quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 17:50 schreef Zelva het volgende:
Weer de naam verkeerd gespeld in de TT

En pas ook die Pompeo eens aan.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 18:15 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Wat moet ik veranderen?

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 18:17 schreef trein2000 het volgende:

[..]

Pompeo is nog geen secretary of state en gina haspel nog geen CIA Director.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 18:27 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Misschien McCabe even toevoegen onder de eindeloze lijst vertrokken of ontslagen kopstukken ?

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 17:16:52 THIS is the story you need to understand before the IG report comes out. And check Trump's tweets from October 23 and October 24: it's clear he was getting regular updates on the illegal FBI leaks his pal Joe DiGenova was helping to facilitate—and which cost Clinton the election. https://t.co/iFxORn8r4t reageer retweet

quote:

President Trump has decided to hire the longtime Washington lawyer Joseph E. diGenova, who has pushed the theory on television that Mr. Trump was framed by F.B.I. and Justice Department officials, to bolster his legal team, according to three people told of the decision.

Mr. diGenova is not expected to take a lead role but will instead serve as a more aggressive player on the president's legal team. Mr. Trump broke over the weekend from the longstanding advice of some of his lawyers that he refrain from directly attacking the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, a sign of his growing unease with the investigation.

The hire has not been announced, and Mr. Trump frequently changes his mind and sometimes adjusts his plans based on media coverage. It was not clear whether Mr. Trump planned to hire other lawyers.

SPOILER

Mr. diGenova has endorsed the notion that a secretive group of F.B.I. agents concocted the Russia investigation as a way to keep Mr. Trump from becoming president. "There was a brazen plot to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton and, if she didn't win the election, to then frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime," he said on Fox News in January. He added, "Make no mistake about it: A group of F.B.I. and D.O.J. people were trying to frame Donald Trump of a falsely created crime."

Little evidence has emerged to support that theory.

Mr. Trump's legal team has been in tumult in recent weeks. On Saturday, Mr. Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, called on the Justice Department to end the special counsel investigation. Mr. Dowd said at the time that he was speaking for the president but later backtracked. According to two people briefed on the matter, he was in fact acting at the president's urging to call for an end to the inquiry.

Earlier this month, Mr. Trump did not tell his lawyers that he was in discussions with another Washington lawyer, Emmet T. Flood, about representing him. Mr. Flood represented former President Bill Clinton during his impeachment proceedings.

Mr. diGenova did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Mr. diGenova is law partners with his wife, Victoria Toensing. Ms. Toensing has also represented Sam Clovis, the former Trump campaign co-chairman, and Erik Prince, the founder of the security contractor Blackwater and an informal adviser to Mr. Trump. Mr. Prince attended a meeting in January 2017 with a Russian investor in the Seychelles that the special counsel is investigating.

Mr. diGenova has worked in Washington legal circles for decades. He is a former Republican-appointed United States attorney for the District of Columbia. And he has served as an independent counsel in government waste, fraud and abuse investigations, notably a three-year criminal inquiry into whether officials in the George H.W. Bush administration broke any laws in their search for damaging information about then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton.

In 1995, Mr. diGenova declared the investigation he led was "unnecessary." And, he said, "a Kafkaesque journey for a group of innocent Americans comes to an end."

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 18:30:58 This framing is WRONG.CORRECTED: Trump hires attorney who, less than a month before the 2016 election, publicly offered to assist rogue FBI agents in illegally leaking Clinton probe intel to force Comey to reopen the probe--a conspiracy that worked, giving Trump the White House. https://t.co/niasSSxAei reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 18:10:17 diGenova has endorsed the notion that a secretive group of FBI agents concocted the Russia probe to keep Trump from becoming president. "There was a brazen plot to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton and... frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime," he said on Fox News. https://t.co/5C8kjHmAwi reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 18:50 schreef Klaphark het volgende:
Is het in theorie mogelijk dat Trump getapt, afgeluisterd, kan worden? Of is er wetgeving die zegt dat dit niet mag bij een Potus.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 18:50:08 Adam Schiff has invited the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower to provide testimony before the Intelligence Committee “as part of the Minority’s ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.” https://t.co/HpygO1kga0 reageer retweet

SPOILER

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 18:54 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Het mag volgens mij. Er is bij mijn weten geen wet tegen. Mits gewoon via de procedures.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zondag 18-03-2018 om 23:39:25 TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO.That's the number of days since Trump told America he'd "100%" talk to Special Counsel Mueller "under oath." Since then, he's done nothing but attack the Special Counsel's investigation and stonewall *any* attempt to interview him. https://t.co/H7waF3C0NP reageer retweet

twitter:

CynthiaNixon twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 19:02:19 I love New York, and today I'm announcing my candidacy for governor. Join us: https://t.co/9DwsxWW8xX https://t.co/kYTvx6GZiD reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 19:14 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
In Austin, TX is een terrorist actief die bombrieven stuurt naar Afro-Amerikanen en inmiddels al twee slachtoffers heeft gemaakt

Ik heb er Trump nog niet over gehoord.

quote:

An undercover investigation by Channel 4 News reveals how Cambridge Analytica secretly campaigns in elections across the world. Bosses were filmed talking about using bribes, ex-spies, fake IDs and sex workers.

Senior executives at Cambridge Analytica – the data company that credits itself with Donald Trump’s presidential victory – have been secretly filmed saying they could entrap politicians in compromising situations with bribes and Ukrainian sex workers.

In an undercover investigation by Channel 4 News, the company’s chief executive Alexander Nix said the British firm secretly campaigns in elections across the world. This includes operating through a web of shadowy front companies, or by using sub-contractors.

In one exchange, when asked about digging up material on political opponents, Mr Nix said they could “send some girls around to the candidate’s house”, adding that Ukrainian girls “are very beautiful, I find that works very well”.

In another he said: “We’ll offer a large amount of money to the candidate, to finance his campaign in exchange for land for instance, we’ll have the whole thing recorded, we’ll blank out the face of our guy and we post it on the Internet.”

Offering bribes to public officials is an offence under both the UK Bribery Act and the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Cambridge Analytica operates in the UK and is registered in the United States.

SPOILER

The admissions were filmed at a series of meetings at London hotels over four months, between November 2017 and January 2018. An undercover reporter for Channel 4 News posed as a fixer for a wealthy client hoping to get candidates elected in Sri Lanka.

Mr Nix told our reporter: “…we’re used to operating through different vehicles, in the shadows, and I look forward to building a very long-term and secretive relationship with you.”

Along with Mr Nix, the meetings also included Mark Turnbull, the managing director of CA Political Global, and the company’s chief data officer, Dr Alex Tayler.

Mr Turnbull described how, having obtained damaging material on opponents, Cambridge Analytica can discreetly push it onto social media and the internet.

He said: “… we just put information into the bloodstream of the internet, and then, and then watch it grow, give it a little push every now and again… like a remote control. It has to happen without anyone thinking, ‘that’s propaganda’, because the moment you think ‘that’s propaganda’, the next question is, ‘who’s put that out?’.”

Mr Nix also said: “…Many of our clients don’t want to be seen to be working with a foreign company… so often we set up, if we are working then we can set up fake IDs and websites, we can be students doing research projects attached to a university, we can be tourists, there’s so many options we can look at. I have lots of experience in this.”

In the meetings, the executives boasted that Cambridge Analytica and its parent company Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL) had worked in more than two hundred elections across the world, including Nigeria, Kenya, the Czech Republic, India and Argentina.

The company is at the centre of a scandal over its role in the harvesting of more than 50 million Facebook profiles.

Chief executive Mr Nix has also been accused of misleading a parliamentary select committee, which is now asking him to provide further information. He has denied the allegations.

Tonight, a Cambridge Analytica spokesman said: “We entirely refute any allegation that Cambridge Analytica or any of its affiliates use entrapment, bribes, or so-called “honey-traps” for any purpose whatsoever… We routinely undertake conversations with prospective clients to try to tease out any unethical or illegal intentions…”

They said: “Cambridge Analytica does not use untrue material for any purpose.”

And they insisted that opposition research and intelligence gathering, the use of subcontractors and working discreetly with clients are all common practice and legitimate.

quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to step in and block a new congressional district map in Pennsylvania, again rebuking Republicans who are fighting hard to preserve a 2011 plan that has given the party a considerable electoral advantage.

The decision is a significant defeat for Republicans and means elections are likely to occur in November with House districts that are more competitive.

It is the second time in about a month that the high court declined to take up the GOP’s objections to the redrawn political boundaries. The latest request was referred to the full court and there were no noted dissents.

SPOILER

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the former map in January, saying it gave Republicans such an advantage that it violated the state constitution’s guarantee that elections be free and equal. The court ruled that the map violated that provision because it diluted the votes of Democrats, thus making them unequal.

The state judges gave lawmakers three weeks to agree on a new plan with Gov. Tom Wolf (D), and said it would draw its own map if they couldn’t. The lawmakers failed to reach an agreement, so the court issued its own map on Feb. 19.

Republicans were seeking to preserve the map under which they consistently won 13 of the state’s 18 House seats despite getting only about 50 percent of the total statewide vote in these contests and trailing Democrats in Pennsylvania’s voter registration.

The map drawn by the state Supreme Court could allow Democrats to gain an additional three to four seats in Congress. Those gains would boost the party’s hopes of winning a House majority in this year’s midterm elections.

Republicans appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time in January, after the state judges struck down the old map. Republicans argued that the U.S. Constitution only gave state lawmakers the right to draw congressional districts.

Justice Samuel Alito denied the appeal without referring it to the full court. Observers said Alito’s denial was a signal he did not think the GOP request had much merit.

After the state Supreme Court drew its own map, Republicans again pleaded with the Supreme Court to step in and block it. They had hoped the court might be willing to take another look after the state court had actually issued its map.

quote:

An undercover investigation by Channel 4 News reveals how Cambridge Analytica secretly campaigns in elections across the world. Bosses were filmed talking about using bribes, ex-spies, fake IDs and sex workers.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 20:57 schreef Montov het volgende:

[..]

Een soort O'Keefe on steriods?

Ik hoop dat de volledige beelden worden vrijgegeven in plaats van een selectieve edit.

twitter:

carolecadwalla twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 20:29:03 Wow. Britain's Information Officer announces she is seeking a warranting to raid Cambridge Analytica and seize servers reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 21:06 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:

[..]

Zit nu het eerste deel te kijken, daar zitten wel gewoon volledige beelden in. Morgen wordt er een uitzending aan de verkiezingen in de VS gewijd. De beelden zijn wel erg interessant. Ze hebben op film Nix, het hoofd van CA, die zichzelf incrimineert.

En ondertussen...

twitter:

carolecadwalla twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 20:29:03 Wow. Britain's Information Officer announces she is seeking a warranting to raid Cambridge Analytica and seize servers reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 21:19 schreef Montov het volgende:

[..]

Maar CA heeft zelf al gezegd dat het een broodje aap is. Dat moet kloppen, want dat hep gestaan op facebook.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 21:06 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
Ze hebben op film Nix, het hoofd van CA, die zichzelf incrimineert.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 21:42 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
Licht offtopic, maar nou ben ik wel benieuwd wat ze voor Baudet hebben betekent. Die heeft immers toegegeven ook gebruik van ze te hebben gemaakt.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 21:06 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:

[..]

En ondertussen...

twitter:

carolecadwalla twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 20:29:03 Wow. Britain's Information Officer announces she is seeking a warranting to raid Cambridge Analytica and seize servers reageer retweet

twitter:

MichaelLCrick twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 20:37:10 I understand that Information Commissioner is now likely to apply for warrant tonight, and is unhappy about Facebook’s presence right now inside the Cambridge Analytica’s office https://t.co/htqwn7drFK reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 22:05 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Kennelijk werd eerder gerapporteerd dat het voor morgen gezocht werd, maar nu willen ze vanavond al, en Facebook-mensen zijn aanwezig in hun pand?!

Channel4 verslaggever:

twitter:

MichaelLCrick twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 20:37:10 I understand that Information Commissioner is now likely to apply for warrant tonight, and is unhappy about Facebook’s presence right now inside the Cambridge Analytica’s office https://t.co/htqwn7drFK reageer retweet

quote:

Facebook has also announced that it has hired its own digital forensic team to audit Cambridge Analytica.

quote:

We have hired a digital forensics firm, Stroz Friedberg, to conduct a comprehensive audit of Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analytica has agreed to comply and afford the firm complete access to their servers and systems. We have approached the other parties involved — Christopher Wylie and Aleksandr Kogan — and asked them to submit to an audit as well. Mr. Kogan has given his verbal agreement to do so. Mr. Wylie thus far has declined.

This is part of a comprehensive internal and external review that we are conducting to determine the accuracy of the claims that the Facebook data in question still exists. This is data Cambridge Analytica, SCL, Mr. Wylie, and Mr. Kogan certified to Facebook had been destroyed. If this data still exists, it would be a grave violation of Facebook’s policies and an unacceptable violation of trust and the commitments these groups made.

We are moving aggressively to determine the accuracy of these claims. We remain committed to vigorously enforcing our policies to protect people’s information. We also want to be clear that today when developers create apps that ask for certain information from people, we conduct a robust review to identify potential policy violations and to assess whether the app has a legitimate use for the data. We actually reject a significant number of apps through this process. Kogan’s app would not be permitted access to detailed friends’ data today.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 22:13 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Facebook:

Pursuing Forensic Audits to Investigate Cambridge Analytica Claims

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 22:24 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Hier wordt Facebook ook afgebrand. Ze wisten er gewoon van en deden niets.

Kushner, Manafort were primary players in hiring Cambridge Analytica for Trump campaign

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 22:25 schreef Szura het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]
Poetin.gif

twitter:

shaneharris twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 22:17:10 SCOOP: Trump’s lawyers have turned over documents to Mueller with hopes of limiting interview scope https://t.co/Yr0Ie0lsWQ via @CarolLeonnig reageer retweet

quote:

Trump’s lawyers have turned over documents to Mueller with hopes of limiting interview scope


President Trump’s attorneys have provided the special counsel’s office with written descriptions that chronicle key moments under investigation in hopes of curtailing the scope of a presidential interview, according to two people familiar with the situation.

Trump’s legal team recently shared the documents in an effort to limit any session between the president and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to a few select topics, the people said. The lawyers are worried that Trump, who has a penchant for making erroneous claims, would be vulnerable in an hours-long interview.

The decision to share materials with Mueller’s team is part of an effort by Trump’s lawyers to minimize his exposure to the special counsel, whom the president recently attacked in a series of tweets.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 22:27 schreef Szura het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 22:32 schreef Sloggi het volgende:

[..]

En iedereen Facebookte nog lang en gelukkig.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 22:31 schreef BlackLining het volgende:
The lawyers are worried that Trump, who has a penchant for making erroneous claims, would be vulnerable in an hours-long interview.

twitter:

MiekeEoyang twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 22:34:59 Per @Slate's #slowburn podcast, Nixon tried to turn over summaries of Oval Office tapes to the special counsel's office rather than the tapes themselves.It didn't work. https://t.co/fZjQHAu6tC reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 22:34 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
Niet vergeten dat Ted Cruz ook aan de macht is gekomen dankzij CA, in hun eigen woorden. Wie weet gaat dit helpen om de lizard man onderuit te schoppen.

twitter:

carolecadwalla twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 21:30:13 If you are watching the Cambridge Analytica story unfold, please please support our journalism. We’ve fought off 3 legal threats from CA & 1 from Facebook. It’s a whole year’s work & we gave it to @Channel4News & @nytimes for the greater good. We need you!https://t.co/xxwntrMfBK https://t.co/hhWfeTLd7r reageer retweet

quote:

The witness-tampering charge arose from Kushner's act of retaliation against William Schulder, his sister Esther's husband, who was cooperating with federal investigators; Kushner hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, arranged to record an encounter between the two, and had the tape sent to his sister.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kushner

quote:

Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation
Facebook’s chief information security officer, Alex Stamos, will leave the company after internal disagreements over how the social network should deal with its role in spreading disinformation, according to current and former employees briefed on the matter. (New York Times).

SPOILER

Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters.

After his day-to-day responsibilities were reassigned to others in December, Mr. Stamos said he would leave the company. He was persuaded to stay through August to oversee the transition of his duties because executives thought his departure would look bad, the current and former employees said. He has been overseeing the transfer of his security team to Facebook’s product and infrastructure divisions. His group, which once had 120 people, now has three, the current and former employees said.

Mr. Stamos would be the first high-ranking employee to leave Facebook since controversy erupted over disinformation on its site. His departure is a sign of heightened leadership tensions at the company.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, Ms. Sandberg and other company leaders have struggled to address a growing set of problems, including Russian interference on the platform, the rise of false news, and the disclosure this past weekend that 50 million of its user profiles had been harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a voter-profiling company that worked on President Trump’s election campaign.

Facebook did not immediately have a comment.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 23:26 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 23:26 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

twitter:

SenFeinstein twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 23:06:18 I’m asking @ChuckGrassley to join me in seeking documents and testimony from Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix, whistleblower Christopher Wylie, Professor Aleksandr Kogan and Trump campaign officials. https://t.co/Hwk6EkIxhM reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 23:46 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Ik denk al langer na over het verwijderen van Facebook omdat het steeds minder toegevoegde waarde heeft. Het is tegenwoordig meer alsof je naar een eindeloos durende commercial aan het kijken bent. Ze maken het op deze manier wel erg makkelijk om een beslissing te nemen.

Het aandeel Facebook staat inmiddels 7% in de min.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 23:49 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

Mooi, weg ermee!

En ondertussen heeft Wikileaks het over Obama's campagne in 2012...

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 23:51 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:

[..]

Je zou voor de grap in r/conservatives moeten kijken..

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 22:31 schreef BlackLining het volgende:
Je zou bijna vergeten dat Mueller er ook nog is

twitter:

shaneharris twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 22:17:10 SCOOP: Trump’s lawyers have turned over documents to Mueller with hopes of limiting interview scope https://t.co/Yr0Ie0lsWQ via @CarolLeonnig reageer retweet

[..]

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpos(...)6877db618_story.html

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 23:46 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Ik denk al langer na over het verwijderen van Facebook omdat het steeds minder toegevoegde waarde heeft. Het is tegenwoordig meer alsof je naar een eindeloos durende commercial aan het kijken bent. Ze maken het op deze manier wel erg makkelijk om een beslissing te nemen.

Het aandeel Facebook staat inmiddels 7% in de min. Dat is 40 miljard (!) dollar.

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 23:57 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

GENOT

Deksel op de neus voor een arrogant, laks en ontkennend pleurisbedrijf dat denkt too big to fail te zijn.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 23:40:02 Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels' lawyer, tells @AriMelber that he has been invited to give hundreds of interviews to media outlets around the world, but "what is shocking to me is, I haven't received a single request, not one, from Fox News." reageer retweet

quote:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said on Monday that he supports holding a hearing on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's firing and wants to see the Justice Department's watchdog report that led to the ouster.

"I think a hearing would be appropriate so we could see what the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility recommended," Cornyn, the No. 2 GOP senator, told reporters.

SPOILER

Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe on Friday, just days before McCabe was set to retire, saying the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility and Office of Inspector General determined that he had leaked to the media and "lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions."

McCabe has long been a target of President Trump's, who, along with key Republicans on Capitol Hill, praised his firing.

Cornyn, who noted that the Justice Department and FBI watchdogs had been appointed by former President Obama, added that a hearing looking into the firing could be done under Congress's "oversight responsibilities."

"I think the FBI had some serious credibility issues. I think Mr. McCabe might have contributed to those. ... I'm happy to have a hearing," he said.

Cornyn is a member of both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees, which both have jurisdiction over the FBI.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he would also welcome a hearing on McCabe's firing.

“I think we owe it to the average American to have a hearing in the Judiciary Committee where Attorney General Sessions comes forward with whatever documentation he has about the firing, and give Mr. McCabe the chance to defend himself,” Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union."

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 00:02 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
En FOX News heeft het nog steeds over Clinton

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 23:40:02 Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels' lawyer, tells @AriMelber that he has been invited to give hundreds of interviews to media outlets around the world, but "what is shocking to me is, I haven't received a single request, not one, from Fox News." reageer retweet

quote:

.@seanhannity on @foxandfriends now! Great! 8:18 A.M.

twitter:

TrueFactsStated twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 23:33:24 Stormy’s Lawyer on MSNBC. I’ll paraphrase. “We have photos of Trump’s penis”. reageer retweet

quote:

Sessions’ Firing McCabe Violated His Promise to Recuse
Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to fire former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe appears to directly violate the promise he made, under oath, to recuse himself from such matters.

Some might contend that Sessions’ recusal covered only the Clinton and Trump campaigns, and that McCabe’s firing involved the Clinton Foundation investigation as a separate matter. But Sessions unequivocally assured senators of his intentions during his confirmation hearings in response to a clear and specific question from the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Sen. Grassley asked a follow-up question that went right to the point. In response, Sessions very clearly said his recusal would cover any matters involving the Clinton Foundation. (Just Security).

SPOILER

Here is the full exchange:

GRASSLEY: During the course of the presidential campaign, you made a number of statements about the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, relating to her handling of sensitive emails and regarding certain actions of the Clinton Foundation. You weren’t alone in that criticism. I was certainly critical in the same way as were millions of Americans on those matters, but now, you’ve been nominated to serve as attorney general. In light of those comments that you made, some have expressed concerns about whether you can approach the Clinton matter impartially in both fact and appearance. How do you plan to address those concerns?

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, it was a highly contentious campaign. I, like a lot of people, made comments about the issues in that campaign. With regard to Secretary Clinton and some of the comments I made, I do believe that that could place me objectivity in question. I’ve given that thought.

I believe the proper thing for me to do, would be to recuse myself from any questions involving those kind of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the campaign or to be otherwise connected to it.

GRASSLEY: OK. I think, that’s — let me emphasize then with a follow up question. To be very clear, you intend to recuse yourself from both the Clinton e-mail investigation and any matters involving the Clinton Foundation, if there are any?

SESSIONS: Yes.

This exchange has two implications for how one understands the scope of Sessions’ recusal. First, it goes to defining the scope of the recusal that Sessions made on March 2, 2017. If it is a close call whether the Clinton Foundation matter is sufficiently connected to the Clinton campaign for purpose of understanding Sessions’ recusal, it should be deemed to be sufficiently connected. After all, that’s essentially what Sessions told Sen. Grassley. Second, if the Clinton Foundation matter is deemed outside the scope of the recusal statement that Sessions made back in March last year, then his decision to fire McCabe shows that he failed to honor the promise for a broader recusal which he clearly made to the Senate in its decision to confirm him as Attorney General. The same goes for Hillary Clinton’s emails. Sen. Grassley’s questions and Sessions’ answers specifically covered any matters involving that investigation as well.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 00:29 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

TrueFactsStated twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 23:33:24 Stormy’s Lawyer on MSNBC. I’ll paraphrase. “We have photos of Trump’s penis”. reageer retweet

Zoveel subplots om bij te houden nu.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 00:29 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 00:24:47 I'm glad that Ryan wrote this and glad that Rachel retweeted it.I started yelling about this the second I heard McCabe had been fired. https://t.co/sriNNRJAj8 reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 00:29 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

TrueFactsStated twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 23:33:24 Stormy’s Lawyer on MSNBC. I’ll paraphrase. “We have photos of Trump’s penis”. reageer retweet

Zoveel subplots om bij te houden nu.

quote:

It’s Time for Congress to Pass the Mueller Protection Bills
Over the weekend, for the first time, President Trump directly called out Special Counsel Robert Mueller by name—leading a number of congressional Republicans to publicly insist that Mueller’s investigation be allowed to run its course. Perhaps foremost among them was South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who suggested that firing Mueller would be the “beginning of the end” of Trump’s presidency.

As I wrote in the Washington Post back in January, there’s an easy way for these members of Congress to put their money where their mouths are. Rather than spouting empty platitudes on Twitter and the Sunday shows, they could pass the pending, bipartisan legislation that would make it all-but impossible for Mueller to be fired without good cause. Indeed, Graham actually co-wrote one of the relevant bills himself. (Lawfare).

SPOILER

Some critics have argued that the legislation is unnecessary; others have suggested that it would be unconstitutional. To help understand these objections—and why, ultimately, I believe that they are unavailing—here’s a brief explainer on the relevant legal questions.

What’s the status quo?

Under the current regulation governing Mueller’s appointment (28 C.F.R. §600.7),

The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.

Importantly for these purposes, the attorney general here is actually Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (in his capacity as the acting attorney general), as Attorney General Jeff Sessions is recused from the Russia investigation.

As the above language suggests, Mueller can be removed for a number of reasons, the most sweeping of which is “other good cause.” And although the regulation requires that Mueller be notified in writing of the reasons for his termination, it provides no mechanism for him to challenge that determination. In other words, if Rosenstein (or a hypothetical successor) were to fire Mueller without good cause (either for an illegitimate reason or for no reason at all), that would be the end of the matter legally so long as the letter to Mueller asserted that good cause exists,.

What would the legislation do?

There are actually two different legislative proposals on the table to deal with this problem. Although they differ slightly in their particulars, they have the same basic structure: Both bills would allow a Special Counsel terminated under §600.7(d) to challenge his termination before a “three-judge” D.C. district court (which would include two federal district judges for the District of Columbia and one judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit). That three-judge court, in turn, would be able to decide if the substantive standard set out in §600.7(d) had been satisfied. Like all other decisions by three-judge district courts, whoever loses would have a right of mandatory (not discretionary) appeal directly to the Supreme Court. And that’s it. As I wrote in January, “[t]he bills don’t change the procedural or substantive rules governing the special counsel’s authority, or the grounds on which he can be fired; they simply ensure a role for the courts in reviewing any dismissal to make sure it’s done for the right reasons and not the wrong ones.”

What are the constitutional objections?

Notwithstanding the modesty of these proposals, at least some conservative legal scholars have argued that they’d be unconstitutional, pointing to Justice Antonin Scalia’s celebrated dissent in Morrison v. Olson—the 1988 Supreme Court case in which an 7-1 majority upheld the constitutionality of the now-defunct independent counsel statute. Most of these critics subscribe to the idea of a “unitary executive”—that the president can, should and must have the power to control the actions of everyone who works in the executive branch, and so statutes creating limits on his power to remove any subordinates are per se unconstitutional. But there are three distinct problems with these objections.

First, Morrison is still good law. Whatever the merits of Scalia’s dissent, the Supreme Court continues to cite it without questioning its core constitutional holding: that Congress is allowed to limit the removal of “inferior” executive branch prosecutors to cases in which a principal officer finds good cause. Indeed, many of the objections to Morrison are not about the unconstitutionality of the independent counsel statute, but rather all the ways in which, as Justice Scalia predicted, it was poorly designed. As Marty Lederman has explained, “The fact that many people came to see the Independent Counsel Act as a bad idea—including for some of the reasons described by Justice Scalia in his lone Morrison dissent—does not mean that they think it was unconstitutional.”

Second, even if there was a broader consensus that Morrison should be overruled, it’s just about impossible to count to five votes to do so among the current justices. Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote would almost certainly be dispositive, has long maintained that a balancing approach, rather than formalism like that which characterizes Scalia’s Morrison dissent, is appropriate in cases in which “the power at issue was not explicitly assigned by the text of the Constitution to be within the sole province of the President, but rather was thought to be encompassed within the general grant to the President of the ‘executive Power.’” As an example of when this approach is called for, Justice Kennedy cited the president’s power to remove executive branch officers—and Morrison itself.

Third, and most importantly, it’s worth emphasizing all the ways in which the special counsel regulation is less intrusive into executive power than the independent counsel statute. As Rick Pildes wrote on Lawfare last August, the regulation

made extensive departures from the structure of the Independent Counsel Act. These departures were virtually all designed to move the regime in the direction of greater constraints on the special-counsel process and to put the special counsel under greater supervision from the attorney general, while still maintaining the independence of the [special counsel].

In other words, the regulation was intended to preserve the salutary features of the independent counsel regime while eliminating its more glaring practical (and, in the view of some, constitutional) defects. I outlined most of the ways in which the regulation is narrower than the independent counsel statute in testimony before the Senate judiciary committee; for present purposes, the key is that the special counsel is generally not independent of the attorney general, unlike the independent counsel under the regime sustained in Morrison. Thus, whereas one of the principal objections to the independent counsel statute was that the independent counsel was so independent that she was not actually an “inferior” executive branch officer, the special counsel clearly is inferior. What’s more, simply providing for judicial review of his removal would have no bearing on his status.

Instead, whereas Scalia’s Morrison dissent highlighted a number of different ways in which the independent counsel statute intruded on executive power, the special counsel regulation, even with judicial review, would reflect exactly one point of intrusion: for-cause removal. So construed, the constitutional objection to the current bills is not only far narrower than the objections voiced by Scalia in Morrison. It’s only viable if one fully accepts the “unitary executive” theory of executive power—that all for-cause removal restrictions within the executive branch are constitutional. What’s more, as noted above, however popular that view may be among conservative legal scholars, it has never been fully embraced by a majority of the Supreme Court. And this view would suggest not only that these bills are unconstitutional, but that the regulation as currently written already constitutes an unacceptable infringement on executive power.

What are the policy objections?

If the constitutional objections to these bills are, as I’ve argued above, unavailing, then the only remaining question is whether enacting one of them would be a bad idea. Again, the key here is to understand how little the bills do—provide for judicial review of the existing substantive removal standard. So the question reduces to whether it’s a bad idea to allow a three-judge district court to review the attorney general’s initial termination decision.

I’m generally in favor of more judicial review, not less—and of broader federal remedies over narrower ones. So wholly apart from the (insane) politics of the moment, this proposal seems like a no-brainer. But even for those who are more circumspect, the arguments against such review presumably turn to some degree on confidence that the Justice Department will abide by its own regulation, and that allowing for judicial review of a removal decision is just unnecessary. Of course, there are plenty of reasons to doubt the efficacy of the internal checks and balances in this case—all the more so given the increasingly overt political pressure from the White House. So as between potentially inefficient judicial review and the possibility of firing a special counsel for illegitimate reasons, it seems to me that the scale tips rather overwhelmingly in favor of these proposals, rather than against them.

The other prudential objection is that the judicial review provided by the legislation could cause chaos; what would be the status of the investigation while Mueller litigated the validity of his termination before the courts? And would that litigation in turn become a referendum on Morrison, rather than the desired inquiry into the propriety of Mueller’s sacking? To me, this is a far more well-taken objection, but I think it ultimately misses the mark. It’s far less likely that whoever would otherwise be swinging the axe toward Mueller would do so for blatantly inappropriate reasons if they knew there was even the specter of judicial review. And if somehow the dismissal were undisputedly for good cause, presumably Mueller wouldn’t turn around and bring suit. So conceived, the particular genius of the Mueller protection bills is that, if they’re enacted, the judicial procedure they would create would almost certainly never have to be utilized.

Where do things stand?

Notwithstanding the above analysis, both bills have, by all accounts, stalled in the Senate judiciary committee—which held a thorough hearing on them six months ago next Monday. Back in January (when news broke that the president had—unsuccessfully, as it turned out—instructed White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller last summer), Republicans asked about the legislation suggested that McGahn’s refusal proved why these bills weren’t necessary. That was baloney then, and it’s an even more alarming abdication now, with the president seemingly poised to go after Mueller directly. And yet, for all of the talk about Mueller over the past few days, nary a Republican has come out in support of passing these bills—including their Republican co-sponsors.

If the hitherto-silent Republicans really have constitutional objections to these bills, let’s hear them (per the above, I’m skeptical). If they have policy objections, let’s hear those, too. But for those who actually want to ensure that the special counsel’s investigation continues unimpeded and don’t just want to look good to their constituents, there’s an easy way to do more than just threatening the president in tweets and talk-show interviews:

Pass this legislation.

quote:

The President and His Lawyers, Part II: The Attorney General and the Saturday Night Pre-Massacre
As President Trump moves closer to an all-out assault on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the question is: How will the lawyers around him respond? They understand that the president sees them as an extension of his personal staff, in place to serve him as he pleases: to get done what he believes is necessary. Those who have not yet lost their ethical bearings have the choice to resist or to enable. The news of the last few days is not promising.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe hours before McCabe’s retirement, as the White House urged Sessions on publicly. Sessions could and did point to the recommendations before him from career officials. But, whatever the still-undetermined merits of the decision to dismiss McCabe, the fact remains that the attorney general rushed to do what the president openly pressed for and then publicly celebrated. (Lawfare).

SPOILER

Sessions might instead have sent a clear message to the president that he meant what he said about maintaining even the public appearance of independence from White House pressure. For example, he could have deferred the decision on McCabe until later, advising the White House he would not act while the president was agitating publicly for the dismissal. He did not. He also had the choice, but declined, to recuse himself from participation in the decision.

Not too long ago, Sessions commendably rebuffed the president’s attacks on him for failing to direct an investigation of Hillary Clinton. This time around, in the firing of McCabe, he has helped to normalize the procedure by which the president, observing only in name the principle of non-interference in Justice Department matters, is repeatedly using Twitter to express opinions and exhorting official action on law enforcement matters.

The trouble with Sessions’ conduct runs still deeper. The firing of McCabe quickly became the rationale for an attack on the special counsel when Trump’s personal lawyer John Dowd informed the Daily Beast:

I pray that Acting Attorney General Rosenstein will follow the brilliant and courageous example of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility and Attorney General Jeff Sessions and bring an end to alleged Russia Collusion investigation manufactured by McCabe’s boss James Comey based upon a fraudulent and corrupt Dossier.

Dowd initially stated that he was speaking for the president and as his lawyer before declaring that he had in fact been commenting in a personal capacity. He then reported that, while the statement was his own, the president had “no problem” with it. Dowd was right that he and the president shared the same view of the significance for the Mueller investigation of the McCabe firing. The president quickly took up his counsel’s argument on Twitter.

By laying the foundation for this fresh, orchestrated case for the end of the Russian investigation, Sessions appears to have abrogated a commitment, made to the Senate in June 2017, that he would take no step toward firing Mueller.

Sen. Mark Warner: Will you commit to the committee not to take personal actions that might not result in director Mueller's firing or dismissal?

Sessions: I can say that with confidence...

Warner: You would not take any actions to have the special investigator removed.

Sessions: I don't think that's appropriate for me to do.

Did Sessions’s rush to fire McCabe fall under the umbrella of any “action to have [Mueller] removed?” If Sessions had any knowledge that the president and his counsel were prepared to seize on the dismissal to call for Mueller’s firing, then he would have lent support to the plan in a manner inconsistent with his pledge to Warner. Certainly Sessions knew weeks ago that the president was singling out McCabe in his denigration of the “corrupt” FBI leadership. He also must know that McCabe is a witness in the special counsel’s obstruction investigation. These considerations alone should have been sufficient to alert the attorney general to the risks of taking an active part in firing McCabe—especially hurriedly, to beat his retirement date, under public pressure from the president.

But even if Sessions missed all of this, he now understands how the president and his counsel used the firing of McCabe. This may not have been another Saturday Night Massacre, but it may turn out to have been the prelude. And Sessions is—or he has been made—a party to it.

In the massacre of Watergate fame, the attorney general at the time, Elliot Richardson, discovered that the president and White House advisers were maneuvering to force out the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox and “induce [Richardson] to go along.” As Richardson wrote in an Atlantic piece in March of 1976 (titled “The Saturday Night Massacre”), Nixon’s plan was to have him help unwittingly with the ouster of Cox and yet not feel he had to resign.

But that attorney general figured out what was afoot and would not “go along.’

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 18:50 schreef Klaphark het volgende:
Is het in theorie mogelijk dat Trump getapt, afgeluisterd, kan worden? Of is er wetgeving die zegt dat dit niet mag bij een Potus.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 01:28:45 The Democrats do not want to help DACA. Would be so easy to make a deal! reageer retweet

quote:

Cohen, for his part, said that for as many questions as can be asked, “the only issue that will ultimately be decided is the amount of damages Ms. Clifford will owe.” If a judge does ultimately order Clifford to pay damages, Cohen said that any money he receives will go to pay lawyers first. After that, he said, the balance will be donated to various charities. “You know what?” he added. “The more I’m thinking about it, I might even take an extended vacation on her dime.”
Vanity Fair

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 21:57:44 Mr. Cohen should ensure he makes REFUNDABLE reservations for that extended vacation he is planning on my client’s dime.....https://t.co/n9llqgZC1P reageer retweet

quote:

President Trump’s legal team was poised for a shake-up on Monday, according to two people briefed on the matter, as he openly discussed firing one of his lawyers, another considered resigning and a third — who pushed theories on television that Mr. Trump was framed by the F.B.I. — joined the roster.

Mr. Trump has weighed aloud in recent days to close associates whether to dismiss his lawyer Ty Cobb, who had pushed most strongly a strategy of cooperating fully with the special counsel investigation. The president reassured Mr. Cobb that he had no plans to fire him, according to a person who spoke with the president late Monday, in part to prevent a narrative that his team was in disarray after The New York Times began making inquiries.

Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer, John Dowd, has contemplated leaving his post because he has concluded that he has no control over the behavior of the president, the two people briefed on the matter said. Ignoring his lawyers’ advice, Mr. Trump has reverted to a more aggressive strategy of publicly assailing the inquiry that he initially adopted in the weeks immediately after the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was appointed. Now the president has begun attacking Mr. Mueller himself.

The shift in tone appears to be a product of the president’s concern that the investigation into possible ties between his associates and Russia’s election interference is bearing down on him more directly. And the legal team’s collapse comes as his lawyers are confronting one of their most critical tasks: advising the president on whether to agree to sit for an interview with the special counsel’s office.

SPOILER

Mr. Dowd said he had no plans to leave the team. “I’m sitting here working on the president’s case right now,” he said in a telephone interview on Monday night. Mr. Cobb has told people that the president has recently implored him to stay.

In another sign of the president’s more aggressive posture, on Monday he hired Joseph E. diGenova, a longtime Washington lawyer who has appeared regularly on Fox News in recent months to claim that the F.B.I. and the Justice Department had manufactured evidence against Mr. Trump to aid Hillary Clinton.

“There was a brazen plot to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton and, if she didn’t win the election, to then frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime,” he said on Fox News in January. He added, “Make no mistake about it: A group of F.B.I. and D.O.J. people were trying to frame Donald Trump of a falsely created crime.”

Little evidence has emerged to support that theory.

Mr. Trump is also discussing adding other lawyers to the team, according to one person with knowledge of the matter.

The tumult marked the greatest instability on the team since Mr. Trump pushed aside his personal lawyer, Marc E. Kasowitz, last summer, and was passed over by many of Washington’s top lawyers before he settled on his current crop of attorneys.

“It’s never a good idea to see legal teams change dramatically and for competent lawyers to be replaced by others,” said Roger Cossack, a longtime legal analyst. “It shows that there is chaos and that whoever the client is — in this case the president — is unhappy and is searching for the magic bullet. And it’s never a great strategy to search for the magic bullet. The president clearly wants it to end and wants to put an end to it.”

Mr. Cobb, Mr. Dowd and another lawyer, Jay Sekulow, took over last summer from Mr. Kasowitz, a feisty New Yorker who had represented Mr. Trump in high-profile lawsuits and urged an aggressive posture toward Mr. Mueller, who was appointed last May.

Mr. Trump insisted to his lawyers that he did nothing wrong and they pushed for cooperation with the special counsel, arguing it was his best way to have his name cleared. Working inside the White House, Mr. Cobb oversaw the production of thousands of pages of documents and emails that were turned over to Mr. Mueller’s office and said that the president should not assert executive privilege over the records to keep from slowing the process. The lawyers told the president they hoped to get Mr. Mueller to acknowledge by the end of the year that Mr. Trump was not a target of the investigation.

Mr. Mueller’s investigation is continuing.

As it goes forward, Mr. Trump has questioned his lawyers’ approach and clashed with them about whether to be interviewed by Mr. Mueller. The president believes he is his best spokesman and can explain to Mr. Mueller that he did nothing wrong. The lawyers see little upside.

Mr. Dowd and Mr. Sekulow became concerned about their standing with the president in the past two weeks after they learned Mr. Trump had met with another veteran lawyer, Emmet Flood, who represented President Bill Clinton during impeachment proceedings, about joining the team.

Both publicly and privately, Mr. Trump tried to reassure his lawyers that they had not fallen out of favor with him. “I am VERY happy with my lawyers, John Dowd, Ty Cobb and Jay Sekulow,” Mr. Trump said on Twitter, assailing a New York Times article about his discussions with Mr. Flood. “They are doing a great job.”

Mr. Dowd, in turn, called on the Justice Department over the weekend to end the special counsel investigation. Mr. Dowd said at first that he was speaking for the president, but later backtracked. But according to two people briefed on the matter, he was in fact acting at the president’s urging.

Mr. Dowd’s statement set off a stream of negative coverage of Mr. Trump on cable television, to which he is closely attuned. His lawyers were criticized for being undisciplined, and Mr. Dowd’s remarks prompted concern that the president was going to order that Mr. Mueller be fired. Mr. Cobb tried to douse that speculation on Sunday, saying that the president was not considering dismissing the special counsel.

The president’s newest lawyer, Mr. diGenova, has worked in Washington legal circles for decades, including as a United States attorney for the District of Columbia appointed by President Ronald Reagan. He has served as an independent counsel in government waste, fraud and abuse investigations, notably a three-year criminal inquiry into whether officials in the George Bush administration broke any laws in their search for damaging information about Bill Clinton, then a presidential candidate.

Mr. diGenova is law partners with his wife, Victoria Toensing. She has also represented Sam Clovis, the former Trump campaign co-chairman, and Erik Prince, the founder of the security contractor Blackwater and an informal adviser to Mr. Trump. Mr. Prince also attended a meeting in January 2017 with a Russian investor in the Seychelles that the special counsel is investigating.

Ms. Toensing also represents Mark Corallo, the former spokesman for the Trump legal team who has accused one of the president’s advisers of potentially planning to obstruct justice with a statement related to a 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information about Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. diGenova was one of several former independent counsels who, in the late 1990s, argued that the role be narrowed. In 1999, Congress let the portions of the law allowing for an independent counsel expire.

quote:

Trump is not consulting with top advisers, including Chief of Staff John F. Kelly and chief White House lawyer Donald McGahn, on his Russia legal choices or his comments about the probe, according to one person with knowledge of his actions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive conversations. He is instead watching television and calling friends, this person said.

The president continues to complain that his lawyers are not protecting him and that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein -- who is supervising the probe -- is up to mischief, said the person, who spoke to Trump in recent days.

twitter:

CamAnalytica twitterde op zaterdag 17-03-2018 om 19:49:47 Obama's 2008 campaign was famously data-driven, pioneered microtargeting in 2012, talking to people specifically based on the issues they care about. 6/8 reageer retweet

twitter:

mbsimon twitterde op zondag 18-03-2018 om 05:45:06 👋 I ran the Obama 2008 data-driven microtargeting team. How dare you! We didn’t steal private Facebook profile data from voters under false pretenses. OFA voluntarily solicited opinions of hundreds of thousands of voters. We didn’t commit theft to do our groundbreaking work. https://t.co/CyVIFDB2Tz reageer retweet

twitter:

CamAnalytica twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 19:35:05 We strongly deny the claims recently made by the New York Times, the Guardian and Channel 4 News. Read our latest press release: https://t.co/G8cnv5G8oc reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 04:17:30 They're not "claims," Cambridge Analytica.They're *detailed, videotaped confessions* of serious and possibly criminal misconduct by your top executives.Why should the world read your *press releases* when it can read exhaustive, sworn depositions from you for the next decade? https://t.co/eMBfpnHqmO reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 19 maart 2018 22:12 schreef Szura het volgende:
Mooi dat het FB klauwen met geld kost, laks pleurisbedrijf. En sommige figuren willen dat die Zuckerberg een gooi doet naar het presidentschap?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 07:36 schreef livelink het volgende:
En de volgende shutdown ligt nu ook al weer op de loer. Ik word al moe van alles wat er speelt. Als je middenin dat circus zit moet je toch helemaal gek worden?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 07:36 schreef livelink het volgende:
En de volgende shutdown ligt nu ook al weer op de loer. Ik word al moe van alles wat er speelt. Als je middenin dat circus zit moet je toch helemaal gek worden?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 07:57 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Waar haal je dat vandaan? Er ligt toch juist een spending deal?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 04:15 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

CamAnalytica twitterde op zaterdag 17-03-2018 om 19:49:47 Obama's 2008 campaign was famously data-driven, pioneered microtargeting in 2012, talking to people specifically based on the issues they care about. 6/8 reageer retweet

twitter:

mbsimon twitterde op zondag 18-03-2018 om 05:45:06 👋 I ran the Obama 2008 data-driven microtargeting team. How dare you! We didn’t steal private Facebook profile data from voters under false pretenses. OFA voluntarily solicited opinions of hundreds of thousands of voters. We didn’t commit theft to do our groundbreaking work. https://t.co/CyVIFDB2Tz reageer retweet

twitter:

CamAnalytica twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 19:35:05 We strongly deny the claims recently made by the New York Times, the Guardian and Channel 4 News. Read our latest press release: https://t.co/G8cnv5G8oc reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 04:17:30 They're not "claims," Cambridge Analytica.They're *detailed, videotaped confessions* of serious and possibly criminal misconduct by your top executives.Why should the world read your *press releases* when it can read exhaustive, sworn depositions from you for the next decade? https://t.co/eMBfpnHqmO reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 03:30 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Trump Considers Reshuffling Legal Team as He Takes On Mueller More Aggressively

[..]

WaPo:

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 04:15 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

CamAnalytica twitterde op zaterdag 17-03-2018 om 19:49:47 Obama's 2008 campaign was famously data-driven, pioneered microtargeting in 2012, talking to people specifically based on the issues they care about. 6/8 reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 00:32 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Is wraakporno in Amerika niet gewoon strafbaar?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 10:09 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Interessant dat de bepalingen in TPP die Amerika onderhandelt heeft niet verwijderd zijn, ze zijn wel bevroren, wat een indicatie zou zijn dat de landen die nu een Amerika-loze TPP afspreken de Hoop behouden dat Amerika er toch nog in gaat stappen wat ook in lijn is met recente berichtgeving dat Amerika alsnog voorzichtig het standpunt heroverweegt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 07:57 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Waar haal je dat vandaan? Er ligt toch juist een spending deal?

quote:

Package believed to be bound for Austin explodes at Texas FedEx facility, police say
A package believed to be bound for Austin exploded at a Texas FedEx facility overnight, law enforcement officials said early Tuesday.

The explosion occurred at a FedEx facility in Schertz, Tex., just northeast of San Antonio sometime around 1 a.m., said FBI Special Agent Michelle Lee. She did not have the exact time.

ATF spokeswoman Nicole Strong said that early indications are that no one was injured. (Washington Post).

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 00:32 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Is wraakporno in Amerika niet gewoon strafbaar?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 10:34 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Als de VS het braaf vraagt mogen ze vast wel lid worden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 11:01 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

Bijna wederom raak, dus, maar het explosief ging te vroeg af.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 11:50 schreef PippenScottie het volgende:

[..]

Heeft de Pres eigenlijk al aandacht besteed aan deze Texaanse bomterreur?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 11:54 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Nope. Hij is alleen geïnteresseerd in terreur als het door moslims of immigranten gedaan wordt, zo lijkt het. Hoewel de dader nu niet duidelijk is, heeft het duidelijk geen prioriteit voor Trump.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 11:37 schreef grrrrg het volgende:

[..]

Maar je mag toch wel zeggen dat je een piepkleine penisfoto van hem hebt?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 11:39 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Moeten ze wel weer meer water bij de wijn doen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 12:08 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Misschien heeft hij wel een bloedlul

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 12:11 schreef speknek het volgende:
Even if CA did this it's not illegal.
Even if it is illegal, both sides did it.
Even if it's illegal and only one side did it, Trump team didn't know about it.
Even if it's illegal, and only one side did it and the Trump team was complicit, it didn't change the election outcome.
Even if it's illegal and only one side did it and the Trump team was complicit and it did change the election outcome, BENGHAZI BAD CANDIDATE

Kwartet is al bijna vol.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 12:15 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Het scheelt niet veel:

GOP close to issuing subpoena for Justice records linked to Clinton probe, lawmaker says

quote:

Trump wil vaccin in strijd tegen medicijnverslaving

President Trump wil geld beschikbaar stellen voor onderzoek naar een vaccin tegen medicijnverslaving. Nu komen in de VS jaarlijks tienduizenden mensen om door een overdosis extreem sterke pijnstillers. In een toespraak in New Hampshire zette Trump uiteen hoe hij dat probleem wil aanpakken.

"Ik vertel u dat de gesel van drugsverslaving in Amerika zal stoppen", zei Trump in de stad Manchester. "Het zal stoppen."

De president kreeg veel kritiek omdat hij medicijnverslaving een half jaar geleden weliswaar een 'noodtoestand voor de volksgezondheid' noemde, maar niet met een concreet plan van aanpak kwam, laat staan met geld daarvoor. In New Hampshire, een staat waar het verslavingsprobleem nog groter is dan elders, werd Trump concreter.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 12:46 schreef BlackLining het volgende:
Volgens de NOS wil hij gaan vaccineren tegen de opioid crisis

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 13:05 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:
Gek he, dat er nu zoveel verslaafden zijn?

quote:

'Utterly horrifying': ex-Facebook insider says covert data harvesting was routine
Sandy Parakilas says numerous companies deployed these techniques – likely affecting hundreds of millions of users – and that Facebook looked the other way

Hundreds of millions of Facebook users are likely to have had their private information harvested by companies that exploited the same terms as the firm that collected data and passed it on to Cambridge Analytica, according to a new whistleblower. (Guardian).

SPOILER

Sandy Parakilas, the platform operations manager at Facebook responsible for policing data breaches by third-party software developers between 2011 and 2012, told the Guardian he warned senior executives at the company that its lax approach to data protection risked a major breach.

“My concerns were that all of the data that left Facebook servers to developers could not be monitored by Facebook, so we had no idea what developers were doing with the data,” he said.

Parakilas said Facebook had terms of service and settings that “people didn’t read or understand” and the company did not use its enforcement mechanisms, including audits of external developers, to ensure data wasn’t being misused.

Parakilas, whose job it was to investigate data breaches by developers similar to the one later suspected of Global Science Research, which harvested tens of millions of Facebook profiles and provided the data to Cambridge Analytica, said that the slew of recent disclosures have left him disappointed at his superiors for not heeding his warnings.

“It has been painful watching,” he said. “Because I know that they could have prevented it.”

Asked what kind of control Facebook had of the data that was handed over to outside developers, he replied: “Zero. Absolutely none. Once the data left Facebook servers there was not any control, and there was no insight into what was going on.”

Parakilas said he “always assumed there was something of a black market” for Facebook data passed to external developers. However, he said that when he told other executives the company should proactively “audit developers directly and see what’s going on with the data” he was discouraged from the approach.

He said one Facebook executive advised him against looking too deeply at how the data was being used, warning him: “Do you really want to see what you’ll find?” Parakilas said he interpreted the comment to mean that “Facebook was in a stronger legal position if it didn’t know about the abuse that was happening”.

He added: “They felt that it was better not to know. I found that utterly shocking and horrifying.”

Parakilas first went public with his concerns about privacy at Facebook four months ago, but his direct experience policing Facebook data given to third parties throws new light on revelations over how such data was obtained by Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook did not respond to a request for response to the information supplied by Parakilas, but directed the Guardian to a November 2017 blogpost in which the company defended its data sharing practices, which it said had “significantly improved” over the last five years.

“While it’s fair to criticise how we enforced our developer policies more than five years ago, it’s untrue to suggest we didn’t or don’t care about privacy,” that statement said. “The facts tell a different story.”

‘A majority of Facebook users’
Parakilas, 38, who now works as a product manager for Uber, is particularly critical of Facebook’s previous policy of allowing developers to access the personal data of friends of people who used apps on the platform, without the knowledge or express consent of those friends.

That feature, called Friends Permission, was a boon to outside software developers who, from 2007 onwards, were given permission by Facebook to build games and quizzes – like the widely popular FarmVille – that were hosted on the platform.

The apps proliferated on Facebook in the years leading up to the company’s 2012 initial public offering, an era when most users were still accessing the platform via laptops and computers rather than smartphones.

Facebook took a 30% cut of payments made through apps, but in return enabled them their creators to have access to Facebook user data.

Parakilas does not know how many companies sought Friends Permission data before access was feature terminated around mid-2014. However, he believes tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of developers may have done so.

By that point, Parakilas estimates that “a majority of Facebook users” could have had their data harvested by app developers without their knowledge. The company now has stricter protocols guarding what access third parties have access to.

Parakilas said that when he worked at Facebook the company failed to take full advantage of its enforcement mechanisms, such as a clause that enables the social media giant to audit external developers that misuse its data.

Legal action against rogue developers or moves to ban them from Facebook were “extremely rare”, he said, adding: “In the time I was there, I didn’t see them conduct a single audit of a developer’s systems.”

Facebook announced on Monday that it had hired a digital forensics firm to conduct an audit of Cambridge Analytica. The decision comes more than two years after Facebook was made aware of the reported data breach.

During the time he was at Facebook, Parakilas said the company was keen to encourage more developers to build apps for its platform and “one of the main ways to get developers interested in building apps was through offering them access to this data”. Shortly after arriving at the company’s Silicon Valley headquarters he was told that any decision to ban an app required the personal approval of the chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, although the policy was later relaxed to make it easier to deal with rogue developers.

While the previous policy of giving developers access to Facebook users’ friends data was sanctioned in the small print in Facebook’s terms and conditions, and users could block such data sharing by changing their settings, Parakilas believed the policy was policy was problematic.

“It was well understood in the company that that presented a risk,” he said of the Friends Permission feature. “Facebook was giving data of people who had not authorised the app themselves and was relying on terms of service and settings that people didn’t read or understand.”

It was this feature that was exploited by Global Science Research (GSR), and provided to Cambridge Analytica in 2014.GSR was a company run by a Cambridge University psychologist called Aleksandr Kogan, who built an app that was a personality test for Facebook users.

The personality test automatically downloaded the data of friends of people who took the quiz, ostensibly for academic purposes. Cambridge Analytica has denied knowing that the data was obtained improperly and Kogan maintains that he did nothing illegal and had a “close working relationship” with Facebook.

While Kogan’s app only attracted around 270,000 users (most of whom were paid to take his quiz), the company was then able to exploit the Friends Permission feature to quickly amass data pertaining to more than 50 million Facebook users.

“Kogan’s app was one of the very last to have access to friend permissions,” Parakilas said, adding that many other similar apps had for years been harvesting similar quantities of data for commercial purposes. Academic research from 2010, based on an analysis of some 1,800 Facebooks apps concluded that around 11% of third-party developers requested data belonging to friends of users.

If those figures are extrapolated, tens of thousands of apps, if not more, are likely to have systematically culled “private and personally identifiable” data from data belonging to hundreds of millions of users through, Parakilas said.

The ease with which it was possible for anyone with relatively basic coding skills to create apps and start trawling for data was a particular concern, he added.

Parakilas said he is unsure of why Facebook ceased allowing developers to access friends data around the mid-2014, roughly two years after he left the company. However, he believes one reason may be that Facebook executives were becoming aware that some of the largest apps were acquiring enormous troves of valuable data.

He recalled conversations with Facebook executives who were nervous about the commercial value of data being passed to other companies.

“They were worried that the large app developers were building their own social graphs, meaning they could see all the connections between these people,” he said. “They were worried that they were going to build their own social networks.”

‘They treated it like a PR exercise’
Parakilas said he lobbied internally at Facebook for “a more rigorous approach” to enforcing data protection, but was offered little support. His warnings included a PowerPoint presentation he said he delivered to senior executives in mid-2012 “that included a map of the vulnerabilities for user data on Facebook’s platform”.

“I included the protective measures that we had tried to put in place, where we were exposed, and the kinds of bad actors who might do malicious things with the data,” he said. “On the list of bad actors I included foreign state actors and data brokers.”

Frustrated at the lack of action, Parakilas left Facebook in late 2012. “I didn’t feel that the company treated my concerns seriously. I didn’t speak out publicly for years out of self-interest, to be frank.”

That changed, Parakilas said, when he heard the congressional testimony Facebook lawyers gave to Senate and House investigators in late 2017 about Russia’s attempt to sway the presidential election. “They treated it like a PR exercise,” he said. “They seemed to be entirely focused on limiting their liability and exposure rather than helping the country address a national security issue.”

It was at that point that Parakilas decided to go public with his concerns, writing an opinion article in the New York Times that warned Facebook could not be trusted to regulate itself. Since then, Parakilas has become an adviser to the Center for Humane Technology, which is run by Tristan Harris, a former Google employee turned whistleblower on the industry.

twitter:

eelcobvr twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 15:19:51 Afgewogen stuk over ontslag onderdirecteur FBI, waarvan ook sommige Democraten zeggen dat het misschien gegrond was https://t.co/HCHKXlyWlO reageer retweet

twitter:

lawfareblog twitterde op zaterdag 17-03-2018 om 15:51:50 "What We Know, and Don’t Know, About the Firing of Andrew McCabe," the latest from Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes: https://t.co/a9Zupr1zN8 reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 13:37 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

twitter:

eelcobvr twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 15:19:51 Afgewogen stuk over ontslag onderdirecteur FBI, waarvan ook sommige Democraten zeggen dat het misschien gegrond was https://t.co/HCHKXlyWlO reageer retweet

twitter:

lawfareblog twitterde op zaterdag 17-03-2018 om 15:51:50 "What We Know, and Don’t Know, About the Firing of Andrew McCabe," the latest from Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes: https://t.co/a9Zupr1zN8 reageer retweet

https://lawfareblog.com/w(...)firing-andrew-mccabe

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 13:40 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Als je iemand 2 dagen voor zijn pensioen ontslaat is het natuurlijk nooit terecht, dat komt alleen maar rancuneus over.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 13:31 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 13:37 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

twitter:

eelcobvr twitterde op maandag 19-03-2018 om 15:19:51 Afgewogen stuk over ontslag onderdirecteur FBI, waarvan ook sommige Democraten zeggen dat het misschien gegrond was https://t.co/HCHKXlyWlO reageer retweet

twitter:

lawfareblog twitterde op zaterdag 17-03-2018 om 15:51:50 "What We Know, and Don’t Know, About the Firing of Andrew McCabe," the latest from Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes: https://t.co/a9Zupr1zN8 reageer retweet

https://lawfareblog.com/w(...)firing-andrew-mccabe

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 12:46 schreef BlackLining het volgende:
Volgens de NOS wil hij gaan vaccineren tegen de opioid crisis

https://nos.nl/artikel/22(...)icijnverslaving.html

[..]

Dus, concluderend:

1. Je schrijft zonder problemen opiaten voor als pijnstillers
2. Je begeleidt patienten niet bij het revalideren met deze opiaten
3. Verslavingszorg is niet te betalen of onbereikbaar
4. Eenmaal van de zorg in de armoede belandt, is er geen vangnet
5. Als 'oplossing' spuit je er nog maar een ander middeltje bij in

Hoe zou het toch komen dat de straten daar overlopen van de verslaafden

Is hij trouwens vergeten Fox and Friends te kijken vanmorgen? Het blijft wel erg stil. Of zou hij al aan het golfen zijn?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 13:09 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

De belangrijkste oorzaak is m.i. dat ze oxycodon en alle afgeleiden/mengsels daarvan in het begin hebben gepresenteerd als "niet echt een opiaat" en "niet echt verslavend" en er dus veilig om kon worden gevraagd ("Vraag Uw Huiarts Er Om!") en veilig kon worden voorgeschreven, terwijl het 1,5 keer zo sterk is als morfine, net zo verslavend én 100% opiaat is.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 13:42 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Het is inderdaad wel nogal kleinzerig.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:03 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Sowieso is de classificatie van drugs in schedules in de VS een volstrekt lachertje. Ze hanteren een vijftal schedules van meeste gevaar voor misbruik en schade naar minste. Daar weven ze dan 'medisch gebruik' nog een beetje vaag doorheen.

In Schedule I staan naast heroïne (wat daar terecht staat) ook LSD, Ecstasy en wiet, terwijl cocaïne, oxycodon, ritalin en methamfetamine schedule II drugs zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:04 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Mc Cabe heeft dit niet verdiend, inderdaad. Hij heeft trouwens een aanbod gekregen van een democratische senator om voor hem te komen werken om zijn pensioen te houden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:07 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Trouwens, waarom gaat iemand met pensioen op zijn 50ste?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:07 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Trouwens, waarom gaat iemand met pensioen op zijn 50ste?

SPOILER

Special agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation provide national security, enforce federal laws and investigate crimes. After providing honorable service for their country, special agents receive federal retirement benefits upon retirement to replace their salary. Special agents with 20 years of federal law enforcement service are eligible to retire at age 50. Agents with 25 or more years of service are eligible for retirement, regardless of age. Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) includes a basic benefit, thrift savings plan and Social Security.
FERS Basic Benefit

Special agents receive retirement benefits through the FERS. Their pension is based on the number of years of service as a special agent and their three years of highest income. Special agents receive 1.7 percent of this average multiplied by 20 for the first 20 years of service. Added to this is 1 percent of the high-three average salary multiplied by the number of years over 20 the special agent served.
Special Agent Pay Grade

Special agents are paid according the Officer of Personnel Management's General Schedule pay scale. Special agents begin their careers at the GS-10, step one pay grade, earning $45,771 per year, as of 2013. With years of service, agents move up from step one to step 10. With promotions, they move higher up the GS pay scale. In the field, special agents can reach the GS-13 pay grade. In supervisory and executive positions, they can move up to the GS-15 level. If an agent retires at the GS-15, step one pay grade, she is earning $99,628 per year and at the step 10 pay grade, she is earning $129,517 per year, as of 2013. FERS basic benefit is calculated on the highest three years of salary.
Credit for Military Service

Special agents with active-duty military service may receive credit for their years in the uniformed services. In order to receive credit towards retirement, special agent must deposit 3 percent of their active duty base pay into the FERS system. This deposit must be made prior to retirement. If the agent deposits the money in the first three years, the total deposit due is not subject to yearly, compounded interest rates.
Thrift Savings Plan

In addition to FERS, special agents have a Federal Thrift Savings Plan. This is similar to a 401(k). The government invests an amount equal to 1 percent of the employee's salary into the account. Special agents are not required to put additional funds into their TSP; however, any investment the agent makes into the plan is matched by the government up to 5 percent of the agent's salary. Deposits are made before tax, and agents must pay taxes on the funds upon withdrawal. Withdrawals from a TSP may be done in one lump sum, monthly payments or lifetime annuity.
Social Security

The government withdraws Social Security and Medicare taxes from the special agent's paycheck. Upon reaching full retirement age between 65 and 67, special agents begin receiving Social Security retirement income. The amount varies by the agent's average income.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 12:46 schreef BlackLining het volgende:
Volgens de NOS wil hij gaan vaccineren tegen de opioid crisis

https://nos.nl/artikel/22(...)icijnverslaving.html

[..]

Dus, concluderend:

1. Je schrijft zonder problemen opiaten voor als pijnstillers
2. Je begeleidt patienten niet bij het revalideren met deze opiaten
3. Verslavingszorg is niet te betalen of onbereikbaar
4. Eenmaal van de zorg in de armoede belandt, is er geen vangnet
5. Als 'oplossing' spuit je er nog maar een ander middeltje bij in

Hoe zou het toch komen dat de straten daar overlopen van de verslaafden

Is hij trouwens vergeten Fox and Friends te kijken vanmorgen? Het blijft wel erg stil. Of zou hij al aan het golfen zijn?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:19 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Facebook heeft de accounts van Cambridge Analytica klokkenluider Christopher Wylie op FB, Instagram en Whatsapp verwijderd

https://www.yahoo.com/new(...)posed-221429183.html

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:21 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Facebook is een enge organisatie, ze wisten dat dit gebeurde en wat heeft whatsapp ermee te maken?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:21 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Facebook is een enge organisatie, ze wisten dat dit gebeurde en wat heeft whatsapp ermee te maken?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:22 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Whatsapp is van feesboek.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:26 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Maar het is gewoon raar. Het bedrijf doet iets dat vermoedelijk niet mag op Facebook en dan verwijderen ze het account van de eigenaar op instagram en whatsapp......

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:03 schreef Monolith het volgende:
In Schedule I staan naast heroïne (wat daar terecht staat) ook LSD, Ecstasy en wiet

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:03 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Sowieso is de classificatie van drugs in schedules in de VS een volstrekt lachertje. Ze hanteren een vijftal schedules van meeste gevaar voor misbruik en schade naar minste. Daar weven ze dan 'medisch gebruik' nog een beetje vaag doorheen.

In Schedule I staan naast heroïne (wat daar terecht staat) ook LSD, Ecstasy en wiet, terwijl cocaïne, oxycodon, ritalin en methamfetamine schedule II drugs zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 15:10 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
Er was zelfs een groep NL rechters ontzettend boos dat ze mensen moesten veroordelen omdat de overheid van een ander land zégt dat ze een misdrijf hebben gepleegd, terwijl iedere wetenschappelijke onderbouwing ontbrak.)

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:07 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Trouwens, waarom gaat iemand met pensioen op zijn 50ste?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 15:54 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

De geschiedenis van de wettelijke definitie van wiet is sowieso erg interessant. Met onder andere de Opiumconferentie van 1912 waar een Egyptische afgevaardigde een doembeeld schetste van cannabis ondanks dat het niet eens op de agenda stond, en een anti-henneplobby in de jaren '20 en '30 in Amerika door touwproducenten die vreesden dat henneptouw hen uit de markt zou werken omdat het heel goedkoop is en sterker dan de alternatieven van die tijd.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 15:56 schreef Tchock het volgende:
Bron? Dit lijkt me niet helemaal accuraat, als je het over ecstacy hebt in elk geval.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 16:06 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Dat gaat me waarschijnlijk een flinke hoop tijd kosten, maar ik weet het zeker genoeg om er een wedje van te maken. En ja, ik had het over XTC.

Zet maar in!

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:07 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Trouwens, waarom gaat iemand met pensioen op zijn 50ste?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 16:07 schreef Tchock het volgende:
In plaats van te gokken zou ik het wel prettig vinden als je iets kunt vinden wat die stelling onderbouwt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 16:13 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Bovendien kies *jij* ervoor om mij aan het werk te zetten en daarna geloof je me waarschijnlijk nog steeds niet (en beide niet voor de eerste keer).

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 16:15 schreef Tchock het volgende:
Als je me naar een uitspraak (liefst natuurlijk een vonnis) linkt waar dat in staat

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 16:17 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Waaruit blijkt dat je WEER maar half leest: het was een gemeenschappelijke verklaring van een aantal rechters die het zat waren mensen te moeten veroordelen wegens iets dat alleen een misdrijf is omdat een buitenlandse mogenheid ZEGT dat het een misdrijf is.

Ze waren in de VS best wel geschokt.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 16:36:23 Our Nation was founded by farmers. Our independence was won by farmers. And our continent was tamed by farmers. Our farmers always lead the way -- we are PROUD of them, and we are DELIVERING for them! #NationalAgricultureDay reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 16:38 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:
Trump legal team seeks to add star GOP attorney Theodore B. Olson

Wel vreemd dat iemand die onschuldig is zo enorm veel advocaten nodig heeft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 16:41 schreef Genesisfan het volgende:
Anticlimax tweet.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 16:36:23 Our Nation was founded by farmers. Our independence was won by farmers. And our continent was tamed by farmers. Our farmers always lead the way -- we are PROUD of them, and we are DELIVERING for them! #NationalAgricultureDay reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 16:38 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:
Trump legal team seeks to add star GOP attorney Theodore B. Olson

Wel vreemd dat iemand die onschuldig is zo enorm veel advocaten nodig heeft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 17:02 schreef Puddington het volgende:
Stuur Trump er maar op af, dat zou hij toch wel even oplossen?

CNN 03 20 2018 mudd

quote:

According to former CIA officer, turned CNN pundit, Phil Mudd, President Donald Trump only hired attorney Joe DiGenova to go on television and rile up his conspiracy-loving base, and not for his legal expertise.

Appearing on CNN’s New Day with hosts John Berman and Erica Hill, Mudd scoffed at Trump’s move of bringing on DiGenova, who was a regular cable TV fixture when conservative activists worked with GOP lawmakers to bring down President Bill Clinton with a variety of conspiracy theories.

Sharing a clip of the attorney accusing the Clinton campaign of planting the seeds of Russian collusion before the election in an effort to undermine Trump should he beat the former Secretary of State, host Hill pressed Mudd to explain what DiGenova brings to the president’s defense team table.

“Phil Mudd, he’s lashed out at the FBI, the Department of Justice, talked about this conspiracy,” Berman explained. “This is the man Donald Trump has brought on who can go out there and be a fire for him. what’s the impact there?” the CNN host asked.


“There’s no impact on the investigation,” Mudd scoffed. “Look, the investigators are going to do what they want. I see two aspects to the hiring of DiGenova. I don’t think he’s about the investigation, he’s about the face of the investigation. A lot of people in this country, I talk to them all the time, I get emails from them, believe in these conspiracies, they think there is some deep state conspiracy to take out the president.”

“This guy is going to be on TV talking about this, all the time,” he added. “Look, the other thing is I think this is more about what happens after the investigation. If you get further indictments of people in the Oval Office, this guy is going to be on two minutes later saying, ‘I told you there is a conspiracy against the White House, I see it now and now and we have to take action to stop the conspiracy.’ He’s all about TV and the after-action.”

CNN correspondent Chris Cillizza then jumped in to add his two cents.

“I think a lot of what’s happening here, particularly over the last 96 hours it’s sped up, is Donald Trump getting ready for what comes next, that it is unlikely that this investigation sort of ends,” Cillizza explained. “A lot of what you see, the smearing of Mueller, the attempted smearing of Mueller, DiGenova coming out, it’s prepping for something is going to happen and no one knows what that something is.”

“The Mueller investigation is going to conclude,” he warned. “And it likely not going to look great for the Trump administration.”

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 28-02-2018 om 10:09:10 (THREAD) The Trump investigation no one is discussing is the one that could prove—via direct evidence—that Trump stole the presidency. Inspector General Horowitz needs to talk to Joseph DiGenova, a Trump supporter who may well be the man whose actions threw the election to Trump. https://t.co/UHb4lDfY6B reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 18:25:02 5/ DiGenova's January 2016 statements made clear that he was in contact with *current* FBI agents connected to the Clinton investigation--which meant, since he was not representing them as an attorney at the time, they were illegally leaking to him about an ongoing investigation. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 16:41 schreef Genesisfan het volgende:
Anticlimax tweet.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 16:36:23 Our Nation was founded by farmers. Our independence was won by farmers. And our continent was tamed by farmers. Our farmers always lead the way -- we are PROUD of them, and we are DELIVERING for them! #NationalAgricultureDay reageer retweet

quote:

A former Playboy model who claimed she had an affair with Donald J. Trump sued on Tuesday to be released from a 2016 legal agreement requiring her silence, becoming the second woman this month to challenge Trump allies’ efforts during the presidential campaign to bury stories about extramarital relationships.

The model, Karen McDougal, is suing the company that owns The National Enquirer, American Media Inc., which paid her $150,000 and whose chief executive is a friend of Mr. Trump's. The other woman, the adult entertainment star Stephanie Clifford, better known as Stormy Daniels, was paid $130,000 to stay quiet by the president's personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen. She filed suit earlier this month.

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 18:53 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:
Zal het CA-debacle nog enige invloed hebben op het referendum van morgen?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 18:53 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:
Zal het CA-debacle nog enige invloed hebben op het referendum van morgen?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 18:46 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Ex-Playboy Model Sues to Break Silence on Trump

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 19:14 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Melania zal zich wel vernederd voelen. Ik ben benieuwd wanneer ze het zat is.

quote:

As busy as Donald Trump is being president, he can’t avoid a former "Apprentice" contestant’s defamation lawsuit where he may be forced to respond under oath to allegations of sexual assault and his treatment of women, a judge ruled.

[..]

New York State Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Schecter on Tuesday denied the president’s request to throw out the lawsuit or delay it until he leaves office.

"No one is above the law," Schecter said, citing the Paula Jones case against Bill Clinton that said the president doesn’t have immunity and is subject to the law for "purely private acts."

"Nothing in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution even suggests that the president cannot be called to account before a state court for wrongful conduct that bears no relationship to any federal executive responsibility," Schecter wrote.

[..]

twitter:

JoyAnnReid twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 19:07:19 Good question: Trump called Putin to congratulate him. Did he call Angela Merkel? Sarah Huckabee Sanders will have to get back to us on that, apparently. reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 19:25:03 Q: Did the president not raise the issue of Russian election meddling in that phone call?Sanders: "I don't believe it came up on this specific call." (via ABC) https://t.co/uZwSCZE2Ke reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 19:38 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Trump May Be Deposed in ‘Apprentice’ Groping Lawsuit

[..]

Wall Street Journal publishes polygraph results backing Stormy Daniels

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 20:09 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
De volgende uitzending van Channel 4, over de Amerikaanse verkiezing:

Cambridge Analytica: Undercover Secrets of Trump's Data Firm

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 16:38 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:
Trump legal team seeks to add star GOP attorney Theodore B. Olson

Wel vreemd dat iemand die onschuldig is zo enorm veel advocaten nodig heeft.

quote:

The Board of Cambridge Analytica has announced today that it has suspended CEO Alexander Nix with immediate effect, pending a full, independent investigation.

In the view of the Board, Mr. Nix’s recent comments secretly recorded by Channel 4 and other allegations do not represent the values or operations of the firm and his suspension reflects the seriousness with which we view this violation.

We have asked Dr. Alexander Tayler to serve as acting CEO while an independent investigation is launched to review those comments and allegations.

We have asked Julian Malins QC to lead this investigation, the findings of which the Board will share publicly in due course.

The Board will be monitoring the situation closely, working closely with Dr. Tayler, to ensure that Cambridge Analytica, in all of its operations, represents the firm’s values and delivers the highest-quality service to its clients.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 20:37 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
A Statement from the Board of Directors

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 19:10 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou niet weten hoe, deze wet doet niets aan private partijen als Facebook en wat zij met de door hun vergaarde data mogen doen. De wet regelt de bevoegdheden van de NL inlichtingendiensten, da's toch wel een totaal andere materie.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 20:44 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Dat bedrijf kan zichzelf net zo goed opdoeken. Geen politicus wil zichzelf nog verbinden aan zo'n concern. Mocht dat naar buiten komen, dan heb je immers direct de schijn tegen en dat zal hoe dan ook een grote groep kiezers tegen je in het harnas jagen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 20:37 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
A Statement from the Board of Directors

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 20:51 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Maar die Tayler zat gisteren ook in de undercover-video

twitter:

axios twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 19:12:08 Sarah Sanders is asked whether the Russian election was free and fair: "We don't get to dictate how other countries operate." https://t.co/kqEWvNFeOa (Video in tweet) reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 19:10 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou niet weten hoe, deze wet doet niets aan private partijen als Facebook en wat zij met de door hun vergaarde data mogen doen. De wet regelt de bevoegdheden van de NL inlichtingendiensten, da's toch wel een totaal andere materie.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:04 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

twitter:

axios twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 19:12:08 Sarah Sanders is asked whether the Russian election was free and fair: "We don't get to dictate how other countries operate." https://t.co/kqEWvNFeOa (Video in tweet) reageer retweet

Sinds wanneer zit er een cultureel Marxist in het Witte Huis?!

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:04 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

twitter:

axios twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 19:12:08 Sarah Sanders is asked whether the Russian election was free and fair: "We don't get to dictate how other countries operate." https://t.co/kqEWvNFeOa (Video in tweet) reageer retweet

Sinds wanneer zit er een cultureel Marxist in het Witte Huis?!

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:10 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Op zich is deze administratie daar tamelijk consequent in. Trump maakte er geen geheim van dubieuze regimes niet de les te willen lezen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:10 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Op zich is deze administratie daar tamelijk consequent in. Trump maakte er geen geheim van dubieuze regimes niet de les te willen lezen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:14 schreef Montov het volgende:

[..]

Inderdaad, en dan los gaan over binnenlandse zaken: de media zijn de vijand van het volk, de FBI is corrupt, Democraten zijn evil, etc.

quote:

An "Ashamed" Fox News Commentator Just Quit The "Propaganda Machine" (BuzzFeed News)
"Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association," Col. Ralph Peters wrote in an email to colleagues. "Now I am ashamed."

A retired United States Army lieutenant colonel and Fox News contributor quit Tuesday and denounced the network and President Donald Trump in an email to colleagues.

"Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration," wrote Peters, a Fox News "strategic analyst."

"Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed," he wrote.

Peters, who was also a heated critic of Barack Obama's foreign policy, who once described him as having been "date raped" by Vladimir Putin. He didn't respond to an email about his missive. A Fox News spokesperson didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Here's Peters' full email to colleagues:

SPOILER

On March 1st, I informed Fox that I would not renew my contract. The purpose of this message to all of you is twofold:

First, I must thank each of you for the cooperation and support you've shown me over the years. Those working off-camera, the bookers and producers, don't often get the recognition you deserve, but I want you to know that I have always appreciated the challenges you face and the skill with which you master them.

Second, I feel compelled to explain why I have to leave. Four decades ago, I took an oath as a newly commissioned officer. I swore to "support and defend the Constitution," and that oath did not expire when I took off my uniform. Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers. Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed.

In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration. When prime-time hosts--who have never served our country in any capacity--dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the FBI, the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller--all the while scaremongering with lurid warnings of "deep-state" machinations-- I cannot be part of the same organization, even at a remove. To me, Fox News is now wittingly harming our system of government for profit.

As a Russia analyst for many years, it also has appalled me that hosts who made their reputations as super-patriots and who, justifiably, savaged President Obama for his duplicitous folly with Putin, now advance Putin's agenda by making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign. Despite increasingly pathetic denials, it turns out that the "nothing-burger" has been covered with Russian dressing all along. And by the way: As an intelligence professional, I can tell you that the Steele dossier rings true--that's how the Russians do things.. The result is that we have an American president who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow.

I do not apply the above criticisms in full to Fox Business, where numerous hosts retain a respect for facts and maintain a measure of integrity (nor is every host at Fox News a propaganda mouthpiece--some have shown courage). I have enjoyed and valued my relationship with Fox Business, and I will miss a number of hosts and staff members. You're the grown-ups.

Also, I deeply respect the hard-news reporters at Fox, who continue to do their best as talented professionals in a poisoned environment. These are some of the best men and women in the business..

So, to all of you: Thanks, and, as our president's favorite world leader would say, "Das vidanya."

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:10 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Op zich is deze administratie daar tamelijk consequent in. Trump maakte er geen geheim van dubieuze regimes niet de les te willen lezen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:26 schreef PippenScottie het volgende:

[..]

Venezuela kreeg na een soortgelijke schijnverkiezing sancties opgelegd.

Tamelijk consequent my ass.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:29 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Meer saillant vind ik dat Trump kameraad Poetin wel heeft gefeliciteerd met zijn verkiezingswinst, maar Merkel destijds niet (naar ik begrijp). Indien waar is dat veelzeggend.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:29 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Dat is dan even langs mij heengegaan.

Meer saillant vind ik dat Trump kameraad Poetin wel heeft gefeliciteerd met zijn verkiezingswinst, maar Merkel destijds niet (naar ik begrijp). Indien waar is dat veelzeggend.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:30 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Trump heeft Merkel wel gefeliciteerd met haar overwinning, al was het een tikkeltje laat ... zie bv. http://thehill.com/homene(...)kel-on-electoral-win

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:28 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
CA geeft toe met de hele term 'crooked Hillary' te hebben ontworpen. Als je alleen het gebruik van die term als indicatie zou gebruiken van hoe ver hun bereik is geweest, begint het ronduit eng te worden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:28 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
CA geeft toe met de hele term 'crooked Hillary' te hebben ontworpen. Als je alleen het gebruik van die term als indicatie zou gebruiken van hoe ver hun bereik is geweest, begint het ronduit eng te worden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:32 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Ah oké. Begreep dat daar vragen over waren vanmiddag.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:37 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
Twee dagen geleden heeft een White House staffer zijn Proton Mail inloggegevens in een bushokje laten liggen. In het filmpje van Channel 4 van vandaag vertelt Nix over hoe ze Proton Mail met een self destruct timer gebruiken, waarbij mails na 2 uur worden vernietigd. Als blijkt dat mensen in het witte huis dit hebben gedaan, hebben ze een serieus probleem met betrekking tot de records act.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:35 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Eerlijk gezegd verbaast het me niks. Veel enger vind ik dat een groot deel van de bevolking ontvankelijk is voor dit soort manipulatie en gebruikt kan worden/ zich laat gebruiken om mensen als Trump aan de macht te helpen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:37 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
Twee dagen geleden heeft een White House staffer zijn Proton Mail inloggegevens in een bushokje laten liggen. In het filmpje van Channel 4 van vandaag vertelt Nix over hoe ze Proton Mail met een self destruct timer gebruiken, waarbij mails na 2 uur worden vernietigd. Als blijkt dat mensen in het witte huis dit hebben gedaan, hebben ze een serieus probleem met betrekking tot de records act.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:37 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
Twee dagen geleden heeft een White House staffer zijn Proton Mail inloggegevens in een bushokje laten liggen. In het filmpje van Channel 4 van vandaag vertelt Nix over hoe ze Proton Mail met een self destruct timer gebruiken, waarbij mails na 2 uur worden vernietigd. Als blijkt dat mensen in het witte huis dit hebben gedaan, hebben ze een serieus probleem met betrekking tot de records act.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:44 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Proton mail? In mijn werkveld wordt dat gezien als de meeat onveilige en schimmige providers. Waarom gebruiken medewerkers van het Witte Huis dat?

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:45 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:

[..]

In het tweede deel van de docu vraagt Nix de undercover journalist om een proton mail op te zetten, om sensitive material te kunnen bespreken. Hij vertelt dat zij dat gebruiken maar niemand weet dat ze het gebruiken.

quote:

Pennsylvania Republicans move to impeach state Supreme Court for the crime of fair redistricting (Daily Kos)

In a stunning display of contempt for democracy and the rule of law, Pennsylvania Republican state Rep. Cris Dush has introduced a resolution to impeach the five Democratic state Supreme Court justices who recently struck down the GOP’s congressional gerrymander and replaced it with a much fairer map for the 2018 elections. This maneuver comes just a day after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the GOP’s bid to block the state court’s ruling, demonstrating that even the conservative-majority federal bench thinks Pennsylvania Republicans have no legal leg to stand on. But top Republicans had previously voiced support for this extreme measure.

Disturbingly, Republicans hold enough seats needed to impeach judges without any Democratic votes thanks to their gerrymanders of the legislature, which gave them a solid hold on the state House and the minimum two-thirds of necessary seats in the state Senate. Should they proceed with (and succeed with) this supremely destructive effort, Republicans still wouldn’t gain control over the court unless Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf loses re-election in November, which appears unlikely as of now. But because Wolf could only appoint replacement justices with Senate approval, the GOP could cripple the court for years to come, potentially imperiling fairer districts after the 2020 census.

One might think such a naked attack on the rule of law would be a bridge too far for Republicans, but we’ve seen in state after state how the GOP has tried to undermine judicial independence after the 2010 wave election swept them into power across the country. And even if they don’t ultimately impeach judges this time, this brazenly undemocratic proposal could send a chilling message to judges in the future that they could be impeached and removed from office for their jurisprudence if they don’t rule the way Republicans want.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:54 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Wow, enkele republikeinen in de senaat in Pennsylvania gaan vol autoritaire modus ... (wel wat biased geschreven artikeltje zo bezien)

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:54 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Wow, enkele republikeinen in de senaat in Pennsylvania gaan vol autoritaire modus ... (wel wat biased geschreven artikeltje zo bezien)

[..]

quote:

The Cambridge Analytica-Facebook Debacle: A Legal Primer
On March 17, the New York Times revealed that Cambridge Analytica, the British data analysis firm with ties to Robert Mercer and Stephen K. Bannon and that was hired by the Trump campaign, “harvested private information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission.” This set off a firestorm in the U.S. and the U.K. as regulators announced they would get to the bottom of what went wrong. Sen. Ron Wyden asked Facebook a series of hard-hitting questions. (Lawfare).

twitter:

MSNBCPR twitterde op dinsdag 20-03-2018 om 21:37:49 TUNE-IN: @Comey joins @Maddow live one-on-one for ~THE INTERVIEW~ April 19th at 9pmET on @MSNBC. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:55 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:

[..]

Bizar ook omdat het een unaniem besluit is, maar alleen de democratische judges worden aangepakt.

quote:

Document: Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Election Security
On Tuesday, the Senate intelligence committee released the following recommendations on election security based on evidence it examined during its investigation of Russian efforts to target electoral infrastructure during the 2016 election. (Lawfare).

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 22:40 schreef Szura het volgende:
Stormy:

Technically I didn't sleep with the POTUS 12 years ago. There was no sleeping (hehe) and he was just a goofy reality TV star. But I digress...People DO care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it up, etc. And PS...I am NOT going anywhere. xoxoxo

https://twitter.com/stormydaniels/status/976207275806269440?s=21

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 21:54 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Pennsylvania Republicans move to impeach state Supreme Court for the crime of fair redistricting (Daily Kos)

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 22:58 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Het kan ze ook geen moer meer schelen dat inmiddels de hele wereld het weet...

(Het artikel schijnt trouwens niet helemaal te kloppen & de bron is nogal verouderd, maar het zegt eigenlijk al genoeg dat niemand er meer van opkijkt. )

quote:

The source used in the article is from FEBRUARY 8, 2018.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 23:13 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
Het artikel wel, maar volgens iemand bij de comments is de bron ouder

[..]

Heb overigens nog niet gedetailleerd gelezen (sorry), ben nog van de schrik aan het bijkomen. Had echt niet verwacht dat iemand zó diep kon zinken door zelfs maar te overwegen "dan maar de rechters aan te pakken"

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 23:17 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Senator Flake (R):

We are begging the president not to fire the special counsel. Don't create a constitutional crisis. Congress cannot preempt such a firing. Our only constitutional remedy is after the fact, through impeachment. No one wants that outcome. Mr. President, please don't go there.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeffFlake/status/976218069491179526

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 22:57 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Zelfidentificatie update van Pew. Millennial vrouwen springen er wel uit...

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 00:08 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Millennials in 2002?

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 00:11 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Volgens dat grafiekje 2004 toch? Zij hanteren als definitie geboortejaar 1981-1996. Kan prima dus.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 00:16 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Ahja. Maar het gaat om mensen die zich identificeren als millenial, die groep verandert volgens mij steeds. Lijkt me niet zoveel te zeggen eigenlijk.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 21-03-2018 om 00:20:02 Trump did not follow specific warnings from his national security advisers when he congratulated Putin on his reelection, including a section in his briefing materials in all-capital letters stating “DO NOT CONGRATULATE,” officials familiar tell WaPo.https://t.co/AaTcJ5m7DI reageer retweet

twitter:

jdawsey1 twitterde op woensdag 21-03-2018 om 00:19:01 Trump's written briefing materials for call this morning with Putin included this in caps: "DO NOT CONGRATULATE." It also said to condemn London attack. It's unclear if he read, but he did not follow. The latest @CarolLeonnig & @DavidNakamura: https://t.co/HjCkbdkbb4 reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 00:31 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Ik zei nog zo: "GEEN FELICITATIES!"

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 21-03-2018 om 00:20:02 Trump did not follow specific warnings from his national security advisers when he congratulated Putin on his reelection, including a section in his briefing materials in all-capital letters stating “DO NOT CONGRATULATE,” officials familiar tell WaPo.https://t.co/AaTcJ5m7DI reageer retweet

quote:

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn appeared uncomfortable when asked about the call. “Never a dull moment around here,” he told TWS with a chuckle, avoiding the question. Would he have called Putin if he were in Trump’s shoes? “No,” the Texas Republican quickly answered.
Still, he steered clear of criticizing the president. “Well, I mean, it’s fine,” said Cornyn haltingly, reasoning that the leader of the free world would be expected to talk to officials from foreign countries. “But given the malign activities of Russia in our last elections and their continued aggression in places like Syria and Crimea in Ukraine, it’s hard to imagine Mr. Putin as anything other than an adversary,” said Cornyn.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 21-03-2018 om 01:15:44 Cambridge Analytica tested views of Putin, whistleblower Chris Wylie tells WaPo.“The only foreign thing we tested was Putin,” he said. “It turns out, there’s a lot of Americans who really like this idea of a really strong authoritarian leader...” https://t.co/uUv4Cr6WMk reageer retweet

quote:

The Iraq War and the Inevitability of Ignorance
The U.S. is destined to keep overlearning the lessons of the last conflict.

There’s a specific reason it is so hard to be president—in normal circumstances—and why most incumbents look decades older when they leave the job than when they began. The reason is that the only choices normal presidents get to make are the impossible ones—decisions that are not simply very close calls on the merits, but that are guaranteed to lead to tragedy and bitterness whichever way they go. (Atlantic).

SPOILER

Take Barack Obama’s famed choice not to back up his “red line” promise in Syria, which was a focus of Jeffrey Goldberg’s “The Obama Doctrine” Atlantic cover story two years ago. The option Obama chose—not intervening in Syria—meant death and suffering for countless thousands of people. The option he rejected—intervening—would have meant death and suffering for countless thousands of the same people or others. Agree or disagree on the outcome, any such decision is intellectually demanding and morally draining. Normal presidents have to make them, one after another, all day long. (Why don’t they get any easier choices? Because someone else has made all of those before they get to the president.) Obama’s decision to approve the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound turned out to be a tactical and political success. When he made it, he had to weigh the possibility that it could end in world-publicized failure—like Jimmy Carter’s decision to attempt a rescue of American hostages in Iran, which ended in chaos, and which Carter later contended was what sealed his fate in his re-election run.

A special category of impossible decision, which I was introduced to in the two years I worked for Jimmy Carter in the White House and have borne in mind ever since, turns on the inevitability of ignorance. To be clear, I don’t mean “stupidity.” People in the government and military are overall smarter than press portrayals might suggest. Instead I mean really registering the uncomfortable fact that you cannot know enough about the big choices you are going to make, before you have to make them.

Sometimes that is because of deadline rush: The clock is ticking, and you have to act now. (To give a famous example: In 1980 U.S. radar erroneously indicated that the Soviets had launched a nuclear-missile attack, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, as Jimmy Carter’s national-security adviser, had to decide at 3 a.m. whether to wake the president to consider retaliation. Before the world was rushed toward possible nuclear obliteration, the warning was revealed as a false alarm before Brzezinski could place the call.) Most of the time it is because the important variables are simply unknowable, and a president or other decision-maker has to go on judgment, experience, hunch.

This point sounds obvious, because we deal with its analogues in daily-life decisions big and small. No one who decides to get married can know what his or her spouse will be like 20 years in the future, or whether the partners will grow closer together or further apart. Taking a job—or offering one—is based at least as much on hope as on firm knowledge. You make an investment, you buy a house, you plan a vacation knowing that you can’t possibly foresee all the pitfalls or opportunities.

But this routine truism takes on life-or-death consequences in the choices that presidents must make, as commander in chief and as head of U.S. diplomatic and strategic efforts. The question of deciding about the unknowable looms large in my mind, as I think back 15 years to the run-up to the Iraq war, and think ahead to future such choices future presidents will weigh.

* * *

There’s a long list of books I wish presidents would have read before coming to office—before, because normal presidents barely have time to think once they get there. To give one example from my imagined list: the late David Fromkin’s A Peace to End All Peace is for me a useful starting point for thinking about strains within the modern Middle East. The book argues, in essence, that the way the Ottoman Empire was carved up at the end of World War I essentially set the stage for conflicts in the region ever since. In that way it is a strategic counterpart to John Maynard Keynes’s famous The Economic Consequences of the Peace, written just after the conclusion of the Versailles agreements, which argues that the brutal economic terms dealt out to the defeated Germans practically guaranteed future trouble there.

Also high up on my “wish they’d read” list is Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers, by two Harvard professors (and one-time mentors of mine), Ernest May and Richard Neustadt. In this book, May and Neustadt reverse the chestnut attributed to an earlier Harvard professor, George Santayana, that “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Instead they caution against over-remembering, or imagining that a choice faced now can ever be exactly like one faced before.

The most famous and frightening example is Lyndon Johnson’s, involving Vietnam. Johnson “learned” so thoroughly the error of Neville Chamberlain, and others who tried to appease (rather than confront) the Nazis, that he thought the only risk in Vietnam was in delaying before confronting communists there. A complication in Johnson’s case, as this book and all other accounts of Vietnam make clear, is that he was worried both about the reality of waiting too long to draw a line against Communist expansion, and perhaps even more about appearing to be weak and Chamberlain-like.

Because of the disaster Johnson’s decisions caused—the disaster for Vietnam, for its neighbors, for tens of thousands of Americans, all as vividly depicted in last year’s Ken Burns / Lynn Novick documentary—most American politicians, regardless of party, “learned” to avoid entanglement in Asian-jungle guerrilla wars. Thus in the late 1970s, as the post-Vietnam war Khmer Rouge genocide slaughtered millions of people in Cambodia, the U.S. kept its distance. It had given up the international moral standing, and had nothing like the internal political stomach, to go right back into another war in the neighborhood where it had so recently met defeat.

From its Vietnam trauma, the United States also codified a crass political lesson that Richard Nixon had applied during the war. Just before Nixon took office, American troop levels in Vietnam were steadily on the way up, as were weekly death tolls, and monthly draft calls. The death-and-draft combination was the trigger for domestic protests. Callously but accurately, Nixon believed that he could drain the will to the protest if he ended the draft calls. Thus began the shift to the volunteer army—and what I called, in an Atlantic cover story three years ago, the “Chickenhawk Nation” phenomenon, in which the country is always at war but the vast majority of Americans are spared direct cost or exposure. (From the invasion of Iraq 15 years ago until now, the total number of Americans who served at any point in Iraq or Afghanistan comes to just 1 percent of the U.S. population.)

May and Neustadt had a modest, practical ambition for their advice to study history, but to study it cautiously. “Marginal improvement in performance is worth seeking,” they wrote. “Indeed, we doubt that there is any other kind. Decisions come one at a time, and we would be satisfied to see a slight upturn in the average. This might produce much more improvement [than big dramatic changes] measured by results.”

My expectation is more modest still: I fear but expect that the U.S. is fated to lurch from one over-“learning” to its opposite, and continue making a steadily shifting range of errors.

The decision to invade Iraq was itself clearly one of those. The elder George Bush fought a quick and victorious war to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991. But he stopped short of continuing the war into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power—and so his son learned from that “failure” that he had to finish the job of eliminating Saddam. (As did a group of the younger George Bush’s most influential advisors: Dick Cheney, who had been secretary of defense during the original Gulf war, and returned as George W. Bush’s vice president. Colin Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the first time around, and secretary of state the second. Paul Wolfowitz was undersecretary of defense during the first war, and deputy secretary of defense during the second. And so on.)

Two of the writers who were most eloquent in making their case for the war—Christopher Hitchens, who then wrote for the Atlantic among other places, and Michael Kelly, who was then our editor-in-chief—based much of their case on the evils Saddam Hussein had gotten away with after the original Gulf War. (Hitchens died of cancer in 2011; Kelly was killed in Iraq, as an embedded reporter in the war’s early stage.) Then Barack Obama, who had become president in large part because he opposed the Iraq war — which gave him his opening against the vastly better known and more experienced Hillary Clinton— learned from Iraq about the dangers of intervention in Syria. And on through whatever cycles the future holds.

* * *

Is there escape from the cycles? In a fundamental sense, of course not, no. But I’ll offer the “lesson” I learned—50 years ago, in a classroom with Professor May; 40 years ago, when I watched Jimmy Carter weigh his choices; 15 years ago, in warning about the risks of invading Iraq. It involves a cast of mind, and a type of imagination.

As the Bush administration moved onto a war footing soon after the 9/11 attacks, no one could know the future risks and opportunities. But, at the suggestion of my friend and then-editor Cullen Murphy, I began reporting on what the range of possibilities might be. Starting in the spring of 2002, when the Bush team was supposedly still months away from a decision about the war, it was clear to us that the choice had been made. I interviewed dozens of historians, military planners, specialists in post-war occupations, and people from the region to try to foresee the likely pitfalls.

The result, which was in our November, 2002 issue (and which we put online three months earlier, in hopes of affecting the debate) was called “The Fifty-First State?” Its central argument was: The “war” part of the undertaking would be the easy part, and deceptively so. The hard part would begin when U.S. troops had reached Baghdad and the statues of Saddam Hussein were pulled down—and would last for months, and years, and decades, all of which should be taken into consideration in weighing the choice for war.

It conceivably might have gone better in Iraq, and very well could have, if not for a series of disastrously arrogant and incompetent mistakes by members of the Bush team. I won’t go into details here: I laid them out in several articles, including this, this, and this, and eventually a book. But the premise of most people I interviewed before the war, who mostly had either a military background or extensive experience in the Middle East, was that this would be very hard, and would hold a myriad of bad surprises, and was almost certain to go worse than its proponents were saying. Therefore, they said, the United States should do everything possible to avoid invading unless it had absolutely no choice. Wars should be only of necessity. This would be folly, they said, and a war of choice.

The way I thought of the difference between those confidently urging on the war, and those carefully cautioning against it, was: cast of mind. The majority of people I spoke with expressed a bias against military actions that could never be undone, and whose consequences could last for generations. I also thought of it as a capacity for tragic imagination, of envisioning what could go wrong as vividly as one might dream of what could go right. (“Mission Accomplished!”)

Any cast of mind has its biases and blind spots. But I’m impressed, in thinking about the history I have lived through and the histories I have read, by how frequently people with personal experience of war have been cautious about launching future wars. This does not make them pacifists: Harry Truman, infantry veteran of World War I, decided to drop the atomic bomb. But Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, Colin Powell (in most of his career other than the Iraq-war salesmanship at the United Nations)—these were former commanding generals, cautious about committing troops to war. They had a tragic imagination of where that could lead and what it might mean.

What lesson do we end with? Inevitably any of them from the past will mismatch our future choices. The reasons not to invade Iraq 15 years ago are different from the risks to consider in launching a strike on North Korea or on Iran, or provoking China in some dispute in the East China Sea. The value of tragic imagination remains: for leaders considering war or peace, for the media in stoking or questioning pro-war fever, for the 99 percent of the public in considering the causes for which the military 1 percent will be asked to kill, and die.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 02:22 schreef skysherrif het volgende:
https://www.washingtonexa(...)nvestment-firms-book

Hoe betrouwbaar zou dit zijn?

quote:

[..]

“If true, this report raises numerous concerns,” the Ranking Members wrote. “These confidentiality agreements could discourage White House employees from cooperating with the ongoing investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The agreements could chill employees from disclosing violations of law, waste, fraud, and abuse to Congress. The agreements may also be inconsistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution and in violation of other federal laws, including the Consolidated Appropriations Act.”

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 14:14 schreef Sloggi het volgende:

[..]

Hoe komt het eigenlijk dat ze zo'n drugsprobleem hebben in NH? Het leek mij altijd zo'n gezellige staat.

quote:

Op dinsdag 20 maart 2018 23:33 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Hahahahah smeken op Twitter

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 08:03 schreef Ulx het volgende:
https://www.politico.com/(...)suits-daniels-476728

De rechtzaken stapelen zich op. Ik ben benieuwd of Trump's argument dat hij het te druk heeft voor zoiets stand gaat houden. Hij heeft tenslotte aantoonbaar tijd voor de golfbaan en TV.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 04:34 schreef buckets_of_lube het volgende:

[..]

Nah. Genoeg goeie dingen aan New Hampshire, maar het is een hele aparte staat, met een gigantisch braindrain probleem en deprimerende kleine dorpjes. Dus iedereen die overblijft doet heel veel drugs, net zoals je in het Mid Westen ziet.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 11:00 schreef Szura het volgende:
Vermoedelijke bommenlegger Austin is dood

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 11:04 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

vermoedelijk. Er is natuurlijk verder onderzoek nodig. Voor hetzelfde hebben ze op een trigger happy manier een onschuldige pakketbezorger neergehaald.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 11:08 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

Hij zou zichzelf hebben opgeblazen, volgens sommige bronnen.

edit - nu toevallig een push waarin het bevestigd wordt.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 11:16 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Als die slachtoffers ook bommen hadden gehad hadden ze zich kunnen verdedigen.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 11:09 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Weten ze al wie het is? Op de FP speculeren de huistrollen al over antifa of de islam. Die zou ik graag even de mond willen snoeren.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 11:34 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

Nee, dat is nog niet bekend gemaakt, tenminste. Eerder werd wel ernstig rekening gehouden met hate crimes, maar dat was uiteraard maar een van de vele scenario's.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 11:09 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Weten ze al wie het is? Op de FP speculeren de huistrollen al over antifa of de islam. Die zou ik graag even de mond willen snoeren.

quote:

Breitbart, the alt-right news site whose executive chairman Steve Bannon was pushed out in January after feuding with President Donald Trump, has lost about half its readership according to comScore, raising questions about its future.

The site dropped from 15 million unique visitors in October, per comScore, to 13.7 million in November, 9.9 million in December, 8.5 million in January and 7.8 million in February.
Its comScore figure for January was down 51 percent from the same month a year earlier, and the February number was down 49 percent from 2017. Last month was the site’s least trafficked since February 2015, four months before Donald Trump declared his candidacy for president. (....)

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 11:38 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Ach ja, de stormfrontpage en de Russische trollen mensen daar

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 12:01 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:
Kinders...

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 11:38 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Ach ja, de stormfrontpage en de Russische trollen mensen daar

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 12:10 schreef cynicus het volgende:

[..]

Pas op, dit mag je niet posten op Fok! Hier heb ik een ban voor gehad van roodhaar zelf.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 11:50 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Breitbart’s readership plunges

[..]

Good riddance! Failing Breitbart. SAD!

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 11:50 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Breitbart’s readership plunges

[..]

Good riddance! Failing Breitbart. SAD!

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 12:10 schreef cynicus het volgende:

[..]

Pas op, dit mag je niet posten op Fok! Hier heb ik een ban voor gehad van roodhaar zelf.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 12:10 schreef cynicus het volgende:

[..]

Pas op, dit mag je niet posten op Fok! Hier heb ik een ban voor gehad van roodhaar zelf.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 12:18 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Wat een politiek correcte snowflake zeg..

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 12:10 schreef cynicus het volgende:

[..]

Pas op, dit mag je niet posten op Fok! Hier heb ik een ban voor gehad van roodhaar zelf.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 12:49 schreef grrrrg het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb ooit een ban gekregen, omdat ik twijfels had over de hoeveelheid bezoekers die oom Donald tijdens de inauguratie had. Ik mocht kennelijk niet beweren dat er bijna niemand kwam opdagen.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 12:50 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Vroegah noemde men hem wel eens Slobodanny Roodbolovic.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 12:49 schreef grrrrg het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb ooit een ban gekregen, omdat ik twijfels had over de hoeveelheid bezoekers die oom Donald tijdens de inauguratie had. Ik mocht kennelijk niet beweren dat er bijna niemand kwam opdagen.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 12:30 schreef cynicus het volgende:

[..]

Ja, onder het mom van dat hij Fok! graag als "gezellige kroeg" ziet.

Kennlijk bedoeld hij daarmee: een gezellige flink-rechtse kroeg, gezien wat links van extreem-rechts denkenden en andere culturen dagelijks over zich heen krijgen zonder tegengas van roodhaar.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 21-03-2018 om 06:55:20 Understand that the "lawyer" on the left is saying a bunch of things that literally have nothing to do with contract law. Trump was not a party to the NDA and cannot enforce it; Michael Cohen (as EC, LLC) was a party but cannot show damages. Also, Cohen has violated the contract. https://t.co/5aH5hSJcxe reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 21-03-2018 om 07:42:55 NOTE/ Trump's legal theory puts him in a hilarious catch-22: if he successfully establishes himself as a party to the contract to collect damages, he establishes too (per the contract) he was a necessary signatory to the contract, didn't sign it, and can't enforce it.*facepalm* reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 13:21 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Abramson maakt gehakt van Cohen's strategie in de zaak Stormy Daniels. Als hij gelijk heeft ownt Stormy de POTUS echt bigly. Waarschijnlijk was het aanemen van Stormy's aanbod de 130k terug te betalen en haar haar zegje laten doen slimmer. Dan kon hij gewoon alles blijven ontkennen. Nu zou Trump wel eens wat moeten gaan verklaren bij de rechter.

Onder ede.

Auw.....

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 21-03-2018 om 06:55:20 Understand that the "lawyer" on the left is saying a bunch of things that literally have nothing to do with contract law. Trump was not a party to the NDA and cannot enforce it; Michael Cohen (as EC, LLC) was a party but cannot show damages. Also, Cohen has violated the contract. https://t.co/5aH5hSJcxe reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 21-03-2018 om 07:42:55 NOTE/ Trump's legal theory puts him in a hilarious catch-22: if he successfully establishes himself as a party to the contract to collect damages, he establishes too (per the contract) he was a necessary signatory to the contract, didn't sign it, and can't enforce it.*facepalm* reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 13:29 schreef BlackLining het volgende:

[..]

Het zal allemaal wel weer meevallen als het van Seth Abramson vandaan komt. Vermoeiende man.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 13:42 schreef Puddington het volgende:
Neemt niet weg dat Seth Abramson een handje heeft van dingen zwaar overdrijven.

Stormy and Cohen's attorneys debate contract

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 21-03-2018 om 07:52:05 NOTE2/ Cohen's pal said Cohen signed the contract as the lawyer for "EC, LLC," not as Trump's lawyer, which happens to be one of the only accurate things he said to CNN. It also means Cohen had no authority to make representations on Trump's behalf in the contract. Which he did. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 13:42 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Behalve dat andere bronnen ook beweren dat Stormy een groter probleem voor Trump is dan het lijkt.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 21-03-2018 om 12:11:17 ...there was no probable cause for believing that there was any crime, collusion or otherwise, or obstruction of justice!” So stated by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. reageer retweet

quote:

Suit over billionaire's underage sex abuse settles

A woman who alleged she was held as a teenage sex slave by a well-connected billionaire financier has settled a lawsuit accusing another woman of facilitating the abuse.

Virginia Giuffre alleged she was pulled into years of abuse by investor Jeffrey Epstein when she was working as a 15-year-old towel girl at President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach in 1999.

The suit alleged no wrongdoing on Trump's part, but accused Epstein's girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell of procuring underage girls for Epstein. She denied the allegations.

[..]

The suit also drew the interest of pro-Trump blogger Mike Cernovich, who intervened in an effort to unseal hundreds of pages of court filings that were blacked-out to a degree that rendered them virtually incomprehensible to the public.

In 2014, Roberts accused several prominent figures of having taken part in the alleged sexual abuse, including Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew of Britain. Both men flatly denied the claims. Dershowitz recently filed an appeal seeking to unseal records in Giuffre's lawsuit that he says shred her credibility.

Other litigation related to Epstein's sexual involvement with underage girls remains pending, including a suit in Florida challenging the plea deal as violation of a federal victims' rights law and a suit another woman brought against Maxwell making similar claims that she facilitated abuse by Epstein.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 14:10 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:
Ik heb al vaker gezegd hier dat Trump op gegeven moment ten val komt voor een betrekkelijk "klein" vergrijp

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 14:36 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

De stad New York vermoedde zoiets al eerder...

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 13:42 schreef Puddington het volgende:
Neemt niet weg dat Seth Abramson een handje heeft van dingen zwaar overdrijven.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 14:37 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

mental image...

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 14:45 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 15:05 schreef Puddington het volgende:
Maar hij is geen moslim!

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 15:05 schreef Puddington het volgende:
Maar hij is geen moslim!

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 15:07 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Laten we dan maar hopen dat hij wel links was!111

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 15:07 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Laten we dan maar hopen dat hij wel links was!111

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 15:08 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Die zijn er niet in de VS, dat weet je toch?

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 15:09 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb op Fok! geleerd dat iedereen die niet achter Trump, Sjerrie of de GBL aanloopt, links is.

quote:

Op woensdag 21 maart 2018 15:15 schreef archito het volgende:
Het was een moslim!

zo niet:
Het was een links gekkie!

zo niet:
Het was een verwarde man!

zo niet:
Bad people on both sides!

zo niet:
Hij bedoelde het niet zo!

zo niet:
Nooit ontmoet!

Statler & Waldorf