At least he's not booking it in Mexico like the Democrats do!
Attorney General Bill Barr has booked
a 200-person holiday party, complete with a four-hour open bar and
buffet, at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., for Dec. 8
-- and though he's using his own money, the move is raising ethics
concerns among some observers.
The Barr "Family Holiday Party" is
expected to generate roughly $30,000 in revenue for the hotel, at a rate
of some $135 per person plus $4,500 to rent the hotel's Presidential
Ballroom, according to The Washington Post. The Post first reported on the arrangement on Tuesday.
Fox
News later confirmed the details of Barr's contract with the Trump D.C.
hotel. The shindig is not an official Justice Department event.
A
DOJ official told Fox News that Barr initially booked the party at The
Willard nearby, but the hotel later backed out because it had
double-booked.
An administration source separately told The Post that the nearby Mayflower hotel was likewise unavailable.
The Trump International Hotel is slated to host the attorney
general's holiday party on Dec. 8. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post
via Getty Images, File)
"Career ethics officials were consulted and they
determined that ethics rules did not prohibit him from hosting his
annual party at the Trump hotel," the DOJ official told The Post.
Liz
Hempowicz, the director of public policy at the nonprofit Project on
Government Oversight, said in an interview with the paper that the
contract was bothersome, if not technically a violation of ethics rules.
"It
creates the appearance that high-level political appointees or allies
of the president may feel like they need to spend money at the
president’s businesses as a show of loyalty, and that is something that
makes me deeply uncomfortable and should make taxpayers deeply
uncomfortable," Hempowicz said.
Barr has become a target
for congressional Democrats, many of whom have said he sought to play
down former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's conclusions from a
long-running probe of Russian election meddling and hasn't provided
other records. House Democrats also voted to hold Barr in criminal contempt this past July
for allegedly stonewalling their efforts to investigate why the Trump
administration sought to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Republicans
have pointed out that Barr has released virtually all of Mueller's
report, save for some legally mandated redactions, and have slammed the
census probe as "political theater" given the ongoing negotiations
between Democrats and the DOJ over the document productions.
News
of Barr's impending holiday bash came as Democrats' legal challenges
against Trump's business interests have hit a major snag. Last week, a
federal court judge ruled that
Trump could challenge congressional Democrats' Emoluments
Clause lawsuit against him immediately, saying the litigation raised the
"unsettled" constitutional question of whether politicians had standing
to sue a sitting president for running businesses catering to
international clients.
The entrance to the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
(AP, File)
Judge Emmet Sullivan, whom
President Bill Clinton appointed, ruled this summer that the 200
congressional Democrats did have the legal standing to sue Trump.
But the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to Sullivan and
instructed him to reconsider the unprecedented separation-of-powers
implications of the case.
On further review, Sullivan, whom then-President Ronald Reagan had appointed to his first judgeship, rejected the Democrats' request to pursue discovery, including financial documents, from dozens of Trump's businesses.
Democrats
also requested an immediate injunction barring Trump from making money
on his international businesses, even as they acknowledged that the
Trump Organization has already established a “voluntary procedure by
which [it] identifies and donates to the U.S. Treasury profits from
foreign government patronage at its hotels and similar businesses."
Instead,
Sullivan allowed Trump the rare opportunity to pursue a so-called
interlocutory, or mid-case, appeal, given the "substantial ground for
difference of opinion" on whether the Democrats could sue the president
on Emoluments Clause grounds.
A federal appeals court, earlier
this year, dismissed a similar Emoluments Clause lawsuit filed against
Trump by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia.
"I
got sued on a thing called emoluments. Emoluments. You ever hear of the
word? Nobody ever heard of it before," Trump said at an event
in Pennsylvania earlier this month.
"What
it is, is presidential harassment, because this thing is costing me a
fortune, and I love it," Trump went on. "I love it because I’m making
the lives of other people much, much better." Fox News' Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
The United States Senate is the only institution in the world which would wait two hours and 17 minutes to do something which lasts 32 seconds.
The Senate was supposed to meet in a brief “pro forma” session at 10 Tuesday morning. Sen. Marco Rubio
(R-FL) was scheduled to be the only senator present, perfunctorily
gaveling the Senate to order and then gaveling out a few minutes later.
But
Rubio was delayed. Only Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and
a few other Senate staffers milled about the chamber for the ensuing
swatch of time, waiting dutifully for Florida’s senior senator to
arrive.
Rubio finally materialized at 12:17 pm. He took his seat
on the dais, received brief instructions from MacDonough and then
clasped the hourglass-shaped ivory gavel. Rubio rapped the gavel once on
the dais.
“The Senate will come to order and the clerk will read a communication to the Senate,” said Rubio.
A
Senate clerk then announced that the Senate had in fact designated
Rubio “under Rule I, Paragraph 3” to preside over the Senate Tuesday in
his capacity as “a senator from the state of Florida.”
The clerk’s boilerplate proclamation about Rubio took more time than anything Rubio said.
“So under the previous order, the Senate stands adjourned until 5 pm on Friday, August 30th, 2019,” said Rubio.
The
Florida Republican thumped the gavel again and the Senate concluded its
day – two hours, 16 minutes and 28 seconds later than everyone thought
Tuesday.
The House has been on the “August recess”
since late July. The Senate started its recess a few days later earlier
this month. Neither body is slated to return to a bona fide session
until September 9. Yet, at least one lawmaker of the majority party has
shown up at three-day intervals to perform this quick “gavel in, gavel
out” exercise, which consumes about a half a minute in the Senate and
only three or four minutes in the House.
There’s a reason why the
House and Senate engage in this parliamentary dance during lengthy
respites like August, in the spring, Thanksgiving, Christmas and around
other holidays.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution requires
the House and Senate to meet every three days unless they have “Consent
of the other” to not get together. If the House and Senate don’t want
to convene every three days, both must approve what’s called an
“adjournment resolution.” If the House and Senate okay the adjournment
resolution, that’s it. Congress could be gone for weeks at a time
without anyone showing up to hit the gavel.
It’s de rigueur these
days for the House and Senate to eschew an adjournment resolution.
Here’s why: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the
President the “Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the
Recess of the Senate.” In other words, if the House and Senate were
truly out of session for a prolonged period of time, President Trump
could bypass the Senate’s confirmation process on everything from judges
to cabinet officials to ambassadors. Those figures would then take
office without the Senate’s “advice and consent.”
Democrats
control the House now. So, as a defensive move, House Democrats won’t
let the Senate adjourn for more than three days and refuses to approve
an adjournment resolution. House Republicans took the same approach with
President Obama when the GOP was in the majority some years ago.
That
compels the House and Senate to huddle in these abridged meetings.
After all, “pro forma” is Latin for “a matter of form.” The sessions look like regular get-togethers of the House and Senate. But they’re really not.
That
said, it’s not unheard of for the House or Senate to actually conduct
some legislative business during what at one point was designed to be a
pro forma session. Such was the case earlier this year when the House
attempted on three separate occasions to approve a disaster aid bill
with just a skeleton staff on hand. The Senate had already passed the
plan. The House just needed to sync up. But Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX),
Thomas Massie (R-KY) and John Rose (R-TN) surfaced on different days to
singularly block the efforts.
Marco Rubio isn’t the only lawmaker
to find themselves running behind to preside. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
showed up 18 minutes late to do the honors for 34 seconds during an
August 2017 pro forma confab. Paul was stuck in traffic. Sen. Mike Lee
(R-UT) also had trouble getting to Washington for a pro forma session in
2016 following the Republican convention. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) stood
in for Lee.
Former Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) never made it to a
2008 pro forma session. The Senate allowed then-Secretary of the Senate
Nancy Erickson to preside without a senator present. Fox is told that
was an error. Such a figure like the Secretary of Senate might
be permitted to preside, provided the Vice President or the President
Pro Tempore of the Senate aren’t available. Vice President Pence is
President of the Senate. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is the President Pro
Tempore, the most senior member of the majority party.
Pro forma sessions sometimes give lawmakers a chance to score some press on important issues of the day.
There was wonder on Capitol Hill if House Democrats may
try to do something around the House’s first pro forma session
scheduled this month after the massacres in El Paso and Dayton. Rep.
John Sarbanes (D-MD) was the lone Democrat to preside over the conclave.
Sarbanes went through the standard patter of the pro forma session but
made no mention of the shootings. Sarbanes did not address a small
contingent of reporters afterward in the hall. Yet that night, the
office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent around a press release
from the Congressman’s office. The statement proclaimed “Sarbanes Leads
Call for Gun Safety Reform.” The release went on to say that “After
Presiding Over the U.S. House of Representatives as Speaker Pro Tempore,
Congressman Sarbanes Urged Majority Leader McConnell to Pass Bipartisan
Gun Safety Measures.”
But,
the Sarbanes statement was as “pro forma” as the session earlier in the
day. The Congressman made no reference to the shootings from the dais
and never spoke to reporters afterward.
So the pro forma sessions
will continue. Just not this August and September – but likely into the
future. And, they usually happen on time.
President Trump slammed New York Times columnist Bret Stephens on Tuesday night, suggesting he's "loaded up" with bedbugs — not his properties.
After the president floated the idea of hosting next year's G-7 summit at his Doral resort outside
of Miami, Fla., a report resurfaced that this resort had settled a
lawsuit in 2017 after a New Jersey man named Eric Linder alleged he woke
up one morning at Trump's property with bites all over his body.
Trump denied of having any bedbugs at his resort Tuesday morning, blaming "Radical Left Democrats" for spreading "nasty rumors."
However,
the president took the opportunity on Tuesday night to repeat his
denial about the alleged bedbug problem and hit one of his outspoken
critics from the Times.
"A
made up Radical Left Story about Doral bedbugs, but Bret Stephens is
loaded up with them!" Trump tweeted. "Been calling me wrong for years,
along with the few remaining Never Trumpers - All Losers!"
The op-ed columnist had been widely mocked after he responded to a Twitter user who jokingly referred to him as a bed bug in reaction to reports of a pest infestation at the Times newsroom.
"The
bedbugs are a metaphor. The bedbugs are Bret Stephens," George
Washington University associate professor Dave Karpf quipped.
This
tweet apparently angered Stephens enough for him to email both Karpf
and the GWU provost, which Karpf shared on Twitter Monday night.
"Someone
just pointed out a tweet you wrote about me, calling me a 'bedbug,'"
Stephens began the email. "I'm often amazed about the things supposedly
decent people are prepared to say about other people – people they've
never met – on Twitter. I think you've set a new standard."
The Times columnist went on to invite Karpf to his home, meet his wife and children, and then "call me 'bedbug' to my face."
"That
would take some genuine courage and intellectual integrity on your
part," Stephens told the college professor. "I promise to be courteous
no matter what you have to say. Maybe it will make you feel better about
yourself."
Stephens has since deactivated his Twitter account.
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:35 PM PT — Monday, August 26, 2019
A deal struck by international leaders at the G7 summit to develop a
$20 million Amazon fund is met with lackluster support from Brazil.
Shortly after French President Emmanuel Macron outlined the plan Monday,
his Brazilian counterpart accused him of treating the country like a
“colony.”
President Jair Bolsonaro, who’s been locked in a public dispute with
Macron, said any joint plan about the region’s future should be made by
the countries directly affected in order to protect their “sovereignty
and natural wealth.”
“Do you think someone helps someone else to not be poor without
something in return?” questioned the Brazilian leader. “Why do they have
their eye on the Amazon, what do they want there?”
While Bolsonaro did not immediately clarify if he would cooperate
with the plan, his environmental minister said the funding is “welcome.”
A large amount of that money will go toward firefighting planes and
military support on the ground.
French
President Emmanuel Macron, right, and Chile’s President Sebastian
Pinera attend a joint press conference that focused on climate during
the G7 summit Monday, Aug. 26, 2019 in Biarritz. G-7 countries have
agreed to an immediate $20 million fund to help Amazon countries fight
wildfires. (AP Photo/Francois Mori, Pool)
“We think that we have to protect these real lungs of our world (the
Amazon rainforest), and that’s why I’m very happy that we have been able
to reach an agreement and go in support of those countries
immediately,” stated Chilean President Sebastian Pinera.
While President Trump was unable to make the meeting in person due to
a scheduling issue, Macron said the U.S. is completely on board with
the Amazon deal.
“We had a discussion with President Trump, a long and very positive
one, about the situation in the Amazon,” said Macron. “He shares the
objectives that we are following and that have been reflected in this G7
summit initiative, so that is the first point.”
The second part of the agreement calls for a long-term plan for
reforestation that would replenish biodiversity in areas destroyed by
the fires. If the framework proves successful, the leaders expressed
interest in applying it to Africa’s rainforests, which are also under
threat from fires.
Firefighters
work to put out fires in the Vila Nova Samuel region, along the road to
the National Forest of Jacunda, near to the city of Porto Velho,
Rondonia state, part of Brazil’s Amazon, Sunday, Aug. 25, 2019. Leaders
of the Group of Seven nations said Sunday they were preparing to help
Brazil fight the fires burning across the Amazon rainforest and repair
the damage even as tens of thousands of soldiers were being deployed to
fight the blazes that have caused global alarm. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)
In
the summer of 2019, Fox News embarked on an ambitious project to
chronicle the toll progressive policies has had on the homeless crisis
in four west coast cities: Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and
Portland, Ore. In each city, we saw a lack of safety, sanitation, and
civility. Residents, the homeless and advocates say they've lost faith
in their elected officials' ability to solve the issue. Most of the
cities have thrown hundreds of millions of dollars at the problem only
to watch it get worse. This is what we saw in San Francisco.
San Francisco,
a city described in song for its natural beauty, is descending into an
abyss of homelessness, the use of sidewalks as toilets and a place you
might not want to visit, much less live.
The latest, but surely
not the last demonstration of insanity, is San Francisco’s Board of
Supervisors' adoption of new “person first” language guidelines meant to
“change the public’s perception of criminals.”
The words “convicted felon,” “offender,” “convict,” “addict” and
“juvenile delinquent” are out. These individuals will henceforth be
referred to as a “justice-involved person.” Someone previously called a
“criminal” will now be referred to as “a returning resident,” or “a
formerly incarcerated person.”
Supervisor Matt Haney told the San Francisco Chronicle
the intent is to keep people from being “forever labeled for the worst
things that they have done. We want them, ultimately to become
contributing citizens, and referring to them as felons is like a scarlet
letter that they can never get away from.”
A
noble objective, to be sure, but language has — or used to have — a
purpose beyond interpersonal communication. Like so much else today,
language has now been appropriated to advance political agendas.
The
encroachment of euphemisms on common sense is everywhere. Illegal
immigrants have become “undocumented workers.” Babies in the womb lose
their humanity when they are labeled “fetuses.”
Euphemisms
are most used to hide a more accurate description of behavior or status
in order to avoid conflict, or not injure someone who might be offended
or hurt. It fails to communicate anything meaningful, while claiming to
do so. George Orwell called it “Newspeak,” or “doublespeak.”
Too
often, euphemisms are used to make bad behavior appear good, or at
least tolerable, and to allow one to avoid responsibility and
accountability. They are interpreted according to one’s personal wishes.
As Humpty Dumpty told Alice in the Lewis Carroll classic: “When I use a
word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
The
English language once conveyed meaning. Properly written and spoken, it
suggested one was educated and capable of conversing in polite company.
Today, it is often used to cover up true intentions. Consider how often
“racism” is misapplied.
The proper use of language can also be
redemptive. That used to be a major goal, along with punishment, of
penitentiaries — the word being derived from “penitent,” suggesting the
possibility of changing one’s life after admitting wrongdoing and
repenting so as not to repeat bad behavior. Is anything “bad” today, or
has that also become subjective?
In our muddled language and
culture, one dare not suggest anyone has done anything wrong lest
negative labels be attached to them. Such labels are unevenly applied.
The political left often retains them to attack the right, but should
the right seek to use words that accurately describe the conduct or
status of another they are condemned as old-fashioned, rigid,
judgmental, or worse.
“Wardrobe malfunction,” has been a recent favorite, a euphemism for showing off what were once considered “private” body parts.
If
you are unemployed, you are “between jobs” or a “consultant.”
“Underserved community” means the politicians aren’t getting all the
money they want. A corollary: you are no longer poor, you are
“economically disadvantaged.” The list is endless.
Instead
of applying euphemisms, San Francisco should be seeing to the homeless
("previously housed individuals"?) and the filthy streets that now
require maps so people can avoid stepping in human waste.
Tony Bennett may have left his heart in San Francisco, but the city seems to have lost its mind there too.
The owner of a San Francisco restaurant famous for hosting politicians claimed Sen. Bernie Sanders lost his vote in the 2020 presidential election after the Vermont Democrat was “rude and cranky” to his servers, a report said.
John Konstin, who owns the 111-year-old John’s Grill, told Politico many Democrats
dined at his bistro while the Democratic National Committee was in town
for a three-day event over the weekend. Sanders arrived for dinner
with about 15 members of his campaign team and was not nice to any of
the staff and didn’t want to shake hands or have his picture taken, he
added.
“It was all very nice, except for cranky Bernie,” Konstin told Politico. "I think he was just hungry and didn't want to be a politician. He lost my vote."
Sanders’
campaign did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News. Lee
Housekeeper, the media contact for John's Grill, told SFGATE.com that
it’s uncharacteristic for Konstin to speak ill of his restaurant
patrons.
"Bernie had to be in a terrible mood," Housekeeper said.
"Anyone in the public eye needs to understand when it's time to order
room service."
Konstin told Politico that staff waiting on other
Democrats, including one large party with the Secretary of State of
California Alex Padilla, Lieutenant Governor of California Eleni
Kounalakis, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had a more pleasant
experience. He described Pelosi as “pure class.”
John's Grill opened its doors in 1908 and was famously featured in Dashiell Hammett's 1930 noir film "The Maltese Falcon," SFGATE.com reported.
The restaurant is popular among politicos and has pictures of
politicians who’ve visited the establishment hanging on its wooden
walls.
Thirteen
presidential candidates attended the DNC meeting in San Francisco over
the weekend. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., dined out with her staff at
San Francisco’s Ayala restaurant in the Union Square Hotel when she
visited the city in June, SFGate.com reported.
"She was
absolutely wonderful and came into our kitchen," Ayala General Manager
Alexandra Loulias told the website. "So complimentary of our staff. She
took individual photos with everyone. Just the nicest lady."
Michelle
and Barack Obama’s bid to purchase a nearly $15-million dollar property
appears to have been accepted. The Martha’s Vineyard estate sits close
to a beach, has two guest wings, seven guest rooms, and measures out to
be 6,900 square feet. They’ve rented the property over the summer and
now seem ready to make it their own.
Former President Obama
and the former first lady have reportedly made a bid of approximately
$15 million on a home in Martha’s Vineyard. The 7,000 square-foot house
comes with 29 acres and would likely be a summer home. The family is
known to have spent quite a bit of time on the island over past summers.
Unlike President Trump,
who earned his money before taking office, the Obamas have benefited
handsomely from their time in the White House. President Obama only
earned the standard $400,000 salary when he was in office, but after
leaving, he and his wife Michelle acquired a joint book deal worth $65
million, high-priced speaking engagements and a deal with Netflix. Now
they are rolling in dough.
As a capitalist,
I am all in favor of people making as much money as they want and
spending it how they please. However, this lavish new abode is quite a
statement in hypocrisy from the former president, who spent his
presidency demonizing everyone else's success.
From
telling small-business owners they “didn’t build that” to the 2018
speech in which he said, "There’s only so much you can eat. There’s only
so big a house you can have. There’s only so many nice trips you can
take. I mean, it’s enough," the former president has spent his life
spreading messages that disparage success.
As many of my Twitter
followers have pointed out, he must not believe in the climate change
his Democratic peers are pushing. If he did, he would believe his $15
million investment on the small island will be underwater — quite
literally — in just over a decade.
Politicians need to
stop saying one thing while doing another. Living in a fancy house is
admirable, but living in a glass house is contemptible.
The
spending is perfectly aligned with the hypocrisy and envy that
continues to permeate the Democratic party. Whether it is Sen. Bernie
Sanders, I-Vt., with his multi-million dollar net worth and three homes
or Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who earned well into the six-figures
teaching at Ivy League institutions, their definition of “too rich”
seems to be one dollar more than whatever they happen to be worth at a
given point in time.
Therein
lies the rub. Too many in Democratic leadership peddle the politics of
envy and victimhood to grab power, wealth and success for themselves.
They indulge their followers in the lie that someone getting wealthy
comes at someone else’s expense. While this is offensive, it is made
worse by the fact that they do it specifically for their own gain,
making the political class more powerful and the government more bloated
all while damaging the concept of the American Dream.
I don’t
begrudge the Obamas for getting a nice house — even though they "didn’t
build that." But politicians need to stop saying one thing while doing
another. Living in a fancy house is admirable, but living in a glass
house is contemptible.
The Trump International Hotel is slated to host the attorney
general's holiday party on Dec. 8. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post
via Getty Images, File)
The entrance to the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
(AP, File)
