Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

Donald Trump could be impeached on four grounds, former Labor secretary says – The Independent

There are now four grounds to impeachDonald Trumpand a fifth is "on its way", according to former Labour Secretary Robert Reich.

Posting on Twitter, Mr Reich outlined the four reasons he thinks Mr Trump could be impeached.

He said Mr Trump is "'unfaithfully' executing his duties" by accusing former President Barack Obama of "undertaking an illegal (and impeachable) act."

Donald Trump signs revised travel ban

Last weekend, Mr Trump accused Mr Obama of wiretapping his phones in Trump Tower, though he provided no evidence for his claim.

A spokesman for Mr Obama denied he ever ordered the wiretapping of any US citizen.

Mr Reich also said although part of the constitution forbids government officials from taking things of value from foreign governments, "Trump is making big money off his Trump International Hotel by steering foreign diplomatic delegations to it, and will make a bundle off China's recent decision to grant his trademark applications for the Trump brand decisions Chinese authorities arrived at directly because of decisions Trump has made as president."

China recently granted preliminary approval for dozens of Trump-branded businesses, including new hotels, spas, massage parlours and personal security services.

The former Labor Secretary also said Mr Trump's ban on travel from six Muslim-majority countries violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, which bans any law "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

He also said Mr Trump "labelling the press the 'enemy of the people' and choosing whom he invites to news conferences based on whether they've given him favourable coverage" could be another reason for impeachment, as he said it violates the 1st Amendment on the freedom of the press.

Finally, he wrote:"Article III Section 3 of the Constitution defines 'treason against the United States' as 'adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.' Evidence is mounting that Trump colluded with Russian operatives to win the 2016 presidential election."

Mr Trump has repeatedly denied his team had contact with Russian officials during the 2016 election, but was revealed to have met with Russia's US ambassador at the height of his campaign.

"The question is no longer whether there are grounds to impeach Trump. The practical question is whether there is the political will," Mr Reich concluded.

"As long as Republicans remain in the majority in the House (where a bill of Impeachment originates), it's unlikely.

"Another reason why it's critically important to flip the House in 2018."

Read this article:
Donald Trump could be impeached on four grounds, former Labor secretary says - The Independent

Donald Trump: Psychiatry professors say ‘dangerous’ US President must be removed from post for public safety – The Independent

Donald Trump is dangerous and drastic steps must be taken to protect the public from him, two leading psychiatrists have warned.

The Presidents erratic behaviour, including repeated failure to distinguish between reality and fantasy and paranoid claims of conspiracy, cast doubt over his ability to react rationallyin a crisis, they said.

In a letter to the New York Times, Judith Herman, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and Robert Lifton, a lecturer in psychiatry at Columbia University, said they were not attempting to diagnose Mr Trump.

We are in no way offering a psychiatric diagnosis, which would be unwise to attempt from a distance," they wrote.

"Nevertheless, as psychiatrists we feel obliged to express our alarm. We fear that when faced with a crisis, President Trump will lack the judgment to respond rationally.

The military powers entrusted to him endanger us all. We urge our elected representatives to take the necessary steps to protect us from this dangerous president.

Last month, 35 mental health professionals wrote to the newspaper warning the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr Trumps behaviour made him incapable of serving safely as President.

This drew some criticism as it is usually frowned upon among psychiatrists to give a professional opinion of the mental state of someone they have not examined in person, as dictated by a passage in the American Psychiatric Associations code of ethics known as the Goldwater rule.

Stephen Colbert on Trump's wiretapping claims: Someone get this guy a Xanax

Professor Herman and Dr Lifton gave the Presidents unsubstantiated claim that Barack Obama ordered a wiretap of his phones during the presidential campaign as an example of his irrational behaviour.

Even within the space of a few weeks, the demands of the presidency have magnified his erratic patterns of behaviour, they wrote.

We are struck by his repeated failure to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and his outbursts of rage when his fantasies are contradicted. Without any demonstrable evidence, he repeatedly resorts to paranoid claims of conspiracy.

Most recently, in response to suggestions of contact between his campaign and agents of the Russian government, he has issued tirades against the press as an enemy of the people and accusations without proof that his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, engaged in partisan surveillance against him.

Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman said if Mr Trumps allegations regarding Mr Obama were proved false, a major scandal would arise that could lead to his impeachment.

The President recently posted a series of early-morning tweets in which he accused his predecessor of ordered the wiretap.

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! he wrote.

Is it legal for a sitting President to be wire tapping a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

Mr Trump did not provide any evidence for his claims and his spokespeople have consistently refused to do so.

Professor Feldman said that, if the allegations are true, the scandal would be of Watergate-level proportions but that a similar sized controversy would also result if they are proved to be unsubstantiated.

View post:
Donald Trump: Psychiatry professors say 'dangerous' US President must be removed from post for public safety - The Independent

Donald Trump Met Russian Ambassador During The Campaign, Despite Repeated Denials – Huffington Post

President Donald Trump and his advisers have, on dozens of occasions, denied Trumps campaign aides and other associates had any contact with Russian officials.

Those denials were not true. At least five members of his teammet with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak before Trump officially took office.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders tried to mitigate the spiraling situation last week, telling reporters the main issue was that Trump himself had never met with any Russian government officials during the campaign.

The big point here is the president himself knows what his involvement was, and thats zero, Huckabee Sanders said on March 3. And I think that hes the primary person that should be held responsible, and he had no interaction, and I think thats what the story should be focused on.

But according to a May 13, 2016 report in The Wall Street Journalnoticed by AmericaBlog, Trump had at least some interaction with Kislyak on April 27, right in the midst of campaign season.

The communication happened right before Trump delivered a foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.

I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russiafrom a position of strength onlyis possible, absolutely possible, Mr. Trump said in a foreign-policy speech at Washingtons Mayflower Hotel in April. Some say the Russians wont be reasonable. I intend to find out.

A few minutes before he made those remarks, Mr. Trump met at a VIP reception with Russias ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak. Mr. Trump warmly greeted Mr. Kislyak and three other foreign ambassadors who came to the reception.

It is not clear what Trump and Kislyak discussed, or how extensive the interaction was. The New York Times also recently mentioned that Kislyak had attended Trumps speech. Dimitri Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest, told the outlet he had simply introduced Trump to Kislyak in a receiving lineat the hotel:

Mr. Simes introduced Mr. Kislyak to Mr. Trump in a receiving line last April at a foreign policy speech hosted by his center at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. Mr. Kislyak was one of four ambassadors who sat in the front row for Mr. Trumps speech at the invitation of the center. Mr. Simes noted that Mr. Sessions, then a senator from Alabama, was there, but he did not notice whether he and the ambassador spoke at that time.

Huckabee Sanders told The Huffington Post on Tuesday that there was no real meeting with Kisylak.

The National Interest hosted Mr. Trumps foreign policy speech and pre-speech reception. Several ambassadors were present. Mr. Trump was at the reception for about five minutes and then went immediately to the podium, she said. We have no recollection of who he may have shaken hands with at the reception and we were not responsible for inviting or vetting guests. To state a meeting took place is disingenuous and extremely misleading.

Simes also said he didnt think there would have been time for an extensive meeting between Trump and the ambassador.

From everything I saw, when the receiving line was over, the Secret Service led Mr. Trump to a specially cleared holding area behind the podium where he was supposed to speak, he said Tuesday. There would have been no opportunity for him to talk to Kislyak separately. After the speech was over, Mr. Trump returned to the holding area and then left the hotel without any time or format for a private encounter with anyone. Again, the Secret Service managed his movements.

Trump has been unable to move on from his administrations ties to Russia after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government had interfered in the U.S. election to help Trump defeat Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. So far, there is no evidence of collusion between Trumps team and the Russian government.

But the administration has taken hits as reports come out that some of the presidents top campaign officials met with Russian officials, despite denying they had done so. Michael Flynn stepped down as national security adviser in February over the issue, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently promised to recuse himself from the Justice Departments investigations into Russias meddling in the presidential race after The Washington Post reported that he hadmet with Russias ambassador twice during the campaign.

During his confirmation hearing, Sessions told senators that he did not have communications with the Russians.

Trump himself told NBC News on Jan. 11 that no members of his campaign staff hadcommunicated with Russian officials.

This story has been updated with comment from Dimitri Simes and the White House.

Want more updates from Amanda Terkel? Sign up for her newsletter, Piping Hot Truth, here.

See original here:
Donald Trump Met Russian Ambassador During The Campaign, Despite Repeated Denials - Huffington Post

Alec Baldwin Offers Donald Trump Heartfelt Twitter Advice – Vanity Fair

Both images from NBC/Getty Images.

Beneath that wig and bronzer, Alec Baldwin appears to have actual sympathy for Donald Trump, whom the actor has been expertly impersonating for months now on Saturday Night Live. At least, Baldwin seems to have sympathy for the president when it comes to matters of social media.

In a new interview with USA Today, Baldwin offers Trump some Twitter advice, even drawing upon his own experiences with the social-media platform.

The President of the United States should have his office do the tweeting, suggests Baldwin, while promoting his new animated movie The Boss Baby, in theaters March 31. I had a very strange relationship with Twitter, because in the beginning, I thought it was an opportunity for me to communicate directly with my audience. And I tried to do that.

Therefore when people picked a fight with me, whether they were mean to me or they spit on me in the digital world, I got angry,continues Baldwin. And I would get into these rants with people. And I stopped and said to myself, What the hell am I doing? And you let it go."

Indeed, in 2013, Baldwin explained his decision to quit Twitter to Vanity Fair. Fortunately for Baldwins 200,000 followers, though, the Emmy winner ultimately returned to the platform after coming to a realization about social media.

No matter what you do, youre never going to be able to control the opinions of all of these people, Baldwin continues. They hate, because that is what they need to do, my political opposites.

And what might Trump do with all of that potential free time he would have on his (diminutive) hands should a staff member relieve him of Tweeting duties?

I think, What would I do if I were president? Baldwin continues. If I were president, I would really wake up every day and think, How can I help the most people in this country get ahead?

Although Baldwins frequent cameos have bolstered Saturday Night Live ratings in recent months, the actor recently suggested that he will be retiring his impersonation soonat least on television.

Fear not, though. Baldwin has another Trump-parody project in the works: a satirical book, co-authored by Kurt Andersen , titled You Cant Spell America Without Me: The Really Tremendous Inside Story of My Fantastic First Year as President Donald J. Trump. According to a statement from Penguin Press, Baldwin will even do the honors of voicing the audio book in character.

Read more:
Alec Baldwin Offers Donald Trump Heartfelt Twitter Advice - Vanity Fair

Donald Trump Meets the Surveillance State – The New Yorker

President Trump aboard the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford last week.CreditPHOTOGRAPH BY SAUL LOEB / AFP / GETTY

On November 26, 2010, in Portland, Oregon, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a nineteen-year-old Somali-born American citizen, stood near the citys Pioneer Courthouse and punched numbers into a cell phone. He thought the phone would set off a bomb planted nearby, at a crowded Christmas-tree lighting ceremony. In fact, Mohamud had been duped by a months-long F.B.I. counterterrorism sting operation. Agents arrested him.

In 2013, after a two-week trial, a jury convicted Mohamud of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison. It was only after his trial that the government notified the court that some of the evidence it had used in the case had been obtained under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which can allow for warrantless surveillance of Americans communicating with foreigners targeted for intelligence collection.

Mohamuds lawyers argued that his conviction should be thrown out because, among other reasons, the use of FISA evidence violated the defendants Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search. Last December, a federal appeals-court panel in the Ninth Circuit ruled against Mohamud. It held that it was fine for the government to use evidence gathered without a warrant at a criminal trial because the collection had occurred incidentally in the course of a permissible operation and would, in any event, have been allowed by the foreign-intelligence exception to warrant requirements.

The appeals decision was, in a sense, aligned with the Trump Administrations incendiary, get-tough rhetoric about terrorism. Yet the fact that evidence scooped up by the American surveillance state while it spies on foreign intelligence operatives might end up in a criminal case brought against an American citizen should give President Trump pause, particularly given the F.B.I.s reported ongoing investigation into alleged contacts between Trump advisers and Russian intelligence and government officials.

The Trump Administration has already seen its first national-security adviser, Michael Flynn, resign, after it was revealed that the contents of a conversation between Flynn and Sergey Kislyak, Russias Ambassador to Washington, contradicted descriptions Flynn gave in public and to Vice-President Mike Pence. Flynn, a career military-intelligence officer, should have known that Kislyak was probably a target for foreign-intelligence collection by the United States, and that any conversation with him might be intercepted and transcribed. Flynns apparent sloppiness cost him his office, but his fate provides a broader warning for any Trump advisers who have consorted with Russians involved in intelligence operations aimed at the U.S.

On February 14th, the Times reported that phone records and intercepted calls showed that members of Trumps Presidential campaign and other advisers had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence officials in the year leading up to Trumps election. It isnt clear how detailed this evidence is, why it was collected in the first place, or whether it provides any indication of improper conduct. (James Clapper, who served as the director of National Intelligence until Trumps Inauguration, told Meet the Press on Sunday that, at the time he left office, he knew of no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.)

In any event, the context for the F.B.I.s investigation is different than it would have been two decades agoand not only for Trump. Since 2001, because of the U.S.A. Patriot Act and other expansions to counterterrorism authorities and programs, it has become easier for the government to use information collected for intelligence purposes, with or without a warrant, to support criminal prosecutions against any American. Typically, this happens in cases that touch upon terrorism, intelligence operations, or espionage, but the charges at the end of these murky trails of evidence collection may also involve finance, perjury, and even press leaks.

Section 702 of FISA is one of the main instruments of that surveillance policy. It was enacted in its current form in 2008, and authorizes the Attorney General and the director of National Intelligence to target individuals who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents and who are believed to be overseas. Under its procedures, however, investigators can collect phone and e-mail records from U.S. companies, among other things. This is one of the legal frameworks for secret programs of large-scale electronic and phone-record collection, such as the ones exposed by Edward Snowden. The law is supposed to protect against abuses such as reverse targetingthat is, for example, setting up surveillance of a Russian spy abroad when the real purpose is to collect evidence against Americans with whom the spy might be in touchyet the system is highly classified and not subject to scrutiny in open courts.

The President and his advisers seem genuinely worried that a deep stateat the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., of the kind Oliver Stone might imagine, is out to get them. In their anxiety, it might be helpful if, instead of tweeting out wild and fanciful accusations about wiretapping at Trump Tower, they were to reflect on the actual engineering of the surveillance state and the much wider dangers to liberty and due process it poses.

Typically, the defendants at risk when the government overreaches with surveillance operationssuch as Mohamud, who came to the United States from Somalia as a refugee when he was a small boyare relatively powerless. Trump cited his case, without naming him, to justify his revised executive order suspending the entry of all refugees and people from six countries, including Somalia. Yet the risks of abuse extend to everyone. Speaking about Mohamuds conviction, Patrick Toomey, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, noted to the Oregonian that the appellate courts decision to accept warrantless evidence rests on the faulty premise that Americans lose the core protections of the Fourth Amendment when they communicate with relatives, friends, business associates, or anyone else abroad.

Because of nervousness about Section 702s reach and potential for misuse, Congress provided for its expiration at the end of 2017, unless a new bill is introduced to renew itwhich the President would need to sign into law. There are libertarians and Republican officeholders suspicious of Big Brother who may challenge a renewal, and there are many Democrats who will warn against putting such powers in the hands of a man like Donald Trump. Yet promoters of the surveillance authorities in intelligence agencies claim that Section 702 is vital to counterterrorism and counterintelligence. It is hard to imagine the Republican-led Congress or the Trump Administration giving up the powers it confers, given the politics the Republicans have constructed around promoting fear of terrorism. And yet if the F.B.I. is still pressing Trumps advisers about their contacts with Russian intelligence by the time a reauthorization bill lands on his desk for signature, later this year, the President may have reason to think twice about what sort of warrant he is signing.

Follow this link:
Donald Trump Meets the Surveillance State - The New Yorker