Republican Senator Richard Burr, who has been accused of insider trading, resigned as chairman of the congressional Intelligence Committee on Thursday, May 14. As Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Burr was one of the most well-informed and well-connected politicians in Washington.

What is Burr Accused of Doing?

When the public still considered the coronavirus a regional epidemic in China, Burr had already received a broader scope of confidential information due to the daily intelligence briefings he participated in which were conducted by the US intelligence community.

Agencies such as the CIA and the NSA were not only more closely monitoring the spread of the virus than the general public. In January and February, they also designed forecasts of how it could develop in individual countries. When scientists in other countries assessed the risk of global spread, Washington politicians were the first to know. However, the last thing they were inclined to do was spread panic.

At that time, only a few people believed that there would be a significant slump in the American economy. Burr, however, was allegedly thinking ahead. Among other things, he had invested in the hotel industry and restaurants. With the intelligence he was aware of, it was easy to imagine that Americans’ desire to travel would decrease in the coming months. Research indicates that Burr thus sold dozens of stocks or packages of shares that were worth up to $ 1.72 million. If he had not sold his holdings on February 13, he would have made substantial losses, the research also shows.

Burr’s Media Lies

Only a few days earlier, Burr commented on Fox News‘ website, assuring the Americans that the government was “better prepared for an epidemic than ever”. On January 27, however, he had attended lunch with key lobbyists and donors, to whom he announced a very different message. In a recording released by radio station NPR, Burr warned that the virus was much more aggressive “than anything we have ever seen in recent history”.

Burr, along with only three other senators, voted against tightening the restrictions on insider trading in Congress. Since the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, senators and Representatives have been unable to use information that is not known to the public. Burr called the new regulations “ridiculous” at the time.

How is Burr Responding to the Accusations?

The senator has so far defended itself by stating that its information about the coronavirus came from media reports. Republican colleagues have supported him also. Senator Lindsey Graham, for example, said Burr had certainly not done anything criminal, but he was “the one guy I can tell you that he is watching CNBC Hong Kong”. Burr, who has been a senator since 2005, is not the only politician who is said to have turned his knowledge into money, however.

Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler and Democrat Dianne Feinstein are also said to have sold shares in stocks earlier this year after being informed about the situation in China and the likelihood of a pandemic.

Democrat Feinstein has previously claimed that her husband had conducted the business without her knowledge. The Republican Senator from Georgia, Kelly Loeffler, is said to have sold seven-figures prior to the outbreak. As a result, just before the stock market plummeted due to the coronavirus, both are said to have escaped without significant losses or even made profits.

Her husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. According to CNN, Loeffler and her husband sold between $ 1 million and $ 3 million in stock before February 14. In mid-April, Loeffler called the reports on a “socialist attack” and has handed over documents to federal authorities in the meantime.

Burr, meanwhile, will continue to serve in a lower position on the Intelligence Committee for now, despite the FBI probe. However, with investigations still being undertaken, more details and in fact new suspects over the next months are not inconceivable – though Burr’s misconduct, as well as Loeffler’s and Feinstein’s, are difficult to prove in a court of law.

L'articolo Senate Intelligence Chair Burr Steps Down Over COVID-19 Insider Trading Accusations proviene da InsideOver.

Saudi Arabia has actively helped its citizens who are charged with crimes escape from the US, a declassified FBI bulletin revealed. US Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., forced the law enforcement agency to reveal details about its investigation into the practice whereby the Middle Eastern kingdom bails out its citizens and flies them home to avoid having them stand trial. 

The FBI Weighs In

Wyden is a member of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, therefore had access to the raw, classified information. Yet as it was not made public months ago, he successfully pushed to have its public release mandated through law by including a provision in an appropriations bill passed by Congress and signed by US President Donald Trump, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The public release is heavily redacted, but leaves enough to ascertain the FBI’s position on the subject and confirmation that Saudi Arabia has actively assisted its citizens in avoiding justice for crimes in the US.

“The FBI based this assessment on the key assumption [that] Kingdom of Saudi Arabia officials perceive the embarrassment of Saudi citizens enduring the US judicial process is greater than the embarrassment of the United States learning the KSA surreptitiously removes citizens with legal problems from the United States,” the FBI intelligence bulletin stated.

Oregon is a Hotbed, but Similar Cases Happened in Other States

In over a dozen cases across eight states, Saudi nationals seemingly “vanished” before they were due to stand trial, The Oregonian reported. The news outlet’s research into the matter began in earnest with the high profile case of Abdulrahman Sameer Noorah, a Saudi student living in Oregon, was charged with manslaughter for killing a pedestrian.

Noorah was driving three times the posted speed limit when he swerved and struck the 15-year-old girl. Although he was compelled to turn over his passport and wear a GPS tracker under house arrest, he fled the country with aid from the Saudi Consulate, which also paid his $100,000 bail.

Saudi Arabia denied the allegation that it had a role in Noorah’s disappearance, but since he turned up in his home country, suspicions only grew.

In Oregon, cases of alleged rape, child pornography, sexual assault, and a loaded firearm purchased illegally all seemingly merited Saudi intervention.

The escapes, taken in tandem with the murder of Washington Post Journalist Jamal Khashoggi, led Wyden and fellow senator Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., to take the Arab nation to task in Washington. 

“When anyone within our nation commits a crime, they need to be held accountable – especially when that crime results in the death of an innocent teenager,” said Merkley. “Saudi Arabia’s blatant disrespect for international norms cannot be allowed to stand. We need a wholesale rethinking of our relationship with Saudi Arabia – and we should all be able to agree that any nation that helps their citizens escape from the law needs to be held fully accountable. After the shocking murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, this is yet another sign of Saudi Arabia’s flaunting of diplomatic norms.”

Legislative Solution

Together, the duo authored three bills directed at solving the problem. The first legislation, the Saudi Fugitive Declassification Act of 2019, was passed by the Senate and introduced in the House. If approved by representatives, it will await Trump’s signature. The law would force the FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify details pertaining to cases related to Saudi nationals who leave America while their criminal trials are pending.

The second bill, The ESCAPE (Examining Saudi Counselor Activities Promoting Extraction) of Saudi Nationals Act would allow Washington to expel diplomats who assist Saudi nationals escaping the country. 

Finally, a third bill titled the Preserving American Justice Act would introduce mandating reporting on the subject by the Department of Justice and institute a tax penalty on nations accused of engaging in the practice.

The latter two bills were introduced in the Senate, but not the House, yet. Without laws against the behavior, the FBI and senators are convinced it will continue. The odds of them passing both houses of Congress and receiving Trump’s signature are also slim, considering the American president places a high value on the US-Saudi relationship. 

L'articolo FBI Documents Reveal Saudi Arabia Helps its Citizens Escape Justice in America proviene da InsideOver.

President Trump will divert another $7.2 billion of Pentagon funds for border wall construction this year, five times what Congress authorized for the project in the 2020 budget.

This is the second consecutive time that the President has diverted funds from military construction projects and counternarcotics funding. In 2019, Trump extracted $2.5 billion from military counterdrug programs to fund the Mexico-US border wall. This year, he plans to extract $3.5 billion.

Correspondingly, the president diverted $3.7 billion in military construction funding, more than the $3.6 billion he took in 2019. With the added funds, Trump’s administration would have diverted $18.4 billion of Pentagon funding toward completion of the barrier.

This is not the first time that the president has defied Congress. Last year, it was reported that Trump had deployed American troops to 53 out of 54 African countries without Congress’ knowledge or approval.

The administration originally planned to build a 509 mile-long border wall. According to internal planning figures, the diverted funds would enable the government to complete about 885 miles of new fencing by spring 2020. Yet, despite promises to complete 450 miles of barrier at the end of the year, only 101 miles have been completed.

Trump constantly promised voters a US-Mexico border wall during his campaign for presidency in 2016. Last year, the Trump administration asked Congress for $5 billion for the border wall construction. This led to the 35-day shutdown, the longest in US history, until Democrats agreed to provide $1.4 billion in taxpayer funding.

“’Mexicans are rapists’ is the first thing Trump said when he came down Trump towers to announce his campaign for president,” Dr Christopher Phelps at the University of Nottingham’s Department of American and Canadian Studies said.

“The wall is extremely expensive to build. Half of Congress is currently controlled by Democrats who declined Trump money to build the wall. By diverting money from other areas, Trump doesn’t have to worry about Congress’ approval. That is his endgame.

“There might be some weakening of defense and other government priorities, but the Republican base does not care. They are excited about the wall. It is their anti-immigrant fervour that allowed Trump into power.

“It is classic scapegoating,” Dr Phelps continued. “Ordinary American families are facing a lot of difficulty in making ends meet. These economic problems arose after the 2008 financial crisis. People could have blamed Wall Street and capitalism, but they chose to blame immigrants.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign, for example, is focused on a more just financial system and economic order. The Republican base’s anger is displaced on immigrants, and they have no problem with Trump taking away money from anywhere to build the wall.”

“The US military is a hegemon on earth,” explained Dr Phelps. “It has such a gigantic budget that diverting some of those funds may not harm the American populace per se.

Congress approved nearly $700 billion for US’ defense spending this year. In 2019, the United States’ defense budget was more than the next nine countries combined.

“The wall is a symbolic thing, more than a practical thing,” Dr Phelps said. “Republican voters are not concerned with practical objections as to whether the wall would function. People could always find ways to scale it no matter how tall it is; they could find ways under it. There are also places along the border where the wall can’t be built e.g. rivers and lofts. It cannot be made 100% impenetrable.”

Construction of the barrier wall has faced numerous challenges in federal court. Last month, a federal district court in El Paso, Texas, ruled that Trump diverting funds meant for other purposes to the border wall was illegal. The court froze the $3.6 billion that the Republican administration had diverted.

Last week, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans lifted the injunction after an appeal by Trump’s government. The court, presided by a significant amount of judges nominated by infamous Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George Bush, claimed that work on the barrier could continue while legal challenges to the Trump government are pending. The $3.6 billion was previously Pentagon-allocated to road repairs, school construction projects on military bases, and a waste treatment plant.

“This is a victory for the rule of law,” Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, expressed in a statement celebrating the court’s ruling. “We are committed to keeping our borders secure, and we will finish the wall.”

“This would not have been possible without the President’s steadfast determination and leadership,” Acting Homeland Security Secretary, Chad Wolf, said last week at an event marking the completion of the 100th mile of the barrier in Arizona,

“The new border wall system is an undeniable impediment to human smugglers, drug traffickers and other criminals who have exploited our lack of effective border infrastructure to smuggle drugs, people and illegal contraband into our country.”

For Dr Phelps, however, the physical barrier will not soothe America’s deep psychoanalytical and symbolic fears.

“Whiteness in America is at a tipping point,” summarised Dr Phelps. “This wall is not going to stop the problem.

“The US was, for a long time, a white republic. For the first time, demographics such as Asians, Blacks and Latinos will take over the White-majority population. The US is set to be a colour-majority country.

“The fact of the matter is that the Obama presidency was very uncomfortable for white Americans. For generation after generation, they schooled themselves on white superiority. One way to stop a colour-majority and superiority from overtaking white America is to build a wall. This is factual, not qualitative. If we look at exit poll data from the 2016 election, the number one variable that united those who voted for Trump was whiteness. The wall is all about whiteness. That’s why they’ve built this narrative of brown ‘others’ taking their jobs, raping their women and pillaging their country.”

L'articolo Trump Will Divert Additional $7.2 billion in Pentagon funds to Border Wall proviene da InsideOver.

The previous week, Congress passed a bill aimed at strengthening human rights and democracy in Hong Kong. China urged President Trump to veto to the bill – to no avail. Now, one week later, Trump has signed the bill into law, despite China’s treats of “harsh countermeasures”.

So far, Trump had hitherto held back criticism of China’s crackdown on the democracy movement in Hong Kong as he continues to negotiate with Beijing in the one-and-a-half-year trade war. It is the reason he had been reluctant to sign the bill at first. The decision made now is unlikely to increase the bilateral relations any time soon.

Nonetheless, Trump had no choice but to sign the bill. If he had vetoed it, Senate, as well as the House, would have overridden his veto via a two-thirds majority – leaving the President embarrassed and seemingly outnumbered by his own party. After all, Congress had voted on Hong Kong’s “Human Rights and Democracy Decree” despite fierce protests and threats from Beijing with only one vote against in the House of Representatives.

Inter alia, the law threatens economic sanctions that could deprive Hong Kong of its preferential treatment of US economic and trade policies with China. For this purpose, annual reports from the State Department to the Congress are planned as to whether Hong Kong is still sufficiently autonomous from China to further justify its preferential treatment. Civil rights will be given special consideration in the law. Moreover, the law provides for the President to impose sanctions on individuals held responsible for serious human rights violations in Hong Kong. President Trump summed up the bill as a plan for China and Hong Kong to “settle their differences amicably to achieve lasting peace and prosperity for all.”

A caveat remains, however, as the administration will treat parts of the laws differentiated, so it will not undermine the constitutional authority of Trump on foreign policy issues, according to the White House. Details and what this entailed have not been disclosed yet.

Beijing’s response has been rather direct. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi criticized the bill in favor of “tacitly violent criminals”. It was an open intervention in China’s internal affairs, intending to throw Hong Kong further into chaos or even destroying it.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang was equally critical and stated that “facts were neglected in the bill”, while also accusing Washington of interference and violation of international law.

A Beijing State Department spokesman criticized Washington for “blatantly supporting violent criminals who trampled on the rule of law and endangered the social order.” The United States’ actions, which he also labeled as a “conspiracy” were a testimony of America’s “hegemonic nature”. The Chinese government was unwavering in its resistance to interference by foreign forces in Hong Kong. “We advise the US not to act arbitrarily, otherwise China will take decisive action and all consequences must be borne by the US.”

Meanwhile, the Foreign Ministry in Beijing stated that Deputy Foreign Minister Le Yucheng had summoned US Ambassador Branstad to demand an immediate end to “such policies and further damage to bilateral relations”.

The protests in Hong Kong are increasingly exacerbating tensions between the US and China. Relations have been tensed for months due to the trade dispute. Both countries have penalized each other with tariffs worth billions of Dollars.

According to Trump the talks on a trade agreement were in the final stages. For now, Beijing will beg to differ.

L'articolo Trump Signs Hong Kong Bill While Tensions with China Increase proviene da InsideOver.

“The bottom line is if you cannot admire Joe Biden as a person than you have a problem and need to do some self-evaluation, because what is not to like? He is the nicest person I think I have ever met in politics and as good a man as God ever created.”

If one had to guess who uttered these flattering words about Joe Biden, the logical choices would be Democratic figures such as Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff or perhaps President Obama. Yet it was it said by Republican Senator Lindsay Graham in 2016, in an emotional statement about his friend Joe Biden.

It is what most non-partisan people in Washington would say about Joe Biden nowadays and many GOP politicians before Trump. A man, who has been through repeated, unimaginable tragedy and yet continued to move on, serve his country to the best of his ability while always being capable of working with his political rivals on a common solution – while never losing his dignity.

This week, Graham has made clear that his words were yesterday’s news, as he now appears to make Biden’s son, Hunter, the Republican’s main target. It provides a first taste of how egregious the upcoming months on the Hill may become while reminding all of those who, in their noble naivete, believe in a utopian unity, that politics, for many, remains a business. Nothing personal.

In a letter to Secretary of State Pompeo, Graham’s Senate Legislative Council calls for the release of documents related to Joe Biden’s role and the Ukrainian investigation into his son Hunter. Of particular interest are documents and transcripts of talks between Biden and the former Ukrainian President Poroshenko during February and March 2016.

Graham and his office seek to find out whether Biden had mentioned his son in these conversations, who, at the time, had been a board member at the Ukrainian company Burisma. One of the GOP’s main talking point has been that Biden pressured former President Poroshenko to fire Ukrainian Attorney General Shokin to cease an investigation into Burisma and his son Hunter.

Moreover, the Legislative Committee has also requested the release of all documents and transcripts of talks between Devon Archer, a business partner of Hunter Biden, and then US Secretary of State John Kerry in March 2016.

Joe Biden himself stated in an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon on Friday that “Lindsey is about to go down in a way that I think he’s going to regret his whole life,” before saying he was truly embarrassed for Graham, his behaviour and the way he had become a puppet for Trump, out of fear not to win his Senate re-election bid.

The degree of spin Republicans, as well as Democrats, have delivered to the public since the Biden story first emerged continues to dilute the facts. If one listened to the Republicans, Biden is the embodiment of the Washington establishment and highly corrupt. For the Democrats, on the other hand, Biden did nothing wrong.

The unbiased truth is that Hunter Biden should probably never have worked for the Ukrainian company, period. Without even going into the legal facts of the case, an inexperienced son of a Vice President receiving a high-profile job looks simply “swampy”, no matter the party affiliation.

On a human level, most people would arguably have done the same. Very few in power will not be utilizing their influence to get their offspring in promising positions but rather have them flip burgers at McDonald’s. It is a reoccurring scheme, with President Trump and his children providing yet another example.

However, there is a time and a place for everything and Joe Biden, the timing is atrocious. With the GOP appearing to make the Hunter Biden saga its weapon of choice, it poses a serious problem for Biden in the election circle.

Moreover, it indicates what direction the impeachment will take. While there is little doubt that Trump will be impeached in the House, Democrats and Independents had been expressing some hope that the twenty Senate Republicans needed to obtain a conviction were out there, ready to jump ship if Trump’s house of cards began to collapse.

Graham’s actions have evaporated this idea. Particularly as Graham has been one of the few remaining Republicans, who have dared to openly criticize Trump.

If a more or less rational Republican is now making his decision in favour of Trump under the premise of throwing his friend, the nicest person he has ever met in politics, under the bus, one can imagine how alive and well the party of Lincoln and Reagan is and how ugly the election year will begin.

L'articolo Lindsey Graham Orders an Investigation Into Joe Biden’s Son proviene da InsideOver.

On Oct. 29, the US House of Representative voted in favour of a resolution to recognise the murder of up to 1.5 million Armenians by the Turkish government as a genocide.

Senator Robert Menendez, who has co-authored resolutions to recognise the genocide since 2006, told other senators that “the United States Congress cannot stand idly by and let the truth of genocide be silenced.”

“We must commit ourselves to learning the painful history of the Armenians as we seek to build a better world for our own and future generations.”

President Erdogan of Turkey, who had earlier met with President Trump in part to discuss the resolution, objected and blocked the request. He said that senators shouldn’t “sugarcoat history or try to rewrite it”.

The Turkish government claims that their actions were not a genocide. They assert that their murder of the Armenians was not systematic. Rather, they say, World War One killed many people from all ethnic and religious backgrounds, including Turkish Muslims.

Representative Adam B. Schiff, declared that the vote in favour of the resolution was largely due to Turkey’s present involvement in another form of ethnic cleansing.

“Given that the Turks are once again involved in an ethnic cleansing of the population – this time the Kurds who live along the Turkish-Syrian border – it seemed all the more appropriate to bring up a resolution about the Ottoman efforts to annihilate an entire people in the Armenian genocide,” he said.

Like the United Kingdom, the United States of America has, for decades, circumvented pronouncing Turkey’s systematic slaughter, massacre and deportation of the Armenians between 1915-1923 a genocide.

In a House of Lord’s written answer in February 2008, Lord Malloch-Brown, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, wrote:

“The position of the government on this issue is longstanding. The government acknowledges the strength of feeling about this terrible episode of history and recognises the massacres of 1915-1916 as a tragedy.

“However neither this government nor previous governments have judged that the evidence is sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as genocide, as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide.”

Article II of the UN Convention on Genocide defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

This definition includes: “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

The Turkish government’s current treatment of the Kurds give us a look into the nation’s collective identity.

A country that participates in the ethnic cleansing of its minorities –  under a leader who criticises democracy and promotes a highly hierarchical radical Islamist leadership – will simply not admit its actions to be undemocratic or illegal.

Narcissistic national identities are built on the hate of minorities. The Nazis hated the Jews, the English hated the Scots and Irish, and the Americans, the African Americans. Yet, this hate is always birthed from an insecurity in the very national identity proclaimed to be great.

As Armenian’s in Turkey grew economically and socially successful, despite policies designed to keep them destitute, the Turks became jealous, as their national greatness was increasingly challenged on their soil.

Psychologically, admittance of the Armenian genocide is a death for Turkish arrogance. Without this arrogance, Turkey cannot survive politically, as nations driven on ego refuse to end their persecution of minorities until they are defeated by an outside force.

Politically, should the Turkish government admit to the genocide, Turkey could become liable to consequences from the international community under the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide.

“Importantly,” it reads, “the Convention establishes on State Parties the obligation to take measures to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide, including by enacting relevant legislation and punishing perpetrators, “whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals” (Article IV).

Even more worrying for this gateway nation between Europe and the Middle East is the precedent the Armenian genocide will set for Turkey’s decades-long persecution and massacre of the Kurds. Presently, President Erdogan has received no measures from the international community to prevent or punish his ethnic cleansing of the Kurds. By declaring that it did not violate international law, Turkey avoids facing a myriad of consequences for its crimes against humanity, both present and past.

It cannot be escaped, however, that the international community’s century-long reluctance on the matter of the case of the Armenian genocide has further emboldened Turkey to continue the violent and systematic oppression of its minorities.

L'articolo Why Turkey Refuses to Politically Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide proviene da InsideOver.

While Donald Trump may have been a political neophyte, he was no stranger to business. As a hard-boiled New York City real estate veteran and entrepreneur, his efficacy at navigating politics and transacting successful businesses is built either on his intrepid intuition or his bombast, depending on who you ask.

After the first few weeks of Donald Trump being sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, it was clear that he would be bringing this particular attitude and a post-modern approach to politics in Washington D.C.

As a result of the “domestic emoluments clause”, which states that a President could not “profit from ordinary market transactions”, Trump announced that he would extricate himself from the day-to-day operations of his business to prevent any appearance of a conflict of interest and to focus his attention on governing.

It may be argued that both politics and business are transactional industries. In both, nuance is an integral ingredient.

In American politics, everyone understands that deal-making and negotiating are part of the political process but as long as it remained largely invisible, most don’t care. In other words, no one wants to see “how the sausage was made.”

In American business, Donald Trump liked to proclaim he was the master dealmaker, even co-writing the best selling book called “Art of the Deal”. Trump was able to convince the American electorate this was true and he promised to bring his negotiating and transactional business savvy to Washington D.C.

And the rest of the world.

The first indication of his prowess was In December of 2016 when lobbyists funded by Saudi Arabia spent over $270,000 booking 500 rooms at the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. Shortly afterwards, President Trump announced that Saudi Arabia would be purchasing 350 billion dollars of military arms from the United States over ten years.

While largely a ceremonial gesture, Trump also used the occasion to announce that Saudi Arabia would be the first country he would visit as President.

Above the bi-partisan outcry of selling arms to Saudi Arabia, Trump assured American citizens and lawmakers that $110 billion would be purchased immediately. Saudi Arabi has since become one of the biggest arms purchasers from the United States. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute America supplies the Kingdom with 70 per cent of its arms.

However, despite their upswing in arms purchases from the US, as of October 2018, Saudi Arabia has only purchased about 14.8 billion dollars, if not less, of arms from the United States.

When considering Trump’s approach to foreign policy, his transactional approach can be found in the current trade war with China. Despite claiming a great relationship with China’s President Xi Jinping, the trade war has been punitive to both countries with President Trump refusing to exercise nuance.

Although the friendship has cooled after President Trump referred to President Xi Jinping as “the enemy” in August of this year.

In any event, it was recently announced that the trade war with China may be easing; a war that has just begun to impact countries from Iceland to Japan. These ongoing negotiations resulted in the idea of rolling back the tariffs that the US and China have placed on each other. While the idea has been embraced by representatives from both countries, it’s been met with resistance within the Trump administration.

Aside from money, the most valued commodity driving President Trump’s foreign policy is respect. A few months ago he abruptly cancelled a visit to Denmark, a longtime NATO ally. Before his visit, President Trump had mentioned an interest in purchasing Greenland. When the Danish president baulked, Trump felt slighted and responded by saying, “Respect must be shown to the United States.”

This particular “disrespect” had two significant impacts. One, it soured a relationship with an ally. Two, it spoiled any discussion about the purchase of Greenland which has been considered a strategic purchase for America for numerous presidents.

President Trump has also had minor confrontations with both Canada and Mexico.

Where he may sense disrespect with some allies, President Trump appears to both respect and feel respected by two of the world’s most notorious leaders, Vladimir Putin of Russia and Kim Jong-un of North Korea.

With Putin, Trump has had five personal meetings and nine phone conversations with him since his election. Including a private two-hour conversation attended by only their respective translators which has caused much speculation. President Trump also has publicly questioned American security agencies’ results detailing how Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential Election.

Also, after withdrawing American troops from defending America’s Kurdish allies in Northern Syria, President Trump proclaimed the arrival of Russian troops in the area as a “victory.”

In October of 2017, President Trump took to Twitter to chastise his former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for wasting time talking to the “Little Rocket Man”, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. Just a few months later, President Trump met with the “Little Rocket Man” himself to negotiate the dictators’ nuclear arms build-up (which the dictator ignored).

At their second meeting, Trump became the first sitting American president to step foot in North Korea.

Despite active American sanctions on both Russian and North Korea, the two strong-armed leaders have proven their respect to President Trump. However, they’ve done nothing to assuage worldwide tensions or fears about either country.

In August of 2019, CNN noted that President Trump’s “US foreign policy often looks like an extension of the family business.”

Just as his impeachment hearings were beginning in October, President Trump highlighted his view on foreign policy and business. He announced that next year’s G7 conference would be held at his own Trump National Doral Miami resort. Once again facing bi-partisan rabble, he changed his mind but not without referring to the emoluments clause as “phoney.”

President Trump appears to be running his diplomatic and foreign policy operations in the same ways he found success with his business. One, making every decision himself by relying on his “great and unmatched wisdom” and two, keeping it all transactional and unorthodox.

While it’s true that the line between business and American politics may be short. The skills required to find success in each may even overlap. However, the subtle differences in each do not always ensure that success in one will lead to success in the other.

L'articolo President Trump Sees Diplomacy and Foreign Policy Through One Lens proviene da InsideOver.

“The economy is booming”, a Trump tweet read on Friday, just before the Treasury Department announced the latest deficit figures. One of President Trump’s promises had been to reverse the federal deficit within eight years. After his second completed fiscal year, however, the deficit has reached its apogee since 2012.

The budget deficit of the US government has risen to its highest level in seven years: In the fiscal year 2019 (which ended in late September), the deficit increased by $205 billion to $984 billion (The Federal Deficit Marks the Highest Since 2012 as $885 billion) – a spike of 26 per cent – according to the Treasury Department.

These figures corresponded to a deficit ratio – i.e. a ratio of gross domestic product – of 4.6 per cent. Although the revenue increased by 4 per cent to $3.462 trillion, while, at the same time, government spending increased by 8 per cent to $4.447 trillion.

It is the second full financial year under Trump who has taken office in times of prosperity. The deficit reached $1.4 trillion in 2009 when the deficit reached almost 10 per cent, the highest since World War II. Trump’s predecessor President Obama and Congress enacted measures to shrink the deficit to 2.4 per cent in 2015 and reduced the overall deficit to $585 billion by the end of his second term in 2016. Insufficient for Republicans, who demanded more significant reductions at the time.

After taking office, President Donald Trump aimed to eliminate the deficit within eight years. Not only did he introduce a comprehensive tax reduction program, particularly for the benefit of businesses, his version of Reaganomics or Supply-side Economics, Trump also increased spending in critical areas such as the Defense Department (+9 per cent). Moreover, inter alia, debt service expenditures also contributed to the increase in the deficit while interest payments grew by ten per cent or a volume of $51 billion.

In June 2017 the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the revenue shortfalls caused by Trump’s tax cuts would be mitigated by the growth impetus generated by the reform, i.e. the tax revenues from growing economic activity and employment. However, despite the continued substantial growth rates so far, it has not been possible to compensate for the increase in spending and the congressional projection remains shy by $400 billion. Finance Minister Steven Mnuchin nevertheless assessed the budget balance as proof that Trump’s economic agenda was “working”, before urging Congress to stem “wasteful and irresponsible spending.”

The spending spree since 2016 has ballooned the deficit to now 4.6 per cent again. Even the most partisan politicians should be cognizant of these following facts, however: Circumstances since the last significant deficit spike are different. The unemployment rate is at a historic low, and the economy has been growing for 11th years straight– a record. Nonetheless, it would be dishonest not to give President Trump some credit for these achievements, as his deregulation policies have evidentially helped the economy.

However, the growing fears about a possible recession amongst Americans will not decrease after the deficit news has become public, and Trump, twelve months away from the election, might be facing yet another conundrum. The economy has been his signature reelection bid – besides political victimhood – and the current situation demands answers for a plan beyond 2020. Even more so, if the rumoured recession ought to materialise.

A focus on a Democratic “witch hunt” and his – at best – incoherent foreign policy will likely not be sufficient to obtain a second term – no matter how hard the Democrats have been trying to alienate moderate voters lately.

Furthermore, while Trump has certainly kept his word on some relevant and needed plans, a prison reform nor strengthening the borders will suffice once his impervious base feels the effects of a potential economic crisis. Promises made. Promises kept?

L'articolo Tired of Winning Yet? The Federal Deficit Hits Highest Level Since 2012 proviene da InsideOver.

Congress has returned after its summer break and with it, the i-word Democrats have been utilising so generously since 2016: impeachment. And the House is seeking answers. On Thursday a roadmap for potential proceedings was finalised. Nonetheless, the chances of impeachment leading to Trump’s removal from office remain infinitesimal.

House Democrats have confirmed first formal steps to prepare an impeachment of President Trump. Jerry Nadler, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, confirmed that a panel approved impeachment parameters. These parameters equip the committee with extended capabilities to conduct an in-depth investigation.

The investigation will primarily focus on obstruction of justice and the violation of the Emoluments Clause. The latter prohibits the president from receiving any income or gift (beyond his government salary) from a foreign government, the US government or any foreign state. It has become the Democrat’s latest weapon of choice in their quest.

Questions have been raised surrounding, inter alia, unexplained stays of the American Air Force in Trump’s Scottish golf resort near Glasgow. The Pentagon has yet to comment. Then there was the stay of Vice President Pence in a Trump resort in Ireland, which is located approximately 300 kilometres from Dublin, where Pence conducted official appointments. According to President Trump, Pence’s family has been living in Doonbeg for many years and the Vice President simply sought to visit his family on his recent Europe trip. It contradicts Pence’s Chief of Staff, who, the previous week, had commented that the hotel had been selected on Trump’s suggestion. Words that provide Democrats with hope.

Prerequisite for impeachment are charges of “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours”, according to the US Constitution Article II, Section 4. The ambiguity in the wording is deliberate. It leaves significant room for interpretation and little to no incumbrance for proceeding to start. As a result, the term has been utilised excessively and every president since Ronald Reagan has at least been threatened with impeachment.

Nonetheless, it remains a two-step process, in which The House of Representatives acts as the prosecution while the Senate acts as the judge. First, the House has to authorise one of his committees – usually the Judiciary Committee – to conduct an investigation. If the committee concludes that there is sufficient evidence for wrongdoing, the findings are returned to the House which then votes by a simple majority on whether or not to impeach and on what grounds. The Senate then conducts a quasi court trial and votes on whether or not the president is guilty on the charges brought against him. It requires a two-thirds majority.

History has shown how complex and peculiar impeachment is. President Clinton and President Johnson were both impeached in the House. Yet, the Senate did not convict. Clinton’s case displays how reluctantly the Senate uses its power in this regard. Despite two counts of impeachment – perjury and obstruction of justice – as well as a Republican-controlled Senate, the needed majority was not established. It is evidence that, while it appears to be one of the most overused terms in uber-partisan American politics, the stakes remain extremely high when the presidency is at stake.

However, the Democrat’s conundrum is even more complicated. Democrats do not control the Senate. 53 of the 100 Senators are Republicans. Basic maths tells one that 67 votes are needed to obtain the required two-thirds majority. Even if all Democrats (45) and Independents (2) adhere the party whip, 20 Republicans are needed to convict President Trump.

It is why impeachment currently remains a purely symbolic move, without any consequences. Worse. A failed attempt would likely backfire against Democrats, as it provides Trump with new ammunition to invoke the victim card.

Time is also of the essence. If impeachment procedures were to be initiated, it would have to be conducted this autumn. A procedure of this magnitude amid the hot phase of the election campaign, may not hurt the president as much as it may be detrimental to the candidates.

Nonetheless, the Mueller Report did raise serious questions regarding obstruction of justice. And potential violations of the Emoluments Clause should not be disregarded either. But it requires Democrats to dig deep and present new evidence. Evidence that needs to be so unassailable that it would lead to a change of heart amongst twenty Republicans – the party in which Trump’s approval rating remains between 85-90 per cent.

L'articolo The Impeachment Conundrum – And Why Democrats Cannot Win it proviene da InsideOver.