quote:

Stormy Daniels's attorney said on Thursday that President Trump threw his personal lawyer under the bus when he said he was unaware of the $130,000 payment his attorney made to the porn star days prior the 2016 election.

"He's effectively thrown, Michael Cohen now under the bus," Michael Avenatti said on MSNBC.

"This is an undisciplined guy, who you know, he finally cracked. We knew he would crack eventually. We'd been patient, I've been waiting, and low and behold, who would have thought that it would arrive on this Thursday on this glorious day in New York," he continued.
Avenatti said they he would file a petition to depose the president on Monday.

"My understanding is that he denied a couple subsequent questions as to whether he has set up a fund from which this payment would be made or reimbursed. I find that quite interesting. And I find that certainly a topic that we're going to explore in connection with his deposition, which we're going to be making a petition for on Monday," he said.

Trump for the first time publicly acknowledged the scandal regarding Daniels's claim that the two had an extramarital affair on Thursday, telling reporters on Air Force One that he did not know where his attorney Michael Cohen obtained the funds to pay Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford.

The money was part of an agreement to stop her from publicly discussing her affair with Trump and was made in the days before the 2016 presidential election.

"You’ll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney. You’ll have to ask Michael," Trump said.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 13:33 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
'Als er positieve gevolgen uit voort komen is een handelsoorlog op de lange termijn wel positief'.

Gewaagd standpunt.

quote:

The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 15:40 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Resumerend:

• Trump denied knowing about the $130,000 payment his lawyer made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election to buy her silence. (USA Today / Bloomberg / New York Times / Washington Post)
• Trump considered replacing Jeff Sessions with Scott Pruitt as recently as this week. (CNN)
• The EPA's top ethics official said he lacked key facts when he concluded that Scott Pruitt's lease with a lobbyist last year didn't violate federal gift rules. (Washington Post / New York Times)
• At least five EPA officials were reassigned, demoted, or requested new jobs after raising concerns about Scott Pruitt's spending and management of the agency. (New York Times)
• John Kelly to Scott Pruitt: The negative stories need to stop. (The Daily Beast)
• A White House spokesman: "I can't speak to the future of Scott Pruitt." (Politico)
• A cooperating witness in Robert Mueller's investigation may have information linking the United Arab Emirates to Russia. (New York Times)
• Robert Mercer spent $2 million to back a far-right organization that purchased anti-Muslim ads on Facebook and Google (OpenSecrets)
• Trump: Women are being "raped at levels that nobody's ever seen before" (NBC News / Axios)
• Trump dropped his "boring" prepared remarks about the Republican tax bill. Instead, he repeated his claim that "millions" of people are voting illegally. (Politico / The Guardian)
• The National Guard troops deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border will not have physical contact with immigrants (NBC News / Associated Press)

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 15:38 schreef zakjapannertje het volgende:

[..]

Nogal, ja:

[..]

quote:

It was the kind of story destined to take a dark turn through the conservative news media and grab President Trump’s attention: A vast horde of migrants was making its way through Mexico toward the United States, and no one was stopping them.

“Mysterious group deploys ‘caravan’ of illegal aliens headed for U.S. border,” warned Frontpage Mag, a site run by David Horowitz, a conservative commentator.

The Gateway Pundit, a website that was most recently in the news for spreading conspiracies about the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., suggested the real reason the migrants were trying to enter the United States was to collect social welfare benefits.

And as the president often does when immigration is at issue, he saw a reason for Americans to be afraid. “Getting more dangerous. ‘Caravans’ coming,” a Twitter post from Mr. Trump read.

The story of “the caravan” followed an arc similar to many events — whether real, embellished or entirely imagined — involving refugees and migrants that have roused intense suspicion and outrage on the right. The coverage tends to play on the fears that hiding among mass groups of immigrants are many criminals, vectors of disease and agents of terror. And often the president, who announced his candidacy by blaming Mexico for sending rapists and drug dealers into the United States, acts as an accelerant to the hysteria.

SPOILER

The sensationalization of this story and others like it seems to serve a common purpose for Mr. Trump and other immigration hard-liners: to highlight the twin dangers of freely roving migrants — especially those from Muslim countries — and lax immigration laws that grant them easy entry into Western nations.

The narrative on the right this week, for example, mostly omitted that many people in the caravan planned to resettle in Mexico, not the United States. And it ignored how many of those who did intend to come here would probably go through the legal process of requesting asylum at a border checkpoint — something miles of new wall and battalions of additional border patrol would not have stopped.

“They end up in schools on Long Island, some of which are MS-13!” declared Brian Kilmeade on the president’s preferred morning news program, “Fox & Friends,” referring to the predominantly Central American gang.

The coverage became so distorted that it prompted a reporter for Breitbart News who covers border migration, Brandon Darby, to push back. “I’m seeing a lot of right media cover this as ‘people coming illegally’ or as ‘illegal aliens.’ That is incorrect,” he wrote on Twitter. “They are coming to a port of entry and requesting refugee status. That is legal.”

In an interview, Mr. Darby said it was regrettable that the relatively routine occurrence of migrant caravans — which organizers rely on as a safety-in-numbers precaution against the violence that can happen along the trek — was being politicized. “The caravan isn’t something that’s a unique event,” he said. “And I think people are looking at it wrong. If you’re upset at the situation, it’s easier to be mad at the migrant than it is to be mad at the political leaders on both sides who won’t change the laws.”

As tends to be the case in these stories, the humanitarian aspects get glossed over as migrants are collapsed into one maligned category: hostile foreign invaders.

In November, Mr. Trump touched off an international furor when he posted a series of videos on Twitter that purported to show the effects of mass Muslim migration in Europe. Initially circulated by a fringe ultranationalist in Britain who has railed against Islam, the videos included titles like “Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!” “Muslim Destroys a Statue of Virgin Mary!” and “Islamist mob pushes teenage boy off roof and beats him to death!”

The assailant in one video the president shared, however, was not a “Muslim migrant.” And the other two videos depicted four-year-old events with no explanation.

These items tend to metastasize irrespective of the facts, but contain powerful visual elements to which Mr. Trump is known to viscerally respond.

Last February, Mr. Trump insinuated that some kind of terror-related episode involving Muslim immigrants had taken place in Sweden. “Who would believe this? Sweden,” he said at a rally in Florida, leaving Swedes and Americans baffled because nothing out of the ordinary had happened at all. “They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

Like the caravan story, which apparently came to Mr. Trump’s attention as he watched “Fox & Friends,” the president was referring to something he had seen on cable news. And he later had to clarify that he was referring to a Fox News segment on issues Sweden was having with migrants generally, not any particular event.

The conservative National Review later called the piece in question “sensationalistic” and pointed out that a lack of government data made it virtually impossible to determine whether crime rates in the country were related to immigration.

When the president himself has not spread stories about immigration that were either misleading or turned out to be false, his White House aides have. Last year, the White House joined a pile-on by the conservative news media after it called attention to the account of a high school student in Montgomery County, Md., who said she was raped at school by two classmates, one of whom is an undocumented immigrant. The case became a national rallying cry on the right against permissive border policies and so-called sanctuary cities that treat undocumented immigrants more leniently. Fox News broadcast live outside the high school for days.

Prosecutors later dropped the charges after they said the evidence did not substantiate the girl’s claims.

The story of the caravan has been similarly exaggerated. And the emotional outpouring from the right has been raw — that was the case on Fox this week when the TV host Tucker Carlson shouted “You hate America!” at an immigrants rights activist after he defended the people marching through Mexico.

The facts of the caravan are not as straightforward as Mr. Trump or many conservative pundits have portrayed them. The story initially gained widespread attention after BuzzFeed News reported last week that more than 1,000 Central American migrants, mostly from Honduras, were making their way north toward the United States border. Yet the BuzzFeed article and other coverage pointed out that many in the group were planning to stay in Mexico.

That did not stop Mr. Trump from expressing dismay on Tuesday with a situation “where you have thousands of people that decide to just walk into our country, and we don’t have any laws that can protect it.”

The use of disinformation in immigration debates is hardly unique to the United States. Misleading crime statistics, speculation about sinister plots to undermine national sovereignty and Russian propaganda have all played a role in stirring up anti-immigrant sentiment in places like Britain, Germany and Hungary. Some of the more fantastical theories have involved a socialist conspiracy to import left-leaning voters and a scheme by the Hungarian-born Jewish philanthropist George Soros to create a borderless Europe.

Anyone watching Fox News this week would have heard about similar forces at work inside “the caravan.”

“This was an organized plan and deliberate attack on the sovereignty of the United States by a special interest group,” said David Ward, whom the network identified as a former agent for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They rallied a bunch of foreign nationals to come north into the United States to test our resolve.”

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 15:41 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

een soepel werkende organisatie met een helder denkende president ..

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op vrijdag 06-04-2018 om 14:38:01 Oligarchs sanctioned: Oleg Deripaska, Viktor Vekselberg, Andrei Skoch, Igor Rotenberg, Kirill Shamalov, Suleiman Kerimov, and Vladimir Bogdanov. https://t.co/9jxazvs2iB reageer retweet

quote:

The Trump administration imposed new sanctions on seven of Russia's richest men and 17 top government officials on Friday in the latest effort to punish President Vladimir V. Putin's inner circle for interference in the 2016 election and other Russian aggressions.

The sanctions are designed to penalize some of Russia's richest industrialists, who are seen in the West as enriching themselves from Mr. Putin's increasingly authoritarian administration.

They grow out of an oddly disjointed policy toward Russia on the part of the Trump administration: While President Trump continues to call for good relations with Mr. Putin, Congress and much of the rest of the administration are pushing through increasingly punitive efforts that are sinking relations with Moscow to lows not seen in years.

"The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites," said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. "Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities."

Among those sanctioned are Oleg V. Deripaska, an oligarch who once had close ties to Mr. Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

Also sanctioned was Suleiman Kerimov -- a financier close to Mr. Putin; Vladimir Bogdanov, a top executive of Surgutneftegaz, a Russian oil company; Igor Rotenberg, another oil executive; Kirill Shamalov, an energy executive who married Mr. Putin's daughter, Katerina Tikhonova; Andrei Skoch, a deputy of the Russian Federation's State Duma; and Viktor Vekselberg, chairman of the Renova Group, a Russian investment firm.

SPOILER

The sanctions have been under consideration for some time and were not imposed solely because of the recent poisoning in England but rather "in response to the totality of the Russian government's ongoing and increasingly brazen pattern of malign activity around the world," a senior administration official said in a conference call with reporters, adding: "But most importantly this is in response to Russia's continuing attack to subvert Western democracies."

The sanctions come just as investigators working for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel looking into the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, have begun to question Russian oligarchs about possible financial links between those in Mr. Putin's orbit and people close to Mr. Trump.

Friday's penalties could be particularly painful for Mr. Putin's regime. While Russia's oligarchs make nearly all of their money in Russia, many stash their families, lovers and much of their wealth in places like London, New York and Miami.

Targeted sanctions against the oligarchs are seen as a particularly good way to punish Mr. Putin's aggressive moves while sparing wider Russian society, which is already suffering under Mr. Putin's thumb.

The sanctions come just three days after Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, in his final speech as Mr. Trump's national security adviser, warned darkly about the growing Russian menace.

"For too long some nations have looked the other way in the face of these threats," he said, adding: "And we have failed to impose sufficient costs."

The new sanctions grow out of legislation passed by Congress overwhelmingly last year and designed to limit Mr. Trump's ability to lift sanctions already imposed on Russia. Lawmakers in both parties feared that the president would suspend sanctions imposed by President Barack Obama as he pursued warmer relations with Moscow as promised during his campaign and first year in office.

The Trump administration opposed that legislation but quietly acceded to it after it passed with a veto-proof majority. Within that law was a measure requiring the administration to create a list of Russian oligarchs. Lobbying around the creation of the list became intense as Russia's wealthiest citizens feared punishing sanctions to come.

That is exactly what happened on Friday.

The sanctions list will only hasten the slide of Washington-Moscow relations. This week, 60 American diplomats left Russia as part of a tit-for-tat series of expulsions that followed the nerve-gas poisoning of Sergei V. Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter.

Mr. Skripal's poisoning on British soil prompted more than 20 countries to expel more than 100 Russian diplomats and intelligence officers, the largest such coordinated action ever. British officials believe that Mr. Skripal's poisoning, which occurred after an assassin smeared a nerve agent on the door handle of his home, was such a risky operation that it is unlikely to have been undertaken without approval from the Kremlin.

Russia has denied involvement in the poisoning.

But the attack is seen as part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive moves by Mr. Putin, including the seizure of Crimea, military interventions in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, tacit support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's chemical attacks on his own populace, a direct attack by Russian mercenaries on American troops in Syria and the hacking of elections in the United States and Europe.

The Trump administration's responses to Mr. Putin's needling have been uneven. Although Congress gave the State Department $120 million in 2016 to counter Russian hacking efforts, the department has so far spent none of it. And Mr. Trump said this week that he wants American forces to leave Syria soon, an exit that would benefit Iran, Russia and its ally, Mr. Assad.

But the administration has also imposed considerable economic penalties on Russia, with Friday's action the latest in a string of similar moves.

NATO allies are now thinking anew about more coordinated responses to track and sanction Mr. Putin's cronies. Both the British Parliament and the United States Congress are considering legislation that would require that the owners of companies and properties be disclosed.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in property in cities like London, New York and Miami are estimated to be owned by Russian oligarchs, who use corporate shields and attorney to hide their identities.

quote:

China’s government vowed Friday to “counterattack with great strength” if President Donald Trump goes ahead with plans to raise U.S. tariffs on an additional $100 billion worth of Chinese goods and said negotiations were impossible under current conditions.

Trump’s surprise move Thursday to instruct the U.S. trade representative to consider the additional tariffs came a day after Beijing announced plans to tax $50 billion in American products, including soybeans and small aircraft, in response to a U.S. move this week to slap tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports.

In Beijing, a Commerce Ministry spokesman said China doesn’t want a trade war — but isn’t afraid to fight one.

“If the U.S. side announces the list of products for $100 billion in tariffs, the Chinese side has fully prepared and will without hesitation counterattack with great strength,” spokesman Gao Feng said.

He gave no details of what measures Beijing might take.

Trump’s proposal intensified what was already shaping up to be the biggest trade battle since World War II. Global financial markets had fallen sharply as the world’s two biggest economies squared off over Beijing’s aggressive trade tactics. They calmed down Wednesday and Thursday on hopes the U.S. and China would find a diplomatic solution but slid Friday after Beijing said it would fight the Trump administration’s latest threats.

SPOILER

The White House announced after the markets closed Thursday that Trump had instructed the Office of the United States Trade Representative to consider whether $100 billion of additional tariffs would be appropriate and, if so, to identify which products they should apply to. He’s also instructed his secretary of agriculture “to implement a plan to protect our farmers and agricultural interests.”

“China’s illicit trade practices — ignored for years by Washington — have destroyed thousands of American factories and millions of American jobs,” Trump said in a statement announcing the decision.

The latest escalation comes after the U.S. on Tuesday said it would impose 25 percent duties on $50 billion of imports from China, and China quickly retaliated by listing $50 billion of products that it could hit with its own 25 percent tariffs. The Chinese list Wednesday included soybeans, the biggest U.S. export to China, and aircraft up to 45 tons (41 metric tons) in weight. Also on the list were American beef, whiskey, passenger vehicles and industrial chemicals.

Earlier in the week, Beijing announced separate import duties on $3 billion of U.S. goods in response to the Trump administration’s duties on all steel and aluminum imports, including from China.

U.S. officials have sought to downplay the threat of a broader trade dispute, saying a negotiated outcome is still possible. But economists warn that the tit-for-tat moves bear the hallmarks of a classic trade rift that could escalate. And already, the tensions have rattled global stock markets.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer called China’s move “unjustified” and said Trump’s proposal was an “appropriate response to China’s recent threat of new tariffs.”

“Such measures would undoubtedly cause further harm to American workers, farmers, and businesses,” he said in a statement. “Under these circumstances, the President is right to ask for additional appropriate action to obtain the elimination of the unfair acts, policies, and practices identified in USTR’s report.”

China’s Commerce Ministry said in a statement it must “adopt new countermeasures” to protect the interests of the Chinese people — but it did not announce any specific measures.

The clash reflects the tension between Trump’s promises to narrow a U.S. trade deficit with China that stood at $375.2 billion in goods last year and China’s ruling Communist Party’s development ambitions. Trump says China’s trade practices have caused American factories to close and lead to the loss of American jobs.

Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, said earlier Thursday in an interview with Fox Business Network that negotiations were ongoing.

But, he said, “at the end of the day, China’s unfair and illegal trading actions are damaging to economic growth, for the U.S., for China and for the rest of the world.”

He also called Trump “the first guy with a backbone in decades ... to actually go after it. Not just whisper it, but to go after it with at least preliminary actions.”

The Chinese spokesman, however, denied talks had occurred.

“Finance and trade officials from the two sides have not conducted any negotiations on the trade issue,” Gao said.

The spokesman complained that after Beijing issued a “resolute response” to Trump’s $50 billion list of Chinese goods for higher duties issued this week, the American president responded by threatening still more increases.

“Under these circumstances, the two sides cannot possibly conduct any negotiations about this issue,” said Gao.

One trade policy expert said he doubted that Trump’s rhetoric would help forge any deal with China.

“Mr. Trump is upping the ante, but the lack of a clear game plan and an incoherent messaging strategy from the administration is setting this up for an all-out trade war rather than a fruitful negotiation,” said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University.

In China, some observers held out hope that the two countries were headed toward negotiations and noted that despite Beijing’s tough talk, it likely does not want the country’s export-driven economy to be hit by punishing tariffs.

“If the trade dispute escalates or lasts for a long time, it will have a big impact on China’s manufacturing industry, and foreign investment in related projects will be affected too,” said Zhang Lifan, a Beijing-based independent political commentator. “In the long-run, losses in manufacturing will lead to decrease in tax revenue and eventually affect China’s economic growth.”

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., a frequent Trump critic, called the escalation “the dumbest possible way” to punish China.

“Hopefully the President is just blowing off steam again but, if he’s even half-serious, this is nuts,” Sasse said in a statement. “Let’s absolutely take on Chinese bad behavior, but with a plan that punishes them instead of us.”

Any additional tariffs would be subject to a public comment process and would not go into effect until that process is complete.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 06-04-2018 om 16:32:43 China, which is a great economic power, is considered a Developing Nation within the World Trade Organization. They therefore get tremendous perks and advantages, especially over the U.S. Does anybody think this is fair. We were badly represented. The WTO is unfair to U.S. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 06-04-2018 om 16:46:10 Do you believe that the Fake News Media is pushing hard on a story that I am going to replace A.G. Jeff Sessions with EPA Chief Scott Pruitt, who is doing a great job but is TOTALLY under siege? Do people really believe this stuff? So much of the media is dishonest and corrupt! reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 16:56 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:
Denkt de MSM uberhaupt dat Pruitt Sesssions gaat vervangen of is dit een soort stroman?

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 16:56 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:
Denkt de MSM uberhaupt dat Pruitt Sesssions gaat vervangen of is dit een soort stroman?

twitter:

thehill twitterde op vrijdag 06-04-2018 om 17:19:03 Evangelical leaders planning to meet with Trump about Stormy Daniels https://t.co/UMfMe4cJqT https://t.co/PbXWzV3X9H reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 17:43 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

thehill twitterde op vrijdag 06-04-2018 om 17:19:03 Evangelical leaders planning to meet with Trump about Stormy Daniels https://t.co/UMfMe4cJqT https://t.co/PbXWzV3X9H reageer retweet

quote:

It’s a principle that has been a hallmark of our legal culture: The president shouldn’t be able to tell judges what to do.

No longer. The Trump administration is intent on imposing a quota system on federal immigration judges, tying their evaluations to the number of cases they decide in a year. This is an affront to judicial independence and the due process of law.

As a judge, I swore to follow the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that “no person” (not “no citizen”) is deprived of due process of law. Accordingly, I was obliged to conduct hearings that guaranteed respondents a full and reasonable opportunity on all issues raised against them.

Although my colleagues on the bench and I valued efficiency, the most critical considerations were fairness, thoroughness and adherence to the Fifth Amendment.

If our nativist president and his lapdog of an attorney general, Jeff Sessions, have their way, those most critical considerations will become a relic of justice.

SPOILER

I served as a U.S. immigration judge in Los Angeles for 17 years, presiding over cases brought against foreign-born noncitizens who Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers believed were in this country illegally and should thus be removed. My responsibility included hearing both ICE’s claims and the claims from respondents for relief from removal, which sometimes included asylum from persecution and torture.

My decisions and the manner in which I conducted hearings were subject to review before the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals and U.S. courts of appeals. At no time was my judicial behavior subject to evaluation based on how quickly I completed hearings and decided cases.

Under the Trump-Sessions plan, each immigration judge, regardless of the nature and scope of proceedings assigned to him or her, will be required to complete 700 cases in a year to qualify for a “satisfactory” performance rating. It follows that only judges who complete more, perhaps many more, than 700 cases per year will qualify for a higher performance rating and, with it, a possible raise in pay.

Essentially, the administration’s plan is to bribe judges to hear and complete more cases regardless of their substance and complexity, with the corollary that judges who defy the quota imposed on them will be regarded as substandard and subject to penalties. The plan should be seen for what it is: an attempt to undermine judicial independence and compel immigration judges to look over their shoulders to make sure that the administration is smiling at them.

This is a genuine threat to the independence of the immigration bench. While Article III of the Constitution guarantees the complete independence of the federal district courts and courts of appeal, immigration judges are part of the executive branch. Notwithstanding the right of immigration judges to hear and decide cases as they believe they should under immigration law, they are unprotected from financial extortion and not-so-veiled political intimidation under the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act or any regulations.

Moreover, federal laws do not guarantee respondents in removal hearings a right to counsel, and a majority of those in such hearings are compelled to represent themselves before immigration judges, regardless of the complexity of their cases. Those who lack representation in removal hearings typically cannot afford it, and the funds to help legal aid organizations fill in for private attorneys are nowhere to be found.

Hearings in which respondents proceed pro se, or unrepresented, are often the most challenging and time-consuming for immigration judges, who must take care to assure that the procedural rights of those facing possible removal are protected and to guarantee that inarticulate relief claims are fully considered.

The Trump administration’s intention is clear: to intimidate supposedly independent judges to expedite cases, even if it undermines fairness — as will certainly be the case for pro se respondents. Every immigration judge knows that in general, it takes longer to consider and rule in favor of relief for a respondent than it does to agree with ICE and order deportation. The administration wants to use quotas to make immigration judges more an arm of ICE than independent adjudicators.

In my many years on the immigration bench, I learned that repressive nations had one thing in common: a lack of an independent judiciary. Due process requires judges free of political influence. Assembly-line justice is no justice at all.

quote:

Mick Mulvaney, acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, oversaw the hiring of two senior aides with salaries topping $230,000 ― a major boost from their previous government jobs ― as he criticized the agency for overspending.

Kirsten Sutton, the CFPB chief of staff as of January, makes $259,500 per year, documents obtained by the newspaper show. Her predecessor earned $212,324. Sutton’s new salary is a raise of more than 50 percent from her previous job working for Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas). And Brian Johnson, hired as a CFPB senior adviser, makes $239,595. He was sent an offer letter on Dec. 1 with a starting salary of $220,000, but his pay was increased by more than $19,000 by the end of the month.

Disclosure of the fat paychecks comes after President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers have repeatedly advocated reshaping the agency, arguing it has imposed too many regulations on the financial industry, and have tried to cut the amount it pays employees. The latest White House budget proposal recommended a $150 million funding cut.

Mulvaney himself, who was White House budget director before Trump installed him at the CFPB in November, submitted a report to Congress on Monday encouraging lawmakers to curb the agency’s powers. “The bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” he said in the report.

Mulvaney requested a CFPB budget for the quarter of $0, and said he would fund operations with reserves.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 16:41 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 06-04-2018 om 16:32:43 China, which is a great economic power, is considered a Developing Nation within the World Trade Organization. They therefore get tremendous perks and advantages, especially over the U.S. Does anybody think this is fair. We were badly represented. The WTO is unfair to U.S. reageer retweet

Hij gaat full-calimero

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 18:08 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
"Rechters moeten meer raffelen," vindt Gollum

Jeff "I Can't Recall" Sessions wants to bribe judges to do his bidding (WaPo Oponion)
by Bruce J. Einhorn, U.S. immigration judge (1990 -2007)

[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 18:50 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Hier heeft hij een punt hoor. Die classificatie is ook hopeloos achterhaald.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 17:02 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Gewoon een stroman. Wat ik zo lees raadt men het hem ten zeerste af.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 16:49 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 06-04-2018 om 16:46:10 Do you believe that the Fake News Media is pushing hard on a story that I am going to replace A.G. Jeff Sessions with EPA Chief Scott Pruitt, who is doing a great job but is TOTALLY under siege? Do people really believe this stuff? So much of the media is dishonest and corrupt! reageer retweet

Want de fake-media zijn groot en ik is klein en dat is niet eerlijk!

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 18:08 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
"Rechters moeten meer raffelen," vindt Gollum

Jeff "I Can't Recall" Sessions wants to bribe judges to do his bidding (WaPo Oponion)
by Bruce J. Einhorn, U.S. immigration judge (1990 -2007)

[..]

quote:

[...]
The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to "bear Arms."

Both their general acceptance and their regulation, if any, are policy matters not for courts, but left to the people directly through their elected representatives. In the absense of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free ot ban these weapons and large capacity magazines. Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and avaiulable to their law-abiding citizens. These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.

Justice Scalia would be proud.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 19:22 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Uitslag in een zaak door een federale rechter over de assault rifle ban van Massachusetts: https://www.mass.gov/file(...)0ruling%204-6-18.pdf

Conclusie:

[..]

Zie bv. ook hier (Bloomberg).

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 20:09 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

De rechter zegt gewoon dat de rechterlijke macht er genoeg van heeft dat het Congress zijn verantwoordelijkheid niet neemt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 20:11 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ook een opvallende sneer (althans, voor zover ik kan beoordelen) met "Justice Scalia would be proud."

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 20:12 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Heh, ja, maar dat was dan ook een enorme hypocriet die alleen een absolutist was als het hem politiek uit kwam.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 20:22 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ben zelf geen jurist en ik vind het altijd wel vreemd dat een mening over wat iets kan betekenen consequent zo ver elkaar kan liggen. Dat moet haast wel opportunisme en politiek zijn, zou ik denken. Althans, als je kijkt naar bv. de supreme court zijn de meeste stemmen 9-0, maar dat is gevolgd door 5-4... bij meer dan de helft van de zaken zijn er minimaal 2 het oneens met de rest.

Uit 2015:
[ afbeelding ]

Is het hier bv. ook zo is dat rechters een volstrekt andere lezing geven van hoe de wet geïnterpreteerd zou moeten worden?

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 20:32 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Sowieso hebben we in Nederland niet het systeem van politieke benoemingen zoals in de VS. Daar komt bij dat de Hoge Raad in Nederland niet aan de grondwet mag toetsen, dus een zaak zoals deze zou ze niet bereiken. En rechters in Nederland hebben een andere, veel minder het beleid sturende rol.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 20:39 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Dat klopt, de procedure van benoeming hier wijkt ook af, waar de leden van de Hoge Raad samen met de procureur generaal eerst 6 personen voordraagt vanwaaruit de regering er 1 kiest. Een stuk minder politiek alleen daardoor al, al weet ik niet of de regering verplicht is om er een van de voorgedragen kandidaten te kiezen.

Nu ik het zo uittiep is het hierdoor wel extreem onwaarschijnlijk dat er een flinke splitsing zal zijn bij de Nederlandse Hoge Raad.

Misschien moet ik mijn vraag anders formuleren: In de VS zie je bij de Supreme Court, maar ook in lagere rechtbanken dat rechters onderling een duidelijk ander idee hebben van hoe de wet gelezen moet worden. Is dat door het proces van benoemingen, waarbij je dan dus zou verwachten dat de advocatuur en universiteiten een meer eenduidige blik erop hebben of is het zo dat beide kanten van de medaille wel echt (ongeveer) evengoed verdedigbaar zijn?

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 21:35 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Heb je het dan alleen over federale rechters?

quote:

One U.S. official noted that the delay in initiating sanctions against the oligarchs responsible for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election has muted their effect. He said that the oligarchs have had a year to restructure their U.S. holdings. "They had to know these were coming," he said.
Bron

quote:

Scott Pruitt was only supposed to be living in the Capitol Hill condominium that has become a focal point of his latest ethics controversy for six weeks last year while he got settled in Washington – but the new Environmental Protection Agency administrator didn’t leave when his lease ended.

Instead, he asked the lobbyist couple who became his disgruntled landlords to revise his lease several times, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

The couple, Vicki and Steve Hart, became so frustrated by their lingering tenant that they eventually pushed him out and changed their locks. After trying to nudge Pruitt out of their home over the course of several months, the Harts finally told Pruitt in July that they had plans to rent his room to another tenant.

“The original arrangement was that he would be there living out of a suitcase … and it just kept going and going,” said one of the people with knowledge of the arrangement.

(...)

Both people familiar with the condo arrangement described Pruitt as a difficult tenant who, intoxicated by his newfound power, paid little attention to the headaches he was causing others.

(...)


The Harts eventually told Pruitt, who had to be reminded repeatedly to pay his rent, that they had plans to rent the room to somebody else — and that he needed to find another place to live, according to the people familiar with events. They also informed him in early August that they were changing the locks on their door.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 23:43 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Pruitt is niet alleen door en door corrupt, hij is ook nog inhalig:
https://www.politico.com/(...)-capitol-hill-505658

[..]

Hoe lang nog voordat Trump hem laat vallen? Pruitt wordt op deze manier in rap tempo de personificatie van de welig tierende corruptie in deze regering.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 03:26 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Welke corruptie precies?

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 09:43 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

De corruptie die in de regels erboven beschreven wordt.

Bijna gratis huren van lobbyisten die toevallig dan gunsten krijgen. Dat soort dingen. Het gedoe van Jared Kushner. Noem maar op.

Dat Trump daar geen korte metten mee maakt is raar voor een anti-corruptie strijder.

quote:

Pruitt met with fossil fuel reps 25 times more than environmentalists in first seven months (The Hill)

Scott Pruitt, the embattled head of the Environmental Protection Agency who has touted his ability to roll back Obama-era regulations, met with industry representatives 25 times more than environmentalists during his first 7 months in office.

According to records of Pruitt's public schedule between Feb. 22 and Aug. 10, 2017, about 77 percent of Pruitt's total meetings during that period were with industries the agency regulates.

Reuters first reported the findings Friday. They were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Environmental Integrity Project.

Nearly half of those industry meetings were with representatives of oil, gas, mining and coal industries. Prominent names included BP, Valero Energy Corp and Murray Energy, Reuters found.

Pruitt only met with four environmental groups during the same time period. The groups were Trout Unlimited, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, the Environmental Council of the States and the Alliance to Restore Our Waterways, records showed.

The meetings fall in line with Pruitt's regulatory reform approach to the agency, where he's strived to make major cutbacks to environmental protections in the name of cost saving and economic support.

Pruitt has been under heavy fire recently for his personal housing arrangement — he rented a condo from the wife of an energy lobbyist — and other decisions he's made at the agency.

The EPA chief has continued to tout his reform efforts as his most important accomplishments at the agency. Those achievements have equally been hailed by Republican policymakers who see his regulatory reform as a necessary check against too-burdensome Obama-era environmental protections.

President Trump on Thursday voiced confidence in Pruitt, saying "he’s done a fantastic job."

"I think he’s done an incredible job. He’s been very courageous,” the president told reporters. “It hasn’t been easy, but I think he’s done a fantastic job.”

Trump added: “You know, I just left coal and energy country. They love Scott Pruitt. They feel very strongly about Scott Pruitt."

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 09:57 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Als lobby corruptie is, soort van geinstutionaliseerd corruptie, dan zijn zowel Washington als Brussel al jarenlang ontiegelijk corrupt.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 10:17 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Probleem was vooral dat hij voor een prikkie in een appartement van een lobbyist woonde. Dat neigt naar corruptie.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 10:20 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat zou inderdaad corruptie kunnen zijn, voor een vergelijkbaar vergrijp wordt Lula in Brazilie nu vervolgd, maar dat is nog altijd wat anders dan de "welig tierende corruptie die in deze regering" zoals hierboven gesteld.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 10:22 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Als dat de aantijgingen aan het adres van Kushner op waarheid berusten, dan begint het toch wel kwalijke vormen aan te nemen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 10:20 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat zou inderdaad corruptie kunnen zijn, voor een vergelijkbaar vergrijp wordt Lula in Brazilie nu vervolgd, maar dat is nog altijd wat anders dan de "welig tierende corruptie die in deze regering" zoals hierboven gesteld.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 10:27 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Zijn twee consultants via een omweggetje alsnog van een extra riant salaris voorzien klinkt ook anders aardig corrupt evenals het misbruik van gemeenschapsgelden.

In hoeverre hij hand-en-spandiensten verleent voor al zijn lobbyende vriendjes is nog niet helder, dus daar kunnen we geen uitspraken over doen. Maar aan het hoofd staan van de EPA terwijl de helft van je contactenlijst uit donors uit de olieindustrie bestaat biedt weinig hoop gezien zijn eerdere genoemde missertjes.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 10:22 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Welke aantijgingen precies?

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 10:30 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Hij zou in de zak zitten van de Saudi's.

quote:

Access to the President’s Daily Brief is tightly guarded, but Trump has the legal authority to allow Kushner to disclose information contained in it. If Kushner discussed names with MBS as an approved tactic of U.S. foreign policy, the move would be a striking intervention by the U.S. into an unfolding power struggle at the top levels of an allied nation. If Kushner discussed the names with the Saudi prince without presidential authorization, however, he may have violated federal laws around the sharing of classified intelligence.

quote:

Many Democrats still wonder how folks in the Midwest can believe what they hear from Donald Trump. The answer: Often, they don’t.

In Trump Country, people have learned to take a wait-and-see approach to the president’s extreme and categorical statements, and they keep the salt shaker handy when reading the tweets of @realDonaldTrump. They’ve noticed that the United States has not quit NATO; that NAFTA was not torn up on Day One (or any other day); that Jeff Sessions is still the attorney general; that North Korea has been visited with neither fire nor fury; that the government has not been eviscerated. In fact, spending is going up, up, up.

That Trump also causes blood pressures to spike on “Morning Joe” and CNN only adds to the amusement in the flyover states as Trump exaggerates, fulminates and blusters. My Midwestern neighbors have figured out that these are the tools of a huckster salesman. And a lot of them like what the huckster is selling.

I believe this explains the low-key response so far to the threat of a trade war with China among the farmers who stand to lose the most. Tit-for-tat tariffs would be a disaster for American agriculture, which finds hungry markets in China. Yet on the prairie, the presidential salvos elicit little more than arched eyebrows. “Potentially calamitous,” said Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst of China’s threat to retaliate by jacking up levies on soybeans, hogs and cattle. But the key word was “potentially.” Hurst hastened to add: “It is important to remember that the actions announced by both China and the U.S. don’t take effect immediately.” There’s still time for “a negotiated peace,” he said, “one that can bring great benefits to our citizens, but one that is fraught with danger.”

This distinction between the president’s words and his deeds might seem to cut against the Midwestern mythos of straight-talking folks who say what they mean and mean what they say. But there is another kind of mythical Midwesterner, the sort that Meredith Willson celebrated in “The Music Man,” whose flinty exteriors cloak a soft spot for fast-talking flim-flammers. Trump entertains them and, besides, they never really expected a marching band.

Trump’s overstated opening gambits create a lot of room for him to maneuver in search of his self-proclaimed victories. Perhaps you remember his big, beautiful wall, for instance, the transparent marvel covered with solar panels and paid for by Mexico. The other day, he proclaimed that construction has begun — “we’ve started building the wall,” he tweeted — and offered as proof pictures from an ongoing fence-building project that began more than a decade ago. It’s called winning, in Trump’s vernacular: Whoever names it, claims it.

There is every reason to believe that China will tweak its trade policies in some way or another before Trump’s threatened tariffs take effect, which will allow the president to claim credit without triggering a mercantile Armageddon. Beijing doesn’t want Trump to fail — not quickly, anyway. The disruptive mayhem at the top of the Western alliance plays nicely into China’s long game. And it won’t take much to satisfy this president. He could net a minnow and declare himself captain of the whaling fleet.

But Trump is hardly the first leader to deploy hype as a political instrument. Woodrow Wilson did not make the world safe for democracy, nor did Herbert Hoover put a chicken in every pot. Or a more recent example: News that the current administration is easing Obama-era fuel efficiency targets for the auto industry recalled just how pie-in-the-sky those targets were. In 2012 — not coincidentally an election year — the Obama White House posted a goal of 54.5 miles per gallon for the average array of cars and light trucks in 2025.

As it happened, when the rollback was made public I had just finished driving a rented Toyota Prius 900 miles in California and Arizona, purchasing 20 gallons of gasoline along the way. I was impressed by the efficiency of this beautifully engineered marvel. Forty-five mpg! Did Barack Obama truly believe that the average new vehicle in 2025 will be 20 percent more fuel efficient than a Prius?

Probably not. More likely, Obama was signaling his ambitions, gesturing to his base and pointing the way to the electric-car future, all at the same time. Or exaggerating, fulminating and blustering, if you prefer. Sometimes overstatement is precisely what leadership requires. Call for 54.5 mpg, maybe you get 40. That’s a win.

Seen through that lens, the difference between Trump and more conventional leaders boils down to style. Forget finesse. He’s as subtle as an airhorn at an opera house; as impulsive as a 4-year-old at the fair. But nearly 15 months into his presidency, a significant portion of America is fine with that, and polls suggest this portion is holding steady in size — maybe even growing.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 10:20 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat zou inderdaad corruptie kunnen zijn, voor een vergelijkbaar vergrijp wordt Lula in Brazilie nu vervolgd, maar dat is nog altijd wat anders dan de "welig tierende corruptie die in deze regering" zoals hierboven gesteld.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 11:46 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Trump die een flink deel van de tijd in zijn eigen resorts en hotels zit en daarmee zijn zakken vult, vind ik ook wel behoorlijk corrupt.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 11:56 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Nou ja, zolang hij het zelf ook betaalt, maar het heeft inderdaad wel iets kroms als je geld van de belastingbetaler gebruikt om dat te betalen. Maar om eerlijk te zijn weet ik niet precies hoe dat is geregeld. Lijkt me sterk dat zoiets obvious niet aan bepaalde voorwaarden moet voldoen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 11:03 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Een incomplete lijst met concrete zaken en ook concrete aantijgingen over Trumps kabinet:

• Tom Price gebruikte op koste van de belastingbetaler private charter en militaire vluchten (NPR)
• David Shulkin accepteerde Wimbledon tickets, wat niet mocht, en liet zijn vrouw op koste van de belastingbetaler vliegen naar een tripje naar ergens in Europa. De inspector general vond het "Serious derelictions". (NPR)
• Carson liet de belastingbetaler $31,000 betalen voor een nieuwe 'dining room set' (NPR), later toen het bekend was geworden probeerde hij eronderuit te komen door de bestelling af te zeggen (NYTimes)
• Carson zou zijn zoon geholpen hebben door hem een "listening tour" die georganiseerd zou worden te laten organiseren (Washington Post)
• Pruitt kostte de belastingbetaler $90,000 voor eersteklas vluchten van Washington naar New York, Cincinnati en Rome, waar zijn staf tweedeklas vloog. Hij vond het kennelijk vervelend dat hij in tweede klas werd lastig gevallen, maar prive vliegt hij ook tweedeklas en daarbij had hij ook geen toestemming eersteklas te vliegen (Washington Post)
• Pruitts fijne regeling om 50 euro per nacht te hoeven betalen om dichtbij kantoor te kunnen overnachten in het huis van een lobbyist, is zojuist al besproken. Hij heeft overigens naar het zich doet aanzien ook niet voor elke nacht betaald.
• Zinke zou prive gevlogen hebben op koste van de belastingbetaler, wat onderzocht zou worden door de Inspector General (LA Times)
• Mnuchin is onderzocht door de Inspector General voor 8 vluchten met militaire jets wat de belastingbetaler $800,000 gekost heeft. Het resultaat van het onderzoek was dat het wel legaal was, maar de advocaat die het onderzocht voegde er wel aan toe: "just because something is legal doesn't make it right." En, hoewel de vluchten door het Witte Huis goedgekeurd werden, was er niet echt een grond voor om militaire vluchten te regelen in bijna alle onderzochte gevallen. (Politico)
• Ross heeft mogelijk een belangenconflict, waarbij hij ook deze belangen niet heeft gemeld, wat hij wel had moeten doen (CNBC)
• Perry wordt ervan beschuldigd een medewerker op zijn departement ontslagen te hebben, omdat deze foto's lekte van een ontmoeting tussen Perry en kool-magnaat Bob Murray (mogelijk wel bekend van Last Week Tonight). Deze medewerker trok aan de bel, omdat er een quid-pro-quo zou zijn tussen Perry en Murray. (The Hill)

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 11:57 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Hij betaalt het dus niet zelf, de belastingbetaler betaalt het.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 12:04 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Heb je daar argumenten voor?

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 12:29 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Trump Cost Taxpayers Tens Of Millions Visiting His Own Properties In 2017

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 12:33 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Maar nergens blijkt dat hij hier zelf beter van wordt, dat het geld van de belastingbetaler naar zijn eigen properties gaat, misschien is dat wel zo maar dat zou ik dan toch graag even zien.....

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 12:35 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Wie denk je dat de boel runt? Een stel wildvreemden zonder enige affiliatie met Trump?

Doe niet zo naïef man.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 11:03 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Een incomplete lijst met concrete zaken en ook concrete aantijgingen over Trumps kabinet:

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 12:03 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

We moeten wel corruptie en machtsmisbruik uit elkaar houden. Het een kan in het ander overlopen, bijvoorbeeld als Carson van zijn positie gebruik maakt om zijn zoon een baan te geven, maar het ongeoorloofd eerste klas vliegen of met een militair vliegtuig meevliegen is niet meteen corrupt.

quote:

A Donald Trump foreign policy adviser pushed government agencies to review materials from the dark web in the summer of 2016 that he thought were Hillary Clinton's deleted emails, multiple sources with direct knowledge tell CNN.

Joseph Schmitz approached the FBI and other government agencies about material a client of his had discovered that Schmitz believed might have been Clinton's missing 30,000 emails from her private e-mail server, sources say. The material was never verified, and sources say they ultimately believed it was fake.

His push is the latest example of Trump advisers who were mixed up in efforts to find dirt on Clinton during the presidential campaign. Schmitz was one of the first people Trump named to his campaign's national security and foreign policy team. The team, showcased in a March 2016 photo, was thrown together early in Trump's successful run as he faced mounting pressure to prove his ability to pull in high-level advisers who could help prepare him for the White House.

Another adviser pictured in the photo, Trump's foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, was told by a Kremlin-connected professor that the Russian government had damaging material on Clinton. Six weeks later, Donald Trump Jr. got a message from a business associate offering similar information, leading to the Trump Tower meeting that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort attended.

Fired chief strategist Steve Bannon told the House Intelligence Committee in February that members of the Trump campaign "kept getting approached" by outsiders suggesting ways to get Clinton's emails, according to a source familiar with his testimony.

SPOILER

Schmitz's connection to the multi-faceted effort to expose damaging information about Clinton has not been previously reported. His status as a former Pentagon inspector general afforded him access to the agencies and a sophisticated understanding of the government bureaucracy. He was relentless, sources say, and truly believed his client had found important, sensitive material. He did not hesitate in his pursuit even though the material on the dark web -- a part of the Internet not easily accessible or traceable -- was questionable and many experts already believed the Russians had stolen Clinton's emails.

Schmitz met with officials at the FBI, the State Department and the Intelligence Community Inspector General -- the watchdog tasked with investigating Clinton's alleged mishandling of classified information. He claimed a source he called "PATRIOT," an unidentified contractor he was representing, had discovered what he believed was likely material stolen from Clinton that could contain classified information. Both the client and Schmitz were afraid that going through the material without permission could jeopardize their security clearances, though there is no indication their actions were illegal.

While officials at the State Department and Inspector General briefly interviewed Schmitz, they declined to review or accept the information, according to sources familiar with the process. The FBI interviewed him as a part of its ongoing criminal investigation into Clinton's emails, sources said. It is not clear whether special counsel Robert Mueller is pursuing information about Schmitz's efforts.

Schmitz then took a memo outlining his claims and concerns to the House Intelligence Committee. One cybersecurity expert outside the government who also saw the material on the dark web said the emails appeared to be fake, based on his review and the forum where they were posted.

"I'm pretty sure they were posted on the (dark web) equivalent of Reddit," the source said.

CNN made multiple attempts to seek a response from Schmitz, including approaching him in person Friday. He declined to comment for the story.

A former campaign official told CNN in a text, "The campaign doesn't comment on matters of interest to the Special Counsel or the Congressional committees." A source connected to the campaign's foreign policy team said he had no knowledge of Schmitz's efforts.

The FBI declined to comment on questions about interviews with Schmitz, as did special counsel Robert Mueller's spokesperson Peter Carr about whether Mueller had interviewed Schmitz or might in the future. The Intelligence Community Inspector General, State Department and House Intelligence Committee also declined to comment.

Meanwhile, Schmitz and his associates may still be a part of Trump's orbit.

One of Schmitz's colleagues at his small law firm, Dennis Dean Kirk, was tapped by Trump in March to lead the federal workers' appeal committee, the Merit Systems Protection Board.

A Trump team original

Schmitz became one of Trump's first five campaign foreign policy advisers in the spring of 2016.

Trump announced his role during an interview with The Washington Post that March, alongside the four other originals: counterterrorism speaker Walid Phares, former Lt. Gen Keith Kellogg, academic Carter Page and oil and energy consultant George Papadopoulos.

Schmitz, a former Pentagon inspector general in George W. Bush's administration as well as a co-worker and confidant of Blackwater USA founder Erik Prince, told the Chicago Tribune he had been working for the Trump campaign for about a month prior to the announcement, communicating closely with top Trump adviser Sam Clovis.

A photo posted to Trump's Twitter and Instagram in March 2016 shows all of the original advisers at a conference table with Trump, including now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Schmitz also attended the Republican National Convention with Page and other advisers, according to USA Today.

Schmitz counseled Trump "through the November election," according to a biography on his law firm's website. After Trump's election victory, he considered Schmitz as a possible Secretary of the Navy, first reported by the Daily Caller and confirmed by CNN's sources.

Schmitz is no stranger to controversy.

His background came under scrutiny when he was first named as a Trump adviser, including comments former colleagues alleged he had made downplaying the Holocaust -- accusations Schmitz has said are false and defamatory. In the private sector, Schmitz has represented anti-Clinton activist Wayne Shelby Simmons. Schmitz is connected to the Center for Security Policy, a far-right organization that has promoted anti-Muslim views.

The email hunt

While Schmitz tried to get the emails reviewed, other Trump campaign associates also pursued dirt about Clinton, including information that was potentially stolen.

Papadopoulos, who served on the foreign policy team with Schmitz, was told in April 2016 by a Kremlin-connected professor that the Russian government had "thousands of emails" that were damaging to Clinton. It's unclear whether the emails Papadopoulos was told about were linked to Schmitz's efforts. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in October to lying to investigators and has been cooperating with Mueller.

Six weeks after Papadopoulos was told about the emails, Donald Trump Jr. got a similar message from a business associate who said the Russian government wanted to provide "information that would incriminate Hillary." A group of Russians visited Trump Tower to speak directly to Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort. Both sides deny collusion and say the meeting produced nothing.

Then there was Peter Smith, a well-connected GOP figure and Chicago investment banker who committed suicide after experiencing declining health in May 2017. He was openly obsessed with getting his hands on the deleted Clinton emails throughout 2016. There is no indication that Smith is connected to Schmitz's efforts or the Trump campaign.

In the fall of 2016, according to the Wall Street Journal, US intelligence officials picked up chatter likely between Russian hackers hoping to steal Clinton's emails and possibly get them to foreign policy adviser Michael Flynn and Trump's team through an intermediary.

Sources told CNN there was no indication that Schmitz was communicating with or influenced by agents of a foreign power when he brought the supposedly hacked material to US government agencies.

Peter Clement, a top analyst at the CIA on Europe and Eurasia before retiring in the winter of 2017, told CNN he was not aware of Schmitz but says it is "extremely plausible" that his penchant for conspiracy theories could have made him a target for various foreign influencers, including Russia. "There's a lot we don't know, but Russians during the campaign were clearly targeting specific groups and parts of the country," Clement said.

Additionally, Clement said Schmitz's business ties "would have made him stand out." His small law firm represents a major Russian airline previously sanctioned by the US State Department for arms deals with Iran.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zaterdag 07-04-2018 om 02:45:36 BREAKING: Two days ago I said we'd soon hear much more about Joe Schmitz. I didn't know it'd be *this* soon. This is a strange story we'll eventually get more details on. There's clearly much more to this—and it may yet involve Peter Smith and Erik Prince. https://t.co/gpj5hJjoDE reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 13:03 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Hoe dan ook, in plaats van draining the swamp heeft Trump de dijken van de swamp doorgebroken en verzakt iedereen er nu in. Trump en zijn regering is de meest corrupte in jaren en jaren.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 13:32 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Zeiden we niet hetzelfde toen lieden als Cheney, en ook Bush zelf, zouden profiteren van de Irak oorlog en de olie voorraden in dat land?

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 13:44 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Zou dat onterecht zijn dan?

quote:

Maar Trump begint gewoon op microniveau. Laten betalen van huur in de Trump Tower terwijl men daar zit tbv zijn beveiliging (en/of die van zijn vrouw en kind), beveiliging die golfkarretjes moet huren op zijn resorts terwijl ze daar zijn voor zijn beveiliging, om de haverklap naar Florida afreizen om een korte (golf)vakantie te houden wat de staat Florida een fortuin aan beveiliging kost, Mar-a-Lago kiezen voor staatsbezoeken van buitenlandse mogendheden waardoor hij zelf ff flink casht ipv te kiezen voor het Witte Huis. Zijn bedrijven niet fatsoenlijk afstoten, maar overdoen aan zijn zoons. Etc., etc.

quote:

Het is allemaal algemeen bekend hoor, geen idee waarom jij er vraagtekens bij zet.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 13:51 schreef DeParo het volgende:

Veel van deze kosten zijn voor elke president, Obama ging ook veel golfen als President, wellicht doet Trump het nog vaker. Geen idee. Maar ik heb ook geen idee of hij casht door het gebruik te maken van Mar-a-Lago. Of iemand het hotel echt betaalt. Of dat uberhaupt mag. Jij wel?

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 13:58 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Alleen al het feit dat Trump om de haverklap Mar-a-Lago bezoekt, heeft ervoor gezegd dat de lidmaatschapsprijzen de pan uit zijn gerezen. Dat is gunstig voor het resort en daarom ook gunstig voor de familie Trump.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 14:00 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Zeker maar niet direct corruptie tenzij Trump dit willens en wetens doet. Bewijs dat maar.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 14:01 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Geen idee waarom jij de behoefte voelt om dit soort idioterie recht te praten. Jij bent toch een zelfverklaard linksmensch?

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 14:07 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Juist daarom vind ik de frustratie des te ironisch.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 14:07 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Wie is er gefrustreerd?

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 14:12 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Het wordt weer eens een discussie met allemaal kleine zeikpuntjes, om een discussie maar technisch te kunnen winnen. Machtsmisbruik vs corruptie, profiteert Trump wel als er aan zijn bedrijven geld betaald wordt voor het verblijf van hem, zijn staf + beveiligers ... give me a break.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 14:14 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind het vooral ironisch omdat het al jarenlang gebeurt.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 14:14 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind het vooral ironisch omdat het al jarenlang gebeurt.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 15:40 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Voor zover ik weet gingen eerdere presidenten niet in hotels zitten waar ze eigenaar van waren.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 15:40 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Voor zover ik weet gingen eerdere presidenten niet in hotels zitten waar ze eigenaar van waren.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 16:01 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Die anderen hadden stiekem hotels of zo?

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 16:09 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Wie betaalt jou?

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op zaterdag 07-04-2018 om 14:40:47 Expect a major announcement in the coming days regarding our efforts to identify the thug who threatened Ms. Clifford in Las Vegas in 2011 to “leave Trump alone” while making reference to her little girl. You can run but you can’t hide. #thugsearch #seriousconsequences #basta reageer retweet

quote:

As ethical questions threaten the Environmental Protection Administrator, Scott Pruitt, President Trump has defended him with a persuasive conservative argument: Mr. Pruitt is doing a great job at what he was hired to do, roll back regulations.

But in Mr. Pruitt’s haste to undo government rules and in his eagerness to hold high-profile political events promoting his agenda, he has often been less than rigorous in following important procedures, leading to poorly crafted legal efforts that risk being struck down in court. The result is that the rollbacks, intended to fulfill one of the president’s central campaign pledges, may ultimately be undercut or reversed.

Six of Mr. Pruitt’s efforts to delay or roll back Obama-era regulations — on issues including pesticides, lead paint and renewable-fuel requirements — have been struck down by the courts. Mr. Pruitt also backed down on a proposal to delay implementing smog regulations and another to withdraw a regulation on mercury pollution.

The courts, for instance, found that the E.P.A. had ignored clear legal statutes when they ruled that Mr. Pruitt had illegally delayed a regulation curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas wells and that the agency had broken the law by missing a deadline last year to enact ozone restrictions.

SPOILER

In other cases — including one in which a federal court ordered the E.P.A. to act on a Connecticut request to reduce pollution from a Pennsylvania power plant, and one where judges demanded quick action from the agency on new lead paint standards — the courts warned Mr. Pruitt that avoiding enacting regulations already on the books was an inappropriate effort to repeal a rule without justifying the action.

"In their rush to get things done, they're failing to dot their i's and cross their t's. And they're starting to stumble over a lot of trip wires," said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard. "They're producing a lot of short, poorly crafted rulemakings that are not likely to hold up in court."

“The E.P.A. has a clear duty to act,” a panel of judges of the San Francisco-based Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit wrote in a 2-1 decision finding that the agency must revise its lead paint standards in 90 days, as regulations required. The agency had tried to delay the revisions for six years.

In an interview on Friday, the White House spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said that Mr. Trump felt that Mr. Pruitt had done a satisfactory job at the EPA. Her comments suggested that Mr. Pruitt’s work checking off items on the president’s agenda — including rolling back a large number of environmental protections — may weigh heavily as a counterbalance to the ethics questions related to his travel expenses, management practices and his rental of a living space from the wife of a prominent lobbyist.

Describing Mr. Trump’s view of Mr. Pruitt, she said: “He likes the work product.”

Liz Bowman, an E.P.A. spokeswoman, disputed the criticisms of the agency’s work. “E.P.A. does its due diligence, consults with O.M.B. and other federal agencies to ensure that its work is legally defensible,” she said in an email, referring to the Office of Management and Budget, the office that coordinates and evaluates policy across the executive branch.

One of the chief examples cited by Mr. Pruitt’s critics came this week when the E.P.A. filed its legal justification for what is arguably the largest rollback of an environmental rule in the Trump administration: the proposed undoing of an Obama-era regulation aimed at cutting pollution of planet-warming greenhouse gases from vehicle tailpipes.

Mr. Pruitt made his case for the rollback in a 38-page document filed on Tuesday that, experts say, was devoid of the kind of supporting legal, scientific and technical data that courts have shown they expect to see when considering challenges to regulatory changes.

“There’s an incredible lack of numbers,” said James McCargar, a former senior policy analyst at the E.P.A. who worked on vehicle emissions programs and remains in close touch with career staffers who work on those programs. “If this gets challenged in court, I just don’t see how they provide anything that gives a technical justification to undo the rule.”

The rules Mr. Pruitt is targeting would require automakers to nearly double the average fuel economy of passenger vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Automakers have argued the rule is onerous, forcing them to invest heavily in building hybrid and electric vehicles.

As part of the process, Mr. Pruitt filed the 38-page document, which is meant to supply the government’s legal justification for rolling back the rule. About half the document consists of quotations from automakers laying out their objections to the rule. By comparison, the Obama administration’s 1,217-page document justifying its implementation of the regulation included technical, scientific and economic analyses justifying the rule.

Experts in environmental policy said the lack of analytical arguments in this week’s E.P.A. filing surprised them. “This document is unprecedented,” said Mr. McCargar, the former E.P.A. senior policy analyst. “The E.P.A. has just never done anything like this.”

John M. DeCicco, a professor of engineering and public policy at the University of Michigan Energy Institute, said the filing was a departure from the practices of previous Republican and Democratic administrations.

“A president or an administrator or somebody can’t just say, ‘I’m going to change the rule,’ without justifying it very, very carefully,” Mr. DeCicco said. “As a scientist who’s worked on these issues, I’m saying, where are the numbers? Where’s the data?”

Most of the document consists of arguments quoting directly from public comments made by automaker lobbyists, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Global Automakers, that the pollution rules will be unduly burdensome on the auto industry, as well as public comments from Toyota, Fiat Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz and Mitsubishi.

While it does include arguments opposing the regulatory rollback from groups including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the state of California, it does not contain what environmental experts say is the critical element of a legally strong justification for changing an E.P.A. regulation: Technical analysis of both sides of the argument leading to a conclusion aimed at persuading a judge that the change is defensible.

Seth Michaels, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, suggested that, in its reuse of arguments by the automakers’ lobby, the emissions-rollback document echoed Mr. Pruitt’s modus operandi when he was the Oklahoma Attorney General.

“It’s reminiscent of the 2011 letter Scott Pruitt sent as Oklahoma AG to the E.P.A., in which he took a letter drafted by layers for Devon Energy and stuck his name on it with minimal edits,” Mr. Michaels said.

A 2014 investigation by The Times found that lobbyists for Devon Energy, an Oklahoma oil and gas company, drafted letters for Mr. Pruitt to send to the E.P.A., the Interior Department, the Office of Management and Budget and President Obama, outlining the economic hardship of various environmental rules.

Between 2011 and 2017, Mr. Pruitt filed suit against the E.P.A. 14 times, and lost almost all of the cases.

Most were filed in conjunction with the Republican attorneys general of a dozen or more other states, making it difficult to know precisely which legal arguments his office contributed, legal experts said. Mr. Pruitt frequently took a lead role in the cases.

In the end, “a lot of those arguments were losers,” said Richard L. Revesz, an expert in environmental law at New York University.

In particular, Mr. Revesz noted a case brought by the group against President Obama’s signature climate change regulation, the Clean Power Plan, which Mr. Pruitt is now working to overturn from within the E.P.A. The lawsuit challenged a draft proposal of the regulation, which was an unprecedented move that a federal court quickly struck down, saying that they could not legally challenge a draft.

While the attorneys general, including Mr. Pruitt, garnered media attention for the case, “The argument they had was ludicrous,” Mr. Revesz said.

The group did, however, score one major victory: After the Obama administration issued its final version of the Clean Power Plan, it successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to temporarily halt implementation of the rule.

Since taking the helm of E.P.A., Mr. Pruitt has barnstormed the country, meeting with farmers, coal miners and local leaders and promising an end to his predecessor’s regulatory approach. He also has favored closed-door policy speeches to conservative think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation, to roll out policy initiatives.

The Heritage Foundation was the venue Mr. Pruitt chose this year to say that he would make changes to how scientific studies are considered at the agency. Both critics and supporters of Mr. Pruitt said that, by making the proposal in a political fashion rather than changing the rules in a quieter but potentially more lasting way means that changes like these are more vulnerable to being undone by a future administration.

Environmental groups have welcomed Mr. Pruitt’s court losses. Joanne Spalding, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club, said she was pleased by what she called “sloppy” and “careless” E.P.A. legal work. “It’s fine with us,” she said. “Do a bad job repealing these things, because then we get to go to court and win.”

Thomas J. Pyle, a supporter of Mr. Pruitt’s and the president of the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank that promotes fossil fuels, described that as spin. “The environmental left portrays Scott Pruitt as a devil incarnate in their fund-raising solicitations, yet brag about how ineffective he is in dismantling Obama’s climate rules,” he said. “Which is it?”

Still, some conservatives said they were worried that Mr. Pruitt was more interested in media attention than policy and feared more legal losses. “If the goal is to generate temporary relief and to make a splash, then what they’re doing is terrifically fine,” said Jonathan H. Adler, director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

But if the Trump administration wants to permanently change the regulatory environment for business, he said, the E.P.A. cannot take such a “quick and dirty approach” to unraveling regulations. “I’m suspicious that two, three years down the road there’s going to be much to show for all the fireworks we’re getting now,” Mr. Adler said.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 16:55 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op zaterdag 07-04-2018 om 14:40:47 Expect a major announcement in the coming days regarding our efforts to identify the thug who threatened Ms. Clifford in Las Vegas in 2011 to “leave Trump alone” while making reference to her little girl. You can run but you can’t hide. #thugsearch #seriousconsequences #basta reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 19:12 schreef PippenScottie het volgende:

[..]

Ik gok Keith Schiller

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 19:12 schreef PippenScottie het volgende:

[..]

Ik gok Keith Schiller

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 19:21 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ah, zijn voormalig bodyguard lees ik. Ook wel gek dat die man maandelijks $15,000 krijgt overgemaakt vanuit de GOP.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 19:56 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
Nou nou...
Gisteren twee doden bij crash van Apache in Kentucky, woensdag een dode bij een F-16 crash in Nevada, en dinsdag 4 mariniers bij een helikoptercrash in Californië.
http://thehill.com/policy(...)er-crash-in-kentucky

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 02-01-2018 om 15:13:13 Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation. Good news - it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and safest year on record! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 20:20 schreef Montov het volgende:

[..]

Trump heeft alleen controle over de veiligheid van de commerciele luchtvaart.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 02-01-2018 om 15:13:13 Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation. Good news - it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and safest year on record! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 16:55 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op zaterdag 07-04-2018 om 14:40:47 Expect a major announcement in the coming days regarding our efforts to identify the thug who threatened Ms. Clifford in Las Vegas in 2011 to “leave Trump alone” while making reference to her little girl. You can run but you can’t hide. #thugsearch #seriousconsequences #basta reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 20:36 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Lol, heeft ie dat echt getweet? 2017 was wereldwijd het veiligste jaar in civil aviation, geen enkele passenger jet gecrasht.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 20:55 schreef livelink het volgende:

[..]

Die Michael Avenatti heeft echt de tijd van zijn leven, volgens mij. Je ziet die man gewoon genieten.

quote:

President Trump's longtime lawyer reportedly referred a client to an attorney last year who was at the time working for adult-film star Stormy Daniels, raising questions over whether Trump's lawyer acted as a fixer for the president.

Keith Davidson, a longtime Los Angeles attorney, told CNN that Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen referred his name to Chuck LaBella, a Trump associate who at the time was being accused by actor Tom Arnold of having information that could damage the Trump campaign.

"Chuck LaBella has all the dirt," Arnold said in October of last year, adding in a second tweet: "Chuck LaBella was there and knows all."

Arnold's attorney was then contacted by Davidson. LaBella told CNN the attorney reached out to stop the actor from spreading "slanderous accusations and outright lies." LaBella also said he never hired Davidson and that Davidson reached out to Arnold's attorney on his behalf.

"Keith Davidson has never been hired as my counsel. I have never met him. I have never paid him. I have never signed any agreement with him."

Davidson, who was at the time also representing Daniels, no longer represents the adult-film star, who is now backed by attorney Michael Avenatti.

CNN noted the episode could be potentially significant amid allegations in a lawsuit filed by another Davidson client, Karen McDougal, about coziness between Davidson and Cohen.

SPOILER

McDougal, a former Playboy model who also says she had an affair with Trump, has filed a lawsuit against Davidson claiming he was "working closely with representatives for Mr. Trump while pretending to advocate on her behalf."

McDougal has accused Davidson of being part of a "broad effort to silence and intimidate her and others." He denies the claims.

In his statement to CNN, LaBella denied that Davidson had been referred to him by Cohen.

"After working for over 30 years in Hollywood, Keith has been know[n] as the fixer. Many people over the years have recommended Keith to me. He has been in my rolodex. That's how I know of him."

Trump publicly acknowledged questions surrounding Daniels for the first time this week, telling reporters on Air Force One that he had no knowledge of Cohen's $130,000 payment to the actress shortly before the 2016 election. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, has said the money was part of an agreement to keep her silent about an affair she claims she had with Trump in 2006.

“You’ll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney. You’ll have to ask Michael,” Trump repeatedly told reporters this week.

quote:

• New tax cuts are unlikely to spur business investment to any large extent, according to a new survey conducted by the Atlanta Fed in conjuction with academics.

• The survey shows some three-quarters of executives had made no spending plans at all in response to the passage of the tax cuts.

• "We're sticking with our initial assessment that the potential for a sharp acceleration in near-term output growth is limited," Atlanta Fed economists write.

Republicans' pitch on tax cuts was fairly clear: Lower rates on corporations would spur investment and create new jobs.

SPOILER

A new survey published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in conjunction with Stanford University and University of Chicago Booth School economists shows the new policy measures have done little do bolster corporate investment plans.

"In our February survey—which was in the field from February 12 through February 23—we asked firms, 'How has the recently enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act led you to revise your plans for capital expenditures in 2018?' The results shown below—restricted to the 218 firms that responded in both November 2017 and February 2018—suggest that, if anything, these firms have revised down their expectations for this year." (Emphasis added)

The chart below speaks for itself — some three-quarters of executives reported no changes in investment plans at all.



Looking further out into 2019, the results were even more lackluster.

"It is still the case that the typical (or median) large firm has not revised its 2019 capex plans in response to tax changes," Atlanta Fed economists write in their macroblog.

Given that backdrop, the economists write, "we're sticking with our initial assessment that the potential for a sharp acceleration in near-term output growth is limited."



Despite politicians' pledges to help small businesses, "it seems that larger firms (those with more than 500 employees) responded more favorably to the tax reform. But it is still the case that the typical (or median) large firm has not revised its 2019 capex plans in response to tax changes," the Atlanta Fed economists wrote.

quote:

President Donald Trump has begun the initial steps of preparing for a possible interview with the special counsel, a White House official and a person familiar with the situation said Friday, a sign the President's legal team is intensifying its deliberations over whether to allow him to come under Robert Mueller's questioning.

One source familiar with the proceedings stressed the preparation efforts is "in its infancy."

The preparations have been short and informal and included going over potential topics with the President that Mueller would likely raise in an interview, the people said.

The President has not formally agreed to sit for an interview with Mueller.

But word of early preparations is the clearest sign yet that Trump and his team remain open to an interview with Mueller, despite concerns from some people close to the President that such an interview could expose him to possible charges of perjury.

Ty Cobb, a White House lawyer handling Mueller issues, and Jay Sekulow, the President's attorney, declined to comment.

SPOILER

Interview prospects

Outwardly, Trump has remained receptive to -- even enthusiastic about -- the prospect of sitting before Mueller, who is investigating whether his campaign colluded with Russia and whether Trump attempted to short-circuit the investigation itself. He has indicated that sitting for an interview himself could help bring the investigation to a swift end.

Privately, however, Trump has been more equivocal about answering Mueller's questions, depending on the day. Trump has wavered on his pledge as friends and advisers caution him of the risks of speaking to prosecutors who have already charged 19 individuals with criminal offenses, including lying.

The terms of how Trump would be questioned -- including whether he would speak under oath -- have not yet been determined. Even if he isn't questioned under oath, however, Trump could still open himself to charges if he lies to Mueller's team, since lying to the FBI is a crime.

Trump told reporters in January he was "looking forward" to an interview with Mueller, insisting there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia.

"I'd love to do it," Trump said, indicating that he'd been told by his lawyers an interview would take place in "two to three weeks."

Two-and-a-half months later, Trump's legal team has not committed to making Trump available to Mueller for an interview. Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, said this week that talks were continuing between Trump and his lawyers about a possible interview with Mueller.

"The President is working in conjunction with his legal team and making a determination," Sanders said on Tuesday. "We're continuing to be fully cooperative with the Office of the Special Counsel, and we'll continue driving the same message that we've been driving for over a year, that there was no collusion."

Investigation status

While Trump himself has not been submitted for questioning to Mueller, multiple White House officials have been made available to Mueller's team. The White House has also produced reams of documents for the special counsel.

Multiple aides to the President continue to describe him as obsessed with the Russia investigation, becoming increasingly agitated as details about the probe emerge. Trump feels the investigation undermines his presidency and has grown increasingly bitter that it has not yet concluded, the aides have said.

Members of the President's legal team have been negotiating for months with Mueller's office over potential topics that may be included in a presidential interview.

Attorneys on both sides sat down late last month in a rare face-to-face discussion about the topics investigators could inquire of the President. It was the first in-person meeting after several weeks of informal discussions between the two sides, according to two sources familiar with the talks.

In that session -- which Mueller himself did not attend -- the special counsel's team provided more specific details about the topics it had originally presented to Trump's lawyers months ago, which include the firing of FBI Director James Comey, attorney general Jeff Sessions involvement in that firing and Trump's knowledge of phone calls national security adviser Michael Flynn placed to the Russian ambassador in late 2016.

Deliberations over an interview with Mueller have proceeded amid tumult within the President's legal team. Midway through March, the lead lawyer, John Dowd, resigned amid disagreements with the President and increased scrutiny in the probe. That's left Jay Sekulow, an outside attorney, and Cobb, who works in the White House, as the remaining lawyers representing the President in this matter.

At least five major law firms have been invited -- but declined -- invitations to help Trump navigate the Mueller investigation.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zaterdag 07-04-2018 om 21:02:02 Beware:1. This is a deliberate leak to imply Trump is willing to sit for an interview.2. Other reports say Trump privately expresses an unwillingness to be interviewed.3. These sessions equally serve as preparation for compelled grand jury testimony. https://t.co/SPgWFHRpzp reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 22:24 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Trump begins informal prep for potential Mueller interview

[..]

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zaterdag 07-04-2018 om 21:02:02 Beware:1. This is a deliberate leak to imply Trump is willing to sit for an interview.2. Other reports say Trump privately expresses an unwillingness to be interviewed.3. These sessions equally serve as preparation for compelled grand jury testimony. https://t.co/SPgWFHRpzp reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zaterdag 07-04-2018 om 23:00:39 What does the Department of Justice and FBI have to hide? Why aren’t they giving the strongly requested documents (unredacted) to the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE? Stalling, but for what reason? Not looking good! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 23:18 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zaterdag 07-04-2018 om 23:00:39 What does the Department of Justice and FBI have to hide? Why aren’t they giving the strongly requested documents (unredacted) to the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE? Stalling, but for what reason? Not looking good! reageer retweet

Heel misschien bestaat er een functie waarbij de persoon in kwestie de documenten zou kunnen vrijgeven als hij dat zou willen. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zaterdag 07-04-2018 om 23:15:04 Jeff Sessions is surely very happy to see this tweet at 5PM on a Saturday. https://t.co/Nz0Q237KxB reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 22:30 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb ook echt geen flauw idee wat het betekent om je als president informeel voor te bereiden... dat taalgebruik moet inderdaad wel uit de koker komen van iemand die het wil downplayen en dus een agenda heeft.

twitter:

PeterThomasRoth twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 00:15:52 Fire in Trump Tower worsening https://t.co/6T1VsOCsuP reageer retweet

quote:

FBI Arrests Alabama State Lawmaker, Ex-GOP Chairman

Federal prosecutors on Monday arrested and charged State Rep. Jack Williams and former Alabama Republican Party Chairman Martin Connors in a public corruption investigation stemming from a 2016 insurance coverage scheme.

Williams, R-Vestavia Hills, and Connors, now a lobbyist, were arrested at their respective homes and appeared in federal court in Montgomery. In handcuffs shackled to their waists, Williams and Connors both told the judge they understood the charges against them.

Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan S. Ross said both men would be released Monday, with unsecured bails set at $25,000. An arraignment hearing has been set for April 18.

Williams and Connors are charged alongside G. Ford Gilbert, the CEO of California-based healthcare company Trina Health. All three face charges of conspiracy to commit bribery related to federal programs, conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud and honest services wire fraud.

Gilbert, who was arrested in California Monday, is also charged with health care fraud and interstate travel in aid of racketeering.

The charges stem from a 2016 scheme to force Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the state's largest insurer, to cover treatments provided by Trina's three diabetes clinics in Alabama.

Trina's clinics used an "artificial pancreas treatment" which provided intravenous insulin injection therapy for treating diabetes. The treatment was not FDA-approved, and in 2009 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it would not cover the costs of similar therapies.

Many private health care plans followed suit, according to Monday's indictment, including BC/BS.

The federal indictment alleges Gilbert made multiple payments to former Alabama House Majority Leader Micky Hammon in an effort to push a bill through the Legislature's 2016 session.

Gilbert also offered to pay Hammon's $240,000 debt with Regions Financial Corporation, according to court documents.

Hammon pleaded guilty last year to felony charges of misusing campaign funds and is currently serving three months in federal prison. Though his is frequently cited in Monday's indictment, prosecutors said he isn't charged due to his previous conviction in federal court.

SPOILER

In 2014, Hammon was gifted an ownership in a Trina Health subsidiary in exchange for finding investments and a clinic space for a Birmingham-area clinic. Two Baldwin County clinics were already open and profitable, the indictment states, because Trina Health used billing codes to skirt BC/BS rules regarding artificial pancreas treatments.

BC/BS discovered the scheme and in August 2015, Gilbert told Birmingham clinic investors that the insurer would be unlikely to reimburse for the treatment in the future.

"Gilbert assured the investors that he was capable of causing BCBS-AL to reconsider its position," the indictment reads.

Hammons received nearly $30,000 in wire transfers from Gilbert during this time period.

Gilbert hired Connors to lobby a bill in the Legislature, the indictment alleges, when Connors knew of the payments to Hammon.

The House legislation would have forced insurance companies to cover intravenous insulin infusions at medical clinics and offices, not just hospitals.

Williams, who chaired the House's Commerce and Small Business Committee, was recruited to hold a public hearing on the bill. Williams met with Gilbert and was aware of Hammon's financial issues, prosecutors say.

"Williams also knew of the payments to Hammon and acted in part to help Hammon, who, as everyone in the scheme knew, was experiencing grave financial problems," a Department of Justice release states.

BCBS fought the bill at the time, and it died in committee.

Gilbert tried to introduce similar legislation in the 2017 Legislature, but Hammon refused to support another bill. All three Trina Health clinics closed in 2017.

Williams was first elected to the House of Representatives in 2004. He said last year he wouldn't seek reelection to his seat and later announced his candidacy for the Jefferson County Commission.

Connors served as the Alabama Republican Party chairman from 2000 to 2005.

Monday's arrests are the latest in a string of elected officials' misdeeds in Alabama.

Former House Speaker Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, was convicted in June 2016 of ethics violations and forced out of office. Former Gov. Robert Bentley, caught up in a scandal involving his relationship with a former aide, pleaded guilty to two campaign finance violations in April 2017 and resigned.

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore -- a candidate for Alabama's U.S. Senate seat -- lost his job in September 2016 after ordering probate judges to not issue same-sex marriage licenses. Former Rep. Oliver Robinson, D-Birmingham, has pleaded guilty to accepting bribes to fight an attempt to list a polluted area in his district on an EPA priority list.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 00:30 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Brand in Trump Tower, vid in tweet:

twitter:

PeterThomasRoth twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 00:15:52 Fire in Trump Tower worsening https://t.co/6T1VsOCsuP reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 00:48 schreef Falco het volgende:

[..]

Vuur is alweer uit

quote:

‘When you lose that power’: How John Kelly faded as White House disciplinarian (Washington Post)



After White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly pressured President Trump last fall to install his top deputy, Kirstjen Nielsen, atop the Department of Homeland Security, the president lost his temper when conservative allies argued that she wasn’t sufficiently hard line on immigration. “You didn’t tell me she was a [expletive] George W. Bush person,” Trump growled.

After Kelly told Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier in a January interview that Trump’s immigration views had not been “fully informed” during the campaign and had since “evolved,” the president berated Kelly in the Oval Office — his shouts so loud they could be heard through the doors.

And less than two weeks ago, Kelly grew so frustrated on the day that Trump fired Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin that Nielsen and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis both tried to calm him and offered pep talks, according to three people with knowledge of the incident.

“I’m out of here, guys,” Kelly said — comments some interpreted as a resignation threat, but according to a senior administration official, he was venting his anger and leaving work an hour or two early to head home.

SPOILER

The recurring and escalating clashes between the president and his chief of staff trace the downward arc of Kelly’s eight months in the White House. Both his credibility and his influence have been severely diminished, administration officials said, a clear decline for the retired four-star Marine Corps general who arrived with a reputation for integrity and a mandate to bring order to a chaotic West Wing.

Kelly neither lurks around the Oval Office nor listens in on as many of the president’s calls, even with foreign leaders. He has not been fully consulted on several recent key personnel decisions. And he has lost the trust and support of some of the staff, as well as angered first lady Melania Trump, who officials said was upset over his sudden dismissal of Johnny McEntee, the president’s 27-year-old personal aide.

“When you lose that power,” said Leon Panetta, a Democratic former White House chief of staff, “you become a virtual White House intern, being told where to go and what to do.”

This portrait of Kelly’s trajectory is based on interviews with 16 administration officials, outside advisers and presidential confidants, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to assess the chief of staff. Kelly declined interview requests.

In large part because of his military credentials, Kelly still commands a level of respect from Trump that sometimes eluded his predecessor, Reince Priebus, whom the president would derisively refer to as “Reincey.” On issues such as national security and immigration, Trump continues to listen to Kelly. And for all the evident chaos, the West Wing now features less knife fighting and dysfunction than in the early months, when Trump set Priebus on coequal footing with then-chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon.

One senior White House official disputed that Kelly’s relationship with Trump has been especially turbulent in recent weeks, noting that the president still talks to Kelly more than any other official. This official explained that Kelly initially viewed his job as babysitting, but now feels less of a need to be omnipresent, while Trump, who once considered Kelly a security blanket, feels increasingly emboldened to act alone.

But inside and outside the White House, Kelly’s credibility has suffered from a string of misstatements, most recently over his management of domestic abuse allegations against former staff secretary Rob Porter and of Trump’s decision to oust Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster as national security adviser. And for all the structure he has brought to the bureaucracy, colleagues still view Kelly as tone deaf in dealing with politics.

Kelly is the latest high-profile example of a West Wing Icarus — swept high into Trump’s orbit, only to be singed and cast low. Nearly everyone who has entered the White House has emerged battered — rendered a punchline (former press secretary Sean Spicer), a Justice Department target (former national security adviser Michael Flynn) or a diminished shell, fired by presidential tweet (former secretary of state Rex Tillerson).

No one knows how many days remain for Kelly, but when he leaves — either by the president’s hand or because of his own mounting frustration — he is almost certain to limp away damaged.

“Everybody in the orbit of Donald Trump gets sucked in and tarnished or destroyed,” said Chris Whipple, author of “The Gatekeepers,” a history of White House chiefs of staff. “Kelly has been tarnished, no doubt about it.”

‘How’s Kelly doing?’

When Kelly, then the homeland security secretary, was appointed chief of staff late last July, the news was met with enthusiasm. Many Trump watchers hoped Kelly would prove a voice of reason and restraint in an administration often perceived to be teetering out of control. And many West Wing aides similarly welcomed the new discipline, thinking Kelly’s regimen would free them to do their jobs.

Initially, at least, Kelly was successful. He began closing the door to the Oval Office, so aides couldn’t loiter or wander in and out hoping to sway the president on issues outside their purview. He made meetings smaller, which helped reduce leaks to the press and make conversations more efficient. And he limited the number of aides who had Oval Office walk-in privileges to a small group.

“I didn’t know the Oval Office even had a door,” one staffer joked to Kelly, several months after he’d taken over. Kelly, meanwhile, marveled that in the early days staffers sometimes entered still chatting on their cellphones.

Under Kelly’s watch, the president now has “Policy Time,” sessions once or twice a day where advisers present and argue their competing views over a specific issue, with Trump presiding. He has also implemented bimonthly Cabinet meetings, with a focused agenda, as well as restored order to the morning senior staff meeting. And attendance for most Oval Office meetings is still run through Kelly’s office.

But about a month into Kelly’s tenure, Trump began to chafe at the strictures. The president invited staff and Cabinet secretaries into the Oval Office without scheduled appointments and called friends and advisers late at night, without Kelly’s sign-off. An early sign of trouble came when Trump polled confidants about his enforcer: “What do you think of Kelly? How’s Kelly doing?” the president asked.

Kelly was an intimidating presence, confiding to some colleagues that he preferred to be feared rather than loved. Yet he was reluctant to be the bearer of bad news. Enter Nielsen, who centralized power as his enforcer, earning her internal enemies.

Kelly requested that staffers back-brief him when the president violated his processes — for instance, by calling a staffer to demand action after watching a Fox News segment. But several aides said they found Kelly difficult when they retroactively filled him in. He often repeated a version of the same response: “I guess you’re the chief of staff now, so why don’t you handle it?”

There were other signs of tensions, as well. Early on, Kelly convened a video conference with aides who were with Trump on vacation at his golf course in Bedminster, N.J. He was beamed in from Washington but erupted when the audio didn’t work. “This is [expletive] ridiculous,” he said, canceling the meeting and storming out of the room. Aides who had not been aware of his temper were stunned.

Days after the publication of Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury” — a devastating portrayal of the West Wing, informed by Wolff’s hours of unsupervised time there — Kelly berated senior staff, saying the book should have never happened. “This place was a [expletive] before I got here,” Kelly fumed.

Though some staffers felt unfairly critiqued, others agreed with his assessment.

During the Porter crisis, Kelly found himself under intense scrutiny for the veracity of his whipsaw statements. He publicly praised Porter and privately urged him to stay. But Kelly later claimed that he had demanded Porter’s resignation just 40 minutes after learning the details of the allegations, which conflicted with the White House’s official account delivered by press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Many senior staffers were convinced that Kelly was distorting the facts to try to exonerate himself, though some others say his account was accurate.

In March, Kelly again offered contradictory explanations. He privately told staffers that Trump had decided to oust McMaster. But after The Washington Post reported that Trump had made his decision, Kelly began telling others the opposite — while still maintaining to some Trump advisers that the president’s decision had been made. Some advisers thought that Kelly was using the president to push a personal vendetta against McMaster.

In an off-the-record session with reporters, parts of which later were reported, Kelly also said that when he called Tillerson to let him know he was fired, the secretary of state was on the toilet with “Montezuma’s revenge.” Though White House aides said Kelly was simply joking — and the State Department contested his version of the phone call — many staffers found the comment crude and demeaning.

“At the top, you have someone who consistently does not tell the truth,” said James K. Glassman, the founding executive director of the George W. Bush Institute. “That’s a signal to the people below him that they don’t have to tell the truth either, that this is the way we conduct government — we lie when we have to, we mistreat people when we have to, we humiliate them.”

Irritation and respect

In many ways, the Trump-Kelly alliance was always going to be strained. As a business executive, Trump is flexible and freewheeling, prone to impulse and whim. As a retired general, Kelly is structured and partial to hierarchies and rigor.

As chief of staff, Kelly was thrust into the role of disciplinarian. He faced bitter factions, especially among those whose White House access he had cut off (such as Anthony Scaramucci, whose 11-day run as communications director was ended by Kelly) or curtailed (such as Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager).

Kelly’s tensions with Lewandowski boiled over near the end of February, during a meeting with the president. Kelly entered the Oval Office, saw Lewandowski and griped that Lewandowski had been attacking him on television over the Porter fallout but was unwilling to say it to his face. A blowup ensued, with Trump ordering the two to get along. They left the Oval Office for less heated conversation, then reentered and announced a truce.

Asked about the incident, Lewandowski said only, “I am on President Trump’s team and every person who’s supporting this president, which includes John Kelly, is on the team that I’m on.”

Since last fall, tensions between Kelly and Trump have blossomed in episodic bursts.

In one contentious incident in autumn, when Trump moved to fire Tillerson, Kelly dissuaded him during a heated argument in which he threatened to resign. Trump told Kelly he could keep “his guy,” but soon had his revenge, tweeting “Save your energy Rex” on North Korea.

In fact, Kelly has threatened to resign on multiple occasions — “It’s sort of a weekly event,” one senior White House official quipped — though officials explained his declarations as expressions of momentary frustration. (Axios first reported some details surrounding Kelly’s March resignation threat).

More recently, Trump has told friends he is eager to stage more energetic, frenzied rallies — yet another realm where he can theoretically slip Kelly’s shackles.

“There has to be a bond here between the chief of staff and the staff and the president, and that fundamental bond has been broken,” said Panetta, also a former defense secretary and CIA director. “When that happens, it’s just a matter of time.”

One Trump adviser said the president “doesn’t like a lot of the stuff he has done. He often gets angry and says, ‘Who does this guy think he is?’ But Kelly has a longer chance of surviving because Trump respects him.”

And there are signs that Kelly is adapting to Trump’s world. Last month, the chief of staff who once fumed about the access given to Wolff carved out time in his schedule for a book interview of his own. For about 30 minutes, Kelly sat down with Fox News personality Jeanine Pirro for her forthcoming tome.

quote:

Op zaterdag 7 april 2018 12:04 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Heb je daar argumenten voor?

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 10:56 schreef Klaphark het volgende:
Benieuwd wat hij gaat doen in Syrie, als de gifgasaanval lijkt te kloppen.

twitter:

StateDept twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 06:27:06 .@statedeptspox: We are following disturbing reports regarding alleged chemical attack in #Syria. The Assad regime and its backers bear responsibility & the US will continue to use all efforts available to hold those who use chemical weapons accountable. https://t.co/d54bvgv3W7 reageer retweet

twitter:

statedeptspox twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 06:37:02 By shielding #Syria, #Russia has breached its commitments to the @UN, betrayed UNSCR 2118 & ultimately bears responsibility for these brutal attacks. We call on Russia to end this unmitigated support and work with the international community to prevent further chemical attacks. reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 00:48 schreef Falco het volgende:

[..]

Vuur is alweer uit

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 00:42:22 Fire at Trump Tower is out. Very confined (well built building). Firemen (and women) did a great job. THANK YOU! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 00:48 schreef Falco het volgende:

[..]

Vuur is alweer uit

quote:

Bij een brand in de Trump Tower in New York is een dode gevallen. Het is de bewoner van het appartement op de vijftigste verdieping waar de brand woedde.

https://nos.nl/artikel/22(...)-tower-new-york.html

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 00:42:22 Fire at Trump Tower is out. Very confined (well built building). Firemen (and women) did a great job. THANK YOU! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:22 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Met John Bolton als adviseur?

[ afbeelding ]

twitter:

StateDept twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 06:27:06 .@statedeptspox: We are following disturbing reports regarding alleged chemical attack in #Syria. The Assad regime and its backers bear responsibility & the US will continue to use all efforts available to hold those who use chemical weapons accountable. https://t.co/d54bvgv3W7 reageer retweet

twitter:

statedeptspox twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 06:37:02 By shielding #Syria, #Russia has breached its commitments to the @UN, betrayed UNSCR 2118 & ultimately bears responsibility for these brutal attacks. We call on Russia to end this unmitigated support and work with the international community to prevent further chemical attacks. reageer retweet

De Fransen en Amerikanen zijn naar verluid bezig om sluitend bewijs uit Ghouta te verkrijgen, maar gaat moeilijk worden.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:20 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind je inzichten als best verfrissend als tegengas tegen de extreme anti Trump bias maar ik vind dit echt geneuzel. Het is gewoon algemeen bekend dat er betaald wordt voor diensten die van Trump zijn. Zijn geheime dienst moet gewoon voor de huur van golfkarretjes betalen. Dat was een jaar geleden een item. Evenals het feit dat Trump de huur die zijn campagne team betaalde voor gebruik van Trump tower de lucht in schoot toen dat geld uit de pot met donorgelden kwam ipv zijn eigen zak.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:34 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Trump wil toch zo graag weg uit Syrië?

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:40 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Trump wil geen boots on the ground.

Een paar kruisraketten richting Damascus kan ook zonder soldaten in Syrie.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:40 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik weet het echt niet hoe dat geregeld is, het zal me niet verbazen, maar ik wil graag weten hoe dat precies zit. Verder vind ik wel de verontwaardiging hypocriet, niet omdat het niet 'fout' zou zijn, maar omdat geinstitutionaliseerde corruptie, zelf verrijking etc, al jaren een probleem is in de Amerikaanse politiek. Het is vrij makkelijk terug te vinden dat ook voorgaande Presidenten familieleden aan probeerden te stellen, dat ministers dit deden, vriendjespolitiek, lobbyen, en profiteren van de functie. Nu waren ze niet allemaal miljardair zoals Trump was, dus nu is het allemaal wat meer voor de camera's, maar laten we niet te geschrokken zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:40 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik weet het echt niet hoe dat geregeld is, het zal me niet verbazen, maar ik wil graag weten hoe dat precies zit. Verder vind ik wel de verontwaardiging hypocriet, niet omdat het niet 'fout' zou zijn, maar omdat geinstitutionaliseerde corruptie, zelf verrijking etc, al jaren een probleem is in de Amerikaanse politiek. Het is vrij makkelijk terug te vinden dat ook voorgaande Presidenten familieleden aan probeerden te stellen, dat ministers dit deden, vriendjespolitiek, lobbyen, en profiteren van de functie. Nu waren ze niet allemaal miljardair zoals Trump was, dus nu is het allemaal wat meer voor de camera's, maar laten we niet te geschrokken zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:40 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Trump wil geen boots on the ground.

Een paar kruisraketten richting Damascus kan ook zonder soldaten in Syrie.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:40 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik weet het echt niet hoe dat geregeld is, het zal me niet verbazen, maar ik wil graag weten hoe dat precies zit. Verder vind ik wel de verontwaardiging hypocriet, niet omdat het niet 'fout' zou zijn, maar omdat geinstitutionaliseerde corruptie, zelf verrijking etc, al jaren een probleem is in de Amerikaanse politiek. Het is vrij makkelijk terug te vinden dat ook voorgaande Presidenten familieleden aan probeerden te stellen, dat ministers dit deden, vriendjespolitiek, lobbyen, en profiteren van de functie. Nu waren ze niet allemaal miljardair zoals Trump was, dus nu is het allemaal wat meer voor de camera's, maar laten we niet te geschrokken zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:47 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Kan mij niet herinneren dat Obama zich omringde met familieleden en zijn positie misbruikte om zichzelf te verrijken.

Sowieso ontgaat mij de relevantie. We mogen volgens jou geen kritiek hebben op het nepotisme en machtsmisbruik omdat het iets van alle tijden zou zijn. Waar slaat dat op?

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:50 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Namen en rugnummers?

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:53 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Obama heeft het tot twee keer toe geprobeerd maar werd teruggefloten. En heb ik gezegd dat je geen kritiek op Trump zijn nepotisme mag hebben? Ik vraag me alleen af of deze verontwaardiging nieuw is of dat je al langer in de gaten had dat het een probleem is in Amerika misschien.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:45 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind dat echt een heel slecht argument om niet verontwaardigd te mogen zijn. Een president met een zakenimperium zoals Trump is er nog nooit - of ik in geval al heel lang niet meer - geweest. Dus was het constant inhuren van eigen diensten nooit een issue. Daarnaast speelt nog dat een president traditioneel afstand doet van zijn bezittingen voor de duur van het presidentschap, terwijl Trump direct en indirect zeer betrokken is bij zijn zaken.

Dus dat Trump zich verrijkt ten koste van de Amerikaanse burger mag best aan de kaak gesteld worden. Net als andere voorbeelden van corruptie en nepotisme dat net zo goed moeten.

En wat het aanstellen van familieleden betreft is het bij Trump natuurlijk echt bizar. Jared Kushner vervult meer taken dan een minister.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:54 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Wat heeft Obama geprobeerd? Kom op met die bronnen.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:50 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Namen en rugnummers?

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:55 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Maar ik heb niet gezegd dat je niet verontwaardig mag zijn. Ik verwacht alleen dat we inzien dat deze verontwaardiging er al veel langer had moeten zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:55 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Maar ik heb niet gezegd dat je niet verontwaardig mag zijn. Ik verwacht alleen dat we inzien dat deze verontwaardiging er al veel langer had moeten zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:55 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

http://theweek.com/speedr(...)te-house-jobs-denied

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:57 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Sorry, maar ik vind dit echt onzin. Verontwaardiging en kritiek op zelfverrijking is er altijd geweest. Ook onder Obama en ver daarvoor. Wat Trump tentoonspreid is gewoon letterlijk ongekend.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:57 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Nee, je blijft in twijfel trekken of er wel sprake is van machtsmisbruik. Als er vervolgens voorbeelden worden gegeven, dan vraag je om 'argumenten'. En als je dan toch toe moet geven dat Trump onbehoorlijk handelt, dan roep je dat het iets van alle tijden is.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:00 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind het van hetzelfde laken een pak om eerlijk te zijn. Dit is exact waar ik voor waarschuwde toen de verkiezing aanvankelijk tussen de tweede Clinton of de derde Bush zou gaan. Toen er geruchten opdoken dat Michelle Obama wel eens een poging zou kunnen wagen voor het Witte Huis. En dit zijn nog allemaal de posities die je elke dag ziet. Wat dan mbt de ministers, op de departementen, en ga zo maar verder.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:00 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Goed verhaal wel. Obama heeft twee keer geprobeerd familieleden aan te stellen, dat werd geweigerd op grond van anti-nepotismewetgeving, en Trump is van mening dat die wetgeving niet meer geldt. Hoe handig.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:56 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

https://www.politico.com/(...)ives-243395?lo=ap_d1

quote:

he documents released Monday also include the full text of a legal opinion Justice issued in 2009 to the Obama White House, concluding that the law did not permit the appointment of President Barack Obama's half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng to a commission on White House fellowships nor that of the president's brother-in-law Conrad Robinson to a commission on physical fitness. Soetoro-Ng appears to have quietly left the fellowships panel, which she had joined before the legal memo was finalized. Robinson was never named to the fitness board.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:02 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Klopt, maar van hetzelfde laken een pak mijn inziens, de ene probeert het en de ander faalt, de volgende doet het gewoon op eigen houtje, maak me nu al zorgen om de President na Trump dus.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:02 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Het enige wat ik in twijfel trek Koos is jouw verontwaardiging.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:02 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Dit is een pure afleidingsmaneuvre. Alle dingen die je noemt zijn niet gebeurd. Dat in tegenstelling tot wat Trump al heeft gedaan.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:04 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat het niet is gebeurd maakt het niet minder erg.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:04 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat het niet is gebeurd maakt het niet minder erg.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:03 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Oké, je maakt je er zorgen over. Dus dan ben je met mij van mening dat het slecht is als een president zich zo gedraagt, neem ik aan. Dus dan is het toch erg als één president er in slaagt waar dat bij anderen niet eens lukte?

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:06 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Bizarre uitspraak. Dit kan onmogelijk waar zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:07 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Het enige verschil is dat je met Trump het wat duidelijker ziet.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:09 schreef Euribob het volgende:
En Hillary had tijdens het presidentschap van Bill ook wel een iets breder takenpakket dan de voorgaande First Ladies.

Maar in verhouding met Trump is het allemaal minimaal. Waar het bij ethische geschillen vaak gaat om iets dat net over de rand is kan je bij Trump de rand niet eens meer zien.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:07 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Natuurlijk is het slecht. Maar wat had je verwacht als de verkiezing gaat tussen een tweede Clinton en een Miljardair slash tv-persoonlijkheid? Wat als Oprah Winfrey het zou worden of de volgende Obama? De nieuwe Kennedy schijnt ook al in aantoch te zijn. Het is allemaal precies hetzelfde probleem. Het enige verschil is dat je met Trump het wat duidelijker ziet.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:12 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Je blijft maar afleiden en randzaken er bij halen.

1. Dat Trump iets doet wat andere mensen ook zouden gaan kunnen of hadden kunnen doen, is irrelevant. We hoeven niet te oordelen over gebeurtenissen die niet hebben plaatsgevonden. Houd op met afleiden van het punt.

2. Wat Trump doet is ongekend vergeleken met corruptie, machtsmisbruik en zelfverrijking van eerdere presidenten. En hij komt er mee weg omdat er niet tegen opgetreden wordt, in tegenstelling tot bij eerdere presidenten (zie ook je eigen links). Hij schendt tradities over openbaarheid en afstand doen van zijn bedrijf. Negeert wettelijke regels die nepotisme moeten tegengaan, etc.

Dus zelfs áls je stelling dat iedereen het doet waar zou zijn, wat niet zo is, dan is dat alsnog geen reden om niet verontwaardigd te mogen zijn en om geen aandacht te vestigen op het handelen van Trump. De man is volkomen corrupt. En, inderdaad, dit is alleen nog wat we duidelijk zien. Laat staan wat er nog meer is.

Stop met al die stromannen, whataboutisms, randzaken, excuusjes, relativeringen.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:14 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Selectieve verontwaardiging. Juist omdat Trump het ongestraft kan doen zie je waar de gaten zitten en het al veel langer gebeurde zij het niet in deze omvang. Maar ok, lekker verontwaardigd blijven over alleen Trump en niet het politieke systeem, dan wordt het vast niet erger.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:15 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben niet verontwaardigd over óf Trump óf het politieke systeem, maar over beide. Jij gebruikt het systeem als argument om Trump vrij van kritiek te houden.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:17 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Integendeel. Maar met alleen Trump aanpakken ga je het systeem niet meer veranderen.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:18 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Ook dat is nog eens niet waar. De enige manier om het systeem aan te pakken, is de president aan te pakken. Dat is Trump. En zijn opvolger moet net zo goed gecontroleerd worden.
Veel beter, me dunkt, zodat wat Trump flikt nooit meer kan voorkomen.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:19 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dan wordt Trump alleen als zondebok gebruikt, exact hetzelfde met wat met de bonuscultuur is gebeurd, een paar bankiers werden voor de woedende menigte gegooid maar uiteindelijk veranderde er weinig.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:22 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

On-zin.

Maak het verplicht dat presidenten bezittingen in een blind trust plaatsen. Laat de president zijn belastingaangifte elk jaar verplicht publiceren. Maak het onmogelijk om familieleden aan te stellen op al dan niet betaalde posities in het Witte Huis. Geeft die familieleden ook geen sercurity clearance. Laat geen mensen zonder clearance werken met gevoelige informatie. Zorg dat de president geen eigen diensten in kan huren ten koste van de overheid, en/of dat informatie daarover openbaar is.

Al deze dingen zouden Trump direct treffen omdat hij al die regels schendt. Maar ze zouden ook het systeem veranderen zodat de volgende president niet hetzelfde kan doen.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:24 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Opnieuw, het is een systematisch probleem, het is niet alleen de President. Het is een geinstutionaliseerd systeem van zelfverrijking en vriendjespolitiek, het houdt klassenscheiding in stand, het gaat wel een stukje dieper dan alleen de President die uiteindelijk vertegenwoordigt waar Amerika en datzelfde systeem voor staan dus. Overigens denk ik niet dat Amerikanen het zelf dus een enorm probleem vinden.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:23 schreef Euribob het volgende:
Trumps kabinetsbenoemingen tonen aan dat hij alles behalve onafhankelijk is. Hij kent nul mensen uit het bedrijfsleven of überhaupt van buiten de politiek die geschikt zijn om het partijkartel te doorbreken door middel van een zakenkabinet (goh wat klinkt dit bekend).

Kijk bijvoorbeeld naar Obama's benoemingen voor het ministerie van Energie. Twee professoren in de natuurkunde waarvan er één een Nobelprijs heeft gekregen voor zijn theoretische verdiensten. Wie benoemt Trump als opvolger? Rick Perry. Goed onafhankelijk netwerk wel.

Of een Betsy DeVos. Of een Ben Carson.

Er klopt echt gewoon helemaal niks van wat je zegt DeParo. Dat Obama dingen niet altijd perfect deed (vaak gewoon wel trouwens) geeft Trump geen vrijbrief.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:24 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Opnieuw, het is een systematisch probleem, het is niet alleen de President. Het is een geinstutionaliseerd systeem van zelfverrijking en vriendjespolitiek, het houdt klassenscheiding in stand, het gaat wel een stukje dieper dan alleen de President die uiteindelijk vertegenwoordigt waar Amerika en datzelfde systeem voor staan dus. Overigens denk ik niet dat Amerikanen het zelf dus een enorm probleem vinden.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:57 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Nee, je blijft in twijfel trekken of er wel sprake is van machtsmisbruik. Als er vervolgens voorbeelden worden gegeven, dan vraag je om 'argumenten'. En als je dan toch toe moet geven dat Trump onbehoorlijk handelt, dan roep je dat het iets van alle tijden is.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:26 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Volgens mij werkte het systeem juist prima, veel benoemingen gingen namelijk niet door.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:27 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Wéér negeer je concrete problemen om over het systeem te zeuren. En houd je dus Trump uit de wind.

quote:

Inmiddels zijn we dus aanbeland bij "De Amerikanen vinden het niet erg".

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:29 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Klopt, want het systeem en de Amerikaanse realiteit, daaruit is Trump gekomen, Amerika heeft de President die het verdient, dus wat dat betreft.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:30 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

En daarmee is alle kritiek op welke politicus dan ook onmogelijk.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:27 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Trump is onafhankelijk maar heeft verder geen idee wat hij doet, dat is de enige reden dat hij dit soort mensen om zich heen verzamelt, in vergelijking met voorgaande Presidenten zal je weinig meer onafhankelijke Presidenten vinden of je moet erg ver terug gaan in de Amerikaanse geschiedenis wellicht dus wat dat betreft blijft het enigszins interessant.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:32 schreef Tchock het volgende:
Je weet dat "Drain the swamp" een van Trumps grootste campagnepunten was, hè?

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:33 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan..

Allemaal op hun manier een stuk onafhankelijker dan Trump. Hoef je helemaal niet ver voor terug in de tijd.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:33 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat maakt het allemaal des te ironisch vind je niet, dat een multimiljardair die iedereen die hij tegenkomt beledigt of voor zich probeert te winnen dat niet alleen zegt te willen doen, maar ook nog voldoende stemmen krijgt.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:33 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat maakt het allemaal des te ironisch vind je niet, dat een multimiljardair die iedereen die hij tegenkomt beledigt of voor zich probeert te winnen dat niet alleen zegt te willen doen, maar ook nog voldoende stemmen krijgt.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:23 schreef Euribob het volgende:
Er klopt echt gewoon helemaal niks van wat je zegt DeParo.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:36 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Dat heeft niks met het drainen van swamps te maken.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:36 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Al deze kandidaten, met de uitzondering van Eisenhower wellicht, waren carriere politici die juist afhankelijk waren van een partijsyteem, en niet alleen afhankelijk, maar ook nog eens opkwamen binnen de partijburelen wat die afhankelijkheid alleen maar deed vergroten als het ware.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:44 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Truman, de man die het presidentschap verliet zonder een cent te makken omdat hij vond dat er niet aan het presidentschap verdiend mocht worden?

quote:

Upon leaving the presidency, Truman returned to Independence, Missouri, to live at the Wallace home he and Bess had shared for years with her mother. Once out of office, Truman quickly decided that he did not wish to be on any corporate payroll, believing that taking advantage of such financial opportunities would diminish the integrity of the nation's highest office. He also turned down numerous offers for commercial endorsements. Since his earlier business ventures had proved unsuccessful, he had no personal savings. As a result, he faced financial challenges. Once Truman left the White House, his only income was his old army pension: $112.56 per month.

[..]

The following year, Congress passed the Former Presidents Act, offering a $25,000 yearly pension to each former president, and it is likely that Truman's financial status played a role in the law's enactment.The one other living former president at the time, Herbert Hoover, also took the pension, even though he did not need the money; reportedly, he did so to avoid embarrassing Truman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman#Post-presidency

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:36 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Het is niet ironisch, het is een beïnvloedde verkiezing in een totaal gepolariseerd land waarbij een oplichter er met de winst vandoor is gegaan. En nu licht hij het land op.

En in plaats van dat we over die oplichting kunnen praten leid je constant af waarbij je doet alsof je het grotere plaatje beschouwt maar eigenlijk gewoon alle kritiek wil pareren. Als ik regels voorstel negeer je die gewoon, ultiem bewijs dat je ook over het systeem helemaal niet wil praten.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:44 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Truman, de man die het presidentschap verliet zonder een cent te makken omdat hij vond dat er niet aan het presidentschap verdiend mocht worden? Carter die afstand deed van z'n pindaboerderij (die vervolgens failliet ging) en voorafgaand aan z'n politieke carrière twintig jaar in het leger zat? Reagan die z'n hele leven acteur was geweest?

quote:

Allemaal onafhankelijk. Allemaal recent. Ja, ze zaten allemaal bij een partij en hadden soms al politieke ervaring, maar Trump probeert ook al twintig jaar binnen te komen bij de Republikeinse partij. En heeft met de verkiezingen meer dan elke andere kandidaat geprofiteerd van hoe het kiessysteem in Amerika in elkaar zit. Om nog maar te zwijgen van alle shady deals met politici die Trump ongetwijfeld gemaakt heeft als vastgoedzwendelaar in New York.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:48 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Dat is wel een mooi verhaal las ik laatst via reddit.

[..]

Als integriteit ten koste van jezelf gaat, dan is het echt oprecht.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 12:40 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik weet het echt niet hoe dat geregeld is, het zal me niet verbazen, maar ik wil graag weten hoe dat precies zit. Verder vind ik wel de verontwaardiging hypocriet, niet omdat het niet 'fout' zou zijn, maar omdat geinstitutionaliseerde corruptie, zelf verrijking etc, al jaren een probleem is in de Amerikaanse politiek. Het is vrij makkelijk terug te vinden dat ook voorgaande Presidenten familieleden aan probeerden te stellen, dat ministers dit deden, vriendjespolitiek, lobbyen, en profiteren van de functie. Nu waren ze niet allemaal miljardair zoals Trump was, dus nu is het allemaal wat meer voor de camera's, maar laten we niet te geschrokken zijn.

quote:

Taxpayers spent $96.9 million on travel for former President Barack Obama and his family during his eight years in office, roughly $1 million per month, according to the Journal.

Trump, on the other hand, was racking up $1.5 million a month in just the cost of airfare his own airfare before he started traveling to his New Jersey golf club in June, the Journal reports.

While other presidents have certainly traveled with their families, the 45th president’s case is unique because he often owns many of the places where he ultimately stays. Critics have argued this presents an unusual scenario in which people have an opportunity to interact with the president by paying membership fees to his club.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 14:01 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Ik moet zijn biografie nog steeds een keer lezen. Ben altijd wel benieuwd wat dergelijke mensen drijft om zulke keuzes te maken. Vraag me soms ook af wie de echt integere politici van deze generatie zijn, in hoeverre mensen echt iets vinden of dat het ze gewoon goed uitkomt.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 14:02 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Mijn punt was dat Trump in eigen hotels logeert, de staat daar de kosten voor betaalt, en de winst (uiteindelijk) weer terugvloeit naar Trump. Dat is gewoon gedocumenteerd.
http://www.newsweek.com/t(...)ording-report-758877

[..]

Wmb is dit pure corruptie en hij is de eerste president die dit doet.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 14:14 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat blijkt niet uit je artikel maar ik heb het zelf maar even opgezocht. Anonieme bron stelt dat Trump zelf zijn eigen reiskosten betaalt. Maar dat bepaalde official met hem mee moeten reizen, dichtbij de president moeten blijven, en dat de staat die kosten, en dus het hotel, betaalt.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 14:22 schreef Bernhard.von.Galen het volgende:

[..]

Ja, en om belangenverstrengeling te voorkomen boekt hij bij een ander hotel dan de zijne. Oh wacht.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 14:14 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat blijkt niet uit je artikel maar ik heb het zelf maar even opgezocht. Anonieme bron stelt dat Trump zelf zijn eigen reiskosten betaalt. Maar dat bepaalde official met hem mee moeten reizen, dichtbij de president moeten blijven, en dat de staat die kosten, en dus het hotel, betaalt.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:38 schreef Falco het volgende:
DeParo steunt enkel Trump vanwege zijn Israël standpunten?

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 14:24 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Dan haalt Trump dus nog steeds winst uit de reizen die hij maakt.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:53 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben een groot fan van Truman, ook van Eisenhower overigens, wist je dat Truman eens een keer zijn dochter een piano-voorstelling liet organiseren in het Witte Huis. Dat ging wat minder soepeltjes kan je zeggen. Moet je maar eens opzoeken. Weet alleen niet wat dit met zijn politieke afhankelijkheid te maken heeft?

quote:

Carter en Reagan waren al politicus voordat ze President werden. Allebei zelfs Gouverneur trouwens. Ze zijn binnen de burelen van hun partij opgekomen dat is onvergelijkbaar.

quote:

[..]

Onafhankelijk betekent dat een kandidaat kan zeggen en doen zonder (al te veel) rekening te houden met de mensen om zich heen. Noch Reagan, noch Carter, noch Truman, en noch Eisenhower (zelfs hij) konden of deden dat. Trump kan dat wel, het wordt hem niet altijd in dank afgenomen en hij moet meer dan eens pas op de plaats maken als blijkt dat hij op die manier niet altijd zijn zin krijgt, maar het symboliseert wel dat hij niet vastgeroest zit in diezelfde partijstructuur.

Overigens vind ik het Amerikaanse systeem vooral pas sinds Reagan een groot probleem worden.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 14:27 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Alleen het Congress kan hem hiervoor verantwoordelijk houden.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 14:27 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Alleen het Congress kan hem hiervoor verantwoordelijk houden.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:37 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

En het neemt ook zoveel plaats in.

DP, alsjeblieft, doe nou eens niet. Je verpest het hier voor meer mensen dan je denkt.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 14:28 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Als je je integriteit belangrijker vindt dan je positie dan ben je onafhankelijk van het systeem.

quote:

Reagan was 8 jaar Gouverneur. Dat is echt niks. En dat ook nog eens zonder politiek ambt vooraf. Dat is perfect te vergelijken. Trump doet dat zelf ook constant, overigens. Met diezelfde reden heeft hij ook Reagan z'n slogan overgenomen. Reagan wordt altijd neergezet als de buitenstaander die Washington op kwam schudden, dat is ook de hele reden dat de GOP zo'n fan van hem is.

quote:

Carter zat 8 jaar in de politiek, waarvan vier als state senator (wat nagenoeg een bijbaan is, zeker in Georgia), vier jaar als gouverneur en werd per toeval kandidaat namens de Democraten was de gehele verkiezing de underdog.

quote:

Dat is echt heel iets anders dan figuren als Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi en dynastiëen als de Kennedy's en de Bushes die hun hele volwassen leven actief zijn betrokken bij de politiek. Ook is Trump (zoals ik net al zei) zelf ook al zijn hele leven bezig met politiek. Als vastgoedontwikkelaar ontkom je daar niet aan. Om te stellen dat Trump de eerste échte onafhankelijke president is sinds eeuwen is niet alleen een oversimplificering van de situatie die totaal geen recht doet aan de werkelijkheid maar ook gewoon onjuist.

quote:

Dan is er niemand onafhankelijk. Trump kan ook niet zeggen wat ie wil. Sowieso kun je je afvragen of wat ie zegt gelijk staat aan wat ie wil. Teksten als "Drain the Swamp" en "Lock her up" en het birtherism omtrent Obama zijn hem allemaal ingegeven door andere mensen. Echt zelfstandig (d.w.z. onafhankelijk) denken heb ik hem eerlijk gezegd nooit zien doen.

quote:

Als Trump Hillary Clinton een kabinetspositie zou geven, handelsverdragen zou tekenen en allemaal zinnige dingen beginnen te doen dan is het zo klaar met z'n populariteit onder z'n fans.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 15:00:06 Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price... reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 15:03 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 15:00:06 Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price... reageer retweet

Here

We

Go

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 15:03 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 15:00:06 Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price... reageer retweet

Here

We

Go

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 15:03 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 15:00:06 Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price... reageer retweet

Here

We

Go

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 15:04:22 ....to pay. Open area immediately for medical help and verification. Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 15:06 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Zozo, hij durft gewoon enigszins fel stelling te nemen tegen Poetin.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 14:30 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Klopt. Ik heb al een paar keer dat het wmb pure corruptie is.
Jij vindt het wel best dat 'ie dat doet?

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 15:03 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 15:00:06 Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price... reageer retweet

Here

We

Go

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 15:03 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 15:00:06 Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price... reageer retweet

Here

We

Go

quote:

If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 16:48 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

WTF? Hij zit al 15 maanden in het WH en nog steeds wijst die slapjanus naar Obama zonder zelf ook maar iets te doen.

Wat een incompetente drol.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 16:48 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

WTF? Hij zit al 15 maanden in het WH en nog steeds wijst die slapjanus naar Obama zonder zelf ook maar iets te doen.

Wat een incompetente drol.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 05-09-2013 om 13:13:51 The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 05-09-2013 om 15:20:34 AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING! reageer retweet

twitter:

AndreaWBZ twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 03:00:41 NYFD Commissioner on Trump Tower fire, "..the upper floors which are residence floors are not sprinklered". https://t.co/FgRn5F6hu7 reageer retweet

twitter:

Olivianuzzi twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 06:12:39 Absolutely crazy details from residents in Trump Tower during today's fire, which killed one. A woman who called the front desk said nobody answered. A man said he only left his apartment after his friend Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, told him to. https://t.co/72tKXEJOyl https://t.co/noJHqyEOML reageer retweet

quote:

She said that she did not get any announcement about leaving, and that when she called the front desk no one answered.

Dennis Shields, a resident who said he lived on the 42nd floor, described the scene.

“You could smell the smoke and you could hear things falling like through the vents,” he said. “It just smelled like sulfur.”

He said there were no orders to evacuate but he received a text message from Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael D. Cohen.

Mr. Shields, who said he grew up with Mr. Cohen, continued: “He said, ‘Are you in the building?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘You better get out ASAP.’ That’s how I knew to get out, otherwise I’d still be in there.”

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 15:03 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 08-04-2018 om 15:00:06 Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price... reageer retweet

Here

We

Go

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 13:08 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Hij heeft het geprobeerd. Een poging gewaagd. Dus.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 15:56 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Grote woorden, komen er ook daden? Dat Trump hoog van de toren blaast wisten we al.

twitter:

Charles_Lister twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 00:06:37 @Qattouby I’m told the White House is close to a decision on whether to hit #Syria after last night’s #Douma CW attack.Principals meeting (incl. #Bolton) tonight will be presented w. an expansive list of potential targets; mostly military, intel & suspected munitions & CW infrastructure. https://t.co/1weN7gTbS8 reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 15:56 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Grote woorden, komen er ook daden? Dat Trump hoog van de toren blaast wisten we al.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 00:18 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Ik neem aan van wel, vorige keer heeft ie het ook gedaan. Is voor hem geen probleem, hij zal goedkeuren wat het Pentagon voorstelt. Van hem moet je niet verwachten dat ie iets afkeurt omdat het te ver gaat.

quote:

Op zondag 8 april 2018 22:05 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Zoals zoveel presidenten deden. En dat is niet zo netjes. Wat het dit keer anders maakte is dat Trump expliciet wat van die anti-nepotisme regeltjes ongedaan heeft gemaakt, dat het dit keer wel gewoon doorgezet is en dat Trump de regel dat de personen in kwestie enigszins capabel moeten zijn qua achtergrond heeft laten varen. Dat zijn significante verschillen en maken het verschil in deze. Eigenlijk is het dus niet te vergelijken. De huidige administratie -gesteund door het GOP congres nu- er een nepotistische puinhoop van.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 00:18 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Ik neem aan van wel, vorige keer heeft ie het ook gedaan. Is voor hem geen probleem, hij zal goedkeuren wat het Pentagon voorstelt. Van hem moet je niet verwachten dat ie iets afkeurt omdat het te ver gaat.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 00:29 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Maar nu hebben we Bolton aan het roer

quote:

Congratulations to Patrick Reed on his great and courageous MASTERS win! When Patrick had his amazing win at Doral 5 years ago, people saw his great talent, and a bright future ahead. Now he is the Masters Champion!

quote:

WASHINGTON — North Korea has told the United States that its leader, Kim Jong-un, is willing to discuss denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, administration officials said on Sunday, the first direct confirmation that he intends to participate in an extraordinary meeting with President Trump about his nuclear program.

The North delivered its message in secret talks between its representatives and American officials as they prepare for the summit meeting, which is expected to take place next month.

South Korean officials had informed Mr. Trump in March that the North Korean leader wanted to meet with him for nuclear talks — an invitation that the president enthusiastically accepted — but Pyongyang has been officially silent about the meeting.

On Sunday, the administration officials said the United States government had been working to lay the groundwork for the meeting, but would offer no details about it, such as where it might take place.

Talks between Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim would represent the first direct engagement between a sitting American president and a North Korean leader, bringing together two mercurial and headstrong leaders who have lobbed long-distance insults and bellicose threats at each other.

There is still no guarantee that the talks will happen, or that Mr. Kim is prepared to discuss denuclearization of the sort that the United States government envisions, which would entail entirely giving up the very weapons that the North has seen as crucial to its continued existence. It is also unclear what kind of concessions the United States would be willing to make to secure commitments from Pyongyang.

But the direct communication between the two countries about Mr. Kim’s intentions appeared to signal that both sides were working to plant the seeds for negotiations.

The efforts to arrange talks between Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim have posed steep challenges for the administration, whose North Korea policy is centered on the imposition of crippling sanctions, backed by the threat of military action — what the administration calls its “maximum pressure campaign.”

Before the president abruptly agreed to a summit meeting last month — a gesture that followed a sudden shift of his own by Mr. Kim toward talk of peace — the administration had done little planning for how a diplomatic negotiation would unfold, according to people briefed on the process.

The preparations are also taking place as Mr. Trump has lost or opted not to hire seasoned diplomats experienced in dealing with the North. The State Department’s chief North Korea negotiator, Joseph Y. Yun, recently announced his departure from the Foreign Service. And the White House decided against nominating Victor Cha, another experienced negotiator, as ambassador to Seoul.

Word of Mr. Kim’s willingness to talk about denuclearization came the day before John R. Bolton, who has made the legal case for a pre-emptive attack on North Korea, was to officially begin work as Mr. Trump’s new national security adviser.

quote:

Op vrijdag 6 april 2018 16:15 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op vrijdag 06-04-2018 om 14:38:01 Oligarchs sanctioned: Oleg Deripaska, Viktor Vekselberg, Andrei Skoch, Igor Rotenberg, Kirill Shamalov, Suleiman Kerimov, and Vladimir Bogdanov. https://t.co/9jxazvs2iB reageer retweet

Trump Administration Imposes New Sanctions on Putin Cronies

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 05:33 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Wat is er courageous aan een partijtje golf?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 03:38 schreef skysherrif het volgende:
Regime Syrie zojuist aangevallen, men ging eerst uit van Amerika maar die ontkennen het, lijkt nu dus Israel te zijn geweest.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 08:49 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Tja. Ze worden in Israel altijd wat nerveus als andere staten met gas aan het spelen zijn...

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 09:01 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Israel had datzelfde vliegveld al eerder een keer aangevallen kan dus losstaan van de chemische aanval of simpelweg een relatie hebben met Hezbollah en Iran.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 09:17 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

De ambities van Putin en Erdogan staan los van Iran. Ik denk niet dat israel Iran overmatig wil provoceren, ik ga er nog steeds van uit dat Rusland en Turkije de meeste problemen veroorzaken in die regio. Rusland omdat ze Assad steunen en Turkije omdat ze proberen via Syrie richting Jerusalem willen oprukken. Want ome Gerdolf wil zich laten kronen als de nieuwe sultan Süleyman de tweede van het Ottomaanse rijk. En Donald Trump heeft er bar weinig aan gedaan om beide partijen en Assad uit die regio weg te krijgen. Sterker nog, hij heeft de bevolking van syrie opgeofferd aan drie despoten; Assad, Erdogan en Putin. En de vluchtelingen uit Syrië komen daardoor west Europa binnen. Die hebben we dus te danken aan de politiek van voorgenoemde staatshoofden.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 09:30 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Rusland steunt exact de landen die tegen de Westerse bondgenoten (voornamelijk dus in de Golf) zijn. Poetin maakt handig gebruik van de post-Irak chaos, de Arabische opstanden, en Amerikaanse heroverwegingen over hun rol in de regio. Maar Poetin en Rusland zijn bij lange na niet machtig genoeg om, zoals Amerika, de belangrijkste speler in de regio te worden. Het blijft nu bij het beschermen en ondersteunen van hun belangrijkste bondgenoten in de vorm van Assad en Iran.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 09:58 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

En Trump zit er al een jaar naar dit conflict te kijken met twee!! keer een gifgasaanval in Syrië tijdens zijn eigen regeerperiode maar geeft Obama de schuld dat die er niks aan heeft gedaan..

o ja en nog een twitter berichtje uit september 2013...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/375577511473983488

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:13 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Nou daar heeft hij gelijk in, ongeacht wat je van Trump zijn Syrie-beleid vindt, Obama had of de rode lijn niet moet stellen of de rode lijn nooit moeten laten overschrijden.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:19 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Maar om ruim een jaar na je inauguratie nog steeds al de problemen af te schuiven op je voorganger, getuigt niet van een bijzonder volwassen en verantwoordelijkheid nemende houding.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:21 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Het getuigt zelden van volwassenheid of elegantie om mensen continue persoonlijk aan te vallen.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:37 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt gelijk, ook daarin schiet Trump elke dag weer tekort. Het is eigenlijk gewoon een volwassen kleuter.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:39 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De ironie.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:39 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De ironie.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:50 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Ironie? Het is letterlijk wat Trump elke dag zeer in het openbaar doet.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:51 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Klopt. En hier wordt het elke dag dunnetjes over gedaan. Dat is ironisch elke keer.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:55 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk niet dat ironisch betekent wat jij denkt dat het betekent.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:37 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt gelijk, ook daarin schiet Trump elke dag weer tekort. Het is eigenlijk gewoon een volwassen kleuter.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:41 schreef grrrrg het volgende:

[..]

Wat is hier ironisch aan? Oom 'spanky' Donald is president van de VS.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:39 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De ironie.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:51 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Klopt. En hier wordt het elke dag dunnetjes over gedaan. Dat is ironisch elke keer.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:19 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Maar om ruim een jaar na je inauguratie nog steeds al de problemen af te schuiven op je voorganger, getuigt niet van een bijzonder volwassen en verantwoordelijkheid nemende houding.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:10 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Obama had ook nog als nadeel dat hij congres en senaat tegen zich had. En dit heeft Trump vooralsnog niet. En dit kan in november best wel heel anders worden. Trump overweegt nu zelfs al om impeachment in zijn eigen voordeel tijdens de komende campagne te gaan gebruiken. "stem op mij anders gooien ze me het witte huis uit"
Nou, dat zal indruk op de kiezer maken..

Overigens komt de impeachment procedure pas om de hoek kijken na gedegen onderzoek en bewezen malversaties. Mueller zal deze zomer vast wel met conclusies komen, en of dan de meerderheid van de republikeinen in senaat en huis nog met Trump verder willen, valt nog te bezien. Er is nu al gemor in de gelederen.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:57 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

[..]

[..]

lol

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:10 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Obama had ook nog als nadeel dat hij congres en senaat tegen zich had. En dit heeft Trump vooralsnog niet. En dit kan in november best wel heel anders worden. Trump overweegt nu zelfs al om impeachment in zijn eigen voordeel tijdens de komende campagne te gaan gebruiken. "stem op mij anders gooien ze me het witte huis uit"
Nou, dat zal indruk op de kiezer maken..

Overigens komt de impeachment procedure pas om de hoek kijken na gedegen onderzoek en bewezen malversaties. Mueller zal deze zomer vast wel met conclusies komen, en of dan de meerderheid van de republikeinen in senaat en huis nog met Trump verder willen, valt nog te bezien. Er is nu al gemor in de gelederen.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:12 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Als ze een impeachment procedure inzetten hebben ze maar beter de beste bewijzen voor handen anders riskeren ze een burgeroorlog ben ik bang.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:12 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Als ze een impeachment procedure inzetten hebben ze maar beter de beste bewijzen voor handen anders riskeren ze een burgeroorlog ben ik bang.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 10:51 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Klopt. En hier wordt het elke dag dunnetjes over gedaan. Dat is ironisch elke keer.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:16 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Op een forum (gefundeerde) kritiek hebben op Trump is hetzelfde als wat Trump elke dag weer als president van de VS in het openbaar aan onzin en verdachtmakingen uitkraamt op o.a. Twitter? Sure...

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:12 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Als ze een impeachment procedure inzetten hebben ze maar beter de beste bewijzen voor handen anders riskeren ze een burgeroorlog ben ik bang.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:15 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Uiteindelijk maakt dat niet eens uit. Het gaat om de bereidheid van de Senaat om de procedure in te zetten.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:16 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Op een forum (gefundeerde) kritiek hebben op Trump is hetzelfde als wat Trump elke dag weer als president van de VS in het openbaar aan onzin en verdachtmakingen uitkraamt op o.a. Twitter? Sure...

Anyway, besloten dat ik vanaf nu niet meer op jou reageer in deze reeks. Heeft geen enkel nut, en het topic wordt alleen maar vervuild door die oneindige en onzinnige discussies met jou. En dat zeg ik niet om te sneren oid, maar zodat je weet dat ik niet meer op je zal reageren en waarom.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:15 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Ze gaan hem sowieso niet voor de midterms laten vallen, want dan kunnen ze de partij wel opdoeken. Trump is onder Republikeinen nog altijd zeer populair. De enige route die ik zie is als de Democraten het Huis terugwinnen, Mueller's onderzoek zeer ernstige feiten naar boven brengt en er 17 Republikeinse senatoren gevonden kunnen worden die in hun eigen vlees willen snijden. Herverkiezing kunnen ze dan wel vergeten, die komen dan nooit meer door de primary. Ik heb er een hard hoofd over in.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:18 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

met wie? de Alt right/kkk achterban van Trump? dat proberen ze sinds 1865. De wrok zit bij die gasten nog steeds diep. Vandaar al die geconfedereerde vlaggen en de adoratie van Robert E Lee.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:21 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ja ja. Spanky Trump en de Kleur in charge is zeer gefundeerde kritiek.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:21 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ja ja. Spanky Trump en de Kleur in charge is zeer gefundeerde kritiek.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:22 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

maar wel een feit. Trump laat zich door pornohoeren op de billen slaan en hij IS oranje van kleur.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:23 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

En Obama liet zijn rode lijn overschrijden. Dan zijn we dus weer terug bij af he.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:22 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Niet alleen Alt Right en KKK, een zeer grote groep Amerikanen wantrouwt sowieso al alles wat uit Washington komt

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:24 schreef grrrrg het volgende:

[..]

??

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:32 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

https://www.nytimes.com/2(...)ump-syria-obama.html

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:31 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Washington is de plek waar de VS gerund wordt, heel simpel, wij zeuren ook over Den Haag en Brussel. Die "grote" groep Amerikanen zijn van hetzelfde slag als de "grote" groep FvD en PVV stemmers hier. Haat en achterdocht-stemmen door halve boeren die in stoffige achteraf dorpjes het politieke beeld hebben kunnen bepalen, met behulp van een rechtse trollzender (Fox) en Russische trollen op Facebook, en zelfs op dit forum. Maar op het moment is het gezond verstand langzaam bezig weer vaste grond te krijgen in de politiek. Hou er rekening mee.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:34 schreef grrrrg het volgende:

[..]

Ja, oom 'spanky' Donald liegt, what else is new?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:35 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:23 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

En Obama liet zijn rode lijn overschrijden. Dan zijn we dus weer terug bij af he.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:41 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Zelfs al was dit zo, Trump zit nu 434 dagen in het Witte Huis, en heeft twee keer !! gifgasaanvallen gezien in syrië tijdens zijn regeerperiode. Dus die laatste twee aanvallen is hij indirect verantwoordelijk voor, want er zitten nog steeds soldaten van de VS in Syrië.

En nog probeert hij op laffe manier de vorige president er van de schuld te geven. en niet die gifmenger in Moskou

via twitter.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:34 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dit is toch wel een tikkeltje anders. Dat zit verankerd in de Amerikaanse identiteit en zeker buiten de grote steden. Washington en alles wat centraal bestuur representeert gaat in tegen de Amerikaanse cultuur dat je zoveel mogelijk voor jezelf moet kunnen betekenen. Je eigen huis en familie beschermen. Waar wij tegen Den Haag roepen waar zijn jullie dan roepen ze in Amerika juist waarom zijn jullie er uberhaupt. Die onvrede, of de emoties daaromheen, komt in golfbewegingen maar nu is het wel zeer fanatiek allemaal. Ik zie niet in dat gezond verstand langzaam weer vaste voet aan de grond krijgt, maar ik help het je Hopen, dat wel.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:43 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat vind ik maar een vage redenatie maar je gaat nu volledig om de hete brij heen want het ging er in de discussie om dat Trump continue Obama persoonlijk aanviel, terecht of onterecht dat is een tweede, we zijn het er allebei over eens dat dit niet erg volwassen of elegant is maar ik neem aan dat je inziet dat een zelfde soort gedrag hier op dit forum ook meer dan sporadisch gebeurt.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:44 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

de bipartisan bill mbt sancties tegen Rusland was het laatste verstandige beleidsnota die ze deden in de VS. En die is door Trump nog steeds niet ondertekend.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:43 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat vind ik maar een vage redenatie maar je gaat nu volledig om de hete brij heen want het ging er in de discussie om dat Trump continue Obama persoonlijk aanviel, terecht of onterecht dat is een tweede, we zijn het er allebei over eens dat dit niet erg volwassen of elegant is maar ik neem aan dat je inziet dat een zelfde soort gedrag hier op dit forum ook meer dan sporadisch gebeurt.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:48 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Klopt. Maar dat is natuurlijk de gebruikers niet te verwijten. Daarvoor moet je bij Danny zijn Die is als eigenaar prima in staat daar wat aan te doen. Maar dat doet hij niet. Ook de uitvinders van het Internet valt wat te verwijten.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:46 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Wel ondertekend maar niet uitgevoerd toch?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:43 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat vind ik maar een vage redenatie maar je gaat nu volledig om de hete brij heen want het ging er in de discussie om dat Trump continue Obama persoonlijk aanviel, terecht of onterecht dat is een tweede, we zijn het er allebei over eens dat dit niet erg volwassen of elegant is maar ik neem aan dat je inziet dat een zelfde soort gedrag hier op dit forum ook meer dan sporadisch gebeurt.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:59 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Je snapt wel dat de gemiddelde user hier een heel andere rol heeft en heel andere verwachtingen schept dan the President of the United States? Je doet nu net alsof Trump en ik of anderen hier aan dezelfde meetlat gemeten moeten worden.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:59 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Je snapt wel dat de gemiddelde user hier een heel andere rol heeft en heel andere verwachtingen schept dan the President of the United States? Je doet nu net alsof Trump en ik of anderen hier aan dezelfde meetlat gemeten moeten worden.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:02 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Hoeft niet, maar als je constant iemand oom 'spanky' gaat noemen hoef je toch niet te verwachten dat je nog serieus genomen wordt toch?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:02 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Hoeft niet, maar als je constant iemand oom 'spanky' gaat noemen hoef je toch niet te verwachten dat je nog serieus genomen wordt toch?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:02 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Hoeft niet, maar als je constant iemand oom 'spanky' gaat noemen hoef je toch niet te verwachten dat je nog serieus genomen wordt toch?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:10 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Grappig wel, want als er iemand is die de meest onzinnige bijnamen bedenkt voor mensen die hij de grond in wil trappen dan is het wel Donald Trump...

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:10 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat is het hele punt .

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 01:47:00 Here is the renewed motion we just filed seeking to depose Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, as well as an expedited jury trial. #searchforthetruth #bastahttps://t.co/qzrzUUoNxL reageer retweet

quote:

The unanswered questions about Trump’s involvement with the payment to Stormy Daniels has brought new attention to a series of payments from the campaign to Trump’s company just after the hush money was allegedly paid. A Twitter user pointed out that just after the date in which the $130,000 payment was allegedly made to Daniels, there was an immediate series of payments within five days that added up almost exactly to that amount.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:03 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat snap ik prima maar ik neem aan dat jij snapt dat het je eigen punt niet zo versterkt als je precies hetzelfde doet als waarvan je een ander beschuldigt. Ongeacht of dat de President is van de Verenigde Staten of je buurjongen.