[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #472 Steel is Steel

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 18:36 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Morgen is het toch?

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op maandag 12-03-2018 om 17:52:41 In light of today's feature story on Felix Sater, I'm re-upping this thread on Sater I wrote two and a half months ago. Glad major media is finally focusing on Sater's *present* ties to the FBI, not merely his historical ones. https://t.co/77vXai8Y06 reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 02-01-2018 om 16:06:26 (THREAD) The evidence that Trump business partner Felix Sater is a cooperating individual in the Mueller probe is now overwhelming—and if he is, he's the most dangerous witness against Trump Mueller has (and that *includes* Flynn and Papadopoulos). I hope you'll read and share. https://t.co/e4c6UR5Fy6 reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 16:48 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Wat is die Daniels ook een ongelofelijke muts, hè. Vlak voor de verkiezingen accepteer je een schijntje om een verhaal niet naar buiten te brengen wat Trump wellicht het presidentschap had kunnen kosten, terwijl ze er eerder al van alles over had verteld in interviews. Vervolgens gaat ze met die NDA op zak langs allerlei praatprogramma's om interviews van niks te geven en daarna gaat ze ineens bij de rechter het contract van tafel proberen te krijgen.

En dan aanbieden dat je het geld wel terug wil geven.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 18:44 schreef PippenScottie het volgende:

[..]

Vrij briljant wat ze nu doet.

Trump wordt nu gedwongen om

a) toe te geven dat hij een affaire heeft gehad met een pornoster en hiervoor zwijggeld heeft betaald. Dit zet vervolgens de deur open ok te onderzoeken of hiervoor, illegaal, campagnegeld is gebruikt.

b) te ontkennen dat er sprake is van een geheimhoudingsverklaring. Wat Daniels de vrijheid geeft om haar verhaal te vertellen. Mocht ze inderdaad foto’s, video’s of voicemails bezitten dan bereikt dit presidentschap een nieuw dieptepunt.

Hoe dan ook, de VS heeft een president die vatbaar is voor chantage en het is een legitieme vraag hoeveel andere Stormy Danielsen er zijn en wat zij voor hun stilte terugkrijgen.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 18:47 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Wie was hier ook alweer de gene die beweerde dat Trump goede banden had met de maffia( niet dat ik dat geloof )? Als dat zo is, dan kan Stormy binnenkort gaan zwemmen met een stuk beton.

quote:

Everything You Need To Know About The Pennsylvania 18th Special Election

March came in like a lion; will it go out with a Lamb? Voters in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District will decide that on Tuesday as they vote in the first of many federal elections in 2018. Like in previous races for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District and Alabama’s U.S. Senate seat, the party that wins the Pennsylvania special election will be said to have the momentum heading into the pivotal midterm elections later this year. In our view, that’s a bit overblown — in reality, it’s the margin of victory that tells us what to expect in midterm results, and Democrat Conor Lamb is likely to overperform in Pennsylvania no matter who wins. We will still be watching that margin closely, though, and a decisive victory by Republican Rick Saccone could be a sign that that something in the political environment has changed. So here’s what you need to know to follow the race.

1. The partisanship
This seat became vacant in October 2017 after the resignation of GOP Rep. Tim Murphy, who admitted to an extramarital affair and allegedly asked his mistress to have an abortion despite his stated pro-life views. Before the scandal, the Republican had won eight consecutive elections in this district1 by margins of no fewer than 15 percentage points. In both 2014 and 2016, no Democrat even bothered to run against Murphy. President Trump carried the 18th District by nearly 20 points (58 percent to 39 percent); Mitt Romney won it by a similar margin in 2012. According to FiveThirtyEight’s weighted average of presidential results,2 the Pennsylvania 18th is 21 percentage points more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole.

That’s very red — but so were most of the other places where we’ve seen special elections so far this cycle, and Democrats in the vast majority of those races have consistently done better than the partisan leans of their districts would predict. The margin in federal special elections specifically has moved 16 points toward Democrats compared to each constituency’s usual partisan lean. If that happens again in Pennsylvania, Democrats will be nipping at Republicans’ heels.

But there’s reason to believe the swing in Pennsylvania could be even greater. First, in special elections for Pennsylvania state legislative offices this cycle, Democrats have outperformed expectations to an even greater degree: a 29-point shift in the margin. Second, the Pennsylvania 18th is actually ancestrally Democratic. Before Murphy was elected in 2002, the area3 was represented by Democrat Frank Mascara, who opposed abortion and gun control and projected a blue-collar image. That legacy lingers today in the fact that there are still more registered Democrats in the district than registered Republicans (46 percent of registered voters to 41 percent). Even though they’ve grown accustomed to voting Republican for president, voters in the 18th clearly aren’t opposed to casting a ballot for Democrats under the right circumstances. For example, the area currently within the 18th Congressional District voted for Sen. Bob Casey, who also campaigned as a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat, by 11 points in 2006.

2. The players
And lo and behold, Lamb fits the same socially-conservative-Democrat mold. A 33-year-old former federal prosecutor and Marine, Lamb says he is personally opposed to abortion4 and opposes new gun control laws. His GOP opponent Saccone, meanwhile, is a four-term state representative who brags he “was Trump before Trump was Trump.” Saccone is known as a rock-ribbed conservative but not as a strong fundraiser: He has raised almost $920,000 for the race and claimed just over $300,000 cash on hand as of Feb. 21. By contrast, Lamb has raked in $3.9 million and was sitting on a nearly $840,000 war chest.

Saccone won’t lack for resources, however, thanks to the GOP cavalry. As of Friday, independent-expenditure groups, including the Congressional Leadership Fund and National Republican Congressional Committee, had spent almost $10.5 million to prop up Saccone; Democratic outside groups had put in just $1.8 million. Even with Lamb’s $3.1 million in spending, liberal forces are being heavily outspent. The Democratic dollars are going farther, however, because candidates benefit from lower TV advertising rates than outside groups do. As of the beginning of March, 42 percent of broadcast TV ads aired so far were pro-Lamb, while 58 percent were pro-Saccone.

3. The polling
Four pollsters5 have surveyed the Pennsylvania 18th in the past month, and they all agree that the race is within the margin of error. Here are the latest numbers:

The two candidates are essentially tied in the average of the polls (although, for what it’s worth, Monmouth, the only FiveThirtyEight gold-standard pollster6 to look at the race, has Saccone ahead by 3 points7). However, despite the fact that the polls show a tight race, even a runaway win by one of these candidates wouldn’t be that much of a shocker. Polls of U.S. House races already carry a lot of uncertainty, and they’re even less reliable for special elections. Since 2004, polls taken within three weeks of a special House election have missed the final result by an average of 5 percentage points, and their true margin of error was 13 percentage points in either direction.

4. The political geography
Taking in coal mines, covered bridges, wealthy suburbs and lush state parks, the Pennsylvania 18th stretches from Pennsylvania’s southwest corner up north past Pittsburgh International Airport to the Ohio River, then cuts east across the Monongahela River to the Laurel Highlands. It encompasses parts of four counties: Allegheny (home to 43 percent of the district’s voters, based on 2016 presidential results), Westmoreland (33 percent), Washington (22 percent) and Greene (2 percent).

The 18th District’s slice of Allegheny County consists of Pittsburgh’s southwestern suburbs and is a swing region — Democrats typically find most of their votes here. The other three counties, more rural and far-flung, are normally Republican strongholds, although they have strong historical ties to organized labor, a traditionally Democratic constituency.

If you’re watching the special election results as they come in (polls close at 8 p.m. Eastern), pay attention to these county-by-county variations; they can help you project the ultimate winner. Assuming that the whole district shifts left or right uniformly (more on this in a second), we’ve calculated an approximate benchmark for how we would expect each county to vote if the election were exactly tied districtwide. If the counties are voting more Republican than their benchmarks, then Saccone is on pace to win. If they’re voting more Democratic, then Lamb is ahead. (The not-so-grisly math behind these benchmarks: We used the same weighted average of the last two presidential elections to arrive at a partisan lean for each county, then moved it 21 points in Democrats’ direction — because that’s how much the entire district needs to shift leftward to deliver Lamb a victory.)

ranted, the district may not shift uniformly. Westmoreland, Washington and Greene all voted much more Republican with Trump on the ticket than with Romney, while Trump seemed to scare away some Romney voters in Allegheny. Lamb’s Blue Dog appeal may mean he wins over more Obama-Trump voters than Romney-Clinton voters, making the 2016 election a poor template for 2018. In such a scenario, it’s quite possible that Lamb misses the mark in Allegheny but still wins the election by overperforming in Westmoreland and Washington, so use these benchmarks with a grain of salt.

5. The aftermath
Tuesday will likely be the last time you hear about a competitive district in the Pennsylvania 18th, but whoever emerges victorious in the special will likely have to fight hard to keep his seat in the regularly scheduled November 2018 election. How can this be? Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the state’s current congressional map as too gerrymandered in favor of the GOP; in February, the court imposed new district lines that are friendlier to Democrats. The new map splits most of the current 18th District between the new heavily Republican 14th District and the swingier, suburban 17th District.

If Saccone wins on Tuesday, he has said that he would seek re-election in the 14th, but if Lamb wins, he is expected to go after the 17th, even though he would have to face incumbent Republican Rep. Keith Rothfus there. Of course, the loser could decide to take a second bite of the apple in either the 14th or the 17th as well. After all these long hours of campaigning and millions of dollars spent, it’s entirely possible that, at the beginning of 2019, Conor Lamb and Rick Saccone will both be members of Congress.

Both will also have to decide their next moves almost immediately after the last drink is poured at their election-night watch parties on Tuesday. The deadline to file to run in November is March 20, one week later.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 19:13 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:
De belangrijkste Senaatsverkiezingen:

Gop moet zich vooral gaat richten op de staten met een Trump-approval van boven de 50%, terwijl de democraten een goede kans hebben op Florida.

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 19:19 schreef livelink het volgende:

[..]

Wat opvalt is dat de democratische kandidaten al bekend zijn, terwijl nog lang niet alle republikeinse kandidaten bekend zijn zo te zien. Hebben de Republikeinen zoveel moeite om kandidaten te vinden?

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 19:21 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Komt omdat de democraten allemaal incumbents zijn terwijl in veel gevallen de Republikeinse primary nog moet plaatsvinden.

quote:

House Intelligence Panel Wraps Up Russia Probe Interviews (WSJ)
Committee is set to write a report as Senate and Mueller investigations continue

WASHINGTON—The House Intelligence Committee has finished interviewing witnesses in its yearlong probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to a person familiar with the matter, signaling the end is near of a contentious investigation that has revealed deep partisan divisions on the panel.

The Republican-run committee is now preparing to write a report based on the testimony of dozens of witnesses and thousands of pages of documents.

The panel has interviewed more than 50 individuals, the last of whom was Corey Lewandowski, the former manager of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, who testified last week. The panel didn’t interview the president, but it did call many of his closest aides and confidants over the course of the investigation, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, his son Donald Trump Jr. and his former senior strategist Steve Bannon.

Republicans on the committee and in the full House of Representatives think it is now time to conclude the panel’s investigation, according to people familiar with the matter. A Senate panel, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is conducting a similar investigation. Both are aimed at establishing public accountability.

Separately, special counsel Robert Mueller is conducting a criminal investigation into Russian interference and any ties to Trump associates in that effort, as well as other matters. That Mueller probe has returned several indictments of former Trump associates.

The aim of both the House and Senate probes has been to examine further a January 2017 conclusion from the U.S. intelligence community that the highest levels of the Russian government were involved in directing the electoral interference to boost Mr. Trump at the expense of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Russia’s tactics included efforts to hack state election systems; infiltrating and leaking information from party committees and political strategists; and disseminating through social media and other outlets negative stories about Mrs. Clinton and positive ones about Mr. Trump, the report said.

Mr. Trump has denied any collusion between his campaign and Russia, and Moscow has repeatedly denied any government effort to influence the U.S. election. Three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens were indicted last month on charges of engaging in a widespread effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Since last year, Democrats on the House committee have said they are unhappy with what they deem a lack of thoroughness in the GOP-run investigation. In late February, they publicly identified six individuals whom they wanted to subpoena and several topic areas they thought warranted additional inquiry, but they were rebuffed by the Republican leaders on the committee.

The chairman of the committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), temporarily stepped aside from leading the Russia investigation last year after he was accused of mishandling classified information.

In March 2017, he said at a news conferences on Capitol Hill that secret documents he had viewed confirmed U.S. intelligence officials had collected information about Trump transition aides while spying on foreign officials, and had improperly disseminated details about the Americans.

It was later revealed that Mr. Nunes got that information from the White House.

Texas Republican Rep. Mike Conaway took the reins of the probe last April. An ethics investigation later cleared Mr. Nunes of any wrongdoing in his handling of classified information, but he has largely allowed Mr. Conaway to finish the investigation.

The Senate panel has functioned with more bipartisan cooperation and is also in the writing stage of its own reports on Russia.

The Senate panel’s first product is expected to be an election security report for state and local governments, to be released in coming weeks. The lead authors on that report are a bipartisan duo, Republican James Lankford of Oklahoma and Democrat Kamala Harris of California. The Senate panel expects to produce additional reports on social media, potential collusion and other topics related to the investigation.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 19:33 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
Trump wil de import uit de EU zwaar gaan belasten, staal, alu, auto’s en klaagt dat zij hun landbouwproducten niet kunnen exporteren.
Waar heeft hij het eigenlijk over? Welke landbouwproducten mogen de EU niet in?

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 19:33 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
Trump wil de import uit de EU zwaar gaan belasten, staal, alu, auto’s en klaagt dat zij hun landbouwproducten niet kunnen exporteren.
Waar heeft hij het eigenlijk over? Welke landbouwproducten mogen de EU niet in?

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 19:39 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Zonder bron is het wat lastig om hierop te reageren. Ik weet wel dat de EU voornemens is om bepaalde landbouwproducten extra te belasten als reactie op zijn verhoging van het importtarief op staal, zie bv. hier. Dit betreft bv. mais en sinaasappel(sap) en andere landbouwproducten volgens dat artikel... mss dat hij dat bedoelt?

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 19:45 schreef thesiren.nl het volgende:

[..]

Was dat niet genetisch gemodificeerde landbouwprodukten en groeihormonenvlees?

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 19:46 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:

[..]

Nee, hij bedoeld dat de EU gestraft moet worden omdat zijn hun landbouwproducten niet kwijt kunnen

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 18:44 schreef PippenScottie het volgende:

[..]

Vrij briljant wat ze nu doet.

Trump wordt nu gedwongen om

a) toe te geven dat hij een affaire heeft gehad met een pornoster en hiervoor zwijggeld heeft betaald. Dit zet vervolgens de deur open ok te onderzoeken of hiervoor, illegaal, campagnegeld is gebruikt.

b) te ontkennen dat er sprake is van een geheimhoudingsverklaring. Wat Daniels de vrijheid geeft om haar verhaal te vertellen. Mocht ze inderdaad foto’s, video’s of voicemails bezitten dan bereikt dit presidentschap een nieuw dieptepunt.

Hoe dan ook, de VS heeft een president die vatbaar is voor chantage en het is een legitieme vraag hoeveel andere Stormy Danielsen er zijn en wat zij voor hun stilte terugkrijgen.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 19:54 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ja, maar wat is de context van deze uitspraak dan? Hij haalt wel vaker oorzaak en gevolg door elkaar... en Joost-mag-weten wat zijn bronnen dan weer zouden zijn. Vaak is het gewoon wat als laatste in het nieuws was, en wat dan leugenachtig wordt verdraaid of geprojecteerd...

quote:

Countries with European Preferential Treatment Gaining Market Share

Currently, the EU has preferential trade agreements in place with more than 50 countries, including important agricultural and food producers such as CAFTA-DR countries, South Africa, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Mexico among many others. Shipments of agricultural and food products from these countries to the EU more than doubled in the last fifteen years, while U.S. sales increased at a considerably lower rate. Moreover, the market share of U.S. exports has been declining, while European trade partners enjoying preferential agreements have notably increased their market participation over the same period. Tariff preferences granted to these countries give them an advantage over U.S. exports.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 20:29 schreef livelink het volgende:

[..]

Nu is de balans wel erg zoek in import en export tussen de EU en de VS als het gaat om landbouwproducten.

hier een analyse. Lijkt er ook mee te maken te hebben dat de EU betere handelsafspraken heeft met andere landen dan de VS.

[..]

quote:

U.S. Posts Biggest Budget Deficit Since 2012 (Bloomberg)

The U.S. recorded a $215 billion budget deficit in February -- its biggest in six years -- as revenue declined.

Fiscal income dropped to $156 billion, down 9 percent from a year earlier, while spending rose 2 percent to $371 billion, the Treasury Department said on Monday. The deficit for the fiscal year that began in October widened to $391 billion, compared with a $351 billion shortfall the same period a year earlier, according to the Treasury report.

The data underscore concerns by some economists that Republican tax cuts enacted this year could increase the U.S. government debt load, which has surpassed $20 trillion. The tax changes are expected to reduce federal revenue by more than $1 trillion over the next decade, while a $300 billion spending deal reached by Congress in February could push the deficit higher.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said the tax cuts will pay for themselves through faster economic growth.

A combination of higher income tax refunds and a drop in the withholding of individual income and payroll taxes led to the reduction in receipts, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office released last week.

“Increases in wages and salaries were more than offset by a decline in the share of wages withheld for taxes,” the CBO said. That trend reflects new guidance issued in January by the Internal Revenue Service over how much of employees’ paychecks should be withheld based on the new tax rules, according to the CBO.

The deficit in February was also impacted by the timing of certain payments, CBO said.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 20:43 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ja, het kan natuurlijk zijn dat hij het weer eens had over de handelsbalans en in dit geval dan specifiek over landbouwproducten, maar zonder context is dat giswerk. Verder zei Pietverdriet dat ze hun producten hier niet kwijt zouden kunnen, wat zou duiden op een of andere onevenredige barriere of verbod.

Ik weet trouwens niet goed wat je bedoelt met dat de balans wel erg zoek is als het gaat om landbouwproducten. Het lijkt erop alsof je vindt dat het uitmaakt, maar ik zie niet in waarom dat uit zou maken.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 20:56 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 20:57 schreef livelink het volgende:

[..]

Het maakt in die zin uit dat de VS hun export naar de EU heeft zien afzwakken ten gunste van landen die kennelijk met de EU andere afspraken hebben gemaakt en andere tarieven hebben afgesproken. En dat zie je dus duidelijk terug in bijvoorbeeld deze grafieken.

[ afbeelding ]

Ik kan me goed voorstellen dat dit voor de VS een zorgelijke ontwikkeling is en dat ze daar iets aan willen veranderen. De manier waarop Trump dat doet lijkt me minder efficiënt.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 21:00 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ja, dat kan allemaal, maar ik heb nog steeds geen idee over welke uitspraak het nu gaat van Trump... om een of andere reden wordt daar geen duidelijkheid over verschaft.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 12-03-2018 om 13:20:03 Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross will be speaking with representatives of the European Union about eliminating the large Tariffs and Barriers they use against the U.S.A. Not fair to our farmers and manufacturers. reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 21:03 schreef livelink het volgende:

[..]

Trump zal nooit ergens duidelijkheid over verschaffen. Hij heeft er zelf kennelijk geen enkele behoefte aan om kennis te vergaren en kennelijk voelt verder ook niemand in het Witte Huis zich geroepen om dingen te verduidelijken.

Dus het klopt dat dit mijn eigen interpretatie van zijn tweet is. Ik zou het graag anders zien.
Deze tweet dus

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 12-03-2018 om 13:20:03 Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross will be speaking with representatives of the European Union about eliminating the large Tariffs and Barriers they use against the U.S.A. Not fair to our farmers and manufacturers. reageer retweet

quote:

By 9 a.m. Friday, Greg Scheurich already had fielded his fifth call of the day from a metals importer trying to determine how President Trump’s new tariffs would work. “It’s really confusing, tough to understand,” said Scheurich, president of CNC Machine Products, a manufacturer of bearing components. For Scheurich, the perplexing thing about Trump’s tariffs on imported steel is that, in the name of helping U.S. steel makers, the president may be dooming some other American companies like his.

In the nation’s capital, the new import taxes are viewed as a turn by the United States toward economic nationalism as well as a chance for the president to deliver on a promise to his working-class constituency.

For Scheurich, 69, whose production of industrial parts depends almost entirely on importing specialized steel from Japan and Sweden, the restrictions on foreign-made metals pose a direct threat to his business. Though the president insists tariffs will force companies like his to “Buy American,” Scheurich confronts a more complex globalized reality. “What people don’t understand about the steels I use is it doesn’t have anything to do with price. I’ve tried to find domestic sources,” he said. “ ... I’m not importing it because of price. I’m importing it because of quality and (because) I can get it.”

Scheurich said he has to buy from foreign companies because decades of consolidation in the domestic steel industry have left few U.S. mills producing the high-quality steel he requires. The limited amount of American steel he can obtain too often has obvious flaws, he said.

The president’s 25 percent import tax will effectively cut him off from his steel suppliers and starve his business. CNC’s customers will buy their parts from manufacturers outside the U.S. rather than absorb his higher costs, he said. “If they would give me options about where to go domestically — no problem!” he said. “I don’t think they understand; I got nowhere else to go.”

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 20:58 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Sinds oktober is het tekort al bijna net zo groot als in de hele jaren 2014, 15 of 16.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 21:15 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

En dat in een hoogconjunctuur. Wordt nog leuk als ze daarmee doorgaan en er straks weer een recessie is.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 21:18 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

De blits maken met het uitdelen van een belastingkorting over de rug van toekomstige generaties.

Toch klassiek meer iets voor links, maar Trump is er uitstekend in. En de GOP gaat er ook gewoon in mee, de partij van de fiscale verantwoordelijkheid.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 21:28 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

TRUMP: 'Phase 2' tax cut might be on the way

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 21:28 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

TRUMP: 'Phase 2' tax cut might be on the way

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 19:33 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
Trump wil de import uit de EU zwaar gaan belasten, staal, alu, auto’s en klaagt dat zij hun landbouwproducten niet kunnen exporteren.
Waar heeft hij het eigenlijk over? Welke landbouwproducten mogen de EU niet in?

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 22:43 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Nog steeds wel gewoon toss-up lijkt me, al is het inderdaad wel zo dat opkomst allesbepalend gaat zijn.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 22:56 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

MoE van 5.1%. Aardig in tossup gebied dus nog idd.

quote:

House Republicans say no evidence of collusion as they end Russia probe

Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee announced Monday they found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and that they are shutting down their yearlong investigation.

The committee's Republicans are also disagreeing with the intelligence community's assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to help the Trump campaign over Hillary Clinton, a notion that aligns with President Donald Trump's viewpoint on election meddling.
The conclusions will be met with sharp disagreement from Democrats and are bound to inflame partisan tensions on a committee that's been beleaguered by partisanship throughout the course of its Russia probe.

Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican leading the Russia investigation, said Monday that the committee had concluded its interviews for the Russia investigation, and the Republican staff had prepared a 150-page draft report that they would give to Democrats to review on Tuesday morning.
"We found no evidence of collusion, and so we found perhaps some bad judgment, inappropriate meetings," Conaway said. "We found no evidence of any collusion of anything people were actually doing, other than taking a meeting they shouldn't have taken or just inadvertently being in the same building."
Democrats say there are still scores of witnesses the committee should call, and argue that Republicans have failed to use subpoenas to obtain documents and require witnesses to answer questions that are central to the investigation.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 23:18 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

Link: https://edition.cnn.com/2(...)nclusions/index.html

Niet echt verrassend dit.

quote:

Op maandag 12 maart 2018 23:18 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

Link: https://edition.cnn.com/2(...)nclusions/index.html

Niet echt verrassend dit.

quote:

Several witnesses thought to be central to the investigation never came before the panel, including Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, his deputy, Rick Gates, Mr. Trump’s former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, and his campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, all of whom are under indictment by the special counsel.

Others, including George Nader, an adviser to the United Arab Emirates with ties to current and former Trump aides, only recently came to the committee’s attention.