O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador Donald Trump. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Donald Trump. Mostrar todas as postagens

segunda-feira, 24 de junho de 2019

Quase guerra EUA contra o Irã: Trump como sempre mentindo - Ishaan Tharoor (WP)

A verdadeira razão de porque Trump retrocedeu na ordem de bombardear o Irã é, como em todos os outros casos, puramente eleitoral: ele não quer perder as eleições do ano que vem, se por acaso ordenar uma nova guerra.
Ele jamais se comoveria em salvar 150 mil vidas iranianas.
Ele só pensa nele mesmo.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Can Trump put out the fire he started?

Ishaan Tharoor
The Washington Post, June 23, 2019

(Zach Gibson/Bloomberg)
(Zach Gibson/Bloomberg)
It’s a strange thing for leftist doves to find themselves on the same side of an issue as Tucker Carlson. The right-wing Fox News anchor known for his unabashed white nationalism was among the skeptics who privately urged President Trump not to launch a military strike against Iran last week. After Iranian authorities downed a U.S. surveillance drone above the Strait of Hormuz, the White House plotted retaliatory action. Key figures in the administration — chiefly, national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — were reportedly keen on hitting back. A plan of attack was put into place.
But on Friday, Trump took to social media and congratulated himself on reining back a U.S. military that was “cocked and loaded” to strike at Iranian targets. Carlson’s thinking — that Trump’s nationalist base is uninterested in, if not wholly opposed to, costly military entanglements abroad — appeared to be on the president’s mind. He suggested the more effective approach would be for the United States to maintain its current pressure campaign on Iran, including slapping on more economic sanctions Monday. (The United States did carry out cyberattacks on Iranian systems last week.)
“I’m getting a lot of praise for what I did. My expression is, ‘We have plenty of time,’ " Trump told reporters Saturday, referring to his decision to halt an attack that would have claimed Iranian lives. “Everyone was saying I’m a warmonger, and now they’re saying I’m a dove, and I say I’m neither. I didn’t like the idea of them unknowingly shooting down an unmanned drone and we killing 150 people.”
Trump also publicly upbraided Bolton for his “tough posture” and hawkish mentality. In private, Trump was said to be complaining about the assembled hard-liners in his inner circle. “These people want to push us into a war, and it’s so disgusting,” Trump told one confidant about his own advisers, according to the Wall Street Journal. “We don’t need any more wars.”
On one count, Trump is right. He is neither a warmonger nor a dove. If Trump had his way, the United States would likely have a smaller military footprint in the Middle East and lean more aggressively on its allies in the Gulf to execute its regional agenda. But for all Trump’s insistence that he is opposed to war, he still is the one who laid the powder for a dangerous flare-up.
The showdown over Iran was just the latest instance of Trump playing both arsonist and fireman. The current state of tensions is a direct consequence of the Trump administration reneging on the terms of the Iranian nuclear deal, reimposing sanctions and enacting other measuresto squeeze the regime in Tehran. All of this was done against the wishes of key U.S. allies in Europe and amid the protestations of much of the foreign policy establishment in Washington.
“Trump’s usual shtick is to paper over the problem of his creation and then declare victory, but this week he added a biblical dimension to the drama-making,” wrote Politico’s Jack Shafer. “First, he assumed the persona of the vengeful god, commanding an attack on Iran in retaliation for its shoot-down of a $200 million Navy surveillance drone. Then he ducked into the wardrobe for a costume change to emerge in the cloak of the Prince of Peace and called off the strike.”
It’s a somewhat unconvincing act, especially as Trump’s hawkish advisers remain on the warpath. Both Bolton and Pompeo journeyed to the Middle East over the weekend, talking tough on Iran and vowing to prevent Tehran from building nuclear weapons — a prospect the U.N.'s atomic agency and the other permanent members of Security Council all believed had been avoided by the nuclear deal Trump rejected.
Bolton appeared in Israel alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who hailed the “crippling American sanctions” placed on Iran. Pompeo is slated for a whirlwind set of talks about Iran on Monday in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the two Arab monarchies most bent on countering the Islamic Republic.
“Pompeo, who last year issued a list of 12 broad demands for change in Iran, shows no signs of softening his outreach to the Islamic Republic,” wrote my colleague Carol Morello. “He began his travels lashing out at Tehran, belittling its explanation of why it downed a U.S. drone last week as ‘childlike’ and not worthy of belief.”
Pompeo tried to steer Trump toward military action last week, and he retains significant influence within the White House. “In an administration that churns through cabinet members at a dizzying pace, few have survived as long as Pompeo — and none have as much stature, a feat he has achieved through an uncanny ability to read the president’s desires and translate them into policy and public messaging,” noted the New York Times. “He has also taken advantage of a leadership void at the Defense Department, which has gone nearly six months without a confirmed secretary.”
America’s top diplomat also rubbished claims that Trump had sent a message to Iran via a diplomatic backchannel run by Oman. The president says that he is open to talks with the regime in Tehran, but few experts believe this administration is on track to lead Iran to the table.
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former spokesman for Iranian nuclear negotiators and a scholar at Princeton University, told the Atlantic that, “by destroying the deal, Trump destroyed confidence and any chance for future negotiations.”
And tensions seem bound to spike again.
“Avoiding further escalation will be difficult, given both sides’ determination not to back down,” Philip Gordon, a former Obama administration official, wrote in Foreign Affairs. “A new nuclear negotiation, which Trump claims to want, would be one way to avoid a clash. But Iran is not likely to enter talks with an administration it does not trust, and even less likely to agree to the sort of far-reaching deal Trump says is necessary.”

sábado, 1 de junho de 2019

Com tarifas, Trump quer transformar México em uma Cuba ou Coreia do Norte - Diogo Schelp (Uol)

Com tarifas, Trump quer transformar México em uma Cuba ou Coreia do Norte

Fronteira
O presidente americano Donald Trump visita a fronteira com o México 
(Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

O "arte" da negociação do presidente Donald Trump consiste em fazer chantagens. Primeiro, ele coloca um bode na sala, depois cobra um preço alto para tirá-lo do lá. É o que o americano está fazendo mais uma vez ao anunciar que vai elevar as tarifas de importação de produtos mexicanos, até que o país vizinho adote alguma medida para impedir o fluxo de emigrantes para os Estados Unidos.
Trump anunciou pelo Twitter, nesta quinta-feira, 30, que vai impor uma tarifa de 5% sobre todos os produtos importados do México a partir de 10 de junho. No dia 1º de julho, a taxa de importação vai subir para 10%. A partir de então, será elevada em 5% a cada mês, até atingir 25%.
Muito já se falou sobre o impacto que essa medida vai causar não só na economia mexicana, mas também na americana. O México é o maior parceiro comercial dos Estados Unidos e o setor automobilístico americano tem um relação de absoluta interdependência com o país latino.
Mas há outro aspecto relevante nessa história: ela revela que Trump não compreende o dever de responsabilidade que um governo democrático tem por seus cidadãos. A não ser em casos de pessoas suspeitas de terem cometido crimes ou que devem pensão alimentícia, países democráticos jamais proíbem seus cidadãos de emigrar. Isso não é apenas moralmente inaceitável. É um contra-senso.
Nas democracias, os cidadãos elegem os governantes para que esses defendam seus direitos, inclusive, se preciso for, diante de pressões externas. O governo mexicano não pode sobrepor os interesses americanos aos interesses do povo mexicano, e isso inclui a liberdade de cruzar a fronteira para os Estados Unidos. Os guardas mexicanos não podem impedir seus conterrâneos de tentar a travessia. Cabe às autoridades americanas impedi-los de entrar, se não tiverem visto.
Trump quer que o governo mexicano faça algo que apenas ditaduras como as de Cuba e da Coreia do Norte fazem: aprisionar suas populações dentro de suas fronteiras. Não é à toa que Cuba é chamada de ilha-prisão.
Curiosamente, a incapacidade de Trump de entender esse aspecto dos governos democráticos é compartilhada pela família Bolsonaro. O deputado federal Eduardo Bolsonaro — o presidente da Comissão de Relações Exteriores da Câmara que tem atuado como um chanceler paralelo do governo de seu pai, o presidente Jair Bolsonaro — chegou a afirmar em março, durante uma viagem aos Estados Unidos, que os brasileiros que vivem ilegalmente no país são "uma vergonha". Ora, um princípio básico da diplomacia é que a política externa serve para proteger o interesse nacional de um país. Isso inclui defender os direitos de seus cidadãos fora de suas fronteiras, inclusive o direito de livre circulação.
Do ponto de vista da diplomacia brasileira, não existe brasileiro "ilegal". O que existe são brasileiros que estão vivendo no exterior sem permissão das autoridades locais e que, assim mesmo, têm direito a todo o apoio consular que o Estado brasileiro é capaz de lhe prestar. Aos olhos de seu governo, esses brasileiros não podem ser considerados infratores.
Mas voltando ao caso mexicano. O que o México pode fazer — e já vem tentando — é restringir o fluxo de emigrantes vindos de outros países da América Central e do Sul que usam o território mexicano como corredor para chegar à fronteira americana. Em 2017, do total de imigrantes detidos pelas autoridades americanas tentando entrar nos Estados Unidos ilegalmente, 130.000 eram mexicanos e 180.000 vinham de outros países. Desde o ano passado, as forças mexicanas instalaram checkpoints ao longo de todas as estradas que levam para o norte. Os imigrantes sem visto vindos de outros países são detidos e enviados de volta.
Os Estados Unidos podem até querer que o México faça mais para barrar os imigrantes originários de terceiros países — ainda que isso imponha aos mexicanos a tarefa de fazer o serviço sujo, e altamente questionável, que os americanos não conseguem cumprir. Mas o governo mexicano não pode impedir seu próprio povo, que representa quase metade do fluxo migratório, de cruzar a fronteira, sob pena de se transformar em uma Cuba.

A destruicao do sistema multilateral de comercio por um presidente louco - Catherine Rampell (WP)

Como eu dizia, as sobretaxas tarifárias impostas por Trump são ILEGAIS: ele não tem o poder de impor essas tarifas contra quaisquer países.
Quando o Congresso americano vai agir?
Paulo Roberto de Almeida


Just a few of the reasons that Trump’s Mexico tariffs are deeply stupid

The Washington Post, June 1, 2019

Amid calls for impeachment, a persistently underwater approval rating, subpoenas for financial records and an ever-growing list of scandals, the strong economy is pretty much the only thing President Trump has going for him right now. It’s his best shot at reelection.
And for some reason he seems keen on destroying it.
On Thursday evening the Trump administration announced that it would impose a new 5 percent tariff on Mexican imports, ratcheting up in increments to 25 percent by Oct. 1. This is allegedly to pressure Mexico to stop the flow of immigrants coming to the United States.
This decision is so mind-bogglingly stupid, it’s hard to keep track of all the reasons it’s dumb. Here are a few.
1. Americans are paying these tariffs. We already have two studies by teams of top-notch trade economists who have found that the costs of Trump’s earlier tariffs are being passed along to American businesses and consumers. An update of one of those studies pegged the cost of tariffs announced before Thursday (including the most recent escalation on $200 billion of Chinese goods) at $831 per U.S. household. It seems reasonable that this latest round of tariffs on Mexican goods will also be largely absorbed by Americans.
Industry groups, including those for produce and retail, have put out statements warning about the cost to consumers of these tariffs.
2. This will seriously screw up supply chains and hurt American companies— including American companies that need Mexican parts to make their own products that get sold here or exported abroad.
Mexico recently became our No. 1 trading partner. Two-thirds of our imports from Mexico are intra-company trade (i.e., a firm trading with itself across the border).
The auto industry is especially vulnerable; of U.S. auto exports, about 35 percent of the value-added comes from imported inputs, according to Deutsche Bank Securities chief economist Torsten Slok. Note also that the U.S. auto industry is already in trouble. Announced layoffs for the first four months of this year in autos are the highest since 2009, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
3. We don’t know the full economic cost of the tariffs, but it would be painful for the United States. Two years ago, a research and consulting firm calculated an estimate for the costs of a similar (20 percent) tariff on Mexican imports: “Over three years, the bill comes to $286 billion in lost value to the U.S. economy and a loss of 755,000 American jobs. Two-thirds of those job losses would be at the expense of low- to medium-skilled workers.”
4. It’s not clear the tariffs are legal. The White House said its legal justificationfor the tariffs is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This 1977 law is mostly related to sanctions; it has never been used for tariffs, according to the Congressional Research Service. Some trade lawyers have suggested that the law does not give the president power to unilaterally impose trade duties.


in which a foreign country or person has interest—like freezing assets or prohibiting FDI. None of that sounds like imposing a tariff to me. Because tariffs clearly fall under Congress' powers in the Constitution, Trump can only impose tariffs if Congress clearly delegated
power to do so. I don't read IEEPA as a clear delegation of power to impose tariffs. Probably why no President has ever used IEEPA to impose tariffs. The other laws Trump has used--232 and 301--clearly speak of "import restrictions" and "duties". IEEPA does not.

38 people are talking about this
5. Mexico does not have power to do the thing Trump seems to be asking the country to do. He’s asking Mexico to block people from Central America from crossing into the United States to exercise their internationally recognized legal right to seek asylum.
6. There is no plan. There was never a plan. Even acting White House chief of staff (and Office of Management and Budget director, and apparently new Labor Department overlord) Mick Mulvaney acknowledged this in a call with reporters. When asked what it would take to remove the tariffs, he said the decision would be “ad hoc.”
7. This new self-inflicted trade-war wound gives us less leverage in negotiating a new trade deal with China (and the European Union and Japan, both of which we’re also simultaneously trade-warring with). The tariffs will damage our economy and encourage already suffering trade-dependent sectors — including agriculture and manufacturing — to place more pressure on the administration to reach a deal as soon as possible. Basically, it makes our stated willingness to absorb a little more trade-war-related pain less credible, since we’ve absorbed so much pain already.
8. It will also damage our ability to negotiate with China (and the E.U. and Japan) because it proves, once again, that Trump can’t be trusted to keep his word, including in the form of a signed international agreement. 
Recall that Trump had previously said that his global steel and aluminum tariffs would stay on our friends in Canada and Mexico until a new North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. But after it was signed last fall, he still didn’t remove the tariffs. Finally, two weeks ago, under pressure from lawmakers, he did remove them ... only to turn around and announce fresh across-the-board tariffs on everything from Mexico.
Mexico negotiated the new NAFTA in good faith, and then was punished for it. Why would anyone ever make a deal with this president, one that required literally any concessions, given this track record?
9. The decision to impose tariffs — and thereby harm red-state farmers and manufacturers — could cause a rift with the Republican lawmakers who have been protecting him. To be sure, they’ve supported him through the trade wars so far. But at some point even they might break, especially if they think another trade war front could jeopardize their own reelection chances.
10. If Trump does indeed manage to wreck the Mexican economy, that would likely increase the flow of immigrants trying to cross the border into the United States. When the Mexican economy is lousy, after all, demand to come to the United States rises.
Of course maybe Trump is counting on making the U.S. economy so lousy too that it’s no longer an attractive destination.
Read more:

O que fazer contra um presidente maluco? O Congresso dos EUA precisa conter o alucinado (WP)

O presidente adota medidas ilegais, não apenas contra o direito internacional e tratados multilaterais, regionais e bilaterais de comércio, mas também contra a própria Constituição americana, que atribui ao Congresso a última palavra em matéria de política comercial.
Por que o Congresso, os republicanos sobretudo, mas os democratas também, renunciaram a atuar segundo seus próprios mandatos constitucionais constitui um segredo até aqui não tratado pelos especialistas?
Como um presidente atuando fora de seus limites legais consegue impor sobretaxas comerciais aos parceiros dos EUA sem que o Congresso atue?
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Trump defies close advisers in deciding to threaten Mexico with disruptive tariffs

The Washington Post, June 1, 2019

President Trump, confronted with the latest surge of migration that threatens his tough-on-the-border image, was ready to launch his newest plan — across-the-board tariffs on Mexican goods, likely to wound the healthy economy and trigger protests from parts of his own party. 
But during a Wednesday night huddle inside the Oval Office, Trump was running into a roadblock: his own advisers.
Calling in from his travels in the Middle East, presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner argued against imposing unilateral tariffs, warning that the move could imperil the prospects of ratifying a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada, according to officials familiar with the meeting. Kushner, a senior White House adviser, insisted that he could still work directly with Mexico to resolve the burgeoning migration crisis. 
In the Oval Office with Trump, U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer also lobbied against the tariffs, similarly concerned that the drastic threat against the United States’ third-largest trading partner would upend the fragile trade agreement, which still requires Congress’s blessing. 
But Trump was unmoved by the arguments and repeatedly said Mexico had to do more, one person with knowledge of the meeting said. The tariffs, he declared, were going to be announced no matter what. 
Roughly 24 hours later, Trump would go public with his latest attempt to stop the migration of Central Americans arriving in record numbers at the southern border, seeking to punish Mexico by gradually increasing tariffs on the entire universe of its goods.
This account of Trump’s decision to open a new front in his battles over immigration and trade — and the ensuing fallout — is based on interviews with 14 White House officials, lawmakers, congressional aides and others familiar with the issue, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
The tactic sowed disruption on multiple fronts Friday as top Mexican officials rushed to Washington to defuse the threat, the stock market tumbled on the news and administration officials offered little explanation of how increasing the prices of goods from Mexico would stop illegal immigration at the border, a goal that has eluded multiple administrations.
“He’s trying to solve a humanitarian situation by creating economic chaos,” said Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairman Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), whose state would be devastated in any trade standoff with Mexico. “He doesn’t have a coherent strategy for how to deal with any of this stuff.”
Still, the chorus of objections that enveloped the White House did little to discourage Trump, who was infuriated after more than 1,000 migrants from Central America surrendered early Wednesday to U.S. officials near El Paso. That development — on the same day that former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III delivered an in-person statement on the conclusions of his Russia investigation — marked the largest group of migrants taken into custody by U.S. border authorities in a single event. 
On Friday, Trump defended his threat, insisting that Mexico “has taken advantage of the United States for decades.” 
“Mexico makes a FORTUNE from the U.S., have for decades, they can easily fix this problem,” Trump tweeted as the pushback from Republican lawmakers and the business lobby continued to pour in. “Time for them to finally do what must be done!” 
Under the White House threat, the United States would implement a 5 percent tariff on all Mexican imports starting June 10 if illegal migration hadn’t stopped by then. That figure would rise to a 10 percent tariff on July 1 and then an additional 5 percent on the first day of each month for three months, maxing out at 25 percent on Mexican products until the country “substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory.”
In public, Trump administration officials sought to defend the plan by pointing to the rising number of asylum seekers arriving at the southern border — a trend that shows no signs of reversing. The Department of Homeland Security projects that the month of May is on track to record the highest number of border apprehensions in more than a dozen years. 
“Let me [be] clear, the current situation is risking the lives of children every day,” acting homeland security secretary Kevin McAleenan said, calling for Mexico to take “significant action” to secure its own southern border. 
But privately, top officials were caught in an administration-wide scramble as aides continued to have meetings with Trump on Friday to try to persuade him to reverse course, two officials said.
The idea of enacting unilateral tariffs against Mexico had surfaced repeatedly in internal discussions — and seriously enough that the White House Counsel’s Office had already written a draft of the plan when Trump brought up the proposal again Wednesday, officials said. White House lawyers had been studying their legal options since Trump threatened to shut down the entire U.S.-Mexico border before backing down. 
The arguments against the tariffs — voiced internally by Kushner, Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin — did little to dissuade Trump, and Kushner was asked to call Mexican officials to inform them of the impending threat.
After the Wednesday night meeting in the Oval Office, the tariff order was finalized by the White House counsel and the office of Stephen Miller, a senior White House adviser and immigration hard-liner who oversees domestic policy. 
But Thursday morning, it was unclear whether Trump would actually follow through, even as he hinted at a “big league” announcement on immigration before leaving Washington for an Air Force Academy address in Colorado. Other White House offices not included in the initial tariff discussions — such as the legislative affairs division and the office of the public liaison — learned as aides came into work Thursday that Trump was considering such an announcement. 
By the time a cadre of senior White House aides assembled for a 4:30 p.m. meeting Thursday, the decision to announce the tariffs was essentially finalized, even though it had appeared to be in flux for much of the day. Trump called in from Air Force One as he returned from Colorado and told the staff that he wanted the announcement put out immediately. 
Vice President Pence — traveling in Ottawa to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and promote the pending trade agreement — separately phoned congressional Republican leaders to inform them of the imminent announcement. The top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Kevin Brady (Tex.), was told in advance, but Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), who leads a powerful panel overseeing trade policy, was not, according to their aides. 
“The president didn’t blindside his own party,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Friday. “If Republicans weren’t aware, then they haven’t been paying attention.”
From the driveway of the White House, Sanders continued, “Anybody in this country — or frankly, in the world — that says they’re surprised by this has been living under a rock and not paying attention.” 
Nonetheless, Trump told people around him that he was well aware that many Republican senators would not like the tariff threat. Indeed, White House legislative staffers were flooded with calls Thursday night, although they referred all the inquiries to the counsel’s office, according to two senior White House aides.
The objections were particularly pointed Friday from proponents of free trade such as Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), but they also flooded in from border-state Republicans who have been reliable Trump allies but also are on the ballot in 2020. 
“While I support the president’s intention of stopping unchecked illegal immigration, I do not support these types of tariffs, which will harm our economy and be passed onto Arizona small businesses and families,” Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) said in a statement.
A spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) conveyed similar sentiments: “Senator Cornyn supports the President’s commitment to securing our border, but he opposes this across-the-board tariff which will disproportionately hurt Texas.”
House Democrats began considering legislative remedies aimed at halting imposition of the tariffs, although one leadership aide said they needed more information from the administration to determine their options. 
Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, and economic staffers fielded a range of calls Friday from business leaders. In response, the White House told corporate officials to put pressure on Mexico, according to a senior administration official.
Meanwhile, the Mexican government scrambled to stave off the looming taxes, announcing that its delegation and U.S. officials will meet in Washington on Wednesday, with the sides led by Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
“Trump loves tariffs. That’s fine, but this needs to end in policy wins,” said Republican donor Dan Eberhart. “The short-term pain needs to produce a long-term gain for America.” 

Que tal um criminoso como presidente? - o caso Trump; novo livro (The Guardian)

Karen Dawisha, uma professora da Universidade de Ohio, escreveu um livro de excepcional qualidade chamado “Putin’s kleptocracy”, uma análise meticulosa de todas as jogadas financeiras feitas pelo ex-agente do KGB que o levaram ao controle da Rússia.
Este livro pode representar o início de uma investigação oficial sobre um outro cleptocrata e mentiroso compulsivo, que resultou ser o presidente da nação mais poderosa do planeta.
Outros presidentes criminosos podem aparecer, mas esta dupla — que estaria muito unida, não fossem as atitudes russofóbicas da maior parte do establishment americano, militares sobretudo — supera todas as demais gangues políticas na história contemporânea.
Este livro ainda vai causar muito ruído, pelo mesmo autor de Fire and Fury.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida


Bannon described Trump Organization as ‘criminal enterprise’, Michael Wolff book claims

Former White House adviser says financial investigations will take down president in sequel to Fire and Fury
The Guardian, Wed 29 May 2019 07.00 BST


The former White House adviser Steve Bannon has described the Trump Organization as a criminal entity and predicted that investigations into the president’s finances will lead to his political downfall, when he is revealed to be “not the billionaire he said he was, just another scumbag”.



The startling remarks are contained in Siege: Trump Under Fire, the author Michael Wolff’s forthcoming account of the second year of the Trump administration. The book, published on 4 June, is a sequel to Fire and Fury: Trump in the White House, which was a bestseller in 2018. The Guardian obtained a copy.

In a key passage, Bannon is reported as saying he believes investigations of Donald Trump’s financial history will provide proof of the underlying criminality of his eponymous company.
Assessing the president’s exposure to various investigations, many seeded by the special counsel Robert Mueller during his investigation of Russian election interference, Wolff writes: “Trump was vulnerable because for 40 years he had run what increasingly seemed to resemble a semi-criminal enterprise.”
He then quotes Bannon as saying: “I think we can drop the ‘semi’ part.”
Bannon, a leading promoter of far-right populism, was a White House adviser until August 2017, when he was removed. He was a major source for Fire and Fury, also first reported by the Guardian. Among other claims in that book, he labelled as “treasonous” an infamous Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, campaign manager Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer.
Amid publicity surrounding Fire and Fury, Bannon was ejected from circles close to Trump and his position at Breitbart News.
In Siege, Wolff pays close attention to Trump’s financial affairs. Investigations into Trump’s business dealings, spearheaded by the southern district of New York, have shuttered the president’s charity and seen the Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, receive immunity for testimony in investigations of Michael Cohen, the former Trump attorney and fixer who is now in jail in New York.
This month, the New York Times obtained tax information that showed Trump’s businesses lost more than $1bn from 1985 to 1994.
The newspaper subsequently reported that in 2016 and 2017, Deutsche Bank employees flagged concerns over possible money laundering through transactions involving legal entities controlled by the president and Kushner. Some of the transactions involved individuals in Russia.
The bank did not act but Congress and New York state are now investigating its relationship with Trump and his family. Deutsche Bank has lent billions to Trump and Kushner companies. Trump has attempted to block House subpoenasfor his financial records sent to Deutsche Bank.

In Siege, Wolff quotes Bannon saying investigations into Trump’s finances will cut adrift even his most ardent supporters: “This is where it isn’t a witch hunt – even for the hard core, this is where he turns into just a crooked business guy, and one worth $50m instead of $10bn.

“Not the billionaire he said he was, just another scumbag.”

Wolff also details a 2004 Palm Beach property deal involving the now disgraced financier Jeffrey Epsteinand the Putin-friendly oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev that, the author writes, earned Trump “$55m without putting up a dime”.
Epstein, he writes, invited Trump to see a $36m Palm Beach mansion he planned to buy. According to Wolff, Trump went behind Epstein’s back to buy the foreclosed property for around $40m, a sum Epstein had reason to believe Trump couldn’t raise in his own right, through an entity called Trump Properties LLC, which was entirely financed by Deutsche Bank.
Epstein, Wolff writes, knew Trump had been loaning out his name in real estate deals for a fee and suspected that in his case Trump was fronting for the property’s real owners. Epstein threatened to expose the deal. As the dispute increased, he found himself under investigation by the Palm Beach police.
According to Wolff, Trump made only minor improvements and put the house on the market for $125m. It was purchased for $96m by Rybolovlev, part of a circle of government-aligned industrialists in Russia, thereby earning Trump $55m without risking any of his own money.
Wolff presents two theories as to how the deal worked: first, perhaps “Trump merely earned a fee for hiding the real owner – a shadow owner quite possibly being funneled cash by Rybolovlev for other reasons beyond the value of the house”
Second, he suggests the real owner of the house and the real buyer were one and the same. “Rybolovlev might have, in effect, paid himself for the house, thereby cleansing the additional $55m for the second purchase of the house.”
This,” Wolff writes, “was Donald Trump’s world of real estate.”