Connect with us

News

White House defends Trump offering his club members tours of Air Force One

Published

on

The White House is refusing to say whether Trump invited members of his private for-profit club to tour Air Force One — but it’s also defending such invitations by claiming they are common practice.

According to Buzzfeed, it appears that invitations to tour Air Force One were sent to members of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club last year. Newly-acquired documents show that tours of the plane did, in fact, take place on the date noted on the invitations.

The names of the people on the tour were redacted, and the White House has refused to confirm that they were club members.

But when the White House was first contacted about the invitations last year, a spokeswoman defended them anyway:

Without confirming or denying, Stephanie Grisham, then a spokeswoman for the White House who now works for the first lady, said in an e-mail, “It is common for friends/family of the President to receive tours of Air Force One.”

“This is something that has been done in past administrations going back years and is not out of the ordinary,” she wrote, adding that if the invitation was sent to long-time club members, “then they are also most likely longtime friends of the President.”

Grisham’s defense is absurd, since no previous president owned a private for-profit club whose members could be given perks like a private tour of Air Force One. That defense is also belied by the White House’s refusal to admit whether club members were, in fact, given tours of Air Force One.

This revelation fits with Trump’s history of using the presidency as a source of grift for his private club, a practice he has engaged in even since before assuming office.

Membership fees to the club were doubled just after the election. And after just weeks in office, Trump came under fire for using a summit with Japan’s prime minister as a “free global infomercial” for the club.

Taxpayers have also been billed for expenses at Mar-a-Lago for every trip Trump has made there. And Trump has made a regular habit of visiting his other properties while traveling, boosting their profits as well.

Trump has also used the government for the club’s benefit by exempting Florida — and Mar-a-Lago — from his offshore drilling plans, and by preserving the immigrant visas he uses to hire foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago while cracking down on others.

Mar-a-Lago members have been granted access to Trump, and been given a front-row seat to unfolding national security situations. Those members have responded by cheering wildly for the prospect of a Trump presidency “for life.”

The Trump administration’s constant grifting has long been an embarrassment — but the White House’s insistence that it’s normal is just an insult. Nothing about this is normal, nor should it ever be.

Published with permission of The American Independent.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Breaking Now

House Democrats Subpoena Full Mueller Report, and the Underlying Evidence

Published

on

By

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee formally issued a subpoena on Friday demanding that the Justice Department hand over to Congress an unredacted version of Robert S. Mueller III’s report and all of the evidence underlying it by May 1.


The subpoena, one of the few issued thus far by House Democrats, escalates a fight with Attorney General William P. Barr over what material Congress is entitled to see from the special counsel’s nearly two-year investigation. The chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, asked for all evidence, including summaries of witness interviews and classified intelligence.

“My committee needs and is entitled to the full version of the report and the underlying evidence consistent with past practice,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement. “Even the redacted version of the report outlines serious instances of wrongdoing by President Trump and some of his closest associates. It now falls to Congress to determine the full scope of that alleged misconduct and to decide what steps we must take going forward.”

Mr. Nadler’s deadline falls a day before Mr. Barr is scheduled to testify publicly before the Judiciary Committee in what is expected to be an explosive session where Democrats plan to excoriate Mr. Barr’s handling of the report and Republicans will urge their colleagues to accept that there was no criminality and move on.

Mr. Barr released to Congress and the public a redacted copy of the more than 400-page report on Thursday. Though the redactions were less extensive than some Democrats feared, the Justice Department had blacked out sections of the report that it said contained classified material, secretive grand jury testimony or information that would affect investigations still underway.

Democrats have been threatening to issue a subpoena for weeks, and the Justice Department on Thursday sought to head off the subpoena with a pledge to share more information with Congress.

Stephen E. Boyd, an assistant attorney general, wrote in a letter that the department would allow the bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate, as well as the heads of their judiciary and intelligence committees, to view a fuller version of the report beginning next week. But he said even that copy would still have secretive grand jury information blacked out because of legal requirements.

Given the sensitive nature of the information, Mr. Boyd wrote, “all individuals reviewing the less-redacted version” must agree to keep the newly unredacted information confidential.

Mr. Nadler rejected the proposed accommodation as insufficient on Friday. He has repeatedly asked the Justice Department to join him in requesting that a court unseal the grand jury information, in particular, for Congress to review privately. Mr. Barr has so far rejected that request.

“I am open to working with the department to reach a reasonable accommodation for access to these materials,” he said, “however I cannot accept any proposal which leaves most of Congress in the dark, as they grapple with their duties of legislation, oversight and constitutional accountability.”

(Reporting by Washington Post)

Continue Reading

Health

Judge Rejects Anti-Vaxxer Lawsuit Against New York City’s Vaccine Mandate

Published

on

By

A state judge on Thursday rejected a lawsuit filed by anti-vaccination parents who sought to lift New York City’s new measles vaccination mandate, as parts of the metropolis continue to face an outbreak.


“A fireman need not obtain the informed consent of the owner before extinguishing a house fire,” Judge Lawrence Knipel wrote in his ruling. “Vaccination is known to extinguish the fire of contagion.”

Five anonymous parents in Brooklyn filed the lawsuit earlier this week against the city health department for ordering the mandatory vaccinations in parts of the borough amid a growing outbreak of the measles virus concentrated in the Williamsburg area. The lawsuit said the city’s response is “irrational,” and that the spread of the virus does not pose a clear danger to public health.

Knipel ruled that the city’s decision to require measles vaccinations during the outbreak is supported by “largely uncontroverted” evidence.

New York City Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot issued the emergency order on April 9, requiring everyone who lives and works within four Brooklyn ZIP codes to receive the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine if they hadn’t already gotten it. Failure to comply with the mandate could result in misdemeanor punishments, including criminal fines or imprisonment.

The city has already issued summons to three people who refused the mandate and face $1,000 in fines.

As of Wednesday, the measles outbreak has infected at least 329 people since October, mostly children from Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn, according to Barbot. Many Orthodox Jewish people believe vaccinations go against Jewish or Talmudic law, resulting in low vaccination rates for some communities.

Barbot praised the decision to dismiss the lawsuit, saying in a statement to HuffPost that it “will protect New Yorkers from a very dangerous infection with potentially fatal consequences.”

She added that officials “do not want to issue violations but will continue and hope that New Yorkers make the best choice for their families, their neighbors and their own health ― to get vaccinated.”

(Reporting by HuffPost)

Continue Reading

Court Rulings

Federal Appeals Court Backs California Laws To Protect Immigrants

Published

on

By

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday kept in place three California laws intended to protect immigrants, continuing the state’s efforts to be a national leader in opposing Trump administration policies.


The court upheld lower court rulings denying the Trump administration’s request to block law enforcement from providing release dates and personal information of people in jail, as well as to throw out a law barring employers from allowing immigration officials on their premises unless the officials have a warrant.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected U.S. District Judge John Mendez’s reasoning last year for denying a portion of the third law, which requires the state to review detention facilities where immigrants are held. It ruled that the section requiring the state to review circumstances surrounding the apprehension and transfer of detainees puts an impermissible burden on the federal government.

But the appellate panel said Mendez can consider rejecting a preliminary injunction for that section on other legal grounds.

The U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has repeatedly sued the Trump administration mostly over immigration and environmental decisions, said the ruling shows that states’ rights “continue to thrive.”

“We continue to prove in California that the rule of law not only stands for something but that people cannot act outside of it,” Becerra said in a statement.

California officials have said the immigration laws promote trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, while the administration argued the state is allowing dangerous criminals on the streets.

Continue Reading

Popular

Copyright © 2018 News This Second