TRUMP Thread

Immigration bills fail in Congress, leaving ‘dreamers’ in limbo

By Ed O'Keefe, David Nakamura, Mike DeBonis
February 15, 2018 at 7:42 PM

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...3fe_story.html

Weeks of intense negotiations for a bipartisan deal on immigration collapsed in Congress on Thursday, leaving hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants facing possible deportation.

The rejection of four proposals in the Senate, coupled with a lack of consensus in the House, underscored the immense political pressures on Republicans and Democrats alike.

Immigration has proved in*trac*table for years, vexing lawmakers and presidents of both parties. Breaking the stalemate in an election year seemed even more unlikely.

In a sharp rebuke, the Republican-led Senate blocked an immigration plan backed by President Trump, with the bill mustering just 39 votes. It highlighted the divisions even within GOP ranks, with some wary that granting legal status to undocumented immigrants would amount to amnesty.

The House offered no answers, with conservatives threatening Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) unless he pushes a bill that provides only temporary work permits for dreamers, while also imposing border-security measures and restrictions on legal immigration that go beyond what Trump has proposed.

“I don’t think the president helped very much, but the bottom line is the demagogues won again on the left and the right,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).

How the Trump administration and Congress will resolve the fate of dreamers — undocumented immigrants who were brought into the country as children — remained unclear Thursday, but several senators said they hoped a solution could be included in a sweeping spending plan that must be passed by March 23.

Proposals have been floated by senators in both parties to temporarily extend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program — which is set to end on March 5 — and provide some funding to begin border-security construction projects. Courts in California and New York have issued temporary injunctions requiring the administration to extend DACA; those rulings could render Trump’s deadline moot.

In the Senate on Thursday, the atmosphere was corrosive.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) blamed Trump, who had tweeted moments before the votes that the bipartisan plan was a “total catastrophe” that faced the threat of a veto.

“If he would stop torpedoing bipartisan efforts, a good bill would pass,” Schumer said.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a strong proponent of the president’s plan, said there was “broad agreement about how to solve this problem, but we won’t succeed unless the Democrats stop this incessant virtue-signaling and start negotiating in good faith.”

A senior White House official said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants to move on from immigration, and the White House is inclined to agree. The individual, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the conversations, said McConnell has told White House officials that there is little appetite in his conference for continuing an immigration fight.

McConnell has told others that any bill he could pass in the Senate would be unlikely to earn Trump’s support.

The week began with the hope of a freewheeling debate on immigration policy, but robust exchanges never materialized. Instead — as is the modern-day custom — most of the action played out behind closed doors as a self-described “Common Sense Coalition” put the finishing touches on its plans and top party leaders discussed which amendments might earn votes.

Over the course of 90 minutes Thursday, the debate ended with no breakthrough.

Click Above Link For Full Story

 

Former Trump aide Rick Gates to plead guilty; agrees to testify against Manafort, sources say



A former top aide to Donald Trump's presidential campaign will plead guilty to fraud-related charges within days – and has made clear to prosecutors that he would testify against Paul J. Manafort Jr., the lawyer-lobbyist who once managed the campaign.

The change of heart by Trump's former deputy campaign manager, Richard W. Gates III, who had pleaded not guilty after being indicted in October on charges similar to Manafort's, was described in interviews by people familiar with the case.

"Rick Gates is going to change his plea to guilty,'' said a person with direct knowledge of the new developments, adding that the revised plea will be presented in federal court in Washington "within the next few days.''

That individual and others who discussed the matter spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a judge's gag order restricting comments about the case to the news media or public.

Gates' defense lawyer, Thomas C. Green, did not respond to messages left by phone and email. Peter Carr, a spokesman for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, declined on Saturday to comment.

Mueller is heading the prosecutions of Gates and Manafort as part of the wide-ranging investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether Trump or his aides committed crimes before, during or since the campaign.

The imminent change of Gates' plea follows negotiations over the last several weeks between Green and two of Mueller's prosecutors – senior assistant special counsels Andrew Weissmann and Greg D. Andres.

According to a person familiar with those talks, Gates, a longtime political consultant, can expect "a substantial reduction in his sentence'' if he fully cooperates with the investigation. He said that Gates is apt to serve about 18 months in prison.

The delicate terms reached by the opposing lawyers, he said, will not be specified in writing: Gates "understands that the government may move to reduce his sentence if he substantially cooperates – but it won't be spelled out.''

One of the final discussion points has centered on exactly how much cash or other valuables – derived from Gates' allegedly illegal activity – that the government will require him to forfeit as part of the guilty plea.

Gates, 45, who is married with four children, does not appear to be well positioned financially to sustain a high-powered legal defense.

"He can't afford to pay it,'' said one lawyer who is involved with the investigation. "If you go to trial on this, that's $1 million to $1.5 million. Maybe more, if you need experts'' to appear as witnesses.

The Oct. 27 indictment showed that prosecutors had amassed substantial documentation to buttress their charges that both Manafort and Gates – who were colleagues in political consulting for about a decade – had engaged in a complex series of allegedly illegal transactions rooted in Ukraine. The indictment alleged that both men, who for years were unregistered agents of the Ukraine government, hid millions of dollars of Ukraine-based payments from U.S. authorities.

According to the indictment, Gates and Manafort "laundered the money through scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships and bank accounts'' and took steps to evade related U.S. taxes.

If Manafort maintains his not-guilty plea and fights the charges at a trial, the testimony from Gates could provide Mueller's team with first-person descriptions of much of the allegedly illegal conduct. Gates' testimony, said a person familiar with the pending guilty plea, would place a "cherry on top'' of the government's already-formidable case against Manafort.




http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...218-story.html

 

Trump's note card for Parkland shooting discussion: 'I hear you'

By Betsy Klein, CNN
Updated 7:36 PM EST, Wed February 21, 2018

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ard/index.html

President Donald Trump heard emotional stories Wednesday from people affected by the nation's deadliest school shootings, and it appears he had an assist in responding to some of the powerful testimony.

In a photo from the event taken by Getty Images photographer Chip Somodevilla, the President is holding a piece of White House stationery with five discussion points written in black marker.

The visible points include prompts such as "1. What would you most want me to know about your experience?" "2. What can we do to help you feel safe?" and "5. I hear you."

Trump didn't appear to use the visible prompts, but he did cast a tender tone during the event, saying he grieved for those affected.

He was briefed by White House officials before participating in the listening and did not use a teleprompter during the event.

“We're fighting hard for you and we will not stop," Trump said. "I just grieve for you, I feel so -- to me, there could be nothing worse than what you've gone through."

He continued, "Thank you for pouring out your hearts because the world is watching and we're going to come up with a solution."

​

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/w...-1166187587653

More proof Trump is not enforcing the sanctions against Russia 3 Russians who are sanctioned and not allowed to come to the US well they did. The second they stepped off the plane they should have been arrested and thrown in prison. Trump is not enforcing the Russia sanctions that congress approved with the biggest support ever.

 

John Kelly overhauls White House clearance procedure

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
FEB 17, 2018
| NEW YORK


https://www.google.com/amp/www.latim...outputType=amp

Under pressure over his handling of abuse allegations against a top aide, White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly has ordered sweeping changes in how the White House clears staff members to gain access to classified information, acknowledging that the administration "must do better" in how it handles security clearances.

Kelly issued a five-page memo Friday that acknowledged White House mistakes but also put the onus on the FBI and the Justice Department to provide more timely updates on background investigations, asking that any significant derogatory information about staff members be quickly flagged to the White House counsel's office.

The issue has been in the spotlight for more than a week after it was revealed that former staff secretary Rob Porter had an interim security clearance that allowed him access to classified material despite allegations of domestic violence by his two ex-wives.

”Now is the time to take a hard look at the way the White House processes clearance requests," Kelly wrote in the memo. "We should — and in the future, must — do better."

The memo said the FBI and Justice Department had offered increased cooperation and, going forward, all background investigations of top officers "should be flagged for the FBI at the outset and then hand-delivered to the White House Counsel personally upon completion. The FBI official who delivers these files should verbally brief the White House Counsel on any information in those files they deem to be significantly derogatory."

Dozens of White House aides have been working under interim clearances for months, according to administration officials, raising questions about the administration's handling of the issue and whether classified information has been jeopardized.

Kelly's plan would limit interim clearances to 180 days, with an option to extend them an additional 90 days if background checks had not turned up significant troubling information. The memo also recommends that all Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information clearances that have been pending since last June be discontinued in a week.

Click Above Link For Full Story

 

Hope Hicks' totally ridiculous explanation for why she quit

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 9:37 PM EST, Wed February 28, 2018

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...sis/index.html

Here's how Hope Hicks explained her decision to resign as White House communications director, according to The New York Times' Maggie Haberman, who broke the story:

"She told colleagues that she had accomplished what she felt she could with a job that made her one of the most powerful people in Washington, and that there would never be a perfect moment to leave."

Ahem. Cough. Throat clear. Nervous looking around. Collar tug. Cough.

Whatever the opposite of the perfect time to leave the White House is -- the "imperfect time"? -- this is it.

Hicks is not only the third Trump White House communications director to resign in just over a year, but she also leaves:

* One day after she spent hours testifying in front of the House Intelligence Committee regarding its investigation into Russia's attempted meddling in the 2016 presidential election. In that testimony, Hicks acknowledged that she sometimes told white lies for Trump but insisted that she had never done so in regard to the Russia investigation.

* Amid a security clearance crisis that caused White House staff secretary Rob Porter's resignation. Porter, who was romantically involved with Hicks, stands accused of domestic abuse by both of his ex-wives. Those allegations, which Porter denied, had kept him from gaining a permanent security clearance. Which meant that Porter was operating with an interim clearance, despite handling oodles of top secret and classified information in his role as staff secretary. But, wait, there's more! Hicks was deeply involved in the crafting of chief of staff John Kelly's initial defense of Porter, despite her romantic ties to the now-former aide.

* As tensions between Trump's immediate family -- Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, in particular -- and Kelly boil over. The downgrading of Kushner's security clearance by Kelly hamstrings the first son-in-law, whose portfolio includes negotiating Middle East peace and managing the US's relationship with China (among many, many other things).

* On the same day the President resumed his ad hominem smear campaign against his own attorney general and one day after CNN reported that special counsel Robert Mueller is taking a look at Trump's finances in the run-up to his decision to run for president.

Hicks' departure is another major negative story amid that laundry list. Whatever you thought of her credentials to be the head of the White House's communications operation -- Hicks had little practical experience in dealing with the media -- there is no debate that she was one of the few aides who Trump trusted totally.

Hicks had been part of the original Trump campaign staff alongside the likes of Corey Lewandowski and Dan Scavino. She was with Trump before anyone even thought he had a chance. She believed in him when everyone else was laughing at him. And that sort of loyalty goes a very, very long way with Trump.

“I don't think it's possible to overstate the significance and just the importance of her role within the White House," one Trump ally told CNN's Jeremy Diamond. "She's an invaluable team member and one of the originals."

Remember that Trump tends to view the world in very stark terms: those who are loyal to him (very few people) and those who are out to get him (everyone else). Hicks was very much in the former category.

"She is as smart and thoughtful as they come, a truly great person," Trump said of Hicks in a statement released by the White House.

Simply put: This is a White House in crisis. Hicks' departure adds to that sense that the sky is falling around and on Trump. There's no spin to put out that. You can't polish a turd. And when you try to, it tends to get all over the place.

​

 

Trump Stuns Lawmakers With Seeming Embrace of Comprehensive Gun Control

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
February 28, 2018

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile....ntrol.amp.html

WASHINGTON — President Trump stunned Republicans on live television Wednesday by embracing gun control and urging a group of lawmakers at the White House to resurrect gun safety legislation that has been opposed for years by the powerful National Rifle Association and the vast majority of his party.

In a remarkable meeting, the president veered wildly from the N.R.A. playbook in front of giddy Democrats and stone-faced Republicans. He called for comprehensive gun control legislation that would expand background checks to weapons purchased at gun shows and on the internet, keep guns from mentally ill people, secure schools and restrict gun sales for some young adults. He even suggested a conversation on an assault weapons ban.

At one point, Mr. Trump suggested that law enforcement authorities should have the power to seize guns from mentally ill people or others who could present a danger without first going to court. “I like taking the guns early,” he said, adding, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

The declarations prompted a frantic series of calls from N.R.A. lobbyists to their allies on Capitol Hill and a statement from the group calling the ideas that Mr. Trump expressed “bad policy.” Republican lawmakers suggested to reporters that they remained opposed to gun control measures.

“We’re not ditching any constitutional protections simply because the last person the president talked to today doesn’t like them,” Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, said in a statement.

Democrats, too, said they were skeptical that Mr. Trump would follow through.

“The White House can now launch a lobbying campaign to get universal background checks passed, as the president promised in this meeting, or they can sit and do nothing,” said Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut.

At the core of Mr. Trump’s suggestion was the revival of a bipartisan bill drafted in 2013 by Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Despite a concerted push by President Barack Obama and the personal appeals of Sandy Hook parents, the bill fell to a largely Republican filibuster.

Mr. Trump’s embrace did not immediately yield converts. Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said after the meeting that he was unmoved, repeating the Republican dogma that recent shootings were not “conducted by someone who bought a gun at a gun show or parking lot.” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican, who sat next to the president looking flustered, emerged from the meeting and declared, “I thought it was fascinating television and it was surreal to actually be there.”

But Mr. Trump suggested that the dynamics in Washington had changed after the school shooting in Florida that claimed 17 lives, in part because of his own leadership in the White House, a sentiment that the Democrats in the room readily appeared to embrace as they saw the president supporting their ideas.

Click Above Link For Full Story

 

​

 

PRESIDENT TRUMP TELLS REPUBLICAN DONORS CHINA'S 'PRESIDENT FOR LIFE' PLAN IS A GREAT IDEA THAT COULD HAPPEN IN U.S. SOME DAY

BY TOM PORTER AND REUTERS ON 3/4/18 AT 6:00 AM

http://www.newsweek.com/critics-blas...e-power-829723

President Donald Trump has made no secret of his admiration for strongmen leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte.

And, according to a tape of closed door remarks Trump made at his Mar-a-Lago estate obtained by CNN, he supports President Xi Xinping of China's move to extend his power indefinitely.

“He’s now president for life,” Trump told Republican donors, after the Chinese Communist party last week moved to alter the constitution to allow Xi to remain in power beyond the two-term limit.

“President for life. And he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot some day.”

It is not clear if Trump, 71, was making the comment about extending presidential service in jest. The White House did not respond to a request for comment late Saturday.

In the speech Trump delivered during a lunchtime fundraiser at his Palm Springs estate, he went on to denounce the U.S. political system as “rigged.”

“I’m telling you, it’s a rigged system folks. I’ve been saying that for a long time. It’s a rigged system. And we don’t have the right people in there yet. We have a lot of great people, but certain things, we don’t have the right people.“

U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat, said on Twitter of Trump's remarks on China's president that “whether this was a joke or not, talking about being President for life like Xi Jinping is the most un-American sentiment expressed by an American President. George Washington would roll over in his grave.”

Former White House Ethics chief Richard D. Painter also criticized the president’s remarks.

“Either he’s losing it, or we’re losing it if we let him stay on after this. How many hints do we need that he wants to be a dictator?”

Norman Eisen, ethics chief under the Obama administration, tweeted: "Trump’s secret reaction to the Chinese communist dictator changing the rules to serve for life:“Maybe we’ll try that here someday.“ You mean, suspend the constitution and make you a permanent tyrant? I don’t think so."

U.S. presidents by tradition served a maximum of two four-year terms until President Franklin Roosevelt was elected a record four times starting in 1932. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution approved in 1951 limits presidents to two terms in office.

In order to change the current prohibition, it would require initial support of two-thirds of both houses of Congress or support of two-thirds of state legislatures - and then would need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

China’s annual parliament gathering kicks off on Monday as Xi presses ahead with efforts to ward off financial risks without undermining the economy. The Communist party announced Feb. 25 the end of the two-term limit for the president—and parliament is expected to ratify the move.

The two-term limit was introduced by former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1982, and was designed a repeat of dictatorships such as that of Mao Zedong, who ruled China for decades.

During the remarks, Trump praised Xi as“a great gentleman” and added:“He’s the most powerful (Chinese) president in a hundred years.” Trump said Xi had treated him“tremendously well” during his visit in November.

Trump has often praised Xi, but in January Trump told Reuters the United States was considering a big“fine” as part of a probe into China’s alleged theft of intellectual property. He has been critical of China’s trade policies.

Trump told The New York Times in December that following the growing threat from North Korea, he had“been soft on China because the only thing more important to me than trade is war.”

213​

 

Trump is so fundamentally un-American in his thinking. That's because he's only ever looked out for his own best interest.
He's lived in the United States his whole life, but at the same time he seems like he was isolated from it.

Being POTUS seems to be all about power for Trump and nothing else. He doesn't understand or fundamentally believe in the laws or concepts that helped create this country.

What POTUS thinks if only briefly that being a dictator is a good thing??

LOL. The man single-handedly is going to blow up the GOP.

 

IKR! He's totally taking them down, but I can't feel for them because they' were more than willing to jump in bed with him when it became clear that he was rising to power.

 

And he's going to run again.

 

My only defense of Trump voters is not very flattering, but I do think this is fair:

I think the world (And America) is changing in big ways, very rapidly. Whites are rapidly losing their majority status, and will not be the the majority in our lifetimes. As recently as 1900 non-hispanic whites were ~88% of the population: by 2010 they were 64%; just 6 years later in 2016, they were down another 3% to 61%. Christians, too, are rapidly losing their dominant status. Christians were the overwhelming majority, almost 95% of the population as recently as the mid 1950s, but that has been trending downward rapidly for decades. The percentages have slipped very rapidly since 2000, down to 80% in 2008 and then slipping a further five percent by 2015 to 75%.

Particularly if you happen to be a white Christian, this rapidly changing landscape can be threatening. White, Christian males were the *automatic* winners of everything in 1960 (let alone 1810), but now have to actually compete for jobs and success and love against black men and asian women and jews and atheists. The playing field is gradually leveling (although we still have a ways to go).

So in what way am I defending these white, Christian males? I think a lot of them feel threatened, and in that regard I can sympathize. I've felt threatened and scared before, too, and I can tell you that being threatened and scared does not bring out the best in me. I was really, truly awful to an ex-boyfriend once when we were in the process of breaking up, and I deeply regret it now, but at the time I was scared and hurt and I lashed out. I think being scared and threatened brings out the worst in most people. I'm not saying it makes the behavior of white male Trump supporters okay -- I'm just saying I can sympathize, I can see where they're coming from. I've done some mean, stupid things in my life too, and most of those stupid mean things have been done when I was threatened and frightened.

 

If you feel threatened imagine what we feel like.

Go somewhere and sympathize with white "christian" males.

 

I don't feel threatened. I'm saying people who do feel threatened -- whether they should be or not -- act stupidly, and do cruel things. That's basically how I'd describe Trump supporters' behavior: they're acting stupidly and being cruel.

 

Lol. They are upset that they have to actually become adults and earn their place in life. Only a mediocre crybaby would feel threatened by that.

 

In a sense, he was isolated. He's a silver-spoon trust fund baby who was given every advantage in life and never had to do any actual work or actual thinking to get where he is. His family's name and wealth made him pretty much immune from most negative consequences of his actions. He has no idea what it's like for 99.99% of people living in America right now and it shows.

It's also a major part of the reason that he has had so many failures in business and why his presidency is in a constant state of chaos and confusion. Unlike the rest of us, he never had to "grow up" and because of that he handles his conflicts with other people like a child.

 

Jeez guys, do you think I'm saying those poor, insecure white guys should be pitied and have it really tough in life?

It's possible to try to understand someone's point of view without endorsing or approving of it. If I say "the suicide bombers on 9/11 were able to do what they did because they literally thought they were carrying out the will of God," that doesn't mean I think they're right. I'm just describing their point of view.

White, Christian males feel threatened because their long standing privileges in America are gradually being eroded. Does that mean they're right, and that we should return to the 19th century when nobody but white men could vote to make them feel better? Of course not! These Trump-voting, insecure white men are wrong. All I'm trying to do is sympathize with them -- to try to understand what life looks like from their point of view. It doesn't mean I agree with them.

Understanding those you disagree with -- empathizing and sympathizing with them -- is a valuable skill not just in politics, but in life.

 

I didn't say you were wrong being sympathetic toward them, simply said I'm not and gave reason. I can show sympathy when I feel its warranted, here I don't see reason. Your sympathy towards them is just sympathy. Its not some higher order of civility or anything we should take note of as a revelation of wisdom.

In other words I'm going to be who I am unapologetically.

 

Their whiteness doesn't go as far as it used to...that's why they feel "threatened".

Save your sympathy and understanding for those that have sympathy and understanding.