Top Rated Videos

December 20 at 4:50 PM

Paul D. Ryan ended his congressional career in the Great Hall of the Library of Congress, beneath a stained-glass vaulted ceiling whose grandiosity emphasized the smallness of the ceremony below.

It was small in a good way, as in intimate and humble. The retiring House speaker made his goodbye speech Wednesday to fewer than 200 family members, congressional staffers and public officials — “all my friends and colleagues,” he said.

And it was small in a less good way, as a reminder of Ryan’s vanishing power over the past two years. Once hailed as the intellectual leader of his party and the fiscal savior of a debt-ridden United States, he became speaker in 2015 only to see his party and country fall into the hands of President Trump, as the debt swelled and Democrats seized the House in the midterm elections.

Ryan is hardly the first politician whose grand ideas were snuffed out by reality. But few have been so synonymous with their intellectual reputation — with so little left over once that reputation ran dry.

His farewell speech was a thematic and tonal potpourri. Parts of it resembled a State of the Union address in defense of his speakership. “I’m darn proud,” the 48-year-old Wisconsinite said after rattling off a list of legislative accomplishments during his brief speakership, chief among them a $1.9 trillion tax cut.

In other places, it sounded more like a college commencement speech, as Ryan laid out a daunting future that will be his audience’s responsibility, more than his own.

“If we do these three things — make progress on poverty, fix our immigration system, confront this debt crisis — we can make this another great century for our country,” he said. “I acknowledge these challenges are ones we haven’t made much progress on in recent years.”

This was not a Paul Ryan speech anyone would have predicted at the beginning of the decade, when he rose to national fame as the “ideas man” of the Republican Party.

His legend then was of an earnest Midwestern intellectual who disdained the trappings of politics — the boy genius who first won office in his 20s and had spent the time since studying the country’s economic health. By the 2010s, he had convinced the core of his party that the United States would imminently collapse under the weight of its own debt unless it made radical cuts to taxes and social welfare systems.

It’s hard to remember now, through the fog of a Trump administration that dreams of military parades and a 1,000-mile border wall, but the specter of Ryan’s fiscal apocalypse was so vivid that conservatives greeted his addition to the 2012 presidential ticket as if Mitt Romney had chosen the messiah as his running mate.

“In this generation, a defining responsibility of government is to steer our nation clear of a debt crisis while there is still time,” Ryan said in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that summer. And the immense crowd that stood and screamed and cheered him on could have swallowed his farewell gathering at the Library of Congress many times over.

Romney lost that election, of course. But Ryan’s prestige kept rising until he became House speaker in 2015 — he was practically begged to take the job — and “started an effort to carve the Republican Party in his own image,” as The Washington Post wrote. What was needed, he said in a speech at the time, was a Republican president. And then he got one in Trump a year later.

But now, after two years of Republican-dominated government left the debt swollen near levels not seen since 1950, Ryan finds himself in the awkward position of talking around a still-impending apocalypse.

“I acknowledge plainly that my ambitions for entitlement reform have outpaced the political reality,” Ryan said in the Great Hall on Tuesday, the back of his teleprompter screen reflecting details from the ceiling mural — winged angelic figures and the names of Aristotle and Dante.

“We all know what needs to be done,” Ryan continued, as young staffers in the middle rows watched, expressionless. He sounded vaguely confident that someone would come along to do them, since he was quitting before his 50th birthday.

Ryan’s sanguinity in the face of retirement had thrown a few people — especially those most invested in the unrealized ideas he’d spent his career espousing.

“I don’t want to be an empty nester, only being a weekend dad,” Ryan told the conservative Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes after making the announcement this spring. “But the other big reason I felt comfortable retiring is we got a lot done that I came to do.”

“Your argument was that this was a crisis, it’s an urgent crisis,” Hayes reminded him.

“I know,” said Ryan.

“Is it still a crisis?” Hayes asked a minute later.

“Oh, absolutely,” said Ryan.

But the apparent debt crisis did not much intrude on Ryan’s goodbye celebrations. It was barely mentioned in a triumphant six-part retrospective his House office released on YouTube this week — “the story of Paul Ryan and his relentless drive to pass the first tax reform law in a generation.”

Narrated by Ryan’s brother and some of his closest allies, the videos chronicled his career, from his early days “deep in the wilderness” until his crowning achievement, last year’s tax cut bill.

Excised from this epic were all his talk about debt burdens and runaway spending and the existential future of the country.

But how much, really, can one ideas man be expected to do? Ryan had some ideas. He had talked about them until he became one of the most powerful people in U.S. politics. Then he retired and went back to Wisconsin.

“Good ideas, they just take time,” Ryan said toward the end of his speech, as if his bid to avert fiscal calamity were a loaf of bread he had left in the oven.

When he was finished, the audience stood and applauded for as long as it took Ryan to shake a few hands and disappear through a side door. Then they collected their coats and cleared the Great Hall almost immediately, as if leaving a staff meeting.

“That was amazing. Great guy. We’re really going to miss him,” a man in a suit told another as he passed beneath two sculptured cherubs on his way to the door.

“Yep, yep,” said the other man. There was really nothing to add.

Read more:

‘He was the future of the party’: Ryan’s farewell triggers debate about his legacy

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/paul-ryans-small-sad-goodbye/2018/12/20/40f69d80-0466-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html

CLOSE

President Donald Trump is denying an accusation of improper contact with a foreign leader.
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – A whistleblower complaint and concerns over President Donald Trump’s discussions with the Ukrainian president have sparked yet another inquiry into Trump’s interactions with foreign leaders and has spilled over into the 2020 presidential campaign.

The story, which has been reported in bits and pieces from a number of news outlets, folds together diplomatic efforts from both the Obama and Trump administrations. Here we’ve attempted to breakdown what everyone is talking about.

First, it’s important to know the players, who include familiar and some not-so-familiar names. They are: Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, former Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin and current Ukrainian secretary general Yuriy Lutsenko. 

At the heart of the matter is an August whistleblower complaint by a U.S. intelligence community official and ongoing efforts by Democrats to learn more about Trump’s contacts with Ukraine. Democrats have demanded access to the whistleblower complaint. 

Little is known about the complaint but The Washington Post and The New York Times have reported that at least part of it involved Ukraine.

Democrats separately have been investigating whether Trump sought to put pressure on Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, the Democratic 2020 presidential candidate, and his son, Hunter, who served on the board of Burisma Group, an energy company in Ukraine. They contend that using official diplomatic contacts to try to undermine a political rival would amount to an abuse of power.

On Friday, Trump said it “doesn’t matter” if he asked Ukraine to investigate Biden and that the matter warrants scrutiny. The president also said his conversations with world leaders are “always appropriate, at the highest level always appropriate.” On the same day, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump asked Zelensky eight times to investigate Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden in Ukraine

The New York Times reported in May that Biden, while in office in 2016, threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees unless Ukraine reduced its corruption. Part of that demand called for removing the country’s top prosecutor, Shokin, who was investigating the oligarch behind an energy company where Hunter Biden served on the board. 

Shokin was accused by U.S. officials of ignoring corruption in his own office. The Ukrainian Parliament eventually voted him out.

But Lutsenko, Ukraine’s current prosecutor, told Bloomberg News Service in May that he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son.

“Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing,” Lutsenko told Bloomberg. “A company can pay however much it wants to its board.”

Hunter Biden told the Times in May that he had “no role whatsoever” in the Ukrainian investigation of the company or any of its officers. The Post has reported there is “no evidence” Biden was trying to help his son.

Trump’s call with Zelensky

On July 25, Trump called Zelensky, the Ukrainian president. Trump allegedly told Zelensky he could improve that country’s image by pursuing corruption cases, according to a letter from House Democrats investigating the call.

Trump also withheld more than $250 million in security assistance that Congress had appropriated and that Ukraine desperately needed. But the Trump administration made the funding available earlier this month.

The day after Trump’s call, Ambassador Kurt Volker, the U.S. special representative for Ukraine, was dispatched to meet with Zelensky. And days later, Giuliani met in Spain with Andriy Yermak, a Zelensky aide, to discuss a possible meeting between Trump and Zelensky.

Giuliani has tweeted allegations of Biden corruption repeatedly, at one point alleging “bribery, extortion, money laundering and fraud” by the Biden family in China and Ukraine.

Biden spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield told The New York Times in May that Biden acted “without any regard for how it would or would not impact any business interests of his son, a private citizen.”

The whistleblower complaint

Democrats are in a standoff with the Trump administration, which is refusing to turn over to Congress an Aug. 12 complaint from a whistleblower within the intelligence community. The conflict intensified after The Washington Post reported that the whistleblower had raised concerns over Trump’s contact with the foreign leader, including a “promise” he made to the leader.

The inspector general for the director of national intelligence (DNI), Michael Atkinson, said in a Sept. 9 letter that the matter involves an “urgent concern,” which is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law,” but “does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.” Atkinson said a preliminary review found the complaint credible.

Such complaints are typically reported to Congress within seven days. But Atkinson said he hit an impasse with Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, over sharing the complaint with Congress. Atkinson said he was told by the legal counsel for the intelligence director that the complaint did not meet the definition of an “urgent concern.” And he said the Justice Department said it did not fall under the director’s jurisdiction because it didn’t involve allegations concerning  a member of the intelligence community or intelligence activity.

Atkinson said in a letter to Maguire he disagreed with that Justice Department view.

“I set forth my reasons for concluding that the subject matter involved in the complainant’s disclosure not only falls within the DNI’s jurisdiction, but relates to one of the most significant and important of the DNI’s responsibilities to the American people,” Atkinson wrote.

The inspector general said he requested authorization to at the very least disclose the “general subject matter” to Congress but had not been allowed to do so. He said the information was “being kept” from Congress.

Democrats say they have “grave” concerns about the Trump administration’s refusal to allow the complaint to be disclosed to members of Congress.

“Reports of a reliable whistle-blower complaint regarding the President’s communications with a foreign leader raise grave, urgent concerns for our national security,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement. “The president and acting DNI’s stonewalling must end immediately, and the whistle-blower must be provided with every protection guaranteed by the law to defend the integrity of our government and ensure accountability and trust.”

Giuliani admits he talked to Ukraine about Biden

Congressional Democrats were troubled by the appearance of Trump urging a foreign government to investigate a political rival.

“If the President, in his official capacity, asked a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent,” Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Conn., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a tweet. “Congress cannot let that stand. Our silence could doom the republic.”

The dispute had been simmering as Congress investigated what was said during the call. But it boiled over Thursday, when Giuliani first denied that he urged Ukraine to investigate and then acknowledged it.

“Of course I did,” Giuliani said during a rambling interview on CNN.

Giuliani said he visited Ukraine on his own and then told Trump.

“I did what I did on my own,” Giuliani said. “I told him about it afterward.”

Three congressional chairmen – Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.; Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; and Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md. – had announced Sept. 9 that they were demanding records from the White House and State Department about alleged attempts to manipulate Ukraine’s judicial system.

“As the 2020 election draws closer, President Trump and his personal attorney appear to have increased pressure on the Ukrainian government and its justice system in service of President Trump’s reelection campaign, and the White House and the State Department may be abetting this scheme,” said the letter from the Democratic chairmen.

The State Department has insisted that President Trump’s attorney is “a private citizen” who “does not speak on behalf of the U.S. Government.” Yermak publicly stated that “it was not clear to him whether Mr. Giuliani was representing Mr. Trump in their talks.”

The IG meets with the House Intelligence Committee

The inspector general met privately Thursday with members of the House Intelligence Committee. But Schiff, the committee chairman, said the official refused to describe the complaint, but called it “both credible and urgent.”

The committee plans to hold a public hearing with Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, on Sept. 26. Maguire and Atkinson also are expected next week at the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Schiff said the prospect of misconduct at the highest levels of government “raises grave concerns that your office, together with the Department of Justice and possibly the White House, are engaged in an unlawful effort to protect the President and conceal from the Committee information related to his possible ‘serious or flagrant’ misconduct, abuse of power, or violation of law.”

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., tweeted that withholding the complaint could become another part of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment investigation.

“This is deadly serious,” Cicilline said. “If the President does not allow the whistleblower complaint against him to be turned over to Congress, we will add it to the Articles of Impeachment.”

Trump said the complaint was partisan, although he later said he didn’t know who made it.

“It’s a partisan whistleblower,” Trump said.

Trump’s response

Trump has said Biden should be investigated, but when speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, Trump refused to describe his July call with the Ukrainian president and he dismissed the whistleblower complaint as a partisan attack.

“Somebody ought to look into Joe Biden’s statement, because it was disgraceful, where he talked about billions of dollars that he’s not giving to a certain country unless a certain prosecutor is taken off the case,” Trump said. “It’s a disgrace.”

Trump denied any impropriety in the call.

“I’ve had conversations with many leaders. They’re always appropriate,” Trump said. “It’s just another political hack job.”

Biden’s response

Biden lashed out Friday at Trump’s effort to push Ukraine to investigate him.

“Not one single credible outlet has given credibility to these assertions. Not one single one,” Biden said during a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.. “So I have no comment other than the president should start to be president.”

Biden then put out a statement Friday evening.

“If these reports are true, then there is truly no bottom to President Trump’s willingness to abuse his power and abase our country,” the statement said. “This behavior is particularly abhorrent because it exploits the foreign policy of our country and undermines our national security for political purposes. It means that he used the power and resources of the United States to pressure a sovereign nation — a partner that is still under direct assault from Russia — pushing Ukraine to subvert the rule of law in the express hope of extracting a political favor.”

Biden said on Saturday he has never spoken to his son about his business dealings overseas.

“Here’s what I know,” he said. “Trump should be investigated.”

More about President Donald Trump’s clashes with Congress:

Impeach Trump? House Democrats face delicate choice as lawmakers, but not public, push for action

‘Slow-motion constitutional car crash’: Trump, Congress battle over investigations with no end in sight

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/22/donald-trump-joe-biden-ukraine-whistleblower-standoff-explained/2388648001/

President Donald Trump will not be eligible for any federal assistance for his businesses as part of the coronavirus stimulus package that the Senate agreed upon early Wednesday morning, draft text of the bill showed.

That draft text includes a provision to prohibit businesses controlled by the president, vice president, members of Congress, heads of executive departments and their immediate family members — spouses, children and in-laws — from receiving loans or investments from Treasury programs as part of the stimulus package.

That measure came out of negotiations on a portion of the bill providing $500 billion in loans to distressed industries. That fund would be under the Treasury Department’s control and could include bailout payments to hard-hit businesses like hotels and cruise lines.

Full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

Speaking on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was pressed on whether the provision was unfair.

“I think the danger is much greater the other way, Joe, that if they get a financial interest then they’ll make policy decisions leaning and bending in that direction,” Schumer said. “Look, I’ve always believed … that those who make the laws shouldn’t directly benefit monetarily from those laws. We’ve tried to get better and better and better at that, and this is just another example. It’s not aimed just at Donald Trump, but at anyone in high office.”

On CNN’s “New Day,” Schumer said the provision was aimed not just at Trump “but any major figure in government, Cabinet, Senate, congressmen, if they have majority, they have majority control, they can’t get grants or loans and that makes sense.”

Trump’s private businesses have been under intense scrutiny during his presidency with critics accusing him of attempting to profit off his office. Trump did not divest from the Trump Organization, which is now run by his two adult sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump.

According to The Washington Post, six of Trump’s seven highest revenue-generating clubs and hotels have shuttered in recent weeks because of measures meant to slow the spread of COVID-19.

Trump was asked during Sunday’s White House coronavirus task force press conference if he would commit that none of the stimulus money would go toward his business. The president then lamented that “nobody cared” or said “thank you very much” that he has forgone the president’s annual salary in excess of $400,000.

Download the NBC News app for full coverage and alerts about the coronavirus outbreak

“Look, I ran and everybody knew I was a rich person,” Trump said. “I built a great company and people knew that. But I agreed to do things I didn’t have to. I still don’t have to. But my company — I told the kids, who are running it — I’m not running it. But I told them, ‘Don’t deal with foreign companies. Don’t deal…’ I didn’t have to do that. I could have just ran and I have — I didn’t have to do that at all.”

“And instead of being thanked for, again, not agreeing to do, but just not doing it, I get excoriated all the time,” Trump continued. “So I’ve learned — let’s just see what happens because we have to save some of these great companies. They can be great companies, literally, in a matter of weeks. We have to save them.”

Early Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he expected the deal to pass the Senate later in the day while Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters the president would “absolutely” sign it.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-business-barred-bailout-money-senate-coronavirus-bill-schumer-n1168466

The Biden administration’s chief medical adviser said he didn’t believe the U.S. would return to lockdowns but warned that “things are going to get worse” as a more contagious variant of the coronavirus has led to a surge of new cases.

“We are looking, not I believe, to lockdown but we are looking to some pain and suffering in the future because we are seeing the cases go up,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” He added, “The solution to this is, get vaccinated.”

The latest statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show a 64.1% increase in Covid cases over the week ended July 30 compared with the previous week, or an average of 66,606 cases a day. The CDC reported a current seven-day average of 6,071 new admissions of hospital patients with Covid-19, a 44% increase over the average for the week of July 16-22. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky previously has said that more than 97% of Covid patients entering the hospital nationwide were unvaccinated.

As of July 26, the CDC had reported fewer than 1,000 Covid-related deaths among vaccinated individuals. More than 164 million people in the U.S. have been fully vaccinated.

Dr. Fauci and other top medical officials pleaded on several Sunday talk shows for Americans to follow the newest government guidelines—that everyone in areas with high Covid-19 infection rates wear a mask, regardless of vaccination status. They also urged the nearly 100 million eligible Americans who hadn’t received a vaccine to get one.

Source Article from https://www.wsj.com/articles/fauci-warns-on-covid-19-that-things-are-going-to-get-worse-11627838537

“It has a discretionary docket, yet in its first complete term as a new court it agreed to rule on abortion, carrying guns in public, climate change, and state support of religion,” Cole said. “At least thus far, caution has not been the court’s watchword. It has instead chosen to flex its newfound conservative muscle — and very possibly to make good on Trump’s promise to overturn Roe v. Wade. That can only contribute to the appearance and reality of a politicized court.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/16/ginni-thomas-john-eastman-supreme-court/

01 de enero de 2017 06:37 AM
|
Actualizado el 01 de enero de 2017 08:47 AM

A medida que el presidente electo de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, designa a los miembros de su gabinete, ¿qué hemos llegado a saber sobre la probable orientación y el impacto de la política económica de su gobierno?

Sin duda, continúan habiendo enormes incertidumbres. Como en muchas otras áreas, las promesas y declaraciones de Trump sobre la política económica han sido inconsistentes. Si bien él rutinariamente acusa a otros de mentir, muchas de sus afirmaciones y promesas económicas –de hecho, toda su visión de gobernabilidad– parecen dignas de los propagandistas de la “gran mentira” de la Alemania nazi.

Trump se hará cargo de una economía que se encuentra en una fuerte tendencia al alza, en la que el PIB del tercer trimestre creció en una impresionante tasa anual de 3,2% y el desempleo se situó en 4,6% en el mes de noviembre. Por el contrario, cuando el presidente Barack Obama asumió el poder en el año 2009, heredó de George W. Bush una economía que se estaba hundiendo en una profunda recesión. Y, de manera similar a Bush, Trump es otro presidente republicano que asumirá el cargo a pesar de perder el voto popular, solo para aparentar que tiene un mandato para emprender políticas extremistas.

La única forma en la que Trump reconciliará sus promesas de mayores gastos en infraestructura y defensa con los grandes recortes de impuestos y reducción de déficits es una fuerte dosis de lo que solía llamarse economía vudú. Décadas de “recortar los excesos” en el gobierno ha dejado poco para recortar: el empleo en el gobierno federal, expresado como porcentaje de la población, está hoy en un nivel menor del que estuvo 30 años atrás, en la era del gobierno pequeño, bajo el mandato del presidente Ronald Reagan.

Con tantos ex oficiales militares designados para servir en el gabinete de Trump o para desempeñarse como asesores, incluso mientras Trump tiene acercamientos con el presidente ruso Vladimir Putin y cimienta una alianza informal de dictadores y autoritarios alrededor del mundo, es probable que Estados Unidos gaste más dinero en armas que no funcionan para usarlas contra enemigos que no existen. Si la secretaria de salud de Trump logra desbaratar el cuidadoso equilibrio que subyace a Obamacare, o los costos aumentarán o los servicios se deteriorarán –lo más probable es que ocurran ambas situaciones.

Durante la campaña, Trump prometió actuar con mano dura con los ejecutivos que externalizan empleos estadounidenses. Ahora Trump se aferra a la noticia de que la empresa Carrier mantendrá alrededor de 800 puestos de trabajo en Indiana, el estado donde se encuentra la sede de dicha empresa, y esgrime este hecho como prueba de que su abordaje funciona. Sin embargo el acuerdo costará a los contribuyentes 7 millones de dólares y todavía permite que esta empresa fabricante de calefacción y aire acondicionado para viviendas externalice 1.300 puestos de trabajo a México. No se trata de una política industrial o económica, y no hará nada para ayudar a aumentar los salarios o crear buenos empleos en todo el país. Es una invitación abierta a que ejecutivos corporativos que están en la búsqueda de subvenciones tipo limosna extorsionen al gobierno.

Del mismo modo, es probable que el aumento del gasto en infraestructura se realice a través de créditos fiscales, lo que ayudará a los fondos de cobertura, pero no al balance contable de Estados Unidos: el largo historial de estos programas demuestra que ellos ofrecen poco valor en comparación con la cantidad de dinero que se invierte. El costo para el público será especialmente alto en una era en la que el gobierno puede tomar préstamos con tasas de interés cercanas a cero. Si estas alianzas público-privadas son como las de otros lugares, el gobierno asumirá los riesgos y los fondos de cobertura asumirán las ganancias.

El debate de tan solo ocho años atrás acerca de la infraestructura “lista para ser iniciada” parece ser un recuerdo lejano. Si Trump elige proyectos listos para ser iniciados, el impacto a largo plazo sobre la productividad será mínimo; si elige infraestructura real, el impacto a corto plazo sobre el crecimiento económico será mínimo. Y, un estímulo que tarda en dar frutos tiene sus propios problemas, a menos que sea manejado muy cuidadosamente.

Si Steven Mnuchin, la persona elegida por Trump para el cargo de secretario del Tesoro de Estados Unidos quien trabajó durante mucho tiempo para Goldman Sachs y en fondos de cobertura, es como lo son otros en su sector empresarial, la experiencia que traerá al cargo será una ligada a la evasión fiscal, no a la construcción de un sistema fiscal bien diseñado. La “buena” noticia es que la reforma tributaria era inevitable, y era probable que fuese llevada a cabo por el presidente de la Cámara Paul Ryan y su personal, dado el sistema fiscal que los republicanos han tratado de lograr desde mucho tiempo atrás: un sistema para ricos, que sea menos progresivo y más respetuosa con el capital. Con la abolición del impuesto a la herencia, los republicanos finalmente harán que sea haga realidad su ambición de crear una plutocracia dinástica, que está muy alejada de la máxima de “igualdad de oportunidades” que el partido alguna vez pregonó.

Grandes recortes de impuestos y grandes aumentos de los gastos conducen inevitablemente a grandes déficits. Reconciliar esto con la promesa de Trump sobre reducir el déficit probablemente implicará un retorno al pensamiento mágico de la era Reagan: a pesar de que se tienen pruebas patentes a lo largo de décadas que evidencian lo contrario, esta vez sí el estímulo a la economía que promueven los recortes de impuestos para los ricos será tan grande que, en los hechos, los ingresos tributarios realmente aumentarán.

Esta historia no termina bien para los votantes enojados y desplazados quienes votaron a favor de Trump en el denominado “Cinturón de Óxido”. Desenfrenadas políticas presupuestarias inducirán a que la Reserva Federal de Estados Unidos normalice las tasas de interés más rápidamente. Algunos vislumbran una inflación incipiente (dada la baja tasa de desempleo); algunos otros creen que el largo período de tasas de interés ultrabajas ha distorsionado los mercados de capitales; y otros quieren “reponer sus municiones”, para que la Fed pueda bajar las tasas de interés si la economía se desacelera nuevamente.

Trump ha argumentado que la Fed debería aumentar las tasas de interés. Es casi seguro que la Fed, que dio el primer paso hacia la normalización de las tasas de interés a principios de diciembre, cumpla con este cometido, y Trump muy pronto se arrepentirá de haber deseado aquello. Es muy posible que la contracción monetaria superará el estímulo fiscal, frenando el estímulo de crecimiento de Obama que hoy en día está en marcha. Las tasas de interés más altas debilitarán los empleos en el sector de la construcción y aumentarán el valor del dólar, lo que conducirá a mayores déficits comerciales y menos empleos en la industria manufacturera, justo lo contrario de lo prometido por Trump. Mientras tanto, sus políticas tributarias tendrán beneficios limitados para las familias de clase media y clase trabajadora, y dichos beneficios serán más que contrarrestados por los recortes en atención de salud, educación y programas sociales.

Si Trump inicia una guerra comercial –digamos, por ejemplo, si Trump va tras el cumplimiento de su promesa de imponer un arancel de 45% a las importaciones procedentes de China y de construir un muro en la frontera con México– el impacto económico será aún más severo. El gabinete de multimillonarios de Trump podría continuar comprando sus bolsos Gucci y las pulseras de 10.000 dólares de Ivanka, pero el costo de vida de los estadounidenses de a pie aumentaría sustancialmente; y, al no contar con componentes procedentes de México y de otros lugares, los empleos manufactureros se harían aún más escasos.

No cabe duda, sí se crearán algunos nuevos puestos de trabajo, principalmente en las oficinas de cabildeo de la calle K en Washington, D.C., mientras Trump vuelve a llenar el pantano que prometió drenar. De hecho, la turbera estadounidense de la corrupción legal probablemente alcanzará una profundidad no vista desde la administración del presidente Warren G. Harding en la década de 1920.

Y realmente no existe ningún aspecto positivo en la nube que hoy en día se cierne sobre Estados Unidos y sobre el mundo. Si bien el gobierno de Trump será malo para los trabajadores y la economía de Estados Unidos, es probable que sus políticas sobre el clima, los derechos humanos, los medios de comunicación, y sobre cómo garantizar la paz y la seguridad sean igual o aún más perjudiciales para el resto del mundo.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.

www.project-syndicate.org

Source Article from http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/columnista/malas-noticias-para-los-trabajadores-estadounidenses_73339

“)), n = v(f[r.size_id].split(“x”).map(function (e) {
return Number(e);
}), 2), i.width = n[0], i.height = n[1]), i.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce(function (e, r) {
return e[r.key] = r.values[0], e;
}, {
rpfl_elemid: s.adUnitCode
}), e.push(i)) : g.logError(“Rubicon: bidRequest undefined at index position:”.concat(t), c, d), e;
}, []).sort(function (e, r) {
return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0);
});
},
getUserSyncs: function getUserSyncs(e, r, t, i) {
if (!R && e.iframeEnabled) {
var n = “”;
return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? n += “?gdpr=”.concat(Number(t.gdprApplies), “&gdpr_consent=”).concat(t.consentString) : n += “?gdpr_consent=”.concat(t.consentString)), i && (n += “”.concat(n ? “&” : “?”, “us_privacy=”).concat(encodeURIComponent(i))), R = !0, {
type: “iframe”,
url: a + n
};
}
},
transformBidParams: function transformBidParams(e) {
return g.convertTypes({
accountId: “number”,
siteId: “number”,
zoneId: “number”
}, e);
}
};

function _(e, r) {
var t,
i = 0 e.length) && (t = e.length);

for (var r = 0, n = new Array(t); r ‘;
var r, n;
};
};

var a = function a(e) {
var r = 0 = e && r.innerWidth r.length) && (e = r.length);

for (var t = 0, n = new Array(e); t b ? a : b;
}
/**
* Fast loop through watched elements
*/

function onScroll() {
list.forEach(updateVisibility);
}
/**
* updates seen property
* @param {Visble} item
* @param {{}} evt
* @fires Visible#shown
* @fires Visible#hidden
*/

function updateSeen(item, evt) {
var px = evt.visiblePx,
percent = evt.visiblePercent; // if some pixels are visible and we’re greater/equal to threshold

if (px && percent >= item.shownThreshold && !item.seen) {
item.seen = true;
setTimeout(function () {
item.trigger(“shown”, new VisibleEvent(“shown”, evt));
}, 15); // if no pixels or percent is less than threshold
} else if ((!px || percent = 0 && rect.left >= 0 && rect.bottom 1) {
result += getLinearSpacialHash(remainder, Math.floor(stepSize / base), optimalK – 1, base);
}

return result;
}
/**
* @param {ClientRect} rect
* @param {number} innerHeight
* @returns {number}
*/

function getVerticallyVisiblePixels(rect, innerHeight) {
return min(innerHeight, max(rect.bottom, 0)) – min(max(rect.top, 0), innerHeight);
}
/**
* Get offset of element relative to entire page
*
* @param {Element} el
* @returns {{left: number, top: number}}
* @see http://jsperf.com/offset-vs-getboundingclientrect/7
*/

function getPageOffset(el) {
var offsetLeft = el.offsetLeft,
offsetTop = el.offsetTop;

while (el = el.offsetParent) {
offsetLeft += el.offsetLeft;
offsetTop += el.offsetTop;
}

return {
left: offsetLeft,
top: offsetTop
};
}
/**
* Create a new Visible class to observe when elements enter and leave the viewport
*
* Call destroy function to stop listening (this is until we have better support for watching for Node Removal)
* @param {Element} el
* @param {{shownThreshold: number, hiddenThreshold: number}} [options]
* @class
* @example this.visible = new $visibility.Visible(el);
*/

Visible = function Visible(el, options) {
options = options || {};
this.el = el;
this.seen = false;
this.preload = false;
this.preloadThreshhold = options && options.preloadThreshhold || 0;
this.shownThreshold = options && options.shownThreshold || 0;
this.hiddenThreshold = options && min(options.shownThreshold, options.hiddenThreshold) || 0;
list.push(this);
updateVisibility(this); // set immediately to visible or not
};

Visible.prototype = {
/**
* Stop triggering.
*/
destroy: function destroy() {
// remove from list
list.splice(list.indexOf(this), 1);
}
/**
* @name Visible#on
* @function
* @param {‘shown’|’hidden’} e EventName
* @param {function} cb Callback
*/

/**
* @name Visible#trigger
* @function
* @param {‘shown’|’hidden’} e
* @param {{}}
*/

};
Eventify.enable(Visible.prototype);

VisibleEvent = function VisibleEvent(type, options) {
var _this = this;

this.type = type;
Object.keys(options).forEach(function (key) {
_this[key] = options[key];
});
}; // listen for scroll events (throttled)

$document.addEventListener(“scroll”, _throttle(onScroll, 200)); // public

this.getPageOffset = getPageOffset;
this.getLinearSpacialHash = getLinearSpacialHash;
this.getVerticallyVisiblePixels = getVerticallyVisiblePixels;
this.getViewportHeight = getViewportHeight;
this.getViewportWidth = getViewportWidth;
this.isElementNotHidden = isElementNotHidden;
this.isElementInViewport = isElementInViewport;
this.Visible = Visible;
}]);
}, {}];
require=(function e(t,n,r){function s(o,u){if(!n[o]){if(!t[o]){var a=typeof require==”function”&&require;if(!u&&a)return a(o,!0);if(i)return i(o,!0);var f=new Error(“Cannot find module ‘”+o+”‘”);throw f.code=”MODULE_NOT_FOUND”,f}var l=n[o]={exports:{}};t[o][0].call(l.exports,function(e){var n=t[o][1][e];return s(n?n:e)},l,l.exports,e,t,n,r)}return n[o].exports}var i=typeof require==”function”&&require;for(var o=0;o

Source Article from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/statues-trump-include-national-garden-american-heroes.html

A man holds a sign at an Asian American anti-violence press conference on Tuesday, outside the building where a 65-year-old Asian woman was physically and verbally attacked in New York City. Police said Wednesday that Brandon Elliot, 38, had been arrested and charged with crimes which include assault as a hate crime.

Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images

A man holds a sign at an Asian American anti-violence press conference on Tuesday, outside the building where a 65-year-old Asian woman was physically and verbally attacked in New York City. Police said Wednesday that Brandon Elliot, 38, had been arrested and charged with crimes which include assault as a hate crime.

Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images

Authorities have arrested a suspect in the verbal and physical assault on a 65-year-old Asian woman in New York City on Monday, in an attack that was captured on surveillance video and drew widespread outrage.

Brandon Elliot, 38, was arrested on Wednesday and charged with two counts of assault as a hate crime, attempted assault as a hate crime, assault and attempted assault, the New York City Police Department confirmed to NPR.

In a tweet announcing the arrest, NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea described Elliot as “a parolee out on supervised release.”

Elliot was arrested in 2000 for robbery and 2002 for murder, according to police. The Associated Press reports that Elliot was convicted of stabbing his mother to death in the Bronx when he was 19, and is on lifetime parole after being released from prison in 2019.

Police said he was identified through “multiple tips” and apprehended at his residence, which they listed as the address of a hotel that is currently serving as a shelter for people experiencing homelessness, located several blocks from the site of the attack in midtown Manhattan.

The assault took place outside an apartment building in broad daylight, just before noon on Monday.

Surveillance video shows the suspect kicking the woman to the ground, stomping on her head and upper body several times and casually walking away as she remained on the sidewalk. Police have said that he made “anti-Asian statements” during the assault, including reportedly telling her “you don’t belong here.”

The unnamed victim was hospitalized at NYU Langone Medical Center in Manhattan with a fractured pelvis and head contusion, according to media reports. A hospital official confirmed to NPR that she was discharged on Tuesday.

The New York Times has identified her as Vilma Kari, who immigrated to the U.S. from the Philippines several decades ago.

The video also appears to show apartment staff watching the attack without intervening, then closing the door on the woman as she attempted to stand up.

The Brodsky Organization, which manages the building, said in a statement that it is working with Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, which represents the door staff, to investigate the response of the two lobby staffers present, who have been suspended.

In a statement condemning the attack, Local 32BJ president Kyle Bragg said Tuesday, “The information we have at the moment is that the door staff … called for help immediately,” and he urged the public to “avoid a rush to judgement while the facts are determined.”

Still, the apparent inaction of multiple bystanders as shown on the video clip struck a nerve, with many social media users and public officials speaking out in shock and horror.

“The reports of a brutal assault on an Asian American woman in Midtown are absolutely horrifying and repugnant,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday. “We are all New Yorkers — no matter how we look or what language we speak — and we must always look out for one another and help those who need it.”

Cuomo had also directed the N.Y. State Police Hate Crimes Task Force to assist the NYPD in its investigation.

Andrew Yang, the former Democratic presidential candidate who is running for New York City mayor, said in an interview with CNN that he believed the bystanders could have “done a lot of good” by interrupting the attack or seeking medical attention for the woman. He called on viewers to take action if they are ever in a similar situation.

“That has to be the message to people in New York City and really everywhere around the country, that if you see something, you have to do something,” he said. “And I was in a situation like this not that long ago — if one person acts, then other people will act along with them. But a lot of folks need someone to lead the way.”

The assault is one of several recent high-profile attacks that have targeted Asian Americans in New York and across the country. Such incidents have risen dramatically since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic last year, attacks which advocates and experts attribute in large part to xenophobic rhetoric.

Citing a spike in anti-Asian hate crimes, the NYPD said last week that it will increase outreach and patrols in Asian communities, including the use of undercover officers, in an effort to prevent and disrupt attacks.

At the federal level, the Biden administration on Tuesday announced half a dozen actions aimed at addressing the rise in attacks and harassment targeted at Asian American and Pacific Islander communities in the U.S.

“Across our nation, an outpouring of grief and outrage continues at the horrific violence and xenophobia perpetrated against Asian American communities, especially Asian American women and girls,” the White House said in a statement. “As President Biden said during his first prime time address, anti-Asian violence and xenophobia is wrong, it’s un-American, and it must stop.”

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983002295/suspect-arrested-on-hate-crime-charges-over-attack-on-asian-woman-in-manhattan

Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro’s concentration on immigration policy should win him accolades for his 2020 primary debate performance, according to Juan Williams.

The former Housing and Urban Development secretary chose the correct topic to concentrate on during the first of two debates this week, Williams claimed Thursday on “The Daily Briefing.”

“I would agree that Julian Castro was the breakout star of the night,” he said, responding to similar comments from Republican strategist Colin Reed.

2020 DEMS CLASH ON ‘MEDICARE-FOR-ALL,’ IMMIGRATION AT DEBATE MARRED BY TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

“It was because immigration is such an important topic at this moment, given the photo we have all seen, and the debate in the House,” the “Five” co-host continued, referencing a photo of a migrant father and daughter who drowned.

“It was stage center and Julian Castro was ready for it.”

However, Williams claimed some of Castro’s positions on immigration may or may not play well in a general election setting.

CORY BOOKER CALLS OUT AMAZON, HALLIBURTON IN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY DEBATE

“Now the difficulty would be… when Castro says I want to have it not be a crime, but simply a civil infraction to cross the border, does that play into the general election audience?” he asked.

“Remember, this wasn’t intended for a general election audience.”

The first primary debate of the 2020 season saw cracks of daylight emerge in a Democratic field that has largely played to the progressive base, with the candidates clashing sharply over controversial policies like “Medicare-for-all” and calls to decriminalize illegal border crossings — while taking ample shots at President Trump in the process.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Staking out the left flank of the party on stage Wednesday night in Miami were Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. — the highest-polling candidate in the first debate batch, with Round 2 coming Thursday — and long-shot Bill de Blasio, the New York City mayor.

Castro was among those landing blows as he sought to distinguish himself from the field on the issue of immigration, perhaps gaining traction by targeting fellow Texan – former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/juan-williams-julian-castro-wins-democrat-debate

Ah, yes, Hanukkah. The Festival of Lights. The “Jewish Christmas.” The holiday that Adam Sandler wrote a song about.

To Jewish people, however, Hanukkah isn’t actually all that religious of a holiday  —though because of its proximity to Christmas, it’s often assumed the most important Jewish holiday. It’s not. Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Passover, for example, are more religiously observed, though Hanukkah certainly holds cultural significance.

As a child, Hanukkah meant I could get presents just like my predominantly-Christian classmates and not feel left out. It also meant nodding politely (and still doing so) when someone said “Merry Christmas” come mid-to-late December, and trying to remember to say it back.

So, if Hanukkah isn’t all that religious, what’s all the fuss about?

Disclaimer: Like any minority, I am but one of many members and my experiences don’t reflect that of all Jews. 

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/22/hanukkah-2019-not-jewish-christmas-when-is-it/2690015001/

The accounting firm that has for years prepared annual financial statements for Donald Trump and his businesses is cutting ties with his company and says a decade’s worth of the reports “should no longer be relied upon.”

The firm, Mazars USA, wrote to the Trump Organization’s chief legal officer Alan Garten on February 9 to inform him of its decision. The letter was included as an exhibit in a filing Monday by the New York attorney general’s office, which is seeking depositions from Trump and two of his children, Donald Jr. and Ivanka Trump, as part of an ongoing fraud probe.

In the letter, a Mazars executive cites revelations from the attorney general’s investigation as among the reasons the accounting firm is no longer standing by its financial statements for the years ending June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2020, and dropping the Trump Organization.

“This conclusion (is) based, in part, upon the filings made by the New York Attorney General on January 18, 2022, our own investigation, and information received from internal and external sources,” wrote Mazars general counsel William Kelly.

In the letter, Kelly wrote that Mazars “performed its work in accordance with professional standards” and compiled the statements based on information provided by the Trump Organization.

A spokesperson for the Trump Organization said in an email, “While we are disappointed that Mazars has chosen to part ways, their February 9, 2022 letter confirms that after conducting a subsequent review of all prior statements of financial condition, Mazars’ work was performed in accordance with all applicable accounting standards and principles and that such statements of financial condition do not contain any material discrepancies.”

“This confirmation effectively renders the investigations by the DA and AG moot,” the spokesperson said.

Ronald Fischetti, an attorney who represents Trump, declined to comment. A spokesperson for Mazars USA did not immediately reply to a request for comment. 

The financial statements were used to secure loans for the Trump Organization, and are a focus of at least two investigations. An ongoing criminal probe into Trump and the company last year led to charges against the company and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg. New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading a parallel civil investigation. Her office has indicated in court filings that the investigation is trying to determine whether the statements of financial condition were used to defraud lenders.

James’ office subpoenaed Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump in December 2021, according to court filings, prompting a furious response from attorneys for the Trumps, who are fighting James’ demand that they sit for depositions.

The subpoenas seek “testimony and documents ‘in connection with an investigation into the valuation of properties owned or controlled by Donald J. Trump or the Trump Organization, or any matter which the Attorney General deems pertinent,'” according to a court filing.

Trump and his attorneys have repeatedly accused James of pursuing the investigation against him as a political ploy. That accusation is at the heart of a lawsuit filed by Trump on December 21. In a phone call with CBS News that day, he called himself an “aggrieved and innocent party” and called James’ probe “a hoax.”

James said in a statement Monday that “evidence continues to mount showing that Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization used fraudulent and misleading financial statements to obtain economic benefit.”

“There should be no doubt that this is a lawful investigation and that we have legitimate reason to seek testimony from Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump,” James said.

Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-organization-accounting-firm-mazars-usa-financial-statements/

Es uno de los vicios de la prensa, aunque poca gente se percata: multiplicar las informaciones de algunos temas durante un breve periodo de tiempo. Después, se ignora. Hay casos recurrentes: perros de razas peligrosas que atacan a niños, pirómanos que actúan en el peor momento… Este mes han sido las ramas de árboles que se caen en Madrid. Por no hablar de las tragedias con los aviones, que solo en este julio se han cobrado 400 vidas.

Todos son casos muy diferentes. El drama de los aviones es, por ejemplo, un acontecimiento de tal importancia que resulta imposible que los medios no utilicen todos los recursos disponibles para informar. «No es lo mismo el tratamiento de hechos noticiosos relevantes (los accidentes aéreos por ejemplo), que el de otros acontecimientos en el que [influye] la elaboración de la agenda por parte de los medios», explica el profesor de Teoría de la comunicación José Antonio Alcoceba. Así apunta al «efecto llamada» de determinadas noticias ante el interés que generan en el público.

Pero el origen de estas «epidemias mediáticas» sigue siendo misterioso. A veces parecen surgir por la casualidad, otras por el interés periodístico y otras porque algunos ciudadanos «replican» lo que ven en los medios.

¿Interés de la audiencia o del periodista?

‘);
}
}
catch(err){}

«La noticia es lo que los periodistas creen que interesa a los lectores, por tanto, la noticia es lo que interesa a los periodistas». Esta frase, extraída del libro de Rodrigo Alsina «La construcción de la noticia», puede explicar por qué de repente todos los medios comienzan a fijarse en algunas noticias. Es decir, hay sucesos que son constantes en el tiempo y que sin embargo en un determinado momento los medios comienzan a prestarle atención para, al poco tiempo, dejar de informar de ello. Pero ese olvido, esa «espiral de silencio», no significa que hayan dejado de suceder.

La profesora María Elena Mazo, consultora en Comunicación, es menos fatalista que Alsina: «La noticia interesa a los periodistas, pero porque ellos entienden que ese asunto interesa a sus audiencias», explica para ABC.es. La profesora del CEU apunta a una clave de este tiempo: las redes sociales. «La influencia de las redes (en especial de Twitter) amplifican la difusión de estas noticias y sirven a los medios tradicionales como fuente informativa», apunta.

Hay épocas para todo. Por ejemplo, en verano los medios recopilan los accidentes en piscinas; en primavera hablan el riesgo de aludes; en verano, de los incendios. Prueben a poner en Google News estas búsquedas y verán cómo se concentran en el tiempo. Las «agendas mediáticas» tienen la culpa. «Existen ‘temas informativos prioritarios’ que los medios van eligiendo cada cierto tiempo en forma de Espiral (La Espiral del Silencio, Elisabeth Noelle-Neummann). Cuando el tema ha ‘saturado‘ a la opinión pública se sustituye por otro, el medio lo abandona. Esa es la razón de que el asunto pasa a segundo plano», resume para explicar por qué se deshinchan esas burbujas que crean las «epidemias mediáticas».

Entonces, ¿por qué se ponen de moda algunas noticias? De nuevo internet es pieza fundamental. Gracias a los nuevos medios, la información se multiplica exponencialmente, «lo que provoca un efecto de epidemia mediática que se mantiene en auge durante unos días y luego, de forma lógica, reduce su efecto entre las audiencias», explica María Elena Mazo.

«La tarea de ‘poner de moda’ determinado asunto es una cuestión colectiva del conjunto de los medios –entra el tema en la ‘agenda mediática’- y de sus audiencias. Cuando se percibe ‘cansancio’ en los lectores, se buscan nuevos hechos noticiosos», asegura de María Elena Mazo como experta en comunicación.

Pero, ¿por qué repuntan casos extraños?

El caso de las ramas caídas de los arboles en Madrid es diferente. No es un tema recurrente, ni algo previsible que los medios puedan incorporar a la agenda. Sin ahondar en los motivos técnicos que han provocado estos accidentes, hay una explicación a la sobreabundancia de informaciones. Es, simplemente, que a raíz de la trágica muerte de un padre de familia aplastado por un árbol de El Retiro se empieza a prestar atención. Y es que no es un hecho extraño que se caigan ramas. Se producen muchas. De hecho, ABC ha publicado decenas de noticias sobre heridos en este tipo de accidentes desde 1999.

Tratar bien la información: maltrato y suicidio

Hay informaciones muy delicadas. Está demostrado que en el tema de los suicidios y el maltrato, cuando la prensa publica algunos casos de especial relevancia, en los siguientes días aumenta el número de víctimas. Es por eso que los medios tratan de minimizar el daño en la sociedad tratando con especial cuidado estas informaciones para evitar un mimetismo que motive nuevos casos.

Source Article from http://www.abc.es/medios/20140729/abci-noticias-mediaticas-virales-periodismo-201407282014.html

When Donald Trump wanted to make a good impression — on a lender, a business partner, or a journalist — he sometimes sent them official-looking documents called “Statements of Financial Condition.”

These documents sometimes ran up to 20 pages. They were full of numbers, laying out Trump’s properties, debts and multibillion-dollar net worth.

But, for someone trying to get a true picture of Trump’s net worth, the documents were deeply flawed. Some simply omitted properties that carried big debts. Some assets were overvalued. And some key numbers were wrong.

For instance, Trump’s financial statement for 2011 said he had 55 home lots to sell at his golf course in Southern California. Those lots would sell for $3 million or more, the statement said.

But Trump had only 31 lots zoned and ready for sale at the course, according to city records. He claimed credit for 24 lots — and at least $72 million in future revenue — he didn’t have.

He also claimed his Virginia vineyard had 2,000 acres, when it really has about 1,200. He said Trump Tower has 68 stories. It has 58.

Gives incorrect number of home lots in California

At that point, only 36 lots were actually approved for sale, and by this point 5 had already been sold. That left 31 – not 55 – available for sale. Since Trump was promising he could sell them for at least $3 million each, there was a $72 million gap between his claims and reality.

Adds 10 stories to Trump Tower

Trump Tower only has 58 stories, but Trump re-numbered the floors to make it seem taller.

Now, investigators on Capitol Hill and in New York are homing in on these unusual documents in an apparent attempt to determine whether Trump’s familiar habit of bragging about his wealth ever crossed a line into fraud.

The statements are at the center of at least two of the inquiries that continue to follow Trump, unaffected by the end of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. On Wednesday, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform said it had requested 10 years of these statements from Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA.

And earlier this month, the New York state Department of Financial Services subpoenaed records from Trump’s longtime insurer, Aon. A person familiar with that subpoena, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation, said “a key component” was questions about whether Trump had given Aon these documents in an effort to lower his insurance premiums.

Both inquiries stemmed from testimony last month by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, who told Congress that Trump had used these statements to inflate his wealth — and then sent them to his lenders and his insurers.

Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to President Trump, testified before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 27 and submitted some of Trump’s financial statements as exhibits. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

“Mr. Trump is a cheat,” Cohen said, in describing what the statements showed.

Cohen told Congress that statements were given to Deutsche Bank, as Trump sought a loan to buy the NFL’s Buffalo Bills. Since then, Deutsche Bank and another Trump lender have also received subpoenas, from the New York State attorney general.

The statements may additionally draw the interest of the House Financial Services Committee, which is scrutinizing Deutsche. A committee spokesman declined to comment.

The White House declined to comment for this report.

The Trump Organization also declined to comment about the statements or answer questions about specific errors the statements contained. Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, the president’s sons who are running his business, noted on social media that Cohen has provided false testimony about other topics.

Mazars USA, the accounting firm, issued a brief statement Wednesday after the House Oversight letter became public, saying that it “believes strongly in the ethical and professional rules and regulations that govern our industry, our work and our client interactions.” It declined to comment further about Trump.

The Washington Post reviewed copies of these documents for 2002, 2004, 2011, 2012 and 2013 — obtaining them from court files, from people who received them from Trump’s company, and from Cohen. Cohen also provided copies of documents from 2011, 2012 and 2013 to Congress.

Since the 1980s, Trump has defined himself by his wealth, but he has often avoided providing proof to back up his boasts or provided documents that inflated the real values. As president, Trump has declined to release his tax returns, unlike every president since Jimmy Carter.

Trump is far from the first real estate developer to inflate his projects or wealth. But there are laws against defrauding insurers and lenders with false information. Financial and legal experts said it’s unclear at this point whether Trump will face any legal consequences. They said it depends on whether Trump intended to mislead or whether the misstatements caused anyone to give him a financial benefit.

“How much would [the errors] impact an investor?” said Kyle Welch, an assistant professor of accountancy at George Washington University. “If it’s systematic and it’s across the board, and it’s all in one direction, that’s where you have a problem.”

Welch said Trump could be protected by disclaimers that his own accountants added to the statements, warning readers that they weren’t seeing the full picture. And in an odd way, Welch said, Trump could be helped by the sheer scale of the exaggerations. They were so far off from reality, Welch wondered whether any real bank or insurer could have been fooled.

Welch said he’d never seen a document stretch so far past the normal conventions of accounting.

“It’s humorous,” Welch said. “It’s a humorous financial statement.”

Investigators for the New York State Department of Financial Services, which sent subpoenas to Aon, and the New York State attorney general — who subpoenaed Deutsche Bank — declined to comment. Aon and Deutsche Bank also declined to comment, beyond saying they plan to cooperate with investigators.

The story of Trump’s “statements of financial condition” — in essence, sales brochures for Trump the man, given out by Trump the company — goes back to the early 1980s, according to past testimony from Trump’s accountants and staffers.

In 2007, a Trump lawyer named Michelle Lokey said she had sent these statements out to Trump’s lenders, for projects in Chicago and Las Vegas, because Trump had personally guaranteed those loans. That meant that if Trump’s company defaulted on its obligations, the lenders could come after Trump’s personal assets.

Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago was one of the two properties that were not included in some Trump financial statements. Both buildings were carrying mortgages. (Joshua Lott for The Washington Post)

“Therefore they’d want information on his net worth?” an attorney asked Lokey.

“I assume,” she said.

The statements were prepared by Trump’s longtime accountants, a firm now called Mazars. In other contexts — such as when one of Trump’s companies was seeking to secure a federal contract — this firm prepared rigorously audited financial statements.

This was a different sort of job.

When compiling these statements of financial condition, those accountants have said they did not verify or audit the figures in the statements. Instead, when Trump provided them data, they wrote it down without checking to see whether it was accurate.

“In the compilation process, it is not the role of the accountant to assess the values,” said Gerald J. Rosenblum, one of the accountants. “The role is to accept those values and move them forward.”

An attorney asked: Do the values have to be logical?

“The value per se does not have to be logical,” Rosenblum said. He and Lokey were deposed as part of a lawsuit in which Trump sued a New York Times reporter for allegedly lowballing his net worth. Trump’s suit against the reporter was later dismissed.

In 2014, Trump used the same accounting firm to prepare financial information for his most expensive development project in decades, his $200 million transformation of the historic Old Post Office Pavilion in downtown Washington into a Trump International Hotel.

But in that case, Mazars vouched for the accuracy of the information, writing that the firm “is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements” using industry standard accounting rules. This was a formal audit of finances related just to Trump’s D.C. hotel, rather than a summation of all of his assets based on Trump’s own estimates.

The statements Cohen provided to The Post — and to Congress — begin in 2011. Two of them are 20-page “Statements of Financial Condition” signed by Trump’s accountants.

In his testimony to Congress, Cohen said these statements included Trump’s self-appraisals of his buildings’ value — which aimed to impress, instead of aiming for reality. Cohen said Trump would take real measures of value, such as the amount of money his tenants paid in rent, and simply inflate it until he got a number he liked.

“If you’re going off of your rent roll, you go by the gross rent roll times a multiple,” Cohen said. “And you make up the multiple.”

The documents begin with two-page disclaimers, warning of various ways in which the statements don’t follow normal accounting rules. The accountants note that Trump is the source of many buildings’ valuations — and that, contrary to normal accounting rules, he had inflated them by counting future income that wasn’t guaranteed.

Accountant’s warning

Trump calls this a “statement of financial condition.” But right away, his accounting firm is warning readers that it hasn’t checked anything in this document to be sure it’s accurate.

The accountants also note that Trump had told them to simply omit two of his major hotels, in Chicago and Las Vegas. Both buildings were carrying mortgages. That omission means that some of Trump’s actual debt load was hidden from anyone reading the statement.

“Users of this financial statement should recognize that they might reach different conclusions about the financial condition of Donald J. Trump” if they had more information, the statement concludes.

Legal experts interviewed by The Post said that sort of broad disclaimer might shield Trump from allegations that he misled his lenders and insurers. After all, his own accountants told readers they weren’t getting the full story.

“The transparent disclaimers — even if frustrating — typically wipe out a basis” for bringing charges of fraud, said Jacob Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor who is now a private attorney at Dickinson Wright.

In 2012, Trump’s statement said he owned a 2,000-acre vineyard in Virginia. But land records in Virginia show the Trump family owns about 1,200 acres. The Trump winery’s own website says 1,300 acres.

Exaggerates size of vineyard

The vineyard sits on a 1,205 acre property, of which only about 227 acres are planted with grapes.

In 2011, the statements said that Trump’s Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, N.Y., was “zoned for nine luxurious homes.” In the statement, Trump said those homes would yield significant cash flow as he built them and sold them. That led him to value the property at $261 million — far more than the roughly $20 million value assigned by local assessors.

Exaggerates value of Westchester County estate

At the time, local officials assessed the land’s value at about $20 million, a fraction of the value Trump assessed.

At the time, Trump had received preliminary “conceptual approval” to build homes on the site. But local officials said he never finished the last step in the approval process to build the homes or sell the lots.

None of the homes was built.

The 2013 statement that Cohen provided — and which he said was also given to Deutsche Bank, in pursuit of a loan to buy the Bills — is different from the other two.

It is just two pages long, with a slightly different title: “Summary of Net Worth.” It does not include the usual disclaimer from Trump’s accountants, so readers aren’t told that the debts from Trump’s Chicago and Las Vegas hotels are missing.

Two buildings are missing

Here, Trump is exaggerating his wealth by leaving two major parts of his portfolio out. His buildings in Las Vegas and Chicago — both of which had loans attached to them — are simply left out of this statement. Without them, readers can’t get a full picture of how much he owes, and to whom.

This document also includes a new “asset” that wasn’t there before.

It says that Trump’s brand value — his name, essentially — was worth $4 billion, and that it ought to be counted among his assets as if it were a building or a resort. With his brand included, Trump’s net worth jumped from $4.6 billion to $8.6 billion.


Trump’s $4 billion asset

Trump added “brand value” as an asset in 2013, valued at $4 billion, doubling his net worth from previous years.

Total assets in 2013:

$9.2B

$9B

Brand

value

$6B

Total assets

in 2011:

$4.6B

Properties

under

development

Club facilities and

related real estate

$3B

Commercial

properties

Residential

properties

Real estate

licensing

Joint ventures

Other assets

0

Cash/

securities

2011

2012

2013

Trump’s $4 billion asset

Trump added “brand value” as an asset in 2013, valued at $4 billion, doubling his net worth from previous years.

Total assets in 2013:

$9.2B

$9B

Brand

value

$6B

Total assets

in 2011:

$4.6B

Properties

under

development

Club facilities and

related real estate

$3B

Commercial

properties

Residential

properties

Real estate

licensing

Joint ventures

Other assets

0

Cash/

securities

2011

2012

2013

Trump’s $4 billion asset

Trump added “brand value” as an asset in 2013, valued at $4 billion, doubling his net worth from previous years.

Total assets in 2013:

$9.2B

$9B

Brand value

$6B

Total assets

in 2011:

$4.6B

Properties under

development

Club facilities and

related real estate

$3B

Commercial

properties

Residential

properties

Joint

ventures

Real estate

licensing

Other assets

Cash/securities

0

2011

2012

2013

For Trump, the Bills would have been a financial prize far larger than any he had won in the recent past: Bids were expected to be around $1 billion.

In public, Trump had bragged that he was ready to pay $1 billion in cash. But privately, one of his lieutenants told a business contact that they were struggling with the bid.

“We are looking at the Bills but Allen and I are having trouble making the numbers work!!!” wrote Ron Lieberman, an executive vice president at the Trump Organization, in an email to a contact in the New York City parks department. “Allen” likely meant Allen Weisselberg, Trump’s longtime chief financial officer.

Lieberman’s email was released this year in response to a public-records request from a nonprofit group, NYC Park Advocates. Lieberman and Weisselberg did not respond to requests for comment this week.

Whatever Trump sent to Deutsche Bank, it seems to have been enough: The New York Times reported that Deutsche Bank agreed to vouch for Trump’s bid for the Bills, citing an unnamed executive. But Trump lost a bidding war, and somebody else bought the team.

<!– david.fahrenthold@washpost.com
–>

<!– jonathan.oconnell@washpost.com
–>

Jonathan O’Connell

Jonathan O’Connell is a reporter focused on economic development, corporate accountability and the Trump Organization.

David A. Fahrenthold

David A. Fahrenthold is a reporter covering the Trump family and its business interests. He has been at The Washington Post since 2000, and previously covered Congress, the federal bureaucracy, the environment and the D.C. police.

Credits

Graphics by Leslie Shapiro and Reuben Fischer-Baum; Design by Jason Bernert and Joanne Lee

<!–

–>

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-statements-of-financial-condition/

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the upcoming electoral vote certification “the most consequential vote” on a call with senators this week, according to Senator Mitt Romney, who was on the call. Congress will convene on January 6 to count each state’s electoral votes and reaffirm President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. 

The tally offers Republican lawmakers who have yet to acknowledge President-elect Joe Biden’s victory one last-ditch attempt to overturn the results of the presidential election. Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri announced Wednesday he intends to object to the certification. 

Asked his interpretation of McConnell’s comments, Romney told reporters Friday: “I see that as a statement that he believes it’s a — it’s a referendum on our democracy.”

The joint session of Congress is required by law to ratify presidential results, but also allows “members to object to the returns from any individual state as they are announced,” according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Lawmakers may object to the results — even if it’s not their home state — leaving the door open for representatives who support Mr. Trump’s unproven claims of widespread election fraud to interrupt the typically ceremonial process. 

Hawley is the only Republican senator to commit to challenging the electoral votes, though several conservative House members have vowed to do so. President Trump has suggested Congress should intervene, in far-flung hope they will deliver him a second term after previous efforts to challenge the election results failed.

The Missouri Republican said in a statement that he “cannot vote to certify the electoral college results on January 6 without raising the fact that some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws.” He added that he “cannot vote to certify without pointing out the unprecedented effort of mega corporations, including Facebook and Twitter, to interfere in this election, in support of Joe Biden.”

“At the very least, Congress should investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections. But Congress has so far failed to act,” Hawley said.

Objections must be signed by both a member of the House and Senate. If that is achieved, the two houses separate to debate and vote to accept or reject the objection. The House, however, is controlled by Democrats, albeit by a slimmer margin, so even if the GOP-controlled Senate were to reject a state, there’s essentially no chance that the House would. 

McConnell asked Republican senators last month not to object when the joint session convenes. Other GOP senators, including those close to Mr. Trump, have suggested such a move would be fruitless.

Although Hawley’s effort is unlikely to succeed, Romney called it “dangerous for democracy here and abroad,” as it “continues to spread the false rumor that somehow the election was stolen.”

“Look, I lost in 2012, I know what it’s like to lose,” said Romney, who ran for president in 2012. “And there were people that said there are irregularities. I have people today who say ‘hey you know what you really won’ — but I didn’t, I lost fair and square. Of course there were irregularities there always are, but spreading this kind of rumor about our election system not working is dangerous for democracy here and abroad.”

Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-electoral-college-vote-most-consequential-mitt-romney/