Latest news with #OrangeMan
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Dinner with Trump: It'll set you back only $1 million
What a great country we live in. You tell me: in whatever other country could you receive a personal email from your president? Yet that's what happened to me this weekend. I couldn't believe it. I was so excited when this message popped up among incoming emails: 'Email from the President.' Of course, I opened it right away. I couldn't wait. Was President Trump asking my advice on ending the war in Ukraine? Or how to get his 'big, beautiful bill' out of the Senate? No, no. Nothing so important. It turned out Trump was just doing what he does best: asking for money. 'I signed collectable golf balls for you,' read the email. 'BUT we'll only have a few of these left in stock, so if you want them, you've got to ORDER BEFORE MIDNIGHT.' There they were, the president emailed, just waiting for me: three 'Trump Signature Golf Balls' (not actually signed by him) for anywhere from $35 to $3,300, depending on how big a check I wanted to write. As much as I hate to disappoint the Don, I decided to pass. Actually, I felt lucky. At least I didn't get an email inviting me to have dinner with Trump last Thursday night at his golf club in Potomac Falls, Va. That would have set me back a bit more than $35. The minimum price for steak and halibut was a cool million — for which you didn't even get a handshake with the Orange Man. But 220 fat cats did show up, specially invited because they were the biggest investors in Trump's latest money-making scheme, which he launched just before his second Inauguration: a $Trump meme coin. Buyers from China, Germany, Singapore, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and around the world flew in for the dinner with the explicit intent, they told reporters, 'of influencing Mr. Trump and U.S. financial regulations.' In addition to dinner with the president, the top donors were given a private tour of the White House the next morning. And, to be clear, this was not a campaign fundraiser. This event was a business venture lining the pockets of Trump and his family — from which, according to the New York Times, they have already collected $320 million in fees. Stop! That rumbling sound you hear? It's the sound of Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln, or Jimmy Carter, or any of our other 42 deceased presidents rolling in their grave. It's no stretch of the imagination to conclude that anyone of them would be appalled at the way Trump has turned the presidency from the highest form of public service to the most disgusting display of personal enrichment. He's replaced the revered title 'commander-in-chief' with the disgraced 'grifter-in-chief.' After all, last week's dinner is hardly the first money-making scheme Trump has launched recently. In January, in addition to hawking Bibles, trading cards, sneakers and watches, he unveiled a new crypto firm, World Liberty Financial, with a $2 billion investment from Abu Dhabi. Since the inauguration, sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. have been bouncing around the world, signing a breathtaking bounty of new business deals for the family. That includes a $1 billion, 80-story luxury hotel in Dubai; a second high-end residential tower in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; a new golf course and villa complex in Qatar; a Trump skyscraper in Ho Chi Minh City; and a $1.5 billion golf complex outside Hanoi. They've also opened a private club in Washington, the 'Executive Branch,' where for a $500,000 entrance fee, members can rub elbows with members of the Trump administration. Again, all of these projects have one purpose only: to exploit the office of president in order to funnel money to Trump and his family. Eric Lipton, investigative reporter for the New York Times, concludes: 'Mr. Trump is estimated to have added billions to his personal fortune, at least on paper, since the start of his new term, much of it through crypto.' How times have changed. There's hardly a peep of protest this time about Trump's money-grubbing. Yet not that long ago, Hillary Clinton was roasted for having made $100,000 from a $1,000 investment in cattle futures — 12 years before her husband was elected president. Looking back, it's hard to believe we made such a big deal about so little. But at least we had some standards of decency then. We have none today. Bill Press is host of 'The Bill Press Pod.' He is the author of 'From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
27-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Dinner with Trump: It'll set you back only $1 million
What a great country we live in. You tell me: in whatever other country could you receive a personal email from your president? Yet that's what happened to me this weekend. I couldn't believe it. I was so excited when this message popped up among incoming emails: 'Email from the President.' Of course, I opened it right away. I couldn't wait. Was President Trump asking my advice on ending the war in Ukraine? Or how to get his 'big, beautiful bill' out of the Senate? No, no. Nothing so important. It turned out Trump was just doing what he does best: asking for money. 'I signed collectable golf balls for you,' read the email. 'BUT we'll only have a few of these left in stock, so if you want them, you've got to ORDER BEFORE MIDNIGHT.' There they were, the president emailed, just waiting for me: three 'Trump Signature Golf Balls' (not actually signed by him) for anywhere from $35 to $3,300, depending on how big a check I wanted to write. As much as I hate to disappoint the Don, I decided to pass. Actually, I felt lucky. At least I didn't get an email inviting me to have dinner with Trump last Thursday night at his golf club in Potomac Falls, Va. That would have set me back a bit more than $35. The minimum price for steak and halibut was a cool million — for which you didn't even get a handshake with the Orange Man. But 220 fat cats did show up, specially invited because they were the biggest investors in Trump's latest money-making scheme, which he launched just before his second Inauguration: a $Trump meme coin. Buyers from China, Germany, Singapore, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and around the world flew in for the dinner with the explicit intent, they told reporters, 'of influencing Mr. Trump and U.S. financial regulations.' In addition to dinner with the president, the top donors were given a private tour of the White House the next morning. And, to be clear, this was not a campaign fundraiser. This event was a business venture lining the pockets of Trump and his family — from which, according to the New York Times, they have already collected $320 million in fees. Stop! That rumbling sound you hear? It's the sound of Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln, or Jimmy Carter, or any of our other 42 deceased presidents rolling in their grave. It's no stretch of the imagination to conclude that anyone of them would be appalled at the way Trump has turned the presidency from the highest form of public service to the most disgusting display of personal enrichment. He's replaced the revered title 'commander-in-chief' with the disgraced 'grifter-in-chief.' After all, last week's dinner is hardly the first money-making scheme Trump has launched recently. In January, in addition to hawking Bibles, trading cards, sneakers and watches, he unveiled a new crypto firm, World Liberty Financial, with a $2 billion investment from Abu Dhabi. Since the inauguration, sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. have been bouncing around the world, signing a breathtaking bounty of new business deals for the family. That includes a $1 billion, 80-story luxury hotel in Dubai; a second high-end residential tower in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; a new golf course and villa complex in Qatar; a Trump skyscraper in Ho Chi Minh City; and a $1.5 billion golf complex outside Hanoi. They've also opened a private club in Washington, the 'Executive Branch,' where for a $500,000 entrance fee, members can rub elbows with members of the Trump administration. Again, all of these projects have one purpose only: to exploit the office of president in order to funnel money to Trump and his family. Eric Lipton, investigative reporter for the New York Times, concludes: 'Mr. Trump is estimated to have added billions to his personal fortune, at least on paper, since the start of his new term, much of it through crypto.' How times have changed. There's hardly a peep of protest this time about Trump's money-grubbing. Yet not that long ago, Hillary Clinton was roasted for having made $100,000 from a $1,000 investment in cattle futures — 12 years before her husband was elected president. Looking back, it's hard to believe we made such a big deal about so little. But at least we had some standards of decency then. We have none today. Bill Press is host of 'The Bill Press Pod.' He is the author of 'From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.'
Daily Mail
29-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Good Morning Britain fans blast 'uncomfortable and unacceptable' interview - raging 'there's no code of conduct here' as Ed Balls returns to screens
Good Morning Britain fans have blasted an 'uncomfortable and unacceptable' interview and some raged 'there's no code of conduct here' as Ed Balls returned to screens. The news presenter, 58, appeared alongside Susanna Reid, 54, on Tuesday morning's show and covered the day's top stories. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, 56, featured on the ITV programme and triggered a wave of complaints from viewers. Since last August, ITV conceded that Ed would not be allowed to interview his wife, Yvette, following an outcry. On Tuesday's show, Susanna interviewed the politician while Ed sat out of the conversation. But viewers still took to social media to share their outrage and some posted on X: 'It's still uncomfortable and even unacceptable to interview Yvette Cooper on #GMB when we the viewers know her husband is sitting alongside Susanna. #ITV.' Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, 56, pictured right, featured on the ITV programme and triggered a wave of complaints from viewers 'Is Ed gonna ask his wife what's for dinner later ? #gmb.' While someone else argued there was, 'No code of conduct here folks'. 'Susanna Reid is interviewing the home secretary on #GMB right now and is having to ask all the questions herself, because her co-host happens to be the Home Secretary's husband.' 'How the f*** can Ed stay impartial when his wife is being interviewed? This program is a f****** joke.' 'I bet Ed Balls won't be questioning her when she's being interviewed #gmb.' It comes as Good Morning Britain fans were previously distracted by Ed's 'weird' new look. Ed returned on Monday and shared he had spent last week sailing and enjoying the sunshine. However, some viewers were taken aback by his sun tanned appearance on his return and took to social media to share their thoughts. On Tuesday's show, Susanna interviewed the politician while Ed sat out of the conversation but viewers still took to social media to share their outrage Many posted on X: 'Ed's tan looks too perfect to be real. Weird. #GMB.' 'Ed Balls turning into Tango Trump. Orange Man @GMB #GMB.' 'Has Balls gone a Trump shade of orange ???? #gmb.' Co-host Susanna also commented on Ed's appearance on Monday and said: 'Somebody got some warm weather over the weekend.' He explained: 'They did, it looks like I've been on some exotic beach but actually it was the Isle Of Wight, Portsmouth and Poole. 'I was on a sailing boat last week and it was very sunny it turned out. I think all the rays were reflecting off of the water.' 'You wore your factor 25 but still, you've come in sunkissed and glowing,' Susanna added. Ed then shared he had enjoyed a game of football too, which had resulted in some pain. He said: 'I know, well I also played football on Saturday and I'm in immense pain, I can hardly move having played this football match, so sunkissed but a bit stiff.' However, Ed's return wasn't welcomed by some viewers who threatened to 'turn off' their TV. Many posted on X: 'No thanks Ed comes on, we turn off.' 'Had to turn off as soon as I saw Ed Balls as many other people I'm sure he is useless.' Earlier this month, Good Morning Britain viewers were left infuriated by a presenter shake-up on the show. Susanna, who usually presents the ITV show alongside Ed, Richard Madeley, 68, and Kate Garraway, 57, Monday to Wednesday, with alternative Thursdays, had taken some time off. This meant that the programme was hosted by a step-in host - and the shake-up was in place for the whole week. For some of the instalments Richard and Charlotte Hawkins, 49, stepped in while Marverine Cole - who does appear on GMB from time to time - also presented segments on the morning news show. The different team left many flock to X, formerly known as Twitter, to share their thoughts. One wrote on the social media platform: 'Turn on #GMB see who is presenting and turn off. Absolute s*** show. Which is why I decided to stop watching #GMB Not good for my blood pressure.' 'Good God Richard's back with Charlotte, time to switch off.' 'Not this week thanks. Can't watch Madeley.'
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
From the G-File on The Dispatch Hey, I just participated in a panel at the University of Pennsylvania on conservatism and the future of the GOP. Nothing got settled, but I made some friendships on my journey. Anyway, I bring this up because I am now parked at the Biden Welcome Center in Delaware. This is the one named after Joe. The one dedicated to Hunter is a glass coffee table in a hotel suite, with rolled-up $100 bills and a pharmacopeia of intoxicants and antibiotics. 'Put down your purses and check out the Biden Welcome Center.' The real point being, I only have so much time to write this. There's a staff at the office I can't keep waiting, and there are quadrupeds at home that have very high expectations for me. (And speaking of which, I have been told by my editors to remind you all that the first round of Dispawtch bracket voting—official voting, not the pick 'em bracket—kicked off today at 5 p.m. ET.) I'm often told that I never have anything good to say about Trump. That's often true. The point of this observation is almost always to dismiss or diminish the negative things I say about Trump. I mean, it's not like the people who say it are starving for fawning or friendly coverage of Trump. There's plenty of that out there. Indeed, there are several TV networks and countless websites and podcasts dedicated to exactly that. No, what they want to do is argue that my valid criticisms are invalidated by the fact that I have 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' As a matter of logic, this is basically a shoot-the-messenger fallacy. I have numerous problems with this argument, starting with the fact that I don't think I have it. I certainly haven't gone full Jen Rubin. But beyond that, a lot of the people who use the phrase 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' have a very narrow definition of the term. It's definitely true that Trump makes people crazy. But the quality of that craziness is not distributed entirely on the anti-Trump side. Sure, I listen to a lot of self-styled 'resistance' types and can understand why people think those types have lost their minds. But if (some of) the 'resistance' folks are nuts, so are many members of the 'counter-resistance.' I mean, knock yourself out mocking the MSNBC crowd, but if you can't acknowledge that, say, Peter Navarro or Rudy Giuliani is bonkers, then you have the pro-Trump version of TDS. 'Orange Man bad' thinking can be deranged (though there are plenty of solid arguments that the Orange Man is, in fact, bad). But 'Orange Man Good' is often just as delusional. Still, I will throw you a bone. I'll do it Spaghetti Western Style—i.e. I'll give you the good, the bad, and the ugly. And I'll do it while squinting against the dramatic lighting. It is unambiguously good that Donald Trump is bombing the stuffing out of the Houthis. Smashing pirates, brigands, and terrorists is, at a very fundamental level, what the government is there for. Indeed, were it not for the need to crush the Barbary Pirates, we wouldn't have a constitution in the first place. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate to the task of building and funding a competent navy. That was one of the main reasons the Founders convened to set up a new form of government. Regardless, it was outrageous that Joe Biden tolerated Houthi aggression throughout his presidency. And it is good and necessary that Trump is opening a can of whup-ass on them. Last night Donald Trump sat down for an interview with Laura Ingraham, one of his appointees to the Kennedy Center Board and a Fox host. Here's an excerpt: 'You're tougher with Canada than you are with our biggest adversaries. Why?' asked Ingraham. 'Only because it's meant to be our 51st state, and I mean that,' Trump said. 'Okay, but we need their territory. They have territorial advantage. We're not going to let them get close to China, right?' pressed the Fox host. 'Look, I deal with every country—directly or indirectly. One of the nastiest countries to deal with is Canada.' This is very bad. I take a backseat to very few people in having fun at Canada's expense. But Canada is an ally. The longest unarmed border in the world is our border with Canada. They are military and strategic allies. Starting with FDR and ending with Trump's revised trade agreement in his first term, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, Canada has organized its economy to be harmonized with the United States. The Trump administration has been pretending that Canada has been 'ripping us off.' But it has been abiding by the very trade agreement Trump bragged about replacing NAFTA with. The logical upshot of this is that Trump wrote a trade treaty that screwed America. (In case it matters to you, we have a very beneficial and preferential relationship with Canada when it comes to oil. We get more oil from Canada—at a discounted price, without fear of disruption—than the next five foreign sources combined. We get 15 times more oil from them than from Saudi Arabia. Now Canadians, in response to Trump's tariff threats, are trying to figure out how to muck up that arrangement and sell more oil elsewhere, which would be bad for us.) The administration has floated all sorts of arguments—some with a little merit, I guess—and some totally contrived to justify our bullying of our peaceful neighbor and ally. Should Canada spend more on defense? Sure. Should it do more to stop the negligible amount of fentanyl coming across the border? Maybe, sure. Reform its banking laws for more favorable treatment of American banks? I guess. But who really cares? I mean, it's a weird form of populism that says it should be a huge priority for another nation to boost the profits of our banks. But the point is that all of this stuff was pretextual garbage. Trump in his own words says that the real reason he's making these arguments (the better word would be 'claims') is that he wants to annex the whole of the country. Now, I'm actually all in favor of annexing Canada (and Greenland), if Canada wants to be annexed (ditto Greenland). But they don't, and will never, ever, want that. And what really bothers me about the way Trump talks about Canada is that it is remarkably similar to the way Putin talks about Ukraine. It's not a real country. It shouldn't exist. Canadians are really just Americans who, through an accident of history, got a country that doesn't really work and shouldn't really be a country. No, I don't think Trump is going to authorize the creation of 'little green men' as a military pretext to launch an invasion. But the main reason I don't think he'll do that is because he won't be able to pull it off. That's why this talk is merely bad. Now, let's talk, briefly, about the ugly. I'll stick with that word instead of 'evil,' but evil might turn out to be the better word. The Trump administration has objectively sided with Russia in the Russia-Ukraine war. The list of preemptive concessions to Russia is so staggeringly long I can't even cut-and-paste Jim Geraghty's excellent compilation without making this a 3,000-word 'news'letter. The significance of these concessions is multifaceted. But the relevant point here is just that the concessions prove Trump is not an honest broker between the two sides. He is coming to Russia's aid despite the fact the United States staked its honor and its word in support of Ukraine. That is dishonorable. It is unwise. You can argue that Biden and Congress—with ample Republican support—should not have put our credibility on Ukraine's side. You can argue that we shouldn't have rallied our allies to do likewise. I disagree profoundly. But the fact is we did. But Trump feels no obligation to maintain our honor or integrity on the world stage. But I've said all this before. The new ugliness, and perhaps the new profound evil if reports turn out to be true, is that we've decided to become accomplices to Russia's tactic of stealing and brainwashing Ukrainian children. The U.S. State Department, ostensibly under the leadership of Marco Rubio, has ceased funding a project that tracks these abducted children. I think that's appalling. But, again, that's not the really ugly thing. Members of Congress have 'reason to believe' that the DOGE crew that halted the funding didn't stop there. They're worried that the administration actually deleted the files relating to the approximately 30,000 abducted children. Think about that. Imagine if the U.S. were helping track Hamas' Israeli hostages, and then just decided to delete the files. Imagine how you would feel if you were the parents of one of those children. You're free to make the argument that spending money tracking stolen children was a waste of taxpayer resources. I'd disagree. But what on earth is the argument for effectively burning the records? Maybe some cold-hearted, stoney-eyed realist could make the case that we should have dangled this 'card' to Putin as an inducement to make concessions. I think that would be a moral horror. But okay. We screwed a lot of people at Yalta in the name of realism, too. But why do it for free? Now, we don't know yet whether the files have been deleted. Maybe they weren't. Maybe they were deleted by accident (which would be quite the indictment of the administration's competence). But if they were deleted on purpose, that would be an ugliness so vile and so profoundly ugly that one would need a better command of language to fully capture its evil.
Telegraph
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Mr Vance we're no ‘random country', we just haven't won many wars lately
Who does JD Vance think he is, except the second-most powerful man in the world? Speaking to Fox News, the VP appeared to mock Britain as a 'random country that hasn't fought a war for 30 or 40 years.' What rot! Had he said 'hasn't won a war' he'd be closer to the truth, for we tend to join fights the Americans start but, God bless 'em, decline to finish. Donald Trump, for example, cut funding for Ukraine, triggering denunciations of a man who seems determined to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of peace. Tory MP Graham Stuart tweeted that he might even be a Russian asset, causing my Russian masseur, Ivan, to laugh. 'Putin would be more subtle.' Ivan asks me a lot of questions about Westminster – he has fascination for the private lives of defence ministers – and I assure him that with America withdrawing from the world, Britain is jumping back in. As well as organising a Coalition of the Willing with France, dependent on hours and benefits, the Commons discussed in one afternoon Gaza, Hong Kong and Iran. 'What is our government doing about this?' asked Labour MP Rupa Huq in the Gaza debate. That could be the parliamentary motto. Labour thinks the army should visit foreign countries more often and, in the wake of the inevitable destruction, more foreigners should come here – and yet our domestic security seems to be crumbling. In the Iran debate, Dan Jarvis lashed out at Tehran influencers; earlier we heard that China has put a bounty on the heads of UK-based dissidents. Iain Duncan Smith, at his angry best, demanded arrests: 'How much longer are we going to say all these wonderful words in this House about what we stand for, [but] when it comes to those who need our protection, nothing seems to happen?' Hear hear. A sad result of the landslide is that Conservatives with long records on security affairs have been replaced by Labour MPs who prefer hugs and cuddles. Once the foreign affairs committee was chaired by Tom Tugendhat; today it is foreign aid-obsessed Emily Thornberry, who would mark the opening of an envelope by enclosing a cheque. The Tories have troubles of their own. Kemi had to gently wrap Alicia Kearns's knuckles with a cricket bat for suggesting we cancel Trump's state visit. Remember: right-wingers greeted the Orange Man's election as proof the world was turning their way. At Kemi's first PMQs, she asked if David Lammy owed Trump an apology for calling him a neo-Nazi. But now we've discovered Trump isn't a classical liberal and isn't playing 3-D chess upside down in a bath of piranhas, but a nationalist with zero clucks given for the feelings of European randos. Tories and Reform are scrambling to put distance between them and him without jeopardising a future invite to the Oval Office. If they're looking for a compromise position on the state visit, I'd suggest Trump can come to Buckingham Palace, but only talk to Prince Andrew. Happily, Vance offered a clarification: he hadn't meant Britain, so at least Keir won't have to go to war with America, too. Ivan manipulated my solar plexus and asked, 'Is what they say about the Prime Minister true?' 'Oh, every word,' I sighed.
