Anonymous ID: e023ac Sept. 22, 2018, 6:56 p.m. No.3145661   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5690 >>5717 >>5906 >>6101 >>6151

Trump's Great Wall of Tariffs

 

President Donald Trump is not giving up on his trade war, and unlike Xi Jinping, he has real options.

 

Late Monday, President Donald Trump announced tariffs on “roughly $200 billion of imports from China.” These tariffs are on top of the ones imposed this summer on $50 billion of products from that country. The new round of tariffs go into effect September 24 at the 10 percent rate. The rate jumps to 25 percent on January 1, 2019.The latest round of tariffs took observers by surprise. Many thought Trump would not impose the second round of tariffs until after a Chinese delegation concluded negotiations in Washington, scheduled for September 27 and 28, or until after the November midterm elections, especially because Beijing recently issued threats. Monday, therefore, was a great day for the United States. After the Chinese had threatened, Trump called their bluff. Now, all their next moves hurt them more than they hurt America. There must be consternation in Beijing because the Chinese have not seen, since Nixon, an American leader who has opposed them across the board. To prevent a new round of tariffs, an unnamed “senior official who advises the leadership on foreign policy matters” over the weekend dropped hints that, if the White House went ahead with the tariffs, China would not send representatives to Washington for the planned late-September meeting. Furthermore, Chinese officials like Lou Jiwei, the head of China’s social security fund, also threatened not to sell components to American manufacturing companies in the country. Lou’s threat echoed that of Chinese officials who specifically suggested Beijing would not permit component sales to those manufacturing for Apple.

 

The threats against Apple this month followed China’s extortionate demands on the company in August. In the past, threats like these would work against American presidents. For four decades, Washington policymakers thought the United States should support China’s Communist Party. Trump, however, has a different perspective. His concern about China’s trade predation has been the one constant theme of decades of his thinking, so Beijing’s two threats did not work this time. Trump had every reason to ignore them. First, he has consistently believed that Beijing needed America far more than America needed China, largely because China is the country running large trade surpluses. Last year, China’s merchandise trade surplus against the United States hit a record $375.6 billion. As Trump knows, trade-surplus countries get mauled in “trade wars.” Therefore, Beijing, not Washington, is the party that needs to talk to reduce tension. Second, the various threats to not sell components to American manufacturers is extremely short-sighted. China prospered in the four decades of its so-called reform era—Beijing will mark the fortieth anniversary of the beginning of that historic period this December—in large part because it convinced companies to manufacture in the country. In short, China made itself an indispensable member of global supply chains.

 

Yet the Chinese could not help themselves. In disputes with Tokyo and Seoul both last decade and this one, Beijing retaliated against Japanese and South Korean companies, often whipping up street protests against them. That has encouraged those countries to move operations out of China and down to Southeast Asia. American companies look like they will be the next to move out, as Xi Jinping, the willful Chinese ruler, threatened to “punch back” in June. This summer, Chinese officials, worried that companies would leave China, have denied any intention to punish American businesses—the South China Morning Post that month reported Chinese officials said retaliating against foreign companies had “never been on the cards”—but by now it’s clear that retaliation is indeed policy. U.S. companies are not, for instance, getting licenses from Beijing and are the objects of minor harassment. Showing fangs, Xi is going to have an increasingly hard time convincing companies from, say, Europe, to put themselves in the position of future hostages.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/trumps-great-wall-tariffs-31482

Anonymous ID: e023ac Sept. 22, 2018, 7:11 p.m. No.3145867   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Oregon Legislature’s Counsel: Bloomberg-Funded Lawyer in DOJ Not Entirely Legal

 

Attorney was funded by Bloomberg to work on climate-related issues

 

A "special assistant attorney general" who has been working for Oregon's Department of Justice, yet whose salary was being paid by Michael Bloomberg using a pass-through agency, is working in circumstances partially or completely contrary to Oregon law, according to an analysis by the office of legal counsel that serves the Oregon State Legislature. The scheme of third-party sources paying for this attorney and others like him was uncovered and reported in late August by Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. Horner's investigation found similar arrangements in AG offices in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, and New York, and shows that the attorneys were hired to focus on climate change issues. While the effort has many layers, in general it begins with Bloomberg's funding of a specialty school within New York University's School of Law, the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center. The Center's website states that part of their mission is to work "with interested attorneys general to identify and hire NYU Law Fellows who serve as special assistant attorneys general in state attorney general offices, focusing on clean energy, climate and environmental matters."

 

However, the center also pays the salaries when the "special assistant attorneys general" (SAAG) are taken on at an attorney general's office (OAG). Horner's report suggests these efforts are at best unethical, and often times illegal. For example, Oregon law gives the attorney general wide latitude in hiring assistant attorneys, but the law also states that, "each assistant shall receive the salary fixed by the Attorney General, payable as other state salaries are paid." The legal analysis by the legislature's office of legal counsel obtained by the Washington Free Beacon determined that the SAAG working in the Oregon Department of Justice "is not receiving a salary fixed by the Attorney General, and his salary is not paid as other state salaries are paid. This arrangement does not comply with [Oregon Revised Statute] 180.140 (4). In performing the analysis, the legislative counsel's office examined the employment contract for SAAG Steve Novick, and noticed that "the documents also require the DOJ and Mr. Novick to report to and collaborate with the [NYU] Center.""Although these duties may be minimal, they arguably prevent Mr. Novick from ‘devot[ing] the full time of the assistant to the business of the state' as required" by the same Oregon statute cited previously, the letter added.

 

A similar situation may exist in New York, where 2 SAAGs have been hired, according to Horner's findings, and state law provides that the attorney general may appoint "attorneys as he may deem necessary and fix their compensation with the amounts appropriated therefore." The Free Beacon inquired with the New York Attorney General's office earlier this week about the legality of employing SAAGs funded by outside sources, and has not received a response.

 

https://freebeacon.com/issues/oregon-legislatures-counsel-bloomberg-funded-lawyer-in-doj-not-entirely-legal/

Anonymous ID: e023ac Sept. 22, 2018, 7:29 p.m. No.3146073   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6118 >>6135 >>6204

Ellison: Accuser Fabricated Domestic Violence Abuse Story, Can’t Be Sure Others Won’t ‘Cook Up’ Allegations

 

Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.) said on Friday the woman who accused him of domestic violence fabricated the story and he couldn't be sure that others won't "cook up" similar allegations against him. Ellison’s ex-girlfriend Karen Monahan accused Ellison of hurling insults at her and dragging her out of bed. She claimed the incident occurred in 2016 after Ellison told her to take out the trash. Ellison, who also serves as the Democratic National Committee Deputy Chair, denied the accusations as "not true" and said the independent investigation into them will prove Monahan's claims are false.

 

The moderator at the PBS Almanac debate asked Ellison, who is running for Minnesota Attorney General, if he was confident that no one else would step forward with any other allegations. "Look, in this political environment, I don’t know what somebody might cook up," Ellison replied. "But I could tell you that there is absolutely nobody that I am aware of who has any sort of—who is threatening or suggesting or who has ever made a prior accusation about me." On Wednesday, Monahan posted online a medical document from 2017 in which her doctor wrote of Monahan telling of past physical abuse at Ellison's hands. Monahan also claims to have video evidence of Ellison's abuse, though she has said it is traumatic and she will not share it. One moderator brought up another past claim from 2006 when a woman named Amy Alexander accused Ellison of verbally abusing her and pushing her during an argument. Ellison denied that allegation as well and said Alexander was "harassing" him. He filed a restraining order against the woman to have her stop spreading "falsehoods." "So this is not multiple cases," Ellison said. "Two credible, strong allegations of domestic abuse is enough," Ellison's Republican opponent Doug Wardlow said. A recent poll finds Ellison's race close amid the abuse allegations.

 

https://freebeacon.com/politics/ellison-accuser-fabricated-domestic-violence-abuse-story-cant-sure-others-wont-cook-allegations/