[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #488 Meer inhoud graag

quote:

Avenatti goes onto argue that Cohen’s motion to compel arbitration per the terms of the contract is moot until this fundamental question of Trump’s knowledge of the agreement can be sorted out via limited discovery, including depositions of the president and Cohen. He also cites previous cases where arbitration agreements have been nullified because courts have determined that a contract was never formed.

Again, this argument is incredibly solid. As Loyola Law School professor and arbitration expert Adam Zimmerman told me over email:

Avenatti’s argument that the Court set aside the arbitration agreement is well-grounded in federal arbitration law. … [C]ourts generally determine questions about whether an arbitration agreement was initially formed at all. That should make sense, as a general principle, too. If someone never even signed an agreement to arbitrate, for example, what business does some random person have deciding rights between total strangers. That’s what Avenatti argues here: that there’s a genuine factual dispute over whether one of the critical parties to this agreement–in this case, President Trump–ever agreed to be bound by arbitration. In such cases, the Federal Arbitration Act provides for a summary jury proceeding to decide whether a contract exists. And accordingly, Avenatti is pursuing limited factual discovery to that end.

While this argument alone should get him out of arbitration for the time being, Avenatti added an additional novel and clever argument.

Avenatti says that the arbitration clause itself is a mechanism to avoid federal campaign laws by whoever paid Daniels $130,000 for her silence.

“Plaintiff intends to prove the arbitration clause was entered with the purpose of keeping facts concerning federal campaign contributions and expenditures secret and hidden from public view by using a confidential arbitration proceeding in violation of FECA’s mandates to publicly report campaign contributions and expenditures,” Avenatti writes.

If the arbitration clause itself was formed for an illegal purpose, it might be considered invalid.

“Ordinarily, [moving to set aside an arbitration agreement on the ground that it is simply illegal is] a tough hurdle to overcome,” Zimmerman told me. “But here, the parties distinguish [recent] case law by arguing the arbitration agreement itself violates federal law, not just the entire contract.”

As Zimmerman also notes, Avenatti cites “well-established contract law that generally find political contracts to suppress information for money as void against public policy.”

The brief directly cites the epochal legal treatise, the Restatement of Contracts, and points out “remarkably” similar circumstances:

A, a candidate for political office, and as such advocating certain principles, had previously written letters to B, taking a contrary position. B is about to publish the letters, and A fearing that the publication will cost him his election, agrees to pay $1000 for the suppression of the letters. The bargain is illegal.

Even if Trump is able to convince a judge that he was actually party to the contract, despite all of the evidence and his statements to the contrary, he could lose on these grounds alone.

“It’s a novel argument, but then again, these are novel circumstances,” Zimmerman said.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:54 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Die hele kwestie met Stormy Daniels vind ik trouwens totaal niet boeiend.

Misschien dat de implicaties enigszins verstrekkend kunnen zijn, maar dat Trump z'n vrouw heeft bedrogen zal mij echt een rotzorg zijn.

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 12:55 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

De affaire zelf is totaal niet interessant. De juridische en financiële afwikkeling nog wel.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:57 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

En of hij gelogen heeft hier over. dat werd Bill Clinton ook niet in dank afgenomen.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:54 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Die hele kwestie met Stormy Daniels vind ik trouwens totaal niet boeiend.

Misschien dat de implicaties enigszins verstrekkend kunnen zijn, maar dat Trump z'n vrouw heeft bedrogen zal mij echt een rotzorg zijn.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:58 schreef Chewie het volgende:
Ik zou het op zich nog wel grappig vinden als de Stormy zaak zijn einde wordt.

Trump: I could shoot somebody and not lose voters

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:07 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Gezien de instabiliteit van Trump en zijn neiging wild om zich heen te trappen als het tegen zit lijkt een nare publieke vechtscheiding terwijl hij in het Witte Huis zit niet echt iets wenselijks.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:08 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Melania zal zwijgen als het graf, want ze wil er niet in belanden.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:05 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Zijn streng-religieuze achterban zal het in ieder geval een worst wezen. Hij kan op nationale televisie coke snuiven uit de kut van 15-jarig hoertje en dan nog beschouwen ze die idioot als de Second Coming.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:15 schreef Chewie het volgende:

[..]

Ik verwacht eigenlijk dat het geen gevolgen gaat krijgen behalve dan misschien in de privésfeer.

Zijn achterban is zoals we wel gewend zijn zo hypocriet als de neten met de evangelicals vooraan. VS is echt het land van de dubbele standaarden en wat de democraten niet mogen wordt met de mantel der liefde bedekt als het op republikeinen aankomt.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:56 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Hoe serieus kun je een president nemen die zijn tegenstanders kinderlijke namen geeft?

Crooked Hillary
Little Rocket Man
Lamb the Sham
Sloppy Steve
Pocahontas
Dicky Durbin
Sneaky Dianne Feinstein
Jeff Flakey
Al 'Frankenstien'
Liddle' Bob Corker
Wacky Congresswoman Wilson
Jerry ‘Moonbeam’ Brown
Little Adam Schiff
Crazy Joe Biden
Lyin’ Ted
Low Energy Jeb

En dit soort bijnaampjes worden gebruikt door een Amerikaanse president.

Is het dan niet verwonderlijk dat we dan ook de draak steken met Trump? en met zijn "supporters" ?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:18 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Nou.....

A word too far? Some evangelicals may have reached the breaking point with Trump.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:54 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Die hele kwestie met Stormy Daniels vind ik trouwens totaal niet boeiend.

Misschien dat de implicaties enigszins verstrekkend kunnen zijn, maar dat Trump z'n vrouw heeft bedrogen zal mij echt een rotzorg zijn.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:27 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

De advocaat van Stormy heeft een verzoek ingediend voor een verhoor onder ede van Trump en Cohen. We weten allemaal dat Trump moeite heeft om bij de waarheid te blijven. Als het verzoek wordt ingewilligd, en Trump pleegt vervolgens mijneed, dan hebben we het over hetzelfde als waar Clinton voor geimpeached werd. Dus wel degelijk interessant om te blijven volgen.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:27 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

De advocaat van Stormy heeft een verzoek ingediend voor een verhoor onder ede van Trump en Cohen. We weten allemaal dat Trump moeite heeft om bij de waarheid te blijven. Als het verzoek wordt ingewilligd, en Trump pleegt vervolgens mijneed, dan hebben we het over hetzelfde als waar Clinton voor geimpeached werd. Dus wel degelijk interessant om te blijven volgen.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:36 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Snap ik, maar vindt overspel simpelweg niet zo schokkend. Trump die dictators prijst, lak heeft aan de rechtsstaat en de pers continu onder vuur neemt, vind ik veel kwalijker.

quote:

This lawsuit has been entertaining to watch, but we can't forget that at the heart of this matter could lie a felony

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:37 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Tussen die twee kwesties zit nog wel een verschil.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:37 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Avenatti On Attack: Trump Deposition In Stormy Daniels Case Looms On The Horizon

Goed artikel waarom Trump en Cohen nerveus zouden moeten zijn.

quote:

One of the most important — but least known — achievements of the Obama administration was the expansion of the income-driven repayment program for federal student loans. The program aims to make student loan payments affordable for everyone, regardless of their income. But Republicans, in their endless quest to undo everything Mr. Obama did, are now trying to dismantle the program under the guise of reform, citing misleading claims of high costs and low effectiveness. In fact, the program’s costs are low, and the student loan system as a whole is financially self-sustaining. More important, we should be increasing investment in higher education and support for students, not the reverse.

Before 2010, private lenders made most student loans. But during the financial crisis student lending seized up, and in response Congress effectively nationalized the program. Today, the federal Department of Education makes about 90 percent of all student loans (including loans to parents and graduate students). The old system included big government subsidies to private lenders. Congress and the Obama administration directed that money to income-driven repayment and Pell Grants instead. Today, all borrowers — even those with the old, pre-crisis loans — can limit their monthly payments to 10 percent of discretionary income. After 20 to 25 years (or 10 for those who qualify for public service loan forgiveness), any unpaid balances are forgiven.

Higher education remains a good investment for most students, but many still face crushing student loan payments along the way, especially recent grads and those with high debt but low-paying careers, like public interest lawyers and rural medical workers. The 6.5 million borrowers who are in the income-driven repayment program now represent $352 billion in debt — about one-quarter of all borrowers and one-half of all debt in repayment. Keeping loan payments at an affordable level allows these borrowers to invest in their careers, families, homes and savings.

The Republican attack on these repayment plans is based in part on the claim that the benefits are too generous and too expensive. For example, Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, the chairman of the Senate committee considering reforms to the program, says it is now “standard” for students to expect their debt to be forgiven. This view is backed even by some left-leaning organizations concerned about costs. A New America Foundation report called the program a “windfall.” One from the Brookings Institution said that the program was “sinking under its own weight.” Yet another from the Urban Institute said that “the current IDR system is likely to impose high costs on taxpayers.”

Emboldened, Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, sponsored the Prosper Act, which has passed out of committee in the House. Under the bill, new borrowers would pay 50 percent more per month and would no longer have their loans forgiven after 20 to 25 years of repayment. The bill would also drastically cut the amount that can be borrowed for graduate school.

Income-driven repayment does have a price tag, of course. Estimates vary, but the Department of Education puts the cost for all loans outstanding at about $36 billion. Even though this may sound like a lot of money, $36 billion is pretty low in context. For one thing, it’s a tiny piece of the $1.3 trillion in loans outstanding. For another, the cost of the program is nearly the same as one year of Pell Grants, the other major federal program for low-income students, but it covers 25 years’ worth of loans. And most of this cost is just lost interest — the government anticipates that it will still get back more than it lends to these borrowers.

Even with this cost, the student loan program could still net as much as $50 billion for taxpayers. It has long been a profit center. The profit used to be sucked up by banks, but today it belongs to the federal government, and it is appropriate to reinvest some of this money in higher education rather than kick it all back to the Treasury. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Prosper Act’s changes to student loans would pad the government’s profit by another $40 billion over the next 10 years. That’s money coming directly out of borrowers’ pockets — to what end?

Even if income-driven repayment did erase the loan program’s profit margin, would that be such a bad thing? Taxpayers have always subsidized higher education, recognizing that it produces enormous gains for the economy and for society as a whole. The prospect of high debt is a financial (and psychological) barrier for many students, and some insurance for those who may end up with lower incomes is a worthy goal. To call that insurance a “loss” is to imply that taxpayers are entitled to profit off the backs of struggling borrowers.

Income-driven repayment is not without flaws. The various plans are too cumbersome and confusing, and the system of loan servicing does not work well and has led to some predatory practices. But these problems are bureaucratic, not financial. Cutting back on student loan relief because of hysteria about nonexistent losses is pound-foolish. The Department of Education is a lender, but it is not a bank; its purpose — and the purpose of the student loan program — is to further education and support students, not to turn a profit.

EDITORS’ PICKS

50 Years Later, Remembering King, and the Battles That Outlived Him

Inside a Private Prison: Blood, Suicide and Poorly Paid Guards

When Bail Feels Less Like Freedom, More Like Extortion
The Prosper Act would make higher education more expensive for many students, especially graduate students, while increasing profit margins for the government and private lenders. That is precisely the opposite of what our country needs now. Reinvesting the loan program’s profits in relief for struggling borrowers pays both financial and social dividends. We should be embracing and expanding income-driven repayment plans, not backing away based on the fear of costs that have yet to appear.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:45 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou zeggen de mensen die tot voor kort de leningen uitgaven. Maar goed, wie ben ik.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:42 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Nee, Clinton loog onder ede, Trump vooralsnog niet.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:49 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Waarom dacht je dat?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 13:52 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Goed verhaal weer klappernoot.

quote:

The new U.S. normal of $1 trillion or more annual federal budget deficits will officially begin this week when the Congressional Budget Office releases its economic and budget outlook report showing that the deficit will be at least that high every year Donald Trump is president.

Although there have been private sector projections for months (including my post from last October) that the government's red ink will hit and exceed a trillion dollars for years to come, this will be the first report by Congress's official budget watchdog since last year's big tax cut and this year's spending deal were enacted that will show the deficit rising precipitously and staying at that very high level through the next 10 years.

The official CBO projections are likely to be lower than the budget deficits that actually occur. CBO's report is based on current law and makes no political judgements about what Congress and the president will do in the future. That means the deficit projections will be based on the presumption that the tax cuts enacted last year that currently phase out will in fact end. That means the CBO forecast will assume that future revenues will be higher and the deficit lower compared to what is likely to occur.

For the record (and before the trolls come out to play), there were indeed four consecutive trillion dollar federal deficits during the Obama administration from fiscal 2009-2012. Those deficits were primarily caused by the Great Recession and were temporary. By contrast, the trillion dollar Trump deficits are permanent changes to the federal budget outlook caused by enacted reductions in revenues and increases in spending.

SPOILER

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

quote:

Property mogul spoke against retrofitting of sprinklers in Trump Tower as unnecessary and expensive

The 50th-floor apartment in Trump Tower where a man was killed in a fire on Saturday did not have sprinklers – the requirement of which Donald Trump fought against in the 1990s.

Todd Brassner, 67, died at a hospital on Saturday after a fire ripped through his apartment in the high-rise, which opened in 1983 at a time when building codes did not require the residential section to have sprinklers.

Subsequent updates to the codes required commercial skyscrapers to install sprinklers retroactively, but owners of older residential high-rises are not required to install them unless the building undergoes major renovations.

Some fire safety advocates pushed for a requirement that older apartment buildings be retrofitted with sprinklers when the city passed a law requiring them in new residential high-rises in 1999, but officials in the administration of then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani said that would be too expensive.

SPOILER

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

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:26 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Volgens Reuters/Ipsos verliezen de Republikeinen momenteel veel steun van oude, blanke mannen.

https://www.reuters.com/a(...)-party-idUSKBN1HG1I6

Goed, het zijn vooral hoog opgeleide blanke mannen die twijfelen, maar toch wel een zorgwekkende ontwikkeling voor de Republikeinen.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:32 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ik denk beide.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:31 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Dat kun je wel zeggen. Maar waar komt dit door? Trump? of toch onmacht van het republikeinse congres en senaat, die al bijna anderhalf jaar politiek aan het sukkelen zijn? Ik denk het laatste.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:39 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Trump heeft bitter weinig gedaan voor een groot deel van de republikeinse achterban. Dat hebben ze nu wel door. Zelfs Obama als democratische president heeft meer voor die groep gedaan dan Trump. Het is natuurlijk wel de grootste kiezersdeel van de GOP, en die tellen echt wel mee. En dan heb ik het nog niet eens over de swingstates

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:41 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Ik vermoed omdat de Republikeinen als partij in de afgelopen jaren steeds radicaler zijn geworden. Op die manier jagen ze een hoop mensen die dichter bij het centrum zitten van zich weg. De Democraten zijn weliswaar op hun beurt linkser geworden, maar een stuk minder radicaal dan dat de Republikeinen rechts zijn geworden.

Er doen nu veel meer Democraten aan verkiezingen door het hele land mee in november. In Tennessee bijvoorbeeld doet voor het eerst in jaren in (bijna) elke lokale race een Democratische kandidaat mee. Dat zullen waarschijnlijk gematigde mensen zijn, die veel van dit soort twijfelende Republikeinen zullen aanspreken. Ik ben benieuwd.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:43 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Vraag het me af, hangt wel af van over welke achterban je het dan hebt. Die is natuurlijk erg breed. De gemiddelde conservatieve christen zal beleidsmatig redelijk tevreden zijn. Net als de gun-loving redneck, de corporate donor class, de mijnwerkers, etcetera. Voor een hele hoop mensen heeft Trump wel geleverd. Die groep is alleen te smal, en Trump (met name zijn gedrag) te omstreden.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:53 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Trump mag dan op korte termijn hebben "geleverd". Maar de realiteit van zijn beleid merk je pas op lange termijn. En de lokale politici kunnen de visie van deze president niet verkopen aan de achterban. Er zijn veel vragen, die niet bevredigend beantwoord worden, want die politici bluffen niet, maar moeten met de feiten op tafel komen.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 14:57 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Veel lokale politici zijn nog verder doorgeschoten in hun opvattingen dan de landelijke Republikeinen. Natuurlijk zie je niet gelijk het effect van beleid, maar Trump's binnenlandse beleid is redelijk standaard Republikeins beleid en daarmee bedient hij gewoon een groot deel van zijn kiezers. Zijn grootste minpunten zijn z'n rare gedrag, controversiële persoonlijkheid en niet presidentiële overkomen. Als Trump gewoon een keer normaal ging doen, en stopte met twitteren, dan was zijn approval zeker 5 punten hoger geweest, denk ik.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 11:37 schreef grrrrg het volgende:

[..]

??

Hij liegt toch altijd?

quote:

President Trump made a host of dubious claims during two recent public appearances, jumping from taxes to trade, from Iraqi oil to Canadian immigration laws, from promoting voter-fraud conspiracy theories to suggesting a California mayor should be charged with obstruction of justice.

We counted 24 false or misleading statements in Trump’s infrastructure speech in Ohio on March 29 and his roundtable on taxes in West Virginia on Thursday. This is not an exhaustive list, however, and some of Trump’s claims include multiple inaccuracies.

The president seems to enjoy going off-script — Trump literally threw out his prepared remarks with a flourish in West Virginia — and perhaps as a result, we have a lot to unpack.

As usual with our roundups of multiple claims, we will not be giving Trump a Pinocchio rating.

SPOILER

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

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 15:21 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Let iemand nog op zijn speeches eigenlijk? Zelfs Nintex post weinig hosanna-berichten meer over elk bullshitverhaal dat Trump afsteekt.

quote:

One is a good customer, a military ally, and an old friend, although lately its behavior has been erratic.

The other is also a good customer and despite a few spats and some lingering mistrust, it’s getting to be a more lucrative and dependable business partner all the time.

Which side would you choose?

That more or less sums up the dilemma confronting Europe as it watches the escalating conflict between its two biggest trading partners, the United States and China.

The United States is Europe’s biggest market for exports like cars and other goods, not to mention a NATO ally. But China is big, too — and getting ever bigger.

The Trump administration has also threatened the institutions that govern global relationships, calling NATO obsolete and stoking trade tensions. So China no longer automatically seems like the less reliable partner.

European leaders were largely silent after President Trump threatened to impose another $100 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods. But watching from a safe distance as China and the United States argue is not an option for Europe. Its economy is too deeply entwined with both.

“What can they do in terms of staying out of the crossfire?” said Adam Slater, lead economist at Oxford Economics in Britain. “Not a lot.”

SPOILER

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

quote:

Company has won billions of dollars in business to help government shift computing services from legacy mainframes onto the cloud

Amazon.com Inc. is best known for transforming the U.S. retail industry, a feat that President Donald Trump has recently attacked.

But the company has quietly been cultivating a major customer in his own backyard: the federal government.

In the past several years, the Seattle-based company has won much of the business to help the government shift computing services from legacy mainframes onto the cloud, a business where Amazon is the world leader.

This extraordinary transformation has included the provision of cloud services across Washington’s bureaucracy, from the Department of Homeland Security to the Smithsonian Institution. It also has made the U.S. government a top Amazon customer.

The company doesn’t release specifics, but GBH Insights, a research firm, predicts that Amazon’s government business will grow to $2.8 billion in 2018 and $4.6 billion in 2019, up from less than $300 million in 2015. Other company analysts say those projections are optimistic, but not implausible.

An even bigger prize looms: Amazon is seeking a 10-year contract with the Department of Defense that could be worth $10 billion.

SPOILER

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

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 15:51 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
As Trump Bashes Amazon, the Government Relies on It

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 15:55 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]





Misschien moet Fox maar eens een itempje aan deze gruwel wijden.....

quote:

The Trump administration is pushing for online retailers to pay more in state and local taxes. One retailer that could be affected by a stricter tax policy: the online store of the Trump Organization, which collects sales tax from consumers in only two states.

The TrumpStore.com website, which sells $100 polo shirts, baseball caps, spa teddy bears and other Trump-branded merchandise, collects sales tax on orders shipped to addresses in Florida and Louisiana, according to the company’s website.

The site, which describes itself as the official retail website of the Trump Organization, doesn’t collect sales taxes from New York residents. The TrumpStore.com website invites shoppers to “visit our brand new Trump Tower flagship retail store” in New York City.

The website was registered by the Trump Organization, which is headquartered in Trump Tower. The website contains information about the retail store and the e-commerce site, but it is unclear how ownership of the entities is structured.

“Trumpstore.com has always, and will continue to collect, report, and remit sales taxes in jurisdictions where it has an obligation to do so,” a Trump Store spokeswoman said. The spokeswoman and the chief legal officer for the Trump Organization didn’t respond to requests for additional information. ​

A White House spokeswoman declined to comment, and referred questions to the Trump Organization.

States require a business with a physical presence in a state to collect sales taxes on online purchases delivered to those states. A spokesman for the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance said it can’t comment on specific businesses for privacy reasons.

SPOILER

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

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 15:58 schreef Chewie het volgende:
Zou Trump eigenlijk niet aan te klagen zijn voor het op deze manier beïnvloeden van de aandelen van Amazon?

quote:

The president is entitled to express his opinion, even if he might have his facts wrong, absent a stock trade or a connection to the company, according to Ira Matetsky, an attorney with Ganfer and Shore. “At end of day, unless there are significant facts we don’t already know, it would be very tough for either investors or a regulator to bring a case against the president for his Amazon tweets,” Matetsky told MarketWatch.
Bron

twitter:

NewDay twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 13:46:56 Lawyer Michael Avenatti says he and Stormy Daniels have a composite sketch of the person they say threatened her and will release it tomorrow to get help from the public in identifying that person https://t.co/bMnLxtIX5m https://t.co/bP6bl9hm6w reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 16:36 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

NewDay twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 13:46:56 Lawyer Michael Avenatti says he and Stormy Daniels have a composite sketch of the person they say threatened her and will release it tomorrow to get help from the public in identifying that person https://t.co/bMnLxtIX5m https://t.co/bP6bl9hm6w reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 16:44 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Met 160 miljoen opties lijkt dat me een verloren zaak, maargoed.,

twitter:

GeoffRBennett twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 17:48:08 Trump says he'll make decision on Syria in the next 24-48 hours. Adds: "It was atrocious. It was horrible." "This is about humanity and it can’t be allowed to happen." "If it's the Russians, if it's Syria, if it's Iran, if it's all of them together, we’ll figure it out."-WH pool reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 15:35 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:
Bij zijn rally's krijgt hij nog wel bijval:

hoewel..

https://www.theatlantic.c(...)ampaign-2016/399002/

[ afbeelding ][ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ][ [url=https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/TCV1ecBCTaRysusVt3iLLg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MjA0ODtoPTEzOTc-/http://media.zenfs.com/en(...)ea8e893f5]afbeelding[/url] ]

Het lijkt er ook op dat het elke keer dezelfde figuren zijn.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 12:31 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Five Days After Trump Lawyer Paid Adult Film Star $130,000, Trump Org Billed Trump Campaign $129,999.72

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 18:39 schreef Falco het volgende:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]



Bonnetjes inleveren Donald!!

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 18:39 schreef Falco het volgende:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]



Bonnetjes inleveren Donald!!

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 18:39 schreef Falco het volgende:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]



Bonnetjes inleveren Donald!!

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 18:39 schreef Falco het volgende:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]



Bonnetjes inleveren Donald!!

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 18:48 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:

[..]

Zijn aanhang smuikt hier waarschijnlijk over.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 18:58 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Smuikt?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 18:58 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Smuikt?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 19:15 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Piet bedoelt denk ik "zijn achterban reageert besmuikt" ofzoiets.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 19:18 schreef Szura het volgende:
CNN over die NSC-woordvoerder die opstapte:


@JDiamond1
NSC spokesman Michael Anton was not planning to resign Sunday night -- but quickly tendered his resignation after finding out yesterday he would be fired Monday morning, a former NSC official and source with direct knowledge of the matter tell me

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 19:20 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb dat helemaal gemist. Waarom zou die ontslagen worden?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 19:21 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Misschien wilde Bolton niet met hem werken.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 20:06 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Een persoon op Fox News addresseert de president direct om Assads luchtmacht uit te schakelen.

http://theweek.com/speedr(...)ring-bizarre-segment

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 20:25 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Lijkt me geen verstandige zet

quote:

Trump: Farmers will understand if they get hurt in China trade spat

President Trump on Monday acknowledged that U.S. farmers could take a hit from trade disputes with China but said they will ultimately "understand" why the confrontation is necessary.

“But if we do a deal with China, if, during the course of a negotiation they want to hit the farmers because they think that hits me, I wouldn’t say that's nice. But I tell you, our farmers are great patriots,” Trump said.

“These are great patriots. They understand that they're doing this for the country," Trump said. "And we'll make it up to them. And in the end, they're going to be much stronger than they are right now.”

quote:

Trump family hotel business asked Panama president for help (AP)

PANAMA CITY (AP) — Lawyers representing U.S. President Donald Trump’s family hotel business appealed to Panama’s president for help days before an emergency arbitrator declined to reinstate the Trump management team to a luxury waterfront hotel.

The Britton & Iglesias firm, which has represented the Trump Organization in its fight to continue running the hotel, addressed a letter dated March 22 to President Juan Carlos Varela.

A copy of the letter was provided to The Associated Press by contacts who have worked as a liaison to the building’s owners in Panama.

The letter asks Varela to intervene, complaining that Panama’s courts denied the organization due process in violation of a bilateral treaty and warning there could be consequences for the country.

The letter written to Varela says it seeks to “URGENTLY request your influence in relation to a commercial dispute involving Trump Hotel aired before Panama’s judiciary.”

In February, Orestes Fintiklis, the hotel’s majority owner, tried to fire Trump’s hotel management and take control of the property for the owners’ association. Trump’s family company beefed up security, but on March 5, judicial officials sided with Fintiklis. Police officers ordered the Trump management team out of the building.

On March 27, an arbitrator in the U.S. ruled that Trump’s company should not have been evicted while arbitration was ongoing with the hotel owners, but said he would not reinstate the previous management.

On Monday, Panama’s foreign secretary Isabel de Saint Malo said her office had also been copied on the letter.

“It is a letter that urges Panama’s executive branch to interfere in an issue clearly of the judicial branch,” de Saint Malo said. “I don’t believe the executive branch has a position to take while the issue is in the judicial process.”

A source in Varela’s office who was not authorized to comment publicly confirmed Monday receipt of the letter.

Alan Garten, general counsel of the Trump Organization, did not respond to questions via email as to whether Trump knew about the appeal to Panamanian authorities.

Calls to Britton & Iglesias, as well as to Varela’s communications staff, were not immediately answered.

The letter goes on to say that the eviction violates the Bilateral Investment Treaty. “We appreciate your influence in order to avoid that these damages are attributed not to the other party, but to the Panamanian government,” the letter said, suggesting that the government, not the new management team, could be blamed for wrongdoing.

The letter raises questions about the president’s family business matter-of-factly requesting another president’s help in a private business matter by invoking a treaty signed by the U.S. and Panama. It says that lawyers representing the Trump Organization are aware of “the separation of powers of the State,” but essentially asks Panama’s president to intervene in the judicial process.

A headline on the front page of Panama’s La Prensa newspaper Monday said, “Trump Organization Pressures Varela,” and coverage described the letter as a warning that there could be consequences for Panama if the old management team was not reinstated.

Analyst I. Roberto Eisenmann, a founder of La Prensa, said the letter does not make sense juridically.

“President Trump and the family Trump Organization are using the presidency of the United States improperly for their personal business,” Eisenmann said. “It is something somewhat embarrassing to see a president of the United States in that situation.”

The letter was copied to Panamanian cabinet officials, as well as presidents of the Supreme Court and National Assembly, among others.

The 70-story property on Panama City’s waterfront has been renamed The Bahia Grand Panama.

The emergency arbitration decision late last month said the case should have remained in arbitration and never gone to Panamanian courts.

Both sides continue fighting over who violated the hotel management contract.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:03 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:
BREAKING: FBI raids office of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:09 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
Oh dear, we weten wat leiders doen om de aandacht af te leiden...

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:09 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
Oh dear, we weten wat leiders doen om de aandacht af te leiden...

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:10 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

Komt dat gedoe in Syrië eens even goed uit, zeg.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:10 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

You are not talking war, are you?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:13 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat het iets groter zal zijn dan een aanval op een vliegveld.