Legal challenges to the government’s actions have been set in motion today. Concerns of a return to aggressive one-party rule come in the mist of…
No deal isn't like buying something. It isn't like going to a shop and if you don't find anything you don't like you walk home again. You don't end up back where you started. No deal with the European Union means all the laws that govern our interaction with the EU, whether you can fly, whether you can trade, whether you can shop, whether you can travel, cease to exist.
After a couple of tumultuous years, President Donald Trump seems to have reached the conclusion that he has had quite enough of generals. Now, as a retired admiral, I have certainly been annoyed over the years by a number of generals. Yet by and large, I’ve found them quite effective as leaders, organizers, planners and strategists–the type one would expect from those who have proved their mettle in the long hierarchical climb up the ranks of the modern armed forces. Additionally, the vast majority are driven by integrity and the values of courage, honor, commitment–while having been tested in life-and-death situations. All in all, a pretty good selection of qualities. So why, after hiring quite a few, is the President turning on them?
In August 2017, shortly after John F. Kelly became White House chief of staff, he convened crucial meetings on Afghanistan at President Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, N.J.
“When I first took over, he was inclined to want to withdraw from Afghanistan,” Kelly recounted during an exclusive two-hour interview with the Los Angeles Times.
“He was frustrated. It was a huge decision to make ... and frankly there was no system at all for a lot of reasons — palace intrigue and the rest of it — when I got there.”
The retired four-star Marine general will leave the administration on Wednesday. First as Homeland Security chief and then in 18 months at the White House, he presided over some of the Trump administration’s most controversial immigration and security policies.
More Americans blame President Donald Trump than congressional Democrats for the partial U.S. government
The shutdown was triggered by Trump’s demand, largely opposed by Democrats and some Republicans, that taxpayers provide him with $5 billion to help pay for a wall he wants to build on the Mexican border. Its total estimated cost is $23 billion.
Just 35 percent of those surveyed in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they backed including money for the wall in a congressional spending bill. Only 25 percent said they supported Trump shutting down the government over the matter.shutdown, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday found, as lawmakers returned to Washington with no quick end to the shutdown in sight.
Last week, from the presidential mind that brought you telling kids Santa isn’t real on Christmas Eve and tweeting “I am all alone (poor me)” the same day an eight-year-old migrant boy died in U.S. custody, Donald Trump decided the best thing he could do for the country was shut down the federal government over his useless border wall.
The news roiled an already freaked-out market, and investors weren’t the only ones unhappy about the turn of events.
Trump, too, was clearly cranky about the fact that the shutdown was eating into his previously planned 16-day vacation at Mar-a-Lago, rage tweeting about everything from the wall to the Federal Reserve to Jim Mattis in between exposing the location and identities of Navy SEAL Team 5 and demanding Democrats end the shutdown he once said—just about two weeks ago—that he wouldn’t blame them for. On Thursday, though, he seemed to have found a silver lining to keeping the federal government partially closed:
Lawyers for President Donald Trump are invoking the government shutdown to seek a delay in a court case over claims that Trump is illegally profiting from business his Washington hotel does with foreign countries.