monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The Russian gun-rights activist pleaded guilty in Washington to conspiring to act as an agent of the Kremlin. Her initiative came during what the U.S. intelligence community has said was a concerted Russian government effort to help elect Donald Trump as president.

A statue of Mahatma Gandhi, the famed Indian independence leader, has been removed from a university campus in Ghana's capital, Accra.

University of Ghana lecturers began a petition for its removal shortly after it was unveiled in 2016 by India's former President Pranab Mukherjee.

The petition said Gandhi was "racist" and African heroes should be put first.

In the wake of the row, Ghana's government at the time said the statue would be relocated.

Lecturers and students told the BBC that the statue, originally located at the university's recreational quadrangle, had been removed on Wednesday.

The university confirmed this, saying that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration was responsible.

Law student Nana Adoma Asare Adei told the BBC: "Having his statue means that we stand for everything he stands for and if he stands for these things [his alleged racism], I don't think we should have his statue on campus."

Mahatma Gandhi was one of the most celebrated figures of the 20th Century. He is best known for leading non-violent resistance to British colonial rule in India.

However, as a young man he lived and worked in South Africa, and although he has inspired people throughout the world his comments on black Africans have been controversial.

In his early writings he referred to black South Africans as "kaffirs" - a highly offensive racist slur. He also said that Indians were "infinitely superior" to black people.

A possible partial government shutdown is less than two weeks away with President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats locked in a dispute over border security and no resolution in sight.

Funding expires for a number of key government agencies on December 21 at midnight. And while there is still time to avert a shutdown, so far the two sides have been unable to reach an agreement to keep the government open.

The key sticking point is how much money Congress should allocate for the President's long-promised wall at the US-Mexico border. Trump wants $5 billion, but Democrats are unwilling to agree to that and any spending bill needs bipartisan support to pass Congress, due in part to Senate rules requiring a 60-vote threshold to advance (Republicans control the chamber 51-49).

If a shutdown takes place, it would be limited in scope. That's because Congress has already funded roughly 75% of the federal government through September 2019, including the Pentagon as well as the Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor.

But that doesn't mean a partial shutdown just days before Christmas wouldn't be disruptive.

There are still seven spending bills that need to be passed and funding is set to expire on December 21 for the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, the Interior Department, the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other parts of the government.

In the event of a shutdown, some federal employees would be deemed essential and would continue to work, but their pay would be withheld until the shutdown is over.

Other federal employees would be placed on furlough, meaning they would effectively be put on a leave of absence without pay. Congress could move to order that furloughed employees be paid retroactively after the shutdown is over, but that is not guaranteed.

It is difficult to predict how a shutdown might play out and what impact it would have.

But according to a fact sheet released by the Democratic staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee, more than 420,000 government workers are expected to work without pay if a partial shutdown occurs, including more than 41,000 federal law enforcement and correctional officers.

The fact sheet, which outlines the projected impacts of a shutdown, estimates that the vast majority of employees at the Department of Homeland Security would be among those required to work without pay during a shutdown, including tens of thousands of Customs and Border Protection agents and customs officers.

More than 380,000 federal employees would be placed on furlough, according to the fact sheet, including the majority of the staff at NASA, the National Park Service and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

An administration official told CNN that "If a lapse in appropriations were to take place, a majority of DHS activities would continue. For instance, those protecting our borders with the Customs and Border Patrol will continue to do so."

The administration official said, "Additionally, activities that are supported by multi-year funding, such as FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, will continue operations," referring to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Jeremy Barnum, a spokesman for the National Park Service, told CNN, "We are not going to speculate on any possible change in government operations. National parks are open and continue to welcome visitors."

The Justice Department oversees special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, but Mueller's office will be able to continue working even if there is a partial government shutdown.

Mueller's office "is funded from a permanent indefinite appropriation and would be unaffected in the event of a shutdown," a Justice Department spokesperson told CNN. "The appropriation bills before Congress do not impact" the special counsel's office.

CNN's Phil Mattingly and Laura Jarrett contributed to this report.

Even as he threatens to shut down the government unless Congress funds his proposed border wall, President Donald Trump revived his claim that Mexico would pay for the barrier.

In a tweet Thursday, the president contended that his stance on America's southern neighbor funding the wall "has never changed." He claimed his replacement of the North American Free Trade Agreement would cause Mexico to pay for the barrier "just by the money we save." It is unclear how the new trade deal would fund the wall, which carries a price tag of up to $25 billion.

With just over a week until funding for parts of the government lapses, Democratic leaders aimed to turn the president's statement against him. Two days after an on-camera spat where Trump said he would be "proud" to shut down the government , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he would not approve any additional money for the border wall.

"Well, Mr. President, if you say Mexico is going to pay for the wall through NAFTA, which it certainly won't, then I guess we don't have to. Let's fund the government," the New York Democrat said Thursday on the Senate floor.

"Honestly, if the president really believed what he tweeted this morning that his new NAFTA would pay for the wall, he wouldn't be threatening to shut down the government unless American taxpayers fund his wall. You can't have it both ways," Schumer continued.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also questioned what the president meant by his tweet.

"The money the businesses make? What money is he talking about that's going to go pay for the wall? It just doesn't measure up," she told reporters Thursday. Pelosi added that "the American people are still paying the price" if benefits from the trade deal went to the wall.

Trump's tweet Thursday morning further muddles his messaging on the need for congressional funding for his wall. It could give him less leverage as he pushes Democrats to yield and approve money for the barrier.

His claim that Mexico will pay for the wall followed comments this week that also raised questions about why he needed taxpayer funding. Trump repeatedly contended the barrier was already being constructed — even though Congress has only approved money to build new or replace existing fencing. The president also suggested the military could construct the wall, though the Pentagon said it has no plans yet to do so.

Trump needs nine Senate Democrats to support a funding bill to reach the 60 votes needed to pass one. Schumer has committed to approve $1.6 billion for border fencing and technology, but not the wall as the president has proposed. Trump wants $5 billion in taxpayer money for his wall.

Pelosi, who will likely become House speaker next month when Democrats take control of the chamber, has flatly said her caucus will not approve wall funding. House Republicans, who support Trump's push for wall money, can pass a spending bill without Democrats in the current session of Congress.

Trump has already signed spending measures for five government agencies, including the massive departments of Defense and Health and Human Services. Funding for seven other departments expires after Dec. 21. Disagreements over the Department of Homeland Security and Trump's border wall have tripped up negotiations.

The Democratic leaders have offered Trump two potential solutions. They proposed passing appropriations bills for six agencies along with a yearlong measure to keep DHS funding at current levels. They also floated a yearlong continuing resolution to keep all of the unfunded agencies running.

On Thursday, Schumer said Trump has "not accepted either offer." He called both possible solutions "noncontroversial."

In their heated meeting with Trump on Tuesday, Schumer and Pelosi called the wall inhumane and ineffective. At the start of their huddle, Pelosi appeared to anger the president by talking about a "Trump shutdown."

After a long, tense back and forth, Trump said he will "take the mantle" and "be the one to shut [the government] down" for border security.

Congress still needs to approve the new North American free trade agreement for it to take effect. Many Democrats, including Pelosi, have showed skepticism about the new accord. The likely next House speaker has said she wants to see better enforcement for environmental and labor protections before she supports the deal.

Pelosi noted Thursday that Trump "doesn't even have the trade agreement" in place.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request to give more details on Trump's Thursday morning tweet, including how much wall money he expects the trade deal to generate.

The New York Times
1 min ·
Breaking News: The Senate voted to withdraw U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen

Republican Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Thursday introduced a joint resolution condemning Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for Jamal Khashoggi's death.

The measure, which also calls for the US to reduce support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, states the Senate "believes Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi."

The joint resolution must also pass in the House, and if this occurs it would land on President Donald Trump's desk.

Trump has so far gone out of his way to stand by the crown prince over Khashoggi's killing, hence the measure goes directly against his stance on this issue.

Senators on Thursday also debated a resolution to end US support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

People look for, remember and in this case are willing to forgo money for information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs.

A study in 2013 by Dan Kahan of Yale University asked 1,110 people a question about how effective a skin cream was in reducing a rash.

The question required some simple mathematics to solve. Unsurprisingly, the most numerate were most likely to solve the problem correctly.

Then Mr Kahan gave the group the question in a politicised form, asking how effective banning handguns was in reducing crime (the underlying mathematics was the same).

This time, the most numerate people did not necessarily get the right answer. Rather, Republicans who were good at maths were more likely to conclude that banning guns was ineffective, whereas Democrats said the opposite.

Such thinking informs attitudes to climate change especially. In an earlier study, Mr Kahan asked people to rate their scientific knowledge, partisan affiliation and other characteristics, along with their level of climate concern. You might have expected those with greatest scientific knowledge to be most concerned about climate risks; but the most reliable predictor of concern was people’s worldview. Those who favoured less regimented forms of social organisation were most concerned about it, regardless of scientific knowledge. For those whose basic views were more hierarchical, greater scientific knowledge made them less concerned about the climate, not more. People were using their skills to reinforce the opinions of their group, rather than to establish facts.

They are not necessarily doing this out of bloody-mindedness. It seems that giving consideration to the other sides’ point of view hurts—literally. In another study Mr Frimer asked people who had voted in the 2012 presidential election whether they were interested in hearing why voters had backed the other side. Over a third of Obama voters and more than half of Romney voters compared the experience of listening to the other side’s voters to having a tooth pulled. (Mr Frimer did a related study in Canada before the 2015 election, with similar results, suggesting the findings are not unique to the United States.)

A study in 2016 by Jonas Kaplan of the University of Southern California suggested that such responses are hard-wired in the brain. Mr Kaplan asked 40 liberal voters to get into fmri scanners while they read various statements, including those that supported liberal political orthodoxy (abortion should be legal) and those that challenged it (ten times more people are murdered with kitchen knives each year than are killed by guns). The opinions that challenged liberal positions prompted a greater flow of blood to a part of the brain which is associated with basic beliefs and a sense of personal identity. If this is true, it is not surprising that, when challenged, people are reluctant to admit the other side might have a point.

Sometimes people refuse point-blank to admit awkward facts, as with climate change. And sometimes they may concede and dismiss them.

Brendan Nyhan of the University of Michigan and Ethan Porter of George Washington University ran an online study during America’s presidential debates in 2016, asking 1,500 people to rate the candidates’ statements for accuracy.

In some cases, when Mr Trump made a misleading claim, they sent out corrections to it, but only to half the group.

Those who got the correction lowered their opinion of Mr Trump’s accuracy, compared with those who did not.

But this made no difference to their opinions overall. Mr Trump had the same favourability ratings among those who got the corrections as among those who did not.

Alas, dear Economist readers, accurate information does not always seem to have much of an effect (but we will keep trying anyway).

NEW: Donald Trump was the third person in the room in August 2015 when Michael Cohen and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker discussed ways Pecker could help counter negative stories about Trump's relationships with women, NBC News has confirmed.

As part of a non-prosecution agreement disclosed Wednesday by federal prosecutors, American Media Inc., the Enquirer's parent company, admitted that "Pecker offered to help deal with negative stories about that presidential candidate's relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided."

The "Statement of Admitted Facts" says that AMI admitted making a $150,000 payment "in concert with the campaign," and says that Pecker, Cohen, and "at least one other member of the campaign" were in the meeting. According to a person familiar with the matter, the "other member" was Trump.

Trump was first identified as attending the meeting by the Wall Street Journal.

Daniel Goldman, an NBC News analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney said the agreement doesn't detail what Trump said and did in the meeting. "But if Trump is now in the room, as early as August of 2015 and in combination with the recording where Trump clearly knows what Cohen is talking about with regarding to David Pecker, you now squarely place Trump in the middle of a conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud."

NEW: Donald Trump was the third person in the room in August 2015 when Michael Cohen and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker discussed ways Pecker could help counter negative stories about Trump's relationships with women, NBC News has confirmed.

President Trump’s increasingly urgent push to construct a massive wall on the border with Mexico has created a nightmare scenario for congressional Republicans as they race to avert a partial shutdown of the federal government at the end of next week.

A day after Trump declared he would be proud to let funding lapse for dozens of government agencies if he does not get the money he wants for the wall, congressional Republicans signaled little appetite Wednesday to join his cause.

Some expressed befuddlement at Trump’s strategy, while others sidestepped his comments, marking a new rift between the president and his party on Capitol Hill with just weeks left at the helm of both chambers of Congress.

“I don’t understand the ­strategy, but maybe he’s figured it out and he’ll tell us in due course,” said John Cornyn (Tex.), the No. 2 Senate Republican. “But I don’t understand it.”

The disconnect reflects the divergent priorities of Trump and Republicans in Congress during the twilight of their two-year grip on the federal government. While Trump made the wall a signature issue in his 2016 campaign, congressional GOP leaders have displayed less enthusiasm for it.

The divide comes weeks after a difficult midterm election for the GOP, in which Democrats won control of the House. The outcome presented Trump with even longer odds of securing wall funding in the new year.

Still, John Thune (S.D.), the third-ranking GOP senator, said there was no scenario under which he would be proud to shut down the government.

“It would not be good,” Thune said.

Pressed on whether Trump’s comments were helpful to the negotiations, Thune answered obliquely.

“The president has his own style and way of negotiating,” he said. “The only thing I would say is, it’s just simple math — that you’ve to got to get 60 votes in the Senate, and that’s going to require Democrats.”

In the wake of Trump’s contentious Oval Office meeting Tuesday with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Republicans found themselves no closer to bridging the gap between Trump’s demand for $5 billion for his border wall in 2019 and the $1.3 billion Democrats are willing to spend on border fencing.

Instead, Republicans confronted a dilemma of Trump’s own making after he flipped the script by telling Pelosi and Schumer he’d be “proud to shut down the government for border security.”

The president’s off-the-cuff declaration in the televised Oval Office confab left talks at a virtual standstill and deprived Republicans of their ability to blame Democrats for a partial shutdown that could come at midnight Dec. 21, just before Christmas.

Republican lawmakers and members of Trump’s own administration have been talking for weeks about a “Schumer Shutdown” as they maneuvered to pin the blame on Democrats if a partial shutdown occurs. Democrats were delighted that Trump had taken ownership of a shutdown, and Republicans were forced to acknowledge that the president’s comments undermined their own efforts.

“I’m on the record saying numerous times I think a shutdown is a fool’s errand. Every shutdown we’ve been in, nobody wins. So I’m very discouraged by that,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).

“I think he wants to reach an agreement, and I think he’ll realize — as he thinks about it — that a shutdown is really not going to gain anything for his position and, in a lot of ways, is more damaging to the American people,” Capito added.

Pelosi and Schumer urged the president in Tuesday’s meeting not to pursue a shutdown and instead take a deal that would provide $1.3 billion for border fencing by extending current levels of funding. Trump long has promised that Mexico would pay for the wall, a claim he repeated privately to Pelosi on Tuesday, saying the money could come from the newly renegotiated North American trade agreement. Pelosi dismissed that idea.

In the aftermath of the Oval Office meeting, House Republicans were struggling with whether to hold a vote on a spending bill containing $5 billion for the wall. It’s a priority for many conservatives in their final days in the majority, and it took on added urgency after Pelosi and Trump argued publicly Tuesday about whether it could pass the House, with Pelosi claiming it couldn’t and Trump insisting it could.

House GOP leaders claimed Wednesday to have the votes, but some questioned the wisdom of holding a vote that would face certain rejection in the Senate. And the risky proposition would come in the waning days of a lame-duck session, when it could be difficult to corral scores of defeated and retiring House Republicans who have been showing up only intermittently to vote.

“Do we have the votes for a measure that includes $5 billion for the wall? Yes,” said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (N.C.), a member of the House GOP leadership. “The question of whether to do it is a question of wisdom and strategy and tactics, and it’s highly debatable about whether that’s the right move.”

That view was disputed by some House conservatives who campaigned along with Trump on delivering the wall and feel they must do it now before they fade into the minority. A few hard-liners said they were willing to back Trump even if his demands push the government into a partial shutdown.

“The president’s challenge is, and I’m with him on this, is that he needs to have $5 billion locked in and assured before the gavel falls on the 115th Congress,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

“He said he would be proud to own it; that might have been a little hyperbolic,” King added. “But this is a line he’s drawn, and I’m going to defend it.”

The impact of any shutdown would be limited because about 75 percent of the federal government’s discretionary budget has been funded through next September. That includes major agencies like the Pentagon and the Health and Human Services Department.

And there would be no impact on the payment of Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare benefits because those programs fall under “mandatory” spending that is paid out without annual congressional approval. Mandatory spending makes up about 70 percent of federal spending.

In light of those facts, several Republicans downplayed the potential impact of a partial shutdown, suggesting that even if it did happen it wouldn’t be such a big deal.

“The fact is, the vast majority of the government is not going to be shut down under any scenario,” said Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.). “So there’s this little tiny sliver, and within that universe, anybody that is an essential employee still works. So I think this has all gotten a lot overblown.”

Still, the agencies that remain to be funded could be hit hard.

The Interior, Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, Transportation and State departments and NASA could be forced to send thousands of workers home without pay until an agreement is reached. This could lead to major disruptions and delays in services, although the precise implications will not be clear until each agency determines how it will operate after funding lapses.

Within Homeland Security, most employees are exempt from a shutdown and would report to their jobs regardless, including workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. These workers could go unpaid if the shutdown dragged on, but they would eventually get back pay once it was over.

“We’re at an impasse at the moment,” said Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). Shelby said a shutdown is “probably more than possible right now, probably getting toward probable — unless something happens.”

or they will bring up Edwards ,who is not around anymore and did have to go to trial.

Veteran journalist Bob Woodward branded president Donald Trump a “walking conflict of interest” this week due to the secrecy surrounding his tax returns.

Woodward appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today to discuss an article published by The Washington Post yesterday which alleged that lobbyists with ties to the Saudi government in December 2016 paid for up to 500 nights at Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel.

“The Saudis are always throwing around money,” Woodward said. “And let’s face it, Donald Trump is a walking conflict of interest on something like this. Billions of dollars the Saudis will throw around to make sure they have a good relationship with Trump and the administration.”

The newspaper reported lobbyists had spent more than $270,000 to book U.S. veterans into the hotel as part of a plot to campaign against a law that could open Saudi Arabia to legal action from families of September 11 attack victims and others. According to the Post, hotel stays were offered at no cost to the veterans—while links to the Saudi government were kept quiet.

The alleged aim was to get the veterans to Capital Hill to lobby in Saudi Arabia’s interests. Trump still owns the hotel in question. Lobbyists said they chose it because of discounts.

Political tensions in Washington remain high following the killing of Saudi journalist and columnist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Istanbul consulate two months ago.

Trump’s position on the matter has conflicted with the assessment of his own security services, including the CIA and other Republican politicians, especially over the killing’s alleged link to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

“It could very well be that the crown prince had knowledge of this tragic event—maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!” the president said in his statement last month.

Woodward said during his MSNBC appearance that viewing Trump’s tax returns would be the main way to discover any potential conflicts of interest—and he called for their release.

He noted: “There are so many things that we don’t know which leads us to the missing piece, Trump’s tax returns. If we had his tax returns it would be the roadmap to, not everything, but I know from talking to people in the IRS and in the Trump Organization that is the key.

He continued: Even though he refused in 2016 to release them it would be great if somebody were to get them. I tried in 2016 and failed and regret that piece is not there.

“I mean it would be like somebody, a senator, running for president, and you say, ‘Well, you can’t have his voting record, it’s secret.’ It would be absurd.” He added: “What’s hidden?”

Woodward's comments were first reported today by Raw Story.

When he was campaigning, Trump indicated the financial filings would see the light of day if he was elected. But since then, the White House has maintained they are under audit.

Calls for their disclosure were renewed in October in the wake of an explosive New York Times report into Trump’s financial history. But as reported by The Hill at the time, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said there were no plans to publish the documents.

Last year, Trump told Fox News the release of his tax returns would be “meaningless.”

He said: “It doesn't matter because they are so far back. At the right time, I will release them. I hope to release them. I would like to release them. But when I'm under audit, I can't do that.”

Gee, with a squishy presentation of absolutely zero facts like that, that's apretyty weak conclusion, isn't it?

Especially considering hour extremist opinion of what the 2nd amendment says goes well beyond what SCOTUS says, and they have the final say, not you.

Quote:

Mueller says Manafort told ‘discernible lies,’ including about contacts with employee alleged to have Russian intelligence ties

Gee, maybe it wasn't a witch hunt at all. Whoda thunk it.

Trumpies have adopted the Bart Simpson approach to admission of guilt, its a gradual unfolding og guilt that will be topped off with a "Well collusion isnt a crime really"