications to all seven chapters of the 150-page document. Among other things, the changes walked back commitments to codify some parts of the agreement in Chinese law.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/us/politics/trump-china-trade-2020-election.html