Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump speaks at the beginning of a meeting with lawmakers in the Roosevelt Room of the White House Feb. 2, 2017 in Washington, D.C.Brendan SmialowskiAFP/Getty Images

Ideas

It has been widely acknowledged that, upon swearing the Oath of Office, President Donald Trump would be in direct violation of the foreign-emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Never heard of the foreign-emoluments clause? Youre not alone. Its tucked away in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution. It's clause number 8. It states, in pertinent part: "... no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office or Title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

This clause was included in the Articles of Confederation and, later, in the Constitution itself. It was borne out of the Framers obsession with preventing in the newly minted United States the sort of corruption that dominated 17th and 18th century foreign politics and governments characterized by gift-giving, back-scratching, foreign interference in other countries and transactions that might not lead to corruption but, nonetheless, could give the appearance of impropriety.

Where Trump runs afoul of the foreign-emoluments clause is that, first and foremost, he is a businessman with significant financial interests and governmental entanglements all over the globe. Indeed, as Norman Eisen, Richard Painter and Laurence Tribe stated at the Brookings Institution, Never in American history has a [President] presented more conflict of interest questions and foreign entanglements than Donald Trump. Moreover, Trumps businesses dealings are veiled in complicated corporate technicalities and lack transparency.

The Trump Organization does or has done business in Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Panama, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, St. Martin, St. Vincent, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and Uruguay. And, while serving as President, Trump, through his interest in the Trump Organization, will continue to receive monetary and other benefits from these foreign powers and their agents.

Examples of existing business arrangements that constitute violations of the foreign-emoluments clause include: Chinas state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is the largest tenant in Trump Tower, and the state-owned Bank of China is a major lender to Trump. Trumps business partner in Trump Tower Century City in Manila, Philippines is Century Properties, which is run by Jose Antonio , who was just named special envoy to the United States by the president of the Philippines. Further, many Trump Organization projects abroad require foreign government permits and approvals, which amount to substantial financial benefits that also constitute foreign emoluments.

Presidents and public officers often utilize blind trusts so as not to violate the foreign-emoluments clause. A truly blind trust involves an arrangement wherein the public officer has no control whatsoever over the assets placed in the trust that means no communications with, from or about the trust, and no knowledge of the specific assets held for his benefit in the trust. In the case of Trumps ownership in the Trump Organization, this could be achieved only by a complete liquidation of the assets, with the proceeds to be invested by an independent Trustee, without Trumps involvement or knowledge. Trumps decision to continue the business of the Trump Organization, continue to maintain his substantial ownership of the organization and turn the management of it over to his children, is woefully inadequate in addressing the emoluments clause .

Worse, taking the position that the foreign-emoluments clause doesnt even apply to him, Trump has stated that: I can be President of the United States and run my business 100 percent, sign checks on my business. And: The law is totally on my side, meaning, the president cant have a conflict of interest.

To address this unprecedented corruption of the Oval Office and this threat to our Constitution and our democracy, we believe Congress must move forward now with an impeachment investigation of President Trump. More than 575,000 people from across the country have already called for this, joining a new campaign launched moments after President Trump took the Oath of Office. The Presidents possible conflicts of interest have become increasingly apparent.

In the meantime, instead of starting to make America great again, the 45th President should read the Constitution and make the President honest again.

After all, he swore to uphold the Constitution.

Continued here:
Why We're Calling for Congress to Impeach Donald Trump | Time.com - TIME

Wall Street Journal

Tech CEOs Take a Stand Against Donald Trump's Immigration Order Wall Street Journal A legal filing from scores of U.S. technology companies opposing President Donald Trump's immigration order draws a new line in the industry's complicated relationship with the administration that is likely to have repercussions beyond the standoff in ... The mind of Donald TrumpBBC News President Trump's Immigration Ban Faces a Major Legal TestTIME Tech Giants Rail Against Donald Trump's Immigrant Ban In Legal BriefHuffington Post all 1,423 news articles »

Link:
Tech CEOs Take a Stand Against Donald Trump's Immigration Order - Wall Street Journal

Salon

Donald Trump Says 'Negative Polls Are Fake News' New York Times Opposition to President Trump's travel restrictions on certain countries was mounting on Monday, but Mr. Trump remained defiant and unbowed. Mr. Trump turned to Twitter early Monday and began challenging polls that showed his travel order was not ... Donald Trump denounces negative polls, coverage as fake newsSalon Donald Trump says 'any negative polls are fake news'The Independent all 33 news articles »

Here is the original post:
Donald Trump Says 'Negative Polls Are Fake News' - New York Times

Lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota have told a federal appellate court that restoring President Donald Trump's ban on refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries would "unleash chaos again."

The filing with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco came early Monday after the White House said it expected the federal courts to reinstate the ban.

Washington and Minnesota said their underlying lawsuit was strong and a nationwide temporary restraining order was appropriate. If the appellate court reinstated Trump's ban the states said the "ruling would reinstitute those harms, separating families, stranding our university students and faculty, and barring travel."

The rapid-fire legal maneuvers by the two states were accompanied by briefs filed by the technology industry arguing that the travel ban would harm their companies by making it more difficult to recruit employees. Tech giants like Apple and Google, along with Uber, filed their arguments with the court late Sunday.

Trump's executive order was founded on a claim of national security, but lawyers for the two states told the appellate court the administration's move hurts residents, businesses and universities and is unconstitutional.

The next opportunity for Trump's team to argue in favor of the ban will come in the form of a response to the Washington state and Minnesota filings. The 9th Circuit ordered the U.S. Justice Department to file its briefs by 5 p.m. CST Monday. It had already turned down a Justice request to set aside immediately a Seattle judge's ruling that put a temporary hold on the ban nationwide.

In the latest filing, lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota said: "Defendants now ask this Court to unleash chaos again by staying the district court order. The Court should decline."

Bob Ferguson, Washington state's attorney general, said "we don't argue" that Trump has authority to act in the interest of national security. But in an interview on NBC's "Today" show, he also said "we have checks and balances" in the country, maintaining the president's order was "unconstitutional" and saying president's don't have "unfettered authorization" in these cases.

That ruling last Friday prompted an ongoing Twitter rant by Trump, who dismissed U.S. District Court Judge James Robart as a "so-called judge" and his decision "ridiculous."

Trump renewed his Twitter attacks against Robart on Sunday. "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!" He followed with another tweet saying he had instructed the Homeland Security Department to check people coming into the country but that "the courts are making the job very difficult!"

Vice President Mike Pence said Sunday that "we don't appoint judges to our district courts to conduct foreign policy or to make decisions about the national security." Trump himself had offered an optimistic forecast the previous night, telling reporters during a weekend at his private club in Florida: "We'll win. For the safety of the country, we'll win."

The government had told the appeals court that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States, an assertion that appeared to invoke the wider battle to come over illegal immigration.

Congress "vests complete discretion" in the president to impose conditions on entry of foreigners to the United States, and that power is "largely immune from judicial control," according to the court filing.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, predicted the appeals court would not have the last word. "I have no doubt that it will go to the Supreme Court, and probably some judgments will be made whether this president has exceed his authority or not," she said.

In his ruling, Robart said it was not the court's job to "create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches," but to make sure that an action taken by the government "comports with our country's laws."

Whatever the outcome and however the case drags on, a president who was used to getting his way in private business is finding, weeks into his new job that obstacles exist to quickly fulfilling one of his chief campaign pledges.

"The president is not a dictator," said Feinstein, D-Calif. "He is the chief executive of our country. And there is a tension between the branches of government."

The Twitter attacks on Robart appointed by President George W. Bush prompted scolding from fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.

"We don't have so-called judges," said Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. "We don't have so-called senators. We don't have so-called presidents. We have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution."

However, Pence defended the president, saying he "can criticize anybody he wants." The vice president added that he believes the American people "find it very refreshing that they not only understand this president's mind, but they understand how he feels about things."

Trump's order applied to Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen Muslim-majority countries that the administration said raise terrorism concerns. The order had caused unending confusion for many foreigners trying to reach the United States, prompting protests across the United States and leading to multiple court challenges.

The State Department said last week that as many as 60,000 foreigners from those seven countries had had their visas canceled. After Robart's decision, the department reversed course and said they could travel to the U.S. if they had a valid visa.

The department also advised refugee aid agencies that refugees set to travel before Trump signed his order would now be allowed in.

The Homeland Security Department no longer was directing airlines to prevent visa-holders affected by Trump's order from boarding U.S.-bound planes. The agency said it had "suspended any and all actions" related to putting in place Trump's order.

Pence appeared on ABC's "This Week," CBS' "Face the Nation," NBC's "Meet the Press" and "Fox News Sunday. McConnell was on CNN, Feinstein spoke on Fox and Sasse was interviewed by ABC.

Associated Press

Visit link:
2 states say allowing Donald Trump's travel ban would 'unleash chaos again' - Chicago Tribune

Its widely known that 19 th Century Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz once said, Poor Mexico: So far from God; so close to the United States. Its less well-known that his predecessor, Sebastin Lerdo de Tejada, looked at the stretch of land between the two countries and said, Between the strong and the weak, the desert. There was little doubt who was who.

Starting with Franklin Roosevelt, U.S. presidents have worked to heal those historical grievances and build a closer, more mature partnership. But now, President Donald Trump's talk of sending in troops to deal with "bad hombres;" building a wall between our countries; imposing a 20% border tax, and re-negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement in a way that helps the U.S. while hurting Mexico threaten to return us to the bad old days. This stance won't just hurt America economically. If we humiliate Mexico, a proud and important country, we will undo years of progress; stoke anti-American sentiment; and possibly turn a friend into an enemy making both countries less secure.

I say this as an American citizen who has seen the relationship from both sides of the border. As an impulsive young college student on the G.I. Bill in the early 1950s, I was inspired by the movie The Treasure of the Sierra Madre to move to Mexico in search of gold. Mexicans joked that I was the only American who'd ever swam the wrong way across the Rio Grande.

I never did find gold but I did find manganese. It helped me build a global mining business. My customers included the U.S. government, which needed our manganese for its strategic stockpile. For decades, I lived and worked among some of the most famous artists and intellectuals in Mexico, along with old miners, prospectors, and working-class Mexicans of all backgrounds. What I found were people willing to work hard to create a stronger and more prosperous future for their country.

After signing NAFTA in 1993, America's partnership with Mexico our third-largest trading partner helped build a nation where its citizens don't have to go north to have a future. Contrary to Trumps alternative facts, illegal immigration from Mexico has been falling since 2009, as a Washington Post article recently reported. Mexico and the U.S. have worked to share intelligence and fight drug trafficking and transnational crime. The U.S. has also relied on Mexico to stop between 200,000 and 300,000 undocumented immigrants from entering Central and South America before they ever reach the U.S. border.

By putting Mexico in the crosshairs, Trump threatens to halt all of that progress. One idea that Trump is considering is a 20% border tariff against imports from Mexico to pay for a southern wall. As many wonder how the tariff could get passed along to U.S. consumers in the form of more expensive items in the grocery store and at Wal-Mart , U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham may have captured the sentiment best in a recent tweet . "Simply put, any policy proposal which drives up costs of Corona, tequila, or margaritas is a big-time bad idea. Mucho sad."

But there's far more at stake in our relationship with Mexico. Having a prosperous, peaceful, and friendly neighbor along our 1,900-mile southern border is vital to Americas national security. What difference does it make when a neighbor is hostile and unstable? Just ask South Korea.

The stronger Mexico is economically, the less incentive there is for residents to cross the border, and the more resources Mexico has to invest in security, development, and institutions all of which benefit the U.S. The answer to making America great again is not to make Mexico more poor. President Trump's position has already driven the peso to a record low against the U.S. dollar. More isolation could tank Mexico's economy ironically, creating precisely the conditions that could drive undocumented immigration through the roof.

In just about two weeks as president, Trump has managed to bring old resentments back. His threat to send the U.S. army to Mexico reminded me of an experience I had in the central Mexican village of Charcas in the mid-1960s. With my business more established, I had helped build a school there and visited a classroom one day, when I saw a map of North America in which the U.S. looked much smaller. Meanwhile, Mexico stretched over the entire American West. As I gazed in wonder, a little girl looked up and asked: "Seor Weiss, why did you steal half our country?"

She was talking about the half Mexico had lost in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that had ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, which the map represented. That legacy is a big part of why Mexico has often had a difficult relationship to say the least with its powerful neighbor.

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox says Trump represents the return to that time of "the ugly American" and the "hated gringo." Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, who has instituted difficult but crucial reforms supported by the U.S., has seen his approval ratings essentially tank after meeting with Trump. Meanwhile, populist and extreme left-winger Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who has been called Mexico's Trump, is gaining ground for the 2018 presidential elections.

What can we do? I agree with The Economist's recent suggestion on how to handle a bully. Mexico should highlight its many positive contributions; try to influence Trump to re-negotiate rather than scrap NAFTA, and strengthen Mexico's domestic economy.

Mexico should also open regular channels with some of the Trump Administration's more practical officials like newly appointed U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis. In Mexico, U.S. Ambassador Roberta Jacobson a career diplomat should focus on public outreach to show that our president's disrespect does not represent the American people.

And for the rest of us in the U.S., we should all watch a 2004 film directed by Sergio Arau called " A Day Without a Mexican." It imagined what would happen in California if Mexicans suddenly disappeared from every job. The result was chaos. The film's message? We should appreciate what we have before it's gone.

To do otherwise wouldn't just be mucho sad but mucho dumb.

Stanley A. Weiss is a global mining executive and founder of Washington-based Business Executives for National Security. His memoir, "Being Dead is Bad for Business, will be published by Disruption Books on February 28, 2017.

See more here:
Hey Donald Trump: Making Mexico Go Broke Would Actually Be Mucho Dumb - Fortune