Jangan Permisi

Minggu, 06 Oktober 2019

North Korea sees no way for U.S. to have alternative plans in two weeks - Reuters

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un meet at the start of their summit at the Capella Hotel on the resort island of Sentosa, Singapore June 12, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea said on Sunday that there was no way United States would bring alternative plans for their stalled nuclear talks within two weeks after negotiations in Sweden between the two countries broke down at the weekend.

The United States and North Korea were holding working-level talks in Sweden but these were broken off on Saturday. The U.S. State Department said it had accepted Sweden’s invitation to return for more discussions with Pyongyang in two weeks.

North Korea said the ball was now in Washington’s court, warning again that it would only wait until the end of the year for the United States to change course.

“We have no intention to hold such sickening negotiations as ... happened this time (in Sweden) before the U.S. takes a substantial step to make complete and irreversible withdrawal of the hostile policy toward the DPRK,” KCNA state news agency cited a spokesperson for North Korea’s foreign ministry as saying, referring to the official name of North Korea.

North Korea reiterated the year-end deadline that leader Kim Jong Un set for the United States to show more flexibility in the talks, which fell apart in February during his summit with U.S. President Donald Trump.

In June, the two leaders then met again in Panmunjom, the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, and agreed to restart working-level talks.

But the North Korean foreign ministry said Washington had made no preparations for the talks in Sweden but only sought to serve its own political aims.

“The U.S. is spreading a completely ungrounded story that both sides are open to meet after two weeks...it is not likely at all that it can produce a proposal commensurate to the expectations of the DPRK and to the concerns of the world in just fortnight,” the foreign ministry spokesperson said.

Reporting by Ju-min Park and Josh Smith; Editing by Jane Merriman

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa/north-korea-sees-no-way-for-us-to-have-alternative-plans-in-two-weeks-idUSKCN1WL089

2019-10-06 11:59:00Z
52780400882838

2nd whistleblower comes forward after speaking with IG: Attorney - ABC News

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396

2019-10-06 12:22:00Z
52780400888240

Ignoring ban, masked Hong Kongers march in huge numbers - The Washington Post

Fazry Ismail EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Protesters wearing Guy Fawkes masks take part in a demonstration against a newly imposed law banning face masks in public in Hong Kong, China, Oct. 6, 2019.

HONG KONG — Covering their faces with black surgical masks, Guy Fawkes disguises, dish towels and even paper bags, tens of thousands in Hong Kong marched in the territory’s two main districts in defiance of a government ban on face masks, despite fears of violence and pouring rain.

The march, which until late afternoon continued to be overwhelmingly peaceful, underscored the depth of dissent over the new measures which many here believe to be an infringement of their basic freedoms. Despite a partial shutdown the city’s subway system, including stations close to the starting points of the rallies, participants included the disabled in wheelchairs, toddlers and the elderly.

“To me, banning the masks is an erosion of our basic rights,” said 60-year-old Fred Wong, marching toward central Hong Kong in a green surgical mask. “We as the older ones should be ashamed of ourselves for not protecting our rights a long time ago, and we should be embarrassed if we don’t come out to fight for the future of the young.”

[Hong Kong brought to a standstill as city braces for more unrest after ban on face masks]

The size and diversity of the marches also indicated that many remain undeterred and unwilling to give up on their goals for a more democratic Hong Kong, even as the risk of participation continues to increase. The Hong Kong government is under growing pressure from authorities in Beijing to quell the anger that has erupted on city streets and end demonstrations that are now in their fifth month.

Starting at midafternoon, police attempted to disperse both marches, one in central Hong Kong and another in the Kowloon district close to Victoria Harbor. Before they started firing tear gas rounds, there had been no confrontations between police and protesters.

In Mongkok, a neighborhood in Kowloon, police fired rubber bullets and bean bag rounds at the crowd, which had also been peacefully marching. Police escalated to tear gas after protesters began shining laser lights and throwing things at a police station.

In one particularly dramatic scene in Kowloon, a taxi driver appeared to deliberately drive into a crowd of protesters. The crowd retaliated and pummeled the man, leaving him bleeding all over his face before another group of protesters stepped in to end the attack.

Vincent Thian

Police use tear gas to disperse protesters in Hong Kong, Sunday, Oct. 6, 2019.

By early evening, a hard core of protesters geared up for clashes with police, now routine after large marches. Outside the city’s High Court building, demonstrators laid bricks down on the road along with traffic cones and metal railings. In what appeared to be a new tactic, they also tied trip wires made of fishing line across a road that has been the scene of charges by police during recent protests.

Small groups also threw petrol bombs and other objects at police.

Police soon began clearing the crowds with water cannons, more tear gas and began arresting protesters. A spokeswoman for the police department did not immediately have details on the arrests or whether any were charged under the new anti-mask laws.

At the barracks of the People’s Liberation Army in the Kowloon Tong neighborhood, personnel on the roof raised a yellow flag warning those marching past that they were breaching the law and could be prosecuted — it was time protesters have elicited a reaction from the Chinese military. Protesters have previously avoided targeting PLA buildings.

Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam invoked sweeping emergency powers to enact the new law, a measure she hopes will stop the violence that has increasingly become the hallmark of the last five months of street protests.

Protests were first sparked by a now-withdrawn proposal to allow extraditions to mainland China, but the unrest has now swelled into a movement seeking direct elections for Hong Kong’s leaders and an independent investigation into the police.

Lam’s ban on face masks, however, has so far only has only sparked more anger. Violence on city streets swelled on Friday night, with dozens of businesses perceived as pro-Beijing vandalized and burned. Some of the same outlets were also targeted on Sunday, along with subway stations which were badly vandalized.

The city was placed on an effective shutdown on Saturday as the entire subway network, shops and most supermarkets were closed. The subway reopened only partially on Sunday, but announced it would close all stations at 9 p.m.

[How it got to this point: The evolution of Hong Kong’s protests]

Many are worried that the expanded police powers afforded by the law will only further a sense of impunity in the department, which is using increasingly harsh measures to suppress the demonstrations. In recent days, riot police presence has increased all over the city, with officers fully decked out in shields, helmets and sometimes, face coverings.

Protesters have now added a new demand to their list of five: Now they are also calling for the complete overhaul of the police force.

Tyrone Siu

Reuters

Anti-government protesters take cover while riot police use rubber bullets to disperse them during a demonstration at Prince Edward, in Hong Kong, Oct. 6, 2019.

“In Hong Kong, we are seeing the police now covering their faces with black masks, almost like they have unlimited rights,” said Yeung, 18, who only provided her last name citing the illegality of the march. The law, she added, “is being applied with double standards.”

On Sunday morning, the High Court for the second time rejected a temporary injunction on the anti-mask law, this time filed by a group of two dozen pro-democracy lawmakers. The court however will still hear a judicial review of the law and the emergency powers used to implement it, and has expedited the case.

“The court obviously sees that there is an important constitutional principle at stake concerning our separation of powers, concerning the rule of law in Hong Kong. And that is why the court has agreed to grant us a very fast and quick hearing in the second half of this month,” Dennis Kwok, a pro-democracy lawmaker who represents the legal sector, said after the ruling.

“We will do our best to fight whether it is in court, whether it is in [the Legislative Council] or whether it is out there with the Hong Kong people,” he added, referring to the city’s lawmaking body.

Joy Luk, a blind protester in her 30s, was among those marching in central Hong Kong. She had a caretaker with her, and was listening to a local news live-stream of the protest over headphones connected to her phone.

She was also wearing a surgical mask.

“I have not worn any face masks to the protest in the past, because I don’t think my identity would be concealed even if I wear them. I am probably the only blind person to go to the front-lines of protests,” she said, adding that she has participated in demonstrations “countless” times.

“But now,” Luk said, “it is my means of expression against the government. They cannot stop us.”

Vincent Thian

Protesters throw back tear gas at police in Hong Kong, Sunday, Oct. 6, 2019.

Hong Kong protester shot as police disperse anti-China demonstrations on National Day

Today’s coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/ignoring-a-ban-on-face-masks-masked-hong-kongers-march-in-huge-numbers/2019/10/06/ea069c66-e78e-11e9-b0a6-3d03721b85ef_story.html

2019-10-06 12:30:00Z
52780402433211

Is It Ever OK for a President to Ask a Foreign Country to Investigate a Political Rival? - POLITICO

Here’s the big question on which the potential impeachment of President Donald Trump could turn: Is it ever appropriate for a U.S. president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?

Democrats seem to assume the answer is no, that this kind of request could never be proper, given the implications for our electoral system. “Smoking gun” is what they say about Trump’s urging Ukraine—and now also China—to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. Republicans, meanwhile, contend that it is perfectly normal, and justified, for Trump as president to ask the Ukrainians to look into potential corruption that involves Americans and could, in theory, affect U.S. relations with that country.

Story Continued Below

“This is not about politics. This is about corruption,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Friday.

But the real answer to this question is more complicated. History shows that a president sometimes might be justified in asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, including a former vice president. So, the mere fact of Trump’s request for an investigation into the Bidens, without considering the circumstances of the request, is not enough to impeach him.

In order prove that Trump abused his presidential powers to the point that he no longer can be trusted in exercising them—the constitutional standard for impeachment—Congress must establish Trump’s intent in making the request. Was it done in good faith, with U.S. foreign or domestic interests in mind, or in bad faith, merely for Trump’s personal and political benefit? To prove the latter, Congress can’t rely on Trump’s words alone; it must show that the charges of corruption against the Bidens are baseless and that Trump’s request to Ukraine is part of a pattern of bad faith demonstrating that the nation no longer can tolerate his incumbency.

Going back to America’s early days, there have been occasional instances in which presidents would have been justified had they sought foreign investigations into political rivals. In 1804, Aaron Burr contacted the British government, apparently to peddle a plan for severing part of the United States to form a new country in western territory. In response, President Thomas Jefferson had Burr prosecuted for treason, and he was found not guilty. We can stipulate that Jefferson was excessively involved in the treason trial. But had he instead simply asked for Britain’s assistance in gathering more information about Burr’s involvement in this plot, that would have been entirely appropriate given the high stakes for the country.

This is true despite the fact that Jefferson was seeking reelection at the time and Burr, an incorrigibly ambitious politician, might still have coveted the presidency. It was unlikely that Burr would have been a serious rival to Jefferson’s reelection; the Federalist party, which opposed Jefferson, hated Burr for having slayed its hero, Alexander Hamilton. But Burr was still active politically and could not be discounted completely. Whatever the circumstances of the electoral rivalries at that moment—and campaigns back then were, of course, very different from today—Jefferson as president would have been acting responsibly if he had requested Britain’s assistance in the investigation of Burr.

For a more recent example, look to 1968, when Richard Nixon was the Republican nominee attempting to wrest the White House from Democratic hands. During the campaign, Nixon went so far as to encourage an emissary, Anna Chennault, to intervene with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s peace talks to end the Vietnam War. Johnson by then had dropped out of the Democratic primary, but his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, would end up the party’s nominee—making Nixon, in effect, a political rival. Even so, it would have been completely legitimate if LBJ, who did get wind of what Chennault was doing, had decided to ask South Vietnam for information about whether Nixon was directly involved in this ploy.

Sometimes, there is an inevitable tension between the president’s obligation to defend the nation as commander-in-chief and the president’s role as a candidate for reelection. But presidents, unlike subordinates, cannot recuse themselves from their commander-in-chief responsibilities. Rarely, but occasionally, acting in good faith as commander-in-chief might require an incumbent president to seek foreign assistance in pursuing an investigation of a former vice president—like Burr and Nixon—who is opposing the president’s reelection. As long as the president indeed acts in good faith, critics reasonably can question the soundness of the president’s decisions, but there would be no grounds for impeachment and removal of office.

What about Trump’s very real requests for foreign investigations of former Vice President Biden? Can they be defended from an impeachment charge on the ground that Trump was acting in good faith?

Maybe good faith wouldn’t be an adequate defense if Trump violated campaign finance laws by seeking a “thing of value” from foreign governments in support of his reelection campaign. But I would argue that some presidential conversations with foreign leaders must be considered beyond the scope of campaign finance regulation. The exercise of commander-in-chief responsibility in pursuit of the national interest should not get caught up in the interpretation of regulations that fundamentally are designed to protect American elections from foreign money.

Nor is a quid pro quo offer—if that is what Trump made to Ukraine when asking for an investigation—necessarily a sign of bad faith. Such an offer could be considered legitimate if it is in the service of a valid foreign policy objective, as Michael McFaul, President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Russia, recently observed.

These points are not to suggest that Trump was justified in requesting foreign investigation of Biden. Rather, they help point the focus of the inquiry where it belongs: on Trump’s motive. Congress must determine whether the president had a good-faith basis for believing that Biden engaged in any impropriety, comparable to Nixon’s or Burr’s, that could justify the kind of requests Trump made to Ukraine and China. From all the available evidence right now, it strains credulity for Trump’s defenders to claim he is acting in good faith, but Congress must make an official judgment as part of any formal impeachment proceedings.

How can Congress establish that Trump’s motive was nefarious? For starters, the House of Representatives will need to show that the Biden allegations are so spurious as to be necessarily made in bad faith. That will open the impeachment inquiry to whatever contrary evidence Trump can muster, unavoidably making Biden a focus of the inquiry—something Democrats presumably would prefer to avoid.

Members of Congress also will need to draw on their assessments of Trump’s character and behavior generally. For representatives in the House deciding whether to impeach, as well as potentially senators deciding whether to convict, if Trump is viewed as regularly acting in bad faith, then it is easier to rule out any defense of good faith as exonerating his conduct with regard to Ukraine.

Impeachment advocates will need to decide how much general character evidence they wish to pursue as a formal part of the process. Because impeachment is not a conventional criminal prosecution, they could rely on more of it than would be permitted in a courtroom. But doing so would go against the strategy of keeping impeachment proceedings narrowly focused.

This puts impeachment advocates in something of a procedural bind. They can limit their evidence solely to facts that directly relate to the president’s request for foreign investigation of the Bidens, like the recently revealed text messages among U.S. diplomats working on the issue. This strategy might end up being enough, but it risks leaving wiggle room for those in Congress inclined to give the president the benefit of the doubt on the Ukraine matter. Conversely, impeachment advocates could widen the range of evidence—pointing to all the ways that Trump has arguably abused the powers of the presidency for personal gain throughout his time in office—but this approach risks the accusation that Democrats are just relitigating matters that the voters want to decide for themselves at the ballot box.

The Goldilocks approach to impeachment evidence might be to focus on facts that demonstrate a specific form of bad faith and why it necessitates impeachment. This evidence would show not merely that Trump acted for reasons of personal electoral advantage in his dealings with Ukraine and China, but that he can never be expected to exercise his presidential powers on behalf of the public, as his oath of office requires, in the midst of a reelection campaign when his own interests are at stake. Proof of his incapacity to elevate national over self-interest can help persuade the public that impeachment truly is about the future, not the past—and, even more importantly, that the remedy of impeachment is necessary, because voters’ power to choose their president without improper interference cannot be safeguarded otherwise.

Of course, Trump might end up, in a sense, impeaching himself, if he continues to act in ways that only can be construed reasonably as bad faith. And evidence of U.S. envoys saying things like “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign” would go far in demonstrating that Trump’s sole motive is (and will continue to be) an improper desire to secure an electoral advantage. Yet impeaching Trump for seeking a foreign investigation of Biden will require the conviction to be based not on his words alone, but on what was in his heart when he uttered those words. That is a tricky—but not impossible—bar for Congress to clear.

More from POLITICO Magazine

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341

2019-10-06 10:54:00Z
52780399935508

Hong Kong Emergency Law Fails to Stop Masked Protesters Taking Over Streets - The Wall Street Journal

Protesters take to the streets in Hong Kong on Sunday. Photo: Vincent Yu/Associated Press

Dan Strumpf

The Wall Street Journal

Biography
@DanStrumpf
Dan.Strumpf@wsj.com

Oct. 6, 2019 4:24 am ET

HONG KONG—Tens of thousands marched across Hong Kong to protest the government’s ban on wearing face masks at public gatherings, as backlash grew against the new regulation, enacted under an emergency-powers law.

Protesters turned out despite widespread closures of subway stations, working their way through the city’s streets in the rain. Many passed out masks, helmets and umbrellas to fellow protesters, and wore masks themselves in defiance of the ban.

“We’re not afraid of getting arrested,” said Tiffany, who works in customer service and declined to give her last name. “The government is trying to suppress us even more—that’s exactly why this movement started in the first place.”

Hong Kong’s subway operator, MTR Corp. , reopened some stations early Sunday after closing down the city’s subway network Friday night and all day Saturday. Some stations that have been vandalized by protesters remained shuttered on Sunday and those that were reopened are set to close earlier than usual, at 9 p.m.

Masked and Anonymous: Meet Hong Kong’s Army of Protesters

Photos of activists prepared to face off against tear gas and police scrutiny

Nicole Tung for The Wall Street Journal

Hong Kong’s Mask Ban

The measure prohibits anyone from wearing a mask at unlawful or public gatherings. Here’s what that means.

Any material—including paint—that covers a person’s face is prohibited.
Exemptions can be granted for religious, medical and professional reasons.
Police are authorized to stop and search anyone wearing a mask in a public area and require the person to remove it.
People who wear masks at unlawful assemblies of three or more people, public gatherings of more than 50 and public marches of more than 30 face up to 12 months in jail and a fine of more than $3,000
People in a public area who don’t remove masks at the request of police face up to six months in jail and a fine of around $1,300.

Protesters said the decision by the city’s leader, Chief Executive Carrie Lam, to invoke the colonial-era emergency law on Friday wouldn’t solve the crisis. The emergency law gives the government sweeping powers to impose curfews, censor media and seize control of ports and transport links. Only the ban on masks has been put into force under the law.

Angela, a recent graduate who works in marketing, said the government’s decision to invoke emergency powers has strengthened the protest movement. “It’s backfired,” she said. “It’s made us more angry.”

The ban prompted a night of violent clashes across Hong Kong on Friday night, including one in which a police officer shot a 14-year-old boy, who was later arrested on charges of rioting and assaulting police, authorities said. Saturday saw relatively few demonstrations, though in the evening police said protesters erected barricades and vandalized shops in several neighborhoods in the city’s northern Kowloon district.

Separately, Hong Kong’s High Court rejected a request for an injunction blocking the ban on face masks at a hearing on Sunday. The request—the second in three days—was sought by 24 pro-democracy members of the city’s legislative council. The lawmakers argued that Mrs. Lam acted unconstitutionally in bypassing the legislature to issue the ban.

A lawyer for the city said the ban was justified due to “mayhem that we have not seen since 1967,” pointing to acts of vandalism and arson at recent protest sites. Lawmakers have requested a judicial review of the emergency law. Another hearing is set for late October.

The citywide unrest, now in its 18th weekend, was sparked by an extradition bill that would have allowed Hong Kong to send suspects for trial in mainland China. Ms. Lam said last month she would withdraw the bill, giving into one of the protesters’ key demands. The movement demands the government meet four additional demands, including the establishment of a judge-led commission to investigate allegations of excessive use of force by police.

Sunday’s march was broadly peaceful as of late afternoon, though police in a statement said some protesters had blocked roads and erected barricades at locations around the city. Several riot police could be seen occupying overpasses and other elevated areas near areas where protesters had gathered.

Authorities in Hong Kong invoked an emergency law for the first time in half a century to ban people from wearing face masks at public gatherings. WSJ explains what it means for the future of the city's protests and its global status. Photo: JEON HEON-KYUN/EPA

Related Coverage

—Preetika Rana and Joyu Wang contributed to this article.

Write to Dan Strumpf at daniel.strumpf@wsj.com

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hong-kong-emergency-law-fails-to-stop-masked-protesters-taking-over-streets-11570350249

2019-10-06 08:24:00Z
52780402433211

Key GOP senators split with Trump on Biden investigation push | TheHill - The Hill

President TrumpDonald John Trump Trump criticizes supposed second whistleblower North Korea missile test raises fears of new capabilities Window narrows for Trump trade deals MORE is pushing hard for an investigation of former Vice President Joe BidenJoe Biden Trump criticizes supposed second whistleblower North Korea missile test raises fears of new capabilities Trump told House Republicans that he made Ukraine call because of Perry: Report MORE and his son, but the prospect of using the Oval Office to go after a political rival is prompting some GOP senators to speak out.

Sens. Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt Romney Collins: Trump's call for China to probe Biden 'completely inappropriate' Trump compares his impeachment to Clinton email server Trump calls for Romney's impeachment MORE (Utah), Susan CollinsSusan Margaret Collins Collins: Trump's call for China to probe Biden 'completely inappropriate' GOP searches for impeachment boogeyman McConnell signaling Trump trial to be quick, if it happens MORE (Maine), Ben SasseBenjamin (Ben) Eric Sasse Collins: Trump's call for China to probe Biden 'completely inappropriate' GOP searches for impeachment boogeyman Trump slams 'ass' Romney for criticizing Ukraine dealings MORE (Neb.) and Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin Graham GOP searches for impeachment boogeyman Graham defends Trump's calls with foreign leaders: He sounds like a 'normal person' Trump says House Democrats 'unfortunately' have the votes to impeach MORE (S.C.) have raised concerns, to varying degrees, about launching a politically motivated probe into the Bidens.

Romney on Friday said Trump's call for China to investigate Biden was "wrong and appalling."

"When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated," Romney said in a statement, which he also tweeted.

A day later, Collins said it was "completely inappropriate" for Trump to urge China to investigate Biden and his son.

"I thought the president made a big mistake by asking China to get involved in investigating a political opponent," Collins told the Bangor Daily News. "It’s completely inappropriate."

The Maine Republican has at times broken with her party on key votes in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority.

Graham said earlier that he has no interest in conducting an investigation into the Bidens’ business dealings.

He told reporters before the two-week October recess that any investigation of Biden and his son should be conducted outside the sphere of politics.

“We’re not going to do anything,” Graham said when asked what action he was going to take as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman regarding Hunter Biden's dealings with Ukraine. “I have no interest in opening up that front.”

“I don’t want to turn the Senate into a circus,” said Graham, who is considered one of Trump's strongest allies on Capitol Hill. “I want somebody to look at the conflict of interest outside of politics.”

The remarks were the latest example of occasional friction between Trump and Graham, who in September criticized the president's approach to Iran.

Romney's sharp remarks about Trump's effort to enlist China in a Biden investigation came a few days after he warned at a closed-door meeting of GOP senators that pushing for an investigation of Biden’s son Hunter was treading on dangerous ground that could boomerang on the party.

Romney made the point to lawmakers before the October recess that he’s not intimately familiar with the business dealings of his own children, suggesting that politicians should not be attacked because of the private employment of family members, according to a GOP senator in the room during the meeting.

“He said, ‘I don’t discuss my son’s business dealings with them,’” the GOP senator recounted, referring to Romney’s comments that he doesn’t vet the business and financial conduct of his five sons.

The implied message was that once Republicans go down the path of attacking political rivals over their family members, they open themselves up to the same types of criticisms.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnell GOP searches for impeachment boogeyman Overnight Defense: House Dems subpoena White House for Ukraine documents | Pence pulled into inquiry | GOP senator says he confronted Trump over Ukraine aid | Iran hackers target 2020 campaign Trump says House Democrats 'unfortunately' have the votes to impeach MORE (R-Ky.) has already come under scrutiny for the business dealings and personal wealth of his father-in-law James Chao, the founder of a shipping company worth hundreds of millions of dollars, according to Forbes.

And Sen. Roy BluntRoy Dean Blunt Sunday shows preview: Republicans on defense as new reports emerge on impeachment GOP searches for impeachment boogeyman McConnell signaling Trump trial to be quick, if it happens MORE (R-Mo.), a member of McConnell’s leadership team, has family members who have worked as lobbyists for a variety of corporate interests, according to McClatchy News. His wife Abigail has lobbied for Altria, which recently bought a major stake in e-cigarette maker Juul.

Democratic strategists say Trump’s attacks on Hunter Biden, whom the president called “stone-cold crooked” at a nationally televised press conference with the president of Finland, make his eldest sons, Eric TrumpEric Frederick Trump The Hill's Campaign Report: Warren, Sanders overtake Biden in third-quarter fundraising Trump campaign, GOP raise M after Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry Schiff introduces bill to require agencies report spending at Trump properties MORE and Donald Trump Jr.Donald (Don) John Trump Ocasio-Cortez says woman who suggested 'eating babies' was Trump supporter Ocasio-Cortez hits Trump after he calls her a 'wack job' Hillicon Valley: Barr targets Facebook's encryption plans | Social media platforms dragged into 2020 fight | EU court says Facebook can be ordered to remove content | FBI warns of 'high-impact' ransomware attacks MORE, fair game to similar attacks.

“What the hell are Trump’s kids doing all around the world right now? It’s a minefield for Trump in many ways to me, attacking somebody’s family given what he does himself and what he has his family do,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist.

“I just don’t see this as some kind of golden bullet that’s going to hurt Biden and take him out in the primary process,” he added.

Trump’s second-eldest son, Eric, who is helping run the president’s business empire as executive vice president of The Trump Organization, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill on Thursday that media outlets would be all over him if he engaged in some of the same deals as Hunter Biden.

“If the situation were reversed, I would have been front page news in every newspaper, online publication, and cable news outlet for the rest of my life,” Eric Trump wrote.

“Reporters would be camping outside of my door, my family would have been picked apart, my name would have been smeared in the news every single week, and my father arguably would not even be president of the United States today,” he wrote.

But while some Republicans would like to see the media comb through Hunter Biden’s business dealings, others like Romney have expressed reluctance about making him and his father the target of official probes — a practice associated more with totalitarian regimes than the United States.

Trump, however, has ignored those concerns and instead doubled down on his calls for the Bidens to be investigated.

On Thursday he caused an uproar when he declared “China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”

That statement sparked pushback from Sasse, who Trump has endorsed for reelection in 2020.

“Americans don’t look to Chinese commies for the truth. If the Biden kid broke laws by selling his name to Beijing, that’s a matter for American courts, not communist tyrants running torture camps,” Sasse said in a statement to the Omaha World-Herald.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/464476-key-republicans-split-with-trump-on-biden-investigation-push

2019-10-06 10:00:12Z
52780399935508

Sabtu, 05 Oktober 2019

Trump’s call for China to probe Biden may give it trade war leverage - Business Insider

Donald Trump Xi Jinping President Donald Trump and China's President Xi Jinping meet in Beijing in November.REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

President Donald Trump stood on the White House lawn Thursday and called on China to investigate one of his chief political rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden, potentially offering Beijing crucial leverage as it seeks a favorable conclusion to an economically damaging and divisive trade war with the US.
"China should start an investigation into the Bidens," Trump said as he was leaving the White House for a trip to Florida.
Trump's extraordinary request potentially offers Beijing crucial leverage in upcoming negotiations as it seeks to end the trade war with the US.
It also mirrors his 2016 comments as a presidential candidate when he invited Russia to release the emails of his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.
Any trade deal struck with the world's second largest economic power would be subject to immediate scrutiny — and raise questions whether Trump offered Beijing beneficial terms in exchange for dirt on his political rivals.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

President Donald Trump stood on the White House lawn Thursday and called on China to investigate one of his chief political rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden, potentially offering Beijing crucial leverage as it seeks a favorable conclusion to an economically damaging and divisive trade war with the US.

"China should start an investigation into the Bidens," Trump said as he was leaving the White House for a trip to Florida. He was referring to business deals Hunter Biden was involved in that drew substantial investment from Chinese government-owned financial institutions.

Trump's extraordinary request mirrors his 2016 comments as a presidential candidate when he invited Russia to hack and publicly release the emails of his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. And it echoes what he privately said to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July 25 phone call, pressing him to probe the Bidens on unsubstantiated allegations of corruption in their Ukrainian dealings.

The call eventually led an intelligence officer to file a whistleblower complaint, and spurred Democrats to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump.

The president's remarks came just one week before a Chinese delegation is set to arrive in Washington for trade negotiations. Moreover, any trade deal struck with the world's second largest economic power would be subject to immediate scrutiny — and raise questions about whether Trump offered Beijing beneficial terms in exchange for dirt on his political rivals.

CNN recently reported that Trump raised Biden's political fortunes — as well as those of Sen. Elizabeth Warren — during another June phone call.

Still, Trump maintained he had a range of choices when it came to dealing with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

"We're going to have a meeting with them, we'll see," Mr. Trump said of the talks on Thursday. "I have a lot of options on China. But if they don't do what we want, we have tremendous power."

Beijing has a lot of new leverage in the grinding trade war.

Trump launched the trade war against China in early 2018, aiming to rectify an economic relationship he believed was damaging and unfair to the United States, particularly on the theft of intellectual property and forced technology transfers. But trade negotiations have stalled this year — and both the US and China have slapped hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tariffs on each other's goods, contributing to a cooling of their economic growth.

Seeking to strike a deal that ends the pain, Chinese government officials could "try to hint at a potential exchange of policy concessions for information, if the information is damaging at all," Victor Shih, a Chinese political economy professor at the University of California San Diego, told Reuters.

To seal a favorable deal, China could publicly open an investigation into the Bidens, or could secretly share information on their China dealings with Trump or his emissaries. They could even fabricate business dealings about the Bidens to damage one of Trump's top rivals.

Given its extensive surveillance capabilities, China would likely already have any compromising information on the Bidens' dealings without needing to publicly open an investigation, according to Mary Lovely, a China expert at the Peterson Institute of International Economics.

If the Bidens did something wrong, Lovely told Insider, "and that's a big if, China would already know. I don't think this adds much information for them."

Lovely also said, "What it does add is another brick onto Trump's domestic problems," referring to Trump's public call for China to probe the Bidens. Instead, "the Chinese government is focused on ending the trade war that doesn't undermine Xi's political power."

There is no evidence that the former vice president traded favors with the Chinese government to help his son Hunter Biden's business dealings in the country.

Impeachment is adding uncertainties to the already volatile trade war.

Trump has little room to maneuver with China, given the US has already levied tariffs on $550 billion worth of Chinese goods, with more set to go into effect Dec. 15 on consumer goods such as laptops, cell phones, and toys. Trump could hike existing tariff rates, but that would lead to even more price increases that would hurt Americans, who are already bearing their cost.

As a result, several of the president's advisers have reportedly urged him to make a deal with China and avoid any escalations that further hit American's wallets.

Yet the impeachment probe and any attempt by Trump to link Biden to a possible deal throws a wrench into how long it will take for the dust to finally settle from the trade war.

Eleanor Olcott, a Chinese policy analyst at the TS Lombard consultancy, told the South China Morning Post: "The impeachment proceedings tie Trump's hands when it comes to his domestic agenda, so his attention will be focused on his foreign policy stance, meaning we are likely entering a period of more volatile trade war news."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-call-china-investigate-biden-xi-jinping-trade-war-2019-10

2019-10-05 13:18:43Z
52780399935508