Entertainment

President Trump’s Meeting With Mexico’s President Takes Awkward Turn At G20

For the first time since becoming president, Donald Trump met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Friday.


The meeting was mostly uneventful, as both men acted like well-behaved politicians. President Trump told the media that he was “great to be with my friend, the President of Mexico.” And President Enrique Peña Nieto told reporters that he was optimistic the two would have a “flowing dialogue.”

The two world leaders appeared relaxed sitting next to one another.

Associated Press / Youtube

Some people, however, though their posture looked a little familiar.

@VAMPIPE / TWITTER

The productive talk ended with a gentlemanly handshake…

Associated Press / YouTube

As far as handshakes go, it’s not the worst one Trump has ever given (you can watch a compilation of those right here).

And we almost got away without any problem, but then a reporter asked Trump a simple question…

CNN / YOUTUBE

From just off camera, a reporter asked, “Mr. President, do you still want Mexico to pay for the wall?”

To which President Trump replied…

CNN / YOUTUBE

Apparently Trump, right in front of EPN, said that Mexico would pay for the wall.

EPN’s lack of reaction drew criticism on Twitter.


@diazbriseno called the situation a nightmare.

Journalist León Krauze‏ tweeted that EPN doesn’t understand how to defend himself.


Krauze wrote, “Macron understood what EPN doesn’t: faced with the schoolyard diplomacy of Trump, one must act firmly in public. What counts is what is visible.” Translation, stand up for yourself.

But there’s one problem, Trump may not have even been responding to the question.

AP / YOUTUBE

At the 1:38 second mark, which this clip is set to, several reporters shout out a few last questions, with the most audible one being, “Mr President, do you still want Mexico to pay for the wall.” Trump’s reply comes a few moments later, making it unclear which question he was responding to.

So watch the above clip and let us know what you think.


READ: After Trump Threatens To Cancel Meeting With Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto Beats Him To The Punch

Recommend this story to a friend by clicking on the share button below. 

Here’s Everything You Need To Know About What Went Down On Day 4 Of The Trump Impeachment Hearings

Things That Matter

Here’s Everything You Need To Know About What Went Down On Day 4 Of The Trump Impeachment Hearings

PBS NewsHour / Instagram

The fourth day of public testimony in the impeachment inquiry of President Trump proved to be one of the most eye-opening days so far. Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told House Intelligence Committee members that President Trump was the person behind the push to get Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden in exchange for a White House visit. 

Sondland said President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani asked Ukrainian officials to make a public statement that Biden would be investigated. This would be done in return for inviting President Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House. This prompted one of the biggest moments in the impeachment hearings so far as Sondland said in the clearest terms that there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. 

“I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a quid pro quo?” Sondland said. “As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.

U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s testimony provided House Democrats with the strongest evidence yet in their inquiry into Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine’s

To this point in the impeachment inquiry, Sondland is the most significant witness yet and his testimony reflected that. Having Sondland testify was a challenge itself as he had previously been blocked by the Trump administration from testifying in the hearing but ultimately came forward to discuss his dealings. 

“I agreed to testify because I respect the gravity of the moment and I believe I have an obligation to recount fully my role in the events,” Sondland said. “I did so despite the directives from the White House and the State Department.”

From the ambassador’s accounts, he, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and U.S. special envoy to Ukraine  Kurt Volker, who testified on Tuesday, were told by Trump to work with Giuliani on Ukrainian matters back in May. This didn’t sit well with Sondland and other State Department officials. 

“We weren’t happy with the president’s directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believed then, as I do now, that the men and women of the State Department, not the president’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukrainian matters,” Sondland said. “We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt.”

Another key moment on Wednesday from Sondland was that other senior officials that included Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and current White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, knew about the quid pro quo for the potential White House meeting with Zelensky.

“We can see why Secretary Pompeo and President Trump have made such a concerted and across the board effort to obstruct this investigation and this impeachment inquiry,” House Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said during his opening statement. “They do so at their own peril.”

Republicans put Sondland’s testimony under scrutiny questioning his first-hand accounts of everything that went down between Trump and his dealings in Ukraine. 

Constant scrutiny from Republican members of the committee has been a common theme throughout the first week of these hearings. Even as the most damning claims against Trump have been heavily questioned in their legitimacy. Wednesday proved no different as Sondland shut down Republican arguments that the president had any intention of building a relationship and battling corruption in Ukraine. 

Republican members also questioned the validity of the hearings in part because Ukraine got its $400 million in U.S. aid despite Zelensky never announcing an investigation of the Biden family. 

Things weren’t much different from President Trump as reporters asked him what his thoughts were on the testimonies on Wednesday. 

Carrying some notes that he jotted down, Trump responded to Sondland’s earlier claims that he did indeed ask for a favor in return regarding Ukraine. “I want nothing! I want nothing!” Trump told reporters.  “I want no quid pro quo. This is the final word from the president of the United States. I want nothing.”

Trump also told reporters that he didn’t know Sondland saying, “This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy though.” The statement is the latest walk-back from the president about his relationship with Sondland, who donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. It also follows the president’s usual reaction to negative press by denying a relationship with any of the people involved.

Many Democrats see Wednesday as the first cracks in the impeachment inquiry hearings that lead to a possible criminal investigation. Looking at the way Trump has reacted to these hearings, things aren’t looking that great for him. 

READ: Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Apologizes For Years Of Stop-And-Frisk Policy Ahead Of Possible 2020 Run

Trump Is Claiming That DACA Recipients Are Criminals But They Literally Can’t Have A Criminal Record

Things That Matter

Trump Is Claiming That DACA Recipients Are Criminals But They Literally Can’t Have A Criminal Record

Victoria Pickering / Flickr

President Trump lied to the American people, tweeting that “some” of DACA recipients are “very tough, hardened criminals.” In fact, any significant criminal activity would disqualify someone from receiving DACA’s protections. So, calling just one of “the people in DACA” “a very tough, hardened criminal,” is a false statement. It misleads the American people and further fans the continued rise of racism against Latinos in a ploy to appeal to his base. While the new normal may be to scoff at the consistent lies and Twitter-fueled intimidation tacts employed by Trump, we must hold each lie accountable. Just over three months ago, a white supremacist wrote a manifesto using much of the language the president uses. Then, he drove to El Paso and slaughtered 22 Mexican nationals and Mexican-Americans.

The morning of a Supreme Court hearing regarding Trump’s decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Trump tweeted this lie:

Credit: @realDonaldTrump / Twitter

“Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from ‘angels.’ Some are very tough, hardened criminals,” Trump tweeted on November 12. Later, he tweeted, “DACA recipients with arrest records: 53,792! That is a very large proportion of the total.” The percentage is in fact 7.76 percent of approved DACA recipients, according to a report released by The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Trump continues to pander misleading statistics to the American people to allude that any kind of “deal with the Dems” would be generous. 

Those “arrests” include apprehensions from ICE. The USCIS website clearly states, “An arrest indicates the individual was arrested or apprehended only and does not mean the individual was convicted of a crime… Further, individuals may not have been charged with a crime resulting from the arrest, may have had their charges reduced or dismissed entirely, or may have been acquitted of any charges.”

An arrest is not a charge or even a conviction of a crime. Arrests do not necessarily indicate criminality.

Credit: @cdechalus / Twitter

We all know that people of color are often scrutinized by law enforcement more harshly, and often, inappropriately. Innocent people are arrested all the time. Less frequently, innocent people are convicted, though we know it happens. Ruben Martinez, Jr., an innocent man, was just exonerated of all charges this month after serving 11 years in prison. Fact: arrest records do not indicate criminality in any individual. Convictions do. 

There are no public records that offer conviction histories of DACA recipients. The entire basis of this report by USCIS is contrary to the American values of “innocent until proven guilty.” Arrests do not indicate guilt. It is also important to remember that having no criminal record is a necessary stipulation in order to receive DACA status.

Nearly a quarter of the arrest offenses are immigration-related.

Credit: @joaquincastro / Twitter

Effectively, the exact legal basis of why DACA exists: to allow children brought into the country illegally to thrive without fear of arrest for their parents’ actions. Examples of such immigration-related offenses include over-staying visas. The most common type of offense, accounting for nearly 40 percent of all arrests are driving-related (excluding DUIs). Remember all those times you’ve gotten a speeding ticket, or didn’t make a complete stop before making a right on red? That’s your arrest record. That’s the bulk of the “hardened” crimes DACA requestors have on record (not necessarily with conviction).

If an immigrant has been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanor offenses, they are ineligible for DACA.

Credit: @scotus / Twitter

In fact, immigrants with any type of significant arrest history will likely pass on applying for DACA, because it effectively places them on the federal government’s radar. A good immigration attorney won’t allow their clients to give up so much information about their criminal record, place of work, or home address if they feel they’ll be denied by DACA, because it may trigger an arrest warrant by ICE. Arguably, “hardened criminals” don’t even apply for DACA, let alone receive it by the federal government. DACA recipients must reapply for DACA status every two years. So, if a DACA recipient becomes a “hardened criminal,” then they would lose their deportation protections.

READ: Supreme Court Hearing Arguments For DACA, Leaning Towards Elimination