What Many In Other Countries Think About The U.S. Post-Election Future

From Robert Reich:

I spent much of this week talking with foreign officials who are in the U.S. for United Nations meetings. I was curious to know how they’re strategizing about the United States in the future — assuming Democrats do well in the midterm elections and Trump becomes a lame-duck president. (None of my nine sources were heads of state; my stature doesn’t reach that high. But they were high enough to give me some useful insights.)

Here’s what I learned:

1. Most are thinking past Trump. They believe his influence is already waning, and his bellicose rantings show that he knows it. He’s still dangerous, they say, but not nearly as dangerous as he was, and he’s no longer capable of plunging the world into war. Every one of them told me he’s deeply unpopular in their countries. 

2. They’re thinking in a timeframe of five to 10 years. They see Trump as a temporary phenomenon and assume the United States will “return to its senses.” 

3. But — and here’s the part that concerned me — they’re unsure they can ever again rely on the United States for world leadership. Several pointed out that the fact Americans elected Trump for a second time reveals, in the words of one of them, “there’s something troublesome about your nation that transcends Trump.”

4. Even post-Trump, they see the United States as unstable and unpredictable. They don’t believe the country will fall into civil war, but they worry that policymaking will cycle between extremes because, in the words of another, “your extreme inequality will make it difficult to achieve any longer-term consensus.”

5. As a result, they’re looking ahead to a world where another nation, or group of nations, will take leadership on global issues that need to be addressed, such as climate change, AI, migration, widening inequalities, Putin’s aggression, and disease prevention.

6. Which nation or group? Another official put it to me this way: “We don’t trust China, the U.N. doesn’t work because of its security council, but the EU isn’t strong enough yet. Several of us are hoping that over the next decade the EU will be joined by Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, and that this new EU — really, a World Union — will devise a structure that enables it to work collaboratively and forcefully for the good of the world.” 

Most Say It's NOT Acceptable For A President To Accept Gifts From Foreign Governments

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between August 14th and 17th of a nationwide sample of 1,611 adults (including 1,450 registered voters). The margin of error is 3.4 points for adults and 3.2 points for registered voters. 

Trump Used His Presidency To Make Himself Richer

 I think most people already suspected this, but now a congressional report makes it official. Donald Trump accepted nearly $8 million from foreign countries during the first two years of his presidency (Republicans blocked the examination of the final two years of his presidency). He used the presidency to make himself richer -- which is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Here's how Dan Rather puts it:

According to a report released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, Donald Trump’s businesses allegedly received millions of dollars from 20 foreign governments, including “some of the world’s most unsavory regimes,” while the former president was in office. The report, “White House For Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump,” results from a years-long investigation. 

The Emoluments Clause in the Constitution disallows federal officials, including the president, from accepting money, payment or gifts “of any kind whatever” from foreign governments unless permission is granted from Congress. Trump never sought such permission.

Congressional investigators found Trump and his family received “at least” $7.8 million, much of the money from China but also from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Malaysia and others. The payments were made to Trump International Hotel, Washington, D.C.; Trump International Hotel, Las Vegas; Trump Tower, Fifth Avenue, New York; and Trump World Tower, New York.

“These payments were made while these governments were promoting specific foreign policy goals with the Trump administration and even, at times, with President Trump himself, and as they were requesting specific actions from the United States to advance their own national policy objectives.” 

— Congressional Report, “White House For Sale”

Despite requests from Democrats and Republicans after his 2016 win, Trump refused to divest his financial holdings and place his businesses in blind trusts, as every president since the 1970s had done.

 

House Democrats think this may be the proverbial tip of the iceberg, because when they lost their majority in 2022, Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, was released from having to provide any documents related to the foreign gifts. Democrats were able to see only a small portion of receipts from Trump’s businesses. Republicans, meanwhile, have focused on similar allegations about President Biden and his son, Hunter. So far, no wrongdoing has been proven there.

According to Eric Trump, son of the former president, profits earned by the Trump hotels were given to the Treasury Department voluntarily. We don’t know if the money was given to the federal government, but this admission confirms that profits were in fact earned from foreign entities. The whole thing merits more investigation.

It is so easy to throw this kind of behavior on the scrapheap of outrageous — sometimes illegal — doings by the former president, to shake your head and shrug your shoulders. But there is a compelling reason to keep calling out all the illegal and immoral exploits of Trump. If no one does, he gets away with it. 

Read the full report here.

It Was Far Too Easy For Him To Enter U.S. & Get A Gun

Why was it so easy for Malik Akram (the terrorist in the Colleyville Synagogue) to get into the United States, and to then get a gun? Those are valid questions. Here's a small part of what the editorial board of The Washington Post had to say: 

Eleven hours of terror in a Texas synagogue ended mercifully this past weekend when the three remaining hostages escaped without injury. That was due in large measure to the smart thinking and quick actions of the synagogue’s rabbi, who engineered the flight from a gunman. The attack by an armed British citizen is being investigated as an act of terrorism. Among the troubling questions that must be answered is how did Malik Faisal Akram — who reportedly had a criminal record and a history of mental illness and was known to British intelligence — even manage to get into the United States? And how did he get a gun? . . .

Good questions. After 9/11, strict security protocols were put in place to screen out people coming to the United States with the aim of doing harm. What were the circumstances of Mr. Akram’s entry through New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport on Dec. 29; was there a human mistake or a failure in the system that needs to addressed? It will be important for authorities to determine whether Mr. Akram acted alone. That it was seemingly so easy for him to acquire a gun — reportedly buying it off the street — underscores once again the complete folly of American gun laws.

Trump Says He's Willing To Violate U.S. Election Law

(This caricature of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b) "Foreign national" defined

As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-

(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

The paragraphs above contain the federal election law regarding participation in U.S. elections by foreign nationals (or individuals representing foreign nations).

Donald Trump violated this law when he not only accepted help from the Russians, but actually asked for that help. He claims he did not "collude" with Russia to affect the 2016 election, but he obviously did.

But even more important is the fact that he doesn't think he did anything wrong. And ignoring federal law, he said he would be willing to do it again -- without notifying the FBI that foreign help had been offered or accepted.

Here's what he said in an interview with ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos. Stephanopoulos asked Trump if he would accept help from a foreign government in the future. Trump said:

"I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."

"It's not an interference, they have information -- I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI -- if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, 'oh let's call the FBI.' The FBI doesn't have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that's the way it is. It's called oppo research."

"I'll tell you what, I've seen a lot of things over my life. I don't think in my whole life I've ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don't call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you do. Oh, give me a break – life doesn't work that way."

When reminded that FBI Director Wray said any contact from a foreign country offering help should be reported to the FBI, Trump responded:

"The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn't happen like that in life."

This tangerine fool has no respect for the rule of law. He thinks he's above the law, and should be able to do whatever he wants. He needs to be impeached -- NOW!

Is Trump Already Committing An Impeachable Offense ?

From the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8):

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Definition of emolument -- a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

This is pretty clear. No president (or other government official) can use his office to make himself richer (especially with business or gifts from a foreign state). And once Trump is sworn into office, it would be an impeachable offense.

Trump has refused to divest himself of his business interests. Instead, he has just said that he would turn over the day-to-day operations of his business empire to his children. That is not sufficient to satisfy the "Emoluments Clause", because Trump would still be profiting from his businesses, and those businesses could be used by foreign governments to try and gain influence with the president by paying into them. In fact, this seems to be already happening.

The following article at Think Progress is by Judd Legum and Kira Lerner:

The Embassy of Kuwait allegedly cancelled a contract with a Washington, D.C. hotel days after the presidential election, citing political pressure to hold its National Day celebration at the Trump International Hotel instead.

A source tells ThinkProgress that the Kuwaiti embassy, which has regularly held the event at the Four Seasons in Georgetown, abruptly canceled its reservation after members of the Trump Organization pressured the ambassador to hold the event at the hotel owned by the president-elect. The source, who has direct knowledge of the arrangements between the hotels and the embassy, spoke to ThinkProgress on the condition of anonymity because the individual was not authorized to speak publicly. ThinkProgress was also able to review documentary evidence confirming the source’s account.

In the early fall, the Kuwaiti Embassy signed a contract with the Four Seasons. But after the election, members of the Trump Organization contacted the Ambassador of Kuwait, Salem Al-Sabah, and encouraged him to move his event to Trump’s D.C. hotel, the source said.

Kuwait has now signed a contract with the Trump International Hotel, the source said, adding that a representative with the embassy described the decision as political. Invitations to the event are typically sent out in January.

Abdulaziz Alqadfan, First Secretary of the Embassy of Kuwait, told ThinkProgress last week that he couldn’t “confirm or deny” that the National Day event would be held at the Trump Hotel. Reached again Monday afternoon, Alqadfan did not offer any comment. An email sent directly to Ambassador Al-Sabah was not immediately returned.

Mallory Harney, a sales and marketing official with the Trump hotel, declined to comment.

The apparent move by the Kuwaiti Embassy appears to be an effort to gain favor with president-elect through his business entanglements, and it appears to show Trump’s company leveraging his position as president-elect to extract payments from a foreign government. The latter, according to top legal experts, would be unconstitutional and could ultimately constitute an impeachable offense.

The Trump Organization’s pressure campaign has not been limited to Kuwait. The country was targeted as part of a larger effort by the Trump Organization to lure lucrative diplomats to the Trump International Hotel.

It’s working.

Kuwait cancelled with the Four Seasons a few days after the Trump International Hotel held an event for diplomats, reported the Washington Post, encouraging them to patronize the hotel.

At the event, conversation among diplomats reportedly centered around “how are we going to build ties with the new administration,” according to the Post. One Middle Eastern diplomat told the Post that he or she expects foreign entities to begin holding events and booking stays at the hotel. “Believe me, all the delegations will go there,” the diplomat said.

Less than two weeks after that event, Politico reported that Bahrain, another Middle Eastern monarchy, would host its National Day reception at the Trump hotel on December 7.

Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) harshly criticized the Bahrain event, writing in a letter to Trump that he should “reject all business income from the Bahraini monarchy and all other foreign governments.” McGovern wrote that Trump’s “private commercial dealings with a repressive governments” endanger the fundamental principle that the president will “act solely in our country’s interests.”

The Republic of Azerbaijan also recently co-hosted a Hanukkah party at the Trump hotel, despite the anti-Semitic undertones of the Trump campaign. Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, blasted the decision as “tone deaf at best, naked sycophancy at worst.”

Smaller countries like Kuwait, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan may perceive patronizing the Trump Hotel as an easy way to gain access and favor with the incoming Trump administration.

To drive the effort to draw in business from embassies, the Trump Hotel poached a manager from the Four Seasons to be the “director of diplomatic sales.”

“The temptation and the inclination will certainly be there. Some might think it’s the right way to engage, to be able to tell the next president, ‘Oh, I stayed at your hotel,” a former ambassador to Mexico told the Washington Post.

Trump contributed to the impression that his businesses and administration are intertwined by naming three of his children to his transition team, while also saying that the children will manage his companies.

Trump planned to explain in a press conference this month how his businesses would operate after he assumes office, but he has postponed the announcement indefinitely.

Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Jr., meanwhile, have all been featured in public transition events. The transition team handed out a photo of Ivanka meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and a summit with a group of top American tech leaders held last week featured all three Trump children perched at the head of the table.

In several cases during the transition, foreign leaders have been able to get in touch with President-elect Trump through his business contacts.

Donald Trump and the businesses he owns and controls do not seem concerned about mixing his business and official activities. “The law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest,” Trump told the New York Times.

Although the president is exempt from some conflict-of-interest laws, the Congressional Research Service recently identified nine federal conflict of interest and ethics provisions that could apply to the president.

One looms large over the apparent hotel deal with the Kuwaitis: The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the president from receiving money from a foreign government or head of state.

According to Democratic and Republican legal experts, such a payment is not only unconstitutional, it’s an impeachable offense.

(The cartoon image above is by Bryant Arnold at cartoonaday.com.)

Donald Trump Has Blatantly Violated Campaign Finance Law

(Caricature of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

Campaign finance law is very clear. Political candidates cannot receive any donations from residents of another country. In fact, the only people who can donate money to a political campaign are those living in this country -- and they must either be citizens or have a legal "Green card". This is to prevent foreign nationals (especially rich ones) from having any effect on our elections.

That is not hard to understand, and it is to be expected that all candidates (especially those running for president of this country) would know and respect that law. But Donald Trump and his aides either don't know what the campaign laws are, or they don't care what they are -- maybe both.

There is indisputable evidence that the Trump campaign has sent fund-raising letters to people in other countries -- the United Kingdom, Iceland, and Australia. Now it looks like Trump is in trouble because of this illegal fund-raising. Two campaign watchdog groups, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, have filed complaints with the FEC.

The FEC needs to come down hard on the Trump campaign, because this is a law that must be strictly enforced to protect the sanctity of U.S. elections.

All Lives Are Precious

This seems to be the attitude of too many Americans. It is certainly the attitude of our government and the giant corporations who run it. When did the majority in this country lose its compassion? How can we possibly justify the belief that some lives (ours) are worth more than others (those living outside our own borders)? Why is it so hard to believe the evil that belief represents? Aren't the lives of ALL people equally precious?

Other Countries Prefer Obama's Re-Election

The last presidential debate was on foreign policy, to see whether President Obama or Willard Mitt Romney would be best for this country in its dealings with the rest of the world. Of course, this brings up the question of which candidate the rest of the world would prefer. The BBC decided to answer that question, and they polled the residents of 21 countries to get the answer.

What they found out is shown in the charts above and below. The chart above shows the countries ranked in their preference for President Obama, while the chart below shows the same countries ranked in order of their preference for Willard Mitt Romney. Note that whichever way you show the preferences, the fact is that President Obama is preferred in most countries -- and preferred by a wide margin. Only one country showed a preference for Romney -- Pakistan (which is certainly not one of our best allies). The people in all of the countries we depend on the most would rather see President Obama be re-elected.

Worldwide Investors Prefer Obama

The folks over at Bloomberg News (a business-oriented news-site) wanted to know what investors thought about the coming American election. They had asked investors the same question back in January, and at that time the candidates were equal in the eyes of the investors (a mixture of both American and foreign investors). Things have changed since then.

The newest survey of 1,253 Bloomberg customers (who are investors, analysts, or traders) showed that President Obama now has an 11 point lead. About 49% of them favor President Obama, while about 38% of them favor Willard Mitt Romney. That's a significant move in opinion.

There is a big difference between American investors and foreign investors. The May 8th poll shows that American investors supported Romney by a 2 to 1 majority, while those investors outside of the United States supported Obama by a 3 to 1 margin. The poll also showed that President Obama is viewed favorably by 56% (31% in the U.S. and 70% outside the U.S.) and unfavorably by 40%. Romney was viewed favorably by 40% and unfavorably by 46%.

Why the big difference between American and foreign investors? I think American investors view Romney as one of them (and therefore would do what they want, especially in cutting their taxes). Foreign investors on the other hand, are much more concerned about the health of the American economy (and how it would affect their situation). They don't like Romney's support of Republican positions in Congress (like refusing to raise the debt ceiling, which they view as playing Russian roulette with American economy and the world economy).

U.S. Army To Recruit Foreigners

It looks like the United States Army is still having trouble recruiting soldiers for its illegal occupation of Iraq and its poorly run war in Afghanistan. They have already reduced academic standards and even begun accepting felons and gang-bangers that they would not have even considered a few years ago.

But it looks like the radical dropping of standards has not been enough. This year the Army will try to recruit 1,000 foreigners who possess only a temporary visa to be in the United States. In the past, a foreign-born recruit must have had a green card. If the foreign-born recruits with temporary visas do well, they plan to expand the program to the point these recruits will make up over 16% of the Army's soldiers. Next year, the program will probably also be introduced to other branches of our military services.

Those that sign up will be offered an accelerated path to citizenship. They can become citizens in a matter of months. Otherwise, it would take them years, if allowed to become citizens at all.

The Army claims it will allow them to recruit those with needed language and cultural knowledge. I think that is just a cover for getting overall numbers up. The current language and cultural needs are Pakistani and Arabic, but only 3% of immigrants living in America are from the Middle East, and since 9/11, the Bush administration has cut severely the immigration from that area. The excuse for the cut is fear of admitting terrorists.

About 55% of all immigrants are from Latin America, and it only makes sense that most of the recruits will be Spanish-speakers. The point is that Americans are very opposed to the occupation of Iraq, and fewer and fewer qualified Americans are willing to put their lives (or their children's lives) on the line for it.

The answer the Army has come up with is sort of like the French Foreign Legion. Let foreigners fight the wars that citizens want no part of, and award them with citizenship. The only difference is that we do not separate the foreigners in our military (at least not yet). It's bad enough that it has come to this at all, but a separation must not be allowed to happen or those will become our "suicide" forces.

It would not have come to this, if we had limited our fighting to self-defense or prevention of genocide -- wars that can be defended and believed in. We should never have invaded Iraq and tried to force our ways on them militarily. It was wrong to do so. Yes, Saddam was a cruel dictator, but we allow dozens of such dictators to exist without making war against them. We even give economic aid to some of them.

It was wrong for us to invade Iraq, and it's wrong for us to occupy that country. We need to withdraw our troops immediately. I know President Obama has said we will withdraw within months, but that is not soon enough. It has become obvious that we cannot solve Iraq's problems, so we need to leave so they can begin to do so.

Every day we stay in Iraq costs more innocent lives -- many of them Americans.