Archives for November 2018

November 30, 2018

Trump Administration, Week 98: Friday, 30 November – Thursday, 6 December 2018 (Days 680-686)

Pittsfield, MA, 30 June 2018

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 30 November 2018, Day 680:

 

House Democratic leaders unveiled political reform legislation as ‘H.R. 1,’ The Washington Post, Mike DeBonis, Friday, 30 November 2018: “House Democratic leaders on Friday unveiled the outline of a broad political overhaul bill that will include provisions for public financing of elections, voting rights reforms and new ethics strictures for federal officials. The bill has been in the works for months as part of Democrats’ ‘For the People’ campaign platform, a framework that helped them win the House majority in this month’s midterm elections. Numerous outside groups aligned with Democrats have pushed the party’s House leaders to schedule a reform bill as their first order of business, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced before the election that the bill would be designated ‘H.R. 1’ — a symbolic title meant to emphasize its importance, even if it is unlikely to be the first piece of legislation to get a House vote in the new Congress…. Elements of the legislation include new donor disclosure requirements for political organizations, a system to multiply small donations to political campaigns, a mandatory new ethical code for the Supreme Court, an end to most first-class travel for federal officeholders, and a broad effort to expand voting access and reduce partisan gerrymandering.” See also, House Democrats unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal, Vox, Ella Nilsen, Friday, 30 November 2018: “House Democrats unveiled details of their first bill in the new Congress on Friday — a sweeping anti-corruption bill aimed at stamping out the influence of money in politics and expanding voting rights. This is House Resolution 1 — the first thing House Democrats will tackle after the speaker’s vote in early January. To be clear, this legislation has little-to-no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate or being signed by President Donald Trump. But by making anti-corruption their No. 1 priority, House Democrats are throwing down the gauntlet for Republicans. A vast majority of Americans want to get the influence of money out of politics, and want Congress to pass laws to do so, according to a 2018 Pew Research survey. Given Trump’s multitude of scandals, it looks bad for Republicans to be the party opposing campaign finance reform — especially going into 2020.”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller Bores Into Trump Adviser Roger Stone’s Ties to WikiLeaks, The Wall Street Journal, Shelby Holliday and Rebecca Ballhaus, Friday, 30 November 2018: “Recent court documents provide the clearest indication yet that special counsel Robert Mueller is zeroing in on the ties between WikiLeaks and Roger Stone, a former Trump campaign adviser whose relationship with the president dates back nearly four decades. According to the documents and more than a half-dozen people who have testified in the probe, Mr. Mueller’s office in recent months has focused on Mr. Stone’s role as a potential conduit between the Trump presidential campaign and WikiLeaks, which during the 2016 election published thousands of emails related to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton that U.S. intelligence agencies have determined were stolen by Russian hackers. Prosecutors have evidence that Mr. Stone may have had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans to publish those emails, according to the documents, which also suggest Mr. Mueller’s team continues to investigate possible witness intimidation by Mr. Stone.” See also, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and His Prosecutors: Who They Are and What They’ve Done, The New York Times, Noah Weiland, Emily Cochrane, and Troy Griggs, Friday, 30 November 2018. See also, The lies that special counsel Robert Mueller has already documented, The Washington Post, Philip Bump, Friday, 30 November 2018. See also, Senate Intelligence Committee has referred cases of suspected lying to special counsel Robert Mueller, The Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima and Shane Harris, Friday, 30 November 2018: “The Senate Intelligence Committee has referred cases to the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election after witnesses questioned in the panel’s own Russia probe were suspected of lying, the committee chairman said Friday. ‘We have made referrals from our committee to the special counsel for prosecution,’ Chairman Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said at a national security conference in Austin. ‘In a lot of those cases, those might be tied to lying to us.'” See also, As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Investigation Heats Up, Donald Trump’s Lies Are Giving Way to the Truth, The Intercept, James Risen, Friday, 30 November 2018: “Special Counsel Robert Mueller is closing in on Donald Trump, and as one shoe after another drops in the Trump-Russia investigation, the pressure sometimes prompts the president to inadvertently blurt out the truth. Or at least as close to the truth as a serial liar like Trump can get. On Thursday, Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer, pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to Congress about a deal to build a Trump-branded skyscraper in Moscow. Most notably, he admitted that he had misled lawmakers when he told them that discussions about the project had ended by January 2016 when, in fact, the project was still under active consideration by Trump and his business organization just as the Republican Party was about to nominate Trump as its presidential candidate in the summer of 2016.”

Trump administration approves seismic tests that could harm thousands of Atlantic dolphins and whales, The Washington Post, Darryl Fears, Friday, 30 November 2018: “The Trump administration is preparing to take an important step toward future oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic shore, approving five requests from companies to conduct deafening seismic tests that could kill tens of thousands of dolphins, whales and other marine animals. The planned Friday announcement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of the Commerce Department, to issue “incidental take” permits allowing companies to harm wildlife is likely to further antagonize a dozen governors in states along the Eastern Seaboard who strongly oppose the administration’s proposal to expand federal oil and gas leases to the Atlantic. Federal leases could lead to exploratory drilling for the first time in more than a half-century. In addition to harming sea life, acoustic tests — in which boats tugging rods pressurized for sound emit jet engine-like booms 10 to 12 seconds apart for days and sometimes months — can disrupt thriving commercial fisheries. Governors, state lawmakers and attorneys general along the Atlantic coast say drilling threatens beach tourism that has flourished on the coast in the absence of oil production.”

Continue reading Week 98, Friday, 30 November – Thursday, 6 December 2018 (Days 680-686)

[Read more…]

November 30, 2018 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
November 23, 2018

Trump Administration, Week 97: Friday, 23 November – Thursday, 29 November 2018 (Days 673-679)

‘Nobody Is Above the Law-Protect Mueller’ demonstration in Pittsfield, MA, Thursday, 8 November 2018

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 23 November 2018, Day 673:

 

U.S. Climate Report Warns of Damaged Environment and Shrinking Economy, The New York Times, Coral Davenport and Kendra Pierre-Louis, Friday, 23 November 2018: “A major scientific report issued by 13 federal agencies on Friday presents the starkest warnings to date of the consequences of climate change for the United States, predicting that if significant steps are not taken to rein in global warming, the damage will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end. The report, which was mandated by Congress and made public by the White House, is notable not only for the precision of its calculations and bluntness of its conclusions, but also because its findings are directly at odds with President Trump’s agenda of environmental deregulation, which he asserts will spur economic growth. Mr. Trump has taken aggressive steps to allow more planet-warming pollution from vehicle tailpipes and power plant smokestacks, and has vowed to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement, under which nearly every country in the world pledged to cut carbon emissions. Just this week, he mocked the science of climate change because of a cold snap in the Northeast, tweeting, ‘Whatever happened to Global Warming?’ But in direct language, the 1,656-page assessment lays out the devastating effects of a changing climate on the economy, health and environment, including record wildfires in California, crop failures in the Midwest and crumbling infrastructure in the South. Going forward, American exports and supply chains could be disrupted, agricultural yields could fall to 1980s levels by midcentury and fire season could spread to the Southeast, the report finds.” See also, What’s New in the Latest U.S. Climate Assessment, The New York Times, Brad Plumer and Henry Fountain, Friday, 23 November 2018. See also, Major Trump administration climate report says damages are ‘intensifying across the country,’ The Washington Post, Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney, Friday, 23 November 2018: “The federal government on Friday released a long-awaited report with an unmistakable message: The effects of climate change, including deadly wildfires, increasingly debilitating hurricanes and heat waves, are already battering the United States, and the danger of more such catastrophes is worsening.” See also, Climate change will have dire consequences for the US, new federal government report concludes, CNN, Jen Christensen, Friday, 23 November 2018.

Trump Asks the Supreme Court for Fast Appeal of Transgender Military Ban Before the Lower Courts Have a Chance to Rule, The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 23 November 2018: “The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to leapfrog federal appeals courts in several cases concerning the president’s decision to bar transgender people from serving in the military. Federal district courts have entered injunctions against the new policy, but no appeals court has yet ruled on it. The Supreme Court does not ordinarily intercede until at least one appeals court has considered an issue, and it typically awaits a disagreement among appeals courts before adding a case to its docket. The Trump administration has, however, repeatedly asked the justices to hear appeals directly from district court rulings, most recently in several cases concerning its attempt to shut down a program that shields some 700,000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation. Like the ban on transgender service in the military, that policy has been blocked by federal trial judges. In both sets of cases, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco told the justices that prompt action was required to ensure that the Supreme Court could rule before its current term ended in June. The Supreme Court’s rules say that it will review a federal trial court’s ruling before an appeals court has spoken ‘only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this court.'” See also, Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to immediately take up Trump’s decision to ban transgender people from military service, The Washington Post, Robert Barnes, Friday, 23 November 2018: “The Trump administration on Friday once again asked the Supreme Court to bypass the usual legal process to take on another controversial issue: President Trump’s decision to ban transgender people from military service. Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco asked the justices to consolidate the challenges to the ban — which so far have been successful in lower courts — and rule on the issue in its current term. Civil rights groups and gay rights organizations are fighting the president’s order that would prohibit transgender men and women from enlisting, possibly subjecting current service members to discharge and denying them certain medical care.”

New York State’s Lawsuit Against the Trump Foundation Can Proceed, Judge Rules, The New York Times, J. David Goodman, Friday, 23 November 2018: “A state judge ruled on Friday that a lawsuit by the New York State attorney general could proceed against President Trump and the Trump Foundation over allegations of misused charitable assets, self-dealing and campaign finance violations during the 2016 presidential campaign. Mr. Trump’s lawyers had argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Trump, as president, and that the statutes of limitations had expired in the case of some of the actions at issue. They also contended the attorney general’s office suffered from a ‘pervasive bias’ against Mr. Trump. In her 27-page ruling, Justice Saliann Scarpulla disagreed. ‘I find I have jurisdiction over Mr. Trump,’ she wrote.” See also, New York state judge allows suit against Trump and his personal charity to proceed, The Washington Post, Jonathan O’Connell and David A. Fahrenthold, Friday, 23 November 2018: “A New York state judge on Friday denied a request by attorneys for President Trump to throw out a lawsuit alleging that Trump and his family violated charity laws with the management of their personal foundation. Justice Saliann Scarpulla sided with New York Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood in allowing the case to continue, saying it was fair for the attorney general to argue that the president used the Donald J. Trump Foundation to advance his campaign.”

Continue reading Week 97, Friday, 23 November – Thursday, 29 November 2018 (Days 673-679)

[Read more…]

November 23, 2018 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
November 16, 2018

Trump Administration, Week 96: Friday, 16 November – Thursday, 22 November 2018 (Days 666-672)

‘Nobody Is Above the Law-Protect Mueller’ demonstration in Pittsfield, MA, Thursday, 8 November 2018

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 16 November 2018, Day 666:

 

U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly rules in favor of CNN in its bid to restore Jim Acosta’s White House press pass, The Washington Post, Paul Farhi, Friday, 16 November 2018: “A federal judge on Friday ruled in favor of CNN and reporter Jim Acosta in a dispute with President Trump, ordering the White House to temporarily restore the press credentials that the administration had taken away from Acosta last week. In a victory for the cable network and for press access generally, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly granted CNN’s motion for a temporary restraining order that will prevent the administration from keeping Acosta off the White House grounds…. In explaining his decision, Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. Kelly’s ruling, however, primarily emphasized evidence indicating that the White House’s decision to boot Acosta had violated the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process in government actions…. ‘We are gratified with this result and we look forward to a full resolution in the coming days,’ CNN said in a statement. ‘Our sincere thanks to all who have supported not just CNN, but a free, strong and independent American press.'” See also, CNN’s Jim Acosta Returns to the White House After Judge’s Ruling, The New York Times, Michael M. Grynbaum and Emily Baumgaertner, Friday, 16 November 2018: “A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to restore the press credentials of Jim Acosta of CNN, handing the cable network an early win in its lawsuit against the president and members of his administration. Presiding over one of the first major tests of press rights under President Trump, Judge Timothy J. Kelly of United States District Court in Washington ruled that the White House had behaved inappropriately in stripping Mr. Acosta of his press badge shortly after a testy exchange at a news conference last week…. Soon after the ruling, Mr. Trump said the White House would tighten its rules for how journalists must comport themselves at the White House. ‘People have to behave,’ the president said in the Oval Office. ‘If they don’t listen to the rules and regulations, we’ll end up back in court, and we will win.’ The ruling was a significant victory for CNN and Mr. Acosta, but Judge Kelly declined to say whether the denial of the White House press pass had amounted to a First Amendment issue. ‘I want to emphasize the very limited nature of this ruling,’ he said, saying that it was not meant to enshrine journalists’ right to access. ‘I have not determined that the First Amendment was violated here.’ The legal battle is expected to continue: Judge Kelly ruled only on the network’s emergency request for a temporary restoration of Mr. Acosta’s credentials. Hearings on other issues in the case are expected to resume next week. Some lawyers said that, CNN’s initial victory aside, journalists who cover the president had to remain vigilant. The case underscored that the entree granted to the White House press corps, which has worked out of the West Wing for decades, relies on custom rather than any legal framework.” See also, Judge orders White House to return Jim Acosta’s press pass, CNN, Brian Stelter, Marshall Cohen, David Shortell, and Jessica Schneider, Friday, 16 November 2018: “Friday’s ruling by federal judge Timothy J. Kelly was an initial victory for CNN in its lawsuit against Trump and several top aides. The suit alleges that CNN and Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by last week’s suspension of his press pass. Kelly did not rule on the underlying case on Friday. But he granted CNN’s request for a temporary restraining order on Fifth Amendment grounds. And he said he believes that CNN and Acosta are likely to prevail in the case overall.”

CIA concludes Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, The Washington Post, Shane Harris, Greg Miller, and Josh Dawsey, Friday, 16 November 2018: “The CIA has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul last month, contradicting the Saudi government’s claims that he was not involved in the killing, according to people familiar with the matter. The CIA’s assessment, in which officials have said they have high confidence, is the most definitive to date linking Mohammed to the operation and complicates the Trump administration’s efforts to preserve its relationship with a close ally. A team of 15 Saudi agents flew to Istanbul on government aircraft in October and killed Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate, where he had come to pick up documents that he needed for his planned marriage to a Turkish woman. In reaching its conclusions, the CIA examined multiple sources of intelligence, including a phone call that the prince’s brother Khalid bin Salman, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, had with Khashoggi, according to the people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence. Khalid told Khashoggi, a contributing columnist to The Washington Post, that he should go to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to retrieve the documents and gave him assurances that it would be safe to do so. It is not clear if Khalid knew that Khashoggi would be killed, but he made the call at his brother’s direction, according to the people familiar with the call, which was intercepted by U.S. intelligence.” See also, C.I.A. Concludes That Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Ordered the Assassination of Saudi Journalist Jamal Khashoggi, The New York Times, Julian E. Barnes, Friday, 16 November 2018. See also, CIA Concludes Saudi Journalist Jamal Khashoggi Was Killed on the Orders of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, The Wall Street Journal, Warren P. Strobel, updated on Saturday, 17 November 2018: “The Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was carried out under the orders of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a close ally of President Trump, U.S. officials familiar with the matter said. The determination by the top U.S. spy agency could endanger President Trump’s efforts to protect relations with the crown prince and Saudi Arabia more generally. Mr. Trump said Saturday he expected to receive a briefing from the CIA later in the day.”

Supreme Court will hear arguments concerning Census citizenship question, The Washington Post, Deanna Paul and Robert Barnes, Friday, 16 November 2018: “The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear arguments over whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and others can be compelled to explain their actions in a case challenging the Trump administration’s addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census. The addition of the question, which opponents say is a political move that will make the census less accurate and more costly, has been targeted in six lawsuits around the country. The legal issue the Supreme Court is asked to decide is whether the challengers must rely on the administrative record regarding the department’s decision, or whether the motivations of the officials should also be considered. The court’s timing is curious, because one trial, in New York, already is underway.”

Continue reading Week 96, Friday, 16 November – Thursday, 22 November 2018 (Days 666-672)

[Read more…]

November 16, 2018 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
November 9, 2018

Trump Administration, Week 95: Friday, 9 November – Thursday, 15 November 2018 ( Days 659-665)

‘Nobody Is Above the Law-Protect Mueller’ demonstration in Pittsfield, MA, Thursday, 8 November 2018

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 9 November 2018, Day 659:

 

Judge Blocks the Disputed Keystone XL Pipeline in a Setback for Trump’s Energy Agenda, The New York Times, Lisa Friedman, Friday, 9 November 2018: “A federal judge late Thursday blocked construction of the disputed Keystone XL oil pipeline, saying the Trump administration ‘simply discarded’ the effect the project would have on climate change. The ruling by Judge Brian Morris of the United States District Court for Montana repudiates one of Donald J. Trump’s first acts as president. Two days after taking office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order approving the Keystone pipeline that had been blocked by former President Barack Obama because of environmental concerns. In saying that no work can go forward until the government more fully reviews the pipeline’s environmental impact, the ruling tees up another potentially contentious legal battle over climate change with a president who dismisses mainstream science and whose administration is also seeking to block a landmark lawsuit on behalf of children asking the government to stop the rise of planet-warming gases…. Environmental groups hailed the decision as a major victory in the long-running battle over Keystone, which has spanned more than a decade and become a symbol of the political battle over climate change. The nearly 1,200-mile pipeline from TransCanada Corp. would carry about 800,000 barrels of petroleum a day from the Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.” See also, Federal judge blocks Keystone XL pipeline, saying Trump administration review ignored ‘inconvenient’ climate change facts, The Washington Post, Fred Barbash and Allyson Chiu, Friday, 9 November 2018: “A federal judge temporarily blocked construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, ruling late Thursday that the Trump administration had failed to justify its decision granting a permit for the 1,200-mile long project designed to connect Canada’s tar sands crude oil with refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. The judge, Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court in Montana, said President Trump’s State Department ignored crucial issues of climate change in order to further the president’s goal of letting the pipeline be built. In doing so, the administration ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires ‘reasoned’ explanations for government decisions, particularly when they represent reversals of well-studied actions. It was a major defeat for Trump, who attacked the Obama administration for stopping the project in the face of protests and an environmental impact study.”

Trump Suspends Some Asylum Rights, Calling Illegal Immigration ‘a Crisis,’ The New York Times, Michael D. Shear and Eileen Sullivan, Friday, 9 November 2018: “President Trump proclaimed on Friday that the illegal entry of immigrants across the southern border of the United States was detrimental to the national interest, spurring tough changes that will deny asylum to all migrants who do not enter through official border crossings. The proclamation, issued just moments before Mr. Trump left the White House for a weekend trip to Paris, suspends asylum rights for all immigrants who try to cross into the United States illegally, though officials said it was aimed primarily at several thousand migrants traveling north through Mexico in caravans…. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Friday within hours of the president’s proclamation, urging a federal judge to prohibit Mr. Trump from moving ahead with his plans to deny asylum to thousands of migrants who may cross the border. In a legal filing in United States District Court in San Francisco, the A.C.L.U. said that the president’s move was ‘in direct violation of Congress’s clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar.’ The lawsuit also alleges that the administration enacted the rule ‘without the required procedural steps and without good cause for immediately putting the rule into effect.'” See also, Trump issues decree limiting asylum protection for migrants crossing illegally into the U.S., The Washington Post, Nick Miroff, Friday, 9 November 2018: “President Trump issued a decree Friday to set in motion his administration’s new restrictions on access to asylum protections for those who enter the United States illegally, asserting broad executive authorities that will take effect after midnight but could be challenged in federal court before then. Under the new measures, announced by administration officials Thursday, Trump will rely on the same emergency authority invoked during his ‘travel ban’ of early 2017 to bar anyone crossing the Mexico border illegally from qualifying for asylum. Those protections will remain available to those who apply at official border crossings, or U.S. ports of entry, and the restrictions would not apply to underage asylum seekers who arrive without a parent or guardian.” See also, Lawsuit seeks to block Trump from restricting asylum for migrants who enter the U.S. illegally, The Washington Post, Nick Miroff, Friday, 9 November 2018: “Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and other immigrant advocacy groups filed suit Friday in the Northern District of California to block the Trump administration’s plan to deny asylum protections to migrants who cross the Mexico border illegally. The suit accuses the administration of attempting to violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that Trump administration officials have improperly rushed to implement the new restrictions while also asserting executive powers that lie beyond the scope of what the Supreme Court upheld in its ‘travel ban’ decision this year.” See also, Read Trump’s Proclamation Targeting the Caravan and Asylum Seekers, The New York Times, Friday, 9 November 2018.

Donald Trump Played a Central Role in Hush Payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, The Wall Street Journal, Joe Palazzolo, Nicole Hong, Michael Rothfeld, Rebecca Davis O’Brien, and Rebecca Ballhaus, Friday, 9 November 2018: “As a presidential candidate in August 2015, Donald Trump huddled with a longtime friend, media executive David Pecker, in his cluttered 26th floor Trump Tower office and made a request. What can you do to help my campaign? he asked, according to people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Pecker, chief executive of American Media Inc., offered to use his National Enquirer tabloid to buy the silence of women if they tried to publicize alleged sexual encounters with Mr. Trump. Less than a year later, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Pecker to quash the story of a former Playboy model who said they’d had an affair. Mr. Pecker’s company soon paid $150,000 to the model, Karen McDougal, to keep her from speaking publicly about it. Mr. Trump later thanked Mr. Pecker for the assistance. The Trump Tower meeting and its aftermath are among several previously unreported instances in which Mr. Trump intervened directly to suppress stories about his alleged sexual encounters with women, according to interviews with three dozen people who have direct knowledge of the events or who have been briefed on them, as well as court papers, corporate records and other documents. Taken together, the accounts refute a two-year pattern of denials by Mr. Trump, his legal team and his advisers that he was involved in payoffs to Ms. McDougal and a former adult-film star. They also raise the possibility that the president of the United States violated federal campaign-finance laws. The Wall Street Journal found that Mr. Trump was involved in or briefed on nearly every step of the agreements. He directed deals in phone calls and meetings with his self-described fixer, Michael Cohen, and others. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan has gathered evidence of Mr. Trump’s participation in the transactions.” See also, The increasing evidence suggesting Trump violated campaign-finance law, The Washington Post, Philip Bump, Friday, 9 November 2018: “President Trump has long argued that he did not engage in extramarital affairs with adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal and, further, that he knew nothing about payments intended to keep the two women quiet before the 2016 campaign. His insistence on those fronts, already crumbling in the wake of admissions under oath from his former personal attorney Michael Cohen, eroded almost entirely Friday following the release of a lengthy new report by the Wall Street Journal.”

Continue reading Week 95, Friday, 9 November – Thursday, 15 November 2018 (Days 659-665)

[Read more…]

November 9, 2018 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
November 2, 2018

Trump Administration, Week 94: Friday, 2 November – Thursday, 8 November 2018 (Days 652-658)

Cambridge, MA, 20 January 2018

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 2 November 2018, Day 652:

 

Supreme Court allows trial on census citizenship question to go forward, The Washington Post, Robert Barnes, Friday, 2 November 2018: “The Supreme Court refused Friday to delay an upcoming trial in which a number of states and civil rights organizations allege there was an improper political motive in Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The trial is scheduled to begin Monday in New York. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch said they would have granted the Trump administration’s request to delay the trial. It is unclear how the other six voted — including new Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh — because justices are not required to publish their votes in such procedures. But at least five of the six were unwilling to block the trial. The administration has been to the high court several times in an attempt to keep the challengers from questioning Ross and other administration officials about their motivations in adding the question. Department of Justice lawyers finally asked the court to delay the proceedings. Challengers to the citizenship question cheered the court’s refusal to do so.” See also, Supreme Court Allows Trial on Census Citizenship Question to Go Forward, The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 2 November 2018: “Rejecting a request from the Trump administration, the Supreme Court declined on Friday to halt a trial in a lawsuit challenging the addition of a question concerning citizenship to the 2020 census. The court’s brief order, which gave no reasons, came a little over a week after it granted the administration a partial victory in the case by temporarily blocking the deposition of Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, who oversees the Census Bureau. The lawsuit, filed by New York, other states, localities and advocacy groups, said that asking the citizenship question was a calculated effort by the administration to discriminate against immigrants. The advocacy groups said that Mr. Ross’s ‘shifting and inaccurate explanations’ for the addition of the question pointed to a political motive.”

Supreme Court Lets Youths’ Case Demanding Climate Action Proceed, The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 2 November 2018: “The Supreme Court on Friday refused to halt the trial in a lawsuit brought by 21 young people seeking to force the federal government to take action to address climate change. The court’s unsigned order said the Trump administration had raised substantial questions about the plaintiffs’ legal theories and the sweeping relief they sought. But the court said it would not intercede, instructing the plaintiffs to take the case back to an appeals court. Julia Olson, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement, ‘The youth of our nation won an important decision today from the Supreme Court that shows even the most powerful government in the world must follow the rules and process of litigation in our democracy.’ Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch said they would have granted the administration’s request to block the trial until the Supreme Court had an opportunity to consider the case.” See also, Supreme Court refuses to block young people’s climate lawsuit against U.S. government, The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Brady Dennis, Friday, 2 November 2018: “The Supreme Court on Friday night refused to halt a novel lawsuit filed by young Americans that attempts to force the federal government to take action on climate change, turning down a request from the Trump administration to stop it before trial. The suit, filed in 2015 by 21 young people who argue that the failure of government leaders to combat climate change violates their constitutional right to a clean environment, is before a federal judge in Oregon. It had been delayed while the Supreme Court considered the emergency request from the government.”

Judge Orders Evidence to Be Gathered in Emoluments Case Against Trump, The New York Times, Sharon LaFraniere, Friday, 2 November 2018: “A federal judge in Maryland on Friday ordered evidence-gathering to begin in a lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution by maintaining a financial interest in his company’s Washington hotel. The plaintiffs are seeking records that could illuminate potential conflicts of interest involving Mr. Trump and foreign and state officials. The Justice Department, which sought to delay the lawsuit, failed to show a compelling reason to hold up the case and allow its lawyers to appeal the lower court’s rulings to a higher court, said the judge, Peter J. Messitte of the United States District Court in Greenbelt, Md. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland, have accused Mr. Trump of violating constitutional bans against influence-peddling by accepting profits from the Trump International Hotel, a five-star hotel just blocks from the White House where many foreign and state officials stay while conducting business with the administration. Judge Messitte found earlier that the jurisdictions had legal standing to sue the president, and that the Constitution’s language restricting the president’s acceptance of financial benefits, or emoluments, should be broadly interpreted as protections against corruption. The emoluments clauses had never before been interpreted by a court.” See also, Judge denies Trump’s request for stay in emoluments case, The Washington Post, Jonathan O’Connell and David A. Fahrenthold, Friday, 2 November 2018: “A federal judge on Friday denied President Trump’s request to stay a lawsuit alleging he is violating the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments, a decision that paves the way for plaintiffs to seek information about customers at his D.C. hotel. U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Greenbelt, Md., denied the Justice Department’s request that he pause the case to allow a higher court to intervene. And Messitte sharply questioned the president’s position that his business does not improperly accept gifts or payments — called emoluments — as defined by the Constitution.”

Continue reading Week 94, Friday, 2 November – Thursday, 8 November 2018 (Days 652-658)

[Read more…]

November 2, 2018 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle