Trump seriously considering blocking $250M in military aid to Ukraine

President Donald Trump is seriously considering a plan to block $250 million in military assistance to Ukraine, a move that would further ingratiate him with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and has directed senior officials to review the aid package.Trump’s decision to order the review comes after the White House publicly lost a battle to slash foreign aid spending across the board. After scrapping the plan to slash $4 billion in foreign aid, Trump said his team would look to find cuts elsewhere in the aid budget.”The President has made no secret when it comes to foreign assistance that US interests abroad should be prioritized and other foreign countries should also be paying their fair share,” a senior administration official told CNN.Specifically, Trump has directed Defense Secretary Mark Esper and national security adviser John Bolton to oversee the process, the senior administration official said.

The President has not yet made a final decision on whether to permanently block the funds, an administration official told CNN. The review process, however, has effectively paused disbursement of the funds, which are set to expire on September 30 if they are not used.

The Pentagon has already recommended to the White House that the hold on military assistance to Ukraine be lifted, an administration official and a US defense official told CNN Thursday. A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment on the matter on Thursday.”We do not publicly comment on internal budget deliberations. For further inquiries, I direct you to the White House Office of Management and Budget,” said spokesperson Lt. Col. Carla Gleason.However the hold on the aid remains in place, as it is the White House’s call whether to lift it, the administration official said, fueling uncertainty within the administration about what will happen to the spending after the review is formally completed.In the meantime, agencies are authorized and encouraged to execute all processes to prepare for the obligation of those funds but must wait to obligate them until the policy review is complete and the President has made a final determination, the senior official said. 

Bipartisan anger

If Trump ultimately decides to block the aid package, a possibility first reported by Politico, it would likely prompt a bipartisan uproar from members of Congress who believe US military support is essential to countering Russia’s military involvement in Ukraine.Illinois Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, voiced his strong opposition to that idea in a tweet Thursday: “This is unacceptable. It was wrong when Obama failed to stand up to Putin in Ukraine, and it’s wrong now.”Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez released a statement accusing the administration of circumventing Congress and “undermining a key policy priority that has broad and deep bipartisan support.””In willfully delaying these funds, the Trump Administration is once again trying to circumvent Congress’ Constitutional prerogative of appropriating funds for U.S. government agencies. It is also undermining a key policy priority that has broad and deep bipartisan support,” he said.”Enough is enough. President Trump should stop worrying about disappointing Vladimir Putin and stand up for U.S. national security priorities,” Menendez added.

What will Trump do?

Multiple sources familiar with the issue tell CNN that the President has floated the idea of halting the funding program for weeks. The White House has recently notified relevant agencies and congressional committees of its intent to block the aid to Ukraine, one source said.However, sources say that there are still questions about what Trump will ultimately do.

[CNN]

Trump Tweets Videos of Fox News Segments Trashing Comey, Decrying ‘Attempted Coup’

President Donald Trump‘s public complaints about Fox News this week have not stopped his his typical social media habit of sharing clips from the network.

Today he posted a number of videos from Fox News trashing former FBI director James Comey after the OIG report released yesterday. Comey was not charged, but he was criticized for setting a “dangerous example” with his actions.

This morning Trump shared a Fox & Friends segment with former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright saying “in 2016, we had effectively a coup” going on:

This afternoon, he shared clips of both Congressmen Doug CollinsPeter King (who railed against an “attempted coup” too), and Jim Jordan:

[Mediaite]

Trump 2020 logo looted from white supremacists

A Trump Pence 2020 logo that appears at the end of a video posted by President Donald Trump’s Twitter account Wednesday appears to be the exact same logo used by a pro-Trump Dutch Twitter account that has promoted white supremacism, according to a report at Mediaite. That group’s Twitter account was at some point suspended.

But there are more links between the Trump campaign and the white supremacists group. Their name, “Lion Guard,” appears to have come from a tweet – quoting fascist dictator Benito Mussolini – posted by none other than candidate Donald Trump in 2016. In case there were any question, he even uses the Twitter handle of the account he obtained the quote from. It’s based on Mussolini’s nickname, Il Duce.

“The use of the same logo appears to have been first reported by former Snopes Managing Editor Brooke Binkowski, who revealed the similarity via a series of tweets,” Mediaite notes:

The second image in the above tweet is a screenshot of a tweet from VDARE, an anti-Semitic and racist website that has ties to white supremacists and is popular with the alt-right. VDARE was recently in the news when the Dept. of Justice sent an email to all its immigration judges with a link to an anti-Semitic article at VDAREthat criticized immigration judges.

Mediaite also points to this 2015 Talking Points Memo article, “Trump Thanks Self-Described Dutch White Supremacist For His Support.”

Mediaite does not note this in their reporting but there is a watermark on the video Trump posted that reads: “@som3thingwicked.” That is the name of a Twitter account that says it is a “CONTENT CREATOR” (in all-caps.) Trump’s social media director Dan Scavino follows that account.

This is not the first time Trump has looted a logo. The coat of arms for Mar-a-Lago and Trump’s other golf courses was swiped from a former ambassador to the Soviet Union.

[Raw Story]

Trump Trashes WaPo, Denies Report He Promised Pardons to Officials If They Broke Law to Build the Wall

President Donald Trump blasted the Washington Post on Twitter this afternoon over reporting that he promised pardons to officials who would have to break the law to get the border wall done.

The Post reported Trump is frustrated with the pace of progress and desperate to get the wall built ahead of the 2020 election, and so he dismissed concerns about eminent domain, telling people to “take the land” and if they get in trouble “don’t worry, I’ll pardon you.”

Trump denied the report and claimed the Post made it up “in order to demean and disparage”:

A White House official responded to the Post saying that “Trump is joking when he makes such statements about pardons.”

[Mediaite]

Trump says Fox News ‘not working’ for him anymore

President Donald Trump on Wednesday ratcheted up his attacks on Fox News, blasted Puerto Rican leaders as another hurricane approached the island, and kept up his drumbeat of criticism of the Federal Reserve for its failure to cut interest rates.

“Fox not working for us anymore!”

A vacationing president is unhappy that Fox News is giving some airtime to Democrats, grumbling in a tweet: “Fox isn’t working for us anymore!”

The ire of Trump was triggered by a Fox interview Wednesday morning with Xochitl Hinojosa, a spokeswoman at the Democratic National Committee. Hinojosa criticized the president repeatedly and contended that Trump was polling poorly in several key states.

Trump has lashed out at Fox several times in recent months, complaining about liberal analysts Donna Brazile and Juan Willams and news host Shep Smith. On Wednesday he said he and his supporters need to find a new media ally.

Fox News anchor Brett Baier defended the network last week, saying it has a news side and an opinion side. “Fox has not changed,” he said.

[Market Watch]

Trump’s Unpardonable Admission About His Border Wall

Disagreements about what the law really means are unavoidable. Congress passes laws, government agencies interpret them, advocates dispute those interpretations, and then the courts step in to resolve the arguments.

But that’s not what’s happening with President Trump’s latest push on his border wall. The Washington Post reports that Trump is frantically urging aides to get construction on his border wall underway, overriding their objections that this might require breaking environmental laws, violating contracting rules, or improperly claiming private land. Why? Not because he believes his wall is necessary for national security. Not because he believes he is right about the law, and his aides’ concerns are misplaced. He doesn’t even believe the wall will actually solve an immigration crisis. Trump is urging action on the wall because he believes it is necessary for him to win reelection.

The tell here is that, as the Post reports, Trump “has told worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly, those officials said.”

Running for office, Trump said he would build a wall and Mexico would pay for it, a claim he quickly abandoned. When Congress repeatedly refused to give him money for the wall, he mounted an end-run around Congress, declaring a national emergency. Because Congress has unwisely delegated some of its powers to the president through the National Emergencies Act, he may succeed in defeating legal challenges, since courts tend to give the executive wide latitude to determine what is and isn’t a national emergency.

But Trump keeps undermining the legal rationale for his action. As the Postreports:

Trump conceded last year in an immigration meeting with lawmakers that a wall or barrier is not the most effective mechanism to curb illegal immigration, recognizing it would accomplish less than a major expansion of U.S. enforcement powers and deportation authority. But he told lawmakers that his supporters want a wall and that he has to deliver it.

Other Trump moves also show how unseriously he treats the idea that the wall is a necessary response to a national emergency, and not an enormously expensive campaign prop. He has repeatedly overruled suggestions made by officials because he wants the wall to look a certain way. Trump insists that the wall be painted black and be topped with spikes, even though this will add to the expense, reducing the number of miles that current funds can be used to build. And although the Department of Homeland Security favors including flat panels that can deter climbers, Trump thinks they look too ugly.

This is part of a pattern: Trump declares some far-fetched objective. Administration lawyers concoct a tortured legal rationale to justify it. And then Trump makes clear how pretextual that rationale is. Perhaps the first example was the president’s Muslim ban, but the pattern has repeated itself ever since.

The dangled pardons are especially galling because they underscore how Trump prioritizes winning reelection at any cost over actually following the laws he swore to uphold in his oath of office. Asked about the pardon suggestion by the Post, a White House aide didn’t deny it, but “said Trump is joking when he makes such statements about pardons.”

Well, maybe. The Trump administration has a long record of making outrageous statements and then insisting after the fact that they were only kidding. Beyond that, the president has already on at least one occasionpromised a pardon to a Customs and Border Patrol official if he was convicted of a crime, and he has also demonstrated his willingness to hand out politically motivated, manifestly undeserved pardons.

Pushing hard to build a border wall carries other dangers for Trump. Though he has had great success in reorienting the Republican Party around some of his other priorities, especially trade, eminent domain remains a controversial and widely disliked maneuver that could alienate conservatives along the border. But the president may be right that actually building the wall is crucial for his reelection effort, and his failure to actually build a single mile of new fencing—as opposed to upgrading current barriers—is a huge political problem for him.  (Even the hurry-up effort described in the Post is relatively insignificant: Only 110 of the 450 miles officials say they’ll finish by Election Day 2020 are new, while the rest replaces existing fencing.)

Trump is not the first president willing to knowingly break the law to win reelection. He is, however, unusually open about it. If the wall gambit works, it will reinforce the idea that lawbreaking is an effective campaign tactic, and that politics comes before fidelity to the Constitution.

The real threat to the national security of the United States isn’t on the southern side of the Mexican border.

[The Atlantic]

Trump got slapped down by G7 leaders after advocating for Russia

President Donald Trump derailed a major meeting with world leaders at the annual Group of Seven summit on Saturday evening after he insisted that Russia should be reinvited to the international gathering, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

At a dinner in Biarritz, France, the president interrupted talks of the fires in the Amazon and Iran’s nuclear capacity by advocating for Russia to be readmitted to the gathering of industrialized nations. Russia was expelled from the group in 2014 over its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine that violated international laws and agreements.

Trump’s comments initiated a discussion at the dinner about “whether the leaders should assign any special weight to being a democracy,” The Post reported, citing officials. While most of the world leaders staunchly believed they should, Trump didn’t.

A senior official at the meeting told The Post that Trump crossed his arms and appeared to take a more combative stance as multiple leaders rejected his comments.

“The consequence is the same as if one of the participants is a dictator,” an official told The Post. “No community of like-minded leaders who are pulling together.”

Officials told The Post that at least two of the leaders present — Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, and Giuseppe Conte, Italy’s acting prime minister — did not push back against Trump’s position.

On Sunday morning, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson praised French President Emmanuel Macron’s performance at the dinner. “You did very well there last night. My God, that was a difficult one,” Johnson said, according to The Post.

Trump on Monday said he would invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to next year’s summit.

“Would I invite him? I would certainly invite him,” he told reporters.

“Whether or not he could come, psychologically, I think that’s a tough thing for him to do,” because Putin is “a proud person,” he said.

The US is set to host next year’s G7 gathering, so Trump may have the power to unilaterally reinvite Putin.

Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and other leaders have made clear that they wouldn’t consider supporting Russia’s readmittance unless the country helps promote peace in Ukraine.

“One year ago, in Canada, President Trump suggested reinviting Russia to the G7, stating openly that Crimea’s annexation by Russia was partially justified. And that we should accept this fact. Under no condition can we agree with this logic,” Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, told reporters over the weekend.

Trump argued last week that it didn’t make sense to exclude Russia from the gathering “because a lot of the things we talk about have to do with Russia.”

Trump hasn’t mentioned Crimea or suggested that Russia would need to make any concessions to rejoin the group, but has repeatedly said that President Barack Obama was “outsmarted” by Russia and demanded the country’s exclusion.

[Business Insider]

Trump dismisses potential primary challengers as ‘Three Stooges’

President Trump on Tuesday dismissed three potential Republican presidential primary challengers as “Three Stooges” as he seeks reelection in 2020.

In a pair of tweets, the president mocked former Reps. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) and Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) as well as former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld (R).

Walsh and Weld have announced GOP primary campaigns against Trump in 2020, while Sanford has said he is considering one as well.

“Can you believe it? I’m at 94% approval in the Republican Party, and have Three Stooges running against me,” Trump tweeted, though it was unclear what poll he was citing.

“One is ‘Mr. Appalachian Trail’ who was actually in Argentina for bad reasons,” he continued, referring to Sanford.

“Another is a one-time BAD Congressman from Illinois who lost in his second term by a landslide, then failed in radio. The third is a man who couldn’t stand up straight while receiving an award. I should be able to take them!” he added, referring to Walsh and Weld, respectively.

Weld, who ran on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2016, was the first to announce he would seek to challenge Trump for the GOP nomination. The 74-year-old has struggled to gain traction, however, and most polls have shown him receiving single-digit support.

Walsh, meanwhile, announced his campaign on Sunday. He previously served one term as a congressman in Illinois and went on to become a conservative talk radio host, though he said this week that he lost his show upon launching his primary bid.

The ex-congressman has become a fervent critic of Trump’s rhetoric and character. Walsh himself has a history of making controversial statements, and acknowledged in recent days that he has said “racist things.”

Sanford said last month he was considering a primary challenge to Trump, though he has not formally announced a campaign. He has also been critical of the president, and he lost his reelection bid for his House seat last year after Trump endorsed his primary opponent. 

Sanford had an extramarital affair in 2009 while serving as governor of South Carolina, but he lied and said he was hiking the Appalachian Trail when he had actually gone to Argentina to visit his mistress.

All three men and any other prospective challengers face slim odds to unseat Trump on the 2020 ticket.

The president has the financial backing of the Republican National Committee, and he has solidified support within the GOP, consistently polling close to 90 percent among Republicans in Gallup surveys.

[The Hill]

Trump vents over Axios report on hurricane nuking idea

President Trump on Tuesday again lashed out at Axios over the outlet’s report that the president suggested using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes. 

“Axios (whatever that is) sat back and said GEEEEE, let’s see, what can we make up today to embarrass the President? Then they said, ‘why don’t we say he wants to bomb a hurricane, that should do it!’ The media in our Country is totally out of control!” Trump tweeted Tuesday.

The president previously called the report a “phony story” that the “Fake News is still trying to perpetuate.” 

Axios reported Sunday that sources said Trump has suggested the option multiple times to senior Homeland Security and national security officers. 

Axios reported that unnamed sources recalled situations they overheard in meetings or had been briefed on a National Security Council memorandum that recorded the president’s alleged comments about nuking hurricanes.

Axios reporter Jonathan Swan tweeted that he stands by “every word in the story” after the first round of Trump’s pushback. 

At the time of Axios’s report, a senior administration official told the outlet, “We don’t comment on private discussions that the president may or may not have had with his national security team.”

Trump’s latest tweet denying the report came after one of his Republican primary challengers, former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, sent a campaign email fundraising off of the Axios report.

“We couldn’t believe our eyes, Friend. But yes, this headline was — in fact — real,” the email to supporters said, with an image of Axios’s Sunday headline “Scoop: Trump suggested nuking hurricane to stop them from hitting U.S.”

“How does this make you feel about Donald Trump having his hands on our nation’s nuclear code? Yeah, we don’t feel so great about it either,” he added.

[The Hill]

Reality

And it’s funny that “stable genius” Trump doesn’t know who Axios is, as they were the only media outlet embedded with his 2016 campaign, and he conducted an interview with them just a few short months ago which you can watch in full here:

Barr books Trump’s hotel for $30,000 holiday party

Attorney General William P. Barr is planning a holiday treat for his boss.

Last month, Barr booked President Trump’s D.C. hotel for a 200-person holiday party in December that is likely to deliver Trump’s business more than $30,000 in revenue.

Barr signed a contract, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, for a “Family Holiday Party” in the hotel’s Presidential Ballroom Dec. 8. The party will feature a buffet and a four-hour open bar for about 200 people.

Barr is paying for the event himself and chose the venue only after other hotels, including the Willard and the Mayflower, were booked, according to a Justice Department official. The official said the purpose of Barr’s party wasn’t to curry favor with the president.

Barr holds the bash annually, and it combines holiday festivities and a ceilidh, a party featuring Irish or Scottish music.

“Career ethics officials were consulted, and they determined that ethics rules did not prohibit him from hosting his annual party at the Trump hotel,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the party is not a Justice Department event.

Barr’s decision to book his boss’s hotel marks the latest collision between Trump’s administration and his business, which the president no longer operates but from which he still benefits financially.

Trump said Monday that he was likely to hold next year’s Group of Seven international summit at his golf resort in Doral, Fla. Already the federal government and GOP campaigns have spent at least $1.6 million at his properties since he entered office, according to a Post analysis, though the actual figure is likely to be higher because of the difficulty of obtaining up-to-date records.

Barr, the nation’s top law enforcement official, has previously faced criticism for adopting language that hews closely to Trump’s. For example, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III complained that Barr’s characterization of his investigation — which closely mirrored the president’s — “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s final report. Experts have cited that and other examples in questioning Barr’s independence from the president.

“It creates the appearance that high-level political appointees or allies of the president may feel like they need to spend money at the president’s businesses as a show of loyalty, and that is something that makes me deeply uncomfortable and should make taxpayers deeply uncomfortable,” said Liz Hempowicz, director of public policy at the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight.

The Trump Organization declined to comment. Representatives from the Willard Hotel declined to comment, citing the company’s privacy policy. A spokeswoman for the Mayflower Hotel did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Barr’s decision to book the Trump hotel is noteworthy, in particular, because Justice Department attorneys are defending the president’s business in court. Trump’s D.C. hotel has hosted a number of foreign governments as clients, business that has generated two lawsuits, one from the attorneys general of Maryland and D.C. and the other from about 200 Democratic members of Congress.

Both cases are being considered in federal court, and the Justice Department is defending the president’s position that he has not run afoul of the anti-corruption provisions in the Constitution called the domestic and foreign emoluments clauses.

D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D), a plaintiff in one of the emoluments cases against Trump, said Barr’s plans make him fear “that all this does is it normalizes conduct of presidential supporters or would-be supporters, who clearly know a clear avenue to curry favor with the president and that is to do business with the president’s business.

White House aides, including inside the White House Counsel’s Office, have warned Trump and Cabinet officials against making official visits to his properties.

Barr’s event falls into a different category. It isn’t an official event — it’s a party. His contract requires that he spend $4,500 to rent the ballroom — space designed by Ivanka Trump before she joined her father in the White House — and $135 per person for a buffet and open bar, a number that is likely to change after Barr chooses a menu for the event.

Walter Shaub, a former director of the Office of Government Ethics who has been an outspoken critic of Trump’s ethics record, called Barr’s decision to book Trump’s hotel “one of those things that doesn’t violate the rules, but it’s really troubling.”

“He keeps sending signals that his loyalty is to a politician and not to the country,” Shaub said. “And it’s part of an ongoing erosion of credibility at the Department of Justice.”

It’s difficult to determine whether Barr will pay market rate for the event, as the Justice Department official asserted he would. The contract, sent to Barr at his Northern Virginia home, calls for a minimum of $100 per person for food and beverage before adding 35 percent for taxes and tip. It requires that Barr pay at least $31,500, even if he cancels the event.

The hotel’s publicly available menu lists a “banquet dinner” as costing $115 per person for two hours plus $30 for each additional hour. A hosted bar costs $29 for the first hour per person and an additional $12 per hour for each additional hour. If Barr opts for that level of service at those prices, the food and beverage bill for 200 guests would probably top $45,000.

Hotels typically have lots of available space on Sunday nights, leading them to offer less expensive rates. A contract the hotel signed with Virginia Women for Trump for a Monday event in the summer of 2018, obtained separately by The Post, required a $3,050 room rental fee and a $39,000 banquet fee for a much larger group, 818 people, though it did not include an open bar.

Hempowicz said that if Barr receives a discount from the hotel, it would give other Americans dealing with the Justice Department reason for concern, whomever the party is for.

“If the attorney general gets a discount while the Justice Department defends the hotel in court, that is not how the justice system is supposed to work and it’s not how the Department of Justice is supposed to work,” she said.

[Washington Post]

1 46 47 48 49 50 340