Trump 30: Donald Trump and the Deathly Comb-Over

[Howl]

Okey dokey, Rick Wilson has another opinion piece on Lord Dampnut and has introduced the term Muellerdämmerung.   

Quote

Every single day, Tyrannosaurus Don tests the limits of his enclosure. Every day, he pushes against the walls, looking for weak spots and for places where the electric fence isn’t working. Outside, the zookeepers in this Jurassic political park toss a cow carcass over the wall, praise their big boy dino, and marvel how large his fingers look. They smile and congratulate themselves that they’ve appeased the monster for another day, managing its violent, ravenous urges.  Full text at  Daily Beast Only Ryan and McConnell Can Pen in Tyrannosaurus Trump

 

[fraurosena]

Trump sold $35M in real estate in 2017, mostly to secretive buyers

Quote

President Trump’s companies sold more than $35 million in real estate in 2017, mostly to secretive shell companies that obscure buyers’ identities, continuing a dramatic shift in his customers' behavior that began during the election, a USA TODAY review found.

In Las Vegas alone, Trump sold 41 luxury condo units in 2017, a majority of which used limited liability companies – corporate entities that allow people to purchase property without revealing all of the owners’ names.

The trend toward Trump's real estate buyers obscuring their identities began around the time he won the Republican nomination, midway through 2016, according to USA TODAY's analysis of every domestic real estate sale by one of his companies.

In the two years before the nomination, 4% of Trump buyers utilized the tactic. In the year after, the rate skyrocketed to about 70%. USA TODAY's tracking of sales shows the trend held firm through Trump's first year in office.

Profits from sales of those properties flow through a trust run by Trump’s sons. The president is the sole beneficiary of the trust and he can withdraw cash at any time.

The opaque sales come at a time when Congress and ethics watchdogs have called on Trump to be more transparent about his domestic and foreign customers and partners, including the buyers of his companies' real estate.

At least one of the 2017 sales was to a German couple. His company determined that transaction does not qualify as a “foreign deal,” which the president and his lawyers vowed to avoid while he is in office.

Trump appointed an independent ethics advisor, attorney Bobby Burchfield, to review new deals.

Last year, when USA TODAY first reported the rapid rise in the share of obscured buyers among Trump's real estate transactions, Burchfield would not reveal the details of his reviews. Now, he says a four-part test is used when evaluating deals: is it at fair market value or in the ordinary course of business; is it an appropriate counterparty; is there any indication the deal is intended to curry favor with the president and is there any likelihood the deal could compromise or diminish the Office of the President.

“If someone wants to do business with the Trump entities in the form of an LLC, we look behind the LLC to see who the owner of it is and where the funding is coming from,” Burchfield told USA TODAY. “If we can’t determine that, we won’t sign off on it.”

But those deep-dive identifications and financial disclosures are difficult and easily spoofed, said Ross Delston, a Washington DC attorney specializing in anti-money laundering compliance, who said Burchfield’s test is largely subjective.

“From what we know of the Trump Organization’s past real estate deals is they never see deals they don’t like,” Delston said. “Having an ethics advisor shut down a deal based on a test not mandated by law strikes me as somewhere between unlikely to unthinkable.”

The company's internal ethics reviews also are not subject to public scrutiny.

Burchfield wouldn’t say if he declined to sign off on any Trump real estate deals in 2017.

New buyers last year ranged from real estate investment funds, wealthy individuals seeking an investment and vacation property to some that were unreachable by reporters — largely due to the secrecy associated with their shell company.

Ramsis Ghaly, a neurosurgeon near Chicago purchased a condo in Trump’s Vegas property in late December using an LLC. He said he used the LLC to protect his identity and on the advice of a financial consultant.

“Was I nervous my name could be associated with him? Sure, you’re always concerned with the politics and media, but for me the positives of the property outweighed the negatives,” Ghaly said. “A lot of my doctor friends buy in Trump Chicago—I was a little hesitant, but I believe in the guy and it wasn’t about politics.”

A single condo in Trump’s Vegas development sold in October for $1.6 million. That stretched the price per square foot to around $1,000, pushing the limits of the market, said Nicole Tomlinson, a high-rise sales specialist at Shapiro & Sher Group in Las Vegas.

“You pay a premium for a high floor, view and penthouse, but that’s high for condos and Las Vegas overall,” Tomlinson said.

Efforts to reach Lorraine Tan, the name listed on the deed for the 63rd floor penthouse were unsuccessful.

Jason Feldman, a real estate investor in Florida, purchased a Trump condo in Las Vegas in December using an LLC.

Feldman said he is a member at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach. He said politics weren’t part of his decision to buy the Vegas condo.

“The Trump family involvement in the Vegas project played zero role in the purchase decision at all,” Feldman wrote in an email. “The deal was purely an economic decision. In my opinion I think these are underpriced given the growth of the Las Vegas market and likely will buy more units.”

4114 TIH LLC purchased a condo in Las Vegas in November. The company was formed just days before the purchase in Nevada by Georgia Attorney Robert Goldberg and his son Hayden Goldberg, of Las Vegas. Robert Goldberg said he plans to live in the unit part time and use it for rental income. “I’ll let the public record speak for itself on the sale, I’m not anybody. Using an LLC is standard procedure,” he said.

However, it wasn't standard procedure for Trump buyers prior to his presidential bid, when fewer than 1 in 20 of Trump companies' real estate buyers was an LLC.

Trump and billionaire partner Phil Ruffin still own about 350 units in the tower. Ruffin’s staff indicated the pair wouldn’t own fewer than 300. Maintaining that many units protects their options open for a casino license someday under Nevada law.

Trump is also sitting on dozens of other real estate properties for sale. That includes his 11-bedroom, 12-bathroom mansion on the Caribbean island of St. Martin.

Trump reduced his asking price from $28 million to $16.9 million in August, the list price today. Anyone can rent the property that sleeps 20 for roughly $10,000 a night from a third party vendor.

Why was there an emoluments clause again?

[JMarie]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Trump sold $35M in real estate in 2017, mostly to secretive buyers

Why was there an emoluments clause again?

Transparency?  What transparency?

[AmazonGrace]

Fun times:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Um, what? "Trump threatens to veto omnibus bill because it does not address DACA recipients"

Spoiler

President Trump said he might veto the sweeping $1.3 trillion spending bill passed early Friday — a move that would likely lead to a government shutdown — because it does nothing to address the fate of young undocumented immigrants and does not fully fund his border wall.

In a morning tweet, Trump said that those protected from deportation by the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program have been “totally abandoned” by Congress, and he blamed Democrats.

On Thursday afternoon, senior Trump administration officials told reporters that Trump intended to sign the spending bill, making no mention of the president’s concern.

Trump, who has sought to cancel the program, was seeking a deal that would give Democrats protections they sought for DACA recipients in exchange for additional funding for his long-promised U.S.-Mexico border wall.

“I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded,” Trump said in tweet.

Lawmakers have left town for a two-week recess, some of them on overseas trips and with no plans to return to Washington. The House passed the bill midday Thursday, and the Senate cleared the measure shortly after midnight.

So, let me get this straight...you fuck over the DACA recipients, but blame the Dems for it...yeah, that's just par for the freaking course with the orange menace. Oh, and fuck your wall.

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

[candygirl200413]

Well I'm just going to seriously look into a bunker at this rate.

[Audrey2]

5 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

 

Oh Donnie Dummkopf, despite the helmet you are trying to create on your head, you are noticably thinning on top!

Sorry for the non-sequitor, it just looked really obvious in this picture.

[fraurosena]

Shit. How could this ever end well?

All I can see is that they’re gearing up for war. The ultimate distraction from the Mueller probe and the oncoming blue tsunami.

Will the GOP be so desperate that they too are prepared to go to war for the very same reason?

[GreyhoundFan]

One of the jokes on Bill Maher's show tonight made me laugh myself silly. He showed pictures of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and Jennifer Lopez and Alex Rodriguez, saying that if we call them "Kimye", "Billary", and "J-Rod", we should call (shows a picture of Dumpy and Stormy) them "Shitstorm".

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

Oh well that never stopped Trump from wanting things before

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Howl]

6 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Oh well that never stopped Trump from wanting things before

Or forgetting things.  He probably won't remember that he ever said it and no one will bring it up. 

[CTRLZero]

On 3/7/2018 at 12:18 PM, Howl said:

the astounding and transcendently mind blowing  space that is southern, southeastern and central Utah.  It is beyond time and space on this planet.  Or at least that's how I feel about it. 

I kept your quote in mind when we were visiting Zion and Bryce last week.  Utterly majestic.  It does help keep today's political turmoil in some perspective, as tough as it is to get through the tRump years.

"What are men to rocks and mountains" - my Jane Austen refrigerator magnet

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

[47of74]

Truth.

[JMarie]

Have we discussed the Big Leauge Box, Trump's subscription shill?

https://donate.donaldjtrump.com/big-league-box-49?amount=49&additional[utm_content]=GOP_Direct-Ask_Text-Ask-1

1.  Wasn't he all about having a self-funded campaign, and not needing donors?

2.  Who wants a bunch of vintage (AKA leftover) Trump stuff?

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump has a secret plan to evade the Constitution and create a line-item veto, apparently"

Spoiler

Either the White House has a highly secret plan to revive the line-item veto, or President Trump has again forced those around him to try to explain one of his fanciful ideas.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin appeared on “Fox News Sunday” this weekend in part to make the case for Trump getting a line-item veto (i.e., the ability to eliminate individual provisions in bills that are passed by Congress). Trump floated the idea Friday while grudgingly signing Congress's 2,200-page omnibus spending bill.

But host Chris Wallace noted that there's a big problem: the Constitution. He pointed out that the line-item veto was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 1990s.

Mnuchin's response? To suggest there was a workaround to installing a new line-item veto. Here's the exchange:

MNUCHIN: As you heard him say, he's not planning on [signing an omnibus] again. I think they should give the president a line-item veto. These things should be looked at —

WALLACE: But that's been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, sir.

MNUCHIN: Well, again, Congress could pass a rule, okay, that allows them to do it. But —

WALLACE: No, no, sir, it would be a constitutional amendment.

MNUCHIN: Chris, we don't — we don't need to get into a debate in terms of — there's different ways of doing this. My comment is, it's clear what happened.

The White House doubled down on Mnuchin's comments Monday, with deputy press secretary Raj Shah saying, “There are certain things being discussed with respect to House and Senate rules.”

Experts are dumbfounded as to what that could be.

“Mnuchin probably doesn’t know that there was a real-life experiment in the 1990s that answered this question,” said Robert Spitzer, an expert on presidential vetoes who has written about President Bill Clinton's failed effort to use a line-term veto. Spitzer said Clinton used the line-item veto on 10 bills and about 80 different provisions in 1997 before the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York. Overturning that ruling would require two-thirds majorities of both chambers and ratification by 38 out of 50 states. In other words, Congress couldn't do that on its own.

But is there any way Trump could get line-item veto authority without an amendment? Spitzer and others strained to imagine one.

“It is theoretically possible that an imaginative lawyer might invent a mechanism that would pass constitutional muster, but I know of no such invention to date,” Spitzer said. “The other thing is that the court was pretty emphatic in its decision that any kind of item veto would have to be granted through constitutional amendment, so that by itself pretty much slams the door on Mnuchin’s speculation.”

Added Roger Hartley, a constitutional amendment expert at Catholic University: “I could not imagine what ‘different ways’ he was thinking that are available to the Congress to enact constitutional line-item veto legislation absent a constitutional amendment.”

Another amendment expert, John Vile at Middle Tennessee State University, said the only other way would be “for the Supreme Court to reverse the decision when confronted with a similar bill.” But the court's decision was 6-3, he added, and it has signaled no desire to revisit the issue. (Plus, only one of the three dissenters, Stephen G. Breyer, remains on the court.)

Some are floating the idea that legislation like the omnibus could be broken down into many thousands of smaller bills and passed at the same time — Congress has extensive authority over its own rules — allowing Trump to veto the ones he doesn't like. This would not be a line-item veto, strictly speaking, and it would have to pass legal muster and be approved by Congress. But it would certainly be a novel approach.

It's possible the White House has devised a secret plan to craft a de facto line-item veto through congressional rules, but it also seems possible Trump was floating something unreasonable for which they now have to answer.

Trump has shown repeatedly that he isn't exactly tuned in to the legislative process or the limits of his authority. After failing to pass an Affordable Care Act replacement, for example, Trump began pushing for the Senate to get rid of the 60-vote threshold to end filibusters — despite that legislation not being subject to the filibuster. According to Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), Trump told lawmakers a few months ago that he wanted to protect “Article XII” of the Constitution, which doesn't exist. Trump at one point expressed surprise that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. And former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg recalled in Michael Wolff's book that he tried to teach Trump about the Constitution, and “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment, before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”

We'll see how thoroughly thought through this all has been.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Raging, isolated Trump can’t bluff his way out this time"

Spoiler

President Trump has boundless faith in his ability to survive any financial, political, legal or public relations mess, by resorting to what philosopher Harry Frankfurt famously described as “bulls–––.” Time and again over the years, he has fallen back on his trademark tactics: bluffing with abandon; suing to overwhelm his antagonists with legal bills; fighting back as hard as possible, solely to dissuade future foes; flooding the media zone with confusion-sowing falsehoods; and, above all, never admitting to error, wrongdoing or deliberate lying.

But now, with Stormy Daniels speaking out about Trump — even as Trump’s legal team is falling apart, just as the Mueller probe is set to hit its climax — it’s hard to escape the sense that Trump’s titanic talent for bulls––––ing may be faltering in the face of the crush of events he now faces.

On CBS last night, Daniels finally told her tale about the 2006 affair she claims she had with Trump. In so doing, she opened up new narrative lines that ensure this story will continue. She allowed that she had accepted $130,000 in hush money from Trump lawyer Michael Cohen before the election, and admitted she lied by saying the affair never happened once the news of that payment broke. But she claimed she did so because she was legally threatened, which CBS reports came from Cohen. Daniels also claimed that after trying to go public with her story about Trump in 2011, a man physically threatened her in front of her child.

Daniels’s new comments mean the focus will continue on questions such as whether Trump knew about the payment his lawyer made and whether it constituted an unlawful campaign contribution, as former FEC chairman Trevor Potter claims it does.

Cohen’s lawyer sent Daniels’s lawyer a cease-and-desist letter accusing Daniels of false statements about him. This morning, Daniels’s lawyer Michael Avenatti, fired back by claiming that he and Daniels are only “getting started,” adding that Cohen has “zero credibility” and that the full truth will all come out before long. In other words, the story will continue — with a focus both on Trump’s treatment of women and his tendency to surround himself with thuggish characters.

CNN reports that Trump “has become irked by the wall-to-wall coverage of the alleged affair on news shows in recent days.” But Trump is largely constrained from hitting back, since tweeting angrily in response would only draw more attention to those elements of the story.

And there’s more: In addition to being sued by Daniels, who wants to get her nondisclosure agreement with Trump invalidated, Trump faces two other new female accusers who have initiated legal actions of their own designed to free them up to talk. All this activity could result in discovery and even Trump depositions that keep these stories alive, too.

It is at precisely this moment that Trump’s legal team is dwindling and in disarray in the face of another mounting threat, this one from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. The Post reports that Joseph diGenova will not represent Trump, leaving him temporarily “without a criminal defense attorney.” Trump furiously tweeted that lawyers are falling all over themselves to represent Trump, but everyone knows that’s utter nonsense.

As it is, Trump had wanted diGenova because he was impressed by his appearances on Fox News. And in that context, this, from The Post’s story, is a notable detail:

Trump had hoped diGenova could serve as a surrogate in television interviews and play the role of attack dog in criticizing the Mueller probe.

Trump continues to approach the Mueller probe as a P.R. problem — i.e., one that he and his allies can bluster their way out of in conventional Trumpian fashion — rather than as something potentially a lot worse. Remember, this comes just as Trump and what’s left of his legal team are trying to decide whether Trump should sit for an interview with Mueller. Trump has repeatedly said he relishes facing Mueller, and the lawyer advising caution — John Dowd — is now gone.  Trump’s instinct to bluff and bluster his way through the Mueller probe is more likely to go unchecked — even as he is less likely to fully prepare for the very real legal perils an interview will pose.

The imperative of fighting back has long been central to Trump’s public philosophy. As he put it in his 2007 book: “If you’re afraid to fight back people will think of you as a loser, a ‘schmuck!'”

But Trump is constrained from fighting back against his female accusers. And the more he succumbs to his instinct to “fight back” against Mueller, the worse off he will be.

...

 

[fraurosena]

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

And the more he succumbs to his instinct to “fight back” against Mueller, the worse off he will be.

Good! I hope he keeps up his lifelong bullying tactics. I really, really hope he has a sit-down, face-to-face interview with Mueller's team. And, sweet Rufus, I hope they tape the whole thing!