Photo of Donald Trump Jr. holding a rifle raises flags with hate group researchers – CNN

Donald Trump Jr. posted the photo Sunday on Instagram with a nod in the caption to the controversial design, which included a Crusader Cross -- also known as a Jerusalem Cross -- and helmet on the lower receiver, as well as a magazine featuring the image of the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee.

"Nice day at the range. @rarebreedfirearms and @spikes_tactical adding a little extra awesome to my AR and that mag," Trump Jr. wrote, tagging the companies that design and sell the gun.

While symbols and references to the Crusades still hold religious and historical significance -- the Crusader Cross is included on the flag of the country Georgia -- far right groups have seized upon them, using them to represent an anti-Muslim ideology, according to the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, two organizations that study hate groups.

A spokesman for Trump denied on Monday that the symbol on the gun, named by its manufacturer the Crusader Rifle, carried a white supremacist meaning and cited its presence on the Georgian flag and on a medal bestowed by the Pope.

"Symbols on firearms depicting various historical warriors are extremely common within the 2nd Amendment community. Don's Instagram post was strictly about him using a famous meme to mock Hillary Clinton, as he and many others have done on numerous occasions and will surely do again in the future, so long as it continues triggering humorless liberals," Trump spokesman Andy Surabian told CNN.

An avid hunter, Trump has posted other images of himself with weapons on his social media feeds. His affinity for controversial memes has helped bolster his own popularity among a Republican Party reshaped by his father.

History of the symbols

Symbols and references to the Crusades -- the Middle Ages campaign by Christian armies to reclaim the Muslim-controlled Holy Land -- have circulated for years inside the far right movement, making appearances in a manifesto written by a far-right gunman who killed dozens in Norway in 2011.

"The adoption of these symbols is meant largely as a way of signaling anti-Muslim sentiment in particular, but also this notion that Christianity needs to retake western civilization," said Howard Graves, a senior research analyst at the SPLC.

The gun companies that make and sell the Crusader rifle say it was inspired by history.

Rare Breed Firearms -- the manufacturer of the gun -- did not respond to a request for comment, but says on their website that the design was "inspired by some of the most fierce warriors who fought in nearly 200 years of epic conflicts known as the Crusades."

"This lower honors the warrior mindset. Technology evolves, warriors never change," the company wrote.

In an email, the CEO of Spike's Tactical -- the Florida company that sells the Crusader gun -- said that the gun and another AR with a Spartan helmet on it that they sell were "referencing famed historical soldiers" and are of a design that are "common among gun manufacturers, popular with gun owners throughout the country and have nothing to do with political ideology."

"It's objectively silly and dishonest for leftwing groups, like the SPLC, to claim that this symbol on our Crusader model has anything to do with hate or an extremist ideology. In other words, these people have no idea what they're talking about and should apologize for their outrageous smears," Cole Leleux, the CEO, said.

Spike's Tactical drew criticism in 2015 when they sold another AR model that a company spokesman told news outlets at the time was built to ensure it "would never be able to be used by Muslim terrorists to kill innocent people or advance their radical agenda."

That gun, also called the Crusader, featured an etching of a Bible verse as well as the Latin phrase "Deus Vult," another medieval term meaning "God wills it" that has recently become a rallying cry for white supremacists, according to hate group researchers.

Dan Zimmerman, the managing editor of The Truth About Guns, a website about firearms with a pro-gun leaning, told CNN that adorning guns with symbols is not common, but called it a "niche design that some people find attractive."

"There are all kinds of designs for AR lowers, from skulls to Sparta helmets," Zimmerman said.

A spokesman for the ADL, Jake Hyman, said the Sparta helmet symbol has also been co-opted by some right-wing extremists, and symbols like the Crusader Cross have recently been used to deface mosques in the US, according to Graves. The man accused of killing scores of Muslims at prayer in Christchurch, New Zealand, last year inscribed his weapons with references to the Crusades.

When white supremacists appeared in the Charlottesville march with shields bearing a red cross and the words "Deus Vult,"a coalition of Medieval scholars groups denounced what they called an "appropriation" of medieval symbols in a "fantasy of a pure, white Europe that bears no relationship to reality."

"As scholars of the medieval world we are disturbed by the use of a nostalgic but inaccurate myth of the Middle Ages by racist movements in the United States," the groups wrote.

White supremacist voices have gained prominence in recent years, with analysts like the ADL and SPLC pointing to the President's refusal to condemn racial violence by alt-right protesters at a 2017 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, as emboldening the movement.

After wide blowback to his remarks on Charlottesville, Trump later called neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups "repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans" and a month later, he signed a resolution condemning white supremacy.

View original post here:

Photo of Donald Trump Jr. holding a rifle raises flags with hate group researchers - CNN

House approves measure to restrain Trump’s actions on Iran – The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) Reigniting a debate over who has the power to declare war, the Democratic-controlled House on Thursday approved a resolution asserting that President Donald Trump must seek approval from Congress before engaging in further military action against Iran.

The war powers resolution is not binding on the president and would not require his signature. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi nonetheless insisted it has real teeth because it is a statement of the Congress of the United States.

The measure will protect American lives and values by limiting Trumps military actions, Pelosi said. The administration must de-escalate and must prevent further violence.

The White House called the resolution ridiculous and completely misguided.

And Trump, at a campaign rally in Toledo, Ohio, claimed he had no obligation to give lawmakers advance warning, saying Democrats like Pelosi want us to tell them so they can leak it to their friends in the corrupt media.

The House passed the measure, 224-194, with just three Republicans voting in support. Eight Democrats opposed the measure.

A similar proposal by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., faces an uphill fight in the GOP-run Senate. Kaines efforts received a boost Thursday as Republican Sen. Todd Young of Indiana, an ex-Marine, said he might support the war powers measure. Two other Republican senators said Wednesday they would back Kaines plan.

We are members of a separate and distinct branch of government. It is our duty not to take anyones word for things as we are dealing with matters of life and death, Young said, adding that he wished Trump administration officials had provided more intelligence information during a briefing Wednesday on a U.S. drone strike that killed a top Iranian general.

Pelosi, in announcing the House vote, called the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani provocative and disproportionate.

Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, the No. 2 House Republican, denounced the Democratic measure as little more than a press release designed to attack President Trump, while House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California called it a meaningless vote on a measure that will never be sent to the president or limit his constitutional authority to defend the American people.

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said, This House resolution tries to undermine the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to prevent terrorist activity by Iran and its proxies, and attempts to hinder the Presidents authority to protect America and our interests in the region from the continued threats.

The House vote came a day after the Trump administration briefed lawmakers on its actions in Iran. Democrats and several Republicans called the briefings inadequate, adding that officials did not provide enough details about why the attack was justified.

Vice President Mike Pence said Thursday that Soleimani was traveling the region making plans to bring an attack against American personnel and American forces. He said it was not possible to share full details of the intelligence with lawmakers.

When it comes to intelligence we have to protect sources and methods, theres only certain amount we can share with every member of Congress, Pence said on ABCs Good Morning America. But those of us who have seen all the evidence know that there was a compelling case of imminent threat against American personnel.

Trump said Thursday that he had calls from numerous senators and numerous congressmen and women saying it was the greatest presentation theyve ever had.

Referring to criticism by GOP Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul, Trump said: They want information that honestly I think is very hard to get. ... It really had to do with sources and information that we had that really should remain at a very high level.

Lee, a conservative from Utah, said the briefing by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other officials was probably the worst briefing Ive seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years hes served in the Senate.

Paul, of Kentucky, said administration officials justified killing Soleimani based on the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq. That is absurd. Thats an insult, he said.

Pelosi scheduled the House vote after Iran retaliated for the Soleimani killing by launching missiles at two military bases in Iraq that house American troops. No casualties were reported.

Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military unless Congress declares war on that country or enacts legislation authorizing use of force to prevent an attack on the U.S. and its forces, the five-page resolution states.

The resolutions sponsor, freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said it is intended to make clear that if the president wants to take us to war, he must get authorization from Congress.

If loved ones are going to be sent to fight in a protracted war, the president owes the American people a public conversation about why, and for what ends, said Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official who served in Iraq.

Members of Congress have a constitutional responsibility to uphold in authorizing use of military force, Slotkin said, adding, We are owed concrete, specific details on strategy.

Trump did not consult with congressional leaders ahead of the attack that killed the Iranian general and afterward sent Congress a notification explaining the rationale, but kept it classified.

Congress has allowed its war powers role to erode since the passage of Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001 to fight terrorism after the 9/11 attacks, and passage of another AUMF for the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

Fallout from those votes deeply divided Congress and the nation, with many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, now saying they were mistakes. Yet Congress has been paralyzed on the question of whether to repeal or change those authorities.

The strikes by Iran had pushed Tehran and Washington perilously close to all-out conflict and put the worlds attention on Trump as he weighed whether to respond with more military force.

Republicans have largely supported Trumps actions, saying the president was well within his power to take out Irans architect of proxy operations against Americans in the Middle East. The U.S. considered Soleimani a terrorist.

Democrats were unconvinced that the threat posed by Soleimani was imminent or that other alternatives to the killing were pursued in good faith. By not disclosing many details of the threat, Trump was asking the American public to trust the very intelligence reports he has often disparaged, Democrats said.

Young told reporters Thursday that lawmakers need to ensure that Congress is involved in future decision-making so we end up exactly where the president wants to end up, which is the avoidance of a major ground war in the Middle East.

He called Kaines resolution a mechanism to force us to debate this.

Three Republicans supported the measure: Reps. Matt Gaetz and Francis Rooney of Florida and Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

The eight Democrats who opposed it were Reps. Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose of New York, Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Ben McAdams of Utah and Stephanie Murphy of Florida.

Gaetz, one of Trumps strongest supporters, said killing Soleimani was the right decision, but engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the wrong decision.

Rose, an Army veteran who served in Afghanistan, said the resolution simply restates existing law and sends the message that war is imminent. I refuse to play politics with questions of war and peace and therefore will not support this resolution.

___

Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Kevin Freking and Deb Riechmann contributed to this story.

Link:

House approves measure to restrain Trump's actions on Iran - The Associated Press

Donald Trump kicks off 2020 Flyover state campaign with Ohio rally today: The Flyover – cleveland.com

Republican President Donald Trump makes his 2020 Flyover state debut in Ohio. Wisconsin takes steps toward cleaner drinking water. And the fossil fuel industry is pushing back on the fracking attack in Flyover states.

Welcome to the show: Everybody has a comfort food in life and for Republican President Donald Trump, that happens to be campaigning in the state of Ohio, cleveland.coms Sabrina Eaton writes. Trump returns to the Buckeye State on Thursday with a rally in Toledo, his 15th visit to the state since his inauguration in January 2017. If Toledo seems like an odd choice, it shouldnt. As The Blades Liz Skalka writes, the city is right next to one of the premier bellwether counties in the state.

Catch me if you can: Ill be in Toledo covering Trumps visit, so check back with cleveland.com or Fridays edition of The Flyover. You can follow me on Twitter at @SethARichardson.

Turn on the water works: A bipartisan group of Wisconsin state lawmakers unveiled a $10 million plan to tackle water contamination in the state, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinels Molly Beck reports. The chief focus of the plan is reducing fertilizer runoff and mitigating PFAS contamination. The plan comes after Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, declared 2019 the year of clean drinking water, though failed to enact many of his proposals in the Republican-controlled legislature. It also comes the same day legislative Republicans passed a bill through committee restricting the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam, but declined to regulate the forever chemicals, per the Wisconsin State Journals Chris Hubbuch.

Lifes a gas: The fossil fuel industry is feeling the crunch as more Americans grow concerned about climate change, but plans on pushing back as hard as possible, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazettes Daniel Moore reports. That includes in Pennsylvania, arguably the epicenter of fracking, where Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto said he would oppose any new petrochemical facilities. American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers said fracking was one of the most important environmental achievements in this country because it lessened reliance on coal.

Dealers choice: Dont count former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a Democrat running for president, among the fans of the USMCA trade deal. During stops in Chicago and Akron, Ohio, Bloomberg said the deal brokered between Democrats and Trump was basically just NAFTA, cleveland.coms Robin Goist reports. However, Bloomberg did appear to be a fan of NAFTA at least to some degree saying the much-maligned trade pact was something designed to help America, and by walking away from it, you help China.

Bonus question: Indiana teachers received a blow to their hopes of getting a pay bump, per the Northwest Indiana Times Dan Carden. Statehouse Republicans quashed a plan to give teachers a one-time bonus from state surplus funds. Its probably a safe bet that some of those 15,000 teachers who demonstrated on the steps of the statehouse will probably be returning soon.

Passing me by: A Wisconsin appeals court declined to rule on a lawsuit seeking to boot more than 200,000 people from the voter rolls before the 2020 election, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinels Patrick Marley reports. A county judge ruled on the conservative-backed lawsuit in December, ordering the state to start the purge. The appeals court declined to take the case since the Wisconsin Supreme Court is deciding itself whether to rule on the matter.

Survey says: Baldwin Wallace University in Berea, Ohio recognized the importance of Midwestern states in the 2020 election and announced the launch of the Great Lakes Poll, which will track opinions in four Flyover states, cleveland.coms Rich Exner reports. The universitys Community Research Institute will administer public opinion polls in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania periodically throughout 2020, with the first results expected before the Feb. 3 Iowa caucus.

A league of their own: This shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone, but professional sports leagues made sure to wet their beak with Michigans new sports betting law, the Detroit News Craig Mauger reports. Bookies must pay for official statistics that come from the professional leagues, which the leagues will undoubtedly make a killing from.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was in Chicago and Akron, Ohio, on Wednesday, per the Chicago Tribune and cleveland.com.

Former Gov. Bill Weld of Massachusetts was in Nevada and Newton, Iowa, on Wednesday, per the Des Moines Register.

President Donald Trump will be in Toledo, Ohio, on Thursday, per cleveland.com. Vice President Mike Pence will join him.

Author Marianne Williamson will be in Des Moines on Thursday, per the campaign.

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey will be in North Liberty and Mount Vernon, Iowa, on Thursday, per the campaign. Booker got a family heirloom earlier this week from his cousin in Des Moines.

Weld will be in Sioux City, Denison and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday, per the Des Moines Registers candidate tracker.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont will be in Nevada and Perry, Iowa, on Friday, per the campaign.

Former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland will be in Boone and Des Moines, Iowa, on Friday, per the campaign.

Democratic presidential hopefuls will be on stage in Des Moines on Jan. 15 for the final debate before the Iowa caucus, per the Des Moines Register. CNNs Wolf Blitzer and Abby Phillip and the Des Moines Registers Brianne Pfannenstiel will moderate.

Trump will be in Milwaukee on Jan. 15 to hold a competing rally, per the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Trump is expected to hold a re-election event in Iowa before the Feb. 3 caucus, per The Wall Street Journal.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is scaring former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, per the Associated Press.

You can dump your legal dope at OHare and Midway airports now, per the Chicago Tribune.

Michigan courthouses will soon enter the 20th Century (yes, the 20th Century), per MLive.

Were having to resort to pretty drastic measures.

-Polk County, Iowa Democratic Party chairman Sean Bagniewski describing to the Des Moines Register the prep his party is doing for the upcoming Iowa caucus. Party officials are expecting record turnout driven by the high number of candidates.

Enjoying The Flyover? Be sure and subscribe here.

Email Seth at SRichardson@cleveland.com. Follow him on Twitter at @SethARichardson.

Original post:

Donald Trump kicks off 2020 Flyover state campaign with Ohio rally today: The Flyover - cleveland.com

Chris Cuomo Rips Every Lawmaker Who Voted Against Limiting Donald Trump’s War Powers – HuffPost

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo delivered a stinging rebuke to both Democratic and Republican House lawmakers who on Thursday voted against limiting President Donald Trumps war-making powers against Iran.

The House voted 224 to 194 to limit the presidents ability to launch an attack against Iran without getting approval first, Cuomo explained. This is not a new idea thats what is in the Constitution. My argument, I cant believe it wasnt unanimous.

Only three Republicans in the Democratic-controlled House supported the resolution. EightDemocratsvoted against. Cuomo said it wasnt about the GOP just choosing Trump over the truth.

Theres some of that, but Democrats have been anxious to give war power to presidents as well, he noted. This has been going on for a long time and its gotten worse and it is the worse example of congressional cowardice.

Now, though, were hearing really obnoxious comments that is making this partisan, he added, citing Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) claim that Democrats are in love with terrorists for not backing Trumps military escalation with Iran.

Cuomo ripped Collins for trying to divide Americans at a time that it is life and death that we come together.

Shame on you and every Trumper and never-Trumper who voted against this, he added.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Read more here:

Chris Cuomo Rips Every Lawmaker Who Voted Against Limiting Donald Trump's War Powers - HuffPost

Laura Ingraham Mocks Everybody But The Trumps For Profiting From Nepotism – HuffPost

Laura Ingraham blasted liberals with family connections on Fox News Thursday night for benefiting from nepotismand then defended President Donald Trumps children two of whom now run their fathers multibillion-dollar business and another who works in the White House.

The Ingraham Angle segment kicked off by blasting the British royals,Meghan Markle and Prince Harry,for stepping down from their full-time duties. The two announced earlier this week that they would work towards becoming financially independent even though they would retain their Frogmore Cottage residence, which was refurbished on the taxpayer dime for more than $3 million last year.

But dont worry. Harry and Meghan are starting a charitable foundation to help you little people, Ingraham said.

Ingraham then began to slam royal wannabes in the U.S., in particularly mocking the Clinton family for exploiting their former positions for piles of cash. She disparaged former President Bill Clinton for significantly growing his wealth after his presidency, and criticized the Clinton Foundation charity for its fundraising efforts, calling it a scam. This was followed by an onslaught on his daughter, Chelsea Clinton, for her prominent role in the foundation, saying she was best known for her last name.

Next came a usual Fox News target, Hunter Biden, who Ingraham claimed was profiting from his father Joe Bidens former role as vice president.

Middle-class Joe went from having possibly negative net worth to earning more than 15 million bucks since leaving office. And his son seems to have learned the secret of success: Nepotism, Ingraham said.

Ingraham also blasted the Biden-loving media for making claims, not unlike the ones shed just made, about the Trump children.

The Trump kids didnt get rich off being in public office, she said. They actually had made their money before the president was elected. It came from running something called a business.

Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner, who were appointed White House roles despite having no prior government experience,made $82 million in outside income while serving in the White House last year, the Washington Post reported.

Eric and Don Jr. were given complete control of the Trump Organization when their father took office. They have since sold off more than $100 million in real estate, including a $3.2 million sale of land in the Dominican Republic last year which Forbes called the clearest violation of their fathers pledge not to do new foreign deals while in office.

Taxpayers also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for Eric and Trump Jr.s Secret Service protection as they traveled abroad for Trump Organization business trips.

The Ingraham Angle on nepotism begins 30 minutes into the broadcast below:

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Read more here:

Laura Ingraham Mocks Everybody But The Trumps For Profiting From Nepotism - HuffPost

Trump-Tehran’s tussle decoded: How a share over oil spoils almost led to full-blown war – Economic Times

Much before a 230 mph laser-guided Hellfire missile almost pushed the US and Iran to a full-blown war, it is worth recalling a time when the two countries shared a rather different relationship. The genesis of the turmoil that lead to the recent killing of Iran's top military general Qassem Soleimani goes back to 1908 when the British founded the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to tap into Persia's oil reserves.

The Union Jack was then building an empire and US did not command the kind of presence it has now. The oil firm minted money from the oil it dug and shared a portion, reportedly a mere 16%, with Persia. The math was tilted in favour the Union Jack. Iran tried to negotiate a fair price but the British refused to budge.

A tide of nationalism in 1951 saw the emergence of Mohammed Mossadegh as Iran prime minister. Mossadegh pushed to seize what he believed was fair for Iran. A coup in 1953 done by the British and US intelligence agencies -- MI6 & CIA -- against Mossadegh created an animosity that has lasted for over 65 years now.

Here is the brief story a tussle that started from a partnership:1941: British InvasionBritain invade Iran and Mohammad Reza Pahlevi is installed as Irans political leader. Following the war and long negotiations, the Anglo-Iranian oil company is set up. The firm monopolized the oil production in the country amid protests from nationalists.

1951: Rise of Mohammed MossadeghMohammed Mossadegh gained popularity with nation-wide campaign against APAC. After he took charge as prime minister, Mossadegh cancelled Britains right to extract oil and ordered the seizure of its assets. The British Navy blocked Irans ports, stalling oil export and import of food. 1953: The dirty coupFearing loss of control over its oil companies, British MI6 and the CIA orchestrate a coup to oust Mossadegh. The move upsets Iranian public bolstering its anger against Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last king of Iran. Pahlavi was seen as an American puppet.

1963: White revolutionDespite the resentment, Pehlawi was a favourite with the Americans. Pehlawi drafts the White Revolution under which much of the land belonging to feudal landowners and the crown was distributed to landless villagers. The move upset the landowning class and the clergy.

The protests introduce Islamic religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini to the world.

1979: Civil War and rise of Ayatollah KhomeiniThe protests snowball into a full-blown civil war. Two weeks later, Khomeini returns from exile. Following a referendum, Iran becomes an Islamic Republic.1979-81: 52 Americans held hostageThe US embassy in Tehran is taken over by a group protesters in November 1979. 52 American hostages are held inside for 444 days. The hostages are freed in a dramatic manner in January, 1981, the day US President Ronald Reagan takes charge. Six Americans who had escaped the embassy attack are smuggled out of Iran by a team posing as film-makers. The Oscar-winning movie Argo is based on this rescue.

1980: Iraq's attack on IranSaddam Hussain's Iraq attacks Iran with American and British support.

1988: America shoots down Iranian passenger planeAmerican warship USS Vincennes shoots down an Iran Air flight, killing all 290 people on board. US says the Airbus A300 was mistaken for a fighter jet.

2002: Axis of EvilIn his State of the Union address, President George Bush denounces Iran as part of an "axis of evil" with Iraq and North Korea. The speech causes an outrage in Iran.

2013: First phone call from US PresidentIn 2013, a month after Iran's new moderate president Hassan Rouhani takes charge, US President Barack Obama calls him, the first such top-level conversation in more than 30 years.

2015: Iran Nuclear DealIran agrees to a long-term nuclear deal with a group of countries known as the P5+1 - the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany.

2018: Trump dumps the Iran nuclear dealUS President Donald Trump scraps the deal before reinstating economic sanctions against Iran and threatening to do the same to countries and firms that continue buying its oil. Iran's economy falls into a deep recession.

2019: Explosions at six oil tankers in the Gulf of OmanIranian forces shoots down a US military drone over the Strait of Hormuz. US says it was over international waters, but Iran says it was over their territory.

Iran begins rolling back key commitments under the nuclear deal in July.2020: Soleimani's assassinationIran's top military commander is killed by a US drone strike in Iraq. Three days after his death, Iran launches more than a dozen missile attacks on two US military bases in Iraq.

More here:

Trump-Tehran's tussle decoded: How a share over oil spoils almost led to full-blown war - Economic Times

Trump Jr and Ivanka Trump knew they were lying over ploy to sell condos, book claims – The Guardian

Donald Trump Jr and Ivanka Trump took part in a fraudulent scheme to sell units in a luxury New York condominium-hotel and knew they were lying, according to a new book that explores how the current US president built his business empire.

Questions have long surrounded a criminal investigation into the Trump familys dealings around the Trump SoHo that was dropped in 2011. Public disclosure of email correspondence revealed that Don Jr and Ivanka knowingly used figures that exaggerated how well the condos were selling in a ploy to lure more buyers.

The episode is re-examined with fresh reporting by the journalist Andrea Bernstein in her book American Oligarchs: The Kushners, The Trumps And The Marriage Of Money And Power, a copy of which was obtained by the Guardian.

Trump first previewed the 46-storey Trump SoHo in lower Manhattan with fanfare in 2006 on his reality TV show The Apprentice, boasting this brilliant $370m work of art will be an awe-inspiring masterpiece. But sales of units proved disappointing, especially after it was revealed one of Trumps partners, Russian-born Felix Sater, had a criminal past.

According to data filed with state and federal agencies, only 15% to 30% had been sold by the start of 2009, the New York Times reported. But in June 2008, Ivanka told the Reuters news agency that 60% had been sold, while in April 2009, Don Jr claimed in the Real Deal magazine that 55% had.

Buyers of units in Trump SoHo sued Trump, arguing that they had been defrauded by inflated claims of sales. The Manhattan district attorneys office then began investigating whether the allegations could also constitute a crime, issuing subpoenas and carrying out interviews.

The Trumps left a damaging email trail, first reported by the ProPublica website in 2017, that Bernstein writes showed a coordinated, deliberate and knowing effort to deceive buyers. In one email, the Trumps discussed how to coordinate false information they had given to prospective buyers. Because the sales levels had been overstated at the beginning of the sales process, any statement showing a lower level could reveal the untruths.

The author continues: In another email, according to a person who read them, the Trumps worried that a reporter might be on to them. In yet another email chain that included Don Jr and Ivanka, the younger generation of Trumps issued the email equivalent of a knowing chuckle, saying that nobody would ever find them out, because only people on the email chain or in the Trump Organization knew about the deception.

There was no doubt that the Trump children approved, knew of, agreed to, and intentionally inflated the numbers to make more sales, one person who saw the emails said. They knew it was wrong. It couldnt have been more clear they lied about the sales and knew they were lying, another person said.

Yet another said, I was shocked by the words Ivanka used. Was there any doubt the Trumps knew they were lying and that it was wrong? Ten thousand percent no.

Trump and his co-defendants settled the civil case in November 2011, agreeing to refund 90% of $3.16m in deposits while refusing to admit any wrongdoing. As part of the settlement, the buyers agreed to no longer help the Manhattan district attorneys investigation into whether Trumps alleged fraud broke any laws.

The buyers set out this agreement in a letter that, Bernstein writes, contained language insisted upon by Trumps lawyers. In an interview, the district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr, said that he had never before seen a letter where plaintiffs in a civil case asserted that no crime had been committed. I dont think Id ever received a letter like it, Vance said.

The criminal case against Don Jr and Ivanka was eventually wound up because prosecutors feared it would be undermined by the buyers refusing to say they had been the victims of fraud. Ivanka is now in the White House as a senior adviser to the president. Don Jr has emerged as one his chief campaign surrogates for re-election.

Trumps hugely divisive presidency has seen some of his properties suffer lost custom as his name becomes a liability. In December 2017, the Trump SoHo was rebranded as the Dominick, which helped turn around its fortunes.

Bernsteins American Oligarchs also chronicles the family history of Ivankas husband, Jared Kushner.

Originally from a village in Belarus, many of his ancestors were murdered in the Holocaust. Survivors took refuge in Hungary and Italy and fled to America. The book tells how Jareds grandfather, Yossel Berkowitz, posed as his father-in-laws son, putting Kushner as his last name on US immigration paperwork. As a consequence, his grandson is named Jared Kushner rather than Jared Berkowitz.

Read more:

Trump Jr and Ivanka Trump knew they were lying over ploy to sell condos, book claims - The Guardian

Has Donald Trump Learned on the Job as Commander in Chief? – Lawfare

Editors Note: President Trump is entering his fourth year as commander in chief, a time when many of his predecessors have learned from their early mistakes to lead a more effective foreign policy team. Rebecca Friedman Lissner of the Naval War College examines Trumps performance, comparing him with other modern presidents. Lissner finds that Trump has failed to change his approach after his early mistakes and does not exhibit any of the characteristics that make successful learning more likely in the future.

Daniel Byman

***

Donald Trump assumed the U.S. presidency in January 2017 with no government experiencea record unique among modern presidents. Observers on the right and left noted with particular alarm his lack of national security credentials and apparent uninterest in educating himself about international relations during the 2016 campaign. Only five days after taking office, the risks of this inexperience seemed to manifest in a special operations raid gone awry. Targeting an al-Qaeda operative in Yemen, the Trump-authorized operation resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL, civilian casualties, and no capture. Nearly three years later, the president has accrued more national security experience, overseeing military interventions, negotiating with global leaders, and taking consequential decisions about U.S. trade relations. What has he learned as commander in chief?

Traditional academic approaches to studying presidential learning focus on substantive knowledge gained through experiencelearning, for example, about the scope of a bargain North Korea might accept in nuclear talks or about Irans ability to tolerate economic costs imposed by sanctions. Equally salient, however, is what I call foreign policy process learning in a new Political Science Quarterly article. This approach looks for evidence of learning within the decision-making processes that produce foreign policy, rather than within policy choices themselves or their outcomes. Process learning is easier to detect than substantive learning; it is more readily evaluated according to objective criteria for effectiveness; and it is extremely consequential, as high-quality processes are far likelier to result in smarter policies. By this standard, President Trump has learned remarkably little as president and appears unlikely to do so over the remainder of his tenure.

Learning From Early Mistakes

Nearly every president makes foreign policy mistakes in their early days in office. The transition between presidents is fraught with misunderstandings as information gets lost between administrations, new teams get to know each other, and presidents grow accustomed to their responsibilities and authorities.

Perhaps the most infamous such example is the Bay of Pigs invasion, launched three months after John F. Kennedy assumed office, in April 1961. A covert operation to overthrow Fidel Castro, the Bay of Pigs was an utter disaster. The paramilitary invasion failed after only four days, and Castro emerged stronger and more adversarial to U.S. interests. This perfect failure reflected a flawed decision-making process: The invasions CIA advocates tightly restricted information necessary to evaluate prospects for success, the White House prematurely accepted the errant assumptions guiding operational planning, and the Kennedy administration never seriously considered what the United States would do in case of failure.

While the contours and causes of the Cuban fiasco are well known, the process learning that resulted from it receives far less attention. In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs debacle, Kennedy and his White House team took several important steps to understand their mistakes. The president signaled his personal interest in learning from the Bay of Pigs and empowered a committee to formally investigate the fiascos causes, and his advisers sought to extract lessons from a humiliating failure. Consequently, the Kennedy White House came to recognize the need for a more systematic review of policy options at levels subordinate to the president, better mechanisms of information circulation, and differentiation between policy advocacy and evaluation roles.

The fruits of the Kennedy administrations process learning manifested in its response to the Berlin Wall crisis of June 1961. Kennedy saw Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchevs renewed aggressiveness in Berlin as a reaction to the misadventure at the Bay of Pigs; speaking to a journalist after meeting Khrushchev for the first time, Kennedy conjectured that failure in Cuba had made him seem inexperienced and [like I] have no guts. As the crisis intensified that summer, the administrations decision-making process featured marked improvements: Information about crisis planning circulated throughout an interagency coordinating group, Kennedys advisers rigorously questioned emergent policy assumptions and voiced dissenting opinions, and planning featured extensive discussion of implementation as well as contingency plans. While it is impossible to prove that the Berlin crisis resolved peacefully as a result of this improved process, process learning likely contributed to this outcome.

Trumps On-the-Job Learning

Trump, like Kennedy, entered office with little foreign policy experience, an ardent desire to distinguish himself from his predecessor, and a new team of advisers. He, too, experienced a humiliating, early failure in a military operation that originated under the prior administration but was ultimately authorized on his watch. Unlike Kennedy, however, Trump appears to have learned little from the Yemen raid. Indeed, years into his presidency, there is scant evidence that the national security decision-making process has improved meaningfully over time.

Trumps decision-making process for the Yemen raid had several dysfunctional features. First, it lacked any meaningful interagency process. Rather than working through multiple layers of deliberation and vetting, it went straight to the president for authorization. Second, and even more unusual, the president approved the plan over dinner with a subset of his national security teamwhich was heavy on active-duty and recently retired military officersbut had no State Department representation. Third, in an echo of the Bay of Pigs planning process, advocacy and evaluation roles were undifferentiated, as then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford briefed the Defense Department-generated plan and offered their unreserved endorsement. Ultimately, Trump provided a green light to a disastrous operation that resulted in a fallen Navy SEAL, the loss of an Osprey helicopter, and at least 16 civilian casualties.

The results of the Yemen raid were tragicbut they also offered a critical learning opportunity for a new and inexperienced White House. The presidents actions since, though, indicate that the lessons of the Yemen raid were not internalized and the administrations national security decision-making process has not improved.

Although considerable variation characterizes this administrations approach to decision making, learning should be apparent in across-the-board procedural improvements. Instead, President Trumps decision to pull U.S. troops out of northern Syria is a useful, recent test case that suggests the foreign policymaking process has, at minimum, not improved and may actually have grown less effective with time. Reportedly, the president instinctively elected to withdraw U.S. forces after a call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in which Erdogan signaled his intent to attack Kurdish forces in northern Syria near the Turkish border. The decision was not part of a formal policymaking process and ignored the recommendations of the Departments of Defense and State. In fact, it came as a surprise to the Pentagon, which indicates its disassociation from a meaningful interagency process and precluded carefully considered implementation. The abrupt withdrawal was rife with unintended consequences the president does not seem to have considered, from the liberation of Islamic State prisoners to the complication of an ultimately successful mission against Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and diplomatic fallout from the abandonment of the United Statess Kurdish partners. Its suddenness echoes earlier presidential decisions about Syria, most notably Trumps surprise order to withdraw 2,000 U.S. troops in December 2018which the president later partially reversed, but not before the resignation of Secretary Mattis in protest. In a further procedural parallelism, the president seems to now support a new plan that leaves approximately 200 U.S. troops in eastern Syria to guard local oil fields.

Of course, the Trump administration is not entirely devoid of structured national security decision-making processes. Early in the administration, Trump signed the customary executive order outlining the statutory members of the National Security Council (NSC), the NSC convenes at the senior-most levels, and the White House retains a sizeableif shrinkingNSC staff. Even so, the procedural dysfunction is endemic and extends far beyond Middle East policy. Trump is on his fourth national security adviser in less than three yearsa tally that speaks to the difficulty of policy alignment with a mercurial president as well as the insidious court politics of this administration. Despite John Boltons extensive government experience, by the end of his tenure, a former White House official told the New Yorker: The N.S.C. is no more, there is no process. Bolton had given up. The impeachment inquirys revelations about a shadow foreign policy for Ukraine, which operated independent ofand frequently in opposition toofficial decision-making channels, further underlines the acute severity and tremendous risks of such procedural atrophy.

Continuity Despite Failure

While optimists might hope that Trumps latest national security adviser, Robert OBrien, will wrangle a disordered decision-making process, there is good reason to be skeptical. Three conditions make process learning especially likely: the presence of shared worldviews among deliberative groups, clear recognition of failures, and the cognitive complexity of the president himself. Unfortunately, none of these conditions exists in the Trump White House. The Trump national security team is notoriously riven by bureaucratic as well as ideological divisions, and the president himself has repeatedly appointed senior officials with whom he fundamentally disagrees. These fractures make it difficult to reach agreement on what has caused past failures and how best to implement procedural changes. Moreover, the Trump administration is loath to recognize anything as a failureeven the disastrous Yemen raid was billed as a huge success.

Perhaps most critically, the presidents personality is simply not amenable to learning. Research in cognitive psychology indicates that individuals tend to be better learners when they are open to environmental feedback, change their beliefs readily and receive discrepant information open-mindedly. Yet first-person accounts of those who have worked with the president, at-a-distance psychological assessments, and observation of President Trumps public rhetoric and behavior all indicate that the president indexes poorly on each of these dimensions.

All told, the prospects for a functional decision-making process to guide U.S. strategy as it copes with myriad challengesfrom Chinas rise, to escalating tensions with Iran, to foreign election interferenceis regrettably remote. This procedural disorder makes future foreign policy failures more probable and also diminishes the likelihood that the Trump administration will extract and apply any lessons that might emerge. Indeed, the process learning framework suggests that even a foreign policy fiasco on a scale far greater than the Yemen raid would be unlikely to catalyze a more effective and orderly national security decision-making process so long as President Trump remains in the White House.

Visit link:

Has Donald Trump Learned on the Job as Commander in Chief? - Lawfare

Opinion: Why Republicans will stick with Trump in 2020 – Los Angeles Times

Recently, a close friend and fellow Republican told me he was personally shocked at what the evangelicals have been willing to stomach from Donald Trump. Im not shocked at all.

My friends sentiment a variation on the empty if Obama had done this, Republicans wouldve impeached him has become a staple of Democrats and Never Trumpers. Are you ready to turn on him yet? Republicans are asked over and over.

No one ever says yes. The Republicans who make a living hating Trump today hated him before he was elected. The rest of the party remains solidly behind him. The reason for that, as we enter this election year, is less granular than feeling happy or sad about a specific presidential behavior. Rather, it has to do with the general direction of the nation: Trump and whoever the Democrats nominate represent such fundamentally different directions for our country that it is almost unthinkable for a Republican voter to be seriously torn.

Imagine standing at a train station in Louisville, Ky., staring at the schedule board. You want to get to Los Angeles, and you have a choice of two trains one headed to San Diego and one headed to Washington, D.C. Neither gets you exactly where youre heading, but theres really only one choice as the alternative to San Diego is to go precisely the wrong way.

Even if the San Diego train sometimes hits bumpy tracks, and the conductor comes on the PA and says crude and dumb stuff, and there are people on the train you really wish would get off: It is still taking you basically where you want to go.

To the average Republican voter, like the passenger on that train, the destination is what matters.

I tried to explain this to my friend. I told him that, for Christian conservatives, the choices are Trump versus people who prefer full-term abortions and believe that that our country should functionally have no borders. To vote against Trump is to vote for a party that fundamentally believes Republicans are deplorable and racist.

The decision isnt hard.

But the porn stars! The crudeness! The immorality! my friend says.

To a Christian conservative voter, the individual behavior of an imperfect human pales against the importance of protecting human life. If the imperfect president appoints pro-life judges and takes your values into account when making policy, you dont worry so much about one sinners struggles with morality. You just pray for him, while also giving thanks for all he does to advance your cause.

Choosing any of the Democrats running for president isnt simply boarding a train headed in a slightly different direction, or one going the same way with a nicer conductor. It means completely turning around. For goodness sakes, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden have both proposed plans that would spend taxpayer dollars on gender assignment surgery!

And thats what has been so illuminating about this Democratic primary race: Because of their extreme tilt to the left, none of these candidates have a prayer of peeling off a statistically significant number of Republican voters. No matter what the Never Trumpers in your Twitter feed tell you, Trump win or lose will have the support of more than 90% of his party.

Some people used to argue that the two parties are basically the same. It wasnt true then, and its especially not true now. Most of Trumps governance has been what youd expect from any Republican president (conservative judges, lower taxes, deregulation, an embrace of pro-life policies), and the wild extremism of his would-be opponents is causing some center-right voters who were lukewarm on Trump three years ago to feel closer to him than ever before.

The exception to that is the cohort of suburban women who clearly abandoned the Republicans in the 2018 midterm and strongly disapprove of Trump now. But will losing them be enough to derail the Trump train?

I consulted the impeachment polling aggregator on Nate Silvers FiveThirtyEight website on Dec. 29, and it said that 48% of Americans prefer impeachment and removal versus 46% who did not. As has been true for three years, the polls say men basically want Trump and women basically dont.

Impeachment has become a political Rorschach test, and Trump might easily win reelection with a two-point deficit in the popular vote. The question isnt how Republicans can still vote for Trump, but how the Democrats became so radicalized as to present no viable alternative to huge swaths of nonurban America.

Scott Jennings is a former advisor to President George W. Bush and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a CNN contributor. He is a contributing writer to Opinion. Twitter: @ScottJenningsKY.

See the article here:

Opinion: Why Republicans will stick with Trump in 2020 - Los Angeles Times

President Donald Trump’s 10 biggest false claims in 2019 and one that finally became true – NBC News

President Donald Trump advanced a dizzying number of wrong or misleading claims in 2019, but none so central to his legacy and the news cycle as the torrent of falsehoods about the dealings with Ukraine that led to his impeachment.

Since he exploded onto the national political stage more than four years ago with the false claim that Mexico was funneling criminals into the United States, the president has frequently used falsehoods to attack his rivals and overstate his popularity and successes. We fact-checked his claims, sometimes repeatedly, as they've guided U.S. policy on everything from trade to immigration.

This year, the president promoted conspiracy theories about Ukraine and inaccurate claims about how tariffs work in an attempt to spin his trade war with China as a win even as the data showed that Americans, including farmers, were paying the price. Other, smaller falsehoods still made headlines.

Here are 10 baseless, misleading or confounding claims Trump made this year, and the facts plus one oft-repeated claim that finally, in late October, became true.

This claim is false, according to the unanimous assessment of the U.S. intelligence community and the former special counsel Robert Mueller, who spent two years investigating Russia's election interference effort.

The Russian government, not Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election "in sweeping and systematic fashion," the Mueller report concluded, working to boost Trump's bid while damaging his Democratic rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Still, in both private and public remarks, as well as in the pivotal July 25 phone call with Ukraine's new president, Trump repeatedly pushed or referenced a conspiracy theory that Ukraine and the Democrats framed Russia for election meddling in an attempt to discredit his presidency.

In that now-famous July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the same call in which Trump asked for investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Trump danced around the theory. He talked about this whole situation with Ukraine," Democratic computer servers, and CrowdStrike," the private cybersecurity firm initially hired by the Democratic National Committee to investigate a breach that the FBI ultimately concluded was a hack and dump scheme engineered by Moscow as part of a larger, pro-Trump influence campaign.

"The server, they say Ukraine has it," Trump said, according to a White House record of the call.

I would like you to get to the bottom of it," he continued later. "They say a lot of it started with Ukraine.

Later, he would suggest to reporters that Clinton's emails might be in Ukraine.

In fact, there is no evidence that Ukraine mounted any sort of election interference effort. Ukraine isn't harboring a Democratic server, and Clintons emails are not hiding there, either. Members of Trump's own administration, including former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Bossert, have said they tried to tell Trump this wasn't true.

The conspiracy, which was first publicly posted on a far-right message board, 4chan, in March 2017, appears to be part of Trump's broader, yearslong effort to discredit Mueller's investigation and undercut the idea that a foreign government helped get him elected.

In late 2019, Trump's unfounded fascination with Ukraine became inextricably tied to separate false claims about Biden, who is running to challenge him in the 2020 election, and featured heavily in the House's impeachment inquiry into whether Trump abused the power of his office by attempting to pressure a vulnerable ally into announcing investigations into the Bidens and Democrats that could boost his bid for re-election.

During weeks of hearings over the course of the House's impeachment inquiry, members of the State Department, Defense Department and Trump's own administration testified again and again that Russia not Ukraine, and not the former vice president were the bad actors.

Trump's former Russia expert, Fiona Hill, called the idea that Ukraine meddled in 2016 a "fictional narrative" promoted by Russian intelligence and rebuked House Republicans for using it to defend the president against impeachment. Trump, and members of the GOP, have contended that the actions his administration took toward Ukraine were motivated not by political or personal interest, but by legitimate concern about corruption in the country, including alleged Ukrainian election interference.

"In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests," Hill said in her opening statement to Congress. "I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine not Russia attacked us in 2016."

Trump has said he discussed political rival Biden with the president of Ukraine a phone call at the heart of the intelligence community whistleblower's complaint that led to the launch of the formal impeachment proceedings in the House for one reason: a desire to root out corruption.

The former vice president, Trump said, wielded his influence to benefit his son Hunters private-sector work in Ukraine. In May, Trump said that Biden improperly got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, a claim he went on to repeat in the July phone call with Zelenskiy. Trump would later add this ousting was to protect Hunter Biden, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company at the time.

But despite Trump's continued claims, there's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden. Removing that prosecutor was U.S. policy under the administration of President Barack Obama. While Obama administration officials raised concerns at the time about the appearance of a conflict of interest that Hunter Biden's work posed for the vice president, U.S. officials testified as part of the impeachment inquiry into Trump that there was no evidence Biden himself worked toward anything other than enacting U.S. policy.

In September, news broke that an anonymous person within the intelligence community had filed a formal whistleblower complaint related to the president's dealings with Ukraine, including that July phone call with Zelenskiy, and that the Trump administration was withholding that complaint from Congress.

By the end of the month, Congress had obtained the whistleblower's nine-page complaint, which the author wrote was lodged out of the belief that Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 election and detailed alleged actions by the president and other government officials to pressure Ukraine into opening politically advantageous investigations.

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

The House Intelligence Committee, on Sept. 26, released a declassified version of the complaint to the public as part of the formal investigation into the whistleblower's allegations. Subsequently, Trump made several inaccurate claims about that complaint, charging that the still-unnamed whistleblower had made a "false account."

He got his information, I guess, second or third hand. He wrote something that was total fiction," Trump said in October.

"The whistleblower gave a false account," Trump said on another day in October.

"Sooo wrong," he wrote in a tweet in November.

There's no evidence to support this rather, the available evidence supports the whistleblower. The actions and conversations described in the whistleblower complaint have been largely corroborated, both by the record of the Zelenskiy call that the White House released, as well as sworn testimony of Trump aides, an exhaustive NPR report shows.

The Ukraine whistleblower used both firsthand and secondhand information in the complaint, according to the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, noted this is an acceptable practice in a whistleblower complaint.

"Article II allows me to do whatever I want, Trump told ABC News in June.

"Then I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president, he said in Washington in July.

Article II of the Constitution establishes the executive branch and outlines the presidencys power. It does grant the president a lot of power, but it does not say he can do whatever he wants, unfettered. What's more, Article II of the Constitution also outlines impeachment as a recourse for a problematic president: The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article I of the Constitution deputizes lawmakers in the process: the House is given the powers of impeachment, while the Senate is tasked with trying and deciding whether to remove an individual who has been impeached.

Youre not paying for those tariffs. Chinas paying for those tariffs, the president told an Ohio crowd in August. Until such time as there is a deal, we will be taxing the hell out of China.

Trump continued to use a fundamental misunderstanding of tariffs to defend U.S. trade policy this year, repeatedly telling voters that the country was using tariffs to cash in on the wealth of other countries.

Economists and experts told NBC News that this is false. Consumers purchasing foreign goods are the ones who picked up the tab. In August, J.P. Morgan estimated the cost of these tariffs on average U.S. families was more than $1,000.

Complete and total exoneration, Trump wrote in one tweet in March after the Mueller report was released. It's an inaccurate claim he repeated often.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., asked the former special counsel about this claim during a congressional hearing: Did you actually totally exonerate the president?

No, Mueller said.

Mueller's written report was clear on this, too: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," the report reads in part. "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

In September, the president came under fire for tweeting that Hurricane Dorian was expected to hit Alabama despite the fact that the vast majority of forecasts said it would not, according to a review by The Associated Press.

The National Weather Service in Birmingham, Alabama, tweeted to say Dorian would not affect the state. The president continued to insist he was correct, even apparently altering a map with a marker in the Oval Office to reflect this view. While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would later offer a statement from an unidentified spokesman saying the president was right at the time, onlookers remained doubtful.

The president has repeatedly advocated against wind energy in a way that has perplexed scientists and fact checkers. In April, he said the noise from windmills cause cancer and are a graveyard for birds. They kill all the birds, he said in August.

The American Cancer Society has rejected the claim that windmills or the sound of them cause cancer. Wind turbines do kill birds, though cats and cell towers kill significantly more winged creatures.

"People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once. They end up using more water. So, EPA is looking at that very strongly, at my suggestion," Trump said in December, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Water preservation restrictions have been on the books since the 1990s dictating how much water is used by toilets, but theres no evidence that low-flow toilets are creating 10-plus flush situations for anyone. While Trump says he's ordered a review, the review was mandated by a 2018 law, Vox reported.

"Well be going to Mars very soon," Trump said in May during a news conference with the Japanese president.

This timeline is not accurate. There won't be Americans or anyone else on Mars for at least a decade, according to The Associated Press, which adds that international space agencies aspire to reach Mars in the 2030s.

The next month, Trump tweeted more about U.S. ambitions in space.

NASA should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science! Trump tweeted in June.

This confusingly-worded tweet suggests that the moon is part of Mars it is definitely not. Trump could have been referring to NASA's "Moon to Mars" program that would establish a human presence on the moon as part of its larger effort to get to Mars and beyond, but it's worth noting that the moon is a satellite of Earth.

"The wall still, obviously, has a ways to go, but were building it at a breakneck speed," Trump said in September.

Trump has been taking credit for building a new border wall for years now. It was 2018's top falsehood, and the claim was false for most of this year, too. But in late October, The New York Times reports, the Trump administration finally broke ground on a new stretch in Texas. Previously, the construction Trump boasted about amounted to the replacement of old sections not a new border barrier.

It's not the concrete wall Trump campaigned on, Mexico is still not paying for it, nor is the wall being built in Colorado, as Trump claimed in October, since the Centennial State does not border Mexico. But it is, at long last, a new stretch of border barrier for which he can claim credit.

Go here to read the rest:

President Donald Trump's 10 biggest false claims in 2019 and one that finally became true - NBC News

Trump campaigns with patriotism after airstrike but election is still far off – The Guardian

We have God on our side. They have long been some of the most chilling words in the English language. Perhaps never more so than when uttered by Donald Trump in a re-election campaign.

The president made the claim at an Evangelicals for Trump rally at a megachurch in Miami on Friday night, a day after taking America to the brink of war with the killing in Baghdad of Qassem Suleimani, Irans top general and potential future leader.

He was planning a very major attack, said Trump, against a backdrop of US flags, and we got him! The crowd many wearing Keep America Great hats, shirts and other regalia erupted in cheers and whistles.

It was a sure sign of how, impeached and facing a Senate trial as he may be, Trump is already campaigning with a toxic brew of audacity, patriotism and appeals to the almighty. Reflecting on his shock 2016 victory, he told the crowd in Miami: I really do believe we have God on our side. Were going to blow away those numbers in 2020.

For a political outsider who promised to upend Washington, it all sounds remarkably like an old-fashioned Republican pitch. It casts Trump as strongman commander-in-chief, exploiting what the rest of the world has long suspected is an American weakness for jingoism and imperialism. And it seeks to portray his Democratic opponent, whomever it may be, as soft on national security and insufficiently patriotic or Christian.

He was planning a very major attack and we got him!

As we speak, every Democrat candidate running for president is trying to punish religious believers and silence our churches and our pastors, Trump claimed spuriously in Miami, eliciting boos. Well, we can smile because were winning by so much.

Intriguingly, Trump singled out for criticism Pete Buttigieg, a leading Democratic candidate who is both a proud Christian and a military veteran. Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, tweeted in return: God does not belong to a political party.

Meanwhile a Trump campaign video depicts his predecessor, Barack Obama, as if through a dark-tinted lens and with nightmarish music as he talks about the campaign against Islamic State, then bursts into colour as it recounts the killing of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, last year. Trump declares: You dont stand a chance against the righteous might of the United States military.

Faced with this brutally simplistic message, Democratic candidates on Friday asked voters to hold two thoughts at the same time: yes, Suleimani was an enemy of America, but yes, it was also staggeringly reckless of Trump to direct the killing of a government official from another country with little regard for the consequences.

In their view, he is a child playing with matches. The question now is whether Iran will follow through on its promise of severe revenge and inflict American casualties, pushing foreign policy up an election agenda so far dominated by healthcare, immigration, taxes, gun control, the climate crisis and the presidents own competence and impeachable conduct.

If America pays in blood and treasure, Trump could be punished at the ballot box, especially as his first campaign was built around promises of America first isolation and withdrawing from endless wars in the Middle East.

The strike will definitely help Trump among his supporters. It is the kind of tough talk and action they seem to like

Monika McDermott, a political science professor at Fordham University in New York, said: The strike will definitely help Trump among his supporters. It is the kind of tough talk and action they seem to like. Whether it will have any effects outside of that remain to be seen.

Its still a long way to go for the general election. The only possible negative I can see from it, in terms of public opinion, is if it opens up a new type of conflict in the Middle East that drags on closer to the election.

Before then, the killing of Suleimani could shake up the Democratic primary, with the Iowa caucuses only a month away. It offers an opportunity for Joe Biden whose eight years as vice-president to Obama included the Iran nuclear deal, torn up by Trump to tout his foreign policy pedigree.

But it also offers anti-interventionist rivals, such as the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the chance to attack Bidens 2002 vote in favour of the Iraq war.

John Zogby, a Democratic pollster, said: Sanders can certainly take advantage of Bidens vote on the Iraq war and draw a straight line from there to the destabilisation of the Middle East. Biden can make up for it by saying we negotiated the Iran nuclear deal, they were abiding by the deal and now is this what we want?

But overall, in the warp speed of the scandal-strewn Trump presidency, it is impossible to know whether Suleimanis death will loom large or be a half-forgotten footnote come November. Unfortunately for Trump, that outcome may well depend on decisions made in Tehran rather than Washington.

Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said: We dont know how Iran is going to respond to it yet. We dont know exactly what it may or may not mean domestically here at home.

How do the American people digest all of this? Because its all happening so fast: people woke up this morning and, Oh! We just assassinated the No 2 in Iran.

See more here:

Trump campaigns with patriotism after airstrike but election is still far off - The Guardian

Trump and Pompeo are untrustworthy on Iran – Vox.com

Every international crisis generates more than its fair share of insta-experts, charlatans, and Wikipedia summarizers, so its probably best for political pundits to try to stick to subjects were genuinely knowledgeable about.

For example: President Donald Trump is a deeply dishonest person.

Since long before he was a politician, hes lied frequently and even written in multiple books about his profound belief in the value of lying as a means to get ahead. And hes good at it. After his Atlantic City casinos went bust, he successfully duped a bunch of mom-and-pop equity investors out of their money to get out of debt and had them pay him a salary for the privilege. He then got himself elected president and immediately started bullshitting about everything from the size of his inaugural crowds to the way NATO works to Chinese currency manipulation.

When someone has proven over and over again that they are not trustworthy, you can, and in important situations should, stop trusting them.

Unfortunately, in the escalating crisis with Iran, many people seem to have forgotten this basic principle.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went on CNN Friday morning to explain that the Trump administration killed a top Iranian general to forestall an imminent threat and that the decision to do so saved American lives. Those remarks are simply echoed uncritically in the Washington Posts main write-up of the story, along with the observation that Pompeo stressed that Washington is committed to de-escalation a fairly dubious assertion given the current cycle of escalating hostilities dates to Trumps unprovoked decision to pull out of the Iranian nuclear deal. An ABC News write-up stresses the risks of Iranian retaliation, but simply takes Pompeos claim of an imminent threat at face value.

Its obviously possible that this claim is true. But its somewhat at odds with the Department of Defenses statement Thursday night saying merely that Suleimani was actively developing plans for attacks and that the American bombing was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans rather than disrupting an ongoing one. And indeed, David Sangers news analysis in the New York Times takes the Pentagons deterrence account at face value without noting that the secretary of state actually claims the attack was about something else.

Beyond the contradictions, telling the truth about something would be a strange, new departure for the Trump administration, and it seems unwise to assume thats something they would do.

All politicians garner fact-checks, but Trump is so dishonest that CNNs Daniel Dale has a beat composed exclusively of keeping track of all the nonsense the president spouts, routinely generating headlines like Trump made 96 false claims over the last two weeks and Trump makes at least 18 false claims in ranting Fox & Friends interview.

The sheer range of things Trump lies about including recently claiming that the prime minister of Canada edited a version of Home Alone 2 to remove a Trump cameo is mind-boggling and goes way beyond any kind of normal political process.

Part of Trump lying about everything is that he frequently says things specifically about Iran that are not true. Back in July, for example, Trump tweeted about the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal that misstated the amount of money involved, misstated the duration of the deal, and fabricated secret Iranian violations of the agreement. It was not particularly clear at the time why Trump was lying about this stuff. But he lies so routinely about everything that people scarcely bother to inquire about what might be driving those specific lies.

Trump, from time to time, even lies about his own past statements on Iran, spending one day in September complaining that the media reported hed said he was willing to meet with Iranian leaders without preconditions when he clearly said in both an interview with Chuck Todd and a press conference with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte that he was willing to meet without preconditions.

The point is that the probative value of a Trump statement about Iran is, to be generous, roughly zero. And Pompeo is no better.

In the early Trump years, false things Pompeo said would often be contradicted by members of his team who valued their standing in polite society over loyalty to Trump.

Over time, people like former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats who were in the habit of doing that have been pushed out in favor of people like Pompeo. As the former CIA director, Pompeo distorted intelligence about Russia to fit Trumps preferred narratives. Then, as secretary of state, he misled the public about his role in the Ukrainian aid holdup that led to Trumps impeachment.

Pompeo, too, engages in routine misstatements about Iran specifically, including lies about Iranian nuclear research.

This is important because Pompeo has become the public face of the administration on this issue. Although Pompeo does not engage in the range of dishonest statements that Trump does, his more focused dishonesty does include statements on Iran.

I vividly recall spending much of the winter of 2002-2003 arguing with other college students about the then-looming US invasion of Iraq.

In the strongly anti-Bush climate on campus, one popular view was that the administration was simply lying about the strength of its intelligence on Iraqi WMD programs. I felt this was naive; the Bush team not only had direct access to the intelligence, but they were the ones pushing for an invasion that would, if it happened, end up exposing exactly what the state of those programs was. It was preposterous to believe, as my anti-war friends did, that Bushs team was deliberately engineering a series of events that would simply lead to them being utterly discredited.

This was, needless to say, flawed logic on my part that was really driven home last night as Bush administration officials Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer appeared on Sean Hannitys program to advocate for hawkish policy toward Iran.

Its scary to contemplate the possibility that the president would approach matters of war and peace with roughly the level of honesty and forethought that he brings to vital issues like Canadian edits of Home Alone 2.

Consequently, I understand the psychological impulse to set aside years worth of Trump fact-checking and put men with suits on television to explain whats happening with their secret intelligence. But this is a poor forecasting principle. Back in May, there was a sudden outburst of enthusiasm about Trumps nuclear diplomacy with Iran, complete with media scolding of churlish liberals who refused to give credit where due for a breakthrough. I was skeptical, based on the principle that you shouldnt trust liars, and I was right. Now the latest is that Trumps Korean diplomacy has completely collapsed, but its being overshadowed by Iran news.

The sad fact of the matter is that the world is a scary place. Powerful people lie, including about important matters. They sometimes dont get caught, and even when they do, they dont always suffer for it. I hope there was some kind of good reason to bomb that Baghdad airport and some kind of plan to deal with the aftermath. But all we really know is that the people in charge of explaining to us what happened and why arent worthy of our trust.

Go here to see the original:

Trump and Pompeo are untrustworthy on Iran - Vox.com

Trump’s lawless thuggery is corrupting justice in America – The Guardian

As the Senate moves to an impeachment trial and America slouches into this election year, the rule of law is center stage.

Yet Donald Trump is substituting lawless thuggery for impartial justice.

The biggest immediate news is the presidents killing of Qassem Suleimani. The act brings America to the brink of an illegal war with Iran without any congressional approval, in direct violation of Congresss war-making authority under the constitution.

But other presidents have disregarded Congresss war-making power, too. What makes Trump unique is the overall pattern. Almost wherever you look, he has shown utter disdain for law. Consider Trumps outing of the person who blew the whistle on his phone call to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy tweeting just after Christmas a link to a Washington Examiner article headlined with the presumed whistleblowers name, then retweeting a supporter who named the presumed whistleblower.

Even before outing the whistleblower, Trump had whipped his followers into a lather by calling the whistleblower a spy, guilty of treason.

The outing not only imperils the whistleblowers safety. It violates the purpose of the Whistleblower Act, which is to protect people who alert authorities that government officials are violating the law.

Its on this deeper level that Trumps lawlessness is most corrosive. From now on, anyone aware of illegality on the part of a government official, including a president, will think twice before sounding the alarm.

Trumps intrusion into the navys prosecution of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher on war crimes has the same corrosive effect.

Trump not only stopped the navy from possibly giving Gallagher a less-than-honorable discharge. Trump also upended the military code of justice, designed for the military to handle legal violations in its ranks, including war crimes.

Gallaghers Navy Seal accusers were themselves whistleblowers who broke the Seals code of silence in order to stop a rogue chief. Now they face recrimination from within the ranks. From now on, any soldier who witnesses a superior officer committing possible war crimes will be more reluctant to report them.

Similarly, Trumps ongoing intrusions into the justice department (DoJ) and the FBI arent just efforts to derail investigations of his wrongdoing. Theyre attacks on the system of impartial justice itself.

Trumps attorney general, William Barr, is supposed to be responsible to the American people. Instead hes become Trumps advocate. Barr even advised the White House not to turn over the whistleblower complaint to Congress.

After misleading the public on the contents of Robert Muellers report, Barr bowed to Trumps demand that the department look into the origin of the FBI investigation that had led to the Mueller report.

And now, after the DoJs own inspector general has found that the FBI had plenty of evidence to start its Russia inquiry more than 100 contacts between members of the Trump campaign and Russian agents during the 2016 campaign Barr refuses to be bound by the findings, and has appointed a prosecutor to launch yet another inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation.

The deeper systemic corrosion: from now on, attorneys general wont be presumed to be administering impartial justice, and the findings of special counsels and inspectors general will have less finality and legitimacy.

Barr is part of Trumps private goon squad, along with Rudy Giuliani, chief enabler Mick Mulvaney and Trumps resident white supremacist, Stephen Miller.

Giuliani is using the authority of the presidency to mount a rogue foreign policy designed to keep Trump in power. Its double lawlessness: Giuliani is bending the law and hes accountable to no one.

Miller, meanwhile, is waging Trumps ongoing war against people legally seeking asylum in the United States featuring family separations, caged children and inhumane detention.

Miller even got Trump to pardon Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff who was ordered by a federal judge to stop detaining people solely on suspicion of their immigration status. Arpaio disregarded the order, which is why he was convicted of criminal contempt of court.

From now on, rogue sheriffs will be less constrained.

You see the pattern: whistleblowers intimidated, the justice department politicized, findings of special counsels and inspectors general distorted or ignored, foreign policy made by a private citizen unaccountable to anybody, rogue military officers and rogue sheriffs pardoned.

Each instance is disturbing on its own. Viewed as a whole, Trumps lawlessness is systematically corrupting justice in the US.

Impartial justice is the keystone of a democracy. Even if the Senate fails to remove Trump for impeachable offenses, American voters must do so next November.

Continue reading here:

Trump's lawless thuggery is corrupting justice in America - The Guardian

Former Fox News reporter says Trump invited her to his office ‘so we can kiss’ – The Guardian

A former Fox News reporter has added her name to the list of nearly two dozen women who have accused Donald Trump of making unwanted sexual advances towards them. In a book published next week, the Fox & Friends fill-in host Courtney Friel claims Trump propositioned her before he became US president.

You should come up to my office sometime, so we can kiss, Friel says Trump told her, adding that he considered her the hottest one at Fox News.

The claims, reported by the New York Daily News, are contained in Friels upcoming memoir, Tonight At 10: Kicking Booze and Breaking News.

Friel, 39, says Trumps come-on was made during a phone call to her office weeks after she mentioned an interest in working as a judge on his Miss USA beauty pageant. She says she was shocked by the proposition, which came out of nowhere.

Donald, I responded, I believe were both married. I quickly ended the call, she wrote in her book.

This proposition made it difficult for me to report with a straight face on Trump running for president. It infuriated me that he would call all the women who shared stories of his bold advances liars. I totally believe them, she says.

Friel, who now works at KTLA in Los Angeles, joins a long line of accusers who say the president has sexually harassed or assaulted them.

In November, Summer Zervos, a former contestant Trumps The Apprentice reality TV show, presented court evidence to support claims that Trump sexually assaulted her in a hotel room in 2007. Zevos first made her claims in 2016 after audio emerged of Trump boasting to Access Hollywoods Billy Bush about grabbing womens genitals.

While Friel and Zevos claims are not as well known as those leveled by Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal, they bring the total number of women who have come forward accusing Trump of sexual misconduct of varying degrees to more than 20, according to a Guardian tally in November.

The White House claims the women are lying, while Trump has suggested some were not attractive enough for him to want to sexually assault.

Here is the original post:

Former Fox News reporter says Trump invited her to his office 'so we can kiss' - The Guardian

Trump tweets at AT&T to do something about CNN instead of AT&T layoffs – Vox.com

President Donald Trump is very mad about AT&T over CNN. The thousands of jobs its cutting, not so much.

The telecommunications giant, which acquired CNN through its $85 billion merger with Time Warner in 2018, has generated scrutiny among the press, organizers, and activists over job cuts it has made over the past several months. Most recently, Axios reported that thousands of AT&T workers were about to lose their posts after training foreigners in line to replace them this year. Trump has positioned himself as a job creator and a crusader against outsourcing, but when it comes to AT&T, hes not saying anything well, at least not about jobs. His focus is on his ongoing annoyance with CNN.

On Wednesday, three days after the Axios report, Trump took to Twitter to take a swipe at CNN after a supposed ratings dive and suggested parent-company AT&T should make changes. Its not clear what specific changes he would want.

This is hardly the first time Trump has called for AT&T to do something about CNN which presumably translates to shifting to coverage thats more favorable to him. He spoke out against the AT&T-Time Warner merger from the get-go, and while there were plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose the deal it marked a significant amount of consolidation in the media industry, and multiple lawmakers raised red flags about it Trumps animus toward CNN was evidently in play. He has called on AT&T to fire CNN chief Jeff Zucker, and over the summer, the president pushed for people to stop using or subscribing to AT&T in order to force changes at the network.

Workers and organizers say thousands of jobs have been lost at the company, and more are about to go out the door. But it appears the main job Trump is worried about at AT&T is Zuckers.

AT&T was a major beneficiary of the tax cut bill President Trump signed into law in December 2017. Before the legislation was even passed, the company said it would make investments that would translate to 7,000 good jobs for the middle class if it was enacted, and soon after, it made a splashy announcement about worker bonuses. But while the bonuses happened, not so much happened with the thousands of new jobs at least not for Americans.

According to the Communications Workers of America (CWA), which represents about 100,000 AT&T workers, AT&T has eliminated more than 33,000 jobs since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which saved it billions of dollars, was passed. And as Axios reported, the company has expanded alliances with major outsourcing companies that have allowed it to shift jobs abroad, and it is on track to do more of it in 2020.

They seem to be recommitting and doubling down on the job cuts and the outsourcing, Beth Allen, communications director at CWA, said in a phone interview. Allen said that call center and field technicians have been most affected by job cuts, while those in the wireless division have seen a lesser impact. And while the bonuses were nice, they were also a one-time benefit, not a long-term improvement.

Theyve only continued to cut jobs, and that money [AT&T got from the tax cuts], theyve been using it to buy back stock and do other things that benefit the shareholders and the executives in the company, Allen said.

According to estimates from CBS MoneyWatch, thanks to the tax cuts AT&T could save $42 billion over the course of a decade.

AT&T has also been under pressure from activist investor Elliott Management to make changes at the company. In October, it reached an agreement with the firm to boost stock buybacks, add board members, and enhance operational efficiency, among other measures. (Oftentimes, efficiency translates to job cuts in corporate speak.)

When Elliott first announced its involvement with AT&T, Trump weighed in but again, only on the CNN front. Months before, when 20,000 AT&T workers went on strike for four days over contract negotiations, Trump said nothing.

And now, with more AT&T jobs apparently about to disappear, the president is ignoring the matter and instead just paying attention to CNN. Sara Blackwell, a Florida lawyer who represents US workers displaced by foreign workers and spoke with Axios about AT&T, said in an email to Vox that she reached out to the White House about the matter but nothing was done.

AT&T and the White House did not return requests for comment for this story. An AT&T spokesperson told Axios that the company is continuously working to be more efficient in its operations and was trying to help employees find other positions in the company when possible.

You would think thousands of workers losing their jobs would be a decent reason for Trump to ask AT&T to do something, but instead, hes focused on CNN. In the battle over the CNN-Time Warner merger, his anger with the network often overshadowed his administrations opposition to the deal. There were certainly legitimate reasons to question the merger, but because of Trumps ongoing battle with the network, many questioned how much his personal vendetta was in play.

AT&T has responded to Trumps CNN focus. It paid Essential Consultants LLC, a shell company set up by now-imprisoned former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, for insights into the Trump administration after Trump was inaugurated. Documents obtained by the Washington Post confirmed that AT&T hoped Cohen would provide guidance on the Time Warner deal and steer it through regulatory scrutiny. AT&T confirmed the account, and CEO Randall Stephenson said the decision was a big mistake.

As Chris Welch wrote for The Verge in June, Stephenson has defended CNN since taking the network over:

When the White House temporarily revoked the press pass of reporter Jim Acosta, he publicly complained about it. You didnt like the line of questioning? Well, that kind of seems to be violative of our protections of freedom of the press, he said back in November. A couple months earlier in September, Stephenson said, weve seen no evidence that thats the case, when he was asked if Trumps hatred of CNN would cause trouble for AT&T in other areas. The contest is over and it seems that everybody is moving on.

Allen said that during the worker strike over the summer, some AT&T employees tried to direct Trumps attention to the matter over Twitter. Apparently, they failed.

See the rest here:

Trump tweets at AT&T to do something about CNN instead of AT&T layoffs - Vox.com

Already Had Plenty of Trump 2020? – The New York Times

Were now officially trudging through the new year. (And good luck on that healthier-living resolution.) This is when we adjust to the fact that nothing has changed. You werent allowed to toss Donald Trump out with the old. Although it would have been nice if hed at least have stayed quiet until all of the Christmas trees were down.

Instead, hes holding a big, presumably loud, rally Friday in Miami for evangelical supporters. Its supposed to be a response to the editorial in Christianity Today that called him morally lost and confused.

Lost? How can you call the man lost? Hes there in the place hes at.

The site of the rally, the King Jesus International Ministry church, has a large Hispanic congregation, and Pastor Guillermo Maldonado has told his parishioners to come to hear Trumps speech even if they dont have papers.

Explaining his confidence, Maldonado just said Im not that dumb. Perhaps hes been following the record of Trumps businesses, which have been rather low energy about checking for undocumented workers. His Virginia winery just got around to firing some longtime employees this week. Of course that had nothing to do with the difficulty getting other people to do the low-wage backbreaking labor. It was just slow paperwork.

But about politics in 2020: For Trump, right now its pretty much one rally after another. And the Democrats still have 15 presidential candidates. How many can you name? To be fair, Ill give you a passing grade if you can get to 12.

Trump might know less. At his rallies, he generally just mentions Elizabeth Warren (Crazy Pocahontas), Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, whose last name he enjoys making fun of.

He calls Biden Sleepy Joe, which is sort of dangerous given Bidens proclivity for challenging critics to push-up competitions. And Trump will never give up on the story about Biden family corruption in Ukraine, since the only downside to his version is its total inaccuracy.

Weve still got nearly two weeks to wait before the next Democratic debate, which happens to be the same night as a newly scheduled Trump rally in Wisconsin. Where, I would be willing to place a small bet, the subject will be the wonderfulness of Donald Trump.

Youre about to hear the greatest speech youve ever heard, he told the crowd at his most recent rally, in Battle Creek, Mich., right after reminiscing about how he won the state in 2016 and how, a decade or so before, he was named Man of the Year in Michigan. Can you believe it? he asked.

Well, actually no. FactCheck.org looked into the matter and determined Trump was referring to a 2013 dinner hosted by a county Republican Party organization, which presented him with token gifts including a statuette of Abraham Lincoln. But apparently Trump did not get any special commendations, let alone a man of the year award.

I dont think our president should just let this kind of back talk go unchallenged. Lets send Rudy Giuliani to Michigan to investigate.

Ah, Rudy. Cant really plunge into 2020 without taking a bet on what hell do next. He seems to be running many of the governments most critical foreign policy initiatives despite the fact that he is (A) Not a government employee; (B) Doing private business with many of the movers and shakers involved; and (C) At best, borderline nuts.

What do you think will happen with Giuliani in the new year? Cabinet appointment? F.B.I. indictment? Relocation to a drying-out clinic? Hey, maybe all three. At the same time. Anythings possible in this administration.

Safe prediction for 2020 is that Trump will spend most of it bragging about the economy unless something happens to the economy, in which case he will focus on his second-biggest achievement, which would be, um, perhaps helping nail down the 2028 Summer Olympics.

In Michigan, Trump told his supporters how a man had come up and reported that his wife always thought he was a loser until his 401(k) started climbing: Im up 72 percent, sir. She thinks Im a financial genius. Shes so in love with me.

Two short comments, one of which is that this doesnt sound like a very secure marriage. The other is that when Trump starts telling stories, virtually everybody he quotes calls him Sir. Do you think anybody gets a dispensation? Rudy? Jared? Well, probably Melania.

There are bound to be a few things that are new for the new year. For instance, hes just started slamming environmentalism by decrying the evils of reduced water consumption. (You want to wash your hands, you turn on the sink, no water comes out.)

On the night he was being impeached that would be during the Michigan rally Trump went on a rant about low-flow toilets that he claimed required flushing 10 times. He then pointed to a supporter in the crowd and said: Not me, of course, not me. But you. Him.

Do you think that guy went home and told his family that the president of the United States picked him out as a person who required a lot of water when he went to the bathroom? Would he have been astonished? Embarrassed? Horrified?

Whatever it was, sir, we all know how you feel.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read more:

Already Had Plenty of Trump 2020? - The New York Times

House counsel warns of ‘gun battle’ in fight for Trump info – Roll Call

A federal appeals court in Washington heard warnings Friday that how they rule in the House Judiciary Committees legal fights for information from the Trump administration could spark an avalanche of congressional lawsuits, or even a potential gunfight between the House sergeant at arms and the FBI security detail for Attorney General William Barr.

Two separate panels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard nearly three hours of oral argument on two committee cases related to former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller IIIs report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Both were filed months before the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump on his dealings with Ukraine.

[House contends it still needs court help to get Mueller info]

The committee filed a lawsuit to force former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify about episodes from Muellers report. In the other case, the committee wants access to secret grand jury materials from that same investigation.

Lower courts have ruled that McGahn must testify before the committee and the Justice Department must give the grand jury material to the committee. The D.C. Circuit panels can now decide at any time whether those rulings were right.

In the McGahn case, Hashim Moopan of the Justice Department urged the judges to rule that they must stay out of what was essentially a purely political fight. The House contends that Trump is conducting broad obstruction of Congress, while Trump contends the House is conducting an illegitimate investigation into a president.

A ruling that the House can go to the courts to enforce a subpoena against executive branch officials such as McGahn means that the court will have to decide similar cases over and over, Moopan said, and the public will wonder why the courts are deciding who is right.

This court will be in the business of resolving disputes between the branches over information, Moopan said. It wont be good for the courts, and it frankly wont be good for either of the political branches, because sometimes the House will lose some of those cases and then they will have less power than they had before.

Instead, Moopan suggested that Congress has a lot of tools to compel the executive branch to turn over information, such as blocking appropriations, other legislation or nominations.

Things turned a little wilder in the argument on the case about grand jury materials, when Judge Neomi Rao asked House General Counsel Doug Letter a hypothetical question.

Rao asked: If the D.C. Circuit authorized the House to get the grand jury information from the Justice Department instead of ordered the DOJ to turn it over as the lower court had done would the House have to then have to subpoena the Justice Department for that information?

Rao said she was unable to find any case in which a court ordered the DOJ to release grand jury information to Congress, and that the Justice Department couldnt tell them today whether the Justice Department would turn the information over without an order to do so.

Letter said it was stunning to think that Barr would not turn over the information if the D.C. Circuit ruled that the House was entitled to it. The House would have to send out its sergeant at arms to collect the grand jury information if the court did not order the DOJ to turn it over, Letter said.

Thats why we dont do that anymore. We dont have the sergeant at arms go out and arrest people, and maybe have a gun battle with Mr. Barrs FBI security detail. Instead, we go to court, Letter said. Everybody has recognized that we go to court.

Letter said theres no case that comes anywhere close to saying Congress cannot go to court to enforce its investigatory powers for oversight or impeachment.

And Letter had some sarcasm for the argument that Congress should forgo lawsuits and instead use its inherent contempt power to physically arrest those who dont turn over information to Congress which hasnt been used since the 1920s or its appropriations power.

The sergeant at arms will arrest Attorney General Barr next time hes up at Congress, Ive run into him in the halls there, so next time hes there well just arrest him, Letter said. And we can we can go about it that way, or we can shut down the government. Theres a great way for Congress to get information, well shut down the entire government for a couple of months. We saw what a disaster that was.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone.

Excerpt from:

House counsel warns of 'gun battle' in fight for Trump info - Roll Call

Trump says US does not seek war or regime change in Iran, but is still ready to act if ‘necessary’ – CNBC

President Donald Trump said Friday that America does not seek "regime change" in Iran, less than a day after the U.S. launched an airstrike that killed the country's top general, Qasem Soleimani.

But the U.S. is "ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary" if Iran threatens American lives, Trump added.

"We took action last night to stop a war," the president said in his first television address since Soleimani's death was announced Thursday night. "We did not take action to start a war."

Soleimani "made the death of innocent people his sick passion," Trump said from his Palm Beach, Florida, resort, Mar-a-Lago. "We caught him in the act and terminated him."

He took no questions from reporters.

On a call with reporters Friday, National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien described the U.S. strike as a "straightforward decision."

O'Brien, who was with Trump during the strike, said the U.S. had credible intelligence that Iran was mounting an attack. He did not specify what kind of intelligence the U.S. had.

Soleimani, who led a special forces unit of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, has been a key figure in Iranian and Middle East politics. He and an aide were killed in a U.S. airstrike at Baghdad's international airport.

His death exacerbated already-high tensions between Iran and the U.S., and triggered concerns of retaliation from Iran and proxy forces.

On the heels of Thursday's attack, the Department of Defense issued a statement saying that the strike was aimed at "deterring future Iranian attack plans" and that the U.S. military would continue to "take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world."

A senior State Department official, who was authorized to speak on condition of anonymity, told reporters Friday that Soleimani had planned attacks that targeted U.S. diplomats and military personnel in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East.

The latest revelations come days after Iran-backed militias attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The two-day embassy assault prompted Trump to order the initial deployment of approximately 750 soldiers from the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East.

On Thursday, before the U.S. airstrike that killed Soleimani, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told reporters at the Pentagon that the U.S. may conduct preemptive strikes against Iranian-backed militias.

"If we get word of attacks, we will take preemptive action as well to protect American forces, protect American lives. The game has changed," Esper said.

In the wake of the U.S. drone strike, Trump approved another deployment Friday of approximately 3,500 troops to the region.

After Trump's unannounced speech, he departed Mar-a-Lago en route to Miami, where he was scheduled to attend the launch of his 2020 presidential campaign's "Evangelicals for Trump" coalition.

More than three dozen influential evangelical leaders are expected to attend, a Trump campaign source told CNBC.

CNBC's Yelena Dzhanova contributed to this report.

See more here:

Trump says US does not seek war or regime change in Iran, but is still ready to act if 'necessary' - CNBC

Stop saying Biden is the ‘most electable’. Trump will run rings round him – The Guardian

Supporters of Joe Biden are unlikely to be persuaded by most of the common criticisms. They know he can be rambling and unintelligible. They know his record is unimpressive and that he doesnt really have policy proposals. None of this matters, though, because to them he has the most important quality of all: he can beat Donald Trump. Nothing you can say about the former vice-presidents record, platform or mental state matters next to the argument that he is the best hope Democrats have of getting Trump out of office.

Theres just one problem: its a myth. It is a myth just as it was a myth that Hillary Clinton was a good candidate against Trump. Biden is not, in fact, the pragmatic choice. He would not beat Trump. He would lose. And we must say this over and over again. Forget his flubs. Forget his finger-nibbling. Biden would be crushed by Trump. If you want Trump out of office, dont support Biden.

Last time round, Clinton supporters lived in a strange kind of denial. Anyone could see she had unique vulnerabilities Trump could exploit. She was a Wall Street candidate, and he was running to drain the swamp. She was under investigation by the FBI, and his pitch was that Washington was corrupt. She had supported the catastrophic Iraq war, and he portrayed himself as an outsider opponent of those wars. Trump could run to her left and make criticisms she would be unable to respond to, because they were accurate. Clintons attempts to attack Trump as an out-of-touch, reckless billionaire sex criminal would fail, because Trump would point out that she herself was out of touch, bought by billionaires and had an unrepentant alleged sex criminal as her husband and chief campaign surrogate.

Joe Biden will face many of the same problems. He has been in Washington since the age of 30, representing Delaware, the capital of corporate America. He is infamous for his connections to the credit card industry, and he has lied about his degree of support for the Iraq war. Even Matthew Yglesias of Vox calls Biden the Hillary Clinton of 2020 for his corporate ties and war support. It is worth remembering what being the Hillary Clinton of anything means in an election against Trump.

Consider the Ukraine scandal, which is far worse for Biden electorally than usually acknowledged. Democrats have made this the centerpiece of their impeachment case against Trump, setting aside Trumps most consequential crimes in order to focus on the charge that Trump tried to force the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. For Democrats, the scandal is clear-cut: Trump was abusing the power of his office to damage a political rival. And they believe that the American people will agree, and will be disturbed by Trumps unethical behavior. They insist there was no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong, and that Trump and his associates have been unfairly trying to smear Biden.

Democrats who think this way are walking into a buzzsaw. Let us recall: Hunter Biden was paid up to $50,000 a month by a Ukrainian oil company. Officially, the chief Ukrainian prosecutor had an open investigation into that company. Joe Biden bragged about pressuring Ukraine to fire that prosecutor, which they did. Hunter Biden says he told his father about his position in Ukraine, and Joe Biden did not ask him to step down. Joe Biden contradicts his sons story, saying they never discussed Hunter Bidens work in Ukraine. One of them is not telling the truth.

If there are Joe Biden supporters in your life, you need to have serious conversations with them

Defenders of the Bidens like to point out that the prosecutor was fired for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with Hunter Biden. In fact, there was widespread pressure to fire the prosecutor because he wasnt doing enough on corruption investigations, and there was a consensus among experts that this was the case. Bidens actions had absolutely nothing to do with his son and it is ridiculous to suggest that they did.

All this is true. But the important question is: does it sound good? And the answer is: no. It sounds terrible.

One reason Democrats are bad at politics is that they concern themselves too much with facts and not enough with impressions. With Clintons emails scandal, they tried to show Clinton had not technically violated the law, but having Barack Obamas FBI actively investigating Clinton for possible criminal wrongdoing looked terrible regardless of the facts.

Left-leaning journalists and pundits love to fact-check Trump, as if proving that he has lied is in itself persuasive. But 2016 should have showed us how powerless debunking is next to optics. If you have a Democratic candidate who looks really corrupt, it doesnt matter if theyre not. People dont trust the press and they dont trust politicians.

Imagine Biden running against Trump. Trump will run ads like this, over and over. Good luck responding. Remember that time you have to spend defending yourself against Trumps accusations is time not spent talking about issues that affect peoples lives. And Biden has already shown little interest in drawing peoples attention to the areas where Democrats should run strong against Trump, such as healthcare, taxation, working conditions and the climate crisis.

His slogan is no malarkey, but since Biden himself is a longtime spewer of malarkey, Trump will successfully paint Biden as a hypocrite. Bidens central case is that he is not Trump, that he will return the country to virtuousness and decency. But if Biden doesnt actually look virtuous and decent because he isnt the argument that he has made for himself collapses completely.

Biden does have some strengths against Trump that Clinton did not. We mock his his rambling and tendency for gaffes, but these do mean he never sounds like a scripted politician. Clinton was criticized as robotic and focus-grouped. Biden is anything but focus-grouped; whatever pops into his head comes out his mouth.

At the same time, compared to Trump, Biden has:

Ask yourself: how likely is such a candidate to win? Is such a person really the one you want to run against Trump? Look at the enthusiasm Trump gets at his rallies. It is real. Trump has fans, and theyre highly motivated. How motivated are Bidens fans? Is Biden going to fill stadiums? Are people going to crisscross the country knocking on doors for him? Say what you want about Clinton, but there were some truly committed Clinton fans, and she had a powerful base of support. By comparison, Biden looks weak, and Trump is savagely effective at preying on and destroying establishment politicians.

Complicated factchecks that attempt to explain the nuances of the Ukrainian criminal prosecution system will not help Biden. Peoples already limited enthusiasm for Biden will further wane, and Trump will point to his strong economy and job creation as evidence Obama and Biden were weak failures. Biden will look tired and irrelevant, and possibly forget why he is even running in the first place. Trump will be re-elected comfortably.

If there are Biden supporters in your life, you need to have serious conversations with them. Do not dwell on things that do not matter to them, like Bidens record on bussing, or his latest nonsensical comment. Instead, keep the focus on the main argument that is sustaining his campaign: the idea that he is the best candidate to beat Trump. He isnt. His electability is a myth, and when we look honestly at the facts we can see that Biden is actually a dangerously poor candidate to run.

Follow this link:

Stop saying Biden is the 'most electable'. Trump will run rings round him - The Guardian

Here Are All the Books Donald Trump Recommended in 2019 – Slate

Why buy one copy when you could have five?

Johannes Eisele/Getty Images

Over the weekend, former President Barack Obama released lists of his favorite books, movies, and TV shows from 2019, and once again the internet is ablaze with fond reminiscences of the good old days, when the empire had better table manners. Comparing reading and viewing habits has always struck me as a strange way to judge politicians; it doesnt really matter if the boot stamping on a human face knows it is alluding to Orwell. But if taste is a notoriously unreliable measure of virtue, let alone presidential ability, its an extremely reliable measure of taste. So here is a list of every book Donald Trump recommended on Twitter in 2019. As youll see, while Barack Obamas list represents a broad sampling of the planets cultural output, Trumps interests are narrower. Much, much narrower.

Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency, by Andrew C. McCarthy.

The Case Against Socialism, by Rand Paul.

The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free, by Rich Lowry.

The Case for Trump, by Victor Davis Hanson.

Choosing the Extraordinary Life: Gods 7 Secrets for Success and Significance, by Robert Jeffress.

Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump, by George Papadopoulos.

Exonerated: The Failed Takedown of President Donald Trump by the Swamp, by Dan Bongino.

Game of Thorns: The Inside Story of Hillary Clintons Failed Campaign and Donald Trumps Winning Strategy, by Doug Wead.

The Harder You Work, the Luckier You Get, by Joe Ricketts.

Inside Trumps White House: The Real Story of His Presidency, by Doug Wead.

Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino.

Our Lost Declaration: Americas Fight Against Tyranny From King George to the Deep State, by Mike Lee.

Paloma Wants to Be Lady Freedom, by Rachel Campos-Duffy.

The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Scandal in U.S. History, by Lee Smith.

Power Grab: The Liberal Scheme to Undermine Trump, the GOP, and Our Republic, by Jason Chaffetz.

Radicals, Resistance, and Revenge: The Lefts Plot to Remake America, by Jeanine Pirro.

The Real Deal: My Decade Fighting Battles and Winning Wars With Trump, by George A. Sorial and Damian Bates.

Rebuilding Sergeant Peck: How I Put Body and Soul Back Together After Afghanistan, by John Peck, Dava Guerin, and Terry Bivens.

Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America, by Kimberley Strassel.

Sacred Duty: A Soldiers Tour of Arlington National Cemetery, by Tom Cotton.

Still Winning: Why America Went All In on Donald Trumpand Why We Must Do It Again, by Charles Hurt.

Taken for Granted: How Conservatism Can Win Back the Americans That Liberalism Failed, by Gianno Caldwell.

Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us, by Donald Trump Jr.

Unfreedom of the Press, by Mark R. Levin.

What Really Happened: How Donald J. Trump Saved America From Hillary Clinton, by Howie Carr.

Why We Fight: Defeating Americas EnemiesWith No Apologies, by Sebastian Gorka.

Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History, by Gregg Jarrett.

With All Due Respect: Defending America With Grit and Grace, by Nikki R. Haley.

Wow! Those are definitely all books! As for TV and movies, besides his constant bragging about The Apprentice and obsessive love for Fox & Friends, this appears to be the only television program Donald Trump recommended all year:

While its impossible to predict which books, movies, and television shows Donald Trump will recommend in 2020, it seems like its extremely easy to predict why he will recommend them. Start retitling your upcoming work now.

More:

Here Are All the Books Donald Trump Recommended in 2019 - Slate