Rich Alaskan donor gave $250K to Trump after EPA reversed decision on Pebble Mine

ABC News

Rich Alaskan donor gave $250K to Trump after EPA reversed decision on Pebble Mine

By Stephanie Ebbs     June 16, 2018

Bill Roth/Anchorage Daily News/MCT via Getty Images

A wealthy activist who has funded efforts to block a proposed mine in Alaska’s Bristol Bay donated $250,000 to President Donald Trump‘s re-election effort six weeks after the administration abruptly decided to prevent the mine from moving forward.

The move to block the Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay from moving forward seems to diverge from a trend in policy under the leadership of Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt — seen as one of President Donald Trump’s most productive cabinet members in moving to undo environmental regulations put in place under the Obama administration. During the Trump presidency, the EPA in 2017 had previously allowed the mine to move forward.

The EPA said the change in course was because the environmental risk was too great and announced on January 26 that the mine would not immediately move forward.

Robert Gillam made his second and largest donation to Trump Victory Fund just weeks later, donating $250,000 on March 9, according to FEC filings.

Gillam has previously spent as much as $2.5 million to block the Pebble Mine from moving forward in Alaska’s fertile fishing ground called the Bristol Bay. He has been advocating against the mine since 2005, according to an Alaska state report. He declined to comment for this story.

Robert B. Gillam, CEO of McKinley Capital.

Gillam has previously donated to the Republican National Committee, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Republican campaigns in Alaska.

He went to Wharton with Trump and met with him at Mar-a-Lago the weekend before he made a $250,000 donation to the president’s Victory Fund, according to a report in E&E News. Gillam owns a fishing lodge in the area, according to public meeting records, and has said that the mine would hurt the local salmon population.

Last November he wrote in an editorial that the mine project was “doomed.”

“For more than a decade, I have taken on the battle against the Pebble Mine, because, more than any other development proposal in our state’s history, it threatens to forfeit to foreign mining companies an invaluable part of our heritage, something Alaskans cannot afford to lose -— and will never stop defending —- Bristol Bay; the last great salmon fishery on the planet,” Gillam wrote in the opinion piece in a local newspaper.

The Pebble Mine project was blocked by the Obama administration in 2014, citing harm to the environment that the EPA said would be caused by mining in the area. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt reversed that decision in May 2017 and allowed the permitting process to move forward as well as accept public comments on the process.

In late January, the EPA abruptly slowed the project again, saying the agency has “serious concerns” about the risk mining could pose to fishing operations and local residents around Bristol Bay. The agency didn’t go so far as to block the mine completely but said the permit application “must clear a high bar” and provide information on how the mine will impact the surrounding area.

The company behind the Pebble Mine project announced in May that a major partner ended their agreement to support the mine, adding more uncertainty to the future of the project.

ABC News’ Soorin Kim contributed to this report.

This Nation Is Politically Deranged

Esquire

This Nation Is Politically Deranged

The Justice Department Inspector General’s report proves the nation became addicted to unreality.

By Charles P. Pierce      June 15, 2018

Getty Images

I feel very safe in saying that James Comey’s future paperback sales took a considerable nosedive on Thursday afternoon. The Department of Justice’s inspector general dropped The Last Honest Man from a very great height into a very deep well on Thursday.

The IG’s long-awaited report—which came on the same day that the Attorney General of New York filed suit against the Trump Foundation for breaking almost every charitable tax regulation and campaign finance law known to man or beast—excoriated Comey for what it called “insubordinate” and “extraordinary” bungling in his performance during the 2016 presidential election, citing what it called “ad hoc decision making based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice.” The July press conference was a mistake. The October letter was a mistake. James Comey was the biggest mistake of all.

By all accounts—and I’ve only read a chunk of it at this point, plus the executive summary—IG Michael Horowitz is a straight-shooter who wrote an honest report. Which is undoubtedly why the executive branch is lying its ass off about the report, when it discusses it at all, after assuring the rubes that the report would undermine fatally every charge ever levied against El Caudillo del Mar-A-Lago and the alleged organized criminal conspiracy that was his entire public career, including his campaign and his entire presidency*. Oh, Rudy (A Noun, A Verb, and A Manic Episode) Giuliani is out there, behaving like the rodeo clown he has become. And the president* wandered out onto the White House lawn for some prevarication al fresco on Friday morning.

Getty Images

But, by and large, the report’s most basic implicit conclusion—that Comey’s blundering at least played a role in installing the current administration*—is so clear and irrefutable that it seems that the president*’s defenders are caught between giving the report a good leaving alone and clumsily attempting to use its findings to discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation, a lie so stupendous that the president* couldn’t wait to use it Friday morning. From CNN:

“I think that the report yesterday … totally exonerates me. There was no collusion, there was no obstruction.”

In the long run, however, I don’t think they’re going to be able to peddle the whole notion that this report has anything to do with Robert Mueller’s investigation to anyone except the most devoted rubes in the base. Which is cold comfort, I admit. In fact, the only true rube-bait in the entire report seems to be the uncomplimentary texts between the two canoodling FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

The report makes plain one other thing—that the first thing that corrupted the 2016 presidential election, the first thing that infused into it the dark sense of unreality that was its defining characteristic, was the absurd importance placed on the email protocols of Hillary Rodham Clinton. The pursuit of a scandal without a crime—by the Republican Congress, by federal law enforcement, and by the elite political media—was a continuation of the absurd charges involving the tragic events at the American consulate in Benghazi, and the absurd attempts to turn the Clinton Foundation into what we now know that the Trump Foundation actually was: an organized effort to skirt federal tax regulations and campaign finance laws.

Getty Images

(Remember that both The New York Times and The Washington Post entered into business arrangements with Peter Schweitzer, the career conservative ratfcker, to publish the charges based on his spurious book, Clinton Cash, the place where the equally absurd Uranium One “scandal” was spawned. And this was two months before the president* had even launched his campaign.)

And all of this, it can be argued, was a continuation of the three-decade search for something, anything, to hang on the Clintons. Future historians are going to be gobsmacked when they study how a moderate-to-conservative Democratic president and his wife threw so much of official Washington into utter hysterics for three decades.

The 2016 campaign already was a surreal event before the president* descended into it on his gilded escalator. (It’s possible that, with his wolverine’s nose for profitable unreality, he sensed this instinctively, and that’s why he decided to get in on the action in the first place.) The whole year was full of events that didn’t make any sense at the time. For example, on January 28, 2016, shortly before the Iowa caucuses, the president* bailed on a Fox TV debate, announcing that he would, instead, hold a charity event “for our wonderful vets” across town.

Getty Images

He brought a number of his aging plutocrat running buddies out to the event. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum showed up to be humiliated on stage. It was a campaign event badly disguised as a charitable fundraiser. Its whole affect was schizoid. And, on Thursday, as part of her lawsuit against the Trump Foundation, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood pulled back the entire curtain:

“As our investigation reveals, the Trump Foundation was little more than a checkbook for payments from Mr. Trump or his businesses to nonprofits, regardless of their purpose or legality. This is not how private foundations should function and my office intends to hold the Foundation and its directors accountable for its misuse of charitable assets.”

And the Iowa event was a perfect example about how this three-card monte system worked. From The Des Moines Register:

“According to the petition, the event generated about $5.6 million in tax-free donations, and of that, $2.823 million was contributed to the Trump Foundation. The remainder was given directly by private donors to veterans’ charity groups and was not funneled through the foundation. The lawsuit says that after the fundraiser, the Trump Foundation “ceded control over the charitable funds it raised to senior Trump campaign staff, who dictated the manner in which the Foundation would disburse those proceeds, directing the timing, amounts and recipients of the grants.” In the days after the Des Moines fundraiser, Trump toured the state for a series of campaign rallies at which he handed out oversized $100,000 checks to various charity organizations.”

“Doing so “provided Mr. Trump and the campaign a means to take credit at campaign rallies, press briefings, and on the Internet, for gifts to veterans charities. The foundation’s grants made Mr. Trump and the campaign look charitable and increased the candidate’s profile to Republican primary voters and among important constituent groups,” the lawsuit says. All of that amounts to an improper in-kind contribution worth $2.823 million from the foundation to the campaign, according to the lawsuit. “In addition, at Mr. Trump’s behest, the Trump Foundation illegally provided extensive support to his 2016 presidential campaign by using the Trump Foundation’s name and funds it raised from the public to promote his campaign for presidency, including in the days before the Iowa nominating caucuses,” a release from the New York Attorney General’s office says.”

All of this was reported at the time by David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post, who eventually won a Pulitzer Prize for his work. Yet, in the campaign coverage, the sense of unreality was virtually unshakable. A political campaign, functioning as an allegedly genuinely corrupt criminal enterprise, and aided and abetted by a seedy network of ratfckers and bagmen from across the pond, was forcing the American political establishment, and especially its elite political press, to cover it according to the rules that the criminal enterprise established for itself.

Getty Images

At the same time, on the other side of the race, the candidate was plagued by crises and “scandals” that proved time and again to be phantoms, and yet those phantoms were energized, time and again, from the very top of federal law enforcement. The whole campaign was conducted on a plane of malignant make-believe, and that came at an unsupportable cost.

Matthew Miller, whom we often see on the electric TV machine, flagged an important passage from the report that beautifully sums up how we elected a president in 2016. And this is what, finally, brings us back to saintly Jim Comey one more time. It is an e-mail from October 5, 2016 sent by Comey to James Clapper and John Brennan, the other two intelligence satraps who already were onto the evidence that Russian ratfckers and the Volga Bagmen were helping the Republican candidate. Apparently, there was some discussion of whether or not the country needed to know about this. (Spoiler: It did.) This is what Comey wrote:

“I think the window has closed on the opportunity for an official statement, with 4 weeks until a presidential election. I could be wrong (and frequently am) but Americans already ‘know’ the Russians are monkeying around on behalf of one candidate. Our ‘confirming’ it (1) adds little to the public mix, (2) begs difficult questions about both how we know that and what we are going to do about it, and (3) exposes us to serious accusations of launching our own ‘October surprise.'”

Not an entirely unwarranted concern, until you remember that, 23 days later, Comey wrote the letter to Congress, re-opening the email investigation because of the material found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. This was the single most crucial moment in the campaign, and the IG report makes clear that Comey wrote the letter because he was afraid that the renegade agents in the New York FBI field office would leak the material anyway. (This is an aspect of the affair that the IG report hints at, but does not explore in any great depth.) In other words, Comey blew the investigation a second time over his fears of something that had not happened yet.

I don’t believe there’s ever been an American election in which so many people operated as though reality was too awful to contemplate and chose, instead, to chase ghosts and goblins of their own imagination. The 2016 presidential campaign was an extended dive into deep political madness. Nothing that’s happened since ever should have been a surprise.

Fox News Shep Smith on Trump’s North Korea Scam

act.tv

June 13, 2018

Shep Smith breaks down the useless North Korea deal.

Shep Smith on Trump's North Korea scam

Shep Smith breaks down the useless North Korea deal.

Posted by act.tv on Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Republican party is now the Trump party? “RIP GOP,

From Veterans Against the GOP.    June 14, 2018

HLN

Is the Republican party now the Trump party? “RIP GOP,” S.E. Cupp mourns. “We used to stand for something. Now, just one thing.”

Is the Republican party now the Trump party? "RIP GOP," S.E. Cupp mourns. "We used to stand for something. Now, just one thing."

Posted by HLN on Thursday, June 14, 2018

The United States already spends more on the military than the next 10 countries combined.

Robert Reich

June 14, 2018

The United States already spends more on the military than the next 10 countries combined. Our latest video explains why it’s time to rein in Pentagon spending and the endless war machine, and demand investment in America. Please watch and help spread the word.

The Military-Industrial Drain

The United States already spends more on the military than the next 10 countries combined. Our latest video explains why it's time to rein in Pentagon spending and the endless war machine, and demand investment in America. Please watch and help spread the word.

Posted by Robert Reich on Thursday, June 14, 2018

Two people who lie about everything signed a deal that’s specific about nothing.

Bill Maher on trump and kim jong un

June 15, 2018

Two people who lie about everything signed a deal that’s specific about nothing. I would say it was a feckless stunt.

A Feckless Stunt

Two people who lie about everything signed a deal that’s specific about nothing. I would say it was a feckless stunt.

Posted by Bill Maher on Friday, June 15, 2018

The model minority myth is responsible for huge misconceptions about being Asian in America.

Well-Rounded Life

June 2, 2018

The model minority myth is responsible for huge misconceptions about being Asian in America.

Model Minority Myth

The model minority myth is responsible for huge misconceptions about being Asian in America.

Posted by Well-Rounded Life on Saturday, June 2, 2018

Depression-era program could help farmers in trade war

CNBC – Politics

Depression-era program could help farmers in trade war but still won’t make them ‘whole,’ says former USDA secretary

A Depression-era program could help farmers in the trade war with China, according to Dan Glickman, who served as agriculture secretary in the Clinton administration.

Glickman said other options also could be used within the agriculture agency but still won’t make farmers “whole.”

On Friday, China announced tariffs on $34 billion worth of American products, including soybeans, corn, wheat, beef, dairy products and sorghum.

Jeff Daniels        June 15, 2018

        Getty Images. Soybean farmers in Mississippi County, Arkansas.

Although President Donald Trump has offered to make it up to farmers in a trade war, there’s no way to fully cushion all the potential losses that producers could suffer if there’s a significant reduction in soybeans and other exports, according to a former agriculture secretary.

On Friday, China announced a 25 percent tariff on $34 billion worth of American products, including soybeans, corn, wheat, beef, dairy products and sorghum. It followed the White House earlier in the day announcing plans to impose tariffs on more than 800 Chinese imports worth approximately $34 billion.

Earlier this year, Trump spoke about escalating trade tensions with China and said his administration essentially had the backs of farmers and would “make it up to them” and that in the end they “will be better off than they ever were.”

Many of the farm products targeted by the Chinese are grown in states where Trump received strong support during the 2016 presidential election. The latest tariffs announced by Beijing are set to take effect July 6.

   Former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman.  Bill Clark | Roll Call | Getty Images

“This is very worrisome for American agriculture generally,” said Dan Glickman, who served during the Clinton administration as agriculture secretary. “The business model of agriculture is an export business model, particularly for the program crops such as wheat, corn, cotton, rice and especially soybeans.”

Glickman also said there could be fallout for GOP lawmakers from the Trump administration’s actions on trade. He said farmers and rural communities are likely to feel the pain if there is a significant decline in agricultural exports.

Even with trade tensions threatening American agricultural exports, some farmers remain steadfast in their support for Trump.

“President Trump and the administration have the best interests of America in mind,” said Joe Steinkamp, a soybean, corn and wheat grower near Evansville, Indiana. “They’re trying to do their best and say they’re going to take care of farmers — and we appreciate that.”

According to Glickman, there are several statutes available to the U.S. Department of Agriculture that could be used to help farmers, including programs through the Commodity Credit Corp. The CCC, a federal agency set up during the Great Depression, could potentially buy surplus farm products and support growers.

“This [CCC] is the part of the USDA that has almost unlimited amount of funds to sometimes make up the difference in farm prices,” said Glickman. “Sometimes they can buy commodities for school meal programs or for other hunger programs.”

Glickman, who now is executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Congressional Program, said other options available include purchasing programs tied to food humanitarian relief for famines and natural disasters that also are part of USDA.

Regardless, the former U.S. congressman and Clinton administration official said it’s “doubtful that farmers can be made ‘whole’ for all economic losses resulting from a trade war impacting American ag exports. It leaves farmers in an unstable, vulnerable position.”

Glickman said the trade war with China and other countries “involves great risk because, from a macro perspective, about 40 percent of American agricultural products are for export.”

Overall, U.S. agricultural exports to China represent almost $20 billion annually for American farmers.

The U.S. exports about $14 billion worth of soybeans to China, according to the USDA. China buys roughly half of the U.S. soybean exports, and roughly one in three rows of soybeans grown on the nation’s farms goes to the world’s second-largest economy, according to the American Soybean Association.

China also is the world’s largest cotton consumer and ranks as the second-largest buyer of American cotton, with one out of every five bales headed there.

The latest round of tariffs by Beijing follows retaliatory action taken in April by the Chinese against other agricultural products. Effective April 2, China imposed new tariffs of up to 25 percent on U.S. pork, nuts, wine and fresh fruit. The move was in response to the White House earlier announcing a 25 percent duty on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum imports.

At the same time, Mexico this month announced retaliatory tariffs of 20 percent on U.S. pork exports in response to the Trump administration’s duties on imported steel and aluminum products. They also targeted apples and potatoes with 20 percent duties as well as tariffs of 20 to 25 percent on some dairy products and bourbon.

Earlier this year, Trump instructed U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue “to use his broad authority to implement a plan to protect our farmers and agricultural interests,” according to a statement issued in April. But little in the way of details have been offered of any specific plans.

“It’s not probably very smart in these kind of things to lay all your cards on the table about what you’re going to do,” Perdue told reporters in April.

Still, Glickman said he has “a lot of confidence in the current agriculture secretary, Perdue, that he’s going to use all of his authorities available to him. But there’s only so much he can do.”

Glickman said there’s also uncertainty out there for farmers when considering other tariffs U.S. trading partners can impose on U.S. agricultural products. “We’re most vulnerable in retaliation on agriculture, because that’s the one area where exports are more critically important than almost any segment of the American economy,” he said.

Enraged farmers and lawmakers confront Pruitt during Heartland tour

ThinkProgress

Enraged farmers and lawmakers confront Pruitt during Heartland tour

Rural workers slammed White House favoritism of fossil fuels.

E.A. Crunden     June 15, 2018

Ethanol Plant in Rosholt, South Dakota. Credit: Myloupe/UIG via Getty Images

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt is facing a torrent of accusations and anger as he tours through the U.S. heartland. Farmers and Midwestern politicians are accusing the official of prioritizing fossil fuel industries over the interests of the region, which has served as a reliable base for President Trump.

Touring through states including Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota this week, Pruitt came under fire repeatedly by constituents for reasons unrelated to his lengthy list of scandals. The subject of at least a dozen federal investigations relating to financial and ethics decisions, Pruitt encountered questions of a very different variety in the Midwest.

“To be honest, Administrator Pruitt, we’re mad as hell,” Kansas farmer Dennis McNich told Pruitt earlier this week. “Today, the American farmer is struggling to make ends meet and our industry is on the cusp of financial ruin in many areas of the country.”

Oil, gas, and coal have seen a favorable reception under the Trump administration, which has rolled back Obama-era initiatives and regulations in favor of fossil fuels. While those moves are in line with the president’s conservative base, farming states argue they’ve come at a cost.

At the center of that contention is ethanol, a crucial source of income for corn-producing states. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), oil refiners are required to blend ethanol and biodiesel with petroleum, a requirement the corn industry welcomes and the oil industry has repeatedly lobbied against.

China hits U.S. farmers where it hurts after White House trade threats

Small refineries are sometimes granted waivers in order to avoid outsized costs under the RFS. But under Pruitt, the EPA has granted a number of controversial waivers, including one to Oklahoma billionaire Carl Icahn. That trend sparked a request from 13 Midwestern senators, including Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), demanding that the EPA cease issuing such waivers.

That hasn’t happened and farmers are angry. “We ain’t going to be played for a sucker. And that’s what they’re trying to do,” Grassley told the New York Times this week.

His comments came after fellow Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst (R) called Pruitt “about as swampy as you get.” A number of other rural Republican lawmakers have similarly slammed Pruitt over seeming favoritism towards oil and gas over corn and agriculture.

“EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is embarrassing President Trump,” reads one ad currently running in the region and backed by the conservative American Future Fund, which is based in Iowa and receives funding from at least one wealthy ethanol producer.

Iowa is not among the states on Pruitt’s agenda this week, but the administrator received an earful in the areas he did visit.

“My personal opinion is farmers are demanding accountability and I think that Mr. Pruitt probably is a dead man walking,” Dane Hicks, the GOP chairman for Anderson County, Kansas, told Politico.  “I can’t imagine he rebounds from this in any way to salvage his position. I would expect his resignation soon.”

Kansas Corn Growers Association President Ken McCauley had similarly harsh words. McCauley blasted Pruitt for coming to Kansas to “take a few photos with smiling farmers and tell the President that corn farmers are okay with his actions” rather than addressing the region’s needs.

“When you look at what EPA is doing, they are most definitely picking winners and losers and right now, ethanol is the loser,” McCauley said. He went on to add that the “EPA’s attacks on ethanol don’t just hurt plants like EKAE, they hurt farmers, rural communities, and American consumers who benefit from ethanol with lower prices and cleaner air.”

As trade war rhetoric grows, Appalachia and the Heartland fear backlash

Displeasure with Pruitt runs deep, but farmers aren’t completely satisfied with Trump either. Ongoing trade feuding between the Trump administration and a number of key trading partners, including Mexico, Canada, China, and the European Union, has sparked retaliatory tariffs predominately targeting the Midwest and the South. One particular source of contention is soybeans, a major export for the region. Responding to aggressive trade threats from Trump, China hit out at U.S. soybeans, threatening a 25 percent tariff and infuriating U.S. farmers in the process.

Trump has also failed to remove gasoline restrictions that limit ethanol amounts, despite promising farmers he would do so. Pruitt has said he supports lifting that restriction, but farmers have expressed frustration and skepticism.

“Agriculture is not very happy with Mr. Pruitt at this point,” said David Fremark, whose family grows and sells products including corn and soybeans in South Dakota.

“He’s done some good things, but this far and away overshadows everything he’s done,” Fremark said.

Pruitt’s visit to Nebraska on Thursday marked his final stop during the tour. It was not immediately clear to what extent the resounding criticism the administrator faced throughout the week would factor into future policy decisions or whether it would hinder his standing with the president.

Trump: Kim’s people sit up when he speaks, ‘I want my people to do the same’

The Hill

Trump: Kim’s people sit up when he speaks, ‘I want my people to do the same’

By Max Greenwood        June 15, 2018

Trump: Kim’s people sit up when he speaks, ‘I want my people to do the same’

President Trump said on Friday that he wants “his people” to listen to him like North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s people listen to him.

“He’s the head of a country. And I mean, he is the strong head,” Trump said of Kim in a tongue-in-cheek manner as he spoke to Steve Doocy of “Fox & Friends” outside the White House.

“Don’t let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same,” Trump said.

It wasn’t clear what Trump meant by “his people” and “my people,” phrasings that could be interpreted to mean all North Koreans and Americans but that could also mean those people reporting directly to the two leaders.

Doocy did not ask a direct follow-up question to clarify.

Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn after the Fox interview, Trump was pressed on what he meant when he said that he wanted his “people” to listen to him like the North Koreans listen to Kim.

“I was kidding,” he said. “You don’t understand sarcasm.”

A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for clarification.

The president praised Kim during the Fox interview, a continuation of compliments he has offered the dictator since their summit in Singapore earlier this week.

He said that he had “hit it off” with Kim.

“We get along very well, we had good chemistry,” Trump said.

Trump’s comments came three days after his meeting with Kim — the first between a sitting U.S. president and North Korean leader — in which the two signed a brief document committing the Korean Peninsula to denuclearization in exchange for unspecified security guarantees from the U.S.

Trump has also come under fire from some lawmakers for his friendly comments towards Kim, whose government has a notorious human rights record and a history of cruel treatment of prisoners, including Americans.