Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump has tapped his son-in-law, White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, to oversee construction of the ballyhooed border wall the president has promoted since the onset of his presidential campaign, The Washington Post reported.

The move further expands Kushner's already large portfolio, which includes working on a Middle East peace deal, overhauling the legal immigration and criminal justice systems, pushing trade policy, modernizing the federal government and taking a lead role on Trump's 2020 reelection campaign.

The Post reported that Kushner leads biweekly West Wing meetings focused on the wall's progress, officials familiar with the matter said. Kushner is pushing both U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers to seize hundreds of parcels of private property so that the government has a chance to meet Trump's goal of building 450 miles of wall along the southern border by the end of next year, with aides telling the Post it is paramount to Trump that 400 of those miles be completed by Election Day.

Trump defended his border wall efforts in a Tuesday tweet, saying it's "wrong" to say the new wall is not being built when old barriers are being replaced. Since Trump took office, the vast majority of wall construction has been for replacement border fencing, not a new wall in places where it didn't exist previously.

Trump resorted to pulling funding from the Defense Department after Congress refused to appropriate money for the project. The Pentagon said in September that it would use $3.6 billion in military construction money to build the wall, in addition to previously making $2.5 billions of counter-drug money available.

Trump declared a national emergency at the border in February in a bid to circumvent Congress and fund wall construction. The border wall was one of Trump's earliest campaign promises during the 2016 election. He initially said it would be paid for by Mexico.

Allan Smith is a political reporter for NBC News.

See more here:
Kushner reportedly overseeing construction of Trump's border wall - NBC News

There are two very big lies that President Donald Trump and his sycophants have used, through aggressive, bombastic repetition, to shape the public debate about impeachment, and about Trumps legitimacy more broadly.

The first big lie is that the people elected Trump and that the constitutional provision of impeachment would invalidate their choice. In fact, Trump is president only because a constitutional provision invalidated the choice of the American people. Trump lost the popular vote and might have lost the Electoral College without Russian interference and yet many Democrats and pundits have been bullied into accepting the fiction that he has democratic, and not just constitutional, legitimacy.

The second big lie is that Russia didnt help elect Trump, and that the president has been absolved of collusion. Its true that the report by Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, did not find enough evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between Trumps campaign and Russian state actors. But the Mueller report found abundant evidence that the campaign sought Russian help, benefited from that help and obstructed the FBI investigation into Russian actions. His investigation resulted in felony convictions for Trumps former campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, personal lawyer, first national security adviser and longtime political adviser, among others.

Had public life in America not been completely deformed by blizzards of official lies, right-wing propaganda and the immovable wall of Republican bad faith, the Mueller report would have ended Trumps minoritarian presidency. Instead, something utterly perverse happened. Democrats, deflated by the Mueller reports anticlimactic rollout, decided to move on rather than keep the focus on Trumps world-historic treachery. Republicans, meanwhile, started screaming about a Russia hoax ostensibly perpetrated on their dear leader. Among them was the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, who in 2016 was surreptitiously recorded telling his congressional colleagues that he thinks President Vladimir Putin of Russia pays Trump. Swear to God, he said at the time.

This brings us to where we are now. Democrats understand that the Ukraine scandal is an outgrowth of the Russia scandal as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last month, with Trump, all roads seem to lead to Putin. Yet theyve made the political calculation that reopening the broader story of how Trump has been compromised by Russia is a political loser.

Rather, its Republicans, with their heroic capacity for shamelessness, who want to talk about Russia. Theyve set out to investigate the investigators, trying to make efforts to uncover the truth about Trumps Russia connections, rather than the connections themselves, into a scandal. And now theyre trying to expand their big lie about Russia to cover Ukraine as well. The president, McCarthy said last month, was trying to get to the bottom, just as every American would want to know, why did we have this Russia hoax that actually started within Ukraine.

Because Republicans have been so successful in shrouding the origins of the Russia investigation in a miasma of misinformation, I hope some talented filmmaker makes a movie out of the new book by Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, Crime in Progress: Inside the Steele Dossier and the Fusion GPS Investigation of Donald Trump. Simpson and Fritsch are co-founders of Fusion GPS, the research firm that investigated Trump during the 2016 campaign, first for the conservative Washington Free Beacon, and then for a lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

It was Fusion GPS that hired British ex-spy Christopher Steele to look into Trumps Russia connections, and it sits at the center of countless pro-Trump conspiracy theories. When Republicans controlled the House, Fritsch told me Monday, The only bank records that were subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee were ours.

Crime in Progress is the best procedural yet written about the discovery of Trumps Russia ties. It demolishes a number of right-wing talking points, including the claim that the Steele dossier formed the basis of the FBIs counterintelligence inquiry into Trump. But it also makes plain what many Republicans knew before the 2016 election, even if theyve now pretended to forget it. For years, Trump was financially entangled with organized crime as well as with Kremlin-friendly oligarchs, and by keeping those entanglements secret, he gave Putin leverage over him from the moment he took office.

Write Simpson and Fritsch, In the end, the Mueller probe sidestepped the question that so unnerved Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele in the summer of 2016: Was the president of the United States under the influence of a foreign adversary? Republicans have used all the power at their command to defame people whove asked this question. Perhaps thats because otherwise theyd have to take seriously all the evidence that the answer is yes.

Michelle Goldberg is an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times.

Follow this link:
Michelle Goldberg: The Republicans' big lies on Trump and Russia - Salt Lake Tribune

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to greet Boyko Borissov, Bulgaria's prime minister, not pictured, at the South Portico of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Monday, Nov. 25, 2019.

Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images

President Donald Trump won a temporary victory at the Supreme Court this week, when a majority of the justices voted to temporarily halt a subpoena issued by Congress for his financial records.

That move was largely expected. In fact, the subpoena had already been halted by Chief Justice John Roberts in order to give the court time to consider the issue. The court's move on Monday evening extended that freeze with a vote from the full panel.

The subpoena was issued by the Democratic-led House Oversight Committee in April to Trump's longtime accounting firm Mazars USA, and seeks a wide variety of financial documents including both personal and business records.

Trump has bucked recent precedent by refusing to voluntarily disclose his financial records. He is the first president in more than four decades not to release his tax returns.

The real action happens next. In its order, the court gave the president until Dec. 5 to file his formal appeal, known as a petition. The fact that the panel asked for the president's filing so soon likely means that the court intends to rule on the matter in its current term, which ends in June.

The president's petition will ask the court to review a decision against him issued by a 2-1 vote of a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., in October.

The court is already weighing whether it will review a separate decision over the president's financial records issued by a federal appeals court in New York. The three-judge panel in that case ordered Mazars USA to turn over the president's financial records to the Manhattan district attorney.

Experts expect that the court will agree to take the cases, but it's not clear if the president will ultimately prevail. It takes four justices on the nine-member panel to agree to hear a case. The court currently has a 5-4 conservative majority, including two Trump appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

If the court agrees to take the cases, it will likely hear oral arguments some time between February and April. The cases will join what is already a packed term of cases on issues involving guns, abortion, and the DACA program that protects 700,000 "Dreamers," which could focus attention on the court's new conservative majority during a contentious election year.

The court generally releases its most high-profile opinions in June. In May, Trump wrote in a post on Twitter that he hoped the fight for his tax returns would be "part of the 2020 Election." He's likely to get what he asked for.

The top court has never settled the specific legal questions at the heart of the two cases involving the president's financial records, according to Marty Lederman, a former Justice Department attorney.

It has not had the opportunity to do so. No president has ever asked the court to review a subpoena for his personal papers that predate his time in office, or for one issued by a state prosecutor targeting him in a criminal investigation.

But Lederman said he expects that the justices will ultimately rule against the president. In the two cases that most closely resemble Trump's appeals, involving Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court voted unanimously against the commander in chief.

The first case, U.S. v. Nixon, arose out of the Watergate scandal that ultimately doomed Nixon's presidency. The court rejected Nixon's claims of immunity on the basis of "executive privilege," and ordered him to deliver tape recordings as part of a court proceeding against some of his closest aides.

In the second, Clinton v. Jones, the court considered whether Clinton was immune to a sexual harassment suit brought against him while he was in office. The court rejected Clinton's claim of immunity, though it noted that there could exist exceptional circumstances in which such immunity could exist.

In both cases, justices voted against the president who appointed them, including three Nixon appointees and two Clinton appointees. Those Clinton appointees, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as well as Justice Clarence Thomas, who was on the court in Clinton v. Jones and was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, remain on the bench.

Ashwin Phatak, who serves as counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, said that some of the broader propositions from the Nixon and Clinton cases are relevant in Trump's battles.

"If the court rules in favor of the president, that would be a sea change in how people think about this issue of presidential immunity," he said.

But Elizabeth Slattery, a legal researcher at The Heritage Foundation who hosts the popular "SCOTUS 101" podcast, said that Trump is looking to distinguish the current case from those past rulings. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank.

Slattery said that a point in the president's favor is the appearance that Congress is attempting to add a qualification to the presidency namely, the disclosure of personal financial information.

"Congress cannot expand or alter the qualifications for the office of the president," she said.

And, she said, congressional subpoenas are not the method that the Constitution provides for probing a sitting president.

"It all comes back to the fact that impeachment is the way that Congress can investigate, not through pseudo law enforcement tools," she said.

Ultimately, if the court takes the cases, the deciding vote could be Roberts, who is known to care about the court's reputation and, alongside Kavanaugh, occupies the panel's ideological center.

Trump has faced major challenges to his presidency at the end of each of the last two Supreme Court terms, and in each case, Roberts has written the court's 5-4 opinion.

In June of 2018, Roberts sided with the majority to uphold an iteration of the president's travel ban. But the next year, Roberts flipped sides in a case involving the Trump administration's attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, effectively killing the proposal.

Go here to read the rest:
The Supreme Court halted a subpoena for Trump's financial records. Here's what happens next - CNBC

Were up against a crisis I never thought Id see in my lifetime: a dictator-like attack by President Donald Trump on everything this country stands for. As last weeks impeachment hearings made clear, our shared tolerance and respect for the truth, our sacred rule of law, our essential freedom of the press and our precious freedoms of speech all have been threatened by a single man.

Our shared tolerance and respect for the truth, our sacred rule of law, our essential freedom of the press and our precious freedoms of speech all have been threatened by a single man.

Its time for Trump to go along with those in Congress who have chosen party loyalty over their oath to solemnly affirm their support for the Constitution of the United States. And its up to us to make that happen, through the power of our votes.

When Trump was elected, though he was not my choice, I honestly thought it only fair to give the guy a chance. And like many others, I did. But almost instantly he began to disappoint and then alarm me. I dont think Im alone.

Get the think newsletter.

Tonight it pains me to watch what is happening to our country. Growing up as a child during World War II, I watched a united America defend itself against the threat of fascism. I watched this again, during the Watergate crisis, when our democracy was threatened. And again, when terrorists turned our world upside down.

During those times of crises, Congress came together, and our leaders came together. Politicians from both sides rose to defend our founding principles and the values that make us a global leader and a philosophical beacon of hope for all those seeking their own freedoms.

What is happening, right now, is so deeply disturbing that instead of the United States of America, we are now defined as the Divided States of America. Leaders on both sides lack the fundamental courage to cross political aisles on behalf of what is good for the American people.

Were at a point in time where I reluctantly believe that we have much to lose it is a critical and unforgiving moment.

Were at a point in time where I reluctantly believe that we have much to lose it is a critical and unforgiving moment. This monarchy in disguise has been so exhausting and chaotic, its not in the least bit surprising so many citizens are disillusioned.

The vast majority of Americans are busy with real life; trying to make ends meet and deeply frustrated by how hard Washington makes it to do just that.

But this is it. There are only 11 months left before the presidential election; 11 months before we get our one real chance to right this ship and change the course of disaster that lies before us.

Lets rededicate ourselves to voting for truth, character and integrity in our representatives (no matter which side were on). Lets go back to being the leader the world so desperately needs. Lets return, quickly, to being simply ... Americans.

Related:

Robert Redford

Robert Redford is an actor, director, producer and activist.

Visit link:
President Trump's dictator-like administration is attacking the values America holds dear - NBC News

First lady Melania Trump was greeted with resounding boos by students at an opioid awareness event in Baltimore on Tuesday, even as her husband, President Donald Trump, donated his salary for the third quarter of the year to combat the opioid crisis.

Melania Trump was loudly booed as she was introduced at the B'More Youth Summit on Opioid Awareness at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County by Jim Wahlberg, brother of the actors Mark and Donnie Wahlberg.

And the boos continued as she thanked Wahlberg for "the warm introduction," and began speaking to the audience, which was comprised primarily of middle school and high school students.

"I hope that the knowledge you gain here will help you tackle the tough decisions you may be faced with, so that you can live a healthy and drug-free life," she said at the event, wich was organized by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Mark Walhberg Youth Foundation.

"Get involved and be a part of the solution."

The first lady's Be Best public awareness initiative is focused on promoting well-being and online safety for children, as well as combating opioid abuse.

The opioid crisis has been blamed for the majority of the 70,000 fatal overdoses of Americans in 2017.

Later Tuesday, Melania Trump, through White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham, issued a statement in response to the heckling at the event.

"We live in a democracy and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the fact is we have a serious crisis in our country and I remain committed to educating children on the dangers and deadly consequences of drug abuse," said the first lady.

Baltimore was targeted by President Trump in July, when the president lashed out at Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Democrat whose district included parts of Baltimore city and Baltimore County.

Cummings' "district is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," Trump tweeted at the time. "If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place."

Cummings has since died.

Kate Bennett, a CNN reporter and the author of a new biography about Melania Trump, said on Twitter that the audience's reaction to the first lady at the Baltimore event "was the worst booing she has received at a public event where she has given solo remarks."

President Trump in 2017 donated a quarter of his $400,000 annual salary toward efforts to stem the crisis. On Tuesday, the president repeated that donation for that effort.

The president since taking office has committed to donating his entire salary to various causes.

US First Lady Melania Trump arrives to address the B'More Youth Summit in Baltimore, Maryland, on November 26, 2019.

Nicholas Kamm | AFP | Getty Images

See more here:
First lady Melania Trump loudly booed at opioid event on same day that President Trump donates salary to drug-fighting efforts - CNBC