Tag Archives: Trump

Elections

Who Will Be Trump’s VP In 2024?

1 Comment

As the Republican primary nomination appears to be settled in favor of Donald Trump, attention within the party has shifted to the intriguing question of who the former president might select as his vice-presidential running mate for the upcoming election. This topic has been a hot topic of discussion at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) over the past four days, where attendees participated in a straw poll to gauge support for potential vice presidential candidates.

The results of the CPAC straw poll, which featured 17 possible candidates, were announced on Saturday night. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy emerged as the front-runners, each receiving 15% support. They were followed by former Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard at 9%, New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik at 8%, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott at 8%, and Florida congressman Byron Donalds at 7%.

Five of the top six vote-getters addressed the CPAC audience, effectively using the platform as an audition for the number-two spot on the Republican ticket. While Senator Tim Scott was unable to attend due to campaign commitments in South Carolina, the other contenders made their pitches to the Trump-adoring crowd.

New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, known for her unwavering support for Trump, invoked the former president repeatedly during her speech, emphasizing her loyalty and alignment with his agenda. Florida Rep. Byron Donalds echoed Trump’s rhetoric on foreign policy, showcasing his commitment to continuing Trump’s America First approach. Former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who has shifted to more conservative views, expressed surprise at being included in the poll but took the opportunity to address the CPAC audience. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem used her time on stage to take shots at other Republicans vying for the vice presidential nomination.

The jockeying for Trump’s vice presidential pick has been playing out behind the scenes for weeks, but it spilled into the open at CPAC. The event served as a de facto casting call for some of the most talked-about contenders, with attendees and organizers openly discussing the speculation surrounding the veepstakes.

In addition to the top contenders, other figures such as entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, and Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake also addressed the CPAC crowd. Each candidate sought to demonstrate their unwavering loyalty to Trump and their ability to defend him against political opponents.

The CPAC straw poll results, while not scientifically representative, provide insight into the preferences of conservative activists and potential Trump supporters. Trump himself has fueled speculation about his vice presidential selection, praising many of the Republicans appearing at CPAC and confirming that several top party figures are on his shortlist.

As the speculation continues, the role of the vice presidential pick in the 2024 election is particularly significant. With Trump limited to serving only four more years in office, his choice for running mate could have implications for the future of the Republican Party. Strategists and observers will be closely watching as Trump considers his options and makes his decision in the coming months.

In the midst of this speculation, one notable figure, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, has continued her bid for the presidency despite facing criticism from Trump. The contest between Haley and Trump has intensified in recent weeks, with Haley hitting Trump over his mental fitness for office and his comments concerning NATO. However, Haley has stated that she is not interested in a running mate role, further adding to the intrigue surrounding Trump’s vice presidential selection.

As the Republican Party gears up for the 2024 election, the question of who will join Donald Trump on the ticket remains unanswered. With the CPAC straw poll results and Trump’s shortlist of contenders in hand, all eyes are on the former president as he weighs his options and prepares to make a decision that could shape the future of the party.

Elections

Ex-Trump Adviser Peter Navarro Sentenced to Prison for Contempt of Congress in Jan. 6 Probe

Leave a comment

In a significant development, former Trump adviser Peter Navarro has been sentenced to four months in prison for contempt of Congress in connection with the House committee’s investigation into the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. This marks the second instance of a Trump official facing legal consequences for defying the committee’s authority, following Steve Bannon’s four-month prison sentence in October 2022.

Background:

Navarro, who served as one of Trump’s top economic advisers, was convicted in September on two counts of contempt for refusing to testify and provide documents after receiving a subpoena from the House committee in February 2022. The committee sought information about the “Green Bay Sweep” plan, which Navarro and Bannon claimed aimed to encourage Trump loyalists in Congress to contest ballots from six swing states won by Biden, despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Prosecution’s Argument:

The Justice Department had recommended a six-month sentence for both Navarro and Bannon, accusing Navarro of a “bad-faith strategy of defiance and contempt” that prioritized loyalty to Trump over the rule of law. Prosecutors argued that Navarro, like the Capitol rioters, put politics above the country, exacerbating the assault on the U.S. Capitol by undermining the committee’s authority.

Navarro’s Defense:

Navarro’s lawyers contended that he “reasonably believed” he did not have to cooperate with Congress, citing executive privilege as a basis. They argued that Navarro’s actions were not rooted in disrespect for the law but in his honest belief that he was duty-bound to assert executive privilege on behalf of former President Trump.

Trial Details:

During the two-day trial in Washington, D.C., federal prosecutors accused Navarro of prioritizing loyalty to Trump over the rule of law. The 74-year-old, facing up to one year in prison for each contempt charge, expressed uncertainty about what to do when subpoenaed and insisted on an “honest belief” in the invocation of executive privilege.

Appeal and Sentencing:

Navarro’s lawyers have appealed the conviction, asserting that he is not an insurrectionist. They requested no more than six months of probation. Prosecutors, on the other hand, are pushing for a six-month prison sentence and a $200,000 fine, contending that Navarro attempted to “hide behind claims of privilege.”

Conclusion:

Peter Navarro’s sentencing underscores the legal repercussions faced by Trump officials who defy congressional subpoenas. As the House committee seeks to unravel the events leading up to the January 6 attack, these cases serve as a reminder of the ongoing tension between political loyalty and accountability for actions that may have contributed to the assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Trending

DeSantis & Haley Launch Attacks on Trump in Iowa Town Halls

3 Comments

Republican contenders Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley have taken an aggressive stance against former President Trump, unveiling direct attacks during back-to-back town halls hosted by CNN in Iowa. With the primary season entering its eleventh hour, the GOP rivals sought to differentiate themselves from Trump and position as the preferred alternative.

While Trump maintains a significant lead in national polls, Iowa has become a crucial battleground where both DeSantis and Haley are struggling to gain traction. According to polling averages from The Hill/Decision Desk HQ, Trump holds a substantial lead of more than 30 points in Iowa, making it a challenging terrain for his rivals.

The town halls showcased a departure from the candidates’ previous strategies, as they focused less on each other and more on why they believe they are superior choices for the GOP nomination than Trump. Republican strategist Ron Bonjean highlighted the challenge both candidates face in garnering attention from Republican primary voters, emphasizing that Trump’s dominance in the state makes it a tough battleground.

During his town hall, DeSantis took aim at Trump’s policy positions, particularly criticizing him for failing to fulfill his promise to end birthright citizenship. He also accused Trump of “flip-flopping” on abortion, citing the former president’s comments that the six-week abortion ban DeSantis signed in Florida was a “terrible mistake.”

Haley, on the other hand, emphasized the need for stability, stating that while Trump may have been the “right president at the right time,” chaos follows him. She argued that the country cannot afford four more years of disarray and upheaval.

Both candidates refrained from directly addressing Trump’s legal challenges but acknowledged that the looming charges could harm his chances in a general election. The timing of their intensified attacks just over a week before the first votes raised questions among Republican strategists about the effectiveness of this strategy.

DeSantis, who has heavily invested resources in Iowa, is polling at almost 20 percent in the state, narrowly leading Haley for second place. However, his single-digit standings in New Hampshire indicate a challenging road ahead. Strategists criticize the candidates for waiting too long to confront the front-runner, with some suggesting that the attacks might be too little, too late.

Republican strategist Brian Seitchik expressed skepticism about the strategy, stating that trying to be “Trump-lite” or “Trump without the baggage” is a losing approach. With Trump maintaining a firm grip on the party, merely consolidating the non-Trump vote may not be sufficient to secure the nomination.

As Trump’s lead in Iowa continues to solidify, the pressure intensifies for DeSantis and Haley to make a significant impact. Observers are closely watching Haley’s performance in New Hampshire, speculating that if she secures second place in Iowa and wins New Hampshire, a legitimate race for the GOP nomination may ensue.

Despite years of speculation about Trump’s potential downfall, his sustained popularity within the party has defied expectations, making the strategy of avoiding direct confrontation impractical for those aiming to secure the nomination. The final outcome of this intense Republican primary battle remains uncertain as the contenders make their final appeals to voters in the crucial state of Iowa.

World

India in Top 20: $7.8M to Trump

Leave a comment

In a recent report released by Democrat members of the US House Oversight Committee on January 4, it has been revealed that former President Donald Trump’s businesses received payments totaling at least $7.8 million during his tenure, with India ranking fifth among the 20 countries contributing to this amount.

The report, titled ‘White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump,’ sheds light on foreign payments directed to Trump and his family from 2017 to 2020, during which he served as the President of the United States. India’s payments, amounting to $282,764, were primarily directed to Trump World Tower in New York and Trump International Hotel in Washington DC.

The Permanent Mission of India to the UN allocated $264,184 for payments to the Trump World Tower from 2017 to 2020. This location, situated opposite the UN headquarters, has served as the official residence of India’s Permanent Ambassador since the country purchased a unit in 2004. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, reported that in 2018 alone, India spent $66,046 on common charges for two units at Trump World Tower, with the report projecting a total of $264,184 over the four years of Trump’s administration.

The report highlights that these figures do not encompass additional charges such as electricity and special assessments paid in 2018. The Indian embassy in Washington DC also contributed $18,500 for three separate stays occupied by Indian diplomats in February and March 2017, according to information obtained under the Right to Information Act.

Remarkably, India housed the largest number of Trump-owned business projects outside the United States within the South Asian region. The Democrats’ report emphasizes that Trump’s foreign business entanglements in India and his influence on US foreign policy during his presidency created conspicuous conflicts of interest.

The report suggests that Trump’s business ventures laid the foundation for his “uniquely warm relationship” with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It points to Modi’s acknowledgment of Trump’s “very warm remarks and observations” during the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to the White House.

Furthermore, the report delves into Trump’s 2014 visit to India to promote a project, coinciding with PM Modi’s election as Prime Minister. Notably, BJP leader and current Maharashtra cabinet minister, Mangal Prabhat Lodha, was a partner in Trump’s project. The report raises concerns, noting that several of Lodha’s companies were reportedly under investigation by Indian officials for corrupt practices and tax evasion in 2013 when Trump’s Mumbai Tower deal was announced.

The House Oversight Committee’s report underscores the intersection of Trump’s business interests and foreign policy decisions during his presidency, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest. As the findings continue to unfold, they add to the ongoing discussions about the ethical considerations surrounding the business dealings of world leaders and their impact on diplomatic relations.

Trending

New York Attorney General Pushes for $370 Million Penalty in Trump Civil Fraud Trial

Leave a comment

In a dramatic turn of events, the New York attorney general, Letitia James, has requested a staggering $370 million penalty against former President Donald J. Trump following a civil fraud trial. The trial, which began in October and concluded last month, alleged that Trump engaged in unlawful conduct by inflating his net worth to secure favorable treatment from banks and insurers.

The penalty sought by James far exceeds the initial estimate of $250 million, indicating the gravity of the alleged misconduct. The trial revealed evidence suggesting that Trump had gained the substantial sum through deceptive financial practices. However, Trump’s legal team vehemently denies any wrongdoing, asserting that the attorney general failed to prove her case.

Christopher M. Kise, a lawyer representing Trump, criticized the requested amount as “unconscionable, unsupported by the evidence, untethered from reality, and unconstitutionally excessive.” He insisted that James had not established any real-world harm resulting from Trump’s actions.

The trial, presided over by Judge Arthur Engoron, has already seen a summary judgment ruling holding Trump and his co-defendants liable for persistent and repeated fraud. As a consequence, Engoron ordered the cancellation of Trump’s business certificates in New York. Despite the adverse ruling, Trump has appealed the decision, leading to a temporary halt in the dissolution of his companies.

In addition to the financial penalty, James is seeking a five-year ban for Trump’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, preventing them from participating in the New York real estate industry or serving as corporate officers or directors. The attorney general argues that such a ban is necessary and appropriate.

Trump’s attorneys countered these claims in their filings, arguing that most of the transactions cited in the complaint were beyond the statute of limitations. They contended that Trump’s financial statements did not contain material misstatements and that the attorney general failed to demonstrate any tangible impact on the transactions.

The post-trial briefs filed on Friday set the stage for closing arguments scheduled for next week. Judge Engoron could issue his ruling by the end of the month. The judge has already rejected several arguments from Trump’s legal team, including challenges to the statute of limitations and disgorgement, affirming their legal validity.

The lawsuit, which accuses Trump and his company of deceiving banks and insurers, alleges that Trump provided inflated values for assets such as golf courses and hotels. The trial has captivated public attention, with Trump using social media and rallies to protest his innocence, framing the legal proceedings as a political witch-hunt.

As both sides prepare for closing arguments, the outcome of this high-profile case remains uncertain, leaving the legal fate of the former president hanging in the balance.

Trending

Trump’s Business Received $7.8M from Foreign Entities

1 Comment

In a recent development, House Democrats have released a comprehensive 156-page report titled “White House For Sale,” shedding light on former President Donald J. Trump’s financial transactions with foreign governments during his tenure. The report discloses that Trump’s businesses received at least $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments, with the majority of funds originating from China.

The transactions outlined in the report were carried out at Trump properties such as the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas, Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York, and Trump World Tower at 845 United Nations Plaza in New York. These revelations come as the GOP attempts to draw attention to business dealings between President Biden’s relatives, particularly his son Hunter Biden, and foreign governments.

The House Oversight Committee’s investigation utilized documents obtained through a court battle, illustrating how foreign entities, including a major U.S. adversary, engaged with Trump’s businesses while he held the presidency. Millions were funneled into Trump’s enterprises, with China contributing the lion’s share, totaling $5.6 million. The Chinese government, along with other nations, primarily directed funds towards Trump hotels in Washington and Las Vegas, as well as Trump Tower in New York.

Concerns have been raised by ethics experts, who have long warned that Trump’s businesses could be a conduit for violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution, prohibiting government officials from receiving profit or gain due to their role. The report aims to provide concrete evidence of conduct similar to what House Republicans have sought to pin on President Biden as they work to build an impeachment case against him.

Notably, the records indicate that Chinese sources, including China’s Embassy in the U.S. and the state-affiliated Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), contributed to Trump’s financial gains. ICBC, for instance, spent $5.4 million over nearly three years for a lease at Trump Tower.

The report also delves into Trump’s business dealings with other Chinese companies, including CEFC, a private energy company that also conducted business with Hunter Biden. CEFC reportedly spent over $5 million on an apartment in Trump World Tower through its subsidiary. While Hunter Biden’s dealings with Chinese companies are acknowledged, the report draws attention to the direct financial transactions from Chinese government sources to Trump’s businesses.

Oversight Republicans dismissed the report as an “obsession” with Trump, emphasizing that the former president’s businesses are legitimate. Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) stated, “Former President Trump has legitimate businesses, but the Bidens do not.” He further alleged that the Bidens and their associates made over $24 million by leveraging the Biden name in various countries, including China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Romania.

The House Democrats had issued a subpoena to Mazars USA, Trump’s former accounting firm, in 2019, leading to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court in 2020. The court upheld the subpoena, allowing Mazars to release its records on Trump. However, after Republicans gained control of the committee, Mazars was released from its legal obligation to provide relevant documentation to the Democrats’ investigation.

The report, while offering a significant glimpse into Trump’s foreign financial dealings, falls short of providing a comprehensive account of his alleged efforts to use the presidency for personal enrichment, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Democrats accuse Trump of disregarding bipartisan advice to divest himself of corporate businesses, instead opting to hand control to his adult sons, allowing him to prioritize personal interests over national ones.

Moreover, the House Oversight Democrats allege that Trump violated the Domestic Emoluments Clause through a “pattern of payments from domestic individuals, entities, and government agencies” that pose potential conflicts of interest. A future report is anticipated to focus on payments Trump received from domestic government sources, although the release date remains unclear.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, these revelations contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding the financial activities of political figures, underscoring the challenges of balancing personal business interests with the responsibilities of public office. The report adds fuel to the debate over ethical considerations and the potential impact on the political landscape as the nation grapples with allegations of financial impropriety at the highest levels of government.