quote:

Steve Bannon ordered messaging tested about Putin in 2014: Cambridge Analytica whistleblower

Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie told Democrats on the House Judiciary and House Oversight and Government Reform committees that Steve Bannon directed staff to test messaging in 2014 about Russian president Vladmir Putin and Russian expansion in Eastern Europe.

Wylie said it was unusual because it was the only foreign leader they tested.

“I can’t explain why it was that they picked Vladmir Putin to talk about in focus groups or to do message testing or to do models on, and why that would be useful to Steve Bannon,” he told Democrats in interviews on Capitol Hill this week. “But what I can say is that they were also testing images of Vladimir Putin and asking questions about Russian expansion in Eastern Europe.”

Cambridge Analytica worked for President Trump’s 2016 campaign, and Bannon was vice president of the board of the data analytics firm beginning in 2014. Bannon joined Trump’s campaign team in August 2016.

Wylie — who left Cambridge Analytica in 2014 — revealed to the Observer last month how Cambridge Analytica improperly took and used the personal information of more than 50 million Facebook users ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Wylie told Democrats that Cambridge Analytics was a “full service propaganda machine,” that wanted to use collected Facebook data — at the direction of Bannon — to discourage specific groups of people from voting, including those likely to vote Democratic.


“There is one document which I have that specifically says—in bold terms—voter disengagement as an objective in the United States.,” he said, later adding that he had heard Bannon talk about voter disenfranchisement or voter disengagement.

“If by that term you mean discouraging particular types of voters who are more prone to voting for Democratic or liberal candidates, if that’s what you mean by that term, then yes,” Wylie explained.

Democrats said they invited the Judiciary Committee Republicans to attend the interview with Wylie, but they “refused.”

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 23:18:51 MAGA! https://t.co/jFf5ONASlv reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 00:06 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Wat heeft Trump er aan als niet één maar twee mensen hem challengen?

Het is ook niet zozeer het risico dat het lukt maar wel de onderliggende interne strubbelingen die zo'n challenge blootlegt die het zo gevaarlijk maken voor Trump of welke andere president dan ook. Trump heeft een approval onder Republikeinen van bovenin de 80 procent. Elke challenge zal falen. Maar Buchanan in '92 bijvoorbeeld won ook geen enkele staat, maar Bush verloor uiteindelijk toch.

quote:

President Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, plans to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in the lawsuit filed against him by adult film star Stormy Daniels.

“Based on the advice of counsel, I will assert my 5th amendment rights in connection with all proceeding in this case due to the ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York,” Cohen said in a court filing Wednesday.

Cohen said the FBI raids earlier this month on his residence, office and hotel room — and the ongoing criminal probe they represent — are behind the decision not to offer testimony in the California lawsuit.

SPOILER

The raids sought documents related to Daniels, among other matters. Cohen is reportedly under investigation for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is suing Cohen for defamation for suggesting that she lied about an alleged affair with Trump.

Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 as part of a nondisclosure agreement made just weeks before the 2016 presidential election. Cohen says the money was his own and he was never reimbursed.

Daniels has sued Trump over the agreement, claiming that it is void because Trump never signed it. She later amended the lawsuit to include the defamation charges against Cohen, and has threatened through her representation to sue Trump for defamation as well.

In a Wednesday tweet, Michael Avenatti, Daniels's attorney, called Cohen's latest court filing "a stunning development."

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op donderdag 26-04-2018 om 00:52:48 This is a stunning development. Never before in our nation’s history has the attorney for the sitting President invoked the 5th Amend in connection with issues surrounding the President. It is esp. stunning seeing as MC served as the “fixer” for Mr. Trump for over 10 yrs. #basta reageer retweet

Meanwhile, Cohen and Trump’s lawyers are currently locked in a legal battle with the Justice Department over the items seized during the FBI raid.

Attorneys for both men are urging the judge in the case to appoint a so-called special master, or a neutral third party, to examine the materials and determine what is covered by attorney-client privilege and can’t be viewed by prosecutors.

The Justice Department has pushed back against the request, saying they have a "taint team" in place that could conduct the same review.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is investigating Cohen in part based on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the investigation into Russian election interference.

Five Times Donald Trump Has Bashed Pleading The Fifth | MTP Daily | MSNBC

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 00:06 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Wat heeft Trump er aan als niet één maar twee mensen hem challengen?

Het is ook niet zozeer het risico dat het lukt maar wel de onderliggende interne strubbelingen die zo'n challenge blootlegt die het zo gevaarlijk maken voor Trump of welke andere president dan ook. Trump heeft een approval onder Republikeinen van bovenin de 80 procent. Elke challenge zal falen. Maar Buchanan in '92 bijvoorbeeld won ook geen enkele staat, maar Bush verloor uiteindelijk toch.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 02:59 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Trump is gewoon enorm geliefd onder het doorsnee republikeins electoraat.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 03:06 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Dat is simpelweg onwaar

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 03:40 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Oh dat zeg je op basis van?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 04:31 schreef OMG het volgende:

[..]

Een Roy Moore, bijvoorbeeld. Of welke andere loser hij heeft ge-endorsed, maar verloor.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 04:41 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Nou wat een data om het te ondersteunen

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 04:49 schreef OMG het volgende:

[..]

Als hij zo geliefd was onder het doorsnee republikeins electoraat hadden die figuren wel gewonnen, hè?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 04:55 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Oh ligt dat zo simpel joh

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 05:00 schreef OMG het volgende:

[..]

Ja.

Kom maar eens met een reden waarom hij zo geliefd is. Blijkt namelijk uit vrij weinig.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 05:11 schreef OMG het volgende:
Ja, leuk joh, maar waarom dit dan; https://fivethirtyeight.c(...)ial-election-result/

Hij is toch zo geliefd? Waarom dan niet normaal winnen?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 05:38 schreef OMG het volgende:
Wel jammer dat er geen onderbouwing volgt waarom jij zo geliefd zou zijn en ge-endorsedte kandidaten verliezen, en in diep rode gebieden sommige kandidaten het nauwelijks winnen.

Hij is toch zo geliefd onder het republikeins electoraat? Probeer het nog eens.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 05:38 schreef OMG het volgende:
Wel jammer dat er geen onderbouwing volgt waarom jij zo geliefd zou zijn en ge-endorsedte kandidaten verliezen, en in diep rode gebieden sommige kandidaten het nauwelijks winnen.

Hij is toch zo geliefd onder het republikeins electoraat? Probeer het nog eens.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 05:41 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dus jij denkt dat de Republikeinen het zo moeilijk hebben omdat mensen nu tegen Trump stemmen?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 05:58 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 05:58 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Schaken?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 05:38 schreef OMG het volgende:
Wel jammer dat er geen onderbouwing volgt waarom jij zo geliefd zou zijn en ge-endorsedte kandidaten verliezen, en in diep rode gebieden sommige kandidaten het nauwelijks winnen.

Hij is toch zo geliefd onder het republikeins electoraat? Probeer het nog eens.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 06:02 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Nogmaals omdat in veel staten het vooral zo is dat de democraten veel gemotiveerder zijn dan normaal en republikeinen veel minder gemotiveerd.

Als ik zeg dat Trump nog altijd wordt gesteund door zijn achterban en dat wordt ondersteund door elke peiling lijkt me dat gewoon nog de beste graadmeter. Letterlijk vragen of republikeinen hem steunen of door iets te zoeken achter uitslagen van special elections waar er 100en factoren spelen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 06:05 schreef OMG het volgende:

[..]

Als hij zo geliefd zou zijn, dan zou hij nog steeds met normale marges winnen. Niet nauwelijks, of zelfs verliezen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 06:31 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Het zal je wellicht verbazen maar lokale verkiezingen hebben niet altijd met nationale sentimenten te maken.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 06:40 schreef OMG het volgende:

[..]

Mooi. Als hij zo geliefd is, waarom verliezen kandidaten dan? En niet 747l924574x off topic gaan.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 06:42 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Omdat de kandidaten gewoon dramatisch slecht zijn misschien .

quote:

What’s the next shoe that will drop in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation?

Mueller’s team won’t say publicly, and they don’t seem to be leaking about it either. But the people they’ve been questioning have been leaking quite a lot to reporters in recent months. And the resulting stories, considered together, suggest several intriguing possibilities for where Mueller is going.

Mueller’s investigators have recently asked about hacked and leaked emails from 2016, foreign money trails, the Trump campaign’s digital operation, President Donald Trump’s business dealings in Russia and Michael Cohen’s role in them, secret meetings in the Seychelles, and Jared Kushner’s foreign business dealings. The special counsel is even still investigating Paul Manafort, whom he’s already charged on 23 counts in two different venues.

Plus, three former Trump aides have already agreed to plea deals and are cooperating with Mueller, though we haven’t seen the fruits of that cooperation yet. We also recently learned that George Nader, an adviser to the United Arab Emirates’ crown prince, has testified to Mueller’s grand jury in return for immunity. And there’s the forthcoming report on whether President Trump obstructed justice while in office.

We don’t yet know whether any of these investigatory trails will lead to charges. It’s entirely possible that many or even most of them won’t. But it seems like a safe bet that some will. So here are the leading possibilities for where Mueller’s going next.

SPOILER

Robert Mueller’s investigation could go in a lot of different directions

1) The email hacking and leaks: The theft of John Podesta’s, the DNC’s, and other political figures’ (mainly Democrats’) emails is a crime that we know happened in 2016. Mueller has reportedly taken charge of the investigation of this crime. And the Daily Beast recently wrote that investigators have identified a specific Russian intelligence officer behind “Guccifer 2.0,” a leading online persona in the hacks.

So charges here seem likely — but of whom? Particular Russians involved with the hacks are one possibility. There’s Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, who posted the DNC and Podesta emails. Then there are the questions of how, exactly, those emails got to Assange, and of whether anyone in Trump’s camp coordinated in the effort.

For instance, longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone was in contact with both Guccifer and WikiLeaks. Former campaign aide Sam Nunberg, who was recently called before Mueller’s grand jury, has said, “They want me to testify against Roger. They want me to say that Roger was going around telling people he was colluding with Julian Assange.” Stone has vociferously denied wrongdoing. But it’s safe to say we haven’t heard the last of the email matter.

2) Trump’s business dealings in Russia and other countries: In mid-March, the New York Times reported that Mueller had recently subpoenaed the Trump Organization for documents “related to Russia and other topics he is investigating,” in the clearest sign yet that Trump’s business has come under Mueller’s scrutiny.

Furthermore, McClatchy reported that Mueller’s investigators “showed up unannounced” at a Trump business associate’s home in early April and questioned him or her about the company’s overseas dealings — with a particular focus on Michael Cohen’s role in those dealings. (This questioning came just days before Cohen’s residence and office were raided in a separate investigation.)

Among other things, Cohen was trying to move forward a planned Trump Tower in Moscow while Trump was running for president, and even asked Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson for help. He’s also been involved in exploring previous Trump Organization projects potential in both Georgia and Kazakhstan. (The New Yorker’s Adam Davidson, who has covered Trump’s business extensively, has predicted that investigations of its foreign practices will expose such “criminality” that it will mean the “endgame” of his presidency.)

3) Russian oligarchs’ money flowing into politics: An eyebrow-raising pair of reports from CNN and the New York Times earlier in April revealed that Mueller’s team had questioned at least two Russian oligarchs when they visited the United States — and even seized and searched one’s electronic devices. Per CNN, investigators asked “whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and inauguration.” We’re still lacking details on this, but the line of inquiry could well flow from Rick Gates’s cooperation, since he was involved with Trump’s inaugural fundraising.

4) The Seychelles meetings and Emirati money: Mueller’s Russia investigation took a surprising turn this year with a spate of stories suggesting it was increasingly focused on a different foreign country: the United Arab Emirates.

Investigators served George Nader, an adviser to the UAE’s crown prince (the de facto ruler of the country), with a grand jury subpoena when he landed at Dulles airport this January. Nader has since reportedly been granted immunity in return for his cooperation and testimony. According to the New York Times, Mueller’s team has “pressed witnesses for information about any possible attempts by the Emiratis to buy political influence by directing money” to support Trump.

Yet there’s a connection to Russia here too. Nader and the UAE crown prince arranged a secret meeting in Seychelles in January 2017, between private security company CEO Erik Prince and Russian fund manager Kirill Dmitriev. Reports have long suggested this meeting was a back-channel way for Trump to communicate with Putin. Prince has denied this, but Nader has reportedly testified that it was. That would raise the questions of just what was discussed there, and why Prince seemed so eager to keep it secret.

This Mueller line of inquiry seems to have kicked into high gear at the beginning of this year. That suggests it could be related to Michael Flynn’s cooperation, which began in December; Flynn was, after all, a major player in the Trump transition.

5) The Trump campaign’s digital operation: Given the well-documented Russian digital effort to boost Trump’s chances, there have long been broader questions about whether Trump’s digital operation collaborated in this effort in some way. However, when Mueller charged 13 Russian individuals and three Russian companies with crimes related to a propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign, he did not allege any “witting” participation from Trump’s team.

This line of inquiry still appears to be active, though. In March, ABC News reported that Mueller had recently called in “several digital experts who worked in support of Trump’s bid” for closed-door questioning. Mueller also reportedly asked the controversial company Cambridge Analytica to turn over the emails of any of its employees who worked on Trump’s campaign.

6) The Steele dossier’s claims: The major specific claims in Christopher Steele’s infamous document — that Trump is vulnerable to sexual blackmail by the Russian government, that the Trump campaign and Russia conspired about the hacked DNC emails, that Carter Page was involved in collusion, and that Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to meet with Russians about paying hackers — still remain largely uncorroborated and heatedly denied by all parties.

But Mueller’s team has, at the very least, been asking about them. At the end of February,
CNN reported that they’ve asked witnesses about “the possibility of compromising information that Russians may have or claim to have about Trump,” including about the 2013 Miss Universe pageant.

Furthermore, McClatchy recently reported that Mueller “has evidence” that Cohen did in fact travel to Prague. However, Cohen continues to vociferously deny this, and no other media outlet has yet confirmed McClatchy’s report.

7) Other potential charges against Paul Manafort: Mueller has already charged Manafort with a combined 23 counts of conspiracy, money laundering, false statements, tax fraud, bank fraud, and other charges — but he may not be done with the former Trump campaign chair yet.

In a recent court filing, Mueller’s team revealed that they had obtained a new search warrant covering five phones associated with Manafort on March 9 of this year. This warrant, they said, was related to “ongoing investigations that are not the subject of either of the current prosecutions involving Manafort.”

So Manafort is still under investigation. But for what? One obvious possibility is collusion with Russian officials to interfere with the 2016 election, which is not related to any of the charges against Manafort so far — indeed, Mueller’s team has already confirmed they were investigating Manafort for just that topic. Manafort participated in the infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian-tied delegation arranged by Donald Trump Jr., and also tried to communicate with a Russian oligarch during the campaign.

Another possibility is further charges related to Manafort’s Ukraine work. Plea deals from his longtime business partner Rick Gates and a lawyer who’d worked with them, Alex van der
Zwaan, bring up other topics that aren’t mentioned in the charges against Manafort so far, such as a meeting Manafort held with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and a report he helped orchestrate that alleged corrupt behavior from a leading opposition politician in Ukraine (which also may implicate the now-defunct lobbying firm the Podesta Group).

8) Jared Kushner’s business and foreign policy (and Russia): There have long been questions about whether presidential son-in-law and senior White House adviser Jared Kushner has inappropriately mixed the concerns of his family real estate business with his high-level foreign policy job.

And in recent months, two reports have claimed Mueller was keenly interested in the same question. “Mueller’s investigators have been asking questions, including during interviews in January and February, about Kushner’s conversations during the transition to shore up financing for 666 Fifth Avenue,” which Kushner Companie owns, CNN reported. And per NBC News, Kushner’s talks with Qatar, Turkey, Russia, China, and the UAE have all been the subject of questioning.

Several months back, there were also reports that the FBI was keenly interested in whether Kushner sought a back channel to communicate with the Russian government during the transition. It is unclear whether Mueller is still pursuing that angle.

9) The obstruction report/Trump interview: Last but certainly not least, it’s long been known that Mueller has been investigating whether President Trump obstructed justice while in office — by discouraging an FBI investigation into Michael Flynn, by firing FBI Director James Comey, by pressuring Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself, by dictating a highly misleading story about Don Jr.’s Trump Tower meeting, and by floating pardons for witnesses.

Mueller’s team has reportedly suggested to Trump’s legal team that the obstruction probe is nearing an end — and that an interview with the president himself would help bring it to a close. And the Washington Post’s Robert Costa reports that Mueller’s team has suggested they aim to finish a report on the obstruction matter this summer.

If that’s accurate, it’s not entirely clear what Mueller would do with that report. It seems that it would be submitted to his boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. But it’s unclear whether it would then be sent to Congress (as, depending on the findings, a prelude to potential impeachment), released publicly, or just kept secret.

Regardless, it certainly seems that something is coming.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 06:42 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Omdat de kandidaten gewoon dramatisch slecht zijn misschien .

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 08:34 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:
Trump heeft een soort van getwist Koning Midas effect, voor zichzelf veranderd het in goud, maar voor ieder ander die door hem wordt aangeraakt verandert het in puur gif. Of het nu om juristen of om politici gaat; je bent op gegeven moment gedoemd als je met hem in zee gaat. Dat beginnen ze bij de republikeinen nu zelf ook door te krijgen.

The Hollies - King Midas In Reverse

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 05:01 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Gewoon uit alle peilingen dat hij vast boven de 80% approval rating heeft onder republikeinen ?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 09:36 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Cohen die zwijgt is wel een teken aan de wand. Hij kan dus niet praten, omdat als hij dat wel zou doen, hij zichzelf strafrechtelijk in de nesten werkt.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 09:36 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Cohen die zwijgt is wel een teken aan de wand. Hij kan dus niet praten, omdat als hij dat wel zou doen, hij zichzelf strafrechtelijk in de nesten werkt.

De enige conclusie die hieruit te trekken is: Cohen is een criminele advocaat.

Frappant dat eigenlijk niemand er bij stilstaat dat zelfs de Republikeinen zelf niet eens meer doen alsof Trump onschuldig is, ze hebben het alleen maar over dat het allemaal te ver gaat en buiten het boekje.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 09:52 schreef truthortruth het volgende:
Volgens de polls zijn de approval rates voor Trump bij de republikeinen rond de 65%.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 09:55 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Dat lijkt me een wat snelle conclusie. Hij kan ook gewoon denken dat hij zijn onschuld beter kan verdedigen door te zwijgen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 06:42 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Omdat de kandidaten gewoon dramatisch slecht zijn misschien .

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 10:18 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

"Only the mob pleads the fifth" om met de woorden van zijn baas te spreken.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 10:22 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Ja, maar we hoeven toch niet te doen alsof dingen die Trump zegt ook daadwerkelijk kloppen, of wel?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 09:55 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Dat lijkt me een wat snelle conclusie. Hij kan ook gewoon denken dat hij zijn onschuld beter kan verdedigen door te zwijgen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 10:33 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Tot het moment dat hij een dagvaarding op de deurmat vindt..

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 10:36 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

.

Waar denk je dat hij zich nu beroept op zijn zwijgrecht, in de supermarkt?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 09:59 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Bron? Reuters/Ipsos heeft hem op 83%, Economist/YouGov op 80%. Dat is dan 'strongly approve' en 'somewhat approve' samen.

Onder mensen die Trump gestemd hebben (dus inclusief independents) staat hij overigens nog op 92%.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 08:33 schreef Chewie het volgende:

[..]

Maar aan de huidige president kan het zeker niet liggen zeker?

Fantastisch toch dat deze reeks een volgens deparo een "iedereen is gek behalve ikke" reeks is geworden.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 08:13 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Kun je je het vorige topic al niet meer herinneren?
Bij de special election in Arizona hadden de republikeinen een goede kandidaat en wonnen weliswaar, maar werd het close en dat had daar eigenlijk nooit zo close mogen wezen.
POL / [AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #495 White House Zero & Waffle House Hero

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 10:21 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Dat waren ze voor Trump ook.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 11:43 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Nee dat waren ze niet.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 11:49 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

Jawel, dat waren ze wel. Er is vrijwel niks veranderd in de afgelopen jaren. Het congres is hetzelfde, de economie doet het nog steeds goed. Er is maar één factor bijgekomen en dat is Trump. De president zorgt voor een extra hoge opkomst onder democraten en independents en verminderd enthousiasme bij degenen die in 2016 op Trump stemden.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 11:40 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Arizona is al een behoorlijke poos een gespleten staat. Veel Hispanics.

quote:

Did you know we were this|close to finding a cure for cancer? Two scientists were well on their way to the discovery of a lifetime… unfortunately, they were aborted before they could publish their results.

That’s a True Fact™ according to televangelist Jim Bakker who made the comment on his show Monday while talking up anti-choice activist Janet Porter‘s proposed bill to outlaw abortion.

“I believe America is cursed if we keep murdering our babies,” Bakker said. “I believe we are doomed as a nation — whatever you think, I don’t care, because I believe God says, ‘Thou shall not kill.’ And to murder our unborn babies, I don’t believe God can look [the other way].”

“This program could be an important cog to stop abortion in this country,” he added. “The thing we have done in America, we have killed our babies. We have killed the future of America. I told you the other day about a story, someone said they asked God, ‘Why haven’t we had a cure for cancer?’ And He said back, ‘I gave you two scientists that had the cure and both of them were aborted.’”

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 11:59 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat waren ze niet. Veel meer kandidaten zijn schreeuwerds zoals Trump maar met veel minder bereik. -knip- Dus ik snap best dat mensen heel veel willen lezen in dit soort verkiezingen maar het is vooral de Republikeinse partij die het zwaar heeft, die zich moet heruitvinden en naar de kandidaten plus standpunten kijken, zover ik het zie is het juist Trump die ze af en toe wat extra stemmen bezorgt.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:10 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Dat was ook het geval in 2016, toen was de hispanic invloed net zo groot dus.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:13 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:
In het Middenwesten kunnen ze er ook wat van...

Jim Bakker: God Gave Us Scientists to Cure Cancer, But They “Were Aborted”

[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:13 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

Heb je de opkomst van de tea party niet meegekregen in het afgelopen decennium? De schreeuwers wonnen juist altijd de verkiezingen voor de republikeinen. Nogmaals, er is helemaal geen enkele factor veranderd in de afgelopen jaren, alleen het presidentschap. Ondertussen zijn er tientallen zetels opgepikt door democraten in het afgelopen anderhalve jaar. Dat kan natuurlijk af en toe door een schandaal komen (Roy Moore), maar de enige logische verklaring voor het grote aantal overwinningen in soms dieprode gebieden is de antipathie tegen Trump.

quote:

Piatek's lawyer, Paul Liggieri, said his client had worn the hat "because he was paying spiritual tribute to the victims of 9/11. The 'Make America Great Again' hat was part of his spiritual belief."

When the judge questioned how the bar's staff was supposed to know about Piatek's religious beliefs, Liggieri said they could do so based on the hat.

twitter:

JeremyMcLellan twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 19:18:32 The United States Supreme Court is currently debating Trump's Muslim ban. The government attorney arguing in defense of the ban just closed by saying "Islam is a great country." We're doomed. reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:15 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Maar had je nog geen in een schandaal verwikkelde vertegenwoordiger.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:18 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De schreeuwerds van de Tea Party winnen al een hele tijd niet meer. Die Moore in Alabama bijvoorbeeld een groot schandaal, ze kunnen niet allemaal zo populair zijn als Trump, vooralsnog is het alleen Trump die de Republikeinse kiezer ook echt naar de stembus kan krijgen. Deze andere kandidaten zijn daar tot dusverre niet in staat gebleken terwijl de drang onder Democratische kiezers een stuk groter is dan voorheeen.

Als het met antipathie te maken heeft jegens Trump dan hoogstens onder Democratische kiezers die nu wel naar de stembus gaan. Maar bij de nationale verkiezingen en wellicht verkiezingen voor de Senaat zal je zien dat mensen net zo vrolijk op Trump blijven stemmen als voorheen. Zwarte stemmers die bijvoorbeeld in Alamaba het verschil jegens Moore konden maken.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:20 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Wie was dan de in een schandaal verwikkeld vertegenwoordiger bij deze race?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:21 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Trump zal dan geen kandidaat meer wezen, misschien zit hij tegen die tijd al in de bak of op weg daar naar toe. Dan kun je een "vrolijke stemmer" hebben, maar geen kandidaat meer..

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:20 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Wie was dan de in een schandaal verwikkeld vertegenwoordiger bij deze race?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:22 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Je mag altijd dromen natuurlijk maar ga er maar gewoon vanuit dat hij voor een tweede termijn gaat.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:24 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

met hulp van je russische troll vriendjes? daar trappen ze voor de tweede keer niet in. Zelfs republikeinen zijn niet zo dom.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:26 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Mijn Russische troll vriendjes? Ah dus dat is wat je denkt. Jezus zeg wat een mafketel ben je toch ook. Als een iemand hier een fel tegenstander is van Poetin en zijn politiek al dan niet aanhangers ben ik het wel. Maar de naiviteit die jij hier verspreidt weerspiegelt wel aardig hoe vrijwel niemand Trump had zien aankomen en als er niets iets aan de naiviteit wordt gedaan dan zal het ook een tweede keer gebeuren.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:21 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De Republikein die moest opstappen misschien.....?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:30 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Nu wel, ik heb al even onderstreept waar je de fout in gaat Je kunt mij dan van "naieviteit" betichten, maar denk niet dat de kiezer zo dom zal zijn. En de rest van de users hier ook niet.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:30 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Maar die deed toch niet mee? Hele punt is nu juist dat er in deze race geen abnormale omstandigheden waren en de Dems het alsnog veel beter deden.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:35 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat die niet meedeed betekent toch niet dat het geen effect heeft gehad op de verkiezingen..... De man is jarenlang vertegenwoordiger geweest namens die staat en moest ivm een schandaal dat dusdanig tegen de Republikeinse idealen van die staat ingaat opstappen, als dat geen effect heeft op hoe mensen stemmen, dan moet het raar lopen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:33 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat een groot deel van de users in het liberale Nederland inderdaad niet snel op Trump zou stemmen maar dat hadden ze in eerste instantie waarschijnlijk ook niet gedaan dus die opmerking is nogal irrelevant van je, wij hebben onze eigen politieke gevaren in de vorm van types zoals Wilders, Denk, en Baudet. Maar de Amerikaanse kiezer kan je dan ook niet met de Nederlandse kiezer vergelijken. Andere perspectieven, andere belangen, en vaak zelfs andere idealen. In de hoogst elitaire Amerikaanse politiek zal Trump gewoon een zeer sterke kans blijven maken.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:36 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Nu draai je het om. Ik denk niet dat dat van beslissende invloed is geweest op de race. Maar misschien dat jij dat met exitpolls o.i.d. kan onderbouwen?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 12:58 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Bedenk wel één ding: Dit keer zal Trump gèèn Hillary Clinton als kandidaat hebben, gèèn FBI official die vlak voor de verkiezingen nog even een blik e-mails open gaat trekken, de invloed van social media zal een stuk minder op de hand van Trump zijn. De populairiteit van Fox news kalft ook af. Én de democraten hebben meer stokken om Trump mee te slaan dan hij ooit gehad heeft. Trump kan alleen attaqueren, maar is minder goed in het incasseren.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:03 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Wat verwacht je precies in de exitpolls te zien .

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:17 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Iets van een onderbouwing voor jou verder nergens op gebaseerd lijkende claims. Maar ik had natuurlijk moeten weten dat jij eigenlijk alleen een slag in de rondte lult.

Ik zal je even helpen: gezondheidszorg was de belangrijkste overweging, niet het schandaal van iemand die niet eens meedeed.

https://www.protectourcar(...)ElectionExitPoll.pdf

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:30 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]



Franks wordt nergens als antwoord genoemd of in een vraag gesteld. Hoe kan jij dan precies claimen dat dit totaal geen rol heeft gespeeld.

Bovendien was Voter Turnout: 40.19%, als je dan een claim over Trump wilt maken dan had je een vergelijkbare Turnout in 2016 verwacht of wellicht lager met een hoge Democratische opkomst, in tegendeel de Turnout in 2016 was vele malen hoger 74.17%. De turnout in 2014 was significant hoger met 47.52% van de stemmen.

https://www.azsos.gov/ele(...)orical-election-data

http://results.arizona.vote/#/featured/6/0

Dus nogmaals ik snap dat je graag een verband met Trump wilt leggen maar vooralsnog blijkt nergens uit dat zijn populariteit in dit soort districten is verminderd.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:34 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Ik hoef niets te bewijzen, het is jouw claim. En ik heb nog niks gezien wat op een onderbouwing lijkt.

Daar komt bij dat je naar de totale Turnhout kijkt en niet die onder Democraten en Republikeinen individueel. Bovendien vergeet je dat dit een special election was, waar altijd minder mensen op af komen.

Ook je laatste claim klopt niet want Trump won dit district met 21 punten verschil terwijl zijn approval in dit district nu gedaald is tot +9 onder de stemmers.

Kortom, je hebt er weer geen snars van begrepen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:30 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Bovendien was Voter Turnout: 40.19%, als je dan een claim over Trump wilt maken dan had je een vergelijkbare Turnout in 2016 verwacht of wellicht lager met een hoge Democratische opkomst, in tegendeel de Turnout in 2016 was vele malen hoger 74.17%. De turnout in 2014 was significant hoger met 47.52% van de stemmen.

https://www.azsos.gov/ele(...)orical-election-data

http://results.arizona.vote/#/featured/6/0

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:43 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Je zegt het al. Onder de stemmers. Hoe relevant precies wanneer 40% komt stemmen tegenover meer dan 70% tijdens de algemene verkiezingen en een Democratische kandidaat duidelijk heeft geprofiteerd van deze opkomst?

De totale opkomst is volstrekt relevant om een duidelijk oordeel te kunnen vellen over de populariteit van Trump. Als een vergelijkbare vraag nu in 2014 was gesteld, ok, maar toen was Trump nog niet bepaald in de picture.

Jouw argument is dat Trump de oorzaak is van de slechte Republikeinse resultaten. Daar heb je nog geen enkel argument voor laten zien. Hoe verrassend.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:06 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Als de Democraten een kandidaat als Conor Lamb op de been weten te brengen kan Trump het bijzonder moeilijk hebben maar Conor Lamb zou net zo makkelijk uit de voeten kunnen komen als Trump. Wanneer de Democraten echter weer een prominente Democraat op de been gaan zetten (wellicht met uitzondering van Biden), die nog steeds dezelfde elitaire Democratische partij en hun symbpoolpolitiek vertegenwoordigd als Clinton, dan zullen zij het nog zeer moeilijk gaan krijgen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 09:08 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

80% is wel relatief laag voor een president in zijn eerste jaar. Bovendien, als de 20% die niet tevreden is bereid is om lokaal naar de democraten over te stappen of niet te gaan stemmen ga je dat al snel merken in districtsverkiezingen, zeker ook omdat democraten door Trump juist extra gemotiveerd raken om te gaan stemmen en zich verkiesbaar te stellen.

Maar goed, doen alsof iedere Republikein een hekel heeft aan Trump is ook onzinnig. Het overgrote merendeel van de Republikeinen en de partij steunt hem en zijn beleid gewoon nog.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:52 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Maar dat is het hem ook, deze discussie was er omdat we het hadden over de primaries. Ik heb het e niet over dat hij zo geliefd is dat elke ook maar beetje republikein op hem zal stellen. Het doorsnee republikeinse electoraat (80%) steunt hem nog. Dat is meer dan genoeg om de primary normaal gezien weer te winnen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:54 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Daarop voortbordurend, de laatste 3 verkiezingen scoorden de Republikeinen in Arizona 8 respectievelijk 204.942, 128.710 en 172.809 stemmen.

Nu haalden ze de 100.000 niet eens.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:54 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Daarop voortbordurend, de laatste 3 verkiezingen scoorden de Republikeinen in Arizona 8 respectievelijk 204.942, 128.710 en 172.809 stemmen.

Nu haalden ze de 100.000 niet eens.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:56 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Oh, dat zeker. Als hij meedoet gaat hij gewoon weer de kandidaat worden.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:59 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

En dus was het de vraag wie er zich er aan durft te wagen om tegen hem te gaan runnen, mensen met nog een politieke carriere in het verschiet binnen de republikeinse partij wss niet.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:00 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Dr. Ronny Jackson withdraws nomination to serve as Secretary for Veterans Affairs, WH press secretary Sarah Sanders tells CNN.
https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/989473418734133248?s=19

Ronny Jackson withdrawal is a huge relief for Senate Republicans. There was scant support for Jackson on Hill, and McConnell did not want to deal with a messy confirmation fight in an election year. It was only a matter of time before he pulled out
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/989473813124599813?s=19

Exit Dokter Ronny. Wat dacht Trump ook wel niet. Zijn screening is nog slechter dan die van de PVV.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:48 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

74,17% is de General Election opkomst, vriendelijke vriend. Daarom staan daar ook 3,5 miljoen geregistreerde kiezers, tegenover 455.000 op je tweede link.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:51 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Je geeft zelf al toe dat de Democraat heeft geprofiteerd van de opkomst. Dan neem ik aan dat je daarmee een lage opkomst onder Republikeinen bedoelt. Dat is al exhibit A: de enthousiasm gap. Als Trump net zo populair is nu als hij in 2016 was, waarom zijn zijn kiezers dan niet komen opdagen om voor de kandidaat te stemmen die hij openlijk heeft gesteund? Vanwege een politicus die niet eens meer mee deed? Daar heb je, "hoe verrassend", nog niets ter onderbouwing voor aangedragen.

En dan stel ik je een tegenvraag: de GOP scoort tot nu toe nagenoeg overal ver onder hun score in 2016 -- goede of slechte kandidaat. Waar is dat dan aan te wijten?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 13:52 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

De democraten hébben tenminste nog kandidaten als Lamb. Bij de republikeinen hebben ze weinig meer te bieden dan Trump, die amper een bipartisan akkoord uit de hoed kan toveren, terwijl ze dit toch écht wel nodig hebben, zelfs al heb je zowel een meerderderheid in senaat als in het huis. Er zitten nét even te veel dissidenten in het congres om er soepel wetten door te drukken. Voor republikeinse kiezers statewhide is het een optelsom geworden, die gaan liever voor een conservatieve democraat dan voor een slecht functionerende republikein. Die republikeinen hebben de afgelopen anderhalf jaar hun bekomst wel gehad. Tijd voor resultaten nu.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:06 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De opkomst onder de Republikeinen was niet zo laag dus dat bedoel ik niet. Zijn kiezers zijn niet zo enthousiast omdat Trump geen kandidaat is en veel van die kiezers ook helemaal niet zo blij zijn met het beleid van de Republikeinse partij op dit moment. Trump mag dan wel runnen namens de Republikeinen maar hij is allerminst een traditionele Republikein die echt de partij vertegenwoordigt. Hoe verrassend heb je nog altijd niet onderbouwd hoezo Trump een negatief effect zou hebben op deze verkieizngen.

Wat betreft je tegenvraag is dat vrij simpel, net zo zeer als Clinton het vertrouwen verloor van veel teleurgestelde kiezers, doen de Republikeinen en de Republikeinse partij dat. Trump is daar behoorlijk imuun voor omdat hij niet onderdeel is van de gevestigde politieke orde.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:06 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De opkomst onder de Republikeinen was niet zo laag dus dat bedoel ik niet. Zijn kiezers zijn niet zo enthousiast omdat Trump geen kandidaat is en veel van die kiezers ook helemaal niet zo blij zijn met het beleid van de Republikeinse partij op dit moment. Trump mag dan wel runnen namens de Republikeinen maar hij is allerminst een traditionele Republikein die echt de partij vertegenwoordigt. Hoe verrassend heb je nog altijd niet onderbouwd hoezo Trump een negatief effect zou hebben op deze verkieizngen.

Wat betreft je tegenvraag is dat vrij simpel, net zo zeer als Clinton het vertrouwen verloor van veel teleurgestelde kiezers, doen de Republikeinen en de Republikeinse partij dat. Trump is daar behoorlijk imuun voor omdat hij niet onderdeel is van de gevestigde politieke orde.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:10 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

Laat ik het dan eens zo proberen:

Zou het niet veel logischer zijn als Trump inderdaad zo populair is, dat zijn fans hem de juiste mensen geven in het congres om z'n agenda uit te voeren? Door niet op de republikeinse kandidaten te stemmen, wordt het voor Trump veel moeilijker om plannen er doorheen te krijgen en wordt de kans op een impeachment groter.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:11 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Dus de democratische kandidaat deed het zo goed omdat de opkomst onder Republikeinen zo hoog was? Wat wil je nou eigenlijk zeggen?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:11 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Wie zijn precies de juiste mensen dan voor Trump? Het zou volstrekt logisch zijn als er een georganiseerde partijstructuur om de persoon Trump was heen gebouwd maar die is er niet, de Republikeinse partij en Trump vertegenwoordigen nauwelijks dezelfde idealen of dezelfde belangen, dus al zouden die kandidaten er zijn dan moeten ze wel die structuur en dat platform hebben.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:11 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Wie zijn precies de juiste mensen dan voor Trump?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:12 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

De juiste mensen zijn de schoothondjes die nu ook al in het congres zitten. En die ook overal op de stemformulieren staan voor de republikeinse partij. Dat hoeven geen mini-Trumpjes te zijn om hem te helpen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:12 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat het niet aan Trump ligt zoals jij beweert en nog geen enkel argument voor hebt laten zien.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:13 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Louche advocaten, fraudeurs en kinderlokkers.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:15 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Je stelt zelf dat de Democraten hebben geprofiteerd van de opkomst. Licht die uitspraak dan eens toe.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:15 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De Democraten hebben een hoge opkomst maar nogmaals waarom vind je het volstrekt onnodig om je eigen statements toe te lichten?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:15 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Kinderlokkers?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:15 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Kinderlokkers?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:14 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Al zou dat zo zijn dan nog hebben zij die partijstructuur en dat platform nodig en die is er op dit moment niet, Trump is geen hoofdvertegenwoordiger van de partij die de Republikeinse partij even kan laten doen wat hij wilt, hij was een luis in de pels die ook voor de Republikeinen onverwacht (kunnen we de primaries nog heugen) de Republikeinse kandidaat werd, zolang President en partij niet op elkaar zijn afgestemd is het volstrekt logisch dat dit soort kandidaten niet met elkaar matchen en als ze dat wel doen niet per se op de effectiviteit van de partij hoeven te rekenen die zich liever op andere kandidaten richt verder.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:16 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

En waar kwam die hoge opkomst onder Democraten door?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:20 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
a tiny fraction of legal matters

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:18 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]

je hebt wel een selectief en zeer korte termijn geheugen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:24 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

In tegenstelling tot jou ben ik niet dag en nacht bezig met elke grote tot kleine Amerikaanse verkiezing.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:19 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

Er worden in dit topic geldige argumenten aangedragen voor het feit dat het mede aan Trump ligt dat republikeinse kandidaten massaal verkiezingen verliezen. Volgens jou werken de Trump-stemmers Trump nu actief tegen omdat de partijstructuur niet voldoende op Trump is aangepast. Wat een flauwekul, dat interesseert Hank uit Tennessee toch helemaal niks?

Als Trump echt zo populair was bij een groot deel van de bevolking, dan gaven ze ook z'n partij de stemmen bij andere verkiezingen. Net zoals je in Nederland bij gemeenteraadsverkiezingen kunt aflezen aan de resultaten welke partijen het relatief goed doen op landelijk niveau.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:25 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Kom op zeg! Wel een mening hier verkondigen en dan dit soort dingen niet opmerken? Onder welke steen leef je? !

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:23 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Gezondheidszorg onder meer op basis van jouw bron wellicht:

https://www.protectourcar(...)ElectionExitPoll.pdf

Overigens ook interessant want ik heb de bron even door gespit.

Van de stemmers die in 2016 op Trump hebben gestemd heeft 92% nu op de Republikeinse kandidaat gestemd. Van hen die in 2016 op iemand anders hebben gestemd, of niet, heeft 81% op de Democratische kandidaat gestemd.

Van de stemmers die in 2016 op Trump hebben gestemd disapproved 4% nu Trump zijn beleid en 3% van de Clinton stemmers approved terwijl 18% van de niet- of anders stemmers Trump zijn beleid Goedkeuren en 72% het afkeurt.

Het verschil zit dus niet in de Trum-aanhang, die is redelijk gelijk gebleven, het verschil zit ook niet in de Clinton aanhang want die is ook redelijk gelijkgestemd over Trump, het verschil zit in de stemmers die in 2016 niet hebben gestemd.

Een interessant onderzoek dus.

quote:

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson is proposing to increase rent for millions of low-income tenants in government-subsidized housing and impose stricter work requirements.

The plan, unveiled Wednesday, would raise rent to 35 percent of gross income for more than 2 million families now paying 30 percent of adjusted income for subsidized housing. It would also mean that the poorest households ― more than 700,000 of them ― could see monthly rental caps triple to $150 from $50, HUD said. Elderly and disabled tenants would be exempt from the increase.

In addition, Carson wants to give public housing agencies the ability to impose minimum work requirements, excluding the elderly and the disabled. “Every year, it takes more money, millions of dollars more, to serve the same number of households,” Carson said Wednesday on a call with reporters. “It’s clear from a budget perspective and a human point of view that the current system is unsustainable.” It also discourages people from working, he added.

Carson’s proposal falls in line with President Donald Trump’s broader push to curb federal assistance. The Department of Health and Human Services began encouraging states to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients earlier this year. The Department of Agriculture is also contemplating more stringent work requirements for people on food stamps.

Carson’s plan could push low-income people toward homelessness, some advocates said. “We’re talking about keeping a roof over people who can’t afford the market,” Jack Cooper, executive director of the Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants, told The Associated Press. “They’re devastating folks that are already in dire straits.”

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:27 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Gezondheidszorg, dus de ACA, waar Trump voor pleitte en faalde. Zelfs dat heeft dus met Trump te maken.

Maar vooruit, nog een artikeltje om die donkere bovenkamer van jou wat te verlichten:

A blue wave? How Trump is helping Democrats win in unlikely places.

https://www.washingtonpos(...)m_term=.7231cd09e154

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:27 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Gezondheidszorg, dus de ACA, waar Trump voor pleitte en faalde. Zelfs dat heeft dus met Trump te maken.

Maar vooruit, nog een artikeltje om die donkere bovenkamer van jou wat te verlichten:

A blue wave? How Trump is helping Democrats win in unlikely places.

https://www.washingtonpos(...)m_term=.7231cd09e154

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:31 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Wat zijn jullie godsgruwelijk moeilijk aan het doen zeg

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:31 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Wat zijn jullie godsgruwelijk moeilijk aan het doen zeg

quote:

Ronny L. Jackson, President Trump's embattled nominee to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, withdrew from consideration Thursday amid mushrooming allegations of professional misconduct that raised questions about the White House vetting process.

The allegations against me are completely false and fabricated, Jackson, the White House physician, said in a defiant statement. “If they had any merit, I would not have been selected, promoted and entrusted to serve in such a sensitive and important role as physician to three presidents over the past 12 years.

quote:

Trump says Cohen legal case has nothing to do with him: Fox

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump distanced himself on Thursday from the legal troubles of his longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen, saying he had done nothing wrong and Cohen did only fraction of his overall legal work.

“This doesn’t have to do with me. Michael is a businessman. He’s got a business. He also practices law,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News. “And they’re looking at something having to do with his business. I have nothing to do with his business.”

Asked how much legal work Cohen did for him, Trump said, “As a percentage of my overall legal work, a tiny, tiny little fraction.”

Trump said Cohen represented him in the “crazy” Stormy Daniels case. She is an adult-film star who says she had a one-night stand with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels or any knowledge of a $130,000 payment made by Cohen to Daniels before the 2016 U.S. election.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:57 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Die vent is gewoon niet uit te staan. Ik geef het op hem nog iets bij te brengen, je hebt gelijk.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 15:04 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Oké Donnie

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 15:14 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Vandaar dat Trump zo bang is dat Cohen "flipt", dat is natuurlijk omdat hij er niks mee te maken heeft.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 15:04 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Oké Donnie

twitter:

krassenstein twitterde op donderdag 26-04-2018 om 15:00:01 Remember when Trump claimed he had no knowledge about the payments made to Stormy Daniels or any agreement in general?Well It turns out he didHow do we know?The Moron admitted it on Fox & Friends 20 minutes ago:"With this crazy Stormy Daniels deal, [Cohen] represented me" reageer retweet

Trump Goes Ballistic on Fox & Friends After Hosts Bring Up James Comey: Rants About CNN Dems, Stormy

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op donderdag 26-04-2018 om 15:17:57 Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen previously represented to the American people that Mr. Cohen acted on his own and Mr. Trump knew nothing about the agreement with my client, the $130k payment, etc. As I predicted, that has now been shown to be completely false. #basta reageer retweet

twitter:

MikeScarcella twitterde op donderdag 26-04-2018 om 16:16:43 SDNY tells court: "Trump, reportedly said on cable television this morning that Cohen performs 'a tiny, tiny little fraction' of his overall legal work." https://t.co/SnN3l2M0Pj reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 16:39 schreef speknek het volgende:
Makkelijk ook voor de aanklager

twitter:

MikeScarcella twitterde op donderdag 26-04-2018 om 16:16:43 SDNY tells court: "Trump, reportedly said on cable television this morning that Cohen performs 'a tiny, tiny little fraction' of his overall legal work." https://t.co/SnN3l2M0Pj reageer retweet

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 16:41 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Kan natuurlijk best zijn dat het dan alsnog duizenden of miljoenen pagina's papier zijn, dat hangt er gewoon van af hoeveel Trump voor de rest aan juridische zaken heeft.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 16:35 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Die man is toch ook wel zo zeldzaam dom he .

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op donderdag 26-04-2018 om 16:53:42 Wow Giuliani's representation is doing wonders for Trump reageer retweet

twitter:

kanyewest twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 18:30:06 You don't have to agree with trump but the mob can't make me not love him. We are both dragon energy. He is my brother. I love everyone. I don't agree with everything anyone does. That's what makes us individuals. And we have the right to independent thought. reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 16:35 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Die man is toch ook wel zo zeldzaam dom he .

quote:

1. “Do you support or oppose President Trump’s appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court?”

2. “Do you support or oppose President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multinational trade agreement?”

3. “Do you support or oppose President Trump’s Executive Order to suspend the issuance of visas and other immigration benefits to nationals of countries of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen?”

4. “Do you support or oppose the repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate within the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017?”

5. “Do you support or oppose the President’s intention to withhold foreign security assistance to Pakistan?”

6. “Do you support or oppose President Trump’s Infrastructure Initiative, which calls for $200 billion in Federal funds to spur at least $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investments with partners at the State, local, Tribal, and private level?”

7. “On January 30, 2018, President Trump released a framework with the following four proposals to reform our immigration system: 1. Establish a $25 billion trust fund for the border wall system, ports of entry and exit, and northern border improvements 2. Promote nuclear family migration by allowing immigration sponsorships of spouses and minor children only 3. End the visa lottery program 4. Provide legal status for DACA recipients and certain other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants. Do you support or oppose President Trump’s framework for immigration reform?”

8. “Do you support or oppose President Trump’s imposition of 25 percent tariffs on steel imports and 10 percent tariffs on aluminum imports?”

(After each question, respondents are given the chance to check “yes” or “no,” plus a box to explain the answer.)

quote:

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced legislation Thursday that would protect special counsel Robert S. Mueller III from being fired by President Trump after the panel’s Republican chairman backed off changes that threatened bipartisan support for the bill.

A draft released by Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) on Wednesday night omitted language that would require the special counsel to notify congressional leaders “if there is any change made to the specific nature or scope” of the investigation. Democrats had feared that would allow Republicans to meddle and potentially tip off Trump and his allies to developments in the probe.

With those changes, all of the Democrats on the committee joined Grassley and several other Republicans to advance the bill on a 14-to-7 vote.

“It is possible the bill goes too far,” Grassley said at a committee meeting Thursday. “But at the very least, if my amendment is adopted, it will require the executive branch to give more information to Congress, and that will allow Congress to do its job more effectively and to safeguard the interests of the American people.”

SPOILER

In light of the partisan conflicts that led up to Thursday's vote, some Judiciary Committee members proposed to scale back the effort into a simple nonbinding “sense of the Senate” resolution offering support for Mueller. But Grassley's compromise ended that effort.

With Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) dead set against bringing the measure to the Senate floor, House Republicans showing no appetite to take up legislation protecting Mueller, and Trump likely to veto any such bill even if it passed, there is little hope that the Senate legislation will be passed into law. But supporters of the legislation say that its mere consideration in committee will send an important message to Trump that firing Mueller or his overseers at the Justice Department would spark a fierce backlash on Capitol Hill.

The legislation, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, was introduced this month by two Republicans, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.), and two Democrats, Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.) and Christopher A. Coons (Del.).

While lawmakers, mostly Democrats, have pondered taking action to protect Mueller for months, the effort gained new traction after federal investigators raided the home and office of Trump’s personal lawyer pursuant to an investigation that spun off from the Mueller probe — prompting fresh attacks on the special counsel from Trump.

The legislation has divided Republicans, pitting a handful of senators who believe in protecting Mueller against others who have leveled a variety of objections to the bill — including questions about its constitutionality and whether it is necessary.

But every member of the committee who spoke Thursday said it would be unwise — or worse — for Trump to move against Mueller. One senator who opposed the bill, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), said it would be “politically suicidal.”

Two Republican senators, John Cornyn (Tex.) and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), offered an amendment that would offer nonbinding support for Mueller while also making clear that the Constitution prevents Congress from reining in the president's prosecutorial powers. “Congress should not resurrect unconstitutional barriers to executive authority and weaken the separation of powers in the name of political expediency,” the amendment reads, adding that “Mueller should be permitted to finish his work in a timely fashion.”

“I think we’re right to convey a strong message to the president not to fire Robert Mueller,” Hatch said Thursday. But, he added, “it’s important that we not overstep our constitutional authority. ... You cannot protect the law by contravening the supreme law of the land.”

The amendment was defeated on a 15-to-6 vote.

Democrats had raised alarms over a proposed draft Grassley circulated this week that would have required the attorney general to inform House and Senate Judiciary Committee leaders whenever the special counsel expanded or changed the scope of his or her investigation.

Grassley and the authors of the bill struck a compromise this week, however, to strip that notification requirement from the chairman’s amendment. In the final version, lawmakers will only be notified when the special counsel commences and finishes an investigation, or — in the event a special counsel is terminated — 30 days before the special counsel is given notice.

Lawmakers also stripped language from the amendment in advance of Thursday’s markup that would have required the special counsel to detail reasons that lawmakers could not publicize the information they receive.

Grassley's revised amendment was drafted to attract more support for the measure — especially from those who, like Grassley himself, think that there may be potential constitutional concerns with the core provisions of the bill, which subject an executive decision to terminate a special counsel to judicial review.

The requirement that the judiciary committee leaders be notified in advance of such maneuvers is to give Congress some opportunity to take recourse — including potential impeachment — to prevent a special counsel from being terminated without cause. The bill is drafted so that the notification requirement will stand even if a court strikes down the provision of the bill that gives a fired special counsel the ability to appeal his or her dismissal to a panel of federal judges.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel, offered praise for the new draft, saying it was “the result of hours of bipartisan negotiations.”

“I know that sometimes it's hard to compromise, but you did that, and this is better because of that,” she told Grassley.

^{by Mike DeBonis}

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 17:34 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Als Trump iets zegt wat het wereldbeeld van sommige posters hier bevestigt zijn het leugens, als hij iets zegt wat hun wereldbevestigt dan klopt het opeens wel, als hij zoveel onwaarheden en leugens zit dan is er geen reden om aan te nemen dat deze Fox-uitspraak daar ook niet onder valt.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 17:34 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Probeer het anders eens in het Nederlands.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 16:57 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Dat is het probleem met Trump: die blijft maar ratelen. Het gevolg is dat je jezelf vanzelf een keer in de nesten werkt.

quote:

President Trump had been ranting for 2 minutes and 52 seconds about former FBI director James B. Comey, “fake news CNN” and the Justice Department when “Fox & Friends” co-host Steve Doocy interjected.

“It's your Justice Department!” Doocy exclaimed while interviewing Trump by phone on Fox News's morning show on Thursday. “Mr. President, Mr. President, you're the Republican in charge. You've got a Republican running it.”

Even Doocy, an ardent Trump apologist, seemed flabbergasted by the logical fallacy of Trump's deep-state conspiracy theory.

But Trump was undeterred.

SPOILER

“I answer this all the time,” Trump replied. “Because of the fact that they have this witch hunt going on with people in the Justice Department that shouldn't be there, they have a witch hunt against the president of the United States going on, I've taken the position — and I don't have to take this position, maybe I'll change — that I will not be involved with the Justice Department. I will wait till this is over. It's a total — it's all lies, and it's a horrible thing that's going on, a horrible thing.”

Trump was, of course, venting his frustration at special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, a probe Mueller took over upon appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. Trump has repeatedly criticized Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself from the investigation because of his role in Trump's campaign.

Sessions, Rosenstein and Mueller are all Republicans.

As Trump went on, increasingly irate, Doocy and co-hosts Ainsley Earhardt and Brian Kilmeade appeared uncomfortable, looking down and exchanging glances. They tried to move Trump along to another subject.

“Okay,” Doocy said, after Trump had raged for an additional 37 seconds.

The president continued.

“All right,” Earhardt said.

On and on Trump fumed about being “very disappointed in my Justice Department.” He spoke for 34 more seconds. “Fox & Friends” cut away from the hosts' facial reactions, showing a wall bearing Trump's photograph and a live shot of the White House.

“All right,” Kilmeade said, taking a turn.

The president would not be stopped.

“By the way,” he said, elevating his volume just a bit, as he beat back attempts to cut him off, “the only collusion is the collusion with the Democrats and the Russians.”

For 40 more seconds, Trump extended his monologue.

At last, Kilmeade managed to redirect Trump with this: “All right, let's talk about Michael Cohen.”

The episode was reminiscent of the way Trump bulldozed through a February phone interview on Jeanine Pirro's Fox News show. The president appears to favor phone interviews because he can more easily talk over his questioners than he could if faced with nonverbal cues in person or on camera.

What is striking is that Doocy, Earhardt, Kilmeade and Pirro are Trump sympathizers. And in the interview on Thursday, the “Fox & Friends” hosts seemed to be trying to save Trump from spiraling as much as attempting to regain control of the conversation.

By ignoring them, Trump showed again that his impulses cannot be curbed, even by those looking out for his interests.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 17:35 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Stoer hoor.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 17:39 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

‘It’s your Justice Department!’: Fox News hosts tried and failed to halt Trump’s rant (WaPo)

[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 14:30 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
Gezocht: geld voor tweede eethoek.

Ben Carson Thinks Poor People Should Pay Higher Rent If They Want Government Help (HuffPo)

[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 17:52 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dit maakt hem oh zo populair bij zijn aanhang, even lekker bellen om alles wat hem dwarszit te ventileren, .

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 18:27 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Een stampvoetende kleuter in een supermarkt. Schreeuwend en tierend dat hij snoep wil en een Suske en Wiske.

De act begint na anderhalf jaar wel te vervelen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 18:31 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Zelfs voor Fox & Friends.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 18:33 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ander onderwerp dan maar.

China?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 18:33 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ander onderwerp dan maar.

China?

quote:

FANTASTIC news that President @realdonaldtrump will at last come to Britain on 13 July. Looking forward to seeing our closest ally and friend on the GREATest visit ever. 👌🇬🇧🇺🇸
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/989546562073309184?s=19

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 19:02 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Tweet van Boris Johnson:

[..]

Tsja..

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 19:02 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Tweet van Boris Johnson:

[..]

Tsja..

Have I Got News For You - Boris Johnson' Mastermind Challenge

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 11:43 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Nee dat waren ze niet.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 19:11 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

Johnson en Macron hebben heel goed door wat werkt bij Trump. Merkel heeft er wat moeite mee, maar als je 'm maar heel enthousiast benadert en genoeg complimenten geeft, dan is Trump als was in je handen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 19:33 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat Merkel zich intellectueel te ver van hem verwijderd voelt om zo bij hem te gaan slijmen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 19:36 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

Er wordt ook wel eens gezegd dat Merkel asperger heeft, dus wellicht kan ze het ook gewoon niet.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 17:52 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Dit maakt hem oh zo populair bij zijn aanhang, even lekker bellen om alles wat hem dwarszit te ventileren, .

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 17:52 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dit maakt hem oh zo populair bij zijn aanhang, even lekker bellen om alles wat hem dwarszit te ventileren, .

twitter:

tedlieu twitterde op donderdag 26-04-2018 om 16:27:16 Dear @realDonaldTrump: Can you please go on Fox & Friends once a week and rant? Let America hear your unfiltered self on live TV. It's exciting and helps Dems. Thanks. https://t.co/J7mUTx2y7s reageer retweet

quote:

Most interesting fact from today’s hearing IMO - FBI imaged 16 (by my count) cell phones and blackberries seized in MC raids. Usually not a good sign when the target appears to have saved old phones and there are that many phones recovered. BIGLY bad...for many. #basta

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 19:53 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Dat intervie-euh rant monoloogje van hem bij Fox...mijn god zeg. Not so stable genius...

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 20:17 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

https://twitter.com/Micha(...)567719132614657?s=20

Oeps.....

Daarmee kun je wel wat verklaringen van DT en MC en SH onderuit schoppen denk ik.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 20:18 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Lachen man, hij weet zichzelf weer in één zin tegen te spreken. Comey released classified memos, about me and they were phoney memo's.

twitter:

ErikWemple twitterde op donderdag 26-04-2018 om 21:26:24 All three cable networks continue helicopter coverage of Bill Cosby's vehicle on roads outside Norristown, Pa. reageer retweet

quote:

Bryan Rice has resigned just six months after Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke appointed him to lead the Bureau of Indian Affairs, multiple sources familiar with the situation told HuffPost.

The bureau, which is part of the Interior Department and handles government relations with more than 500 federally-recognized tribes, has made no official announcement about Rice’s departure. Agency officials are not discussing details of his resignation.

“It is our policy not to discuss DOI personnel matters in the press,” BIA spokeswoman Nedra Darling said in an email. She ignored follow-up questions about whether Rice was still employed.

The resignation comes roughly two weeks after the agency’s internal watchdog concluded that poor Interior Department staff record keeping made it impossible to determine if the reassignment of dozens of senior agency staff last year was legal. Nearly a third of the transferred staffers were Native American, Talking Points Memo reported.

When Zinke announced Rice as his choice to lead the bureau in October, he said the veteran Interior official “has a wealth of management expertise and experience that will well serve Indian Country.”

“I have full confidence that Bryan is the right person at this pivotal time as we work to renew the department’s focus on self-determination and self-governance, give power back to the tribes, and provide real meaning to the concept of tribal sovereignty,” Zinke said.

Rice is a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and previously led Interior’s Office of Wildland Fire beginning under the Obama administration in 2016.

quote:

‘Boss, I Miss You So Much’: The Awkward Exile of Michael Cohen (WSJ)
Donald Trump’s self-described ‘fixer’ brooded about failing to get a White House post; now under criminal investigation, he has the president’s attention

In the 15 months since Donald Trump shut him out of a White House job, Michael Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer, has made a show of publicly dining with a vocal Trump critic, the billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

After lunch at Freds restaurant in New York in April 2017, a gossip item appeared. When they had breakfast at the Time Warner Center in November, paparazzi “somehow” showed up, Mr. Cuban said. “I think he does it to piss off Trump when Trump is ignoring him.”

The president isn’t ignoring Mr. Cohen now. Federal prosecutors are investigating Mr. Cohen’s work for Mr. Trump, including his $130,000 pre-election payment to a former adult-film actress, as well as his taxi business and other personal dealings. Federal Bureau of Investigation agents raided his premises earlier this month.

Looming over all of this is an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into whether associates of Mr. Trump, including Mr. Cohen, colluded with Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. Mr. Cohen and the White House have denied any collusion.

Prosecutors may not find evidence of wrongdoing by either man. Mr. Trump and his lawyers nonetheless are now grappling with the question of how the president’s self-described “fixer” may respond if charged and presented with the choice of turning on his boss or facing prison time.

Mr. Cohen has memorably said he would “take a bullet” for the president. But in a sign of Mr. Cohen’s state of mind, he has in recent months privately groused about being excluded from White House posts he believed he deserved, according to people familiar with his thinking. He has struggled to get Mr. Trump’s attention. And two new business engagements he started during that time that could have profited from his Washington connections have instead languished.

SPOILER

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that a longtime Trump legal adviser had warned the president that Mr. Cohen would likely cooperate if charged. Since then, Mr. Trump called Mr. Cohen “a fine person with a wonderful family” on Twitter and expressed confidence he would stand strong.

“Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble, even if…it means lying or making up stories,” Mr. Trump tweeted. “Sorry, I don’t see Michael doing that despite the horrible Witch Hunt and the dishonest media!”

Mr. Cohen declined to be interviewed and provided a two-word response to a list of questions sent by email: “Completely inaccurate.” He didn’t respond to a request to elaborate.

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The recent actions have represented a remarkable turnabout for Mr. Cohen since the November 2016 election of Mr. Trump, whose presidential aspirations he had been encouraging for years.

Mr. Cohen had no official role in Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign but informally advised him and served as a surrogate on TV. Behind the scenes, he tried to kill damaging stories about Mr. Trump, including reaching out to discourage women who had spoken negatively about the candidate, according to several of the women. He also paid for the silence of Stephanie Clifford, the former porn star known as Stormy Daniels, who alleges she had a 2006 sexual encounter with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Cohen and the White House have denied any sexual encounter took place.

In the months before the election, when Mr. Trump reshuffled his campaign for a third time and named Steve Bannon as campaign chief, Mr. Cohen told associates he had expected to be tapped for the role, according to people familiar with the matter. He also told people at the time he expected to be named White House chief of staff, people familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Trump decided that bringing Mr. Cohen inside the White House carried too many risks, according to people familiar with the discussions. Mr. Trump privately has described Mr. Cohen as a “bull in a china shop,” who when brought in to fix a problem sometimes breaks more china, according to a person close to the president.

On Jan. 5, 2017, two weeks before the inauguration, Mr. Cohen, camped in his cluttered office on the 26th floor of Trump Tower, a few doors away from the president-elect, still didn’t know what his future role would be.

Mr. Cohen juggled two phones with the backdrop of mixed martial-arts paraphernalia in his office. Mr. Trump “doesn’t operate with timelines,” Mr. Cohen explained to a reporter. Then he corrected himself: “I am not a timeline item,” he said. “He knows that an hour before he leaves, if he calls me and says, ‘I need you in D.C.,’ I’ll be there.”

About a week later, Mr. Cohen had grown more frustrated. He still hadn’t solidified his role. “I still don’t know exactly what I’m going to do, whether I need to stay here for a while or go to D.C.,” he said in a phone interview. “It’s crazy we’re talking about this three, four days before which everybody starts heading down and I have no idea.”

Mr. Cohen said he believed he might become Mr. Trump’s personal attorney, which he said would keep their communications confidential. “My sole purpose is to protect him and the family from anyone and anything,” he said in the January interview.

The conversation occurred less than three months after his deal with Ms. Clifford—then not publicly known—in which Mr. Cohen has said he used his home-equity line to finance an agreement in which she promised not to discuss her allegation of a 2006 sexual encounter.

Federal investigators are now probing whether the payment violated campaign-finance or other laws. Mr. Cohen has denied wrongdoing.

In a Fox News interview Thursday, Mr. Trump said of the Cohen investigation: “I’ve been told I’m not involved.” He added of his longtime lawyer: “From what I can tell, he did nothing wrong.”

Since the recent raids, which were approved by a federal judge, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump have argued that the government punctured attorney-client privilege in its seizure of his records.

Mr. Cohen has long surrounded himself with the trappings of wealth. In the Long Island enclave where he grew up, prep-school classmates recall him being part of a crowd of kids who flaunted family money and wore flashy brands. Mr. Cohen drove to law school in a Jaguar, two of his law school classmates recall.

Mr. Cohen, who as a teenager frequented Brooklyn’s ethnic Russian neighborhoods and married into a Ukrainian family, cultivated a rough-and-tumble, streetwise image.

Gregory Ehrlich invited Mr. Cohen to his wedding and was amused to hear he bragged to another guest that he belonged to the Russian mob. Mr. Ehrlich, who is now estranged from Mr. Cohen, said he doesn’t believe his former friend had any such ties.

Mr. Cohen joined the Trump Organization in 2007, after years of practicing law and doing business deals on his own, holding the title of Mr. Trump’s special counsel.

Mr. Trump didn’t always demonstrate respect for his employee. After saying he’d attend Mr. Cohen’s son’s bar mitzvah in 2012, Mr. Trump was late, and the blessings were delayed, according to an attendee.

After Mr. Trump arrived, he gave a speech, telling guests he hadn’t planned to come, but he relented after Mr. Cohen had repeatedly called him, his secretary and his children begging him to appear, the attendee said. The guests laughed because “everyone knew it was very realistic-sounding,” the attendee added.

Mr. Cohen found himself on the outside during the presidential transition, said a person close to Mr. Trump. He tried to find a role for himself by building bridges between Mr. Trump and the business community, but never got traction, this person said.

During the inaugural festivities, Mr. Cohen and his guests weren’t given priority access to the festivities, the person said, noting that the hurt was visible on Mr. Cohen’s face: “He was always just at the edges.”

Now on his own, Mr. Cohen has had mixed success in business since Mr. Trump went to Washington. He re-established a solo legal practice, taking space on the 23rd floor of a skyscraper in Rockefeller Center, in the law and lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs, less than half a mile from his old office at Trump Tower.

Under a “strategic alliance” with Squire Patton Boggs, Mr. Cohen received an annual fee of $500,000 from the firm for business development, according to court documents and a firm spokesman. His agreement with the firm also entitled him to a percentage of the fees the firm received from the five clients he referred, according to court documents.

His work for the firm appeared to be anchored in Washington, D.C. He was recruited by Edward Newberry, a top lobbyist in D.C. and global managing partner at the firm, said a person familiar with the matter. A firm spokesman declined to make Mr. Newberry available for comment.

Some firm partners opposed the alliance, because they weren’t privy to the terms of the agreement and feared Mr. Cohen’s reputation would jeopardize that of Squire Patton Boggs, people familiar with the matter said.

Asked for comment, a firm spokesman referred the Journal to a recent court filing by prosecutors opposing Mr. Cohen’s challenge to the search warrants executed against his property. The filing says Mr. Cohen “maintained complete independence” from the firm, used a separate computer server and had an office that locked with a key the law firm didn’t have.

Earlier this month, on the day of the FBI raid, Squire Patton Boggs said it was ending its relationship with Mr. Cohen, “mutually and in accordance with the terms of the agreement.”

Mr. Cohen also went into business with 4C Health Solutions, a Midlothian, Va.-based startup that works with governments and companies to help them detect questionable or fraudulent billing.

A consulting agreement reviewed by the Journal entitles Mr. Cohen to a 5% commission on contracts he delivers for the company, as well as the possibility of earning equity. ​The company told the Journal last year that it was in the hunt for large federal contracts, but more recently it has focused on states and the private sector, said Chief Executive David Adams.

Mr. Adams said Mr. Cohen has advised 4C on capital structure and introduced executives to potential clients, but the company has “paid zero dollars to Mr. Cohen,” because he hasn’t brought in any business.

The company last year said Mr. Cohen would join the board but later reversed itself to avoid unwanted attention, according to Tommy Thompson, the former Republican Wisconsin governor, who is chairman of 4C’s board.

Mr. Cohen, asked about the consulting agreement in January, said in an email he was “confused as to how or why you question my involvement in a startup company.”

It is unclear what work, if any, Mr. Cohen performed for Mr. Trump since the election. There is no known record of his involvement in legal matters for the president since the start of the Trump administration.

In the Jan. 5, 2017, interview, Mr. Cohen said: “Let’s just say I have no shortage of work. It encompasses all aspects of his life from his business to the personal,” adding: “It’s private between Mr. Trump and myself unless it’s made public because of a lawsuit or a news story.”

Mr. Trump said Thursday on Fox News that Mr. Cohen has done “a tiny, tiny little fraction” of his legal work, including “this crazy Stormy Daniels deal he represented me on.”

Mr. Cohen was one of Mr. Trump’s fiercest defenders last year, on Twitter and elsewhere. On May 24, he urged followers to retweet “if every morning you wake up and thank the Lord that @POTUS @realDonaldTrump won the election! I do…”

Privately, Mr. Cohen already had begun complaining to associates, both about being left in New York and about Mr. Trump’s then-failure to repay him for the $130,000 he had drawn off his home-equity line to pay Ms. Clifford, people familiar with the matter say.

Mr. Cohen even was contemplating “defecting” from Mr. Trump, according to a person familiar with these conversations. Mr. Cohen stopped complaining about Mr. Trump not repaying him around mid-2017, according to another person familiar with the situation. Mr. Cohen has said he wasn’t repaid by the Trump Organization or Mr. Trump’s campaign, but has declined to answer questions about whether Mr. Trump himself repaid him.

After a video appeared on TMZ showing Mr. Cohen and Mr. Cuban at the Time Warner Center for their November 2017 breakfast, Mr. Trump called Mr. Cohen to complain, a person familiar with the conversation said.

Mr. Cohen sought to reassure him. “No boss, I had breakfast with him to set him straight. I told him he has to respect the office, to respect you,” Mr. Cohen said, according to this person.

Mr. Cohen said later in the conversation: “Boss, I miss you so much. I wish I was down there with you,” the person said. “It’s really hard for me to be here.”

In the weeks since the FBI raid, Mr. Cohen has been out on the town, smoking cigars with friends and frequenting tony restaurants such as Nobu in midtown, in what some who know him interpret as an attempt to show he isn’t frightened of what the investigation will bring.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 22:47 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Wat bedoelde Trump trouwens in het telefoongesprekrant met Fox & Friends toen hij zei "They are all, I don't mean Democrats, I mean, they are the real deal."

Fox & Friends abruptly ends unhinged interview with President Trump

1:07

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 17:34 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
[REALLY REALLY BREAKING] Senate panel advances legislation to protect Robert Mueller from firing (WaPo)

[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 23:16 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Dit nieuws is denk ik echt onderschat. Dat betekent dus dat een aanzienlijk deel van de belangrijke republikeinen breken met McConnel hierover. Grassley is in de senaat echt geen nobody ofzo.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 00:03 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Echt impact gaat het niet hebben, het haalt de 60 stemmen niet, laat staan dat het het Huis haalt, laat al helemaal staan dat het vetoproof er doorheen komt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 00:17 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Sowieso heb je voor een stemming van 14-7, waar de verhouding 11-10 is, 4 "muitende" republikeinen nodig, naast dat het hoofd het in stemming wil brengen (wat bij de huidige anti-democratische/pro-despotische houding van de republikeinen best wel soms een issue is).

Ik vind dat niet niks. Sterker, weet je hoeveel dat in verhouding is naar de hele senaat? 4/11 * 51 + 49 = 67,5%

Edit: En nu ik deze cijfers eruit kreeg vraag ik me dan weer af of dat dan weer toeval was ...

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 00:30 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Op die manier kun je natuurlijk niet rekenen. Je moet het per persoon bekijken, het is niet alsof je nu deze verhouding naar de gehele Senaat kan transponeren. De types aan Republikeinse kant die dit nu hebben gesteund zijn in de hele senaat ook (nagenoeg) de enige Republikeinen die het steunen. Ze komen nooit bij 60.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 22:22 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
In Trump's first year, FISA court denied record number of surveillance orders
[..]

Curieus.

quote:

Don't Read Too Much Into the Jump in Rejected FISA Applications

Recent headlines about foreign intelligence surveillance—e.g., “In Trump’s first year, FISA court denied record number of surveillance orders”—are misleading.

The headlines are based on this year’s public report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), which says that in 2017, the FISA Court denied 26 FISA applications in full, and 50 applications in part. The news media, amplified by social media, say that those numbers are significant when “compared to 21 orders between when the court was first formed in 1978 and President Barack Obama’s final year in office in 2016.”

That claim is misleading because it rests on an apples-to-oranges comparison. In particular, the AO’s report counts “denials” differently than the Department of Justice, whose reports are the source of the long-term historical data. The Justice Department has yet to issue its 2017 report, though it will likely do so very soon. But in the meantime, the AO, Justice Department, and the FISA Court have all tried to make this clear:

• As last year’s Justice Department report explained on page one, “Unlike the Government,” the AO “reports the number of proposed applications rather than the number of final filed applications" (italics in original).
• As this year’s AO report explains in the header for table one, “Some of the statistics reported herein differ from those in comparable reports prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) because those agencies track and tabulate actions taken only with respect to final applications and certifications.”
• As the FISA Court explained in 2013, in a letter that is available on the court’s public website, “the annual statistics provided to Congress by the Attorney General ... frequently cited to in press reports as a suggestion that the Court's approval rate is over 99% ... reflect only the number of final applications submitted to and acted on by the Court. These statistics do not reflect the fact that many applications are altered prior to final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them" (italics in original).
All of these documents are saying the same thing: that a “denial” in the AO reports is not the same thing as a “denial” in the Justice Department reports. To make this point more concrete, consider a scenario in which the government files a proposed (read-ahead) copy of a FISA application, the court’s legal advisors inform the department that the application is likely to be denied by the judge assigned to review it, and the department withdraws the application such that the judge never formally rules. In the AO reporting, this counts as a “denial.” In the Justice Department reporting, it doesn’t count at all.

A lesser problem with the headlines is that in calendar year 2016—the final year of the Obama administration—the AO reported nine partial and 26 full denials. Limiting consideration to traditional FISA applications for electronic surveillance and physical searches, the calendar year 2017 numbers from the AO reflect 353 applications modified, 47 denied in part, and 24 denied in full, with the corresponding numbers from calendar year 2016 at 280, 26, and 8, respectively. So the numbers have increased since last year—but not in the massive way that the headlines would suggest.

quote:

President Donald Trump issued a veiled warning to nations that don’t support the North American bid to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 01:39:32 The U.S. has put together a STRONG bid with Canada & Mexico for the 2026 World Cup. It would be a shame if countries that we always support were to lobby against the U.S. bid. Why should we be supporting these countries when they don’t support us (including at the United Nations)? reageer retweet

Members of soccer’s international governing body, FIFA’s Congress, will meet in Moscow on June 13 to select the host. The bidding process will reopen if voters decide neither Morocco nor North America is appropriate.

The U.S. last hosted the tournament in 1994, with games taking place in nine cities across the country.

The 2018 World Cup kicks off in Russia on June 14. The U.S. men’s national team did not qualify.

quote:

America hasn’t always, or even usually, been governed by the best and the brightest; over the years, presidents have employed plenty of knaves and fools. But I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything like the collection of petty grifters and miscreants surrounding Donald Trump. Price, Pruitt, Zinke, Carson and now Ronny Jackson: At this point, our default assumption should be that there’s something seriously wrong with anyone this president wants on his team.

Still, we need to keep our eye on the ball. The perks many Trump officials demand — the gratuitous first-class travel, the double super-secret soundproof phone booths, and so on — are outrageous, and they tell you a lot about the kind of people they are. But what really matters are their policy decisions. Ben Carson’s insistence on spending taxpayer funds on a $31,000 dining set is ridiculous; his proposal to sharply raise housing costs for hundreds of thousands of needy American families, tripling rents for some of the poorest households, is vicious.

And this viciousness is part of a broader pattern. Last year, Trump and his allies in Congress devoted most of their efforts to coddling the rich; this was obviously true of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but even the assault on Obamacare was largely about securing hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the wealthy. This year, however, the G.O.P.’s main priority seems to be making war on the poor.

SPOILER

That war is being fought on multiple fronts. The move to slash housing subsidies follows moves to sharply increase work requirements for those seeking food stamps. Meanwhile, the administration has been granting Republican-controlled states waivers allowing them to impose onerous new work requirements for recipients of Medicaid — requirements whose main effect would probably be not more work, but simply fewer people getting essential health care.

Even the administration’s de facto financial deregulation — its systematic gutting of consumer financial protection — should be seen largely as an attack on the least well off, since poor families and less educated workers are the most likely victims of exploitative bankers.

The interesting question is not whether Trump and friends are trying to make the lives of the poor nastier, more brutal and shorter. They are. The question, instead, is why.

Is it about saving money? Conservatives do complain about the cost of safety net programs, but it’s hard to take those complaints seriously coming from people who just voted to explode the budget deficit with huge tax cuts. Moreover, there’s good evidence that some of the programs under attack actually do what tax cuts don’t: eventually pay back a significant part of their upfront costs by promoting better economic performance.

For example, the creation of the food stamp program didn’t just make the lives of recipients a bit easier. It also had major positive impacts on the long-term health of children from poor families, which made them more productive as adults — more likely to pay taxes, less likely to need further public assistance.

The same goes for Medicaid, where new studies suggest that more than half of each dollar spent on health care for children eventually comes back as higher tax receipts from healthier adults.

What about the idea that anti-poverty programs create a “poverty trap,” reducing the incentive for people to work their way to a better life? That’s a very popular notion on the right. But the reality is that there are very few Americans getting food stamps or Medicaid who could and should be working but aren’t.

It’s true that some calculations indicate that means-tested programs — programs available only to those with sufficiently low incomes — can create disincentives for working and earning. But the evidence suggests that while safety net programs have some adverse effect on incentives, it’s a much smaller effect than many policymakers believe.

Furthermore, we could reduce those disincentives by making programs more generous, not less — providing more aid to the near-poor rather than less aid to the poor. Somehow, conservatives never seem to consider that option.

So what’s really behind the war on the poor? Pretty clearly, the pain this war will inflict is a feature, not a bug. Trump and his friends aren’t punishing the poor reluctantly, out of the belief that they must be cruel to be kind. They just want to be cruel.

Glenn Thrush of The New York Times reported, “Mr. Trump, aides said, refers to nearly every program that provides benefits to poor people as welfare, a term he regards as derogatory.” And I guess you can see where that comes from. After all, he’s a self-made man who can’t attribute any of his own success to, say, inherited wealth. Oh, wait.

Seriously, a lot of people both in this administration and in Congress simply feel no empathy for the poor. Some of that lack of empathy surely reflects racial animus. But while the war on the poor will disproportionately hurt minority groups, it will also hurt a lot of low-income whites — in fact, it will surely end up hurting a lot of people who voted for Trump. Will they notice?

_{by Paul Krugman}

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 11:47 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
Geef ons WK Voetbal 2026! Of anders!!!1!1

Donald Trump Tries Bullying His Way Into Hosting The 2026 Soccer World Cup (HuffPo)

[..]

FIFA heeft nog niet officieel gereageerd, maar volgens een aantal Twieters heeft de VS zichzelf hiermee gediskwalificeerd. (Hoewel ik verwacht ladingen stoom uit Donalds oren te zien komen als hij straks de lijst met eisen en vrijstellingen van de FIFA onder ogen krijgt, plus de extra garanties die ze van een notoir onbetrouwbare onderhandelingspartner als de VS ongetwijfeld zullen eisen.)

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 14:26 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
Welke ambassadeur was het, die van de Amerikaanse ambassadeur te horen kreeg "dat is de de duurste stem die je ooit hebt uitgebracht",

quote:

WHO SAYS votes in the United Nations have little effect? Twenty years ago the U.S. was corralling together the coalition for Desert Storm—the first step for which, under the law-abiding Bush Senior, were U.N. Security Council resolutions authorizing action against Iraq. For most U.N. members, the annexation of a sovereign member state was sufficient cause for such a resolution. Although some members were concerned that Washington seemed to be rushing to a military resolution of the conflict rather than a diplomatic solution, Saddam Hussain’s idea of diplomacy probably won Kuwait and the U.S. more allies than otherwise.

However, temporary Security Council members Cuba—which, of course, had its own issues with the U.S.—and newly reunified Yemen resisted American pressure. They abstained and even voted against the resolutions moved by the U.S., which did not affect the comfortable majority enjoyed by Washington, with Gorbachev’s support.

Whether one agrees or not, that vote was brave, even foolhardy, of Yemen. A member of the U.S. delegation candidly told the Yemeni ambassador that it was “the most expensive vote you ever cast,” and indeed it was, and might even play a part in the chaos there today. Not only did Washington cut off its $70 million foreign aid program, but the Saudis also abandoned their long-standing treaty with Yemen which allowed its nationals preferential treatment as immigrant workers. The Kingdom and the Gulf states brusquely repatriated a million or so Yemenis, whose missing remittances over the past two decades have contributed to the poverty and underdevelopment of the state.

https://www.wrmea.org/201(...)ty-council-veto.html

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 19:45 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

dan geef je gelijk aan uit wat voor hout die aanhangers gesneden zijn. Misschien moeten ze zich eens met iets anders bezig houden dan politiek.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 19:42 schreef Ringo het volgende:

[..]

Zijn fanatieke aanhang kun je dan ook het beste beschouwen als een hospitaal vol terminale kankerpatiënten, daarvoor is geen redding mogelijk. Richt je op de mensen in wier brein nog wel gezonde cellen willen groeien.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2018 19:26 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Niet? Michele Bachmann om er eens een te noemen uit mijn hoofd. Gohmert? Wilson? Allen West?

De lijst is lang, hoor.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 16:46 schreef DeParo het volgende:
De rol van de Trump-administratie in het vredesproces tussen beide Korea's verdient lof.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 16:46 schreef DeParo het volgende:
De rol van de Trump-administratie in het vredesproces tussen beide Korea's verdient lof.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 18:48 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Kun je beschrijven wat deze rol geweest is?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 18:48 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Kun je beschrijven wat deze rol geweest is?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 18:48 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Kun je beschrijven wat deze rol geweest is?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 18:57 schreef SureD1 het volgende:

[..]

Niet doen, daar is hij juist op uit

twitter:

Patterico twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 18:25:09 The rumors are true. There has been a mass firing at RedState, and those let go (including me) are all Trump critics. His supporters remain. reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 20:11 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Pat Meehan (R) van het zevende district van PA heeft vandaag zijn officiële ontslagbrief ingediend. Hij had al eerder aangegeven op te gaan stappen:
https://meehan.house.gov/(...)nnounces-resignation

Dit betekent dat er in dit district een verkiezing gehouden gaat worden, hoewel het district nog maar een paar maanden bestaat in deze vorm en er in november ook al verkiezingen zijn. Vrij nutteloze bezigheid dus, maar het levert waarschijnlijk wel weer een interessante indicator richting de midterms op.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 15:11 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Yemen, in 1990.

[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 20:18 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Dat district ziet er vooralsnog als volgt uit:

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has lost his lawsuit claiming that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and special counsel Robert Mueller exceeded their authority in charging him with alleged crimes that he says have nothing to do with the 2016 campaign.

A judge said Friday that Manafort can't use this lawsuit to stop the special counsel's office from continuing to pursue an investigation of him.
"A civil case is not the appropriate vehicle for taking issue with what a prosecutor has done in the past or where he might be headed in the future," Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the US District Court in Washington, DC, wrote Friday.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 16:46 schreef DeParo het volgende:
De rol van de Trump-administratie in het vredesproces tussen beide Korea's verdient lof.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 03-01-2018 om 01:49:19 North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works! reageer retweet

quote:

House chaplain forced out by Ryan

..

Ryan’s and Pelosi’s offices agree that Pelosi was told in advance that the chaplain was leaving.

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Ryan, said it was Ryan’s decision, but declined to offer a reason for the move. She added that Pelosi and her office “were fully read in and did not object.”

"The speaker told Leader Pelosi that he would not move forward with the decision if she objected and she chose not to," Strong said.

In a separate statement to media outlets late Thursday, Strong said, "The speaker consulted with the minority leader, but the decision was his. He remains grateful for Father Conroy’s service."

Pelosi’s office disputed that the Democrat did not object.

“Leader Pelosi was given advance notice by Speaker Ryan," said a Pelosi spokesman, but she “also made it clear to Speaker Ryan that she disagreed with this decision.”

A second Democratic aide said Conroy’s ouster was “largely driven by a speech on the tax bill that the Speaker didn't like.” But the source also offered a second reason.

“Some of the more conservative evangelical Republicans didn't like that the Father had invited a Muslim person to give the opening prayer,” the source said.

quote:

Ryan explains decision to dismiss House chaplain

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told the House Republican Conference Friday morning that he fired Chaplain Patrick Conroy because members felt like their “pastoral needs” were not being met and not for a political reason, according to several Republicans inside the room.

Ryan told members his decision to ask Conroy to step aside had nothing to do with politics, a policy conflict or a prayer.

A number of lawmakers had approached Ryan and told him they needed someone in the chaplain’s role who could offer more “spiritual counseling,” according to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who attended the meeting.

Ryan agreed, he told the members.

SPOILER

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) also told The Hill that Ryan insisted during the private meeting that the dismissal was not done for any politician reasons, but because it was just “time for a change.”

Conroy had replaced Fr. Daniel P. Coughlin in May of 2011. Coughlin, the first Catholic priest to hold the chaplain post, had been in the spot for more than 11 years.

The Hill reported Thursday that Ryan forced out Conroy, who had been in the role for seven years.

The news that Conroy had been pushed out was a surprise to many members who had thought that his retirement announced last week was voluntary.

Democratic lawmakers have said that they believe the reason that Conroy was pushed out was a prayer he gave that was perceived as critical of the GOP tax law.

Conroy later echoed a similar sentiment in an interview with The New York Times.

Some Catholic Republicans spoke up during the open-microphone portion of the meeting and pressed Ryan on his explanation. One of them was Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who said he regularly spoke with Conroy and had never heard any of his colleagues complain about him.

"I saw people walk up to him all the time, sit down with him. So I never heard any of these complaints before," King told reporters after the meeting. Ryan "just said he received so many complaints from members of the House about the lack of chaplain services. I never heard one of them. I’m not the Speaker, but I never heard [them]."

Some Democrats, up in arms over Conroy's removal, have voiced suspicions that Ryan had faced pressure from southern Republicans wary of Conroy's Catholicism, especially since the chaplain is a Catholic of the more liberal Jesuit order.

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) told reporters that Ryan said he received a number of “complaints” from members that their needs weren’t being met.

Suspicions among Catholic Democrats that Conroy's Catholicism played a role were bolstered Thursday night, when Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), a Southern Baptist Minister who heads the Republican Study Committee, promoted the notion that Conroy's replacement should have a family — a stipulation that would eliminate Catholic priests and nuns.

“I’m looking for somebody who has a little age, that has adult children, that kind of can connect with the bulk of the body here, Republicans and Democrats who are going through, back home the wife, the family," said Walker, who is heading the search committee charged with finding Conroy's replacement.

One GOP lawmaker said that there had been frustrations among some Republicans with Conroy. The lawmaker told The Hill that Conroy did not reach out to members of the GOP baseball team after last year’s shooting.

But Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), manager of the GOP baseball team, said that he and his sons had nothing but positive interactions with Conroy after the shooting, and pointed out that the chaplain led the prayer at first base before the congressional baseball game.

quote:

May all Members be mindful that the institutions and structures of our great Nation guarantee the opportunities that have allowed some to achieve great success, while others continue to struggle," Conroy said at the time. "May their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans."

quote:

Lawyer Who Was Said to Have Dirt on Clinton Had Closer Ties to Kremlin Than She Let On

MOSCOW — The Russian lawyer who met with Trump campaign officials in Trump Tower in June 2016 on the premise that she would deliver damaging information about Hillary Clinton has long insisted she is a private attorney, not a Kremlin operative trying to meddle in the presidential election.

But newly released emails show that in at least one instance two years earlier, the lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, worked hand in glove with Russia’s chief legal office to thwart a Justice Department civil fraud case against a well-connected Russian firm.

Ms. Veselnitskaya also appears to have recanted her earlier denials of Russian government ties. During an interview to be broadcast Friday by NBC News, she acknowledged that she was not merely a private lawyer but a source of information for a top Kremlin official, Yuri Y. Chaika, the prosecutor general.

“I am a lawyer, and I am an informant,” she said. “Since 2013, I have been actively communicating with the office of the Russian prosecutor general.”

Bron: NYT

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 21:18 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

http://thehill.com/homene(...)n-forced-out-by-ryan

[..]

http://thehill.com/homene(...)-closed-door-meeting
Meerdere leden bevestigen dat Ryan gezegd heeft dat meerdere leden geklaagd hadden. En nu gaat men een meer passende chaplain zoeken, iemand met een gezin, maar dat is niet om Katholieken uit te sluiten...

Z'n gebed op de dag dat men aan de Tax Bill begon:

[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 21:31 schreef Montov het volgende:

[..]

En het balletje rolt verder. En dit was de meeting waar Trump zelf ook nog een bullshit verklaring voor heeft opgeschreven, dus dit blijft een issue.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 16:52 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Het verslag van het republikeinse deel van het House Intelligence Committee is publiek gemaakt, althans, de delen die niet zwart zijn gekleurd: https://docs.house.gov/me(...)08023/HRPT-115-1.pdf

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 16:14:58 Just Out: House Intelligence Committee Report released. “No evidence” that the Trump Campaign “colluded, coordinated or conspired with Russia.” Clinton Campaign paid for Opposition Research obtained from Russia- Wow! A total Witch Hunt! MUST END NOW! reageer retweet

twitter:

JohnBrennan twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 17:29:46 A highly partisan, incomplete, and deeply flawed report by a broken House Committee means nothing. The Special Counsel’s work is being carried out by professional investigators—not political staffers. SC’s findings will be comprehensive & authoritative. Stay tuned, Mr. Trump.... https://t.co/Jx3jh8fomu reageer retweet

twitter:

seanmdav twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 20:22:25 James Clapper leaked to CNN's Jake Tapper about the dossier and lied about it. https://t.co/3j3toWR0mH reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 21:33 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 16:14:58 Just Out: House Intelligence Committee Report released. “No evidence” that the Trump Campaign “colluded, coordinated or conspired with Russia.” Clinton Campaign paid for Opposition Research obtained from Russia- Wow! A total Witch Hunt! MUST END NOW! reageer retweet

twitter:

JohnBrennan twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 17:29:46 A highly partisan, incomplete, and deeply flawed report by a broken House Committee means nothing. The Special Counsel’s work is being carried out by professional investigators—not political staffers. SC’s findings will be comprehensive & authoritative. Stay tuned, Mr. Trump.... https://t.co/Jx3jh8fomu reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 22:20 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

seanmdav twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 20:22:25 James Clapper leaked to CNN's Jake Tapper about the dossier and lied about it. https://t.co/3j3toWR0mH reageer retweet

ai

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 22:46 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:
Waarom probeer je Nintex iets uit te leggen? Dovemansoren en je weet het...

twitter:

RepAdamSchiff twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 22:44:19 We lay out some new facts:1.) Russians sought to establish a secret back channel with Trump campaign through NRA in May 2016 according to an email from Paul Erickson to Rick Dearborn & Jeff Sessions. They sought to make “first contact” at the NRA convention. See the email here: reageer retweet

twitter:

RepAdamSchiff twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 22:48:19 2.) Don Jr. had two calls with Emin Agalarov to pursue dirt Russians were promising as part of June 9, 2016 meeting. Sandwiched between these calls? A third call from a blocked number. We tried to subpoena call records to see if blocked number was Donald Trump, but Rs blocked us: reageer retweet

twitter:

RepAdamSchiff twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 22:53:00 3.) In light of the testimony of Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie in our investigation this week, as well as statements from Facebook, Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix certainly appears to have given false testimony under oath. Read it here: reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 23:16 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Met andere woorden, Putin wilde Trump uitnodigen voor een bezoekje aan het Kremlin?

Er is niets, 0, noppes, nada aan bewijs dat Trump zou hebben samengewerkt met de Russen.

quote:

Lawyer Who Was Said to Have Dirt on Clinton Had Closer Ties to Kremlin Than She Let On (NYTimes)

MOSCOW — The Russian lawyer who met with Trump campaign officials in Trump Tower in June 2016 on the premise that she would deliver damaging information about Hillary Clinton has long insisted she is a private attorney, not a Kremlin operative trying to meddle in the presidential election.

But newly released emails show that in at least one instance two years earlier, the lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, worked hand in glove with Russia’s chief legal office to thwart a Justice Department civil fraud case against a well-connected Russian firm.

Ms. Veselnitskaya also appears to have recanted her earlier denials of Russian government ties. During an interview to be broadcast Friday by NBC News, she acknowledged that she was not merely a private lawyer but a source of information for a top Kremlin official, Yuri Y. Chaika, the prosecutor general.

“I am a lawyer, and I am an informant,” she said. “Since 2013, I have been actively communicating with the office of the Russian prosecutor general.”

SPOILER

The previously undisclosed details about Ms. Veselnitskaya rekindle questions about who she was representing when she met with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and others at Trump Tower in Manhattan during the campaign. The meeting, one focus of the special counsel investigation into Russia’s election interference, was organized after an intermediary promised that Ms. Veselnitskaya would deliver documents that would incriminate Mrs. Clinton.

Ms. Veselnitskaya had long insisted that she met the president’s son, son-in-law and campaign chairman in a private capacity, not as a representative of the Russian government.

“I operate independently of any governmental bodies,” she wrote in a November statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I have no relationship with Mr. Chaika, his representatives and his institutions other than those related to my professional functions as a lawyer.”

But that claim had already been undercut last fall by revelations that her talking points for the Trump Tower meeting — detailing tax and financial fraud accusations against two Democratic Party donors tied to a Kremlin opponent — matched those in a confidential memorandum circulated by Mr. Chaika’s office.

And a sheaf of Ms. Veselnitskaya’s email correspondence released Friday appeared to show that her relationship with Mr. Chaika’s office is far closer than she has described.

The emails were obtained by Dossier, an organization set up by Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, a former tycoon who was stripped of his oil holdings, imprisoned and then exiled from his native Russia. He has emerged as a leading opponent of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

Shown copies of the emails by Richard Engel of NBC News, Ms. Veselnitskaya acknowledged that “many things included here are from my documents, my personal documents.” She told the Russian news agency Interfax on Wednesday that her email accounts were hacked this year by people determined to discredit her, and that she would report the hack to Russian authorities.

The Russian prosecutor general’s office did not respond to requests for comment. In an email, Ms. Veselnitskaya said she would respond in two weeks.

The exchanges document Mr. Chaika’s response to a Justice Department request in 2014 for help with its civil fraud case against a real estate firm, Prevezon Holdings Ltd., and its owner, Denis P. Katsyv, a well-connected Russian businessman.

Federal prosecutors say Ms. Veselnitskaya was the driving force on Mr. Katsyv’s defense team, a description she has echoed in court filings. In a declaration to the court, she identified herself as a lawyer in private practice, representing Mr. Katsyv and his firm.

The Justice Department prosecutors charged Mr. Katsyv’s firm in 2013 with using real estate purchases in New York to launder a portion of the profits from a tax scheme in Russia. They were seeking Russian bank, tax and court records, the type of documents that typically form the crux of civil money-laundering cases. The Justice Department asked the Russian government to keep the matter confidential, “except as is necessary to execute this request,” according to court documents. Russia and the United States have a mutual legal assistance treaty governing law-enforcement requests.

The emails indicate that a senior prosecutor on Mr. Chaika’s staff, Sergei A. Bochkaryov, worked closely with Ms. Veselnitskaya to craft the Russian government response. She knew him well enough to address him in friendly terms.

“Dear Sergei Aleksandrovich!” Ms. Veselnitskaya wrote on Aug. 2, 2014, in one of at least 11 emails exchanged. “I am sending you the edits in the draft response, as per instructions. I am ready to answer any questions that arise, at any time convenient for you.”

The language in their final email exchange matches that of the prosecutor general’s official response to the Justice Department.

The judge in the case later wrote that the Russian government had “spurned” the Justice Department’s request for evidence, instead sending a lengthy treatise on why Ms. Veselnitskaya’s client was innocent.

Ms. Veselnitskaya’s involvement in the official communications with the Russian government “raises serious questions about obstruction of justice and false statements,” said Jaimie Nawaday, a former assistant United States attorney in Manhattan who was a prosecutor on the case.

She said Ms. Veselnitskaya’s actions should be referred to the United States attorney’s office for investigation, including whether she misrepresented herself to the court. “It’s completely outrageous,” Ms. Nawaday said.

Asked about the Russian government’s culpability, Andrew Keane Woods, a professor at the University of Kentucky law school who specializes in international law, said, “If there was funny business, then they are not really complying with the terms of the treaty.” But, he added, “there is no clear sanction” for failing to comply.

Moscow’s refusal to provide records to the American prosecutors dealt a severe blow to the case. In the end, the Justice Department agreed to settle it for about $6 million. Prevezon did not admit fault.

Although Ms. Veselnitskaya appears to have influenced how the Russian prosecutor general’s office justified its decision, its refusal to cooperate was not unexpected. The tax fraud was uncovered by Sergei L. Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who was imprisoned and died in custody after disclosing the theft. Russian officials contend that the Magnitsky case, which became a cause célèbre in Washington, was a fraud concocted by the West to justify sanctions against Russian citizens.

The release of Ms. Veselnitskaya’s emails by Mr. Khodorkovsky marks a second foray by Russian opposition figures into the controversy over Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. In a telephone interview, Mr. Khodorkovsky said someone had deposited the email records anonymously into an electronic drop box maintained by his organization.

This year, Aleksei A. Navalny, a key opposition leader in Russia, also publicized videos that he said hinted at a role for Oleg V. Deripaska, a well-known Russian oligarch, in the Russian government’s efforts to meddle in the American political process. A spokesman for Mr. Deripaska said Mr. Navalny’s accusations were utterly false.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 00:12 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Jullie mekkeren over een of andere meeting, terwijl Trump het Noord Korea / Zuid Korea conflict na 65 jaar oplost.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 11:47 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
FIFA heeft nog niet officieel gereageerd, maar volgens een aantal Twieters heeft de VS zichzelf hiermee gediskwalificeerd. (Hoewel ik verwacht ladingen stoom uit Donalds oren te zien komen als hij straks de lijst met eisen en vrijstellingen van de FIFA onder ogen krijgt, plus de extra garanties die ze van een notoir onbetrouwbare onderhandelingspartner als de VS ongetwijfeld zullen eisen.)

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 00:38 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Als de VS het WK niet krijgt of dat de FIFA Trump dist (en dat kunnen ze, de VS is immers maar een kleine speler lijkt me), dan kunnen we nog jaren gefrustreerde tweets van ome Don verwachten

twitter:

NewsHour twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 22:40:00 WATCH: During an event with Team USA Olympians and Paralympians at the White House, President Trump said, "What happened with the Paralympics was so incredible and so inspiring to me. And I watched — it's a little tough to watch too much, but I watched as much as I could." https://t.co/geYUUu9vmg reageer retweet

quote:

FIFA points to ethics rules after Trump tweets threat to World Cup bid opponents (Reuters)

(Reuters) - President Donald Trump tweeted support for a U.S. bid to co-host the 2026 soccer World Cup with a veiled threat against nations that might oppose it, prompting soccer’s governing body to refer to guidelines that warn against political influence over bids.

Morocco is the only rival to a joint bid to stage the event from the United States, Canada and Mexico, with the FIFA Congress due to choose the hosts in Moscow on June 13.

“The U.S. has put together a STRONG bid w / Canada & Mexico for the 2026 World Cup,” Trump tweeted.

“It would be a shame if countries that we always support were to lobby against the U.S. bid. Why should we be supporting these countries when they don’t support us (including at the United Nations)?”

Soccer’s governing body FIFA has faced repeated ethics questions over past bids to host the tournament.

In a statement to Reuters, FIFA said: “As a general rule, we cannot comment on specific statements in connection with the bidding process. We can only refer to the FIFA Regulations for the selection of the venue for the final competition of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and in particular to the Bid Rules of Conduct incorporated therein.”

The Bid Rules of Conduct, online here, contain an explicit warning against activities by bidding country governments which "may adversely affect the integrity of the Bidding Process and create an undue influence on the Bidding Process."

Mexico’s president Enrique Pena Nieto responded positively to Trump on twitter.

“We can have differences but football unites us. Together we support the candidacy of Mexico, Canada and USA as the headquarters of the World Cup 2026,” he wrote.

The North American bid committee said it was pleased to have Trump’s support.

“From the beginning, we have received strong support from the Canadian, Mexican, and United States governments. We are grateful for that support and together our three countries are ready to welcome players and fans from around the world to an extraordinary FIFA World Cup in 2026.”

The Moroccan bid team declined to comment on Trump’s tweet.

The North American bid boasts large stadiums and excellent infrastructure but is no certainty to win the June vote.

The Morocco bid is expected to receive strong backing from FIFA’s African and Middle East countries.

France plans to back Morocco, the country’s football federation president told local media recently, while Russia, which will host the 2018 tournament from June 14-July 15, has said it will also vote for the north African nation’s bid.

The United States previously hosted the World Cup in 1994.

FIFA member countries receive one vote each, no matter their size.

twitter:

CREWcrew twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 22:40:06 Rudy Giuliani got leaked information that James Comey was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails in October 2016. We’re requesting documents on the leak.https://t.co/k5nQ0kfJq4 reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 16:51 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Hij moet je echt iets persoonlijks hebben aangedaan dat je dit soort vuilheden uit je toetsenbord krijgt zeg man wat schaamteloos.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 01:21 schreef Ringo het volgende:

[..]

Het is een nuchtere metafoor van een totaal verkankerde werkelijkheid, don’t blame the messenger.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 18:48 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Kun je beschrijven wat deze rol geweest is?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 17:19 schreef Toby56 het volgende:

[..]

Ja, het is tragisch.
David Dennison lijkt ons Wereldvrede te gaan brengen, maar Stormy Daniels gaat hem kruisigen.

Wie strijkt de 30 zilverlingen op?
Zijn er sowieso nog apostelen over als het zover is?

Let us pray...

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 02:23 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Achter de schermen hard gewerkt om te praten en te onderhandelen

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 08:37 schreef speknek het volgende:
Volgens China is de berg met het atoomprogramma van Noord Korea ingestort. Als je atoomprogramma op zijn gat ligt en Zuid Korea dus in principe in staat is je land over te nemen, is vrede een stuk aanlokkelijker totdat je weer nukes hebt. Kan zijn dat China dit alleen zegt om Trump de wind uit de zeilen te nemen, maar het klinkt mij wel logischer in de oren dan dat wat good cop bad cop posturing van een reality tv ster Kim Jong Un tot inkeer heeft gebracht.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 08:50 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Alleen een testlocatie, niet het gehele programma.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 16:47 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Wat een democratische opmerking zeg.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 10:21 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Het is een beetje als op voetbal gaan en vervolgens totaal wat anders gaan doen op het veld.

Men wil een politiek leider die vooral niet politiek correct is...

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 08:54 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Trumps voorstanders wijzen ook graag naar de woorden van de Zuid-Koreanen, die claimen dat de POTUS een bepalende rol heeft gespeeld bij het tot stand komen van het huidige vredesproces. Dat zijn inderdaad opvallende uitspraken die lijken te pleiten voor Trump.

Aan de andere kant kan ik mij ook niet aan de indruk onttrekken dat de Zuid-Koreanen, net als de rest van de wereld, weten dat Trump gevoelig voor complimentjes. Overlaad je hem met lof, dan is de kans kleiner dat hij het vredesproces frustreert of zelfs saboteert.

Maar goed, dat is natuurlijk slechts giswerk van mijn kant.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 10:32 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

Jammer dat je dat je belangrijker lijkt te vinden dat hij niet een grote hand hierin heeft gehad. Er is gewoon goed beleid uitgevoerd gelukkig en het resultaat is gewoon buitengewoon wie er dan ook aan heeft meegewerkt. Zo Xi ik het.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 08:54 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Trumps voorstanders wijzen ook graag naar de woorden van de Zuid-Koreanen, die claimen dat de POTUS een bepalende rol heeft gespeeld bij het tot stand komen van het huidige vredesproces. Dat zijn inderdaad opvallende uitspraken die lijken te pleiten voor Trump.

Aan de andere kant kan ik mij ook niet aan de indruk onttrekken dat de Zuid-Koreanen, net als de rest van de wereld, weten dat Trump gevoelig voor complimentjes. Overlaad je hem met lof, dan is de kans kleiner dat hij het vredesproces frustreert of zelfs saboteert.

Maar goed, dat is natuurlijk slechts giswerk van mijn kant.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 10:36 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Er is nog helemaal geen resultaat geboekt.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 10:36 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Er is nog helemaal geen resultaat geboekt.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 12:30 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Nouja, dat ze überhaupt al serieus praten over vrede is wel een resultaat, al heeft Trump daar verder weinig mee te maken. Kim heeft zijn kernwapens, dus die kan wat makkelijker open zijn op dit moment.

Trump richt zich vooral op denuclearisatie. Jammer voor hem is dat hij en Kim dat woord beide gebruiken, maar allebei anders zien. Trump wil dat Kim eenzijdig zijn kernwapens opgeeft, Kim wil dat zowel hij als Amerika de kernwapens gaan afbouwen. Met dat tweede gaat onze vredesduif natuurlijk nooit akkoord, die vind die dingen machtig mooi om te hebben, dus ik verwacht weinig spectaculaire ontwikkelingen van die top. Wat nu gebeurt is gaan ze sowieso niet overtreffen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 13:19 schreef remlof het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

Campaign launched to get Green Day's American Idiot to number 1 for Trump visit

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 13:22 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 13:27 schreef remlof het volgende:

[..]

Een normale volwassene zou hier inderdaad z'n schouders over ophalen, maar juist omdat Trump zo'n onvolwassen kleuter is raak je hem hier wel mee

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 08:54 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Trumps voorstanders wijzen ook graag naar de woorden van de Zuid-Koreanen, die claimen dat de POTUS een bepalende rol heeft gespeeld bij het tot stand komen van het huidige vredesproces. Dat zijn inderdaad opvallende uitspraken die lijken te pleiten voor Trump.

Aan de andere kant kan ik mij ook niet aan de indruk onttrekken dat de Zuid-Koreanen, net als de rest van de wereld, weten dat Trump gevoelig voor complimentjes. Overlaad je hem met lof, dan is de kans kleiner dat hij het vredesproces frustreert of zelfs saboteert.

Maar goed, dat is natuurlijk slechts giswerk van mijn kant.

quote:

Less than a week after North Korea signaled interest in participating in the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea, President Donald Trump reportedly asked South Korean President Moon Jae-in to publicly acknowledge his role in progressing the bilateral talks between North and South Korea, according to a Washington Post report.

Five days later, during his New Year’s press conference, Moon raised eyebrows after saying Trump deserved credit for facilitating the talks. Answering a reporter’s question, Moon grinned and said he believed the US president made a “huge” contribution to the first dialogue between North and South Korea in over two years, and said that he wanted “convey his thanks.”

Meanwhile, Trump touted his role in the negotiations that, at least on the surface, appeared to be progressing at the time.
Bron

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 13:47 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Trump heeft er al eerder op aangedrongen bij Moon toch vooral zijn rol in het geheel te benadrukken

[..]

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zaterdag 28-04-2018 om 04:04:31 House Intelligence Committee rules that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump Campaign and Russia. As I have been saying all along, it is all a big Hoax by the Democrats based on payments and lies. There should never have been a Special Counsel appointed. Witch Hunt! reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zaterdag 28-04-2018 om 03:29:34 (THREAD) There are bombshell revelations deeply damaging to Trump in the just-released HPSCI report written by Trump's allies and agents in the House. This thread discusses them via a deep dive into the timeline of events the GOP now seeks to obscure. Hope you'll read and share. https://t.co/3R2XJwaxlP reageer retweet

quote:

House investigators have released a highly anticipated report on Russia's election interference. Among the recommendations in the report, the lawmakers called for the repeal of a federal statute barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign countries for the United States without authorization.

Friday's report by the House Intelligence Committee came almost two months after the panel said it had finished its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and possible links to political campaigns. Investigators found no evidence that President Donald Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia, the report said, a finding that the president was quick to point out on Twitter on Friday.

The report also called for Congress to repeal the Logan Act, a statute that says private citizens cannot negotiate with foreign countries on behalf of the U.S. unless they are authorized to do so.

The statute has come up in discussions about Russia's election interference and possible coordination with the Trump campaign, which the Senate intelligence committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee and special counsel Robert Mueller continue to investigate. Former Trump campaign members such as former national security adviser Michael Flynn have pleaded guilty in the Mueller probe to lying to federal agents about their contacts with foreign nationals. Law scholars such as Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School have said that those contacts could constitute Logan Act violations.

Since Congress passed the Logan Act in 1799, there have been no convictions for violating it, the report pointed out.

Democrats on the committee have said that their Republican counterparts rushed the investigation and closed it prematurely. In a statement on Friday following the public release of the report, Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the panel, blamed Republicans for the "superficial and political nature" of the conclusions. Schiff said the Democrats will continue investigating the matter.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zaterdag 28-04-2018 om 05:25:22 A direct line of communication between the Kremlin-connected Agalarov family and the Trump family was open during the transition after Trump’s election, BuzzFeed News has learned. https://t.co/4ukzcf5ak2 reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zaterdag 28-04-2018 om 05:35:20 The “first of a series” of text messages was sent between Emin Agalarov and Don Jr. two days after the 2016 election, a source familiar with the communications told BuzzFeed News.The communications continued through at least December 2016. https://t.co/tRFnEVbiQh reageer retweet

quote:

A direct line of communication between the Kremlin-connected Agalarov family and the Trump family was open during the transition after President Donald Trump's presidential election, BuzzFeed News has learned.

The "first of a series" of text messages was sent between Emin Agalarov and Donald Trump Jr. two days after the 2016 election, a source familiar with the communications told BuzzFeed News.

The communications continued through at least mid-December 2016, according to information made public Friday.

It is not clear how many messages were sent, whether Trump Jr. sent any of them, or how many were sent by either party -- although BuzzFeed News confirmed that multiple messages were sent.

SPOILER

Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee revealed one of the text messages, from Dec. 13, 2016, in their "minority views" report on Friday -- one of several new pieces of information that suggest that the Trumps' relationship with the Agalarovs was much closer than the president and his family have said.

The Agalarovs and Trumps have a relationship dating back to 2013, when Trump and the Agalarovs -- father Aras (who has ties to Putin and whom Putin presented with the Order of Honor in 2013) and son Emin -- hosted the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.

When news of the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting broke in the summer of 2017, Donald Trump Jr. initially said that he "was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance" -- later clarifying that it was "an acquaintance [he] knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant."

In the days that followed, Trump Jr.'s lawyer -- Alan Futerfas, who currently represents the Trump Organization in the litigation over materials seized in the search of Michael Cohen's properties -- acknowledged that the meeting was set up by Rob Goldstone, Emin's music manager and the person who connected the Agalarovs with the Miss Universe pageant back in 2013.

The emails released by Trump Jr. later that week made clear that Goldstone suggested the meeting at the request of Emin and following a conversation that Aras had earlier that day with what Goldstone described as "the Crown prosecutor of Russia."

Despite that introduction and Trump Jr.'s infamous "if it's what you say I love it" response, the Trumps have sought to downplay the significance of the relationship since.

But as even House Republicans concede in the House Intelligence Committee report released Friday, "the Agalarovs were the driving force to arrange" the Trump Tower meeting.

In their response to the Republican report, the Democrats on Friday provided more detail about the relationship between the Trumps and the Agalarovs.

The report confirms an email exchange Trump Jr. released in July 2017 in which Trump Jr. and Goldstone were trying to set up a phone call between Trump Jr. and Emin on June 6, 2016. BuzzFeed News sought more information this past summer about whether any such calls took place, but no one would say -- until Friday, when the Democrats detailed two calls from a number that Trump Jr. told the committee was Emin's. A call came from "a 'blocked' number ... between the two calls."

"The first call occurred at 4:04 pm on June 6, 2916 [sic] - just 21 minutes after Goldstone emailed Trump Jr. to say that Emin Agalarov was 'on stage in Moscow but should be off within 20 minutes so I am sure can call,'" the report states. The blocked call came at 4:27 pm.

By 4:38 p.m., Trump Jr. sent Goldstone a follow-up email: "Rob thanks for the help. D"

Three days later, Trump Jr. -- along with Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner -- would host the Trump Tower meeting.

After the short meeting, according to the Democrats' report, the group -- excluding Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner -- went to the bar in Trump Tower. While there, Kaveladze took a call from Aras Agalarov.

The next day, Aras had "an expensive painting" delivered to Trump. The Democrats' report cites an email -- subject line, "Birthday gift for Mr. Trump" -- from Goldstone to Rhona Graff, Trump's longtime assistant.

A week later, the Democrats' report states, Trump sent Aras a thank-you note.

"There are few things better than receiving a sensational gift from someone you admire - and that's what I've received from you," Trump wrote to Aras. "You made my birthday a truly special event by your thoughtfulness - not to mention your remarkable talent. I'm rarely at a loss for words, but right now I can only say how much I appreciate your friendship and to thank you for this fantastic gift. This is one birthday that I will always remember."

Contacts between the Trumps and the Agalarovs continued after the election as well. While it has been known that the Agalarovs posted supportive messages on social media surrounding Trump's election and inauguration, it had not before Friday been known that they were directly communicating during that time as well.

In the Democrats' report, it notes one message sent by Emin to Trump Jr. on Dec. 13, 2016, posing a "quick question" for Trump Jr. According to the footnotes in the report, the text message was found among documents turned over to the committee by Trump Jr. labeled, "Text Messages from Emin Agalarov to Donald Trump Jr., November 10, 2016."

A source familiar with the messages told BuzzFeed News that the Nov. 10, 2016, date represents "the date of the first of a series" of messages between Trump Jr. and Emin. Based on the description in the Democrats' report, the text messages -- at least those between Nov. 10 and Dec. 13, 2016 -- fit on one page.

Emin's texts were not the only Agalarov communications to Trump associates that took place during the transition.

Goldstone, who had sent the email about Aras Agalarov's present for Trump to Graff in June, sent another email to Graff on Nov. 28, 2016.

"Aras Agalarov has asked me to pass on this document in the hope it can be passed on to the appropriate team." The attachment related to the Magnitsky Act.

In Trump Jr.'s second statement after the news of the Trump Tower meeting came out in July 2017, he referenced the Magnitsky Act by name, and said of the brief meeting, "That was the end of it and there was no further contact or follow-up of any kind. My father knew nothing of the meeting or these events."

Friday's report from the Democrats makes clear there was follow-up -- and precisely the follow-up Trump Jr. had told them to make at the meeting. In that second statement, Trump Jr. wrote that he had interrupted Veselnitskaya when she was talking about the sanctions law and told her "that her comments and concerns were better addressed if and when he held public office."

Graff forwarded Golstone's Nov. 28, 2016, email to Steve Bannon, then one of Trump's closest advisers, that same day.

She added a short note to the top: "The PE [President Elect] knows Aras well. Rob is his rep in the US and sent this on. Not sure how to proceed, if at all. R."

In addition to Goldstone, the attendees would include the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, who Trump Jr. has said he knew would be attending but claims not to have known her name; Ike Kaveladze, a longtime employee of the Agalarov business; Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist with ties to Russian intelligence; and Anatoli Samochornov, a Russian-American translator who served as Veselnitskaya's translator but has worked for the US State Department at other times.

Although expecting damaging information about Hillary Clinton, both the Republicans and Democrats' reports say the discussion quickly turned to the Magnitsky Act -- a set of sanctions against Russians and Russian businesses that are strongly opposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin -- and Putin's response to the law: banning adoptions of Russian children by Americans.

quote:

President Trump regularly complains about Democrats, but rarely is fully justified in his claims. In a tweet, he accused Democrats of “slow walking’ all of [his] nominations — hundreds of people. At this rate it would take 9 years for all approvals!” Nine years is a long time. Needless to say this caught our attention, and so, we did some math.

It has taken Trump much longer to get his appointees confirmed compared with other recent presidents. Compared with those other presidents, however, Trump has also been much slower to submit nominees. Plus, Democrats claim that too many of Trump’s nominees were poorly vetted or had incomplete documentation, leading to delays and Trump has not helped matters by forcing out or firing key Cabinet members. But putting all of this aside, it’s clear that Democrats have slowed the process on even noncontroversial nominees, using the cloture vote, just as Republicans did in 2014.

Given the slow pace, we’re not sure the president could come up with an additional 900 names in the next three years. But the math adds up — it would take 9.4 years for Trump’s nominees to be confirmed. And so, we awarded the president the elusive Geppetto Checkmark!

However...

SPOILER

...the story doesn’t end there. After this Fact Check published, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) office cried foul. We ran the numbers again — this time assuming the rate of nominees subjected to a cloture vote would remain the same. We also accounted for the number of days a cloture vote takes and the time the Senate isn’t in session and presumably, is not passing laws. With all of this considered, we found it would take 4.3 years to confirm Trump’s nominees, if the Senate did nothing but confirm nominees. Shorter, but still far from a walk in the park since it extends beyond the president’s term.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 10:21 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Het is een beetje als op voetbal gaan en vervolgens totaal wat anders gaan doen op het veld.

Men wil een politiek leider die vooral niet politiek correct is...

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 02:30 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Heb je hier enig bewijs voor?

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 18:04 schreef Tchock het volgende:
Laten we voor we Trump al dan niet met lof overladen eerst even wachten tot er daadwerkelijk iets gebeurt. Voorlopig loopt hij zelfs de datum van het overleg te teasen, laat staan dat er een concrete stap richting het vredesproces wordt gezet.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 17:19 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Hoezo? Het zijn verkiezingen en mensen hebben gestemd. Wat hadden ze dan precies anders moeten doen?

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 18:41 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Prima dat mensen op hem gestemd hebben. Ik zie zat fans op de fp die dat niet hebben gedaan, maar die vinden het super belangrijk dat politici zich vooral niet moeten bezighouden met politiek.

Een rechter die de (grond)wet hanteert wordt als vijand gezien, politieke processen worden overgeslagen, pers wordt gezien als staatsvijand en ga zo maar door. Tot zover de 'democratie'.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 18:42 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Via democratische processen kun je ook iemand verkiezen die zelf lak heeft aan de democratie. Of althans, daar lak aan heeft als het hem slecht uitkomt.

Trump valt gewoon alles en iedereen aan die kritisch op hem is. Hij is wat dat betreft wel vrij rechtlijnig.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 18:47 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Openlijk de vrije media als staatsvijand neerzetten als president of leider lijkt mij in alle gevallen zeer ongewenst en werkt opruiend. Dat toejuichen lijkt mij niet fris.

quote:

Al begrijp ik dat zoiets niet strafbaar is (het toejuichen).

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 18:39 schreef Tchock het volgende:
Stoere oneliner, Nintex, maar het lijkt me niet meer dan normaal te wachten tot er resultaat is voor je het resultaat gaat beoordelen. Dat geldt ten positieve of ten negatieve, dus evengoed voor mensen die nu lopen te verklaren dat Trump er niets mee te maken heeft. De top moet überhaupt nog plaatsvinden.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 19:00 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Het feit dat de Koreaanse leiders elkaar gesproken hebben en de CIA op bezoek is geweest bij Kim is al historisch te noemen. Zeker in vergelijking met de afgelopen 10 a 15 jaar.

De laatste die enigszins probeerde het conflict op te lossen was Bill Clinton. Top of niet, het is nu al een hele grote vooruitgang. Het ontdooien van de koude oorlog gebeurde op een soortgelijke manier. Kim heeft al tegen Moon gezegd dat hij zich schaamt voor de infrastructuur in zijn eigen land, nadat hij hem uitnodigde om naar Pyongyang te komen.

quote:

President Moon’s advisers insisted that the vagueness of the agreement published on Friday was a virtue, not a defect, and that it would be up to others to work out the details. But they also insist that “Chairman Kim,” as they called the young leader, is driven by different imperatives than his father and grandfather were. “They want a Trump Tower and a McDonald’s,” Moon Chung-in, a special adviser to the South Korean president, insisted in an interview with Christiane Amanpour on CNN on Friday.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 19:09 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 19:11 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Volgens mij is die dikke Kim die vadsige Trump keihard aan het trollen.

quote:

President Trump is privately rejecting the growing consensus among Republican leaders that they may lose the House and possibly the Senate in November, leaving party officials and the president’s advisers nervous that he does not grasp the gravity of the threat they face in the midterm elections.

Congressional and party leaders and even some Trump aides are concerned that the president’s boundless self-assurance about politics will cause him to ignore or undermine their midterm strategy. In battleground states like Arizona, Florida and Nevada, Mr. Trump’s proclivity to be a loose cannon could endanger the Republican incumbents and challengers who are already facing ferocious Democratic headwinds.

Republicans in Washington and Trump aides have largely given up assuming the president will ever stick to a teleprompter, but they have joined together to impress upon him just how bruising this November could be for Republicans — and how high the stakes are for Mr. Trump personally, given that a Democratic-controlled Congress could pursue aggressive investigations and even impeachment.

Over dinner with the president and other Republican congressional leaders this month, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, phrased his advice for the president in the form of a reminder: Mr. Trump should never forget his central role in the 2018 campaign, Mr. McConnell said, explaining that Republicans’ prospects are linked to what he says and does and underscoring that their one-seat advantage in the Senate was in jeopardy.

If Mr. McConnell’s warning was not clear enough, Marc Short, the White House’s legislative liaison, used the dinner to offer an even starker assessment. The G.O.P.’s House majority is all but doomed, he said. But Mr. Trump was not moved. “That’s not going to happen,” he said at different points during the evening, shrugging off the grim prognoses, according to multiple officials briefed on the conversation.

SPOILER

The disconnect between the president — a political novice whose confidence in his instincts was grandly rewarded in 2016 — and more traditional party leaders demonstrates the depth of the Republicans’ challenges in what is likely to be a punishing campaign year.

Mr. Trump is as impulsive as ever, fixated on personal loyalty, cultivating a winner’s image and privately prodding Republican candidates to demonstrate their affection for him — while complaining bitterly when he campaigns for those who lose. His preoccupation with the ongoing Russia investigation adds to the unpredictability, spurring Mr. Trump to fume aloud in ways that divide the G.O.P. and raising the prospect of legal confrontations amid the campaign. And despite projecting confidence, he polls nearly all those who enter the Oval Office about how they view the climate of the midterms.

According to advisers, the president plans to hold a fund-raiser a week in the months to come and hopes to schedule regular rallies with candidates starting this summer. But there is not yet any coordinated effort about where to deploy Mr. Trump, and there are divisions within his ever-fractious circle of advisers about how to approach the elections.

Among his close associates, a debate is raging about whether to focus on House races that could earn the president chits with Republican lawmakers who might ultimately vote on impeachment, or to dig in to defend the party’s tenuous Senate majority.

“We need to be unified, and I know this is a frustrating business that we’re involved in, but rather than having circular firing squads, we need to be shooting outward,” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Senate Republican, said of the White House.

Nearly every modern president has lost seats in his first midterm election, and Bill Clinton saw both the House and the Senate fall to Republicans in 1994. But given Mr. Trump’s polarizing administration, the results this fall are likely to hinge more than ever on the man in the White House.

Anger toward Mr. Trump has become a crucial motivating tool for Democrats. Already, Republicans have spent millions on House special elections in strongly conservative areas of Pennsylvania and Arizona, losing one seat and retaining the other by a relatively narrow margin.

At the same time, Republican leaders believe he is an essential force for savaging Senate Democrats and turning out voters on the right.

Yet congressional leaders remain deeply frustrated about Mr. Trump’s improvisational pronouncements. At the White House dinner, Mr. McConnell raised one such policy and expressed hope that Mr. Trump could resolve the matter of his proposed tariffs, which have instilled deep worry among farm-state Republicans.

“If we can get trade resolved that would be exceptionally important,” Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma said when asked in an interview how the president could help in the midterms.

Other Republican lawmakers have begun pleading with the president to be disciplined and hold up the growing economy and sweeping tax overhaul they passed in December.

“He’s always defied political convention, but this is a political convention I think that we should adhere to,” said Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, “which is to focus on that which is important to people, which is their wallet.”

When House Speaker Paul D. Ryan hosted a meeting of major Republican donors in Austin, Tex., this month, the head of the Congressional Leadership Fund, the primary House G.O.P. super PAC, delivered a presentation with a plea that the party “must sell the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” to retain the House.

Mr. Trump, though, has little appetite to carry a singular tax-cuts-and-the-economy argument and is grousing about what he sees as uninspired messaging by congressional leaders like Mr. Ryan.

Appearing in West Virginia this month at an event meant to showcase the party’s tax agenda, Mr. Trump discarded his prepared remarks — even describing them as “boring” — and turned to more incendiary issues like immigration.

Eric Beach, a Republican strategist who leads a pro-Trump political committee, Great America PAC, said Mr. Trump was rightly suspicious of the political formula favored by conventional Republican leaders like Mr. Ryan and Mr. McConnell.

“He doesn’t think that’s how you win elections because that’s not how he won his election,” Mr. Beach said. “He knows and understands that the core issues of today are illegal immigration — including building the wall — and trade inequity.”

Congressional leaders have left little doubt in private that they see Mr. Trump as a political millstone for many of the party’s candidates. In recent weeks, Mr. McConnell has confided to associates that Republicans may lose the Senate because of the anti-Trump energy on the left.

And at Mr. Ryan’s retreat, a Republican pollster, Kristen Soltis Anderson, identified Mr. Trump as a major source of the party’s woes, according to multiple attendees. Ms. Anderson noted that his job approval was markedly weaker than past presidents, including President Barack Obama in the months before Democrats lost 63 House seats in the 2010 elections.

Mr. Trump, for his part, has complained to associates about having been deployed to campaign for relatively weak Republicans like Roy S. Moore, who lost last year’s Senate race in Alabama, and Rick Saccone, who lost the special House election in Pennsylvania last month.

He has taken the losses personally, particularly in Alabama, because the vacancy there was a result of his decision to make Jeff Sessions attorney general, an appointment he has since regretted. Mr. Trump has subsequently blamed others in the party for thrusting him into episodes of humiliating defeat.

The scars from those races have made Mr. Trump reluctant to weigh in on the race that Senate Republicans most want his imprint on right now: the contest to replace Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who resigned this month.

The president met this month with Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, the Republican appointee there and the favorite of the party establishment. Reflecting his fixation on personal loyalty, Mr. Trump quizzed Ms. Hyde-Smith on whether she had supported another candidate for president in 2016 before endorsing him. When Ms. Hyde-Smith said she had not, the president exclaimed that he needed more supporters like her in Washington, people briefed on the meeting said.

But his staff pointedly told her not to request the president’s endorsement at the meeting. White House officials have created a series of fund-raising and organizational benchmarks that they want to see the new senator reach before they make a decision — a sign of how wary they are of entangling a president sensitive to political setbacks in elections that Republicans are not guaranteed to win.

Despite the lingering disputes with congressional Republicans, White House officials say the president is eager to return to the campaign trail.

Although some Republicans in competitive states may not want to appear with Mr. Trump — Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, for example, has told associates he is unlikely to campaign with the president — there is no lack of lawmakers eager for his help.

Representative Lee M. Zeldin, Republican of New York, said he would welcome Mr. Trump on the trail anytime.

“I would expect the president and vice president to be in congressional districts all across the country,” Mr. Zeldin said. “I’ve gotten nothing but positive feedback on the desire of the president’s team to be as helpful as possible.”

Mr. Trump has also won praise on Capitol Hill for intervening in a handful of Senate races — including Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota and Ohio — that were threatening to grow messy.

What has stunned Republican veterans outside the White House is how, even 15 months into his presidency, Mr. Trump still lacks any unified political organization.

John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff and a retired Marine general, has scant political acumen. And while the White House political staff has sought to bring a measure of order, curbing some of the president’s knee-jerk endorsement tendencies, Mr. Trump does not necessarily view them as his primary political counselors.

This vacuum has, as is often the case with this White House, triggered fierce internecine scrapping among those vying for Mr. Trump’s ear.

The president’s announcement that Brad Parscale, his 2016 digital guru, would manage his 2020 re-election campaign caught many of his most senior advisers by surprise, according to multiple Republicans. And the hasty decision immediately raised suspicions it was part of a power play by Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, to isolate Corey Lewandowski, the president’s 2016 campaign manager and occasional adviser.

Mr. Parscale has rankled Trump advisers by giving the president a perpetually rosy assessment of his poll numbers. He often tells Mr. Trump his numbers have “never been higher,” according to two advisers.

Mr. Parscale has also irritated some Trump officials by attempting to take over the political portfolio, with his scheduling of meetings to devise an as-yet-unformed midterm strategy getting back to other factions.

But his ascension marks only the newest power center in Mr. Trump’s political orbit: There is his White House staff, his vice president, the Republican National Committee, his family, his campaign alumni, his super PAC, his congressional allies, his conservative media friends and now his re-election team.

All are expected to want a voice in Republican strategy for Mr. Trump in the midterms, adding only more chaos, as one White House official phrased it, to an already unruly presidency.

quote:

President Trump called on Saturday for the resignation of Senator Jon Tester, the Montana Democrat who helped thwart his effort to install the White House physician in the cabinet, suggesting that the president may try to exact retribution in the fall congressional elections in a state that he won by a wide margin.

Two days after the doctor, Ronny L. Jackson, withdrew from consideration for secretary of veterans affairs amid a flurry of reports about his conduct on the job, Mr. Trump made clear he did not intend to let the matter go. In a pair of early morning messages on Twitter, the president said the accusations raised by Mr. Tester against Dr. Jackson were fabricated.

“Allegations made by Senator Jon Tester against Admiral/Doctor Ron Jackson are proving false,” Mr. Trump wrote. “The Secret Service is unable to confirm (in fact they deny) any of the phony Democrat charges which have absolutely devastated the wonderful Jackson family. Tester should resign.”

He added: “The great people of Montana will not stand for this kind of slander when talking of a great human being. Admiral Jackson is the kind of man that those in Montana would most respect and admire, and now, for no reason whatsoever, his reputation has been shattered. Not fair, Tester!”

SPOILER

Mr. Tester fired back a few hours later with a statement noting that Mr. Trump had signed eight of the senator’s bills to make the Department of Veterans Affairs more accountable and responsive to veterans. “It’s my duty to make sure Montana veterans get what they need and have earned, and I’ll never stop fighting for them as their senator,” he said.

The president has been sharply criticizing Mr. Tester for days, singling out the Democrat while ignoring Republican opposition that had built to Dr. Jackson’s nomination. Mr. Tester, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, took the lead in publicly questioning Dr. Jackson’s record, but he had the support of Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, the Republican chairman of the committee, who signed a joint statement with him saying the issues should be investigated.

But Mr. Tester is from a conservative state that in 2016 supported Mr. Trump strongly, giving him 55.6 percent of its votes to 35.4 percent for Hillary Clinton. Even before the flap over Dr. Jackson, Mr. Trump and the Republicans had hoped to use the power of that 20-point margin to defeat Mr. Tester for re-election this fall and defend their narrow 51-seat majority in the Senate.

Mr. Tester released a list of accusations this week against Dr. Jackson alleging loose distribution of prescription drugs, a hostile work environment and drunkenness. The allegations, Mr. Tester said, were raised by more than 20 current and former military personnel who had worked with Dr. Jackson, whose White House medical unit is run by the military.

Several of those military officials also described their experiences and concerns about Dr. Jackson to reporters, although they spoke on the condition of anonymity because of their status as members of the military.

Dr. Jackson called the allegations false and had the support not just of Mr. Trump but also of some former aides to President Barack Obama who said they had never observed the alleged behavior while they worked in the White House. But Dr. Jackson pulled his nomination on Thursday, when it became clear he was unlikely to be confirmed.

The White House sought on Friday to refute one of the allegations, that he “got drunk and wrecked a government vehicle,” as Mr. Tester’s list put it. A search of government databases turned up no incident that matched that description, the White House said.

Three cases were found involving Dr. Jackson and a government vehicle, according to the White House: In one, he was rear-ended. In another, a bus sideswiped a mirror on his car. And in a third, a road rage episode, a driver punched through a window on Dr. Jackson’s car.

Mr. Tester said that he had not sought out the allegations aganist Dr. Jackson, but that military officers had come to the committee with their concerns, and that he had a duty to investigate them. “It’s about doing the best thing you can do to make sure you got a great country,” he said.

Despite Montana’s conservative tilt, Mr. Tester has appeared to be in good shape to win re-election, and he has expressed no regret and no public concern about the president’s threats. A former chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Mr. Tester has raised money at a prodigious rate, and had $6.8 million in his campaign account at the end of the last reporting period.

He has drawn a relatively undistinguished group of Republican challengers. Among them, Matt Rosendale, the state auditor, seems most likely to emerge as the nominee.

As it happens, Mr. Tester caught a significant break last year thanks to Mr. Trump: While national Republicans had settled on Ryan Zinke, then a House member, as the strongest possible challenger for Mr. Tester, Mr. Trump chose him to be interior secretary, removing him from the race.

But Mr. Trump’s easy victory in Mr. Tester’s state means his threats cannot be easily dismissed by Democrats. It is likely that Mr. Trump will expend much of his energy in the midterm elections on deep-red states with Democratic senators, including West Virginia, North Dakota and, evidently, Montana.

National groups are already spending money in the Montana race, with Americans for Prosperity, the organization funded by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch, and the Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic group, beginning new advertising campaigns this month.

quote:

The allegations were raised by more than 20 current and former military personnel who had worked with Dr. Jackson. Mr. Tester said that he had not sought out the allegations aganist Dr. Jackson, but that military officers had come to the committee with their concerns, and that he had a duty to investigate them.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 19:11 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Volgens mij is die dikke Kim die vadsige Trump keihard aan het trollen.

quote:

President Trump lost no time hailing the historic nature of Friday’s meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea. But the gauzy images and vows of peace by Kim Jong-un and his counterpart from the South, Moon Jae-in, have complicated Mr. Trump’s task as he prepares for his own history-making encounter with Mr. Kim.

While the two Korean leaders pledged to rid the heavily armed peninsula of nuclear weapons, they put no timeline on that process, nor did they set out a common definition of what a nuclear-free Korea would look like. Instead, they agreed to pursue a peace treaty this year that would formally end the Korean War after nearly seven decades of hostilities.

The talk of peace is likely to weaken the two levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table. A resumption of regular diplomatic exchanges between the two Koreas, analysts said, will inevitably erode the crippling economic sanctions against the North, while Mr. Trump will find it hard to threaten military action against a country that is extending an olive branch.

To meet his own definition of success, Mr. Trump will have to persuade Mr. Kim to accept “comprehensive, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization” of North Korea — something that Mr. Kim has shown no willingness to accept in the past, and few believe he will accede to in the future.

SPOILER

“This summit has put even greater expectations, greater hype and greater pressure on Trump,” said Victor D. Cha, a Korea scholar at Georgetown University who was considered by the Trump administration to be ambassador to Seoul. “He hyped this meeting with his tweets, and now the entire focus is going to be on his negotiating prowess.”

“This is a moment of his own making,” Mr. Cha added.

Characteristically, Mr. Trump betrayed no anxiety in recent days as he discussed the challenges of the summit meeting, which is scheduled for late May or early June in a location still to be determined. He took much of the credit for the diplomatic thaw on the Korean Peninsula, and he said he would not commit the mistakes of his predecessors, whom he said had showered the North with money and extracted nothing in return.

“The United States has been played beautifully, like a fiddle, because you had a different kind of a leader,” Mr. Trump said after meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany at the White House. “We’re not going to be played, O.K.? We’re going to hopefully make a deal; if we don’t, that’s fine.”

Mr. Trump reiterated that he was prepared to cancel the meeting, or walk out in the middle of it, if his diplomatic efforts were not making any headway. But some of his aides say privately they worry that the president, with an eye on the history books and a flair for the theatrical, is determined to emerge with a victory, even if it falls short of his stated goals.

Certainly, he seemed beguiled by the imagery of the Moon-Kim meeting. “KOREAN WAR TO END!” he tweeted before 7 a.m. on Friday, a few hours after the leaders shook hands in the Demilitarized Zone.

On Saturday, Mr. Trump said he had a “very good talk” with Mr. Moon. “Things are going well,” he tweeted. “Time and location of meeting with North Korea is being set.” He also said he had briefed Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, who has watched the rush of diplomacy with some concern.

The price of failure would be high for Mr. Trump. The United States could face a split with its ally South Korea, which is deeply invested in ending its estrangement from the North. Tensions could flare with China, North Korea’s main trading partner, which only grudgingly signed on to the sanctions and would be likely to balk at keeping them in place if Mr. Kim is talking about peace.

Mr. Trump is also moving on other fronts that could undercut his negotiations with Mr. Kim. He appears more likely than ever to rip up the Iran nuclear deal as he faces his next deadline of May 12 to decide whether to reimpose sanctions on Tehran.

Walking away from one nuclear disarmament deal while trying to strike another would be a trick, even for a self-proclaimed dealmaker like Mr. Trump.

There is little question, senior officials and analysts said, that the American-led sanctions, combined with Mr. Trump’s bellicose vows to rain “fire and fury” on North Korea if it threatened the American homeland, helped bring Mr. Kim to the table.

But Mr. Trump is only one of three actors in this drama, and perhaps not the most crucial one. Mr. Moon, a progressive former human rights lawyer, ran for office on a platform of conciliation with the North and has moved aggressively to deliver on that promise. He, not Mr. Trump, has set the pace and terms of the negotiation with the North, though American officials say that Seoul is closely coordinating with Washington.

Mr. Kim, for his part, made a bold bet on diplomacy. His motives for seeking a rapprochement are open to debate. Skeptical analysts said the advancements in North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile program — as much as sanctions or threatened military strikes — made the timing right for an overture. Others say he is replaying the cycle of provocation and conciliation pioneered by his father and grandfather.

Whatever his motives, the 34-year-old dictator has proved to be a remarkably adroit player on the world stage. “If anyone gets credit, it’s Kim Jong-un,” said Daniel R. Russel, a former assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs who is now at the Asia Society. “It’s his show.”

So far, Mr. Kim’s bet has paid off handsomely. Since beginning his overture a month before the Winter Olympics in South Korea, he has been awarded a meeting with President Xi Jinping of China, who had earlier treated him with thinly disguised contempt. He was welcomed by Mr. Moon with a South Korean honor guard. And he is on the verge of something once inconceivable: a meeting with the American president.

Though Mr. Kim made gestures of his own — a pledge not to test bombs or long-range missiles, and an end to the North’s longtime insistence that American troops withdraw from the peninsula — he has not made any tangible concessions on his nuclear weapons. The language in his joint statement with Mr. Moon about denuclearization was both vague and familiar to veterans of past negotiations with North Korea.

“He’s gotten all these meetings with world leaders without making any concessions,” said Jung H. Pak, a former C.I.A. analyst who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for East Asia Policy Studies. “So far, everything has been no-cost for Kim.”

Given the warmth of the Moon-Kim meeting, few analysts are predicting that Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Kim will be sour. The most likely situation is an encounter that produces more riveting imagery and results in a broad agreement to negotiate disarmament in return for an easing of North Korea’s economic isolation.

On Friday, Mr. Trump said the location of the meeting had been narrowed to two or three sites. Officials had hoped to have already locked down a place, but said the process was more complicated than expected. Singapore and Mongolia have emerged as prime candidates, though an official said a site in South Korea remained a possibility.

The challenge for Mr. Trump will be embarking on a protracted negotiation with Mr. Kim that, if the past is any guide, will quickly bog down in highly technical discussions about inspections of nuclear sites, the dismantling of installations and the removal of nuclear fuel.

Some question whether Mr. Trump’s hawkish new national security team — led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the national security adviser, John R. Bolton — will have the stomach for that. Others note that Mr. Trump may face pressure on the right if it looks as though North Korea is playing for time, as it did during the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

With the North seeking to re-establish diplomatic and economic ties to the South, Mr. Trump will find it difficult to play the cards he used during his first year in office. Some analysts said Mr. Kim’s outreach to Mr. Moon amounted to a kind of insurance policy against Mr. Trump.

“It becomes awfully hard for Trump to return to the locked-and-loaded, ‘fire and fury’ phase of the relationship,” said Jeffrey A. Bader, a former Asia adviser to President Barack Obama.

Administration officials acknowledged the risk that Mr. Trump could find himself out of sync with Mr. Moon. They said their job was to remind the president of the proper sequence of negotiations with North Korea: tangible steps toward denuclearization, followed by an easing of sanctions, and then a peace treaty.

As always, though, the wild card is Mr. Trump himself.

“He sees this as a Nixon-in-China moment, and he will want to move quickly, where patience is the order of the day,” said Kurt M. Campbell, a former assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs.

^{by MARK LANDLER}

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 10:32 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

Jammer dat je dat je belangrijker lijkt te vinden dat hij niet een grote hand hierin heeft gehad. Er is gewoon goed beleid uitgevoerd gelukkig en het resultaat is gewoon buitengewoon wie er dan ook aan heeft meegewerkt. Zo Xi ik het.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 23:45 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Nou, ik vind het vooral jammer dat er kans bestaat dat zo iemand als Trump gedeeltelijke credits kan opeisen terwijl hij behalve boze tweets aantoonbaar niets aan de situatie heeft gedaan. Voor mij persoonlijk is het vrij helder dat
- Kim zijn kernwapens heeft en dus aan verzoening kan gaan werken
- De sancties (o.a. door Obama ingezet) hun werk goed doen.
- China door bovengenoemde zaken eindelijk een kans ziet om wat meer druk uit te oefenen achter de schermen. Het is immers in hun belang dat er meer verzoening komt zodat die Amerikanen eindelijk uit hun achtertuin oprotten.

Trump heeft werkelijk nog niets anders gedaan dan wat rare dingen roeptoeteren op Twitter. De Amerikanen hadden niet eens een ZKO ambassade meer. Dat er nu wie weet vrede komt toevallig terwijl hij president is is gewoon een mazzeltje dat hij ongetwijfeld flink zal uitbuiten. Want dat moet ik 'm nageven: hij is werkelijk de koning van het credits eisen (en krijgen!) van zaken waar hij niets mee van doen had.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 23:45 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Nou, ik vind het vooral jammer dat er kans bestaat dat zo iemand als Trump gedeeltelijke credits kan opeisen terwijl hij behalve boze tweets aantoonbaar niets aan de situatie heeft gedaan. Voor mij persoonlijk is het vrij helder dat
- Kim zijn kernwapens heeft en dus aan verzoening kan gaan werken
- De sancties (o.a. door Obama ingezet) hun werk goed doen.
- China door bovengenoemde zaken eindelijk een kans ziet om wat meer druk uit te oefenen achter de schermen. Het is immers in hun belang dat er meer verzoening komt zodat die Amerikanen eindelijk uit hun achtertuin oprotten.

Trump heeft werkelijk nog niets anders gedaan dan wat rare dingen roeptoeteren op Twitter. De Amerikanen hadden niet eens een ZKO ambassade meer. Dat er nu wie weet vrede komt toevallig terwijl hij president is is gewoon een mazzeltje dat hij ongetwijfeld flink zal uitbuiten. Want dat moet ik 'm nageven: hij is werkelijk de koning van het credits eisen (en krijgen!) van zaken waar hij niets mee van doen had.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 18:41 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Prima dat mensen op hem gestemd hebben. Ik zie zat fans op de fp die dat niet hebben gedaan, maar die vinden het super belangrijk dat politici zich vooral niet moeten bezighouden met politiek.

Een rechter die de (grond)wet hanteert wordt als vijand gezien, politieke processen worden overgeslagen, pers wordt gezien als staatsvijand en ga zo maar door. Tot zover de 'democratie'.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2018 18:39 schreef Tchock het volgende:
Stoere oneliner, Nintex, maar het lijkt me niet meer dan normaal te wachten tot er resultaat is voor je het resultaat gaat beoordelen. Dat geldt ten positieve of ten negatieve, dus evengoed voor mensen die nu lopen te verklaren dat Trump er niets mee te maken heeft. De top moet überhaupt nog plaatsvinden.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 01:42 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Voor Kim is dit allemaal gratis publiciteit. Het kost hem niets want hij heeft nog geen enkele concrete toezegging gedaan die zijn machtspositie verzwakt. Hij heeft Trump de middelvinger gegeven toen Trump met "Fire & Fury" kwam en in ruil daarvoor noemt Trump hem nu "honorable" (!!!) en beloont Trump hem met een no-strings-attached ontmoeting.

Met de kernbommen op zak heeft Kim de nalatenschap van zijn familie en de machtspositie van de kliek om hem heen in beton gegoten. Nu wil hij van die sancties af. Hij heeft nog niets concreets toegezegd, maar wat doet Trump? Die gunt hem een ontmoeting.

Daarmee heeft Kim in één klap voor elkaar gekregen dat hij internationale erkenning krijgt en als gelijkwaardige gesprekspartner wordt behandeld, dat hij de kans krijgt om een deel van de sancties weg te onderhandelen en nu zelfs in het zuiden als een koning onthaalt wordt. En wederom, dit zonder enige concrete toezegging.

Kim heeft gewoon door dat men hem nu vrij weinig meer kan maken, die kans hebben de Amerikanen laten lopen. Nu claimen dat Trump deze toenadering veroorzaakt heeft, is oorzaak en gevolg omdraaien. Trump wil te graag en hunkert naar respect en erkenning van de "fake news media" en zijn internationale vrinden zoals Macron. Dat heeft Kim goed in de gaten. He's playing Trump like a fiddle.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zondag 29-04-2018 om 01:55:49 Trump now claims that Natalia Veselnitskaya is only saying she's an "informant" with ties to the Kremlin because Putin realized how hard Trump has been on Russia and he wants to make the U.S. more chaotic. (via Fox) https://t.co/NiZKeigPpO reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zondag 29-04-2018 om 02:00:12 Trump, who once falsely said that an "extremely credible source" told him Obama's birth certificate was fake, now falsely says that the media makes up sources. (via Fox) https://t.co/8coHAKnkTk reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zondag 29-04-2018 om 02:15:40 Trump threatens to "close down the country" if he doesn't get more border wall funding in September. (via Fox) https://t.co/kdM753bbus reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zondag 29-04-2018 om 02:35:39 Trump strangely says (twice) that "nobody knows what a community college is," seems to think that vocational schools don't currently exist and need to be brought back. (via Fox) https://t.co/SPIbfYIwa7 reageer retweet

quote:

Former CIA Director John Brennan spoke out against President Trump on Twitter Saturday afternoon after the president called former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper a "lying machine."

Brennan, who served alongside Clapper under former President Obama, defended his former colleague as a "man of integrity, honesty, ethics, & morality."

"Mr. Trump: Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Jim Clapper is a man of integrity, honesty, ethics, & morality. You are not. Jim Clapper served his country for over a half century, including in Vietnam. You did not. By your words & behavior, you diminish the Office of the Presidency," he tweeted.

twitter:

JohnBrennan twitterde op zaterdag 28-04-2018 om 21:36:12 Mr. Trump: Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Jim Clapper is a man of integrity, honesty, ethics, & morality. You are not. Jim Clapper served his country for over a half century, including in Vietnam. You did not. By your words & behavior, you diminish the Office of the Presidency. https://t.co/bYlmZInDoM reageer retweet

SPOILER

Trump attacked Clapper on Twitter Saturday morning after a Republican report released Friday by members of the House Intelligence Committee stated that Clapper had discussed the bombshell "Steele dossier" about Trump and Russia with CNN reporters, including anchor Jake Tapper, in 2017.

Clapper had previously "flatly denied" leaking the contents of the dossier, but ultimately admitted to discussing the dossier with Tapper and other journalists shortly before Trump's inauguration in January 2017, the report states.

"Clapper’s discussion with Tapper took place in 'early January 2017,' around the time [intelligence officials] briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump, on 'the Christopher Steele information,'” the document notes.

Clapper and Brennan have been vocal critics of the president, joining other former members of the Obama administration in lambasting Trump on social media. Clapper joined CNN as a network contributor in August 2017.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 03:05 schreef remlof het volgende:
Trump had het er vanavond voor het eerst over dat er een impeachment dreigt als de Democraten een meerderheid halen in het Huis van Afgevaardigden in november.

Hij ziet de bui al hangen

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zaterdag 28-04-2018 om 23:22:13 (THREAD) Yesterday I discussed all the bombshell revelations deeply damaging to Trump in the HPSCI Majority Report. But there are just as many in the HPSCI Minority Report—and I discuss them here in a deep dive into the timeline of Trump-Russia events. Hope you'll read and share. https://t.co/HuYF8ZM1Id reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zondag 29-04-2018 om 04:15:00 In sum, the Kremlin made advances to the Trump campaign; the Trump campaign expressed a willingness to talk; a meeting was held at which the Trump campaign confirmed it would look at sanctions post-election; the Kremlin began helping Trump; Trump offered help back.A conspiracy. reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zondag 29-04-2018 om 04:49:13 (PS) There's so much in the Majority and Minority reports I haven't covered in these two threads. But I'll say this: when I consider that Mueller has (say) 400%+ more information than we do, it boggles the mind how anyone involved in the Trump Administration sleeps at night. /end reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 00:52 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Waarom komt NK naar de onderhandelingstafel?

- Trump draait de duimschroeven aan. Laatst waren er berichten dat de Noord Koreaanse staatsmedia minder kranten verspreid, omdat er niet genoeg inkt is