Latest news with #Clintonian
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
White House highlights Pelosi hypocrisy after Schiff demands Trump admin financial, ethics docs
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., faced pushback after calling on White House counsel David Warrington to release financial disclosures for senior officials, prompting a Trump aide to suggest he start by requesting the same from longtime Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people remain highly concerned about Nancy Pelosi's long, documented history of insider trading and eagerly await Adam Schiff refocusing his political stunt on serious issues, like Pelosi's portfolio," White House spokesman Kush Desai told ABC News after it inquired about Schiff's letter. In a letter to Warrington and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, Schiff expressed "continued and growing concern regarding… failure to submit any financial disclosure reports for senior White House officials to the Office of Government Ethics within the statutorily mandated period." Schiff demanded the White House turn over a list of officials required to file "new entrant" reports, an explanation for "failure to transmit" such reports for certification and any late-filing fees imposed for "delinquent filings." 'Watermelon Head': Trump Trolls Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff He noted that he had signed on to a bicameral April letter that included fellow Californian Rep. Mike Levin, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and several other Democrats asking for similar information. Read On The Fox News App In comments to Fox News Digital on Thursday, the White House pushed back again on Schiff, saying that all officials there who are required to file public reports continue to comply with their obligations. "… including the obligation to file periodic transaction reports disclosing the purchase or sale of certain securities," said Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman. "For decades, administrations of both parties, including the first Trump Administration, have fulfilled this obligation, recognizing that public trust in government depends on robust, enforceable transparency standards," Schiff said in a statement. Kash Patel Enrages Adam Schiff In Clintonian Battle Over The Word 'We' "However, senior officials in this administration have repeatedly failed to disclose assets and business entanglements, as well as potentially misused their official positions for personal gain. "Transparency and compliance with ethics laws are essential." In that regard, Desai's initial response highlighted ongoing criticisms of Pelosi, whose net worth is reportedly north of $120 million, and who has been accused of wrongful financial transactions over her 38 years in the House. Pelosi, a California Democrat, did not respond to a request for comment, and the Speaker Emerita kept walking when asked on the Hill about the matter last month by a Fox News Digital reporter. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced the PELOSI — Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments — Act in 2023, and fellow Missourian Rep. Mark Alford crafted a similar bill in the House, alluding to allegations against her over the years. Trump has said he would support such legislation this term, telling Time he had purportedly "watched Nancy Pelosi get rich through insider information, and I would be OK with it. If they send that to me, I would do it." Fox News Digital found no record of Schiff making similar requests to the Biden administration and received no response from the Burbank lawmaker when asked for comment. Fox News Digital's Peter Pinedo and Remy Numa contributed to this article source: White House highlights Pelosi hypocrisy after Schiff demands Trump admin financial, ethics docs
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Adam Schiff tells EPA's Lee Zeldin he'll cause cancer after shoutfest: 'Could give a rat's a--'
The typically calm confines of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee were the site of several clashes on Wednesday between Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin and Democrats on the panel adjudicating his annual budget request. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., rattled off a list of cancers he claimed Zeldin's actions at the agency could cause, remarking the New York Republican must be proud of how many regulations he's slashed in such a short time. "Your legacy will be more lung cancer — it'll be more bladder cancer, more head and neck cancer. There'll be more breast cancer, more leukemia and pancreatic cancer, more liver cancer, more skin cancer, more kidney cancer, more testicular cancer, or colorectal cancer — more rare cancers of innumerable varieties. That will be your legacy. … My kids are gonna be breathing that air, just like yours," he said. "If your children were drinking the water in Santa Ana, Mr. Zeldin… maybe you would give a damn," he said after holding up a glass of water and claiming the EPA's move toward streamlining its grants and expenditures will lead to a panoply of bad outcomes. Kash Patel Enrages Schiff In Clintonian Battle Over The Word 'We' And A January 6 Song "You need the money for a tax cut for rich people because you're totally beholden to the oil industry," Schiff fumed, accusing Zeldin of unlawful termination of congressionally appropriated grants. Read On The Fox News App "You could give a rat's a-- about how much cancer your agency causes," Schiff said, raising his voice as Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., banged the gavel to note his time was up. Earlier in the hearing, Zeldin clashed with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., over grant reviews and claimed the administrator couldn't "get [his] story straight." Whitehouse appeared to make the claim that the EPA was not individually reviewing each of the grants it was canceling and cited court testimony from Zeldin official Travis Voyles that he had conducted an "individualized review" as of February. Flashback: Schiff, Who Repeatedly Claimed Evidence Of Russian Collusion, Denounces Durham Report As 'Flawed' "You guys are gonna have to start getting your story straight," Whitehouse said, "because there are three completely different statements, and they cannot all be true. It cannot be that Voyles personally himself conducted—" "He did," Zeldin cut in. "… the review of 781 grants—" Whitehouse continued. "He did; I did," Zeldin cut in again. "… and that [Deputy Administrator Daniel] Coogan saw to it that it was individually done," Whitehouse said as the two men talked over each other. After some more back-and-forth, Zeldin told Whitehouse that it must be a "crazy concept" for him to consider that more than one person could review the hundreds of grants in question and for more than one per calendar day. Zeldin said he and his EPA colleagues have been "busting their a--" to identify waste and abuse and that Whitehouse was only interested in scoring political points. "I'm using the facts as your employees stated them," Whitehouse claimed. "We're on it every single day, because we have a zero-tolerance policy towards wasting dollars," Zeldin shot back. "You don't care about wasting money," he went on, adding that he had promised committee member Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., at a prior hearing that he would make reviewing grants in this way a priority of his tenure. "I have to come back here in front of Sen. Ricketts today, and even though you don't care about wasting tax dollars, Sen. Ricketts does." Fox News Digital reached out to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works for comment, but did not hear back by press article source: Adam Schiff tells EPA's Lee Zeldin he'll cause cancer after shoutfest: 'Could give a rat's a--'
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump tries transparency defense for selling access
Twenty-five years ago, George W. Bush, the governor of Texas, barely defeated the sitting vice president, Al Gore, in what remains the narrowest victory in presidential history: fewer than 1,000 votes in a single state, 48.85 percent to 48.84 percent in Florida. There are many ways to explain how the vice president lost to an incumbent with a 60 percent job-approval rating. Gore was a bad campaigner and almost supernaturally awkward — the kind of person who hires a consultant to teach him how to be an 'alpha male.' Bush, by comparison, was loose, engaging and a good communicator, even when he mangled the syntax. But style points are hard to judge. It may be true that Bush won on 'vibes,' as we would say now, but that's unsatisfying. Gore couldn't get a personality transplant, so had to try to win with the one he had. What possibly could have made the difference for Gore? The most obvious answer: Behave more ethically. In the spring of the election year, Gore's longtime fundraiser, Maria Hsia, was convicted of five felony counts of campaign finance corruption for her role in using a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles to funnel illegal contributions to the Democratic Party. Gore had at first denied knowing that his own visit to the temple was for fundraising purposes, but as more facts came to light, he admitted that he knew his visit was 'finance related.' Hsia's conviction was a boon to Gore's rival for the presidential nomination, Sen. Bill Bradley (N.J.), who had zeroed in on the string of prosecutions into Clinton-Gore donors, including those hiding illegal donations from China. Of particular note was Gore's role in hosting dozens of 'coffees' for wealthy donors at the White House. Gore, who had always played the Boy Scout to Bill Clinton's bad boy, was found to have been front and center in the effort to sell access to the administration. Gore may not have been the one selling nights in the Lincoln Bedroom to the highest bidder, but neither was he oblivious. When Gore gave his critics the gift of citing the existence of 'no controlling legal authority' to forbid him from making fundraising calls from the White House, it sounded like Mr. Clean had adopted the Clintonian habit of parsing the truth within an inch of its life. Gore outlasted the reform-minded Bradley to win the nomination, but the damage was magnified by the Bush campaign and congressional Republicans during the general election. Had Gore been more upright, it might have been enough to switch 269 votes out of the 5.8 million cast for the two men — or gotten 538 of the 97,488 Floridians who voted for anti-corruption crusader Ralph Nader to switch to Gore. Certainly consequences like those must have been on the minds of House Republicans a generation later when they went ape over the revelation that Hunter Biden, son of then-President Joe Biden, may have been getting paid for his paintings by influence seekers. 'It is concerning that President Biden's son is the recipient of anonymous, high-dollar transactions — potentially from foreign buyers — with no accountability or oversight (other than you),' House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) wrote to the younger Biden's art dealer as his father's reelection bid was heating up. And no doubt it was effective. Of all the things that led Joe Biden to ruin, his son's inexhaustible appetite for making money off of his family's famous name has to rank high on the list. The president's own obvious aged infirmity was what ultimately caused Democrats to force him out of the 2024 race, but his son's many years of shabby buckraking, both in active addiction and recovery, helped destroy Joe Biden's image as a straight shooter. So what do Comer and the Republicans say today about President Trump amid what has to be the most audacious effort to sell access and favors by any president in American history? 'I'm not worried about anything the Trumps are doing,' Comer said last week. 'I want you to write this down: I'm not worried about anything the Trumps are doing business-wise, because they're being transparent. Unlike the Bidens.' You've got to give them that. The Trumps are wide open. As President Trump heads off for what looks like a royal progress through the Middle East this week, his family is taking in huge sums from Gulf State governments for development projects, including $2 billion for the family's cryptocurrency venture. One investor was particularly transparent: 'We would like to have direct dialogue with the policymakers.' Indeed. A good opportunity for such dialogue will be bestowed on the top spenders on the latest offering of the family's digital currency, including a private dinner with the president himself and, for the most ambitious access buyer, a visit to the White House. Another win for transparency. While the Clinton-Gore folks were selling White House access on the sly to try to score campaign contributions, the Trumps are holding an auction, the proceeds of which go directly into their coffers. And there's more good news for transparency fans: The president is set to receive a half-a-billion-dollar gift from the government of Qatar in the form of a plane that can serve in the presidential fleet during his term and then be transferred to the ownership of Trump's presidential library when his term ends. The library has been taking in money hand over fist and now will have its own Boeing 747. It's so danged transparent, the ethics folks must be dancing in the streets. Trump doesn't have to face voters again, so he doesn't have to worry about the backlash for himself. But the brazenness of it all won't be without consequences. One imagines that all this radical transparency will be worse for his party and political heirs than Clinton's milder shenanigans were for Gore. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
13-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump tries transparency defense for selling access
Twenty-five years ago, George W. Bush, the governor of Texas, barely defeated the sitting vice president, Al Gore, in what remains the narrowest victory in presidential history: fewer than 1,000 votes in a single state, 48.85 percent to 48.84 percent in Florida. There are many ways to explain how the vice president lost to an incumbent with a 60 percent job-approval rating. Gore was a bad campaigner and almost supernaturally awkward — the kind of person who hires a consultant to teach him how to be an 'alpha male.' Bush, by comparison, was loose, engaging and a good communicator, even when he mangled the syntax. But style points are hard to judge. It may be true that Bush won on 'vibes,' as we would say now, but that's unsatisfying. Gore couldn't get a personality transplant, so had to try to win with the one he had. What possibly could have made the difference for Gore? The most obvious answer: Behave more ethically. In the spring of the election year, Gore's longtime fundraiser, Maria Hsia, was convicted of five felony counts of campaign finance corruption for her role in using a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles to funnel illegal contributions to the Democratic Party. Gore had at first denied knowing that his own visit to the temple was for fundraising purposes, but as more facts came to light, he admitted that he knew his visit was 'finance related.' Hsia's conviction was a boon to Gore's rival for the presidential nomination, Sen. Bill Bradley (N.J.), who had zeroed in on the string of prosecutions into Clinton-Gore donors, including those hiding illegal donations from China. Of particular note was Gore's role in hosting dozens of 'coffees' for wealthy donors at the White House. Gore, who had always played the Boy Scout to Bill Clinton's bad boy, was found to have been front and center in the effort to sell access to the administration. Gore may not have been the one selling nights in the Lincoln Bedroom to the highest bidder, but neither was he oblivious. When Gore gave his critics the gift of citing the existence of 'no controlling legal authority' to forbid him from making fundraising calls from the White House, it sounded like Mr. Clean had adopted the Clintonian habit of parsing the truth within an inch of its life. Gore outlasted the reform-minded Bradley to win the nomination, but the damage was magnified by the Bush campaign and congressional Republicans during the general election. Had Gore been more upright, it might have been enough to switch 269 votes out of the 5.8 million cast for the two men — or gotten 538 of the 97,488 Floridians who voted for anti-corruption crusader Ralph Nader to switch to Gore. Certainly consequences like those must have been on the minds of House Republicans a generation later when they went ape over the revelation that Hunter Biden, son of then-President Joe Biden, may have been getting paid for his paintings by influence seekers. 'It is concerning that President Biden's son is the recipient of anonymous, high-dollar transactions — potentially from foreign buyers — with no accountability or oversight (other than you),' House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) wrote to the younger Biden's art dealer as his father's reelection bid was heating up. And no doubt it was effective. Of all the things that led Joe Biden to ruin, his son's inexhaustible appetite for making money off of his family's famous name has to rank high on the list. The president's own obvious aged infirmity was what ultimately caused Democrats to force him out of the 2024 race, but his son's many years of shabby buckraking, both in active addiction and recovery, helped destroy Joe Biden's image as a straight shooter. So what do Comer and the Republicans say today about President Trump amid what has to be the most audacious effort to sell access and favors by any president in American history? 'I'm not worried about anything the Trumps are doing,' Comer said last week. 'I want you to write this down: I'm not worried about anything the Trumps are doing business-wise, because they're being transparent. Unlike the Bidens.' You've got to give them that. The Trumps are wide open. As President Trump heads off for what looks like a royal progress through the Middle East this week, his family is taking in huge sums from Gulf State governments for development projects, including $2 billion for the family's cryptocurrency venture. One investor was particularly transparent: 'We would like to have direct dialogue with the policymakers.' Indeed. A good opportunity for such dialogue will be bestowed on the top spenders on the latest offering of the family's digital currency, including a private dinner with the president himself and, for the most ambitious access buyer, a visit to the White House. Another win for transparency. While the Clinton-Gore folks were selling White House access on the sly to try to score campaign contributions, the Trumps are holding an auction, the proceeds of which go directly into their coffers. And there's more good news for transparency fans: The president is set to receive a half-a-billion-dollar gift from the government of Qatar in the form of a plane that can serve in the presidential fleet during his term and then be transferred to the ownership of Trump's presidential library when his term ends. The library has been taking in money hand over fist and now will have its own Boeing 747. It's so danged transparent, the ethics folks must be dancing in the streets. Trump doesn't have to face voters again, so he doesn't have to worry about the backlash for himself. But the brazenness of it all won't be without consequences. One imagines that all this radical transparency will be worse for his party and political heirs than Clinton's milder shenanigans were for Gore.
CBC
06-02-2025
- Business
- CBC
Trump's trade threats are just the beginning
Canadian businesses and policy makers are still reeling from the whirlwind that came with Donald Trump's threatened tariffs and, on Monday, his 30-day pause. But it's clear — free trade and its proponents are facing a rough road ahead. And though the U.S. president may be the loudest and most existential threat to free trade, he's definitely not alone. "We are moving to a less free-trading world, simply because there are decisions being taken right now that may not be irreversible, but they will lock us in," said Mark Manger, professor of political economy at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy in Toronto. He points to a series of countries that are increasingly isolationist. In France, far-right leader Marine Le Pen has called globalization "manufacturing by slaves for selling to the unemployed." She has called for a revolution guided by "intelligent protectionism and economic patriotism." In the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage's Reform UK Party placed first, for the first time ever, in a poll released on Monday, squeaking ahead of the governing Labour Party. Farage is best known for campaigning for the U.K. to leave the EU's free trade zone, Brexit. And under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has become one of the most protectionist economies in the world. "There is a ton of populist rhetoric and we are certainly not in the golden age of a Clintonian 1990s, when everyone was holding hands in a post-Cold War, Kumbaya session," said Scott Lincicome, vice-president of general economics at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based think-tank.. Outside of the U.S., the threat to trade remains largely rhetorical, he says. But that doesn't mean it's not a threat. Trump's willingness to upend decades of free trade may embolden other world leaders. "All it requires is for somebody to kick this off and start disrupting, like deliberately disrupting, these links of free trade and supply chains that we've built up over the decades," said Manger. So what is a country like Canada supposed to do? Diversifying its trade partners is a good first step. Royal Bank's CEO wrote a note to staff this week in the wake of the U.S. decision to pause its tariffs. Dave McKay said many are upset and disappointed that Canada's economic partnership was being put into question. But, he said he remains optimistic about the future for Canada's economy. "The world wants what Canada can provide in great abundance. We can feed and fuel the growing world, and be a leader in energy, agriculture, critical minerals, advanced manufacturing and technology," wrote McKay. To do that, he said Canada needs to remove internal trade barriers, speed up approval processes for energy and infrastructure projects, make Canada more competitive on taxes and support home-grown tech innovation. There are signs that Canadian politicians may be finally willing to take steps to increase internal trade and remove barriers to development. Transport Minister Anita Anand said last week she believes those barriers could be removed within a month. Speaking after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau held an emergency meeting with provincial and territorial leaders, she said, "Every minister at the table felt the need, as do I, as does our government, to act collectively, to seize the moment and to do whatever we can to reduce those barriers to trade." "The momentum is palpable. The moment is here and we are seizing the moment." Removing internal trade barriers could boost Canadian GDP, lower consumer prices and provide non-U.S. options for Canadian businesses. "Removing non-geographic internal trade costs increases trade volumes as a share of GDP by roughly 15 percentage points," wrote University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe in a 2019 paper for the International Monetary Fund. But addressing internal trade can only go so far. Making it easier to sell booze or drive trucks in different provinces will come as a relief to consumers and some businesses — but Canada is an exporting country. Businesses sell billions of dollars worth of wheat and lumber and minerals and energy products. Diversifying that trade is difficult. "Canada, geographically, has a hard time trading with others," said Lincicome. "It's pretty easy for someone in Canada to trade with someone in Detroit. Or Vancouver with Seattle. It's a lot harder to sell to China or sell to Europe." He says that trade can and does happen, of course. But it's more expensive and comes with more logistical challenges. Lincicome says the giant U.S. economy has a sort of gravitational pull on a smaller nation like Canada. Breaking out of that is difficult. It's made more difficult by the fact that there is something of a tide turning on globalization. Lincicome says data shows global trade isn't expanding as much as it once did, but it's still growing. And he says, even amid all the rhetoric, Canada has options to grow its export market.
