Madeleine Westerhout, Donald Trump’s long-time personal executive assistant, finds herself out of a job after sharing intimate personal information about Trump’s family during a dinner with news reporters. Although Westerhout claimed her comments were made off-the-record, she is still bound by a confidentiality act stipulated under the Hatch Act.
Later, a reporter who said Madeleine did not state that her remarks about Trump’s family were to be treated as off-the-record, divulged the details of what transpired at the dinner. The executive assistant’s fallout from the Trump administration only marks the POTUS’ troubles with the extensive information leaks that have been coming out of the White House. The incident also makes Westerhout the sixth White House staff has breached the Hatch Act, since 2018.
Madeline’s departure also highlights the series of resignations currently besetting the Trump Administration.
What Personal Information Did Madeleine Westerhout Share with Reporters?
Apparently, Westerhout had one drink too many during the dinner that she and White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley attended at the Embassy Suites where reporters stayed to cover Trump’s visit. Such dinners are said to be common but are supposed to be off-the-record as far as any conversations that may have taken place during the gathering.
According to political news website Politico, Westerhout said that Trump will not be able to pick out Tiffany if ever she becomes part of the many faces in a crowd. CNN also reported her claim that she (Madeleine) enjoys a stronger relationship with Trump than Tiffany or even Ivanka. Another CNN report said Madeleine told the group that Trump prefers not to be photographed with Tiffany, because he thinks is youngest daughter is “overweight.”
Still, Trump who learned of Madeleine’s revelations to reporters said he understands why the incident happened, although it does not mean she is off the hook. He later tweeted that since Madeleine is a very good person, he does not see any reason to enforce full punishment over her violation of her confidentiality agreement with the White House.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling that upholds a lower court’s decision to deny the Trump administration the right to appropriate funds outside of Congressional approval. The appeal to reverse the lower court’s stay order was put forward by the Justice Department, on behalf of the Trump administration. That way, the latter can move forward in a supposed emergency need to reinforce the border walls located in Arizona, California, and New Mexico for security reasons.
The 3-judge panel of the Appeals Court though was not unanimous in arriving at the decision. Judge N. Randy Smith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, disagreed saying that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the Southern Border Communities Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union, is an approach that is contradictory to the basic fundamentals of judicial review. His opinion is that the majority of the panel members created a constitutional issue where none had existed. Mainly because the complainants who obtained the injunction, have no right to take part in what is actually a dispute between the U.S. president and Congress.
The dispute refers to Donald Trump’s insistence on spending as much as $8 billion for the construction and reinforcement of the U.S.-Mexico border walls, an amount that exceeded the $1.375 billion approved by Congress for border barriers. Congress denied his initial request for a $5.7 billion budget for wall-building this fiscal year, Trump’s insistence and disapproval of the national budget for the fiscal year led to a 5-week, partial shutdown of government offices and agencies.
Although Trump later relented by finally approving the national budget in order to lift the shutdown, he pursued the matter by calling a state of national emergency. In doing so, he gained the executive power to appropriate the budgets of other departments for the perceived emergency purpose of enhancing the security of the country via the border walls.
How the 9th District Court of Appeals Ruled
The two other members of the 3-judge panel, Judge Richard Clifton and Judge Michelle Friedland, wrote in a 75-page order that president Trump’s attempt to transfer Defense Department construction funds amounting to $2.5 billion in order to pursue and build the border wall project beyond what was appropriated by Congress, appeared as a clear violation of federal laww.
The Constitution delegates to Congress, the power to make decisions on how the government is to spend taxpayers’ money. More so where Congress added language that specifically states flexibility of budget does not include use for purposes previously denied by lawmakers. Judge Clifton and Friedland explained that
“Congress did not appropriate money to build the border walls Defendants (the Trump administration) seek to build here. Presumably, Congress decided such construction at this time was not in the public interest. It is not for us (the judicial branch) to reach a different conclusion.”
Moreover, Judges Clifton and Friedland cited the likelihood of the Trump administration’s violation of Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which disallows drawing from the Treasury for purposes other that those appropriated by law.— the latter being the national budget that he initially refused to approve.
Being a politician is probably one of the most demanding jobs on earth. The demands and expectations from them take a toll on sleep. The demands do not depend on who the politician is. It will not likely to lessen for whomever is elected. The famous President Obama said that he really wanted to have 6 hours of sleep every night but it is not always possible because of the busy schedule. He also mentioned that having a quality mattress through Mattress Battle is of great help in promoting longer sleeping hours. How much sleep is really needed for senior executives like President Trump in order for them to have optimal function? This is an important question to ask especially to those candidates who already moved into full campaign mode because there are some studies that show that sleep affect an individual’s functioning.
According to Neurologists who have studied sleep for several years, sleep effects how an individual functions as well as his/her health. A very small percentage of people can function with 4-5 hours sleep a night but there are people who find it hard to function and be productive with so little sleep.
There are several studies that show the important functions of sleep on our body and brain. According to the meta-analysis of medical research literature, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society jointly released a consensus statement last year recommending that adults receive at least seven hours a night to maintain optimal health. This recommendation was based on a systematic review of former studies. In addition to that, having lower than 6 hours of sleep is inadequate to maintain optimal health.
Over the past few years, there are countless of evidence that shows the relation of sleep to the health and ability of a person to function well. Moreover, there are also studies illustrating the importance of sleep in eradicating age-related memory loss and progression to mild cognitive impairment and dementia.
In politics, a senior executive has staff that helps in organizing the myriad functions and communications necessary for regular operations such as meetings and managing problems or crises. Thus, a politician also need a capable staff with enough sleep.
President Trump, as noted by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been continuously making taunts aimed at goading House Democrats to launch impeachment proceedings against him. According to the House Speaker, Trump’s intentions is to instill divisiveness not only among House Democrats but to the entire nation as well.
That way, the truth will come out and validate all grounds for impeachment; including Trump’s multiple attempts to obstruct justice with regard to Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s proven interference in the 2016 presidential elections.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that nearly every day, this US president is providing potential grounds for his own impeachment. In a recent Georgetown event, Ms. Pelosi reiterated that actually going into impeachment proceedings before the truth behind all Trump’s impeachable actions has been uncovered, would be divisive for the country.
The errant US president will make appeals to his supporters, particularly voters in the forthcoming presidential elections. That he is being politically persecuted by the ruling House Democrats, based on false accusations.
Still, House Speaker Pelosi made it clear that they intend to defend the right of the Democratic majority to fully investigate the activities of Trump and his administration, saying,
“We (the House of Representatives) have a path where we are investigating, exercising our constitutional responsibility to have oversight and also our constitutional mandate as a separate branch of government to hold the other branch accountable, predicated on the fact that no person is above the law, not even the President of the United States.”
Trump’s Campaign Strategy Includes Portraying Himself as a President Under Siege
While continuously dropping baits for his impeachment, Trump allies on the other hand incessantly argue that the Democrat-led House investigations are politically motivated; and are all rooted on partisan reasons, mainly to destroy Trump’s reputation.
Should House Democrats proceed directly with impeachment proceedings, they would be playing right into Trump’s ability to manipulate and twist turn of events in ways that appeal to his core supporters. A House impeachment hearing not supported by substantiated facts, will only reinforce a President-under-siege campaign narrative launched as early as 2 years ago; even before the results of Special Counsel Mueller’s report was made public.
Such a narrative can be gleaned in Trump’s fundraising campaign emails, in which the contents included appeals for defending the president against an unjust impeachment. In reality, the imaginary impeachment is yet to happen, dependent on the results of the House Judiciary Committee’s deeper probe on the information presented by the Mueller Report.
Trump’s Strategy Includes Slowing Down of Investigations by Fighting Subpoenas and Rejecting House Democrat’s Requests for Documents
In conjunction with Trump’s baiting techniques, the U.S. president is firmly holding his ground against potential impeachment by vowing to fight all subpoenas that will be served to him, to his political aides and to all staff of the White House Administration.
In an apparent attempt to slow down, if not block the House Democrat’s investigations, the White House rejected the House Judiciary Committee’s request for documents critical to the committee’s sweeping investigation into possible acts of obstruction of justice.
Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature simply demonstrated why many Republicans do not anticipate Sacramento politicians with cash — and why this past year’s gasoline tax increase may be repealed on Friday afternoon.
Ruling Democrats get it. They become trapped in fanciful maneuvering at the darkened and neglect if the light beams, that what they are concocting appears ugly, that it does.
Here is the story in 2012, the Legislature and Brown took $410 million which was designed to aid victims of mortgage financing and also used this to help balance the state budget. Homeowner groups hailed. Two courts purchased it to substitute $331 million and ruled against the country.
Before the existing Legislature adjourned Aug. 31, lawmakers passed a statement basically telling the courts to return sand. The step”affirmed” the Brown spent the cash”consistent with the direction given” him from the 2012 Legislature. Thus there! A week the governor signed the bill.
The Legislature and the Senate stated, “On mind, estimate, we are going to do what we would like to do no matter the way you guideline,” says state Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa), a former Orange County treasurer-tax collector.
Brown is appealing the case to the state.
But no matter if the government and Legislature did was illegal or legal and what a court does, it was incorrect. You invest it on budget — and then do not take money intended for pressed homeowners — or even owners that were foreclosed on.
“We’re facing a tricky financial crisis in 2012,” states H.D. Palmer, spokesman for Brown’s finance division.
Yes, the country was. Nonetheless, it is not today. It is rolling in cash, on its way to amassing a 13.5-billion cash book.
That 331 million must be invested to assist victims of commissions, or at least.
The cash came out of a 2012 settlement accomplished by the five biggest mortgage servicers from the Los Angeles mortgage — JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, also GMAC — at a lawsuit. Lenders were accused of improper and ignorance foreclosures.
$20 billion was paid by the banks straight to homeowners that were flying. Additionally, it shipped $2.5 billion into the states, using California receiving the largest bud, $410 million.
“Every state attorney general will designate the applications of their capital,” the arrangement decreed. “To the extent practicable,” it lasted, the cash ought to be invested to help foreclosure sufferers and also to steer clear of prospective mortgage abuses.
Then-state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris — currently a U.S. senator — helped arrange the compensation and, as demanded by the arrangement, designated many housing-related applications for the cost. The Legislature along with brown ignored her record.
What they did with all the cash was utilize $316 million to make payments in home bonds approved by voters in 2006 and 2002.
Wait a moment: The payoff money was designed to aid mortgage victims and protect against future calamities — to not be used for making payments on bonds.
That the appellate and trial judges ruled. And it what Harris believed. At a rarity, there was dissension at the positions, together with Harris objecting to the usage of this cash of Brown.
At a 2012 written announcement, she explained: “These resources must be employed to assist Californians to remain in their houses. I intend to utilize the Senate and Legislature toward a balanced budget that satisfies our duties California’s homeowners”
The job did not pay off. When the nation has been sued, Harris chose to not defend it. Brown has been made to hire lawyers.
In its appeal to the California Supreme Court, the state attorney general a matter is being made by the Brown government. Wearing a hat, the nation’s chief executive is carrying the side of the Legislature.
“Can the Legislature or the attorney general possess the ultimate authority to choose how to invest the money paid into the nation?” Brown inquires to the courtroom in a request. The courts’ rulings, he claimed that they are”piled at odds with the basic principle which the Legislature retains the energy of the bag”
The laws passed Republicans, votes in each home — Democrats for against.
“The bill does not make any difference for 2 reasons,” states Neil Barofsky, an attorney for the National Asian American Coalition and other groups suing the nation. “What one legislature states six decades after about exactly what a preceding legislature did does not matter.
“And even though the court did not find it, it would not matter. The Senate is likely to stick to the federal approval order” — that the mortgage reimbursement. “That is his duty.”
Sacramento politicians have had a reputation for raiding baskets of cash put aside for just one function and using it. A few of the reputations has been deserved, some not.
Back in 2003, Gov. Gray Davis and the Legislature seized California’s talk of a 206-billion federal settlement with tobacco companies and also utilized it to get budget-balancing. It ought to happen to be spent on healing health problems and smoking cessation.
Opponents of this gas tax increase that is raising money to fix roads accuse of pilfering street funds for different 27, the nation. It is baloney that is fundamental, however, a powerful pitch.
Sacramento Democrats have dropped by snatching the mortgage cash whatever the state Supreme Court does.