quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 09:58 schreef Mike het volgende:
Voor degenen die de speech van Michelle Wolf bij het Correspondents' Dinner willen zien:

Michelle Wolf COMPLETE REMARKS at 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner (C-SPAN)

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 10:02 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Sean Spicer was er niet zo blij mee, zie z’n tweets en vooral de reacties erop

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

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 12:49 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Overigens is dit niet waar. Om Trump te impeachen is steun nodig van de Republikeinen en dat blijft zo na de verkiezingen in november (ongeacht de uitslag daarvan).

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 12:53 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Trump probeert weer wat enthousiasme in de Republikeinse kiezer te blazen. Dan is zo'n impeachment dreiging een uitstekende motivator. Daarom moeten de Democraten daar ver vandaan blijven tot de midterms.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 12:49 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Overigens is dit niet waar. Om Trump te impeachen is steun nodig van de Republikeinen en dat blijft zo na de verkiezingen in november (ongeacht de uitslag daarvan).

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:03 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Klopt ja. Puur campagnevoeren tégen een bepaald persoon is sowieso een erg slechte manier om jezelf te profileren als partij als je het mij vraagt. De Democraten moeten met een sterk eigen geluid komen en niet een halve protestpatij worden.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:05 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Dat hangt er vanaf wat je bedoelt met impeachen. Sec impeachment als zijnde de aanklacht doen, is een simpele meerderheid in het Huis voor nodig. In die zin is bv. Clinton destijds impeached. Uit het ambt zetten / veroordelen heb je idd wel 2/3e van de senaat voor nodig.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 09:25 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Weer zo'n onzin. Die sancties van Trump waren 'underwhelming' zeggen de experts. NK ging al jaren gebukt onder sancties. Zoals Obama de mazzel had dat Bin Laden onder zijn watch eindelijk ontdekt werd, zo heeft Trump de mazzel dat de eindeloze sancties onder zijn watch eindelijk het gewenste effect hebben. Daar had ie zelf niets van doen.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:08 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Wat een flauwekul, sancties hebben helemaal niet zo'n effect, het is juist onder dit regime dat Amerika ook China in de sancties wist mee te krijgen.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:08 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Wat een flauwekul, sancties hebben helemaal niet zo'n effect, het is juist onder dit regime dat Amerika ook China in de sancties wist mee te krijgen. Dat Noord-Korea voor het eerst het gevoel had dat het wel te maken had met een President die eens een gewapend conflict zou kunnen willen wat financieel ook vrij kostbaar is voor zo'n arm land. En Amerika was de een van de eerste die vervolgens ook een vluchtroute voor Noord-Korea bood.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:13 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk het tegenovergestelde. De internationale diplomatie is een stuk gehaaider dan we denken en die wordt in Amerikaans geval nu geleid door een impulsieve onvoorbereide en niet-naar-adviseurs-luisterende man. Er valt voor Kim heel veel te winnen door juist nu de onderhandelingen aan te gaan. Dit is het moment, want de VS is diplomatiek uitermate zwak nu. Zoveel vacatures, zoveel ervaren rotten die verdwenen zijn. Inspelen op het narcisme van Trump, geef 'm wat kruimels die heel goed op hem afstralen, maar jou op de lange termijn doen winnen en hij is blij.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:11 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Dus sancties hebben geen effect maar het is wel goed dat China nu meedoet? Dat lijkt me een beetje van twee walletjes eten. Of het is goed dat China meedoet, maar dan waren de sancties eerer ook al nuttig; of de sancties hebben geen effect maar dan maakt het ook niet uit of China meedoet of niet.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:18 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Staat dat sancties helemaal geen effect hebben? Nee dat staat er niet. Als China niet meedoet met sancties dan blijft een zeer belangrijke aanvoerroute nog altijd open zoals je zelf al had kunnen concluderen.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:13 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk het tegenovergestelde. De internationale diplomatie is een stuk gehaaider dan we denken en die wordt in Amerikaans geval nu geleid door een impulsieve onvoorbereide en niet-naar-adviseurs-luisterende man. Er valt voor Kim heel veel te winnen door juist nu de onderhandelingen aan te gaan. Dit is het moment, want de VS is diplomatiek uitermate zwak nu. Zoveel vacatures, zoveel ervaren rotten die verdwenen zijn. Inspelen op het narcisme van Trump, geef 'm wat kruimels die heel goed op hem afstralen, maar jou op de lange termijn doen winnen en hij is blij.

Het enige risico -dat geef ik toe- is juist de onvoorspelbaarheid van Trump. Zijn double-down taktiek op de meest gekke momenten, of zijn plotselinge gedraai terwijl je denkt alles in kannen en kruiken te hebben kan zo'n vredesproces volledig verstoren.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:24 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Het lijkt te werken bij het Amerikaanse beleid tegen Noord-Korea, bij China, en laten we nu eens kijken of het ook werkt tegen Syrie, Rusland, en Iran.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:19 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat die aanvoerroute nog steeds open staat, ondanks dat China publiekelijk de riemen wat heeft aangehaald. Het lijkt me naïef om te denken dat China Noord-Korea in de steek zou laten gezien haar eigen belang in die regio, alleen maar omdat Trump ze uitscheldt op Twitter.

Dat China niet meedoet is een belangrijke reden waardoor de sancties lange tijd niet zo effectief zijn geweest als ze hadden kunnen zijn. Alsnog zijn sancties op de langere baan een zeer goed middel om een land onder druk te zetten, dat zie je bij zowel Noord-Korea als Iran.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:13 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk het tegenovergestelde. De internationale diplomatie is een stuk gehaaider dan we denken en die wordt in Amerikaans geval nu geleid door een impulsieve onvoorbereide en niet-naar-adviseurs-luisterende man. Er valt voor Kim heel veel te winnen door juist nu de onderhandelingen aan te gaan. Dit is het moment, want de VS is diplomatiek uitermate zwak nu. Zoveel vacatures, zoveel ervaren rotten die verdwenen zijn. Inspelen op het narcisme van Trump, geef 'm wat kruimels die heel goed op hem afstralen, maar jou op de lange termijn doen winnen en hij is blij.

Het enige risico -dat geef ik toe- is juist de onvoorspelbaarheid van Trump. Zijn double-down taktiek op de meest gekke momenten, of zijn plotselinge gedraai terwijl je denkt alles in kannen en kruiken te hebben kan zo'n vredesproces volledig verstoren.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:28 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Wat vind jij van het opblazen van de Iran-deal? 12 mei komt er een deadline voor Trump om sancties op te heffen. Als hij dat niet doet is de deal waarschijnlijk van tafel.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:31 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Hoe krijg je die onzin uit het toetsenbord?

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:32 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind de Iran-deal een grote mislukking omdat het een van de belangrijkste oorzaken is van de nog steeds uitslaande polarisering van het Midden-Oosten, er dreigt een echte oorlog tussen Iran en Israel, en ja het heeft weinig met de kernwapens te maken met de sancties beperkte Iran natuurlijk wel aanzienlijk in het investeringen van wapens en legers, geld dat naar economisch herstel zou moeten gaan, dat gaat naar het regionale conflict. Ik denk dat Amerika inspeelt om harder Russisch en Europees optreden te eisen tegen Iraanse spelers zoals de IRGC, om hun monddood te maken, als ze dat kunnen formaliseren door te dreigen om de Iran-deal op te zeggen of er uit te treden, dan vind ik dat een prima idee, want de Iran-deal zorgt indirect voor een heleboel onrust op dit moment.

Als de Iran-deal daadwerkelijk tot economisch herstel en sociaal-economische investering in Iran zou leiden dan had ik het een minder plan gevonden om eruit te willen treiden (of te dreigen met).

Maar dat is nu eenmaal niet zo het geval.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:24 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Zou via Pompeo “ geëist” zijn, dat humptydump zich netter uitlaat over Kim.
Sindsdien heeft Trump gewoon de naam gebruikt of zegt hij Noord Korea.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:39 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Dat is al een teken dat Noord Korea de eerste concessies al binnenheeft, zonder ook maar een concrete toezegging te doen. Ze worden nu ineens internationaal als gelijkwaardige gesprekspartner behandeld. Stuitend hoe de Amerikanen en Trump zich door Kim laten bespelen.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:43 schreef MangoTree het volgende:
Impeach! Oh nee.

http://www.foxnews.com/po(...)ribution-report.html

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:35 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat de Irandeal er voor zorgt dat het kernwapenprogramma van Iran de komende decennia compleet plat wordt gelegd. Als Trump de deal verbreekt is dat helemaal van tafel en kan het volgende week aan de slag om een bom te maken om Israël te vernietigen (zoals het nog steeds zegt te willen). Amerika wint helemaal niets met het stopzetten van de deal en het zou elke kans op verdere verbeteringen de grond in stampen.

quote:

Als de Iran-deal voor onrust zorgt, dan het gebrek aan een deal zeker. Trump speelt weer de olifant in de porseleinkast. En daar bij opgeteld klopt er vrijwel niets aan wat hij zelf over de deal vertelt. Ik weet niet of hij doelbewust iedereen voorliegt of dat hij er gewoon geen fuck van snapt.

quote:

En daarbij vraag ik me af wat het gaat doen met de opties op een nucleair akkoord met Noord-Korea als Trump zich zo onbetrouwbaar toont door het enige andere nucleaire akkoord meteen op te blazen.

quote:

Maanonderzoekers zijn verbijsterd dat ruimtevaartorganisatie NASA plannen voor de bouw van een nieuw maanwagentje heeft afgeblazen. De Resource Prospector had naar elementen moeten gaan boren in de bodem van de maan, maar NASA trekt de stekker uit het project.

Resource Prospector zou het eerste Amerikaanse maanwagentje worden en de eerste maanlander van de VS sinds er in 1972 mensen rondliepen. Het zou ook de eerste keer worden dat de pool van het hemellichaam van dichtbij wordt onderzocht.

Met een grondboor zou de RP op zoek gaan naar bijvoorbeeld water of elementen als waterstof en zuurstof. Als daarvan voorraden op de maan worden aangetroffen, zou dat toekomstige bemande missies makkelijker maken, omdat NASA dan minder voorraden hoeft mee te sturen. "We zijn verbaasd en verontrust", schrijft een adviesgroep van de NASA aan de leider van de ruimtevaartorganisatie. "We begrijpen niet hoe NASA tot dit besluit is gekomen."

De onderzoekers wijzen erop dat president Trump juist heeft bepaald dat NASA zich op een bemande missie naar de maan moet richten, ook als mogelijke springplank naar Mars. Nieuwe kennis over de maan is daarvoor onontbeerlijk, oordeelt de adviesgroep.

Waarom het besluit is genomen, is niet duidelijk. In een reactie op het schrijven geeft NASA weinig details over het lot van de RP. Medewerkers hadden juist verwacht dat het karretje rond 2022 naar de maan zou worden geschoten: er is al vier jaar aan gewerkt en een prototype zou binnenkort beoordeeld worden.

De nieuwe NASA-directeur Jim Bridenstine (R) onderstreept dat sommige instrumenten van de RP voor andere maanmissies gebruikt kunnen worden, maar geeft verder weinig details. "NASA ontwikkelt een onderzoeksstrategie die past bij onze doelen op de maan. Daar past een serie robotmissie in. We zullen steeds grotere landers ontwikkelen, zodat we uiteindelijk een mens op de maan kunnen zetten."

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:40 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Nou ja, lijkt me de normaalste zaak van de wereld om andere wereldleiders niet uit te schelden op Twitter. Het feit dat Trump dat eerst wel deed is absurd, niet dat hij het nu niet meer doet.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:47 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Vind jij het normaal dat Trump nu Kim ineens 'honorable' noemt? Ik niet.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:49 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Nee, maar ik vind het wel normaal dat hij hem niet meer beledigt. Want zoals gezegd vond ik dat echt totaal onpresidentieel en eigenlijk gewoon heel erg kinderachtig.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:50 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Zijn inbellen bij Fox and Friends was dan weer niet totaal presidentieel. Maar goed, daar zal ook wel een briljante strategie achter zitten.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:54 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Dat was echt totaal bizar. Zo onsamenhangend en verward, en bovendien belastte hij zichzelf een keer of vier. Als ik zijn advocaat was zou ik er echt moedeloos van worden.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:58 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Het begon ook zo gek ... dat hij belde omdat zijn vrouw jarig was, maar dat hij verder geen cadeau had voor haar ... ja, een kaartje ofzo...

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:54 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Dat was echt totaal bizar. Zo onsamenhangend en verward

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 14:00 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Dat idd. Als je uit jezelf zo begint te ranten, live op TV, dan wil het er bij mij echt niet in dat zijn 'diplomatieke acties' weloverwogen zijn. Je kunt zoiets prima voorbereiden en nog voordat er een serieuze vraag is gesteld ontspoort hij volledig.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 14:03 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Het verschil is natuurlijk wel dat Trump bij zo'n interview echt maar wat aankloot naar eigen inzicht. Ten aanzien van beleid heeft hij nog wel adviseurs en medewerkers om hem te helpen.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 13:49 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Nee, maar ik vind het wel normaal dat hij hem niet meer beledigt. Want zoals gezegd vond ik dat echt totaal onpresidentieel en eigenlijk gewoon heel erg kinderachtig.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 14:15 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Natuurlijk, dat was het zeker. Maar als je dat vergelijkt met Trump's benadering richting Kim en de Noord-Koreanen is het duidelijk dat de verandering in retoriek een belangrijke concessie is richting Kim. Als hij een deel van de sancties wil wegonderhandelen, moet hij wel als een serieuze gesprekspartner gezien worden. Dat heeft hij nu al voor elkaar (voorheen was hij immers "little rocket man", nu is hij "honorable"), zonder daar zelf ook maar één concrete toezegging tegenover te zetten. Dat is winst voor Kim en helemaal gratis, een leuk cadeautje van Trump. Zijn bommengrot is hoe dan ook ingestort en de meeste experts zijn het er over eens dat ze inmiddels al beschikking hebben over nucleaire wapens, dus dat Kim zijn kernwapenprogramma opschort, kun je niet als toezegging zien.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 14:21 schreef DeParo het volgende:

En uiteraard kunnen we nergens een positieve invloed van het Amerika onder Trump zien. Want? Trump. Dat is je enige argument dat je hier gebruikt. En het is een slecht argument best jammer dat je niet wat verder kunt kijken wat dat betreft in deze discussie bijvoorbeeld.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 14:33 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Ik kan inderdaad geen positieve invloed van Trump. Alleen al zijn houding en gedrag zijn een klap in het gezicht van iedereen die een beetje fatsoen in z'n donder heeft.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 14:21 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Concessie? Dat doet Trump nu al de hele tijd in de diplomatie en met allerlei landen. En welke toezegging heeft Amerika precies gedaan dan, morgen net zo makkelijk kan er weer (bijna) oorlog worden gevoerd als Noord-Korea niet verandert, verder ben je niet zo op de hoogte want Noord-Korea heeft al enige tijd een kernwapen naar verwachting. Maar uiteraard kunnen we niks van Kim als toezegging zien. Kunnen we niks van Noord-Korea als stap vooruit zien. En uiteraard kunnen we nergens een positieve invloed van het Amerika onder Trump zien. Want? Trump. Dat is je enige argument dat je hier gebruikt. En het is een slecht argument best jammer dat je niet wat verder kunt kijken wat dat betreft in deze discussie bijvoorbeeld.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 14:54 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Je bent weer lekker bezig mij woorden in de mond te leggen die ik niet gebruikt heb. Dit lijkt de enige manier te zijn waarop jij een discussie denkt te kunnen winnen.

Mijn punt is dat Trump concrete toezeggingen had moeten uitonderhandelen voordat hij akkoord ging met een ontmoeting. Zoals gebruikelijk is bij ontmoetingen tussen een Amerikaanse president en een regime zoals dat van Noord Korea. Nu geeft hij Kim erkenning en een internationaal podium terwijl er wellicht wel niets uitkomt. Dat is dus een cadeautje voor Kim en het stelt me teleur van iemand die zichzelf geschikt in "the Art of the deal" noemt. Alle andere dingen die je erbij haalt heb je zelf verzonnen.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 16:07 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Kim erkenning en een internationaal podium, stel het draait uit op niets, dat is exact hetzelfde wat Kim ermee wint. Geen sancties opgegeven, geen nieuwe bondgenoten, en een boos Amerika en een boos China. Ja joh klinkt echt als een overwinning voor Noord-Korea. Ze moeten nog onderhandelen en daar is dit podium voor gemaakt. Kim stapt op dat podium om concrete stappen te zetten. Het mooie nou is juist dat ze gaan onderhandelen. En als je even snel het laatste nieuws kijkt zie je dat Kim een nucleaire testlocatie gaat sluiten.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 16:27 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Knap dat jij de intenties van Kim blijkbaar al weet, terwijl de meest gelauwerde Korea-kenners daar nog hun hoofd over breken.

Over die testlocatie; volgens de Chinezen is die sowieso niet meer bruikbaar want ingestort. Hoe dan ook heeft Kim gezegd de testlocatie 'niet meer nodig te hebben'. Poe hé, wat een toenadering zoekt hij dan dat hij die site wil sluiten.

2000, 2006, en met Carter: er zijn al heel vaak gesprekken geprobeerd en al die keren is het op niets uitgelopen. Hoop dat je het niet erg vindt dat ik skeptisch blijf, zeker aangezien Trump zich met de Irandeal als onbetrouwbare partner laat kennen in dit soort zaken.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 16:38 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Noord-Korea zet een concrete stap en dat is het nog niet ok . Of wellicht had je verwacht dat ze meteen hun hele arsenaal hadden gedemonteerd. Vergeet ook niet dat ze niets hadden moeten doen oo dit moment er. Dus ja zo kan je altijd wel blijven zeiken. Noord-Korea en Zuid-Korea hebben nu de intentie uitgesproken te denucleariseren en vrede te maken. Had Zuid-Korea daarvoor ook eerst concrete stappen moeten eisen? Wat een onzin.

Wel mooi die negatieve en ondermijnende reacties uit China aangezien Beijing gewoom buitensoel is gezet en geen vinger in de pao heeft. Dat wordt nog wat.

Als je eerdere jaren nog maar eens terughaalt weet jij ook prima dat de euforie en de uitspraken die nu worden gedaan, eveneens wat Kim publiekelijk doet en zegt, volslagen minder significant en concreet was dan deze gesprekken.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 16:38 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Noord-Korea zet een concrete stap en dat is het nog niet ok . Of wellicht had je verwacht dat ze meteen hun hele arsenaal hadden gedemonteerd. Vergeet ook niet dat ze niets hadden moeten doen oo dit moment er. Dus ja zo kan je altijd wel blijven zeiken. Noord-Korea en Zuid-Korea hebben nu de intentie uitgesproken te denucleariseren en vrede te maken. Had Zuid-Korea daarvoor ook eerst concrete stappen moeten eisen? Wat een onzin.

quote:

[..]

But North Korea has so far offered no timeline for dismantling its nuclear weapons and facilities. Nor has it clarified how it defines a “nuclear-free Korean Peninsula,” and especially whether that means a withdrawal or significant reconfiguration of American troops based in South Korea, as it has demanded before.

[..]

If Mr. Kim intends to win a peace treaty, diplomatic recognition and billions of dollars in economic aid from Washington and its allies, as South Korean officials hope he does, trading away his nuclear arsenal is his biggest bargaining chip to extract those rewards. He cannot reveal his hand too soon, South Korean officials said.

Skeptics fear that Mr. Kim does not really intend to give up his nuclear weapons, and is merely trying to soften his image, escape sanctions and make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to continue to threaten military action. But South Korean officials argue that Mr. Kim is willing to bargain away his nuclear weapons in return for ending hostilities and getting Washington’s help to improve his country’s economy.

Bron

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 16:55 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Laten we gewoon de gesprekken afwachten ipv van oeverloos te speculeren? Dat doet dit topic ook geen goed

quote:

Kim Says He’ll Give Up Weapons if U.S. Promises Not to Invade (NYTimes)

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, told President Moon Jae-in of South Korea when they met that he would abandon his nuclear weapons if the United States would agree to formally end the Korean War and promise that it would not invade his country, a South Korean government spokesman said Sunday.

In a faith-building gesture ahead of a summit meeting with President Trump, Mr. Kim also said he would invite experts and journalists from South Korea and the United States to watch the shutdown next month of his country’s only known underground nuclear test site.

The comments by Mr. Kim were made on Friday when the leaders of the two Koreas met at Panmunjom, a village on their shared border, the spokesman, Yoon Young-chan, said on Sunday, providing additional details of the meeting.

“I know the Americans are inherently disposed against us, but when they talk with us, they will see that I am not the kind of person who would shoot nuclear weapons to the south, over the Pacific or at the United States,” Mr. Kim told Mr. Moon, according to Mr. Yoon’s account of the meeting.

SPOILER

It was another dramatically conciliatory statement by Mr. Kim, whose country threatened to do exactly those things during the height of nuclear tensions last year.

Mr. Yoon revealed more details of the daylong talks between Mr. Kim and Mr. Moon as many have expressed skepticism about the friendly gestures made by the North Korean leader, and whether they would turn out to be empty promises aimed at lifting sanctions on his isolated country.

Mr. Kim’s willingness to negotiate away his nuclear arsenal was revealed just as United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo disclosed that he had had a “good conversation” with Mr. Kim during his surprise visit to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, over Easter weekend.

Mr. Pompeo told ABC News in a broadcast on Sunday that the Trump administration’s objective is “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization” with North Korea, and that Mr. Kim was prepared to “lay out a map that would help us achieve” denuclearization.

“We had an extensive conversation on the hardest issues that face our two countries,” Mr. Pompeo said. “I had a clear mission statement from President Trump. When I left, Kim Jong Un understood the mission exactly as I described it today.”

The United States is said to have demanded an early timetable from North Korea for dismantling its nuclear program.

On Friday, Mr. Kim and Mr. Moon signed a joint declaration recognizing “a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula” and “complete denuclearization” as a common goal of the two Koreas. But during the summit events, some of which were broadcast live around the world, Mr. Kim never publicly renounced his nuclear weapons.

Even in the additional details released on Sunday by South Korean officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bet, indicating that denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust. But he laid out a vague idea of what his impoverished country would demand in return for giving up its nuclear weapons.

”If we meet often and build trust with the United States and if an end to the war and nonaggression are promised, why would we live in difficulty with nuclear weapons?” Mr. Kim was quoted as saying by South Korean officials.

Mr. Moon has already informed Mr. Trump about the contents of the meeting, briefing him during a call on Saturday. According to Mr. Moon’s office, he told the American president that Mr. Kim said he and Mr. Trump could “get along well,” to which Mr. Trump responded that he “looked forward” to their meeting.

On Sunday, Mr. Moon also spoke with the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, to relay Mr. Kim’s willingness to also open dialogue with Tokyo, which has also felt threatened by the North’s nuclear weapons and missile development.

The peacemaking comments have been a dramatic turnaround for Mr. Kim, who drove the peninsula close to the brink of war last year by launching a series of missile and nuclear tests.

He suddenly switched to diplomatic overtures this year, extending an offer to meet Mr. Trump, which the American president surprisingly accepted. A week ago, Mr. Kim announced an end to all nuclear and long-range missile tests and the closure of the nuclear test site in mountainous Punggye-ri in northeast North Korea.

On Friday, he became the first North Korean leader to step into South Korean territory when he met with Mr. Moon inside the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone dividing the two countries.

In the meeting, Mr. Kim and Mr. Moon also agreed to start talks this year with Washington to negotiate a peace treaty to formally end the 1950-53 Korean War, one of the key security guarantees that the North has long demanded.

But North Korea has so far offered no timeline for dismantling its nuclear weapons and facilities. Nor has it clarified how it defines a “nuclear-free Korean Peninsula,” and especially whether that means a withdrawal or significant reconfiguration of American troops based in South Korea, as it has demanded before.

Even before Mr. Moon met with Mr. Kim, South Korean officials said any joint statement was bound to be vague on the terms of denuclearization because Mr. Kim would try to settle critical issues directly with Washington.

If Mr. Kim intends to win a peace treaty, diplomatic recognition and billions of dollars in economic aid from Washington and its allies, as South Korean officials hope he does, trading away his nuclear arsenal is his biggest bargaining chip to extract those rewards. He cannot reveal his hand too soon, South Korean officials said.

Skeptics fear that Mr. Kim does not really intend to give up his nuclear weapons, and is merely trying to soften his image, escape sanctions and make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to continue to threaten military action. But South Korean officials argue that Mr. Kim is willing to bargain away his nuclear weapons in return for ending hostilities and getting Washington’s help to improve his country’s economy.

North Korea’s promise to invite outsiders to Punggye-ri reflected “Mr. Kim’s determination to actively and pre-emptively deal with the process of verifying denuclearization,” Mr. Yoon said.

However, skeptics point to 2008, when North Korea invited foreign journalists to watch it blow up a cooling tower of a nuclear reactor that it had agreed to scrap under a deal with Washington. It later restarted that reactor when the deal broke down.

Similarly, some analysts have played down the significance of North Korea’s offer to shut down the Punggye-ri test site. They said that after six tests, all conducted in deep tunnels, the place had caved in and become too unstable for another test.

On Friday, Mr. Kim offered a rebuttal to these criticisms, Mr. Yoon said Sunday.

“They will see when they visit there that there are two more tunnels bigger than the tunnels used and that they are intact,” he quoted Mr. Kim as saying.

In another conciliatory gesture toward South Korea, Mr. Kim made his own pledge of nonaggression toward the South.

“I am determined not to repeat the painful history of the Korean War. As the same nation living on the same land, we should never shed blood again,” he told Mr. Moon, according to Mr. Yoon. “I will give you my word that there will never be a use of force.”

Mr. Kim even vowed to readjust his country’s clock to match the time zone in South Korea.

In 2015, North Korea created its own time zone — “Pyongyang time” — and set its clocks 30 minutes behind those of South Korea, Japan and other neighbors. That has since created confusion among officials from both Koreas when they tried to schedule their meetings, such as the summit meeting on Friday.

“When I was sitting in the waiting room, I saw two clocks on the wall, one of the Seoul time and the other of the Pyongyang time, and I felt bad about it,” Mr. Kim was quoted as telling Mr. Moon. “Why don’t we reunify our clocks first?”

quote:

Wolf also excoriated Trump’s daughter and senior adviser, Ivanka. “She was supposed to be an advocate for women, but it turns out she’s about as helpful to women as an empty box of tampons. She’s done nothing to satisfy women. So I guess, like father like daughter.”

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 17:23 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 17:24 schreef Falco het volgende:

[..]

Al die Trump-snowflakejes moeten gewoon het advies van deze twee deplorables ter harte nemen:

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 17:28 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Het is inderdaad hilarisch dat het Trump-kamp de inhoud van de speech te ver vonden gaan. Hebben ze gezien wat voor hatelijke shit hun held allemaal uitkraamt?

quote:

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, told President Moon Jae-in of South Korea when they met that he would abandon his nuclear weapons if the United States would agree to formally end the Korean War and promise that it would not invade his country, a South Korean government spokesman said Sunday.

In a faith-building gesture ahead of a summit meeting with President Trump, Mr. Kim also said he would invite experts and journalists from South Korea and the United States to watch the shutdown next month of his country’s only known underground nuclear test site.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 21:49 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Als Kim straks op zijn knietjes voor het Witte Huis zit en het laatste stukje Uranium in een koffertje komt brengen is het commentaar nog steeds:

"Mjah, ik weet niet of je Kim wel serieus kan nemen. Die voert vast iets in zijn schild!"

"Donald Trump gaat dit vast verpesten"

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 22:08 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Overigens, iemand een idee of/hoe Noord Korea gaat reageren als Trump er voor kiest de Iran deal niet te certificeren?

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 22:14 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Volgens Pompeo maakt dat de Noord-Koreanen geen zak uit.

quote:

Dennis Rodman is ecstatic his friends, Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump, are getting along ... especially because he believes he played a big part in bringing the peace.

We spoke with the basketball Hall of Famer about North Korea's newfound friendliness with the U.S. and its historic summit with South Korea ... he tells us it's simply been the result of open communication and good old-fashioned diplomacy.

Rodman also points to his June 2017 visit to N. Korea -- in which he supplied Jong-un with some of Trump's books -- as a catalyst for the dictator's change of heart about the Prez and the American people.

Dennis is clear he doesn't want to take the credit for the good vibes happening right now ... but he can't hide his joy in the role he played.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 16:43 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Ik noem een besluit om een test site te sluiten die of ingestort en dus niet meer bruikbaar of zelfverklaard "niet meer nodig" was, geen concrete stap. De kinderlijke naïviteit waarmee je deze zaak lijkt de benaderen deel je in ieder geval met Trump.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 16:43 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Feit is gewoon dat alle experts zeggen dat Kim met zijn huidige uitspraken niets opgeeft. Hij spreekt expliciet niet van ontwapening bijvoorbeeld. De testlocatie is vernietigd en ze hebben genoeg kennis om een werkende bom te maken dus dat maakt deze toezegging inhoudsloos.

Uiteraard is een inhoudsloze toezegging beter dan geen, dat staat buiten kijf. Maar als het hier bij blijft heeft niemand daar wat aan want dan gaat ook het vredesproces nergens toe leiden. Dat mag uiteraard best benoemd worden is totaal geen onzin.

edit: Ik bestrijd dus ook trouwens dat er een concrete stap is gezet. Kim heeft niets gedaan waar hij niet toe gedwongen was.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 23:30 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Als het hierbij blijft heeft evenmin Noord-Korea er iets aan, uiteindelijk zal het voor Noord-Korea ook gaan om het opschorten van de sancties of een gedeelte daarvan, en voordat dit gebeurt zal ook Noord-Korea natuurlijk meer concrete stappen moeten zetten. Dus je hebt uiteraard gelijk dat er op de grond nog weinig is verandert, maar de retoriek en hoe de landen elkaar nu benaderen des te meer, dat is een belangrijke stap voorwaarts. We moeten niet gaan roepen dat het nu al allemaal uiteraard is geslaagd, verre van, maar we hebben nu ten minste reden om een beetje optmistisch te zijn wat dat betreft. Kim moet zich ook niet gedwongen voelen, hoe meer Kim het gevoel heeft dat hij er controle over heeft en dat zelf zijn stappen mag mee bepalen verder, hoe beter dat zal zijn om de concrete stappen uiteindelijk te realiseren in dit vredesproces.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 23:39 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Ja, eens. Kim wil de sancties verlichten maar dat kan niet zonder ontwapening. Ik hoop dat die impasse doorbroken wordt. Het is inderdaad belangrijk dat Kim zich niet gedwongen moet voelen want die moet zijn eigen overwinning aan het volk kunnen uitleggen.

quote:

The US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies last week questioned the Chinese scientists’ claims, saying it was wrong to conclude that the test site had been destroyed and was inoperative.
https://www.ft.com/content/6eedc288-4b8c-11e8-8a8e-22951a2d8493

quote:

Some hints have appeared that Mr Kim is thinking in bigger — and more pro-American — terms, however. At the weekend Pyongyang said it would not object to US troops staying in South Korea, which has long been viewed as unacceptable to Beijing.

North Korea has also diverged from China’s position with its declaration on the weekend of its willingness to close a nuclear test site and halt to missile testing without a corresponding pledge by the US and South Korea to freeze military exercises. China favours “dual suspension” of testing and exercises and is not keen to see continued large-scale US military manoeuvres on the peninsula.

“Unilateral denuclearisation by North Korea is not such a good outcome for China,” said one senior foreign diplomat based in Seoul.

Last week, Pyongyang said it was open to a peace treaty to formally end the Korean war. Such a step is seen as a precursor to possible reunification.

quote:

Mr Kim has gone out of his way to reassure China.

quote:

With China excluded from the bargaining table, any number of outlandish scenarios seem possible in the fevered dreams of the China’s analyst community: from a reunification of North and South Korea under a US security umbrella to a suddenly pro-American North Korea with nuclear weapons pointed at China.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 17:07 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Er valt dan ook niets zinnigs over te zeggen. Kim heeft nog niet al z'n kaarten op tafel gelegd en het is gissen naar zijn ware intenties.

Persoonlijk vind ik het wat moeilijk te geloven dat Kim binnen vier maanden 180 graden draait, maar we gaan het zien.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 08:18 schreef Ulx het volgende:
En wat als Kim inzet op biologische en chemische wapens?

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 08:12 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:

[..]

Aan de ene kant wel apart inderdaad. Aan de andere kant zijn ze we nog steeds niet zover als de vorige toenadering. Tijdens Bush hadden Noord en Zuid bijvoorbeeld een spoorlijn naar elkaar, het plan was toen dat je zelfs naar Europa kon via Noord-Korea. Bush vond het nodig om opeens Noord-Korea af te zetten als onderdeel van de 'as van het kwaad' ( )

Onlangs heeft de vorige Zuid Koreaanse president (park, die nu in de cel zit vanwege dat corruptieschandaal) ook de boel flink laten klappen. Zo heeft zei een einde gemaakt aan het gezamenlijke industrieterrein op de grens.

Alles wat nu gedaan wordt is alleen maar herstel van de oude situatie eigenlijk. Ik vind het heel lastig te zeggen welke kant het op gaat. Het kan evengoed gewoon weer allemaal in elkaar storen en volgend jaar om deze tijd loopt Kim weer met bommen te dreigen.

Het enige positieve nu is dat het erop lijkt dat alle partijen voor vrede willen gaan (Trump, China, Moon, en Kim).

twitter:

krassenstein twitterde op zondag 29-04-2018 om 15:01:00 On May 4th Vice President Mike Pence will be speaking at the NRA...Guns will NOT be permitted at the venue for "safety" reasons. I assume the NRA views their own members as "bad guys with gun." reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 16:27 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Over die testlocatie; volgens de Chinezen is die sowieso niet meer bruikbaar want ingestort. Hoe dan ook heeft Kim gezegd de testlocatie 'niet meer nodig te hebben'. Poe hé, wat een toenadering zoekt hij dan dat hij die site wil sluiten.

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 10:15 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

De berichtgeving over dat Chinese verslag was zo vaag dat je er niets uit kan besluiten. Wat bedoelen ze met instorten? De berg staat er nog, instorten van de cavity en vorming van een chimney is wat je verwacht na een test. Er zijn vier of vijf portals in de berg, bedoelden ze dat het gebruikte portal onbruikbaar geworden was, of alle portals? De yield van de laatste test was ongeveer het maximum dat de berg kon containen, als het een compact design was (passend op een ICBM) hebben ze geen tests meer nodig, 250kT en ICBMs die de Oostkust van de VS kunnen bereiken lijkt me ruim voldoende als afschrikking.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 08:33 schreef Slaro het volgende:

[..]

Wie zegt dat Kim echt is gedraaid maar niet al langer verandering wilde? Laten we niet vergeten dat hij nog niet zo lang aan de macht is en zelfs aan zijn stoelpoten wordt gezaagd. Wellicht heeft hij zijn macht zodanig gestabiliseerd dat hij dit nu kon doen, China is trouwens nog niet zo uitgesproken voor de vrede, omdat ze er zelf niet voldoende in worden betrokken wat op zichzelf al interessant is.

quote:

Dr. Ronny Jackson, the president’s former personal physician and the short-lived nominee for Veterans Affairs secretary, will not return to his old job, media outlets reported on Sunday.

Jackson, a rear admiral in the Navy, withdrew his name from consideration to lead the VA last week amid a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee investigation into allegations that he created a “hostile work environment” and improperly distributed medication. He was also accused of “excessive drinking on the job” and crashing a government vehicle.

On Sunday, Politico reported that Jackson would not return to his old role as President Donald Trump’s personal physician, citing two White House officials. The news was later confirmed by The Washington Post and The New York Times.

It’s unclear if Jackson will remain on staff at the White House medical unit or if he’ll depart the administration.

SPOILER

Dr. Sean Conley, a veteran of the Navy who took over as Trump’s personal physician as Jackson pursued the VA nomination, will continue in the role.

Jackson has been a White House physician since 2006. He has denied the charges first made public by the office of Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), calling them “completely false and fabricated.”

“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,” Jackson said in a statement last week. But the nomination had already drawn skepticism from some lawmakers who worried that Jackson’s lack of experience would imperil the government’s second-largest federal agency.

Tester’s office has yet to release any documents supporting the accusations against the doctor. Last Friday, the Secret Service said it had uncovered no evidence related to a specific charge that agents had intervened when Jackson allegedly tried to bother then-President Barack Obama during a 2015 overseas trip.

Trump pounced on that news during a rally on Saturday, warning Tester that he knew “things” about the senator that he “could say, too ... and if I said them, he’d never be elected again.” In a post on Twitter, Trump also called on Tester to resign:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zaterdag 28-04-2018 om 14:07:16 Allegations made by Senator Jon Tester against Admiral/Doctor Ron Jackson are proving false. 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. reageer retweet

Jackson is still up for a promotion to become a 2-star admiral. Senators will consider the allegations before awarding it.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 21:57 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Geen idee of Trump dit gaat verpesten, ik ben persoonlijk alleen wel sceptisch. We hebben het over een dictator die een paar maanden geleden nog dreigde Seoul en het westen van de VS te nuken. Hij beschikt over een operationeel kernwapenarsenaal. Het lijkt mij stug dat Kim plots een welwillende, redelijke leider is die zich zorgen maakt om het lot van zijn onderdanen.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 14:10:58 The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is DEAD as we know it. This was a total disaster and an embarrassment to our great Country and all that it stands for. FAKE NEWS is alive and well and beautifully represented on Saturday night! reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 14:13 schreef Nober het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 14:10:58 The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is DEAD as we know it. This was a total disaster and an embarrassment to our great Country and all that it stands for. FAKE NEWS is alive and well and beautifully represented on Saturday night! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 29-04-2018 om 13:45:40 While Washington, Michigan, was a big success, Washington, D.C., just didn’t work. Everyone is talking about the fact that the White House Correspondents Dinner was a very big, boring bust...the so-called comedian really “bombed.” @greggutfeld should host next year! @PeteHegseth reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 04:38:00 The White House Correspondents’ Dinner was a failure last year, but this year was an embarrassment to everyone associated with it. The filthy “comedian” totally bombed (couldn’t even deliver her lines-much like the Seth Meyers weak performance). Put Dinner to rest, or start over! reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 14:16 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Net alsof hij niet blij is dat ze grapjes over hem maken.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 29-04-2018 om 13:45:40 While Washington, Michigan, was a big success, Washington, D.C., just didn’t work. Everyone is talking about the fact that the White House Correspondents Dinner was a very big, boring bust...the so-called comedian really “bombed.” @greggutfeld should host next year! @PeteHegseth reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 04:38:00 The White House Correspondents’ Dinner was a failure last year, but this year was an embarrassment to everyone associated with it. The filthy “comedian” totally bombed (couldn’t even deliver her lines-much like the Seth Meyers weak performance). Put Dinner to rest, or start over! reageer retweet

Heel onverwachte houding, dit.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 14:16 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Net alsof hij niet blij is dat ze grapjes over hem maken.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 29-04-2018 om 13:45:40 While Washington, Michigan, was a big success, Washington, D.C., just didn’t work. Everyone is talking about the fact that the White House Correspondents Dinner was a very big, boring bust...the so-called comedian really “bombed.” @greggutfeld should host next year! @PeteHegseth reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 04:38:00 The White House Correspondents’ Dinner was a failure last year, but this year was an embarrassment to everyone associated with it. The filthy “comedian” totally bombed (couldn’t even deliver her lines-much like the Seth Meyers weak performance). Put Dinner to rest, or start over! reageer retweet

Heel onverwachte houding, dit.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 14:59 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Ben ik nou de enige die niet begrijpt wat er zo erg aan was? Het hele idee van een "roast" is toch juist dat je anderen belachelijk maakt? Als je daar niet tegen kunt, waarom ga je dan naar het event?

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:03 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Hij is uiteraard niet gegaan.

Of denk je dat Trump vrijwillig ergens heen gaat waar hij de hele avond voor lul gezet wordt zonder dat hij zelf mag praten? .

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 14:54 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Je bent weer lekker bezig mij woorden in de mond te leggen die ik niet gebruikt heb. Dit lijkt de enige manier te zijn waarop jij een discussie denkt te kunnen winnen.

Mijn punt is dat Trump concrete toezeggingen had moeten uitonderhandelen voordat hij akkoord ging met een ontmoeting. Zoals gebruikelijk is bij ontmoetingen tussen een Amerikaanse president en een regime zoals dat van Noord Korea. Nu geeft hij Kim erkenning en een internationaal podium terwijl er wellicht wel niets uitkomt. Dat is dus een cadeautje voor Kim en het stelt me teleur van iemand die zichzelf geschikt in "the Art of the deal" noemt. Alle andere dingen die je erbij haalt heb je zelf verzonnen.

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 16:43 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Feit is gewoon dat alle experts zeggen dat Kim met zijn huidige uitspraken niets opgeeft. Hij spreekt expliciet niet van ontwapening bijvoorbeeld. De testlocatie is vernietigd en ze hebben genoeg kennis om een werkende bom te maken dus dat maakt deze toezegging inhoudsloos.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:17 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Nee, dat weet ik. Maar Sanders bijvoorbeeld wel. En nu vinden mensen dat de grappen te ver gingen. En daar begrijp ik dus niks van.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:03 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Hij is uiteraard niet gegaan.

Of denk je dat Trump vrijwillig ergens heen gaat waar hij de hele avond voor lul gezet wordt zonder dat hij zelf mag praten? .

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:28 schreef Treinhomo het volgende:

[..]

Vroeger, bij Comedy Central, deed hij dat nog wel.
Maar daar kreeg hij dan ook leuk voor betaald.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:03 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Of denk je dat Trump vrijwillig ergens heen gaat waar hij de hele avond voor lul gezet wordt zonder dat hij zelf mag praten? .

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:27 schreef Mr.Major het volgende:

[..]

Maar dat hij bijv. de grens over stapt is toch ook een concrete stap (letterlijk en figuurlijk)? Misschien kan je hem nu beter wat uit de tent lokken met wat honing, dan hem er met een touw uit trekken.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:34 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Trump had dan zelf toch ook een beurt gekregen?

Ik herinner me in ieder geval nog hoe George W het hele podium ging afzoeken naar WMD's... "Wat raar, hier liggen ze ook al niet" en dat Obama zijn middelste naam uitlegde als "bedacht door iemand die nooit had verwacht dat ik ooit presidentskandidaat zou worden"

(dit is niet de letterlijke tekst, maar had geen zin om die op te zoeken )

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:34 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Trump had dan zelf toch ook een beurt gekregen?

Ik herinner me in ieder geval nog hoe George W het hele podium ging afzoeken naar WMD's... "Wat raar, hier liggen ze ook al niet" en dat Obama zijn middelste naam uitlegde als "bedacht door iemand die nooit had verwacht dat ik ooit president zou worden"

(dit is niet de letterlijke tekst, maar had geen zin om die op te zoeken )

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2018 23:39 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Ja, eens. Kim wil de sancties verlichten maar dat kan niet zonder ontwapening. Ik hoop dat die impasse doorbroken wordt. Het is inderdaad belangrijk dat Kim zich niet gedwongen moet voelen want die moet zijn eigen overwinning aan het volk kunnen uitleggen.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:34 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Oh, ik dacht dat het op zo'n correspondents diner alleen anderen waren die wat mochten zeggen, eigenlijk.

President Obama Roasts Donald Trump At White House Correspondents' Dinner!

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:34 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]
Alleen ik vraag me af wat Kim van plan is en waarom hij ogenschijnlijk zijn belangrijkste buitenlandpolitiek ineens laat varen.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:30 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Daar mag je toch aan het einde zelf nog wat zeggen ook?

"Obama out:" President Barack Obama's hilarious final White House correspondents' dinner speech

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 14:59 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Ben ik nou de enige die niet begrijpt wat er zo erg aan was? Het hele idee van een "roast" is toch juist dat je anderen belachelijk maakt? Als je daar niet tegen kunt, waarom ga je dan naar het event?

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:53 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Dat ze gezegd zou hebben dat ze vet zou verbranden ipv feiten of dat ze de term smokey eye verwarden met droopy eye.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:59 schreef Mike het volgende:
Het is niet echt de bedoeling dat deze bijeenkomst een roast is.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:01 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Euh... ja? (Haar onderdeel in ieder geval wél.)

Een roast is een roast hoor.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:09 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Veel geruchten dat Israel vanavond gaat laten zien dat Iran mogelijk al een kernwapen heeft vervaardigd. Eerder op de dag stelde Iraanse deputy fm dat nucleair akkoord, 'ongeacht Trump', niet meer 'sustainable' is voor Iran dus er gebeurt wat. Oorlog dreigt.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:12 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Als Israël het mag, mag Iran het natuurlijk ook. Zou dus wel behoorlijk hypocriet zijn als Israël er over zou gaan zeuren. Nog maar afgezien van of het waar is dat Iran kernwapens heeft gemaakt natuurlijk. Het zou zomaar kunnen dat ze het enkel doen om wat Gop-haviken over de sloot te trekken.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 15:59 schreef Mike het volgende:
Wat ik wel opvallend vond, is dat Wolf er echt met gestrekt been in ging. Het is niet echt de bedoeling dat deze bijeenkomst een roast is. Normaal gesproken worden er natuurlijk ook wel steekjes uitgedeeld, maar het ging nu wel wat verder dan dat.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:09 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Veel geruchten dat Israel vanavond gaat laten zien dat Iran mogelijk al een kernwapen heeft vervaardigd. Eerder op de dag stelde Iraanse deputy fm dat nucleair akkoord, 'ongeacht Trump', niet meer 'sustainable' is voor Iran dus er gebeurt wat. Oorlog dreigt.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:27 schreef Mike het volgende:

[..]

Heb je hier iets van een bron van? Ik kom het nl. nergens tegen.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:31 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

https://m.jpost.com/Break(...)-Monday-night-553119

Olaf Koens bericht er al over trouwens op Twitter kan je volgen.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:21 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
Het WHCA heeft zich inmiddels gedistantieerd van Wolf haar routine

twitter:

laurenduca twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 05:28:03 Journalism is about holding power accountable by empowering the people with information. Get the fuck out of here with this "unifying civility" bull shit. reageer retweet

twitter:

deray twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 04:22:08 The WHCA just lost all credibility it might have had with this statement. This White House has done and called folks all types of names and they released this statement about some jokes? The joke is on them. Trump wins again. reageer retweet

twitter:

oufenix twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 05:33:51 It really was like a punch in the gut today. I honestly thought we were making progress in fighting the downfall of our country. But with one bs letter, the media has just signed over their rights as a free press. How long before they're having articles be approved by the regime? reageer retweet

twitter:

JaimieSeaton twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 12:25:26 @laurenduca As a journalist I am disgusted. This attitude permeated the election coverage, which is part of the reason we are here today, fighting to save our democracy. reageer retweet

twitter:

SFmaman1 twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 05:32:21 This letter is pathetic and frightening at the same time. I didn't even know that was possible. reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:09 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Veel geruchten dat Israel vanavond gaat laten zien dat Iran mogelijk al een kernwapen heeft vervaardigd. Eerder op de dag stelde Iraanse deputy fm dat nucleair akkoord, 'ongeacht Trump', niet meer 'sustainable' is voor Iran dus er gebeurt wat. Oorlog dreigt.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:36 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:39 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

"Oorlog dreigt", rustig aan hè. De persconferentie is nog niet eens geweest.

quote:

China will refuse to discuss President Trump’s two toughest trade demands when American negotiators arrive in Beijing this week, people involved in Chinese policymaking say, potentially forcing Washington to escalate the dispute or back down.

The Chinese government is publicly calling for flexibility on both sides. But senior Beijing officials do not plan to discuss the Trump administration’s two biggest demands: a mandatory $100 billion cut in America’s $375 billion annual trade deficit with China and curbs on Beijing’s $300 billion plan to bankroll the country’s industrial upgrade into advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, electric cars and commercial aircraft.

The reason: Beijing feels its economy has become big enough and resilient enough to stand up to the United States.

A half-dozen senior Chinese officials and two dozen influential advisers laid out the Chinese government’s position in detail during a three-day seminar that ended here late Monday morning. A handful of foreign writers were invited from around the world to make sure China’s stance would be known overseas. All of the officials and most of the advisers at the seminar insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

It is not clear what will happen when the two sides sit down this week or whether either will find a reason to waver. Still, the Chinese and American positions are so far apart that China’s leaders are skeptical a deal will be possible at the end of this week. They are already raising the possibility that Chinese officials may fly to Washington a month from now for further talks.

SPOILER

“I don’t expect a comprehensive deal whatsoever,” said Ruan Zongze, the executive vice president of the China Institute of International Studies, which is the policy research arm of China’s Foreign Ministry. “I think there is a lot of game playing here.”

The Chinese government is frustrated with Mr. Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on $150 billion in Chinese goods and dismayed by suggestions in the West that China has a weak bargaining position. Chinese officials believe the country’s one-party political system and President Xi Jinping’s enduring grip on power — particularly after the repeal of presidential term limits in March — mean that China can outlast the United States and Mr. Trump in any trade quarrel.

The Chinese government believes Mr. Trump’s background as a businessman means that at some point he will agree to a deal. Seminar participants also reaffirmed previous Chinese trade policy offers to further open the country’s financial and automotive sectors. They also suggested that China would be willing to tighten its intellectual property rules so as to foster innovation within China as well as protect foreign technologies from counterfeiting and other illegal copying.

But China is insisting that the parameters of any deal be limited, and that the tariff threat be removed before a final deal can be struck.

Chinese officials have reached out to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who has reacted positively to China’s overtures in the auto and financial sectors. Mr. Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive who will be on the Trump administration’s team in Beijing later this week, has sought to calm investors in global financial markets, some of whom have been alarmed by the consequences of a trade war for stock prices and economies.

But the Chinese stance is that two long-term demands raised by trade policy specialists in the Trump administration are unacceptable and should be excluded from the talks later this week.

One of these demands is a request by White House officials for a $100 billion reduction in the annual trade deficit with China. The other demand, for limits on China’s industrial policy, is from the United States trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, who is also part of the American negotiating team scheduled to come to Beijing later this week.

China’s position is that the bilateral trade imbalance arises from differences in savings rates. Households in China save roughly two-fifths of their incomes. Americans, on average, save almost nothing. So money from China tends to flow to the United States, buying factories, technology companies, real estate and more, and Americans in turn spend much of that money to buy goods from China. Many economists in the United States, including some at the Treasury, share that view.

By contrast, many trade lawyers, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and Mr. Trump contend that the trade deficit stems to a large extent from unfair trade practices, including cheap loans by state-controlled banks to exporters.

China is ready to discuss shrinking the $375 billion annual trade deficit. But it wants to do so by buying more high-tech American goods, which Washington has long blocked because of concerns that they may have military value, and by buying more fossil fuels and other goods from the United States.

China is not ready to discuss a mandatory $100 billion reduction in the annual deficit, as the administration has suggested.

A senior Chinese government official said that Beijing is unwilling to negotiate with the United States on any curbs on China’s industrial policy, which includes large-scale government assistance to favored industries in advanced-technology manufacturing. China perceives the American demands for curbs on industrial policy as an attempt to stop China’s economic development and technological progress, the senior Chinese official said.

Germany and other countries also have industrial policies, and the United States has not objected to them, he added. American and European officials have argued that those policies elsewhere are much narrower and less ambitious.

Other participants in the seminar said that the United States had misunderstood China’s industrial policy, known as Made in China 2025. They expressed hope that it might be possible to resolve bilateral differences by explaining the program better and making very small tweaks to it — a stance that still may not appease the Trump administration.

The Chinese government is not simply throwing money, land and other resources to favored industries like robotics, artificial intelligence, semiconductors and aircraft manufacturing, they said. China is engaged instead, they contended, in a carefully thought-out program that measures potential profits for each dollar of investment. So China’s program bears some resemblance, they said, to private sector investment programs in the West.

One subject was repeatedly and conspicuously avoided by all officials throughout the seminar, even when advisers occasionally speculated about it: whether China might someday try to link trade disputes to national security issues.

China has been deeply involved in international pressure on North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, an issue of high importance to the Trump administration. Beijing also wants to some day assert control of Taiwan, a self-governing democracy that Beijing regards as a renegade territory.

Tsinghua University’s new Academic Center for Chinese Economic Practice and Thinking organized the seminar, which was held at Tsinghua and two other venues in western Beijing. President Xi graduated from Tsinghua, which is in Beijing and is China’s top university, and he has filled much of the senior ranks of his government with Tsinghua professors and graduates.

In some respects, the hard stance struck by Chinese officials reflects a hardening of public attitudes in China.

In mid-April, the United States banned American companies from selling their wares to a Chinese telecom equipment maker, ZTE. The move is seen as potentially crippling to the Chinese company, which needs American chips and software to power the smartphones and equipment it sells around the world.

Washington officials cited ZTE’s repeated violations of sanctions against Iran and North Korea, but many in China saw it as a reminder by the United States that sizable sectors of the Chinese economy still rely on American-made goods. Much of the Made in China 2025 policy is aimed at reducing that dependence.

The ZTE case “has changed a lot of Chinese people’s opinion,” said Mr. Ruan, of the China Institute of International Studies. “In the past, people saw us as interdependent.”

quote:

Sitting at a table pretty far from the stage at the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday night, I watched comedian Michelle Wolf deliver a brilliant, well-timed roast of President Donald Trump, those who work for him and the media establishment that covers him.

The performance has everyone talking, and many are expressing outrage that she “went too far” ― outrage that seems phony and forced. Some journalists who cover the White House and, unsurprisingly, many conservatives and Trump supporters are up in arms about Wolf’s barbs. In both cases, the reactions are troublingly hypocritical.

The response of many Washington journalists is a particularly bad sign. It shows us some prominent sectors of the fourth estate are acquiescing to the Trump administration ― normalizing it ― rather than taking up the challenge of dealing with an authoritarian presidency.

Frankly, the reactions reek of an attempt to protect access by brown-nosing members of the administration ― but at the cost of legitimizing a president and an administration that has attacked the free press and called just about everyone in it a purveyor of “fake news.”

Beltway reporters for larger news organizations who’ve been viciously attacked themselves by the most vulgar, insulting, offensive president in U.S. history suddenly seemed shocked ― shocked! ― by what they perceived as vulgarity and insults coming from a female comedian. CNN’s Jeff Zeleny called the roast “not funny,” “cringeworthy” and “one-sided” ― as if a comedic roast of a political figure is supposed to show balance of some kind. He also tweeted that it was an “embarrassment” for everyone in the room.

That may have been the perception where he was sitting ― near White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and White House officials who sat on the main table on the stage ― where journalists from CNN and other news organizations who covet access to the White House might have been loathe to be seen laughing and surely might be uncomfortable.

But where I was sitting, people were laughing generously in response to many jokes, and, as with any comedian, less so to others. Wolf entertained many of those around me. And a successful comic doesn’t just make you laugh: She provokes and makes you think, saying things that others won’t say but which need to be stated, whether you like it or not. Whatever the case, nobody looked embarrassed.

SPOILER

Mike Allen of Axios seems scandalized, however, lamenting that Wolf “made several uses of a vulgarity that begins with ‘p,’ in an audience filled with Washington officials, top journalists and a few baseball legends (Brooks Robinson, Tony La Russa and Dennis Eckersley).”

Are we really to believe that Washington officials and journalists haven’t before heard what some in the White House have referred to as “salty language” (back when Trump made his “shithole countries” remarks), or that baseball legends never heard any “locker room talk,” as the Trump campaign called Trump’s “Access Hollywood” tape in 2016?

There was also the tweet from New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, which started a misleading narrative that Wolf had attacked Sanders’ appearance.

As many have now pointed out, Wolf’s reference to Sanders’s “perfect smokey eye” was actually a compliment on her makeup, yet a dig at her lying: She “burns facts” and uses the “ash” to make a perfect smokey eye. Wolf’s comparison of Sanders to Aunt Lydia from the “The Handmaid’s Tale” wasn’t about her appearance either, but rather a joke about Sanders serving as a strict female enforcer within a misogynistic, authoritarian regime.

Veteran NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell demanded an apology be given to Sanders, whom she said had been “grossly insulted.” This is one of the more blatant examples of the normalization of the Trump presidency by the media establishment.

Mitchell’s expression reflected that of a certain clubby, elite Washington, a place in which insiders view one another as people who have to do their jobs even if they don’t like everything their boss says or does, and therefore should be respected and excused.

But no one has to work for an authoritarian ― not yet ― and especially one who hasn’t himself apologized for having “grossly insulted” gold star families, immigrants, women, black athletes and a slew of other people. Besides, this was a roast, and everything Wolf expressed was true: Sanders defends Trump’s lies for a living, to the point that Politifact has a page of her false statements.

Equally as disingenuous were conservatives who claimed to be offended by Wolf’s comments. American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp tweeted that he and his wife, White House aide Mercedes Schlapp, were so offended and angry about “elites mocking us” that they stormed out in anger ― but they later showed up at the decidedly elite NBC after-party at the Art Museum of the Americas.

The Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual political gathering which Schlapp organizes, each year features more vile insults spewed from the stage in one session ― including against the media ― than Wolf could offer up in 20 dinner monologues.

This year NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch, just days after the Parkland massacre, said in a speech at CPAC that members of the media “love” school shootings: “Many in legacy media love mass shootings. You guys love it. Now I’m not saying that you love the tragedy. But I am saying that you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are ratings gold to you.”

Loesch is not a comedian, and she isn’t joking.

And of course, these Trump-supporting conservatives had little problem with either Trump’s attacks on women’s appearances, like Carly Fiorina’s face, or his general vulgarity, insults and incitements to violence.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham called Wolf a “complete disgrace” and harrumphed that “the Left’s intolerance and mean-spiritedness knows no bounds.” But only a month ago she nastily attacked the Parkland high school student and activist David Hogg over his grade-point average, spurring an advertiser boycott of her show.

She also gave Trump advice during the presidential campaign on getting past the “Access Hollywood” tape controversy, and, according to the New York Times, was one of the conservatives whom the Trump campaign asked to “stand by his side” ― and she did.

The hypocrisy of the Trump-backing conservative leaders and pundits is to be expected, and their reactions to Wolf’s roast are not a shock.

Much more disturbing is that the reactions of many in the Beltway media establishment appear to be more in line with these morally-bankrupt individuals than with the vast majority of Americans they are supposed to serve.

^{by Michelangelo Signorile}

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:44 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
Tjonge, mensen zijn hypocriet over humor. Wie had dat gedacht .

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 17:08 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:
Weer wat peilingen:

Landelijk:

CNN/SRSS

GOP:

Trump 75%
Ryan 1%
Romney 1%
Pence 1%
Gowdy 1%
Cruz 1%
Winfrey 1%
Kasich 0%
Powell 0%
Others 7%
Don't know 11%

Rasmussen Reports

DEM:

Biden 25%
Sanders 12%
Clinton 9%
Booker 4%
Harris 4%
Warren 4%
Mcauliffe 2%
Others 25%
Don't know 17%

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 17:19 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Biden en Sanders. Gaat natuurlijk nooit gebeuren.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 16:09 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Veel geruchten dat Israel vanavond gaat laten zien dat Iran mogelijk al een kernwapen heeft vervaardigd. Eerder op de dag stelde Iraanse deputy fm dat nucleair akkoord, 'ongeacht Trump', niet meer 'sustainable' is voor Iran dus er gebeurt wat. Oorlog dreigt.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 17:36 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:

[..]

Zeker weer onweerlegbaar bewijs zoals toen met deze informatieve illustratie?

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 17:36 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:

[..]

Zeker weer onweerlegbaar bewijs zoals toen met deze informatieve illustratie?

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 17:19 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Biden en Sanders. Gaat natuurlijk nooit gebeuren.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 18:35 schreef Falco het volgende:

[..]

God wat een onbegrensde mongool is die Netanyahu. Intrinsiek nog gevaarlijker en abjecter dan een Trump. Het is echt triest dat de politiek is afgedaald naar corrupte lui met opzichtige domme verhaaltjes. Krijg wel het gevoel dat het tij zich langzaamaan gaat keren en burgers doorhebben hoe ze in de maling genomen zijn door ranzig-rechtse lui.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 18:50 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Als ik momenteel moet inzetten, dan zet ik in op dat Sanders de democratische nominatie wint en Trump uiteraard de Republikeinse.

Uit onvrede (een te linkse en te rechtse kandidaat) doet er een centrische onafhankelijke kandidaat mee zoals Kasich, Hickenlooper of Bloomberg. Deze trekt meer Democratische aanhang dan Republikeinse, hierdoor wint Trump weer de verkiezing met ongeveer 45% van de stemmen.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 18:59 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Type Kasich gaat echt geen Democratische aanhang winnen, hoor. Waarschijnlijk gaat hij uberhaupt weinig aanhang winnen.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 19:18 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Het lijkt me ook geen al te realistisch scenario. Maar als Martijn er van overtuigd is moet hij zijn geld er maar op zetten.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 17:41 schreef Slaro het volgende:

[..]

Dat was een VN-vergadering, dit is een spoed persconferentie, denk dat we het wel wat serieuzer mogen benaderen dus.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 19:42 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:

[..]

Ja die kleuter powerpoint presentatie zag er goed uit inderdaad. Kudo's dat ze van groep 4 naar groep 5 zijn gegaan wat betreft skills.

Ik ben dan wel geen meester, maar een stickertje hebben ze wel verdient.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 19:53 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Maar wel het bijna volledige nucleaire archief van Iran dat gewoon fysiek van Teheran naar Israel is gebracht. Wat boeit het dan of hij het had uitgebeeld met een telraam of er nog een dansje met een aapje naast had gedaan. We kunnen nu voorzichtig stellen dat Amerika uit de nucleaire deal gaat stappen en ze hebben prima argumenten om te laten zien dat het gewoon een slecht akkoord is dus wst dat betreft interessant.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 19:56 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

jij kent de 'prima argumenten' al voordat de persco is geweest?

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 19:56 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

jij kent de 'prima argumenten' al voordat de persco is geweest?

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 19:58 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

DeParo ziet Iran het liefst van de kaart geveegd worden, heb ik het idee. Soort omgekeerde Khomeini, die jongen.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:01 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:
De argumenten zullen wel weer kut en van voor tot achter bij elkaar gefantaseerd zijn.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 19:53 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Maar wel het bijna volledige nucleaire archief van Iran dat gewoon fysiek van Teheran naar Israel is gebracht. Wat boeit het dan of hij het had uitgebeeld met een telraam of er nog een dansje met een aapje naast had gedaan. We kunnen nu voorzichtig stellen dat Amerika uit de nucleaire deal gaat stappen en ze hebben prima argumenten om te laten zien dat het gewoon een slecht akkoord is dus wst dat betreft interessant.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:04 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Wat heeft dat archief met de deal te maken? Het gaat om plannen uit de jaren negentig.

Als je de deal opzegt, dan weet je in ieder geval zeker dat de Iraniërs er meteen weer mee aan de slag gaan.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 19:59 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat wil ik helemaal niet Koos doe eens lief zeg.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:06 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Kennelijk gunnen de VS en Zionististan Iran haar kernwapens wel.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:08 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

In NWS reageerde je anders bijzonder enthousiast op het vooruitzicht van Israëlische raketaanvallen.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:04 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Wat heeft dat archief met de deal te maken? Het gaat om plannen uit de jaren negentig.

Als je de deal opzegt, dan weet je in ieder geval zeker dat de Iraniërs er meteen weer mee aan de slag gaan.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:09 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Wanneer?

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:11 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Je had het over een vuurwerkshow. Dat vind ik een nogal positieve kijk op raketaanvallen.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:11 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Omdat die plannen de basis vormen voor Irans kernwapenprogramma en tot vandaag de dag het fundament is misschien zeg............ Als ze dat soen heb je meteen een reden om ze aan te vallen.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:14 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:
Zozo, die Benno had me toch weer een mooie powerpoint zeg.
Met goeie slides als "IRAN LIED" en natuurlijk ook satellietfoto's waar sinds Colin Powell's presentatie bij de VN niemand meer intrapt.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:15 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Ik maakte op de middelbare school al betere presentaties. Hij had nog net geen Comic Sans gebruikt.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:16 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

En het draaiende vraagteken aan het einde van de presentatie.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:18 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Haha, serieus, toen was ik al afgehaakt.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:14 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Het was allang bekend dat Iran daar in de jaren '90 mee bezig was. Dit is dus oud nieuws. Internationale waarnemers bevestigen keer op keer dat Iran zich aan de voorwaarden van de deal houdt. Als op basis hiervan de deal ontbonden wordt, wordt de deal ontbonden op basis van opgeklopt oud nieuws in een amateuristische presentatie.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:19 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Nogmaals. Het is dus duidelijk dat het de basis is van Iran's kernwapenprogramma. Een kernwapenprogramma waarvan Iran bewemeerde het nooit te hebben gehad. En omdat het dat bleef beweren heeft het nooit openheid gegeven hoe ver ze waren of wat precies waar ligt. En nu weten we dat. Hierdoor weten we dat de deal slecht is omdat Iran nog steeds elk moment kan uitbreken en dus niet het volledige overzicht heeft om hdt nucleaire gevaar van Iran tot een minimum te beperken.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:17 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
De wereld zou beter af zijn als figuren zoals Netanyahu achter de tralies verdwijnen of een hartaanval of beroerte krijgen.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:19 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Nogmaals. Het is dus duidelijk dat het de basis is van Iran's kernwapenprogramma. Een kernwapenprogramma waarvan Iran bewemeerde het nooit te hebben gehad. En omdat het dat bleef beweren heeft het nooit openheid gegeven hoe ver ze waren of wat precies waar ligt. En nu weten we dat. Hierdoor weten we dat de deal slecht is omdat Iran nog steeds elk moment kan uitbreken en dus niet het volledige overzicht heeft om hdt nucleaire gevaar van Iran tot een minimum te beperken.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:19 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Hierdoor weten we dat de deal slecht is omdat Iran nog steeds elk moment kan uitbreken

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:24 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Je doet nu net alsof ze praktisch al een bom hebben liggen. De enige "onthulling" hier is dat de Israëli's een archief hebben gejat.

Daar komt bij dat de deal cancellen de kans op een Iraanse atoombom alleen maar groter maakt.

quote:

Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Thomas Homan will retire from government service, he announced Monday, after spending the last 15 months serving as the most controversial deportation chief in agency’s brief history.

“It has been the honor of my life to lead the men and women of ICE for more than a year,” Homan said in a statement. “The decision to leave federal service after more than 34 years is bittersweet, but my family has sacrificed a lot in order for me to serve and it’s time for me to focus on them. I am humbled and inspired by the 20,000 American patriots who serve this agency and protect our nation, increasingly in the face of unfair and false criticism from politicians and the media.”

quote:

Parkland school shooting survivor and activist Emma Gonzalez deflected online praise from Kanye West to make her own statement about courage. The Donald Trump-supporting rapper sent out two tribute tweets about Gonzalez over the weekend, calling her his “hero” and inspiration.

Gonzalez, the March for Our Lives speaker who has spearheaded a renewed cry for gun control after a massacre left 17 dead at her Florida high school in February, did not directly respond to West. Instead, she wrote “my hero” on a tweet similar to West’s, only Gonzalez named James Shaw Jr. It was Shaw who tackled and disarmed Waffle House mass shooting suspect Travis Reinking while he was reloading his weapon in an April 22 attack in Tennessee, preventing further bloodshed.

West spent last week praising Trump on Twitter. Gonzalez has criticized the president for his opposition to meaningful gun reform.

If you’re wondering why Gonzalez has quickly become a prominent voice for change, her latest social media maneuver is a pretty good example.

quote:

Trump campaign has paid portions of Michael Cohen's legal fees: Sources

The Trump campaign has spent nearly $228,000 to cover some of the legal expenses for President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen, sources familiar with the payments tell ABC News, raising questions about whether the Trump campaign may have violated campaign finance laws.

Federal Election Commission records show three payments made from the Trump campaign to a firm representing Cohen. The “legal consulting” payments were made to McDermott Will and Emery — a law firm where Cohen's attorney Stephen Ryan is a partner — between October 2017 and January 2018.

Cohen has said that he did not have a formal role in the Trump campaign, and it is illegal to spend campaign funds for personal use – defined by the FEC as payments for expenses “that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.”

"They're on shaky legal ground," said Stephen Spaulding, chief of strategy at the nonprofit watchdog group Common Cause. "It sounds like they are really pushing the envelope … If the campaign were to say they are campaign-related payments, then maybe it's okay to use campaign funds. But he can't have it both ways."

Bron: ABC News

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 21:12 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
Move over Dotard Donald, hier is de nieuwe held van Kanye West! (Wat nou, ze wil niet? )

Kanye West Tweets Admiration For Emma Gonzalez, But She Isn’t Having It (HuffPo)

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:56 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
Netanyahu had beter gezwegen. Er waren een aantal condities in het akkoord waarvan naleving onmogelijk te controleren was: een ban op explosive lenses research (gebruikt voor de implosie van de core), een ban op simulatiesoftware voor weapon design testing, etc.
Ik denk niet dat de ondertekenaars werkelijk verwachtten dat Iran die voorwaarden zou naleven, die waren eerder "pro forma" toegevoegd. Maar dat Netanyahu Iran enkel beschuldigt van het verstoppen van papieren suggereert dat de Israeli's geen aanwijzingen gevonden hebben dat Iran die regels overtreedt.

quote:

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman @BobCorker tells Bloomberg TV that Netanyahu speech on Iran provided "nothing new" that wasn't already widely known
https://twitter.com/elwasson/status/991042961940115456?s=19

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 22:18 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Wat een flop die presentatie

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 21:51 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Het is overduidelijk wanhopig zoeken naar een goed excuus om de deal op te blazen. En daar zijn ze al een tijdje driftig naar op zoek..

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 22:22 schreef trein2000 het volgende:

[..]

Ik hoop dat het slechts gaat om een reden om die deal op te blazen. Maar ik ben bang dat het gaat om een zoektocht naar een casus Belli.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 22:39 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Letterlijk oorlog?
Dat hoop ik toch echt niet

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 22:18 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Wat een flop die presentatie

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 22:46 schreef trein2000 het volgende:

[..]

Ik hoop ook sterk van niet, maar ik vrees er wel voor. Als die deal weg valt, heeft Iran ook geen reden meer om zich in te houden...

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 21:16 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
Dat gezeik op twitter word ik ook schijtziek van. Van zowel de president als al deze andere losers. Fuck Kanye West.

twitter:

JenniferJJacobs twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 23:02:40 John Kelly responds to MSNBC claim he calls Trump an “idiot. “He and I both know this story is total BS. I am committed to the president, his agenda, and our country. “This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump...” https://t.co/nqGCXWRADM reageer retweet

twitter:

SRuhle twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 23:10:26 Dear John Kelly- As one of the people who worked on the story, I can tell you, it is WELL sourced.As for “smearing” the President, those on your team recount stories of you (not us) undermining his credibility. https://t.co/oTHDyj1Fif reageer retweet

quote:

After years of costly layoffs and plant closings, things are looking up for the heavy-machinery giant Caterpillar, which forecasts solid global sales growth and increased demand this year. Yet despite the corporate investment incentives at the center of President Trump’s tax overhaul, the company’s executives have no plans to supercharge investment or expansion.

Caterpillar’s plans for new investment remain low by historical standards. Instead, the company has started using cash to repurchase its own stock as a way to return cash to shareholders, something it hadn’t done since 2015.

“We feel we have the necessary bricks-and-mortar capacity that we need,” Brad Halverson, the company’s chief financial officer, said in a post-earnings conference call last Tuesday.

Republicans sold the 2017 tax law as “rocket fuel” for American investment and growth, saying that corporations — flush with cash from lower tax rates — would channel money back into the economy by building factories and offices and investing in equipment, which would help companies grow and provide winnings for workers.

Economists say that may happen as companies readjust their spending plans over the coming months to take advantage of the new law, and they note that it is too early to tell how much the tax law will spread into the broader economy.

twitter:

WhiteHouseCEA twitterde op vrijdag 27-04-2018 om 15:46:35 Q1 #GDP surprises to the upside @BEA_News. Strong business investment and capital deepening as companies respond to #TaxReform. reageer retweet

SPOILER

Representative Erik Paulsen, a Minnesota Republican who chairs the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, attributed the G.D.P. growth to the tax cuts. “Americans are better off today than they were 16 months ago,” he said in a statement on Friday. “Business investment is strong, wages are growing, and disposable income is climbing thanks to tax reform and pro-growth policies.”

Analysts were more cautious in drawing conclusions.

“Even regardless of the tax plan kicker, we would have seen a pickup in business investment,” said Keith Parker, head of United States equity strategy at UBS. Capital spending, he said, “typically follows profits with a lag.”

Scott Greenberg, a tax analyst at the conservative Tax Foundation, warned that it was “always difficult to identify an economic trend from just one quarter’s data.”

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, told The Economist in remarks published last week that after the tax cuts passed, corporations “bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.” A spokeswoman said Monday that Mr. Rubio’s criticism was that the law could have done more to help working families while also stimulating corporate investment.

While overall business investment in the American economy was up 6.1 percent in the first quarter, business spending by the larger corporations included in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index — as measured by their announcements of capital expenditures so far this earnings season — is up 23.5 percent from the first quarter of 2017, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. That would be the fastest pace since 2012.

Large tech companies are among some of the biggest spenders. Google’s parent, Alphabet, nearly tripled its first-quarter capital spending to $7.3 billion on real estate and computing capacity and data centers. Amazon increased investment by more than 40 percent to more than $3 billion as it builds out its network of fulfillment centers.

But with roughly a quarter of the companies in the S.&P. 500 having reported first-quarter results, their spending on buybacks is even higher, up 43 percent from the first quarter of 2017, to $43 billion, according to data from Howard Silverblatt, an analyst at S&P Dow Jones Indices.

Traditionally when companies have more cash than they think they can invest productively, they return it to shareholders either by paying them cash dividends or by going into the market and repurchasing shares. Those buybacks tend to push the price of a stock up, making shareholders wealthier, at least on paper.

Republicans, and some Democratic economists, say this can help the economy, if those shareholders sell their stock and then use their profits to make other investments. But critics argue that buybacks disproportionately benefit the wealthy — the richest 10 percent of Americans own 84 percent of all stock — and executives who are often compensated with shares.

Boeing said it had bought back $3 billion worth of its stock in the first quarter. (It expects to buy $15 billion over the next two years.) Facebook expanded its plans to buy back its shares to the tune of $9 billion. the appliance maker Whirlpool said it would sell its Brazilian refrigerator compressor business for roughly $1 billion, and then use that money to buy its own shares. The railroad operator CSX said it had bought back more than $800 million in shares in the first quarter, as part of plans to buy $5 billion in shares by the first quarter of next year.

As they anticipated a windfall from tax cuts, the nation’s banks increased their pace of buybacks by more than 50 percent last year, to $77.5 billion from $51 billion in 2016, according to data compiled by S&P Global Market Intelligence. The 10 largest banks, led by JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup, accounted for 70 percent of those buybacks.



Republicans have highlighted the buybacks as a boost for the economy, saying they will put money in the hands of investors who will find productive and widespread ways to use it. Many Democrats say those buybacks undermine Republican claims about the tax law and prove the overhaul will reward only corporations and the wealthy.

“The whole theory was to lavish corporations and the already wealthy with tax cuts, and maybe the benefits will trickle down to everyone else,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said in a floor speech in April. “We’re already seeing the balloon burst on that idea, as corporations dedicate an enormous percentage of the tax savings to stock buybacks, and only a sliver to worker compensation.”

A recent surge in oil and gas investment is largely a result of the recovery in oil and gas prices and easing of regulations over the last year, rather than incentives put in place by the tax overhaul. Economists believe those incentives — such as allowing companies to immediately and fully deduct the cost of capital spending in order to lower their taxes — could help stimulate investment for companies.

A survey by the National Association of Manufacturers in April found record-high expectations among members for capital investments this year. Historically, that survey is a strong predictor of future investments, though over the past two years actual investment has underperformed what the survey predicted. A survey by the National Association for Business Economics also finds capital spending expectations rising from a year ago — but two-thirds of respondents said the new tax law did not cause them to change hiring or investment plans. Morgan Stanley said Monday that its Capex Plans Index for future capital expenditures fell slightly in April, from what had been a record high.

Verizon, in its quarterly earnings report last week, said it had increased capital expenditures to $4.6 billion in the first quarter, up $1.5 billion from the same period in 2017. But the company plans to stick to its target of spending at most $17.8 billion on investment this year — a level that has not budged much for the past four years.

“I don’t see us having a massive acceleration in capex,” Verizon’s chief financial officer, Matt Ellis, told analysts on its post-earnings conference call.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 23:57 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Nog meer gezeik

twitter:

JenniferJJacobs twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 23:02:40 John Kelly responds to MSNBC claim he calls Trump an “idiot. “He and I both know this story is total BS. I am committed to the president, his agenda, and our country. “This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump...” https://t.co/nqGCXWRADM reageer retweet

twitter:

SRuhle twitterde op maandag 30-04-2018 om 23:10:26 Dear John Kelly- As one of the people who worked on the story, I can tell you, it is WELL sourced.As for “smearing” the President, those on your team recount stories of you (not us) undermining his credibility. https://t.co/oTHDyj1Fif reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 00:38:35 The migrant ‘caravan’ that is openly defying our border shows how weak & ineffective U.S. immigration laws are. Yet Democrats like Jon Tester continue to support the open borders agenda – Tester even voted to protect Sanctuary Cities. We need lawmakers who will put America First. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 00:49:55 The Fake News is going crazy making up false stories and using only unnamed sources (who don’t exist). They are totally unhinged, and the great success of this Administration is making them do and say things that even they can’t believe they are saying. Truly bad people! reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 00:51 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Daar is-ie dan

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 00:49:55 The Fake News is going crazy making up false stories and using only unnamed sources (who don’t exist). They are totally unhinged, and the great success of this Administration is making them do and say things that even they can’t believe they are saying. Truly bad people! reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 00:54 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Het is dus waar. Voor zover we dat al niet wisten.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 01:02:13 The White House is running very smoothly despite phony Witch Hunts etc. There is great Energy and unending Stamina, both necessary to get things done. We are accomplishing the unthinkable and setting positive records while doing so! Fake News is going “bonkers!” reageer retweet

quote:

Vice President Mike Pence's physician privately raised alarms within the White House last fall that President Donald Trump's doctor may have violated federal privacy protections for a key patient -- Pence's wife, Karen -- and intimidated the vice president's doctor during angry confrontations over the episode.

The previously unreported incident is the first sign that serious concerns about Ronny Jackson's conduct had reached the highest levels of the White House as far back as September -- months before White House aides furiously defended Jackson's professionalism, insisted he had been thoroughly vetted and argued allegations of misconduct amounted to unsubstantiated rumors.

The episode -- detailed in three memos by Pence's physician -- is also the first documentation that has surfaced involving a specific allegation of medical misconduct by Jackson. It adds to a series of significant allegations leveled by unidentified current and former colleagues, including that he casually dispensed prescription drugs.

Jackson and the White House have continued to deny allegations of misconduct, and Jackson's defenders in the White House said Monday that the episode involving Mrs. Pence was simply a dispute between two doctors with a strained relationship and that he had acted appropriately.

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:24 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Je doet nu net alsof ze praktisch al een bom hebben liggen. De enige "onthulling" hier is dat de Israëli's een archief hebben gejat.

Daar komt bij dat de deal cancellen de kans op een Iraanse atoombom alleen maar groter maakt.

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:21 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Want onderdeel van die deal was dat Iran alle opgedane kennis zou wissen?

quote:

Op maandag 30 april 2018 20:56 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
Netanyahu had beter gezwegen. Er waren een aantal condities in het akkoord waarvan naleving onmogelijk te controleren was: een ban op explosive lenses research (gebruikt voor de implosie van de core), een ban op simulatiesoftware voor weapon design testing, etc.
Ik denk niet dat de ondertekenaars werkelijk verwachtten dat Iran die voorwaarden zou naleven, die waren eerder "pro forma" toegevoegd. Maar dat Netanyahu Iran enkel beschuldigt van het verstoppen van papieren suggereert dat de Israeli's geen aanwijzingen gevonden hebben dat Iran die regels overtreedt.

quote:

Conservative House allies of President Trump have drafted articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who oversees the ongoing special counsel probe, setting up a possible GOP showdown over the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The document, which was obtained by The Washington Post, underscores the growing chasm between congressional Republican leaders, who have maintained for months that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III should be allowed to proceed, and rank-and-file GOP lawmakers who have repeatedly battled the Justice Department during the past year.

The draft articles, which one of its authors called a “last resort,” would be unlikely to garner significant support in Congress. But it could serve as a provocative political weapon for conservatives in their standoff with Mueller and the Justice Department.

Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus — led by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a Trump confidant — finalized the draft in recent days. It came after weeks of disputes with Rosenstein over the Justice Department’s response to congressional requests for documents about the decisions and behavior of federal law-enforcement officials working on the Russia investigation and other federal probes, including the investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s email server.

SPOILER

Meadows acknowledged the draft in an interview Monday, calling the one-page document “a last resort option, if the Department of Justice fails to respond” for his requests for more information.

“My frustrations about their inability to respond to simple requests could warrant further action,” Meadows said, adding that many of his colleagues are nearing a breaking point with Rosenstein.

The Freedom Caucus, which counts a few dozen House Republicans as members, is one of the more influential blocs in Congress because of its ability to drive debates to the right inside the House and Meadows’s close relationship with the president.

Still, the group’s impeachment draft would face many challenges if it were referred to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration. Republicans leaders have kept their distance from calls to remove Rosenstein from office, and Democrats have argued that the GOP’s clashes with the deputy attorney general are little more than a pretext to weaken Mueller’s efforts.

In recent weeks, the Judiciary Committee reached an agreement with the Justice Department over documents it wanted turned over — possibly curbing the appetite of its leaders for a fight.

Impeaching a federal official is an exceedingly difficult endeavor. While House members can refer impeachment articles to the House Judiciary Committee, it is usually up to the committee to debate or draft impeachment legislation that could be brought before the House for a vote. A simple majority is then needed for an article of impeachment to pass and be sent to the U.S. Senate for a trial. Two-thirds of the Senate are necessary to convict and remove the accused from office.

Should the Judiciary Committee decline to take up a proposal, Meadows and his colleagues are considering offering articles of impeachment under what is called a “privileged” resolution, which is when a floor vote is quickly called if the House speaker approves.

The last federal official impeached by the House was federal judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr., who was convicted by the Senate in 2010 on bribery allegations.

A spokesperson for the House Judiciary Committee declined to comment on the draft or the prospect of impeachment proceedings. A Justice Department spokesman also declined to comment on the draft.

Democrats have said that conservative criticisms of Rosenstein are aimed at protecting Trump. But Meadows and others involved in the impeachment discussions say their concerns are serious and should be heard.

The draft criticizes Rosenstein’s disclosure of materials related to a classified surveillance warrant application and subsequent renewals targeting former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Conservatives have alleged the Justice Department acted inappropriately because the department relied on information in its warrant applications that was funded by Clinton’s presidential campaign. The warrants were approved by multiple judges.

The conversatives’ outline, which is divided into eight parts, focuses on Rosenstein and surveillance matters in the first three articles. The document asserts that the veteran Justice Department official “engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him” in his dealings with Congress and “failed to enforce multiple laws” in the warrant process.

The draft also states that Rosenstein “knowingly provided misleading statements” during congressional testimony about steps the federal government took to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced in March that he will examine the series of applications to surveil Page, along with the department’s relationship with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, whose research was cited in those requests.

The impeachment draft come at a charged moment within the Republican Party and inside the White House. Trump warned in recent days that he could make sweeping changes at the Justice Department and has repeatedly railed against the special counsel investigation as a “witch hunt” that is baseless and politically motivated.

And it follows months of pressure on Rosenstein, going back to January when Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) called him a “traitor” who should be criminally prosecuted.

“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,” Trump told Fox News in an interview last week. “I will wait till this is over.”

The impeachment draft comes even as other House Republicans have cooled their tensions with Rosenstein, who has largely capitulated to lawmakers’ demands.

In early April, for example, the Justice Department gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) access to a redacted document detailing the origin of the investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 election, just a day after Nunes had threatened impeachment proceedings. At the time, Nunes publicly thanked Rosenstein for his cooperation, although he said his subpoenas would remain in effect.

Similarly, the Justice Department came to an agreement in recent weeks with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who had been seeking documents on the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server and the firing of Andrew McCabe as deputy FBI director, among other things.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), when asked in April at a news conference about Mueller and Rosenstein, said “they should be allowed to do their jobs.”

But Meadows and others in his wing of the House GOP, such as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), have continued to question Rosenstein and met with him at the Justice Department in mid-April to discuss document production. Meadows and Jordan left the session disappointed and have been talking through what the articles of impeachment could be ever since.

“The Department of Justice’s willingness to comply with legitimate requests are more lip service than actual actions,” Meadows said Monday.

quote:

A whistleblower from the Environmental Protection Agency says that Administrator Scott Pruitt was "bold-faced" lying when he told members of Congress that no EPA employees were retaliated against for raising concerns about his spending decisions.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News' Kyra Phillips, former deputy chief of staff Kevin Chmielewski said he was "100 percent" forced out after raising concerns about Pruitt's spending on first-class travel.

Chmielewski said chief of staff Ryan Jackson called him into his office and said: "Hey — Administrator Pruitt either wants me to fire you or put you in an office so that he doesn't have to see you again,” Chmielewski told ABC News adding that "And in addition to that, he wants to put Millan (Hupp) in your spot, as your title and your pay grade."

"I think Ryan Jackson, the chief of staff, is a very honorable guy. I think he's just in a weird situation," Chmielewski said. "Because he was — he was the biggest advocate about doing the right thing. We would talk about it all the time."

ABC News has reached out to Jackson and Hupp for comment.

The EPA declined to comment in response to questions about Chmielewski’s allegations against Pruitt and his staff. ABC News obtained a personnel form filled out by an EPA HR officials that says he resigned on March 17.

The form is not signed by Chmielewski, who says he was actually forced to leave a month before that date.

[..]

quote:

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s election interference, has at least four dozen questions on an exhaustive array of subjects he wants to ask President Trump to learn more about his ties to Russia and determine whether he obstructed the inquiry itself, according to a list of the questions obtained by The New York Times.

[Read the questions here.]

The open-ended queries appear to be an attempt to penetrate the president’s thinking, to get at the motivation behind some of his most combative Twitter posts and to examine his relationships with his family and his closest advisers. They deal chiefly with the president’s high-profile firings of the F.B.I. director and his first national security adviser, his treatment of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a 2016 Trump Tower meeting between campaign officials and Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.

But they also touch on the president’s businesses; any discussions with his longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, about a Moscow real estate deal; whether the president knew of any attempt by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to set up a back channel to Russia during the transition; any contacts he had with Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime adviser who claimed to have inside information about Democratic email hackings; and what happened during Mr. Trump’s 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant.

The questions provide the most detailed look yet inside Mr. Mueller’s investigation, which has been shrouded in secrecy since he was appointed nearly a year ago. The majority relate to possible obstruction of justice, demonstrating how an investigation into Russia’s election meddling grew to include an examination of the president’s conduct in office. Among them are queries on any discussions Mr. Trump had about his attempts to fire Mr. Mueller himself and what the president knew about possible pardon offers to Mr. Flynn.

SPOILER

“What efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?” Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to questions read by the special counsel investigators to the president’s lawyers, who compiled them into a list. That document was provided to The Times by a person outside Mr. Trump’s legal team.

A few questions reveal that Mr. Mueller is still investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. In one of the more tantalizing inquiries, Mr. Mueller asks what Mr. Trump knew about campaign aides, including the former chairman Paul Manafort, seeking assistance from Moscow: “What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?” No such outreach has been revealed publicly.

Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, declined to comment. A spokesman for the special counsel’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The questions serve as a reminder of the chaotic first 15 months of the Trump presidency and the transition and campaign before that. Mr. Mueller wanted to inquire about public threats the president made, conflicting statements from Mr. Trump and White House aides, the president’s private admissions to Russian officials, a secret meetings at an island resort, WikiLeaks, salacious accusations and dramatic congressional testimony.

The special counsel also sought information from the president about his relationship with Russia. Mr. Mueller would like to ask Mr. Trump whether he had any discussions during the campaign about any meetings with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and whether he spoke to others about either American sanctions against Russia or meeting with Mr. Putin.

Through his questions, Mr. Mueller also tries to tease out Mr. Trump’s views on law enforcement officials and whether he sees them as independent investigators or people who should loyally protect him.

For example, when the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was fired, the White House said he broke with Justice Department policy and spoke publicly about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email server. Mr. Mueller’s questions put that statement to the test. He wants to ask why, time and again, Mr. Trump expressed no concerns with whether Mr. Comey had abided by policy. Rather, in statements in private and on national television, Mr. Trump suggested that Mr. Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation.

Many of the questions surround Mr. Trump’s relationship with Mr. Sessions, including the attorney general’s decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation and whether Mr. Trump told Mr. Sessions he needed him in place for protection.

Mr. Mueller appears to be investigating how Mr. Trump took steps last year to fire Mr. Mueller himself. The president relented after the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, threatened to resign, an episode that the special counsel wants to ask about.

“What consideration and discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel in June of 2017?” Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to the list of questions. “What did you think and do in reaction to Jan. 25, 2018, story about the termination of the special counsel and Don McGahn backing you off the termination?” he planned to ask, referring to the Times article that broke the news of the confrontation.

Mr. Mueller has sought for months to question the president, who has in turn expressed a desire, at times, to be interviewed, viewing it as an avenue to end the inquiry more quickly. His lawyers have been negotiating terms of an interview out of concern that their client — whose exaggerations, half-truths and outright falsehoods are well documented — could provide false statements or easily become distracted. Four people, including Mr. Flynn, have pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry.

The list of questions grew out of those negotiations. In January, Mr. Trump’s lawyers gave Mr. Mueller several pages of written explanations about the president’s role in the matters the special counsel is investigating. Concerned about putting the president in legal jeopardy, his lead lawyer, John Dowd, was trying to convince Mr. Mueller he did not need to interview Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Mueller was apparently unsatisfied. He told Mr. Dowd in early March that he needed to question the president directly to determine whether he had criminal intent when he fired Mr. Comey, the people said.

But Mr. Dowd held firm, and investigators for Mr. Mueller agreed days later to share during a meeting with Mr. Dowd the questions they wanted to ask Mr. Trump.

When Mr. Mueller’s team relayed the questions, their tone and detailed nature cemented Mr. Dowd’s view that the president should not sit for an interview. Despite Mr. Dowd’s misgivings, Mr. Trump remained firm in his insistence that he meet with Mr. Mueller. About a week and a half after receiving the questions, Mr. Dowd resigned, concluding that his client was ignoring his advice.

Mr. Trump’s new lawyer in the investigation and his longtime confidant, Rudolph W. Giuliani, met with Mr. Mueller last week and said he was trying to determine whether the special counsel and his staff were going to be “truly objective.”

Mr. Mueller’s endgame remains a mystery, even if he determines the president broke the law. A longstanding Justice Department legal finding says presidents cannot be charged with a crime while they are in office. The special counsel told Mr. Dowd in March that though the president’s conduct is under scrutiny, he is not a target of the investigation, meaning Mr. Mueller does not expect to charge him.

The prospect of pardons is also among Mr. Mueller’s inquiries, and whether Mr. Trump offered them to a pair of former top aides to influence their decisions about whether to cooperate with the special counsel investigation.

Mr. Dowd broached the idea with lawyers for both of the advisers, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Manafort has pleaded not guilty on charges of money laundering and other financial crimes related to his work for the pro-Russia former president of Ukraine.

Mr. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who was ousted from the White House in February 2017 amid revelations about contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States, ultimately pleaded guilty last December to lying to federal authorities and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel.

“After General Flynn resigned, what calls or efforts were made by people associated with you to reach out to General Flynn or to discuss Flynn seeking immunity or possible pardon?” Mr. Mueller planned to ask.

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 06:20 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:
Importheffingen (staal en aluminium) voor Europa uitgesteld tot juni. Idem voor Canada en Mexico.
https://www.nu.nl/economi(...)opese-unie-juni.html

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 08:24 schreef SureD1 het volgende:

[..]

Elke keer een maand uitstel, en je als EU maar als speelbal laten gebruiken, gaat lekker zo...

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 08:24 schreef SureD1 het volgende:

[..]

Elke keer een maand uitstel, en je als EU maar als speelbal laten gebruiken, gaat lekker zo...

quote:

Former Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore filed a complaint on Monday claiming he was the target of a political conspiracy ahead of the Alabama special election in December.

Moore, a former judge, lost to Democrat Doug Jones in a special election to fill a Senate seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Jones defeated Moore by about 20,000 votes ― or 1.5 percentage points.

Controversy swirled around Moore in the final months of the campaign as several women came forward to accuse him of sexual misconduct, including allegations that he pursued and harassed teenage girls when he was in his 30s and sexually assaulted one. Moore has denied the allegations.

In a statement released on a campaign Facebook page, Moore’s attorney, Melissa Isaak, said the allegations against Moore “arose from a political conspiracy to destroy his personal reputation and defeat him in the special Senate election for United States Senate.”

SPOILER

In his complaint, filed in civil court in Etowah County, Alabama, Moore claims that his accusers shared a “common design” and planned their allegations to undermine his campaign. The complaint names four of Moore’s accusers ― Leigh Corfman, Debbie Wesson Gibson, Beverly Young Nelson and Tina Johnson ― as well as Richard Hagedorn, a reported friend of Corfman’s.

Moore “has filed this action not only to hold accountable those who are guilty of slanderous and libelous conduct, but also to restore his good name, character, and reputation with the people of Alabama,” Isaak said.

Monday’s complaint claims the women’s allegations arose “coincidentally” roughly a month before the election and that Moore faced “no hint of scandal” in his years in public office prior to that.

Moore was twice elected chief justice of Alabama and twice removed from court for violations. In 2003, a judicial ethics panel removed Moore from office for failing to comply with an order to take a Ten Commandments monument out of the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery. He was re-elected, but was removed from the court again in September 2016 for defying federal orders on same-sex marriage. The former judge has said he believes “homosexual conduct should be illegal.”

The complaint also reiterates the claim that Corfman, whose allegations were first published in The Washington Post, was paid for coming forward with her story ― an accusation she denies.

Corfman filed a lawsuit against Moore in January, saying he made defamatory remarks against her after she alleged that he touched her sexually in 1979, when she was 14 and he was 32. Moore, in turn, sued Corfman for defamation in April.

Monday’s suit accuses the defendants on seven counts, including civil conspiracy, and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Neil Roman, an attorney for Corfman, said in a statement to the Alabama Media Group that Moore’s latest claims “have no more merit than those he has made before.”

quote:

Negative comments have rained down on a pro-gun political ad by controversial Georgia gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp in which the Republican points a shotgun at a young man supposedly interested in dating one of Kemp’s daughters as the teen professes a “healthy appreciation” for the Second Amendment.

Viewers are demanding that an Atlanta television station stop running it. “We are gun owners and we are outraged,” one told Atlanta NBC affiliate 11 Alive. Kemp is currently Georgia’s secretary of state.

“I’m a conservative businessman with a four-point plan to put hardworking Georgians first,” Kemp said in a tweet Friday when he unveiled the ad. ”I’m also the proud father of three teenage girls. Here’s the thing: If you want to date one of my daughters, you better have respect for women and a healthy appreciation for the Second Amendment.”

SPOILER

While his shotgun is “broken” open and unable to fire as the ad starts, he closes it up at the end and aims it at the boy, which viewers found especially disturbing, particularly in the wake of school shooting deaths. Other weapons lean against the wall in Kemp’s “study” in the ad.

Some viewers took Kemp’s “aw shucks” attitude in the ad as an attempt at down-home humor (or an “audition” for “Saturday Night Live”) and found it hilarious. But most people responding on Facebook and YouTube were horrified that Kemp appeared to be threatening a minor with a gun.

“After young children have lost their life to gunfire you set there flopping around a gun with a minor. Wow,” wrote one viewer on Facebook.

Another called it “all sorts of stupid.” Others were furious that Kemp seemed to fortify negative stereotypes about Georgia.

Kemp hadn’t yet defended the ad by late Monday. He directed a supporter on Facebook to his campaign website.

Atlanta TV-11 issued a statement Monday saying that, despite an onslaught of complaints about the ad, it can’t be removed or altered because the Federal Communications Commission’s “political broadcast rules prohibit television stations from refusing or altering political advertising from any legally qualified candidate.”

Kemp is one of seven GOP candidates hoping to replace Republican Gov. Nathan Deal. The battle among them for Georgia’s gun-toting voters is intense. Earlier in April, former Republican state Sen. Hunter Hill, who’s also running in the primary, aired an ad that showed him loading a semiautomatic rifle while proposing to lower the legal age for all firearm purchases to 18.

Not only is Kemp a staunch gun backer, he also supports a “sales tax holiday on guns.” He’s also believes he can get Georgia working. “I know what it takes to build a business — God’s favor and hard work,” he wrote on Facebook.

A recent poll by the Atlanta Journal Constitution and Channel 2 News found that 47 percent of likely Republican primary voters and 90 percent of likely Democratic voters want stricter gun laws.

The primary is May 22.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 12:47:30 So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 13:34:13 It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened! Witch Hunt! reageer retweet

John Dean Says It Could Be Act of Obstruction if Trump Team Leaked Mueller's Questions

quote:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has granted a financial hardship waiver to an oil refinery owned by billionaire Carl Icahn, a former adviser to President Donald Trump, exempting the Oklahoma facility from requirements under a federal biofuels law, according to two industry sources briefed on the matter.

The waiver enables Icahn’s CVR Energy Inc (CVI.N) to avoid tens of millions of dollars in costs related to the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The regulation is meant to cut air pollution, reduce petroleum imports and support corn farmers by requiring refiners to mix billions of gallons of biofuels into the nation’s gasoline and diesel each year.

The Small Refiners Coalition, which represents companies that operate small refining facilities, said the EPA is required by law to help small refineries struggling with these regulations and that such exemptions are crucial to their financial well-being. It applauded EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for protecting small refineries, regardless of ownership, from the RFS requirements.

But the exemption for CVR’s Wynnewood, Oklahoma plant prompted criticism from a corn state lawmaker and the powerful corn lobby, which has already accused Trump’s EPA of overusing the hardship waiver program in a way that hurts demand for ethanol.

“Hundreds of millions - and in some cases billions - of dollars in profits isn’t my definition of ‘hardship,’” Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said in statement condemning the CVR waiver. “President Trump promised to support home-grown biofuels, and Administrator Pruitt is breaking that promise.”

[..]

quote:

The House Oversight Committee is expected to interview Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's former head of security Wednesday, the latest indication that Pruitt still faces scrutiny from Congress after back-to-back hearings last week.

Pasquale "Nino" Perrotta, a former Secret Service agent whose career in law enforcement included a stint investigating the Gambino crime family for the Bronx district attorney in New York City, led Pruitt's 24-hour security detail, putting him at the center of several of the ethics and spending episodes under review by the EPA inspector general and congressional investigators.

In a phone interview this morning, Perrotta, who said he resigned from his job at the EPA Monday, said he plans to "fully cooperate and answer any and all questions" from Congress, starting with the transcribed interview with the House Oversight Committee Wednesday.

"All of this press is taking a toll on my family. I decided to move on and it's been an honor to serve," he said.

An EPA spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on the transcribed interview or Perrotta's resignation.

quote:

As the power elite of Washington filed out of the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on Saturday, chattering about the rough-and-tumble set by the comedian Michelle Wolf, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, was invited to pose for a portrait with her fellow honorees on the dais.

Ms. Wolf smiled for the camera. But Ms. Sanders declined, not wanting to appear in a photo alongside the comedian, according to two people who described the exchange.

It was an early ripple of the tsunami to come. Ms. Wolf’s punch lines about Ms. Sanders and Kellyanne Conway, another prominent woman in the Trump administration, set off a high-dudgeon debate that raised the possibility that Saturday’s edition of the nearly 100-year-old dinner could be the last of its kind.

“It will not surprise you to hear that my email inbox is overflowing with advice on how to improve the dinner,” Olivier Knox, the incoming president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, said in an interview on Monday. He reeled off the possibilities now on the table: “No entertainer. No comic. A serious speaker. Maybe a musician. Maybe don’t televise it.”

SPOILER

“I always wanted to talk about the dinner,” added Mr. Knox, a correspondent for SiriusXM radio who starts his year in the role in July. “But this has bumped it up a couple notches in terms of the priority list.”

The dinner’s usual format — barbed punch lines from the president followed by a comic’s roast — has caused dust-ups over the years, like Stephen Colbert’s filleting of George W. Bush in 2006, which did not sit well with the black-tie crowd. But until President Trump’s boycott in 2017 deprived the comedian of a foil, the evening had remained more or less the same.

Now, pressure on the Correspondents’ Association to reimagine the dinner is building, ratcheted up by social media, a heightened political climate and a frustrated press corps wondering if a sober moment for American journalism requires a comparably sober event.

Executives at CBS News were so dismayed by Saturday’s presentation that the network considered ending its participation in future dinners, according to three people who spoke anonymously to describe internal discussions. The network has since eased its position, after receiving assurances that the Correspondents’ Association will seriously consider changes to the dinner’s format.

Still, even as some Washington journalists seethed over what they deemed Ms. Wolf’s over-the-line jokes, others criticized the association for calling her monologue “not in the spirit” of its mission, arguing that a group dedicated to advancing journalism ought to defend a comedian’s right to free speech.

“It’s like going to a Billy Joel concert and being shocked he played ‘Piano Man,’” Judd Apatow, the writer, director and comedian, said in an interview on Monday.

The Correspondents’ Association gala raises money for the organization, which advocates for press access in the White House, and the scholarships it awards to journalism students. The inclusion of an entertainer was meant, originally, as a counterbalance to the president, who traditionally delivered his own zinger-packed monologue, flaying his foes and roasting the roasters.

Mr. Trump’s decision to avoid the evening made him the first presidential no-show since Ronald Reagan in 1981 — and the Gipper skipped the event only because he had been shot by a would-be assassin. (Not one to show weakness, Reagan called in from his hospital bed.)

“We have a president who refuses to talk to anybody but Fox News,” Mr. Apatow said.

A complete end to the dinner has been floated, too, though it would be a special kind of cosmic irony if Mr. Trump presided over the fall of the event that inspired his political rise.

The president is said to have launched his pursuit of the Oval Office after a particularly demeaning night at the 2011 dinner, when he sat stone-faced as President Barack Obama called him a paranoiac and the entertainer, Seth Meyers, expressed surprise that Mr. Trump would run as a Republican, “because I thought he was running as a joke.”

Mr. Trump tweeted on Monday that “the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is DEAD as we know it.”

“This was a total disaster and an embarrassment to our great Country and all that it stands for,” he wrote. “FAKE NEWS is alive and well.”

Mr. Apatow said he viewed the event differently.

“I believe it’s the best part of America,” Mr. Apatow said. “This is what you’re not allowed to do in other countries! You’re not allowed to speak openly! You’re not allowed to criticize the president!”

He added: “This is the best thing we can do. We can say you’re safe to speak out in America.”

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 17:10 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Trump's team heeft die vragen nota bene zelf gelekt. Mueller lekt nooit iets en heeft daar ook geen belang bij. En dan nu gaan huilen dat het allemaal zo "disgraceful" is. Wat een doorzichtige set-up.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 15:50:04 The U.S. just borrowed $488,000,000,000, a record high for the first quarter. https://t.co/VZWbtn9keh reageer retweet

quote:

The promise was that the tax cut would produce a huge surge in business investment — not in the long run, not five or 10 years from now, but right away. And it's not happening.

quote:

So far, Donald Trump and his allies in Congress have achieved one and only one major legislative victory: passing a large tax cut, mainly aimed at corporations and business owners. The tax cut’s proponents promised that it would lead to a dramatic acceleration of economic growth and produce big gains in wages; they hoped that it would also yield big political dividends for the midterm elections.

So how’s it going? Politically, the tax cut is a damp squib: Most voters say they haven’t seen any boost to their paychecks, and Republicans are barely talking about the law in their political campaigns. But what about the economics?

You might be tempted to say that it’s too early to tell. After all, the law has been in effect for only a few months, and we got our first look at post-tax-cut economic growth only last week. But here’s the thing: To deliver on its backers’ promises, the tax cut would have to produce a huge surge in business investment — not in the long run, not five or 10 years from now, but more or less right away. And there’s no sign that anything like that is happening.

SPOILER

Let’s talk about the economics here.

Anything that increases the budget deficit should, other things being the same, lead to higher overall spending and a short-run bump in the economy (although there’s no indication of such a bump in the first-quarter numbers, which were underwhelming). But if you want to boost overall spending, you don’t have to give huge tax breaks to corporations. You could do lots of other things instead — say, spend money on fixing America’s crumbling infrastructure, an issue on which Trump keeps promising a plan but never delivers.

Furthermore, any short-term boost will probably be quickly squelched by the Federal Reserve, which believes that we’re at full employment and which is gradually raising interest rates to keep the economy from overheating. You can argue that the Fed is wrong, but the case for easier monetary policy has nothing to do with the Trump tax cut.

No, the case for a corporate tax cut is the claim that in the long run it will raise wages. How is that supposed to work?

It never made sense to believe that corporations would immediately share their tax-cut bounty with workers, and they haven’t. Any news organizations that let themselves be bamboozled by cherry-picked stories of firms announcing worker bonuses after the tax bill passed should be ashamed of their credulity.

The real logic behind corporate tax cuts is that they’re supposed to lead to higher investment. This investment, in turn, would gradually increase the stock of capital, simultaneously driving down the pretax rate of return on investment and pushing up wages.

There are two questions about this supposed process. One is how much wages will rise in the long run. Most independent estimates predict only modest gains; the Trump administration’s wildly optimistic predictions aren’t just out of the ballpark, they’re in another universe. Still, to be fair, that’s not a question on which the data have had time to speak.

But the other, equally important question is, how long is the long run? As Greg Leiserson of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth points out, “every month in which wage rates are not sharply higher than they would have been absent the legislation, and investment returns are not sharply lower, is a month in which the benefits of those corporate tax cuts accrue primarily to shareholders.” A tax cut that might significantly raise wages during, say, Cynthia Nixon’s second term in the White House, but yields big windfalls for stock owners with only trivial wage gains for the next five or 10 years, is not what we were promised.

To get major wage gains before, for example, the 2024 election — never mind 2020 — we’d need to have a huge near-term boom in business investment, mainly financed by inflows of capital from overseas. I mean really, really huge. And there’s no sign that this is happening.

True, business investment as a share of G.D.P. is up slightly over the past year, but it’s still well below its level before the financial crisis — let alone the heights it reached in the 1990s.

Is it just too soon to expect results? Are businesses getting ready to ramp up investment, so that we’ll see them laying out the big bucks in the near future? Not according to a survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. A vast majority of businesses say either that the tax law has had no effect on their investment plans, or that they are planning only a modest increase.

In short, the effects of the Trump tax cut are already looking like the effects of the Brownback tax cut in Kansas, the Bush tax cut and every other much-hyped tax cut of the past three decades: big talk, big promises, but no results aside from a swollen budget deficit.

You might think that the G.O.P. would eventually learn something from this experience, realize that tax cuts aren’t magical, and come up with some different ideas. But I guess it’s difficult for a man to understand something when his campaign contributions depend on his not understanding it.

^{by Paul Krugman}

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 16:57 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 12:47:30 So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 13:34:13 It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened! Witch Hunt! reageer retweet

John Dean Says It Could Be Act of Obstruction if Trump Team Leaked Mueller's Questions

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 17:22 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

How’s That Tax Cut Working Out? (NYTimes)

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 17:17 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 15:50:04 The U.S. just borrowed $488,000,000,000, a record high for the first quarter. https://t.co/VZWbtn9keh reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 17:50 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Waarom zou men valse informatie, leugens dus, geheim willen houden?

quote:

The Fact Checker’s ongoing database of the false or misleading claims made by President Trump since assuming office.

quote:

In February 2017, a top White House aide who was Trump's longtime personal bodyguard, along with the top lawyer at the Trump Organization and a third man, showed up at the office of Trump's New York doctor without notice and took all the president's medical records.

The incident, which Dr. Harold Bornstein described as a "raid," took place two days after Bornstein told a newspaper that he had prescribed a hair growth medicine for the president for years.

In an exclusive interview in his Park Avenue office, Bornstein told NBC News that he felt "raped, frightened and sad" when Keith Schiller and another "large man" came to his office to collect the president's records on the morning of Feb. 3, 2017. At the time, Schiller, who had long worked as Trump's bodyguard, was serving as director of Oval Office operations at the White House.

"They must have been here for 25 or 30 minutes. It created a lot of chaos," Bornstein said, who described the incident as frightening.

SPOILER

A framed 8x10 photo of Bornstein and Trump that had been hanging on the wall in the waiting room now lies flat under a stack of papers on the top shelf of Bornstein's bookshelf. Bornstein said the men asked him to take it off the wall.

Bornstein said he was not given a form authorizing the release of the records and signed by the president —known as a HIPAA release — which is a violation of patient privacy law. A person familiar with the matter said there was a letter to Bornstein from then-White House doctor Ronny Jackson, but didn't know if there was a release form attached.

Bornstein said the original and only copy of Trump's charts, including lab reports under Trump's name as well as under the pseudonyms his office used for Trump, were taken.

Another man, Trump Organization Chief Legal Officer Alan Garten, joined Schiller's team at Bornstein's office, and Bornstein's wife Melissa photocopied his business card. Garten declined to comment on this story.

Schiller, who left the White House in September 2017, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Bornstein said that Trump cut ties with him after he told the New York Times that Trump takes Propecia, a drug for enlarged prostates that is often prescribed to stimulate hair growth in men. Bornstein told the Times that he prescribed Trump drugs for rosacea and cholesterol as well.

The story also quotes Bornstein recalling that he had told Rhona Graff, Trump's longtime assistant, "You know, I should be the White House physician."

After the story ran on February 1, 2017, Bornstein said Graff called him and said, "So you wanted to be the White House doctor? Forget it, you're out.' "

Two days after the story ran, the men came to his office.

"I couldn't believe anybody was making a big deal out of a drug to grow his hair that seemed to be so important. And it certainly was not a breach of medical trust to tell somebody they take Propecia to grow their hair. What's the matter with that?"

Bornstein said he is speaking out now after seeing reports that Ronny Jackson, who has allegedly been called "the candy man" for loosely prescribing pain medications as White House doctor, will not return to his post after being considered to run the Veterans Administration.

"This is like a celebration for me," he said.

Jackson has denied improperly prescribing drugs.

Bornstein, 70, had been Trump's personal doctor for more than 35 years.

During Trump's presidential campaign, Bornstein wrote a letter declaring "unequivocally" that Trump would be the healthiest president in history. He called Trump's health "astonishingly excellent." The Trump campaign released the letter in December 2015.

Bornstein told NBC News in 2016 that he wrote the note in just five minutes while a limo sent by the candidate waited outside his office.

Asked how he could justify saying Trump would be the healthiest president ever, Bornstein said, "I like that sentence to be quite honest with you and all the rest of them are either sick or dead."

twitter:

JaxAlemany twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 20:37:01 .@KaciSokoloff just spoke w Dr. Harold Bornstein, who refused an interview but said that NBC's piece was "a pretty good story." Bornstein also said that he spoke to the NBC reporter "in the bathroom" of his office. He signed off with: "Sweetheart, this is watergate, goodbye!" reageer retweet

twitter:

Yamiche twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 21:07:04 Reminder: Sarah Sanders just said this was "standard procedure." https://t.co/Ft87xdwhWl reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 18:51 schreef Montov het volgende:
Trump is de leaker!
Zoveel gescheld en getier om het lekken, en zelf de bron zijn van diverse lekken. Fake President.

quote:

Albert Kelly, a top aide to Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt in charge of overhauling the organization’s cleanup of America’s most contaminated sites, has resigned.

His departure, which Axios first reported Tuesday, comes the same day Pasquale “Nino” Perrotta, the head of Pruitt’s controversial round-the-clock security detail, stepped down early ahead of planned testimony before the House Oversight Committee. The resignations add to the chaos that has engulfed the EPA since Pruitt’s whirlwind of corruption accusations and ethical scandals began in late March.

Kelly, a former banking executive, was banned for life from that industry in 2016 as The Intercept reported. Almost immediately thereafter, Pruitt appointed him to lead the EPA’s effort to prioritize and streamline the Superfund program.

Kelly has been closely involved with Pruitt’s ongoing scandals. Last month, he canceled a trip to a West Virginia coal town contaminated with toxic chemicals to stay behind in Washington and help the administrator deal with the fallout from the controversies. Last week, Reps. Don Beyer and Gerald Connolly, both Virginia Democrats, called on the EPA’s inspector general to investigate why Pruitt hired Kelly despite his complete lack of experience in toxic cleanup. The former banker became a magnet for criticism himself after reports emerged that Kelly owned at least $75,000 in fossil fuel stocks, including in a company responsible for contaminating a Louisiana bayou.

SPOILER

The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But in a statement to Axios, Pruitt praised Kelly for the “tremendous impact” he had on the program and said he “will be sorely missed.”

Superfund has been a top priority of Pruitt’s since he took over as agency chief last year. He’s called it “absolutely essential,” repeatedly stressed that it’s part of EPA’s core mission and pointed his finger at the Obama administration for not doing enough to clean up toxic waste sites.

Pruitt touted the agency’s work on Superfund during a pair of congressional hearings last week. “We have removed over three times the number of polluted sites of contaminated communities across the country as compared to the previous administration for 2017,” he said.

The Associated Press fact-checked the claim and concluded Pruitt “is taking credit for work largely completed when Barack Obama was president.”

Reacting to news of Kelly and Perotta’s departures, Beyer called on Pruitt to also step down.

“The exodus of Pruitt’s closest aides shows just how toxic his reign at EPA has become,” Beyer said in a statement. “The EPA needs new leadership from public servants committed to its mission of protecting the environment and putting Americans’ public health first.”

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 21:20:22 Deputy A.G. Rosenstein: “I can tell you that there are people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time. And I think they should understand by now the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.” (via CPSAN) https://t.co/bhXVJ4OCd6 reageer retweet

quote:

Joseph Mifsud, the enigmatic Maltese professor at the center of the Trump-Russia probe, was in Moscow just weeks before special counsel Robert Mueller unsealed court documents alleging that Mifsud had told a Trump campaign adviser that Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, BuzzFeed News has learned.

The trip, which hasn’t been previously reported, is the last time Mifsud is known to have been in Russia.

Three weeks after his Russia trip, Mifsud was identified as the unnamed “overseas professor” who allegedly told foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos in April 2016 that Russia had thousands of emails from the Democrats. That was weeks before the Democrats themselves were aware that their computer systems had been hacked.

Mifsud was last seen in public Oct. 31, 2017, in Rome. His current whereabouts are unknown.

SPOILER

The precise nature of Mifsud's place, if any, in Russia's meddling in the 2016 US election remains unclear and unexplained.

Still, the new information on Mifsud's travels indicates that even after he'd been questioned by the FBI, and as US investigators were about to make his role public, he remained in contact with Russian government circles.

The Maltese professor was formally invited to Moscow by the Russian Council of International Affairs (RIAC), a think tank close to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, according to a visa dated Oct. 4, 2017.

In Moscow, Mifsud participated in a seminar about security challenges in Yemen organized by RIAC and Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies.

Two sources at RIAC told BuzzFeed News that Mifsud was a member of the official delegation of Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz, who was in Russia on an official visit to Russian President Vladimir Putin on the same dates.

The King Faisal Foundation and the Saudi Embassy in London didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Mifsud had spoken at other events, in both Saudi Arabia and Russia, organized by RIAC and the King Faisal Center, and he has traveled to Moscow frequently in recent years. A separate visa seen by BuzzFeed News, dated March 24, 2017, to March 1, 2018, was issued upon invitation of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, one of Russia’s most prestigious universities, with which Mifsud has collaborated in various capacities.

Mifsud has gone underground since being identified as the professor who told Papadopoulos that Russia had thousands of emails from the Democrats.

In February, BuzzFeed News revealed that not even his girlfriend in Ukraine, who claims to be the mother of his child, has heard from him since the court documents were made public.

She told BuzzFeed News that she last met Mifsud in person in Kiev in early April 2017. He told her then that he had recently been questioned by the FBI in the US.

And at the end of October, he stopped replying to her messages and phone calls after urging her not to talk to journalists.

The fact that Mifsud was in Moscow in early October 2017 would appear to contradict some of the WhatsApp messages seen by BuzzFeed News that he sent his Ukrainian girlfriend saying he couldn’t visit her in Kiev because he was ill and unable to travel.

During his stay in Moscow, Mifsud met with at least one other individual referenced in the Mueller documents.

According to the documents, Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos to a "Russian national connected to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs" over email in April 2016. Media reports have suggested that the unnamed Russian national is Ivan Timofeev, RIAC’s director of programs.

Timofeev acknowledged over email that Mifsud was in Moscow last October and volunteered the information about the seminar, but he declined to say whether they discussed interactions with Papadopoulos.

Mifsud was last seen Oct. 31, 2017, when he gave an interview with Italian newspaper La Repubblica published the next day. He has since vanished from the Rome university where he’d worked for years and quit his job with a Scottish university. The London diplomatic institute where he was a director has shut down, and Italian prosecutors, who are seeking him in an unrelated case where he is accused of inflating salaries at a university consortium in Agrigento, Sicily, which he presided over nearly a decade ago, haven’t been able to locate him.

Mifsud has not responded to repeated requests for comment. He acknowledged in the interview with La Repubblica that he met Papadopoulos “three or four times,” and facilitated connections between "official and unofficial sources," but denied any wrongdoing.

According to court filings, Mifsud told Papadopoulos about the Democrats’ emails in April 2016, before the Democrats themselves were aware that their computer system had been hacked. Mifsud told Papadopoulos he’d learned of the emails during a trip to Russia, but who told him is unknown.

Papadopoulos is reported to have later shared the information with the Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, whose government passed the information to US authorities after WikiLeaks began publishing the emails in July 2016. That information sparked the FBI to launch the investigation that Mueller now leads.

Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 22:00:50 BREAKING: This could be big. Tom Barrack and Flynn lobbied Trump to give Saudi Arabia nuclear tech—which enriches Russia, as they'd build the facilities. Barrack got Manafort atop Trump's campaign just as Flynn joined. Now Mifsud is in a Saudi delegation? https://t.co/L9nIU4ukcX reageer retweet

quote:

Michael Zeldin, a CNN legal analyst and former assistant to Robert Mueller, said Tuesday he believes President Trump leaked the list of nearly 50 questions the special counsel allegedly wants to ask Trump.

“I think these are notes taken by the recipients of a conversation with Mueller’s office where he outlined broad topics and these guys wrote down questions that they thought these topics may raise,” Zeldin said on CNN's "New Day."

“Because of the way these questions are written ... lawyers wouldn’t write questions this way, in my estimation. Some of the grammar is not even proper," he continued. "So, I don’t see this as a list of written questions that Mueller’s office gave to the president. I think these are more notes that the White House has taken and then they have expanded upon the conversation to write out these as questions.”

Zeldin worked as special counsel to Mueller in the early 1990s, when he served as the assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Criminal Division.

SPOILER

His comments come after The New York Times on Monday reported that it had obtained a list of questions Mueller plans to ask Trump as part of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Some questions focus on Trump's communication with his campaign staffers and Russia, while others discuss Russian hacking during the election and Trump's past business dealings.

Trump early Tuesday morning called the release of the list "disgraceful" and asserted, as he has in the past, that the investigation is a "witch hunt."

“So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were ‘leaked’ to the media,” Trump said. “No questions on Collusion."

“Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!”

quote:

Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to questions read by the special counsel investigators to the president’s lawyers, who compiled them into a list. That document was provided to The Times by a person outside Mr. Trump’s legal team.

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 23:12 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Het nytimes artikel was ook wel ongewoon duidend waar ergens hun anonieme bron zat:

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 23:43 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Nou, laten we daar maar eerst op wachten dan, toch? Het zou niet de eerste keer zijn dat er toenadering gezocht is. Trumps rol in het geheel is me verder ook niet duidelijk. Hij heeft sancties aangescherpt, maar verder...?

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 18:15 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Absolute cijfers zeggen ook weer niet heel veel. Het achterliggende artikel van Bloomberg is een stuk verhelderender. Het tekort groot ook als percentage van het BBP lekker door naar verwachting. Kennelijk is het faillissement van de VS niet zo'n issue meer voor het gros van de Republikeinen.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 00:30 schreef thesiren.nl het volgende:

[..]

Zolang de rest van de wereld deze tax cut betaald loopt alles op rolletjes natuurlijk. De rente in de vs zal wel moeten klimmen om buitenlandse investeerders blij te maken.

quote:

[..]

Now, as Bornstein re-enters the spotlight claiming Trump's ex-bodyguard Keith Schiller robbed his office when Schiller retrieved Trump's medical records, the story behind the letter is becoming clearer.

"That's black humor, that letter. That's my sense of humor," he said. "It's like the movie 'Fargo': It takes the truth and moves it in a different direction."

He said Trump read out the language as Bornstein and his wife were driving across Central Park.

"(Trump) dictated the letter and I would tell him what he couldn't put in there," he said. "They came to pick up their letter at 4 o'clock or something."

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 03:15:06 Can you *imagine* what the right's reaction would be if it came out that Obama or Clinton had, during an election, dictated a letter about their health to their personal doctor who then released it knowing it was at best incomplete or, at worst, false. Can. you. imagine. reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 03:05:12 NYT confirms WaPo report: Scott Pruitt allowed a lobbyist friend to play an influential role in setting his agenda for a Morocco trip.Just months after the trip, the lobbyist was hired by the government of Morocco as a $40,000/month foreign agent.https://t.co/THUS6xxd2c reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 21:21 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Er zijn vandaag weer special elections. 2 zonder tegenkandidaat en bij de overige 2 zou het best ogenschijnlijk wel eens zo kunnen zijn dat een democraat een zetel van de republikeinen afpakt en een republikein er eentje pakt van de democraten:

Florida House of Representatives District 114
Oorzaak: Daisy Baez (D) nam ontslag nadat ze een pleadeal sloot waarin ze bekende meineed gepleegd te hebben over haar (vermeende) woonplaats.
2016 verkiezing deze zetel: D 50,99% - 49,01% R
2014 verkiezing deze zetel: D 43,98% - 52,66% R - 3,36% I
2012 verkiezing deze zetel: D 48,8% - 51,2% R
2016 presidentiële verkiezing: Clinton 55,75% - 41,60% Trump
2012 presidentiële verkiezing: Obama 50,14% - 49,27% Romney
Kandidaten: Andrew Vargas (R), Javier Fernandez (D), Liz de las Cueavas (I)

twitter:

tribelaw twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 02:21:38 The news tonite is that Mueller raised the prospect of issuing a subpoena to force Trump to testify under oath. If that occurs, I predict Trump wd ask a federal court to quash the subpoena. When the case reaches the SCt, I predict this Court wd rule agnst Trump. Gorsuch wd agree. reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 04:10:42 .@JoyceWhiteVance tells @maddow Rod Rosenstein would have also had to be "on board" with Mueller's subpoena threat, "would have had to authorize the use of a subpoena against the President of the United States.""The issue would have been fully vetted inside the Department." reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 04:23:23 Former FBI Director and current Special Counsel Bob Mueller doesn't threaten to serve a grand jury subpoena on the President of the United States unless what he's seeing on his end warrants it. Lace up, America--it'll take a while yet, but this is every bit as bad as we've feared. reageer retweet

quote:

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team raised the prospect of issuing a grand jury subpoena to compel President Donald Trump to testify as part of the Russia probe, the president's former attorney said Tuesday.

Attorney John Dowd told The Associated Press that Mueller's team broached the subject in March during a meeting with Trump's legal team while they were negotiating the terms of a possible interview with the president

The meeting marked the first time the special counsel's office raised the possibility of compelling Trump to testify as part of the ongoing investigation. Mueller is probing not only Russian election interference and possible coordination with Trump associates but possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

Dowd's comments come more than a month after he resigned from the legal team, and they provide a new window into the nature of the Trump legal team's interactions with the special counsel, who the president has increasingly tried to undermine through public attacks.

SPOILER

On Tuesday, Trump said it was "disgraceful" that a list of proposed questions drafted in response to Mueller's negotiations with the legal team was "leaked" to the news media.

The New York Times late Monday published around four dozen questions compiled by Trump's lawyers during negotiations with Mueller's investigators earlier this year over the prospect of a presidential interview. Mueller is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election, whether Trump's campaign was involved and if the president obstructed justice after the campaign.

The Times report said Trump's lawyers compiled the questions into a list and that document was "provided to The Times by a person outside Mr. Trump's legal team."

The questions range from Trump's motivations for firing FBI Director James Comey a year ago to contacts Trump's campaign had with Russians. Although Mueller's team has indicated to Trump's lawyers that he's not considered a target, investigators remain interested in whether the president's actions constitute obstruction of justice and want to interview him about several episodes in office. They have not yet made a decision about an interview.

Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow declined to comment to the AP, as did White House lawyer Ty Cobb.

In his tweet, Trump said there were "no questions on Collusion" and, as he as many times before, called Mueller's investigation a "Russian witch hunt." He said collusion with the Russians "never existed."

In a second tweet, Trump said: "It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened."

The questions do appear to indicate that Mueller is looking into possible collusion. Some touch on Russian meddling and whether the Trump campaign coordinated in any way with the Kremlin. In one question obtained by the Times, Mueller asks what Trump knew about campaign staff, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, reaching out to Moscow.

Mueller has brought several charges against Manafort already, including money laundering and bank fraud. None of the charges relate to allegations of Russian election interference and possible coordination with Trump associates, and Manafort has denied having anything to do with such an effort.

One question asks what discussions Trump may have had regarding "any meeting with Mr. Putin," referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Another question asks what the president may have known about a possible attempt by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to set up a back channel with Russia before Trump's inauguration.

Many of the questions obtained by the Times center on the obstruction issue, including his reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal from the Russia investigation, a decision Trump has angrily criticized.

The queries also touch on Trump's businesses and his discussions with his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, about a possible Moscow real estate deal. Cohen's business dealings are part of a separate FBI investigation.

Additional questions center on Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his discussions on sanctions against Russia with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition. Flynn is now cooperating with Mueller's investigators.

"What did you know about phone calls that Mr. Flynn made with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, in late December 2016?" reads one question. Another asks if there were any efforts to reach out to Flynn "about seeking immunity or possible pardon."

Flynn was fired Feb. 13, 2017, after White House officials said he had misled them about his Russian contacts during the transition period by saying that he had not discussed sanctions.

The following day, according to memos written by Comey, Trump cleared the Oval Office of other officials and encouraged Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 03:22 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Bornstein claims Trump dictated the glowing health letter

[..]

Bizar wel

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 03:15:06 Can you *imagine* what the right's reaction would be if it came out that Obama or Clinton had, during an election, dictated a letter about their health to their personal doctor who then released it knowing it was at best incomplete or, at worst, false. Can. you. imagine. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 07:35 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Dit verbaast natuurlijk helemaal niemand. Trump en z'n fastfoodpens werden neergezet als superhuman. Kom op man.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 07:35 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Dit verbaast natuurlijk helemaal niemand. Trump en z'n fastfoodpens werden neergezet als superhuman. Kom op man.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 04:31 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

tribelaw twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 02:21:38 The news tonite is that Mueller raised the prospect of issuing a subpoena to force Trump to testify under oath. If that occurs, I predict Trump wd ask a federal court to quash the subpoena. When the case reaches the SCt, I predict this Court wd rule agnst Trump. Gorsuch wd agree. reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 04:10:42 .@JoyceWhiteVance tells @maddow Rod Rosenstein would have also had to be "on board" with Mueller's subpoena threat, "would have had to authorize the use of a subpoena against the President of the United States.""The issue would have been fully vetted inside the Department." reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 04:23:23 Former FBI Director and current Special Counsel Bob Mueller doesn't threaten to serve a grand jury subpoena on the President of the United States unless what he's seeing on his end warrants it. Lace up, America--it'll take a while yet, but this is every bit as bad as we've feared. reageer retweet

Attorney: Mueller team floated possible subpoena for Trump

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 03:22 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Bornstein claims Trump dictated the glowing health letter

[..]

Bizar wel

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 03:15:06 Can you *imagine* what the right's reaction would be if it came out that Obama or Clinton had, during an election, dictated a letter about their health to their personal doctor who then released it knowing it was at best incomplete or, at worst, false. Can. you. imagine. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 09:55 schreef remlof het volgende:

[..]

Vooral dat laatste ja, dit is gewoon valsheid in geschrifte en daar is nog nooit een president makkelijk mee weggekomen.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 09:57 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Het scheelt dat hij toen nog geen president was. Verder is dat natuurlijk gewoon een probleem voor die arts, die liegt, niet voor degene die een brief dicteert.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 09:57 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Het scheelt dat hij toen nog geen president was. Verder is dat natuurlijk gewoon een probleem voor die arts, die liegt, niet voor degene die een brief dicteert.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 10:12 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Het probleem lijkt me eerder dat het document verder in juridische zin geen doel diende. Als het een medisch rapport zou betreffen dat zou worden gebruikt om te bepalen of iemand fit genoeg zou zijn om president te worden, dan is het een heel ander verhaal. In een dergelijk geval zouden beiden overigens wel degelijk een probleem hebben.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 09:57 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Het scheelt dat hij toen nog geen president was. Verder is dat natuurlijk gewoon een probleem voor die arts, die liegt, niet voor degene die een brief dicteert.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 10:15 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou het hier nog wel onder kunnen zien vallen, mocht iemand zich geroepen voelen er echt een zaak van te maken.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 10:18 schreef remlof het volgende:

[..]

Nou ja, Trump heeft die brief gepresenteerd als een medische verklaring van zijn arts, terwijl ie 'm zelf heeft gedicteerd. Dat is ook valsheid in geschrifte, hij kan ook moeilijk beweren dat ie niet wist dat het niet de verklaring van zijn arts was als ie het zelf heeft gedicteerd

Plus dit was een verklaring om aan te tonen dat ie gezond genoeg zou zijn, zowel fysiek als mentaal, om het ambt van president te bekleden...

quote:

She was in Bedminster, New Jersey, with President Donald Trump the rainy May 2017 weekend when he decided to fire FBI Director James Comey.

She was a passenger on the plane flying home from the G-20 conference in Germany the next month, strategizing about how to manage the fallout of her brother Don Jr.’s 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer peddling “dirt” about Hillary Clinton.

Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and West Wing adviser, also spoke briefly at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer and a lobbyist who was present for that meeting during the campaign.

Yet the family member closest to the president — and the woman who as a key campaign figure helped lobby her father to hire Paul Manafort, a man who is now under indictment on money laundering and fraud charges, as campaign manager — has yet to be called in for questioning by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to multiple people familiar with the investigation.

As Mueller negotiates an interview with the president, former White House aides who themselves have sat down with prosecutors for daylong grillings are wondering why.

“She’s involved in everything,” said one former White House adviser who has previously clashed with the Trump children. “It’s odd. Unless they consider her that ‘T’ word.”

So far, only Ivanka Trump’s Washington enemies are actively floating the idea that she might be a “target” of Mueller’s investigation — and therefore not called in as a witness.

But former prosecutors and Justice Department lawyers said the fact that she has yet to be tapped — and that Mueller’s team, according to people familiar with the case, has not yet requested any documents related to her — says more about Mueller’s risk-averse process than it does about her lack of involvement in the events underpinning the Russia inquiry.

That someone so close to the major events under scrutiny would not be interviewed is unusual, former prosecutors and Justice Department lawyers said. But Mueller’s decision to steer clear of the first daughter — at least for now — is a signal of his “don’t poke the bear until you have to” strategy.

“Mueller would know that trying to interview Ivanka Trump would be like lighting a match to the highly combustible Donald Trump,” said Elizabeth de la Vega, a former federal prosecutor who reported directly to Mueller when he served in the U.S. attorney’s office in the Northern District of California. “The team would want to wait to the last possible moment, if at all, before taking that step.”

Calling in Ivanka Trump for an interview, former Justice Department officials and legal experts said, would be risky primarily for two reasons: It would give the public the perception that the prolonged investigation has reached the point of harassing the president’s family members, giving Trump more ammunition to decry how unfairly he and his family are being treated in an investigation he has already deemed a “witch hunt.”

And it would carry with it the very real possibility that the reactive president would “go nuclear,” according to a former federal prosecutor, once again raising the possibility of pardons or toying with the idea of firing the special counsel altogether. (.....)

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 10:24 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Ja, maar een willekeurig A4'tje omhoog houden met een statement erop waarvan je weet dat het niet klopt is niet direct strafbaar.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 10:22 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Ik betwijfel of het hier gaat om "other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing". Als het om een medische evaluatie als bijvoorbeeld een drugstest zou gaan die wordt gehanteerd als onderdeel van de procedures van een werkgever dan is het bijvoorbeeld een ander verhaal.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 10:05 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Het is dan ook vooral hilarisch. Ik zie er niet zo snel een schandaal in.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 10:36 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

In het kader van gezondheid zou zijn aanpak van de opiod-crisis interessanter zijn, maar buiten roepen dat er wat drugsdealers doodgeschoten moeten worden gebeurt er op dat vlak volgens mij ook weinig.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 10:56 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Trump blaat hier simpelweg Duterte na. Die Opioid crisis is mede veroorzaakt door de uit de hand gelopen vercommercialisering van de zorgaanbieders in de VS. Je ziet dagelijks reclame op de lokale tv over Otesla, Inogen en Imura langskomen, waarvan de meesten opiaten als basis hebben. Het zijn grote adverteerders die meestal niet geweigerd worden door tv-stations. Het valt trouwens ook op dat een van de catch uitspraken in die commercials vaak "ask/tell your doctor" is. Consumenten worden tot pushers van zichzelf gebombardeerd.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 10:58 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:

[..]

Verklaart ook wel waarom bedrijven zoals Comcast traditionele TV blijven opdringen. Als iedereen op het internet zou zitten met adblockers en alles zullen dat soort bedrijven hun producten veel lastiger kunnen slijten.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 11:39 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Volgens Kanye was slavernij een keuze.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 10:47 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

nee? de verklaring die zijn huidige arts heeft gegeven over de medische gegeven van een zittende president is een kopie van wat hij bij zijn voormalige arts heeft gedeponeerd.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 13:40 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Ik ga er vanuit dat Trump de verklaring van zijn huidige arts ook heeft gedicteerd, zeker gezien het woordgebruik. Postte ik destijds al: welke arts zegt in een gezondverklaring nou dat de onderzochte "very good genes" heeft. Dat doet een arts volgens mij nooit.

Eigenlijk dacht ik bij het bericht ook eerst dat het over die verklaring ging.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 12:27 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
HuffPo heeft een lijstje aangelegd van alle journalisten die niet wisten hoe hard ze over elkaar heen moesten struikelen om als eerste te laten zien dat ze niet wisten dat "smoky eye" een bestaande uitdrukking was of bang waren dat ze nooit meer het Witte Huis inmochten als ze in beeld kwamen met een "iets vrolijker dan sterk afkeurende" uitdrukking op het gezicht. (Zie eerder in deze aflevering voor journalisten die wat minder bang waren uitgevallen.)

A Running List Of Cowards, Courtiers, Strivers And Suck-Ups

Reeds een plekje veroverd (klik op link hierboven voor de gebezigde afkeuringen):
1. Mike Allen, Axios
2. Peter Baker, New York Times
3. Maria Bartiromo, Fox Business
4. Mika Brzezinski, MSNBC (die beter zou moeten weten na DJT's "blood all over")
5. Amanda Carpenter, CNN
6. Kyle Cheney, Politico
7. Chris Cillizza, CNN
8. Joe Concha, The Hill
9. Josh Dawsey, Washington Post (hoezo "Democracy dies in darkness"?)
10. Michael Gerson, Washington Post (idem)
11. Maggie Haberman, New York Times (waar erg veel collega's beter van hadden verwacht)
12. Ed Henry, Fox News
13. Hugh Hewitt, MSNBC
14. Abby Huntsman, Fox News
15. Jonathan Karl, ABC News
16. Meg Kinnard, Associated Press
17. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News
18. Kelly O’Donnell, NBC News
19. Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC
20. Jake Sherman, Politico
21. Margaret Talev, Bloomberg
22. Jon Ward, Yahoo News
23. Jeff Zeleny, CNN

Nou jongens (en meisjes)... veel succes dan maar met je persaccreditatie als het regime-Trump ooit ten einde komt. (Of waarschijnlijk eerder. Overhaast gedrag komt zelden alleen. )

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 11:39 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Volgens Kanye was slavernij een keuze.

quote:

Finally, a word of caution for the Democrats: Don't attack Donald Trump's intelligence. Liberals already suffer from the conceit that they are more intelligent, and it can make them insufferable. Plus, in a weird way, calling President Trump stupid excuses his intentional acts of malice.
So, don't call him "moron" or "idiot;" call him what he is: a conniving, corrupt con man, a dangerous, divisive demagogue -- and, most sobering of all, the man who carried 30 states in the last election, and may well do it again if Democrats don't focus their fire more effectively.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 14:07 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Lol, wat een triestheid: Republicans ran 13,000 ads against Hillary Clinton -- this year

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 14:08 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Dit is toch werkelijk totaal krankzinnig.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 14:12 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Nogal ja. Dat ze ads tegen Obama hebben, kan ik nog wel volgen*, maar Clinton is toch volledig
passé?

* vanuit de redenatie: Obama heeft er als democraat een zooitje van gemaakt, wat wij nu op moeten ruimen, dus kies een republikein, anders krijgen we die kans niet
[disclaimer]ik ben niet van mening dat Obama er een zooitje van gemaakt heeft, maar ik kan volgen dat dat de republikeinse redenatie is[/disclaimer]

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 14:16 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Het is alsof de hele partij, met Trump aan het roer, is blijven steken in november 2016. Campagnes tegen Clinton op tv en constant herinneren aan de verkiezingsuitslag.

En het erge is ook nog dat ze hier gewoon mee wegkomen. Clinton is haast nog steeds politiek relevant alleen maar omdat de helft van het land niet kan ophouden met haar te haten.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 14:24 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Ik weet niet precies wat je onder ermee wegkomen verstaat, maar erg veel electoraal succes behalen ze er niet mee.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 13:45:08 There was no Collusion (it is a Hoax) and there is no Obstruction of Justice (that is a setup & trap). What there is is Negotiations going on with North Korea over Nuclear War, Negotiations going on with China over Trade Deficits, Negotiations on NAFTA, and much more. Witch Hunt! reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 14:12 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Nogal ja. Dat ze ads tegen Obama hebben, kan ik nog wel volgen*, maar Clinton is toch volledig
passé?

* vanuit de redenatie: Obama heeft er als democraat een zooitje van gemaakt, wat wij nu op moeten ruimen, dus kies een republikein, anders krijgen we die kans niet
[disclaimer]ik ben niet van mening dat Obama er een zooitje van gemaakt heeft, maar ik kan volgen dat dat de republikeinse redenatie is[/disclaimer]

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 15:14 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat de republikeinse achterban er constant aan herinnerd moet worden dat de keuze voor Trump de goede keuze is geweest, omdat het land zo gered is van Hillary als president.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 15:14 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat de republikeinse achterban er constant aan herinnerd moet worden dat de keuze voor Trump de goede keuze is geweest, omdat het land zo gered is van Hillary als president.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 15:21 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Zeker bij midterms gaat het om de opkomst. Daar kun je voor proberen te zorgen door met enthousiasmerende kandidaten te komen, maar doorgaans is afkeer / haat jegens een andere kandidaat of tegen gevoerd beleid effectiever. Voor de Democraten is dat nu eenvoudig. De Republikeinen lijken het nog steeds vooral op boevrouwen Clinton en Pelosi te blijven gooien.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 15:24 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De complete mismatch tussen Trump en de Republikeinse partij zorgt ook dat elke structuur in de Republikeinse campagne ontbreekt tot dusverre.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 15:28 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie die mismatch tussen "Trump en de GOP" eigenlijk niet zo. Trump is het gevolg van het steeds prominenter worden van een bepaald deel van de GOP. Beide partijen zitten met verschillende vleugels. Dat is niets nieuws.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 15:28 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie die mismatch tussen "Trump en de GOP" eigenlijk niet zo. Trump is het gevolg van het steeds prominenter worden van een bepaald deel van de GOP. Beide partijen zitten met verschillende vleugels. Dat is niets nieuws.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 04:31 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

tribelaw twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 02:21:38 The news tonite is that Mueller raised the prospect of issuing a subpoena to force Trump to testify under oath. If that occurs, I predict Trump wd ask a federal court to quash the subpoena. When the case reaches the SCt, I predict this Court wd rule agnst Trump. Gorsuch wd agree. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 15:30 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Zie je geen mismatch tussen Trump en de top van de GOP? Het bestuur? Wellicht dat de aan Trump gelieerde vleugel sterker wordt, alhoewel ik Trump nog steeds als outsider beschouw, maar dit kan natuurlijk ook een verlamming van de partij als geheel betekenen wanneer deze vleugels elkaar gaan tegenwerking. Met een dramatische campagne zonder idee als gevolg.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 15:40 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Nee, dat is vooral een opgeklopt verschil. Trump voert vrij braaf standaard Republikeins beleid uit. Het is nou niet bepaald zo dat hij allerhande Republikeinse initiatieven uit het congres blokkeert met een veto.
En voor iemand die zo ongeveer alles heeft gedaan wat God verboden heeft, hebben we in tijden niemand de conservatief christelijke achterban van de GOP tevreden zien stemmen.
De persoon Trump is misschien niet wat de leiding van de GOP wil zien, de 'beleidsgoedkeurder' Trump is dat des te meer.

quote:

Bij de midterms gaat het er bovendien ook vooral om dat de verschillende vleugels in de juiste districten met een goede kandidaat op de proppen komen. Dat heeft verder niet gek veel met Trump te maken. Dat heeft vooral te maken met in hoeverre kandidaten en donoren bereid zijn om te coördineren en dat zijn ze binnen beide partijen eigenlijk al jaren niet.

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 15:21 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Zeker bij midterms gaat het om de opkomst. Daar kun je voor proberen te zorgen door met enthousiasmerende kandidaten te komen, maar doorgaans is afkeer / haat jegens een andere kandidaat of tegen gevoerd beleid effectiever. Voor de Democraten is dat nu eenvoudig. De Republikeinen lijken het nog steeds vooral op boevrouwen Clinton en Pelosi te blijven gooien.

quote:

Former Donald Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo slammed the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation on Tuesday, charging that the probe has cost him $125,000 and is forcing him to move from the Buffalo area in order to pay off legal bills.

Caputo was interviewed behind closed doors on Tuesday as part of the committee's investigation into 2016 Russian election meddling. He was also interviewed last year by the House Intelligence Committee.

"Your investigation and others into the allegations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia are costing my family a great deal of money -- more than $125,000 -- and making a visceral impact on my children," Caputo said in a prepared statement that he delivered at the end of the Senate interview, which was provided to CNN.

"Now I must to move back to Washington, New York City, Miami or elsewhere, just so I can make enough money to pay off these legal bills. And I know I have you to thank for that," added Caputo, who lives in East Aurora, New York.

SPOILER

Caputo, who advised the Trump campaign on communications in 2016, has long insisted he has no information about collusion between Trump's team and Russia. Caputo and other Trump associates have hired attorneys to deal with the various Russia investigations in Congress and by special counsel Robert Mueller, often at a high price tag.

In his statement, Caputo accused a former Senate Intelligence Committee Democratic staffer, Daniel Jones, of leading an effort to invest $50 million into continuing the Fusion GPS investigation into the opposition research dossier on Trump and Russia.

Caputo claimed that Jones, who is now president of the Penn Quarter Group, fed the information to the committee.

"What America needs is an investigation of the investigators," Caputo said. "I want to know who is paying for the spies' work and coordinating this attack on President Donald Trump? I want to know who Dan Jones is talking to across the investigations -- from the FBI, to the Southern District of New York, to the OSC, to the Department of Justice, to Congress."

He added, "I want to know because God Damn you to Hell."

Rachel Cohen, a spokeswoman for the committee's top Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, said, "As we have said many, many times, Sen. Warner does not comment on witnesses, regardless of how outlandish or attention-seeking they might be."

A committee aide told CNN that Jones and Warner have not met or spoken since Jones left the committee in 2015.

A spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr did not respond to a request for comment. Jones did not respond to efforts to reach him through his firm.

The committee's investigation, which is led by Burr, a North Carolina Republican, has included interviews with more than 100 witnesses -- including from the Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigns.

quote:

Op dinsdag 1 mei 2018 21:38 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 01-05-2018 om 21:20:22 Deputy A.G. Rosenstein: “I can tell you that there are people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time. And I think they should understand by now the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.” (via CPSAN) https://t.co/bhXVJ4OCd6 reageer retweet

Rod Rosenstein: "The Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.� (C-SPAN)

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 15:23:17 “The questions are an intrusion into the President’s Article 2 powers under the Constitution to fire any Executive Branch Employee...what the President was thinking is an outrageous.....as to the President’s unfettered power to fire anyone...” Joe Digenova, former US Attorney reageer retweet

quote:

Trump weighs former U.S. lawmaker Miller for VA post

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump is interviewing former House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller this week as a possible choice to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs after his earlier pick withdrew, a White House official said on Wednesday.

Miller, a Florida Republican, retired from the U.S. House in 2016 after first being elected in 2001. White House physician Ronny Jackson withdrew from consideration for the job last week after allegations that he had been lax with prescription drugs and drank alcohol on the job.

quote:

In the United States, Paul J. Manafort is facing prosecution on charges of money laundering and financial fraud stemming from his decade of work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine.

But in Ukraine, where officials are wary of offending President Trump, four meandering cases that involve Mr. Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, have been effectively frozen by Ukraine’s chief prosecutor.

The cases are just too sensitive for a government deeply reliant on United States financial and military aid, and keenly aware of Mr. Trump’s distaste for the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into possible collusion between Russia and his campaign, some lawmakers say.

The decision to halt the investigations by an anticorruption prosecutor was handed down at a delicate moment for Ukraine, as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins.

The State Department issued an export license for the missiles on Dec. 22, and on March 2 the Pentagon announced final approval for the sale of 210 Javelins and 35 launching units. The order to halt investigations into Mr. Manafort came in early April.

Volodymyr Ariev, a member of Parliament who is an ally of President Petro O. Poroshenko, readily acknowledged that the intention in Kiev was to put investigations into Mr. Manafort’s activities “in the long-term box.”

“In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials,” Mr. Ariev said in an interview. “We shouldn’t spoil relations with the administration.”

SPOILER

The Ukrainian investigators had been tracing money paid to Mr. Manafort and a New York law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, by figures in the political party of Viktor F. Yanukovych, the Russian-leaning Ukrainian president who was ousted by street protesters and fled the country in 2014. Mr. Manafort was a longtime adviser to Mr. Yanukovych, working with him to revamp his public image and acquire a pro-Western patina that helped him win the presidency in 2010.

The new government established a special prosecutor to pursue corruption in the former administration. By late last year, the prosecutor, Serhiy Horbatyuk, had opened about 3,000 cases, including four related to Mr. Manafort’s consulting for the former president and his political party.

The order issued in April isolated these four investigations. The cases were not closed, the prosecutor general’s office said in a statement, but the order blocked Mr. Horbatyuk from issuing subpoenas for evidence or interviewing witnesses.

“We have no authority to continue our investigation,” Mr. Horbatyuk said in an interview.

One inquiry dealt with possible money laundering in a single $750,000 payment to Mr. Manafort from a Ukrainian shell company. The payment formed one part of the multimillion dollar transfers to Mr. Manafort from politicians in Ukraine that underpin indictments filed by Mr. Mueller in federal court in Washington and Virginia. Before the case was frozen, prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Ukrainian banks.

Another concerned a former chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament’s foreign relations committee, Vitaly Kalyuzhny, who had signed nine of 22 entries designated for Mr. Manafort in a secret ledger of political payoffs uncovered after the 2014 revolution. The ledger showed payouts totaling $12.5 million for Mr. Manafort.

The handwritten accounting document, called in Ukraine the Black Ledger, is an evidential linchpin for investigating corruption in the former government. Mr. Manafort denied receiving under-the-table payments from the party and his spokesman said the ledger might be a forgery.

The other two cases looked at Skadden Arps, which wrote a report with Mr. Manafort’s participation that was widely seen as whitewashing the politically motivated arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Yanukovych’s principal rival, Yulia V. Tymoshenko.

Two months before Ukraine’s government froze the cases, Mr. Horbatyuk reached out to Mr. Mueller’s office with a formal offer to cooperate by sharing evidence and leads. Mr. Horbatyuk said that he sent a letter in January and did not receive a reply, but that the offer was now moot, since he has lost the authority to investigate.

But entries in the ledger appear to bolster Mr. Mueller’s money laundering and tax evasion case against Mr. Manafort, said Serhiy Leshchenko, a lawmaker who has closely followed the investigation. They indicate, for example, payments from Ukraine to a Cypriot company, Global Highway Limited, that was also named in an indictment Mr. Mueller filed in federal court in Virginia this year. The company covered hundreds of thousands of dollars of Mr. Manafort’s bills at a high-end men’s clothing store and antique shop in New York.

In another move seeming to hinder Mr. Mueller’s investigation, Ukrainian law enforcement allowed a potential witness to possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to leave for Russia, putting him out of reach for questioning.

The special counsel’s office has identified the man, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, Mr. Manafort’s former office manager in Kiev, as tied to a Russian intelligence agency. Mr. Kilimnik was also under investigation in Ukraine over espionage, but no charges were filed before he left the country, sometime after June. During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Kilimnik met twice with Mr. Manafort. In December, a court filing in the United States said Mr. Kilimnik was “currently based in Russia.”

But in the United States, Mr. Mueller’s office appears still keenly interested in Mr. Manafort’s ties to Russia. Among the questions Mr. Mueller would like to ask Mr. Trump, according to a list provided to the president’s lawyers, was: “What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?”

In Kiev, the missile sale was seen as a political victory for Mr. Poroshenko, indicating American backing for his government in the war in eastern Ukraine against Russia-backed separatists and against the threat of a wider Russian intervention in the country. After Ukraine announced on April 30 that it had received the missiles, Mr. Poroshenko posted on Facebook that “the long-awaited weapon arrived in the Ukrainian Army.”

Apart from the missiles, the Ukrainian government is propped up with about $600 million in bilateral aid from the United States annually. Mr. Poroshenko’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

David Sakvarelidze, a former deputy prosecutor general who is now in the political opposition, said he did not believe that the general prosecutor had coordinated with anybody in the United States on the decision to suspend the investigations in Ukraine, or that there had been a quid pro quo for the missile sale.

Ukrainian politicians, he said, concluded on their own that any help prosecuting Mr. Manafort could bring down Mr. Trump’s wrath.

“Can you imagine,” Mr. Sakvarelidze said, “that Trump writes on Twitter, ‘The United States isn’t going to support any corrupt post-Soviet leaders, including in Ukraine.’ That would be the end of him.”

Last summer, another member of Parliament, Andrey L. Derkach, initiated an investigation into leaks to the news media about Mr. Manafort’s dealings from Ukrainian law enforcement, saying they put at risk vital American aid to Ukraine. He has openly opposed any Ukrainian role in aiding the special counsel’s investigation.

Ukraine, Mr. Derkach said in an interview, would be taking grave risks if it assisted in what he called a politicized investigation in the United States. In Ukraine, he said, “everybody is afraid of this case.”

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 16:30 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 02-05-2018 om 15:23:17 “The questions are an intrusion into the President’s Article 2 powers under the Constitution to fire any Executive Branch Employee...what the President was thinking is an outrageous.....as to the President’s unfettered power to fire anyone...” Joe Digenova, former US Attorney reageer retweet

Hij wil Mueller zo graag ontslaan

quote:

A Rigged System - They don’t want to turn over Documents to Congress. What are they afraid of? Why so much redacting? Why such unequal “justice?” At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved!

quote:

Op woensdag 2 mei 2018 16:53 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]


[..]

"I will have no choice but to get involved", dat lijkt me niet zo'n goed idee.