Dump Trump

I wonder how he does it ?

The real problem with witch hunts around the current Liar/Thief/Racist in Chief is that so many people want a piece of him. Is there enough to go around I ask ?

These are the four different types of investigations looking at Donald Trump
By Peter Marsh and Emily Olson
Updated about 4 hours ago

Related Story: Donald Trump 'not above the law', New York court says
Related Story: Paul Manafort jailed for 7.5 years for conspiracy against US and fraud
Related Story: Nancy Pelosi says Donald Trump isn't worth impeaching. Here's why she might be right
US President Donald Trump is facing so many investigations it can be hard to keep track.

Federal, state and congressional forces are looking into every corner of his personal, political and business life, generating so much news that one probe can blur into the next.

Below, we break down who's behind the key investigations, what they're digging into and what could happen if they find something.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/all-the-investigations-into-donald-trump/10899714

It's interesting to say the least. Having made a point of studying the inner workings of the FBI over many years which of course soon ebbed into the inner US administration, I've concluded that Trump is no more corrupt than most of the Presidents since Nixon.

However with Trump, like a car salesman, he's right up front. The big one of course is that the only one able to manufacture the sophisticated steel girders for his wall is a Russian in Russia. If we'd had Clinton of course the behind the scene support of ISIS would have been ramped up more for Middle East oil. The wall is not really killing people.

https://www.usnews.com/news/busines...says-higher-tariffs-on-china-to-hit-on-friday

The Latest: US Says Higher Tariffs on China to Hit on Friday
The Latest: US says higher tariffs on China will take effect Friday; trade talks to resume Thursday.
By Associated Press, Wire Service Content May 6, 2019, at 5:27 p.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the U.S.-China trade talks (all times local):

5:15 p.m.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer says the higher tariffs on China that President Donald Trump threatened over the weekend will take effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time Friday.

Lighthizer adds that trade negotiations with the Chinese will resume on Thursday in Washington.

In a briefing with reporters, Lighthizer accused Beijing of "reneging on prior commitments" after 10 rounds of high-stakes negotiations over China's aggressive drive to supplant American technological dominance.

https://www.theage.com.au/business/...ge_busnews_am&instance=2019-05-06--20-42--UTC

Trump the 'Tariff Man' returns to threaten markets, risking full scale trade war

By Stephen Bartholomeusz
May 6, 2019 — 3.00pm

The return of the Tariff Man and his threats to escalate the trade conflict with China even as it appeared to be close to a resolution threatens, at face value, to undermine markets and growth in the global economy.

It needs qualification because who, other than Donald Trump, could possibly know why he chose, at such a delicate moment in trade negotiations, to canvass raising the rate on $US200 billion of China’s exports to the US from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, adding another $US325 billion of extra goods to the $US250 billion already attracting the duties.

The threat may be a (very) crude negotiating tactic from the great deal-maker, aimed at coercing the Chinese into making concessions they otherwise might not proffer as the final round of negotiations on a trade deal gets underway in Washington this week.

Or, given that the Chinese appear to have decided that there are some key US demands that are non-negotiable, perhaps it is simply a way of Trump signalling his toughness so that he can characterise a less-than-optimal deal (from the administration’s perspective) as a triumph.

A concern that Trump might be serious saw the Australian sharemarket open weaker. Asian markets also tumbled on Monday as investors digested the news, with the Hang Seng down 2.8 per cent and the Shanghai Composite down 3.7 per cent.

The US futures markets are signalling a sell-off when its equities markets open overnight, with contracts on the S&P 500 and Dow Jones indices foreshadowing a 2 per cent fall.

The difficulty in trying to determine whether the Trump tweets on Sunday are just bluff and bluster or something with more substance is that, once again, the US president has betrayed an unsettling lack of understanding of the tariffs he threaten to impose.

"These payments (the tariffs) are partially responsible for our great economic results," he said. He’s previously talked about the billions of dollars the Chinese have been paying into the US Treasury’s coffers.

In fact it is the US importers who pay the tariffs, raising costs for US companies and consumers. An analysis of the trade confrontation by the New York Federal Reserve and Princeton and Columbia universities estimated that the existing tariffs were costing US consumers $US1.4 billion ($2 billion) a month, or an annualised $US16.8 billion.

Trump’s economic illiteracy means it is quite feasible he doesn’t understand that the threat of raising the existing tariffs – from Friday – and adding another tariff on a further $US325 billion of China’s exports "shortly" would be mutually destructive.

It would really hurt China but it would also have an adverse impact on the US and the rest of the world, especially Australia.

If he saw it as a negotiating tactic, then it was an unsophisticated and unnecessary one.

The threat of an increase in the rate of the existing tariffs and the extension of their coverage to the rest of China’s exports to the US has been implicit ever since the US initiated the conflict. It is what brought China to the negotiating table.

It wasn’t necessary or useful to make that threat explicit just as China’s Vice-Premier, Liu He and more than 100 Chinese officials arrive in Washington for the final round of talks with their US counterparts. In a dramatic move late on Monday, China said it was considering delaying the talks.

It has been apparent for some time that, while China is prepared to make some concessions to the US demands, there are some non-negotiables.

It is prepared to buy more US agricultural products and LNG, open up some markets and agree not to force, directly or indirectly, US companies to provide access to their intellectual property. It isn’t however, prepared to abandon its centrally-directed industry policies and the state subsidies that are inherent in them.

Another major sticking point has been the US demand that the existing tariffs remain in place until China has complied with the terms of the deal, even once they have been scaled back, and that the US retain the right to unilaterally re-impose them for a perceived breach without China being able to retaliate.

Accepting such a one-sided enforcement mechanism would be humiliating for the Chinese and their president, Xi Jinping, with potential domestic political implications.

The best hope for the Chinese is that the weekend’s tweets were just Trump’s usual bluff and bluster to show how tough a negotiator he is; window-dressing for his base ahead of a deal that won’t actually live up to his promises.

That would be an outcome similar to Trump’s renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

That deal, which Republicans in Congress are threating to block unless Trump drops his cherished tariffs on steel and aluminium imports, essentially rebadged NAFTA, after some minor tinkering, as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

If, however, Trump is serious and China isn’t prepared to kowtow to his threats and concede on all the major issues the administration regards as important, we’ll have a full-scale trade war between the US and China, one where China’s ability to respond is limited by the reality that it imports a lot less from the US - $US120 billion last year – than the $US540 billion of US imports from China.

Democracy in US :Endgame . Bill Mahers take on Trump amnd Barr trying to blow off the Congress.

Bill was also very unkind to Mueller. Far too much of the Boy Scout and not enough balls to call out Donald Trumps obstruction for what it was.

Crime and No Punishment.

The past and current obstruction of justice by Donald Trump is being called out by those (in the Republican Party !) who held President Clinton to account for his behavior over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Trump Fails the Betty Currie Test


Twenty years ago, I held President Clinton accountable. That’s why I joined hundreds of prosecutors to say that Trump has obstructed justice.

12:21 PM ET
Paul Rosenzweig
Senior fellow at the R Street Institute and a principal at Red Branch Consulting

Ralph Waldo Emerson once famously said that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” If so, then as a lawyer committed to the rule of law, I confess to having a little mind, though I like to think my consistency is not foolish.

Earlier this week, I signed a letter (along with a growing number—now more than 600—of other former federal prosecutors) expressing the view that the facts recounted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report to Attorney General William Barr were in many cases (the letter lists three) sufficient to have warranted criminal charges against President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice. For me, the question was one of intellectual consistency. Having held President Bill Clinton to this standard 20 years ago, I could not, in good conscience, decline to apply the same standard to President Trump.
Call it, if you will, the Betty Currie test.
Currie was Clinton’s personal secretary. (For The West Wing fans, she was his Mrs. Landingham.) And Clinton, of course, was suspected of having had a sexual relationship with one of his interns, Monica Lewinsky.

On the day after he first became aware that his relationship with Lewinsky was under scrutiny, Clinton called Currie into work (it was a Sunday). And when she arrived, he said to her, “There are several things you may want to know,” and then proceeded to make several statements, in the form of “questions” to Currie. Referring to Lewinsky, Clinton said:

• “You were always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone.”
• “You could see and hear everything.”
• “Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?”

Viewing this evidence, Independent Counsel Ken Starr (for whom I then worked) told Congress that there was “substantial and credible” information that the president had endeavored to obstruct justice by attempting to influence the testimony of Currie. Though the president testified that his interaction with Currie was an attempt to refresh his own memory, we had no problem concluding that his explanation was not plausible. We concluded that the most reasonable inference was that he was attempting to enlist Currie to testify falsely about the true nature of his relationship with Lewinsky.

This vignette from the investigation of Clinton illuminates my conclusions today and is instructive for a number of reasons.

First, some, such as Barr, have argued that the obstruction case against Trump is weak because there was no underlying criminal behavior. If, they argue, there was no criminal conspiracy in the contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians, then there is no obstruction in covering up the noncrime.

While it is true that the absence of an underlying crime makes proving a corrupt motive harder for a prosecutor, it is absolutely clear under the law that one can obstruct justice out of other motives, such as fear of embarrassment or political condemnation.

And that’s exactly what happened with Clinton—his underlying actions involved a sexual relationship with an intern that was, by itself, exceedingly unsavory, but it wasn’t criminal. I was of the view then, and remain of the view now, that this should not matter. Quite the contrary: Respect for the rule of law means respect for, and adherence to, the processes of law. It means not lying and not suborning others to lie for you. And that obligation falls, in my judgment, even more strongly on the president, who takes an oath to uphold the law.

And so, if Clinton should have been held to account for trying to get Currie to lie for him about Lewinsky, then, by the same logic, Trump must be held to account for (to take but one example from the Mueller report) asking his White House counsel, Don McGahn, to lie for him about Trump’s intent to fire Mueller. It doesn’t matter that Trump was asking McGahn to lie because of his political fears, and it doesn’t matter that the ultimate issue of Russian electoral interference never matured into a criminal charge against the Trump campaign.

Second, the comparison is telling in another way. Say what you will about the investigation of Russia’s connection to the Trump campaign; there can be no doubt at all—none whatsoever—that the possibility of Russian interference in our election system is a matter of grave significance to our democratic institutions. Far more so than, say, the president’s sexual activities. I never accepted the argument that “lying about sex” isn’t a crime—but even if I did, I would not accept the argument that “lying about an investigation of Russian electoral interference” isn’t a crime. If only for comparative reasons, anyone who supported obstruction charges in the Clinton era must acknowledge the greater salience of the issues at the core of this Trump-era investigation.


Finally, the Clinton story also tells us that another of Trump’s defenses is likewise meritless. Some have said that his effort to obstruct justice isn’t criminal, because he didn’t succeed. McGahn, for example, refused to create a false record and refused to lie for him.

But again, the same is equally true of the Clinton investigation. We know that Clinton tried to persuade Currie to lie because, ultimately, Currie told us that story in her personal testimony. The fact that she didn’t follow his lead (at least not fully) does not excuse the effort. And today we know about the effort to suborn McGahn’s false testimony because McGahn has told us of it. If Clinton’s lack of success was no defense, then Trump’s should not be either.

I could go on. In the end, though, the comparison to Clinton’s investigation and impeachment does Trump no favors. If you continue to think that Clinton was derelict in his actions, violative of his oath of office, and deserving of condemnation for his criminal activity, as I do, you can say no less about Trump.

Perhaps that consistency means I have a “little mind.” I prefer to think that I have the courage of my convictions, and I’m honored to join others who have served the American public in saying what I think. President Clinton failed the Betty Currie test; so has President Trump.

Paul Rosenzweig is a senior fellow at the R Street Institute and a principal at Red Branch Consulting. Twenty years ago he served as a Senior Counsel in the investigation of President Clinton.
Our History
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/i-worked-ken-starr-and-i-signed-doj-letter/588907/

"More than 400 former federal prosecutors have signed a new letter claiming that President Donald Trump’s interference in the Russia investigation, as described by special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, should have led to “multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”

The letter, circulated by the anti-Trump group Protect Democracy and first reported on by the Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky, is pretty brutal. According to the former Justice Department officials, Trump’s actions as detailed by the Mueller report, which ranged from interference with Mueller’s attempts to acquire cooperating witnesses to an attempt to fire Mueller, constitute severe inference with the federal inquiry. In fact, they say, the question of whether there’s enough evidence to charge Trump isn’t even a particularly tough call.

“All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions,” the letter’s text says. “To look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”

This is from both sides .... not just Republicans but democrats as well.

This does NOT cover the NEW obstructions .... from Barr refusing to testify, to documents being shredded to Treasury Secretary refusing to provide tax returns ... despite the law,


The law ... has gone ... its unraveling ... the rule of law.

kahuna1 said:

"More than 400 former federal prosecutors have signed a new letter claiming that President Donald Trump’s interference in the Russia investigation, as described by special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, should have led to “multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”

The letter, circulated by the anti-Trump group Protect Democracy and first reported on by the Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky, is pretty brutal. According to the former Justice Department officials, Trump’s actions as detailed by the Mueller report, which ranged from interference with Mueller’s attempts to acquire cooperating witnesses to an attempt to fire Mueller, constitute severe inference with the federal inquiry. In fact, they say, the question of whether there’s enough evidence to charge Trump isn’t even a particularly tough call.

“All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions,” the letter’s text says. “To look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”

This is from both sides .... not just Republicans but democrats as well.

This does NOT cover the NEW obstructions .... from Barr refusing to testify, to documents being shredded to Treasury Secretary refusing to provide tax returns ... despite the law,


The law ... has gone ... its unraveling ... the rule of law.

Click to expand...

Dems started impeachment yet?

All just hot air before the election otherwise.

basilio said:

The past and current obstruction of justice by Donald Trump is being called out by those (in the Republican Party !) who held President Clinton to account for his behavior over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Trump Fails the Betty Currie Test


Twenty years ago, I held President Clinton accountable. That’s why I joined hundreds of prosecutors to say that Trump has obstructed justice.

12:21 PM ET
Paul Rosenzweig
Senior fellow at the R Street Institute and a principal at Red Branch Consulting

Ralph Waldo Emerson once famously said that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” If so, then as a lawyer committed to the rule of law, I confess to having a little mind, though I like to think my consistency is not foolish.

Earlier this week, I signed a letter (along with a growing number—now more than 600—of other former federal prosecutors) expressing the view that the facts recounted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report to Attorney General William Barr were in many cases (the letter lists three) sufficient to have warranted criminal charges against President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice. For me, the question was one of intellectual consistency. Having held President Bill Clinton to this standard 20 years ago, I could not, in good conscience, decline to apply the same standard to President Trump.
Call it, if you will, the Betty Currie test.
Currie was Clinton’s personal secretary. (For The West Wing fans, she was his Mrs. Landingham.) And Clinton, of course, was suspected of having had a sexual relationship with one of his interns, Monica Lewinsky.

On the day after he first became aware that his relationship with Lewinsky was under scrutiny, Clinton called Currie into work (it was a Sunday). And when she arrived, he said to her, “There are several things you may want to know,” and then proceeded to make several statements, in the form of “questions” to Currie. Referring to Lewinsky, Clinton said:

• “You were always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone.”
• “You could see and hear everything.”
• “Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?”

Viewing this evidence, Independent Counsel Ken Starr (for whom I then worked) told Congress that there was “substantial and credible” information that the president had endeavored to obstruct justice by attempting to influence the testimony of Currie. Though the president testified that his interaction with Currie was an attempt to refresh his own memory, we had no problem concluding that his explanation was not plausible. We concluded that the most reasonable inference was that he was attempting to enlist Currie to testify falsely about the true nature of his relationship with Lewinsky.

This vignette from the investigation of Clinton illuminates my conclusions today and is instructive for a number of reasons.

First, some, such as Barr, have argued that the obstruction case against Trump is weak because there was no underlying criminal behavior. If, they argue, there was no criminal conspiracy in the contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians, then there is no obstruction in covering up the noncrime.

While it is true that the absence of an underlying crime makes proving a corrupt motive harder for a prosecutor, it is absolutely clear under the law that one can obstruct justice out of other motives, such as fear of embarrassment or political condemnation.

And that’s exactly what happened with Clinton—his underlying actions involved a sexual relationship with an intern that was, by itself, exceedingly unsavory, but it wasn’t criminal. I was of the view then, and remain of the view now, that this should not matter. Quite the contrary: Respect for the rule of law means respect for, and adherence to, the processes of law. It means not lying and not suborning others to lie for you. And that obligation falls, in my judgment, even more strongly on the president, who takes an oath to uphold the law.

And so, if Clinton should have been held to account for trying to get Currie to lie for him about Lewinsky, then, by the same logic, Trump must be held to account for (to take but one example from the Mueller report) asking his White House counsel, Don McGahn, to lie for him about Trump’s intent to fire Mueller. It doesn’t matter that Trump was asking McGahn to lie because of his political fears, and it doesn’t matter that the ultimate issue of Russian electoral interference never matured into a criminal charge against the Trump campaign.

Second, the comparison is telling in another way. Say what you will about the investigation of Russia’s connection to the Trump campaign; there can be no doubt at all—none whatsoever—that the possibility of Russian interference in our election system is a matter of grave significance to our democratic institutions. Far more so than, say, the president’s sexual activities. I never accepted the argument that “lying about sex” isn’t a crime—but even if I did, I would not accept the argument that “lying about an investigation of Russian electoral interference” isn’t a crime. If only for comparative reasons, anyone who supported obstruction charges in the Clinton era must acknowledge the greater salience of the issues at the core of this Trump-era investigation.


Finally, the Clinton story also tells us that another of Trump’s defenses is likewise meritless. Some have said that his effort to obstruct justice isn’t criminal, because he didn’t succeed. McGahn, for example, refused to create a false record and refused to lie for him.

But again, the same is equally true of the Clinton investigation. We know that Clinton tried to persuade Currie to lie because, ultimately, Currie told us that story in her personal testimony. The fact that she didn’t follow his lead (at least not fully) does not excuse the effort. And today we know about the effort to suborn McGahn’s false testimony because McGahn has told us of it. If Clinton’s lack of success was no defense, then Trump’s should not be either.

I could go on. In the end, though, the comparison to Clinton’s investigation and impeachment does Trump no favors. If you continue to think that Clinton was derelict in his actions, violative of his oath of office, and deserving of condemnation for his criminal activity, as I do, you can say no less about Trump.

Perhaps that consistency means I have a “little mind.” I prefer to think that I have the courage of my convictions, and I’m honored to join others who have served the American public in saying what I think. President Clinton failed the Betty Currie test; so has President Trump.

Paul Rosenzweig is a senior fellow at the R Street Institute and a principal at Red Branch Consulting. Twenty years ago he served as a Senior Counsel in the investigation of President Clinton.
Our History
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/i-worked-ken-starr-and-i-signed-doj-letter/588907/

Click to expand...

Take a deep breath.

This behaviour, trying to demonstrate that one is innocent, is also what a genuinely innocent person does.

Your extremely long argument seems to boil down to "Clinton was guilty. He tried to get someone to say he was innocent, but he was guilty, therefore, anyone who tries to do this is guilty!"

Innocent people try to prove their innocence too. If they have a person who can genuinely prove it, they will often try to get that person's help. The fact that Clinton did this dishonestly doesn't mean that other people can't do it honestly, it just means Clinton attempted to fabricate an image of innocence. Someone else's may be genuine.

Sdajii said:

Take a deep breath.

This behaviour, trying to demonstrate that one is innocent, is also what a genuinely innocent person does.

Your extremely long argument seems to boil down to "Clinton was guilty. He tried to get someone to say he was innocent, but he was guilty, therefore, anyone who tries to do this is guilty!"

Innocent people try to prove their innocence too. If they have a person who can genuinely prove it, they will often try to get that person's help. The fact that Clinton did this dishonestly doesn't mean that other people can't do it honestly, it just means Clinton attempted to fabricate an image of innocence. Someone else's may be genuine.

Click to expand...

Please reread the post Sdajii
1) It is not my argument. I was quoting an article from the The Atlantic. (I meant to just post the first coupe of paragraphs but accidentally grabbed the lot..)

2) The legal argument is presented by the person who ran exactly the same obstruction legal arguments against Bill Clinton He sees no difference in the cases.

3) 600 plus other Federal prosecutors agreed that the evidence presented in the Mueller report would have been sufficient for them to lay obstruction of justice charges in any other situation.

4) Obstruction of legal processes by attempting to intimidate, bribe or persuade witnesses to change their story is a crime. Attempting to stop legal investigations is a crime. Trying to falsify evidence of attempting to stop legal investigations is a crime. Offering pardons to people facing investigations is a crime. These are some (not all) of the actions attributed to Donald Trump in the Mueller report.
This is why the 600 plus Federal Prosecutors believe Congress has a constitutional duty to examine Muller report and establish whether the actions outlined are grounds for impeachment on misconduct.

The Americans are paying for the tariffs (taxes)
DUMP TRUMP

https://www.usnews.com/news/busines...rease-on-200b-of-chinese-imports-takes-effect

US Hikes Tariffs on Chinese Goods, Beijing Vows Retaliation
Trump's tariff hike on Chinese imports takes effect, Beijing says it will retaliate.
By Associated Press, Wire Service Content May 10, 2019, at 1:25 a.m.

By JOE McDONALD, AP Business Writer

BEIJING (AP) — President Donald Trump's latest tariff hike on Chinese goods took effect Friday and Beijing said it would retaliate, escalating a battle over China's technology ambitions and other trade strains.

The Trump administration raised duties on $200 billion of Chinese imports from 10% to 25%. China's Commerce Ministry said would take "necessary countermeasures" but gave no details.

The increase went ahead after American and Chinese negotiators began more talks in Washington aimed at ending a dispute that has disrupted billions of dollars in trade and shaken global financial markets.

American officials accuse Beijing of backtracking on commitments made in earlier rounds of negotiations.

The talks were due to resume Friday after wrapping up with no word on progress.

"China deeply regrets that it will have to take necessary countermeasures," said a Commerce Ministry statement.

Shares in Asia were mixed Friday amid renewed investor jitters about the possible impact of the trade battle on global economic growth.

The latest increase extends 25% U.S. duties to a total of $250 billion of Chinese imports. Trump said Sunday he might extend penalties to all Chinese goods shipped to the United States.

Beijing retaliated for previous tariff hikes by raising duties on $110 billion of American imports. But regulators are running out of U.S. goods for penalties due to the lopsided trade balance.

Chinese officials have targeted operations of American companies in China by slowing customs clearance for their goods and stepping up regulatory scrutiny that can hamper operations.

The higher U.S. import taxes don't apply to Chinese goods shipped before Friday. By sea, shipments across the Pacific take about three weeks, which gives negotiators a few more days to reach a settlement before importers may have to pay the increased charges.

The negotiators met Thursday evening. Then, after briefing Trump on the negotiations, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin dined with the leader of the Chinese delegation, Vice Premier Liu He.

Liu, speaking to Chinese state TV on his arrival in Washington, said he "came with sincerity." He appealed to Washington to avoid more tariff hikes, saying they are "not a solution" and would harm the world.

"We should not hurt innocent people," Liu told CCTV.

At the White House, Trump said he received "a beautiful letter" from Chinese President Xi Jinping and would "probably speak to him by phone."

The two countries are sparring over U.S. allegations that China steals technology and pressures American companies into handing over trade secrets, part of an aggressive campaign to turn Chinese companies into world leaders in robotics, electric cars and other advanced industries.

This week's setback was unexpected. Through late last week, Trump administration officials were suggesting that negotiators were making steady progress.

U.S. officials say they got an inkling of China's second thoughts about prior commitments in talks last week in Beijing but the backsliding became more apparent in exchanges over the weekend. They wouldn't identify the specific issues involved.

A sticking point is U.S. insistence on an enforcement mechanism with penalties to ensure Beijing lives up to its commitments. American officials say China has repeatedly broken past promises.

China wants tariffs lifted as soon as an agreement is reached, while U.S. officials want to keep them as leverage to ensure compliance.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged Trump in a phone call to press China to release two Canadians who have been held for five months.

The men were detained in apparent retaliation after Canada arrested an executive of Chinese tech giant Huawei on U.S. charges of bank fraud.

When all else fails look for a woman to do the job....

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/b...kers-see-wiped-trumps-mexico-threat/39534669/

Carmakers see $17B wiped out by Trump’s Mexico threat
Ma Jie and Maiko Takahashi, Bloomberg Published 8:36 p.m. ET May 31, 2019

The automotive industry is bearing the brunt of trade-war crossfire again as U.S. President Donald Trump threatens to slap tariffs of as much as 25% on goods from Mexico, a key production hub for carmakers from Mazda Motor Corp. to General Motors Co.

Mexico is the largest source of U.S. vehicle and auto-parts imports, meaning tariffs would increase costs for virtually every major manufacturer. In late night tweets Thursday, Trump warned tariffs would start at 5% on June 10 and increase to 25% on Oct. 1 unless Mexico stops immigrants from entering the U.S. illegally.

The world’s largest automakers – including Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Volkswagen AG – lost $17 billion in market value in Friday trading. The Bloomberg World Auto Manufacturers Index slumped as much as 2.2% and ended the week at the lowest since July 2016.

“Tariffs will mean higher price tags on cars for sales in U.S. and that will hit sales,” said Seiichi Miura, an analyst at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley. “While the impact will differ for each carmaker, all of them have moved into Mexico.”

GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV shares all plunged at least 4% intraday in New York trading. Critical models imported from Mexico include GM’s Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra and Fiat Chrysler’s Ram full-size pickups – the industry’s most profitable vehicles; Toyota’s Tacoma mid-size trucks; and sedans including Nissan Motor Co.’s Versa and Sentra, Volkswagen’s Jetta and the Mazda3.

A 25% tariff would be worth $86.6 billion annually, which “could cripple the industry and cause major uncertainty,” Emmanuel Rosner, an auto analyst for Deutsche Bank, wrote in a report Friday.

Japan’s Toyota and South Korea’s Kia Motors Corp. declined more than their respective benchmark indexes. Shares of Mazda, which is particularly reliant on Mexico, fell to the lowest since 2013.

In Germany, BMW AG closed at the lowest since November 2012. The automaker is slated to open a plant in San Luis Potosi next week that will make 3-Series sedans for the U.S. market starting later this year. Mercedes-Benz maker Daimler AG manufactures heavy trucks, buses and parts in Mexico.

Canada’s Magna International Inc., which has 32 facilities and more than 29,000 employees in Mexico, slumped as much as 5.8% in Toronto. Sweden’s Dometic Group AB, which manufactures climate-control systems for trucks and recreational vehicles, fell as much as 6.5%. The company said in April it planned to build a second plant in Mexico, moving additional capacity there from China. Autoliv Inc., which has more than 14,000 employees in Mexico making steering wheels, seat belts and airbags, dropped as much as 7.8% in Stockholm.

The latest tariff threat highlights how automakers and their closely intertwined supply chains are among the biggest losers of escalating trade tensions. Given the scale and global nature of auto manufacturing today, the industry has often been in the middle of the crosshairs of Trump, who’s gone as far to say that imported cars represent a threat to U.S. national security.

Export base

Mazda’s Mexico factory last year made 183,266 cars. The company imports all vehicles it sells in the U.S., mostly from Japan and Mexico. It’s now building a multibillion dollar facility in Huntsville, Alabama, with Toyota.

Nissan has three plants in the country with a combined capacity of 850,000 vehicles annually. By comparison, Honda’s is 263,000, while Toyota’s is 200,000 units.

The tariffs would also impact South Korean automakers that make cars in Mexico. Kia exports about 80% to 90% of the 300,000 vehicles it makes a year at its Mexico plant to the U.S., according to SK Securities Co. analyst Kwon Soon-woo. Kia representatives couldn’t immediately comment.

Earlier in May, Trump concurred with the conclusions of his Commerce Department, which investigated imports of vehicles and auto parts and found they harm national security by having led to a declining market share for “American-owned” carmakers since the 1980s. That prompted Toyota to issue an unusually strong-worded statement denouncing the administration’s policies.

Simmering concerns

Well before that, however, Mazda and Toyota had expressed concern over the looming threat of tariffs. They were among the dozens of carmakers and parts suppliers that filed comments to the Commerce Department in an effort to push against potential tariffs almost a year ago.

Japan’s government has meanwhile tried to mount a charm offensive, seeking to forestall any retaliatory action against Japanese manufacturers and exporters. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe hosted Trump in Japan last week, making the president the first foreign head of state to meet new Emperor Naruhito. The four-day itinerary included a state dinner, golf, a Sumo wrestling match, a visit to warships and trade discussions.

“This news is further oil on the trade war fire and starts a new front with others (Japan) now thinking they could be next,” said Olivier d’Assier, APAC Head of Applied Research at Axioma. “The odds that Trump will target Japan next have clearly risen in their mind after today’s news.”

bigdog said:

“Tariffs will mean higher price tags on cars for sales in U.S. and that will hit sales,” said Seiichi Miura, an analyst at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley. “While the impact will differ for each carmaker, all of them have moved into Mexico.”

Click to expand...

I guess a few of them will be relocating back to the U.S., rather than exploiting lower wages, at the cost of the U.S worker's jobs.

Price of cars will increase but;

Extra jobs for US workers and inflation will increase....
Sorry is that not what the rba is desperately aiming to achieve?
Ahh... the anti trump cabale...

https://www.usnews.com/news/busines...asian-stock-tumble-after-china-lets-yuan-sink

Stocks Slump as China Currency Move Escalates Trade Fears
Global stocks fall sharply after China allows yuan to fall following Trump's latest trade threat.
By Associated Press, Wire Service Content Aug. 5, 2019, at 7:41 a.m.

By JOE McDONALD, AP Business Writer

BEIJING (AP) — Global shares fell sharply Monday after China let its currency to sink to an 11-year low against the dollar, fueling concern that Beijing is using the yuan as a weapon in an escalating tariff war with U.S. President Donald Trump.

Market benchmarks in London and Paris fell more than 2% in early trading while Tokyo closed down 1.7% and Hong Kong declined almost 3%. Frankfurt, Shanghai and Sydney also retreated.

Wall Street was also poised for a sharp downturn, with Dow and S&P futures down about 1.5%.

China's central bank allowed the yuan's exchange rate to sink below the politically sensitive level of seven per dollar. That level has no economic significance per se but might fuel trade tensions with the U.S. government, which complains a weak Chinese currency swells the country's exports and hurts foreign competitors.

"Markets will brace for trade tensions to boil," said Vishnua Varathan of Mizuho Bank in a report.

The People's Bank of China blamed the decline on "trade protectionism," a reference to Trump's tariff hikes in a fight over Beijing's trade surplus and technology policies. Trump rattled financial markets with a threat Thursday to raise duties on additional Chinese imports.

Beijing appears to have decided "the currency is now also considered part of the arsenal to be drawn upon," said Robert Carnell, analyst at bank ING.

London's FTSE 100 fell 2.2% to 7,247 and Frankfurt's DAX lost 1.8% to 11,661. France's CAC-40 declined 2.1% to 5,243.

Tokyo's Nikkei 225 fell to 20,720.29 and Hong Kong's Hang Seng declined 2.9% to 26,151.32. Seoul's Kospi was 2.6% lower at 1,946.98.

The Shanghai Composite Index dropped 1.6% to 2,821.50 and Sydney's S&P-ASX 200 retreated 1.9% to 6,640.30. India's Sensex lost 1.5% to 36,576.42.

Traders also were watching Hong Kong, a major trading center where airline flights and traffic were disrupted by protesters' calls for a general strike over complaints about a proposed extradition law and other grievances.

On Friday, the S&P 500 lost 0.7% and the Dow dropped 0.4%. The Nasdaq composite shed 1.3%.

Despite that, the major indexes are all up solidly this year, led by the Nasdaq's 20.6% gain. The S&P 500 is up nearly 17%.

Trade tension and uncertainty over the outlook for American interest rates have blotted out a better-than-expected corporate earnings results. Earnings for S&P 500 companies are on pace for a drop of 1% from a year ago, better than the 3% decline analysts expected.

ENERGY: Benchmark U.S. crude lost 52 cents to $55.14 per barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Brent crude, used to price international oils, shed 72 cents to $61.21 in London.

CURRENCY: The dollar dropped to 106.02 yen from Friday's 106.59 yen. The euro gained to $1.1173 from $1.1109.

Trump is escalating a trade war he isn't winning

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2019-08-04/chinas-yuan-falls-below-7-to-us-dollar

Lashing Back, China Lets Yuan Drop, Halts US Farm Purchases
Lashing back against Trump's latest tariff threat, China lets yuan drop to 11-year low, suspends farm purchases.
By Associated Press, Wire Service Content Aug. 5, 2019, at 8:00 p.m.

By PAUL WISEMAN and JOE McDONALD, AP Business Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — China decided Monday to meet President Donald Trump's latest tariff threat with defiance, letting its currency drop to an 11-year low and halting purchases of U.S. farm products.

The moves, which came four days after Trump threatened more taxes on Chinese imports, knocked stock markets worldwide into a tailspin. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down more than 850 points by mid-afternoon.

Earlier, stocks tumbled from Shanghai to London on fears the escalation in U.S.-China trade tension will drag down a global economy that is already weakening.

Raising worries that China will wield its currency as a weapon in a trade war, Beijing let the Chinese yuan weaken to the politically sensitive level of seven to the U.S. dollar for the first time since February 2008.

After financial markets closed Monday, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that it was labeling China a currency manipulator for the first time since 1994.

Also Monday, China's official Xinhua news agency reported that Chinese companies have stopped buying U.S. farm products — a direct shot at Trump supporters in rural America.

Together, the currency devaluation and suspension of farm purchases suggest that China has decided to stand tough, rather than cave in Trump's threats.

"The Chinese side won't submit to the US," tweeted Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of China's hardline Global Times newspaper.

The weaker yuan makes Chinese exports less expensive in foreign markets. It also helps offset the impact of U.S. tariffs on Chinese products.

The Chinese currency hit 7.0391 to the dollar by late afternoon, making one yuan worth 14.2 cents. The level of seven to the dollar has no economic significance but carries significant symbolic weight.

"The thought of a currency war is crossing more than a few traders' minds," Stephen Innes of VM Markets said in a report.

Trump promptly took to Twitter to denounce the move as "currency manipulation." He added, "This is a major violation which will greatly weaken China over time."

China's central bank blamed the yuan's drop on "trade protectionism" — an apparent reference to Trump's threat last Thursday to impose tariffs Sept. 1 on the $300 billion in Chinese imports to the United States in addition to the $250 billion he's already targeted.

The U.S. and China are engaged in a bitter dispute over allegations that Beijing steals trade secrets and pressures foreign companies to hand over technology as part of an aggressive campaign to make Chinese companies world leaders in advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

The weakness of the yuan, also known as the renminbi, or "people's money," is among U.S. grievances against Beijing. American officials complain that a weak yuan gives Chinese exporters an unfair price edge in foreign markets and helps swell the massive U.S. trade deficit with China.

The U.S. Treasury Department declined in May to label China a currency manipulator but urged Beijing to take steps "to avoid a persistently weak currency" and warned that it would be watching closely.

China's central bank sets the exchange rate each morning and allows the yuan to fluctuate by 2% against the dollar during the day. The central bank can buy or sell currency — or order commercial banks to do so — to dampen price movements.

It appears "the currency is now also considered part of the arsenal to be drawn upon," Robert Carnell of ING said in a report. He said Monday's move might be part of "a concerted series of steps aimed at pushing back at the latest U.S. tariffs."

Until now, economists had expected the People's Bank of China, the Chinese central bank, to intervene and put a floor under the currency if it threated to breach the seven-to-the-dollar level.

A central bank statement Monday blamed "unilateralism and trade protectionism measures," a reference to Trump's tariff hikes. But it tried to play down the significance of "breaking seven."

"It is normal to rise and fall," the statement said. It promised to "maintain stable operation of the foreign exchange market."

Chinese leaders have promised to avoid "competitive devaluation" to boost exports by making them less expensive abroad — a pledge the central bank governor, Yi Gang, affirmed in March. But regulators are trying to make the state-controlled exchange rate more responsive to market forces, which are pulling the yuan lower, partly on fears Trump's tariffs will weaken the Chinese economy.

The yuan has lost 5% since February.

Globally, a weaker yuan might lead to more volatility in currency markets and pressure for the dollar to strengthen, Louis Kuijs of Oxford Economics said in a report. That would be "unwelcome in Washington," where Trump has threatened to weaken the dollar to boost exports.

A weaker dollar "would be bad news" for Europe and Japan, hurting demand for their exports at a time of cooling economic growth, Kuijs said.

The Chinese central bank tried to discourage speculation last August by imposing a requirement that traders post deposits for contracts to buy or sell yuan. That allows trading to continue but raises the cost.

Beijing imposed similar controls in October 2015 after a change in the exchange rate mechanism prompted markets to bet the yuan would fall. The currency temporarily steadied but fell the following year.

The Chinese are well aware of the pain the trade war is causing American farmers, a loyal part of Trump's political base. Their retaliatory tariffs on $110 billion in U.S. products targeted soybeans and other key agricultural products. To ease the pain in rural America, Trump has rolled out two packages of farm aid worth a combined $27 billion.

Monday's Xinhua report said that Beijing would "not rule out the possibility of levying additional tariffs" on U.S. farm imports. Xinhua said Trump's plan to tax another $300 billion in Chinese imports "seriously violated" a cease-fire agreed to in June by Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Trump was definately a better president than Biden is.

Bull.

The public hearings of the evidence gathered by the January 6th committee will continue tomorrow. The presentation will lay out the case for Donald Trump planning a conspiracy to overthrow the November Presidential election results to enable him to hold power.

Essentially a coup.

ABC gives an excellent recap of the main points of the previous six public presentations.

Donald Trump accused of a sprawling 'conspiracy': recapping the first six Capitol riot hearings​

By Peta Fuller




First US Capitol riot hearing reveals explosive new details
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article


Graphic video showing police being attacked; bombshell testimony from inside the White House; first-hand accounts of Donald Trump's tactics: so far, the public Capitol riot hearings have produced stunning testimony.

And tomorrow's seventh hearing (around 3am AEST) is set to deliver more detail on alleged plotting by right-wing groups, with former Oath Keepers spokesman Jason Van Tatenhove to appear as a witness.

Another planned hearing, which could happen within days, has been given prime-time billing.
Adam Kinzinger, a Republican congressman who sits on the committee, said they want to use that hearing to fill in the hours between the riot starting and Mr Trump tweeting they should "go home".

"The rest of the country knew that there was an insurrection, the president obviously had to have known there was an insurrection, so where was he, what was he doing? It's a very important hearing," Mr Kinzinger said.

Click to expand...