White House Correspondents' Dinner in Trouble as Trump Scares Off Hollywood Stars and Media

"I see it as a huge opportunity for a comedian to do something interesting," says Larry Wilmore, who headlined 2016's dinner, as the host gig goes unfilled and MSNBC mulls canceling its party amid the president's press war.

Flame-retardant formalwear might be in order for the first White House Correspondents' Association Dinner with Donald Trump. The president's media war and initial policy moves are recasting Washington's premier social event as a radioactive hot potato that few Hollywood stars or media outlets want to touch.
President Trump is expected to attend the April 29 event at the Washington Hilton. But others are bailing on the festivities this year. Sources tell THR the casts of the D.C.-set House of Cards, Veep and Scandal likely will not attend (all have had a presence during the Obama years), while the WHCA has yet to secure a comedian headliner, as is customary by February. Many media organizations are waffling on their usual plans for the weekend. It's unclear whether MSNBC will host its traditional afterparty, an event known for anchor and amateur mixologist Rachel Maddow tending the bar. Also unknown is whether Funny or Die will host its Friday night kickoff party. Already, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker — both of whose editors have been critical of Trump — have pulled out of the festivities. (Bloomberg, which co-sponsors the Vanity Fair event, will go it alone.)
CBS News and The Atlantic are moving forward with their predinner cocktail reception, and CNN — a frequent Trump target — still is planning to have its Sunday brunch. A CNN source tells THR that it will have a similar presence at the dinner; in years past, the network has purchased close to a dozen tables. It's unclear whether CNN Worldwide president Jeff Zucker will attend.

..........the source

Read More

How Trump Will Bury Pro-Retiree DOL Rule

You have a fighting chance to save enough for retirement if you keep your investment costs low and savings rate high. There are few, simpler ways of meeting your goals.
Yet President Trump's recent executive order to "review" -- and potentially nix -- a pro-investor rule written by the Department of Labor (DOL) will put you behind the eight ball. It's much tougher to save for retirement when you're getting conflicted, overpriced investment advice.
Couched in legalese in the Trump order is a bureaucratic guillotine. The language is designed to give any pro-Wall Street regulator a reason to kill the rule, which would have protected retirees. Here's how the Trump order booby-traps the DOL Rule:

(MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

-- The access argument. Trump's order asks if the rule "harmed or is likely to harm investors due to a reduction of Americans' access to certain retirement savings offerings, retirement product structures, retirement savings information, or related financial advice?"
This is the financial services industry's claim almost word for word. They falsely assert the rule will make retirement investment choices fewer. That's nonsense since mutual fund companies, discount brokers, automated/online advisers and anyone with an interest in delivering low-cost, responsible retirement vehicles is blossoming.
There are thousands of decent retirement products and services on the market now and they will become more numerous. Pro-investor advisers have been adopting these products over the past decade or so.
It's only the traditional full-service agent, broker-adviser firms who will be hurt. That's because they won't be able to charge outrageous commissions for junk products -- and claim to offer unconflicted retirement advice -- under the rule.
Yes, there will be fewer of these shops, but the lower-cost providers are more than filling the gap, although Wall Street firms that don't convert to a client-centered practice will lose billions in business.

........the source

Read More

Donald Trump’s coup

By NESTOR MATA

February 09, 2017

THE United States is in the middle of a coup by newly-elected President Donald Trump.

This was revealed by Michael Moore, filmmaker and journalist, one of the few famous people to publicly predict that Donald Trump would become the President of the United States.

Moore warned that “the U.S. state is being overthrown by Trump and the people he has appointed to govern alongside him.”

Linking to a New York Times piece about the role of Steve Bannon, chief White House strategist and speech writer, Moore posted on Twitter: “If you’re still trying to convince yourself that a 21st century coup is not underway, please, please snap out of it!”

Moore described how Bannon had taken a major role in national security policy. He also posted the link soon after it emerged that the President had fired US attorney general Sally Yates because she had questioned whether the Muslim ban was legal and told Justice Department lawyers to stop defending it.

A statement said that Yates had been relieved of her position because she was “weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration”.

Trump replaced Yates with Dana Boente, who is thought to be much more favorable to the new administration. But it is likely that he will be soon replaced in turn by Senator Jeff Sessions, who is currently waiting to be confirmed by the Senate.

A Google engineer made the same argument in a viral blog post, arguing that the institution of the Muslim ban could be seen as a “trial balloon for a coup”. He pointed to a range of different events – including reports that the Muslim ban was opposed by lawyers at the Department for Homeland Security, who were then overruled by Bannon, and a report also claimed that the White House had “purged” nearly all senior staff at the State Department.

The post by Yonatan Zunger claimed that the Trump administration was in the middle of transferring all executive power “to a tight inner circle, eliminating any possible checks from either the Federal bureaucracy, Congress, or the Courts. Departments are being reorganized or purged to effect this. Zunger also wrote that moves like the Muslim ban and the unexpected events that followed are a way of “actively probing the means by which they can seize unchallenged power”.

Finally, Berkeley Professor Robert Reich has warned against the ascent to power of Bannon, whose “ view on foreign affairs is zero-sum game.”

Oh, by the way, President Trump’s kind of coup is unlike the coup described by Britannica as “the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group”. Instead, Trump’s coup called for “a change in power from the top that merely results in the abrupt replacement of leading government personnel”.

 ......the source

 

Read More

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton accused of seeking 'Trump-like powers' to review visas

The Federal Opposition has accused the Immigration Minister of seeking "Trump-like powers" to review the visas of certain people based on their nationality, race or religion.

The Government wants to introduce a process to "revalidate" the health, character, employment and contact information for some long-term visa holders, as part of its plan to trial a 10-year visa for Chinese nationals.
If "adverse information" is found about a recipient during that check they could lose the visa.
Labor said while it supported the idea of revalidation for the long-term visa, it was now worried the proposed powers could go much further, with one MP warning it could represent a slide into fascism.
"Ultimately Labor cannot give Trump-like powers to a minister who has such a high desire to see a divided Australia," Shadow Minister Shayne Neumann told Parliament.
"Labor won't support a bill that could see whole groups of people targeted on the basis of their place of birth, passport or religion."
Mr Neumann said Labor was in favour of the pilot program to grant Chinese nationals the 10-year visitor visa, which is designed to help boost tourism and develop Northern Australia.
But he said as the bill was currently written, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton could order a similar revalidation check on visa holders from any "class of persons" if he thought it was in the public interest.

 .........the source

Read More