Trump, the man with a dream of a Wall

[L'Emmerdeur]

The story of the porn star and the president is far from over, it would seem.

'Stormy Daniels is suing Trump, claiming the “hush agreement” is void'

Adult film star Stormy Daniels is now suing Donald Trump, saying the nondisclosure agreement about their alleged 2006 affair is void because Trump himself never signed it.

An attorney for Daniels — real name is Stephanie Clifford — filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court, NBC News first reported. It alleges Trump’s longtime attorney, Michael Cohen, but not Trump himself, signed his name to the “hush agreement,” which paid Daniels $130,000 in exchange for her silence about her tryst with Trump.

Daniels’s Attorney, Michael Avenatti, posted a copy of what appears to be the court filing online. The suit alleges that Daniels and Trump entered into this agreement under pseudonyms: Daniels as “Peggy Peterson” and Trump as “David Dennison.” But the line where Dennison a.k.a. Trump was supposed to sign is blank:



The lawsuit also claims that in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape, when multiple other women came forward with sexual misconduct allegations against Trump, Daniels wanted to tell her story publicly. That got the attention of the Trump campaign, the lawsuit says, and Cohen “aggressively sought to silence Ms. Clifford [Daniels] as part of an effort to avoid her telling the truth, thus helping to ensure he won the Presidential Election.” Daniels entered into the “hush agreement” on October 28, just days before the 2016 election.

[Tero]

The star did get her money. Trump’s lawyer apparently never asked for the money back. He could charge Trump 130 000 for ”consulting.” Trump would not pay but it would be a business loss. Tax deduction.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The star did get her money. Trump’s lawyer apparently never asked for the money back. He could charge Trump 130 000 for ”consulting.” Trump would not pay but it would be a business loss. Tax deduction.

He wasn't happy about Trump failing to reimburse him, according to The Wall Street Journal:

'WSJ: Cohen complained about lack of reimbursement for porn star payment'

President Donald Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen complained to friends he had not been reimbursed for a six-figure payment to a porn star alleged to have had an affair with Trump, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Hey, here's a great idea: Why not put somebody who ran a payday lending company that was investigated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in charge of that bureau? One of the best people!

'Payday lenders, watchdog agency exhibit cozier relationship'

The former CEO of a payday lending company that had been under investigation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has asked to be considered for the top job at the watchdog agency, The Associated Press has learned.

Such a request would have been extraordinary in the years when the agency was run by an Obama appointee and often targeted payday lenders. Along with recent actions taken by the CFPB, it suggests a cozier relationship between industry and regulator since the Trump administration took over in November.

Under Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director and acting director of the CFPB, the bureau has taken a decidedly friendlier approach to the financial industry including cutting down on enforcement and dropping investigations or lawsuits against payday lenders and other companies. It has also proposed to revise or rescind many rules put into place by Richard Cordray, the first permanent director of the agency, including some that would have put additional restrictions on payday lenders.

Under Cordray, the CFPB opened in investigation into lending practices at World Acceptance. On Jan. 22, the company said the investigation had been completed without enforcement action. It also said CEO Janet Matricciani had resigned after 2 ½ years in that position.

Two days later, Matricciani sent an email to what appears to be Mulvaney’s personal email address to pitch herself as a candidate to lead the CFPB. The email was shared exclusively with The Associated Press by Allied Progress, a left-leaning consumer advocacy group, which obtained the document as part of a Freedom of Information Act request.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Oh, and about those 'job-killing' regulations:

'Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations'

President Donald Trump’s administration has been on a deregulatory bender, particularly when it comes to environmental regulations. As of January, the New York Times counted 67 environmental rules on the chopping block under Trump.

This is not one of Trump’s idiosyncrasies, though. His administration is more ham-handed and flagrant about it, but the antipathy it expresses toward federal regulation falls firmly within the GOP mainstream. Republicans have been complaining about “burdensome” and “job-killing” regulations for so long that their opposition to any particular health, safety, or environmental regulation is now just taken for granted.

For instance, why would the Environmental Protection Agency close a program investigating the effects of toxins on children’s health? Is there some evidence that the money is wasted or poorly spent? Why would the EPA allow more unregulated disposal of toxic coal ash? Don’t people in coal regions deserve clean air and water? Is there any reason to think coal ash is currently well-regulated?

These questions barely come up anymore. Republicans oppose regulations because they are regulations; it’s become reflexive, both for the party and for the media the covers them.

As it happens, though, we know something about the costs and benefits of federal regulations. In fact, Trump’s own administration, specifically the (nonpartisan, at least for now) White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), just released its annual report on that very subject.

...

OMB gathered data and analysis on “major” federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars:

Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion
By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs.

According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false.

[JimC]

No one knows more about the Koreas than Donald Trump. Believe me.

He knows that they always fuck the dogs before they eat them. Win win...

[pErvinalia]

And he's jealous!

[L'Emmerdeur]

Kellyanne Conway, not worried.

'Kellyanne Conway violated federal law in Alabama election, investigator finds'

“This is not the first time that an independent government agency has recommended that the White House discipline Kellyanne Conway for breaking the law,” Cummings said in a statement released by the committee. “Ms. Conway has received multiple trainings and warnings, yet she still refuses to follow basic ethics rules. The president must take swift and serious disciplinary action against Ms. Conway. Anything else sets a terrible example.”

Donald J(ust a Terrible Example) Trump?

[Tero]

He fucked here. What was he then? 60?
It’s possible.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... with-trump

[Brian Peacock]

Oh, and about those 'job-killing' regulations:

'Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations'

President Donald Trump’s administration has been on a deregulatory bender, particularly when it comes to environmental regulations. As of January, the New York Times counted 67 environmental rules on the chopping block under Trump.

This is not one of Trump’s idiosyncrasies, though. His administration is more ham-handed and flagrant about it, but the antipathy it expresses toward federal regulation falls firmly within the GOP mainstream. Republicans have been complaining about “burdensome” and “job-killing” regulations for so long that their opposition to any particular health, safety, or environmental regulation is now just taken for granted.

For instance, why would the Environmental Protection Agency close a program investigating the effects of toxins on children’s health? Is there some evidence that the money is wasted or poorly spent? Why would the EPA allow more unregulated disposal of toxic coal ash? Don’t people in coal regions deserve clean air and water? Is there any reason to think coal ash is currently well-regulated?

These questions barely come up anymore. Republicans oppose regulations because they are regulations; it’s become reflexive, both for the party and for the media the covers them.

As it happens, though, we know something about the costs and benefits of federal regulations. In fact, Trump’s own administration, specifically the (nonpartisan, at least for now) White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), just released its annual report on that very subject.

...

OMB gathered data and analysis on “major” federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars:

Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion
By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs.

According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false.

Oh come on. That's got to be spoof, surely?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Oh come on. That's got to be spoof, surely?

Perhaps a Republican sycophant will stop by soon to explain how it's really all bullshit.

[JimC]

Oh come on. That's got to be spoof, surely?

Perhaps a Republican sycophant will stop by soon to explain how it's really all bullshit.

We have them on the forum? Tell me it ain't so!

[L'Emmerdeur]

So, he mis-tweeted. So what? I mean it's not like he's using his tweeter to tweet policy ideas for a world power or anything, and so should take the time to assure that his tweetering at least accurately reflects his ideas, right? The story below makes use of a roughly parallel example from a comedy movie.

'Trump Administration Admits Trump’s $1 Billion Demand From China Was Supposed to Be $100 Billion'

Earlier this week, President Trump raised eyebrows when he told reporters of a phone call he had held with North Korea, in which he warned the dangerous rogue state it must de-nuclearize. (His administration later admitted quietly Trump had actually spoken with South Korea, not North Korea.) This week, Trump ventured another strange foreign policy pronouncement. He had asked China to produce a plan to reduce its trade deficit by One Billion Dollars. He even capitalized it to underscore the significance of the towering sum he proposed to extract:

China has been asked to develop a plan for the year of a One Billion Dollar reduction in their massive Trade Deficit with the United States. Our relationship with China has been a very good one, and we look forward to seeing what ideas they come back with. We must act soon!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 7, 2018

This demand was incredibly puzzling to trade economists, and regular economists, and anybody who had ever read a couple paragraphs in a random business story. China runs a trade surplus of $375 billion with the United States. Trump was demanding a reduction of 0.3 percent, or less than a single day’s worth of imports.

The Wall Street Journal’s Lingling Wei reports that the demand was actually supposed to be $100 billion. It is not clear how the Trump administration arrived at this figure, but it is a round number, which Trump is known to prefer, and is also the sum Dr. Evil demanded from the United Nations after also mistakenly opening the negotiation by demanding too little:

[Brian Peacock]

I wonder if Trump was nibbling on his pinky while sending those tweets?

[Tero]

Busy man at 60-65. Had at least 3 women servicing him at any one time. And managed to father one child!
https://politics.theonion.com/huckabee- ... 1823620557

Wiki fails to give Melania’s figures, even though the measurements of every playmate are given!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melania_Trump