Whither the Never Trumper? It’s been a difficult few months for the small but outspoken group of prominent Republican consultants, operatives and media figures who opposed Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Since Trump’s inauguration, these party renegades have had to come to terms with the political ascension of a man hellbent on sabotaging a party and an agenda they’ve worked decades to promote. Put simply: The Never Trumpers have been better. If you’re envisioning a bunch of people in business attire swaddling themselves in bed all day, you wouldn’t be far off. “I’m emotionally unwell,” quipped Jeb Bush’s former communications director, Tim Miller, “but I’m doing my best.” “I guess there’ve been some points that haven’t been as brutal as others,” said Meghan Milloy, a co-director of Republican Women for Hillary. “It kind of fluctuates day to day based on the news cycle.” A lot of people and things aren’t faring well during the Trump presidency ― immigrants, women, Muslims, refugees, the LGBTQ community, European Union officials, workers, people with pre-existing conditions, Syrian civilians, arctic ice sheets, Sean Spicer, diplomatic protocol officers, endangered species, journalists and Seth Rich’s family, to name a few. In such an environment, one isn’t inclined to feel much sympathy for a group of GOPers estranged from their party establishment. Far worse fates can befall a person than not landing a West Wing office or being unable to nab GlaxoSmithKline as a lobbying client because that person isn’t tight with Jared Kushner. But let’s spare a moment for the Never Trump Republican, if only because it’s a significant development when so many of the biggest detractors in the ruling party are disillusioned and in disagreement over whether there is anything to be done about their predicament. The Never Trumpers interviewed for this piece were uniformly appalled by the fire hose-like stream of White House scandals inundating the news. But they’re more despairing over the president’s abandonment of key conservative principles, along with a sense that he has blown the opportunity to advance the principles he does support. “It’s frustrating for me as a conservative,” said former Ted Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler. “We were told if we won the House and got our speaker in there that all of these wonderful things would happen and that wasn’t true.” Those “wonderful things” include efforts to overhaul the tax code, repeal Obamacare and gut Wall Street regulations ― ambitions that the Trump administration’s myriad organizational shortcomings and the investigations into Russian connections have largely sidelined. As if Trump’s own goals weren’t agonizing enough, Never Trumpers fret over the president’s ongoing rhetoric targeting longheld conservative principles. Rick Wilson, a veteran GOP consultant and pundit, took particular umbrage with the president’s proposed budget. “You can’t pretend that proposing a giant, budget-busting, fantasy math budget like they proposed is fiscal conservatism,” Wilson said, adding that he wasn’t surprised that the president abandoned “most [fiscal] conservative principles and engaged in a narcissistic daily temper tantrum.” “We’ve got a president who’s telling companies what they can and can’t do, where they can and can’t move, where their workers can and can’t go. [Conservatives] complain about the size of government all the time. To administer Trumpism, you’re going to have to wildly expand the role of government in the private sector,” he said. The president’s embrace of Russia and confrontational attitude toward NATO hasn’t exactly earned himself plaudits from this crowd, either. “In foreign policy, he’s moving in exactly the opposite direction as Ronald Reagan did,” said Liz Mair, a Republican communications consultant who has previously worked with would-be Republican presidential candidates Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina and Rick Perry. Things could’ve been different, of course. Many of these Never Trumpers were once well-positioned for White House jobs, having worked for lawmakers who went on to run in 2016, or taking part in 2016 Republican primary campaigns directly. That a bunch of people they see as utterly incompetent are now occupying these dream gigs only compounds the hurt. “The problem with this team on all levels is they haven’t done the work of putting out a communications plan to inform the country of what it is they’re trying to do,” said Tyler. “They don’t have plan. It’s just a continuous campaign.” “I can’t imagine if I were somebody who was supposed to be working on something important like policy or presenting the president’s image,” echoed Mair. “Working in communications, a lot of complaints I hear are, ‘Oh my God, their communications operations!’ and I’m like, ‘What the fuck did you people expect?’” Working in communications, a lot of complaints I hear are, 'Oh my God, their communications operations!' and I'm like, 'What the fuck did you people expect?' Liz Mair, Republican communications consultant Some members of the Never Trump movement are trying to combat the trends that led to this despair. After the November election, Meghan Milloy and her Republican Women for Hillary co-founder Jennifer Pierotti Lim rechristened the organization Republican Women for Progress. The group, according to its co-founders, seeks to restore the socially progressive, economically conservative brand of Republican once personified by Nelson Rockefeller by recruiting, training and promoting female Republican candidates. “One big problem is that there aren’t many women in leadership,” said Milloy, “and I think that’s due in large part to the fact that the GOP doesn’t have the support organizations and actions in place like EMILY’s List that specifically cater to women.” Pierotti Lim said female lawmakers in Congress have proven more willing to “chart their own course” and not walk in lockstep with the president, citing Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), among others. Republican Women for Progress aims to cultivate that approach. “I think a few Republican women have been able to walk the line of not being 100 percent supportive of the Trump administration,” Pierotti Lim said. But Milloy and Pierotti Lim’s relative optimism is in short supply. Few Never Trumpers believe there is much hope for a near-term correction of the political and demographic trends that contributed to Trump’s rapid takeover of the GOP. “From an ideological standpoint, the center of gravity is moving toward the populist right,” said Miller. “I don’t see us swinging back.” A number of Never Trumpers told HuffPost that Trump’s election prompted a sobering realization: that the largely academic brand of conservatism they support ― actively small-government and interventionist ― doesn’t sync with the beliefs and outlooks of many Republican voters. “American conservatism has become anti-liberalism,” said veteran conservative commentator Charlie Sykes. “It is united by hating the media and hating the left ― as opposed to supporting small government.” White House officials dismissed the criticism as textbook wound-licking from people whose side lost. “The President is holding his promises to the American people by growing the economy, creating jobs, protecting our boarders [sic] and ensuring that every American is safe and prospering,” a White House spokesman said in a curiously spelled statement provided to HuffPost. Republican officials in Congress also expressed frustration with the criticism, citing a need to deal with the inescapable reality of Trump’s presidency and his support among an overwhelming majority of Republicans. “We certainly appreciate their advice on Twitter,” quipped one senior GOP aide. It's suicidal, it's self-destructive, it's a time bomb waiting to go off that will ruin their careers and political legacies Rick Wilson, GOP consultant and pundit Never Trumpers aren’t unsympathetic to the political bind in which Trump has placed his congressional colleagues. “I think they’re in a tough spot,” said Miller, who cited polling showing Republican support for the president in the high 80s. “The base of the Republican Party and the people that these Congress folk respond to ― the small-dollar donors, the people who knock on doors, the people who are engaged in the political process ― they overwhelmingly want them to support Trump and his agenda.” However many more Never Trumpers were exasperated by the relative absence of elected Republicans standing up to Trump. “I have maintained my entire political career that the Republican Party is one of the most gutless collections of individuals on the planet,” said Mair. “They are some of the most spineless individuals on the planet.” Others warned that the party will suffer political consequences for inaction. “I remain absolutely convinced that [Trump] remains unfit for office, but that does not mean that I think anyone will take steps to do anything,” said Sykes, adding that anyone who assumes otherwise “fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the current Republican Party.” “This is a party that rolled over and nominated Donald Trump despite all their doubts,” he continued. “With every passing day it becomes the defining characteristic of this party that they won’t stand up to Donald Trump and that many of them on a daily basis find ways to pretzel themselves into rationalizing his conduct.” Rick Wilson was no less blunt in his assessment. “It’s suicidal, it’s self-destructive, it’s a time bomb waiting to go off that will ruin their careers and political legacies,” he predicted. “Every one of them who comes out and talks about how they’re small-budget conservatives and want to balance budgets should be struck by lightning.” But, hey, it’s not all bad ― or at least as bad as they thought. Most praised a number of Trump’s Cabinet picks, in particular Secretary of Defense James Mattis and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley. “There are a few areas where he’s proving to be not 100 percent horrible,” said Mair. “Everybody’s got to find some bright spots in their day.” Wilson was more Zen about the situation. “When you expect the worst,” he said, “you get precisely what you expected.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Правительство США и манильская элита весьма заинтересованы в раздувании военно-морской конфронтации с КНР, в то же время продолжая всё «оставшееся в прошлом» кровавое коррупционное настоящее и (усиливающее и обогащающее часть филиппинской элиты) глубокое американское проникновение в политический режим Филиппин и режим обеспечения их безопасности. Дутерте срывает этот сценарий, потому что его политическая карьера проходила на Минандао, и он был беззащитен перед нацеленным на него грязным остриём американского военного копья на протяжении более десяти лет.
Being Trump’s No. 2 is hard. Replacing him would be far harder.
While the first half of the hard-hitting conversation with acclaimed director Oliver Stone focused largely on foreign policy, Part 2 of the “Scheer Intelligence” interview centers on the transformation of the American economy. Stone, director of films including “Platoon,” “Born on the Fourth of July” and “Snowden,” and Scheer begin the conversation by discussing Stone’s 1987 film “Wall Street,” which takes a bold look at the rampant corporate greed on Wall Street in the 1980s. They also discuss the sequel that Stone made more than 20 years later. Stone, who says his hardworking father inspired him to make “Wall Street,” tells Scheer he “wanted to do something quite different” from his earlier films. “Money, when I grew up, was never talked about. It was considered gauche, it was not something you were proud of,” Stone explains. “ ‘Wall Street’ started when I was researching ‘Scarface’ in Miami in 1980 and running into this phenomenon of the ‘get rich quick’ schemes. ... I traveled up to Wall Street from Miami, and ... a lot of people who I’d known as young men were now working on Wall Street—at the same age I was—and making millions of dollars a year.” Stone adds that by the 2000s, when he made the sequel, Wall Street was unrecognizable. “It was another world,” he says. “We were saying [that] the corruption is beyond just being corruption, it’s just reached another level of acceptance. It’s a low-hanging fruit to become rich.” The two also discuss Stone’s 2008 film “W.,” a biographical drama about George W. Bush and the Iraq War, and his 2012 documentary series, “The Untold History of the United States.” Stone also shares his fears about the future of U.S. military power, telling Scheer that nuclear war seems more likely than ever. “We should remember the past,” Stone cautions. “In our country, we don’t remember our history, and we don’t remember the bad things that we do. And because we don’t remember it, we do them again.” Listen to the full conversation below, and listen to Part 1 of the conversation here. A full transcript of the conversation is below. Adapted from Truthdig.com Full transcript: Robert Scheer: All right, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of Scheer Intelligence. This is actually Part II of my interview with Oliver Stone. Part I stressed foreign policy a lot, and Vietnam, and brought it up to the present day of Donald Trump. But the thing that really drives the success of Donald Trump, and getting elected and his power—and also drove Bernie Sanders; two populist candidates, one, from my point of view, genuine, Sanders; the other not so much. But we see it throughout the world, is that the economy is not delivering on its promise. And you’ve made two movies, one earlier on when people were not discussing this, your classic discussion of Wall Street, by the name of Wall Street. And why don’t we begin with that, and then you did a follow-up, Wall Street II. And what was incredible about Wall Street is that at that time, people were accepting the view of the Wall Street shysters, that they could keep this thing going and get away with it, and we’d all benefit somehow even though they benefitted a lot more. And you asserted, really, a quite old-fashioned view of propriety and decency; I think you got it from your father who had been on Wall Street. And the hero of the movie was somebody who actually thought you have to make real things, and they have to work, and it can’t just be all hype. And that was before we knew about collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps and all the swindles that Wall Street was able to make legal by getting financial deregulation, overturning all the New Deal legislation that made sure the public was served in some way. How did you come upon the first Wall Street movie? Why were you so, dare I say, perceptive on this problem? Oliver Stone: I can’t say I was, but I was influenced by my father, because when I was a young man I’d go down to Wall Street; a boy, really; and see the, the old Wall Street, if you remember, was canyons of small windows and dark offices, and there was none of this modern technology. It was people in the back room, they were serious researchers, and there was a relationship with the client. My father had clients that lasted his whole life. Their commissions were better, I suppose. It was a cultured profession, and a good one. He could make a good living, but at the same time he felt very satisfied that he was contributing to the American economic engine; Wall Street was a determinant of that, what—to help the companies, to help grow America. It was very much the Ronald Reagan view of America from the GE Theater, if you remember back in the 1950s, I think we used to watch it. And it was a very positive, Eisenhower view. I have to say I have reservations about that now that I’ve learned more about Mr. Roosevelt; my father was a big Roosevelt hater, and he used to, we had so many discussions at the dinner table about what Roosevelt did wrong, and blah, blah, blah; I think you know the nature of it. So it was more about the mood of the place. RS: But if your father were alive today— OS: Yeah. RS: Because I’ve run into these folks who used to believe that—he would say Roosevelt was right. OS: [Laughs] RS: And of course the animals took over, you know. Ah, he would be shocked. OS: I think there is an irony to this. I think if my father had lived long enough to see the film, he would have agreed with much of what was said, because the Gordon Geckos were the new breed. That was the Michael Douglas character. My dad didn’t know those people. There was a couple of hustlers in the old days, but they were soon, you know, they were found out, driven out; there was a few scandals, but nothing major, major that I remember. But it was a mood, and I wanted to capture that, in 1987 after the success of Platoon, I wanted to do something quite different, another kind of war in this Wall Street world where the lighting, the mood, was different. It was back—in a sense it was a very 1950s film, if you look at it on film and you can see some of that lighting, some of those offices, and it was a return to my youth, trying to find out what it was all about. And of course in the Gecko character, we didn’t know it then, but we found gold. I mean, there was the story of a young boy like my father, myself, going to work, trying to be honest, but being tempted by the greed, the materialism of a society that was doing very well. Mr. Reagan, if you remember, in 1980 brought back this vision of America growing. The dawn—”Morning in America” began the dawn of America. Back to business, right? We didn’t, Americans didn’t know anything about what was going on— RS: It was—you know, sometimes people create something much more important than they even recognize. And maybe you don’t even recognize what was so great about this movie, Wall Street, that you made, despite its honors. And what it captured was a very important turning point in America, which by the way, Ronald Reagan understood. Because what happened, you’re absolutely right. When Reagan came in—Reagan believed in a GE that actually no longer existed by the time he was president. It was the old GE that made things. And one thing to Reagan’s credit—I interviewed Reagan about all this stuff, you know, before he was governor, before he was president; I spent quite a bit of time with him—and what Reagan did, before he did the promotions for GE, he went to all the plants. And they had strong unions, great benefits, and this was when they were making a lot of money. And he was really impressed, because he after all had been a union leader, the Screen Actors Guild. And he said hey— OS: Yeah. And an informer. [Laughs] RS: Well, but I’m talking about the economics stuff. He looked at these plants and said, you know, hey, the bathrooms are clean; the benefits are good; they got medical coverage. You know, they’re making good wages, right? This is when you, you know, people even started to talk about the aristocracy of labor; you could be an auto worker, you know, and so forth, and make a real living, get a small boat, buy a house, and so forth. And he also—yes, as president he ushered in a lot of deregulation and so forth. By the end of his term you had the savings and loan scandal had exploded. And Reagan was shocked. And in fact, in one of your other movies that you’re a producer on, the movie about Larry Flynt, The People Vs. Larry Flynt, you have the Keating character— OS: [Laughs] Yes, Charles Keating, yes. From Cincinnati. RS: Charles Keating, who was—who was one of those savings and loan guys who went to jail. Yet he was the puritanical guy about, you know, let’s censor sex and everything. OS: Jim Cromwell played him. RS: Right. And it’s a brilliant scene in that movie. But going back to when you made Wall Street, was just that tipping point. And the irony is, because Reagan had the savings and loan scandal, they recognized that they had to have regulation. And actually, Reagan—I wrote this book called The Great American Stickup, so I document it—Reagan actually signed off on tougher regulation— OS: Oh really? RS: Yes, because he was so shocked, and so were— OS: Good for him, yeah. RS:—plenty of people in Congress, about the savings and loan—hey, these guys have gone wild. And it, by the way, was no longer the old GE. GE was now in finance capital, GE capital— OS: That’s right. You’ve described it very well, yeah. RS: Yeah, you know, they weren’t making light bulbs and refrigerators for their profit; they were doing, you know mortgage packages and finance and everything. OS: Finance, yeah. And they got into a lot of trouble with it, if you remember. RS: Right. So at the end of Reagan’s tenure, he really couldn’t pull off the deregulation. OS: No. Like my father, you see, it probably would have turned into—well, we need a little of the Roosevelt reform. And I think my father would have gone the same way. He died, unfortunately, in ‘85, before the movie came out. RS: But you dedicated the movie to him. OS: But I respected my dad, because he was an honest man. And one sensed that about him, and that’s why the clients stayed with him. It wasn’t about making money; you see, money, when I grew up, was never talked about. It was considered gauche, it was not something that you were proud of. If you made a lot of money and boasted about it, you were nouveau, what they called nouveau riche, you know; somebody who’s just got no taste, from 7th Avenue, who makes clothes, and he boasts about his houses, and his—but now America has become that. That’s what’s shocking to me about the Trump age, how— RS: Oh, it’s worse than that. Because I also interviewed Nelson Rockefeller and David Rockefeller and those people. They actually, like your father, worried about what their grandchildren would think. They actually worried about how this would look 40, 50 years up the road. OS: Yeah. Yeah. RS: The new crowd, the Gordon Gecko crowd that came in, they just wanted to get theirs and get out before the shit hit the fan. That was the basic idea. OS: Yeah. Because the money was so big. RS: And that’s what your movie captured; it was a swing moment in American society. Now we accept and we know that, these guys were a bunch of swindlers, you know, made legal because they could change the law and make what they do legal. But they were totally irresponsible, totally out of control. The thing that from a partisan point of view that is missed, is that it was Bill Clinton who revived this radical deregulation, worked with the, you know, the republicans in the Senate and in Congress, and pushed through the reversal of Franklin—he did what the original republicans had said they wanted to do. He reversed Franklin Roosevelt’s legacy. OS: Well, I think Clinton— RS: And that’s what your second movie got into. OS: And Clinton, I think, realized that that’s where the bread was; the butter would be the banks, the money; the Democratic Party could find a new life out of the banks. And he somehow changed the whole—the whole system did shift about that time. And you know, the Clinton years were thought of as good years, but there was a lot of things that were happening underneath the surface that we now see were disastrous, such as the reestablishment of NATO in 1999, major countries in Eastern Europe joining NATO. His—the power of the Rubin—Robert Rubin, remember him, and the head of the Federal Reserve Board. And Larry Summers, I played tennis with him not too long ago. These people came into being, it was a “committee to rule the world,” remember those three people? RS: Yeah, well that’s what Time magazine said— OS: Yeah, that was a cover, Robert Rubin, the Soviet Union had wilted away— RS: To “save the world” is what Time magazine— OS, RS: “Committee to save the world.” OS: Time magazine, 1999. I remember that cover because they’ve always been wrong, Time magazine; always. There’s that curse, you know. Like, when 1984 came, I remember— RS: [Laughs] OS:—they had a big cover, “George Orwell was wrong.” And that was so funny. I thought, this is so crazy. Because I didn’t trust Time at that point; I’d been to Vietnam, I’d read all their pro-Vietnam War stuff; Henry Luce was a very dangerous man, a Presbyterian minister, in a way. But anyway, when they said “the committee to save the world” and Robert Rubin was on the cover—you remember Rubin was a handsome, attractive banker, he made sense, and— RS: He came from Goldman Sachs, he was Clinton’s treasury secretary, and after he gets the deregulation that makes Citigroup legal, because it was a merger of investment banks and commercial banks, he goes and works there for $15 million a year, for a decade. OS: Yeah, for Sandy Weill, Sanford Weill, who my father worked for. RS: Yeah, for Sandy Weill, who at least had the—and Sandy Weill at least had the decency at the end of the day to say he was wrong, and the deregulation was wrong. Rubin has never said that. OS: That’s right. I’m glad you noticed that. No. Citibank was a monstrosity on the 2008 crash, played a large role. But Weill, about 2007 or ‘08, said—or ‘09, I think—he came out in an article and he wrote that he had been dead wrong about it. And he did more than any single individual, actually, to create this new world. My dad, ironically, in his last job, funny irony of history, worked for him and knew him a little bit. And Sandy kept him on, kept my dad on, he was about 74, 75 and he was in bad health; he kept my dad on to write the letter, the monthly letter that my father valued more than anything in his life. My father had an economic intellectual side. So it’s an irony that Sandy Weill helped him, but at the same time destroyed the world that my father knew. RS: Well, and the irony is that Sandy Weill, who pushed through—when he was head of Traveler’s, actually, was the insurance company that had an investment business, and they merged—they merged with Citibank to become Citigroup. And they had to be bailed out by taxpayers, enormous amount of money. And the irony is that Sandy Weill said, yes, the decision to reverse Glass-Steagall was wrong, and to allow the merger. He said it, OK? But Paul Krugman in The New York Times—and The New York Times, by the way, was a cheerleader for this deregulation. They haven’t said that. And they still, now you have an effort in the Congress by Elizabeth Warren and John McCain, amazingly enough, to bring back Glass-Steagall—and they’re still put down as sort of an old-fashioned idea. So let me go a little further, Oliver. OS: About the second Wall Street, yeah. RS: I want to get in—yeah, I want to talk about the second Wall Street. And people felt with your second Wall Street, and then with your George Bush biopic and so forth— OS: W. RS:—W. They ask, is Oliver going easy now, right? You’ve heard that? OS: [Laughs] I don’t think so. RS: So how do you evaluate those two movies? OS: Well, you know, I made five, six, seven documentaries in that period; all of them were very, very critical of our foreign policy, and Untold History [of the United States] is the most, perhaps the biggest achievement I’ve ever had in my life as a documentarian. RS: For people who don’t know it, you made it for— OS: 2008 to 2013. I made it for Showtime, and it’s now on Netflix. RS: If you want to know what fake news is, it’s the world that Oliver Stone tears apart in this documentary series. Because it starts with the whole start of the Cold War, you know, the lying about what happened; it’s very well documented. I don’t know of anyone who’s been able to provide a serious critique of that film. And so the way they’ve dealt with it is by ignoring it, basically. OS: Mainstream did. But we had great reviews from the progressives, and we keep selling. All over the world, by the way; we’ve sold it in every country, and it’s been on, it’s getting around, and it’s getting seen and read; Netflix makes it more available to everybody. I’m very proud of it. But anyway, look, the films—yeah, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. Soft, they said. Some people said soft. But the truth was, we had changed. And in a sense, there was no need to do a Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps because our Wall Street, our society had become so corrupt by 2008 that money was being made. In other words, the Geckos were out of business because the banks had become the Geckos. And we’re talking, not $20, $30, $40 million, $50, $200 million; we’re talking a billion dollars now, per individual. That never, that concept very rarely existed in the old days; it would be five, six individuals, the Gettys, the Rockefellers, who would talk that kind of money. All of a sudden, anybody could make a billion dollars. Wall Street started when I was researching Scarface in Miami in 1980, and running into this new phenomenon of the get-rich-quick schemes, the cocaine selling, the cocaine gangsters. And I traveled up to Wall Street from Miami, and in Wall Street a lot of my people who I’d known as young men were now working on Wall Street at the same age as I was, and making millions of dollars a year, much more than I was making in the movie business. RS: And leading a decadent life— OS: And snorting coke, sure, and going to work, you know. So it was another world. And by 2007, we shot the film in suffused colors, because we were saying look, the corruption is, it’s beyond just being corruption; it’s just reached another level of acceptance. It’s a low-hanging fruit to become rich. RS: [omission] You know, this may sound like a trite observation on my part. But I have always thought of you, in a way, as a conservative. OS: [Laughs] Yeah, probably so. RS: No, really. I mean, you’re, there’s something very old-fashioned, Jack Armstrong, something about, you know, going up against power, trying to find the truth of the matter, believing there are virtuous activities that one should pursue. I see Snowden that way, by the way. OS: Yes. Boy scout. RS: Boy scout. OS: But I’m not a boy scout, you know, I’ve been in trouble a lot— RS: Well, you have, so what, why, ‘cause you can get a DUI or something? But the fact of the matter is, you are a boy scout. You’ve been a family person—come on, I know you, I just was at your house now. You know, I know something about you, in fact today I was supposed to be interviewed by your son Sean, I had to cancel him because I had a chance to interview you. And he’s pretty terrific. So you know, I’ve observed your life; I worked for you on a movie, a couple movies, actually, writing a script. I’ve seen you, and you are actually a believer in American enterprise. OS: I do. RS: You know, and you are really acting out on the philosophy of your father, as far as I can see. OS: That’s correct. I am, there’s many conservative sides to my nature, you’re right. And I value somebody who values the past; I’m a traditionalist that way. We should remember the past. I’m a historian, too; I care about the history. In our country we don’t remember our history, and we don’t remember the bad things that we do, and because we don’t remember it we do them again. The movie, the other movie I did, the W. movie, is a case in point. Because this George W. Bush, when he came into office in 2000, it was a shock to me; I don’t know about you, but to me— RS: And for people who didn’t listen to the first part of this, you were actually at Yale when he was there, even though you didn’t know him. But you had a similar sort of encounter in education, yeah. OS: Yeah, I met him at that point, too. And he reminded me that he’d been in my class at Yale; I didn’t know him. And he was running for president, and you know, he was a C student; and he really was a C student. He just had no interest, curiosity in history, or call it the real world as we know it. He’d always lived in a sheltered, privileged family, and he’d never gone outside Yale like I had. So there was a whole different world view. But when he committed us to this Iraq war, that was really the end for me. So for me, the story ended in 2004; that’s where I ended the movie, because it was madness. And it was, here we had been attacked in 9/11, and here he declared war on the universe, global war on terror; it’s you’re either with us or against us. It signed, that was a death treaty. We signed that treaty, or something, he thought we did, that we had committed to this war, eternal war. And you could tell it was coming. And when we went to Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, it compounded the sin. RS: The commitment to eternal war was a wet dream of American capitalists. OS: No, it’s a death dream, it’s a death dream. RS: No, but it was also what brought excitement and relief. Because the great fear was that this engine needed a military-based economy. And you know, I wrote a book about this also, called The Pornography of Power. And hours before 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech at the Pentagon in which he said: the greatest enemy now in the world is, you know, bent on conquest and needs money and wastes money, and so forth. And he said: it’s the Pentagon. And it’s the Pentagon because they don’t want to cut back. And the first President Bush had talked about it, had tried to cut it by one-third. And then the Bush administration, when it first came in, once talked about it. Then 9/11 happened, and now you have your fantasy enemy. It’s everywhere, you can’t define it, you can’t defeat it, it will always be with you, right? You don’t make peace— OS: Yeah. But don’t neglect the father Bush; the first Bush did go to war, also, in 1991 in a big way. As the Soviet Union’s falling apart, we give the message to the rest of the world that, look, we’re going into Panama and we’re going into Kuwait. And we sent 500,000 troops to the Middle East. That was a huge mistake, huge mistake. You remember, Bob, and I remember, when we, American—when it was 500,000 troops in Vietnam, people went crazy. We said how many—we had never put 500,000 troops abroad, except in World War II. How can we do this again? This is not a world war. And we did it, and we did it again in Kuwait in the Middle East, and nobody—we blinked; nobody really was paying attention. Except for those who really were against that war. The reason I did this Untold History—and I really, I thought that Bush was an aberration, an aberration to, this is a strange incident in history, this guy got elected but he didn’t get elected, he won this election because of the Supreme Court, and he’s an ignoramus and we’ll survive this. Well, we didn’t survive it, because he won again in 2004 against a guy who had been a war hero, like Mr. Kerry is, ironically; Mr. Bush had dodged the draft. So everything was upside down in our culture, everything including Wall Street. 2008 was karma; it happened. The same thing is going to happen, I believe, unfortunately, in our lifetime. I think you and I are old enough now that we’re going to see the full circle. I worry about this for our young ones, but I do see a karma that cannot go on like this, because we keep dishing it out, we keep ordering the world around, we keep saying aggressive things, and we don’t think we have to pay for it. We don’t think that it’s going to come back on us. But it does, in history it does. RS: OK. I know you’ve got a new movie coming out on Vladimir Putin. OS: A documentary. RS: Documentary. And when you make it and people watch it, that’s something we can have another interview. But I am alarmed about this notion of “make America great”—which, by the way, is not just Donald Trump, because Hillary Clinton said it’s always been great. And we’re always, you know—and we’re never really wrong, and whatever we do is somehow justified and so forth. And I think of Russia, now having been demonized, we’re in kind of a new Cold War. And I want to maybe conclude this with a cautionary tale, because I think really, your Untold History is really a cautionary tale. It’s a tale of one mishap, one distortion, one fake news episode after another. OS: That’s what we found out after five years—and I had never studied history until that moment; I really studied for five years—Mr. Bush is not an aberration. He is a continuation of a foreign policy that has gotten more and more violent. RS: And we never assume the other sides in the world have a point of view that has to be respected. And what scares me about this moment—maybe it’s a way to conclude; people should be alert to it—the fact is, Russia still has half the nuclear weapons. These weapons can be used, by us or by them. We’ve just dropped, under Donald Trump, the biggest conventional bomb ever dropped, was dropped in Afghanistan. OS: And there’s no fear of nuclear war in America. In Russia, yes. There’s much more knowledge of war, because they’d invaded, their homeland was wiped out by the Nazis. They still, it’s in their DNA. I’ve been over there a few times, you have too; I feel they know that they’re under enormous pressure. They know that the United States’s intentions are not good ones. And I think the United States’s people, the people who run our society, they’ve forgotten what war is. In a sense, Mr. Trump is too eager to try out these new weapons to see if he can win one. There’s no winning a war like this. It’s a nuclear winter, and that’s been written about; it’s still denied, nuclear winter is still denied as a scientific concept by our leadership. We have to relearn what nuclear war is, we have to study Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have to study the nuclear proliferation that we’ve allowed throughout the world. You know more about it than I do, but it’s depressing. RS: Well, let’s end on a depressing note— OS: Yeah, of course, we have to— RS:—after all, that’s Robert Scheer and Oliver Stone. So let me just say one thing. Yes, this is a frightening moment. OS: [Sighs] RS: And we have a president who many people feel is somewhat unstable, or very much unstable, who is salesman before he’s anything else, and blah, blah, blah. And he has the power, as any president has had, to destroy life on this planet in a matter of moments. Right? And the question is, why hasn’t that been contained? We believe in limited government. We believe in checks and balances. How come we have invested in the president of the United States, republican, democrat, all during this period, the power—and you made a movie, Nixon. We know Nixon, your movie, was criticized; I happened to work on it. But now we know a great deal about Nixon, because the tapes, when you made your movie very little was known. I forget how many hours was known when you met Nixon, some very small— OS: Two hundred and some hours, wasn’t it. RS: Yeah, and then now we have all of it, there’s a public record; John Dean, who was a consultant on Nixon, has actually done a terrific book with the whole history of the Nixon tapes and what’s in it, and he’s listened to them endlessly. And the fact of the matter is, you know, Donald Trump is not just the first wild man to have his finger near that button. You know, Nixon was drunk when he had it; Reagan was probably, you know, had too severe Alzheimer’s to make serious decisions; Lyndon Johnson was into worrying about the next election rather than death and destruction. OS: It’s really scary. RS: And mentioning Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a bad way to end an interview of this sort, because the fact is, it’s the greatest act of terror in world history in that you deliberately, deliberately decide to incinerate people in daytime when children are going to school to maximize the casualties, to show that your investment in this bomb was actually justified. OS: I most fear North Korea right now, in this moment, because it’s a natural place for Mr. Trump to try out his new—if he wants to be the tough guy, as Bush was, we’re going to see an example somewhere soon. RS: OK, Oliver. I want to thank you for this two-part interview. Not as fascinating as your movies, but people can watch that on their own time. OS: Thank you, Bob. RS: Our producers are Rebecca Mooney and Joshua Scheer. Our excellent technical engineers are Kat Yore and Mario Diaz. See you next week with another edition of Scheer Intelligence. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
One of the most important factors to keep in mind when choosing where to study is how your earning potential compares with the cost of your education.
кремль непрерывно пытается замириться разыграть сирийскую карту с тем что бы стать военным союзником вашингтона кровью российской армии оплатив ослабление санкций прощение за крым другие хулиганстваофицеры спецназа получат свои значки и наверное кое что ещё вот она неголубая мечта вернуться к золотым временам афганского транзита мира дружбы и жвачки возможности спокойной передачи власти внутри страны либо длительной стабилизации в духе всеми нами любимого леонида ильича брежнева Когда в среду Белый дом вызвал пресс-пул, репортеры ожидали увидеть сидящего рядом с министром иностранных дел России Сергея Лаврова президента Трампа, вместо этого они увидели другое, но очень знакомое лицо - Генри Киссинджер.В соответствии с отчетами пула встреча с бывшим государственным секретарем не была включена в публичное расписание Трампа. Трамп сказал, что встреча состояла из дискуссий «о России и других вопросах».«Мы говорим о Сирии, и я думаю, что мы будем очень хорошо относиться к Сирии, и происходит что-то действительно позитивное», - сказал президент, имея в виду разговор с человеком, который, По иронии судьбы, стала заметной при администрации Ричарда Никсона. «Мы собираемся остановить убийство и смерть».Трамп отметил, что было «честью» встретиться с Киссинджером и сказал, что «он давно мой друг». Репортеры спросили президента, почему он решил уволить директора ФБР Джеймса Койди, на что Трамп ответил «Он Не справлялся с работой. Очень просто. Он не справлялся с работой». Трамп сказал, что это не повлияло на его встречи с российскими официальными лицами, которые также состоялись в среду.http://www.salon.com/2017/05/10/henry-kissinger-visits-white-house-surprises-media-with-oval-office-photo-op/10.05.2017 13:45Путин провел оперативное совещание Совета безопасностиПрезидент РФ Владимир Путин провел оперативное совещание Совета безопасности, на котором обсудил российско-американские отношения, вопросы урегулирования в Сирии и "текущие вопросы российской повестки дня". Об этом сообщил пресс-секретарь президента Дмитрий Песков.По словам Пескова, российско-американские отношения затрагивались в контексте предстоящего трехдневного визита министра иностранных дел Сергея Лаврова в США, где он встретится с главой Госдепа Рексом Тиллерсоном и президентом Дональдом Трампом.Что касается сирийского вопроса, то в ходе его обсуждения, рассказал Песков, состоялся обмен мнениями по ходу формирования зон деэскалации в Сирии в свете подписания на встрече в Астане соответствующего соглашения. Напомним, в ходе переговоров Россия, Турция и Иран договорились о создании в Сирии четырех зон безопасности, что должно способствовать укреплению режима прекращения огня.В совещании участвовали постоянные члены Совбеза, среди которых премьер-министр Дмитрий Медведев, спикеры Госдумы и Совета Федерации Вячеслав Володин и Валентина Матвиенко, глава администрации Кремля Антон Вайно, секретарь Совета безопасности Николай Патрушев и другие высокопоставленные чиновники.https://rg.ru/2017/05/10/putin-provel-operativnoe-soveshchanie-soveta-bezopasnosti.htmlна полях хотелось бы отметить не совсем ясный визит соловьева (шапиро-блюмкина) в сша Телеведущий Соловьев объяснил, зачем приехал в США2 мая 2017 в 19:30 Телеведущий, автор ток-шоу «Поединок» Владимир Соловьев объяснил свой приезд в США, ответив блогерам, усомнившимся в его патриотических чувствах.«У меня здесь встреча с очень серьезными гражданами», - приводит его слова ИА «Политика сегодня». Соловьев пояснил, что нередко бывает за границей, ездит в Лондон, Вену, Милан и встречается с важными людьми.В комментарии НСН Соловьев добавил, что встретится в Нью-Йорке с людьми, «очень близкими к команде человека, который сейчас управляет Соединенными Штатами». Подобные встречи были проведены уже «и вчера, и позавчера», добавил он. При этом официально эти люди, по его словам, не работают в Белом доме, «но часть из них является неоконами», то есть последователями неоконсервативных идей, а часть – демократами.«Это часть профессии журналиста», - добавил Соловьев.Оригинал взят у ruscesar в Утренняя неожиданностьКотик дняПока другие негодуют и бросают в воздух чепчики, хочу поздравить резидента Путина с блестящим выполнением очередного задания.Когда Песков месяц назад разъяснял, что у Киссинджера какие-то личные дела в России, которые обязательно надо обсудить с Путиным, Кисилев сдал своего кремлевского шефа буквально через пару недель:Репортаж получился забористый, как США и Россия совместно управляют миром, и Россия даже делает это круче. Не будем рушить иллюзии шестерки, - нас здесь интересует сугубо меркантильный интерес: что за личные дела были у Кисы в Москве?Спасибо, Киселев, мы, конечно, не догадывались, что Киса приезжал потрещать за Сирию, мы думали у Кисы какие-то личные проблемы, а Путина он пользует, как бесплатного психоаналитика. Мы верим в подарочные часы Пескова.Как Кремль предлагал сдать Асада в 2012 годуКудрин: всё прекрасно - и в Сирии и на ДонбассеКак заводить друзей и нравиться электоратуСирийский план КиссинджераПолитическое МММКогда Путин молчит"Ну возьмите меня!" - 2УбедилПересдача АсадаСирийский план Киссинджера: Промежуточные итогиПока же публика разносит по блогам байки:https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-air-force-traps-scores-turkmen-militants-furniluk-forests-latakia-russian/Этот сайт-фейкомет - специально сделанный спойлер арабского агентства Al-Masdar. Именно он стал разносчиком осенней юморины с китайской флотилией, бороздящей Тартус. Даже Захарова рассказывала на федеральных каналах про их китайский авианосец.Вот так и в Славянске люди однажды проснулись..._______________________пожалуй стоит добавитьКисинджер доверенное лицо Рокфеллеров точно так же как Сорос РотшильдовДобрынин А.Ф. - Сугубо доверительно. Посол в Вашингтоне при шести президентах США (1962-1986 гг.)Нельсон Рокфеллер - вице-президент СШАВ 20-х числах августа Форд объявил о своем решении назначить Нельсона Рокфеллера на вакантный пост вице-президента, который он сам ранее занимал. Киссинджер не скрывал своего удовлетворения по поводу такого назначения, ибо Н. Рокфеллер давно ему покровительствовал.Интерес в конгрессе к официальному обсуждению этой кандидатуры был огромный, ибо он позволял впервые конкретнее заняться вопросом, давно являющимся предметом любопытства миллионов американцев: „А сколько же все-таки стоит Рокфеллер?" По словам Киссинджера, Рокфеллер и сам толком не знал точного размера своего состояния, которое складывалось в основном из многочисленных акций в банках и промышленных корпорациях; большой земельной собственности в разных местах США и за границей, цена которой все время росла; и огромной уникальной коллекции произведений искусства, которую вообще трудно оценить.Сам Киссинджер, характеризуя свои личные отношения с Н. Рокфеллером, заметил в шутливой форме, что если он, по тем или иным причинам, уйдет с поста госсекретаря, то всегда может рассчитывать на место в качестве просто секретаря при Рокфеллерах: „Жалованье будет не меньше".другие темы:Сирийская авантюра: Бизнес резидентаСирийская авантюра: Бизнес резидента - Приложение № 1Новый АфганистанГорбачев - Ельцин - АндроповСирийская авантюрамы влезаем в полномасштабную войну (18+)«Исламское государство» не представляет для нас никакой угрозы1999 - 2015?Бородая пристраивают на темуИстория Славянского корпусаИстория Славянского корпуса 2про убийства (18+)операция в Сирии проводится в интересах США и ИзраиляПутин должен убедить Асада сдаться (дополнение)никаких сбоев матрицы (дополнено)История Славянского корпуса 3История Славянского корпуса 4Бомба в багаже (дополнение)Кто устроил террор?от карлика потребовали кровиТайна "Белых КамАЗов"История Славянского корпуса 4История Славянского корпуса 3История Славянского корпусаИстория Славянского корпуса 2про убийства (18+)
Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com President Trump, his children, and their spouses aren’t just using the Oval Office to augment their political legacy or secure future riches. Okay, they certainly are doing that, but that’s not the most useful way to think about what’s happening at the moment. Everything will make more sense if you reimagine the White House as simply the newest branch of the Trump family business empire, its latest outpost. It turns out that the voters who cast their ballots for Donald Trump, the patriarch, got a package deal for his whole clan. That would include, of course, first daughter Ivanka who, along with her husband, Jared Kushner, is now a key political adviser to the president of the United States. Both now have offices in the White House close to him. They have multiple security clearances, access to high-level leaders whenever they visit the Oval Office or Mar-a-Lago, and the perfect formula for the sort of brand-enhancement that now seems to come with such eminence. President Trump may have an exceedingly “flexible” attitude toward policymaking generally, but in one area count on him to be stalwart and immobile: his urge to run the White House like a business, a family business. The ways that Jared, “senior adviser to the president,” and Ivanka, “assistant to the president,” have already benefited from their links to “Dad” in the first 100 days of his presidency stagger the imagination. Ivanka’s company, for instance, won three new trademarks for its products from China on the very day she dined with President Xi Jinping at her father’s Palm Beach club. In a similar fashion, thanks to her chance to socialize with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, her company could be better positioned for deal negotiations in his country. One of those perks of family power includes nearing a licensing agreement with Japanese apparel giant Sanei International, whose parent company’s largest stakeholder is the Development Bank of Japan ― an entity owned by the Japanese government. We are supposed to buy the notion that the concurrent private viewing of Ivanka’s products in Tokyo was a coincidence of the scheduling fairy. Yet since her father became president, you won’t be surprised to learn that global sales of her merchandise have more or less gone through the roof. Here’s where things get tricky. We can’t pinpoint the exact gains generated from any one meeting of the next generation Trump. They rely on the idea that, because their brand was so huge to begin with, profits and deals would have come anyway. That’s why we won’t ever see their books or tax returns. The voters who cast their ballots for Donald Trump... got a package deal for his whole clan. Conflicts of interest? They now permeate the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but none of this will affect or change one thing President Trump holds dear ― and believe it or not, it’s not the wishes of his base in the American heartland. It’s advancing his flesh and blood, and their flesh-and-blood-once-removed spouses and relatives. Federal Regulations and Trump Family Interpretations The Trumps and Kushners will behave in ways that will benefit their global businesses. There’s just one catch. They have to get away with it, legally speaking. So the first law of family business in the Oval Office turns out to be: get stellar legal counsel. And they’ve done that. Their lawyers have by now successfully created trusts that theoretically ― but only theoretically ― separate Ivanka from her businesses and deflect any accusations over activities that may, now or in the future, violate federal rules. And there are two of those in particular to consider. The Code of Federal Regulations is a set of rules published by the executive departments and agencies of the government. Title 18 section 208 of that code deals with “acts affecting a personal financial interest.” This criminal conflict of interest statute states “an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government” can’t have a “financial interest” in the result of their duties. What that should mean, legally speaking, for a family occupying the executive office is: Ivanka could not have dinner with the president of China while her business was applying for and receiving provisional approval of pending trademarks from his country, if one of those acts might impact the other. To an outsider, the connection between those acts seems obvious enough and it’s bound to be typical of what’s to come. Meanwhile, there are real penalties for being convicted of violating this rule. These include fines or imprisonment or both as set forth in section 216 of Title 18. Certain lawyers have argued that Ivanka’s and Jared’s appointments don’t violate Rule 208 or other nepotism statutes because they are not paid advisers to the president. In other words, because Ivanka doesn’t get a salary for her service to her... uh, country... conflicts automatically vanish. She’s already done her Trumptilian best to demonstrate her affinity for ethical behavior by cordoning herself off from her business responsibilities (sort of). According to the New York Times, “Ivanka has transferred her brand’s assets into a trust overseen by her brother-in-law, Josh Kushner, and sister-in-law, Nicole Meyer.” Phew, no family connections there! Or maybe she just doesn’t care for her siblings-in-law. But not all assets, it turns out, are created equal. So the daughter-in-chief will, it seems, keep her stake in the Trump International Hotel, a 15-minute stroll from the White House, which just happens to boast “the Ivanka Trump Suite” and “The Spa by Ivanka Trump.” (”The Spa by Ivanka Trump™ and Fitness Center transitions guests from the Technogym setting of the Fitness Center to the tranquil spa haven that is calming, balancing, purifying, revitalizing, and healing...”) There, many a foreign diplomat or special interest mogul can “calm, energize, [and] restore” himself or herself, while angling for an “in” with the family. We don’t know precisely the nature of what the Trump family stands to gain from the hotel because its books aren’t made public, but it’s reasonable to assume that we’re not talking losses. Besides this other D.C. domain, Ivanka and Jared will remain the beneficiaries of their mutual business empires now valued at about three quarters of a billion dollars, according to White House ethics filings. But wait. There’s an even more explicit rule against using public office (like, say, the White House) for private gain: Title 5 section 2635.702. On that subject, the section states that “an employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.” Okay, that’s wordy. And though the rule doesn’t apply to the president or vice president ― we have Nelson Rockefeller to thank for that, but more on him later ― for any other executive office position, the rule explains that “status as an employee is unaffected by pay or leave status.” That means that you can’t say someone is not an employee just because she isn’t drawing a paycheck, which means she isn’t, in fact, exempt just because she can’t show a W-2 form. The second rule of family business is undoubtedly: control the means of enforcement. And President Trump just got his man onto the Supreme Court, so even if ethical charges rose to the highest court in the land, the family has at least a little insurance. Ivanka’s company... won three new trademarks for its products from China on the very day she dined with President Xi Jinping... Bankers and Presidents: A Walk Through History The idea of powerful bloodlines collaborating is nothing new in either business or politics. At the turn of the twentieth century, mogul families routinely intermarried to spawn yet more powerful and profitable business empires. And when it comes to Oval Office politics, American history is littered with multi-generational public servants with blood ties to presidents. Abraham Lincoln’s oldest son, Robert, a Republican, served as secretary of war in the administrations of Presidents James Garfield and Chester Arthur, and finally as U.S. minister to Great Britain during President Benjamin Harrison’s administration. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s son, John, became a decorated brigadier-general, served as assistant staff secretary in the White House while his father was in office and was later appointed ambassador to Belgium under President Richard Nixon (once his father’s vice-president). But neither of them inflated the coffers of the family business in the process. Whether family business connections might influence prominent figures in the White House isn’t a subject new to the Trump era either. In 1974, when Gerald Ford, who took over the presidency after Richard Nixon’s impeachment, nominated Nelson Rockefeller to be his vice president, Nelson’s brother David ran the Chase Manhattan Bank (now JPMorgan Chase). Questions naturally arose about the notorious wealth and political reach of the Rockefeller family. Nelson, the grandson of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, had even worked at the bank and had been on the boards of multiple oil companies. That same year, the Department of Justice conveniently concluded that conflict of interest laws did not apply to the office of the vice president ― but not before Democratic Senator Robert Byrd asked, “Can’t we at least agree... that the influence is there, that it is a tremendous influence, that it is more influence than any president or vice president ever had?” And yet, as fabulously wealthy and linked in as Nelson Rockefeller was, his situation doesn’t even compare to the family business tangle in the Trump White House. There have been other family members than the Trumps and Jared Kushner in positions of significance in the White House. When, for instance, Woodrow Wilson fell gravely ill in 1919, his second wife, Edith, stepped in to act on his behalf, essentially running the government in a blanket of secrecy from his bedside. Her intention, however, was never to make hay with a family business, but to ensure that her husband’s policies prevailed. The two Bush presidents, with a business and banking legacy that snaked back a century, were elected, not handed power. And though Bill Clinton’s reign in the Oval Office enabled wife Hillary to garner enough public recognition (and banking connections) to successfully run for senator in New York State, become secretary of state under President Obama, and launch two ultimately unsuccessful presidential bids, the Clintons only became super-wealthy after Bill’s time in office. Though their charity foundation’s ties to foreign governments remain suspect, they never had a private business while Bill was in the White House. ... None of this will affect or change one thing President Trump holds dear... advancing his flesh and blood. What can’t be found in the historical record is someone’s child, wife, or relations holding court in the West Wing while expanding a family business, no less a network of them. The present situation, in other words, is unique in the annals of American history. Only 100 days into Donald Trump’s presidency, he already has something of the look of the authoritarian kleptocrats elsewhere on the planet who siphon state wealth into their own bank accounts and businesses. And remember, the Trump empire is also the Kushner empire. Jared’s family business depends on global investors hailing from countries that just happen to be in his White House portfolio. He, for example, led the efforts to prepare for the state visit to Mar-a-Lago of the Chinese president (while the Kushner business was engaged in high-level talks with a major Chinese financial conglomerate). A Russian state-owned bank under U.S. sanctions whose chairman met with Jared in December referred to him as the head of Kushner Companies, though he was already visibly if not yet officially a Trump adviser. He is similarly the administration’s point man for Middle East “peace,” even though his family has financial relationships with Israel. Meanwhile, in his role as head of the newly formed White House Office of American Innovation, the potential opportunities to fuse government and private business opportunities are likely to prove endless. Nepotism on Parade Faced with the dynasty-crushing possibility of selling his business or even placing it in a blind trust, Donald Trump chose instead to let his two older sons, Eric and Donald Jr., manage it. Talk about smoke and mirrors. While speaking with Forbes in March, Eric indicated that he would provide his father with updates on the Trump Organization “quarterly” ― but who truly believes that father and sons won’t discuss the family empire far more frequently than that? The family has already racked up a laundry list of global conflicts of interest that suggest ways in which the White House is likely to become a moneymaking vehicle for the Trump line. There’s Turkey, for instance, where the Trump Organization already has a substantial investment, and where President Trump recently called President Recip Tayyip Erdogan to congratulate him on his power-grabbing, anti-democratic victory in a disputed election to change the country’s constitution. Given Trump business interests globally, you could multiply that call by the world. Meanwhile, Ivanka’s brand isn’t just doing business as usual, it’s killing it. Since 2017, according to the Associated Press, “global sales of Ivanka Trump merchandise have surged.” As a sign of that, the brand’s imports, mostly from China, have more than doubled over the previous year. As for her husband, he remained the CEO of Kushner Companies through January, only then abdicating his management role in that real-estate outfit and 58 other businesses, though remaining the sole primary beneficiary of most of the associated family trusts. His and Ivanka’s children are secondary beneficiaries. That means any policy decision he promotes could, for better or worse, affect the family business and it doesn’t take a genius to know which of those options he’s likely to choose. Kleptocrats, Inc. Despite an already mind-boggling set of existing conflicts of interest, ranging from business affiliations with oligarchs connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to the Secret Service and the Pentagon leasing space in Trump Tower (for at least $3 million per year), the Trump family business is now looking to the glorious, long haul. The family is already scouting for a second hotel in Washington. Trump has reportedly used nearly $500,000 from early campaign money raised for his own 2020 presidential bid to bolster the biz. It’s evidently been poured into “Trump-owned restaurants, hotels and golf clubs,” as well as rent at Trump Tower in New York City. According to the latest polls, the majority of registered voters believe that the installation of Ivanka and Jared in the White House is inappropriate. But that could matter less to Donald Trump. Ask Stephen Bannon or Chris Christie what happens when Ivanka or Jared don’t like you. That’s the family version of mob-style power. Ivanka noted in her book, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life, that “in business, as in life, nothing is ever handed to you.” Except, of course, when your father is president and he hands you the keys to grow the family business on a silver platter. Four decades ago, at a Senate hearing on his potential conflicts of interest, Vice President Rockefeller was asked, “Can you separate the interests of big business from the national interest when they differ?” It’s a question some senator should pose to Ivanka and Jared, replacing “big business” with “big family business.” Making the future yet murkier, the family may be on the precipice of major problems. The most striking of them: Kushner’s marquee building, 666 Fifth Ave (an 80-story, ultra-luxury Manhattan skyscraper) has a greater than 25% vacancy rate. It hasn’t made enough money to even cover its interest payments for several years, and in two years it will have to pay principal as well on its $1.2 billion mortgage. That’s going to hurt if foreign companies don’t step in to staunch the flow of dollars out of the firm and that, undoubtedly, could require a quid pro quo or two. In our era, it’s no secret that presidents leave office with the promise of quickly growing exponentially wealthier. But for the first family to gain such wealth while still in the White House would be a first. Yet the process that could make that possible already seems to be well underway. All this, as Donald Trump, his children, and his son-in-law continue to carve out an unprecedented role for themselves as America’s business-managers-in-chief, presiding not so much over the country as over their own expanding imperial domains. Nomi Prins, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of six books. Her most recent is All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power (Nation Books). She is a former Wall Street executive. Special thanks go to researcher Craig Wilson for his superb work on this piece. Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, as well as John Feffer’s dystopian novel Splinterlands, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt’s Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
В последнее время, появляется все больше информации, подтверждающей, что в недрах правительств некоторых стран в тайне от всего человечества ведутся закрытые работы по изучению технологии НЛО и даже контакты с представителями внеземных цивилизаций. Сомневаться в этом может разве что человек несведущий. Слишком много разрозненных свидетельств складывается в единый сценарий.
Another politician who said what people wanted to hear in order to get into office then does the bidding of the puppet masters. Wake up people. Seriously what did you expect? Donald is the son of Abby Rockefeller. Bill Clinton is the son of Nelson Rockefeller. Obama is the son of Michael... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://FinanceArmageddon.blogspot.com or http://lindseywilliams101.blogspot.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]
Известный историк о «российских интересах» знаменитого клана, недавно потерявшего своего лидера, и их связях с Третьим рейхом. Со схемой «золотого миллиарда», какой она была 30 лет назад, покончено из-за деградации белой расы, считает историк и социальный философ Андрей Фурсов. В интервью Фурсов рас...
Подпишитесь на канал Россия24: https://www.youtube.com/c/russia24tv?sub_confirmation=1 На этой неделе на.102-м году жизни скончался старейших из богатейших людей планеты Дэвид Рокфеллер..Он приобрел свое богатство после того, как в 1870 году основал.нефтяную компанию Standart Oil. Нефтяной бизнес сделал Джона Рокфеллера самым богатым человеком в мире, .а его семья до сих пор считается одной из наиболее влиятельных на планете. Последние новости России и мира, политика, экономика, бизнес, курсы валют, культура, технологии, спорт, интервью, специальные репортажи, происшествия и многое другое. Официальный YouTube канал ВГТРК. Россия 24 - это единственный российский информационный канал, вещающий 24 часа в сутки. Мировые новости и новости регионов России. Экономическая аналитика и интервью с влиятельнейшими персонами. Смотрите также: Новости в прямом эфире - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaQ73BA1ECZR916u5EI6DnEE Международное обозрение - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaSEmz_g88P4pjTgoDzVwfP7 Специальный репортаж - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaQLdG0uLyM27FhyBi6J0Ikf Интервью - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaReDfS4-5gJqluKn-BGo3Js Реплика - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaQHbPaRzLi35yWWs5EUnvOs Факты - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaR4eBu2aWmjknIzXn2hPX4c Мнение - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaST71OImm-f_kc-4G9pJtSG Агитпроп - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaTDGsEdC72F1lI1twaLfu9c Россия и мир в цифрах - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaRx4uhDdyX5NhSy5aeTMcc4 Вести в субботу с Брилевым - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MnxjOjSRsQAPpOhH0l_GTegWckbTIB4 Вести недели с Киселевым - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MnxjOjSRsRzsISAlU-JcbTi7_a5wB_v Специальный корреспондент - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDsFlvSBdSWfD19Ygi5fQADrrc4ICefyG Воскресный вечер с Соловьевым - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwJvP0lZee7zYMGBmzUqNn16P71vHzgkU
В возрасте 101 года умер Дэвид Рокфеллер, глава финансового клана, пытавшегося оказывать на историю 20 века судьбоносное влияние и определять направление развития науки и образования в далекой перспективе. Глобализация, неэтичные медицинские исследования, генная инженерия, развал Советского Союза, с...
'They've declared war on New York,' said Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Несмотря на скромный размер официального капитала, влияние Дэвида Рокфеллера простиралось куда дальше его немощного тела и похудевшей бизнес-империи.
Представитель легендарной династии предпринимателей Дэвид Рокфеллер скончался в США в возрасте 101 года. Миллиардер умер во сне в своем доме в городке Покантико-Хиллс. Дэвид Рокфеллер - американский банкир, государственный деятель, глобалист и глава дома Рокфеллеров. Внук нефтяного магната и первого в истории долларового миллиардера Джона Д. Рокфеллера, основателя Standard Oil. Младший брат 41-го вице-президента США Нельсона Рокфеллера, сообщает НСН.