The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
#Iran | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

​

I admit that in all the time I've been joking about #PutiToots, I didn't really think the problem would be Donald Trump's apparent Iranian connections. And the thing about Adam Davidson's↱ article for the New Yorker is that it would appear President Trump already has exposure.

To this day, the Trump Organization has not provided satisfying answers to the most basic questions about the Baku deal: who owns Baku XXI Century, the company with which they signed the contracts; the origin of the funds with which Baku XXI Century paid the Trump Organization; whether the Mammadovs used their political power to benefit themselves and the Trump Organization; and whether the Mammadovs used money obtained from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to fund the Trump Tower Baku.

At one point, Garten allowed me to review the Trump Organization's original contract with the Mammadovs. It authorizes the company to order an independent audit of Baku XXI Century's financial records at any time—a provision likely included to insure that the Mammadovs didn't hide profits that were supposed to be shared with the Trump Organization. Such an audit could well have exposed illicit activity. Garten refused to say if an audit had been conducted.

In dealing with the Mammadovs, the Trump Organization seems to have taken them entirely at their word. Garten pointed me to a provision in one contract in which Anar Mammadov represented himself as the sole owner of Baku XXI Century. Given that Elton Mammadov told me that he controlled the company, and that its ownership was a "commercial secret," what proof did the Trump Organization have that Anar's claim was true? Garten could not say.

Garten has been the company's chief legal officer only since January. His predecessor was Jason Greenblatt, whose name appeared on the contract I reviewed. Greenblatt was in charge of the Trump Organization's due diligence and contracting work. He is now employed at the White House, as the President's special representative for international negotiations. He did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

‡​

The best way to determine if a crime was committed in the Baku deal would be a federal investigation, which could use the power of subpoena and international legal tools to obtain access to the contracts, the due diligence, internal e-mails, and financial documents. The Department of Justice routinely sends investigators to other countries to pursue possible F.C.P.A. and sanctions violations.

Senator Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, who is the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, said, in an e-mail, that a federal investigation was warranted: "The Trump Organization's Baku project shows the lack of ‘extreme vetting' Mr. Trump applied to his own business dealings in corruption-plagued regimes around the globe. . . . Congress—and the Trump Administration itself—has a duty to examine whether the President or his family is exposed to terrorist financing, sanctions, money laundering, and other imprudent associations through their business holdings and connections."

More than a dozen lawyers with experience in F.C.P.A. prosecution expressed surprise at the Trump Organization's seemingly lax approach to vetting its foreign partners. But, when I asked a former Trump Organization executive if the Baku deal had seemed unusual, he laughed. "No deal there seems unusual, as long as a check is attached," he said.​

In December, as it happens, Joseph Tanfani↱ of Los Angeles Times covered some of Mr. Trump's business maneuvers between election and inauguration:

The Trump hotel in Baku, Azerbaijan, would be “among the finest in the world,” Donald Trump promised two years ago, another example of “our involvement in only the best global development projects.”

But the dream of a world-class Trump Baku died this month, with Trump saying he was backing out of the deal because of delays and blown deadlines caused by the developer, a 34-year-old with close family connections to the country’s government.

The demise of Trump Baku is not an isolated decision. With his inauguration less than a month away, President-elect Trump’s company has pulled out of a few international business deals that might have created especially sticky conflicts and controversies for his administration.

In addition to Azerbaijan, the company began to back out of a deal in another former Soviet republic, Georgia. It also canceled a hotel project in Rio de Janeiro that had been mentioned in a fraud investigation. And just days after the election, the Trump Organization shut down four companies formed this year seemingly in anticipation of a hotel deal in Jidda, Saudi Arabia.

‡​

Like most of his hotel deals, Trump did not develop the building but licensed his name. He entered the deal in 2014 and reported receiving $2.8 million in management fees for the hotel, housed in a gleaming 33-story curved tower in Baku—even though the hotel never opened.​

Rachel Maddow↱ covered the story, and added a wonderful bit about Bechtel just to make the point clear about Trump's business partners in Azerbaijan. It's a long block, but kind of worth the time, especially for those who prefer video over reading.

But, yeah, it's like an old board game: The Iranians, in Azerbaijan, with the Useless Hotel.

And, yeah, it would probably be nice—if you're Donald Trump—to have Attorney General Sessions on point in these matters.
____________________

Notes:

Davidson, Adam. "Donald Trump’s Worst Deal". The New Yorker. 13 March 2017. NewYorker.com. 7 March 2017. http://bit.ly/2lVM2PF

Maddow, Rachel. "Sketchy Trump deal sparks calls for another investigation". The Rachel Maddow Show. msnbc. 6 March 2017. msnbc.com. 7 March 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2mdzpQZ

Tanfani, Joseph. "Trump backs out of real estate projects around the world, but that may not be enough to avoid conflicts". Los Angeles Times. 22 December 2016. LATimes.com. 7 March 2017. http://lat.ms/2lz3ihk
 
joepistole said:
Pro-America is just another name for national socialism. You had better hope the world doesn't go down the road of national socialism. Because if we do, the odds your beloved Mother Russia becomes the world's largest piece of charcoal rises exponentially.
Click to expand...
No. Of course, it does not matter how you name the pro-American faction of the US elites. Name them national socialists, I do not care. What makes the difference between pro-Americans and globalists is that the globalists want to rule the whole world, while the pro-Americans have understood that this is no longer an option, that one has to accept the multi-polarity of the world, and to care about America first.

And it follows from this description of the two sides, that the odds that we end in a nuclear war will be much greater if the globalists rule.

iceaura said:
There is no such line, in the US. The factions you describe do not exist.
Click to expand...
A year ago I would have accepted this without any doubt. What I have seen during the last year has shown me something different. There is the decisive question for the Western elites what to do with the change from the uni-polar, US-ruled world order toward the multi-polar world order. There are only two possibilities: Either to fight for the preservation of the uni-polar world. This is the globalist faction. Or to accept the fact that the world becomes multi-polar, and to care instead about remaining strong in that multi-polar world, about minimizing the harm which will probably caused by the loss of power which follows from this transition for the US.

So, a year ago the pro-Americans were not visible at all. If one does not count the Ron Paul revolution. As McCain, as Clinton are clearly globalists. It is easy to identify them by their relation to Russia: They have to be against Putin, who stands for the multi-polar world order. The only remaining chance of the globalists is a pro-Western regime change in Russia. Instead, the pro-Americans would accept Putin and prefer a strategic alliance with Russia against China/Iran. The old Kissinger game, only this time not with China but Russia.

The question is not if this will succeed or not. I would say this has no real chance, because Russia has no interest to turn against China or Iran. But what matters is that this is what parts of the US elite propose to do, and that there is no agreement about this, but, instead, a fierce political battle against those who propose this. Same for TPP. TPP makes a lot of sense for globalists, as an attempt to isolate China in Asia. It makes not much sense for the pro-American faction. Obama was in favor of it, Trump has rejected it. So, here we also see this split of the American elites.

I would concede that inside America other splits in the elite may be more important. The split above is what I care about, and it is the split the world outside the US has to care about, because it is a split about foreign policy, and this split may decide about war or peace. For foreign policy, Republicans vs. Democrats is almost irrelevant.
iceaura said:
The deplorables are organized and coordinated by the mass media, and the power of the mass media to do that was well demonstrated by Trump's victory - the mass media was his only way of communicating with his constituency, as he had no electoral support where he lived or worked, and very little backing from established Party power. The ability of coordinated fractions of the mass media to isolate people from reality and override all other influences on the ordinary voter was Trump's big advantage. Trump is a candidate of the mass media, and a demonstration of the increasing power of those who are consolidating its ownership.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is nonsense. The mass media have, most quite openly, supported Clinton. And now they fight Trump with all means. Trumps "media power" was mainly your beloved Breitbart and Twitter. Only if you start to name the internet "mass media", this makes sense. But the internet is not owned by a few. There are, of course, some big players like facebook, twitter and so on. but their power depends on at least looking neutral in political battles.
iceaura said:
Trump, like all Republicans, is in league with the international corporate capitalist "globalists".
Click to expand...
You would better not confuse interests of big firms, which may have interests in America as well as elsewhere, with the split globalists vs. pro-American in foreign policy. Firms which are interested in peaceful cooperation with many different states do not want a new Cold War, which would be harmful for all their Eurasian plans. So they do not necessarily support the globalists in their escalation of the fight for the American world order. Some are interested - for example, for google, facebook and similar internet firms a multi-polar world would mean that they would be restricted to America, with own players politically supported by their governments elsewhere. So, they prefer a unipolar world, where global "freedom of the internet" has the meaning of freedom for google and facebook to destroy all local competitors. Those who work in the real world may have, instead, not much to object against a multipolar world. Instead, a new Cold War, which would be necessary to enforce a unipolar world, would endanger them.

As long as there was a unipolar world, it was nice for all of them. America rules, which American firm would object. But now one needs a heavy fight to defend it, the situation becomes different. Some support a fight, others not.
Quantum Quack said:
You need to keep in mind whilst working out how to predict outcomes that less than 60% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2016 election.
... a large percentage of the USA do not actively participate in their democracy. It is they that will determine the outcomes not the parties, when they finally get motivated enough to do something about their governance. IMO
Click to expand...
I doubt they will play an important role. Elections in such a big country like the US are always a game for big players. What matters are the elites, their interests. The big firms, the deep state, the media corporations.
 
Schmelzer said:
No. Of course, it does not matter how you name the pro-American faction of the US elites.
Click to expand...
There is no such faction, separate from the "globalists". You seem to have confused yourself with your nomenclature - one of the ways in which naming things matters.
Schmelzer said:
Either to fight for the preservation of the uni-polar world. This is the globalist faction. Or to accept the fact that the world becomes multi-polar, and to care instead about remaining strong in that multi-polar world, about minimizing the harm which will probably caused by the loss of power which follows from this transition for the US.
Click to expand...
These aren't factions that split the Republican Party. Any discussion like that is fifty years old, and has taken place entirely among liberals.
Schmelzer said:
You would better not confuse interests of big firms, which may have interests in America as well as elsewhere, with the split globalists vs. pro-American in foreign policy
Click to expand...
There is no such split as you describe among the Republicans. They're arguing tactics, not strategy, and they're all globalists. The unipower they favor is their international corporate class, not America. Their use of the American military is a matter of tactics, not strategy, and the discussion includes hot vs cold war as well as cold war vs trade agreements (and trade agreements vs complete deregulation).
"The deplorables are organized and coordinated by the mass media, and the power of the mass media to do that was well demonstrated by Trump's victory - the mass media was his only way of communicating with his constituency, as he had no electoral support where he lived or worked, and very little backing from established Party power. The ability of coordinated fractions of the mass media to isolate people from reality and override all other influences on the ordinary voter was Trump's big advantage. Trump is a candidate of the mass media, and a demonstration of the increasing power of those who are consolidating its ownership."
Sorry, but this is nonsense. The mass media have, most quite openly, supported Clinton.
Click to expand...
It is not nonsense, it's information. It's not debatable - it's historical, physical, measured, verifiable, obvious, incontrovertible fact. Trump's entire political career has been completely based on his employment of, and dominance in, and accomplishments via, the mass media - he has never had any other source of political support or basis of political accomplishments. The national audience he reached with the overwhelming cooperation and support of the mass media was his entire political base - he had no other.

You are apparently completely unaware of the media's role in Trump's career, campaign, and election to the Presidency - that's ok, ignorance is no sin. But you also seem completely unaware of the gullibility you demonstrate by posting Republican canards and silly campaign nonsense about the media as if it were some kind of description of reality.
 
Last edited:
Jason Chaffetz: Poor People Should Stop Buying iPhones If They Need Money For Health Care

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is proposing a quick fix for low-income Americans unable to afford coverage under President Donald Trump’s newly proposed health care law: Don’t buy an iPhone.​

The American Health Care Act, unveiled by House Republican leaders Monday, offers less financial assistance to low-income people than former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, so it would likely result in millions of Americans losing the health coverage they have today.

“Americans have choices, and they’ve got to make a choice,” Chaffetz said Tuesday on CNN. “So rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They’ve got to make those decisions themselves.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jason-chaffetz-iphone-health-care_us_58bea6aae4b09ab537d6a395?

Silly poor people, see how easy that was? There, your health care is in the bag. Wait, what about next month's payment?
 
12424797_433341653542104_1102387611_n.jpg
 
iceaura said:
There is no such faction, separate from the "globalists". ...
It is not nonsense, it's information. It's not debatable ...
You are apparently completely unaware of ....
Click to expand...
Ok, have a nice day, and believe your joepistole facts.
 
Schmelzer said:
. . . that one has to accept the multi-polarity of the world, and to care about America first.
Click to expand...
No. The only way humans can survive on this planet, in the long run, is to accept a world government. The UN is the beginning. Now, I'm talking hundreds, maybe thousands of years from now -- not tomorrow, or even in this century.

(Besides, it's the only way planet Earth will be accepted into the United Federation of Planets. :D)
 
Oystein said:
No. The only way humans can survive on this planet, in the long run, is to accept a world government. The UN is the beginning.
Click to expand...

No, a world government would degenerate in short time into a totalitarian state. 20 years of the unipolar world, which was yet far away from world goverment, has resulted in such a big transformation toward totalitarism in the US that I would have never imagined this. With killing lists signed by the president, official torture, life-long imprisonment without even a charge, and almost total demolition of the remains of international law.

In the actual situation it makes not much sense to speculate about 1000 years.
 
Schmelzer said:
Ok, have a nice day, and believe your joepistole facts
Click to expand...
The national mass media was the only source of political support Donald Trump had, prior to his gaining the Republican nomination and some grudging support from some - not all - of the Republican Party "establishment". It was by far his major source of support afterwards, as well.

If you doubt that, try to name another.
 
Note Aside

iceaura said:
It is not nonsense, it's information. It's not debatable - it's historical, physical, measured, verifiable, obvious, incontrovertible fact. Trump's entire political career has been completely based on his employment of, and dominance in, and accomplishments via, the mass media - he has never had any other source of political support or basis of political accomplishments. The national audience he reached with the overwhelming cooperation and support of the mass media was his entire political base - he had no other.
Click to expand...

Transcript's not up, yet, but I think it was Adam Davidson ... I'll have to check the quote, and ... okay, okay ... screw the transcript:

There are dozens of deals around the world and this is the one I spent three and a half months really digging into, but the ones that I just peeked at—I mean, the Brazil deal fell apart because of deep construction, their deal in Indonesia is very questionable, the deal that fell apart in Georgia is very questionable, the deal in Turkey is questionable, and on, and on, and on. And one thing that was shocking to me—I mean, you'd think by November, December of last year, we reporters sort of knew a lot about Donald Trump, but looking at just one deal, spending three and a half months on it, there was so much that shocked me in the shabbiness with which they approached this deal. And I do have to wonder, with dozens of other deals, what else is out there.

(msnbc↱)​

It just seems demonstrable that the media freaking out about Donald Trump helped his campaign because nobody was tacking him to the shed. And I get the bit about not really thinking it mattered because nobody thought he would win and all, but, still, you know?
____________________

Notes:

Maddow, Rachel. "Trump risks prosecution for questionable deal". The Rachel Maddow Show. msnbc. 6 March 2017. msnbc.com. 7 March 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2lZs0Up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top