Thursday, September 29, 2016

Andy Borowitz

The New Yorker
COURTESY MSNBC

BOROWITZ REPORT
GARY JOHNSON SAYS HIS FAVORITE FOREIGN LEADER IS OBI-WAN KENOBI
By Andy Borowitz , 11:12 A.M.


DURHAM, N.H. (The Borowitz Report)—Asked at a town-hall meeting on Wednesday to name his favorite foreign leader, the Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson seemed stumped at first before finally responding, "Obi-Wan Kenobi."

The host of the town hall, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, initially appeared taken aback by Johnson's answer, but the former New Mexico governor went on to defend it vigorously.

"Obi-Wan Kenobi is a Jedi Master, Chris," Johnson said. "More than anyone else, he taught me that the Force is already strong with me."

"We're on the same page about this, aren't we, Bill?" he asked his running mate, the former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, who smiled weakly and shifted awkwardly in his chair.

As the town-hall audience murmured nervously, Matthews reframed the question for Johnson. "What I meant was, Governor, could you name your favorite world leader on this planet?" he asked.

Again, Johnson seemed perplexed, before eventually replying, "Frodo."

The Libertarian Party announced on Thursday that Johnson would participate in no additional town halls.


--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association  aid and abet violence.

- An American Story

A half-dead Clinton is always better than the brain-dead Trump



Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Algo Para Saber


Would you like to venture into a Spanish lesson?  Just to give you an added avenue of interest in the noise of the campaign, give it a try.  You can always switch the translate button to English if you want - but you need to click on the link to get that feature:



Continue reading the main storyPhoto
Donald Trump y Hillary Clinton el lunes en el escenario de Hofstra University CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

No puedes ocultar quién eres.

Durante la primaria del Partido Republicano, Donald Trump fue elbully del aula. "Liar Ted!", "Little Marco!", "Low Energy Jeb!". "¡Miren esa cara!", dijo de la candidata Carly Fiorina. "¿Pueden imaginar esa, la cara de nuestro próximo presidente?".

Trump mostró a los medios del mundo que un narcisista fanfarrón puede competir por la presidencia de la nación más poderosa del planeta sostenido por el festejo casi incondicional de una masa fervorosa. Arrastró el debate a una vocinglería propia de jovenzuelos inmaduros, una pandilla de pendencieros capaz de desafiar toda convención y norma, sentido común o derecho ajeno. Incluso ante la pobreza conceptual de sus oponentes republicanos, Trump jamás exhibió grandes ideas y prefirió provocar, mentir, insultar.

Pero, un día, conoció a la directora del instituto.

La noche del primer debate presidencial, Hillary Clinton puso en línea a Trump como una maestra encara al peor estudiante de la clase, en uno de los exámenes que determinarán si puede no ya egresar con algún honor sino al menos hacerlo con la calificación mínima.

Clinton presentó políticas en cada tema de la noche —desde comercio a raza, creación de empleo y crecimiento de la economía—, mientras Trump se refugió en la miseria de los camorreros: sacar al otro de quicio y patearlo cuando está en el piso. Trump balbuceó en comercio —en menos de cinco minutos atacó a México cinco veces y luego otras diez a China— y jamás dio precisiones sobre cómo creará empleo y atraerá millones de dólares expatriados a Estados Unidos. Fue errático en política exterior, frívolo en materia racial y peligrosamente incompetente en asuntos nucleares. Tropezó y desvarió.

Clinton pronto notó que Trump no sería mayor adversario. No iban cinco minutos y ya había sugerido que no era sino un malcriado crecido con dinero del padre interesado en beneficiar a otros tan ricos como él. Trump intentó llevar el juego al terreno del estudiante irrespetuoso dueño del aula e interrumpió a Clinton decenas de veces durante todo el debate. La mayor parte de ellas Clinton no cayó en la trampa. Mantuvo la compostura y siguió con su discurso, de modo que antes de alcanzar la cota de los diez minutos Trump bufaba y gesticulaba incómodo. Inquieto y fuera de control, mordió cada anzuelo. Su boca se frunció en una O pronunciada, como muestran los peces que respiran con problemas.

Desde el primer debate presidencial, la imagen juega un rol central en las elecciones. En 1960, un descansado, bronceado y juvenil John F. Kennedy se floreó ante un agobiado y sudoroso Richard Nixon y arrasó en la preferencia de los electores. Los debates son un delicado equilibrio entre conocimiento, composición de personaje y show, pero la integración de esa fórmula es imprecisa. Este lunes, Trump se vanaglorió de cuán rico es, una afirmación que en 2012 habría hundido aún más a Mitt Romney frente a Barack Obama.

Anoche Trump perdió tanto en compostura como en sabiduría mientras Clinton jamás abandonó el control de la sala. A medida que pasó el tiempo, la sonrisa de Clinton salió casi sin esfuerzo, relajó el cuerpo y avanzó con aplomo. En una oportunidad, ya sobre el final, Trump procuró atacarla por su aparente falta de energía para dirigir la política exterior, pero ella lo reconvino con un recorrido por su experiencia diplomática. Cuando Trump quiso argumentar ya era tarde; ella fue por todo y le recordó su rapacidad misógina. Sus críticas le resultaban inocuas.

A lo largo de la noche, Trump fue un irresponsable en sentido estricto: jamás tuvo un papel juicioso. No asumió que discriminó a afroamericanos ni a una Miss Universo, minimizó haber sido demandado y se quejó de ser auditado demasiadas veces. Un solo intercambio pudo definir su calidad moral para siempre. Clinton lo acusó de no pagar impuestos federales por años y él procuró apostillarla con engreimiento —"Eso es ser listo"—, pero ella captó la frase como las maestras que escuchan con oídos en la espalda mientras escriben en la pizarra, y le devolvió la respuesta sin siquiera mirarlo: si así es un tipo listo, entonces él no habría apoyado jamás a maestros, policías y millones de personas que dependen de esos fondos.

Trump fue menos infantil, hormonal y propenso a las bravatas que durante los debates del GOP, y aún menos que en campaña, cuando nadie puede rebatirle, pero el hombre que proclama que instaurará la ley y el orden se encontró durante todo el debate con que la ley y el orden eran encarnadas por la firmeza y aparente calma de Clinton. Trump no sabe nunca de qué habla y Clinton sabe demasiado bien qué se juega en la Casa Blanca: "Donald", le dijo Hillary, "tú vives en tu propia realidad".

La próxima lección para Trump será en el debate del 9 de octubre. En el primer debate la razón demócrata acorraló al delirio republicano. Las malas calificaciones de Trump podrían reflejarse en las encuestas inmediatas. Pero en una carrera donde la fe ha predominado sobre la inteligencia, es difícil saber si la lección de Clinton se traducirá en que el público hará a un lado de una vez el espíritu "yo-creo-lo-que-se-me-ocurra".

Al final de la noche, los Clinton se abrazaban y saludaban a los asistentes al debate mientras los Trump se reunían en el escenario, sonriendo entre dientes y con cara de tragar amargura. Se fueron solos y pronto, como si entendieran que era mejor desvanecerse. Mientras lo hacían, Hillary Clinton seguía repartiendo sonrisas, pródiga y firme. La maestra resultó más inteligente, compuesta y popular que el chico que aún se cree el más listo de la clase.


--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association  aid and abet violence.

- An American Story

A half-dead Clinton is always better than the brain-dead Trump



Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Fwd: Andy Borowitz ( A do-over)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Juan Matute <juanma2t@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:47 AM
Subject: Andy Borowitz ( A do-over)
To: Juan Matute <juanma2t@gmail.com>


TRUMP THREATENS TO SKIP REMAINING DEBATES IF HILLARY IS THERE

By 

 , 
PHOTOGRAPH BY POOL / GETTY


HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (The Borowitz Report)—Plunging the future of the 2016 Presidential debates into doubt, Donald J. Trump said on Tuesday morning that he would not participate in the remaining two debates if Hillary Clinton is there.

Trump blasted the format of Monday night's debate by claiming that the presence of Clinton was "specifically designed" to distract him from delivering his message to the American people.

"Every time I said something, she would say something back," he said. "It was rigged."

He also lambasted the "underhanded tactics" his opponent used during the debate. "She kept on bringing up things I said or did," he added. "She is a very nasty person."

Turning to CNN, Trump criticized the network's use of a split screen showing both him and Clinton throughout the telecast. "It should have been just me," he said. "That way people could have seen how really good my temperament is."

The billionaire said that debate organizers had not yet responded to his ultimatum, but he warned that if he does not get assurances in writing that future debates will be "un-rigged, Hillary-wise," he will not participate.

"I have said time and time again that I would only do these debates if I am treated fairly," he added. "The only way I can be guaranteed of being treated fairly is if Hillary Clinton is not there."


--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association  aid and abet violence.

- An American Story

A half-dead Clinton is always better than the brain-dead Trump






--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association  aid and abet violence.

- An American Story

A half-dead Clinton is always better than the brain-dead Trump



Monday, September 26, 2016

Something to Know - 26 September

Mike Luckovich

Newspapers traditionally, through their editorial board, have endorsed presidential candidates, by presenting reasons to their readers.   This is the first time I have seen an effort by a major publication flatly reject a presidential candidate on their lack of fitness, and presenting their reasons.   In this election, most newspapers are endorsing Hillary Clinton.  The New York Times  has already endorsed her, but this editorial rejects Trump in all shape or manner:


Cover Photo
CreditEric Thayer for The New York Times

When Donald Trump began his improbable run for president 15 months ago, he offered his wealth and television celebrity as credentials, then slyly added a twist of fearmongering about Mexican "rapists" flooding across the Southern border.

From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump's views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.

Now here stands Mr. Trump, feisty from his runaway Republican primary victories and ready for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Monday night, with Hillary Clinton. It is time for others who are still undecided, and perhaps hoping for some dramatic change in our politics and governance, to take a hard look and see Mr. Trump for who he is. They have an obligation to scrutinize his supposed virtues as a refreshing counterpolitician. Otherwise, they could face the consequences of handing the White House to a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation's well-being.

Here's how Mr. Trump is selling himself and why he can't be believed.

TIMELINE

New York Times Endorsements Through the Ages

A collection of The Times's endorsements for the presidency, from Abraham Lincoln in 1860 through the editorial board's choice of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

 OPEN TIMELINE

A financial wizard who can bring executive magic to government?

Despite his towering properties, Mr. Trump has a record rife with bankruptcies and sketchy ventures like Trump University, which authorities are investigating after numerous complaints of fraud. His name has been chiseled off his failed casinos in Atlantic City.

Mr. Trump's brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns — as Mrs. Clinton and other nominees for decades have done — should sharpen voter wariness of his business and charitable operations. Disclosure would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags; the public record already indicates that in at least some years he made full use of available loopholes and paid no taxes.

Mr. Trump has been opaque about his questionable global investments in Russia and elsewhere, which could present conflicts of interest as president, particularly if his business interests are left in the hands of his children, as he intends. Investigations have found self-dealing. He notably tapped $258,000 in donors' money from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses, according to The Washington Post.

A straight talker who tells it like it is?

Mr. Trump, who has no experience in national security, declares that he has a plan to soundly defeat the Islamic State militants in Syria, but won't reveal it, bobbing and weaving about whether he would commit ground troops. Voters cannot judge whether he has any idea what he's talking about without an outline of his plan, yet Mr. Trump ludicrously insists he must not tip off the enemy.

Another of his cornerstone proposals — his campaign pledge of a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslim newcomers plus the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants across a border wall paid for by Mexico — has been subjected to endless qualifications as he zigs and zags in pursuit of middle-ground voters.

Whatever his gyrations, Mr. Trump always does make clear where his heart lies — with the anti-immigrant, nativist and racist signals that he scurrilously employed to build his base.

He used the shameful "birther" campaign against President Obama's legitimacy as a wedge for his candidacy. But then he opportunistically denied his own record, trolling for undecided voters by conceding that Mr. Obama was a born American. In the process he tried to smear Mrs. Clinton as the instigator of the birther canard and then fled reporters' questions.

Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20 major issues, including three contradictory views on abortion in one eight-hour stretch. As reporters try to pin down his contradictions, Mr. Trump has mocked them at his rallies. He said he would "loosen" libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations that displease him.

An expert negotiator who can fix government and overpower other world leaders?

His plan for cutting the national debt was far from a confidence builder: He said he might try to persuade creditors to accept less than the government owed. This fanciful notion, imported from Mr. Trump's debt-steeped real estate world, would undermine faith in the government and the stability of global financial markets. His tax-cut plan has been no less alarming. It was initially estimated to cost $10 trillion in tax revenue, then, after revisions, maybe $3 trillion, by one adviser's estimate. There is no credible indication of how this would be paid for — only assurances that those in the upper brackets will be favored.

If Mr. Trump were to become president, his open doubts about the value of NATO would present a major diplomatic and security challenge, as would his repeated denunciations of trade deals and relations with China. Mr. Trump promises to renegotiate the Iran nuclear control agreement, as if it were an air-rights deal on Broadway. Numerous experts on national defense and international affairs have recoiled at the thought of his commanding the nuclear arsenal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell privately calledMr. Trump "an international pariah." Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced global warming as a "hoax," although a golf course he owns in Ireland is citing global warming in seeking to build a protective wall against a rising sea.

In expressing admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump implies acceptance of Mr. Putin's dictatorial abuse of critics and dissenters, some of whom have turned up murdered, and Mr. Putin's vicious crackdown on the press. Even worse was Mr. Trump's urging Russiato meddle in the presidential campaign by hacking the email of former Secretary of State Clinton. Voters should consider what sort of deals Mr. Putin might obtain if Mr. Trump, his admirer, wins the White House.

A change agent for the nation and the world?

There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure Americans' financial future, and alienating our allies won't protect our security. Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it.

The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama administration's progress on the environment, vowing to "cancel the Paris climate agreement" on global warming. He would return to the use of waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan's commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. He favors a national campaign of "stop and frisk" policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the National Rifle Association's ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he imagines would be defensive "shootouts" with gunmen. He has so coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target.

Voters should also consider Mr. Trump's silence about areas of national life that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty? How would his condescending appeal to black voters — a cynical signal to white moderates concerned about his racist supporters — translate into credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation's life and global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self-certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing. The most specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care, would tilt toward the wealthy.

Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for the


--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association  aid and abet violence.

- An American Story

A half-dead Clinton is always better than the brain-dead Trump



Something to Know - 26 September

Lalo Alcaraz

Ti's the season for the barrage of TV campaign ads.  It is always difficult to really tell what the issue is and what is the correct vote.  One issue, California State Prop. 61, is a very interesting one to look into.  The NO ad has all these Veterans saying that if it passes, they will have to pay more for medications.   So, why is that?   Here is the voter information guide on that issue: 

  http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/quick-reference-guide/61.htm

Basically, the proposition mandates that the State of California, mostly through its Cal Med of Medicaid program, cannot pay more for medications than what the Veterans Administration pays on the federal level.  It is allowing the state to negotiate the same price with Big Pharma that they all have with the VA.   So, let's follow the money on this one to see who is behind the effort to shoot down this proposition - to no surprise, Big Pharma is fronting all the money.  It is in the interest of Big Pharma to defeat this proposition.   Big Pharma has been exposed as the big nasty corporate structure that raises prices on life-saving meds - just because they can.  So, let's continue to follow the money story, and find out why it is that they are pitching the story that Vets will have a hardship because the passage of this proposition will send them into poverty because of a rise in costs.    Simply said, the sate of California will pay no more than the federal VA program.   This is were the rubber meets the road.   If Big Pharma is going to protect the obscene profit margins they currently enjoy, they will want to raise the prices on the VA program - not because they will go bankrupt, but because they can.  It is Big Pharma that will raise the prices, not Proposition 61.   The pharmaceutical industry is drawing the line here in the state of California , because if it passes here, the remaining state will probably follow.   Just look down at all the corporate sponsors who are putting big piles of money up to defeat this issue, and you will see each and every one of the Big Pharma units on it. Let us think about all the people on state programs who are currently unable to afford their medications because of high costs.  Who is advocating for them?   Proposition 61 does this.   I think it is a pretty sleazy scare that Big Pharma has these ads on there on TV that do not tell the full story and masquerade behind the masks of military veterans for the sake of preserving their own profit margins.

****
Juan
 

Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association  aid and abet violence.

- An American Story

A half-dead Clinton is always better than the brain-dead Trump



Thursday, September 15, 2016

Something to Know - 15 September (late)


Gary Varvel

As long as we are talking about DEPLORABLE, here is a prefect example of what is deplorable and who the deplorables are.   The person at Wells Fargo Bank who created the latest scandal is home free.  She ran the scam, but she leaves with stock and a vault full of money and no prosecution.   Those who followed her directions all, every one in the division, all got fired.   The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Lizzie Warren's idea) works for us and tries to make sure we do not get screwed over by the banks and shady money people.  What is also DEPLORABLE are all of the Republican law makers who attempt to defund and abolish the CFPB - that is really deplorable.  Which of the two major political parties seek to clean up this deplorable mess?:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/opinion/in-wells-fargo-scandal-the-buck-stopped-well-short.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

In Wells Fargo Scandal, the Buck Stopped Well Short
By SUSAN M. OCHSSEPT. 15, 2016

Wells Fargo is trying to clean up the mess created by its high-pressure sales culture, which drove employees to open millions of unauthorized accounts in the names of customers. Pledging accountability, the bank is paying restitution to customers who were charged for these sham accounts, reviewing its process controls, and — as it announced Tuesday — eliminating sales goals for its retail bank products.

In connection with the "widespread illegal practices," Wells Fargo has also fired 5,300 employees and managers, with one notable exception: the executive in charge.

Instead of bearing any responsibility for this scandal, Carrie Tolstedt, the divisional senior vice president for community banking who supervised the 6,000 retail branches where the wrongdoing took place, is retiring, taking with her millions in stock and options.

Wells Fargo was aware of the problems in the division when Ms. Tolstedt announced her retirement on July 12. The bank's sales practices have been under regulatory scrutiny since at least November. Further, the bank itself has been working to identify the affected customers and complicit employees.

Despite knowing about the widespread misconduct on her watch, Wells Fargo gave Ms. Tolstedt a glowing farewell. John Stumpf, the chief executive, called her a "role model for responsible leadership" and "a standard-bearer of our culture." Her compensation — more than $27 million over the last three years — has never been dinged as a result of these problems.

Further, Ms. Tolstedt continues to be employed at the bank through the end of the year. She stepped down only from her division role — getting out of the hot seat just weeks before the regulatory settlement was announced.

So, as in most banking scandals, lower- and midlevel employees face repercussions, but senior executives are whisked out of harm's way, with their reputations and full stock awards intact. For Ms. Tolstedt, that could be as much as $125 million.

Is it fair to blame the supervisor of 94,000 people for the actions of a small portion of them? Yes. First, illicit behavior involving thousands of people and two million fraudulent accounts cannot be dismissed as the work of a few bad apples. Systemic problems like this are exactly what top executives are supposed to address.

Second, the problems here stemmed from "cross-selling" — soliciting customers to buy multiple products — which Wells Fargo has promoted as the cornerstone of its retail business model. Ms. Tolstedt was charged with running that retail business during the five years these fraudulent practices took place, and has heard about them since 2013. A Wells Fargo spokeswoman said internal controls detected the behavior, and the response of the bank's managers was to significantly strengthen "training, monitoring, oversight and compensation structure."

How Ms. Tolstedt oversaw any reform efforts and why the behavior persisted for five years have not been explained.

Eight years after the financial crash, we are still not proficient at holding business leaders to account. From a legal standpoint, regulators are often playing a weak hand against executives, as it can be hard to prove direct culpability for a subordinate's actions. The authorities rarely name individuals in cases, choosing to focus on organizations instead. This can help change systems, but hurts the cause of accountability.

Banks have more latitude to enforce responsibility. After the 2008 crisis, improved "clawback" provisions allowed banks the option to recoup bonuses earned from fraud or excessive risk.

These penalties are not just about punishing one individual. Accountability at the top is essential to a healthy company culture. If leaders aren't held responsible for what happens in their divisions, principled employees lose faith that they will be treated fairly.

Mr. Stumpf did not address the likelihood that executives, including Ms. Tolstedt, might have their compensation clawed back, telling CNBC that there is a "board process" if that becomes a consideration. After whitewashing Ms. Tolstedt's departure, taking this corrective action — or explaining why it is unwarranted — would help restore the board's credibility. Expect the Senate Banking Committee to look into the issue at its hearing next week into the bank's misdeeds.

Wells Fargo has already started to address criticisms of its sales quotas and risk controls, but this is more than a process problem — this is a corporate culture problem.


Culture can feel amorphous, and it is always tempting to blame the systems; they are more tangible and easier to deconstruct. But the impact of corporate culture cannot be overstated. For example, sales targets exist in many industries — the key is how they are met. Intimidation, public shaming and micromanagement — as alleged by Wells Fargo employees — will create a culture of fear in which people think they must deliver at any cost.

Simply eliminating sales quotas will not magically turn fear into inspiration. It requires credible, vested leadership to foster the right culture. Banks have continued to grapple with culture issues since 2008. Wells Fargo once saw itself as the exception. Clearly, it isn't. To succeed, its repair efforts must lead with candor and accountability in the executive suite.

Those efforts may also get a boost from external forces, as calls grow louder for prosecutors to focus more on executives. Of course, that would require culture change in a different set of institutions, and must also be driven by accountability at the top.

--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association  aid and abet violence.

- An American Story

A half-dead Clinton is always better than the brain-dead Trump



Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Something to Know - 14 September


Mike Luckovich


I have not had time to do more than just scan this article, but it is touted by Newsweek to be the information that will change the complexion and tone of the Trump campaign.   Maybe you concur or not - we shall see:


Trump's global deals would make it impossible for him to conduct foreign policy in many countries without padding or depleting his wallet.
GABE SOUZA/PORTLAND PRESS HERALD/GETTY

U.S.

If Donald Trump is elected president, will he and his family permanently sever all connections to the Trump Organization, a sprawling business empire that has spread a secretive financial web across the world? Or will Trump instead choose to be the most conflicted president in American history, one whose business interests will constantly jeopardize the security of the United States?Throughout this campaign, the Trump Organization, which pumps potentially hundreds of millions of dollars into the Trump family's bank accounts each year, has been largely ignored. As a private enterprise, its businesses, partners and investors are hidden from public view, even though they are the very people who could be enriched by—or will further enrich—Trump and his family if he wins the presidency. Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week A close examination by Newsweek of the Trump Organization, including confidential interviews with business executives and some of its international partners, reveals an enterprise with deep ties to global financiers, foreign politicians and even criminals, although there is no evidence the Trump Organization has engaged in any illegal activities. It also reveals a web of contractual entanglements that could not be just canceled. If Trump moves into the White House and his family continues to receive any benefit from the company, during or even after his presidency, almost every foreign policy decision he makes will raise serious conflicts of interest and ethical quagmires.


The Trump Organization is not like the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the charitable enterprise that has been the subject of intense scrutiny about possible conflicts for the Democratic presidential nominee. There are allegations that Hillary Clinton bestowed benefits on contributors to the foundation in some sort of "pay to play" scandal when she was secretary of state, but that makes no sense because there was no "pay." Money contributed to the foundation was publicly disclosed and went to charitable efforts, such as fighting neglected tropical diseases that infect as many as a billion people. The financials audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the global independent accounting company, and the foundation's tax filings show that about 90 percent of the money it raised went to its charitable programs. (Trump surrogates have falsely claimed that it was only 10 percent and that the rest was used as a Clinton "slush fund.") No member of the Clinton family received any cash from the foundation, nor did it finance any political campaigns. In fact, like the Clintons, almost the entire board of directors works for free.On the other hand, the Trump family rakes in untold millions of dollars from the Trump Organization every year. Much of that comes from deals with international financiers and developers, many of whom have been tied to controversial and even illegal activities. None of Trump's overseas contractual business relationships examined by Newsweek were revealed in his campaign's financial filings with the Federal Election Commission, nor was the amount paid to him by his foreign partners. (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for the names of all foreign entities in partnership or contractually tied to the Trump Organization.) Trump's financial filings also indicate he is a shareholder or beneficiary of several overseas entities, including Excel Venture LLC in the French West Indies and Caribusiness Investments SRL, based in the Dominican Republic, one of the world's tax havens.

Trump's business conflicts with America's national security interests cannot be resolved so long as he or any member of his family maintains a financial interest in the Trump Organization during a Trump administration, or even if they leave open the possibility of returning to the company later. The Trump Organization cannot be placed into a blind trust, an arrangement used by many politicians to prevent them from knowing their financial interests; the Trump family is already aware of who their overseas partners are and could easily learn about any new ones.Many foreign governments retain close ties to and even control of companies in their country, including several that already are partnered with the Trump Organization. Any government wanting to seek future influence with President Trump could do so by arranging for a partnership with the Trump Organization, feeding money directly to the family or simply stashing it away inside the company for their use once Trump is out of the White House. This is why, without a permanent departure of the entire Trump family from their company, the prospect of legal bribery by overseas powers seeking to influence American foreign policy, either through existing or future partnerships, will remain a reality throughout a Trump presidency.Moreover, the identity of every partner cannot be discovered if Trump reverses course and decided to release his taxes. The partnerships are struck with some of the more than 500 entities disclosed in Trump's financial disclosure forms; each of those entities has its own records that would have to be revealed for a full accounting of all of Trump's foreign entanglements to be made public.The problem of overseas conflicts emerges from the nature of Trump's business in recent years. Much of the public believes Trump is a hugely successful developer, a television personality and a failed casino operator. But his primary business deals for almost a decade have been a quite different endeavor. The GOP nominee is essentially a licensor who leverages his celebrity into streams of cash from partners from all over the world. The business model for Trump's company started to change around 2007, after he became the star of NBC's The Apprentice, which boosted his national and international fame. Rather than constructing Trump's own hotels, office towers and other buildings, much of his business involved striking deals with overseas developers who pay his company for the right to slap his name on their buildings. (The last building constructed by Trump with his name on it is the Trump-SoHo hotel and condominium project, completed in 2007.)In public statements, Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. have celebrated their company's international branding business and announced their intentions to expand it. "The opportunities for growth are endless, and I look forward to building upon the tremendous success we have enjoyed," Donald Trump Jr. said in 2013. Trump Jr. has cited prospects in Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, Thailand, Argentina and other countries.

The idea of selling the Trump brand name to overseas developers emerged as a small piece of the company's business in the late 1990s. At that time, two executives from Daewoo Engineering and Construction met with Trump at his Manhattan offices to propose paying him for the right to use his name on a new complex under development, according to former executives from the South Korean company. Daewoo had already worked with the Trump Organization to build the Trump World Tower, which is close to the Manhattan headquarters of the United Nations. The former Daewoo executives said Trump was at first skeptical, but in 1999 construction began on the South Korean version of Trump World, six condominium properties in Seoul and two neighboring cities. According to the two former executives, the Trump Organization received an annual fee of approximately $8 million a year.Shortly after the deal was signed, the parent company of Daewoo Engineering and Construction, the Daewoo Group, collapsed into bankruptcy amid allegations of what proved to be a $43 billion accounting fraud. The chairman of the Daewoo Group, Kim Woo Choong, fled to North Korea; he returned in 2005, was arrested and convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to 10 years in prison. According to the two former Daewoo executives, a reorganization of Daewoo after its bankruptcy required revisions in the Trump contract, but the Trump Organization still remains allied with Daewoo Engineering and Construction.This relationship puts Trump's foreign policies in conflict with his financial interests. Earlier this year, he said South Korea should plan to shoulder its own military defense rather than relying on the United States, including the development of nuclear weapons. (He later denied making that statement, which was video-recorded.) One of the primary South Korean companies involved in nuclear energy, a key component in weapons development, is Trump's partner—Daewoo Engineering and Construction. It would potentially get an economic windfall if the United States adopted policies advocated by Trump.In India, the conflicts between the interests of the Trump Organization and American foreign policy are starker. Trump signed an agreement in 2011 with an Indian property developer called Rohan Lifescapes that wanted to construct a 65-story building with his name on it. Leading the talks for Rohan was Kalpesh Mehta, a director of the company who would later become the exclusive representative of Trump's businesses in India. However, government regulatory hurdles soon impeded the project. According to a former Trump official who spoke on condition of anonymity, Donald Trump Jr. flew to India to plead with Prithviraj Chavan, chief minister of Maharashtra, a state in Western India, asking that he remove the hurdles, but the powerful politician refused to make an exception for the Trump Organization. It would be extremely difficult for a foreign politician to make that call if he were speaking to the son of the president of the United States.The Mumbai deal with Rohan fell apart in 2013, but a new branding deal (Trump Tower Mumbai) was struck with the Lodha Group, a major Indian developer. By that time, Trump had an Indian project underway in the city of Pune with a large developer called Panchshil Realty that agreed to pay millions for use of the Trump brand on two 22-floor towers. His new partner, Atul Chordia of Panchshil, appeared awed in public statements about his association with the famous Trump name and feted Trump with a special dinner attended by actors, industrialists, socialites and even a former Miss Universe.Last month, scandal erupted over the development, called Trump Towers Pune, after the state government and local police started looking into discrepancies in the land records suggesting that the land on which the building was constructed may not have been legally obtained by Panchshil. The Indian company says no rules or laws were broken, but if government officials conclude otherwise, the project's future will be in jeopardy—and create a problem that Indian politicians eager to please an American president might have to resolve.Through the Pune deal, the Trump Organization has developed close ties to India's Nationalist Congress Party—a centrist political organization that stands for democratic secularism and is led by Sharad Pawar, an ally of the Chordia family that owns Panchshil—but that would be of little help in this investigation. Political power in India rests largely with the Indian National Congress, a nationalist party that has controlled the central government for almost 50 years. (However, Trump is very popular with the Hindu Sena, a far-right radical nationalist group that sees his anti-Muslim stance as a sign he would take an aggressive stand against Pakistan. When Trump turned 70 in June, members of that organization threw a birthday party for the man they called "the savior of humanity.")

Even as Trump was on the campaign trail, the Trump Organization struck another deal in India that drew the Republican nominee closer to another political group there. In April, the company inked an agreement with Ireo, a private real estate equity business based in the Indian city of Gurgaon. The company, which has more than 500 investors in the fund that will be paying the Trump Organization, is headed by Madhukar Tulsi, a prominent real estate executive in India. In 2010, Tulsi's home and the offices of Ireo were raided as part of a sweeping corruption inquiry related to the 2010 Commonwealth Games held in New Delhi. According to one Indian business executive, government investigators believed that Ireo had close ties with a prominent Indian politician—Sudhanashu Mittal, then the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, India's second largest political party—who was suspected in playing a role in rerouting money earned from Commonwealth Games contracts through tax havens into Ireo's real estate projects. A senior official with Ireo, Tulsi is a relative of Mittal's. No charges were ever brought in the case, but the investigation did reveal the close political ties between a prominent Indian political party and a company that is now a Trump partner.No doubt, few Indian political groups hoping to establish close ties to a possible future American president could have missed the recent statements from the Trump family that its company wanted to do more deals in their country. As the Republican National Convention was about to get underway in July, the Trump Organization declared it was planning a massive expansion in the South Asian country. "We are very bullish on India and plan to build a pan-India development footprint for Trump-branded residential and office projects,'' Donald Trump Jr. told the Hindustan Times. "We have a very aggressive pipeline in the north and east, and look forward to the announcement of several exciting new projects in the months ahead."That is a chilling example of the many looming conflicts of interest in a Trump presidency. If he plays tough with India, will the government assume it has to clear the way for projects in that "aggressive pipeline" and kill the investigations involving Trump's Pune partners? And if Trump takes a hard line with Pakistan, will it be for America's strategic interests or to appease Indian government officials who might jeopardize his profits from Trump Towers Pune?Branding Wars in the Middle EastTrump already has financial conflicts in much of the Islamic world, a problem made worse by his anti-Muslim rhetoric and his impulsive decisions during this campaign. One of his most troubling entanglements is in Turkey. In 2008, the Trump Organization struck a branding deal with the Dogan Group, named for its owners, one of the most politically influential families in Turkey. Trump and Dogan first agreed that the Turkish company would pay a fee to put the Trump name on two towers in Istanbul.When the complex opened in 2012, Trump attended the ribbon-cutting and declared his interest in more collaborations with Turkish businesses and in making significant investments there. In a sign of the political clout of the Dogan family, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Trump and even presided over the opening ceremonies for the Trump-branded property.However, the Dogans have fallen out of favor, and once again, a Trump partner is caught up in allegations of criminal and unethical activity. In March, an Istanbul court indicted Aydin Dogan, owner and head of the Dogan Group, on charges he engaged in a fuel-smuggling scheme. Dogan has proclaimed his innocence; prosecutors are seeking a prison sentence of more than 24 years.According to an Arab financier with strong ties to Turkish political leaders, government connections with the Dogan family grew even more strained in May, when a consortium of news reporters released what are known as the Panama Papers, which exposed corporations, politicians and other individuals worldwide who evaded taxes through offshore accounts. One of the names revealed was that of Vuslat Dogan Sabanci, a member of Dogan Holding's board.With the Dogans now politically radioactive, Erdogan struck at the family's business partner, Trump, for his anti-Muslim rhetoric. In June, Erdogan called for the Trump name to be removed from the complex in Istanbul and said presiding over its dedication had been a mistake.This is no minor skirmish: American-Turkish relations are one of the most important national security issues for the United States. Turkey is among the few Muslim countries allied with America in the fight against the Islamic State militant group; it carries even greater importance because it is a Sunni-majority nation aiding the U.S. military against the Sunni extremists. Turkey has allowed the U.S. Air Force to use a base as a major staging area for bombing and surveillance missions against ISIS. A Trump presidency, according to the Arab financier in direct contact with senior Turkish officials, would place that cooperation at risk, particularly since Erdogan, who is said to despise Trump, has grasped more power following a thwarted coup d'état in July.

In other words, Trump would be in direct financial and political conflict with Turkey from the moment he was sworn into office. Once again, all his dealings with Turkey would be suspect: Would Trump act in the interests of the United States or his wallet? When faced with the prospect of losing the millions of dollars that flow into the Trump Organization each year from that Istanbul property, what position would President Trump take on the important issues involving Turkish-American relations, including that country's role in the fight against ISIS?Another conundrum: Turkey is at war with the Kurds, America's allies in the fight against ISIS in Syria. Kurdish insurgent groups are in armed conflict with Turkey, demanding an independent Kurdistan. If Turkey cuts off the Trump Organization's cash flow from Istanbul, will Trump, who has shown many times how petty and impulsive he can be, allow that to influence how the U.S. juggles the interests of these two critical allies?Similar disturbing problems exist with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), another Muslim nation that is an important American ally. Trump has pursued business opportunities in the oil-rich nation for years, with mixed success. His first venture was in 2005, when the Trump Organization struck a branding deal with a top Emirates developer called Nakheel LLC, backed by Dubai's royal family, that planned to build a tulip-shaped hotel on a man-made island designed to look like a palm tree.In 2008, a bribery and corruption probe was launched involving the company's multibillion-dollar Dubai Waterfront project. Two Nakheel executives were charged with fraud and cleared, but Nakheel's financial condition deteriorated amid a collapse in real estate prices; the Trump project was delayed and then canceled.So, in 2013, the Trump Organization struck another branding deal, this time with Nakheel's archrival, Damac Properties, a division of the Damac Group, that wanted the Trump name on a planned 18-hole PGA Championship golf course. The deal was negotiated by Hussain Ali Sajwani, chairman of Damac, who had engaged in controversial land deals with senior government officials in the UAE. He met personally with Trump about the project, and their relationship grew, ultimately leading to Damac working with the Trump Organization on two branded golf courses and a collection of villas in Dubai. According to the former executive with the Trump Organization, Trump has said he personally invested in some of the Dubai projects.In this case, even the possibility of a Trump presidency has created chaos for the Trump Organization. On December 7, when Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims being allowed into the United States, the reaction in the UAE was instantaneous: There were calls to boycott the Damac-Trump properties. Damac put out a statement essentially saying its deal with the Trump Organization had nothing to do with Donald Trump personally, a claim that fooled no one. On December 10, Damac removed Trump's image and name from its properties. Two days later, the name went back up, setting off an even louder outcry. Damac's share price dropped 15 percent amid the controversy, and it was forced to guarantee rental returns for some of its luxury properties bearing the Trump name.Other UAE businesses with connections to Trump are also shunning the brand. The Dubai-based Landmark Group, one of the Middle East's largest retail companies, said it was pulling products with Trump's name off of its shelves.With Middle Eastern business partners and American allies turning on him, Trump lashed out. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal—the billionaire who aided Trump during his corporate bankruptcies in the 1990s by purchasing his yacht, which provided him with desperately needed cash—sent out a tweet amid the outcry in Dubai, calling the Republican candidate a "disgrace." (Alwaleed is a prodigious tweeter and Twitter's second largest shareholder.) Trump responded with an attack on the prince—a member of the ruling Saudi royal family—with a childish tweet, saying, "Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy's money. Can't do it when I get elected. #Trump2016."Once again, Trump's personal and financial interests are in conflict with critical national security issues for the United States. During the Bush administration, Abu Dhabi, the UAE's capital, and Washington reached a bilateral agreement to improve international standards for nuclear nonproliferation. Cooperation is particularly important for the United States because Iran—whose potential development of nuclear weapons has been a significant security issue, leading to an international agreement designed to place controls on its nuclear energy efforts—is one of the UAE's largest trading partners, and Dubai has been a transit point for sensitive technology bound for Iran.Given Trump's name-calling when faced with a critical tweet from a member of the royal family in Saudi Arabia, an important ally, how would he react as president if his company's business in the UAE collapsed? Would his decisions in the White House be based on what is best for America or on what would keep the cash from Dubai flowing to him and his family?

A Strongman's Best FriendSome of the most disturbing international dealings by the Trump Organization involved Trump's attempts to woo Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi. The United States had labeled Qaddafi as a sponsor of terrorism for decades; President Ronald Reagan even launched a military attack on him in 1986 after the National Security Agency intercepted a communications that showed Qaddafi was behind the bombing of a German discotheque that killed two Americans. He was also linked to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259 people, in 1988.But for the Trump Organization, Qaddafi was not a murdering terrorist; he was a prospect who might bring the company financing and the opportunity to build a resort on the Mediterranean coast of Libya. According to an Arab financier and a former businessman from the North African country, Trump made entreaties to Qaddafi and other members of his government, beginning in 2008, in which he sought deals that would bring cash to the Trump Organization from a sovereign wealth fund called the Libyan Investment Authority. The following year, Trump offered to lease his estate in Westchester County, New York, to Qaddafi; he took Qaddafi's money but, after local protests, forbade him from staying at his property. (Trump kept the cash.) "I made a lot of money with Qaddafi,'' Trump said recently about the Westchester escapade. "He paid me a fortune."Another business relationship that could raise concerns about conflicts involves Azerbaijan, a country the State Department said in an official report was infused with "corruption and predatory behavior by politically connected elites." According to Trump's financial filings, the Republican nominee is the president of two entities called OT Marks Baku LLC and DT Marks Baku Manaaina Member Corp. Those were established as part of deals the Trump Organization made last year for a real estate project in the country's capital. The partner in the deal is Garant Holding, which is controlled by Anar Mammadov, the son of the country's transportation minister, Ziya Mammadov. According to American diplomatic cables made public in 2010, the United States possessed information that led diplomats to believe Ziya Mammadov laundered money for the Iranian military. No formal charges have been brought against either Mammadov.Once again, however, this exposes potential conflicts between Trump's business connections and national security. While the development is currently on hold, it has not been canceled, meaning that Anar Mammadov could soon be paying millions of dollars to Trump. If American intelligence concludes, or has already concluded, that his business partner's father has been aiding Iran by laundering money for the military, will Trump's foreign policy decisions on Iran and Azerbaijan be based on the national security of the United States or the financial security of Donald Trump?


An Oligarch in D.C.The Trump Organization also has dealings in Russia and Ukraine, and officials with the company have repeatedly stated they want to develop projects there. The company is connected to a controversial Russian figure, Vladimir Potanin, a billionaire with interests in mining, metals, banking and real estate. He was a host of the Russian version of The Apprentice (called Candidate), and Trump, through the Trump Organization, served as the show's executive producer. Potanin is deeply tied to the Russian government and obtained much of his wealth in the 1990s through what was called the loans-for-shares program, part of an effort by Moscow to privatize state properties through auction. Those sales were rigged: Insiders with political connections were the biggest beneficiaries.

Hoping to start its branding business in Russia, the Trump Organization registered the Trump name in 2008 as a trademark for projects in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Sochi. It also launched negotiations with a development company called the Mos City Group, but no deal was reached. The former Trump executive said that talks fell apart over the fees the Trump Organization wanted to charge: 25 percent of the planned project's cost. However, the executive said, the Trump Organization has maintained close relations with Pavel Fuks, head of the Mos City Group. Fuks is one of the most politically prominent oligarchs in Russia, with significant interests in real estate and the country's financial industry, including the Pushkino bank and Sovcombank.The Trump Organization has also shown interest in Ukraine. In 2006, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump met with Viktor Tkachuk, an adviser to the Ukrainian president, and Andriy Zaika, head of the Ukrainian Construction Consortium. The potential financial conflicts here for a President Trump are enormous. Moreover, Trump's primary partner for his lucrative business in Canada, a well-respected Russo-Canadian billionaire named Alex Shnaider, is also a major investor in Russia and Ukraine, meaning American policies benefiting those countries could enrich an important business connection for the Trump Organization.Meanwhile, Trump has raised concerns in the United States among national security experts for his consistent and effusive praise for Vladimir Putin, the Russian ruler who also now controls much of Ukraine. With its founder in the White House, the Trump Organization would have an extraordinary entrée into those countries. If the company sold its brand in Russia while Trump was in the White House, the world could be faced with the astonishing site of hotels and office complexes going up in downtown Moscow with the name of the American president emblazoned in gold atop the buildings.The dealings of the Trump Organization reach into so many countries that it is impossible to detail all the conflicts they present in a single issue of this magazine, but a Newsweek examination of the company has also found deep connections in China, Brazil, Bulgaria, Argentina, Canada, France, Germany and other countries.Never before has an American candidate for president had so many financial ties with American allies and enemies, and never before has a business posed such a threat to the United States. If Donald Trump wins this election and his company is not immediately shut down or forever severed from the Trump family, the foreign policy of the United States of America could well be for sale.

--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association  aid and abet violence.

- An American Story

A half-dead Clinton is always better than the brain-dead Trump