Connect with us


EU chaos, division over Trump travel ban




Donald Trump’s travel ban on nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries sparked confusion, division and consternation in European capitals Monday, as officials scrambled to explain the implications for EU citizens.

U.S. embassies across Europe advised which the ban would affect citizens who will be dual nationals from the affected countries – effectively banning a large number of EU citizens from the bloc’s biggest global ally.

But for the reason that European Commission said Monday it’s receiving “conflicting” here is how the ban could well be implemented, the U.K. – already heading for the EU exit door – risked further dismay in Brussels, Paris and Berlin by stealing a march and securing what Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson named a specific “exception” through the ban for U.K. passport holders with dual nationality. Speaking in the home of Commons Monday evening, he referred to as the concession the fruits of “working closely with all the Trump administration.”

Appointments cancelled

The U.K. exemption was secured in message or calls between Johnson and senior White House advisors Sunday, the state run from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said. It was announced that same day and won generous newspaper headlines for your foreign secretary from the right-leaning Daily Telegraph and Sun newspapers.

“This order was signed on Holocaust Memorial Day. As a history, for heaven’s sake contain the guts to speak out” – British Labour MP Yvette Cooper

But suddenly on Monday, the FCO’s own interpretation of Trump’s guidance started look misguided, at best, particularly its report that “if you’re a dual citizen one of them [seven affected] countries visiting the U.S. external those countries than the order doesn’t apply to you.”?Advice subsequently issued within the websites of U.S. embassies working in, Berlin together with other European capitals asserted all nationals and dual nationals of your seven affected countries must not submit an application for visas on the U.S.

In London, the top minister’s official spokesman was caught unprepared via the new advice Monday morning within a daily briefing with journalists, who alerted him to barefoot jogging since it came through in their Twitter feeds. Meanwhile the ecu Commission admitted it was receiving “conflicting” info on the how the ban had been implemented.

Germany’s interior ministry said hello believed the ban could pertain to up to a whopping 130,000 Germans with dual nationality, including about 80,000 German-Iranians. The U.S. embassy in Berlin posted a bulletin on Facebook, instructing dual nationals to not generate a visa appointment, in wording comparable to that suited for the U.S. embassy in London’s website.

    “If you already possess a session scheduled, don’t ATTEND your appointment when we will not be able to proceed together with your visa interview,” the notice said.

    France’s foreign ministry has additionally asserted “several” dual nationality French citizens was affected directly because of the ban on January 29, without having to say how or where.

    Margaritis Schinas, the Commission’s spokesman, was reduced to non-specific assurances how the Commission would “analyze” Trump’s executive order “to understand how they are able to have an effect to EU nationals, a thing that just isn’t clear.”

    The confusion on to the ground in Europe seemed to originate from a disconnect in Washington regarding the White House additionally, the State Department, with Johnson’s guidance from the former, as well as the U.S. embassy’s in the latter.

    EU Migration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos was reported by Euractiv to generally be considering calling the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to elucidate the matter.?A European Commission spokeswoman told Newsman: “In the context within the travel ban, there will be touching the U.S. administration, but we can’t concur that a telephone call requires place.”

    Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said Monday she was consulting European partners and pledged to defend the interests of the German citizens traveling to the U.S.

    Some clarity in London

    But the fog lifted, in the uk at least, as Johnson came to the House of Commons chamber to update MPs for the situation Monday evening.

    The foreign secretary joined the chorus of condemnation to your measures, expressing the U.K. government’s “anxiety about measures that discriminate on grounds of nationality in ways which are divisive and wrong.”

    Prime Minister Theresa May was branded “Theresa the appeaser” by Labour MP Mike Gapes.

    But to murmurs of approval from the Conservative benches, he confirmed that “all British passport holders” remained here you are at travel to the U.S knowning that no matter what country of birth or dual nationality, Trump’s executive order wouldn’t normally affect Britons.

    “Because with the energetic action of your government – likely to exception for U.K. passport holders whether dual nationals or elsewhere,” Johnson said. “I think most fair minded people would claim that shows some great benefits of working closely with all the Trump administration-to receive the vital protections for UK passport holders that any of us need.”

    In heated exchanges Johnson received pressure for that government’s close embrace in the Trump administration.

    Labour MP Yvette Cooper, who chairs your property affairs select committee, declared that the ban was “not basically the impact on British citizens.”

    “Has he urged the U.S. administration to lift this order, to help you refugees in order to stop targeting Muslims?” she asked Johnson, before adding, her voice shaking with emotion, “This order was signed on Holocaust Memorial Day. In the interests of history, for heaven’s sake possess the guts to speak out.”

    Prime Minister Theresa May, meanwhile, who had been criticized by MPs over the past weekend for neglecting to condemn the travel ban despite repeated questions about Saturday, was branded “Theresa the appeaser” by Labour MP Mike Gapes. Dennis Skinner, the firebrand Labour veteran, being blunter in the 1930s comparisons, branding Trump a “fascist.”

    Nahal Toosi in Washington resulted in the next few paragraphs.


    Black caucus chairman pushes to censure Trump over ‘shithole’ remark





    Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Cedric Richmond on Thursday introduced a solution to censure President Donald Trump over what he contends would be the president\’s racist rhetoric referring to El Salvador, Haiti and African nations as \”shithole countries.\”

    The resolution – who has much more than 130 co-sponsors, including House Democratic leaders – calls over the House to publicly state its support for any nations Trump disparaged, censure and condemn the president for his statements, and demand he retract his comments and apologize.

    Story Continued Below

    At a news conference announcing the resolution alongside House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) as well as other Democrats, Richmond (D-La.) said Trump\’s controversial comments \”should have not been made\” and \”were factually inaccurate.\”

    Richmond conceded, however, the resolution isn\’t \”privileged,\” meaning House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) might need to say yes to carry it in order with the chamber to keep a vote. It\’s almost certain Ryan will not likely do this.

    \”If he doesn\’t, we then will be at other ways to just make a vote on there,\” Richmond told reporters. \”But the facts from the matter is definitely the speaker should bring it up. In the event that he doesn\’t, establishing is enabling and recurring to allow obama to perpetuate this hateful rhetoric, as well as at certain point – whether you agree or disagree – I believe this is the speaker\’s obligation to safeguard the dignity of the property.\”

    If Ryan will not allow a vote, Richmond said he among others would hunt for “creative” strategies to force one.

    Like most Republican leaders, Ryan hasn\’t said much for the president\’s reported comments, though he did acknowledge the other day that they are \”very unfortunate\” and \”unhelpful.\” For Richmond, however, that wasn\’t enough.

    \”It\’s unfortunate when I miss my bus. Or it\’s unfortunate in the event the airlines lose my luggage,\” he was quoted saying. \”But when the president of america decides to Africa, Haiti and El Salvador which he used, which isn\’t unfortunate. That is wrong. That\’s disgusting. That is definitely hurtful. There are a variety of words because of it, but unfortunate\’s undertake and don\’t.\”

    Continue Reading


    Ryan's 2017 fundraising haul: $44 million





    House Speaker Paul Ryan raised more than $44 million in 2017, an off-year record to get a House leader – a financial haul Republicans hope will shore up vulnerable GOP members in what\’s shaping up to often be a tough midterm cycle for Republicans.

    In a final quarter, Ryan raised $4.8 million, his political operation will announce Thursday – down from $6.7 million during the third quarter.

    Story Continued Below

    The infusion of greenbacks is a follower of Republicans passed a tax reform law last December, which GOP members said would drive support among voters and donors. But also in 2018, Republicans must defend its 24-seat majority spanning a broad battlefield, while President Donald Trump\’s approval ratings stay in the bottom 40s and Democrats hold a broad bring success the generic ballot. Nearly 24 retirements, including California Reps. Ed Royce and Darrell Issa latest research by, will force Republicans to invest more heavily to protect these open seats.

    In 2017, Ryan transferred $32 million to the National Republican Campaign Committee, which announced a unique record-breaking off-year total with $85 million raised in the last year. Ryan also transferred $1.7 million on to GOP members, as well as hosting 49 fundraisers for members.

    "This eye-popping number is usually a testament to Speaker Ryan, House Republicans, as well as the agenda them to led your strugle on in 2017," said Kevin Seifert, executive director of Team Ryan, the speaker\’s fundraising committee.

    Continue Reading


    Bannon won't testify again on Russia Thursday





    Former White House adviser Steve Bannon declined House Russia investigators\’ request to go back for a second interview Thursday, telling lawmakers through his lawyer their own obtain him to go back just 2 days after his first appearance was "unreasonable."

    "The Committee\’s subpoena provides require Mr. Bannon\’s appearance for that second deposition [Thursday] at 2pm. That may be plainly insufficient time for me to undertake precisely what the Committee has asked," Bannon\’s attorney William Burck wrote within a Wednesday letter to store intelligence committee leaders obtained by POLITICO.

    Story Continued Below

    Instead, Burck told committee leaders that the former senior aide to President Donald Trump would return after reaching an accommodation when using the White House to make sure his testimony doesn\’t violate executive privilege.

    On Tuesday, Bannon-citing instructions from your Trump administration-refused to reply Republican and Democrats\’ questions on his amount of the White House, the post-election transition team and in some cases about his conversations with the president after he was fired from his post in August. His stonewalling infuriated persons in both parties, who subpoenaed him immediately. But despite the subpoena, Bannon declined to reply to their questions.

    Burck\’s letter told the committee\’s top Russia investigators, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), that Bannon remains ready to answer the committee\’s questions-but after striking an understanding together with the White House while on an acceptable scope of questioning.

    "There isn\’t any conceivable solution to talk to the White House Mr. Bannon\’s time using the transition and also the White House, obtain their thoughts about the knowledge he previously provide, communicate those views back to the Committee, relay the Committee\’s views time for the White House, and then negotiate or facilitate a binding agreement amongst the Committee along with the White House from the time allotted by the Committee\’s subpoena," Burck wrote.

    Committee members at the moment are weighing calling hold Bannon in contempt of Congress for avoiding their questions. They\’ve noted that White House lawyers haven\’t formally invoked executive privilege-they just have suggested that Bannon\’s testimony might implicate it.

    White House officials have argued that it is customary for Congress to coordinate the scope of the questions with current and former officials to stop violating privileged information.

    But GOP and Democratic lawmakers have questioned this argument, suggesting they see no reasonable interpretation of executive privilege that might preclude Bannon from discussing his time over the transition team, that is before Trump was president.

    Burck indicated that the committee didn\’t have use of White House and transition documents that has to be relevant precursors to the questions for Bannon and suggested lawmakers and Bannon would require time for them to produce them and review them before Bannon\’s next interview.

    "There are lots of lawyers over the Committee plus the Staff, and i also could well be surprised as long as they believed it becomes anything in addition to unprofessional even unethical should be expected to depose a witness that has did not have possibility for review relevant documents," he said.

    Burck also indicated a potential disconnect between committee staff and lawmakers. He revealed that he had informed the employees of the committee, chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the White House "may not permit Mr. Bannon to discuss his in time the transition and the White House unless an accommodation was agreed between your Committee plus the White House."

    "Staff raised no objection to the telltale restrictions in any of such conversations," he said. "The main objection came yesterday within the Members who appear not to have been informed by Staff about our prior conversations."

    Continue Reading


    Copyright © 2019