Houthis launch sea drone to attack ships hours after US, allies issue final warning
Tara Copp – January 4, 2024
FILE – U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, who heads the Navy’s Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, speaks at an event at the International Defense Exhibition and Conference in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Feb. 21, 2023. The top commander of U.S. naval forces in the Middle East says Yemen’s Houthi rebels are showing no signs of ending their “reckless” attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea. But Vice Adm. Brad Cooper said in an Associated Press interview on Saturday that more nations are joining the international maritime mission to protect vessels in the vital waterway and trade traffic is beginning to pick up. (AP Photo/Jon Gambrell, File)More
WASHINGTON (AP) — An armed unmanned surface vessel launched from Houthi-controlled Yemen got within a “couple of miles” of U.S. Navy and commercial vessels in the Red Sea before detonating on Thursday, just hours after the White House and a host of partner nations issued a final warning to the Iran-backed militia group to cease the attacks or face potential military action.
Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, the head of U.S. Navy operations in the Middle East, said it was the first time the Houthis had used an unmanned surface vessel, or USV, since their harassment of commercial ships in the Red Sea began after the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war. They have, however, used them in years past.
Fabian Hinz, a missile expert and research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the USV’s are a key part of the Houthi maritime arsenal and were used during previous battles against the Saudi coalition forces that intervened in Yemen’s war. They have regularly been used as suicide drone boats that explode upon impact.
Most of the Houthis’ USVs are likely assembled in Yemen but often fitted with components made in Iran, such as computerized guidance systems, Hinz said.
At the United Nations, U.S. deputy ambassador Christopher Lu said at a emergency Security Council meeting on Wednesday that Iran has supplied the Houthis with money and advanced weapons systems, including drones, land attack cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. He said Iran also has been deeply involved in planning the Houthis’ attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea.
He said the United States isn’t seeking a confrontation with Iran, but Tehran has a choice.
“It can continue its current course,” Lu said, “or it can withhold its support without which the Houthis would struggle to effectively track and strike commercial vessels navigating shipping lanes through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.”
This raises questions as to whether any action against the Houthis would also address Iran’s role in any way, which could risk widening the conflict.
A statement Wednesday signed by the United States, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore and the United Kingdom gave the Houthis what a senior Biden administration official described as a final warning.
“Let our message now be clear: we call for the immediate end of these illegal attacks and release of unlawfully detained vessels and crews,” the countries said in the statement. “The Houthis will bear the responsibility of the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy, and free flow of commerce in the region’s critical waterways.”
Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder would not say whether any military action would follow Thursday’s launch of the sea drone.
″I’ll let the statement speak for itself, which, again, represented many nations around the world and highlighted that if these strikes don’t stop, there will be consequences,” Ryder said.
Since late October, the Houthis have launched scores of one-way attack drones and missiles at commercial vessels transiting the Red Sea. U.S. Navy warships have also intercepted ballistic missiles the Pentagon says were headed toward Israel. Cooper said a total of 61 missiles and drones have been shot down by U.S. warships.
In response to the Houthi attacks, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in December announced Operation Prosperity Guardian, with the United States and other countries sending additional ships to the southern Red Sea to provide protection for commercial vessels passing through the critical Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
Cooper said 1,500 commercial ships have been able to transit safely since the operation was launched on Dec. 18.
However, the Houthis have continued to launch missiles and attack drones, prompting the White House and 12 allies to issue what amounted to a final warning Wednesday to cease their attacks on vessels in the Red Sea or face potential targeted military action.
Cooper said Operation Prosperity Guardian was solely defensive in nature and separate from any military action the U.S. might take if the Houthi attacks continue.
The U.S., United Kingdom and France are providing most of the warships now, and Greece and Denmark will also be providing vessels, he said.
Associated Press writer Jack Jeffery in London and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.
“Unprofessional”: Experts blast Trump lawyer for saying Brett Kavanaugh “quid pro quo part out loud”
Igor Derysh – January 5, 2024
Alina Habba ANNA WATTS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
Trump attorney Alina Habba on Thursday suggested that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would “step up” and rule in favor of the former president because he “fought for” him.
Trump on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring him from the presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s “insurrectionist” clause. Trump has privately told people that he thinks the Supreme Court will “overwhelmingly” overturn the ruling but has also expressed concern that the conservative justices he appointed “will worry about being perceived as ‘political’ and may rule against him,” according to The New York Times.
Habba echoed Trump’s worries in an interview with Fox News.
“That’s a concern that he’s voiced to me, he’s voiced to everybody publicly, not privately. And I can tell you that his concern is a valid one,” she said. “They’re trying so hard to look neutral that sometimes they make the wrong call.”
But in a later appearance on the network with host Sean Hannity, Habba said the case should be a “slam dunk in the Supreme Court.”
“You know people like Kavanaugh ― who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place ― he’ll step up,” she said. “Those people will step up. Not because they’re pro-Trump but because they’re pro-law. Because they’re pro-fairness, and the law on this is very clear.”
CNN host Phil Mattingly was taken aback as he played the clip on Friday.
“If a Democrat said that about the Justice Department or Merrick Garland or fill-in-the-blank here, there would be an absolute implosion. That’s bonkers,” he said.
“She’s saying the quiet part out loud,” replied panelist Jon Avlon. “She’s saying that Brett Kavanaugh will step up and side with the president because he appointed him. That goes against every basic idea of law and independence of the judiciary. And frankly, it puts Kavanaugh in a bit of a box.”
Legal experts skewered the lawyers’ Fox News remarks.
“That’s not how this works,” tweeted national security attorney Bradley Moss. “Imagine for a second if a lawyer for Clinton, Obama or Biden said this. It’d be a massive scandal at Fox,” he added.
“Alina Habba saying the quid pro quo part out loud here,” wrote MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang.
“Yet another example of Habba demonstrating how unprofessional she is as an attorney,” national security lawyer Mark Zaid added.
US Supreme Court to hear Trump appeal of Colorado ballot disqualification
Andrew Chung and John Kruzel – January 5, 2024
FILE PHOTO: Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Trump campaigns in Reno
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear Donald Trump‘s appeal of a judicial decision barring the former president from Colorado’s Republican primary ballot, taking up a politically explosive case with major implications for the 2024 presidential election.
At issue is the Colorado Supreme Court’s Dec. 19 ruling disqualifying Trump from the state’s primary ballot based on language in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment for engaging in insurrection, involving the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol.
The justices took up the case with unusual speed. Trump, the frontrunner for his party’s nomination to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election, filed his appeal on Wednesday. The justices indicated they would fast-track a decision, scheduling oral arguments for Feb. 8. The Colorado Republican primary is scheduled for March 5.
The state court, acting in a challenge to Trump by Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado, found him ineligible for the presidency under a constitutional provision that bars anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office, barring him from the primary ballot.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not act on a separate appeal of the state court’s decision by the Colorado Republican Party.
The Colorado case thrusts the Supreme Court – whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump – into the unprecedented and politically fraught effort by his detractors to invalidate his campaign to reclaim the White House.
Trump’s spokesperson Steven Cheung praised the court’s decision to hear the case, characterizing the disqualification efforts as “part of a well-funded effort by left-wing political activists hell-bent on stopping the lawful re-election of President Trump this November, even if it means disenfranchising voters.”
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said people in her state and around the United States “deserve clarity on whether someone who engaged in insurrection may run for the country’s highest office.”
Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group representing the challengers to Trump, added, “We’re glad that the Supreme Court will definitively decide whether Donald Trump can be on the ballot. We look forward to presenting our case and ensuring the Constitution is upheld.”
Many Republicans have decried the disqualification drive as election interference, while proponents of disqualification have said holding Trump constitutionally accountable for an insurrection supports democratic values. Trump faces criminal charges in two cases related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden.
Trump also has appealed to a Maine state court a decision by that state’s top election official barring him from the primary ballot under the same constitutional provision at issue in Colorado.
HIGH STAKES FOR SUPREME COURT
While the Colorado case could hamper Trump’s bid to win back the presidency, it also has major implications for the justices. Given the political nature of the dispute, they run the risk of appearing partisan whichever way they lean.
Their action will shape a wider effort to disqualify Trump from other state ballots. Colorado and Maine are Democratic-leaning states. Nonpartisan political analysts forecast that both are unlikely to back a Republican presidential candidate in the general election. But there are efforts underway in other states – including highly competitive Michigan – that could shape the election’s outcome.
The Colorado ruling marked the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment – the so-called disqualification clause – was used to deem a presidential candidate ineligible. Section 3 bars from holding office any “officer of the United States” who took an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
The amendment was ratified in the aftermath of the American Civil War of 1861-1865 in which Southern states that allowed the practice of slavery rebelled in a bid for secession.
Among other arguments, Trump’s lawyers have said that Section 3 does not apply to U.S. presidents, that the question of presidential eligibility is reserved to Congress, and that he did not participate in an insurrection.
The Colorado court’s decision marked “the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate,” Trump’s appeal stated.
The Republican and unaffiliated voters who sued to disqualify Trump from the ballot disagreed. In a filing on Thursday, they emphasized the lower court’s findings that Trump’s intentional “mobilizing, inciting, and encouraging” of an armed mob to attack the Capitol meets the legal definition in Section 3.
“This attack was an ‘insurrection’ against the Constitution by any standard,” they said in the filing.
Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol in a bid to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s election victory. Trump gave an incendiary speech before the attack, repeating his false claims of widespread voting fraud.
Biden in a speech in Pennsylvania on Friday cast Trump as a threat to American democracy, one of the themes of his re-election campaign. Biden specifically made reference to Trump’s speech before the Capitol riot, whose three-year anniversary is on Saturday.
(Reporting by John Kruzel in Washington and Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)
“No shame. No decency”: Experts shocked at “weakness” of Trump’s bizarre Supreme Court ballot appeal
Igor Derysh – January 4, 2024
Donald Trump Scott Olson/Getty Images
Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday appealed the Colorado ruling barring him from the state’s primary ballot to the Supreme Court.
The Colorado Supreme Court last month found that Trump engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6 and was barred from appearing on the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — a post-Civil War provision barring insurrectionists from office.
Trump’s lawyers in a filing asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put his name back on the ballot, arguing it would “mark the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate.”
Trump’s team called on the court to “return the right to vote for their candidate of choice to the voters,” arguing that only Congress has the authority to determine who is eligible for the presidency.
Trump’s team also disputed that he engaged in insurrection, citing a “long history of political protests that have turned violent.”
Legal experts criticized Trump’s filing starting with the very first line, which noted that it is a “fundamental principle” of the Constitution that “the people should choose whom they please to govern them.”
“No shame. No decency,” tweeted former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, alluding to Trump’s own efforts to disenfranchise voters after his 2020 loss.
“The sort of gall that the brief represents, it’s really, I think, shocking,” former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, told MSNBC. “It’s really sort of beyond the pale and legally wrong.”
“Donald Trump is charged with, essentially, disenfranchising, trying to disenfranchise 80 million people,” Weissmann said.
Conservative attorney George Conway went through the indictment on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Thursday.
“This is a bizarre document, and I think it reflects the weakness of Trump’s position,” he said.
“He is throwing stuff up at the wall, or throwing stuff up in a zoo cage, and seeing what would stick,” Conway said, noting that Trump lacks “real appellate advocates” on his legal team and that the filing is effectively “channeling Trump’s narcissism.”
“The third reason, I think, is the fundamental weakness of his position. The fifth point in this brief, point five, Roman numeral five, is he didn’t engage in insurrection. It is not number one. The reason is, it’s because his arguments are very, very weak. If you look at the question in terms of President Trump should be removed from the ballot, it’s kind of a shocking notion to those of us who haven’t lived, until now, in an era where public officials engage in insurrection. But it was familiar to the people who enacted the 14th amendment,” he said.
“When you go through the issues one by one by one, the way lawyers are supposed to, his case looks terrible,” he added.
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, noted that Trump’s argument that he did not engage in insurrection is a “weak argument.”
“First on the facts but second, the Supreme Court’s not going to touch that,” he said. “They’re not a fact-finder, they don’t do trials. They generally won’t make that kind of finding.”
Honig said it is unclear how the court might look at Trump’s arguments that the matter should be left to Congress or that he was not given due process in the Colorado case.
“And then the fourth argument is this claim that the term ‘officers,’ as it’s used in the insurrection clause, doesn’t include the president. I tend to side with Colorado and [the plaintiffs] on that one. You can carve that up linguistically either way but just [on] common sense, how could it not apply to the president?” Honig questioned. “All of this is new… whatever happens here, we’re all going to learn together.”
US and allies continue discussions on transfer of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine — Kirby
The New Voice of Ukraine – January 4, 2024
The US continues discussions with its allies on the transfer of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine
The United States, along with its allies, is still in discussions regarding the transfer of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, White House National Security Council Coordinator John Kirby said during a press briefing on Jan. 3.
While the focus is currently on supporting Kyiv in countering Russian aggression, the U.S. is still engaged in conversations “with our partners about what the post-war reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine should look like.
“But obviously our main focus right now is to help them counter Russian aggression,” Kirby said.
The U.S., in collaboration with the EU, is exploring legal avenues to redirect $300 billion of Russian assets for the reconstruction and other needs of Ukraine, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Oct. 5.
The Group of Seven (G7) is approaching the possibility of seizure of Russian assets for transfer to Ukraine, the Financial Times wrote on Dec. 16.
The United States, which had not previously publicly supported the idea of confiscation, told its G7 allies that it had found the funds to seize assets “in accordance with international law.”
“G7 members may take action to confiscate Russia’s sovereign assets as a retaliatory measure to end Russia’s aggression,” said the U.S. document, which was distributed to G7 committees.
Blinken and UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron held a telephone conversation to discuss support for Ukraine, the State Department reported on Jan. 2.
How Rep. Andy Biggs proves House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Texas border bonanza was bogus
EJ Montini, Arizona Republic – January 4, 2024
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs was at the border community of Eagle Pass, Texas, on Wednesday, part of a group of 60-plus Republicans led by House Speaker Mike Johnson, all of whom made the trip to make speeches, make the news, make (perhaps) some campaign cash, and accomplish … nothing.
Accomplishing nothing is something Biggs has proven to be very good (?) at.
“No more money for this bureaucracy of his (President Joe Biden’s) government until you’ve brought this border under control,” Biggs is quoted as saying in The New York Times. “Shut the border down or shut the government down.”
The congressman made the same threat on X, formerly Twitter.
”Shut the border down, or we’ll shut the government down,” he posted, standing with three other Republicans, including Arizona Rep. Eli Crane, who appears to have spent his time in Congress being tutored by Biggs on how to get zero done.
Some make progress. Biggs make noise
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, center left, and Texas Department of Public Safety chief Steve McCraw, center right, lead a group of Republican members of Congress during a tour of the Texas-Mexico border, Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024, in Eagle Pass, Texas.
There are two groups of elected officials operating in Washington, D.C.
There is a very small collective who want to make progress. And there is an overwhelming majority who want to make noise. You can guess which group Biggs, Speaker Johnson and the other Texas tinhorns belong to.
Meantime, back at the Capitol, there is a small working group of senators, including Arizona’s independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford and Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who are trying to hammer out a bipartisan agreement on border measures.
Sinema told The Arizona Republic, “We’re dealing with very, very difficult, complex issues. Drafting is very technical. It must be done incredibly precise and to avoid unintended consequences and decades of litigation. And so this is really hard. But everyone is working in good faith to solve this crisis.”
Not everyone.
Border isn’t a crisis, it’s a GOP gold mine
Republicans already are using the border crisis as their primary campaign argument for the 2024 election. It’s how they hope to help Donald Trump get back to the White House.
The worst thing that could happen to them, politically, would be for Republicans and Democrats of good faith to reach a bipartisan deal on the border.
Speaker Johnson, like Biggs and Arizona Republican Rep. Paul Gosar, was among those who tried to stage a nonviolent coup to keep Trump in office after he lost the election in 2020.
The bogus bonanza in Texas on Wednesday wasn’t about the border. It was about Trump.
Congress can solve this, but will it?
It wasn’t even the first time Biggs threatened a government shutdown.
He did that last year when he and some Republican cronies were trying to strongarm then Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
On Wednesday, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer in Washington said of the Republicans and their Texas two-step, “It’s very nice that they have a trip to the border, but the only way to solve this is here, working in a bipartisan way with Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats and House Democrats to get it done, period.
“I hope the speaker will realize that if he wants to solve the problem on the border.”
Trump’s businesses received millions from foreign entities during his presidency, House report says
Will Steakin – January 4, 2024
Former President Donald Trump’s businesses received millions of dollars from foreign entities located in 20 different countries during his presidency, according to a new report released Thursday by Democrats on the House Oversight committee.
The top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin, released the report and provided documents from Trump’s former accounting firm that show that 20 governments, including China and Saudi Arabia, paid at least $7.8 million during Trump’s presidency to business entities that included Trump International Hotels in Washington, D.C., and Las Vegas, and Trump Towers in New York.
The 156-page report by House Democrats is entitled “White House For Sale.”
In the forward to the report, Raskin wrote, “By elevating his personal financial interests and the policy priorities of corrupt foreign powers over the American public interest, former President Trump violated both the clear commands of the Constitution and the careful precedent set and observed by every previous commander in chief.”
The reports says that, according to “limited records” obtained by the committee, Saudi Arabia likely paid Trump-owned business at least $615,422 during Trump’s first term in office.
“While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was making these payments, President Trump chose Saudi Arabia as the destination of his first overseas trip — a choice that was unprecedented among U.S. presidents,” the report says.
PHOTO: Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump attends a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, Dec. 19, 2023. (Scott Morgan/Reuters, FILE)
The report claims that the payments violated the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, a rule that bars the president and other federal officials from accepting money or gifts from foreign governments without Congressional approval.
In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed lawsuits accusing Trump of profiting from his presidency, on the grounds that he is no longer in office.
“Through entities he owned and controlled, President Trump accepted, at a minimum, millions of dollars in foreign emoluments in violation of the United States Constitution,” Democrats write in the report. “The documents obtained from former President Trump’s accounting firm demonstrate that four Trump-owned properties together collected, at the least, millions of dollars in payments from foreign governments and officials that violated the Constitution’s prohibition on emoluments ‘of any kind whatever’ from foreign governments.”
ABC News has reached out to Trump’s representatives for comment on the report.
Related:
AFP
Foreign govts paid Trump firms millions while president: report
AFP – January 4, 2024
A Chinese embassy delegation spent $19,391 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC (CHIP SOMODEVILLA)
Former US president Donald Trump‘s businesses received at least $7.8 million from foreign governments including China during his time in the White House, a congressional report claimed Thursday.
Officials from Saudi Arabia, India, Turkey and Democratic Republic of Congo were among some 20 countries’ representatives who paid money to Trump’s hotel and real estate businesses during his presidency, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee wrote in their report.
The authors claim that such revenues from overseas governments violated a constitutional ban on “foreign emoluments.”
“As President, Donald Trump accepted more than $7.8 million in payments from foreign states and their leaders, including some of the world’s most unsavory regimes,” said the report titled “White House for Sale.”
“We know about only some of the payments that passed into former President Trump’s hands during just two years of his presidency from just 20 of the more than 190 nations in the world through just four of his more than 500 businesses.”
– ‘Prohibited emoluments’ –
In the case of China, the report alleged that Beijing as well as businesses including ICBC bank and Hainan Airlines spent $5.5 million at Trump-owned properties.
“Former President Trump violated the Constitution when the businesses he owned accepted these emoluments paid by (Beijing) without the consent of Congress,” the report said.
The authors say that the full amount could be higher as the $5.5 million figure is based only on limited disclosures from Trump’s accountants Mazars and filings with the American financial regulator, the SEC.
In one expenditure dated August 27, 2017, a Chinese embassy delegation spent $19,391 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
The report also claims that “Saudi Arabia paid at least $615,422 in prohibited emoluments to former President Trump’s businesses over the course of his term in office from just (the Trump World Tower) and the March 2018 stay at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC.”
“Former President Trump has also boasted about the continued willingness of the Saudis to do business on terms highly favorable to him,” the report stated.
Trump’s Washington hotel was sold in 2022 to a private investor group and rebranded under the luxury Waldorf Astoria line.
The frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, Trump separately faces a civil fraud trial in New York over claims that his real estate businesses fraudulently inflated the value of their assets.
He is to go on trial in Washington in March for conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and in Florida in May on charges of mishandling top secret government documents.
The twice-impeached former president also faces racketeering charges in Georgia for allegedly conspiring to upend the election results in the southern state after his 2020 defeat by Democrat Joe Biden.
Related:
CNN
China spent over $5.5 million at Trump properties while he was in office, documents show
Zachary Cohen and Kara Scannell, CNN – January 4, 2024
Gabriella Demczuk/Getty Images
The Chinese government and its state-controlled entities spent over $5.5 million at properties owned by Donald Trump while he was in office, the largest total of payments made by any single foreign country known to date, according to financial documents cited in a report from House Democrats released Thursday.
Those payments collectively included millions of dollars from China’s Embassy in the United States, a state-owned Chinese bank accused by the US Justice Department of helping North Korea evade sanctions and a state-owned Chinese air transit company. Accounting records from Trump’s former accounting firm, Mazars USA, were obtained by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.
China is one of 20 countries that made at least $7.8 million in total payments to Trump-owned businesses and properties during the former president’s stint in the White House, including his hotels in Washington DC, New York and Las Vegas, the report states.
The documents offer additional evidence of the rare practice of foreign governments spending money directly with businesses owned by a sitting president but are not a complete record of all foreign payments made to Trump’s businesses during his time in the White House.
At the time, Trump’s lawyer said the former president planned to donate foreign profits from his hotels to the US Treasury Department. However, the amount reportedly donated by the Trump Organization in 2017 and 2018 falls well short of estimated foreign payments that were made to its properties.
Trump refused to divest himself of corporate assets and properties prior to taking office, meaning he could still profit from his various businesses with little transparency.
Democrats say the additional accounting records raise new questions about possible efforts to influence Trump through his companies while he was in the White House.
As an example, committee Democrats point to the fact that Trump declined to impose sanctions on the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), a state-owned entity that leased property at Trump Tower in New York.
A Securities and Exchange Commission filing from 2012 shows that the Chinese bank’s base rent paid was $1.9 million and documents produced by Mazars confirm the bank stayed in Trump Tower through 2019 at least.
In 2016, the Justice Department accused the bank of conspiring with a North Korean bank to evade US sanctions.
But upon taking office, Trump did not sanction ICBC despite calls from Republican members of Congress to “apply maximum financial and diplomatic pressure” by “targeting more Chinese banks that do business with North Korea,” House Oversight Committee Democrats wrote in a report summarizing the contents of the Mazars USA records.
Asked about China’s payments to Trump-owned properties, Chinese Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu told CNN, “China adheres to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs and does not comment on issues related to US domestic politics.”
“At the same time, I want to stress that the Chinese government always requires Chinese companies to operate overseas in accordance with local laws and regulations. China-US economic and trade cooperation is mutually beneficial. China opposes the US politicizing China-US economic and trade issues,” Pengyu added.
The Trump Organization says it donated over $450,000 in estimated profits from foreign government patronage to the US Treasury over the time of Trump’s term. The company also worked to track all foreign government business across its entire portfolio and did not make new business investments overseas while Trump was in office.
In a statement, Eric Trump said that the former president was tough on China regardless of any business interests.
“There is no President in United States history who was tougher on China than Donald Trump … a President who introduced billions and billions of dollars worth of tariffs on their goods and services,” Eric Trump said.
Democrats also argue that the Mazar documents show Trump repeatedly violated the US Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits a president from receiving an “emolument,” or profit, from any “King, Prince, or foreign State” unless Congress consents. Yet despite ethical concerns that have been raised about Trump’s lack of adherence to constitutional norms that were embraced by his predecessors, legislation to enforce the Emoluments Clause has gone nowhere in Congress.
The committee, which has investigated Trump’s businesses and his lease of the Old Post Office in Washington from the US government that housed his hotel, was provided the records following a years-long court battle that ended in a settlement in 2022.
Many of the documents in the subset released Thursday have not been previously made public.
“These countries spent – often lavishly – on apartments and hotel stays at Donald Trump’s properties – personally enriching President Trump while he made foreign policy decisions connected to their policy agendas with far-reaching ramifications for the United States,” Democrats wrote in their report.
Saudi Arabia, for example, spent roughly $600,000 at Trump-owned properties during his time in office and was making significant payments in May 2017 when it signed a massive arms deal with the Trump administration.
The Trump administration agreed to the controversial arms deal, worth over $100 billion, despite bipartisan concerns about civilian casualties resulting from Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen.
The report produced by House Democrats also highlighted comments made by Trump during a 2015 campaign rally regarding his view of Saudi Arabia.
“Saudi Arabia, I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million.” He continued, “Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much!” Trump said at the time.
Committee Democrats have previously released some of the accounting records, but those documents only accounted for a fraction of the foreign payments to Trump-owned businesses during the years he occupied the White House.
Foreign spending at Trump World Tower
A sizable percentage of foreign spending disclosed in the latest report comes from leases or common charge payments countries made for apartments their diplomatic missions rent or own at Trump World Tower, an apartment building across the street from the United Nations.
Many of the countries bought properties years before Trump ran for office, but they continued to make payments to the Trump Organization during the presidency.
Saudi Arabia, India, Qatar, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and a Chinese-government linked petroleum company each owned or rented apartments at Trump World Tower and combined paid the Trump Organization an estimated $1.7 million in charges and fees, according to House Democrats.
The figure is based on records the Democrats received from Mazars for the year 2018 – the only year Mazars gave to the committee – and then an extrapolation based on the assumptions the charges remain the same during the course of Trump’s presidency.
The biggest payment to the UN property came from Saudi Arabia, which owns the 45th floor of the apartment tower. Democrats estimate the Saudi government paid $537,080 during Trump’s presidency – out of a total $615,422 in emoluments. The remainder came from payments to Trump’s hotel in Washington DC.
Qatar paid an estimated $465,744 for the properties it owned during Trump’s presidency; India paid at least $264,184; Afghanistan spent an estimated $153,208 for its unit; and Kuwait paid Trump’s company $152,664 for the Trump World Tower.
Kuwait also spent roughly $150,000 to the Washington hotel for National Day events held by its embassy in 2017 and 2018, according to Mazars records.
The national day event was also held at the hotel in 2019, but the Democrats said they did not receive records from Mazars related to the cost. The events were attended by Trump administration officials, the Democrats said citing press releases from the Kuwaiti embassy.
This story has been updated with additional details.
Related:
BBC News
Trump companies got millions from foreign governments, Democrats say
Natalie Sherman – BBC News – January 4, 2024
Trump International Hotel opened in 2016 in Washington
Donald Trump‘s hotels and other businesses accepted more than $7.8m (£6.1m) from foreign governments during his presidency, according to a new report from Democrats in Congress.
They found that China was responsible for more than $5.5m of those payments, which Mr Trump is accused of accepting in violation of the US constitution.
The report is based on documents released by Mr Trump’s former accounting firm after a court battle.
Mr Trump did not immediately comment.
The US constitution bars presidents from accepting gifts or other benefits derived from their position without express permission from Congress.
The former businessman, who made his name as a hotel and property developer, has been dogged by questions about his firms’ dealings since he entered the White House in January 2017.
At the time, he placed his sons in charge of the companies’ day-to-day operations but maintained ownership of the businesses, which included the Trump International Hotel in Washington, which became a known haunt for lobbyists, foreign delegations and others.
Mr Trump, who is currently campaigning for a second term, faced numerous lawsuits alleging conflicts-of-interest.
In 2021, America’s highest court threw out the cases, saying they were moot after he lost the 2020 election.
Representative Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said the investigation showed Mr Trump “put lining his pockets with cash from foreign governments seeking policy favors over the interests of the American people”.
“The report’s detailed findings make clear that we don’t have the laws in place to deal with a president who is willing to brazenly convert the presidency into a business for self-enrichment and wealth maximization with the collusive participation of foreign state,” he wrote in the introduction to the report.
Democrats said their investigation showed that Mr Trump’s loyalties were split by the payments, which came from at least 20 governments many of which had sensitive or politically charged matters before the US.
They cite as an example that Mr Trump supported arms sales to Saudi Arabia that were opposed by Congress due to fears the weapons would be used against civilians.
The report also notes he cast doubt on US intelligence assessments that the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman had ordered the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
After China, Saudi Arabia and its royal family was the second biggest patron of the Trump businesses, spending more than $600,000 at his properties, according to the report.
Qatar, Kuwait and India rounded out the top five list.
Democrats said that the findings reflect just the first two years of his presidency and only four of his properties, claiming it likely represented just a fraction of the money Mr Trump’s businesses made from foreign governments during his time as president.
In 2022, Democrats lost control of Congress and could no longer compel release of documents, cutting short the investigation.
Republican James Comer, who is leading an inquiry into the business dealings of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, during his father’s vice presidency, dismissed the findings.
“It is beyond parody that Democrats continue their obsession with former President Trump,” he said in a statement. “Former President Trump has legitimate businesses but the Bidens do not.”
Mr Trump’s tax records, released in 2022, revealed significant business losses during his presidency and he has scaled back his business.
The Trump Organization sold the Washington hotel to an investment group for $375m in 2022.
Related:
CBS News
Trump businesses got millions in foreign payments while he was president, Dems say
Kathryn Watson, Stefan Becket – January 4, 2024
Washington — Donald Trump‘s businesses received at least $7.8 million in payments from foreign governments and government-backed entities from 20 countries while he was in the White House, according to a new report by House Democrats.
Drawing upon 451 pages of documents received from Trump’s longtime accounting firm Mazars and a federal agency, Democratic staffers on the House Oversight Committee on Thursday issued their 156-page report entitled “White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump.”
The records, the report said, “demonstrate that four Trump-owned properties together collected, at the least, millions of dollars in payments from foreign governments and officials.” The Democrats alleged these payments violated what’s known as the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts or other benefits from foreign countries without congressional approval.
“This report sets forth the records showing foreign government money — and all the spoils from royals we can find — pouring into hotels and buildings that the President continued to own during his presidency, all in direct violation of the Constitutional prohibition,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee.
The Democrats noted that they had access to a limited number of financial documents and that “the foreign payments to President Trump identified in this report are likely only a small fraction of the total amount of such payments he received during his presidency.”
Where the payments came from
The Democratic report focuses on payments to four Trump-controlled businesses: the Trump hotels in Washington, Las Vegas and New York, and Trump Tower in Manhattan.
While Trump turned over day-to-day operations of his businesses to his sons when he entered the White House in 2017, he declined to divest his assets and retained “personal ownership and control of all his businesses, as well as the ability to draw funds from them without any outside disclosure,” the report alleged. This arrangement, Democrats said, “reinforced (rather than severed) his ties to his businesses and enabled him to prioritize his personal interests over those of the nation.”
During his presidency, the Trump International Hotel in Washington attracted many foreign diplomats and dignitaries hoping to mingle with Trump allies and administration officials. According to Trump’s financial disclosure reports from when he was president, he earned more than $40 million from the D.C. hotel in 2017, and $40.8 million the following year.
A view of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 18, 2021. / Credit: Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Despite Trump’s frequent criticism of China and insistence that the country was taking advantage of the U.S., the majority of foreign payments included in Thursday’s report came from the Chinese government and two state-owned entities.
The payments totaled nearly $5.6 million at properties including Trump Tower, and the Trump International Hotels in Washington and Las Vegas, the report found. The bulk of the payments came from the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which paid $5.35 million in rent for space in Trump Tower from February 2017 to October 2019.
The nation that spent the second-most at the Trump properties, according to the report, was Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government spent more than $615,000 at Trump World Tower in New York and the Trump hotel in Washington from 2017 to 2020.
The report noted that Trump praised Saudi Arabia and mentioned “his transactional relationships” with the kingdom before taking office. During an August 21, 2015, rally in Alabama, Trump said Saudi nationals had spent millions of dollars on his apartments.
“Saudi Arabia, I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million,” he said. “Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much!”
The report said that Trump “oversaw several highly consequential decisions on a range of issues involving U.S. policy towards Saudi Arabia” while his businesses were receiving payments from the Saudi government. The Democrats noted Trump’s response to the 2018 death of Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident Jamaal Khashoggi, in which he publicly doubted the conclusion of the intelligence community that the Saudi crown prince had ordered his killing.
Qatar follows Saudi Arabia’s spending, with $465,744 spent at Trump World Tower. Nearly all of the remaining payments, from countries including Kuwait, India, Malaysia, Afghanistan, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates, occurred at the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
The fight over emoluments
Trump’s business dealings as president were the subject of three major court cases while he was in office, the first of which was filed in 2017. The cases, brought by Democratic lawmakers, several states and an oversight group, were the first legal battles over the Emoluments Clause, but failed to resolve questions about the definition of an “emolument” or the scope of constitutional provision. The Supreme Court dismissed two of them once Trump left office and declined to review the third.
The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the new report. Trump dismissed the “phony Emoluments Clause” and concerns about his business dealings in 2019.
The Trump Organization has said it voluntarily donated proceeds from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury every year from 2018 to 2021. In 2017, the Trump Organization said it would rely on foreign representatives to self-report if they were paying a Trump company for something in their official capacity.
The company said it donated $191,538 in foreign payments in 2019, $105,465 in 2020 and $10,577 in 2021.
Biden’s first 2024 ad focuses on ‘extremist’ threat to democracy
AFP – January 4, 2024
Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they storm the US Capitol in Washington, DC on January 6, 2021 (Olivier DOULIERY)
President Joe Biden‘s campaign released its first television ad for the 2024 election on Thursday, warning of an “extremist” threat to democracy over images of the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.
The advertisement, entitled “Cause,” will get its first network showing on Saturday, the third anniversary of the historic assault by Donald Trump supporters which left five people dead.
“All of us are being asked right now, what will we do to maintain our democracy?” the 81-year-old Democrat says in a passage lifted from a speech he gave in Arizona last year.
“There’s something dangerous happening in America. There’s an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs in our democracy,” says the ad, released early on social media.
During the one-minute ad, Biden does not mention by name former president Trump — the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination and the man he beat in 2020.
But over swelling, dramatic music, the ad features repeated images of pro-Trump signs held by the January 6 rioters, as well as a hangman’s noose brought by the protesters to the Capitol.
It also includes pictures of torch-bearing white supremacists at a rally in Charlottesville in 2017.
The Biden campaign is increasingly painting the election as a fight for American democracy against Trump, with the president set to give a speech on similar lines in Pennsylvania on Friday.
Polls show Biden and Trump neck and neck despite the populist Republican tycoon, 77, facing multiple criminal trials, including one linked to the January 6 riot.
Biden campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said Republicans had “doubled down” on threats to undermine elections.
“This ad serves as a very real reminder that this election could very well determine the very fate of American democracy,” she said in a statement.
Letters to the Editor: I immigrated to the U.S. in 1971. I’ll leave if Trump is reelected
Los Angeles Times Opinion – January 4, 2024
An immigrant holds a flag and the Oath of Allegiance during a naturalization ceremony in Los Angeles in 2021. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)
To the editor: After I immigrated to the U.S. in 1971, my introduction to national politics was the Watergate hearings, which I followed closely on TV. The role that prominent members of the Republican Party played in the downfall of President Nixon was expected and commendable. (“Is 2024 the year you’ll become an American expat?” Opinion, Jan. 1)
Forty-five years later, I watched Trump get elected and left the country in horror. Unfortunately, my American family was unable to join me in Switzerland due to job obligations, so after three months I returned to suffer for four years watching the principles of my beloved adopted country being systematically dismantled.
If former President Trump gets reelected, I will once again move to Europe, unwilling to spend another four years experiencing the deterioration of our country at home, and being a laughingstock abroad.
The complicity of Republicans in Trump’s ego-driven schemes reminds me too much of the developments leading to World War II, and I abhor the mindless adherence of Trump supporters to his amoral behavior. They will still be around long after Trump is a nightmarish memory.
Isabelle H. Meyer, Glendale
..
To the editor: In “The Dawn of Everything,” the book Virginia Heffernan mentions in her op-ed article, authors David Graeber and David Wengrow mention three freedoms. Heffernan focuses only on one — the right to move.
Why does she not discuss options for people who are rich enough to leave the United States? What about exhorting her readers to disobey and change society, the two other freedoms, before abandoning the country?
Abcarian: Really, young voters? You want to teach Democrats a lesson by letting Trump back into the White House?
Robin Abcarian – January 3, 2024
President Biden poses with Students Demand Action in Connecticut in June. In 2020, the youngest American voters were squarely in his corner. Not now, according to polls. (Susan Walsh / Associated Press)
I almost spit out my Geritol the other day when I read what one young voter in Philadelphia told NBC News about why she is disillusioned about the upcoming presidential election.
“I don’t think the presidency has too much of an effect on what happens in my day-to-day life,” said Pru Carmichael, who supported Biden in 2020 but says she will not vote for president at all this year if she has to choose between the disappointing incumbent and former President Trump.
Seriously?
Maybe she believes she will never have an unintended, unwanted pregnancy. (However, if she does, she is lucky enough to live in Pennsylvania, where abortion is still legal.)
But how can she not appreciate the profound changes the Trump presidency inflicted on this country? Had there been no President Trump, there would be no ultraconservative majority on the Supreme Court, no Dobbs decision overturning nearly half a century of reproductive rights, no outright abortion bans in 13 states and no suffering by people like Kate Cox of Texas, who was forced to seek abortion care in another state after the Texas Supreme Court said she could not abort her severely compromised fetus, who suffered a condition that was incompatible with life.
In 2020, the youngest American voters were squarely in Biden’s corner. According to exit polls, 65% of those 18 to 24 years old chose him, the largest percentage of any age group. And yet, if recent national polls are to be believed, voters up to age 34 have grown disenchanted with the president. Perhaps this is a reflection on the impatience of youth, or, worse, a fundamentally weak grasp on how government operates.
Listen to what younger voters told NBC News they’re upset about: the country’s slow pace on reversing climate change, Biden’s failure to fully cancel student loan debt, his inability to federally codify the right to abortion and, perhaps most starkly, his handling of Israel’s war against Hamas and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
“I mean, he made a lot of really big promises in his campaign and virtually none of them were followed through on,” one poll respondent, Austin Kapp, 25, of Colorado, told NBC News.
He did try to codify Roe, but was unable to marshal the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by Senate Republicans.
And what has Trump been doing about abortion, besides taking credit for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade? He’s urging Republicans to mislead voters: “In order to win in 2024, Republicans must learn how to properly talk about abortion,” he told a group of Iowa supporters in September. “This issue cost us unnecessarily but dearly in the midterms.”
We now know, thanks to the horrific experience of Cox and other women who have brought suit in Texas, that the idea of an “exception” to abortion bans for cases of rape, incest, fetal anomalies or the health of the pregnant person is nothing more than a shimmering lie, a mirage to make abortion bans slightly more palatable to the majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to choose.
As for the Middle East crisis, even if you agree that Biden’s handling of the situation has been uneven, why would anyone think Trump, an outspoken supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would handle it better, particularly if your sympathies lie more with the Palestinians caught in the violence than the Israeli government’s response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack?
On the campaign trail, Trump has signaled a lack of engagement in the conflict, suggesting that he would “let this play out.” His one concrete suggestion? In an interview with Univision in November, he said that Israel needed to “do a better job of public relations, frankly, because the other side is beating them at the public relations front.”
He has also pledged to “revoke the student visas of radical anti-American and antisemitic foreigners at our colleges and universities, and we will send them straight back home.” (Muslim ban, anyone?) Does that sound like an appealing counter-message for the 70% of voters under 35 who told NBC News pollsters they disapprove of the way Biden has handled the war?
With 2024 upon us, and the first contests of the Republican presidential primaries set to take place on Jan. 15 in Iowa and on Jan. 23 in New Hampshire, barring some unforeseen development it could become clear very quickly that the much-indicted Trump is bound for the November ballot as the Republican presidential nominee.
A Suffolk University/USA Today poll released on New Year’s Day showed that Trump is out-polling Biden among groups the pollsters described as “stalwarts of the Democratic base,” that is, Hispanics and younger voters. Biden’s support among Black Americans has also slipped significantly, though he still leads Trump.
This is alarming, not catastrophic. Biden, and Democrats, have time to make their case. I remain skeptical that the Democratic base will not come home by November, particularly as Trump continues to embrace his inner dictator on the campaign trail.
“A Republican getting elected isn’t the end. It is the beginning of a much larger fight,” a 23-year-old Wisconsin Starbucks worker and union organizer who is considering withholding his vote from Biden told NBC News. “I want to show the Democratic Party as a young person that you still need to earn our vote and if you don’t, the consequences will be your career.”
Teach Democrats a lesson by electing a democracy-destroying authoritarian?
My mother used to call that cutting off your nose to spite your face.
