“YOU and every other law-abiding gun owner is being blamed for an atrocious act of premeditated murder,” Marion Hammer, an NRA and Unified Sportsmen of Florida lobbyist, wrote in an alert Tuesday. “Neither the 3-day waiting period on all rifles and shotguns, raising the age from 18 to 21 to buy any firearm, or the bump stock ban will have any effect on crime. Despite that fact, Senate leaders rammed through gun control as part of the bill.”
Category Archives: United Airline News
Trump wore all the hats in decision to meet with North Korean leader
WASHINGTON — Over the past six weeks, the Trump administration’s roster of Korean experts, already depleted, grew even thinner. The White House mysteriously dropped its choice for ambassador to Seoul. The State Department’s top North Korea specialist resigned. And the senior Asia director at the National Security Council was out the past two weeks on paternity leave.
But when a high-level South Korean delegation arrived at the White House on Thursday afternoon for two days of meetings over the North Korea threat, one person swooped in to fill the vacuum: President Trump.
In a stunning turn of events, Trump personally intervened into a security briefing intended for his top deputies, inviting the South Korean officials into the Oval Office where he agreed on the spot to a historic but exceedingly risky summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. He then orchestrated a dramatic public announcement on the driveway outside the West Wing broadcast live on cable networks.
The news shocked Washington, Seoul and everywhere in between. But inside the White House, the president – whose exchange of taunts and threats with Kim had set northeast Asia on edge over a potential military confrontation for months – was said to be reveling in his big reveal, which overshadowed the growing scandal surrounding his alleged affair with a pornographic film star and concerns with tariffs he announced earlier in the day.
AN ENORMOUS GAMBLE
Trump’s personal involvement in the White House’s deliberations over the world’s most serious and vexing security situation has now placed a president who considers himself a master dealmaker into the most fraught faceoff of his 71 years. A breakthrough that would reduce Pyongyang’s nuclear threat would be a legacy-defining achievement. A stalemate that gives Kim a photo op for nothing in return could fracture U.S. alliances and be seen as a devastating embarrassment.
But what the whirlwind evening at the White House also illustrated was that in his unorthodox presidency, which centers so singularly on his force of personality, Trump has little worry about a dearth of qualified staff because he considers himself to be his own diplomat, negotiator and strategist.
“The president is the ultimate negotiator and dealmaker when it comes to any type of conversation,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. “And we feel very confident in where we are.”
The question is, where exactly is the Trump White House – and how did it get there?
The answer wasn’t clear Friday as Trump aides struggled to explain whether concrete steps from Pyongyang toward denuclearization were a precondition ahead of the summit, what the agenda of the talks will encompass and how a president known to disdain dense briefing books intends to prepare for an adversary that U.S. intelligence officials don’t know much about.
In fact, it was not the details of the planning process but rather Trump’s impulsive, improvisational style that was the biggest selling point as top aides fanned out to explain why the president had taken this enormous gamble. Asked why the administration did not engage in lower-level talks with the North to build out preconditions and an agenda for a leaders-level summit, one senior aide offered that Trump “was elected in part because he is willing to take approaches very, very different from past approaches and past presidents.”
Across Washington, foreign policy experts tried to make sense of the news, with many betting that the talks would not happen after the Trump team heard negative feedback from Tokyo, conservatives in Seoul opposed to President Moon Jae-in’s liberal government and some in Congress who fear the move is too rash.
JAPANESE BLINDSIDED
The Japanese, who have been wary of offering Kim a propaganda platform, were blindsided by the news. Diplomats at the Japanese embassy in Washington, gathered for a goodbye party for Ambassador Kenichiro Sasae on Thursday evening, scrambled to react when the news broke.
Trump hastily called Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and invited him to visit the White House in April to confer before the summit with Kim, which officials said would be held in May.
“Nobody thinks the North Koreans are serious in Japan,” said Michael Green, the NSC’s Asia director under President George W. Bush, who is meeting with officials in Tokyo this week. “Given how he blindsided the entire national security team … I would bet this does not happen.”
The South Koreans, who have fretted over Trump’s saber-rattling over the past several months, landed at Dulles International Airport midmorning Thursday. Perhaps battling jet lag after the 13-hour flight, they arrived at the White House in early afternoon for what they thought was the warmup act: a meeting with Trump’s top aides, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats.
‘AN ART OF A TEASER’
Led by South Korea’s national security adviser, Chung Eui-yong, the delegation’s aim was to debrief Trump’s team on the four-hour meeting Chung held with Kim in Pyongyang shortly after the Olympics, which had provided the two Koreas a chance to reopen a long-dormant diplomatic dialogue.
But what was supposed to be an hourlong briefing took an unexpected turn when Trump himself intervened midway through. The Koreans had been scheduled to see Trump on Friday, but the president had gotten wind of the meeting and told aides he wanted to get involved immediately.
In the Oval Office, Chung explained to Trump that he had brought with him a personal invitation from Kim for a meeting – a stunning offer given Kim has not met with any foreign heads of state since assuming control of the North after his father’s death in 2011.
Chung later told associates that he believed the South Koreans had a strong hand to play with Trump. The North Korean leader had agreed that joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which had been delayed during the Olympics, could resume. And Kim pledged that the North would not take provocative actions, including missile tests, ahead of the summit.
The risks of such a meeting, however, were well known on the U.S. side: The North has violated past agreements to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and no sitting American president has met with a North Korea leader over fears of being set up for failure.
Earlier this week, Vice President Mike Pence, who was supposed to meet with North Korean officials during the Olympics to deliver a hard-line warning, vowed that the administration’s “posture toward the regime will not change until we see concrete steps toward denuclearization.” On Thursday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, traveling in Africa, told reporters the administration was “a long ways from negotiations.”
In the Oval Office, some of Trump’s aides raised concerns, according to a person familiar with the discussion. But Trump, seated in an armchair next to Chung, with their aides arrayed on couches, dismissed their fears and “made the decision” on the spot.
Korea experts were dumbstruck by Trump’s impulsiveness.
“He’s much more of a TV personality than business person,” said Christopher Hill, who led the U.S. delegation in the Six-Party talks with the North during the Bush era that produced a weapons freeze that Pyongyang later violated. “This is not the art of a deal here – it’s the an art of a teaser.”
SHOW TIME IN WHITE HOUSE DRIVEWAY
The South Koreans, stunned they had gotten done in 45 minutes what they thought might take weeks, prepared to depart. But a White House aide asked them to stay because Trump, always aware of the production value of such a moment, had an additional request: Would they help draft a statement and read it to the press outside the West Wing?
Over nearly two hours, the two teams collaborated on a brief statement. Meantime, Trump popped his head into the White House briefing room – where he has never made remarks since taking office – and told reporters that the Koreans would be making a “major announcement” at 7 p.m.
A large group of reporters, which had spent most of the day focused on Trump’s morning announcement of new tariffs on steel and aluminum, assembled on the West Wing driveway at the “sticks”– journalist lingo for the bank of television microphones set up in case of impromptu press statements from White House visitors.
Shortly after the hour, with cable networks talking live to reporters in the driveway, a Marine guard opened the doors of the West Wing and Chung emerged, flanked by Suh Hoon, South Korea’s intelligence chief, and Cho Yoon-je, the South Korea ambassador to Washington. It was dark out and the camera lights cast a harsh light onto the officials.
Chung delivered the news in a 245-word statement. He took no questions.
The cable stations turned quickly to their analytical panels. Diplomats lit up international phone lines. And White House aides praised the president for his artful turn from bellicosity to diplomacy.
“That’s a decision the president took himself,” Tillerson said Friday. “This is something that he’s had on his mind for quite some time, so it was not a surprise in any way.”
Gunman and victims identified in deadly standoff at California veterans home
Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.
Anxiety over Stormy Daniels pervasive inside the White House
Washington (CNN)There is pervasive anxiety inside the walls of the White House over the fallout around allegations leveled against President Donald Trump by porn actress Stormy Daniels, multiple sources tell CNN, with some officials worried that the salacious accusations and tangled legal fight could dwarf past controversies.
Obama in Talks to Provide Shows for Netflix
“President and Mrs. Obama have always believed in the power of storytelling to inspire,” Eric Schultz, a senior adviser to the former president, said Thursday. “Throughout their lives, they have lifted up stories of people whose efforts to make a difference are quietly changing the world for the better. As they consider their future personal plans, they continue to explore new ways to help others tell and share their stories.”
In one possible show idea, Mr. Obama could moderate conversations on topics that dominated his presidency — health care, voting rights, immigration, foreign policy, climate change — and that have continued to divide a polarized American electorate during President Trump’s time in office.
Another program could feature Mrs. Obama on topics, like nutrition, that she championed in the White House. The former president and first lady could also lend their brand — and their endorsement — to documentaries or fictional programming on Netflix that align with their beliefs and values.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
It is unclear how much money the Obamas will be paid, given their lack of experience in the media business. Netflix recently signed a five-year, $300 million deal to lure Ryan Murphy away from 21st Century Fox, but Mr. Murphy is among the television industry’s most sought-after producers
The deal is evidence that Mr. Obama, who left the White House when he was just 55 years old, intends to remain engaged in the nation’s civic business, even as he has studiously avoided direct clashes with Mr. Trump about his concerted efforts to roll back Mr. Obama’s legacy. It is also a clear indication that the former president remains interested in the intersection of politics, technology and media.
Several people familiar with the Netflix discussions said that executives from Apple and Amazon, which have their own streaming services, have also expressed interest in talking with Mr. Obama about content deals.
The former president has maintained a low profile since leaving office. He and his wife are each writing highly anticipated memoirs, for which they were reportedly paid more than $60 million. And Mr. Obama has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches in the United States and around the world. The Obamas are rarely seen in public in Washington, where they still live.
Mr. Obama has long expressed concerns about how the flow of information — and misinformation — has the power to shape public opinion. In the last several months, Mr. Obama has discussed with technology executives and wealthy investors the threats to American democracy from the manipulation of news.
He has seethed privately and publicly, about what he says is the manipulation of news by conservative outlets and the fractured delivery of information in the internet age. In several recent public appearances during the last several months, the former president hinted at his frustration with the way conservative news outlets have shaped people’s perceptions about the divisive 2016 campaign and the issues he cares about.
“If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you are listening to NPR,” Mr. Obama told David Letterman in an interview broadcast in January for the comedian’s first Netflix program. Last December, at a forum in New Delhi, Mr. Obama conceded that “If I watch Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me. I would watch it and say, ‘Who is that guy?’”
Evidence began to emerge while Mr. Obama was president that Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube were being used to spread false information about candidates and issues. Social media’s impact on society became even clearer last month, when the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, indicted 13 Russians and three companies that had used social media companies to undermine democracy in the United States and push voters to reject Hillary Clinton.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
As the election came to a close, Mr. Obama told The New Yorker that the new media landscape had made it possible for large swaths of the country to ignore facts. “Everything is true and nothing is true,” he complained. He later personally scolded Facebook’s chief executive for saying it was “crazy” to think the social network influenced the election.
For Netflix, securing the Obama programming is a part of the company’s broader search for original content, as the streaming service competes for viewers with HBO, Apple, Amazon and the traditional broadcast networks. Netflix has said it could spend as much as $8 billion on content this year. It has been paying top dollar for original programs like its hit Stranger Things and the documentary Icarus, which won the Oscar this year for best documentary feature.
It would also be another coup for a company that began by distributing DVDs and is now doing deals with some of the most powerful names in entertainment.
Several of the technology and media worlds’ top executives have been close advisers and donors to Mr. Obama over the years, including John Doerr and Reid Hoffman, the Silicon Valley venture capitalists, and Jeffrey Katzenberg, the entertainment executive.
But Mr. Obama has particularly close ties to Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer. Mr. Sarandos is married to Nicole A. Avant, an activist who served as Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the Bahamas. And Reed Hastings, the chief executive of Netflix, was close to Mr. Obama while he was president and an attendee at state dinners. A spokesman for Netflix declined to comment about any discussions with the former president and his wife.
Some of the biggest media companies on the internet, like BuzzFeed and Vice, have embraced politically-themed programming, even as they have recently seen their growth flatline with shifts in the digital advertising and distribution landscapes. Political news start-ups like the website Axios and the podcast “Pod Save America,” hosted by former Obama officials, have connected with audiences that are eager for scoops, analysis and opinion.
The deal between Netflix and Mr. Obama would be a modern media twist on an approach that former politicians have tried in the past.
Al Gore, the former vice president, created a new cable network after losing the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000. Mr. Gore and Joel Hyatt, a businessman and Democratic activist, purchased a small cable company in 2004, eventually renaming it Current TV and positioning it as an “independent voice” in the political debate.
The network expanded its presence on cable and satellite networks and changed formats several times during the next eight years, at one point providing a home for Keith Olbermann, an outspoken liberal and a former host at MSNBC. In 2013, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt sold their company to the Al Jazeera Media Network, which shut down the Current TV channel.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Mr. Obama’s approach is less of a direct challenge to the existing news establishment. But he is embracing the streaming services that have become a direct threat to the cable and network television infrastructure, especially among younger viewers.
Continue reading the main story
Trump accepts offer to meet Kim Jong Un
Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.
Jeff Sessions Scolds California in Immigration Speech: ‘We Have a Problem’
Mr. Sessions described the state’s so-called sanctuary laws as a radical maneuver that would threaten public safety and throw open the nation’s borders to even more illegal immigration.
Immigration law “is in the books, and its purposes are clear and just. There is no nullification, there is no secession. Federal law is the supreme law of the land,” said Mr. Sessions, one of the administration’s most adamant immigration restrictionists. He accused the state of intentionally using “every power the legislature has to undermine the duly established immigration laws of America.”
The lawsuit, which the Justice Department disclosed on Tuesday in advance of Mr. Sessions’s speech, capped a clash between the Trump administration and California that has lasted more than a year, with each side reaping political profit from the battle. The administration has sought to demonstrate that it will not tolerate noncompliance with federal immigration enforcement; California’s top officials, professed leaders of the anti-Trump resistance, have pushed the state to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as little as possible.
Even as Mr. Sessions spoke, that opposition was making itself heard. Outside the hotel where Mr. Sessions was speaking, several hundred protesters marched, holding signs saying “Go Home Jeff” and “Crush ICE” and chanting, “What do we want? Sessions out!”
Shortly after Mr. Sessions’s speech, Mr. Brown and the state’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, both Democrats, appeared together in the Capitol to denounce the lawsuit.
“California is in the business of public safety,” Mr. Becerra said. “We are not in the business of deportation.”
The suit, filed on Tuesday evening in Federal District Court in Sacramento, is the first Mr. Sessions’s Justice Department has filed against a local or state government over its immigration policies.
It targets three state laws passed in recent months: one that limits state and local agencies’ ability to share information about criminals or suspects with federal immigration officers, unless they have been convicted of serious crimes; a second that prohibits local businesses from allowing ICE to examine employee records without a court order or a subpoena; and a third that gave California officials more oversight over the state’s immigration detention centers.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Mr. Brown and Mr. Becerra defended the legislation as constitutional on Wednesday, saying that the laws prevented neither ICE agents from working in local jails and prisons nor employers from cooperating with ICE. The employee records law, Mr. Becerra said, simply ensures that workers and employers are guaranteed “their rights and their privacy and that those are being respected.”
Asked whether the law would, in effect, require warning undocumented workers to flee ahead of an ICE visit, Mr. Brown compared the provision to the practice of notifying criminal suspects that they have a right to a lawyer. “We are just following the law, and the law allows people to be advised of their rights,” Mr. Brown said. “Anything else smacks of a more totalitarian approach to things.”
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
Mr. Sessions had another comparison in mind.
What if, he asked, a state enacted legislation hampering the work of employees from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency? “Would you pass a law to do that?” he said.
Beyond the specifics of the laws, Mr. Sessions railed about several instances in which he said state officials had frustrated the work of federal law enforcement. He heartily ripped into Libby Schaaf, the Democratic mayor of Oakland, for issuing a warning last week that ICE planned to arrest immigrants across Northern California, an alert that infuriated agency officials who said her tip-off had allowed hundreds of their targets to slip away.
Ms. Schaaf’s actions “support those who flout the law and boldly validates illegality,” Mr. Sessions said, calling her warning “an embarrassment to the proud state of California.”
“So here’s my message to Mayor Schaaf,” he said. “How dare you, how dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open borders agenda?”
Ms. Schaaf said last week that she had not publicized any information that endangered ICE officers. She said she issued the warning because “I know that Oakland is a city of law-abiding immigrants and families who deserve to live free from the constant threat of arrest and deportation.”
Inside the hotel ballroom on Wednesday, Mr. Sessions faced a polite, if somewhat divided, audience.
Some police chiefs and sheriffs in liberal-leaning areas have argued that their agencies must distance themselves from ICE to avoid scaring off immigrant residents who may be more reluctant to serve as witnesses or come forward to report crimes. But there are many other officials across the country who say they would prefer to work with ICE if the legal issues surrounding such cooperation are clarified, and some who are eager to help the federal government outright with immigration enforcement.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Those tensions were palpable at Mr. Sessions’s speech, which was hosted by the California Peace Officers Association, a law enforcement advocacy group. The crowd responded to the speech with brief applause; about 10 of the more than 200 officers in the room stood to clap.
“I’m stuck in the middle,” said Deputy Chief Derek Williams of the police department in Ontario, a midsize city east of Los Angeles with a large Hispanic population. “It’s extremely bifurcated now.”
While the new state laws do not affect his work on a day-to-day basis, he said, the sharp increase in ICE activity has fostered “a lack of trust with law enforcement” among immigrant residents. “It’s a difficult time for us,” he said.
Among those who endorsed Mr. Sessions’s message was Paul R. Curry, a lobbyist for the California Correctional Supervisors Organization, which represents supervisors in the state prison system. He said California police chiefs were often caught between ICE’s requests and the orders of their mayors, who might embrace sanctuary policies.
“Every police officer is sworn to uphold the law not only of the state but the nation,” Mr. Curry said. “The progressive agenda is running afoul of the force of our laws in the country.”
Correction: March 7, 2018
An earlier version of this article misquoted Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s remarks about Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland. He said Ms. Schaaf’s actions to alert residents about a planned immigration raid “support those who flout the law and boldly validates” — not “invalidates” — “illegality.”
Continue reading the main story
Trump Lawyer Obtained Restraining Order to Silence Stormy Daniels
Ms. Clifford filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday asserting that the nondisclosure agreement that accompanied the $130,000 payment was void because Mr. Trump never signed it.
Ms. Sanders said that the president had denied having an affair with Ms. Clifford or making the payment himself. She added that she was not aware of whether Mr. Trump knew about the payment to Ms. Clifford at the time.
“I’ve had conversations with the president about this,” Ms. Sanders said. “This case has already been won in arbitration, and there was no knowledge of any payments from the president, and he has denied all these allegations.”
Lawrence S. Rosen, a lawyer representing Mr. Cohen, said in a statement on Wednesday that an arbitrator, who “found that Ms. Clifford had violated the agreement,” barred her from filing her lawsuit and making other disclosures of confidential information.
Ms. Clifford’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said that he did not consider the restraining order, dated Feb. 27, valid, and that his client would proceed with her lawsuit in open court. “This should be decided publicly,” he said.
Ms. Clifford’s nondisclosure contract, made public through her lawsuit, calls for disagreements to be settled through confidential, binding arbitration. The lawsuit was filed a week after Mr. Cohen initiated arbitration proceedings, but the court papers did not say what was at issue or refer to the restraining order.
The contract gives Mr. Trump the right to seek financial penalties of more than $1 million in arbitration should Ms. Clifford break or threaten to break her agreement to stay silent. It also gives him the right to obtain an injunction barring her from speaking while disputes are considered in arbitration or open court. Those terms prompted Ms. Clifford to change her plans about going public, according to two people familiar with the situation who were not authorized to speak about it.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Ms. Clifford had suggested she was free to speak out after Mr. Cohen disclosed last month that he had arranged the payment, prompting her to claim that the contract had been breached.
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
The restraining order took her by surprise. A close friend of Ms. Clifford’s, J. D. Barrale, said in an interview that she learned Mr. Cohen initiated arbitration proceedings when she landed on a flight from Los Angeles to Texas. “She was shocked,” Mr. Barrale said.
Mr. Avenatti said Ms. Clifford had “never even been provided an opportunity to respond” to Mr. Cohen’s action in arbitration.
A copy of the restraining order, obtained by The Times and first reported by NBC News, left open the possibility that it could be modified in the future. But Mr. Avenatti said he questioned its validity because it was brought on behalf of Mr. Cohen, not Mr. Trump.
Asked if Ms. Clifford would drop her court case if Mr. Cohen provided her with more money, he said she would not. “At this point, we are well beyond that — this is a search for the truth,” he said.
The lawsuit by Ms. Clifford adds weight to allegations in a separate legal complaint brought by Common Cause, a public interest group that has asked the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department to investigate the $130,000 payment by Mr. Cohen. Common Cause argues that the payment amounted to an undeclared in-kind contribution to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.
Federal election law requires contributions and expenditures for a campaign to be promptly disclosed, and prohibits a candidate from dipping into campaign funds to cover personal expenses. There is no evidence that campaign money was used to make the payment.
Common Cause filed a similar complaint about a $150,000 payment made shortly before the election by American Media Inc., owner of The National Enquirer, to Karen McDougal, a former Playboy Playmate who has said she had an affair with a married Mr. Trump about a decade ago. The company dismissed the complaint as meritless.
The Enquirer never published a story about the alleged affair, and Common Cause asserts that if the payment was intended to keep Ms. McDougal quiet, it would be an illegal coordinated expenditure by a company on behalf of the Trump campaign.
Continue reading the main story
Trump Expected To Formally Order Tariffs On Steel, Aluminum Imports
Trains with scrap metal stay in front of the Huettenwerk Krupp Mannesmann GmbH steel mill in Duisburg, Germany. President Trump is expected to order tariffs on aluminum and steel imports as early as Thursday.
Lukas Schulze/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Lukas Schulze/Getty Images
Lukas Schulze/Getty Images
President Trump is expected to sign a formal order imposing steep tariffs on imported steel and aluminum as early as Thursday. It’s the boldest move to date for the president who campaigned on a protectionist platform sharply at odds with Republicans’ free-trade orthodoxy.
“We’re going to build our steel industry back, and we’re going to build our aluminum industry back,” Trump said when he first announced the proposed tariffs on March 1. He also said, “They’ve been horribly treated by other countries, and they have not been properly represented. More importantly, because of that, workers in our country have not been properly represented.”
Trump’s plan calls for a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and a 10 percent levy on imported aluminum. Although the president prefers to apply the tariffs on imports from any country, some exceptions could be made.
“There are potential carve-outs for Mexico and Canada, based on national security, and possibly for other countries as well,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday.
Canada is the leading supplier of imported steel and aluminum to the U.S., accounting for 16 percent of imported steel and 41 percent of imported aluminum, as CNBC has reported.
Domestic steelworkers applauded the president’s move.
“Everybody’s just happy,” said Mark Goodfellow, head of the Steelworkers Local 420A in Massena, N.Y., where Alcoa employs about 500 people. “It feels like the American worker is getting a break and finally getting a shot to compete on a level playing field.”
U.S. Steel announced plans to restart one of two idle blast furnaces in Granite City, Ill., and call back some 500 workers.
Both the steel and aluminum industries have been under heavy pressure from imports. In recommending tariffs or quotas, the Commerce Department noted that employment in the domestic steel industry has shrunk by 35 percent in the last two decades, while the aluminum industry shed nearly 60 percent of its jobs between 2013 and 2016.
“Those are bedrock, backbone industries of this country,” said White House trade adviser Peter Navarro. “And the president is going to defend them against what is basically a flood of imports that have pushed out American workers, aluminum smelters. And we can’t afford to lose them.”
Authority for the tariffs comes from a seldom-used law from the 1960s that’s designed to protect domestic industries deemed vital to national defense.
But Defense Secretary James Mattis questioned that premise, noting that military demand for steel and aluminum can be met with just 3 percent of domestic production. What’s more, unless the U.S. declares war on its neighbor to the north, metal supplies from Canada are not likely to be compromised.
Experts say the real challenge for industry is China, which produces almost as much steel in a month as the U.S. does all year. But the U.S. has already imposed anti-dumping measures against Chinese producers, and relatively little Chinese metal flows directly into the U.S. market.
“Even though China’s over-capacity is weighing down global prices, it’s not the direct cause of a loss of our aluminum and steel industries,” Navarro said. “The direct cause is simply the foreign steel that crosses our borders. And that is what we must stop.”
Critics worry that tariffs will increase costs for businesses and consumers and could spark retaliation from America’s trading partners. Republican lawmakers have been urging the White House to adopt a more surgical approach, including carve-outs for U.S. allies such as Canada.
“If these tariffs are implemented with a broad brush, it will have the potential to backfire, cost us jobs at home, force consumers to pay higher prices for goods, and ultimately hurt our economy,” warned Rep. Erik Paulsen, R-Minn., chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.
The tariffs have also caused friction within the administration. Trump’s top economic adviser and free-trade advocate Gary Cohn announced his resignation on Tuesday.
“President Trump is a unique negotiator,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said this week, as Radio Iowa reported. “Sometimes he keeps people off balance, even his own staff.”
Many farmers are heavily dependent on export markets and could be hard-hit by a trade war. Asked for his advice, Perdue chuckled softly and said, “Pray.”
Stormy Daniels sues Trump, says ‘hush agreement’ invalid because he never signed
Adult film star Stormy Daniels sued Donald Trump Tuesday, alleging that he never signed the nondisclosure agreement that his lawyer had arranged with her.
The civil suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court and obtained by NBC News, alleges that her agreement not to disclose her “intimate” relationship with Trump is not valid because while both Daniels and Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen signed it, Trump never did.
autoplay
autoplay
Stephanie Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels, signed both the agreement and a side letter agreement using her professional name on October 28, 2016, just days before the 2016 presidential election. Cohen signed the document the same day. Both agreements are appended to the lawsuit as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2.
Click here to read the “Hush Agreement” and the side letter agreement
The “hush agreement,” as it’s called in the suit, refers to Trump throughout as David Dennison, and Clifford as Peggy Peterson. In the side letter agreement, the true identity of DD is blacked out, but Clifford’s attorney, Michael Avenatti, says the individual is Trump.
Each document includes a blank where “DD” is supposed to sign, but neither blank is signed.
According to the lawsuit, which Avenatti announced in a tweet, Clifford and Trump had an intimate relationship that lasted from summer 2006 “well into the year 2007.” The relationship allegedly included meetings in Lake Tahoe and at the Beverly Hills Hotel.
The 2016 hush agreement directed that $130,000 be paid into the trust account of Clifford’s then-attorney. In return, Clifford was not to disclose any confidential information about Trump or his sexual partners to anyone beyond a short list of individuals she’d already told about the relationship, or share any texts or photos from Trump.
The suit alleges that Cohen has tried to keep Clifford from talking about the relationship as recently as Feb. 27, 2018.
“To be clear, the attempts to intimidate Ms. Clifford into silence and ‘shut her up’ in order to ‘protect Mr. Trump’ continue unabated,” says the suit. “On or about February 27, 2018, Mr. Trump’s attorney Mr. Cohen surreptitiously initiated a bogus arbitration proceeding against Ms. Clifford in Los Angeles.” Binding arbitration is specified as a means of dispute resolution.
autoplay
autoplay
Clifford and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, are asking the Los Angeles County Superior Court to declare that both the hush agreement and the side agreement “were never formed, and therefore do not exist, because, among other things, Mr. Trump never signed the agreements.”
“In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order of this Court declaring that the agreements in the forms set out in Exhibits 1 and 2 are invalid, unenforceable, and/or void under the doctrine of unconscionability.”
The suit also says that Trump must know that Cohen is trying to silence Clifford, since rules for the New York bar, of which Cohen is a member, require him to keep his client informed at all times. “[I]t strains credulity to conclude that Mr. Cohen is acting on his own accord and without the express approval and knowledge of his client Mr. Trump.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. President Trump’s outside attorney, John Dowd, declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Trump has never addressed the alleged relationship publicly, and White House spokesperson Raj Shah told members of the press he had never asked the president about the alleged relationship. Cohen has acknowledged the payment, but has repeatedly declined to tell NBC News what the payment was for.
Clifford had previously given conflicting accounts of her relationship with Trump. In the lawsuit, Clifford alleges that in January 2018, Cohen, “concerned the truth would be disclosed … through intimidation and coercive tactics, forced Ms. Clifford into signing a false statement wherein she stated that reports of her relationship with Mr. Trump were false.”