Trump news on Youtube Jan 10 2019

'I said bye-bye!' Trump storms out of Situation Room talks with Chuck and Nancy

A furious President Donald Trump walked out of a White House meeting with congressional leaders on Wednesday when Democrats refused to promise they would fund his border wall project in exchange for ending a weeks-old government shutdown.

'Just left a meeting with Chuck and Nancy, a total waste of time,' Trump tweeted, referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who met with him in the Situation Room along with other Republican and Democratic congressional leaders.

'I asked what is going to happen in 30 days if I quickly open things up, are you going to approve Border Security which includes a Wall or Steel Barrier? Nancy said, NO. I said bye-bye, nothing else works!'.

Vice President Mike Pence told reporters gathered outside the West Wing that Trump had indeed ended the meeting quickly when Pelosi said Democrats were not prepared to make him any guarantees.

Schumer accused Trump of a 'temper tantrum' and told reporters outside the White House: 'He sort of slammed the table and when Leader Pelosi said she didn't agree with the wall he just walked out and said: 'We have nothing to discuss.

'He said it was a waste of his time,' House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer charged.

Pelosi charged that Trump 'seems to be insensitive' to the impact of a partial government shutdown on rank-and-file federal employees who will see their first lapse in payroll on Friday.

'He thinks maybe they can just ask their father for more money. But they can't,' she jabbed.

Pelosi added that she had told the president that 'the evidence does not support the situation you describe,' referring to his claims that human trafficking, narcotics smuggling and a criminal epidemic constitute a border crisis.

Schumer recounted a scene where Trump 'sort of slammed the table, and when Leader Pelosi said she didn't agree with the wall he just walked out and said, 'We have nothing to discuss'.

'This was really, really unfortunate and in my judgment somewhat unbecoming of the presidency,' Schumer complained.

Pence and House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy played clean-up, painting a picture of a congenial meeting that the Democrats fouled through sheer stubbornness with the president even offering candy to his Democratic rivals.

'The president walked into the room and passed out candy,' Pence said. 'I don't recall him ever raising his voice or slamming his hand.

This is a president who feels very strongly about his commitment to see to the security of the American people.'. A White House official told DailyMail. com the president offered 'little mini candy bars - m&ms, peanut butter cups, butterfingers.

McCarthy charged Democrats with lying about what happened in meeting. 'Their behavior is embarrassing to me.

And the way to come out to this floor and talk about a meeting in a manner that did not take place in there is disturbing to me,' he told reporters at the White House.

McCarthy claimed Trump 'turned to the speaker and politely asked her, 'Okay, Nancy, if we open the government up in 30 days, could we have border security?''.

'She raised her hand and said, 'No, not at all',' he recalled. 'The president calmly said, 'I guess you're still not wanting to deal with the problem.' The president wants to solve this problem.

That's why he continues to bring us down. That's why he's put offers on the table. Not once have the Democrats offered anything back.'. It was Schumer, he claimed, who 'began to raise his voice.

McCarthy said the way the Democrats portrayed the meeting was 'embarrassing. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters on Capitol Hill after the White House showdown that Trump had appeared confused about why he was meeting with his nemeses.

'I don't know why I'm doing this,' he said the president had told the group. 'I didn't want to do this meeting. They told me I had to do this meeting.'.

Pelosi told a waiting press corps at the Capitol: 'It wasn't even a high stakes negotiation.

It was a petulant President of the United States, a person who would say 'I'll keep government shut down for months or years if I don't get my way.' That's just not the way democracy works and that's sad.'.

As Trump was giving Democrats the brush-off in the Situation Room on Wednesday, the White House budget office poured cold water on any prospects of re-opening shuttered government agencies one-by-one.

House Democrats proposed bills that would individually fund the Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Transportation and other departments.

'The Administration is committed to working with the Congress to reopen agencies affected by lapsed appropriations, but any effort to do so must address the security and humanitarian crisis on our Southwest border and should restore funding for all agencies affected by the lapse,' the office of Management and Budget said in a statement.

And if those piecemeal proposals should reach Trump's desk, 'his advisors would recommend that he veto the bills.

Trump had vowed hours earlier to let the shutdown continue and allow 'whatever it takes' unfold so he can win support for his border wall, storming Capitol Hill to convince Republicans they should stick with him on day 19 of the crisis.

Trump walked up the steps of the U.S. Capitol for a lunch with Senate Republicans, who have been showing signs of impatience with his demand for full funding of his border wall in order to reopen the government.

'How long are you willing to let this shutdown last, Mr President?' a reporter asked him as he strode down the ornate hallway outside the Senate chamber. 'Whatever it takes,' Trump replied.

Trump's latest offensive comes the morning after his first Oval Office address to the nation, where he sought to turn the tide of lawmaker and public support his way.

His visit came as more Republicans are getting vocal about their concerns the shutdown has gone on too long with some saying it's time to reopen the government even without a guarantee of full funding for Trump's border wall.

The president played down what's happening in his party when asked about it during his visit to Capitol Hill. 'There is tremendous Republican support.

He met with the Senate Republicans for a little more than an hour and reiterated his unity message. 'The Republicans are totally unified,' he said.

'I would say that we have a very, very unified party. Mitch has been fantastic, everybody in that room was fantastic,' he said of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

'There was no reason for me even to be there, I knew that before we went.'. He also got in a dig at Democrats before his meeting at the White House with Schumer and Pelosi.

He implied the Democrats were holding out against his wall to make it a political issue in the 2020 presidential election.

'The only reason they're against it is because I won the presidency and they think they can try and hurt us going into the presidency, but that's not going to happen. We don't give up.

Because we're doing, we're doing the right thing for our country,' he said. 'I don't care politically, I'm doing what's right for the country. It is a very bad political issue for the Democrats,' he noted.

The president also dropped new hints on Wednesday that he's prepared to go around lawmakers and build his border wall without a deal for new congressional spending. 'I may do that,' he said during his visit to the Capitol.

Trump beat that drum throughout Wednesday, offering a warning of his powers ahead of his meeting with Congressional leaders. 'I really believe the Democrats and the Republicans are working together,' Trump said during an afternoon bill-signing event in the Oval Office.

But 'otherwise,' he warned, 'we'll go about it in a different manner. 'I don't think we'll have to do that,' Trump chided unseen Democrats through a press pool that included TV cameras. 'I think we might work a deal,' he said.

'And if we don't, we might go that route.' Trump said he has the 'absolute right' to declare an emergency, declaring that the only meaningful 'threshold' for making that decision would be the failure of his team and negotiators in Congress to cut a deal.

'My threshold will be if I can't make a deal with people who are unreasonable,' he said.

Following his soft-pedal approach to making his case for renewed border security spending during a Tuesday night Oval Office address, Trump's shift back to baring his fangs instead of begging for cooperation left his own aides confused.

'We honestly don't know what he's doing,' one White House official told DailyMail. com after the bill-signing.

Another said fellow aides were 'playing wait-and-see just like the rest of you [reporters], but if it keeps the Democrats as off-balance as we are, maybe that's good. Trump's preference for a border wall over other security measures hasn't changed.

'We can all play games but a wall is a necessity. If you don't have the wall it doesn't matter,' the president said Wednesday. 'A drone isn't stopping a thousand people running through.'.

'They say it's a medieval solution,' he complained. It's medieval because it worked then.'. Pelosi and Schumer held a joint press conference Wednesday morning to double down on their refusal to give Trump what he wants – $5.

7 billion for new border wall construction in exchange for restoring the operations of about one-quarter of the government.

More than half Trump's Cabinet agencies have been in limbo since a few days before Christmas; he said Tuesday night that 'a 45-minute meeting' could resolve the stalemate.

He stopped short of declaring that emergency on Tuesday night while reiterating his demand that congressional Democrats fund a border wall that he has promised for nearly four years.

But he played the shame card with a vengeance, blaming them for playing politics with innocent American lives and allowing 'a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul' to fester.

'How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?' Trump asked in a 9-minute speech from the Oval Office.

Citing a string of murders committed by illegal immigrants who have been previously deported form the United States, he demanded of lawmakers: 'For those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: Imagine if it was your child, your husband or your wife whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken.

'To every member of Congress: Pass a bill that ends this crisis.

On Wednesday morning the president suggested that border security is a rare bleak spot in America's outlook, tweeting that the nation 'is doing so well in so many ways. Great jobs numbers, with a record setting December.

We are rebuilding our military. Vets finally have Choice & Accountability. Economy & GDP are strong. Tax & Reg cuts historic. 'But we MUST fix our Southern Border!'.

Trump said Tuesday that child trafficking and sexual violence against women who try to migrate into the U.S. illegally is a 'cycle of human suffering' that he's determined to end.

He implored Americans to call their members of Congress 'and tell them to finally, after all of these decades, secure our border. This is a choice between right and wrong, justice and injustice.'.

The White House has requested $5.7 billion in new funding to continue the wall's construction. The president passed up the option to declare an emergency on Tuesday and spend existing Defense Department dollars to build it without Congress.

For more infomation >> 'I said bye-bye!' Trump storms out of Situation Room talks with Chuck and Nancy - Duration: 16:24.

-------------------------------------------

Analysis | Will Donald Trump get to pick the next president of the World Bank? Maybe not. - Duration: 9:52.

Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, speaks May 1 at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, Calif

(Mike Blake/Reuters) By Geoffrey Gertz January 10 at 7:45 AM On Monday, Jim Yong Kim shocked both World Bank staff and the international development community when he announced that he would be stepping down as president of the institution at the end of the month, some three years before the scheduled end of his term

His resignation will kick off a scramble to select a new leader for the bank. And shifting international politics will make the process more complicated than it has been in the past

U.S. influence at the World Bank Historically, the process has been straightforward, if not without controversy: The U

S. government has always chosen the president of the World Bank. But there's no official reason this should be the case

Indeed, according to the formal rules of the World Bank's Articles of Agreement, the president is selected by a vote of the institution's executive directors, the 25-person board that oversees the bank

These directors represent the interests of national governments and, in principle, could choose to select a president who has been nominated by any government

In practice, however, informal rules and influence play an important role in shaping the activities of the World Bank and other international organizations

And one of the strongest informal rules at the bank is that the executive directors will endorse whatever candidate the U

S. government nominates. Throughout its 75-year history, every World Bank president has been an American

[Why the World Bank's new famine warning system won't help prevent famine.] How has the U

S. maintained its grip on the World Bank presidency, despite frequent calls for an open and meritocratic process? Three factors allowed the United States to preserve this prerogative

First, and perhaps most obviously, the United States has had the power and leverage to coerce other countries to go along with its choice

As the world's hegemon and the bank's largest individual shareholder, the United States is used to getting its way, and any country that opposed the U

S. pick could face an international political price for doing so. Second, and just as important, the United States has had the soft power to convince other countries that American leadership was in the global interest

While such claims were frequently contested, the U.S. government could at least make a quasi-credible claim that, though it was a hegemon, dominating world events, it used that power benignly, so there was no need for other countries to band together to counter U

S. influence. Third, the United States has been able to rely on European support during World Bank president selection processes due to a long-standing tacit bargain between the United States and the European powers: The Europeans will back American picks to run the World Bank, while the United States will back European picks to run its sister organization, the International Monetary Fund

With this transatlantic bargain in place, neither the United States nor the European powers have sought to shake up the leader selection processes of these two institutions

Donald Trump and the erosion of U.S. global influence Today, however, all three sources of support are eroding

The United States' position as the sole global hegemon has been declining for years, and emerging markets have been demanding a greater voice in international institutions to reflect their growing power in the world economy

Indeed, during the last open presidential search — held in 2012 — there were already signs of waning U

S. influence. Two alternative (and highly qualified) candidates ran against Kim, the U

S. nominee: Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria and José Antonio Ocampo of Colombia. (One or both may throw their hats in again this time

) Kim won, but it was a more competitive process than ever before. Moreover, the Donald Trump presidency has probably accelerated the erosion of American influence at the World Bank, by undermining U

S. soft power and the tacit bargain with Europe. Trump's aggressive "America First" approach to international diplomacy has alienated other countries

Foreign governments no longer trust the United States to adopt positions that are in the global interest

Whoever the Trump administration nominates for the position is likely to face more skepticism than prior U

S. nominees. Meanwhile, given Trump's predilection for breaking existing norms in international politics, Europeans have reason to worry whether he would uphold the bank-IMF leadership bargain the next time an IMF leader is selected

(The current head, Christine Lagarde, was appointed to a five-year term in 2016, meaning such a debate could potentially take place during Trump's second term

) It is not difficult to imagine that, told that the United States should support the European candidate for the IMF because "that's the way things are done," Trump might nevertheless go another direction

If the Europeans think this outcome is likely, they might want to oppose Trump's choice for the World Bank now

[The Trump administration downgraded the E.U.'s diplomatic status in Washington. That's going to hurt

] Toward an open and meritocratic process? International organizations are more effective when they have effective leadership

For this reason, many academics and others have long called for the World Bank to move to a more open, transparent and merit-based selection process

(Kim's surprise announcement has already spawned another round of such commentary

) But while we are likely to see a more competitive and unpredictable leadership selection process this time around, that doesn't necessarily mean it will also be more open and meritocratic

Whatever happens, the selection process will be highly political. The Trump administration will need to decide whether it wants to nominate an "America First"-type candidate or a more moderate candidate who would be palatable to other governments

Emerging markets, meanwhile, will probably need to coalesce around one clear non-American challenger candidate — a complex task in itself — and then convince the Europeans to support him or her

The Europeans, for their part, will probably be trying to weigh the downside of a Trump appointee running the bank against the risk of infuriating the Americans so much that they decrease their support for the institution or even withdraw altogether

And all of this will be against the backdrop of a sea change in international development finance, driven by China's Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

[How to make sense of our collapsing world order] At each turn, these decisions will be based on intricate political calculations, rather than an open, dispassionate analysis of who is the best man or woman for the job

Geoffrey Gertz (@geoffreygertz) is a fellow in the Global Economy and Development program at the Brookings Institution

From 2012 to 2013, he worked as a speechwriter for Jim Yong Kim at the World Bank