Trump transgender decision rattles Pentagon
President Trump’s announcement that he plans to ban transgender people from serving in the military made an end run around Defense Secretary James Mattis, calling into question a relationship that so far has seemed solid. Until now, Trump has given …
Furious Gay Rights Advocates See Trump’s ‘True Colors’New York Times
Trump’s transgender policy is on the losing side of the culture warChicago Tribune
President Trump is trying to take command of his floundering administration by enlisting a retired four-star Marine general as his White House chief of staff, empowering a no-nonsense disciplinarian to transform a dysfunctional West Wing into the “fine-tuned machine” the president has bragged of running but which has not yet materialized.
John F. Kelly will be sworn in Monday at the nadir of Trump’s presidency, with historically low approval ratings, a stalled legislative agenda and an escalating Russia investigation that casts a dark cloud.
Trump envisions Kelly executing his orders with military precision and steely gravitas, and without tending to outside political motivations or fretting about palace intrigue, according to Trump confidants. The president replaced Reince Priebus with Kelly, who had what Trump considers a star run as homeland security secretary, in the hope of projecting overall toughness and of inspiring the respect — and even fear — that has eluded him on Capitol Hill, where fellow Republicans last week defied the White House on health care and Russian sanctions.
But no matter how decisive his leadership, Kelly alone cannot turn Trump’s vision into reality. Warring internal factions that have stirred chaos, stoked suspicions and freelanced policies for six straight months may not easily submit to Kelly’s rule. And the president — whose rash impulses routinely have sabotaged the best efforts of his senior aides — has shown no willingness to be tamed.
“Kelly is an incredibly disciplined person who could bring order to the process if the animals in the zoo behave,” said John E. McLaughlin, a former acting director of the CIA who served in seven administrations. “The danger he has is that Trump will be Trump.”
It’s like the movie “Mean Girls,” except it’s at the White House. Stop trying to make Pickle happen, Sarah. It’s like the movie “Mean Girls,” except it’s at the White House. (Gillian Brockell, Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)
(Gillian Brockell,Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)
Kelly got a quick introduction to his new life on Saturday: an angry tweet storm from Trump in which he told Senate Republicans to “Get smart!” and change chamber rules to make it easier to pass his priorities, saying that the senators “look like fools.”
If Kelly has been recruited to bring order to a turbulent White House, the first decision he must make is where to concentrate his energies.
There is not a single model for White House chiefs of staff, as all are derivative of the president’s style and preferences. But broadly, chiefs of staff can be viewed as either managing the president or managing the government, managing up or managing down and out.
In Trump’s White House, given the personality of the president and the clashing world views among the senior staff, Kelly might be forced to do both.
“It will be a challenge for someone who has demonstrated great discipline, General Kelly, to be able to introduce President Trump to some of the discipline he should have in the Oval Office,” said Andrew H. Card, who was President George W. Bush’s first White House chief of staff. “Great generals do not allow impulse to dictate how they are going to inspire other people to do their jobs. Generals appreciate the consequence of decisions.”
No one disputes that Trump’s White House lacks discipline. This dynamic was not an accident. It was designed that way by the president-elect during the transition. Experts on government management knew from the minute Trump named Priebus as his first chief of staff and anointed Stephen K. Bannon as chief strategist with virtual coequal standing that this was going to be a White House with competing power centers.
These days, there are three camps in the Trump White House, factions that sometimes meld: family, represented by daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner; Trump campaign loyalists, including Bannon and counselor Kellyanne Conway; and GOP establishment figures, such as Vice President Pence and other senior aides.
Kelly, who comes from none of those camps, is being grafted onto the existing body. He is well liked by all three factions and has forged a particularly close bond with two members of the Cabinet: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The three men have formed a rapport as older, calmer presences in Trump’s orbit navigating tricky policy directives that frequently overlap.
In the White House, Kelly could form a natural alliance with national security adviser H.R. McMaster, a three-star Army general who has struggled to take full control over the national security process.
As some administration officials texted and called each other Saturday to discuss Kelly, there was widespread angst, since few of them were familiar with his leadership style.
To get a grasp of his personality, people familiar with Kelly urged White House aides and agency leaders to read books by conservative writer Bing West, a retired Marine, who has extensively chronicled Kelly’s military tenure in titles such as “The Strongest Tribe” and “The March Up.”
One particular scene in “The March Up” was passed around by several Trump associates as a sign of how Kelly operates: tersely and with little tolerance for complaints.
After Kelly saw the bodies of Iraqi civilians alongside a road, West writes, he warned his commanders that so many civilian casualties was not acceptable — a point that prompted a defensive response from the commanders about how they were just trying to protect their troops.
“‘Don’t go there with me,’ [Kelly] shot back, cutting off debate,” West writes. “He had been in the infantry thirty years and knew the range of every weapon.”
Trump advisers also checked in with friends at the Department of Homeland Security, asking what they had gleaned from Kelly’s time there. They shared two immediate takeaways: first, that Kelly had not been directed with a heavy hand from the White House on whom to hire as his deputies, and second, that he is driven by duty and a passion for enforcing the law rather than by ideology.
Throughout his life, Trump has venerated military valor, and he recruited several generals into his administration, including Kelly. He admired Kelly’s decisive moves to crack down on illegal immigration and border crime and first sought him out for the chief of staff role in mid-May. Trump was rebuffed multiple times until Kelly agreed this past week to take the job.
Even as confidants suggested other options for chief of staff, Trump kept coming back to Kelly. The collapse this week of the Republican health-care bill sped up the president’s timetable to replace Priebus, according to people familiar with the move.
Kelly comes into the post as more of an equal to the president than Priebus, both generationally — Kelly is 67 and Trump is 71, whereas Priebus is 45 — and in stature.
“The kinds of people that Trump particularly likes are people with bucks — money — and braids — the military,” said Martha Kumar, director of the White House Transition Project.
Although Kelly does not bring legislative experience, Trump sees him as part of the solution to his administration’s legislative woes, according to people familiar with the decision to bring Kelly to the White House. Instead of hiring an insider who would ingratiate himself or herself on Capitol Hill, Trump wanted someone who adds stature and commands respect from congressional leaders, the people said.
Over recent months, Trump concluded that Priebus’s close relationship with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) became a hindrance, giving Ryan leverage and insight into the workings of the White House. He resented the suggestion that Priebus was a “Trump whisperer” who had to explain Trump to Ryan and other GOP leaders, these people said.
So far, most of the administration’s accomplishments have been overturning or reversing Obama-era policies. But Kumar said Kelly could help reorient the White House around a “positive policy agenda.”
When Kelly made the rounds on Capitol Hill before his nomination hearings in January, he did not know Trump very well and asked people there to share stories about the president-elect. He wanted to know how Trump made decisions. Told that Trump relished competing power centers around him, Kelly grimaced and said nothing.
Those who knew Trump before he became president knew that his management approach, short attention span and general lack of discipline were a recipe for trouble. Trump’s early transition planners envisioned a White House table of organization that started with a strong chief of staff and that included clear lines of authority and limited direct access to the president.
But Trump got what he wanted: a White House in which the power and influence of individuals ebbed and flowed, with status affected by Trump’s aims of the moment, his limited loyalty toward any of those in his employ and the backstabbing that has been a constant feature almost from Day 1.
Trump’s transition documents included a lengthy memo about White House structure, based on past administrations. “They didn’t follow the product at all,” said a person with direct knowledge of what transpired as Trump was setting up his administration. “They did it instinctively … The president-elect didn’t want to say no to anybody.”
The result was the White House that now exists, populated by advisers with competing ideologies that reflect an administration that is an amalgam of populist nationalists, hard-line conservatives and establishment Republicans — and a few Democrats. Trump saw this grouping as his winning coalition in the presidential campaign and as encompassing his disparate views on the issues, but it has added greatly to the lack of coherence once he took office.
“The only way a chief of staff can be successful is if he is empowered by the president, and I never had any feeling that Reince Priebus was fully empowered by the president,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.). “The success of Kelly will be significantly dependent upon how much authority President Trump grants him.”
The environment is poised to change in the Kelly era. The new chief of staff is expected to have full control over the Oval Office and schedule, officials said. Trusted aides such as Hope Hicks, Dan Scavino and Keith Schiller — as well as senior advisers such as Kushner, Bannon and Conway — will continue to have casual access to the president.
But Kelly is expected to have a far tighter grip than Priebus was able to exercise on who participates in meetings and the process by which policy decisions are made.
Orlando Shooting Updates
News and analysis on the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.
“The vast majority of people who work in the White House are quite competent and quite self-confident,” Card said. As chief of staff, he added, “You want to make sure that they recognize that their competence is needed, but their self-confidence should be managed.”
One possibility mentioned by Kelly associates as a deputy chief of staff is Christian Marrone, a Republican who served in President Barack Obama’s administration as chief of staff to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. Marrone declined to comment.
Many of Trump’s top aides chafed at taking instructions from Priebus. When Anthony Scaramucci was hired as communications director this month, he received an assurance from Trump that he would report to the president, not to the chief of staff.
Chris Whipple, author of “The Gatekeepers,” a history of White House chiefs of staff, said Kelly’s task will be “mission impossible” if his control is not absolute.
“If Scaramucci reports directly to President Trump, therein lies disaster,” Whipple said. “You can’t have a loose cannon rolling on the deck. Kelly has to make sure he’s in charge of the White House staff, in charge of the information flow to the president, and in charge of executing policy. And fundamentally, he’s got to be able to go in, close the door, and tell Trump what he does not want to hear.”
MOSCOW — Your geopolitical nemesis is suffering a political meltdown and says you’re partly to blame. Angry legislators have slapped you with new sanctions, which their president says he will sign. What’s a resurgent autocracy to do?
In Moscow, it’s time for some game theory.
Regardless of whether the Kremlin believes its own denials of interfering in the 2016 elections, there is one undeniable truth: Russia is now Washington’s greatest political foe. Understanding that President Trump is “tied hand and foot,” as one foreign policy hawk here put it, Moscow is weighing options for retaliation.
After a dalliance on the Trump train, Russia is once again channeling the ruthless realism that drives its political id, and embracing its role as antihero.
“Okay, you think we’re bad guys, we’re going to be bad guys, and we’ll see whether you like it or not,” said Konstantin Eggert, a television political commentator, describing the Kremlin thinking.
Why Russia is demanding the U.S. cut diplomatic staff
The Post’s Andrew Roth explains a statement the Russian Foreign Ministry issued July 28, seizing U.S. diplomatic properties and demanding the State Department reduce its staff in Russia. The Post’s Andrew Roth explains a statement the Russian Foreign Ministry issued July 28 (Andrew Roth, Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)
(Andrew Roth,Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)
Russia’s decision on Friday to expel dozens, perhaps hundreds, of American diplomats and other embassy staff marks the first salvo in retaliation to American sanctions that promises to be unpredictable and fraught with emotion. It is built on the frustrations of a Russian leader who perhaps thought that a Trump presidency could change everything, and then watched those hopes dissolve in scandal and recriminations.
The Russian establishment has been angry with the West before but rarely so filled with contempt. It is far worse than several years ago, when tensions rose to fever pitch over a pro-Western revolution in neighboring Ukraine, sold on Russian television as a nationalist uprising with echoes of fascism.
“No one was scared by the first  sanctions, it was almost fun,” said Andrei Kolesnikov, a veteran member of Vladimir Putin’s press pool, who co-wrote a 2000 book of interviews with the Russian president and traveled with him to Finland recently. “Now there’s a sense among Russian officials that everything is very serious. And they’re all looking at Vladimir Putin to see what to do.”
A common adage about Putin is that he is a canny tactician but a poor strategist. He has taken the upper hand in conflicts with neighbors such as Ukraine and Georgia, and in so doing, surrounded himself with enemies. With Trump’s growing political impotence, Russia’s cyber-intervention in the 2016 elections now seems similarly pyrrhic. “I don’t think he knows how this ends,” Kolesnikov said. “The rules are now being made up on the fly.”
Predictions for autumn are frank: economic war. “If the bill is approved and most probably it will be adopted, then we will inevitably enter the stage of what we call the Cold War,” said Andrei Sidorov, an expert on international politics at Moscow State University and one of several hawkish Russian analysts who sat down for a roundtable discussion at a state news agency recently. “And the Cold War means various responses.”
Putin has said they will depend on the version of the bill signed by Trump. Kommersant, a Moscow daily plugged into Kremlin and foreign policy circles, suggested some options: cutting titanium or enriched uranium exports to the United States,which could harm the American airline and uranium industries; blocking U.S. diplomatic initiatives such as a U.N. vote on new North Korea sanctions and cooperation in Syria; and seizing corporate property or even kicking out U.S. companies such as Google or Microsoft.
Moscow knows it’s outgunned in a trade war. It generally fights back by using its own market as a weapon, whether by imposing sanctions on European food imports in 2014 or, in a more cynical moment in 2013, by banning Americans from adopting Russian children (Trump discussed the adoption ban, and probably the associated sanctions, with Putin during an after-dinner meeting at the G-20 summit in Hamburg this month).
Senate passes Russia sanctions bill
The Senate on July 27 passed a bill that increases sanctions on Russia, North Korea and Iran. The White House hasn’t said whether President Trump will veto the bill. The Senate on July 27 passed a bill increasing sanctions on Russia, North Korea and Iran. The White House hasn’t said whether President Trump will veto it. (U.S. Senate)
“Of course it’s very difficult for Russia to do anything to harm the U.S. interests unless Russia is ready to take steps which will harm ourselves,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, chairman of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policies, an influential group of Russian foreign policy experts.
Dallas shooting updates
News and analysis on the deadliest day for police since 9/11.
What’s most important from where the world meets Washington
Hawks poring over the U.S. sanctions say Moscow needs to break the rules. “It says that by no means shall sanctions apply to NASA projects,” said Nikolay Platoshkin, a former Russian diplomat and professor at the Moscow University of the Humanities, referring to the bill passed by the Senate. “Here we go, a perfect tip, let them apply [to NASA], let American astronauts ride horses to the International Space Station.”
One idea voiced by the Kremlin is to expand cooperation with Europe, and possibly with China, to counterbalance U.S. power. European leaders have expressed anger over the planned U.S. sanctions, saying they could backfire, dealing a blow to transatlantic efforts to curb Russian aggression against Ukraine and sparking a trade war between Europe and the United States.
“Of course for our entire lives we’ve held onto the hope that Europe is close to us and will align in its interest with us against the Americans,” said Sidorov. But he was doubtful that the current crisis would bring about this schism.
Meanwhile, dialogue between the countries is minimal. American diplomats can’t get their Russian diplomats to agree on facts about Moscow’s participation in the election hack, and expect Russians to accept the testimonials given by American intelligence chiefs as evidence of Russia’s complicity. The Russians have demanded evidence, which the Americans say would compromise sources and methods of intelligence gathering. The impasse is total. Conflict is assured.
Signed in as mikenova
Share this story on NewsBlur
The Kremlin is done betting on Trump and planning how to strike back against US sanctions
Understanding that President Trump is “tied hand and foot,” as one foreign policy hawk here put it, Moscow is weighing options for retaliation. After a dalliance on the Trump train, Russia is once again channeling the ruthless realism that drives its …
Could Putin prove to be Trump’s fatal attraction?BBC News
White House: Trump to sign Russia sanctions billCNN International
Scaramucci suggests Trump may veto bipartisan Russian sanctionsCNN
Politico –NBCNews.com –Reuters
all 6,578 news articles »
This explosion of crazy concluded with his new White House chief of communications, Anthony Scaramucci, calling the New Yorker’s political correspondent Ryan Lizza to trash virtually everyone in the White House. He compared himself positively to the president’s dark lord and special adviser, Stephen Bannon: “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock. I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the president.”
The US has, over the past quarter of a century, become ungovernable at the national level
Could Putin prove to be Trump’s fatal attraction?
There was a time when to work out what was happening in Moscow you needed to read between the lines in Pravda, or look at the line-up of Soviet officials at a Red Square parade and study who was standing next to whom. The art of Kremlinology has …
For Trump, the honeymoon with Putin may be finally overReuters
Putin Turns on Trump as Congress Approves New Sanctions on RussiaVanity Fair
Putin Has Run Out of Patience With TrumpSlate Magazine (blog)
Bloomberg –New York Times –The Globe and Mail –CNN
all 7,042 news articles »
The incompetence and infighting at the White House dismay America’s allies and encourage its enemies
The sense of things falling apart in Washington is palpable – and a matter of growing, serious international concern. Donald Trump’s latest asinine act of gesture politics, the forced resignation of his chief of staff, Reince Priebus, has shone a spotlight on the extraordinary chaos inside the White House. Even normally sober, experienced Washington observers now refer to the West Wing as a viper’s nest of seething rivalry, bitter feuds, gross incompetence and an unparalleled leadership vacuum.
Ann McFeatters: Trump’s a mess but he’s not mentally ill | Op-ed …
The Exponent Telegram (press release) (registration)
WASHINGTON — As Donald Trump veers wackily from day to day, swearing before 30000 Boy Scouts, publicly humiliating his attorney general and changing …
Russians are fond of a proverb, “besplatniy sir biyvaet tol’ko v mishelovke”: “Free cheese can be found only in a mousetrap.”
Having long considered the United States its main enemy, the Kremlin deploys a full quiver of intelligence weapons against America and its national security agencies, political parties and defense contractors. Its intelligence services, though best known for clandestine operations to recruit spies, also run covert “influence operations” that often use disinformation to try to affect decisions or events in rival countries. A central tool of those operations is “kompromat,” “compromising material”: things of seemingly great value that are dangled, at what appears to be no cost, before unwitting targets. This is the “free cheese” that ensnares victims in a trap.
I know all this from having spent much of my 30-year government career, including with the C.I.A., observing Soviet, and then Russian, intelligence operations. I came to realize that President Vladimir Putin, who spent his formative years in the K.G.B., the Soviet Union’s main intelligence agency, and served as director of its successor agency, the F.S.B., wants, as much as anything, to destabilize the American political process. For all his talk of desiring friendly relations, Mr. Putin favors a state of animosity between our two nations. By characterizing the United States and NATO as Russia’s enemies, he can attack within his own borders what threatens him the most — the ideals of liberty, freedom and democracy, of which the United States has been a defender.
This background is necessary for understanding the real meaning of the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower between Kremlin-connected Russians and three representatives of Donald Trump’s campaign: his son, Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort, then the campaign manager. The evidence that has emerged from this meeting strongly suggests that this was not an effort to establish a secure back channel for collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign but an influence operation with one simple objective: to undermine the presidential election.
No conclusive proof has yet emerged that the Kremlin arranged this meeting, and the Russians involved have asserted they were not working for the Putin government. Mr. Kushner himself told Senate investigators that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow. But to me, the clearest evidence that this was a Russian influence operation is the trail of bread crumbs the Kremlin seemed to have deliberately left leading from Trump Tower to the Kremlin. This operation was meant to be discovered.
The meeting was arranged by a British publicist named Rob Goldstone, who told Donald Trump Jr. via email that his client, the Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, wanted to share incriminating evidence on the Clinton campaign that had been obtained from the Russian government. Sophisticated Russian intelligence tradecraft that was meant to be kept secret would not have permitted such an insecure opening gambit for establishing continuing communication with the Trump campaign. They would not have used something as insecure as email, or relied on liaison cutouts who could so easily be traced to the Kremlin. Instead, the Russians who attended the meeting had obvious Kremlin ties, including Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Moscow lawyer who has done work on behalf of the F.S.B.; Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist who served in the Soviet military; and Mr. Agalarov, whose father is a real estate titan close to Mr. Putin.
Consider North Korea: As Pyongyang defiantly ignored Mr. Trump’s martial strutting, he indicated that the United States was counting on the Chinese to bring financial pressure; praised the skills of Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader; and offered to negotiate. A few months later, Mr. Trump has already ditched that approach, closing the door on the Chinese and going back to military threats.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Mr. Trump has sown confusion about American policy toward Syria; incited regional isolation of Qatar, home to an important American military base; and encouraged a destabilizing confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
During Mr. Trump’s maladroit visit to Europe, he declined to affirm the country’s commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty — the linchpin of Europe’s collective security — and hectored European NATO members to spend more on defense. Although he has walked back the gaffe, trans-Atlantic relations remain shaky.
Most recently, Mr. Trump last week announced that transgender Americans would be barred from military service — catching the Pentagon by surprise and upending a long-running internal review process. After each of these episodes, stories leak about how the generals were either outgunned by advisers like Stephen Bannon or, more often, just left out of the loop.
At the margins, the generals may dial back their boss’s impulses, and occasionally stand up to Mr. Trump in small ways, as Mr. Mattis did when he declined to praise Mr. Trump in a televised cabinet meeting in June. And there are small victories: Last week, General McMaster managed to remove the Flynn holdover Derek Harvey, the Middle East senior adviser and an Iran hawk, from the security council.
But it’s unlikely that the generals will consistently rein in Mr. Trump at the strategic level. Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and therefore, on paper at least, the president’s primary military liaison and adviser, rarely has one-on-one meetings with Mr. Trump. Mr. Kelly, a former Marine general who had served as his secretary of homeland security and whom many had hoped would temper the president on immigration, apparently shares Mr. Trump’s policy views and seems disinclined to challenge him.
Relying on the generals was always a dubious, ad hoc plan prompted by Mr. Trump’s uniquely troubling peculiarities. Generals aren’t supposed to make policy, let alone get involved in politics.
In the mid-1950s, the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington observed that American military officers had evolved into a disciplined and largely apolitical group of professionals. He outlined a separation of roles: military obedience to civilian leaders in areas of strategic or political discretion, and civilian deference to the military on operational matters.
This was the norm until after Vietnam, when numerous scholars conducting post-mortems on the war — including, coincidentally, General McMaster in his book “Dereliction of Duty” — concluded that military commanders should have challenged civilian leaders more aggressively.
And over time, that’s what happened. As the Pentagon gained a broader post-Sept. 11 mandate, branching into what were once considered law enforcement and diplomatic arenas, the line between the civilian and military division blurred. Combatant commanders’ assertiveness peaked when a beleaguered President George W. Bush looked to Gen. David Petraeus to extricate the United States from the Iraq quagmire by way of the “surge” in 2007.
President Barack Obama reasserted civilian control when he fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal in 2010 and pulled the military out of Iraq in 2012.
Civilian control remains more or less intact, but the civilian leadership has changed. Unlike Mr. Obama, who took responsibility for his administration’s military actions, Mr. Trump has publicly scapegoated the military for politically damaging episodes, such as the errant February raid in Yemen in which one Navy SEAL and up to 30 civilians died. He has also been openly at odds with Mr. Mattis over torture, budget cuts at the State Department and climate change.
Still, there was an expectation that, given Mr. Trump’s apparent affection for all things martial, the generals would eventually take at least some control of foreign policy, especially after General McMaster replaced the wayward Mr. Flynn at the National Security Council.
This has not happened. Instead, Mr. Trump has simply sidelined the security council and its role in coordinating foreign policy, relegating it to on-the-fly improvisation. The generals in the Trump administration still sit outside the president’s inner circle. General McMaster admitted that Mr. Trump went into his private meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia at last month’s G-20 meeting without an agenda — indeed, without General McMaster.
The generals have failed because for all their acumen, they’re not suited to the job of the nation’s strategic stewards. They’re military men, not statesmen. This isn’t a slight on Mr. Mattis or General McMaster — it’s a rare officer who can move from operations to policy and strategy, as Eliot Cohen noted in his book “Supreme Command.” They lack the sound civilian leader’s worldly acumen, and the good ones know it. (Obviously Mr. Cohen — one of Mr. Trump’s most vehement Republican critics — did not have the current president in mind in positing the ideal civilian leader.)
Furthermore, most generals — Douglas MacArthur being the rare exception — are acutely aware of the chain of command, and uncomfortable directly challenging the commander in chief. That’s what makes Mr. Mattis’s comment in Singapore so surprising — and it’s unlikely we’ll hear more in that vein.
So where will the check on Mr. Trump’s incompetent foreign policy come from? Not the State Department, under siege and led, for now, by the underqualified Rex Tillerson. Only Congress, on a bipartisan basis, can constrain Mr. Trump’s recklessness and ineptitude.
And, slowly but surely, that constraint is materializing. Congress is using its power of the purse to reject Mr. Trump’s drastic cuts in the foreign assistance budget and resist his substantially defunding the State Department. More significantly and unconventionally, it is countering Trump administration policy stances it considers unsound, having passed a resolution reaffirming the American commitment to NATO and voted overwhelmingly to impose new sanctions on Russia.
But even on its best days, Congress is an unreliable and unwieldy mechanism for managing foreign policy, and no substitute for a wise and engaged chief executive and a nimble security council.
I. Government Lawyering
Lisa Monaco, Help Wanted: Custodians for the Rule of Law (Friday, July 28)II. Trump Campaign – Russia Investigation
Ambassador (ret.) Keith Harper, The Presidenut’s Pardons Paradox: Granting Them Could Aid the Prosecution (Wednesday, July 26) Bob Bauer, If “Love” Knows No Bounds: On Criminal “Intent” and the Scope of Campaign Finance Law (Tuesday, July 25) Renato Mariotti, A Former Federal Prosecutor Dissects Kushner’s Statement (Tuesday, July 25) Fred Wertheimer, President Trump’s Unsurprising Endorsement of Illegal Solicitation–His 2016 Campaign Repeatedly Violated Ban on Soliciting Foreign Donations (Tuesday, July 25) Kate Brannen and Andy Wright, Q&A on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Decision to Subpoena Manafort ((Tuesday, July 25) Ryan Goodman, Can Jared Kushner Be Impeached? (Monday, July 24) Renato Mariotti, How the Prospect of Indictment Could Impact the President’s Decision Making (Monday, July 24)III. The State Department
Jane Stromseth, Why the U.S. needs the Office of Global Criminal Justice Led by a Senate-Confirmed Ambassador-at-Large (Wednesday, July 26)IV. Iraq and Female Foreign Fighters
Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Fall of Mosul Raises Question: What Should Be Done with Female Foreign Fighters? (Thursday, July 27)V. Cybersecurity and Election Infrastructure
Karen Hobert Flynn, As Hackers Target U.S. Voting Machines, We Need Leaders Who’ll Put Country Over Party (Thursday, July 27)VI. Norms Watch
Hannah Ryan, Norms Watch: Democracy, the Trump Administration, and Reactions to It (July 21-July 28) (Friday, July 28)VII. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Steve Vladeck, The Three Sessions Succession Scenarios (Tuesday, July 25)VIII. The Transgender Military Service Ban
Bishop Garrison, We’ve Been Here Before: Discriminating Against Those Who Volunteer to Serve (Wednesday, July 26)IX. Islamophobia and Countering Violent Extremism
Faiza Patel, Margot Adams and Emily Hockett, Defeated Anti-Muslim Amendment a Sign of Trump’s Normalizing of Islamophobia (Wednesday, July 26) Michael German and Faiza Patel, Fighting Terrorism Without Dividing Us: Why Congress Must Look Beyond Countering Violent Extremism (Thursday, July 27)X. The Authorization for Use of Military Force
Heather Brandon and Scott Johnston, Takeaways from this Week’s House AUMF Hearing—on Authorizing War Against ISIS (Thursday, July 27)XI. Authoritarianism and Emergency Powers
Rachel Kleinfeld, We Are Already in a State of Emergency (Friday, July 28)XII. Yemen
Will Picard, The Danger of a Grand Bargain: The Wrong Peace Deal Could Mean Endless War in Yemen (Tuesday, July 25) Stephen Seche and Eric Pelofsky, Yemen: The View from Riyadh, (Sunday, July 23)XIII. National Security Council
Kate Brannen and Jenna McLaughlin, Top Middle East Advisor is Removed from the National Security Council (Thursday, July 28) Read on Just Security »
A senior German government official on Friday agreed with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s criticism of new U.S. sanctions aimed at punishing Russian aggression around the world.
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel suggested Friday that the United States is using the sanctions bill as an opportunity to boost American energy companies by barring Europeans from doing business with their Russian rivals. The remarks endorse a key plank of Russia’s position, despite German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s posture as a leading European critic of Putin.
“Sanctions policies are neither a suitable nor an appropriate instrument for promoting national export interests and the domestic energy sector,” Gabriel said.
Putin made a similar accusation, as Congress took the final steps to send the bill to President Trump’s desk. “I would call them particularly cynical because they amount to an obvious attempt to use one’s geopolitical advantages in the competitive struggle in order to protect one’s economic interests at the expense of one’s allies, as in this case,” Putin said Thursday while traveling in Finland.
That charge was just one part of the Russian defense against the sanctions, as the Foreign Ministry paired it with a statement that U.S. concern about Russian aggression is a fiction.
“It is common knowledge that the Russian Federation has been doing everything in its power to improve bilateral relations, to encourage ties and cooperation with the U.S.,” the Foreign Ministry said. “Meanwhile, the United States is using Russia’s alleged interference in its domestic affairs as an absolutely contrived excuse for its persevering and crude campaigns against Russia.”
U.S. intelligence officials in President Trump’s administration and the Obama administration agree that Russians were behind a series of cyberattacks and document leaks targeting Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Leaked National Security Agency documents also revealed an effort to hack state election systems, although they didn’t succeed in altering the vote on election day. Russian officials also harassed U.S. diplomats, according to the State Department, including one incident when a policeman outside the U.S. embassy in Moscow assaulted an American official trying to enter the building.
“For too long, the message to Vladimir Putin has been that Russia can invade its neighbors, threaten U.S. allies, intensify its cyber-attacks, and interfere with foreign elections with very little repercussion,” Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., said in June when the bill passed the upper chamber. “Unless and until Russia pays a price for its actions, these destabilizing activities will continue.”
The new sanctions aim to punish Russia by barring companies that do business in the United States from working on energy projects with significant Russian ownership — defined in the law as a one-third stake. The most significant example is Nord Stream 2, a major new gas pipeline that a company owned by the Russian government is trying to build in northern Europe.
The pipeline would strengthen Russia’s hand with respect to Ukraine and Europe, but several major energy companies from Germany and other Western European nations are involved in the deal.
U.S. lawmakers took a variety of steps to alleviate those worries in the final version of the bill, including measures that would allow for U.S-European coordination over the implementation of the sanctions.
“It’s critically important that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our European allies in countering Russian aggression,” House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce said as lawmakers prepared to pass the legislation. “That’s why, in the bipartisan, House-Senate negotiations, we secured important changes to improve transatlantic cooperation.”
Gabriel acknowledged those concessions, but signaled Germany intends to take a firm line in defending German-Russian energy cooperation.
“It is good that Congress has now explicitly stipulated that consultations must be held with the United States’ European partners before further measures can be taken,” he said. “Our stance remains that we will not accept any extraterritorial use whatsoever of these US sanctions against European companies.”
Confronted by almost-unanimous congressional support for the package and questions about his intentions toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Donald Trump had little choice but to sign a bill that officials complain will tie his hands in his dealings with Putin. | Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Moscow is furious at new sanctions as the White House complains of Congressional interference in foreign policy.
President Donald Trump plans to sign a Congressional law restricting his ability to lift sanctions on Russia, the White House said Friday night, in a severe blow to his budding relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Confronted by a united Congress and suspicions about his intentions towards the Russian leader, Trump had little choice but to sign the measure, whose passage the White House had opposed.
Story Continued Below
“It would have been foolhardy for the Trump administration to veto this bill,” said Edward Fishman, a former Obama State Department official who worked on Russia sanctions policy. “Congress would have overriden the veto, and all it will do is fuel the fire of the Russia scandal in Washington.”
The White House statement sought to save face from a resounding political setback, arguing that Trump had negotiated changes to early drafts of the bill and, “based on its responsiveness to his negotiations, approves the bill and intends to sign it.”
The timing of the announcement—late on a summer Friday, amid headlines about White House staff turmoil—ensured relatively little coverage for what analysts called a major development in U.S.-Russia relations.
The legislation, which also imposes new penalties on North Korea and Iran, passed the House and Senate with just a handful of dissenting votes. It requires Trump to justify in writing any effort to ease sanctions on Russia and mandates an automatic Congressional review of any such move.
That severely limits Trump’s ability to cut a deal with Putin, whose top priority is the rollback of U.S. and European sanctions against his economy and associates.
Members of both parties have grown concerned about Trump’s eagerness to befriend Putin despite strong evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election and multiple investigations into alleged links between Trump associates and the Kremlin. Trump and Putin developed a friendly rapport in multiple conversations at the G-20 summit in Hamburg earlier this month, one of them an after-dinner chat attended by no other U.S. officials.
But even before Trump agreed to sign the new sanctions measure, Putin angrily ordered a staff cut at the U.S. embassy in Moscow and the seizure of properties used by American diplomats in Russia.
That move returned a favor from December, when President Barack Obama shut down two Russian diplomatic compounds — one in Maryland and one in New York — as punishment for Russian meddling in the November election. U.S. officials said the rural compounds were used for espionage. The Kremlin says they were recreation spots and whose closure, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier this month, was “robbery in broad daylight.”
Russia did not initially retaliate for Obama’s December closure of the compounds—reportedly after Trump’s now-resigned national security adviser, Michael Flynn, told Russia’s ambassador in Washington that Trump would reverse the action after taking office. But Trump has not done so, and the sanctions he now plans to sign into law will now make that nearly impossible given sharp anti-Kremlin sentiments in Congress.
On Friday, Russian officials suggested that relations with the U.S. could be on a downward slope.
“We are not ruling out any steps, so to say, to bring to their senses those presumptuous Russophobes who are setting the tone on Capitol Hill today,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told reporters, according to the Kremlin-funded Russian outlet RT.
Ryabkov also warned of “potentially destructive consequences” from the legislation.
Analysts say Moscow still hopes to do business with Trump, who has largely shrugged off warnings about Putin’s intentions and said Washington and Moscow should cooperate in the Middle East and on issues like terrorism and cyber security.
The new sanctions bill will make that exceedingly difficult, however.
The measure enshrines into law sanctions imposed by Obama through executive orders and gives Congress 30 days to review any effort by Trump to weaken sanctions.
Earlier this month, the White House’s top legislative liaison, Marc Short, said the law amounted to an “unusual precedent of delegating foreign policy to 535 members of Congress.” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has also urged Congress not to impede his “flexibility” to bargain with Moscow.
That echoes arguments from Obama, who resisted Congressional intrusions into his nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Obama unsuccessfully battled tougher sanctions on Tehran than he had wanted and was forced to submit his final deal for Congressional review.
But Obama officials who worked on the Iran deal call Russia a different case.
“I generally think Congress should be wary of impinging too far on executive branch prerogatives in foreign policy,” said Jon Finer, who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State John Kerry during the nuclear negotiations.
“But two key differences here make the Russia case exceptional: the unprecedented interference (which Trump is the only person in Washington incapable of acknowledging) in our election, and the Administration’s constant stream of lies about its ties to Russia, which raise legitimate questions about why they want a deal,” Finer added.
The White House did win some changes to the legislation since its first passage by the House and Senate, including ones sought by energy companies that could be penalized, it was clear that Trump plans to sign the final product only grudgingly.
Story Continued Below
After Congress struck a deal to advance the measure last week, Trump angrily tweeted that “the phony Russian With Hunt continues,” calling it “very sad that Republicans, even some that were carried over the line on my back, do very little to protect their President.”
Trump isn’t the only critic of the legislation outside of Moscow. European officials have expressed alarm that the measure would grant Trump the power to ban investments in energy projects on the continent tied to Russia—a point of friction happily amplified by Russian media outlets.
Trump: ‘We’re going to destroy’ MS-13
“Together we’re going to restore safety to our streets and peace to our communities and we’re going to destroy the vile, criminal cartel MS-13 and many other gangs,” Trump said. Long Island has been particularly affected by the brutal street gang, with …
Trump to cite gang violence in New York town in pressing for deportationsReuters
In Long Island, Trump to talk about crackdown on MS-13, immigrationCBS News
Trump headed to Long Island to trumpet MS-13 crackdownABC News
Los Angeles Times –Fox News
all 86 news articles »
Trump says he’s going to ‘destroy’ MS-13 — here’s how the gang got its sinister name
“Mara inmates realized they had to join La Eme [The Mexican Mafia] to survive, and the mob was happy to add war-hardened machete wielders to its cell-block armies. The Mexican Mafia uses the number thirteen (M is the thirteenth letter of the alphabet), …
McFeatters: Trump’s a mess but he’s not mentally ill
WASHINGTON | As Donald Trump veers wackily from day to day, swearing before 30,000 Boy Scouts, publicly humiliating his attorney general and changing his mind on policy issues, he is raising alarm that the president of the United States might be …
“Everyone thinks he was whacked”
Vladimir Putin’s former media czar was murdered in Washington, DC on the eve of a planned meeting with the U.S. Justice Department, according to two FBI agents whose assertions cast new doubts on the US government’s official explanation of his death …
North Korea has launched a missile that landed within 200 nautical miles of Japan, according to TheWashington Post. The Pentagon confirmed that it detected a missile launch around 10:45 a.m. EST. Japanese and South Korean national security officials condemned the move. In recent days, U.S. intelligence officials had identified preparations for another test. The launch comes less than three weeks after Pyongyang fired its first missile deemed technically capable of reaching the United States. The AP reports that a Pentagon official says the launch was an intercontinental ballistic missile.
The Russian government seized two American diplomatic properties and ordered the State Department to reduce embassy staff by September, reports The New York Times. The Kremlin’s move comes one day after Congress sent a bill to the White House that would constrain the president’s unilateral authority to change sanctions on Russia. President Trump has not yet signalled whether he will sign the bill. Moscow’s decision also follows the Obama administration’s December 2016 expulsion of Russian diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds in response to Russian interference in the U.S. election. The move is the latest in rising tensions between Washington and Moscow.
Buzzfeed reports that RT founder Mikhail Lesin was murdered in November 2015 in a Washington, D.C. hotel the day before he planned to meet with officials at the Department of Justice. While the Justice Department previously closed the investigation into Lesin’s death, determining it to have been an accident, FBI sources informed Buzzfeed that Lesin was “beaten to death” in his Dupont Circle hotel, likely on behalf of the Kremlin. Lesin had traveled to Washington to meet with Justice Department officials about pro-Kremlin propaganda network RT.
The Pakistani Supreme Court ordered Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to step down over allegations of corruption, reports the Times. The charges brought against Sharif stemmed from the Panama Papers disclosure, which showed that his family held valuable real estate holdings concealed by offshore companies. The former Prime Minister called the investigations into his family’s finances a conspiracy. His resignation may create a political opening for opposition leader Imran Khan in the next general elections.
Iran successfully launched a missile into space on Thursday after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran, according to the Times. Such launches are permitted under the 2015 nuclear agreement. The launch comes as the Times also reports that President Trump has instructed his national security team to find a justification for declaring Iran is in violation of the agreement. The AP reports that the administration imposed new sanctions on Iran on Friday over the missile launch.
President Trump considered Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to replace Reince Priebus as White House Chief of Staff, reports the Times. The president has openly said that he has lost faith in Priebus and that he wants “a general” to replace him.
Responding to attacks from the president, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that Trump’s remarks were “hurtful” but described him as a “strong leader” in an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, the Times writes. Sessions reiterated his belief that he was right to recuse himself from the ongoing investigation into Russian election interference, a major source of the president’s criticism.
The State Department ordered relatives of U.S. embassy staff in Caracas to leave Venezuela, The Wall Street Journal reports. A contentious vote on Sunday to elect members to the Constituent Assembly, a body tasked with drafting a new constitution, may deepen the already pervasive political and economic instability in Venezuela. The U.S. has threatened “strong and swift economic actions” against Venezuela if the country adopts the Constituent Assembly. Earlier this week, the Trump administration imposed new sanctions on 13 Venezuelan government officials for alleged corruption and undermining democratic political processes.
ICYMI: Yesterday, on Lawfare
In the Intelligence Studies Essay, Steve Slick asked what effects President Trump’s revised executive order on the structure of the National Security Council will have on policy deliberations.
Paul Rosenzweig argued that Europe is unserious in its approach to privacy.
Nicholas Weaver examined the indictment of Alexander Vinnick for running the BTC-e crypto-currency exchange.
Andrew Keane Woods noted a new case filed by Google in the U.S. District Court of California challenging a Canadian Supreme Court ruling requiring Google to delist links to particular pages.
Trey Herr and Bruce Schneier flagged new revisions to their paper on estimating vulnerability rediscovery.
Email the Roundup Team noteworthy law and security-related articles to include, and follow us on Twitter and Facebook for additional commentary on these issues. Sign up to receive Lawfare in your inbox. Visit our Events Calendar to learn about upcoming national security events, and check out relevant job openings on our Job Board.
Signed in as mikenova
Share this story on NewsBlur
Perhaps we should have seen it coming after Donald Trump spent the primary race defending against the accusation that he had small hands, only to literally defend the size of his penis during a primary debate. And it shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering that Trump and the people he’s surrounded himself with are some of the most insecure men on the planet. But it still stands out as jarring just how obsessed Trump’s feuding advisers are with talking about each other’s dicks.
“I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” said Anthony Scaramucci in a rant last night to a reporter. The pure spectacle of the remark ensured that it’ll be the only thing that either Scaramucci or Bannon will ever be remembered for. But this wasn’t some isolated incident. Just last week it was revealed that Bannon had referred to Paul Ryan as a “limp-dick.” There are other examples, and these are just the ones that have made it out to the public.
If you’ve ever had the misfortune to know someone who’s similar in nature to Donald Trump or his gang of thugs, then you know that this is more or less how these types of men converse. Their entire worldview is more or less built around the size of their own dick, and their fear that it’s smaller than that of other men. They can’t so much as refer to a woman without saying something sexist, or to a minority without saying something racist. It’s just their horrible, horrifying nature.
And yet it invariably leads these insecure gutter dwelling fractions of small men to spend their miserable lives obsessively talking about each other’s penises. They make it far too easy for the rest of us. The jokes just end up writing themselves.
The post Donald Trump and his advisers just can’t stop talking about each other’s penises appeared first on Palmer Report.
• Timothy Garton Ash is a Guardian columnist‘“You must be from England,” says the shop assistant at the CVS drugstore in Menlo Park, California. When I mention Donald Trump, he says: “Well, don’t get me started on how things are going on your side of the Atlantic. Your Mrs May there in Downing Street is being [expletive deleted] by the bureaucrats in Brussels …”
I can only agree. Having jumped from the Brexit frying pan into the Trump fire, I find myself comparing the two and wondering which is worse. The transatlantic difference is, in the first place, between Britain’s madness of the thing and America’s madness of the man. Theresa May may be wooden, rigid and out of her depth, but compared to Trump she looks like Mother Teresa.
Donald Trump | The Guardian
Before the start of business, Just Security provides a curated summary of up-to-the-minute developments at home and abroad. Here’s today’s news.
RUSSIA, IRAN and NORTH KOREA SANCTIONS PACKAGE
Russia ordered the U.S. to cut diplomatic staff to 455 and barred the use of some properties this morning in retaliation for new U.S. sanctions against Russia, the BBC reports.
The Senate cleared the new sanctions package against Russia, North Korea and Iran yesterday on a 98-2 vote, Natalie Andrews reports at the Wall Street Journal.
It is unclear whether President Trump will sign the legislation,which binds his hands when it comes to changing sanctions policy toward Moscow, while if he vetoed the bill he would have to do so in the knowledge that lawmakers are prepared to override, White House incoming press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying yesterday that the president would “wait and see what that final legislation looks like and make a decision at that point,” but Trump’s communications chief Anthony Scaramucci suggesting that he may veto the sanctions in order to “negotiate an even tougher deal against the Russians.” Karoun Demirjian reports at the Washington Post.
“Illegal” American plans for new sanctions against Russia were denounced by Russian President Putinyesterday, also dismissing investigations into Trump-Russia collusion as political hysteria, and warning that Moscow could not “put up forever with this boorishness,” Andrew Higgins reports at the New York Times.
Finally, good news: Congress performed the civic duty that President Trump has so far avoided yesterday, imposing wide-ranging new sanctions on Russia for its hacking of the 2016 election, a “timely and appropriate” use of a controversial but nonviolent tool for making clear when another country’s behavior has crossed a line and for applying pressure on its leaders to change course, writes the New York Times editorial board.
Russian intelligence “100 percent” monitored the meeting last June involving Donald Trump Jr. and other members of Donald Trump’s inner circle and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who had connections to Russian President Putin and went into the meeting with something to offer, Bill Browder, a businessman behind a Russian sanctions law, told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday during its hearing on Russian interference in the U.S. election, CNN’s Tom LoBianco and Manu Raju report.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions “made the right decision” in recusing himself from Trump-Russia-related investigations, he said yesterday, adding that President Trump’s repeated public criticisms of him were “kind of hurtful,” CNN’s Miranda Green and Saba Hamedy report.
Sessions intends to remain in post to fight for President Trump’s agenda “as long as he sees that as appropriate,” adding that Trump has “every right” to make a change if he wishes since Sessions serves at Trump’s “pleasure,” the attorney general told the AP’s Sadie Gurman.
A letter urging President Trump to fire senior adviser Jared Kushner over his contacts with Russian officials during the presidential campaign is being circulated by a small group of House Democrats, Katie Bo Williams reports at the Hill.
President Trump can be indicted, but likely not by special counsel Robert Mueller. Ronald Rotunda, a professor at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law who was asked by then-independent counsel Kenneth Starr to assess whether a federal grand jury could indict former president Bill Clinton, writes at the Washington Post that his conclusion then that it was possible remains intact, but that the differences between the Clinton situation and the Trump situation mean that where Starr had the authority to indict Clinton, Mueller does not have the same authority in respect to Trump.
How should Congress and Justice Department officials weight their choices as Trump threatens openly and repeatedly to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions, presumably to clear the way for firing special counsel Robert Mueller? David Ignatius considers the “unthinkable” at the Washington Post.
Iran successfully launched a missile into space yesterday, two days after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill approving additional sanctions against the country and statements from the Trump administration last week expressing the U.S.’ concerns over “Iran’s malign activities in the Middle East,” Thomas Erdbrink reports at the New York Times.
Trump has instructed his national security aides to find a way to de-certify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, some U.S. aides conceding that it would be difficult to convince the other parties to the nuclear deal to return to the negotiating table, and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee Bob Corker (R.-Tenn) suggesting that the administration take a more nuanced approach. David E. Sanger reports at the New York Times.
Iran poses a threat even if it complies with the nuclear deal, having exploited loopholes in the deal to develop its ballistic missile program, the launch of a missile yesterday demonstrating its “chutzpah,” Wall Street Journal editorial board writes.
ISRAEL & PALESTINE
Worshipers in Iran have staged an anti-Israel protest in Tehran today, demonstrating against the Israeli authorities’ actions at al-Aqsa mosque, the AP reports in rolling coverage.
Israeli authorities removed the remaining security apparatus at al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem yesterday, after the security apparatus – put in place following the killing of two Israeli policemen on July 14 by Arab Israelis who emerged from the mosque – sparked mass protests from Palestinians and violent clashes between Israelis and Palestinians. Rory Jones reports at the Wall Street Journal.
Israeli forces fired teargas, stun grenades and sound bombs at Palestinian worshipers returning to al-Aqsa mosque last night, injuring more than 100 in their efforts to disperse the crowds, Al Jazeerareports.
Worshipers were advised to enter the mosque rather than pray outside in protest by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and clerics of the Islamic Waqf authority, Ian Lee and Oren Liebermann report at CNN.
Male worshipers under the age of 50 have been barred by Israeli authorities from entering al-Aqsa mosque in anticipation of more mass protests ahead of Friday prayers, Reuters reports.
Tensions have been raised in Jerusalem as a Palestinian protestor died last night from a wound inflicted by Israeli authorities and extra police forces have been deployed to al-Aqsa this morning, Al Jazeera reports.
Jordan’s attorney general has filed murder charges against an Israeli embassy guard for the deaths of two Jordanians at the Israeli embassy in Amman on July 23, reports saying that the attorney general wishes the guard to be tried in Israel using diplomatic channels, the AP reports.
“The Al Jazeera network continues to incite violence around the Temple Mount,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on social media Wednesday – using the Jewish name for the contested holy site which includes al-Aqsa mosque and is known to Muslims as “Noble Sanctuary” – Al Jazeera stating that they would take “all necessary legal measures” to act against action by Israeli authorities to close their Jerusalem office. Al Jazeera reports.
Why is the Jerusalem holy site so controversial? Lawahez Jabari, Paul Goldman and Saphora Smith explain at NBC News.
The U.S.-led coalition have killed several senior Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq recently, including “propagandists and facilitators,” according to a statement by U.S. Central Command.
The U.N. has been unable to deliver humanitarian aid to many hard-to-reach areas of Syria and, despite the reduction in violence following the creation of “de-escalation” zones, Al Jazeera reports.
Specialist civil defense teams in rebel-held Deraa have shifted their focus to clearing unexploded cluster bombs amid the relative calm in southwest Syria since a ceasefire was reached earlier this month, having been trained in Jordan to learn to de-mine areas, Sarah Dadouch reports at Reuters.
U.S.-led airstrikes continue. U.S. and coalition forces carried out 18 airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria on July 24. Separately, partner forces conducted four strikes against targets in Iraq. [Central Command]
The U.N. is the “right platform to start from,” Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said yesterday, reiterating that Qatar is ready and willing to engage in dialogue and that Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Egypt and Bahrain “need to retreat from all their illegal actions,” Al Jazeera reports.
“Outsourcing” Qatar’s foreign policy “will never be acceptable,” Qatar’s Government spokesman Sheikh Saif bin Ahmed Al-Thani said today, stating that the Saudi-led embargo is an attempt to undermine Qatar’s sovereignty and independence, Al Jazeera reports in rolling coverage.
Qatar has been able to withstand the Saudi-led embargo due to lessons it learnt from a confrontation in 2014 where Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Egypt and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar in protest against Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Doha-based Al Jazeera network, Yaroslav Trofimov explains at the Wall Street Journal.
The crisis in the Gulf is regional and reflects the lack of a sustainable and stable order in the Middle East, bringing the risk of a “new normal” of a Cold War in the region. Former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Turkey Ahmet Davutoglu writes at Al Jazeera.
Japan has imposed sanctions against organizations and individuals linked to North Korea, the Japanese Foreign Minister said yesterday, joining the U.S. in its actions against the Pyongyang regime. Elaine Lies reports at Reuters.
“None of these choices are particularly palatable. None of them are good,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said yesterday, stating that a land war with North Korea would be “highly deadly” and a nuclear attack on Los Angeles would be “terrible,” Ellen Mitchell reports at the Hill.
North Korea’s hacking activities are focusing on raising foreign currency rather than disrupting military and government data, Christine Kim reports at Reuters.
The Pyongyang regime relies on North Korean laborers in the Gulf to get cash and evade sanctions, according to officials and analysts, the sanctions bill passed yesterday by the U.S. Senate seeking to limit the use of overseas North Korean labor, Jon Gambrell reports at the AP.
“[Certain] outside countries are determined to stir up trouble,” China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said today, responding to comments made by U.K. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson that the U.K. may send two aircraft carriers to patrol the South China Sea. James Griffiths reports at CNN.
China closed off a section of the ocean on its east coast yesterday to carry out naval exercises, marking the latest in China’s recent stepping-up of naval drills, the AP reports.
India’s national security adviser met with officials in Beijing today to discuss the border dispute between China and India centering on the presence of Chinese forces at a road over the Doklam Plateau in June and the Indian troops sent to confront them at the frontier, Christopher Bodeen reports at the AP.
The current India-China border dispute evokes memories of the 1962 border war, the Economistexplaining the historical context and Bhutan’s role in the territorial standoff.
The families of U.S. diplomats have been ordered to leave Venezuela by the State Department amid rising tensions over an upcoming vote to rewrite the country’s constitution in a way that would essentially strip the legislature of its power, Max Greenwood reports at the Hill.
The individual sanctions on a further 13 Venezuelan officials including some involved in the constituent assembly announced by the Trump administration on July 26 are a promising step in the right direction,while generalized sanctions currently being considered would be a mistake. The Economist urges the administration to intensify its efforts to pressurize officials, which will not force regime change in itself but which can be combined with the offer of negotiations brokered by foreign governments and which is preferable to the alternative slide into generalized violence.
If the constituent assembly is called the U.S. should react in ways that punish Venezuela’s rulers, not its long-suffering population, or risk harming both countries, the New York Times editorial board agrees.
The top Middle East advisor on the N.S.C. was removed from his post by National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster yesterday, the reason behind the decision not immediately clear, reports Just Security’s Deputy Managing Editor Kate Brannen at Foreign Policy.
There will be “no modification to current policy” on transgender people serving in the U.S. military until Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has received President Trump’s “direction” to change the policy and figured out how to do it, America’s top military officer Gen. Joseph Dunford said yesterday, the APreports.
Allegations that U.S. service members were present at a military base in Cameroon where U.S.-trained forces detained and tortured civilians in a report by Amnesty International is being investigated by the Pentagon, Paul McLeary reports at Foreign Policy.
Former top Obama aides are being accused of making hundreds of requests to unmask the names of Americans in intelligence during last year’s presidential election, including Trump transition officials, by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in a letter seen by the Hill’s John Solomon.
The Saudi-led coalition in Yemen shot down a ballistic missile fired by Houthi rebels toward the city of Mecca last night, it said, Reuters reporting.
Al-Qaeda is active in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir, the group announced for the first time yesterday, saying via a linked propaganda network that a militant from an indigenous rebel group would lead the fighters in opposing Indian rule in the region. Aijaz Hussain reports at the AP.
Over 40 people were killed in an attempt to free them from an ambush by Boko Haram in northeast Nigeria Tuesday, the BBC reports.
A man suspected of being a member of Afghanistan’s Taliban who participated in an attack in which an American soldier was killed was indicted in Germany on charges of terrorism and murder, German federal prosecutors said today, the AP reporting.
The new Libya peace deal between the leader of the U.N.-backed government in Tripoli Fayez al-Serraj and the commander of the self-styled Libyan National Army Gen. Khalifa Haftar lends legitimacy to the latter, whose forces have mostly added to the chaos, not helped to resolve it, while Serraj may lack the strength to implement the political solution demanded by the agreement reached in Paris this week, and few truly believe that Gen. Haftar is done with the battlefield, the Economist writes.
can leave comments on <a href=”http://NYTimes.com” rel=”nofollow”>NYTimes.com</a> without initial moderation. Verified status is earned based on a history of quality comments.
Signed in as mikenova
Share this story on NewsBlur
Trump Investigations – on The Web
“Dominance is his game”, said Krauthammer about Trump. I will add: submission to the will of Congress and American people should be his solution.
Ronald Rotunda is a professor at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law.
Nearly two decades ago, then-independent counsel Kenneth Starr asked me to evaluate whether a federal grand jury could indict a sitting president — in that case, Bill Clinton. My answer — that such an action would be permissible — was recently unearthed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the New York Times, and it may have relevance for a new special counsel and the current president.
Whitewater to witch hunts: What Trump can expect from the special prosecutor
The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus explains why lashing out might not be the best legal move for President Trump. The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus explains why lashing out might not be the best legal move for President Trump. (Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)
(Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)
My fundamental conclusion remains intact: Nothing in the Constitution would bar a federal grand jury from returning charges against a sitting president for committing a serious felony. But — and this is a big but — differences between the Clinton situation then and the investigation of President Trump now mean that where Starr had the authority to indict Clinton if he chose, Mueller most likely does not possess the same power.
On the underlying question of whether the Constitution bars indictment of a sitting president, no previous case is directly on point. The Justice Department has taken a different view than the conclusion I reached — both beforehand, during the Watergate investigation, and afterward, at the end of the Clinton administration. But the history and language of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents suggest that the president does not enjoy general immunity from prosecution.
Orlando Shooting Updates
News and analysis on the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
The big stories and commentary shaping the day.
The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.
First, the framers knew how to write a clause granting such immunity when they wanted to. Members of Congress enjoy “privilege from arrest” in civil cases when going to and from Congress (now irrelevant because we no longer use that procedure) and may not be criminally prosecuted for “any speech or debate” in Congress. If the framers wanted to protect the president from prosecution while in office and to make impeachment the sole mechanism for proceeding against a president, they could and would have said so.
Second, some argue that criminal prosecution would distract the president and make him unable to perform his duties. During Watergate, Richard Nixon’s lawyers argued that “if the president were indictable while in office, any prosecutor and grand jury would have within their power the ability to cripple an entire branch of the national government and hence the whole system.” The Supreme Court never reached that question, and Nixon left office without being indicted.
In my view, questions about “crippling” the government are not compelling, and the precedents in favor of the power to indict a sitting president were strengthened with the Supreme Court’s ruling that a private sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton involving alleged conduct before he took office could go forward even during his presidency.
As I wrote in the memo to Starr, “If the president is indicted, the government will not shut down, any more than it shut down when the Court ruled that the president must answer a civil suit brought by Paula Jones.” In addition, the 25th Amendment offers another answer to the government-could-not-proceed objection, by providing a mechanism to keep the executive branch running if the president is temporarily unable to discharge his powers. In this country, no one is above the law.
Nonetheless, there is a significant — in fact, likely dispositive — difference between the Clinton situation and that facing Trump. Starr served as independent counsel under a now-defunct statute. By contrast, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III serves under Justice Department regulations put in place after the independent counsel law expired.
This is not a technical distinction but one that I discussed in my memo, distinguishing between the independent counsel statute and the regulations such as those establishing Mueller’s office.
And this difference has enormous implications for Mueller’s power. Supreme Court cases going back 150 years emphasize that the president retains complete authority to control federal criminal prosecutions. Without a statutorily appointed special counsel given special tenure, Trump could fire anyone who tried to indict him.
Moreover, the regulations governing Mueller mandate that he “comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice.” They permit removal of the special counsel for “good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.”
As Clinton was about to leave office, his Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel ruled that the president could not be indicted. Is this legal opinion a departmental policy that binds Mueller? It would seem so, given that OLC’s stated function is “to provide controlling advice to Executive Branch officials on questions of law” (emphasis added). If that creates a Catch-22 situation in which a special counsel can never proceed against a president, my answer is: I don’t write the rules, I just read them.
As interesting as this debate is, it also strikes me as entirely premature. In my assessment, the “case” against Trump right now amounts to a mountain of innuendo built on a foundation of loose sand. The facts so far do not come close to making an obstruction case against the president, and for now there is no evidence that he engaged in any underlying crime.
If and when Mueller comes up with something that might create an indictable case, though, he is apt to run into serious questions about the limitations of his office, questions that Starr did not face.
Transparency, thy name is Trump, Donald Trump. No filter, no governor, no editor lies between his impulses and his public actions. He tweets, therefore he is.
Ronald Reagan was so self-contained and impenetrable that his official biographer was practically driven mad trying to figure him out. Donald Trump is penetrable, hourly.
Never more so than during his ongoing war on his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Trump has been privately blaming Sessions for the Russia cloud. But rather than calling him in to either work it out or demand his resignation, Trump has engaged in a series of deliberate public humiliations.
Orlando Shooting Updates
News and analysis on the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
Read These Comments
The best conversations on The Washington Post
The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.
Day by day, he taunts Sessions, calling him “beleaguered” and “very weak” and attacking him for everything from not firing the acting FBI director (which Trump could do himself in an instant) to not pursuing criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.
What makes the spectacle so excruciating is that the wounded Sessions plods on, refusing the obvious invitation to resign his dream job, the capstone of his career. After all, he gave up his safe Senate seat to enter the service of Trump. Where does he go?
Trump relishes such a cat-and-mouse game and, by playing it so openly, reveals a deeply repellent vindictiveness in the service of a pathological need to display dominance.
Dominance is his game. Doesn’t matter if you backed him, as did Chris Christie, cast out months ago. Or if you opposed him, as did Mitt Romney, before whom Trump ostentatiously dangled the State Department, only to snatch it away, leaving Romney looking the foolish supplicant.
Yet the Sessions affair is more than just a study in character. It carries political implications. It has caused the first crack in Trump’s base. Not yet a split, mind you. The base is simply too solid for that. But amid his 35 to 40 percent core support, some are peeling off, both in Congress and in the pro-Trump commentariat.
The issue is less characterological than philosophical. As Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard put it, Sessions was the original Trumpist — before Trump. Sessions championed hard-line trade, law enforcement and immigration policy long before Trump (who criticized Romney in 2012 for being far too tough on illegal immigrants, for example) rode these ideas to the White House.
For many conservatives, Sessions’ early endorsement of Trump served as an ideological touchstone. And Sessions has remained stalwart in carrying out Trumpist policies at Justice. That Trump could, out of personal pique, treat him so rudely now suggests to those conservatives how cynically expedient was Trump’s adoption of Sessions’ ideas in the first place.
But beyond character and beyond ideology lies the most appalling aspect of the Sessions affair — reviving the idea of prosecuting Clinton.
In the 2016 campaign, there was nothing more disturbing than crowds chanting “lock her up,” often encouraged by Trump and his surrogates. After the election, however, Trump reconsidered, saying he would not pursue Clinton, who “went through a lot and suffered greatly.”
Now under siege, Trump has jettisoned magnanimity. Maybe she should be locked up after all.
This is pure misdirection. Even if every charge against Clinton were true and she got 20 years in the clink, it would change not one iota of the truth — or falsity — of the charges of collusion being made against the Trump campaign.
Moreover, in America we don’t lock up political adversaries. They do that in Turkey. They do that (and worse) in Russia. Part of American greatness is that we don’t criminalize our politics.
Last week, Trump spoke at the commissioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. Ford was no giant. Nor did he leave a great policy legacy. But he is justly revered for his decency and honor. His great gesture was pardoning Richard Nixon, an act for which he was excoriated at the time and which cost him the 1976 election.
It was an act of political self-sacrifice, done for precisely the right reason. Nixon might indeed have committed crimes. But the spectacle of an ex-president on trial and perhaps even in jail was something Ford would not allow the country to go through.
In doing so, he vindicated the very purpose of the presidential pardon. On its face, it’s perverse. It allows one person to overturn equal justice. But the Founders understood that there are times, rare but vital, when social peace and national reconciliation require contravening ordinary justice. Ulysses S. Grant amnestied (technically: paroled) Confederate soldiers and officers at Appomattox, even allowing them to keep a horse for the planting.
In Trump World, the better angels are not in evidence.
To be sure, Trump is indeed examining the pardon power. For himself and his cronies.
The Court of Mad King Donald is not a presidency. It is an affliction, one that saps the life out of our democratic institutions, and it must be fiercely resisted if the nation as we know it is to survive.
I wish that were hyperbole. The problem is not just that President Trump is selfish, insecure, egotistical, ignorant and unserious. It is that he neither fully grasps nor minimally respects the concept of honor, without which our governing system falls apart. He believes “honorable” means “obsequious in the service of Trump.” He believes everyone else’s motives are as base as his.
The Trump administration is, indeed, like the court of some accidental monarch who is tragically unsuited for the duties of his throne. However long it persists, we must never allow ourselves to think of the Trump White House as anything but aberrant. We must fight for the norms of American governance lest we forget them in their absence.
Orlando Shooting Updates
News and analysis on the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
Act Four newsletter
The intersection of culture and politics.
The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.
It gets worse and worse. The past week has marked a succession of new lows.
Trump has started a sustained campaign to goad or humiliate Attorney General Jeff Sessions into resigning. Trump has blasted Sessions on Twitter, at a news conference, in newspaper interviews and at a campaign-style rally. He has called Sessions “beleaguered” and said repeatedly how “disappointed” he is in the attorney general.
How Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump’s relationship turned sour
The relationship between President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions has deteriorated in recent months. Here’s a look at how they got to this point. The relationship between President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions has deteriorated in recent months. Here’s a look at how they got to this point. (Video: Taylor Turner/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
(Taylor Turner/The Washington Post)
Forget, for the moment, that Sessions was the first sitting U.S. senator to support Trump’s campaign, giving him credibility among conservatives. Forget also that Sessions is arguably having more success than any other Cabinet member in getting Trump’s agenda implemented. Those things aside, what kind of leader treats a lieutenant with such passive-aggressive obnoxiousness? Trump is too namby-pamby to look Sessions in the eye and say, “You’re fired.”
That’s what the president clearly is trying to summon the courage to do, however. The Post reportedthat Trump has been “musing” with his courtiers about the possibility of firing Sessions and naming a replacement during the August congressional recess.
Trump has no respect for the rule of law. He is enraged that Sessions recused himself from the investigation of Russia’s meddling in the election, and thus is not in a position to protect the House of Trump from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. According to the New York Times, “Sharing the president’s frustration have been people in his family, some of whom have come under scrutiny in the Russia investigation.” I’m guessing that means the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Who elected them , by the way?
Trump seeks to govern by whim and fiat. On Wednesday morning, he used Twitter to announce a ban on transgender people serving in the military, surprising his own top military leaders. A Pentagon spokesman told reporters to ask the White House for details; White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters to ask the Pentagon. Was Trump trying to reignite the culture wars? Would the thousands of transgender individuals now serving in the military be purged? Was this actual policy or just a fit of indigestion?
Inside the mad king’s court, the internecine battles are becoming ever more brutal. Members of Trump’s inner circle seek his favor by leaking negative information about their rivals. This administration is more hostile to the media than any in recent memory but is also more eager to whisper juicy dirt about the ambitious courtier down the hall.
Trump’s new favorite, Anthony Scaramucci, struts around more like a chief of staff than a communications director, which is his nominal role. Late Wednesday night — after dining with Trump and his head cheerleader, Sean Hannity — Scaramucci took a metaphorical rapier to the actual chief of staff, Reince Priebus, by strongly hinting on Twitter that Priebus leaks to reporters. The next morning, Scaramucci told CNN that “if Reince wants to explain that he’s not a leaker, let him do that.” And in a profanity-laden phone call to the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, Scaramucci called Priebus “a f—ing paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac.”
Why bring in Scaramucci? Because, I fear, the mad king is girding for war. Trump is reckless enough to fire Mueller if he digs too deeply into the business dealings of the Trump Organization and the Kushner Companies.
A look at President Trump’s first year in office, so far
Scenes from the Republican’s first six months in the White House.
Scenes from the Republican’s first six months in the White House.
July 27, 2017 At the White House, President Trump welcomes Jennifer Scalise, wife of U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, the Louisiana Republican who was shot in June at a GOP congressional baseball team practice. The East Room ceremony honored first responders who aided people during the shooting in Alexandria, Va. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post
Wait 1 second to continue.
What then? Will Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) draft and push through a new special-prosecutor statute so that Mueller can quickly be reappointed? Will House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately open debate on articles of impeachment? Will we, the people, defend our democracy?
Do not become numb to the mad king’s outrages. The worst is yet to come.
There were at least eight people in the room on June 9, 2016, when two Trump family members and Donald Trump’s campaign manager met with a Russian lawyer and her extended team in Trump Tower. Focus your attention just briefly on one of them: Ike Kaveladze. Of course it will be important to learn, in due course, what he was really doing there. But in the meantime, we should spend a few minutes thinking about the peculiar financial culture — American as well as Russian — that he represents.
Though not exactly a celebrity, Kaveladze’s notoriety in certain circles stretches back more than two decades. Starting in the 1990s, his company, Euro-American Corporate Services Inc., set up more than 2,000 Delaware corporations on behalf of unknown, mostly Russian clients and used those companies to open bank accounts. According to a Government Accountability Office report on “Suspicious Banking Activities,” published in 2000, those bank accounts were then used to receive and send large amounts of money. The GAO found that two banks “facilitated the transfer of approximately $1 billion from Eastern Europe, through U.S. banks, and back to Eastern Europe by corporations formed for Russian brokers”; more than $800 million in total was deposited in 136 accounts that Euro-American Corporate Services and another Kaveladze company created at Citibank alone. Kaveladze has protested that what he had done was legal — and he was right. Delaware law really was so lax that it allowed unnamed Russians to send money in and out of the United States without much question.
Why did this matter? Because that kind of activity was a part of the business model that brought Vladimir Putin to power. As numerous books have documented — the best is “Putin’s Kleptocracy” by Karen Dawisha — Putin was one of a group of public officials, many affiliated with the old KGB, who systematically pillaged the Russian state. They drew money out of the state, often using commodities arbitrage or other methods, moved the money out of the country through shell companies, then brought it back to Russia and used it to buy companies and property. They became rich — many of them fabulously so. They then used that wealth to gain power.
Orlando Shooting Updates
News and analysis on the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
Evening Edition newsletter
The day’s most important stories.
The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.
Soviet-born businessmen such as Kaveladze, based in the United States and Europe, played significant roles in this system. But so did a range of U.S. and European bankers, accountants and lawyers. For two decades, Western real estate markets — New York, Miami, London — have also provided multiple safe places for Russian oligarchs (and many others) to spend money with complete anonymity. Last year, a Treasury Department investigation into shell companies that purchased luxury homes for cash in several U.S. metropolitan areas found that more than a quarter of such transactions in Manhattan and Miami actually involved someone engaged in “suspicious activity.”
The arrangement suited everybody: American real estate magnates, suddenly rich Russian oligarchs, the construction industry and many others. But underneath this boom there was a grim truth: An important chunk of the money that pumped up the New York luxury real estate market over the past two decades was money originally siphoned off from the Russian state. That was money that should have been used to build hospitals, schools and roads, but instead enriched officials such as Putin and the billionaires who surround him. In due course, Russian money also enriched Trump and his family: As Donald Trump Jr. said in 2008, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.”
In that sense the rise of Trump and the rise of Putin are connected. No wonder Trump feels such an affinity for the Russian president; no wonder he seeks him out at international meetings. And no wonder special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation has reportedly decided to look closely at past Trump family real estate transactions.
I’m sure there will eventually be a lot more to say about the details of the Trump-Russia financial relationship. But this story should make us ponder some larger themes, too. After all, the double rise of Trump and Putin might have been halted if only Western governments and financial institutions had acted, over the past two decades, as if they truly believed that these kinds of dealings are wrong. Laws were not enforced — or did not exist. Blind eyes were turned.
Even now, we could be doing much, much more. We could stop the registration of all anonymous companies in states such as Wyoming, Delaware and Nevada. We could make all property owners put their real names on public registers. We could listen to Global Witness and other activist groups that constantly point out the links between financial deals in New York and human rights abuse and poverty in faraway countries. Some of these changes are happening in Britain and Europe. But in the United States, where the political consequences of this ugly international system are now so dramatic, we have scarcely begun.
In-Depth–Los Angeles Times–2 hours ago
The Guardian–4 hours ago
Telegraph.co.uk–1 hour ago
USA TODAY–2 hours ago
International–Olive Press–4 hours ago
International–The Leader Newspaper Online–1 hour ago
Dmytro Firtash — the exiled Ukrainian oligarch who allegedly rigged the Russia-Ukraine natural gas trade and played kingmaker for President Petro Poroshenko — sought financing in the United States for a corrupt scheme involving a mine in India, U.S. federal prosecutors say.
The 115-page document, filed in Chicago federal court on July 25, also alleges for the first time that Firtash intended to bribe persons in the U.S.
The fresh allegations come in a criminal case that has stranded Firtash in Vienna as he fights extradition to America on charges that he denies and dismisses as politically motivated.
Dan Webb, an attorney for Firtash in Chicago, said that the new allegations were baseless, and noted that they did not appear in the indictment against his client.
“As far as the government’s statement in its brief that Firtash had some connection to Russian organized crime, there is absolutely no evidence to support that allegation,” Webb wrote. “None whatsoever!”
The oligarch is accused of bribing Indian officials in a byzantine plot to control the supply of a form of titanium used to manufacture Boeing’s 787 jumbo jets.
U.S. prosecutors call Firtash an “upper-echelon” member of the Russian mafia.
He also faces extradition on a separate money laundering and organized crime case in Spain.
That Spanish case has tied the saga back to Kyiv, with the son of former Kyiv Mayor Leonid Chernovetsky spending one month in a Barcelona jail last year. The son — Stepan — denied any ties to Firtash in an interview with the Kyiv Post.
“I am not even acquainted with Firtash,” he declared in his office at the top of the DTEK Tower in Kyiv. “I have not seen him once in my life.”
Origins in 2006
The alleged scheme dates to 2006, a time when Ukrainian oligarchs were spreading their wings and buying up assets around the globe.
Prosecutors say that Firtash began to look at India at the same time that Boeing, the U.S. plane producer, was starting to build a supply chain for its 787 jet, and needed titanium sponge.
Firtash swooped in, using an intermediary to sign a memorandum of understanding with an Indian provincial government to mine there.
From there, prosecutors allege that Firtash wired $18.5 million in bribes through U.S. banks to corrupt Indian officials for permits, while sending a top aide — former Hungary Culture Minister Andras Knopp — to negotiate with Boeing in the U.S.
In a bid to prevent Firtash and Knopp from having the criminal case against them dismissed, prosecutors hinted at unrevealed evidence.
The feds argue that evidence presented at trial will show “that multiple transfers of money into the United States from abroad were designed to finance or reimburse the expenses of a conspirator operating within the United States.”
The prosecutors suggest that some of the alleged bribes may have been marked for persons in the U.S.
“The government expects the evidence will show that other transfers were destined for the benefit of third parties located within the [U.S.] who were designated as third-party beneficiaries of the bribes paid in order to obtain approvals for the project,” Chicago prosecutors write.
As the scheme progressed, Firtash brought on another client for a separate U.S. project: Paul Manafort, then political consultant for the Party of Regions, led by deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
In 2008, Manafort’s company scouted New York City’s Drake Hotel on behalf of Firtash for a potential $850 million redevelopment project.
A letter filed as an exhibit in a civil lawsuit by ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko details a $25 million escrow payment from Firtash’s firm to spur the project.
“DF is still totally on board and a wire will be forthcoming either the end of this week or next week as a partial payment on the 1.5,” Manafort wrote in one email, referring either to Firtash or to his company, Group DF, paying an increment of $1.5 million.
This week’s filing says that Knopp, Firtash’s Hungarian deputy, recently got a government residency permit to stay in Moscow, where he has lived since Firtash’s indictment.
Spanish, Russian mob?
Spanish authorities want to try Firtash on money laundering charges as part of a three-year investigation into the Russian mafia’s presence in Spain called “Operation Variola.”
Three months before Firtash’s re-arrest in February, Spanish police in Barcelona named him as a suspect. The decision on where Firtash gets sent is up to Austrian Justice Minister Wolfgang Brandsetter.
The case has also ensnared Stepan Chernovetsky, son of former Kyiv Mayor Leonid Chernovetsky. “They followed me for three years, they wiretapped me, they knew everything about me,” the younger Chernovetsky said, calling his July 2016 arrest at gunpoint a “big shock.”
Prosecutors seized a sushi restaurant that he co-owned with an Armenian expatriate and detained 11 others, including Misbah Aldroubi, a Syrian businessman who served as CEO of Firtash associate Hares Youssef’s Hares Group in the mid‑2000s. Chernovetsky denies any ties to Youssef.
A police report accuses Chernovetsky of heading “a criminal organization in Spain, whose activity is laundering money that comes from illegal activities from outside Spain.” It ties Chernovetsky to Aldroubi through a company called Cherd Investment, allegedly used to launder money into the restaurant.
Chernovetsky, whose stake in the 2008 sale of Pravex Bank earned him millions of dollars, denies any wrongdoing. He was released on appeal by a three-judge tribunal in September 2016.
“The tribunal has access to everything,” he said. Once the judges saw the evidence, he said, “they released me without bond and returned my passport.”
“If there was a connection [to Firtash], so many months have passed,” Chernovetsky said. “Let them show it.”
A Chernovetsky attorney later emailed the Kyiv Post European Commission reports critical of secrecy in the Spanish criminal justice system.
Firtash had big influence in Ukrainian politics. He summoned Poroshenko and ex-boxer Vitali Klitschko to Vienna in spring 2014. He claims to have paved the way for Poroshenko’s May 2014 election by convincing Klitsckho to run for mayor instead. “We got what we wanted,” Firtash told a court on April 30, 2015.
Sprawling Firtash investigation alleges new US, Spanish ties
U.S. prosecutors call Firtash an â€œupper-echelonâ€ member of the Russian mafia. He also faces extradition on a separate money laundering and organized crime case in Spain. That Spanish case has tied the saga back to Kyiv, with the son of former Kyiv …
russian organized crime in us – Google News
PORT WASHINGTON, New York Fresh from snatching up a former insane asylum in foreclosure for a cheap $1.2 million, a mystery man went running down a Syracuse, N.Y., street, iPad covering his face, as reporters gave chase and TV cameras rolled.
It was April 11, 2013, and the man — whose identity was hidden until now — was Felix Sater, two-time ex-con turned government informant, and at least one-time adviser to Donald Trump.
Sater was describing himself by then as “a very interesting guy with a colorful background,” according to Kenneth Silverman, the bankruptcy trustee for that New York property Sater bought at auction. It was no idle boast.
His story is the stuff of Hollywood scripts. Sater has been tied to a jailed Russian-American diamond thief, the Italian mafia and wealthy Kazakh fugitives; he also appears on the fringes of an unsolved double murder in New Jersey that detectives considered a mob hit. He served time for stabbing a fellow securities dealer with a broken margarita glass.
Of course, he was also named Man of the Year at his synagogue and, according to federal prosecutors, helped put a lot of bad guys behind bars.
Now Sater has reemerged as investigators probe deeply into Donald Trump’s connections – business and political – in the former Soviet Union. Court documents show Sater’s onetime company, Bayrock Group — successor to an earlier firm that was caught up in a major Wall Street scandal – was contracted by Trump in 2005 to find a suitable tower in Moscow that could bear the mogul’s name. In 2010, he even carried a Trump Organization business card that stated he was a “Senior Advisor to Donald Trump.”
This is the story of the ex-con who claims ties to the president.
Slash and Crash
Born in Russia in March 1966, Sater immigrated to Brooklyn as a grade schooler, escaping rampant anti-Semitism. As a hot-headed 25-year-old Wall Street trader, Sater had his first brush with notoriety when he drove the jagged stem of a glass into a fellow trader in a barroom altercation. He was convicted in 1993 and spent 15 months behind bars, walking free in September 1995.
The conviction cost him his brokerage license, which in turn led him to team up with childhood friends involved in an illicit stock-manipulation scheme. One of those friends: Gennady “Gene” Klotsman, a Russian-American who, as it happens, according to a story last year in the Moscow Times, was drinking with Sater on the ill-fated night of the stabbing in 1991.
Sater and Klotsman teamed up to form White Rock Partners in the late 1990s. Unluckily for them, their activities there put them in the headlights of what became a broad federal probe into stock manipulation known as Operation Uptick.
So much of life turns on the smallest of details. It was a missed monthly payment on a storage locker that led to the arrests of Sater, Klotsman and another White Rock partner, Salvatore Lauria. Citing a criminal complaint, BusinessWeek reported in 1998 that when police opened the locker they found weapons and a gym bag with documents. And those documents outlined stock manipulation and money laundering through a network of shell companies. They pointed at White Rock.
The FBI established that the operation was rife with underworld figures from both the Italian and Russian mafias. It was a nasty business: In 1999, two traders were found murdered in a mansion in Colts Neck, N.J. One of them, Alain Chalem, was shot in the chest, forehead, nose and in both ears — hallmarks of a mob hit, as news reports said at the time.
Lauria later confirmed in a book he authored (which was summarized in SEC filings) earlier rumors that Sater had threatened to kill Chalem, who detectives said had represented Russian investors. But he also wrote that he didn’t think Sater was the actual killer.
The murders were a chapter in the FBI’s larger struggle to rid Wall Street of mob influence.
Lauria and Klotsman pleaded guilty and cooperated with the feds to at least some degree. In 2002, Klotsman was sentenced to six years in prison and restitution of the $40 million lost by investors. In 2004, Lauria was sentenced to five years of probation and a $20,000 fine.
Klotsman was released early and moved to Moscow in 2006, where old habits resurfaced: He was charged with helping pull off a spectacular 2010 heist in which thieves posed as intelligence agents and made off with diamonds and other jewelry worth more than $2.8 million. He was sentenced to 10 years in a gulag and was offered up last year to the United States as potential bait in a yet-to-happen U.S.-Russia prisoner swap.
Sater, on the other hand, did far more than his former partners: He became a government informant, working with law enforcement for at least 11 years and initially helping the feds bring 19 indictments against traders and alleged mobsters, court records show.
FBI agents testified at Sater’s sentencing hearing, which finally happened in 2009, that he’d helped prosecutors bring down crooked trading companies and figures from the Russian and Italian mobs.
They and Sater told the judge that after the stock probe ended, Sater — who court documents show also went by Satter, Slater, Sader, Haim F. Sater, Hai Ying Sater and his birth surname of Sheferofsky — continued working with the U.S. government, helping to get missiles off the global black market.
Sater lamented to the federal judge that the bar fight decades earlier had left him in a personal ditch, transcripts show.
“I hated myself, despised myself for doing the things I was doing while I was doing them, because my parents did not sacrifice what they have sacrificed to have me come to this country and become a criminal,” said Sater. (Just a few years earlier, his father Mikhail Sheferofsky had been convicted for extorting fellow Russians in the New York enclave of Brighton Beach.)
Sater also described how his past painfully caught up with him in December 2007 when The New York Times published a story about his criminal history, noting he was a key Trump associate.
“The worse (sic) thing that could happen, your honor, despite whatever sentence you impose on me, I went into real estate development and I built a company right up the block, a Trump project, built the whole thing,” Sater testified. When he was forced to leave that company, Bayrock, after the Times story was published, “I thought my life was over.”
Sater appears to have done business with Trump for the first time while at Bayrock. When the tycoon was looking to put his name on towers on nearly every continent, Sater helped him scope out possibilities in Moscow (nothing panned out). He has also said that he took Trump offspring Ivanka and Donald Jr. around Moscow at Trump’s request in 2006.
Sater’s pleas to the judge suggested he’d turned a corner. When it was all done, Sater had avoided prison or probation, getting hit with a mere $25,000 fine.
A New Leaf Turned?
There are hints that Sater hadn’t actually gotten himself on the straight and narrow.
When a worker died in January 2008 during the construction of the Bayrock-developed Trump SoHo project in New York just weeks after news of Sater’s dark past embarrassed the Trump Organization, multiple news accounts said the building’s concrete was coming from a mafia-connected company, drawing further unwelcome attention.
And a July 2012 report by the Miami Herald about Sater and a failed South Florida Trump project noted that a civil racketeering suit accused Sater of helping to conceal millions of dollars invested in the project, while Bayrock paid his former associate, Lauria, a $1.5 million consulting fee. Much of Sater’s criminal past had been hidden from investors by the government while he continued as an informant.
This resurfaced in a congressional hearing on victims’ rights in 2015.
“The net result is that victims of Sater’s crimes, including a number of Holocaust survivors, have yet to recover any of their lost funds. And Sater continues to live well, apparently off of money that he stole from his victims,” Paul G. Cassell, a former federal judge and University of Utah law professor, testifiedat the time.
Then there were the Kazakhs.
Around the time that Sater left his leadership role at Bayrock, but before his 2009 sentencing, the company had already established a venture with a prominent family from Kazakhstan, the Khrapunovs. Kazbay — a partnership of Bayrock and a Dutch firm, which was owned by Leila Khrapunova — was to invest in energy projects in Kazakhstan.
Khrapunova was a prominent Kazakh TV anchor-turned-businesswoman. Her husband Viktor was an ex-energy minister and former mayor of Alamaty, Kazakhstan’s most populous city. They fled to Geneva about the same time that Sater’s past became public in the New York Times. The Panama Papers, a massive collection of leaked data and documents revealing the existence and activities of secret offshore entities, show that Leila set up shell companies in this period to hold Swiss bank accounts.
Leila, Viktor and son Ilyas are all now targets of Interpol detention requests by Kazakhstan, citing theft of government funds. They also face civil lawsuits in New York and Los Angeles. The Khrapunovs claim persecution at the hands of long-ruling Kazakh autocrat Nursultan Nazerbayev.
A recent McClatchy investigation details how Sater and a business partner worked with the Khrapunovs to invest more than $40 million in the United States, much of it while multiple members of the Kazakh family were already on the Interpol list.
The Trump Ties
Multiple people who worked for or with Bayrock tell of Sater repeatedly going to see Trump over the most minor details as the Trump Soho project progressed. Yet when asked about Sater in an unrelated court deposition in Florida in 2013, Trump disavowed a well-documented relationship.
“If he were sitting in the room right now, I really wouldn’t know what he looked like,” Trump said.
Still, Sater remains loyal to his old associate, giving more than $10,000 in 2016 to Trump’s presidential campaign and a joint Trump-Republican National Committee fund. He has already given more than $6,000 this year to that joint committee, according to Federal Election Commission records. Earlier this year Sater was in the news again, getting a Ukraine-Russia peace proposal in front of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser, fired in mid-February for misleading statements about his Russia ties.
Sater himself would appear to be in a somewhat precarious place. In 2011, in a lawsuit that sought to unseal court documents to learn about Sater’s cooperation with federal investigators, government lawyer Todd Kaminsky said revealing details could bring Sater harm.
“It involves violent organizations such as Al Qaeda, it involves foreign governments, it involves Russian organized crime,” he said. “And, most particularly, it involves various families of La Cosa Nostra” — part of the Italian mafia.
That’s a lot of intrigue for a man who today lives in the open.
McClatchy knocked on Sater’s door at his luxury property in Port Washington one recent morning. A sporty white Porsche in the driveway touted his wife Viktoria’s business on its license plate, which reads “GR8NOLA.”
Answering the door in shorts and a T-shirt, Sater calmly took a pass on questions.
“I am running late. I am going to go play golf,” Sater said. He asked that questions be sent by email so he could share them with his lawyer.
Three days later, the lawyer, Robert S. Wolf, emailed back: “On behalf of Mr. Sater we decline to comment.”
An angrier response came from Sater’s rabbi, Shalom Paltiel. He’d bestowed Man of the Year honors on Sater in 2014 at his synagogue in Port Washington, a rich Manhattan suburb. Announcing the award, Paltiel recounted how he accompanied Sater to a meeting of law enforcement and intelligence officials who gushed about him.
“They’re taking turns standing up one after the other, offering praise for Felix. Praising him as an American hero for work and assistance in the highest levels of this country’s national security interests,” Paltiel said in a speech , adding warmly “they were speaking about Felix Sater: My Felix!”
Paltiel made no mention of Sater’s two felony convictions. And when McClatchy reporters tried to interview him at his synagogue, the polite rabbi’s mood quickly shifted.
“Next time don’t walk into my office, make an appointment. And you won’t get one, because I don’t talk to reporters,” he said, defending Sater. “You’re looking to dig up dirt on somebody — that happened 20 years ago, 15 years ago, maybe you’ll get a story. And maybe he won’t be able to move on with his life. Shame on you!”
Back to Syracuse
Remember Sater’s winning bid in Syracuse? Turns out Paltiel played a role in that deal as well — another thing he wouldn’t discuss in McClatchy’s attempted interview. A Los Angeles rabbi, Mayer Schmukler, granted Sater’s rabbi authority to sign the memorandum of sale on his behalf, auction records show. Schmukler hoped to develop the abandoned facility into a school like the Jewish Educational Trade School he ran in L.A.
“We were working on a plan for it. We had a partnership with another organization and everything, but it went wrong,” Schmukler said in a phone interview, stressing he never had actual ownership of the property now mired in litigation and saddled with unpaid bills.
But partners Schmukler wouldn’t identify backed out after the bid had been won and a deposit placed in escrow, he said. Records show Sater made the deposit, wiring the $250,000 the day after the sale.
“I can’t tell you who the partners were, but I can tell you it was an organization with no rabbis,” he said.
When the deal closed months later, the deed’s recorded owner was Syracuse Center, LLC, an entity incorporated in New York two days earlier
One Cesare Cerrito signed its documents. He was CEO of Triadou, a subsidiary of the Swiss Development Group in Geneva — which, it turns out, had been owned by the Khrapunovs, the fugitive Kazakhs.
SDG was sold to a Swiss businessman that same year but Cerrito had stayed aboard. Lawyers pursuing Ilyas and Viktor Khrapunov allege the sale was just a paper confection, designed to make it look as if they were no longer involved in the company. The Khrapunovs deny this.
Martin Dowd, a senior broker with the commercial real estate firm CBRE in Syracuse, said he received an email in August 2015 from a man who declined to share his surname but identified himself as “Ilyas.” The man, writing from an encrypted address, sought help listing the property for sale. Dowd said he did so in January 2016.
In March of this year, real estate investor Marc Webster made a $3.5 million offer on the parcel. The faraway owner or owners accepted, he said, at $2.3 million above what Sater had bid at auction. But the purchase agreement was never returned with a signature, Webster said, even though he offered a $50,000 non-refundable deposit.
“The deal took an unusual course,” Dowd said of the rejection of Webster’s offer. “We brought them a full-price offer, and they said they changed their mind and didn’t want to sell.”
Four years later, the still-vacant building in the central New York city of Syracuse — where all three Sater daughters have gone to college — is mired in litigation over thousands of dollars racked up in liens; plaintiffs claim the ownership is shrouded in such secrecy they can’t collect.
Even the groundskeeper said he hasn’t been paid.
“Well I’m (expletive) on a shingle,” said Mike Ciaramella maintaining he’s owed for several years of property upkeep. “Nobody ever came to the property, and I never really knew who the real owners were.”
Gabrielle Paluch is a special correspondent
Meet the Ex-con Who Ties Himself to Trump
It was April 11, 2013, and the man — whose identity was hidden until now — was Felix Sater, two-time ex-con turned government informant, and at least one-time adviser to Donald Trump. Sater was describing himself by then as “a very interesting guy …
felix sater – Google News
This is not about what happened in the elections but what has been happening for decades now between Donald Trump and Russian mobsters.
Craig Unger wrote an article about how long Trump has been connected with the Russians in illicit activities and it has been creating tons of ripples throughout the media.
There are circumstantial evidences that tell you quite a bit about these illicit activities.
“Even without an investigation by congress or a special prosecutor, there is much we already know about the president’s debt to Russia”
“A Review of the public record reveals a clear and disturbing pattern: Trump owes much of his business success, and by extension his presidency, to a flow of highly suspicious money from Russia”
Craig also stated
“Over the past three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to Russian mobsters or oligarchs have owned, lived in and even run criminal activities out of Trump Tower and other Trump properties.”
There is a possibility that the people linked to Russian mob existing in Trump’s properties is much higher because just 13 were discovered and were charged.
“Many used his apartments and casinos to launder untold millions in dirty money.”
“others provided Trump with Lucrative branding deals that required no investment on his part.”
Prosecutor from Reagan days, Kenneth McCalley and Former Assistant US Attorney for Reagan said about Russians and Trump
“They saved his bacon.”
“It’s entirely possible that Trump was never more than a convenient patsy for Russians oligarchs and mobsters, with his casinos and condos providing easy pass-throughs for their illicit riches. At the very least, with his constant need for new infusions of cash and his well-documented troubles with creditors, Trump made an easy ‘mark’ for anyone looking to launder money.”
Keep in mind that Trump has gone bankrupt six times. During one of his bankruptcy suddenly the Russians came and rushed in to buy apartments in the new building and suddenly Trump is out of trouble. Not just that hundreds of people from Russian mob are purchasing his property all of a sudden.
When asked about it, Trump replied “I am an easy mark!”
That is an unlikely answer. One has to be completely clueless in order to ignore this type of detail. Cenk Uygur, Host of the Young Turk Stated.
Donald Trump Jr. back in 2008 Said “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
This was publicly said by Donald Trump Jr. Donald Trump’s other son also said that the golf courses owned by them were also financed by Russians.
“In 2015, the Taj Mahal was fined $10 million (the highest penalty ever levied by the feds against a casino—and admitted to having ‘willfully violated’ anti-money-laundering regulations for years.”
The Russians have been laundering money through Trump’s Taj Mahal.
During the 1990s, millions from the former Soviet Union were invested into Trump’s luxury developments and Atlantic City casino. Even after these investments he still owed 44 billion to 70 banks. $800 million was personally guaranteed.
Allegedly Trump has been Laundering Russian Mob Money for Decades
This is not about what happened in the elections but what has been happening for decades now between Donald Trump and Russian mobsters. Craig Unger wrote an article about how longTrump has been connected with the Russians in illicit activities and it …
Trump and the Mob – Google News
On Thursday, Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., sat down with the Washington Examiner’s editorial board. He had some tough words for those focused on President Trump’s Russia-related controversies.
“The whole Russia thing, unless you’re a hardened leftist, people don’t give a shit,” Duffy said. “They don’t believe it, they don’t buy into it. They’re like: enough on Russia.”
As Duffy sees it, jobs are the key and Russia is irrelevant. “[Jobs] are what people care about.”
I think Duffy is probably right.
Ultimately, the slow speed and deep complexity of the Russia investigation is such that many people have simply tuned out. And with Trump now in office for six months, they want to move on and see Trump work with Congress to pass legislation.
I understand these attitudes even if I do not share them.
Most families are far more concerned about being able to pay their bills and access affordable healthcare than they are about Russia stories. Because at this point, that’s what the Russia investigations amount to: Stories.
No one has been caught red-handed, or prosecuted, or impeached. And until that changes, Duffy’s thesis will continue to hold true.
That said, I believe it will change.
And that raises an interesting question: If Trump or his senior associates are directly tied to Russian organized-crime activities, or collusion with Russian intelligence services, how will Duffy’s constituents and other ordinary people respond?
It all depends on the credibility of the evidence.
If the evidence is weak or peripheral to Trump himself, people will keep ignoring the story. Their ignorance won’t be born of dishonor or stupidity, it will be born of higher priorities. Trump won because he was able to tap into a deep-seated and septic wound in the political psyche. Enough voters were so sick of “politics as usual” that they were willing to roll the dice on Trump. Even after all his rants, his flirtations with Putin, his Billy Bush audiotape, and a campaign that raised serious concerns as to Trump’s mental state, voters gave him a thumbs up.
Their impulse will be to stick with this philosophy and judge Trump on his ability to pass legislation.
Yet if it turns out that Trump is directly tied to a Russia-related scandal, popular opinion will quickly shift against him. In the end, people want a leader who has their interests at heart.
If Trump loses on Russia and is shown to have lied, he’ll no longer be seen as the people’s servant.
Ever since Obama first announced he was running for president and ended up becoming president, alot of racist, rhetoric hatemonging a**holes had been constanly taunting him and his family from the last 8 years of them being the first family in the White House. From Nugent constantly attacking Obama, being in jail or wanting to leave the country, Trump’s jealousy and hatred of Obama, wanting to see his birth certificate, complaining about him going golfing, going on vacations with his family, and him wearing blue jeans, and wanting to repeal ObamaCare, because it doesn’t have his name on it, and that a black man created it, republicans wanting to drag him down and created lies about him and his family, to wanting ObamaCare which is successful to fail and that’s how they create lies about that as well, to haters constantly making racist remarks about him and his family. The constant racism that went on throughout Obama’s presidency for the last 8 years, is what made the country divided because the bullies who hated him caused it to happen, all because of their jealousy of a black family being successful. And these are the same racist, rhetoric, hatemonging a**holes voted for Obama, with them saying that they gave him a chance, which is a boldface lie and is just a excuse of them not wanting to give a black person a chance to run the country, ended up voting for Trump who is the biggest racist, rhetoric, hatemonging bully himself with him constantly attacking and threatening to build a wall to ban immigrants and muslims, because he sees the bad side of America, and he makes offensive remarks about certain types of people such as black people, hispanics, women, muslims, immigrants, disabled people and the LGBT community, on Twitter, and Trump’s actions is the main reason why this country is divided and people are divided, also republicans want ObamaCare to fail, so they can have it all to themselves, and so those who have health issues suffer and die, and plus Trump is constantly acting like a spoiled, immature, childish bully, all the time, I’m surprised he hasn’t been impeached yet, cause they’re scared of him. He’s always had lawsuits about bankruptcy, racism and sexism, long before he became president and the only reason why he decided to run for president, because of his money and fame, to please other rich people, and of course everybody wanted a rich white male republican, who don’t know anything about politics to be our president, and he has constanly in denial that even the KKK, and white supremacy supports him, and hasn’t showed his tax returns yet. Another thing, Michelle had to deal with racism, when the haters constantly making racist remarks about her appearance, and even her and Obama’s own daughters had dealt with racism as well, while Melania is practically a immigrant, and I don’t hear nobody making racist remarks about her appearance, and she gets a free pass, and Trump’s kids get a free pass as well, just ridiculous. Yet, these Trump supporters themselves are too delousional to believe all of this, cause they’re the racist, rhetoric, hatemonging bullies who voted for Obama, ended up voting for Trump, they also constantly attack Hillary, who was about to become our first woman president, and claim that she’s a murderer, and a crook, but how is she a crook?, and who did she kill?, those facts are bogus, much like the stupid email scandal, not knowing that Trump’s the real crook, and wanted to run for president, because to protect his fortune, and to please other rich people only, that’s just excuses of them not wanting to give a woman a chance to run the country. If only Trump supporters were not very dim-witted and in denial about any of this, maybe it’s time that they become smarter, anyway, have a great day!!!
US: Ukrainian Oligarch and his Associate are Tied to Russian Organized Crime
Prosecutors asked a US court to deny requests made by a Ukrainian oligarch and a Hungarian businessman to have racketeering and other charges against them dropped, calling the men “upper-echelon associates of Russian organized crime.”.
The Sun Herald–Jul 25, 2017
Modesto Bee–Jul 25, 2017
USA TODAY–18 hours ago
Washington Post–19 hours ago
Business Insider–1 hour ago
Politico–1 hour ago
Opinion–CNN–Jul 25, 2017
In-Depth–HuffPost–Jul 26, 2017
Opinion–Fox News–21 hours ago
July 25, 2017; STAT
An email sent from the executive committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association yesterday to its 3,500 members explicitly informed them that publicly commenting on President Trump’s mental health was okay with them.
Diagnosing of public figures from afar has been frowned upon by many professional associations for decades, under what is known as the “Goldwater Rule.” But some mental health professionals actually believe that they have an affirmative “duty to warn” the public.
Laypeople, says Dr. Leonard Glass, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, “have been stumbling around trying to explain Trump’s unusual behavior,” and the rule, Glass says, robs the public “of our professional judgment and prevents us from communicating our understanding” of the potential of any underlying mental disease.
Glass recently resigned from the American Psychiatric Association, where he has been a member for 41 years and where the rule has been in place for three years longer than that. It was reaffirmed in March of this year. The American Psychological Association has no such rule, though it does have a culture of discouraging public statements of diagnosis from afar.
“In the case of Donald Trump, there is an extraordinary abundance of speech and behavior on which one could form a judgment,” Glass said. “It’s not definitive, it’s an informed hypothesis, and one we should be able to offer rather than the stunning silence demanded by the Goldwater rule.”
Past president of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Dr. Prudence Gourguechon, agrees with Glass. “We don’t want to prohibit our members from using their knowledge responsibly,” she says, and “since Trump’s behavior is so different from anything we’ve seen before,” those insights might be especially helpful to a public confused by the behavior of their Commander-in-Chief.
The “Goldwater rule” prohibits psychiatrists and psychologists from offering opinions about the mental state of a public figure without that person’s consent and without doing a direct examination. Some of those whom the rule constrains see it as itself unethical, since the mental state of a public official may well be at issue as a matter of public safety and wellbeing from time to time. Opposition to the rule has recently intensified.
On the other hand, some don’t see much upside in such commentary, since such punitive diagnoses might tend to stigmatize other people with mental health disorders. Dr. Allen Frances is a professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Medical College. He chaired the task force that wrote the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), and he wrote a letter to the New York Times on the subject that was published on Valentine’s Day of this year.
Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder.
Mr. Trump causes severe distress rather than experiencing it and has been richly rewarded, rather than punished, for his grandiosity, self-absorption and lack of empathy. It is a stigmatizing insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr. Trump (who is neither).
Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely. Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy. He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers.
His psychological motivations are too obvious to be interesting, and analyzing them will not halt his headlong power grab. The antidote to a dystopic Trumpean dark age is political, not psychological.