Xtra News Community 2
January 18, 2019, 10:40:55 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
   Home   Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
 11 
 on: January 16, 2019, 12:13:07 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The Press…

Trump will not care what damage he causes on his way down

By JOE BENNETT | 5:00AM — Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Former US Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis, seen here on a visit to Sydney in 2017, resigned in December. He was one of several generals hired by President Donald Trump. — Photograph: Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images.
Former US Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis, seen here on a visit to Sydney in 2017, resigned in December.
He was one of several generals hired by President Donald Trump. — Photograph: Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images.


BY THE TIME this goes to print much may have happened. But none of it will reverse the sweet truth that Trump is doomed.

Over the weekend Trump tweeted that he was almost alone in the White House. It is a potent image: the shambling thug a prisoner in his own palace. It is how autocrats tend to end up, alone with the one person who can't betray them. The next step's a mob at the door.

It's reminiscent of act five of Macbeth. The king's in his castle. His wife's dead. Everyone who can has fled. But Macbeth, for all his faults, was a brave man. Trump's just a greedy coward.

Plenty of people have fled from Trump, including all the generals he hired. They fled to save what they could of their reputations. They'd imagined they could work for Trump and retain their integrity but they were wrong.  Despite all their years in the military, dedicated to countering the worst of human nature, they underestimated Trump's selfishness, vanity, greed and ignorance. They couldn't control him. They became soiled by association. Everyone does who comes into Trump's orbit. Consider Rudy Giuliani; once a proud Mayor of New York, now a goggle-eyed liar.

Two institutions exist to establish the truth. One is the press. The other is law enforcement. Trump, tellingly, has attacked both from day one. For the truth is his enemy, and since the truth cannot be destroyed, he has to destroy the reputations of those who tell it.

But the press, undaunted, is running him to ground. And it has now emerged that the FBI began investigating Trump 18 months ago. Astonishingly, they suspected the President of the United States of being the agent of a foreign power.

And their suspicions were bang right. The evidence abounds that Trump is in Putin's pocket. And not, I suspect, just Putin's. Consider how he sided with Saudi Arabia over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.


US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland in July 2018. — Photograph: Jussi Nukari/Associated Press.
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland in July 2018.
 — Photograph: Jussi Nukari/Associated Press.


How precisely Trump will fall remains unclear. He cares about nothing and nobody but himself, so he will not mind what damage he causes. He will happily start a war, foment rebellion, close the government, sack the FBI, defy the courts — anything to save his own skin.

From the start he has fawned to the military, flattering them, lying to them, cosying up. Perhaps he hopes that the army will come down on his side in a civil war. And with them a redneck mob of NRA members, evangelical Southerners and backwoods boys who don't like black people and who've never trusted government.

But I am confident the States will survive the fall of Trump. And it will be interesting to see who goes down with him.

Already his allies have seen there is no reward for loyalty. Trump's fixer, Michael Cohen, was as loyal to Trump as a dog to a butcher. But when Cohen got into trouble Trump dropped him like a hot stone, called him a rat and a liar.

Trump's three eldest children will stand by him. They have no choice. They are complicit in his crimes. But his wife will be off at a sprint, lugging her jewel-case and her pre-nup.

And when Trump becomes an electoral liability those Republicans that can will also flee. But others won't be able to because they too have acted corruptly: colluding with hostile powers, accepting laundered money, lying to investigators. They all need to go to prison. Along with Trump and his vile family. There can be no pardons. The country and the world both very much need to see the law applied equally to all.


__________________________________________________________________________

• Julian “Joe” Bennett is a writer, columnist and retired English school teacher living in Lyttelton, New Zealand. Born in England, Bennett emigrated to New Zealand when he was twenty-nine.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/opinion/109910504/trump-will-not-care-what-damage-he-causes-on-his-way-down

 12 
 on: January 16, 2019, 05:18:20 am 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey



 13 
 on: January 15, 2019, 08:32:02 pm 
Started by Im2Sexy4MyPants - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

Trump is so stupid that he doesn't realise that every time he slags off at the media in an attempt to intimidate them, they simply retaliate by digging deeper and deeper to see what else he has been hiding, then expose it for the entire world to see the sleaze and graft of the corrupt, criminal Trump mob.



from The New York Times…

At Trump's Inauguration, $10,000 for Makeup
and Lots of Room Service


New details of spending on President Trump's inaugural two years ago
show that it roughly doubled that of his immediate predecessors.


By MAGGIE HABERMAN, SHARON LaFRANIERE and BEN PROTESS | Monday, January 14, 2019

President Donnald J. Trump and his wife, Melania, at a ball on Inauguration Day in 2017. — Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times.
President Donald J. Trump and his wife, Melania, at a ball on Inauguration Day in 2017. — Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times.

WASHINGTON D.C. — Private donors put up $107 million to usher Donald J. Trump into office in style two years ago, and it is now clear just how enthusiastically his inaugural committee went to town with it.

There was $10,000 for makeup for 20 aides at an evening inaugural event. There was another $30,000 in per diem payments to dozens of contract staff members, in addition to their fully covered hotel rooms, room service orders, plane tickets and taxi rides, including some to drop off laundry.

The bill from the Trump International Hotel was more than $1.5 million. And there was a documentary, overseen by a close friend of Melania Trump's, that was ultimately abandoned.

The details of the expenditures, gleaned from interviews and from documents reviewed by The New York Times and not previously made public, show that the committee spent heavily on nearly every aspect of the events surrounding the inauguration.

In 72 days, it laid out about $100 million, roughly twice as much or more than was raised by Barack Obama or George W. Bush for their first and second presidential inaugurations.

The expansive spending reflected Mr. Trump's desire to make a grand entrance, with roughly 20 events around Washington, people familiar with the events said. It also had the hallmarks of previous Trump efforts, such as the campaign, with some Trump-family friends circumventing existing chains of command.

Disclosure of the spending details comes at a time when the inaugural committee is facing legal scrutiny over the donations that funded it.

Inaugural committees are required to document every donation with the Federal Election Commission, and the Trump team's reports are now under investigation by federal prosecutors in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Investigators are also looking into whether any foreign donations, which are illegal in the United States, were passed through Americans, and whether any donations went unrecorded, people familiar with the inquiries said.

People involved with the committee have said that they vetted all donors, but that they could do only so much to prove someone's money was their own. False statements to the Federal Election Commission can be a crime.

The investigation by federal prosecutors in Manhattan was prompted at least partly by a recording that Mr. Trump's former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, made of a conversation he had with a central figure in the inaugural planning, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, shortly after Mrs. Trump ended Ms. Winston Wolkoff's role as an unpaid adviser to the first lady. Ms. Winston Wolkoff was dismissed after initial reports about the amount of money taken in by the entity she formed to help produce the inaugural.

There is no indication of any investigation into the inaugural committee's spending. For the most part, inaugural committees are free to spend the money they raise from private donations as they wish.


The Trump International Hotel billed the inaugural committee more than $1.5 million. — Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times.
The Trump International Hotel billed the inaugural committee more than $1.5 million. — Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times.

The bulk of the money for the inaugural committee came from big corporations, like AT&T, Bank of America and Pfizer, and wealthy Republicans donors, like Sheldon G. Adelson and Andrew Beal.

Given the short time frame between Election Day and Inauguration Day, inaugural committees cannot always seek out the lowest bidder. In the case of Mr. Trump's inaugural, some staff members and major vendors were veterans of previous inaugurations.

Much of the spending, while outsize, was mundane. Documents reviewed by The New York Times accounted for the entire $107 million raised for the inaugural, with most of the money going to payroll expenses and roughly 40 entities, the bulk of which were hotel chains and other vendors.

Roughly $5 million went to charity, which organizers have noted is the most ever for an inaugural committee.

But millions were written off in lost revenue. That included $6.4 million for blocks of hotel rooms booked for guests who ended up arranging their own accommodations. The Republican National Committee booked the excess hotel rooms before the inaugural staff was even formed, but the committee had to pony up when only half as many rooms were used as the party organization had expected.

Another $1.2 million in revenue that the committee expected to recoup for a media center never materialized.

Other arrangements by the inaugural committee also proved unusual.

Ms. Winston Wolkoff, then a close friend of Mrs. Trump's, was initially signed to a $1.6 million contract. Along with a friend, Jonathan Reynaga, she formed WIS Media Partners, a firm that oversaw broadcast rights for the inaugural events and worked on the documentary project featuring interviews with top inaugural committee officials.

The idea was to sell the rights to a major distributor. The project was later abandoned, although the interview footage still exists, as do copies, according to three people familiar with the effort.

WIS Media Partners became the inaugural committee's top vendor, acting as a kind of general contractor and overseeing a series of events. It received nearly $26 million, much of which was paid out to other vendors.

Steve Kerrigan, who was chief of staff for Mr. Obama's first inaugural committee, said that the firm's $1.6 million “supervisory fee” was the equivalent of “roughly one-fourth of what we paid our entire 450-person staff” in 2009. Even if Ms. Winston Wolkoff shared the fee among more than a dozen other top managers, as she and others say she did, the charge itself, Mr. Kerrigan said, was “outrageous.”


A firm led by Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a good friend of Melania Trump's, was paid a $1.6 million “supervisory fee” for the inauguration. — Photograph: Justin T. Gellerson/for The New York Times.
A firm led by Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a good friend of Melania Trump's, was paid a $1.6 million “supervisory fee” for the inauguration.
 — Photograph: Justin T. Gellerson/for The New York Times.


Greg Jenkins, the executive director of Mr. Bush's second inaugural, said, “I have never heard anybody getting that kind of fee associated with any inaugural, ever.”

Ms. Winston Wolkoff often fought with other top aides, according to people with direct knowledge of events. She was known to threaten to have senior officials fired, at times brandishing a cellphone and saying she would text Mrs. Trump or Ivanka Trump, the president's elder daughter, conveying a sense of authority that people later came to realize she did not have, three people with direct knowledge of the events said.

A lawyer for Ms. Winston Wolkoff declined to comment.

A spokesman for WIS Media Partners said all of the firm's charges “were vetted, authorized and signed off on” by the committee's top officials, including Thomas J. Barrack Jr., the committee's chairman; Rick Gates, the deputy chairman; and Sara Armstrong, the chief executive.

He said the firm's fees were “significantly below” the customary charges “for equivalent productions,” and that officials provided the inaugural committee with “all its audited records and receipts.” He said the company could not reveal more because it is legally barred by the inaugural committee from discussing its work on the inaugural events.

In a statement, Mr. Barrack said he continues “to be proud of the incredible work of all those that were part of the committee” and that it “complied with all laws and regulations, and its finances were fully audited internally and independently. The donors were fully vetted and disclosed to the Federal Election Commission as required.”

Mr. Trump's inaugural committee has come under scrutiny in the past for its high administrative and logistical costs. The new details help flesh out how the inaugural spent the money. Among the payments was more than $2 million spent on the firm of the Trump campaign official Brad Parscale for online advertisements to drum up inaugural crowds.

The Trump International Hotel was paid more than $1.5 million for services including the use of a ballroom, an “annex” and a space called the townhouse, according to records and people familiar with the payments.

While two other hotels, the Willard and the Fairmont, collected as much or more, Mr. Trump's hotel was also favored by vendors who billed their expenses directly to the committee.

Over all, the Trump team's spending appears “astronomical,” said Emmett S. Beliveau, who was chief executive of Mr. Obama's first inaugural committee.

Mr. Jenkins, who handled the Bush inaugural, said the scale of the Trump team's spending “blows me away.”


The inaugural committee spent $924,000 on seven-foot-high wreaths, moss-covered obelisks, flowers and other decorations to dress up Union Station. — Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times.
The inaugural committee spent $924,000 on seven-foot-high wreaths, moss-covered obelisks, flowers and other decorations to dress up Union Station.
 — Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times.


Ms. Winston Wolkoff and Mr. Reynaga brought in nearly three dozen staff members, some of whom flew in from Los Angeles or other cities and remained on the East Coast for weeks. WIS also helped bring in a New York-based party planner named David Monn, who refused to sign a contract, according to two people familiar with the arrangement. Mr. Monn charged the committee a total of $3.7 million, from which he paid subcontractors.

Among other tasks, Ms. Winston Wolkoff and colleagues managed the 500-person black-tie dinner hosted by Mr. Barrack at the neo-Classical Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium and a 1,500-person “candlelight” dinner at Union Station. They decided the decorations were not elegant enough and needed to be enhanced.

Mr. Monn spent $924,000 on seven-foot-high wreaths, moss-covered obelisks, flowers and other decorations to dress up Union Station. Makeup was provided for 20 staff members at a cost of $500 per person. For the dinner at the auditorium, table menus, table numbers and place cards, including an on-site calligrapher to correct last-minute mistakes, amounted to $91 per guest. Mr. Monn did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Monday.

The handling of expenses for contractors like WIS Media Partners was also unusual. Mr. Kerrigan, who also served as chief executive of Mr. Obama's second inaugural committee, said officials negotiated fixed-price contracts that limited how much vendors could charge for expenses.

If a vendor's staff member ran up a big room service bill, “that was on them,” said David Cusack, who was the executive director of the second committee. “They had a per diem, and they were supposed to eat on that.”

For Mr. Bush's second inaugural, too, vendors were required to build their expenses into their contracts, Mr. Jenkins said. He said his committee did not even hire vendors from outside the Washington area because “there was no need to.”

The Trump inaugural committee covered not only a fixed per diem for the people brought in by WIS Media, but picked up expenses including room service, cab rides for assistants who dropped off laundry and an order of McDonald's. All told, those expenses came to $227,511.

In less than two months, WIS billed $31,000 for hotel rooms described as Mr. Reynaga's, including nearly $18,000 for rooms at the Trump International Hotel, according to detailed expense documents reviewed by The New York Times. He also billed thousands of dollars for meals, room service and travel. On one day, he charged a $560 Amtrak train ticket from New York to Washington, plus a $251 first-class upgrade to meet with Mr. Barrack. That was followed by a $100 Uber ride the next day to “get to Tom's plane,” the records show.

The spokesman for WIS said WIS expenses were paid through business cards tied to a few senior officials of the firm, including Mr. Reynaga, meaning that Mr. Reynaga could have been paying for other employees' costs.

He also said staff members stayed at the Trump International Hotel “at the explicit direction” of inaugural committee officials. A former official of the inaugural committee denied that the WIS employees were required to stay at the Trump hotel.


__________________________________________________________________________

Maggie Haberman and Sharon LaFraniere reported from Washington, and Ben Protess from New York.

Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The New York Times in February 2015 as a campaign correspondent. Previously, Ms. Haberman worked as a political reporter at Politico from 2010 to 2015 and at other publications including the New York Post and New York Daily News. She was a finalist for the Mirror Awards, with Glenn Thrush, for What is Hillary Clinton Afraid of? which was published in 2014. Her hobbies include singing, and she is married with three children.

Sharon LaFraniere is an investigative reporter at The New York Times. Ms. LaFraniere began writing for The N.Y. Times in 2003, covering southern Africa for the international department. She moved from Johannesburg to Beijing in early 2008 to report on China. For the past four years, she has been based in New York. Before joining The N.Y. Times, Ms. LaFraniere was a reporter and editor at The Washington Post for 20 years. Her last assignment was at its Moscow bureau, where from 1998 to 2003 she covered the Russian region, including war zones in Chechnya and Afghanistan. Ms. LaFraniere received The Gerald Loeb Award in 2013 for international reporting, the Michael Kelly Award in 2006 for her coverage of women in sub-Saharan Africa and the Overseas Press Club Award for business reporting in 1999. Born in Detroit, she received a bachelor's degree from Brown University and a master's degree in journalism from Northwestern University. Ms. LaFraniere is married with three children and resides in the New York area.

Ben Protess covers the Trump Administration for The New York Times, including its overhaul of Obama-era regulations and potential conflicts of interest arising out of the president's personal business dealings. Since joining The N.Y. Times in 2010, he has covered white collar crime, Wall Street lobbying and was the co-author of a five-part investigation of the private equity industry and its expanding role in everyday American life.

• A version of this article appears in The New York Times on Monday, January 15, 2019, on Page A1 of the New York print edition with the headline: “At Inauguration, Spending Money At a Record Pace”.

__________________________________________________________________________

Related to this topic:

 • Prosecutors Examining Ukrainians Who Flocked to Trump Inaugural

 • Trump Inaugural Fund and Super PAC Said to Be Scrutinized for Illegal Foreign Donations

 • Melania Trump Parts Ways With Adviser Amid Backlash Over Inaugural Contract


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/trump-inauguration-spending.html

 14 
 on: January 15, 2019, 07:29:21 pm 
Started by Im2Sexy4MyPants - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The New York Times…

Donald Trump and His Team of Morons

Nobody left besides those with no reputation to lose.

By PAUL KRUGMAN | Monday, January 14, 2019

President Donald J. Trump greeting a member of his team, Sean Hannity, at a political rally in November. — Photograph: Jim Watson/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images.
President Donald J. Trump greeting a member of his team, Sean Hannity, at a political rally in November.
 — Photograph: Jim Watson/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images.


THERE HAVE BEEN many policy disasters over the course of U.S. history. It's hard, however, to think of a calamity as gratuitous, an error as unforced, as the current federal shutdown.

Nor can I think of another disaster as thoroughly personal, as completely owned by one man. When Donald Trump told Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, “I will be the one to shut it down,” he was being completely accurate — although he went on to promise that “I'm not going to blame you for it,” which was a lie.

Still, no man is an island, although Trump comes closer than most. You can't fully make sense of his policy pratfalls without acknowledging the extraordinary quality of the people with whom he has surrounded himself. And by “extraordinary,” of course, I mean extraordinarily low quality. Lincoln had a team of rivals; Trump has a team of morons.

If this sounds too harsh, consider recent economic pronouncements by two members of his administration. Predictably, these pronouncements involve bad economics; that's pretty much a given. What's striking, instead, is the inability of either man to stay on script; they can't even get their right-wing mendacity right.

First up is Kevin Hassett, chairman of Trump's Council of Economic Advisers, who was asked about the plight of federal workers who aren't being paid. You don't have to be a public relations expert to know that you're supposed to express some sympathy, whether you feel it or not. After all, there are multiple news reports about transportation security workers turning to food banks, the Coast Guard suggesting its employees hold garage sales, and so on.

So the right response involves expressing concern about those workers but placing the blame on Democrats who don't want to stop brown-skinned rapists, or something like that. But no: Hassett declared that it's all good, that the workers are actually “better off,” because they're getting time off without having to use any of their vacation days.

Then consider what Sean Hannity had to say about taxing the rich. What's that? You say that Hannity isn't a member of the Trump administration? But surely he is in every sense that matters. In fact, Fox News isn't just state TV, its hosts clearly have better access to the president, more input into his decisions, than any of the so-called experts at places like the State Department or the Department of Defense.

Anyway, Hannity declared that raising taxes on the wealthy would damage the economy, because “rich people won't be buying boats that they like recreationally,” and “they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore.”

Um, that's not the answer a conservative is supposed to give. You're supposed to insist that low taxes on the rich give them an incentive to work really really hard, not make it easier for them to take lavish vacations. You're supposed to declare that low taxes will induce them to save and spend money building businesses, not help them afford to buy new yachts.

Even if your real reason for favoring low taxes is that they let your wealthy friends engage in even more high living, you're not supposed to say that out loud.

Again, the point isn't that people in Trump's circle don't care about ordinary American families, and also talk nonsense — that's only to be expected. What's amazing is that they're so out of it that they don't know either how to pretend to care about the middle class, or what nonsense to spout in order to sustain that pretense.

So what's wrong with Trump's people? Why can't they serve up even some fake populism?

There are, I think, two answers, one generic to modern conservatism, one specific to Trump.

On the generic point: To be a modern conservative is to spend your life inside what amounts to a cult, barely exposed to outside ideas or even ways of speaking. Inside that cult, contempt for ordinary working Americans is widespread — remember Eric Cantor, the then-House majority leader, celebrating Labor Day by praising business owners. So is worship of wealth. And it can be hard for cult members to remember that you don't talk that way to outsiders.

Then there's the Trump effect. Normally working for the president of the United States is a career booster, something that looks good on your résumé. Trump's presidency, however, is so chaotic, corrupt and potentially compromised by his foreign entanglements that anyone associated with him gets tainted — which is why after only two years he has already left a trail of broken men and wrecked reputations in his wake.

So who is willing to serve him at this point? Only those with no reputation to lose, generally because they're pretty bad at what they do. There are, no doubt, conservatives smart and self-controlled enough to lie plausibly, or at least preserve some deniability, and defend Trump's policies without making fools of themselves. But those people have gone into hiding.

A year ago I pointed out that the Trump administration was turning into government by the worst and the dumbest. Since then, however, things have gotten even worse and even dumber. And we haven't hit bottom yet.


__________________________________________________________________________

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as an Op-Ed columnist. He is distinguished professor in the Graduate Center Economics Ph.D. program and distinguished scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study Center at the City University of New York. In addition, he is professor emeritus of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School. In 2008, Mr. Krugman was the sole recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade theory. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from M.I.T. in 1977. He has taught at Yale, M.I.T. and Stanford. At M.I.T. he became the Ford International Professor of Economics. Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 27 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the “new trade theory,” a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal. Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises. At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist. His column appears every Tuesday and Friday. Read his blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, and follow him on Twitter.

• A version of this article appears in The New York Times on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, on Page A23 of the New York print edition with the headline: “Donald Trump And His Team Of Morons”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/opinion/government-shutdown-trump.html

 15 
 on: January 15, 2019, 05:37:22 am 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey



 16 
 on: January 15, 2019, 05:33:55 am 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey



 17 
 on: January 14, 2019, 03:47:56 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The New York Times…

Trump Confronts the Prospect of a ‘Nonstop Political War’ for Survival

Questions about whether the president is a Russian agent made clear that the government
shutdown may be just the initial skirmish in an all-out battle between him and Congress.


By PETER BAKER | Sunday, January 13, 2019

President Donald J. Trump at the Rio Grande, near McAllen, Texas, on Thursday. — Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times.
President Donald J. Trump at the Rio Grande, near McAllen, Texas, on Thursday. — Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times.

WASHINGTON D.C. — So it has come to this: The president of the United States was asked over the weekend whether he is a Russian agent. And he refused to directly answer.

The question, which came from a friendly interviewer, not one of the “fake media” journalists he disparages, was “the most insulting thing I've ever been asked,” he declared. But it is a question that has hung over his presidency now for two years.

If the now 23-day government shutdown standoff between Mr. Trump and Congress has seemed ugly, it may eventually seem tame by comparison with what is to come. The border wall fight is just the preliminary skirmish in this new era of divided government. The real battle has yet to begin.

With Democrats now in charge of the House, the special counsel believed to be wrapping up his investigation, news media outlets competing for scoops and the first articles of impeachment already filed, Mr. Trump faces the prospect of an all-out political war for survival that may make the still-unresolved partial government shutdown pale by comparison.

The last few days have offered plenty of foreshadowing. The newly empowered Democrats summoned the president's long-time personal lawyer to testify after he implicated Mr. Trump in an illegal scheme to arrange hush payments before the 2016 election for women who claimed to have had affairs with him. Legal papers disclosed that Mr. Trump's one-time campaign chairman shared polling data with an associate tied by prosecutors to Russian intelligence.

New reports over the weekend added to the sense of siege at the White House. The New York Times reported that after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, in 2017, the bureau opened an investigation into whether the president was working for the Russians. And The Washington Post reported that Mr. Trump has gone out of his way as president to hide the details of his discussions with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia even from members of his own administration.

What all this adds up to remains unclear. Whether it will lead to a full-blown impeachment inquiry in the House has yet to be decided. But it underscores the chance that with candidates already lining up to take him on in 2020, Washington will spend the months to come debating the future of Mr. Trump's presidency and the direction of the country.

“The reality,” said Andy Surabian, a Republican strategist and former special assistant to Mr. Trump, is “that the next two years are going to be nonstop political war.”

The White House has begun recruiting soldiers. The new White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, has hired 17 new lawyers, according to The Washington Post, as he prepares for a barrage of subpoenas from House Democratic committee chairmen.

But Mr. Trump's inner circle has shrunk, and he has fewer advisers around him whom he trusts. His White House chief of staff is still serving in an acting capacity, and the West Wing is depleted by the shutdown. As he himself wrote on Twitter this weekend, “There's almost nobody in the W.H. but me”.

Mr. Surabian said the rest of the party must recognize the threat and rally behind the president. “Republicans need to understand that Democrats in Congress, beholden to the ‘resistance’, aren't interested in bipartisanship, they're out for blood,” he said. “It's a war we can win,” he added, “but only with fortitude, unity, coherent messaging and a willingness to fight back.”

Democrats, for their part, say they are out for accountability, not blood, intent on forcing a president who went largely unchecked by a Republican Congress during his first two years in office to come clean on the many scandals that have erupted involving his business, taxes, campaign and administration.

They plan to get started in the coming days. On Tuesday, they will grill former Attorney General William P. Barr, who has been nominated by Mr. Trump to assume his old office again, about his approach to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Barr wrote a private memo last year criticizing Mr. Mueller's investigation, and Democrats will use his confirmation hearings to press him on whether the special counsel will be allowed to finish his work and report it to Congress.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic minority leader, also plans to force a vote in the Senate this week on the Trump administration's plans to lifts sanctions on the companies of Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to Mr. Putin's government, if he reduces his ownership stakes. Democrats plan to use the issue to argue that Mr. Trump has been soft on Russia.

Even committees that are not usually in the investigation business are jumping into the fray. Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York and the new chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told The New Yorker last week that he was eliminating the subcommittee on terrorism in favor of a subcommittee aimed at investigating Mr. Trump's foreign policy.

Lost in all this may be any chance of bipartisan policymaking. At stake in the current fight is just $5.7 billion for Mr. Trump's promised border wall, roughly one-eighth of one percent of the total federal budget. If one-eighth of one percent of the total budget can prompt the longest government shutdown in American history, then the potential for further clashes over the remaining 99.87 percent seems considerable. On issues like health care, taxes, climate change, guns and national security, the two sides start this era of divided government far apart.

“That's the flashing yellow light here,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, a former top White House aide to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. “If you can't do Government 101, what makes you think you're going to do Advanced Placement Government like finding the money for an infrastructure bill?”

Julian Epstein, who was the counsel for Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during Mr. Clinton's impeachment fight 20 years ago, said big issues like a shrinking middle class largely untrained for the 21st-century economy would go unaddressed during the battles to come.

“The political class is now addicted to Manichaean conflict as a way of life,” Mr. Epstein said. “It's become the mother's milk — for base voters in both parties who together make up a minority share of voters, for cable television and for social media.”

Given the investigations, Mr. Trump may prefer a battle over the wall as more favorable ground to fight even with 800,000 federal workers furloughed or forced to work without pay. Polls suggest he is not winning with the broader public but has rallied his base in the fight.

More Americans blame Mr. Trump for the government shutdown than blame Democrats, and most oppose a border wall, according to a new survey by The Washington Post and ABC News. But support for a wall has grown over the last year from 34 percent to 42 percent, fueled largely by Republicans, while opposition has slipped from 63 percent to 54 percent.

Negotiations have broken down. While Mr. Trump had gambled that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, would back down, she has made clear that she has no interest in compromise, and left town over the weekend. She and Mr. Schumer have insisted that Mr. Trump reopen the government while negotiations over a border wall proceed, which the president has refused to do. Mr. Trump walked out of their talks last week after he asked Ms. Pelosi if she would support his wall if he reopened the government and she said no.

“It's all about their own sense of strength,” said John Feehery, a former senior House Republican aide. “Pelosi wants to be validated. She wants to be seen as a strong leader. Trump feels like he has to govern through strength. This is strength versus strength. Unfortunately, the people in the middle are the government workers who can't afford to lose a paycheck.”

Instead of talks to end the shutdown, the president spent at least part of his weekend defending himself against the suspicions about his affinity for Mr. Putin. He insisted that he has actually been tougher on Russia than his predecessors and that the F.B.I. was led by “losers that tried to do a number on your President”.

He picked up the telephone on Saturday night to call into the Fox News show hosted by Jeanine Pirro, who participated in a campaign rally with him last fall. She asked him about the F.B.I. investigation reported by The New York Times with a tone of scorn.

“I'm going to ask you, are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?” Ms. Pirro asked.

“I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked,” he answered. “I think it's the most insulting article I've ever had written. And if you read the article, you'd see that they found absolutely nothing.”

She then cited The Washington Post article about his efforts to conceal details of his private meetings with Mr. Putin. “We had a great conversation,” he said. “We were talking about Israel and securing Israel and lots of other things, and it was a great conversation. I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I couldn't care less.”

Ms. Pirro expressed sympathy for the battles he was waging.

“You've got such fight in you, it's unbelievable,” she said.

“Well,” he answered, “I guess I have good genes.”


__________________________________________________________________________

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times covering President Donald J. Trump. He previously covered the presidencies of Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Mr. Baker joined The Times in 2008 after 20 years at The Washington Post. He began writing about Mr. Obama at the inception of his administration, through health care and economic debates, the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, the re-election campaign and decisions over war and peace in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. During his first tour at the White House, Mr. Baker was a co-author of the original story breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal and served as The Post's lead writer on the impeachment battle. During his next White House assignment, he covered the travails of Mr. Bush's second term, from the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina to Supreme Court nomination fights and the economy. In between stints at the White House, Mr. Baker and his wife, Susan Glasser, spent four years as Moscow bureau chiefs, chronicling the rise of Vladimir V. Putin, the rollback of Russian democracy, the second Chechen war and the terrorist attacks on a theater in Moscow and a school in Beslan. Mr. Baker also covered the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was the first American newspaper journalist to report from rebel-held northern Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, and he spent the next eight months covering the overthrow of the Taliban and the emergence of a new government. He later spent six months in the Middle East, reporting from inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq and around the region before embedding with the United States Marines as they drove toward Baghdad. He is the author of four books, most recently Obama: The Call of History, an illustrated history of the 44th president. A native of the Washington area, Mr. Baker attended Oberlin College.

• A version of this article appears in The New York Times on Monday, January 14, 2019, on Page A5 of the New York print edition with the headline: “Trump Faces Prospect of ‘Nonstop Political War’ for Survival”.

__________________________________________________________________________

Related to this topic:

 • Government Shutdown Across America

 • Democrats Push to Block Sanctions Relief for Russian Oligarch's Companies

 • Trump Tweets Lengthy Attack on F.B.I. Over Inquiry Into Possible Aid to Russia

 • F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/13/us/politics/trump-russia-shutdown.html

 18 
 on: January 13, 2019, 04:07:37 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The New York Times…

Trump Tweets Lengthy Attack on F.B.I. Over
Inquiry Into Possible Aid to Russia


President Trump cast James B. Comey and other former top F.B.I. officials as corrupt and politically
motivated, saying they had opened the counter-intelligence investigation for “no reason”.


By NICHOLAS FANDOS and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT | Saturday, January 12, 2019

President Donald J. Trump said on Twitter on Saturday that now-departed F.B.I. officials had “tried to do a number on your President” by investigating whether he had acted on behalf of Russia. — Photograph: Sarah Silbiger/The New York Times.
President Donald J. Trump said on Twitter on Saturday that now-departed F.B.I. officials had “tried to do a number on your President”
by investigating whether he had acted on behalf of Russia. — Photograph: Sarah Silbiger/The New York Times.


WASHINGTON D.C. — President Trump on Saturday unleashed an extended assault on the F.B.I. and the special counsel's investigation, knitting together a comprehensive alternative story in which he had been framed by disgraced “losers” at the bureau's highest levels.

In a two-hour span starting at 7 a.m., the president made a series of false claims on Twitter about his adversaries and the events surrounding the inquiry. He was responding to a report in The New York Times that, after he fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director in 2017, the bureau began investigating whether the president had acted on behalf of Russia.

In his tweets, the president accused Hillary Clinton, without evidence, of breaking the law by lying to the F.B.I. He claimed that Mr. Comey was corrupt and best friends with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. He said Mr. Mueller was employing a team of Democrats — another misleading assertion — bent on taking him down.

Individually, the president's claims were familiar. But as the special counsel's inquiry edges ever closer to him, Democrats vow a blizzard of investigations of their own and the government shutdown reaches record lengths, Mr. Trump compiled all the threads of the conspiracy theory he has pushed for many months in an effort to discredit the investigation.

Mr. Trump accused the F.B.I. of opening “for no reason” and “with no proof” an investigation in 2017 into whether he had been working against American interests on behalf of Russia, painting his own actions toward Russia as actually “FAR tougher” than those of his predecessors.

The New York Times article, published on Friday evening, reported that law enforcement officials became so alarmed by Mr. Trump's behavior surrounding his firing of Mr. Comey that they took the explosive step of opening a counter-intelligence investigation against him.

Naming several of the bureau's now-departed top officials, including Mr. Comey and his deputy, Andrew G. McCabe, Mr. Trump said the F.B.I. had “tried to do a number on your President,” accusing the “losers” of essentially fabricating a case. “Part of the Witch Hunt,” he wrote — referring dismissively to the investigation now being overseen by Mr. Mueller.




At the time he was fired in May 2017, Mr. Comey had been leading the F.B.I.'s investigation into Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election, and the officials believed that his removal, in hindering the inquiry, posed a possible threat to national security. Their decision to open the case was informed, in part, by two instances in which Mr. Trump tied the firing to the Russia investigation.

The inquiry they opened had two aspects, including both the newly disclosed counterintelligence element and a criminal element that has long been publicly known: whether the firing constituted obstruction of justice.

When Mr. Mueller was appointed days later, he took over the joint inquiry as part of his larger investigation of Russia's action in 2016 and whether anyone on the Trump campaign conspired with Moscow. It is not clear whether he is still pursuing the counter-intelligence matter, and no public evidence has emerged that Mr. Trump himself secretly conspired with the Russian government or took directions from it.


James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, responded to Mr. Trump with a quotation attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt: “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” — Photograph: Tom Brenner/for The New York Times.
James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, responded to Mr. Trump with a quotation attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt: “I ask you
to judge me by the enemies I have made.” — Photograph: Tom Brenner/for The New York Times.


Mr. Trump indicated on Saturday that he had not known of the existence of the counter-intelligence investigation before The New York Times article, and he did not dispute the newspaper's reporting.

But he made clear that he viewed any such inquiry as illegitimate from the start. He presented it, without evidence, as part of a vast, years-long conspiracy to undo his presidency.

In the tweets, Mr. Trump defended his decision to fire Mr. Comey — “a total sleaze!” — at length, accusing the former director of overseeing a “rigged & botched” investigation of Mrs. Clinton, and leading the agency into “complete turmoil.” Democrats and Republicans alike wanted Mr. Comey removed, he said.

“My firing of James Comey was a great day for America,” Mr. Trump wrote. “He was a Crooked Cop.”






But an investigation conducted by the Justice Department's inspector general and internal surveys of F.B.I. agents have undercut Mr. Trump's portrayal of Mr. Comey as corrupt and unpopular within the bureau.

Mr. Trump's comments echoed those that his White House spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, released on Friday night.

“This is absurd. James Comey was fired because he's a disgraced partisan hack, and his deputy, Andrew McCabe, who was in charge at the time, is a known liar fired by the F.B.I.,” Ms. Sanders said. “Unlike President Obama, who let Russia and other foreign adversaries push America around, President Trump has actually been tough on Russia.”

Parts of the statements by Mr. Trump and Ms. Sanders are at odds with the public record and with the findings of the inspector general's report. While Democrats were furious with Mr. Comey over his public statements about the Clinton email server case — at a news conference and in a pair of letters in the middle of the campaign — they were deeply alarmed by his removal, given his role in the Russia investigation.

In his report, the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, pointedly criticized Mr. Comey for breaking with long-standing policy to publicly discuss the Clinton case, and he castigated “insubordinate” senior officials who worked with Mr. Comey for privately criticizing Mr. Trump even as they investigated him. But he ultimately said he had found no evidence to believe that the decisions not to charge Mrs. Clinton for her use of a private email server in handling classified information “were affected by bias or other improper considerations.”

“Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor's assessment of facts, the law and past department practice,” he wrote.


Andrew G. McCabe has argued that his firing by Mr. Trump as deputy F.B.I. director was politically motivated and designed to hinder the Russia investigation. — Photograph: Pete Marovich/Getty Images.
Andrew G. McCabe has argued that his firing by Mr. Trump as deputy F.B.I. director was politically motivated and designed to hinder
the Russia investigation. — Photograph: Pete Marovich/Getty Images.


Mr. McCabe, who briefly served as acting director after Mr. Comey was removed, was fired last March for failing to be forthcoming with investigators about an unrelated conversation he had authorized between F.B.I. officials and a journalist. Mr. McCabe argued that the firing was politically motivated and designed to hinder the Russia investigation. Other members of Mr. Comey's team have also been fired or left the bureau.

Mr. Comey responded on Twitter on Saturday with a quotation attributed to former President Franklin D. Roosevelt: “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.”

The New York Times report cited former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation, as well as private testimony that the F.B.I.'s former general counsel, James A. Baker, delivered to Congress related to the inquiry.

“Not only would it be an issue of obstructing an investigation, but the obstruction itself would hurt our ability to figure out what the Russians had done, and that is what would be the threat to national security,” Mr. Baker said in his testimony, portions of which were read to The New York Times.

Some former law enforcement officials outside the case have since debated whether F.B.I. investigators over-reacted in opening the counter-intelligence inquiry during a chaotic period after Mr. Comey's firing. Other former officials noted that those critics were not privy to all of the evidence and argued that sitting on it would have been an abdication of duty.


__________________________________________________________________________

Nicholas Fandos is a reporter in The New York Times' Washington bureau covering Congress.

Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent for The New York Times who covers national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues and the other for coverage of President Donald Trump and his campaign's ties to Russia. For the past year, Michael's coverage has focused on Robert S. Mueller III's investigation into Mr. Trump's campaign and whether the president obstructed justice. From 2012 to 2016, Michael covered the F.B.I., Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. Michael spent 2011 in Iraq chronicling the last year of the American occupation. From 2007 to 2010, he covered doping and off-the-field issues for the sports section. He started his career at The N.Y. Times in 2005 as a clerk on the foreign desk. Michael has broken several high profile stories. Among them was that former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, wrote a series of memos on how the president asked for his loyalty and tried to interfere with the F.B.I.'s investigations. Mr. Mueller was appointed after those disclosures. Michael was first to reveal the fact that Hillary Clinton exclusively relied on a personal email account when she was secretary of state. In sports, he broke the stories that Sammy Sosa, David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez had tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs and wrote about the treatment of young baseball players in the Dominican Republic who were exploited by American investors and agents. In 2017, Michael co-authored the stories that outlined how the former Fox News host, Bill O'Reilly, paid off a series of women who made sexual harassment allegations against him. For that coverage, he won the Livingston Award for national reporting, which recognizes the best work of journalists under the age of 35. Michael is a graduate of Lafayette College.

• A version of this article appears in The New York Times on Sunday, January 13, 2019, on Page A20 of the New York print edition with the headline: “Trump Assails F.B.I. Inquiry Into Possible Russia Sympathies”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/12/us/politics/trump-fbi-counterintelligence-investigation.html

 19 
 on: January 13, 2019, 03:52:00 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The New York Times…

Nancy Pelosi Spanks the First Brat

Flags of their fathers: In the battle for Washington, the president and
House speaker are armed with very different values from their upbringings.


By MAUREEN DOWD | Saturday, January 12, 2019

Big Tommy D'Alesandro Jr. talked with President John Kennedy in the White House in 1961 after being sworn in to serve on a federal board. In the background are his wife and their daughter, Nancy. — Photograph: William Allen/Associated Press.
Big Tommy D'Alesandro Jr. talked with President John Kennedy in the White House in 1961 after being sworn in to serve on a federal board.
In the background are his wife and their daughter, Nancy. — Photograph: William Allen/Associated Press.


WASHINGTON D.C. — Two men, sons of immigrants, rising to be the head of their own empires, powerful forces in their ethnic communities. Both dapper and mustachioed with commanding personalities. And both wielding a potent influence on the children who learned at their knees and followed them into the family businesses.

But here's the difference: Big Tommy D'Alesandro Jr. taught little Nancy how to count. Fred Trump taught Donald, from the time he was a baby, that he didn't have to count — or be accountable; Daddy's money made him and buoyed him.

Fred, a dictatorial builder in Brooklyn and Queens from German stock, and Big Tommy, a charming Maryland congressman and mayor of Baltimore from Italian stock, are long gone. But their roles in shaping Donald and Nancy remain vivid, bleeding into our punishing, pressing national debate over immigration, a government shutdown and that inescapable and vexing Wall.

At this fraught moment when the pain of the shutdown is kicking in, President Trump and Speaker Pelosi offer very different visions — shaped by their parents — of what it means to be an American.

When Trump gave his Oval Office address, the framed photo of his dad was peering over his shoulder. In her House speaker's office in the Capitol, Pelosi prominently displays a photo of herself at 7, holding the Bible as her father is sworn in as Baltimore mayor in 1947.

D'Alesandro was a loyal New Deal Democrat, just as Pelosi — the first daughter to follow her father into Congress — is a resolute liberal. She grew up in a house with portraits of F.D.R. and Truman.

Donald Trump spent most of his life as a political opportunist, learning from his dad that real estate developers must lubricate both sides of the aisle. Trump was once friendly with Pelosi, sending her a note in 2007 when she won the speaker job the first time — with a boost from his $20,000 donation to the party — calling her “the best.” (Unlike with “Cryin' Chuck,” Trump has not gone for the jugular with a nasty nickname for Pelosi.)

In her memoir, Pelosi recalled that her Catholic parents “raised me to be holy.” She told me, “My mother and my father instilled in us, public service is a noble calling” and to “never measure a person by how much money they had.”

A constant stream of strangers lined up at their house in Baltimore's Little Italy, seeking food and help. One of Pelosi's most arresting memories, she told CNN's Dana Bash, was giving immigrants who came to the door advice on how to get into the projects or to the hospital.

Alexandra, Pelosi's documentarian daughter, recounts this anecdote: Her son, Thomas — who was named after Big Tommy and who stood at the speaker's side as she reclaimed her gavel — wanted an Xbox in 2017, so he set up a lemonade stand in Manhattan and raked in $1,000.

His grandmother sat him down and asked, “That's going to the victims of Hurricane Harvey, right?”

He set up the stand again the next year and was once more schooled by his grandmother asking, “That's going to the victims of the California wildfires, right?”

Contrast that with Don Jr.'s uncharitable message on Instagram on Tuesday: “You know why you can enjoy a day at the zoo? Because walls work.”

Where the D'Alesandros saw the downtrodden and immigrants as people to weave into the American dream, the Trumps saw suckers to squeeze.


Donald J. Trump joined Mayor Ed Koch and Governor Hugh Carey in 1978 at a ceremony for the launch of construction on a new hotel. — Photograph: Associated Press.
Donald J. Trump joined Mayor Ed Koch and Governor Hugh Carey in 1978 at a ceremony for the launch of construction on a new hotel.
 — Photograph: Associated Press.


According to The New York Times's blockbuster tax investigation, Fred lavished Donald with three trust funds and $10,000 Christmas checks. When Donald was 8, he was already a millionaire, thanks to his tax-scamming father. Fred Trump was hauled before a congressional panel investigating whether he had looted government money through fraud. (One congressman said the patriarch's chicanery made him “nauseous.”)

By the time Donald was 27, he had fully absorbed Trump family values, a callous inversion of noblesse oblige: He and his father were getting sued by the Justice Department for refusing to rent to blacks. As Woody Guthrie, who lived in a Fred Trump complex near Coney Island, wrote in a song, “I suppose/Old Man Trump knows/just how much/racial hate/he stirred up/in the bloodpot of human hearts”. Not quite the same as “This Land Is Your Land”.

Fred's favorite parlor trick was calculating big numbers in his head. But when Howard Stern had Donald, Ivanka and Don Jr. on his show in 2006 and asked them a multiplication question, they were all stumped.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMIKzUAY8n4

Over the years, Fred funneled tens of millions of dollars to clean up Donald's messes. The father even gave the son $3.5 million in chips to save an Atlantic City casino. By the time he was in his 40s, Donnie's allowance was more than $5 million annually. No wonder he's still an infant.

When Trump said he could “relate” to federal workers who are now going without pay, it may have been the most audacious lie he told all week. He may know what it's like to go from bankruptcy to bankruptcy — though always with a paternal safety net — but he has no idea of what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck, much less none at all.

As Pelosi told reporters: “He thinks maybe they could just ask their father for more money. But they can't.” She also leveled the barb on Trump in person.

Pelosi deploys what she calls her “mother of five” voice on our tantrum-prone president, perhaps in an effort to re-parent him. But how do you discipline the world's brattiest 72-year-old?


__________________________________________________________________________

Maureen Dowd, winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary and author of three New York Times best sellers, became an Op-Ed columnist in 1995. In August 2014, she also became a writer for The New York Times Magazine. Born in Washington, Ms. Dowd began her journalism career in 1974 as an editorial assistant for The Washington Star, where she later became a sports columnist, metropolitan reporter and feature writer. In 1983, she joined The New York Times as a metropolitan correspondent and then moved to The Times's Washington bureau in 1986 to cover politics. Ms. Dowd has covered nine presidential campaigns, served as The Times's White House correspondent, and written “On Washington”, a column for The N.Y. Times Magazine. In the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, G. P. Putnam published her first book, Bushworld, which covered the presidency and personality of George W. Bush. After “Bushworld” quickly climbed the best-seller list, Ms. Dowd switched from presidential politics to sexual politics in another best seller, Are Men Necessary? When Sexes Collide released in 2005. In addition to The New York Times, Ms. Dowd has written for GQ, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, Mademoiselle, Sports Illustrated and others. Her column appears every Sunday.

• A version of this article appears in The New York Times on Sunday, January 13, 2019, on Page SR9 of the New York print edition with the headline: “Nancy Spanks The First Brat”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-nancy-pelosi-donald-trump.html

 20 
 on: January 13, 2019, 12:54:25 am 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.109 seconds with 14 queries.