Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

Donald Trump and the Threat of Global Conflict – The Atlantic

In the opening days of his presidency, Donald Trump appears to be taking an unpredictable, albeit hawkish approach to foreign policy.

On Wednesday, his administration issued what seemed to be a threat to Iran. As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice, his national security adviser Michael Flynn declared during a White House press conference after denouncing a recent Iranian missile test launch. On Thursday, Trump echoed that statement on Twitter, saying: Iran has been formally PUT ON NOTICE for firing a ballistic missile.

Trump Begins to Chip Away at Banking Regulations

Reports have also surfaced of confrontational phone conversations between Trump and the prime minister of Australia, a key American ally, as well as between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull disputed claims that Trump had hung up on him on Thursday, describing the call as frank and forthright, while the Mexican government shot down reports that Trump threatened to send U.S. troops into Mexico.

Trump, however, seems intent on sending the message that its time for the United States to take a harder line with world leaders. When you hear about the tough phone calls Im having, dont worry about it, the president said on Thursday. We have to be tough. Its time were going to be a little tough, folks. Were taken advantage of by every nation in the word, virtually. Its not going to happen anymore.

To get a sense of the potential consequences of Trumps combative rhetoric, I spoke with Robert Jervis, a professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University and affiliate at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. A transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity and length, appears below.

Clare Foran: Lets start with the Trump administration's threat of putting Iran on notice. How much does threatening rhetoric matter, and does it matter more coming from a superpower like the United States?

Robert Jervis: It does matter. Think about how much of a price President Obama paid for saying there was a red line with respect to the Assad regimes use of chemical weapons in Syria, and then failing to back that up with the use of military force. Now, Im not arguing that Obama was unsuccessful. I think he actually was successful because the removal of chemical weapons from Syria ultimately went forward, which is what he wanted to achieve. But even so, there was a lot of harm done by his statement. People who served in his administration who also think the policy was a success admit they suffered around the world for the idea that he didnt live up to his threat, not to mention suffering bipartisan attacks in the United States. If you make a threat and then appear to have backed away from it, theres a price to be paid. Your threat is less likely to be believed next time.

Foran: What do you think might happen then if Iran decides to launch another ballistic missile test?

Jervis: So after Irans next missile test, and Im willing to believe there will be a next test, its going to be tough. The question becomes what is Trump going to do? It certainly could lead us down a path that does not end well. It could end with the United States isolated from our allies. It could end with the Trump administration backing down, and damaging its credibility, or it could end with the administration taking action that could eventually lead to military clashes with Iran.

Most likely, what the Trump administration might do is some kind of unilateral American economic sanctions that will upset our allies, not do enormous damage to the Iranian economy, and increase the chances that [current Iranian President] Rouhani will not be re-elected. That could be a big domino that could put the Iran nuclear deal in jeopardy.

Foran: What do you make of the reports that the Trump administration may be planning to impose sanctions on Iran as early as Friday in response to the missile test?

Jervis: Typically sanctions would be something that I would expect would be a retaliatory measure if Iran were to go ahead and conduct another test after the United States told them they were putting them on notice. It could be self-defeating to impose anything but very limited sanctions this quickly, because it suggests that the United States will retaliate no matter what Iran does. If that's the case, then it's not clear what incentive Iran would have to do what Trump wants. [For what its worth, the U.S. enacted sanctions targeting Iranian companies and individuals last January, which President Obama said were in response to Iranian missile testing.]

Foran: Trump has suggested that unpredictability can be advantageous in foreign policy since then our adversaries wont know what were going to do. What do you think of that?

Jervis: It is true that there could be some cases where being unpredictable could be advantageous. It might create an incentive for countries to want to get out of his way because they may be afraid of what he is capable of. Its possible that it could be a deterrent. I think the odds of this working, in the sense of getting Iran to give up missile tests, seem low, but its not impossible. They may decide to back off. Theres of course a slight chance that Mexico may be afraid of what Trump might do, and decide to pay for the wall, but I highly doubt it. Getting into a conflict with the U.S. would be very costly for other countries. We are the umpteen-pound gorilla in the room, and theres enormous harm and good we can do. In most cases, if countries can stay on the right side of the United States, they will probably hope that they can do it.

But on the other hand, many countries have a strong sense of nationalism and will not want to give into the United States. Getting into a conflict with the U.S. could be damaging to a country, but it could be still be beneficial to a leader who decides to do it because it might allow them to be seen as heroic within their own country. Unpredictability and scaring people could also backfire for Trump if countries feel that they are going come into conflict with Trump no matter what.

When you look at the reports that Trump was combative with the Australian prime minister, well the prime minister might walk away from that and say, Well, if hes just going to be aggressive and belligerent from the outset of this relationship no matter what we do, then why should we try to do what he wants? Similarly, the Iranians could decide that even if they didnt launch another missile test, Trump would just find another way to punish them. If punishment seems unavoidable, theres no point in trying to appease.

Foran: What do you think is more risky: The potential that the Trump administration could damage relationships with countries that have historically been our adversaries, or countries that have historically been our allies?

Jervis: Trump has talked about the idea that our allies dont carry their own weight, and that is absolutely true, they dont. But alliances are still absolutely central to defending our interests. American power in the world is enormously enhanced by good relations with significant alliance partners, and the alliances underpin a lot of the world order that keeps us relatively safe and prosperous.

And you cant disentangle our relationships with our allies from our relationships with our adversaries. If Trump, for example, pursues policies that most leaders around the world believe are imprudent with respect to a country like Iran, and that in turn alienates our allies, it could embolden our adversaries. If Im an adversary of the United States and Im confronted by America on its own, that is much less deterring than if Im confronted by a strong alliance. For some countries, that dynamic might even create an incentive to provoke the United States. If our adversaries think they can provoke Trump into taking action that will alienate Americas allies, that could ultimately benefit them, especially if it ultimately breaks up our alliances.

Foran: What would you say to reassure someone who is concerned about the potential for escalating conflict under this administration?

Jervis: The permanent bureaucracy of the United States government can create a check on presidential recklessness, though the president can get us into situations you cant easily get out of. Its also important to keep in mind there are many kinds of conflict, and there are many intermediary steps before arriving at armed military conflict. There are a whole range of much smaller events or actions that might take place, and that are much easier to imagine than full scale war. At the same time, any kind of conflict can have a high cost in and of itself, and can lead to further escalation.

View post:
Donald Trump and the Threat of Global Conflict - The Atlantic

Donald Trump’s undiplomatic diplomacy – CNN

Throughout his campaign, Trump hailed the virtues of being unpredictable on the world stage. Much to the happiness of some of his supporters, he's following through. But in the process, Trump is confusing much of the world. He's also handing some leaders, such as those in the United Kingdom and Mexico, political headaches of their own after encountering Trump.

"His style of diplomacy is very different from his recent predecessors," former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told CNN International's Hala Gorani Thursday. "He is much more in your face. I suppose the diplomacy of the rest of us is kind of going to have to get used to that."

Michael Fullilove, the executive director of the Lowy Institute, a top Australian think-tank, said that while the US-Australia alliance would remain strong in the aftermath of the tense phone call, Trump's approach would inevitably have an impact.

"It's a level of discourtesy that we don't expect," he said. "It will continue to inform the Australian public's view of Mr. Trump. I think inevitably it would inform public opinion about the alliance."

Trump seems to view diplomacy through the prism of a business transaction, where there are winners and losers and a belief that even allies can take advantage of the US.

His foreign policy thinking -- at least so far -- appears to be focusing more on the mechanics of individual national relationships and less on a strategic vision in which allies are a vehicle for expressing US power and influence around the globe.

The President's phone call with Australian Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull went off the rails when discussion turned to a deal concluded by former President Barack Obama to allow 1,250 refugees from an offshore detention center to come to the United States.

Trump tweeted Thursday that the deal was "dumb," even though his press secretary, Sean Spicer, has said the US would honor the agreement and despite the President's order to temporarily halt all refugees from entering the country.

The President was still fulminating about the deal by Thursday afternoon.

"I just said why?... Why are we doing this? What's the purpose?" Trump told reporters. "We have wonderful allies and we're going to keep it that way but we need to be treated fairly also."

Trump's decision to question the deal has rattled relations with Australia, a crucial pillar of US Asia-Pacific strategy, a member of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement and an ally that has battled alongside the United States dating back to World War I.

Sen. John McCain, who fought with Australians in Vietnam, took it upon himself to smooth over relations on Thursday following Trump's showdown with Turnbull, telephoning Australia's ambassador to Washington.

"This in my view was unnecessary and frankly, harmful," the Arizona Republican said, adding that the dispute was far less important than cooperation, including joint training missions involving US Marines in the northern Australian city of Darwin.

Senior Democrats were also disturbed by the argument.

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine said to have a "contentious conversation and name call (a) country or the Prime Minister of a country that is one of our greatest allies in Asia is foolish."

"He is doing kind of amateur hour stuff on matters of significant national importance," said Kaine, who was the 2016 Democratic vice presidential nominee.

Foreign policy experts said the US-Australia relationship remains too strong to be damaged. But the spat will be seen by other foreign leaders as a lesson in the difficulty of dealing with Trump.

British Prime Minister Theresa May found out that leaders who align themselves with Trump can get burned. The President didn't tell her he was signing an executive order restricting travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries soon after she left the White House last Friday, exposing her to a torrent of political criticism back home.

Despite anodyne government readouts, there were also hints of tension in Trump's weekend call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whom the President has criticized for welcoming Syrian refugees.

Her office said Merkel "explained" to Trump that the Geneva Conventions require nations to offer a haven from refugees fleeing war.

But Trump is unapologetic about the bracing conversations he is having with world leaders -- a sign the White House is more concerned about Trump projecting a strong image on the world stage than stepping on diplomatic toes.

"The world is in trouble, but we're going to straighten it out. OK? That's what I do. I fix things. We're going to straighten it out," Trump said at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday. "Believe me. When you hear about the tough phone calls I'm having, don't worry about it. Just don't worry about it. They're tough. We have to tough ... We're taken advantage of by every nation in the world virtually. It's not going to happen anymore."

Trump's pugnacious approach to diplomacy is not surprising given his personality, which he used to great effect in his business career. While his attitude dismays foreign policy elites, it's likely to be welcomed by voters who turned to him in search of strong leadership and see his encounters as a manifestation of his "America First" philosophy.

But several diplomats have said Trump's acute course corrections in foreign policy and blunt manner make it difficult to decipher exactly where the United States now stands on key global issues.

Getting tough with America's friends also represents a break from previous administrations where disagreements often erupted but were not litigated in public. The White House may find in future that creating political problems for friendly leaders will make it more difficult for them to compromise with Washington or even to send troops to help fight America's wars.

"We have an unwritten rule in diplomacy, you are going to argue with your friends but do it behind closed doors, don't expose differences, in public," Nicholas Burns, a longtime US diplomat and former under secretary of state for political affairs, told CNN International. "Don't make life difficult for your friends, the Prime Minister of Australia, the Chancellor of Germany, the President of Mexico."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker, meanwhile, suggested Trump's approach was not surprising given his history in business. But, he said, it could evolve.

"Business people tend to go straight at a problem. I mean, that's kind of the world that they have lived in," Corker said, adding that he had discussed the issue with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who also comes from the business world. "These relationships that are built through years, they matter and are important as opposed to dealing with the CEO of a company, you're dealing with a country and you've got popular opinion within that country and so it's important to in that context understand the importance of those things."

Go here to read the rest:
Donald Trump's undiplomatic diplomacy - CNN

Will This Man Take Down Donald Trump? – POLITICO Magazine

I like you. You and me, were going to be best friends.

It is early January, and Eric Schneiderman is sitting in his 25th-floor office above Lower Manhattan, doing his best Donald Trump impression, puckering his lips into a duck face, scrunching up his nose and lowering his voice into something that resembles the presidents outer-borough growl.

Story Continued Below

Schneiderman is recalling his meeting with Trump in 2010. Back then, Schneiderman was running for attorney general of New York, and Trump was still in his pre-birther, reality TV host phase. Trump had donated money to one of Schneidermans opponents in the Democratic primary. Schneiderman managed to pull off a come-from-behind victory, and after the race, he went to Trump Tower to ask for a donation for the general election. Trump coughed up $12,500 to the Democrat, and Schneiderman went on to beat his Republican opponent and win.

But Trump and Schneiderman did not become best friends. That meeting was the beginning of a long and increasingly bitter saga between the two. Schneiderman took up the states existing case against Trump UniversityNew York wanted the school to drop the university from its name, since it was not chartered as an institution of higher learning and lacked a license to offer instructionand as he pursued it over the next five years, he became the target of a relentless series of personal attacks from the Trump camp. Trump filed an ethics complaint alleging that Schneiderman offered to drop the suit in exchange for donations; he went on television to denounce Schneiderman as a hack and a lightweight, and said he was wasting millions of taxpayer dollars when he should have been going after Wall Street. (Never mind that Schneiderman had already been declared the man the banks fear most by the liberal magazine The American Prospect.) The whole scorched-earth strategy towards those who would challenge him, we got a preview of, says Schneiderman.

Schneiderman is a slender, slightly built former corporate lawyer, the only son of a New York philanthropist whose last names adorns several city cultural institutions. One never senses from him the kind of comfort and ease that people from his position tend to radiate, but rather a twitchy impatience, as if the vein on his forehead is going to pop while he busts some of the high-priced glassware in the political china shop. In the six years after he won that race, Schneiderman has emerged as perhaps the lefty medias favorite lawyer, tangling with mortgage bankers, ExxonMobil, and national retailers like Abercrombie & Fitch, J Crew and The Gap. And on November 9, he was handed what might become his largest target when Donald Trump, his longtime nemesis, was elected president.

The Trump University suit eventually was settled for $25 million days after the election, despite the then president-elects repeated pledges never to settle. Schneiderman could have left it at that. But Schneiderman has let it be known that Trump is still in his crosshairs. In the days since November 9, Schneiderman fired off a letter warning Trump not to drop White House support of Obamas Clean Power Plan, introduced a bill in the state Legislature to give New Yorkers cost-free contraception if the Affordable Care Act is dismantled, threatened to sue after Trump froze EPA funding of clean air and water programs, and joined a lawsuit that argues that Trumps executive order on immigration is not just unconstitutional and un-America, but it brings profound harm to the residents of New York State.

He has a record of going not only after Trump, but going after people now in Trumpworld. Hes on the opposite side of the Clean Power Plan fight from Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, since named head of the EPA, and who Schneiderman labeled a dangerous and unqualified choice. Hes gone after Rex Tillerson, who as CEO of ExxonMobil defended his company from a Schneiderman investigation; since the election hes begun investigating a reverse-mortgage business once led by Steven Mnuchin, the nominee to be the next Treasury secretary.

Trump listens as Trump University president Michael Sexton introduces him at a news conference in New York where he announced the establishment of Trump University in May 2005. | AP Photo

Schneiderman doesnt think that the fact he has already appeared in court against Trump necessarily prepares him for what is about to come, but he has little doubt that something will come. Congress remains in Republican hands, and for the foreseeable future looks unwilling to provide much in the way of a check or a balance on the presidency. Governors and mayors can scream and protest, but beyond setting an example for other policymakers, the effect of their actions will be limited to their constituents.

Schneiderman, though, effectively leads a law firm of more than 650 lawyers, one with a two-decade tradition of taking its fights national. Now he faces an administration in Washington that is not just pro-fraud, as former Maine Attorney General James Tierney put it, but one helmed by someone very used to using the courts to get his way. Hes not playing hide the ball, Schneiderman said when asked about what he learned about the new president from his earlier tangle with him. Hes not that different offstage from how he is on stage. This is him. He is a complicated guy in some respects, but he is used to making his own rules and he plays a very aggressive game. When he wants to get something done he will use every tool at his disposal.

If Governor Eliot Spitzer became known as the sheriff of Wall Street, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo vowed to clean up Albany and become the sheriff of State Street, Schneiderman could very much become the next sheriff of Pennsylvania Avenue.

***

Schneiderman had seen dirty pool in his years as the states chief law enforcement officer, but his fight with the Trump Organization was, he says, on the outer edge of normal.

Two years into Schneidermans investigation of Trump University, Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against the company with charges of fraud; Trump himself retaliated by filing a complaint against the AG with the New York State board of ethics. He alleged that Schneiderman and his aides several times approached Trump, his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner for a contribution and for the aid of their influence and celebrity status to secure other favors and preferential treatment in furtherance of Mr. Schneidermans political aspirations. Schneiderman also promised several times to make sure that the messy investigation into Trump University went away, according to the complaint.

In an interview, Schneiderman says that nothing of the sort happened, and, in fact that after assuming office, he was expressly outlawed from soliciting Trump, since the developer was involved in all sorts of litigation with the state. Trumps complaint was dismissed, but it was just one piece of a larger counteroffensive. We got a preview of what everyone else got a few years later, Schneiderman says.

Some of the assault came via Twitter: Lightweight NYS Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is trying to extort me with a civil lawsuit, Trump tweeted in August 2013. When Schneiderman toured Syracuse University that month with President Barack Obama to promote low-interest college loans, Trump went on Good Morning America and The Today Show to accuse Obama of paying Schneiderman off to take the suit. That fall, a new website appeared, 98percentapproval.com, that said on its homepage that it was created to bring to the publics attention the gross incompetence of New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman. The domain was registered by Trumps attorneys.

A screen-grab of the anti-Schneiderman website 98percentapproval.com.

Perhaps most remarkably, in February of 2014, Schneiderman was the target of a lengthy, ferocious cover story in the New York Observer the newspaper owned by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushnerpublished in the midst of the dispute. The headline read, The Power and Politics of AG Schneiderman: Will Righteous Eric bag big prey? Or will Reckless Eric come undone? and it portrayed the attorney general as the Malcolm McDowell character from A Clockwork Orangean unredeemed sadist in too much eye makeup. (The eye makeup was a specific dig at his appearance: The attorney general takes a glaucoma medication that makes his lashes appear thicker and darker than normal.) The article itself was a thinly sourced anti-Schneiderman op-ed, 7,200 words long, that spent almost half of its pages defending Trump. The story became a bit of tantalizing New York media gossip when it was revealed that the famously under-resourced society paper spent eight months on the story, and its editor, a Kushner family loyalist, had found the manager of an ice cream shop in suburban New Jersey without a single previous byline to report and write it. (The ice cream shop manager, it should be noted, eventually begged off when the story seemed too much like a hit piece, and The Observer found someone more credentialed to do it.)

By November 2016, it seemed as though Schneiderman would have Trump all to himself. Polls showed the reality TV star losing the presidential race, and he looked set to return to New York, where liberals were prodding Schneiderman to make his return to private life miserable. There was the ongoing litigation involving Trump University, which Trump pledged to never settle, and a new investigation of the Trump Foundation.

Then came November 8. Schneiderman had spent the evening at various VIP suites at the Hillary Clinton election night party, when it started becoming clear that his tormentor was not only not returning as a constituent, but was about to become the leader of the free world. A Democratic official turned to one of Schneidermans aides and said: I guess its going to be up to you guys now.

The next morning, as the offices lawyers stumbled into work in a fog of exhaustion and worry, Schneiderman called a meeting. In the room were his senior staff and some of the bureau chiefs. There were tears. There were lawyers who couldnt believe that Donald TrumpDonald Trump!was about to become the next president of the United States. Schneiderman urged calm. Dont just rush out and do. Take a deep breath, he told them. Let the moment wash over you. We cant do everything at once, so prioritize. We are going to have to do morenot with less, necessarily, but with no greater resources.

The New York Observer's Clockwork Orange-themed presentation of the anti-Schneiderman piece.

Schneiderman ordered a top-to-bottom review of all his offices outstanding business with the U.S. Department of Justice, both for and against, expecting that in the former cases that the federal government would be likely to switch sides, which would mean a loss of resources and knowledge-sharing. Another mission was to prepare rearguard actions to protect New Yorkers against whatever onslaught might come from Washington, including laying out new sanctuary city guidelines, and possible responses if the administration defunded Planned Parenthood or the EPA. They also began to lay the groundwork to fill in as regulators in areas where the federal government might stop enforcing laws already on the books, from labor laws, to securities regulation, to clean water and clear air enforcement. And he began to free up staff for what the attorney generals office refers to internally as Bet The House Litigationthe kind of thing that would require a massive redeployment of the offices resources, such as fighting a Muslim registry, or blocking an executive order to reinstitute some kind of stop-and-frisk program.

It was becoming clearer to liberal America in the days after the election that any real resistance to Trump would have to come from the states, especially those that went big for Clinton. At David Brocks post-election donor retreat in Florida, former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm introduced Schneiderman as the dean of progressive AGs. He made the rounds on CNN and MSNBC and was singled out for praise from Mark Ruffalo and The Nations Katrina Vanden Heuvel. And he traveled around the state, appearing at town halls with grass-roots activists where he urged them not to despair. They were in the early stages of a new movement for civil rights, he said, and would prevail in the end.

Its not just a question of blocking Trumps policies: Schneiderman is one of the names that arises when it comes to the great liberal dream: finding something in Trumps web of conflicts that prohibits him from serving out the remainder of his term. That Trump was a resident of New York and until recently ran his businesses thereand still owns those businesseswould appear to give Schneiderman a big target. Plus, in September, in the heat of the election, Schneiderman announced that he was beginning an investigation into the Trump Foundation for, among other things, using foundation money to make a donation to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi soon after she announced that her office would not investigate Trump University. After the election, Trump attempted to dissolve the charity as part of his transition, and Schneiderman ordered him not to. The investigation is continuing.

Earlier this week, Schneiderman appeared on a call-in radio show on a New York City public radio station when a caller asked whether any of Schneidermans investigations could lead to Trumps eventual impeachment. The attorney general demurred, saying he doubted that anything related to Trumps foundation or his university would rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

There are a lot of reports of egregious acts hes taken in the course of his business: his sexual assaults and other thingsthats all fair game, he added. Were notyou know, were not out to get Mr. Trump. Were just out to enforce the law. And if hes broken New York law, we will enforce the law.

When I visited Schneidermans office last month, I asked him a version of that same questionwhether Trumps tangled business interests, many of which were housed within a few miles of where we were sitting, meant that the attorney general of New York had a particular role to play in investigating the president. On his desk, between a tiny Buddha figurine, a bumper sticker reading ASSUME NOTHING and a handful of other files, was a report from the Brookings Institution on the Emoluments Clause, a once obscure constitutional provision that prohibits federal officeholders from accepting gifts from foreign states.

I dont want to get ahead of myself, but we are so far off the map in terms of any litigation that has taken place, Schneiderman said, waving around a copy of the report. We are not dealing with case law here. What are the examples you got of violations of this? Oh, American emissaries to the Court of Louis XVI were tortured and he bestowed on Benjamin Franklin a snuff box bearing the royal portrait ofI mean, this is the precedent? I dont want to overstate what I can do.

***

Nationally, Schneiderman is taking advantage of something of an empowerment wave among state AGs. Over the past few years, the network of Democratic attorneys general has become more cohesive and more professionalized. In 2014, a number of other Democratic AGs decided that they wanted the group to become on par politically with the Democratic Governors Association, or the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They hired Sean Rankin, a DC-based political consultant as executive director and hired a staff of a dozen.

Though Schneiderman has served only since 2011, he is now one of the more senior Democratic attorneys general in the countrythe Obama years werent kind to statewide Democratic officeholdersand he has been organizing his more left-leaning counterparts into something like a cohesive force, recently meeting with Josh Shapiro, the newly minted attorney general of Pennsylvania, Xavier Becerra of California and Maura Healey of Massachusetts to plot strategy. Because the office is so large, and because New Yorkers have come to expect an activist attorney general, New York is often the lead state when the group drafts a letter to Congress or files an amicus brief, a strategy that allows him to shape the direction the group goes in.

People who knew Schneiderman from his days in the New York State Senate, where he represented the ultra-liberal Upper West Side, wouldnt exactly have picked him as a unifying force. In fact, he was almost immediately so disliked by his colleagues that Republicans and Democrats alike redrew him into a 55 percent Latino district that stretched through West Harlem and Washington Heights. He learned Spanish, won reelection anyway and served for 10 more years in the Legislature. But the reputation of not playing well with others has been one he hasnt quite been able to shake. It was solidified when he refused to join the Obama administrations 2011 mortgage settlement, one that 49 other AGs had already signed off on, instead holding out for more money and a less forgiving deal. In the end, the settlement broke his wayhis intransigence helped win another $6 billion and a tougher agreementand Obama named Schneiderman to co-lead a commission investigating the banks.

When speaking with other attorneys general around the country, it is possible to pick up on a slight air of resentment that Schneidermans proximity to New York City television studios grant him a larger audience than he would otherwise receive. But in the Trump era, with a White House run by an aggressive, take-no-prisoners rule-breaker, his style suddenly looks like an asset. Its a New Yorker thingthe brashness, the sharp elbows, said an aide to another attorney general. Its hard not to notice the atmospherics when he takes on Trump.

Through the new national AG network, the New York attorney generals office was able to jump out quickly last week with a statement co-signed by 15 other state AGs when Trumps Muslim ban went into effect at the airports. Schneidermans office had been preparing for just such a momentit was why Schneiderman offered guidance to sanctuary cities after the election on how to handle any moves by the new administrationand worked through the weekend with AGs around the country on how to react. In the letter, which called the measure unconstitutional and un-American, Schneiderman demanded that the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Enforcement release the names of anyone being held. He then went on CBS This Morning to accuse the administration of unleashing chaos and not being forthcoming about the number of people detained at airports around the nation. The actual lawsuit, however, was filed by the attorney general of Oregon, hoping to get a better hearing in the 9th Circuit on the West Coast. (Similarly, the Connecticut attorney general struck first after the inauguration, taking the lead on a lawsuit defending the constitutionality of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, a strategy on the part of Democratic AGs to share manpower and resources.)

At a post-election town hall, Schneiderman said his immediate role after the election was in talking people off the ledge. If there is a sanguinity to him these days, it is because Schneiderman sees this as a moment when Democrats can at last learn the lessons that Republicans have internalized over the past 70 years: that the real power in the Constitution lies in the states. The long-term political project he envisions is building a progressive grass-roots answer to what the right has been building for decadesnot in the halls of Washington, but in sexy towns like Tallahassee and Columbus and Madison and Albany. That last one is instructive. New Yorks state Senate remains in Republican hands, largely because a rogue group of centrist Democrats caucus with them, a group propped up by Cuomo, a longtime foil of the attorney general and of liberals throughout New York.

We have to be a lot tougher. We have to be as demanding of our elected officials as conservatives are of theirs, Schneiderman told an audience in the weeks after the election. Nice words are not enough anymore. You have to deliver rewards. If you cant deliver rewards on climate, on human rights, on protecting immigrants, on unwinding our failed experiment in mass incarceration, well, we love you and we will help you find another job, but right now, we have to find someone else that can do the job.

Schneiderman has consistently denied that he is running for governor, a denial that seems to have helped smooth over the relationship between him and Cuomo and given Schneiderman more room to operate. When he talks of tossing the party-changers out of the temple, though, he certainly sounds like someone with political ambition.

The New York AGs office is known as a springboard for the ambitious, and In New York political circles the knock on Schneiderman has been that hes slightly underplayed his hand there, retreating after the mortgage case in 2011 and 2012 and keeping quiet even if notching up victories. Hes been perfectly fine if not spectacular, said one local political operative close to him. We are used to seeing Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo in that office, and he just hasnt risen to that level yet. In part, this is because Cuomo made it clear early on that he didnt want anyone to upstage him in Albany, creating a new office dedicated to regulating financial services and installing a close ally to help run it. The two battled for the early part of Schneidermans tenure, but the feud has cooled in recent years as Cuomo has turned his attention to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Schneiderman has also had to work alongside a crusading U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, a charismatic presence who has used his office to target exactly the kind financial and political bad actors that both Spitzer and Cuomo made life difficult for. And in part, this is because of circumstances--both Spitzer and Cuomo spent the bulk of their time battling a Justice Department helmed by George Bush appointees. I think he is probably as good a lawyer as they have had in that office in a long time, said Tierney, But you just dont get the kind of splashy cases with an Obama presidency. Democratic AGs are going to largely agree with his agencies and his Department of Justice.

***

All of that changes now. What Schneiderman can doone state AG, or even a number of state AGsagainst the leader of the right-populist wave in the White House remains to be seen. On the policy level, lawyers in his office are confident that so much of what Trump has proposed so far is so poorly written, and even more poorly thought out, that it opens itself up to all kinds of lawsuits.

We dont know what the legal consequences are yet of a lot of these executive orders, said Healy, the attorney general of Massachusetts and a close Schneiderman ally. But we do know that you are going to see a federal administration that is going to be rolling back consumer protections, labor protections, environmental protections, and looking to dismantle rights that have been put in place. The way you address that is you uphold the law through the courts, and that is the job of state AGs right now.

Among Schneidermans New York troops, there is the unmistakable sense of suddenly fighting on new terrain. The office feels like it is in the middle of campaign season, with the other side rolling out a series of unpredictable attacks over the course of the week, leaving New York to figure which to fight back on and how. Applications for new positions have soared, even from private-sector lawyers willing to forgo hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay to help take on Trump.

We are the backstop, added Alvin Bragg, a top deputy in the office. The system is set up in a certain way, that if the federal government doesnt do certain things, we have to step up and push back. If they leave things wide open, we have to step into the void.

At a standing room-only town hall in midtown Manhattan weeks after election, Schneiderman sounded like someone ready to lead the charge. Although few probably wanted to hear it, he painted a picture of an election that amounted to a clarifying moment for the left: it was time to clean out its hidebound notions and some of its own slow-moving elected officials.

We are facing a crisis, not over conservative or liberal, but a crisis over whether or not the rule of law is respected or not, over whether the Constitution is respected or not, and whether the central American notion of equal justice under the law and that everyone be treated with dignity and equality and fairnessall that is at issue now, he told the crowd.

But dont despair, he hastened to add. There is good news, too: Those who were asleep, he said, are now awake.

The crowd loved it, nodding along, cheering and clapping at Schneiderman's urging. He left as soon as his speech was over, but everyone else stayed behind. The real work, it seemed, had not yet begun.

David Freedlander is senior political correspondent with The Daily Beast. Follow him on Twitter @Freedlander.

Read the original:
Will This Man Take Down Donald Trump? - POLITICO Magazine

Donald Trump and Lawmakers Confer on Imports and Tax Code – New York Times

Donald Trump and Lawmakers Confer on Imports and Tax Code
New York Times
WASHINGTON President Trump, at loggerheads with congressional Republicans over the best way to overhaul the tax code, may have come toward Capitol Hill on a key sticking point, the way imports should be taxed, after a meeting at the White House on ...

and more »

Read this article:
Donald Trump and Lawmakers Confer on Imports and Tax Code - New York Times

Donald Trump plans to undo Dodd-Frank law, fiduciary rule – Fox News

PresidentDonald Trumpon Friday plans to sign an executive action to scale back the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law, in a sweeping plan to dismantle much of the regulatory system put in place after the financial crisis.

Trump also plans another executive action aimed at rolling back a controversial regulation scheduled to take effect in April that critics have said would upend the retirement-account advisory business.

Americans are going to have better choices and Americans are going to have better products because were not going to burden the banks with literally hundreds of billions of dollars of regulatory costs every year,White House National Economic Council DirectorGary Cohn said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. The banks are going to be able to price product more efficiently and more effectively to consumers.

Trump will use a memorandum to ask the labor secretary to consider rescinding a rule set to go into effect in April that orders retirement advisers, overseeing about $3 trillion in assets, to act in the best interest of their clients, Cohn said in the White House interview. He said the rule limits consumer choice.

Trump also will sign an executive order that directs the Treasury secretary and financial regulators to come up with a plan to revise rules the Dodd-Frank law put in place.

Click for more from The Wall Street Journal

More here:
Donald Trump plans to undo Dodd-Frank law, fiduciary rule - Fox News