RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Trump's Unprecedented Conflicts of Interest Provide Grounds for Impeachment Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Wednesday, 03 May 2017 11:55

Reich writes: "If Trump isn't impeached for treasonous collusion with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, he could be impeached for violating Article I Section 9 of the Constitution, called the 'emoluments' clause."

Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)
Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)


Trump's Unprecedented Conflicts of Interest Provide Grounds for Impeachment

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

03 May 17

 

f Trump isn't impeached for treasonous collusion with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, he could be impeached for violating Article I Section 9 of the Constitution, called the "emoluments" clause.

Here's an update on his Article I Section 9 violations:

1. Trump has visited a Trump-owned property on 31 of his first 100 days in office ? and on some days he’s visited more than one. The press reports on each visit, essentially advertising the property to the public as the federal government pays money directly to the property to rent space, rooms and even golf carts.

2. The State Department and at least three U.S. embassies even advertised one of his properties online in April when a blog post about Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort was shared on government websites and on their social media accounts.

Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort doubled its initial membership fees from $100,000 to $200,000 days after Trump assumed the presidency.

3. Trump’s International Hotel in Washington, D.C., has been pitching foreign governments to stay there. Less than 10 days after Trump won the election, the hotel hosted a gathering for about 100 foreign diplomats to urge them to book rooms there when they stayed in Washington.

4. Since then, the governments of Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have booked rooms or hosted events at Trump’s hotel. A business group affiliated with the government of Turkey will host both Turkish and American government officials at its annual conference at the Trump hotel in May.

5. China has approved Trump's copyright application for the Trump brand in China -- a deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and done when Trump assured China he wouldn't depart from America's "one China" policy.

6. Both daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner, now Trump’s White House advisers, maintain connections to their own corporate enterprises. The day Ivanka Trump sat next to China’s Xi and his wife at a Mar-a-Lago dinner, the Chinese government approved five new trademarks for her company. Her company continues to apply for trademark protection around the world as sales of her brand soar thanks to her increased publicity.

“No one has ever tried to pull off what President Trump is attempting here, which is to turn the way in which our democracy functions into the way corrupt countries function to enrich their leaders,” says Fred Wertheimer, one of America’s most respected experts on government ethics. “It’s just never been done, and the scale here is enormous.”

And we're only 101 days in.

Remember: Article I, Section 9.

What do you think?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 03 May 2017 11:16

Boardman writes: "The idealized Obama would have - might have - led the resistance to President Trump. But then the idealized Obama might have led the resistance to Obamacare in favor of single payer, might have led the resistance to the Honduran military coup in favor of democracy, might have led the resistance to Saudi genocide in Yemen in favor of human rights."

Barack Obama. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)
Barack Obama. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)


Faint Praise for Barack Obama’s Embrace of Wealth

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

03 May 17

 

If the Obamas aren’t living the American Dream, then who is?

ow they are offering the man $400,000 for making just one 60-minute speech (and another $400,000 for a 90-minute speech). That $400,000 is more than twice the average net worth of most Americans at their wealthiest ($194,226 in 2011, mostly in the worth of a home). A Credit Suisse survey in 2014 put Americans’ average net worth at “a whopping $301,000,” still well below what rich people will pay for a one hour speech by a former president.

Even Obama’s annual pension is more than what most Americans own (his pension is $205,700 plus roughly $150,000 in perks). Speaking at a rate of $400,000 per hour translates to $16 million for a forty-hour work week; even if the speech takes a day to prepare, that’s still $2 million a week. An annual household income of $450,000 puts you in the top one percent. It takes an income of almost $150,000 to be in the top ten percent. Most Americans don’t even dream of a payday in the millions.

Why shouldn’t he go for it? That $400,000 speech is almost as much as his taxable income in 2015 ($436,035, from publicly released tax returns). In 2015, the Obamas paid $81,472 in federal income tax, more than Americans’ average annual household income of $55,775). Citizen Obama is already way richer than 90% of his fellow citizens (and almost all Kenyans probably), so why shouldn’t he try to increase that gap between himself and the hoi-polloi? At the same time why shouldn’t he be trying to narrow the much more gigantic gap between himself and his mega-rich play-pals, like Richard Branson (net worth over $5 Billion) or David Geffen (net worth over $7 Billion). Barack and Michelle Obama together have a net worth of only $24 million or so, up from a mere $8 million when he became president. Or to put it in perspective, when he became president, Obama was already in the top one percent of wealthiest Americans.

None of this is meant to suggest that the Obamas are doing anything wrong in the way they are living their post-White House lives, insofar as we know. At least he’s not crying poor the way Hillary “dead broke” Clinton did when departing Pennsylvania Avenue. Nor has he been smarmily coy like then-Presidential multi-millionaire Bush telling The New York Times that, in retirement, “I’ll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol’ coffers.”

In fairness, it should go without saying that, in the White House, President Obama was probably, on balance, preferable to his most recent predecessors, and is still a notch above the current incumbent. That said, Obama’s presidency was mostly an ineffectual limp rag of minimal horror that looks good mainly in contrast to the glaringly worse high crimes and misdemeanors of others. There’s no good reason he shouldn’t cash in in the same ways his less worthy predecessors have. Obama fits quite comfortably into the cliché of useless, self-regarding ex-presidential lifestyle to which the only recent arguable exception is Jimmy Carter.

Responding to Obama’s acceptance of the traditional emoluments of out-of-office, the flusterings of the twitterati have often portrayed themselves as shocked, shocked to find that there’s post-presidential enrichment going on (but they express that shock with none of the patent irony of Captain Renault in Casablanca). The moral fatuity of these nattering nabobs of nonsense is nothing new, it has long been the ruling class’s farcical manner of flattering itself that it has actual principles beyond just having more. The last few minutes of a Bill Maher clip illustrate the dominant mind bubble, where only billionaire Nick Hanauer reveals any sense of the greater good, wishing Obama had spent time building houses for Habitat for Humanity and identifying wealth disparity as tearing the country apart. The three show biz millionaires at the table don’t even acknowledge either point.

But then there’s Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, both of whom seem to be running for president in 2020.

Warren, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts and former Harvard Law School professor, said on SiriusXM, referring to news of Obama’s $400,000 speaking fee:

I was troubled by that … One of the things I talk about in the book [This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America's Middle Class] is the influence of money. I describe it as a snake that slithers through Washington and that it shows up in so many different ways here in Washington…. There's more of us than there is of them. And we've got to use our voices and our votes and fight back.

Warren’s use of “us” is rather elastic, since she and her husband have a net worth of roughly $8.75 million, enough to be at the bottom of the top one per cent by wealth. The couple’s annual income of roughly $950,000 is well within the top one percent. She received an advance of $525,000 for her book, This Fight Is Our Fight.

Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont and former congressman, told CNN:

Look, Barack Obama is a friend of mine, and I think he and his family represented us for eight years with dignity and intelligence. But I think at a time when we have so much income and wealth inequality ... I think it just does not look good…. It's not a good idea, and I'm sorry President Obama made that choice.

Sanders is not among the top one per cent in wealth or income. He and his wife have a net worth of roughly $1.6 million, putting them comfortably within the top ten percent. The couple’s joint income of $205,271 in 2014 is also well within the top ten percent. For all of that, Sanders does in fact “remain one of the poorer members of the United States Senate.”

The point of all this has nothing to do with hypocrisy, which may or may not exist in any of these examples. What’s truly “troubling,” what really “does not look good,” is that, in retrospect, Obama now appears the consummate huckster, a man whose gulls remain full of admiration for the man they fail to realize has fleeced them from beginning to end with empty eloquence. And now the dark joke is that those who benefitted most from all that empty eloquence are willing to pay handsomely to hear more of it.

THAT should be troubling, yet few seem troubled by it.

And that’s all you really need to know to understand why we’re where we are now, no longer with a charm shark but with an unabashed con man as leader of the free world: the richest president in our history, a user and abuser who is richer than all prior presidents combined, a man whose wealth was not built on actual slavery like Washington’s, but close enough by treating people like slaves without even the obligation to feed or house them.

The idealized Obama would have – might have – led the resistance to President Trump. But then the idealized Obama might have led the resistance to Obamacare in favor of single payer, might have led the resistance to the Honduran military coup in favor of democracy, might have led the resistance to Saudi genocide in Yemen in favor of human rights. In 2009, President Obama said, “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” although he managed to do as much. Obama’s campaign included the notion that Wall Street fat cats should pay their fair share in taxes. That hasn’t happened, but at least some of those cats are paying a fair share to him.

And that’s all fine and good and ironic and amusing and unimportant.

What matters is what he does – and what Warren does, and what Sanders does, and what the rest of our real and would-be leaders do, where they stake their futures. Recently Obama spoke reflectively [video] about his own future: “What is the most important thing I can do for my next job, and what I’m convinced of, is that although there are all kinds of issues that I care about, and all kinds of issues that I intend to work on, the single most important thing I can do is to help in any way I can prepare the next generation of leadership to take up the baton and take their own crack at changing the world.”

Really? The single most important thing is to kick the can down the road? When the house is on fire, the single most important thing is to call an architect?

Just as the Bush presidency set the conditions for Obama to become president, so did the Obama presidency set the conditions that have produced President Trump. Obama entered the White House with the wind at his back, with Democrats in the majority in Congress, with the country ready for hope and change and serious leadership. The result, eight years later, is not pretty. Maybe it’s not as bad as it seems. Or maybe it’s worse.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Belief That Climate Change Is a "Hoax" Is a Threat to Our Entire Planet Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44519"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' Facebook Page</span></a>   
Wednesday, 03 May 2017 08:46

Sanders writes: "Over the weekend, millions of people throughout the globe marched for sane environmental policies and for the need to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. The momentum is with us, not the fossil fuel industry."

Bernie Sanders. (photo: John Shinkle/Politico)
Bernie Sanders. (photo: John Shinkle/Politico)


Trump's Belief That Climate Change Is a "Hoax" Is a Threat to Our Entire Planet

By Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' Facebook Page

03 May 17

 

he fossil fuel industry, today, in many respects is like the tobacco industry of the 1950s. They lie, lie and lie - trying to deny or obfuscate the damage their product causes. Unlike the tobacco industry, however, which kills people one at a time by selling a product which causes cancer, heart disease and a host of other ailments, the fossil fuel industry is threatening the lives of billions of people throughout the world - all at the same time.

Trump's belief that climate change is a "hoax" is not just embarrassingly stupid, it is a threat to our entire planet. Over the weekend, millions of people throughout the globe marched for sane environmental policies and for the need to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. The momentum is with us, not the fossil fuel industry. If we stand tall and keep fighting, we will win this struggle. Congratulations to all those who marched for the planet.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Paul Ryan Straight Up Deceives People in a Last-Ditch Attempt to Sell Trumpcare Print
Wednesday, 03 May 2017 08:37

Millhiser writes: "Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has two new weapons in his arsenal: an amendment, favored by the most conservative members of his caucus, that will make the bill even harsher for people with preexisting health conditions; and a completely shameless willingness to mislead people about what this amendment actually does."

Paul Ryan caught a fish that was THIS BIG! (photo: Cliff Owen/AP)
Paul Ryan caught a fish that was THIS BIG! (photo: Cliff Owen/AP)


Paul Ryan Straight Up Deceives People in a Last-Ditch Attempt to Sell Trumpcare

By Ian Millhiser, ThinkProgress

03 May 17

 

Why worry about the truth, when you can have a monster tax cut?

ouse Republican leadership hopes to vote later this week on an unpopular health bill that will cause tens of millions of Americans to lose their health coverage. It’s the third time since Donald Trump moved into the White House that House Republicans have stepped up to the brink of such a vote?—?the last two times, the vote didn’t happen after it was clear that the bill would fail.

This time, however, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has two new weapons in his arsenal: an amendment, favored by the most conservative members of his caucus, that will make the bill even harsher for people with preexisting health conditions; and a completely shameless willingness to mislead people about what this amendment actually does:

To explain, House Republicans hoped to vote on this bill last March, but they hit a serious roadblock after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that their health care proposal would strip 24 million people of health coverage by 2026. A few days later, a Trump White House analysis of the bill leaked which showed that it may cause as many as 26 million people to become uninsured over the course of a decade.

The Trump White House supports the bill.

Trumpcare failed in March due to a combination of three factors?—?universal opposition from Democrats, scattered opposition from Republicans who viewed the bill as too harsh, and similar opposition from Republicans who viewed it as not harsh enough.

Since the bill’s failure, Republicans apparently tried to shore up support for it by appealing to the faction that wants a harsher bill. This effort produced the “MacArthur Amendment,” which contains several provisions impacting people with preexisting health conditions.

Under current law, insurers cannot discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, and they must cover certain “essential health benefits”?—?such as prescription drugs, pregnancy care, and hospitalization. The MacArthur Amendment, however, will allow states to “specify their own set of essential health benefits” at a lower level than the requirements set by existing law. And it would also permit states to obtain waivers that would allow insurers to charge more to many people with preexisting conditions.

The amendment Ryan refers to in his tweet, in other words, does not “protect” people with preexisting conditions. It raises costs for many people with preexisting conditions, and it permits many insurance plans to exclude benefits that people with preexisting conditions may need.

And that’s on top of the harsh cuts to federal health care spending that were already contained in the bill. CBO estimates that the March version of Trumpcare?—?the one that would strip about 24 million people of health coverage?—?would cut $880 billion from Medicaid alone over the course of the next decade.

To offset some of the bill’s impact on people with preexisting conditions, it does allocate as much as $13 billion a year to “high-risk pools” and similar programs that provide insurance to people who are unable to obtain it in an inadequately regulated private market. But that’s only enough to insure a small fraction of the people who will lose coverage under the GOP’s bill.

In 2008, the McCain-Palin campaign released a health plan that proposed spending between $7 and $10 billion on such pools. At the time, however, analysts estimated that a national program “funded at $7 billion per year would cover only 875,000 people.”

Republicans, in other words, would have to spend about 15 times as much on high-risk pools than they are planning to spend in order to cancel out the other impacts of their bill?—?and that’s a conservative estimate that does not account for inflation.

As Ryan nevertheless tried to rally support for Trumpcare, he apparently turned to the Almighty during a House Republican caucus meeting.

Dear Lord, help us to immiserate the poor. Help us to enfeeble the meek, to quicken the deaths of the innocent, to cast suffering upon the infirm, and to give Donald Trump a fat daddy tax cut.

In the spirit of Your mercy we pray.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump's Real Sin in DC Is Not Distinguishing Between "Good" and "Bad" Dictators Print
Tuesday, 02 May 2017 12:16

Cole writes: "Donald J. Trump's peculiar comments about and relationship with dictators and loonies among foreign leaders have upset a range of observers, from sincere human rights activists to cold-blooded Think Tank Rats."

Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte is pictured, left, on October 26, 2016, in Tokyo; U.S. president Donald Trump is pictured, right, April 29, 2017, in Washington. (photo: Eugene Hoshiko/Pablo Martinez M/AP)
Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte is pictured, left, on October 26, 2016, in Tokyo; U.S. president Donald Trump is pictured, right, April 29, 2017, in Washington. (photo: Eugene Hoshiko/Pablo Martinez M/AP)


Trump's Real Sin in DC Is Not Distinguishing Between "Good" and "Bad" Dictators

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

02 May 17

 

onald J. Trump’s peculiar comments about and relationship with dictators and loonies among foreign leaders have upset a range of observers, from sincere human rights activists to cold-blooded Think Tank Rats. First he welcomed the Philippines’ demagogue and possibly cold-blooded murderer Rodrigo Duterte to Washington. Then he said he understood the problems North Korea’s Kim Jong Un had battling off his bloodthirsty relatives.

But I would argue that the inside-the-Beltway Blob is mainly upset because Trump doesn’t seem to know the difference between the Bad dictators, whom you diss, and the Good dictators, whom you praise as strong allies. Trump just seems to like all the dictators.

Washington wants Trump to talk dirty about Vladimir Putin of Russia, Kim Jong Un of North Korea, and Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela. (Two of the three were elected and Putin seems genuinely popular). But the Establishment is fine with him praising Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt (Sisi strong-armed opponents into not running against him, intimidated the press, declared a major party a terrorist organization and killed hundreds of them, and won office with a shameful 97% of the vote).

No one in Washington stands up and gives speeches criticizing Thailand’s repressive military junta. And the US Establishment was positively giddy when the corrupt Brazilian oligarchy impeached the elected president of Brazil and replaced her with a corrupt Brazilian oligarch. We haven’t heard anything more about either Brasilia or Bangkok on television news. Move along, nothing to see here.

Saudi Arabia would be too easy a subject here.

You’ve heard less about Salva Kiir Mayardit of South Sudan, who helped plunge his country into a deadly civil war and wreck millions of lives. Why, South Sudan was a US project, aimed at breaking up and weakening Arab Sudan. Sudan’s dictator, Omar al-Bashir is in the Washington dog house as Bad Dictator. Kiir Mayardit isn’t brought up.

The Bad Dictators are arguably Bad, and some are war criminals. But Washington tends to deal with the pro-American dictators by just not bringing them up much, or by stressing their friendliness rather than their rapaciousness when they are brought up.

Some of those Washington sees as Bad Dictators, however, are either not dictators or not bad, or not either one. Evo Morales of Bolivia was called “Taliban” by W.’s ambassador, presumably because he represents workers and the indigenous population rather than big business. I’m not aware that anyone has suggested he hasn’t been fairly elected, and he has been a good steward of the economy for workers and the middle classes.

Then of course above all you’re not allowed to bring up that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu rules millions of Palestinians by military force, keeping them occupied and stateless and stealing their land while depriving them of the most basic human and civil rights. No Palestinian was allowed to vote for or against Netanyahu even though he rules them with an iron fist.

So get this. Evo Morales Bad, Netanyahu Good.

Nor is this a new phenomenon. Gen. Franco of Spain was at least informally part of the Axis, but by the 1950s Washington had rehabilitated him as an ally. We never heard about Franco’s crimes against humanity or embarrassing Fascism when I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, but Communist leaders were constantly vilified. One’s attitude toward Capital seems to have mattered more than human rights considerations.

Is it as simple as American billionaires feeling threatened by some dictators but not by others, and instructing the US government accordingly? Be a popularly elected politician who talks socialism, and anything less than a perfect human rights record becomes a headline. Be a coup-maker who welcomes the foreign billionaires in to exploit your people, and you can sodomize prisoners of conscience with broomsticks all you like, and Washington won’t so much as cough politely in disapproval.

What the erratic Trump is doing in sucking up to people like Duterte is horrifying. But just keep in mind that he and his predecessors sucked up to people just as bad or worse, and it was never a headline if those dictators remained compliant with the wishes of America’s Chamber of Commerce.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 Next > End >>

Page 1654 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN