Clinton Uranium Russia Cartoons

Arrests made after some 'March 4 Trump' rallies turn violent

Trump Supporters

Trump Supporter

On the left is how the democrats want to protest, on the right a trump supporter.

Democrats should be proud of themselves, beating up on old people that support Trump.

This is how democrats peacefully demonstrate.

Democrats do not want to talk.

Arrests were made in some spots across the U.S. as hundreds of people railed in support President Trump Saturday.

Demonstrators from Colorado’s state capitol to Trump Tower in New York and the Washington Monument were seen carrying life-size cardboard cutouts of Trump as well as waving “Deplorables for Trump” signs.
However, not every rally went off without a hitch.
Police in Berkeley, Calif. said 10 people were arrested after Trump supporters and counter-protesters clashed during a rally that turned violent and left seven injured. None of the injured was hospitalized.
Meanwhile, six people protesting the rally in St. Paul, Minn. were arrested on felony riot charges after they lit fireworks inside the Minnesota State Capitol and fled, police said. About 400 people attended the event, and about 50 people showed up to protest it.
In Nashville, two people were arrested as protesters clashed with Trump supporters at the Tennessee Capitol. In Olympia, Wash., state police said four demonstrators were arrested at a support of Trump rally, KOMO-TV reported. The station reported that the demonstrators are accused of assaulting a police officer.
Near Mar-a-Lago, the Palm Beach Post reported that people on both sides exchanged profanity. Trump's motorcade briefly stopped so he could wave at supporters.
In Ohio, Trump supporter Margaret Howe, 57, of Pataskala, said she increasingly fears civil war.
"We did not want to have something like this happen," she said, adding, "We came out today because Trump deserves to see he still has people for him. It's just all sad."
A group of counter protesters gathered nearby, separated from the rally by police tape. They chanted "No Trump. No KKK. No fascist USA" and held signs with messages like "Your vote was a hate crime."
In other parts of the country, rallies were relatively peaceful.
In northwestern Pennsylvania, the Erie Times-News reported that about 100 people gathered at a square in downtown Erie for a similar demonstration. "We've got to get the whole country united behind this man," said Richard Brozell, 75, who along with his wife braved the mid-20s temperatures and stiff wind chill to attend
In Augusta, Maine, more than 100 people turned out for the event that was supposed to last three hours, but ended early because of freezing temperatures.
In Miami, supporters continued a rally while sipping espressos outside a Cuban restaurant, the Miami Herald reported.
At a North Carolina rally, speakers said the dishonest media and left wing politicians were bordering on sedition in their opposition to the Republican president. Some men were seen walking through the Raleigh crowd carrying a Trump flag as well as a Confederate flag. Gathered just behind the rally was a handful of protesters, some of whom blew air horns in an attempt to disrupt the event.
In Indianapolis, about 30 Trump supporters rallied at the Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis to denounce what they see as unfair treatment of the Republican. A local organizer, 61-year-old Patty Collins, of Indianapolis, said Trump's critics "aren't giving him a chance."
Trump supporters turned out Saturday in Phoenix. Media outlets reported that several hundred people participated in the Phoenix event held on a lawn at the State Capitol.
In Texas, Austin police say about 300 people rallied in support of Trump in a gathering outside the Capitol during rain. Organizer Jennifer Drabbant said there have been so many protests against Trump that she and others wanted to show there are people who support him.
Scores of people have rallied in Virginia Beach, Virginia, in a show of support for Trump. The Virginian-Pilot reports around 200 Trump backers showed up Saturday for the event at a park. Some held American flags and others wore "Make America Great Again" hats and Trump T-shirts.
In Lansing, Michigan, about 200 Trump supporters rallied on one side of the state Capitol while 100 critics gathered on another side.
"Agree with President Trump or not, he is our president, and I think what I see happening in D.C. and with the Democrats — it can't stand," said Gary Taylor, 60.

Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company April 24, 2015

Amy Davidson is a New Yorker staff writer.

1. Was there a quid pro quo? Based on the Times reporting, there was certainly a lot of quid (millions in donations that made it to a Clinton charity; a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee) and multiple quos (American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very “generous” price for Uranium One). The Clinton perspective is that, although the approvals were delivered by the State Department when Clinton led it, there is no evidence that she personally delivered them, or of the “pro” in the equation. The Clinton campaign, in its response to the Times, noted that other agencies also had a voice in the approval process, and gave the Times a statement from someone on the approvals committee saying that Clinton hadn’t “intervened.” The Clinton spokesman wouldn’t comment on whether Clinton was briefed about the matter. She was cc’d on a cable that mentioned the request for diplomatic help, but if there is a note in which she follows up with a directive—an e-mail, say—the Times doesn’t seem to have it.

This speaks to some larger questions about political corruption. How do you prove it? Maybe the uranium people simply cared deeply about the undeniably good work the foundation is doing, and would have received the help and approvals anyway. In cases like this, though, how does the public maintain its trust? Doing so becomes harder when the money is less visible, which leads to the second question:

2. Did the Clintons meet their disclosure requirements? The Times writes, of the $2.35 million from Telfer’s family foundation, “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” This is one of the more striking details in the story, because it seems so clear-cut that the donation ought to have been disclosed. Moreover, the Times says that the foundation did not explain the lapse. I also asked the foundation to explain its reasoning. The picture one is left with is convoluted and, in the end, more troubling than if the lapse had been a simple oversight. The legalisms can be confusing, so bear with me:

 the Clinton Foundation has several components, including the Clinton Global Initiative and—this is the key one—the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, formerly known as the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear that the donor-disclosure requirement applies to each part of the foundation.

Craig Minassian, a Clinton Foundation spokesman, pointed out, though, that there are two legally separate but almost identically named entities: the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada). The second one is a Canadian charitable vehicle that Giustra set up—doing it this way helps Canadian donors get tax benefits. It also, to the foundation’s mind, obliterates the disclosure requirements. (There are also limits on what a Canadian charity is allowed to disclose.) Minassian added, “As complex as they may seem, these programs were set up to do philanthropic work with maximum impact, period. Critics will say what they want, but that doesn’t change the facts that these social enterprise programs are addressing poverty alleviation and other global challenges in innovative ways.” Minassian compared the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) to entirely independent nonprofits, like AmFAR or Malaria no More, which have their own donors and then give money to the foundation’s work.

This does not make a lot of sense unless you have an instinct for the most legalistic of legalisms. Unlike AmFAR, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) has the Clinton name on it. Money given to the Canadian entity goes exclusively to the foundation. Per an agency agreement, all of its work is done by the foundation, too. The Web site that has the C.G.E.P. name on it also has the Clinton Foundation logo and Bill Clinton’s picture; it also has a copyright notice naming the Canadian entity as the site’s owner. Anyone visiting the site would be justifiably confused. They are, in other words, effectively intermingled.

And what would it mean if the Canadian explanation flew—that the Clintons could allow a foreign businessman to set up a foreign charity, bearing their name, through which people in other countries could make secret multi-million-dollar donations to their charity’s work? That structural opacity calls the Clintons’ claims about disclosure into question. If the memorandum of understanding indeed allowed for that, it was not as strong a document as the public was led to believe—it is precisely the sort of entanglement one would want to know about. (In that way, the Canadian charity presents some of the same transparency issues as a super PAC.) At the very least, it is a reckless use of the Clinton name, allowing others to trade on it.

3. Did the Clintons personally profit? In most stories about dubious foundation donors, the retort from Clinton supporters is that the only beneficiaries have been the world’s poorest people. This ignores the way vanity and influence are their own currencies—but it is an argument, and the foundation does some truly great work. In this case, though, Bill Clinton also accepted a five-hundred-thousand-dollar speaking fee for an event in Moscow, paid for by a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin. That was in June, 2010, the Times reports, “the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One”—a deal that the Russian bank was promoting and thus could profit from. Did Bill Clinton do anything to help after taking their money? The Times doesn’t know. But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? In a separate story, breaking down some of the hundred million dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has collected, the Washington Post notes, “The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president.”

4. Putting aside who got rich, did this series of uranium deals damage or compromise national security? That this is even a question is one reason the story is, so to speak, radioactive. According to the Times, “the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Pravda has said that it makes Russia stronger. What that means, practically, is something that will probably be debated as the election proceeds.

5. Is this cherry-picking or low-hanging fruit? Put another way, how many more stories about the Clintons and money will there be before we make it to November, 2016? The optimistic view, if you support Hillary Clinton or are simply depressed by meretriciousness, is that the Times reporters combed the Schweizer book and that this story was the worst they found. The pessimistic view is that it was an obvious one to start with, for all the reasons above, and that some names that stand out less than Uranium One and ARMZ will lead to other stories. Are the Clintons correct in saying that there is an attack machine geared up to go after them? Of course. But why have they made it so easy?

Trump expected to sign new travel ban into US by early next week

The Report Card: Grading week six of Trump administration

President Trump is expected to sign a revised executive order early next week banning travel from several Middle Eastern and African counties, the president’s latest effort to prevent radical Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil.
A senior administration official confirmed with Fox News on Saturday that Trump’s new executive order could come as early as Monday or Tuesday.
Trump was elected in November in large part on a national security platform that included stronger U.S. borders and putting an end to ISIS and other radical Islamic terror groups.
One of his first official acts after taking office in late-January was to sign executive orders that temporarily halted the U.S. refugee program and travel from seven mostly-Muslim, Middle Eastern and African countries.
The orders have been held up in a federal appeals court since early-February, with Trump weighing his options but making clear as recently as last week that he fully intends to fulfill his campaign pledge.
“The vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country,” Trump said during his address Tuesday night to a joint session of Congress.
“It is not compassionate, but reckless to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur,” he said.  “We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America. And we cannot allow our nation to become a sanctuary for extremists … That is why my administration has been working on improved vetting procedures, and we will shortly take new steps to keep our nation safe.”
The federal appeals court temporarily blocked parts of Trump’s executive orders and halted the travel ban, then denied the administration’s request to immediately lift the ban. Critics of the ban argue it was hastily crafted with parts lacking adequate constitutional authority.
To be sure, uncertainty about the status of green card holders caused confusion and sparked major protests at international airports across the country on the Saturday after Trump signed the executive order, which was followed by administration officials promptly issuing guidance on legal permanent U.S. residents, or green card holders, to exempt them from the ban.

Trump reportedly puts possible Russia deal on hold, citing recent provocations

GOP attorneys general file suit against Trump administration

President Trump is reportedly telling advisers he might temporarily shelve a plan to pursue a deal with Russia on how to handle the Islamic State as well as other national security matters.
Administration officials and Western diplomats told the Associated Press on Saturday that Trump and his aides have ascribed the new thinking to Moscow’s recent provocations, including deploying a cruise-missile which violates a Cold War-era arms control treaty.
Trump has been pressured by members of his Cabinet, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and new national security adviser H.R. McMaster, and European allies to not give concessions to Russia.
In his first meeting with the National Security Council staff, McMaster described Russia – as well as China – as a country that wants to upend the current world order, an administration official told AP.
THE WEEK IN PICTURES
European officials have tailored their rhetoric to appeal to Trump's business background, including emphasizing the risks of negotiating a bad deal, rather than more nuanced arguments to bolster their case about Moscow and Russia’s intentions, according to one Western diplomat.
Trump reportedly sent letter to Eastern European leaders, who worry Russia might set its sights on their borders next, underscoring his commitment to their security.
Your support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is important for our shared goal of enhancing European and regional security," Trump wrote to the Estonian president in a letter dated Feb. 15 and obtained by The Associated Press.
Michael McFaul, who served as President Barack Obama's ambassador to Russia, said that while Trump has been open about wanting warmer relations with Russia, "he hasn't picked people to the best of my knowledge at senior levels that share that view."
Trump, who spoke favorable of Russian President Vladimir Putin during his campaign, is said to have shown interest in a broad deal with Russia that could address cooperating in fighting the Islamic State, nuclear arms control agreements and Russia’s provocations in Ukraine.
In recent days, however, the tone has been different. The administration has signaled that the oment for such a deal may not be right as long as the FBI investigates Trump’s campaign associates’ possible connections to Moscow and congressional committees step up their inquiries into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.
A White House official said Russia’s violation of the Cold War-era treaty has taken a toll on Trump and has altered his view on relations with Russia. The official said that Trump believes the violation is making a diplomatic and security agreement with Russia “tougher and tougher to achieve.”
Trump has been trailed by questions about his possible ties to Russia for months. He's taken an unusually friendly posture toward Russia, praising Putin's leadership and, at times, appearing to echo Kremlin positions on Ukraine and other matters.
He's also repeatedly said that it would be better for the U.S. and Russia to have a stronger relationship, particularly in fighting terrorism.
Trump has insisted that he has no nefarious connections or financial ties to Russia. He's also said he's not aware of any contacts his campaign advisers had with Russia during the 2016 campaign, a period in which U.S. intelligence agencies assess Russia was interfering with the election to help Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Still, the suggestions of wrongdoing have followed Trump to the White House, in part because of his own team's missteps. Flynn was fired for misleading Vice President Pence and other top White House officials about the nature of his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, even as the FBI was interviewing Flynn about those contacts.