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 13:08 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Denk je dat Melania hem gaat wurgen met zijn eigen tong?
Juridisch gezien is Trump machtig en glibberig genoeg om er onder uit te komen.

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 13:15 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 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 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 13:41 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Jup. Clinton is democraat met congres en senaat indertijd tegen zich en Trump is republikein met congres en senaat achter zich.

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 13:43 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Don’t Let the G.O.P. Dismantle Obama’s Student Loan Reforms
https://www.nytimes.com/2(...)orm-prosper-act.html

[..]

Je vraagt je af wie zo'n lobby organiseert. Waarschijnlijk de universiteiten zelf. Systematisch dus.

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 13:46 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik dacht dat Universiteiten zelf ook leningen verstrekten?

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 13:49 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Trump wil wel met Mueller om de tafel zitten en praten. Afgaande op de nauwkeurigheid van Mueller en wat die al te weten is gekomen, en de warrige manier hoe Trump op directe vragen reageert is dit slechts een kwestie van tijd. Mueller heeft echt geen perjury trap nodig om Trump in de problemen te brengen, zijn parate kennis is al meer dan voldoende.

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

The Trump deficits assume a relatively high-level of economic growth. If the economic outlook doesn't turn out to be as rosy as the White House is promising, the very high Trump era federal budget deficits will be even higher.

The CBO report won't cause Congress and the Trump White House to do anything meaningful. The House and Senate won't suddenly decide to comply with the law and do a budget resolution this year. There will be no talk about changing U.S. fiscal policy so it better matches the needs of the economy. There certainly won't be any effort to roll back even a small part of the tax cut.

The same is true for spending. For this report, the Congressional Budget Office doesn't presume that any of the reductions proposed in the Trump 2019 budget will be enacted. That will increase the deficit outlook compared to what the White House will say it will be.

But just because Congress and the White House won't do anything substantive in response to the CBO report doesn't mean that they won't respond to it with a variety of ridiculously rhetorical efforts that will accomplish nothing. I'm expecting one or all of the following.

A New Round Of Vicious Criticism Of The Congressional Budget Office. Probably led by Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, the House Freedom Caucus and new House Budget Committee Chairman Steve Womack (R-AR), the White House and GOP congressional majorities are very likely to try to discredit CBO's trillion dollar deficit projections by discrediting CBO. This will just be the latest iteration of a campaign the Trump administration started over a year ago when it became convinced that CBO would be a major impediment to what it wanted to do to the Affordable Care Act and on taxes. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who was one of Trump's major anti-CBO provocateurs before, is very likely to reemerge in that same role this time.

A Hypocritical Boost For A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. The House is currently scheduled to vote this Thursday on Republican-sponsored amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require the federal budget to be balanced every year. Many of the same members who voted for the tax cut and spending increase that spiked the deficit to the high levels CBO will be projecting will shamelessly use this report to justify their vote for this amendment.

A Nonsensical Additional Demand To Reform The Budget Process. The new select committee that was created in the spending deal to reform the budget process will use the CBO report to re-justify its existence even though the trillion dollar deficits are actually even more proof that the process is doing exactly what the leadership wants.

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

Trump was among the developers who spoke out against the retrofitting as unnecessary and expensive.

He later changed his views, saying sprinklers made tenants feel safer. He ultimately decided to spend $3m to put sprinklers in all 350 units of another building, Trump World Tower near the United Nations, The New York Times reported.

“People feel safer with sprinklers,” Trump said in 1999, according to The Times. “But the problem with the bill is that it doesn’t address the buildings that need sprinklers the most. If you look at the fire deaths in New York, almost all of them are in one-or two-family houses.”

The city’s Department of Buildings on Sunday said Trump Tower did have working hard-wired smoke detectors, and that the fire department was first notified of the blaze by the detectors in the building’s heating and ventilation system. A cause had not yet been determined.

Brassner, who records show bought his unit in 1996, was an art collector who spent time with Andy Warhol.

He is mentioned several times in Warhol’s posthumously published diaries, with references including lunch dates and shared taxis. The artist signed and dedicated at least one print to him.

But in recent years, Brassner had financial problems and went through bankruptcy proceedings. According to documents, his family stopped helping him pursue buying and selling art at the end of 2014, and in the last few years he was “plagued with debilitating medical problems” that made it “difficult for him to function”.

New York fire commissioner Daniel Nigro said the apartment was “virtually entirely on fire” when firefighters arrived.

No member of the Trump family was in the 664-foot tower on Saturday.
Trump’s family has an apartment on the top floors of the 58-story building, but he has spent little time in New York since taking office. The headquarters of the Trump Organization is on the 26th floor.

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 14:31 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 14:32 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

Ohio

─“We started building our wall. … We have $1.6 billion, and we’ve already started. You saw the pictures yesterday. I said, ‘What a thing of beauty.’ ”

The omnibus spending bill Trump signed in March includes $1.6 billion for fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, not for Trump’s wall. (A fence is not a wall.) Parts of this all-fence project date to 2009, long before Trump took office.

Trump also tweeted pictures of the “wall,” but they’re actually photos of the 2009 project.



─“We’re building up our military to the highest level it has ever been, and it was not in good shape. But it’s now going to be, very soon, the highest level it has ever been. And by the way, that means jobs, too. … Millions of jobs.”

Trump’s spending bill provides a record $700 billion to the U.S. military. But that’s in raw dollars. A better way to measure over time is percentage of the economy, and Trump’s is only one-third the size of the defense budget at the height of the Vietnam War. Moreover, experts say the added funds, $61 billion above what was appropriated in 2017, will not create “millions of jobs” but rather thousands or tens of thousands. Note that the spending bill provides a 2.4 percent pay raise for troops. That comes with a big price tag — and it does not directly create new jobs.

─“Energy exports are at a record high, and foreign imports are at their lowest level in much more than a decade.”

Energy exports are in fact at a record high. But import levels are not as low as Trump claims. The United States imported 25.34 quadrillion BTUs of energy in 2017, according to the Energy Information Administration. Imports were lower in 2015 (23.79 QBTUs), 2014 (23.24 QBTUs) and 2013 (24.62 QBTUs).

─“Just this week, we secured a wonderful deal with South Korea. We were in a deal that was a horror show. It was going to produce 200,000 jobs, and it did — for them. That was a Hillary Clinton special, I hate to say.”

Trump is referring to a free-trade agreement with South Korea that was negotiated by the President George W. Bush’s administration and then tweaked by President Barack Obama’s. (Hillary Clinton played no role.) It’s worth noting that calculating job gains or losses from such agreements is more art than science, as we found in 2015, so Trump’s 200,000 estimate should be taken with a grain of salt.

─“We’ve got the greatest economy, maybe, ever — maybe in history. We have the greatest economy we’ve ever had.”

The stock market has seen a healthy recovery from the low points of the 2008-2009 economic downturn, and Wall Street pay has bounced back, too. But the recovery has been uneven. Median household income is barely above its 2008 level, adjusting for inflation. Wealth distribution has become more uneven since the financial crisis, with the rich now accounting for a larger share of total wealth than the middle and lower classes as compared with pre-crisis levels. This Wall Street Journal graphic gives a good overview of current economic conditions.

The U.S. gross domestic product grew 2.3 percent in 2017, Trump’s first year in office, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data. It grew at a faster rate in three of the years Obama was in office (2010, 2014 and 2015); it also grew at a faster rate for much of the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations.

─“A very important, and respected, in some circles, Democrat, said we want to get rid — we should get rid of our Second Amendment. In other words, get rid of it.”

Trump is referring to Justice John Paul Stevens, a retired member of the Supreme Court who wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Stevens for years was the leader of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing; his ideology was clearly in sync with the Democratic Party.

But Stevens never identified publicly as a Democrat. He was a registered Republican when Richard Nixon nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, and when Gerald Ford nominated him to the Supreme Court. (In this sense, Stevens is not unlike Trump, who identifies as a Republican even though he made political contributions to Democrats for years.)

─“We got rid of the bump stocks. The bump stocks, now, are under very strict control, which I think everybody agrees is fine.”

Trump’s administration has proposed to ban bump-stock accessories for firearms, but the rulemaking process takes time and the ban is still not finalized.

─“I approved that Keystone XL pipeline, and I approved the Dakota Access pipeline; both of them. … I thought we would have, like, some commotion. Right? Some commotion. Like, some protest — nobody. I approved it. The pickets, they picked up their stuff and they left. That was the end of it.”

In fact, there were protests after Trump approved the Dakota Access pipeline. The governor of North Dakota had to order that the protesters be removed, as Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star noted.

─“We’re only into about 15 months, but I think I have approved much more than I’ve promised.”

As of January, the president had broken or failed to deliver on many of his campaign promises, according to our Trump Promise Tracker.

─“I tell the story about Keystone. … That was dead for a couple of years, and no chance. I get elected, I approve it almost, like, in the first day, right at the very beginning. And I just say to myself, ‘Can you imagine the boss of whatever the hell company it is — who never actually called me to say thank you?’ But that’s okay.”

TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling actually thanked Trump twice in a meeting.



─“We spent $7 trillion in the Middle East. We’d build a school; they’d blow it up. We’d build it again; they’d blow it up. We’d build it again; hasn’t been blown up yet, but it will be.”

Trump is lumping together the wars in Iraq (in the Middle East) and Afghanistan (in South Asia), which together cost about $1.6 trillion from 2001 to 2014. He is also adding in estimates of future spending, such as interest on the debt and veterans’ care for the next three decades.

─“I got tired of watching. I used to say, ‘Keep the oil.’ We never kept the [Iraqi] oil. If we kept the oil, we would have been okay. If we kept the oil, we wouldn’t have ISIS. … That’s how they funded themselves.”

This one’s a real doozy.

First, invading and then seizing the resources of a sovereign nation would violate the Geneva Conventions. Second, taking Iraq’s oil would be logistically impossible with the troop levels committed by the United States, and would ultimately cost more than the oil is worth, experts say.

Third, the Islamic State might still exist, and still might be able to fund itself, without Iraqi oil proceeds. Much of the oil revenue that finances it comes from Syria, which the United States did not invade.

According to FactCheck.org, oil was not the most significant revenue source for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, in 2015:

“ISIS had total revenue of $1.18 billion in 2015, according to a 2016 report by the inspectors general for the State Department, Defense Department and USAID. The terrorist group’s primary source of financing that year was extortion, stolen goods and taxes, at a combined total of $600 million. Oil accounted for $480 million. That report didn’t say how much oil revenue came from Iraq and how much came from Syria. However, a former Bush administration counterterrorism official told the House Financial Services Committee in May 2015 that about 90 percent of oil produced by ISIS came from Syrian oil fields.”

─“You know, when I got in, we had over 100 federal judges that weren’t appointed. … But now we have about 145 federal district judges. We have 17 court of appeals judges. And as I said, we have the one Supreme Court justice. But think of 145 district judges.”

Prepare for a math headache.

These statements in combination suggest that Trump has appointed 145 judges to the U.S. District Court, 17 to the U.S. Court of Appeals and one Supreme Court justice. But his numbers are wildly inflated.

Since Trump took office, the Senate has confirmed 14 appellate judges, 14 district judges, and one Supreme Court justice.

Another 45 district court nominees and 10 appellate court nominees are awaiting Senate confirmation.

In total, Trump has appointed 29 judges to the district, appellate and supreme courts, not 162 as he suggested. Even when including the pending nominees, the total number rises only to 84, or about half of the 162 he claimed. Trump has set a record with judicial appointments, but it’s more modest than he portrays.

West Virginia

─“You know, they used to call it tax reform, and for 40 years they couldn’t pass anything and they didn’t know why. I said, ‘How’s it hard to pass tax cuts?’ Turned out it was not that hard. It was not easy.”

Never mind that Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts passed more than 31 years ago; George W. Bush and Obama also passed big tax-cut bills.



─“We had a trade deficit of almost $500 billion last year with China.”

This is a zombie claim. It keeps getting debunked, but Trump keeps saying it. (Accurately relaying trade figures is not the president’s strong suit.)

The trade deficit with China was $310 billion in 2016. This factors in both goods and services.

The goods deficit in 2017 was $375 billion, but the net trade figure will most likely be lower once trade in services is factored into the equation.

─“This is our country. If you have a baby on our land, congratulations, that baby is a United States citizen. We’re the only one.”

Thirty countries offer birthright citizenship, including all in North America and almost all in South America, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. The number rises to 33 when including Lesotho, Tanzania and Tuvalu.

─“If you come into Canada, it’s got to be based on merit. With us, it’s a lottery system — pick them out — a lottery system. You can imagine what those countries put into the system. They’re not putting their good ones.”

Like the United States, Canada offers family sponsorship for would-be immigrants, so its immigration system is not entirely based on merit.

Trump often mischaracterizes the U.S. diversity visa lottery. Other countries do not choose people to “put into the system.” Instead, nearly 15 million self-selected people from countries with low immigration to the United States apply annually for the slim chance to win an invitation to apply for a green card.

Those who win the lottery must then meet educational or work experience requirements and pass a background check. A State Department office in Kentucky manages the lottery.

─“Remember my opening remarks at Trump Tower, when I opened. Everybody said, ‘Oh, he was so tough,’ and I used the word ‘rape.’ And yesterday, it came out where, this journey coming up, women are raped at levels that nobody has ever seen before. They don’t want to mention that.”

Trump is referring to rape allegations within the caravan of Central Americans heading to the United States. There are two problems with this statement.

First, Trump is harking back to 2015, when he announced his presidential candidacy in Trump Tower. He claimed at the time, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. … They’re rapists.” But the caravaners are Central Americans, so these rape allegations do not prove his point about Mexicans.

Second, the rape allegations themselves are a matter of dispute. “A BuzzFeed News reporter who has been traveling with the caravan for 12 days says there’s no evidence that’s true,” the news site reported.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters that Trump was referring to a report, in 2014, that as many as 80 percent of women who have tried the journey outside such caravans have been raped. “He’s saying that the drug smugglers, the traffickers, the coyotes — this is something that, again, has been in recent years — I know it’s been up to as high as 80 percent,” she said.

─“We’re going to have the wall. We’ve already started building it. We have a billion-six. We’ve started building it and fixing miles and miles of wall that’s already up — and fence.”

Trump made this claim in both Ohio and West Virginia. Regardless of where Trump says this, a fence is not a wall.

─“How about the mayor of Oakland, where she tells a thousand people to ‘get going; law enforcement is coming to get you.’ And this was all planned. And many of them scattered, and it was pretty much a failure. I mean, to me that’s obstruction of justice, and something should happen there. And it hasn’t, and I don’t know why it hasn’t.”

Trump blames the mayor of Oakland, Calif., for spoiling a four-day immigration sweep in Northern California. The mayor, Libby Schaaf, had warned residents about the raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement the night before it began in February.

The suggestion that Schaaf allowed 1,000 people to evade ICE is misleading because the agency never captures all its targets in such raids, according to a former ICE spokesman in California who resigned in protest after this raid.

ICE ended up arresting 232 unauthorized immigrants during this raid that Trump calls “pretty much a failure.”

─“We had somebody on the West Side Highway, which I know very well, in Manhattan, he ran over — I think he killed about eight people. … And came in through chain migration. Or he might have also come in through a lottery. But he brought a lot of people with him. They say 22 people. Twenty-two people.”

Trump is repeating a Four Pinocchio claim about Sayfullo Saipov, an immigrant from Uzbekistan charged with killing eight and injuring 12 in a deadly rampage in New York in 2017. Saipov entered the United States with a diversity visa. We found no evidence that he brought any relatives to the United States, let alone 22.

─“In many places, like California, the same person votes many times. You probably heard about that. They always like to say, ‘Oh, that’s a conspiracy theory.’ Not a conspiracy theory, folks. Millions and millions of people.”

A wide range of studies has found only infinitesimal evidence of voter fraud in the United States. One study says the rate is so low as to be almost nonexistent: between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. (The odds of getting struck by lightning are higher.)

Tellingly, Trump dissolved his own voter fraud task force, which produced no evidence of fraud.

─“And we’re working on coal — clean coal. I always say ‘clean, beautiful coal.’ ”

There’s no such thing as “clean coal.” Power plants can mitigate some of the effects of burning coal by capturing and burying carbon-dioxide emissions, but that doesn’t cleanse the coal itself.

─“We’re negotiating a deal with Mexico, NAFTA, and I hope it works out. But it was a horrible deal for our country. It was incompetently drawn. It was a shame that it ever happened. It emptied out millions of jobs. Thousands of factories and plants. They left. And a lot of them are moving back. Chrysler just announced they’re moving back into Michigan and many other car companies are expanding and building brand-new plants.”

Trump once again exaggerates the effects of NAFTA. The Congressional Research Service says the trade deal had a “modest” effect on the U.S. economy.

Trump also says Fiat Chrysler is moving a plant back to Michigan. But Chrysler actually is moving one production line from a Mexican plant to Michigan. Both plants were already operating, and the Mexican plant won’t be closed.

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

Although Mr. Trump’s threats are aimed at China, Europe is certain to suffer collateral damage if the president follows through. A spiraling war of tariffs and counter-tariffs would interfere with the global flow of raw materials and components for manufactured goods, disrupting the European economy. And some European companies, like the German carmaker BMW, manufacture in the United States and export to China. Such companies would see their sales suffer if China were to slap tariffs on American goods.

The mere threat of a trade war has already unsettled financial markets and made it more difficult for companies to raise money, Benoît Coeuré, a member of the executive board of the European Central Bank, said Friday. “None of this supports growth and employment,” Mr. Coeuré said at a conference in Cernobbio, Italy.

The disruption to world trade comes at an unfortunate time for Europe. Recent economic indicators suggest that the Continent’s recovery, after a decade of crisis, is losing momentum. Industrial production in Germany shrank 1.6 percent in February, according to official data published this week.

But European leaders’ biggest fear may be that Mr. Trump’s belligerent approach to trade will destroy the postwar system for resolving conflicts, which involved getting all the parties together in one room. Mr. Trump has already succeeded in forcing countries to beg for individual exemptions to steel and aluminum tariffs, bypassing the World Trade Organization, the usual forum for trade disputes.

“He has created an environment to divide countries,” said André Sapir, a senior fellow at Bruegel, a research organization in Brussels. “Maybe we will remember that 2017 was the last year of the functioning of the multilateral system.”

It’s possible Europe might enjoy a few short-term benefits as China and the United States duke it out. If, for example, China were to raise tariffs on Boeing airliners, its European rival Airbus could step into the breach. But positive effects of that sort are not likely to outweigh the risks.

European companies have invested far more in the United States over the years than they have in China. But increasingly, China is where the action is. Germany’s total trade with China, exports and imports together, is already bigger than it is with the United States. And China is the biggest single market for companies like Volkswagen, Europe’s largest carmaker.

China is also where more German companies are putting their money.

In a poll published Thursday, 39 percent of German companies questioned said they planned to invest in China this year, up from 37 percent in 2017. The number who said they planned to invest in North America dropped to 35 percent, from 37 percent, according to a survey by the Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

Even so, Europe remains wary of China’s intentions. Though European leaders use tamer rhetoric, they share some of Mr. Trump’s concerns about unfair competition from Chinese companies that receive government subsidies. They worry that Chinese companies are stealing European technology, and accumulating too much economic power.

In recent years, Chinese investors have snapped up European assets including Greek ports, German machinery companies and a 10 percent stake in the automaker Daimler. The Chinese government’s “Made in China 2025” campaign, a plan to dominate cutting-edge industry, is a threat to German companies who supply precision machinery that the Chinese companies are not yet able to manufacture themselves.

Leaders in Brussels, Berlin and Paris have called for tighter scrutiny of Chinese acquisitions in Europe, though it is unclear how tough they will be.

At the same time, Europe and the United States have been through a lot together, most notably the Cold War. Both are multiparty democracies with free market economies, unlike China’s one-party autocracy. And European and American historical and cultural ties go back centuries.

Still, a trade war could push Europe closer to China.

Europe’s most immediate preoccupation is to resolve its own trade disputes with Mr. Trump. Cecilia Malmstrom, the European commissioner for trade, is negotiating with Wilbur Ross, the United States commerce secretary, about winning a permanent exemption from tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A temporary exemption to the tariffs expires May 1.

Ms. Malmstrom and other European leaders have also made plain their unhappiness with what they see as Mr. Trump’s crusade to undermine the World Trade Organization as the arbiter of trade conflicts. They may see China as a potential ally in efforts to preserve the W.T.O., of which China is also a member.

“The E.U. believes that measures should always be taken within the World Trade Organization framework which provides numerous tools to effectively deal with trade differences,” a spokesperson for the European Commission said in a statement.

For the moment, there is little Europe can do but hope that Mr. Trump’s bluster is just a tactic to win concessions from China, and that no trade war will break out. There are few other good options.

Mr. Sapir of Bruegel argues that, longer term, Europe should push for reforms of the trade body to respond to American criticism that the organization is too slow moving, and has failed to curb unfair competition by China. Mr. Trump is unlikely to take much interest in fixing the global trade regime rather than ignoring it, Mr. Sapir said, but it’s still worth a try.

“That is the only structural solution,” Mr. Sapir said. “Otherwise we will always be caught in between.”

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

In Mr. Trump’s attacks on Amazon, suggesting the company doesn’t pay its fair share of taxes and has damaged the Post Office, he hasn’t mentioned Amazon’s federal government business.

“Amazon is just not on an even playing field,” Mr. Trump said on Thursday. “They have a tremendous lobbying effort, in addition to having the Washington Post... What they have is a very uneven playing field. Look at the sales tax situation.” He added, “we’re going to take a pretty serious look.”

Analysts say they don’t see a reason to doubt Amazon will continue to rise as a major Washington contractor, though the president’s criticisms have whipsawed its stock price and injected uncertainty into the equation.

“The overriding question is whether there is risk to Amazon because Trump seems to have it in for the company,” said Tom Forte, an analyst at D.A. Davidson & Co.

Mr. Forte added that it would be hard for the administration to shift the government’s business elsewhere because of the small number of competitors and the scale of Amazon’s cloud network—data-storage centers arrayed around the country and the globe that provide greater computing power and redundancy in case of emergency.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Wednesday that Mr. Trump is “not involved in the process” of awarding the Defense Department contract.

Amazon’s competitors have seized the moment to seek to slow the company’s march into government business. Over dinner with Mr. Trump on Tuesday at the White House, Oracle Corp.’s co-CEO, Safra Catz, complained that the Pentagon’s process gives Amazon an advantage.

Amazon’s growing government business coincides with a rapid rise of its presence in Washington. In 2010, the company employed eight lobbyists and spent $2.1 million lobbying federal officials, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Last year, Amazon spent $13 million and employed 95 lobbyists. Only six other companies spent more on lobbying in 2017.

Amazon has also mounted an aggressive effort to hire former government officials and executives from the company’s competitors to help it navigate government procurement rules. In 2010, the company hired Teresa Carlson, who led federal sales at Microsoft Corp. Scott Renda joined the company in 2014 from the Obama administration, where he oversaw efforts to develop cloud computing.

Amazon’s most important early win was in 2013 with a contract to house data for intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency. Amazon fought off a challenge from International Business Machines Corp. to retain the contract.

The intelligence community’s willingness to entrust its closely held data to Amazon was a vital signal to other government agencies. Amid a general enthusiasm for using cloud computing to improve effectiveness, the CIA imprimatur suggested that Amazon Web Services, the cloud-computing division known as AWS, was a safe choice, these observers said.

Later that year, the Interior Department awarded a $10 billion contract to 10 vendors, half of whom partnered with Amazon.

In 2014, Amazon benefited from another Obama-era computing initiative: 18F, a consultancy made up of former Silicon Valley developers, which guides government agencies on software and computing procurement.

One of 18F’s first projects was cloud.gov, which helps government agencies such as the Federal Election Commission move some data into the cloud. The government chose to run Cloud.gov on AWS’ GovCloud service, making it easier for government agencies to purchase other Amazon services.

Over time, Amazon has built up other security approvals from the government that allow it to store increasingly sensitive categories of data. Amazon is the only cloud company that has received approval for the government’s most sensitive information.

Those security approvals have enabled Amazon to lock in an advantage over the competition, analysts say. In January, for instance, the U.S. Transportation Command, which manages transportation for the Pentagon, said it was prepared to award AWS a contract without a competitive bid. The company was the only “responsible source” for the business, because it had been approved to handle government classifications up to “Secret,” the command said.

Amazon worked with 2,300 government entities in the U.S. and overseas in 2017, up from roughly 100 in 2011, according to data the company provided at a conference for Wall Street analysts.

Government sales have helped propel AWS to become Amazon’s biggest profit source. Last year, the company’s cloud computing business had $4.3 billion in operating income on $17 billion in sales, compared with operating income of $2.8 billion on sales of $106 billion at its North American retail business. Analysts estimate 10% of that comes from government contracts.

GBH Insights says Amazon is likely to win the “lion’s share” of $20 billion in federal cloud computing projects in the next five years. The Washington area is one of the finalists for Amazon’s new “second headquarters.”

The next big break could come with the Pentagon’s planned $10 billion, 10-year move to the cloud. The proposed contract, called JEDI, would require a cloud infrastructure that could handle unclassified material as well as data classified as secret or top secret, defense department documents said.

Amazon’s competitors worry that the Pentagon will award the contract to a single vendor, rather than multiple providers, which they say is preferable because it would provide needed redundancy in case of outages.

Competitors such as Oracle and Microsoft question the security of Amazon’s cloud architecture. They also argue that Amazon could use its dominance to block other tech companies from winning government business.

A Pentagon spokesman said the department is “conducting a full and open competition” with “no favorites.”

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

In recent days, President Donald Trump has slammed online retailer Amazon.com Inc. for not paying enough in taxes to state and local governments. In a legal brief filed on March 5, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to let states require that retailers collect sales taxes even where they lack a physical presence. The court will hear oral arguments on April 17.

The Supreme Court previously held that states are prohibited from requiring out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes. Officials in states that levy sales taxes say that 1992 decision didn’t anticipate the growth of the internet, and that current law deprives state treasuries of needed revenue and puts physical retailers at a disadvantage. Online retailers argue it is too burdensome for many businesses to comply with hundreds of separate state and local taxing regimes.

“States indisputably may tax sales to state residents by out-of-state retailers,” the Trump administration said last month in its court filing in support of a South Dakota law. Requiring retailers to collect sales tax only where they have a physical presence “would substantially impede state tax collection,” it said.

Mr. Trump handed over management of the Trump Organization, the umbrella company operating the family’s business, to his sons, Eric and Donald Jr., in 2017, but retained ownership of the company. The family company earns much of its income from real-estate holdings and licensing deals.

The Trump Organization declined to explain why the online store collects taxes in Louisiana and Florida, but tax experts say the company would be required to do so if it has a physical presence in those states.

“With very few exceptions, businesses are required to collect and remit applicable taxes in states in which they have a physical presence,” said Max Behlke, director of budget and tax for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticized Amazon, which is based in Seattle but has opened distribution centers across the country. “They pay little or no taxes to state & local governments,” he tweeted on March 29.

In a shift from its early years, Amazon has said it collects sales taxes on its own inventory sold in all 45 states that have this type of tax. Many small businesses selling products through Amazon’s site don’t collect sales taxes outside of the states where they are based.

Many businesses have tried to avoid state tax requirements by putting their online operations into a separate legal entity, said Walter Hellerstein, an emeritus professor of tax law at the University of Georgia, but today, “it’s a high-risk position. It’s one more and more taxpayers are losing or, more significantly, not pursuing.”

As the number of states with laws requiring out-of-state companies to collect taxes on online sales grows, “more and more retailers” are collecting sales tax even in states where they don’t have a physical presence, said Rachelle Bernstein, vice president and tax counsel with the National Retail Federation. “They don’t want the potential liability,” if a state comes back to them for unpaid sales taxes, she added.

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

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 16:27 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 16:36 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.,

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 16:47 schreef thesiren.nl het volgende:

[..]

En wat is de kans dat die composite op een bodyguard van Trump gaat lijken? Of een prive detective misschien.

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.

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.

quote:

The seized records include communications between Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, which would likely require a special team of agents to review because conversations between lawyers and clients are protected from scrutiny in most instances.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:14 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Het antwoord ook

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:17 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Wow. Op welke grond mag je het kantoor van een advocaat leeghalen? Zijn daar nog extra regels aan verbonden ofzo?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:17 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Wow. Op welke grond mag je het kantoor van een advocaat leeghalen? Zijn daar nog extra regels aan verbonden ofzo? Lees hier wel een stukje erover:

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:18 schreef Klaphark het volgende:

[..]

In NL sowieso. Geen idee hoe het daar zit.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:20 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Heb je het artikel in de NYT (of wat was het) gelezen?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:22 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Yep.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:17 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Wow. Op welke grond mag je het kantoor van een advocaat leeghalen? Zijn daar nog extra regels aan verbonden ofzo? Lees hier wel een stukje erover:

[..]

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 22:20:07 I'm adding Michael Cohen to my list of Trump aides who almost certainly will be charged with a crime eventually. Right now the list has two people on it: Erik Prince and Jared Kushner. This raid doesn't happen unless the FBI convinces a judge something inculpatory was withheld. reageer retweet

twitter:

matthewamiller twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 22:04:28 So given this Cohen raid is an SDNY investigation referred by Mueller, and not a Mueller action, it would appear there is a SECOND criminal investigation into the president's inner circle. reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:24 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Deze alinea en die eronder: Federal prosecutors in Manhattan obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, who called the search “completely inappropriate and unnecessary.” The search does not appear to be directly related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation, but likely resulted from information he had uncovered and gave to prosecutors in New York.

En deze dus: “Today the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York executed a series of search warrants and seized the privileged communications between my client, Michael Cohen, and his clients,” said Stephen Ryan, his lawyer. “I have been advised by federal prosecutors that the New York action is, in part, a referral by the Office of Special Counsel, Robert Mueller."

Dus met info verkregen via Mueller. Moet zeer goede info en een extreem goed onderbouwd verzoek geweest zijn, want toegewezen

quote:

Rep. Lofgren: Let me just ask a final question - it's my understanding that under the order appointing him, Mr. Mueller has the authority to investigate matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, which would include crimes uncovered while he is investigating the main mission. So, for example, if he is looking at the Russia investigation and he finds out that the person he's looking at committed a bank robbery, he isn't required to ignore a bank robbery - would that be a fair assessment of his of his responsibilities?

Rosenstein: It's a fair assessment. Congresswoman, it's important to recognize that because it's a special counsel, and not an independent counsel, those issues are worked out with the department so that in the event that he came across evidence that was not appropriate for him to prosecute, he could refer it to other components of the department. So, we wouldn't allow something like that to slip through the cracks, but we would make sure to route it to the appropriate prosecutor.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:34 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Iemand op reddit merkte dit op uit de getuigenis van Rosenstein voor de House Judiciary Committee over de scope van Mueller:

[..]

Kan dus best wel eens los staan van het Rusland onderzoek...

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:34 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Iemand op reddit merkte dit op uit de getuigenis van Rosenstein voor de House Judiciary Committee over de scope van Mueller:

[..]

Kan dus best wel eens los staan van het Rusland onderzoek...

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:39 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Zijn hotelkamer in New York terwijl hij woont in New York is ook onderzocht. Kennelijk viel het de aanwezige pers niet op, omdat Conor McGregor daar ook verblijft op het moment: https://www.vanityfair.co(...)ohen-new-york-hotel/

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 22:29:48 3/ To be clear, any charges brought against Cohen in the SDNY will immediately benefit the primary Mueller probe, inasmuch as they may force Cohen to become a cooperating witness or put pressure on Cohen associates to contact Mueller and cooperate. So this is all Russia-relevant. reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 22:51:44 UPDATE: The readers of this feed are smart as hell. I just got a tip via DM suggesting Mueller *may* have used SDNY in part so attorneys there could act as a "clean team" to conduct a privilege review on any attorney-client documents taken from Cohen's office. Interesting theory. reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:53 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:
Valt wel stil ineens

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 22:55 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

Que?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:01 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Cohen's kantoor is dus onderzocht door de FBI inzake een ander FBI onderzoek dat (blijkbaar) loopt naar het reilen en zeilen van Trump & zijn advocaat, naast het onderzoek van Mueller dat hier ook (onder andere) op toe ziet. Er lopen nu dus twee onderzoeken. Maar Mueller heeft dus wel het huiszoekingsbevel gevorderd? Dat begrijp ik niet, kan iemand dat uitleggen?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:01 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Cohen's kantoor is dus onderzocht door de FBI inzake een ander FBI onderzoek dat (blijkbaar) loopt naar het reilen en zeilen van Trump & zijn advocaat, naast het onderzoek van Mueller dat hier ook (onder andere) op toe ziet. Er lopen nu dus twee onderzoeken. Maar Mueller heeft dus wel het huiszoekingsbevel gevorderd? Dat begrijp ik niet, kan iemand dat uitleggen?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:01 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Cohen's kantoor is dus onderzocht door de FBI inzake een ander FBI onderzoek dat (blijkbaar) loopt naar het reilen en zeilen van Trump & zijn advocaat, naast het onderzoek van Mueller dat hier ook (onder andere) op toe ziet. Er lopen nu dus twee onderzoeken. Maar Mueller heeft dus wel het huiszoekingsbevel gevorderd? Dat begrijp ik niet, kan iemand dat uitleggen?

quote:

Little information is known about the raid so far, but while Cohen has been under some scrutiny in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, there are some early signs that these raids are not Russia-related.

Cohen’s own lawyer, Stephen Ryan, told the Times that Mueller had made a “referral” on the matter to the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. It was that US Attorney’s team, not Mueller’s, that ordered these raids.

So one possibility is that Mueller discovered evidence of Cohen-related wrongdoing separate from the Russia scandal — for instance, campaign finance law violations in connection with the Stormy Daniels payment — but decided to hand that investigation off to others in the Justice Department rather than pursuing it himself.

https://www.vox.com/2018/(...)cohen-fbi-raid-trump

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:04 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Via Vox:

[..]

Meer in de bron. Het is dus waarschijnlijk een apart onderzoek van de FBI waar Mueller wel van op de hoogte is, maar niet zelf aan werkt.

quote:

South Carolina Congressman Pulls Out Gun at a Meeting With Voters
The conversation over coffee started off well enough. Around 8 a.m. on Friday, Representative Ralph Norman was holding court inside a diner in Rock Hill, S.C., where he would spend the next hour hearing from constituents. Struck by the red T-shirts worn by members of an advocacy group, Mr. Norman started by talking about guns, a discussion the group wanted to have. (New York Times).

SPOILER

Mr. Norman, a Republican, has faced heavy criticism for what happened shortly after.

At some point, the lawmaker reached into his blazer pocket, pulled out his gun and put it on a table in what he later said was an attempt to show that firearms themselves are not dangerous.

In a statement on Saturday, Mr. Norman, who has a concealed-weapon permit, defended his action, saying that what he did was not dangerous.

“I safely placed my gun on the table, pointed away from people,” he said. “The restaurant does not ban concealed weapons and I believe no laws were broken.”

Still, South Carolina’s Democratic Party has called on the authorities to revoke his permit and investigate. The party has pointed to a state statute that says it is illegal for a person to “present or point” a firearm at another person.

“As I was sitting there, I was thinking, ‘I don’t think what he’s doing is legal,’” Lori Freemon, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said on Saturday.

Ms. Freemon, who said she was one of about a dozen constituents at the meeting, said Mr. Norman told the group his gun was loaded. He asked many times if they felt safer, she said.

Mr. Norman left the gun on the table for five to 10 minutes, Ms. Freemon added, then put it back in his blazer after a beeper went off, which prompted an aide to warn that the conversation would end soon. The firearm, she said, appeared to be a small handgun.

“I was very angry,” Ms. Freemon, 44, said. “I felt like it was a move to intimidate.”

Trav Robertson, the chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said the group would not stop pressing for answers.

“You’ve got a Republican congressman, who should know the state law, breaking the law or saying, ‘This law doesn’t affect me because I’m a legislator,’” Mr. Robertson said on Saturday. “We’re not going to let this drop.”

In his statement, Mr. Norman said that no constituents said they were threatened and that none left the meeting early. “In fact, we continued with our discussion, laughed, smiled, shook hands and snapped pictures together,” he said.

The statement did not say whether the gun was loaded.

Mr. Norman also accused Moms Demand Action of being “hellbent on repealing the Second Amendment and banning guns.”

“It is sad and disappointing that national gun control groups stoop to this sort of backhanded tactic to push their radical agenda,” he said.

In an interview with The Post and Courier, Mr. Norman argued more bluntly for his right to own a gun.

Referring to the former Democratic congresswoman who was shot outside an Arizona supermarket in 2011, he said: “I’m not going to be a Gabby Giffords.”

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:07 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:16 schreef trein2000 het volgende:
Ik vind dit heel raar. Een advocatenkantoor doorzoeken? Dat mag in Nederland dus écht niet. Ik kan me eigenlijk niet voorstellen dat het in de us wel mag. Dus ik ben heel benieuwd naar de zeer bijzondere omstandigheden waardoor dit in een keer is toegewezen?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:17 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Jawel hoor: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0029753/2011-04-01

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:17 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Jawel hoor: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0029753/2011-04-01

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:16 schreef trein2000 het volgende:
Ik vind dit heel raar. Een advocatenkantoor doorzoeken? Dat mag in Nederland dus écht niet. Ik kan me eigenlijk niet voorstellen dat het in de us wel mag. Dus ik ben heel benieuwd naar de zeer bijzondere omstandigheden waardoor dit in een keer is toegewezen?

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:30 schreef trein2000 het volgende:

[..]

Ja, in zeer speciefieke gevallen. Zoals het misbruik van een positie (teneinde met cliënten een criminele organisatie te vormen) of als de advocaat zelf verdachte is. Niet, nooit, never om clientcontacten te onderzoeken.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 23:25:15 Mueller brought info involving Michael Cohen to Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, who decided that the matter should be handled by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York rather than by Mueller’s team, a person familiar tells Bloomberg. https://t.co/C9NUKHQmCz reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:31 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat we in dit geval wel kunnen stellen dat Cohen inderdaad zelf verdachte is.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:35 schreef trein2000 het volgende:

[..]

Kan, maar dan nog is informatie die in vertrouwen met een cliënt is uitgewisseld in principe een no-go area voor de opsporingsdiensten.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:36 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Als Cohen een betaling heeft gedaan in strijd met de wet, dan kan dat onderzocht worden. Dat is geen informatie die vertrouwelijk met de cliënt is uitgewisseld.

twitter:

MarkSZaidEsq twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 22:20:02 @ggarbowit @NatashaBertrand @benjaminwittes I have no idea substantively what it will mean, but for FBI to raid ANY lawyer's office is significant it's own right. Requires a whole host of senior approvals. @joshscampbell @AshaRangappa_ reageer retweet

twitter:

AshaRangappa_ twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 23:30:59 This is correct. Worth remembering the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege here, too, which is that you can't use your lawyer to facilitate or shield commission of a crime. https://t.co/G2cDz2rd7u reageer retweet

quote:

Analysis - Trump Brings Nixon’s Madman Theory to Tense Syrian Standoff
It’s hard to stay calm when a volatile and unpredictable U.S. president goes up against wily foxes such as Putin, Erdogan, Assad, Nasrallah and even Netanyahu

In October 1969, Richard Nixon suddenly ordered U.S. forces throughout the world to go on high nuclear alert. Missiles were deployed, submarines exercised launches and B-52’s full of hydrogen bombs flew along the Soviet Union’s borders for 72 hours. Worried U.S. officials spread the word that Nixon was on a rampage, seeking to end the Vietnam War once and for all by nuking Hanoi. Most of them were not aware that they were participating in an elaborate ruse concocted by Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger aimed at pressuring Moscow and North Vietnam to agree to end the war on terms that Nixon would deem acceptable. Nixon dubbed the strategy “The Madman Theory.” (Haaretz).

SPOILER

To really understand Trump and the Middle East - subscribe to Haaretz

Historians still debate whether the maneuver was successful. Some believe Nixon’s crazy spell pushed the Soviets to later sign nuclear limitation agreements; others point to the tens of thousands of American soldiers who died between the faux nuclear alert and the final withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam six years later as proof of the stratagem’s failure. One of the main vulnerabilities of the plan was that most of the world knew Richard Nixon well from his many years in top government positions and thus remained confident that he was essentially a sane and calculating statesman - something that can’t be said with any certainty of Donald Trump, even after his 15 months in office.

The novice president is also a disciple of unpredictability. He deploys it indiscriminately, to friend and foe alike. “I don’t want them to know what I’m thinking,” he once said. Psychologists and social scientists agree that unpredictability can provide significant advantages in commercial negotiations as well as international crises - provided it is used wisely and comes equipped with an end game. In North Korea, some people believe, the system seems to be working for Trump so far, but the tensions in Syria following the apparent use of chemical weapons by Bashar Assad’s forces on Saturday night presents a far more complex - and dangerous - challenge. Trump’s handling of the crisis could show whether his uncertainty and inconsistency are negotiating tactics for someone who considers himself a master of the art of the deal, or simply a product of his ignorance, selfishness, lack of experience and absence of good judgment. The latter possibility poses a grave danger to Israel.

Trump’s statements in recent days about his wish to withdraw the 2000 U.S. troops stationed in Syria upset American generals and dismayed Benjamin Netanyahu even before the chemical weapon attack in the Damascus suburb of Douma. Netanyahu tried to convince Trump to reverse his position, explaining that such declarations can only embolden Iran to expand its presence in Syria, but according to what we now know, to no avail. Senator John McCain claimed that Trump’s statements had even encouraged Assad to fill the vacuum and to challenge America by carrying out the horrific chemical attack.

Trump was widely applauded in April 2017 when he ordered that 59 Tomahawks be fired on the air force base from which the planes that carried out the chemical weapon attack in Idlib had taken off. Unlike that wimp Obama, Trump had shown Assad and the world who’s the boss, the President’s disciples said. Since that devastating attack, Assad forces have carried out at least eight more gas attacks against civilians; in order to preserve the impression that Trump had taught Assad a lesson he’d never forget, Washington and Jerusalem simply ignored them. The Douma attack, however, was too big to ignore and the harrowing videos of the victims were seen in homes throughout the world. Assad was thumbing his nose and wagging his tongue at Trump; daring him, in essence, to respond.

Assad’s self-confidence stems from his impending victory in the Syrian civil war that started seven years ago in order to depose him, and from what seemed on Monday like a hardening of the Russian line towards both Jerusalem and Washington. With the war nearly over, Moscow is digging in its heels and acting more and more like Syria’s patron and protector, if not superior and owner. If the change in tone translates into actions, Israel’s future ability to prevent weapon transfers to Hezbollah and to deter Iran from expanding its military presence, especially near the Golan Heights, could be seriously hampered.

Under these circumstances, Trump’s expected decision to abandon the Iran nuclear deal next month might delight Netanyahu and other critics of the deal, but could also set off a chain of events that would yield regional escalation and possibly war. Whether Trump would then have Israel’s back in more than just words or would simply disappear off the Middle East grid is anyone’s guess. If he does, everyone will recall how he warned “foolish” Obama in 2013 not to contemplate military retaliation against Syria after the horrendous chemical attack that left 1400 dead in Damascus because ‘bad things will happen” and the U.S. had nothing to gain.

The uncertainty is compounded by the enduring mystery of Trump’s relations with Vladimir Putin. Even though Trump attacked Putin personally after the Douma attack and even though he has approved new and biting sanctions against Putin’s cronies and despite the fact that his new National Security Adviser John Bolton has advocated a tougher line towards the Kremlin and relentless military action in the Middle East - there is still much that is unclear about the true nature of Trump’s “soft” line towards Putin. Never mind the lingering doubts about Russia’s ability to simply blackmail the U.S. President.

Israel, the U.S., Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Hezbollah and the Kurdish nation are all engaged now in a Syrian power play that could have dire consequences for Israel, including a dangerous confrontation with Moscow or worse, a regional conflagration. The end game of the Syrian civil war creates a multi-dimensional strategic maze that requires sound navigation lest it end in tragedy and even catastrophe. If Nixon and Kissinger were calling the shots one could sleep more soundly at night, as well as Obama, with all due respect to his haters. As things stand, Trump is now facing an array of seasoned and wily leaders, including Putin, Erdogan, Rohani, Assad, Nasrallah and more. He may be surrounded by men experience, but it is still the unpredictable, capricious and self-centered Trump who makes the final decisions. When he promises a response in 48 hours, as he did on Monday, one can’t even begin to speculate whether it will all end in with a whimper or with a bang.

quote:

Mueller probe tracking down Trump business partners, with Cohen a focus of queries (McClatchy)

WASHINGTON
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators this week questioned an associate of the Trump Organization who was involved in overseas deals with President Donald Trump’s company in recent years.

Armed with subpoenas compelling electronic records and sworn testimony, Mueller’s team showed up unannounced at the home of the business associate, who was a party to multiple transactions connected to Trump’s effort to expand his brand abroad, according to persons familiar with the proceedings.

Investigators were particularly interested in interactions involving Michael D. Cohen, Trump’s longtime personal attorney and a former Trump Organization employee. Among other things, Cohen was involved in business deals secured or sought by the Trump Organization in Georgia, Kazakhstan and Russia.

SPOILER

The move to question business associates of the president adds a significant new element to the Mueller investigation, which began by probing whether the Trump campaign and Russia colluded in an effort to get Trump elected but has branched far beyond that.

It’s unclear how many properties or deals the Mueller team might be looking at; the Trump Organization’s foreign business relationships span the globe from properties in Panama, Brazil and Uruguay to Azerbaijan and Georgia. Trump’s children — Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric — were parties to talks involving many of the dealings. Generally, the discussions revolved around licensing fees for use of the Trump name.

Prior indictments and guilty pleas secured by the Mueller team to date have focused on campaign personnel such as ex-campaign chief Paul J. Manafort, his aide Richard Gates and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

The New York Times reported on March 15 that Mueller had subpoenaed unspecified records from the Trump Organization. Days before that, the Washington Post reported that Mueller’s team was looking into a Moscow hotel deal for which Cohen brought to Donald Trump a letter of intent from a Moscow developer during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Cohen left the Trump Organization in January 2017, and has been front-page news of late because of his acknowledgement that he paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the November 2016 elections through a company established for the purpose of buying her silence with a non-disclosure agreement. Daniels has sought to toss out that agreement, appearing last month on a 60 Minutes broadcast to describe her alleged 2006 extramarital affair with then-businessman Trump. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One Thursday, Trump denied knowledge of the payment to Daniels, deferring to Cohen.

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

Cohen and Trump Organization attorney Alan Garten did not respond to requests for comment.

Before the Daniels flap, which includes a defamation suit she brought against him on March 26, Cohen was headline fodder because of revelations that he pursued a hotel deal for Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

His partner in that effort was Russian émigré and former Trump Organization associate Felix Sater, whose involvement in the pursuit of a Moscow-area hotel became public last year at a time when n ow-President Trump was insisting that he had no business interests in Russia.

The two men have said they teamed with a Russian group called I.C. Expert Consulting, and Cohen last year provided a detailed letter to congressional investigators about the deal and why it did not come to fruition. Appearing on MSNBC last month, Sater said that the local developer had sought financing from the Russian bank VTB, a big lender in Russia but one sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department in September 2014, with its subsidiaries added to the list the following year.

Sater is cooperating with Mueller’s investigation and provided more than six hours of closed-door testimony on Wednesday to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which also focused heavily on the deals involving Cohen, according to multiple people with knowledge of the hearing. Sater previously provided similar closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in December 2017.

President Trump has repeatedly said he has no business deals with Russians or Russian companies, and that he had no knowledge of any campaign collusion with Russia. Reports last year about the Moscow hotel served only to raise more questions, however.

McClatchy reported last year that Trump sought to splash his name across a giant glass obelisk-shaped hotel in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, and that he had taken out copyrights on everything from vodka to hotels across the former Soviet empire and even in Iran.

An in-depth investigation by the New Yorker magazine last year spotlighted the Trump Tower Baku in Azerbaijan, where the Trump Organization’s partners on the deal were relatives of a rich government minister whose family had business entanglements with a people tied to Iran’s notorious military unit, the Revolutionary Guards.

Shortly before that report came out, the Trump Organization in December 2016 said it was walking away from a deal to have his name atop a planned hotel, condo and casino development in Batumi, a Black Sea city that leaders of the former Soviet republic of Georgia said would become a regional destination. Trump lawyers originally blamed their Georgia partners before changing their tune to say the Trump empire was stepping away from foreign entanglements with Trump about to take office.

This week’s subpoenas by the Mueller team are in line with a lengthening list of potential crimes that have surfaced during his investigation of Russia’s election meddling. That became clearer in a court filing on Monday in Mueller’s related prosecution of former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort.

In a memo last May, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave Mueller authority to investigate, with his approval, unrelated crimes that surface during his inquiry. A Monday court filing by Mueller included an Aug. 2, 2017, memo in which Rosenstein listed allegations now within the scope Mueller's investigative authority. Except for Manafort's alleged financial crimes related to his Ukrainian political consulting, the remainder of the one-page list of suspected criminal activity by other figures was blacked out.

Michael Zeldin, a former top official of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, said Mueller could have grounds to investigate Trump’s overseas dealings to see whether those transactions led to relationships with Russians and election-related crimes.

Mueller also is searching for witnesses in his investigation of possible collusion. When he finds solid documentary evidence of crimes involving figures being questioned, those cases can be easy to prosecute, Zeldin said.

“And incidental to that, it might provide you leverage” to cut a deal in which those individuals become cooperating witnesses in the core investigation, he said.

twitter:

tedlieu twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 23:42:45 The @FBI would only have been able to raid the office and home of @realDonaldTrump lawyer Michael Cohen because an independent federal judge found probable cause that Cohen committed one or more crimes. https://t.co/r2xiBGvO4K reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:21 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

Ben wel benieuwd naar de beschouwingen van Just Sec., Lawfare, e.d.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:30 schreef trein2000 het volgende:

[..]

Ja, in zeer speciefieke gevallen. Zoals het misbruik van een positie (teneinde met cliënten een criminele organisatie te vormen) of als de advocaat zelf verdachte is. Niet, nooit, never om clientcontacten te onderzoeken.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:02 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:
FBI doet huiszoeking bij advocaat Trump in zaak-Stormy Daniels - http://nos.nl/l/2226618

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:55 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

tedlieu twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 23:42:45 The @FBI would only have been able to raid the office and home of @realDonaldTrump lawyer Michael Cohen because an independent federal judge found probable cause that Cohen committed one or more crimes. https://t.co/r2xiBGvO4K reageer retweet

twitter:

CNNSitRoom twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 23:54:18 A source close to the White House says Mueller’s decision to raid the offices of Michael Cohen could well push the President in the direction of taking action against the special counsel’s office, @acosta reports https://t.co/hcNsBbjpr1 https://t.co/mjsuWBKjfR reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:09 schreef speknek het volgende:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:09 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

CNNSitRoom twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 23:54:18 A source close to the White House says Mueller’s decision to raid the offices of Michael Cohen could well push the President in the direction of taking action against the special counsel’s office, @acosta reports https://t.co/hcNsBbjpr1 https://t.co/mjsuWBKjfR reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:11 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Moet hij vooral doen, megaslimme zet zou dat zijn

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:13 schreef thesiren.nl het volgende:
Ik denk eerder dat hij een andere zet doet ter afleiding. Thomahawks op Syrie.

quote:

BREAKING: Trump attorney Cohen is being investigated for possible bank fraud, campaign finance violations, according to a person familiar with the case.

quote:

Op maandag 9 april 2018 23:35 schreef trein2000 het volgende:

[..]

Kan, maar dan nog is informatie die in vertrouwen met een cliënt is uitgewisseld in principe een no-go area voor de opsporingsdiensten.

quote:

The Search of Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen's Office: What We Can Infer Immediately

APRIL 9, 2018 BY KEN WHITE LEAVE A COMMENT

The Very Big News of the day: FBI Agents raided the law office of Michael Cohen, President Trump's lawyer who was involved in payment of $130,000 to adult performer "Stormy Daniels" for a nondisclosure agreement.

Recently I've been listening to the Podcast "Slow Burn," about Watergate. There's a fascinating theme throughout it: when you're living a historical event, how do you know? How can you tell when a development is a Big Deal?

This is a big deal. It's very early on, but here's some things we can already tell.

1. According to Cohen's own lawyer, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (widely regarded within itself as being the most important and prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office in the country) secured the search warrants for the FBI. Assuming this report is correct, that means that a very mainstream U.S. Attorney's Office — not just Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office — thought that there was enough for a search warrant here.

2. Moreover, it's not just that the office thought that there was enough for a search warrant. They thought there was enough for a search warrant of an attorney's office for that attorney's client communications. That's a very fraught and extraordinary move that requires multiple levels of authorization within the Department of Justice. The U.S. Attorney's Manual — at Section 9-13.320 — contains the relevant policies and procedures. The highlights:

The feds are only supposed to raid a law firm if less intrusive measures won't work. As the USAM puts it:

In order to avoid impinging on valid attorney-client relationships, prosecutors are expected to take the least intrusive approach consistent with vigorous and effective law enforcement when evidence is sought from an attorney actively engaged in the practice of law. Consideration should be given to obtaining information from other sources or through the use of a subpoena, unless such efforts could compromise the criminal investigation or prosecution, or could result in the obstruction or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be ineffective.

Such a search requires high-level approval. The USAM requires such a search warrant to be approved by the U.S. Attorney — the head of the office, a Presidential appointee — and requires "consultation" with the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This is not a couple of rogue AUSAs sneaking in a warrant.

Such a search requires an elaborate review process. The basic rule is that the government may not deliberately seize, or review, attorney-client communications. The USAM — and relevant caselaw — therefore require the feds to set up a review process. That process might involve a judge reviewing the materials to separate out what is privileged (or what might fall within an exception to the privilege), or else set up a "dirty team" that does the review but is insulated from the "clean team" running the investigation. Another option is a "special master," an experienced and qualified third-party attorney to do the review. Sometimes the reviewing team will only be identifying and protecting privileged material. Sometimes the reviewing team will be preparing to seek, or to implement, a court ruling that the documents are not privileged. (Robert Mueller is aggressive on this sort of thing; he already sought and obtained a court ruling that some of Paul Manafort's communications with his lawyers were not privileged because they were undertaken for the purpose of fraud — the so-called "crime-fraud exception" to the attorney-client privilege.

3. A Magistrate Judge signed off on this. Federal magistrate judges (appointed by local district judges, not by the President) review search warrant applications. A Magistrate Judge therefore reviewed this application and found probable cause — that is, probable cause to believe that the subject premises (Cohen's office) contains specified evidence of a specified federal crime. Now, Magistrate Judges sometimes are a little too rubber-stampy for my taste. But here, where the Magistrate Judge knew that this would become one of the most scrutinized search warrant applications ever, and because the nature of the warrant of an attorney's office is unusual, you can expect that the Magistrate Judge felt pretty confident that there was enough there.

4. The search warrant application (the lengthy narrative from the FBI agent setting for the evidence) is almost certainly still under seal, and even Michael Cohen doesn't get to see it [yet]. But the FBI would have left the warrant itself — and that shows (1) the federal criminal statutes they were investigating, and (2) the list of items they wanted to seize. Much can be learned for those. Assuming Michael Cohen doesn't release it, watch for it to be leaked.

Again: this is a Big Deal.

I'll follow up with more as it becomes available.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 00:17:07 CNN is confirming that that FBI seized electronic Cohen-Trump communications, so if the feds are investigating Michael Cohen for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations, as the Washington Post alleges, Trump is at best a witness and at worst a possible co-conspirator. https://t.co/6FAf4PhjLE reageer retweet

twitter:

jdawsey1 twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 00:20:16 "It's a disgraceful situation," Trump says of Cohen raid, per pool. "I have this witch hunt constantly going on... It's an attack on our country, what we all stand for." Says the special counsel is the "most conflicted group of people I have ever seen." reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:27 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
de US attorney van NY die hiervoor heeft getekend is trouwens een interim opvolger van Preet Bharara, benoemd door Trump/Sessions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Berman

twitter:

costareports twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 00:23:26 WH POOL REPORT 6:19 P.M.Trump addressed the Cohen raid at the top of the military leadership meeting.Quick comments: “it’s a disgraceful situation.”“I have this witch hunt constantly going on.”“It’s an attack on our country... what we all stand for.” reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 00:36:46 Trump goes back to the idea of possibly Mueller firing (via pool): "I think it's a disgrace what's going on. We'll see what happens. Many people have said you should fire him." reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:27 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
de US attorney van NY die hiervoor heeft getekend is trouwens een interim opvolger van Preet Bharara, benoemd door Trump/Sessions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Berman

quote:

While Berman currently serves as U.S. attorney on an interim basis, it has been reported that President Donald Trump intends to nominate him to permanently serve in the position.[4]

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:36 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 00:36:46 Trump goes back to the idea of possibly Mueller firing (via pool): "I think it's a disgrace what's going on. We'll see what happens. Many people have said you should fire him." reageer retweet

Gesproken als een onschuldige man.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:53 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

President Trump On Michael Cohen Raid & Firing Robert Mueller 4/9/18

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:53 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

President Trump On Michael Cohen Raid & Firing Robert Mueller 4/9/18

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:07 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

Alsof je een toilet hoort doortrekken.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:53 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

President Trump On Michael Cohen Raid & Firing Robert Mueller 4/9/18

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:15 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Really? Clinton? Dat is alles wat hij kan verzinnen? Dat trucje werkt niet meer bij veel mensen.

twitter:

ScottAdamsSays twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 01:05:45 BREAKING: Trump’s personal attorney’s office raided. Now Trump can do some firing. https://t.co/ClXRfxhIkF reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:16 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:

[..]

Wel bij zijn achterban.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:18 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

ScottAdamsSays twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 01:05:45 BREAKING: Trump’s personal attorney’s office raided. Now Trump can do some firing. https://t.co/ClXRfxhIkF reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:18 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

ScottAdamsSays twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 01:05:45 BREAKING: Trump’s personal attorney’s office raided. Now Trump can do some firing. https://t.co/ClXRfxhIkF reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:49 schreef skysherrif het volgende:
trump gaat m ontslaan

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:50 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Dan gaat de doos van Pandora open.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:51 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Wss juichen democraten dat enkel toe ja, ben benieuwd.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:52 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Dat denk ik niet, hoezo? Die zijn er ook niet gebaat bij als de Rule of Law afgebroken wordt om een losgeslagen randdebiel in zijn positie te houden.

quote:

F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen;
Trump Calls It ‘Disgraceful’

(...)

The searches open a new front for the Justice Department in its scrutiny of Mr. Trump and his associates: His longtime lawyer is being investigated in Manhattan; his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is facing scrutiny by prosecutors in Brooklyn; his campaign chairman is under indictment; his former national security adviser has pleaded guilty to lying; and a pair of former campaign aides are cooperating with Mr. Mueller. Mr. Mueller, meanwhile, wants to interview Mr. Trump about possible obstruction of justice.

https://mobile.nytimes.co(...)r-michael-cohen.html

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:58 schreef Mike het volgende:
Ik denk dat als ik Trump was, ik nu ook maar mensen als een malle zou gaan ontslaan, want de andere optie, toekijken en wachten tot je aan de beurt bent, klinkt ook niet heel aantrekkelijk. Als hij de Republikeinse partij nog achter zich heeft, dan zou zo'n wanhoopsactie misschien nog wat opleveren.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 02:02 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Aan de andere kant is het wel olie op het vuur gooien. Mueller ontslaan betekent een brug over zonder dat Trump nog terug kan. Dan wordt het meteen een gevecht om zijn politieke leven. Afwachten levert hem in ieder geval nog wat tijd op, die hij kan gebruiken om zijn advocatenteam te heroganiseren (ik geloof dat zo langzamerhand al zijn advocaten zijn opgestapt of zelf aangeklaagd zijn), en een strategie te bepalen. Nu Mueller ontslaan is de ondoordachte paniekreactie. Gelukkig denkt Trump altijd alles goed door.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 02:05 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

Alles zal afhangen van de steun die het congres hem geeft. Als het congres hem blijft steunen, blijft de olie op het vuur nog beheersbaar.

Het feit dat alle info van Cohen gevorderd kan worden, betekent dat er iets groots gevonden is/kan worden en ik kan me niet voorstellen dat Trump dan nog advocaten kan vinden boven de derderangs lui die hij nu al moest zoeken.

twitter:

IngrahamAngle twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 22:38:59 If by raiding the office of @realDonaldTrump’s attorney, the @fbi violated Trump’s attorney-client privilege, this is about to get really ugly. reageer retweet

twitter:

GovMikeHuckabee twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 00:21:54 Waiting to see if ACLU will weigh in on the raid of Michael Cohen's office and home. If gov't can seize privileged communication between a client and lawyer, what civil liberties are left? Hate @realDonaldTrump if you must, but 4th and 5th amendments shouldn't be shredded. reageer retweet

twitter:

LouDobbs twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 01:30:33 End the Outrageous Witch Hunt- @GreggJarrett: AG Jeff Sessions is incompetent, the FBI is corrupt & Robert Mueller & Rod Rosenstein are unethical & abusing the legal process. They all deserve to be fired. #MAGA #TrumpTrain #Dobbs https://t.co/b1apXm6x84 reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 02:11 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

IngrahamAngle twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 22:38:59 If by raiding the office of @realDonaldTrump’s attorney, the @fbi violated Trump’s attorney-client privilege, this is about to get really ugly. reageer retweet

twitter:

GovMikeHuckabee twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 00:21:54 Waiting to see if ACLU will weigh in on the raid of Michael Cohen's office and home. If gov't can seize privileged communication between a client and lawyer, what civil liberties are left? Hate @realDonaldTrump if you must, but 4th and 5th amendments shouldn't be shredded. reageer retweet

twitter:

LouDobbs twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 01:30:33 End the Outrageous Witch Hunt- @GreggJarrett: AG Jeff Sessions is incompetent, the FBI is corrupt & Robert Mueller & Rod Rosenstein are unethical & abusing the legal process. They all deserve to be fired. #MAGA #TrumpTrain #Dobbs https://t.co/b1apXm6x84 reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 02:13 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Hebben ze niet door dat het huiszoekingsbevel is gevorderd door een door Trump benoemde aanklager (die zelfs aan Trump's campagne heeft gedoneerd) en is goedgekeurd door een onafhankelijke rechter?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 02:13 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Hebben ze niet door dat het huiszoekingsbevel is gevorderd door een door Trump benoemde aanklager (die zelfs aan Trump's campagne heeft gedoneerd) en is goedgekeurd door een onafhankelijke rechter?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 02:11 schreef Mike het volgende:
Trump gedijt altijd in chaos en al z'n "adviseurs" (lees FOX News) roepen al maandenlang dagelijks dat Mueller ontslagen moet worden. Ik vraag me af wie hij op dit moment nog in zijn omgeving heeft die hem van een dergelijke actie afhoudt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 02:15 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

Je ziet nu vooral overal shock en ik denk dat veel mensen nog niet de feiten tot zich genomen hebben (waarvan er ook gewoon nog veel niet van bekend zijn). Het is wel tragisch dat we in een tijd leven dat zelfs journalisten eerst maar wat roepen op Twitter zonder onderzoek te doen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 02:20 schreef Mike het volgende:
En moet je je voorstellen hoe FOX News of The_Donald zou reageren als Hillary Clinton in dezelfde problemen zou zitten als Trump nu. Dan zou het recht opeens wel belangrijk zijn natuurlijk en zou er 24/7 om impeachment geschreeuwd worden.

Wat leven we toch in vreemde tijden.

twitter:

AdamParkhomenko twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 01:04:46 Michael Cohen, National Deputy Finance Chair of the @GOP, has disappeared in the last five minutes from their website. https://t.co/yuvGpM1tX7 reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 02:15 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Jared?

Oh nee, die zit zelf net zo diep in de shit.

Melania?

Oh nee, die praat niet meer met hem omdat is uitgekomen dat hij een pornoster neukte terwijl ze aan het herstellen was van een bevalling.

Misschien die gekke Dokter Ronny?

Ik weet het ook niet meer.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 02:11 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

IngrahamAngle twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 22:38:59 If by raiding the office of @realDonaldTrump’s attorney, the @fbi violated Trump’s attorney-client privilege, this is about to get really ugly. reageer retweet

twitter:

steve_vladeck twitterde op maandag 09-04-2018 om 22:59:22 It's too bad that that the U.S. Attorney's Manual doesn't have an entire section devoted to how the government should conduct duly obtained search warrants of attorneys' offices to ensure that the search protects all relevant privileges.Oh wait—it does:https://t.co/MN6F74c8re https://t.co/c7ZP3e47vr reageer retweet

SPOILER

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.

twitter:

maggieNYT twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 03:13:10 But both Trump and Cohen believe this is really Mueller and that farming it out to SDNY was a fig leaf. Both sources say that this has crossed the "red line" that Trump laid out for Mueller going outside his purview in intvw w @nytmike @peterbakernyt and me last July reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 07:07 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/983513185146802176

Volgens Maggie is de rode lijn overschreden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 07:18 schreef Ringo het volgende:
Hoe zit het nu met die oorlog tegen Assad die Trump wel heel goed uit zou komen?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:53 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

President Trump On Michael Cohen Raid & Firing Robert Mueller 4/9/18

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:50 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Dan gaat de doos van Pandora open.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 01:18 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

ScottAdamsSays twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 01:05:45 BREAKING: Trump’s personal attorney’s office raided. Now Trump can do some firing. https://t.co/ClXRfxhIkF reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:47 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Natuurlijk een voorwendsel om naar andere documenten te zoeken. Slim (of dom).

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 00:38 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]


[..]

Dit grapje gaat hem waarschijnlijk wel zijn promotie kosten

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:43 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Hoezo is dit uberhaupt een zaak voor de FBI.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:50 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

.

quote:

Mr. Trump delivered the emotional tirade hours after federal officials raided Mr. Cohen’s office and hotel room, seizing business records, emails and documents, including information related to a payment that Mr. Cohen made to a pornographic film actress.

Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
The historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.
Sessions Endures Repeated Attacks by Bending to the President’s Whims
APR 9
Qatar Charm Offensive Appears to Have Paid Off, U.S. Officials Say
APR 9
Trump Reacts to Cohen Raid, Syria and More: An Annotated Transcript
APR 9
Trump Lauds Potential North Korea Summit as ‘Very Exciting for the World’
APR 9
Justice Dept., Pressured by Trump, Seeks to Speed Response to Congressional Inquiry
APR 9
See More »

The raids were in part the result of a referral to federal officials by Mr. Mueller. Mr. Trump called Mr. Mueller’s team “the most biased group of people” and said that it contained mostly Democrats and some Republicans who worked for President Barack Obama.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:52 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Vertel:

[..]

Een zaak als met Stormy Daniels dat is normaal gesproken helemaal geen zaak voor de FBI. Dit als voorwendsel gebruiken om Cohen's kantoor binnen te komen en een 'huiszoeking' te doen is natuurlijk een prima manier om andere bewijslast tegen te komen, lees inmenging in de verkiezingen, kan slim of dom zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:51 schreef Chewie het volgende:

[..]

Met een beetje inlezen kom je daar heel snel achter

quote:

The prosecutors obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from the special counsel in the Russia investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, according to Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, who called the search “completely inappropriate and unnecessary.” The search does not appear to be directly related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation, but most likely resulted from information that he had uncovered and gave to prosecutors in New York.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:53 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Hoezo zou het geen zaak voor de FBI zijn, als er federale wetten zijn geschonden?

quote:

The prosecutors obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from the special counsel in the Russia investigation

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:52 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Vertel:

[..]

Een zaak als met Stormy Daniels dat is normaal gesproken helemaal geen zaak voor de FBI. Dit als voorwendsel gebruiken om Cohen's kantoor binnen te komen en een 'huiszoeking' te doen is natuurlijk een prima manier om andere bewijslast tegen te komen, lees inmenging in de verkiezingen, kan slim of dom zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:52 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Vertel:

[..]

Een zaak als met Stormy Daniels dat is normaal gesproken helemaal geen zaak voor de FBI. Dit als voorwendsel gebruiken om Cohen's kantoor binnen te komen en een 'huiszoeking' te doen is natuurlijk een prima manier om andere bewijslast tegen te komen, lees inmenging in de verkiezingen, kan slim of dom zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:57 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Er gaan hier een paar zaken mis in je redenatie.

- Het gaat om misbruik van campagnegelden, niet om Stormy Daniels. Dat is wel degelijk een kwestie voor de FBI.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:56 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Enerzijds wordt er een direct verband met de Stormy Daniels case gesuggereerd. Anderzijds wordt gesteld:

[..]

En welke federale wetten zijn precies geschonden in de zaak van Stormy Daniels dan?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:58 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Ehh, er is een bedrag van 150.000 geschoven vanuit de Oekraïne naar de Trump organisatie (waar Cohen voor werkt) dat wil je als federaal bureau wel graag weten waarom.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:58 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Prima dat je bijdehand gaat lopen doen maar dit is het enige wat ik wilde weten. En dan nog is dat afhankelijk van de bewijslast maar we zullen zien.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 06:01 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Wat zei U?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:59 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Dat betekent slechts dat Mueller heeft gedscht, "Hier klopt iets niet, maar het is een andere zaak dan waar ik mee bezig ben dus ik vraag een ander om het op te pakken".

Welke wetten is op dit moment nog niet bekend, er wordt gesproken over bankfraude en schending van campagnefinancieringsregels.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:59 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Oh leuk, weer 300 posts van de DeParo bullshitfabriek incoming.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:58 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Prima dat je bijdehand gaat lopen doen maar dit is het enige wat ik wilde weten. En dan nog is dat afhankelijk van de bewijslast maar we zullen zien.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:59 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik volg dat hele Rusland-onderzoek niet zo fanatiek als sommige posters hier dus dat maakt het allemaal wat logischer. Dank.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:01 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat klinkt allemaal een stuk logischer dan dat het dus alleen om Stormy Daniels gaat.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:02 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Het is inderdaad zo dat je mensen pas kunt veroordelen als er bewijs is dat ze een misdaad gepleegd hebben. Dat zie je goed. Waar heb je rechten gestudeerd?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:03 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Het komt voort uit Stormy Daniels, maar zoals wel vaker met louche advocaten, zodra je eens goed gaat kijken komt er nog veel meer ellende naar boven.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:04 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb geen rechten gestudeerd

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 08:43 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Hoezo is dit uberhaupt een zaak voor de FBI.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:02 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

http://thehill.com/homene(...)gnate-gave-to-trumps

dit maakt het nog duidelijker voor je.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:05 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Zeer onverwacht, dit.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:02 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik snap dat je moeite hebt met kritiek. Vreemd dat je niet Trump steunt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:04 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb geen rechten gestudeerd maar ik ben evenmin een obsessieve volger van alles wat met dit onderzoek te maken heeft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:07 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Blijkbaar is er dus een misdrijf gepleegd of een sterk vermoeden van een misdrijf, je moet toch echt met probable cause aankomen bij een rechter om een huiszoekingsbevel te krijgen. De FBI bepaalt dat niet maar de rechter doet dat.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:05 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Zeer onverwacht, dit.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:10 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Je levert geen kritiek, je komt eerst met een heel verhaal hoe dit allemaal op valse voorwendsels gebaseerd is om dan toe te geven dat je er eigenlijk niet zo veel van weet en daarmee gewoon zegt dat je maar wat onzin debiteerde zonder jezelf te informeren.

Doe dat nu eens eerst en ga dan twijfels uitten, zo leerden we dat iig vroeger.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:11 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Aangezien mensen nu moeite doen om uit te leggen waarom dit onderzoek wordt gedaan denk ik vrij zeker te weten dit topic ernstig verrijkt te hebben.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:10 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Misschien een idee om dan wat minder sterk uit de hoek te komen en gewoon aan de “obsessieve volgers” hier te vragen hoe het zit?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:12 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Ja, je denkt wel vaker iets vrij zeker te weten wat onzin blijkt te zijn

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:11 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Aangezien mensen nu moeite doen om uit te leggen waarom dit onderzoek wordt gedaan denk ik vrij zeker te weten dit topic ernstig verrijkt te hebben.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:12 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Het staat er nu toch?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:14 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

En als je dat de volgende keer kan doen zonder de verhoudingen op scherp te zetten dan scheelt dat wat persoonlijk geëmmer over en weer en gaat de kwaliteit van het topic nog meer omhoog.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:15 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Als de verhoudingen niet op scherp staan gaan mensen daadwerkelijk denken dat iedereen hetzelfde erover denkt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:16 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Het is net alsof er niet zoveel positiefs over Trump te bedenken valt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:16 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Het is net alsof er niet zoveel positiefs over Trump te bedenken valt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:17 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Hij is vast een goede echtgenoot.

Of nee...

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:17 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Op gegeven moment hebben de users hier wel door waar het om gaat. En ze zijn er eigenlijk niet voor om je uit te leggen hoe het zit. Meningen kun je krijgen. Je vragen zullen door zelfonderzoek moeten worden beantwoord.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:17 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Zeker wel. Hopen dat andere mensen, zijn politieke opponenten dus, het beter gaan doen om in de toekomst te voorkomen dat dit soort dingen opnieuw kunnen gebeuren.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:20 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Dat lijkt me niet echt een reden om fan van Trump te zinn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:19 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Waren er maar wat meer meningen in deze reeks.

twitter:

spectatorindex twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 04:56:24 BREAKING: US official says France, the United Kingdom and Middle Eastern allies may participate in US-led military action against the Assad regime over use of chemical weapons. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:31 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[ afbeelding ]

twitter:

spectatorindex twitterde op dinsdag 10-04-2018 om 04:56:24 BREAKING: US official says France, the United Kingdom and Middle Eastern allies may participate in US-led military action against the Assad regime over use of chemical weapons. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:32 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Is dit het China topic?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:34 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Nintex probeer er een positieve draai aan te geven vandaag .

en faalt er jammerlijk in.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:34 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Hoezo dan? Lijkt me een enigszins positieve ontwikkeling voor Amerika. Niet voldoende maar wel een verbetering wat dat betreft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:40 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

als een strategische terugtrekking van China je prettig stemt maar het grote nieuws van vandaag je niet verontrust, doet mij een beetje autistisch aan.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:38 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Xi weet ook wel dat hij al jaren vals speelt en het spelletje over is. Trump wint gewoon de trade war met China binnen een week.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:42 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:
‘It’s an attack on our country,’ the president said. ‘It’s an attack on what we all stand for.’

jaja..

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:41 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dus je bent het gewoon eens dat China's strategische terugtrekking op z'n minst een kleine overwinning is voor Trump en Amerika. Prima. dan.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:43 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Dat weet je nog niet.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:41 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dus je bent het gewoon eens dat China's strategische terugtrekking op z'n minst een kleine overwinning is voor Trump en Amerika. Prima. dan.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:45 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Het is geen "overwinning" voor Trump, bovendien kun je een veldslag winnen, maar een oorlog verliezen. Xi is geen pannenkoek. En bovendien; hij beloofde het alleen maar.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:44 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Jawel. Lagere importtarieven betekent dat meer auto's naar China kunnen en meer supply chains in de VS kunnen blijven.
Makkelijke rekensom.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:44 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Jawel. Lagere importtarieven betekent dat meer auto's naar China kunnen en meer supply chains in de VS kunnen blijven.
Makkelijke rekensom.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:46 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

En wanneer?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:46 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Kleine kanttekening is natuurlijk dat China veel meer auto's uit Europa importeert dan uit de VS, en dat het ook kan betekenen dat Amerikanen verdrongen worden op de Chinese markt door Europese automakers als die nog goedkoper mogen importeren.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:46 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Kleine kanttekening is natuurlijk dat China veel meer auto's uit Europa importeert dan uit de VS, en dat het ook kan betekenen dat Amerikanen verdrongen worden op de Chinese markt door Europese automakers als die nog goedkoper mogen exporteren.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:47 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Daar is best kans op.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:46 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Kleine kanttekening is natuurlijk dat China veel meer auto's uit Europa importeert dan uit de VS, en dat het ook kan betekenen dat Amerikanen verdrongen worden op de Chinese markt door Europese automakers als die nog goedkoper mogen exporteren.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:49 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Exporteert de VS überhaupt significante aantallen auto's? In Europa zie ik zelden Amerikaanse wagens op de weg.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:50 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ford.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2018 09:51 schreef Chewie het volgende:

[..]

Die worden hier gemaakt