Ex-Spox Slams Trump for $400M Qatar Jet: ‘Blood Money'
One of Donald Trump's former spokespeople tore into him for accepting a $400 million plane from Qatar.
'You're taking Qatari blood money,' Alyssa Farah Griffin, who served as White House director of strategic communications in 2020, told CNN.
Trump had said he'd be 'stupid' not to accept the luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar's royal family, but the president's willingness to accept the gift has raised alarm across the political spectrum over what Qatar may expect in return.
Lavish enough to have been dubbed a 'flying palace,' sources have told ABC the Boeing 747-8 is expected to be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation in the months ahead of his departure from office.
Griffin reminded viewers in the Saturday interview of the stringent rules for White House officials concerning gifts, which prohibit staff from accepting anything worth more than $20, let alone $400 million, in their capacity as government employees.
'We were also told, 'Don't even take a pen from a foreign diplomat, a head of state, because it likely has surveillance technology on it,'' she said, warning it would likely cost White House security many millions of dollars simply to ensure the jet and its furnishings do not contain any concealed espionage devices.
Griffin isn't alone in having expressed horror at the debacle. Former Vice President Mike Pence warned: 'We've got to remember who Qatar is' given the Gulf state's historic support for Al-Qaeda.
Echoing Pence's concerns, Griffin pointed out on Saturday that Qatar has also helped 'shield' Hamas' finances prior to and during the War in Gaza.
'Way to step on your own message, Donald Trump,' she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chabria: Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Is it needed, or just needy?
To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there. But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president. Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend's state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris' 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing. Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out. Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts? Barabak: I'll start by noting this is the first convention I've attended — and I've been to dozens — rated "R" for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome. I've covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, "I have a [expletive deleted] dream." Both were pretty darned effective leaders. Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn't going to win them back the White House or control of Congress. Read more: Barabak: Yelling, finger-pointing and cursing galore as California Democrats gather near Disneyland Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I'm not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand "toxic." Walz told his fellow Dems: "We're in this mess because some of it's our own doing." It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I'm not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance. I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I'm starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris' loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values? Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why. That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election. This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It's not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness. Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection. In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected. Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: "A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study." Sound familar? So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout. Read more: Chabria: California isn't backing down on healthcare for immigrants, despite Trump threats Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one. I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it's all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don't like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don't want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won't hold the line until the midterms. They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there's a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation. Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it? Barabak: No, and no. I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000. But Trump's margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn't even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%. As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute's Yuval Levin, who noted Trump's victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century. Challengers "win elections because their opponents were unpopular," Levin wrote, "and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists' agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular." It's a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028. But Levin is sure looking smart. Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I'd argue that Harris wasn't resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some. Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy "maybe" period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable. But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate." Sometimes there's truth in anger. Musk's money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn't resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication? Read more: Barabak: Gavin Newsom has lots to say. Is it worth listening? Barabak: Chabria: Mark? Barabak: Sorry. I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world's richest man going all neener-neener with the world's most powerful man I lost track of where we were. With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It's not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage. Then, come 2028, they'll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment. Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hamas's ‘last man standing' faces fight to keep control of Gaza
Among Israel's spies, he is known as 'the ghost'. He closely supervised some of the worst massacres of the Oct 7 Hamas attack, and in the months since has played a key role in holding the terror group together in the face of the IDF's assault. Now, as the presumed new Hamas commander in Gaza, Izz al-Din al-Haddad holds the fate of the hostages and, to a large extent, the entire Strip in his blood-stained hands. 'He was always recognised by our people as one of the more capable commanders,' said Maj Gen Yaakov Amidror, Israel's former national security advisor. 'He is cautious. They're all cautious, but he's had some luck as well. He never made the mistake that allowed us to kill him.' Maj Gen Amidror speaks ruefully – Israel is believed to have tried to assassinate al-Haddad six times since 2008. Eighteen months into the longest war in the Jewish state's history, he is now believed to be the last man standing of the five brigade commanders on the eve of Oct 7. As such, when the IDF finally killed Mohammed Sinwar by flattening the tunnel in which he was hiding in the grounds of a hospital last month, al-Haddid, believed to be 55, assumed command. It follows the assassination of top-level figures Mohammed Deif in July 2024 and Yahya Sinwar, Hamas's supreme Gaza commander and the architect of Oct 7, in Oct that year. Al-Haddid takes over an almost unrecognisable force from the structured terror army that crossed the border to such devastating effect in Oct 2023. Hamas now resembles more of a guerrilla movement, with small, independent units – a handful of gunmen each – popping up in the rubble with light weapons and explosives. But, as this month has proved, the group is still more than capable of killing IDF troops, ensuring the war grinds on as Israel expands its new seize-hold-and-demolish strategy, with tragic effects for civilians. And, of course, Hamas still holds dozens of hostages, 20 of whom are thought to be alive. Last weekend, the group rejected an Israel-endorsed proposal generated by Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump's Middle East envoy, that would have freed 10 over a 60-day ceasefire – but, crucially, with no guarantee of a full Israeli withdrawal and an end to the war. For some in Israel's intelligence community, this had al-Haddad's hardline fingerprints all over it. According to analysts, his decades living in the shadows, plus the loss of two sons to Israeli fire in the last 18 months, places him in the front rank of Islamist fanaticism. But, with Israel committed to seizing 75 per cent of the strip in under two months, the veteran terrorist may soon be forced to revisit his choice. 'The most crucial decision he has to make is whether he goes for a ceasefire that will give him the time to reorganise his forces,' said Maj Gen Amidror, now at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. 'He would have to pay by releasing some hostages. 'If not, the IDF will – slowly, slowly – come into these areas; Hamas will lose ground and people. 'It's down to his judgement.' The IDF made a major push in the southern city of Khan Younis this week, discovering, they said, an arsenal of rocket parts. Intense activity is also underway in Gaza City and its suburbs, such as Jabalia, traditionally a Hamas stronghold hiding an extensive tunnel network. An added challenge for the new commander will be how to keep control of a desperate civilian population, for whom hunger is now proving a more potent force than fear, with aid cut off for nearly three months. During the two months of the last ceasefire, al-Haddad was handed the task of rebuilding Hamas's civilian and military infrastructure. Israel contends that, with the traditional NGO-led aid system cut off, bar a 'trickle of UN trucks', that job is now harder, as Hamas cannot steal the food and use it to control the population. Government spokesmen argue that social media bears this out. They point to increasingly blood-curdling warnings against 'looting' on Hamas-linked accounts, plus videos of so-called 'field executions' – in reality, civilians being summarily gunned down in the street, or, in one recent case, tortured to death on camera. Even during times of less violence, it is difficult to get accurate data on civilian attitudes to Hamas within the Strip. But a series of protests in recent weeks has led some analysts to believe that ordinary Gazans' fear of Hamas was waning, with at least one ringleader brutally murdered in the aftermath. Despite its seeming omnipotence in Gaza since 2007, Hamas has never been the only armed group in the Strip. So-called 'clans' – some with links to other terror groups like Isis, some more or less organised crime groups, some just armed families, and some all three – are also gaining power as the situation destabilises. On Thursday, Benjamin Netanyahu admitted that Israel was arming at least one of them, a militia under the command of an Arab bedouin called Yasser Abu Shabab, despite his group's alleged links to drug dealing and arms smuggling. Such groups are already playing a role in seizing aid. If, thanks indirectly to Israeli support, they become better at it than Hamas, they could hasten the terror group's demise – although how that would improve the immediate situation for the population is unclear. Maj Gen Amidror warned against premature celebration. 'What we see with these [torture] videos is all the effort not to lose their grip,' he said. 'But I don't think they have lost their grip yet.' Reports suggest a new unit of around 5,000 gunmen called the 'executive force', a name salvaged from a similar outfit 20 years ago, has been unleashed to try to keep control. A regional security official summed up al-Haddad's position to the Hebrew press last week. 'He is one of the last and only leaders to have remained on the ground in Gaza, which means that the pressure he is under is tremendous,' he said. 'If no deal is reached, he doesn't want to go down in history as the last leader to oversee Gaza while it was falling apart under Israeli control. On the other hand, he needs to show that he is a leader.' Within Hamas, al-Haddad certainly has the stature to lead. He joined the group as a young man, more or less at its inception in 1987. From there he rose to become a platoon commander; eventually a battalion commander. By 2023, he was in command of the Gaza Brigade, based in and around Gaza City in the north of the Strip. As such, he was one of a small number of senior figures who knew the plans for Operation Al-Aqsa Flood (Hamas's codename for the Oct 7 attack) in advance. On the evening of Oct 6, he gathered his senior commanders. The orders he then handed out resulted in some of the most high-profile atrocities of the incursion, such as the attack on the IDF's Nahal Oz base, where more than 60 soldiers and 15 civilians were killed after it was overrun. Now, this famously cautious man who, unlike some of his terror comrades, avoided media appearance, has his face on leaflets being dropped by the IDF and Shin Bet into Gaza with crosshairs superimposed around it. Referencing the Sinwar brothers, Deif and Ismail Haniyeh, the group's overall leader until he was assassinated in Tehran last year, the leaflets' Hebrew and Arabic captions assured the population that al-Haddad would soon be 'reunited' with his friends. No one can foretell what military effect that would have, but it would – in one sense – close a chapter on Israel's darkest ever day. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
CNBC
28 minutes ago
- CNBC
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors who refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who, under normal circumstances, would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to "address the lawlessness" in California, the Democratic governor said the move was "purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity serving state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to "execute the laws of the United States," with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes "shall be issued through the governors of the States." It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could use force while filling that "protection" role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for various emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreement of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors agreed to send troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis — an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked "only in the most urgent and dire of situations." Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, "I'm not waiting." Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on "The Charlie Kirk Show," in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized "if violence continues."
