Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
MN insurrection is worse than the one in Jan 2021. The one in MN has been going on for weeks for many hours daily, and hundreds are participating. This crowd broke into ICE vehicle, stole documents and spray-painted it (link), used freezing (link), throwing filled bottles (link), using fireworks and even had a gun (link). The crowd has used vehicle attacks on ICE too (link). On top of that, the MN governor and the local mayor have been inciting people daily for months to resist ICE too.
It looks to me like we should use the same playbook and put these guys in prison for years.
On the other hand Memphis cooperated with the Feds and many criminals got off the streets. That's the difference between a common-sense Dem mayor and the state of MN that believes in DEI and hosting illegal criminals.
From Heather Cox Richardson's Letters from an American newsletter dated Jan. 17.
"Trump’s triumphant narrative is not working at home, either. A new CNN poll released Friday shows that fifty-eight percent of Americans believe that Trump’s first year in office has been a failure. Americans worry most about the economy, but concerns about democracy come in second. The numbers beyond that continue to be bad for Trump. Sixty-six percent of Americans think Trump doesn’t care about people like them. Fifty-three percent think he doesn’t have the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively as president. Sixty-five percent of Americans say Trump is not someone they are proud to have as president."
Comments: I concur with 53% of Americans who think Trump doesn't have the stamina or sharpness to serve effectively as president. I also stand in allegiance with 65% of Americans who are not proud of Trump as the president. I'm shocked that Trump's disapproval is not higher!
Agreed, it's amazing the numbers aren't even worse. I, too, stand with the 65% of Americans who are not proud to have this guy as prez.
"This time it isn’t Bull Connor and his racist goons. It’s Donald Trump, JD Vance, Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, and their fascist goons. It’s armed agents of the president of the United States who are bullying and brutalizing people. Committing a cold-blooded murder of a middle-class white woman in broad daylight who tried to get out of their way. Shooting and injuring others."
"Take a wider look and you see their lawless bullying on a different scale: a criminal investigation of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board for failing to lower interest rates as fast as Trump wants. Criminal investigations of U.S. senators and representatives for telling America’s soldiers that they don’t have to follow illegal orders. Criminal investigations of the governor of Minnesota and mayor of Minneapolis for refusing to cooperate with Trump’s brown shirts."
"The Justice Department searching the home of a Washington Post reporter and seizing her laptops and other devices."
"Trump raising tariffs on our trusted allies — until and unless they support him in taking over Greenland. Greenland!"
"A crazy old man saying 'fuck you, fuck you' and giving the finger to an American factory worker who criticizes him in public. The crazy old man is president of the United States, and the worker has lost his job because he dared criticize that crazy old man."
It's nothing compared to what Dems have done. I want to see people go to jail for years and spend a lot of money on defense just to keep it even
The Justice Department searching the home of a Washington Post reporter
Compared to a raid on President Donald Trump's residence.
a criminal investigation of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
Federal prosecutors opened a probe focusing on whether Powell was truthful during congressional testimony about the project to overhaul the Fed's two main buildings on the National Mall. No charges have been filed, and Powell has denied any wrongdoing. Pirro alleged there were $1 billion in cost overruns and raised concerns that Powell lied to Congress. Pirro: "My request, in this case with the Federal Reserve, was a legal request, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Powell, chose not to give a legal response. Instead, he chose to politicize and publicize. I did not politicize or publicize any of this. I followed the federal rules. I investigate until I have evidence and if and when I do, then I go forward with a public statement."
US President Donald Trump's apparently coercive threat to force Western allies not to oppose his proposed annexation of Greenland, or face further damage to their trade with the US, is without both parallel and precedent. We've had some unusual and unexpected economic threats from President Trump over the past year, but I think it is safe to say this exceeds all of them, and takes us into both surreal and utterly dangerous territory.
If taken at face value, it is a form of economic war being levied by the White House on its closest allies. That's because it targets allies at incredibly short notice and for a cause that essentially could break up Nato and the western alliance. This will be leaving officials from those countries absolutely baffled. In fact, it's so outlandish that they may indeed be more baffled than angry.
Nobody in the world would assume that a threat like this - based on acquiring the land of your ally - would ever actually happen. Does Trump really have the backing in the US, in Congress, even in his own administration to do this?
Is this, as some trade officials have to assume, the biggest TACO (Trump will Chicken Out) of all time? These things can come and go and, economically, these countries have handled the damage so far.
Think of Canada. It has seen its trade with the US slump. But its prime minister Mark Carney's strategy has seen Canada's trade surge with the rest of the world by 14% - which amazingly is worth more than was needed to cover its trade lost with the US. Carney has been in China this week pushing "a new world order" and pursuing more trade with China, not the detachment sought by some US administration officials.
"This is China versus the world," the Trump administration was trying to persuade the rest of the world just three months ago. Carney is showing up this approach, something which is perhaps notable background context for the timing of today's intervention.
If, however, we do take Trump's latest threats seriously, they are extremely troubling. Not so much because of the 10% tariff, but because of its rationale - taking land from an ally, and the act of publicly trying to coerce your allies. How would the world react if China or Russia had sent a threat like this to some of their allies?
The basis of the threat is clearly deeply worrying. Many in capitals around the world will read Trump's social media announcement and question the functioning of American decision making. President Trump arrives to meet leaders of the allied countries whose economies he has just threatened at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday.
Most of the world will hope that, by that time, this unparalleled threat will have somehow disappeared.
After the extraordinary pushback on President Donald J. Trump’s bizarre demand for Greenland, he has responded with what economist Paul Krugman called “a howl of frustration on the part of a mad dictator who has just realized that he can’t send in the Marines.”
In a long screed this morning, Trump’s social media account said the president is placing tariffs of 10% on all goods from the countries currently protecting Greenland after February 1, and that the tariffs will increase to 25% on June 1. The post says the tariffs will be in effect “until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”
This post is bonkers on many levels. On the most basic: where is he thinking he’s going to find the money for “the complete and total purchase of Greenland?” And besides, the countries involved—Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom—are all U.S. allies. Economist Justin Wolfers notes this trade war will include the entire European Union, for “[a] trade war with one EU country is a trade war with the entire EU.”
The post also makes explicit that Trump is trying to use tariffs not to nurture the American economy but to force other countries to do his bidding. The question of whether his tariff wars are constitutional because they address what he claims is an economic emergency is currently before the Supreme Court. Two lower courts have found that the president does not have the power to levy the sweeping tariffs he has been announcing. Today’s tariff announcement does not refer at all to economic need but rather is about economic coercion.
Finally, in its insistence that only the U.S. can “protect” Greenland, the screed echoed Russian president Vladimir Putin’s promises to “protect” Ukraine. Ignoring the reality that Greenland is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the world’s strongest defense alliance, it said that Greenland and Denmark, of which Greenland is a part, “currently have two dogsleds as protection, one added recently.” It also added that the protection Trump insists only U.S. ownership of Greenland can provide might also include “the possible protection of Canada.”
As huge demonstrations of solidarity broke out today in Copenhagen and Nuuk, the capitals of Denmark and Greenland, respectively, both the European Council, made up of the heads of state or governments in the European Union, and the European Commission, the primary executive branch of the European Union, weighed in on Trump’s threats.
President of the European Council António Costa and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen issued a joint statement, underlining that “[t]erritorial integrity and sovereignty are fundamental principles of international law. They are essential for Europe and for the international community as a whole.” The two leaders reiterated that they are committed both to dialogue with the U.S. and to standing firm behind Denmark and the people of Greenland.
“Tariffs would undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral,” they wrote. “Europe will remain united, coordinated, and committed to upholding its sovereignty.”
The European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas—the EU’s chief diplomat—wrote: “China and Russia must be having a field day. They are the ones who benefit from divisions among Allies. If Greenland’s security is at risk, we can address this inside NATO. Tariffs risk making Europe and the United States poorer and undermine our shared prosperity.”
Representatives from the twenty-seven countries in the European Union are holding an emergency meeting tomorrow.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in the EU say they will not ratify a new trade agreement the European Commission and Trump signed last July. Some lawmakers are talking about using a trade “bazooka” against the U.S., a range of measures outlined in the E.U.’s Anti-Coercion Instrument that punish trade rivals trying to coerce the E.U. Those include trade restrictions and restricting investment in the E.U.
Meanwhile, Reuters reported today that Trump appears to be trying to set up his own organization to rival the United Nations. The administration has sent letters to leaders from several countries inviting them to be part of a “Board of Peace” led by the U.S. The board would first tackle the crisis in Gaza and then go on to take on other crises around the world.
Bloomberg reported today that the draft charter for the proposed organization makes Trump the board’s first chair and gives him the power to choose a successor. He would decide what countries can be members. Each member state would get one vote in the organization, but the chair would have to approve all decisions. The draft says that each member state has a term of no more than three years unless the chair renews it, but that limit doesn’t apply to any member states “that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter’s entry into force.” The draft suggests that Trump himself will control that money.
Last night, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez in Minneapolis prohibited agents from the Department of Homeland Security from retaliating against or arresting peaceful protesters or using pepper spray or other less-lethal weapons against them. Menendez also prohibited agents from stopping or detaining people following their vehicles.
The descriptions in the decision of how agents have treated protesters are detailed and damning. The plaintiffs submitted sworn testimony. In contrast, the judge notes, the agents “did not provide sworn declarations from immigration officers (or others) who witnessed or were themselves directly involved,” but instead relied on the declaration of the acting field office director for the ICE St. Paul Field Office, David Easterwood—who was not present at any of the incidents—that the agents said the protesters had obstructed their activities.
Yesterday Fox News broke the story that the Department of Justice is investigating both Minnesota governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey on criminal charges for allegedly impeding the work of law enforcement officers in the administration’s surge of agents to their state.
Trump’s reliance on bogus investigations to establish a narrative is well established. This tactic of launching investigations to seed the idea that a political opponent has committed crimes has been a staple of the Republican Party since at least the 1990s. As the media reported on those investigations, people assumed that there must be something to them. Trump adopted this tactic wholeheartedly, most famously when he tried to force Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to announce he was opening an investigation into Hunter Biden—not actually to open the investigation, but simply to announce it—before Trump would release to Ukraine the money Congress had appropriated it to help it fight off Russia’s invasion.
The Trump administration is trying hard to project dictatorial strength and power, but the narrative is slipping away from it.
For all of Trump’s bluster about U.S. trade, the world appears to be moving on without the U.S. Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada visited Beijing this week, the first visit of a Canadian prime minister to China since 2017. On Friday, Canada broke with the U.S. and struck a major deal with China, cutting its tariff on Chinese electric vehicles in exchange for China’s lowering its tariffs on Canadian canola seed. Carney posted on social media: “The Canada-China relationship has been distant and uncertain for nearly a decade. We’re changing that, with a new strategic partnership that benefits the people of both our nations.”
Trump’s triumphant narrative is not working at home, either. A new CNN poll released Friday shows that fifty-eight percent of Americans believe that Trump’s first year in office has been a failure. Americans worry most about the economy, but concerns about democracy come in second. The numbers beyond that continue to be bad for Trump. Sixty-six percent of Americans think Trump doesn’t care about people like them. Fifty-three percent think he doesn’t have the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively as president.
Sixty-five percent of Americans say Trump is not someone they are proud to have as president.
In Virginia today, former representative and former intelligence officer Abigail Spanberger took the oath of office as the commonwealth’s seventy-fifth governor, the first woman to hold that position. In her inaugural address, she celebrated the peaceful transfer of power and called for Virginians to work together to make life more affordable and embrace progress, writing a new chapter in the state’s history.
“As we mark 250 years since the dawn of American freedom: What will our children, grandchildren, and their descendants write about this time in our Commonwealth’s history—this chapter—50, 100, and 250 years from now?” she asked.
“Will they say that we let divisions fester or challenges overwhelm us? Or will they say that we stood up for what is right, fixed what is broken, and served the common good here in Virginia?
Today, we’re hearing the call to connect more deeply to our American Experiment—to understand our shared history, not as a single point in time, but as a lesson for how we create our more prosperous future. And so I ask—what will you do to help us author this next chapter?”
Europe’s dependence on the United States for NATO security limits its options. Its strongest response would be a trade “bazooka,” and other options are possible.
In a single post on Saturday night, President Trump upended months of progress on trade negotiations with an ultimatum that puts Europe on a crash course with the United States — long its closest ally and suddenly one of its biggest threats. In the Truth Social post, Mr. Trump demanded a deal to buy Greenland, saying that otherwise he would slap tariffs on a group of European nations, first 10 percent in February, then 25 percent in June.
It appeared to leave little room for Europe to maneuver or negotiate in a harsh and combative era of geopolitics. It also left Europe with few options to counter Mr. Trump without repercussions. European leaders are loath to accept the forced takeover of an autonomous territory that is controlled by Denmark, a member of both NATO and the European Union.
Officials and outside analysts increasingly argue that Europe will need to respond to Mr. Trump with force — namely by hitting back on trade. But doing so could come at a heavy cost to both the bloc’s economy and its security, since Europe remains heavily reliant on the United States for support through NATO and in Russia’s war with Ukraine. “We either fight a trade war, or we’re in a real war,” said Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at Bruegel, a research institute in Brussels.
Europeans have spent more than a year insisting that Greenland is not for sale and have constantly repeated that the fate of the massive northern island must be decided by its people and by Denmark. Last week, a group of European nations sent personnel to Greenland for military exercises — a show of solidarity that may have triggered Mr. Trump, since the same nations are the ones to be slapped with tariffs.
The exercises were intended to reinforce Europe’s commitment to policing the Arctic. Mr. Trump has insisted that the United States needs to own Greenland to improve security in the region. In that sense, the display was part of an ongoing effort to placate Mr. Trump. For weeks, officials across Europe had dismissed Mr. Trump’s threats to take Greenland, even by military force, as unlikely. Many saw them more as negotiating tactics and hoped that they could satisfy the American president with a willingness to beef up defense and spending on Greenland.
But Mr. Trump’s fixation on owning the island and his escalating rhetoric is crushing European hopes that appeasement and dialogue will work. Scott Bessent, the American Treasury secretary, doubled down on that message in a Sunday morning interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” American ownership of Greenland would be “best for Greenland, best for Europe and best for the United States,” Mr. Bessent said, suggesting that would be the case even if Greenland were taken by military force. “The European leaders will come around,” he added.
There is little sign of that. Facing the reality that a negotiated compromise is less and less likely, Europeans are now racing to figure out how to respond to Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign. Within hours of the post, members of the European Parliament announced that they would freeze the ratification of the trade deal that Mr. Trump and Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, struck last summer. And members of European Parliament are openly calling for trade retaliation.
Europe has a trade weapon specifically created to defend against political coercion quickly and forcefully, and as Mr. Trump’s threats sank in, policymakers argued that this is the time to wield it. The tool — officially called the “anti-coercion instrument,” unofficially called Europe’s trade “bazooka” — could be used to slap limitations on big American technology companies or other service providers that do large amounts of business on the continent. Some leaders, including President Emmanuel Macron of France, overtly called for its use.
But tapping it would sharply ratchet up trans-Atlantic tensions. Europe has spent the past year avoiding such escalation, and for a reason. The continent remains deeply reliant on the United States for NATO protection and for support against Russia in the war on Ukraine, so a full-on trade war could have consequences on other fronts. “I don’t think the issue here is to create an escalation,” Giorgia Meloni, the prime minister of Italy, told reporters on Sunday in a televised news conference. “I believe it is rather to try to engage in dialogue.”
European officials are also entertaining the possibility of allowing a list of retaliatory tariffs worth 93 billion euros, or $107 billion — drawn up during last year’s trade war — to snap into place in February. That would put levies on American goods, a less drastic move than the trade bazooka but still an effort to stand up to the United States. António Costa, the president of the European Council, which gives the European Union political direction, announced on Sunday that he had “decided to convene an extraordinary meeting” of European leaders in the coming days. An E.U. official added that the meeting might be in person, and could take place on Thursday.
That would allow prime ministers and presidents from across the bloc to discuss how they will respond to Mr. Trump. It would also come just as, or before, many European policymakers head to Davos, Switzerland for the annual World Economic Forum meetings. Mr. Trump will also be attending — creating a chance for conversation.
While many European leaders are still hoping that they might be able to talk things out, discussions have been all but futile so far. Foreign policy officials from Denmark and Greenland met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance in Washington last week. Afterward, the Danes and Greenlanders acknowledged that the two sides remained at an impasse, but expressed hope.
The two sides, they noted, had agreed to set up a high-level working group to work through their issues. That optimism was quickly snuffed out when the White House said that the group was meant to work on America’s “acquisition” of Greenland. “This is just all brute force,” said Penny Naas, an expert on European public policy at the German Marshall Fund, a research institution. “The president really wants Greenland, and he’s not backing off of it.”
As Mr. Trump takes on a more aggressive posture, European leaders have been growing blunter about the need to fight back. Mr. Macron, of France, wrote on social media on Saturday night that “no intimidation nor threat will influence us.” Ulf Kristersson, the prime minister of Sweden, wrote that “we will not let ourselves be blackmailed.”
Even Keir Starmer, the prime minister of Britain — which, like Norway, is not in the European Union, but was listed among the countries that will be slapped with tariffs — has pushed back. Mr. Starmer has carefully cultivated a positive relationship with the White House. He was one of several officials who spoke to Mr. Trump on Sunday afternoon. He told him that “applying tariffs on allies for pursuing the collective security of NATO allies is wrong,” Mr. Starmer’s spokesman said.
Comment: Just when you think that he can't cause any more damage he shows that he indeed can.
And, to reinforce what Mark just said- just when we think that he can't get any dumber or stupider he over achieves. Quite the moron.
"to reinforce what Mark just said- just when we think that he can't get any dumber or stupider he over achieves. Quite the moron."
Indeed. I'm ashamed to acknowledge that Donald J. Trump is the president of our country. I can't think of anyone less qualified or less suitable for this very important position.
By Alain Berset Mr. Berset is the secretary general of the Council of Europe.
When I took my post as secretary general of the Council of Europe just over a year ago, I did not think that I would ever have to write about the possibility of the United States taking military action against a member state.
Yet here we are.
President Trump has vowed to make Greenland — a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, which is a member of the Council of Europe and a founding member of NATO — part of the United States, and that he will do so “the easy way” or “the hard way.” His statements about the territory have strained relations between states and called into question the rights, consent and democratic choices of Greenland’s people. For now, this remains talk. But recent events in Venezuela show how quickly words can harden into action.
Mr. Trump has also said that he is constrained only by his “own morality,” not international law, brushing aside the legal order established in the aftermath of World War II.
The Council of Europe, with its 46 member states, including non-E.U. countries like Britain and Turkey, was born out of that war. It was founded on the idea that law, not raw power, must guarantee the dignity and rights of individuals and the sovereign equality of states. When a major power central to the creation of the postwar legal order openly questions the necessity of international law, it shakes the foundations we’ve worked for decades to reinforce.
Democracy, multilateralism and accountability once defined the postwar order. These words are increasingly dismissed as elitist, woke or dead. We need to ask ourselves, on both sides of the Atlantic, if we want to live in a world where democracy is recast as weakness, truth as opinion and justice as an option.
Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, accompanied by extensive Greenlandic self-government, is settled law. It rests on the inviolability of the territorial integrity of Denmark under international law. Its purpose is to guarantee stability and legality while preserving, not constraining, Greenland’s democratic right to shape its own future.
The Trump administration’s main argument for acquiring Greenland rests on legitimate national security concerns. But the United States already maintains military capabilities in Greenland at Pituffik Space Base and, under existing agreements, could expand cooperation significantly without threatening Danish sovereignty or seeking approval from either Copenhagen or Nuuk, and without any transfer of territory.
This suggests that something else is at work. We are witnessing the return of an old strategic reflex: a Cold War mind-set in which geography is treated as destiny and influence as zero-sum, and independence is seen as a strategic risk rather than a democratic choice. The fear is that an independent Greenland might one day drift toward Russia’s or China’s orbit, placing their weapons at America’s doorstep. It would be an Arctic repeat of the Bay of Pigs.
This is the logic of spheres of influence, an echo of the Monroe Doctrine, now visible in legislation proposed last week by a member of Congress that frames Greenland’s annexation in national security terms tied to China and Russia. The same logic is reflected in the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy, released in December, which makes America’s sovereignty and strategic interests a priority over multilateral norms and collective security.
Europe must act to protect its legal framework, and the Council of Europe is ready to play its part. The right of peoples to determine their own future, the protection of international law, and accountability for violations of sovereign rights are the foundation of our security and our values.
In moments of crisis, Europe often speaks through national capitals rather than in a single political voice, as the recent joint statement by several E.U. member states on Greenland illustrates. This is a political reality that highlights why legal institutions with a collective mandate matter. The Council of Europe’s work on accountability mechanisms for Ukraine, including the Register of Damage and the International Claims Commission, shows that law can still structure international action at a time of political fragmentation.
The same approach applies in the Arctic. The Council of Europe stands ready to support Denmark and Greenland through concrete legal and institutional cooperation. If Europe fails to articulate a legal and political vision, others will fill the vacuum, shifting security from law to strategic leverage. What’s at stake is not only Greenland’s sovereignty, but also trust. Alliances rest on predictability and on the expectation that power, especially allied power, remains bound by law. If international law can be set aside when it becomes inconvenient, trust is gone. If strategic calculations lead to a disregard for sovereignty in Greenland, how will Europe continue to believe in U.S. commitments elsewhere?
When Europe insists on sovereignty and accountability, it is not posturing. It is defending what makes both America and Europe strong. To ignore this is to set a dangerous precedent, one that could unravel the trans-Atlantic bond and weaken the foundations that keep us standing.
International law is either universal or meaningless. Greenland will show which one we choose.
Note: Text emphasis in the above report was added.
Comments
The one in MN has been going on for weeks for many hours daily, and hundreds are participating.
This crowd broke into ICE vehicle, stole documents and spray-painted it (link), used freezing (link), throwing filled bottles (link), using fireworks and even had a gun (link).
The crowd has used vehicle attacks on ICE too (link).
On top of that, the MN governor and the local mayor have been inciting people daily for months to resist ICE too.
It looks to me like we should use the same playbook and put these guys in prison for years.
On the other hand Memphis cooperated with the Feds and many criminals got off the streets.
That's the difference between a common-sense Dem mayor and the state of MN that believes in DEI and hosting illegal criminals.
Agreed, it's amazing the numbers aren't even worse. I, too, stand with the 65% of Americans who are not proud to have this guy as prez.
It’s Donald Trump, JD Vance, Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, and their fascist goons.
It’s armed agents of the president of the United States who are bullying and brutalizing people.
Committing a cold-blooded murder of a middle-class white woman in broad daylight
who tried to get out of their way. Shooting and injuring others."
"Take a wider look and you see their lawless bullying on a different scale:
a criminal investigation of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board for failing to lower interest rates
as fast as Trump wants. Criminal investigations of U.S. senators and representatives
for telling America’s soldiers that they don’t have to follow illegal orders.
Criminal investigations of the governor of Minnesota and mayor of Minneapolis
for refusing to cooperate with Trump’s brown shirts."
"The Justice Department searching the home of a Washington Post reporter
and seizing her laptops and other devices."
"Trump raising tariffs on our trusted allies — until and unless they support him
in taking over Greenland. Greenland!"
"A crazy old man saying 'fuck you, fuck you' and giving the finger to an American factory worker
who criticizes him in public. The crazy old man is president of the United States,
and the worker has lost his job because he dared criticize that crazy old man."
I want to see people go to jail for years and spend a lot of money on defense just to keep it even Compared to a raid on President Donald Trump's residence. Federal prosecutors opened a probe focusing on whether Powell was truthful during congressional testimony about the project to overhaul the Fed's two main buildings on the National Mall. No charges have been filed, and Powell has denied any wrongdoing.
Pirro alleged there were $1 billion in cost overruns and raised concerns that Powell lied to Congress.
Pirro: "My request, in this case with the Federal Reserve, was a legal request, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Powell, chose not to give a legal response. Instead, he chose to politicize and publicize. I did not politicize or publicize any of this. I followed the federal rules. I investigate until I have evidence and if and when I do, then I go forward with a public statement."
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON, Jan 18
After the extraordinary pushback on President Donald J. Trump’s bizarre demand for Greenland, he has responded with what economist Paul Krugman called “a howl of frustration on the part of a mad dictator who has just realized that he can’t send in the Marines.”
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON, Jan 18 (Continued)
or stupider he over achieves. Quite the moron."
Indeed.
I'm ashamed to acknowledge that Donald J. Trump is the president of our country.
I can't think of anyone less qualified or less suitable for this very important position.