Mediaboss Marketing

Some of the world's largest and most powerful banks spent the past decade mired in scandal, but none descended as far into ignominy as Germany's Deutsche Bank. Its rap sheet includes a staggering array of ethical and legal lapses, including money laundering, tax fraud and sanctions violations not to mention mysterious ties to President Trump that federal investigators are even now looking into.

How this plodding, conservative bank from a country famous for diligence and thrift turned into the most infamous casino on Wall Street is the subject of David Enrich's excellent, deeply reported book Dark Towers: Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump, and an Epic Trail of Destruction.

It is by now a familiar story. "This proud national icon was seduced by the siren song of Wall Street riches," Enrich writes. Thanks partly to deregulation, big firms such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch were coming up with tantalizing new ways to make money, and by 1994 Deutsche Bank wanted a piece of the action.

It started by recruiting Edson Mitchell, an American executive from Merrill, who believed Deutsche Bank's "stubborn Germanness was the main impediment to unleashing its full animal spirits." Mitchell set about building a global markets operation, not at the bank's Frankfurt headquarters but in London, where he could function more independently. He hired a staff of "bloodthirsty piranhas" from Wall Street who knew how to push boundaries, as Enrich's tale tells.

Among them was Bill Broeksmit, a risk management genius who subsequently killed himself as regulators were moving in on the bank and whose death is the mystery Enrich uses to frame the story.

Mitchell died early in a plane crash, but the machinery he built kept chugging along. Enrich tells the story of its rise and fall in the careful style of a good newspaper reporter (he is an editor at The New York Times) but allows the complicated material to unfold like a good novel.

Over time, he writes, Deutsche Bank became less German and more global, so much so that the bank had to post a sign in its London lobby explaining how to say "Deutsche." Too many of the American traders were pronouncing it "douche bank."

With the piranhas in charge, Deutsche Bank eventually became the biggest bank in the world, with 90,000 employees and some $2 trillion in assets almost the size of the German economy, Enrich notes. Despite that, it was a clumsily managed place. The bank's antiquated computer system made it difficult for senior management to monitor London's activities, even if they'd wanted to and it's not clear they did. Management tended to look the other way when employees broke the rules, even when they did business with dictators like Russian President Vladimir Putin and their friends. "Even by the amoral standards of Wall Street, Deutsche exhibited a jarring lack of interest in its clients' reputations," Enrich writes.

Just how disconnected the bank became can be seen in its ongoing relationship with a then New York real estate developer named Donald Trump, whose multiple bankruptcies had made him a pariah in the banking world. One part of Deutsche Bank turned down Trump's request for a loan. But the private banking division, which catered to the rich and famous, arranged the loan anyway and then, when Trump stopped making payments, arranged another one.

Trump's murky relationship with Deutsche Bank is still under congressional investigation, so Enrich's story is necessarily incomplete. Still, the book has enough detail to make its case that Deutsche Bank was more than just one more rogue bank; it is a cautionary tale of what happens when a bank pursues profits at any cost, without being weighed down by pesky moral scruples.

Read the original here:
'Dark Towers' Is A Cautionary Tale Of Deutsche Bank Pursuing Profits At Any Cost - NPR

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (CBS4) President Donald Trump is planning a campaign stop in Colorado Springs this week. Colorado RepublicanSen.Cory Gardner will join the president during a rally on Feb. 20 at the Broadmoor World Arena.

The rally is set to start at 5 p.m. local time. Tickets are available online on a first come, first served basis.

Gardner for Senate Communications Director Jerrod Dobkin issued the following statement ahead of the rally:

Senator Gardner is looking forward to joining President Trump to tout all the great accomplishments they have delivered to Colorado, including the BLM headquarters, Space Force, delivering clean drinking water to fifty thousand Coloradans, record low unemployment, and more. Senator Gardner is hopeful both Democrats and Republicans will want to celebrate these successes.

Colorado Democratic Party spokesman David Pourshoushtari released the following statement Thursday evening:

Cory Gardners a spineless yes-man whos sold out Colorado to Donald Trump time and time again. Whether its their numerous attacks on Coloradans healthcare or raiding millions of dollars from Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, its no wonder theyre both so profoundly unpopular here in Colorado. We rejected Trump in 2016, and well reject him and his enabler Cory Gardner at the ballot box this November.

Campaign 2020 Resources

See a list of important dates in Colorados 2020 election cycle.

The field of candidates who will be on Colorados first presidential primary in 20 years has been largely established. To see a list of the candidates who have submitted a statement of intent and filing fee in order to appear on the March 3 Colorado Presidential Primary (which is also Super Tuesday) click here.

Register to vote through the Colorado Secretary of States office.

Follow this link:
Donald Trump To Rally In Colorado Springs With Cory Gardner On Thursday - CBS Denver

John Meredith, of Huntsville, is a former Capitol Hill lobbyist who was recognized as one of the countrys 100 most influential Black Republicans.

In a nation claiming reverence for the Lord, an oath before God cannot be meaningless.

In a nation claiming to respect the rule of law, breaking those laws can never be excused, even if it furthers the cause of a political party. In a nation where trial and punishment are only visited upon ones political enemies and those without means, justice is impossible.

Ignoring the role of Attorney General William Barr in orchestrating the demise of the rule of law in America, three actions taken by POTUS in particular have forever stained the legacy of American jurisprudence and symbolize the end to the unbiased administration of justice.

John Meredith is a contributing columnist for AL.com.John Meredith

First, and arguably the most nefarious, was granting a pardon to Arizonas disgraced xenophobic Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Convicted of disobeying a federal judge's order to stop racial profiling in detaining people thought to be in the U.S. illegally, President Trump pardoned Arpaio before he was even sentenced for his crime. What makes this act so detrimental to our criminal justice system is that POTUS used the constitutional power of his office to block a federal judge's effort to enforce the Constitution itself.

The next action taken by the President threatening the rule of law was his instructing recipients of duly served subpoenas not to honor the compulsion of their appearance. Investigation is indispensable to addressing crime. Subpoenas compel those with knowledge of a crime to share that knowledge with law enforcement or the courts. Without the knowledge gained through subpoenaed testimony, the majority of crime in America will not be prosecuted due to lack of evidence and our streets would soon teem with unaccountable felons.

The latest presidential act to redefine American justice involves the sentencing memo for convicted felon, Roger Stone. Since the 1980s, every federal criminal case resulting in conviction employs the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for determining punishment. In Stones case, POTUS has defied his own Department of Justice by preemptively encouraging leniency to his friend, regardless of the standard to which others violating the same laws are held.

The aforementioned trifecta of judicial breaches affects both pretrial and trial viability. In addition, it mitigates findings of guilt both before and after sentencing. As a result, we now have trials without proper evidence or fact witnesses. As a result, convicted criminals may well escape punishment if their crimes benefited the rich or powerful while granting no recourse for the falsely accused.

In other words, the faithful administration of justice is functionally impossible in America today. What remains is the illusion of justice. The weight of that illusion is borne entirely by those without influence and administered by the unaccountable hands of those without mercy.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the attack on law and order in America is the failure to protect those who come forward after witnessing blatantly illegal acts. They are the bedrock of American jurisprudence. They must be protected from retaliation, not terrorized for bearing witness to the truth.

Upon further reflection, the plethora of openly brazen political payoffs to partisan Senate jurors for the willful violation of their impeachment oaths, is the worst element of Donald Trumps assault on truth and justice. One documented example of this flagrant miscarriage of justice occurred only days after the vote for acquittal when Senator Lisa Murkowski miraculously landed a $20 million U.S. Department of Transportation grant for port infrastructure development in her home state of Alaska.

A Christian nation that fails to embody biblical teachings is an anathema to God. A democracy that does not administer justice blindly is destined for autocracy. Before the Founding Fathers roll over in their graves ashamed of what we have done with their greatest gift, citizens must summon the courage to demand the restoration of the rule of law in America. Until then, those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom will have done so in vain.

Read the rest here:
Donald Trumps assault on truth and justice - al.com

Philippines President Rodrigo Dutertethreatened in Januaryto end his countrys Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States if Washington would not reinstate the visa of his former drug war chief. Last Tuesday, Dutertesgovernment announcedthe agreement permitting U.S. troops to train in the Philippines is done. Its about time we rely on ourselves. We will strengthen our own defenses and not rely on any other country, Dutertes representative quoted him saying.

Well, maybe or maybe notPhilippine Foreign Secretary Teddy Locsin Jr., who tweeted the initial announcement, alsoindicated on Twitterthat Manilas endgame is forcing Washington to negotiate on trade and security issues, not actually ousting U.S. troops. And it seems likely the visa revocation is merely a convenient excuse for a move Duterte wanted to make regardless.

But whatever Dutertes intent, the Trump administration should take his announcement seriously and bring our troops home. And he might be taking it seriouslyReuters reports that Trump said hewouldn't mindif the agreement was terminated, making the point that, "it will save a lot of money." However, putting aside financial concerns, there's good reason to end the U.S. military presence in the Philippinesand beyond.

The United Statesmaintains about800 overseas military bases in 70 nations and territories around the world. Some house only a few dozen American troops, but at many, U.S. forces number in the tens of thousands. No other country has anything like this global military presence: The U.K., France, and Russia together have a mere 30 or so foreign bases, and two of them are close U.S. allies.

This worldwide sprawl of American military might is expensive, risky, and counterproductive to U.S. security. It costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every yearmoney which functionally subsidizes the host nations governments, which too often respond to our military presence by avoiding responsibility for their own defense. Thats bad enough in Europe, where wealthy NATO allies perfectly capable of defending themselves are freed up to spend more on their domestic welfare states instead. Its worse in countries like the Philippines, where Dutertes brutal regime can claim the credibility of alliance with the United States while oppressing its own people. In war zones like Iraqanother nation, incidentally,which has askedU.S. troops to leaveprolonging U.S. presence there puts Americans in harms way on behalf of a country that does not want them there.

Battlefield risk is not the only danger these foreign bases occasion. In ocean trade lanes near the Philippines, for example, the U.S. conducts Freedom of Navigation Operationsto push back on Chinese regional dominance. But as Chinas power grows in its near abroad, such operations increasingly chance unwanted encounters between U.S. and Chinese forces, like thelate 2018 near-collisionbetween warships. The risk of stumbling into a shooting war is real. Open war between the U.S. and China would be catastrophic even if it never turned nuclear; maintaining an inherently antagonistic presence in the Philippines is short-sighted and reckless.

Fortunately, this network of foreign military bases in the Philippines and elsewhere are not necessary to secure vital U.S. interests. The U.S. military isfar and awaythe most powerful on the planet. Our country enjoys friendly neighbors, considerable geographic advantages, and no peer rivals militarily. Spreading our forces thin to defend and meddle in foreign countries is at best a distraction from core defense priorities and more typically a wasteful, counterproductive use of limited defense resources.

We more and more are not wanting to be the policemen of the world, President Trumphas saidof U.S. foreign policy. Were spending tremendous amounts of money for decades policing the world, and that shouldnt be the priority. His impulse here is correct, but it is difficult to stop policing the world when you have 800 police stations. Shutting down these bases is necessary if we are ever to move toward what Trumpclaims hewants: a prudent, realist foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy in pursuit of peace. Taking the Philippines Duterte at his word here would be a good place to start.

Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities and contributing editor atThe Week. Her writing has also appeared at CNN,Politico,USA Today, theLos Angeles Times,Defense One,andThe American Conservative, among other outlets.

Read the rest here:
The Philippines Wants U.S. Military Forces Gone? Donald Trump Should Do It. - The National Interest Online

Whether you're ready for it or not, election season is now in full swing. Roughly a dozen candidates still remain in the field to become president, including incumbent Republican Donald Trump, and quite a few Democratic contenders.

While there are a number of issues that'll be debated during this election season, it's liable to be the first presidential election cycle where marijuana really takes center stage. After all, a record-tying 66% of Americans favor legalizing cannabis nationally, according to Gallup, with an April 2018 poll from the independent Quinnipiac University finding that better than 9 in 10 Americans supports patient access to medical marijuana.

Knowing exactly where the candidates stand on cannabis is going to be important for cannabis users, workers, and pot stock investors. With that being said, let's take a closer look at current President Donald Trump's views on marijuana.

President Trump at the State of the Union, with Vice President Mike Pence in the background. Image source: Official White House Photo by D. Myles Cullen.

As you're probably well aware, marijuana has firmly remained a Schedule I substance at the federal level in the three-plus years that Trump has been in the Oval Office. As a Schedule I substance, it's illicit, prone to abuse, and is not recognized as having any medical benefits. This classification has proved a hindrance in terms of obtaining nondilutive forms of financing for U.S. pot stocks, and it allows Section 280E of the U.S. tax code to come into play, thereby allowing for few, if any, corporate tax deductions.

Yet in spite of keeping marijuana's scheduling unchanged, Trump has firmly offered his support for states having the right to legalize and regulate their own weed industries. In August 2019, Steven Nelson of DC Examiner asked Trump whether marijuana would be legalized under his presidency, to which he replied, "We're going to see what's going on. It's a very big subject and right now we are allowing states to make that decision. A lot of states are making that decision, but we're allowing states to make that decision."

As a reminder, 33 states have legalized medical marijuana since 1996, with 11 of those states also allowing the consumption and/or retail of adult-use pot. This includes Illinois, which became the first state to approve the consumption and sale of recreational marijuana entirely at the legislative level.

What this suggests is that Trump is liable to maintain the status quo if reelected to a second term. Although he stated that he was "100 percent" behind the idea of medical marijuana being prescribed by a physician during his 2015-2016 campaign, the president seems perfectly fine side-stepping the issue at the federal level in its entirety and allowing individual states to make their own decisions.

President Trump giving remarks in front of the White House. Image source: Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian.

While there's certainly some solace in Trump's statement that he plans to allow states to continue to decide their future with regard to legalizing marijuana, the president has also made a number of questionable decisions that suggest he might be more anti-cannabis than he lets on.

As an example, Trump initially hired former Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions to be his attorney general. It was no secret at the time of the hiring that Sessions was an ardent opponent of cannabis. While as attorney general, Sessions tried to convince fellow lawmakers in Congress to repeal certain cannabis protections that would allow him and the Justice Department to use federal funds to prosecute medical marijuana businesses in legal states. Though Sessions resigned following the 2018 midterm elections, his selection as Attorney General by Trump is a head-scratcher for marijuana enthusiasts.

Another questionable decision came as recently as December 2019, when Trump attached a signing statement to a federal funding bill that was signed into law. Presidents typically attach signing statements to legislation that they believe could impede their executive authority. In this instance, the signing statement, while vague, suggests that President Trump would have the authority to uphold federal law in accordance with his constitutional responsibilities. Again, while it's unlikely that Trump would ignore previously passed protections for medical marijuana businesses, this signing statement, in theory, would allow him to do exactly that.

Image source: Getty Images.

So, what exactly would a Trump reelection mean for the U.S. cannabis industry and investors? The answer is probably more of the same.

There is a possibility that cannabis banking reform could work its way down the pipeline, even if marijuana remains illicit at the federal level. However, for this to happen, we'd need to see Republican leaders in the Senate soften their stance. For example, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) has offered a number of counterproposals to the Safe and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act that'd severely limit its benefits. Meanwhile, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has routinely blocked any cannabis legislation or riders from reaching the floor for vote. Without significant changes in the political make-up of the Senate, or at least a softening of the upper house's stance on pot, banking reform is probably off the table.

But even with these challenges, we should see quite a few states legalizing medical and/or recreational marijuana. In the November 2020 election, I'd be surprised if New Jersey and Arizona failed to legalize adult-use cannabis, with Florida and New York likely candidates to do the same by or before 2022.

For some vertically integrated multistate operators (MSO) in the U.S., the status quo isn't such a bad thing. Curaleaf Holdings (OTC:CURLF), for instance, has secured traditional financing and looks to be well on its way to being a leading MSO. Curaleaf, assuming it completes its acquisition of privately held Grassroots, should be the first pot stock to hit $1 billion in annual sales. Not to mention, Curaleaf's 53 operational dispensaries is the current high-water mark among MSOs. A continuation of the status quo would be just fine.

Meanwhile, the status quo wouldn't be as well-received for Canada's Canopy Growth (NYSE:CGC), which has offered $3.4 billion to acquire MSO Acreage Holdings. Although the deal has a 90-month time frame with which to be completed, Canopy has been clear that it has no intention of entering the U.S. pot industry without the drug being legalized at the federal level. Canopy Growth will soon have a hemp-processing/cannabidiol presence in the U.S., but will effectively be locked out of the lucrative American weed industry until the federal government changes its tune. Under Trump's watch, this seems unlikely to happen.

Read the original:
Donald Trump and Marijuana: Everything You Need to Know - The Motley Fool