SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (1072295)6/6/2018 12:44:44 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1574342
 
Yeah, I don't bother to click on links from idiots.



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (1072295)6/6/2018 12:46:13 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1574342
 
James Madison’s notes from September 15, 1787 record the following discussion:

Art: II. Sect. 2. “he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the U. S. &c”

Mr. RANDOLPH moved to “except cases of treason.” The prerogative of pardon in these cases was too great a trust. The President may himself be guilty. The Traytors may be his own instruments.

Col: MASON supported the motion…

.........

As we can see, the founders anticipated a Trump but even they didn't think he might seek to "pardon himself."

Oh but surely they wanted him to be above the law like the King whose rule they'd just fought a war to end. Nah!

Furthermore, they knew that pardons were only for the guilty. Acceptance of a pardon in Anglo-American law is an acceptance of guilt.



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (1072295)6/6/2018 1:44:53 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1574342
 
Why Trump's Higher Tariffs Now are Unlikely to Result in Lower Tariffs Later
June 3, 2018, 11:45 am
On Friday I was browsing the AM dial looking for a sports talk radio station discussing Game 1 of the NBA Finals when I ran into Rush Limbaugh. Now, I am not one of those who will say that I never listen to X -- I will listen (at least for a while) to both the Limbaughs and Olbermans to understand what is going on in Tribe Blue and Tribe Red. And I am glad I did on Friday because I heard something that really shocked me.

No, this is not faux public shock at some Conservative taking a position one would fully expect him to take, but just the opposite -- Limbaugh was at least partially defending Trump's tariffs despite the fact that I am absolutely positive he knows better.

In fact I am sure he knows better because he made a very good 60-second case for exactly why tariff's were bad. Couldn't have done a better job in that short time myself. But then he did what many Conservatives have been doing of late -- he tried to justify the tariffs as part of some hypothetical long game of Trump's to negotiate a better deal in the future.

Personally, I think it is absurd to assume that Trump's real intention is to get us to a new equilibrium with lower tariffs all around the world. He does not understand the value of free trade and his closest adviser on this issue is an ardent protectionist. Trump's negotiation experience is all in zero-sum games where he is trying to extract the most of a fixed pie for himself, not in trying to craft win-win solutions across multiple parties.

But here is the real reason this won't work: The current relatively-free trade regime that exists today was built almost totally on America's moral leadership on the issue. Let me take a quick aside to discuss a parallel case. In 2012 the US compound in Benghazi was attacked. The Obama Administration publicly blamed this attack on an obscure anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube, and continued to insist for weeks on the video being to blame despite the fact that new evidence shows the Administration knew from the beginning the video had nothing to do with the attack. This was a terrible action for the Administration to take, because from China to Russia to Iran to Saudi Arabia to Britain to Berkeley, there is growing skepticism, even hostility, towards free speech. If the US President is not staking out a moral position on the world stage in favor of free speech, then it is not at all clear who in the world is going to oppose what seems to be a natural authoritarian tide to shut inconvenient people up. Obama did not have to defend the video itself (I have not seen it but I understand it to be confused and absurd and fairly indefensible) but he should have said something like "I don't like the video myself but in a free society we do not meet speech with violence, no matter how confused or misguided that speech is."

I have the same problem for many of the same reasons with Donald Trump's tariffs. Pro-tariff folks pretend like there is some powerful free-trade globalist conspiracy they are fighting, but in fact the real headwinds all around the world are in favor of protectionism. Few countries outside of the US have our historic dedication to free trade. In addition, many of our partners have their own anti-trade populist parties on the rise (e.g. Britain, Italy). And many of the most powerful political actors in our trading partners actually represent large corporations (some state owned and some just highly-aligned with the state) and powerful labor unions who would be perfectly happy to pursue additional crony protectionism of their industry even at the expense of the majority of their country's consumers and businesses. All these forces for protectionism have always been kept at bay in large part by America's leadership on the issue. How better to demonstrate to the Luddites that trade deficits are not bad than by accepting large trade deficits and having the strongest economy in the world?

Rush Limbaugh and other Trump Conservatives want to argue that these Trump tariffs are the opening move in an extended negotiation that will likely result in a better end state. I have an alternate way of portraying them. This is the United States walking into a group of barely-recovering alcoholics -- a group in which the US has historically been the powerful moral voice who has kept all these countries on the wagon -- and slamming a bottle of Jack Daniels on the table. The results are not going to be pretty.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2018/06/why-trumps-higher-tariffs-now-are-unlikely-to-result-in-lower-tariffs-later.html



To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (1072295)6/6/2018 1:51:54 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574342
 
Kushner worked with the Saudis to blockade Qatar...then the Qataris offered him billions of dollars and the blockade went away. Kushner is using his position to personally enrich himself and can now be blackmailed by every country in the Middle East

The Kushners Are Finally Getting That Sweet, Sweet Qatari Cash

Qatar, under siege, opens its pocketbook to help save 666 Fifth.
BESS LEVIN
MAY 17, 2018 4:27 PM

Last month, in an effort to push back on the growing consensus that his eldest son may be an idiot, Charlie Kushner sat down with CNN to claim that the decision to buy 666 Fifth Avenue, a Midtown tower that has become an albatross around Kushner Cos.’s neck, was not Jared’s but his. “I pushed Jared to do the deal,” Charlie insisted, despite the fact that Jared had been the de facto C.E.O. at the time the deal was being negotiated. His father, in fact, was busy making wallets at a prison camp in Alabama, where he was serving time for, among other things, setting up his brother-in-law with a prostitute, taping the encounter, and sending it to his sister in retaliation for turning state’s evidence. But we digress. Regardless of whose idea it was to buy 666 Fifth—what was then the most expensive building in New York City history, on the eve of the financial crisis—, the deal was a disaster. The building’s biggest tenants fled during the recession. The Kushners had to refinance, selling a 49.5 percent stake in the building to Vornado Realty Trust in exchange for a portion of the debt. Still, the mortgage ballooned. The entire $1.2 billion balance is due in 2019, and the property is bleeding money.

The result has been a slow-motion, failed fire sale, with the Kushners trying to find someone, anyone, to bail them out. In 2017, it looked like Anbang Insurance Group, a Chinese holding company with ties to the Chinese government, might bite, but they backed out when the heat on Jared—suddenly a West Wing adviser—got too hot. Charlie even sat down with Qatar’s finance minister, Ali Sharif Al Emadi, in 2017, but the talks allegedly went nowhere.

Why did those talks go nowhere? As Charlie Kushner told CNN, Kushner Cos. takes pains to avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest. Indeed, the firm’s lawyer “reminds dealmakers weekly of the company’s self-imposed ban on financing from foreign governments.” Kushner the Elder even went so far to admit it was “stupid” of him to meet with Al Emadi in 2017, saying he accepted the invite purely “out of respect” for the Qataris to tell them there was no way “we could do business.”

Getting a bail out from a company with “extensive ties” to Qatar, though? Apparently that’s a-O.K.!

Charles Kushner . . . is in advanced talks with Brookfield Properties over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower 666 Fifth Avenue in Midtown, according to two real-estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but are not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, headquartered in Canada, one of whose major investors is the Qatar Investment Authority.

Brookfield has extensive ties to Qatar. The Qatar Investment Authority is the second-largest shareholder in Brookfield Properties, ranking only behind Brookfield’s former parent company. And the Qatar fund and Brookfield have teamed up on several real-estate deals in the United States and elsewhere in recent years, including Brookfield’s retail and apartment complex, Manhattan West, now under construction on the West Side. Brookfield and Qatar also control the Canary Wharf office complex in London.

If the deal pans out, according to the Times, Kushner Cos. will use the cash to buy out Vornado, whose C.E.O., Steve Roth, previously said that 666 Fifth “ would be worth a lot more if it was just dirt.” While Vornado would continue to own the building’s retail space, Kushner Cos. would pay it $120 million to settle the $80 million high-interest loan that Vornado provided graciously provided six years ago for the office building. A QIA spokesman told The Hive “QIA has no involvement whatsoever in this deal.”

Qatar’s newfound beneficence toward the Kushner family is especially curious given the long-standing speculation about Jared’s personal alliances with Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the Abu Dhabi, respectively. Some political observers’ eyebrows were raised when, just a few weeks after Charlie’s talks with the Qataris fell apart, his son endorsed a Saudi- and U.A.E.-led blockade of Qatar. One wonders if the Trump administration will continue to support the blockade, or whether it will suddenly have a change of heart now that the Qatar Investment Authority, via Brookfield, has opened its wallet.

...............

vanityfair.com