Our president is an absolute savage. And lately his Twitter feed has shown it, with President Trump roasting Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, and sharing a hilarious meme about Greenland.

The comedic genius of Trump’s tweets should not go unacknowledged. These tweets would be awesome, if they didn’t come from the leader of the free world — a man who could start a nuclear war at the push of a button.

Here’s what happened.

Israel, encouraged by President Trump, barred both Tlaib and fellow Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, from entering the country under a law prohibiting boycott, divest, and sanction supporters from entry. Israel, did, however, grant Tlaib an exception on humanitarian grounds to visit her grandmother. Then, in a political stunt, Tlaib said she would not actually visit, choosing political posturing over visiting her grandmother.

Trump roasted her woke insanity. The president tweeted that “The real winner here is Tlaib’s grandmother. She doesn’t have to see her now!”

Anyone honest has to admit that this is a hilarious dig at Tlaib, and perfectly underscores the absurd nature of her stunt. And it’d be deserving of applause from a political commentator or comedian.

Yet, like much of Trump’s antics, it’s simply unbecoming of the Oval Office to spend your days hate-tweeting congresswomen you don’t like, even if your jokes are funny.

Similarly both hilarious and inappropriate was Trump’s tweet of a Greenland meme, a subject of wide spreading mockery and comedy after news broke that the president had seriously looked into purchasing the territory. Ricochet editor-in-chief Jon Gabriel put out a hilarious meme poking fun at the proposition that quickly blew up online.

It even got picked up by the president, of all people, who shared it with a laugh, writing “I promise not to do this to Greenland!”

Once again, this joke is hilarious coming from a commentator like Gabriel, but disconcerting coming from the commander-in-chief. The Washington Examiner editorial board has written in support of the president’s desire to purchase Greenland, and his idea actually has some merit. But the president makes a meme out of his platform when he conducts himself so unseriously online, to the detriment of his own legacy more than anything else.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-tlaib-and-greenland-tweets-are-hilarious-but-completely-unpresidential

HBO ‘Real Time’ host Bill Maher criticized the anti-Israel BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) and the media for ignoring the agenda that targets products manufactured in Israel. On this week’s broadcast of his program, Maher called BDS a “bullshit purity test” by people who slept through history class that want to appear “woke.”


Maher said Jews in Israel are “mostly white” and the Palestinians are browner so they “must be innocent and correct” in the eye of the media. The ‘Real Time’ panel and Maher also discuss Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) being banned and unbanned from entering Israel.

BILL MAHER, HBO: I think we all agree that Israel could have been the big one in this and let them in. Let’s not argue about that if we all agree on that. Let’s talk about the BDS because that’s what’s behind this. That’s why Israel said they wouldn’t let her in because she supports BDS, which stands for boycott, divest and sanction, of Israel, because of the occupation of the Palestinian territory…


It’s a bullshit purity test. BDS is a bullshit purity test by people who want to appear woke but actually slept through history class. It’ss predicated on this notion, I think, that the Jews in Israel are mostly white, the Palestinians are browner, so they must be innocent and correct, and the Jews must be wrong. As if the occupation came right out of the blue, that this completely peaceful people found themselves occupied. Forget about the intifadas and the suicide bombings and the rockets and how many wars.


Let me read Omar Barghouti, is one of the co-founders of the movement. His quote: “No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”


So that’s where that comes from, this movement, someone who doesn’t even want a Jewish state at all. Somehow this side never gets presented in the American media. I think it’s very odd.


Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) called for people to boycott Maher’s show after his recent commentary on the BDS movement:

Source Article from https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/08/19/maher_bds_a_bullsht_purity_test_media_believes_jews_must_be_wrong_in_coverage_of_palestinians.html

The answer, as usual, is to be found in Trump’s TV-viewing habit. I suspect that, during his recent Executive Time, he watched the James Bond film “Quantum of Solace,” in which the villains conquer a country by monopolizing the fresh-water supply. Greenland’s ice, with enough water to fill the Great Lakes 115 times, is the world’s second-largest supply of fresh water.

Source Article from https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/08/20/dana-milbank-us-must-take

President Trump, on a tirade about Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib on Tuesday, claimed that American Jews who voted Democrat were either ill-informed or were exhibiting “great disloyalty.” This is a disgusting comment that reveals that, despite his constant attacks on them, Trump has no idea what actually made Tlaib and Omar’s statements anti-Semitic.

Asked to react to Omar and Tlaib’s recent Israel-bashing press conference, Trump went off on their hatred of Israel. He then wrapped up his comments, saying, “Any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”

Was he talking about disloyalty to America? Disloyalty to Trump? Disloyalty to Israel? Disloyalty to Jews? No matter which way one wants to interpret this comment, it’s sickening coming from an American president — all the more bizarre coming as he has been unleashing a barrage of attacks on Tlaib and Omar for anti-Semitism.

Among the litany of anti-Semitic remarks made by Tlaib and Omar, the most horrific involved accusations of dual loyalty (see background here and here). Accusations of dual loyalty have been at the center of anti-Semitic attacks on Jews for centuries. Yet here is Trump throwing out the “disloyalty” charge.

One potential interpretation is that he was suggesting it would be disloyal to Israel to vote Democrat. But American Jews are first and foremost American, not Israeli. Suggesting that Jewish votes should be determined primarily by U.S. policy toward Israel is in fact to suggest divided loyalties.

If he was trying to say Jews would be disloyal to their faith by voting Democrat, he needs to shut right the heck up, because he is in no position to criticize somebody’s relationship to their faith.

As a conservative, I have found it difficult to get behind Trump despite supporting a number of his policies, and a big reason why is the manner in which he speaks about many minority groups. He has up to this point avoided turning his wrath on Jews, but given his history of flipping on people he views as “disloyal,” his comments make me wonder what would happen if, as is most likely, Jews overwhelmingly vote against him despite his pro-Israel policies. Is there a point at which American Jews essentially become the next Anthony Scaramucci?

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-disloyalty-comment-about-american-jews-who-vote-democrat-was-disgusting-and-worrisome


President Donald Trump walks on stage to address construction workers in Pennsylvania. Trump and top White House officials are worried about a global economic slowdown that could trigger a U.S. recession.
| Andrew Rush/Post-Gazette via AP

Economy

The White House is weighing cuts to corporate and payroll taxes, among other measures, to cushion the U.S. economy if an election-year recession hits.

In public, President Donald Trump and top White House officials keep extolling the strength of the U.S. economy. In private, they’re increasingly worrying about a global economic slowdown triggering a U.S. recession — and weighing options to shore up the economy ahead of an election year.

At a fundraising luncheon this week in Jackson, Wyo., headlined by both Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney acknowledged the risks to the GOP elite behind closed doors. If the U.S. were to face a recession, it would be “moderate and short,” Mulvaney told roughly 50 donors, according to an attendee.

Story Continued Below

White House officials are discussing a broader package of measures than previously disclosed, including a cut of an additional percentage point or two to the corporate tax rate. That’s on top of a potential payroll tax cut, which the Obama administration had used to shore up the economy, and a move to index the capital gains rate to inflation, which potentially could be done through an executive order and has internal support from the National Economic Council, the vice president’s office and Mulvaney. Pegging the capital gains rate to inflation would exempt some gains from taxation.

“We have been talking about indexing for a long time,” Trump told reporters Tuesday afternoon. “I can do it directly.”

Any other tax cuts would have to pass Congress, an unlikely endeavor given the Democratic-controlled House. One close White House adviser called the idea of additional tax cuts a “talking point” to show the White House is considering options to help the economy, while a Republican operative called proposing additional tax cuts right now “quixotic.”

“I’ve been thinking about payroll taxes for a long time,” Trump added. “Whether or not we do it now or not is — it’s not being done because of recession.”

The president and his aides are well aware that Trump’s strongest selling point heading into his 2020 reelection bid is the state of the economy. Any threat to it could endanger Trump’s fragile approval ratings, especially among voters who say they are willing to overlook the president’s incendiary rhetoric provided they feel confident about their own financial security.

The administration is also urging the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates sharply, a move Trump has long sought in his public attacks on the central bank, and it is pursuing a trade deal with China amid various tariffs that some businesses say are posing substantial economic risks.

“The only thing they have in their control is China and putting out regulatory rules,” said one former senior administration official. “Beyond that, there is very little that they can do — but that does not mean people are not brainstorming options.”

Trump advisers concede that aides are feeling uneasy about the global economy’s effect on the U.S., as the president prepares to travel to a G-7 meeting in France this weekend.

“It is hard for us to grow when the rest of the world isn’t,” said Stephen Moore, a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation who Trump once considered for a spot on the Federal Reserve Board. “This has increased the administration’s desire to get a trade deal on China. That is key. Once you get a trade deal with China, it puts you back on the 3 percent growth path.”

The White House spent Tuesday selling its happy economic message. Top economic adviser Larry Kudlow hosted two calls with local and state officials and conservative groups to offer his own analysis and assurances, discussions that one White House official said had been planned for several weeks. Officials also reached out to business groups with a message that included stressing the stock market‘s resilience.

The president is intent on convincing voters that the economy is in fine shape because he knows voters often cast ballots based on how they feel at the time of the election about their own economic situation.

“People do not vote on numbers. They vote on whether they feel good, and the president understands that. He is selling the feeling,” a second White House adviser said. “It is like any other sales pitch: He is constantly trying to play off people’s feelings and emotions on the economy.”

He’s not the only one. Kudlow, counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway and deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley all appeared on TV over the past few days to deliver the administration’s upbeat, public-facing message, while Vice President Mike Pence spoke to the Detroit Economic Club on Monday to tout the administration’s record featuring low unemployment and healthy wage growth.

“Despite the irresponsible rhetoric of many in the mainstream media, the American economy is strong, and the U.S. economic outlook remains strong as well,” Pence said in Detroit. “Last week, despite some volatility in global markets, leading retailers also reported strong sales and earnings, and consumer spending posted its strongest reading since March.”

A recession is generally considered to be two straight quarters of economic contraction. While the U.S. is not experiencing a recession, given steady growth in jobs and wages, some common warning signs have emerged in financial markets including the inversion of a measure known as the yield curve, which can signal a downturn ahead.

Some parts of the economy have also suffered of late from weak business investment and Trump’s trade wars. On top of that, a federal deficit that is expected to exceed $1 trillion this year limits the administration’s options to cushion against a downturn.

Trump spent Tuesday stridently defending his administration’s trade standoff with China, which many economic experts and Republicans pinpoint as the main driver of any U.S. economic troubles.

“You should be happy that I’m fighting this battle, because somebody has to do it. We couldn’t let this go. I don’t even think it’s sustainable to let go on what was happening,” Trump told reporters as he detailed the way China steals U.S. intellectual property and argued none of his presidential predecessors were willing to confront China as he has.

“My life would be a lot easier if I didn’t take China on. But I like doing it because I have to do it. And we’re getting great help. China’s had the worst year they’ve had in 27 years, and a lot of people saying the worst year they’ve had in 54 years,” he added.

If the economy weakens any further, the president has already lined up scapegoats including the media, Democrats and the man he appointed to lead the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, who Trump has been railing against for months.

The president appears to be setting up this collective group to take the blame if the economy falters on his watch.

“I think the word ‘recession’ is a word that’s inappropriate because it’s just a word that the — certain people; I’m going to be kind — certain people and the media, are trying to build up because they’d love to see a recession. We’re very far from a recession,” the president said.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/20/donald-trump-gop-donors-recession-1470360

  • Following his talks with NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre and gun rights activists, President Donald Trump struck a different tone on potential gun regulations in the weeks after two mass shootings.
  • The NRA reportedly launched a campaign to contact lawmakers in the wake of the back-to-back El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, shootings on August 3-4.
  • Trump also personally spoke to LaPierre multiple times, according to several news reports earlier this month.
  • The shift comes after Trump signaled he was willing to broach the topic of universal background checks.

Following his talks with NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre and gun rights activists, President Donald Trump struck a different tone on potential gun regulations in the weeks after two mass shootings, according to a New York Times report.

The NRA reportedly launched a campaign to contact lawmakers in the wake of the back-to-back El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, shootings on August 3 and August 4. Both gunmen wielded assault-style rifles in the separate shootings that killed 31 people.

Trump personally spoke to LaPierre multiple times, according to several newsreports that were published earlier in August. LaPierre was said to have voiced his displeasure on expanded background checks, a potential piece of legislation that received bipartisan support in Congress.

LaPierre reportedly claimed the proposed legislation would not align with his supporters’ views, a source familiar with the conversation previously said to CNN.

Read more: Gun control really works. Science has shown time and again that it can prevent mass shootings and save lives.

Onlookers, including a man wearing a National Rifle Association (NRA) t-shirt, watch as a 95-by-50-foot American flag is unfurled on the side of an apartment complex, a replica of the “The Great Flag” that was spun, woven, dyed, constructed and displayed on the same building by Amoskeag Manufacturing Company in 1914, in Manchester, New Hampshire, U.S., June 14, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder




Immediately following the shootings, Trump signaled he was willing to broach the subject. 

“Well I’m looking to do background checks,” Trump said to reporters. “I think background checks are important. I don’t want to put guns into the hands of mentally unstable people or people with rage or hate.”

But in the weeks since, Trump said he was “very concerned” with the Second Amendment and claimed, “people don’t realize we have very strong background checks right now.”

Trump reportedly privately noted the waning influence of the non-profit organization, which was shaken by a tumultuous leadership scandal earlier this year and is embroiled in numerous lawsuits, including one by the New York attorney general’s office for its finances. 

A White House spokesman told The Times that Trump’s recent comments were not a reversal of his prior statements.

Democratic leaders did not remain optimistic for a potential policy shift from the White House. 

“We’ve seen this movie before: President Trump, feeling public pressure in the immediate aftermath of a horrible shooting, talks about doing something meaningful to address gun violence,” Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said in a statement on Monday. “But inevitably, he backtracks in response to pressure from the NRA and the hard-right.”

“These retreats from President Trump are not only disappointing but also heartbreaking, particularly for the families of the victims of gun violence,” Schumer added.

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/08/20/trump-stopped-calling-for-very-meaningful-background-checks-on-guns-after-talking-to-the-head-of-the-nra/23797570/

President Trump, on a tirade about Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib on Tuesday, claimed that American Jews who voted Democrat were either ill-informed or were exhibiting “great disloyalty.” This is a disgusting comment that reveals that, despite his constant attacks on them, Trump has no idea what actually made Tlaib and Omar’s statements anti-Semitic.

Asked to react to Omar and Tlaib’s recent Israel-bashing press conference, Trump went off on their hatred of Israel. He then wrapped up his comments, saying, “Any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”

Was he talking about disloyalty to America? Disloyalty to Trump? Disloyalty to Israel? Disloyalty to Jews? No matter which way one wants to interpret this comment, it’s sickening coming from an American president — all the more bizarre coming as he has been unleashing a barrage of attacks on Tlaib and Omar for anti-Semitism.

Among the litany of anti-Semitic remarks made by Tlaib and Omar, the most horrific involved accusations of dual loyalty (see background here and here). Accusations of dual loyalty have been at the center of anti-Semitic attacks on Jews for centuries. Yet here is Trump throwing out the “disloyalty” charge.

One potential interpretation is that he was suggesting it would be disloyal to Israel to vote Democrat. But American Jews are first and foremost American, not Israeli. Suggesting that Jewish votes should be determined primarily by U.S. policy toward Israel is in fact to suggest divided loyalties.

If he was trying to say Jews would be disloyal to their faith by voting Democrat, he needs to shut right the heck up, because he is in no position to criticize somebody’s relationship to their faith.

As a conservative, I have found it difficult to get behind Trump despite supporting a number of his policies, and a big reason why is the manner in which he speaks about many minority groups. He has up to this point avoided turning his wrath on Jews, but given his history of flipping on people he views as “disloyal,” his comments make me wonder what would happen if, as is most likely, Jews overwhelmingly vote against him despite his pro-Israel policies. Is there a point at which American Jews essentially become the next Anthony Scaramucci?

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-disloyalty-comment-about-american-jews-who-vote-democrat-was-disgusting-and-worrisome

Also colluding are the many farmers, retailers, manufacturers and economists who have been warning for more than a year that the burden of Trump’s tariffs is mainly borne by Americans, not China or other trading partners, and also that uncertainty over trade tensions can paralyze hiring, investment and purchasing decisions, which we need to keep the economy expanding.

Source Article from https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/08/20/catherine-rampell-move/

The details of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged suicide are still unclear, but what we do know suggests that this was not a spontaneous death. On the contrary. Epstein’s death seems to have been planned, perhaps even coordinated, by one person: Jeffrey Epstein.

A new report by the New York Post reveals the disgraced financier accused of molesting, assaulting, and trafficking dozens of young girls signed his will just two days before he died, leaving behind a nearly $600 million fortune. He put all of his holdings in a trust, the 1953 Trust, which is fairly common among the wealthy, according to a city estate lawyer.

“What is more unusual is the date,” the lawyer said, “the fact that all of this was done just days before he died.”

Unusual indeed. This new revelation, along with the fact that his prison guards had conveniently fallen asleep while he hung himself, leaves us with this:

  • Epstein had been on suicide watch after guards found him lying in his cell unconscious with marks around his neck. He had been taken off of suicide watch two weeks before he was found dead.
  • The guards who were in charge of his surveillance neglected their duty and then attempted to cover their tracks.
  • Epstein had also leveraged his wealth while he was in prison, depositing money in at least three inmates’ commissary accounts, and paying a staff of lawyers to meet with him for up to 12 hours at a time in an attempt to get out of his cell.

This was a powerful man with damaging, perhaps even criminalizing, information on a lot of important people. And yet somehow, the most famous criminal in the U.S. was able to string himself up with a bedsheet and take his own life. Yes, prison negligence played an important role in this scandal — can we call it that now? But could Epstein have made it worth everyone’s while to be negligent? Guards fast asleep, no camera footage, and a will signed and ready to go.

On the other side of the ledger, this would hardly be the first time ignorance and carelessness contributed to the loss of life in a U.S. prison. It’s a far too common occurrence that should shock this nation’s conscience and inspire reform.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-signed-his-will-two-days-before-his-death-was-that-a-coincidence

President Trump’s allegation that Anthony Scaramucci “abused staff” was met with agreement from many who worked under or near the financier during his 11 days as White House communications director.

Though fired more than two years ago, Scaramucci’s break with Trump this month surfaced previously unpublished stories of allegedly inappropriate behavior.

Sources said Trump’s tweet Monday recalled a little-known truth: Although Scaramucci was dismissed after disparaging other senior officials in a profane interview, he was on the verge of being fired anyhow.

“The dirty secret was the interview escalated it. The reality was [other] things, that’s where [White House chief of staff John] Kelly lost his shit,” a source familiar with Scaramucci’s termination said. “Everyone in the press watched the expletive-laced tirade and no one went, ‘What else caused it?’”

Kelly, whose first official day as chief of staff was July 31, made firing Scaramucci one of his first official acts. Kelly replaced former Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who had been ousted as chief of staff a few days earlier.

Scaramucci’s gravest human resources sin featured telling a female White House official that he heard she was sleeping with a more senior male official, many sources said.

The allegation was widely viewed by sources as “gross” and a clear attempt to intimidate and humiliate the woman.

A person who spoke with Scaramucci said he defended himself as merely wanting to make the woman aware of what others were saying. Other sources, however, believe Scaramucci invented the allegation.

A person familiar with the episode called the explanation offered by Scaramucci “the purest form of bullshit” and said he was really “trying inflict as much pain and damage as possible.”

Other accusations circulated about Scaramucci’s work with women.

“Several female staffers felt he repeatedly verbally harassed them and would physically loom over them as an intimidation tactic. Several staffers were preparing to quit before he was let go,” one source said.

“With the guys it wasn’t any easier. It was very in our face,” a different source recalled.

“Everybody’s nerves were pretty rankled because he was behaving so erratically in meetings,” recalled a third source. “It was like being in an abusive relationship. You didn’t know when the next punch would be.”

Scaramucci was brought aboard to disrupt a culture of leaks, but his aggressiveness in doing so surprised even his supporters.

“The people in the press and comms shop that supported Mooch, two days in thought the guy was walking on the thinnest of possible ice,” said a fourth source.

[Also read: Anthony Scaramucci and Bill Kristol in private talks to find GOP candidate to replace Trump in 2020]

Scaramucci’s right-hand man and perceived ally at the time, Cliff Sims, would later write of a meeting with about 40 press and communications staffers where he threatened to fire them all for leaking. Sims likened it to a “fire-breathing dragon that had just returned from laying waste to the unsuspecting peasants in the village.”

Indeed, a few morning meetings with Scaramucci are well remembered.

After the content of a staff meeting was leaked, Scaramucci threatened staff the next day.

“Anthony came back on Tuesday and said, ‘There is a leaker in this room … and I’m just going to fire you all,’” a source recalled. “There’s no doubt in my mind that it was Anthony or one of his acolytes who leaked it so they could try to fire some of the RNC staff.”

“He was so butthurt that he was kept out of the administration, and he blamed it all on Reince. So RNC people all got lumped in that bucket,” the source recalled.

In a White House riven by factions, Scaramucci aligned against former RNC aides brought in under Priebus, whom he blamed for keeping him from a prime administration job early in the administration. Many people believe Scaramucci boosters brought him aboard as a grenade to clear out strategist Steve Bannon and Priebus. Bannon departed in early August.

At one morning meeting, a press aide pushed back on a point Scaramucci had made. Scaramucci surprised the room by accusing the aide of having dual loyalties, divided between the team’s mission and that of Priebus, who would soon depart as chief of staff.

Still, despite the widely shared characterizations of Scaramucci’s time in office, his fight with Trump resulted in a flurry of other allegations, some denied by supposed witnesses.

A spokeswoman for Scaramucci described negative recollections as an orchestrated hit after the New York businessman recently stood up to Trump and questioned his mental fitness for office.

”Trump and his allies have launched a dishonest orchestrated attack against Anthony Scaramucci because he chose to speak out against the President’s erratic and divisive behavior. Donald Trump has a long record of manipulating the truth for his own benefit and this is just the latest example,” the spokeswoman said.

In response to a request for comment, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Scaramucci “has no relevance, credibility, or notoriety, and his ravenous appetite for attention has led him to lash out at a president he once strongly supported.”

Grisham continued: “Predictably, many in the media are choosing to promote anyone who says a single unkind thing about this President but the facts are simple; Anthony got a job at the White House, was fired 11 days later for numerous issues surrounding his conduct, and has begged to come back many times since. For someone who purports to have a successful business and happy home life, he is sure spending a lot of time on TV talking about things he has no knowledge of.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/people-who-worked-with-scaramucci-confirm-trump-claim-he-abused-staff

Image copyright
EPA

Image caption

Italy’s PM Giuseppe Conte addresses the Senate flanked by Matteo Salvini (L) and Luigi Di Maio

After a blistering attack on coalition partner Matteo Salvini, Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte has said he will tender his resignation.

Mr Conte said Mr Salvini had been “irresponsible” in creating a new political crisis for Italy for “personal and party interests”.

Mr Salvini, the leader of the nationalist League party, had tabled a no-confidence motion against Mr Conte.

He also said he could no longer work with his coalition partners Five Star.

The League and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement formed a coalition to govern just 14 months ago with Mr Conte as an independent as prime minister.

What did the PM say about Salvini?

Addressing the Senate on Tuesday, Mr Conte said the League leader, who was sitting beside him, had been “looking for a pretext to return to the polls” since his party’s success in European elections in May.

In those elections, the League came top with 34% of the votes in Italy, whereas Five Star got about 17%.

Mr Conte warned that Mr Salvini had undermined the function of the government, “which stops here”.

“It is irresponsible to initiate a government crisis. It shows personal and party interests,” he said.

He also criticised Mr Salvini’s use of “combining political slogans and religious symbols at rallies”, calling it “unconscionable”.

“I take this opportunity to announce that I will present my resignation as head of government to the president of the republic,” he added.

What have the coalition leaders said?

“I did not speak ill of some colleagues, but as minister of the interior I delivered a safer Italy in the past year of government,” Mr Salvini told the Senate.

“I am not afraid of the judgement of Italians,” he added, referring to his earlier call for fresh elections.

He went on to say that while he had been accused of leading a party of “alleged fascists”, the League was the only party pushing for a democratic vote. “Imagine that,” he said, “the dictatorship that wants the vote of the Italian people”.

Media caption“All politicians are to blame”

Five Star leader Luigi Di Maio, meanwhile, said his party did not fear another election.

In a Facebook post ahead of Mr Conte’s address, Mr Di Maio said it was “the day when the League will have to answer for its faults for having decided to bring everything down, opening a government crisis in the middle of August”.

He added that working with Mr Conte “was an honour”.

What happens next?

Mr Conte was due to present his resignation letter to President Sergio Mattarella for approval after the Senate debate.

The next step is in the president’s hands. Mr Mattarella could call early elections but he could also decide to announce discussions with party leaders on forming a new coalition government – which could begin as early as Wednesday morning.

While Mr Salvini is ahead in the polls, he is unlikely to have enough support to become prime minister. He indicated on Tuesday that he was prepared to work with his coalition partners to secure budget reforms ahead of early elections.

Five Star, meanwhile, are said to have been in discussions with the centre-left opposition Democratic Party (PD) about forming an alternative coalition.

Matteo Renzi, former leader of the PD and prime minister, has returned to frontline politics, saying Mr Salvini must be stopped.

He has called for a technocratic caretaker government.

The coalition talks represent a change of tack for Five Star. Mr Di Maio said recently that “nobody wants to sit at the table with Renzi”. This uneasy relationship could make it difficult to form a government.

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49411760

Texas state Capitol building in Austin. This week, state officials confirmed that 23 municipalities have been infiltrated and ransom demanded.

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

Texas state Capitol building in Austin. This week, state officials confirmed that 23 municipalities have been infiltrated and ransom demanded.

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

Updated at 12:11 p.m. ET

Texas is the latest state to be hit with a cyberattack, with state officials confirming this week that computer systems in 23 municipalities have been infiltrated by hackers demanding a ransom.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and state cybersecurity experts are examining the ongoing breach, which began Friday morning and has affected mostly smaller local governments. Officials have not disclosed which specific places are affected.

Investigators have also not yet identified who or what is behind the attack that took the systems offline, but the Texas Department of Information Resources says the evidence so far points to “one single threat actor.”

Elliott Sprehe, a spokesman for the department, said he was “not aware” of any of the cities having paid the undisclosed ransom sought by hackers. He said the areas impacted are predominantly rural.

Two cities so far have come forward to say their computer systems were affected. Officials in Borger in the Texas Panhandle, said the attack has affected city business and financial operations. Birth and death certificates are not available online, and the city can’t accept utility payments from any of its 13,25o residents. “Responders have not yet established a time-frame for when full, normal operations will be restored,” city officials said.

Keene, Texas, a city of some 6,100 people outside Fort Worth, was also hit, officials announced. The city’s government is also unable to process utility payments.

Experts say that while government agencies have increasingly been hit by cyberattacks, simultaneously targeting nearly two dozen cities represents a new kind of cyberassault.

“What’s unique about this attack and something we hadn’t seen before is how coordinated attack this attack is,” said threat intelligence analyst Allan Liska. “It does present a new front in the ransomware attack,” he said. “It absolutely is the largest coordinated attack we’ve seen.”

Liska’s research firm, Recorded Future, has found that ransomware attacks aimed at state and local government have been on the rise, finding at least 169 examples of hackers breaking into government computer systems since 2013. There have been more than 60 already this year, he said.

In recent months, the data networks of Baltimore, the Georgia courts system and a county in Utah have all been hit by ransomware.

The hacker bait tends to come in the form of a seemingly benign email with links or attachments that, once opened, can infect a system. There are other popular ways of tapping into government networks, Liska said, like through remote desktop systems, which can be vulnerable to hackers.

While the attackers tend to be anonymous and their locations undisclosed, Liska said his research has found that few are based in the U.S. Many, he said, are breaching local government computer systems from operations based in parts of Eastern Europe or Russia.

And sometimes local governments see no other option to restoring their crippled networks than paying a ransom demanded by hackers. In Lake City, Fla., a town of about 12,000 residents, officials paid $460,000 in the form of bitcoin, the preferred payment method among cybercriminals.

“They turned off the servers. They literally went room through room through city hall, unplugging people’s networks cables and turning off all the computers,” Mike Lee, a sergeant with the Lake City Police Department, told NPR in July.

The ransom was paid by insurance, but taxpayers were still on the hook for a $10,000 deductible.

The Recorded Future study found that about 17% of local agencies hit with ransomware viruses paid up, a practice federal law enforcement officials discourage, saying it incentivizes cybercriminals to keep engaging in the activity.

Liska said in cities he has worked with that have been preyed upon by hackers, there are instances in which ponying up for the return of data is the only viable option.

“Sometimes the reality of the situation may call for it,” he said. “If the backups aren’t working or if the bad guys have encrypted your backups, then unfortunately that’s what you’re left with.”

Individuals, businesses and institutions such as hospitals have been targeted by ransomware attacks for years. With the recent attacks on state and city government, local officials are rushing to secure their computer systems, holding new training and backing up their servers, Liska said. But in smaller, cash-strapped localities, there could be challenges to building a security defense.

In Texas, state authorities have not yet disclosed where exactly the attacks were based or how many computers have been swept up in the breach, meaning it is not yet known what services or data might have been compromised.

“Hitting 23 towns at once was bad, but we don’t know how much damage was done,” Liska said. “One computer in each town versus 100 computers in each town is a big difference.”

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/08/20/752695554/23-texas-towns-hit-with-ransomware-attack-in-new-front-of-cyberassault

Suburban women in some swing House districts overwhelmingly want tighter gun laws, a new poll conducted by a Republican firm has found. In fact, preventing gun violence has surpassed health care as the most important issue in the eyes of these women, including independents.

But in the wake of two recent mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, Congress and President Donald Trump are showing few signs of taking action to pass even basic legislation to curb shootings, including a bipartisan universal background check bill that was the most popular measure among the women surveyed.

First reported by the Washington Post’s James Hohmann, the Public Opinion Strategies poll commissioned by the Republican Main Street Partnership surveyed 1,000 women in five congressional districts: Colorado’s Sixth, Kansas’s Third, North Carolina’s Ninth, Pennsylvania’s First, and Virginia’s 10th, some of which have been personally affected by high-profile gun violence. Colorado’s Sixth Congressional District, for example, is home to Aurora, where 12 people were killed by a shooter at a movie theater in 2012. It’s also close to Columbine High School, the site of the 1999 high school massacre.

The poll found a vast majority of the women surveyed want Congress to pass several gun control measures; in addition to the 90 percent who supported a universal background check bill, 76 percent of women polled also said they wanted Congress to ban the purchase and use of semi-automatic weapons like AK-47s and AR-15s.

Though these women’s priorities might change before November, 2020, none of this is good news for Republicans in battleground states and districts.

Suburban women were a force to be reckoned with in the 2018 midterms; they were a key constituency that turned on congressional Republicans and helped propel Democrats to their blue wave in the House. Republicans want to woo them back ahead of the 2020 presidential election, but continued inaction on gun control legislation could make that a tough sell to a group that wants results from Congress.

Suburban women are worried about gun violence, and they want Congress to do something

The women polled by Public Opinion Strategies supported a wide array of legislation to help curb gun violence beyond universal background checks. That bill had 90 support among all women polled and 85 percent support from women who identify as independents. Here are the other measures women supported:

  • A measure that would require a 48-hour waiting period between when someone buys a gun and when they are actually able to take possession of that gun. 88 percent of women and 89 percent of independent-leaning women supported this.
  • A measure known as a “red flag law,” which allows law enforcement to temporarily take possession of guns from someone who may present a danger, either to themselves or others. 84 percent of women and 85 percent of independent-leaning women supported this.
  • A measure banning the purchase and use of semi-automatic assault weapons like AK-47s and AR-15s. 76 percent of women and independents supported this.
  • A measure banning the sale and possession of high capacity or extended ammunition magazines, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before the user reloads. 72 percent of women and 65 percent of independent-leaning women supported this.

A full 73 percent of women believed these proposals would make their communities safer. But even after more deaths in Dayton and El Paso, the prospects for even passing a universal background check — the most popular proposal among these women — isn’t looking good. Although Trump initially said he was confident he could get Republicans to support universal background check legislation after the shootings, he has seemingly backtracked. Trump chalked up the recent mass shootings to mental health at his most recent campaign rally, and this week he told reporters, “Just remember, we already have a lot of background checks.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not answered House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s call to bring the Senate back early from August recess to consider a universal background check bill the House already passed in February. McConnell has said dealing with background checks will be at the forefront of the Senate’s legislative agenda when they return to Capitol Hill, but he also hasn’t yet backed a specific piece of legislation.

Trump’s backtracking on the need for a universal background check bill could kill what little momentum there is; congressional Republicans in the past have been loathe to take up bills Trump doesn’t support.

On Monday, Pelosi again called on the Senate to take up the House’s bill straight away, rather than waiting until after recess.

“I pray that the President will listen to the 90 percent of the American people who support universal background checks,” Pelosi said in a statement. “Once again, I call upon the President to bring Senator McConnell back to Washington to immediately take up House-passed, bipartisan legislation to address this epidemic and to save lives.”

Trump is polling underwater with these women

None of this is likely to help Republicans looking to court suburban women in 2020. President Trump has long been in trouble with these voters, and it’s clear in the Public Opinion Strategies poll.

Just 35 percent of women in the districts polled approve of the job Trump is doing, while 61 percent disapprove (55 percent disapprove “strongly”). Trump is doing even worse among women who identify as independents; 32 percent approve of him while 63 percent disapprove.

These women also tend to favor the Democrat in their House district when polled on the generic ballot, which shows that public sentiment is still favoring Democrats, at least in these five swing districts.

Suburban women see Trump “literally as a crisis,” Republican pollster Christine Matthews told Vox’s Dylan Matthews after the 2018 midterms. “The Trump presidency is a crisis to democracy, our values, our morality. It is making women physically sick. That is the word they use all the time — the word is ‘nauseous.’”

As Scott wrote, suburban voters revolted against Republicans and Trump in 2018 over a number of concerns, including gun violence.

Some of it is certainly personal to Trump. But the president has infected the entire Republican Party. [Former Pennsylvania Rep. Ryan] Costello described these suburban voters in three words — “they want results” — and lamented that Republicans have mostly been immovable on issues like gun control and climate change.

Flash forward to 2019, and these voters still aren’t seeing a lot of results on these issues. It’s not for lack of trying on Democrats’ part, but McConnell has declared himself the “grim reaper” of Democratic legislation on Capitol Hill. The midterms were a warning sign for Republicans, but they aren’t showing many signs of changing their ways.

That could spell trouble for them in 2020.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2019/8/20/20812300/suburban-women-background-checks-bill-2020

ST. PAUL, Minnesota Reminiscent of the surprising momentum of Donald Trump’s populist presidential campaign four summers ago, Elizabeth Warren was forced to turn a planned town hall meeting into a rally when more than 10,000 showed to hear the Democratic contender rail against Washington corruption.

The Warren campaign pegged the overflow crowd gathered on the grassy quad of a small liberal arts college at 12,000, the largest since she launched her bid Dec. 31. The liberal populist, the surprise of the summer after stumbling out of the gate, did not disappoint. She offered a smattering of her signature government reform plans as she blamed the nation’s ills on a federal government beholden to big corporations and the so-called rich.

“I’m not doing this because I’m cranky. I’m not mad at anybody,” Warren said during remarks that lasted about an hour. “If you built a great fortune in America, you built it at least in part using workers all of us paid to educate.”

During a brief news conference afterward, in the midst of satisfying a long line of selfie-seekers, Warren addressed questions about her decision to issue an unequivocal apology for claiming Native American ancestry. The atonement was delivered to a conference of tribal leaders in Iowa prior to her evening campaign rally at Macalester College in Minnesota’s capital city.

The Massachusetts senator had asserted Native American heritage for several years. The issue eventually became a major political hurdle for her in the 2020 primary. “It was good to be there with tribal leaders and tribal citizens. I was just glad to have this opportunity, and it was a statement from the heart to people who have welcomed me with open arms,” she said.

Warren, 70, clad in a black blouse and powder-blue sweater, spoke without notes, describing the financial struggles her family endured during her childhood in Oklahoma before moving on to her career as a law professor and politician. “I have a plan for that” has become a staple Warren slogan, and she did not disappoint.

The senator summarized her proposals to provide taxpayer-subsidized college education, government-run healthcare, implement a tax on personal wealth that reaches the tens of millions, “end lobbying as we know it,” outlaw gerrymandering, and secure the nation’s voting systems. Like Trump, Warren labeled a corrupt federal government, which she described as manipulated by monied interests, as the overriding obstacle standing between Americans and a better life.

That message has carried her from single-digit contender to second in the polls nationally, second in Iowa — host of the first nominating contest of the Democratic primary — and second in New Hampshire.

“I have the biggest anti-corruption plan since Watergate,” Warren said, presenting herself as a change agent uniquely suited to take on the system. “Here’s the bad news: We need the biggest anti-corruption plan since Watergate.”

The crowd stayed until the end, and more than an hour after Warren finished, the line for photographs with the candidate still stretched what amounted to a couple of city blocks. Not every presumed Democratic voter in the audience was yet convinced that Warren is the right candidate to face Trump in 2020, but she left most with a positive impression.

“I could see myself voting for someone else, but I’m leaning heavily towards Warren,” said Gareth Armson, 33, an attorney. “I’ve seen some of the other candidates in the debates that really surprised me with how well they did. I thought they had good things to say. But they just seemed liked regular, old white men who are the same thing we’ve had for a really long time.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/im-not-mad-elizabeth-warrens-quiet-liberal-populism-draws-12-000-in-minnesota

CLOSE

Jeffrey Epstein signed and filed his will just two days before he was found dead in his New York City jail cell.
Buzz60

Accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein signed a will just two days before he died by suicide in a New York jail, new court records show, leaving behind an estate valued at more than $577 million, including more than $56 million in cash.

The 66-year-old’s death was ruled a suicide by hanging last week by New York’s chief medical examiner. 

The will was filed last week with court officials in the U.S. Virgin Islands and listed no details of beneficiaries, according to the New York Post.

Court papers filed in St. Thomas reveal that the former hedge-fund manager was worth about $18 million more than what he stated in court papers while trying to land bail for federal sex trafficking charges related to underage girls, the newspaper reported.

Epstein put all of his holdings in a trust, called The 1953 Trust, which a law expert told The New York Times may have been an attempt to keep his financial dealings from public scrutiny. 

CLOSE

Jeffrey Epstein has had a long list of friends from high places, including the likes of Stephen Hawking, Bill Clinton and President Trump. But did Epstein leverage these connections? We explain.
Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

“It avoids prying eyes because the trust is private,” Patrick D. Goodman, a probate law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles law school, told the Times. 

Epstein signed the 21-page document Aug. 8. Less than 48 hours later, he was found unresponsive in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where he was awaiting trial.

He named Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, two longtime associates, as the executors and his brother, Mark Epstein, as the single remaining heir, according to the Times. 

Decades of accusations: Newly revealed accusations against Jeffrey Epstein date back 22 years

The existence of the will raised new questions about Epstein’s final days inside the Manhattan detention center.

Lawyers, representing women who claim they were sexually abused by Epstein when they were teenagers, were closely following the existence of a will.

Several attorneys vowed to go after his assets even if the will had named beneficiaries, as Epstein’s death means there will be no trial on the criminal charges against him. One woman filed suit against the estate last week, claiming Epstein repeatedly raped her when she was a teenager.

“Give his entire estate to his victims. It is the only justice they can get,” one of those lawyers, Lisa Bloom, wrote in an email. “And they deserve it. And on behalf of the Epstein victims I represent, I intend to fight for it.”

Former federal prosecutor David S. Weinstein, who is now in private practice in Miami but not involved in the Epstein case, said states and U.S. territories have certain timeframes within which to make a claim against someone’s estate.

“There are certainly going to be a lot of lawyers involved,” Weinstein said. “It’s not going to be over any time soon.”

The death of Jeffrey Epstein: Fact, fiction, confusion and a warden reassigned

Epstein owned a Caribbean island, homes in Paris and New York City, a New Mexico ranch and a fleet of high-priced cars.

Epstein had more than $112 million worth of equities, according to the will, and nearly $200 million in “hedge funds & private equity investments.” Among the properties that will be subject to appraisal and valuation are his collection of fine arts, antiques and other collectibles.

As part of his 2008 plea deal to Florida state charges, Epstein made undisclosed financial settlements with dozens of his victims. It’s unclear how those settlements might affect any claims made on his estate.

William Blum, an attorney for Epstein’s estate, said in a statement to The Associated Press that any debts or claims against the estate will be “fairly administered.” He said the document was Epstein’s original last will.

Contributing: The Associated Press. Follow Adrianna Rodriguez on Twitter: @AdriannaUSAT

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/20/jeffrey-epstein-signed-two-days-before-suicide-records-show/2059118001/

One of the more interesting phenomenons in our poll comes from a question which asks potential Democratic primary voters the candidates they are interested in hearing more about besides the candidate they support.

Following the June debates, there was a lot of interest in candidates not named Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. At least 15% of voters said they were interested in hearing more about Cory Booker (17%), Pete Buttigieg (23%), Julián Castro (16%), Kamala Harris (30%) and Elizabeth Warren (24%).

Now take a look at these same candidates: Booker (10%, down 7 points), Buttigieg (13%, down 10 points), Castro (5%, down 11 points), Harris (18%, down 12 points) and Warren (20%, down 4 points).

Meanwhile, the same 15% and 16% continue to want to hear more about Biden and Sanders respectively.

It shouldn’t be too surprising that a debate would shake things up. The first debate was the first time many voters saw these different candidates in action.

But our poll suggests that interest was just a passing fancy for now.

While we still have a long way to go until the first votes are cast, Biden and Sanders are holding onto their roughly 30% and 15% of the vote respectively.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-08-20-19/index.html

Following his talks with the NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre and gun-rights activists, President Donald Trump struck a different tone on gun regulations in the weeks after two mass shootings, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The NRA reportedly launched a campaign to contact lawmakers in the wake of the shootings on August 3 and 4 in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. Both gunmen wielded assault-style rifles in the separate shootings, which killed 31 people.

Trump has spoken with LaPierre multiple times, according to several news reports published earlier in August. LaPierre is said to have voiced displeasure about expanded background checks, legislation that has received bipartisan support in Congress, saying that would not align with the group’s supporters’ views.

Read more: Gun control really works. Science has shown time and again that it can prevent mass shootings and save lives.

Immediately after the shootings, Trump signaled that he was willing to broach the subject.

“Well, I’m looking to do background checks,” Trump told reporters. “I think background checks are important. I don’t want to put guns into the hands of mentally unstable people or people with rage or hate.”

He added that “we have to have very meaningful background checks.”

But in the weeks since, Trump has said that he is “very concerned” with the Second Amendment and that “people don’t realize we have very strong background checks right now.”

The Times reported that Trump has privately noted the waning influence of the nonprofit organization, which was shaken by a leadership scandal earlier this year and is embroiled in numerous lawsuits, including one from the New York Attorney General’s Office over its finances.

A White House spokesman told The Times that Trump’s recent comments were not a reversal of his prior statements.

Democratic leaders said they were not optimistic about a policy shift from the White House.

“We’ve seen this movie before: President Donald J. Trump, feeling public pressure in the immediate aftermath of a horrible shooting, talks about doing something meaningful to address gun violence,” Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said in a statement on Monday, “but inevitably, he backtracks in response to pressure from the NRA and the hard-right.”

Schumer added: “These retreats from President Trump are not only disappointing but also heartbreaking, particularly for the families of the victims of gun violence.”

Source Article from https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-stopped-calling-for-meaningful-background-checks-guns-shootings-2019-8

Oscar-winning actress and activist Susan Sarandon appeared to take a shot at Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday during a Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign event in Iowa.

“He is not someone who used to be a Republican,” Sarandon told the crowd during her introduction of Sanders, according to Politico reporter Holly Otterbein.

Sarandon, a Sanders supporter, didn’t mention Warren by name, but the Massachusetts senator was a registered Republican in the mid-1990s.

WARREN APOLOGIZES TO NATIVE AMERICANS FOR ANCESTRY CLAIMS: ‘I HAVE MADE MISTAKES’

“I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets,” Warren told Politico in 2011. “I think that is not true anymore.”

Warren and Sanders — two liberal favorites — have been polling toward the top of the crowded Democratic presidential primary field.

One national poll released last week by The Economist/YouGov showed Warren coming in at second with 20%, while Sanders was close behind at 16%. Former Vice President Joe Biden topped that poll with 21% support.

This article was originally published by the New York Post

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/susan-sarandon-elizabeth-warren

In a surprising tweet Monday, President Trump promised not to build his signature large-scale developments in Greenland, one day after he confirmed he was looking into the possibility of purchasing the sparsely populated Arctic island.

The tweet featured an edited photo showing a tall gold-colored building emblazoned with “Trump.” The president captioned it, “I promise not to do this to Greenland!”

On Sunday, Trump addressed rumors that his administration was looking to buy Greenland, which is a semi-autonomous territory under Danish control.

TRUMP: U.S. CONSIDERING POSSIBLY BUYING GREENLAND, ‘ESSENTIALLY IT’S A LARGE REAL ESTATE DEAL’

“Essentially it’s a large real estate deal. A lot of things can be done. It’s hurting Denmark very badly because they’re losing almost $700 million a year carrying it,” he told reporters in New Jersey. “So, they carry it at great loss, and strategically for the United States, it would be nice. And, we’re a big ally of Denmark and we help Denmark, and we protect Denmark.”

Denmark’s prime minister called American interest in Greenland “absurd” and said the island is not for sale.

“Greenland is not Danish. Greenland is Greenlandic,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said. “I persistently hope that this is not something that is seriously meant,” Frederiksen told reporters Sunday during a trip to meet Kim Kielsen, the premier of Greenland.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump is scheduled to visit Demark on Sept. 2 as part of a larger European trip.

The U.S. proposed buying Greenland in 1946 for $100 million after toying with the idea of swapping land in Alaska for strategic parts of the island.

Fox News’ Nicole Darrah contributed to this report. 

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-tweets-greenland-tower-promise