Latest news with #HousesofCongress
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 days ago
- Politics
- First Post
How Epstein files are a turning point in Trump's Maga presidency
September could bring bad tidings for the Trump presidency, as both Houses of Congress reconvene after their hasty early closure in July, with Jeffrey Epstein at the top of the agenda read more A person takes a photo as a message calling on President Donald Trump to release all files related to Jeffrey Epstein is projected onto the US Chamber of Commerce building across from the White House in Washington, DC, on July 18. AFP United States President Donald Trump faces the sternest test of his turbulent second term in the White House. For the first time since he took office, Trump's Make America Great Again (Maga) base is turning against him. In an unprecedented move, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson shut down Congress weeks ahead of the August summer recess to avoid Democrats—and angry Republicans—seeking answers to the snowballing Epstein issue. Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted paedophile and a sex trafficker, committed suicide at New York's Metropolitan Correctional Centre in August 2019. Trump has denied involvement in Epstein's infamous parties with underage girls. The furore could have passed but for two disclosures. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD First, The Wall Street Journal published a lewd birthday greeting allegedly written by Trump to Epstein in 2003. The letter was signed by Trump, the Journal claimed, and had a prurient sketch. An enraged Trump sued the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper for $10 billion and banned it from his press pool during his weekend visit to his two golf courses in Scotland. Worse was to follow. CNN revealed a verified image of Epstein attending Trump's marriage to his second wife, Marla Maples, in 1993. Trump had earlier denied he knew Epstein well and had no knowledge of his paedophilia. CNN's report provided explicit details: 'Photos from 1993 confirm for the first time that Epstein attended Trump's 1993 wedding to Marla Maples. Epstein's attendance at the ceremony at the Plaza Hotel was not widely known until now. In addition, footage from a 1999 Victoria's Secret fashion event in New York shows Trump and Epstein laughing and chatting together ahead of the runway event. 'The new footage and photos, which have not been reported and predate any of Epstein's known legal issues, come amid renewed scrutiny of Trump's past relationship with Epstein. Allegations that Epstein sexually abused underage girls first surfaced in 2005, leading to his arrest a year later. He was arrested again in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges and later died in jail. The medical examiner ruled his death a suicide by hanging. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'In 2002, Trump was quoted in a New York magazine profile of Epstein—'Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of 'Mystery'—describing him as 'a terrific guy', saying he's known Epstein for 15 years. 'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side,' Trump said.' The real danger for Trump is not the media exposés but wilting support from his Maga base. It is where he draws his power. If that support wanes, the damage could ripple through the slender Republican majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, crippling Trump's agenda on trade tariffs and immigration. A two-day Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll showed that nearly 70 per cent of respondents believed Trump 'was hiding details about Epstein's clients'. Only 6 per cent said he wasn't. The rest said they weren't sure. Trump's voter base in the 2024 US presidential election comprised more than 50 per cent of all Americans. If that support falls significantly over the Epstein issue, it could prove to be a turning point in his presidency. Since Trump knows he can't be president a third time, his principal aim is to protect his legacy and the Republicans' chances in the midterm Congressional elections due in November 2026. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD To limit the damage, Trump has ordered his attorney general, Pamela Bondi, to release Grand Jury findings on the Epstein case. But both Democrats and Republicans know this is a ruse. Grand Jury transcripts will not reveal Epstein's clients and whether Trump was among them. They are simply screening mechanisms by the jury to validate a criminal case. What Democrats, sensing a kill, want are unredacted files of Epstein that contain explicit details of his clients and their travel to his private Caribbean island. Trump has refused to unseal these files. This contrasts with Bondi's declaration on February 27, when her office released 200 pages of Epstein documents. Bondi's office issued this statement: 'Attorney General Bondi requested the full and complete files related to Jeffrey Epstein. In response, the department received approximately 200 pages of documents. However, the attorney general was later informed of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Epstein that were not previously disclosed. The Attorney General has requested the FBI deliver the remaining documents to the Department.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Xi Factor Trump is meanwhile fighting multiple battles. He is keen to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping later this year. Xi has proved the hardest nut to crack in Trump's global trade war. Fond of grand gestures, Trump would like to do a trilateral summit with both Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin to reprise the famous Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin summit between the US, Britain, and the Soviet Union in Yalta, Crimea, in February 1945, in the midst of the Second World War. The only change: Xi replaces Churchill in a reflection of the rise and fall of Great Powers. Trump is also looking forward to his second state visit to Britain on September 17-19, hosted by King Charles III at Buckingham Palace. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer secured an early US-UK trade deal by carrying with him to the White House a personal invitation signed by King Charles. But September could also bring bad tidings for the Trump presidency. Both Houses of Congress will reconvene after their hasty early closure in July. The first item on the agenda: Jeffrey Epstein. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If more damaging revelations meanwhile emerge about Trump's links with Epstein, they will erode not only his wider public support but also diminish his credibility with his Maga base. The writer is an editor, author and publisher. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Mint
15-07-2025
- Business
- Mint
Barry Eichengreen: Germany's budget expansion makes sense while America's is reckless
Recent weeks have been momentous for government budgets in the US and Germany. In the US, both Houses of Congress passed versions of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, which Trump signed on the US Independence Day, 4 July. In Germany, meanwhile, Chancellor Friedrich Merz's government agreed to the outlines of a 2025 budget and a spending path for the rest of the decade. Both fiscal plans augur larger budget deficits and higher debt. But that is about all they have in common. The US budget will make permanent Trump's 2017 tax cuts and add exemptions for tip income, overtime pay and loan interest on domestically assembled motor vehicles. It will 'pay' for these provisions—if that's the right word—by cutting healthcare and food assistance for low-income households and by eliminating a range of clean-energy-related tax credits. There are so many negative things to say about Trump's Big Bad Bill that it's hard to know where to start. Also Read: Dear Trump… Nobody can glower American interest rates down To begin with, the legislation is massively regressive, combining permanent tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy with reductions in support for the poorest families. By phasing out tax credits for rooftop solar, electric vehicles and zero-emission electricity, it is a disaster for the environment. Given reductions in science funding and the addition of new taxes on universities, it is hard to imagine how it will unlock a tsunami of productivity growth in America. Moreover, the budget is fiscally irresponsible. The Congressional Budget Office, the country's non-partisan fiscal watchdog, estimates that it will increase the deficit by $3.5 trillion over the coming decade. This may not seem like a crushing burden for a $30 trillion economy. But it comes on top of a deficit that is already north of 6% of GDP, a debt-to-GDP ratio of 120% and interest rates that are high and rising. Also Read: American puzzle: Trump's tariffs have resulted in an inflation paradox The US actually has a fiscal rule that is binding in cases of congressional reconciliation, the name for the legislative process that allowed bare majorities in the House and Senate to force through the final bill. Known as the Byrd Rule, this provision prevents the use of reconciliation if the budget continues to increase the deficit, relative to the previous baseline, after the initial ten years—as the Congressional Budget Office has determined the current bill will do. The US Senate 'addressed' this problem by creatively redefining the baseline to include Trump's expiring tax cuts, making the residual increase look smaller. So much for the Republican Party's pious rhetoric about stabilizing the debt. Also Read: Will Germany under Friedrich Merz script the EU's independence from America? Germany has also relaxed its fiscal rule, but only partially and—crucially—not in a manner that threatens debt sustainability. The country's 'debt brake,' the constitutional provision that limits borrowing to just 0.35% of GDP on a cyclically adjusted basis, was amended in March to exclude both military spending in excess of 1% of GDP and a fixed package of infrastructure spending. The rationale is clear and compelling. More defence spending, for example, is needed for Germany's security, given a belligerent Russia on Europe's doorstep and the new reality that the US is no longer a trustworthy ally. Similarly, additional infrastructure investment is needed to make good on a long-standing shortfall that now threatens economic growth. Also Read: Dani Rodrik: How ideology sometimes trumps material interests Where the US budget includes $12.5 billion to upgrade air-traffic infrastructure, the German budget foresees €42 billion ($49 billion) a year over 12 years for investment in railways, roads, energy transmission and climate-change abatement—and this in an economy only a sixth of that of the US. It is not hard to see which country's fiscal strategy will have a larger impact on economic growth. But while Germany has relaxed its debt brake, and government borrowing will now increase, the provisions that remain in place will prevent German public debt from rising without limit. Critically, items still subject to the 0.35% deficit ceiling include interest payments—even interest on debt incurred to increase defence spending and upgrade infrastructure. As more debt is issued for these purposes and more interest is paid, other spending will have to be cut, or taxes will have to be raised, to meet the 0.35% limit. Also Read: Rahul Jacob: Global alliances have changed and so have German policies This will automatically stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio, albeit at a level closer to 100% of GDP than the current 63%. But if Germany doesn't abandon the debt brake entirely, there will be no crisis of debt sustainability in which the ratio rises without limit. That's a big if. But anyone who knows Germany knows that Germans are committed, morally and politically, to debt sustainability. Relaxing budgetary austerity for good reasons such as security and long-term growth is one thing. Abandoning all fiscal common sense is quite another. Germans know the difference. Sadly, Trump's America does not. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is professor of economics and political science at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author, most recently, of 'In Defense of Public Debt'
New York Post
22-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Mamdani, Schumer, AOC battling for most idiotic response to Trump's Iran strikes
Boy is the competition stiff for most idiotic response to Operation Midnight Hammer. NYC lefty 'it boy' Zohran Mamdani is one clear leader of the pack: 'Donald Trump ran for president promising to end wars, not start new ones,' the failed rapper posted on X. And: 'Today's unconstitutional military action represents a dark, new chapter in his endless betrayals that now threaten to plunge the world deeper into chaos.' Wrong on virtually every count: As the president noted Saturday night, Iran's been waging war on our country since it seized the hostages back in 1979, through its sponsorship of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, its provision of IEDs to slaughter our troops in Afhganistan and Iraq and on to its efforts to assassinate Trump. By finishing off Tehran's nuclear program, the prez moved decisively to end Israel's strikes on Iran by eliminating their target. And defanging the monsters who run the Islamic Republic is a blow against chaos that opens the door to a brighter future for the entire region. Naturally, Mamdani's less-radical rivals for Democrats' mayoral nomination felt obliged to also condemn Trump, with Andrew Cuomo (Dems' 'it boy' of 2020!) whining about how 'Trump went about this without consulting Congress, without consulting the normal congressional officials' blah-blah-blah. That's the same approach embraced by most national Democrats, including ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leaders Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. Which is beyond pathetic, as all of them are on record praising President Barack Obama's various unilateral, left-Congress-in-the-dark actions from doing 'regime change' in Libya by taking out Moammer Khadafy to his multiple drone assassinations of US citizens such as Anwar Al-Awlaki. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez basically sits in the same camp as Mamdani (her preferred mayoral candidate, of course) with the added filip of claiming Trump's actions are 'absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' In fact, the US strikes were plainly legal, covered (like Obama's) by Congress' open-ended authorizations for presidential force back in 2003 — resolutions that neither party has sought to repeal even when both Houses of Congress are held by the presidential-opposition party. Yes, it'd be wonderful if the House and Senate were willing to do their duties in matters of war and peace, but instead they've chosen not to — and to just carp about the other team's leadership. This also means Trump had no responsibility to brief top Democrats in advance of the strikes — and that no word of the coming attacks leaked suggests he was wise to shut them out. We certainly wouldn't trust the likes of Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to put the safety of Americans headed into a war zone above his partisan desire to undermine anything and everything Donald Trump is doing. Let us not forget the international contestants in the idiot sweepstakes: UN Secretary-General António Guterres (last seen thundering that Israel's strikes on Iran could 'ignite a fire no one can control') denounced Trump's 'dangerous escalation' as 'a direct threat to international peace and security' before droning on about supposed 'rules of international law.' That is: He's still pretending Iran isn't one of the main threats to other nations' safety, and that stopping it is somehow an 'escalation.' Russia and China of course condemned the US strikes, but all should note that that's literally the least they could do to support their ally Iran. We guess British Prime Minister Keir Starmer can represent the countless fools of Western Europe in the competition, adding to the chorus of clueless handwringing over the supposed 'risk of escalation' even as he admitted Iran's nuke program posed a 'grave threat to international security' and called for 'a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.' OK: Tehran should end the crisis by calling it quits on attacking Israel so the Israelis don't need to keep taking out Iranian missile launchers etc., and by foreswearing any response to the US strikes; it certainly shouldn't try to close the Strait of Hormuz to global shipping if it doesn't want half its Navy sunk again (as was its fate the last time it tried that stunt). No one else can or should offer the Islamic Republic a damned thing except what's been on the table from the start: Verifiably end your nuke quest, stop attacking other countries (remember its utterly unprovoked strikes on Israel last year) and other nations will leave you alone. It's all clear as crystal, even if so many idiots insist on pretending otherwise.
Irish Post
15-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Post
Joe Biden wrestles with the verdict of history
DONALD Trump's first hundred days were hectic, unprecedented even. Since that milestone, the pace hasn't exactly slackened. Indeed, there's been a continued flurry of moves and announcements. Internationally, we have seen trade deals (of a sort) struck with Britain and China. The President continues to press for a settlement to the war in Ukraine, without clarifying what outcome he favours. The US has done some sort of deal with the Houthis in Yemen and is even negotiating with Iran. Meanwhile the first proper overseas trip of Trump's second term — aside from attending the funeral of Pope Francis — was to the Middle East, but to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE rather than to Israel. And to cap all of that Presidential activity, Joe Biden has re-entered the fray after a few months' hibernation. Ex-Presidents usually take a bit more of a breather before setting out to write their memoirs and embellish their legacies. Joe Biden has come out of the blocks comparatively quickly. There are reasons for that. Biden is the oldest person ever to leave the White House (Donald Trump will overtake him on that score in 2029) and may feel he needs to hurry up in getting his story out there. But, more important than that for Joe Biden was the manner of his departure from the White House. He was the first President in a very long time who did not get the opportunity to bid for a second term in the Oval Office. The way he exited the 2024 race, pushed out the door by senior Democrats on the Hill (former Speaker Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer), still rankles with the former President who continues to believe that he could have beaten Donald Trump — though not many people share that assessment. In the minds of most observers his catastrophic debate performance against Donald Trump fatally undermined his candidacy. It became the view of his fellow Democrats that Biden's name on the ticket would hand Republicans whopping victories in the House of Representatives and the Senate. In that view of things, the Harris campaign staunched the wound and ensured that both Houses of Congress remain tightly balanced, with every chance that the Democrats will retake control of the House in January 2027. Like many leading political figures before him, Joe Biden is a proud man. You have to be to offer yourself as a candidate for the US Presidency. In his case, he rightly revels in his political achievements as a Senator, as Vice-President and as the man who deprived Donald Trump of re-election in 2020. Remarkably, all of that was achieved from modest beginnings as 'Irish Joe from Scranton'. He also sees himself, with some justification, as a successful President who revived the US economy after Covid, rallied western support for Ukraine in 2022 and passed an unprecedented infrastructure bill whose effects will be felt for a long time to come. Biden, who is known to have a stubborn streak and a quick temper, must also be getting weary of being pilloried by his successor, described repeatedly as the worst President ever, the root of all of America's failings that Trump has set himself up to cure. Biden knows that there are books about to appear that will present an unflattering evaluation of his age-related frailties. Hence his haste is getting his version on the record. One-to-one interviews were something he rarely did as President, but he has now sat down with the BBC and America's ABC. His performance on those channels was decent but not stellar. His weaknesses from last year were still in evidence. He's just not crisp in delivering his message. He did get some hits in at Trump and tried to deflect the criticism that he stayed too long in the 2024 race. His suggestion that Kamala Harris would not have won even if he had withdrawn earlier didn't do his loyal VP any favours as she tries to concoct a political future for herself. Many in her camp no doubt blame Biden's delayed exit for Harris's defeat. Democrats will not be too pleased to see Joe Biden back in the spotlight. If they are to line up a team to defeat Trump's Republicans next year, Democrats need to start profiling their coming generation rather that witnessing the former President rage against 'the dying of the light' as the Welsh poet Dylan Thomas once wrote. Joe Biden is most comfortable with international issues on which he has an unrivalled record. That makes me think that perhaps he ought to take on some more international travel as a senior statesman so as, in a soft sell manner, to remind people of how his America differed from Trump's. That might be a more gainful post-White House activity than raking over the coals of his Presidential tenure and of the 2024 election campaign. That train has left the station for the time being and only the historians of the future will be able to give his presidency its proper grade, probably somewhere in B+ territory, even if the final examination was sadly flunked. Daniel Mulhall is a retired Irish Ambassador (who has served in Berlin, London and Washington), a consultant and an author. His latest publication is Pilgrim Soul: W.B. Yeats and the Ireland of his Time (New Island Books, 2023). He can be followed on X: @DanMulhall and Bluesky: @ See More: Joe Biden, President Trump, US Politics
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Law and You: What does 'birthright citizenship' mean?
It is extremely difficult to change the U.S. Constitution. It is not simply waving a pen or a magic wand. The Constitution itself, in Article V, defines the process. For a proposal to become an official Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, two steps are required. First, the proposed Amendment must be passed by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Second, it must be ratified (approved) by vote in three-fourths of the state legislatures, that is 38 of the 50 states. This strict multi-layered procedure must be followed to change anything that is in the Constitution. These steps were designed to help ensure that we are a stable 'government of laws, not of men,' according to John Adams in 1776. There are only 27 Amendments. The first ten are our Bill of Rights, and were adopted in 1791. To undo an Amendment that has been passed by two-thirds of the members in both Houses of Congress and the legislatures of at least three-fourths of the states is just as difficult, requiring the passage of another Constitutional Amendment. Only one Amendment has ever been repealed; that was Prohibition, which was adopted in 1919 by the 18th Amendment, then repealed by the 21st in 1933. The challenges to passing an Amendment are illustrated by two proposals regarding the rights of women. After decades of effort, beginning in the 1840's, women achieved the right to vote through the 19th Amendment in 1920. Trying to accomplish an Equal Rights Amendment, so that the Constitution guarantees women the same rights as men, has not yet been successful. Since 1868, what is called 'birthright citizenship' has been part of the U.S. Constitution. It is clearly stated in the 14th Amendment that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' There are at least 33 countries that have unrestricted birthright citizenship. These include Canada and all but one country in North and South America. Even before this Amendment, it was generally recognized that everyone born in the U.S. or its territories automatically became a citizen. A person born elsewhere could be a 'naturalized citizen' after living here for the required number of years and then formally renouncing allegiance to their birth country and swearing allegiance to the United States. This part of the 14th Amendment was adopted (1) to ensure that citizenship by birthright could not easily be taken away, and (2) to overturn the 1857 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case, which held that free African-American people born in this country could never be citizens. The Congressional debates on the language of the 14th Amendment document that the phrase 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' was understood to exclude only the children of foreign ministers and invading armies, and 'Indians not taxed.' They knew that the clause would extend citizenship to everyone else born on U.S. soil, even, as they said, 'Chinese and Gypsies.' The son of Chinese immigrants went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and established his birthright citizenship in United States v Wong Kim Ark (1898). Congress anticipated the possibility of a future government that opposed birthright citizenship. Consequently, they not only asserted it in a statute, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but also in the Constitution. In the words of Sen. Benjamin Wade, their purpose was to 'fortify and make [the citizenship guarantee] very strong and clear.' The President does not have a role in the amendment process; it is entirely a legislative matter. However, apparently seeking to negate birthright citizenship all by himself, the President issued an Executive Order on January 20, 2025 declaring that a child born in the U.S. is not a citizen unless both parents are either U.S. citizens or 'lawful permanent residents' at the time of the child's birth. Lawsuits were immediately brought challenging the Constitutionality of that Executive Order. The courts hearing the cases promptly issued injunctions stopping the order from going into effect while the litigation continues. Eventually, the Supreme Court will likely decide. — Penny Clute has been an attorney since 1973. She was Clinton County district attorney from 1989 through 2001, then Plattsburgh City Court judge until her retirement in January 2012. ______________ RESOURCES Explanation of Birthright Citizenship and the issues: Text of Executive Order: Explanation of 'government of laws, not of men' quote: United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
