TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Advanced search  

News:



We are Allaxys
We moved our news front to http://www.allaxys.com

The Forum 1 on Transgallaxys.com is only a backup archive!

Twin Update 8.5.2023

Because of their sabotage the Net nazis
"Amazon Data Services Nova", Ashburn, United States
"Amazon Data Services" Singapore
"Amazon Data Services" Japan
ARE BLOCKED

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: With best wishes from Mother Jones: Only in America  (Read 1129 times)

Munterbunt

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 372
With best wishes from Mother Jones: Only in America
« on: December 17, 2016, 05:36:24 PM »

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/graydon-carter-donald-trump-president

[*quote*]
Graydon Carter on Trump’s “Only in America” Election Win
Only in America could a man whose staff took away his Twitter account be given the nuclear codes.
by Graydon Carter

November 11, 2016 5:00 am
By Mike Segar/Reuters.

“Only in America / Land of opportunity” —Jay & the Americans



God, I love this country.

Only in America could a serial bankrupt pass himself off as a successful businessman. (And almost none of those he bankrupted were even regular businesses. They were casinos—where people essentially come to lose their money.)

Only in America could a man who offended Hispanics, Muslims, Jews, and African-Americans, as well as women, babies, and the handicapped, become the Republican nominee for president.

Only in America could a man for whom truth is an inconvenient concept feel comfortable referring to his opponent as “lying” and “crooked.”
Advertisement

Only in America, a nation built on a history of immigration, could a man who married two immigrants—one of whom is alleged to have worked illegally when she first arrived—run on an anti-immigration platform.

Only in America could a man with a legendary reputation for stiffing small-business owners and wage laborers be able to pass himself off as a champion of the little guy.

Only in America could a man run for the presidency with one of his heralded accomplishments being the fixing of a skating rink in New York’s Central Park, a job the city had bungled for years. (It’s a feat most backyard rink rats in Canada pull off before their 13th birthday.)

Only in America could a man who brags about groping and kissing women without their consent win 53 percent of the vote among white women.

Only in America could a man who avoided the draft—with a deferment for pesky bone spurs on his feet, which somehow did not hinder him from playing tennis—and who insulted war heroes and their families become the commander in chief of the greatest military power on earth.

Only in America could a man who lashed out over the flimsiest of slights become our chief negotiator with the Russians, the Chinese, and the North Koreans.

Only in America could a man whose staff reportedly took away his Twitter account because he couldn’t control himself be given the nuclear codes. (Thank you, President Obama, for pointing out that one.)

Only in America could a man with a negligible record of charitable giving and not a single day’s experience in public life be raised to the highest public office in the land.

Only in America could a man who kept a volume of Hitler’s speeches by his bedside rule over the second-largest Jewish population in the world.

Only in America could a man whose résumé of failed businesses and alleged sexual harassment is so miserable that he would have trouble finding work at a copy shop be named chief executive of the world’s largest economy.

Only in America could a man who has skirted the law for more than four decades be put in charge of choosing new justices for the nation’s highest court.

Only in America could a man whose foreign-affairs experience consists of negotiating deals for hotels and golf courses—and perhaps arranging for investments by Russians—become the most powerful man on the planet. (And at a very perilous time.)

Only in America could a man who has likely paid no federal taxes for nearly two decades, and who refused to release his tax returns, be put in charge of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.

Only in America could a man who thinks climate change is a hoax, and something invented by the Chinese, be put in charge of not only the Environmental Protection Agency but also our negotiations with other nations—at the most calamitous environmental period in the earth’s modern history.

Only in America could a man who surrounded himself with political second-raters like Rudolph Giuliani and Chris Christie be put in charge of forming the team to run the next U.S. government.

Only in America could a man who earned the contempt of his Republican rivals for being a con man and a fraud—and who implicated the father of one of his rivals in John F. Kennedy’s assassination—ultimately reap the support of those very same rivals.

Only in America could a man who threatened to throw his opponent in jail and to sue the women who have accused him of sexual harassment, who denigrated the judge who will preside over the trial of his bogus university (because the judge is of Mexican heritage), and who has 75 outstanding lawsuits (including two for fraud) be put in charge of the Justice Department.

Only in America could a man who does not understand the separation of powers, and who has advocated for the use of torture regardless of national and international law, be thought prepared to swear an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Only in America could a man whose primary national exposure was appearing on a reality-TV show become the reality that so much of the world feared.

Do not tell me America is no longer a land of opportunity.
[*/quote*]
Logged

Munterbunt

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 372
With best wishes from Mother Jones: This isn't business as usual.
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2016, 05:47:08 PM »

By email:

[*quote*]
MoJo Reader,

Normally, right around this time we'd start our annual December fundraising drive. You know how it works, because you see so many nonprofits do it this time of year: Set a goal, count down the days until December 31, and make the case that the work is worth your tax-deductible donation.

But these aren't normal times. Not when we have a president-elect with contempt for the truth and unprecedented conflicts of interest, vulnerable communities under attack and extremism on the rise, and a media landscape awash in fake news.

I'm not about moping, and I know you aren't either. In the weeks since the election, we've seen an incredible outpouring of support—huge increases in our donations and subscriptions. That's amazing—and needed for all the hard work that lies ahead.

So for our December fundraiser, I didn't want to trot out the old "HELP—we need to raise $250,000 by December 31 to meet our budget!" line. To be honest, it's not actually true (more on that below), and we think you deserve better: We don't want marketing gimmicks to be the reason you support us.

We want the journalism itself—and the way it can hold the powerful accountable—to be the reason you support Mother Jones.

Let's talk about the journalism for a moment—I hope this example will make the case for your tax-deductible one-time or monthly gift.

Russ Choma is a reporter in MoJo's DC bureau. Back in June, he broke the story of Donald Trump's remarkable relationship with Deutsche Bank, a huge German financial institution that has lent Trump a lot of money. About $364 million, to be exact.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/trump-german-loan-deutsche-bank

Deutsche Bank peddled bad mortgage-backed securities just before the 2008 crash. The federal government levied a $14 billion fine for that, but the bank didn't want to pay. Russ's story pointed out that as president, Trump "would have a strong disincentive to put pressure on Deutsche Bank"—his personal interests would be directly in conflict with those of US taxpayers.

There wasn't a lot of pickup for that story in other media; people were too busy obsessing about poll averages. But Russ kept plugging away. Soon he published a story about the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Its building is federal property, and to lease it, Trump's company agreed to pay way more than any other bidder. If the hotel doesn't make a profit, it will have to negotiate with the federal government—that is, ultimately, Donald Trump.

You see the problem—and trend—here. So did Russ. He reported story after story on Deutsche Bank, the hotel, and other Trump conflicts, right up until the election. And three days after the election, he came back again to point out what everyone else would end up reporting about: the emoluments clause in the Constitution, which forbids the president from taking gifts from foreign governments—such as the Bank of China, which has a deep financial relationship with yet another Trump entity.

While the media circus spun on, Russ was zeroing in on a key issue of the presidential campaign. And now, six months later, those issues are finally front and center, with outlets from the New York Times to National Public Radio digging in and 17 members of Congress demanding an investigation. (Better late than never.)

Why was Russ able to drill down on this critical issue when others wouldn't? The reason is simple, and wildly important for our democracy. When you pay for the news with advertising, investor dollars, or deep corporate pockets, the incentive is to churn out cheap content (look no further than your Facebook feed) that racks up clicks and advertising revenue but does little to reveal deeper truths. But when you—readers like you—pay for the news, you get the news you deserve. Reader support makes up 70 percent of our budget, and it's the only reason we're able to keep digging deep.

And my, do we have some digging to do over the next four years—if you can help us do it.

Trump may not believe in transparency, but we do. We don't want to manufacture urgency by counting up toward an arbitrary goal and a December 31 deadline to earn your support. The real urgency is about the unprecedented challenge we all face, and the old playbook is out the window. What we need to rise to the challenge of covering Trump is everything we've got. And more.

I know there's a lot of competition for your tax-deductible year-end donations, but I hope this year, the need for independent journalism that cuts through the BS rises to the top of your list. Please join us with a one-time or monthly donation today.

Thanks for everything you do to make MoJo what it is,

   

Signature Image
Monika Bauerlein, Chief Executive Officer
Mother Jones

DONATE TO MOTHER JONES

This message was sent to munterbunt@kissmyback.com. To stop receiving email from Mother Jones or manage your subscription preferences, click here.
http://www.MotherJones.com
222 Sutter Street, #600 San Francisco, CA USA 94108

[*/quote*]


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/trump-german-loan-deutsche-bank

[*quote*]
MotherJones

Trump Has a Conflict-of-Interest Problem No Other White House Candidate Ever Had

Politics Environment Food Media Crime & Justice Photos Investigations

Should Trump be investigated? Hell Yes.

Trump Has a Conflict-of-Interest Problem No Other White House Candidate Ever Had
He owes at least $100 million to a foreign bank that's battled with US regulators.


Russ Choma and David CornJun. 1, 2016 5:00 AM

Jae C. Hong/AP

In his most recent financial disclosure statement, Donald Trump notes he has billions of dollars in assets. But the presumptive GOP nominee also has a tremendous load of debt that includes five loans each over $50 million. (The disclosure form, which presidential candidates must submit, does not compel candidates to reveal the specific amount of any loans that exceed $50 million, and Trump has chosen not to provide details.) Two of those megaloans are held by Deutsche Bank, which is based in Germany but has US subsidiaries. And this prompts a question that no other major American presidential candidate has had to face: What are the implications of the chief executive of the US government being in hock for $100 million (or more) to a foreign entity that has tried to evade laws aimed at curtailing risky financial shenanigans, that was recently caught manipulating markets around the world, and that attempts to influence the US government?

Trump's disclosure form lists 16 loans from 11 different lenders, totaling at least $335 million, and the aggregate amount is likely much more. Deutsche Bank is clearly his favorite lender, and Trump's financial empire has become largely dependent on his relationship with this major player on Wall Street and the global markets. The German bank has lent him at least $295 million for two of his signature projects. In 2012, Deutsche provided Trump with $125 million to help him buy Trump National Doral golf course. Last year, it handed Trump a $170 million line of credit for his new hotel project on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.

Should Trump move into the White House, four blocks away from his under-construction hotel, he would be its first inhabitant to owe so much to any bank. And in recent years, Deutsche Bank has repeatedly clashed with US regulators. So might it be awkward—if not pose a conflict of interest—for Trump to have to deal with policy matters that could affect this financial behemoth?

Richard Painter, an attorney who teaches at the University of Minnesota and who was the chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007, says a situation in which a sitting president owes hundreds of millions of dollars to any entity, especially a bank that jousts with regulators, is disturbing. There have been wealthy presidents and vice presidents, Painter notes, pointing to John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and Nelson Rockefeller, but none were as heavily leveraged as Trump. "They had large assets and usually diversified assets. They weren't in a situation where someone could put pressure on them to do what they want," Painter remarks. "Whereas having a president who owes a lot of money to banks, particularly when it's on negotiable terms—it puts them at the mercy of the banks and the banks are at the mercy of regulators." Painter adds: "In real estate, the prevailing business model is to own a lot but also owe a lot, and that is a potentially very troublesome business model for someone in public office."

Members of a Trump cabinet would have to recuse themselves from any government business that would have a direct impact on their personal financial interests. If a Treasury secretary held this sort of loans, he or she could not participate in policy deliberations and actions that might have an impact on Deutsche Bank—and that would likely be many. But the president and vice president are excluded from this requirement. As president, Trump would have no obligation to divest his vast business holdings, though recent presidents and presidential candidates have taken steps to avoid any concern. President Barack Obama has even put off refinancing his Chicago home to save money because it would mean establishing a financial relationship with a bank, and that could prompt questions.  In 2011, Mitt Romney promised to use a blind trust for his substantial personal business interests, though there were concerns regarding how "blind" the trust was.

Trump's relationship with Deutsche Bank means he is in league with a financial giant that has been at odds with US government regulators and has attempted to skirt reforms designed to prevent Wall Street firms from wrecking the US economy once again. Last year, around the same time Trump secured the $170 million for the Washington project, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a $2.5 billion fine to regulators here and abroad for its role in rigging interest rates. This included $600 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services, $800 million to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and $775 million to the Department of Justice. As Reuters reported, "Slamming Germany's largest lender for 'cultural failings,' regulators squarely blamed senior staff for misleading them, failing to be open and cooperative, and prolonging the investigation." From roughly 2003 to 2010, as the news service put it, the bank ran a scam to "fix rates…used to price hundreds of trillions of dollars of loans and contracts worldwide." The bank also recently reached settlements in lawsuits alleging it had manipulated prices for precious metals and their derivatives.

Like most big banks, Deutsche Bank has been at odds with regulators over the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform measure. But it went to unusual lengths to dodge some of the law's requirements. For years, the bank operated in the United States through two subsidiaries that were legally considered to be American entities. Yet in 2012—after Dodd-Frank was enacted—the bank tried to rewrite its own corporate structure to make it less American. Under the new law, a foreign-based bank's subsidiaries were required to maintain certain minimum levels of capital—as much as $20 billion worth of reserves in Deutsche Bank's case—so that the bank could weather another financial catastrophe like the one that occurred in 2008. The consequence of the rule also restricted how freely an American subsidiary of a foreign bank could invest and how much risk it could assume. This was the point of the law: to prevent gargantuan financial firms from behaving recklessly, collapsing, and, once more, requiring a taxpayer-funded bailout.

Rather than accept these limitations, Deutsche Bank reorganized itself, moving its commercial banking subsidiary out of the holding company for its American operations, which also contained its investment arm. Deutsche Bank then claimed this banking subsidiary was not subject to the new Dodd-Frank regulations. The Federal Reserve didn't fall for this stunt. The bank eventually was forced to comply with Dodd-Frank requirements.

That was only the beginning of Deutsche Bank's problems with Dodd-Frank. Last September, in its first enforcement action on new Dodd-Frank provisions, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission fined Deutsche Bank $2.5 million for failing to report properly on its trading of swaps, which are complex financial derivatives.

And like most big banks, Deutsche Bank lobbies heavily in Washington. Last year it spent $600,000 on a stable of lobbyists. In 2010, the year Dodd-Frank was enacted, the bank spent nearly $2.6 million on influence-peddlers in the nation's capital.

So how might Trump, should he become president, handle the conflict of interest posed by his relationship with Deutsche Bank?

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment, but previously Trump has said (without mentioning Deutsche Bank specifically) that he would avoid any conflicts of interest by installing his children at the top of the Trump business empire.

"There would be enormous tax consequences from just giving it all to the children," Painter says. "But just merely letting his [children] run the business doesn't solve the problem. You really have got to figure out a way to sell your interest in the business and sell off the risk." Other wealthy presidents have tended to own assets that could easily be unwound or sold off. But for Trump, disposing of his real estate holdings would be a special challenge. "I think what you need to do is wind down or sell off the real estate portfolio, and that probably takes time," Painter says. "It’s not like liquid securities that are easy to sell. Or he'd need to start to focus on paying off this debt."

Selling the parts of the businesses that he has mortgaged might be particularly difficult, because some of the debt may be tied to him personally. In the past that has led to problems, even with Deutsche Bank. In 2005, Trump borrowed $640 million from Deutsche Bank and several other lenders for the construction of a Chicago hotel tower. When he failed to pay back the money on time in 2008, the banks, including Deutsche Bank, demanded he pay up the $40 million he had personally guaranteed. In response, Trump sued Deutsche Bank for $3 billion, saying the project's financial troubles were the fault of the economic recession, essentially an act of God, and accusing the bank of undermining the project and his reputation.

Trump and Deutsche Bank patched things up, and hundreds of millions of dollars in credit subsequently flowed from the German behemoth to Trump. But with all his debt to Deutsche Bank coming due before the end of what would be Trump's second term as president, there's more to this relationship than what's on the financial ledger. The American public, too, has much at stake when it's possible that the next president will be deeply in debt to a global financial player that has been caught trying to use its influence to rig the financial system.
Get the scoop,  straight from Mother Jones.

Copyright ©2016 Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress. All Rights Reserved.
[*/quote*]



DONATE TO MOTHER JONES
http://www.MotherJones.com
222 Sutter Street, #600 San Francisco, CA USA 94108


What about Donald Trump's connections in Germany? Who are they? What are they involved in?
Logged
Pages: [1]