Monthly Archives: June 2017

New York Times

Moving to Scuttle Obama Legacy, Donald Trump to Crack Down on Cuba New York Times WASHINGTON President Trump on Friday will move to halt the historic rapprochement between the United States and Cuba set in motion by former President Barack Obama, delivering a speech in Miami in which he plans to announce he is clamping down ... Trump to unveil new Cuba travel restrictions in aim to slam regime's human rights recordCNBC Donald Trump's Cuba policy restricts travel, business with militarySun Sentinel Donald Trump's new hardline policy on Cuba is yet another gift to RussiaQuartz Politico all 151 news articles »

See the original post here:

Moving to Scuttle Obama Legacy, Donald Trump to Crack Down on Cuba - New York Times

From his rise in Manhattan social circles to his career as a real estate developer to his time as a reality TV star, he's always employed these same basic tactics. If someone writes or says something Trump doesn't like, he either threatens to or actually sues while simultaneously pushing out a counter-narrative aimed at discrediting the initial report and turning the story toward more favorable ground for him.

Everything is to be treated as a tabloid story that can be shaped, changed, rebutted, knocked down and torn apart though force of will -- and words.

It's worked remarkably well for Trump. And so it shouldn't be all that surprising that he's brought that blueprint to Washington with him.

Except that the White House -- and the political and legal worlds it touches -- isn't the same thing that Trump is used to facing. Not at all. The rules governing this world aren't the rules of the tabloids of New York City media. Bob Mueller isn't some "Page Six" reporter.

Trump doesn't seem to have even the slightest understanding of that distinction. His twin tweets Thursday morning make that point better than I ever could.

This is standard-issue stuff in the Trump playbook. When attacked, attack back -- harder. Go after the story in big, broad ways -- "total hoax" is one way Trump has described the federal investigation -- and assume that the average person won't consume enough details or follow it closely enough to see whether you're right or wrong.

But this investigation isn't anything like what Trump has faced before. He can't simply say this is all a "witch hunt" or a "hoax" and have it disappear. Short of firing Mueller, which seems to me incredibly unlikely -- particularly after the leak of the obstruction investigation -- Trump can't stop it. The investigation will proceed no matter what Trump says about it or who involved in it he calls names. It will also, eventually, reach some conclusions about the nature of Russia's hacking of the election and whether or not there was any collusion in that effort by any member of the Trump campaign.

That train has already left the station. And Trump's ability to derail it is decidedly limited.

That doesn't mean Trump's use of his tried and true "attack, pivot, declare victory" strategy against Mueller and the special counsel investigation won't have any impact.

The more Trump casts the investigation as biased and unfairly targeted at him, the more his supporters will believe that it is. Which means that if Trump either fires Mueller -- again, that is so hard to imagine -- or works to discredit the final conclusions of the special counsel, there will be a ready bloc of his supporters eager to adopt and spread that message.

"I told you this whole special counsel was a witch hunt," you can imagine Trump saying to nods from his supporters. "Of course they concluded I was in the wrong. They had decided that before they even started investigating. We need to drain the swamp and make America great again."

That line will work with his supporters. But it won't change the underlying facts Mueller unearths -- and the reverberations they could cause among everyone outside of Trump's most loyal backers.

Trump is a blunt instrument. He knows one way of doing things. And that way has always worked for him. But this investigation is both more serious than anything Trump has faced before.

Almost everyone grasps that. Everyone except Donald John Trump, that is.

Read more:

Donald Trump doesn't get the special counsel investigation. And he's never going to. - CNN

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull mimicked President Trump during a leaked speech at a ball in Australia hosted by the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery on June 14. (AP)

You know what they say: In the age of smartphones, there's no such thing as off the record.

It's a lesson Australias prime minister just learned the hard way.

On Thursday, Malcolm Turnbull delivered a jovial speech at Parliament House's annual press ball, the equivalent of the White House Correspondents' Association dinner. In it, he made fun of the Australian government's dismal poll rankings. And he did so usinga verbal tick made popular by a certain world leader.

Donald and I, we are winning and winning in the polls, Turnbull said. We are winning so much. We are winning like we have never won before.To raucous laughter, he continued: We are winning in the polls. We are, we are not the fake polls, not the fake polls theyre the one were not winning in. Were winning in the real polls, you know, the online polls. They are so easy to win.

Though the speech was off the record, it was recorded on a phone and broadcast by the Nine Network.

Turnbullalso referenced Trump's Russia troubles. Referencing his supposed glowing polls, Turnbull asked: Did you know that? I know that, did you know that? I kind of know that. I know that. They are so easy to win. I have this Russian guy.

The prime minister later tried to walk back his remarks, telling Melbourne Radio 3AW that he was disappointed by the leak. Its a breach of protocol; its a breach of faith and all those things, he said. Though he also noted the obvious:He was only kidding. Its lighthearted, its affectionate, good-natured and the butt of my jokes was myself, the prime minister said.

The U.S. Embassyin Canberra released a statement saying it takes the impersonation with the good humor that was intended.

We understand that last nights event is equivalent to our own White House correspondents dinner, the embassy's statement reads.

Historically, Australia has been one of America's closest allies, though that relationship has been tested under Trump. Turnbull's first telephone call with Trump was, in the president's words, testy.Trump was surprised and angry to learn about a deal that required the United States to accept about 1,250 refugees who had made their way to Australia.

Since then, though, the pair has made an effort to appear close, at least in public. Turnbull is rarely critical of the U.S. president, and even shares some of his hard-line views about immigration.

The head of the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery, which hosted the event, said he was disappointed that the non-publication agreement had been breached. But Laurie Oakes, who broke the story, said he had not attended the ball and did not think that journalists should be in the business of letting politicians go off the record at events they host.

The idea that there be no leak with hundreds of people in the room armed with mobile phones is just ridiculous, Oakes told the Associated Press.

See the article here:

Australian leader is on the hot seat for making fun of Donald Trump - Washington Post

That was 219 days ago.

And yet, on Thursday afternoon, Trump sent two tweets attacking his former opponent.

What these twin tweets suggest is something we already knew: Trump just can't quit the 2016 election, and Clinton.

He spent weeks reveling in his stunning win. He reminded anyone who asked -- and lots of people who didn't -- that he had won over 300 electoral votes, a feat people said was impossible for any Republicans. As his 100th day in office approached, Trump handed out electoral maps to reporters coming to talk to him about what he had done for those first 100 days.

Huge framed electoral maps were shown being brought into the White House.

The 2016 election represented Trump's greatest triumph, his life's work: Proving that all the elites who mocked him or said he couldn't do something were mistaken all along. They had to eat their words. He was right. Everyone else was wrong. The end.

Then there's the fact that Trump also works better when he has someone or something to run against. In Clinton, he found a perfect opponent -- someone as cautious as he was risky, someone as insider as he was outsider, someone as mannered as he was unruly.

The problem for Trump is that he won the election. It's over. Has been for a long time. (We are now closer to November 2017 than we are to November 2016.)

In winning, he became the president. And what the current president does or has done matters a whole lot more than what a losing candidate for president does, in the eyes of our criminal and legal systems.

(That's not unique to Trump. Many members of Congress -- of both parties -- have resigned in the face of legal problems, knowing that a former House member is a lot less juicy of a target than a sitting one.)

Then there are the specifics of the allegations Trump is making against Clinton in his tweets.

Here's the key paragraph:

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well."

What Trump is arguing is, essentially, that the questions about the uranium mine sale and the plane visit should take precedence over the "hoax" that is the investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election, potential collusion with his campaign and the possibility that he obstructed justice in the probe.

That is, of course, a matter of personal opinion -- and one Trump is very much entitled to. But remember that the special counsel was appointed by the deputy attorney general within the Trump administration. Bob Mueller was deputy AG Rod Rosenstein's pick, not Clinton's, or anyone else's. This was not a partisan action.

Trump is a victim of his own success here.

He won the election. He is the President -- and the most powerful person in the country. That means he gets a level of scrutiny no one else does. Particularly when there is so much smoke swirling regarding the ties between Russia and his campaign, and his decision to fire Comey in the midst of a federal investigation into those allegations.

Trump can try to distract. He can try to deflect. He can complain about Clinton's alleged transgressions. But what he can't change is the fact that he is President, and this investigation isn't going to disappear just because he sent two -- or two hundred -- tweets about Clinton.

See original here:

Memo to Donald Trump: The election ended 219 days ago. You won. - CNN International

The Senate approved the bill 98-2, with Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont voting against the measure. The bill, which includes both Russian and Iranian sanctions, now heads to the House, which still needs to pass it before it goes to President Donald Trump's desk.

The measure is widely seen as a rebuke to Trump, as it hits Russia with new sanctions to punish Moscow for its interference in US elections, as well as over Moscow's aggression in Ukraine and Syria.

The bill establishes a review process for Congress to have a say whether the White House eases Russia sanctions. It also establishes new sanctions against those conducting cyberattacks on behalf of the Russian government as well as supplying arms to Syrian President Bashar Assad, and it allows for sanctions to hit Russia's mining, metals, shipping and railways sectors.

"We moved to make the Congress, not the President, the final arbiter of sanctions relief when necessary," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. "Any idea of the President that he can lift sanctions on his own for whatever reason are dashed by this legislation."

The Russia sanctions measure was added as an amendment to an Iranian sanctions bill, after a deal was struck between the heads of the Senate Foreign Relations and Banking Committees. The Russia amendment was added to the sanctions bill in a 97-2 vote on Wednesday.

Despite the overwhelming vote, the Russia sanctions package was no sure thing. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker of Tennessee had initially been hesitant to take it up, as the administration had expressed a hope it could improve relations with Moscow.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said this week that he was wary of Congress taking actions that could interfere with the administration's efforts to improve relations with Russia.

"What I wouldn't want to do is close the channels off," Tillerson told a Senate committee.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday that the Trump administration is "committed to existing sanctions against Russia" but is "still reviewing the new Russia sanctions amendment."

"We will keep them in place until Moscow fully honors its commitment to resolve the crisis in Ukraine," Sanders said. "We believe the existing executive branch sanctions regime is the best tool for compelling Russia to fulfill its commitments."

Still, Corker and other Republicans said they expect Trump to sign the bill if it's passed by the House.

"I called over myself yesterday and just shared some thoughts with them. But look, this bill is going to become law," Corker told reporters on Wednesday. "I've had conversations with Tillerson more generally about our relationship with Russia, not about details (of the legislation)."

The Senate also passed two amendments before approving the bill. The first was a technical change that the sanctions would not apply to NASA and commercial space launches, as Russian rocket engines are used for the American Atlas V and Antares rockets.

The second reaffirmed "the strategic importance of Article 5" in NATO, the principle that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all members of the alliance.

CNN's Dan Merica contributed to this report.

More:

Senate passes Russia sanctions bill, pushing back against Trump - CNN

I reply to President Donald Trump'stweets sometimes.

I'm not proud of it. It's a compulsion, like biting fingernails or eating all the Doritos in the bag at once. When I wake up and see a blustery new message from our tweeter-in-chief, what am I supposed to do?Walk away? Perform yoga stretches? No. I carve out a snarkyretort. If I'm fast enough, I watch the likes and retweets roll in at lightning speed. (This is the 2017 equivalent of commenting "FIRST!" on an explosive message board thread.)

Sometimes, I try to debunk the misinformation Trump sharesthe false claimsabout an apologyletter from The New York Times, for instance, or the lies about his approval ratings. Other times, I just tweet Borat jokes.

Culture Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek Culture delivered to your inbox

Again: Not proud. The sight of some verified nobody pumping out atweetstorm in Trump's mentions has become such aclich that there are now numerous profiles of the people who do this every day. The genre is very ripe forparody:

I won't pretend this is some noble act of resistance (or, as they say, #resistance). It's just a quick shot ofdopamine when my tweet blows up. Plus, it'smomentarily satisfying to be able to talk back to Trump on the public medium he can'tstay away from. There isno historical precedent for Trump'sTwitter. The president of the United States communicates directly with us in unfiltered outbursts when he's at his angriest, and we get to respond. It's weird. Sometimes he even sees the responses. And then he gets madder.

On Thursday, Trump, or somebody with access to his account, must have seen my response to one of his tweets.I know this, because he blocked me.

The block came shortly after Trump tweeted about being caught in"the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history." (Presumably, he is referring to the Russia investigation.) The president's use of the phrase "witch hunt" is curious butahistorical. I sent a snarky reply telling Trump to stop comparing himself to witches, who've been persecuted far more than he is:

A few minutes later, I checked to see if Trump had done any more tweets. Instead, I found that he had blocked me. (If you're new to Twitter, this means I can't tweet at him or read his tweets anymore.)

Was I blocked due to a pattern of behavior or because that one joke hurt Trump's feelings? No idea.It would be flattering to think that the president has read the articles I've written about him, like the one in which I relayed the stories behind his terrible movie cameos or the one where I profiled his celebrity admirers. But that seems unlikely, since they don't get discussedonFox&Friends. Plus, Trump doesn't really seem to read,anyway.

Related: The ridiculous stories behind Donald Trump's movie and TV cameos

I'm not the first to be blocked. Trump has been making liberal use of the feature lately. He blocked the writer Bess Kalb, who frequently mocks his tweets. He evenblocked Stephen King the other day. Fellow author J.K. Rowling kindly offered to DM Trump's tweets to King:

In fact, Ashley Feinberg, over at Wired, has a running list of people Trump has blocked on Twitter. For a certain breed of journalist, being insulted by Trump is a badge of honor. CNN'sChris Cillizza, for instance, has had an unflattering quote from Trump in his Twitter bio for yearsproof that even a broken clock is right twice a day:

Chris Cillizza's Twitter bio. twitter.com

So I'm not alone. After I revealed I'd been blocked, I got some interesting replies. Random Trump-haters started tweeting at me with a strange mix of congratulations ("Welcome to the #BlockedByTrump club drinks are at 6," tweeted@BrandonTXNeely) and messages of condolence. "Wow, another one down," tweeted@MissNeverTrump, as though I'd been slain on the front lines of some war. One person shared a memethat says, "Live your life in such a way that Donald Trump blocks you on Twitter." (I assume this is an ancient Greek proverb.) Even the actress who voicedDil Pickles on Rugrats swung by to voice her support.

Meanwhile, I received a new wave ofvitriol from Trump supporters. One guy asked me if I support the recent shooting ofRepublicanRepresentative Steve Scalise. (I don't!) Another Twitter user called me a "dumb ass dork not worth anybody's time." (Tough, but fair.)

The weird thing about being blocked by Trump is that I can no longer look at his tweets, unless I open an incognito browser that was probably intended for porn, not statements from the president. This has worrisome constitutional implications. TheKnight First Amendment Institute has argued that Trump is violating people's right to free speech when he blocks them on Twitter.The Institute has threatened to file a lawsuit. "If theres any kind of forum the government is operating for expression, it may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint," a senior fellow at the Institute told Wired.

Meanwhile, I now have no idea whether Trump has tweeted in the last hour. Is this whatfreedom feels like?

Actually, you know what? J. K. Rowling, if you're reading this, can you DM Trump's tweets to me, too?

The rest is here:

Donald Trump Blocked Me on Twitter for Telling Him He's Not as Cool as Witches - Newsweek