quote:

WASHINGTON — John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, chaired a nonprofit that has promoted misleading and false anti-Muslim news, some of which was amplified by a Russian troll factory, an NBC News review found.

The group’s authors also appeared on Russian media, including Sputnik and RT News, criticizing mainstream European leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron.

From 2013 until last month, Bolton was chairman of the Gatestone Institute, a New York-based advocacy group that warns of a looming “jihadist takeover” of Europe leading to a “Great White Death.”

The group has published numerous stories and headlines on its website with similar themes. “Germany Confiscating Homes to Use for Migrants,” warned one from May 2017, about a single apartment rental property in Hamburg that had gone into temporary trusteeship. Another from February 2015 claimed the immigrants, for instance Somalis, in Sweden were turning that country into the “Rape Capital of the West.”

Gatestone is “a key part of the whole Islamaphobic cottage industry on the internet,” said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights and advocacy group.

Hooper added that Bolton being associated with Gatestone, "and in one of the most powerful positions on the planet, is very disturbing.”

On its web page, Gatestone says it is a nonpartisan nonprofit “dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report” on a variety of topics, including human rights, free speech and energy.

Alina Polyakova, a Brookings Institution fellow who studies far-right populism and disinformation campaigns in the European Union, said Gatestone is “putting out content that was clearly anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and was echoing some of the Russian disinformation propaganda” being spread by internet trolls and on social media.

Polyakova said she and others in the Washington foreign policy community were “surprised” Bolton had chaired the group.

Bolton formally started as national security adviser in early April. He has continued to meet with White House attorneys over possible conflicts of interest including his political action committee, and his affiliation with Gatestone is a potential focus.

The NSC said it does not respond to inquiries about outside organizations but confirmed Bolton is aware of the story.

Bolton doesn’t appear to have bylined the anti-Muslim articles at issue on Gatestone’s website, focusing his pieces instead on Iran and other topics. Even so, he has a long association with Pamela Geller, an anti-Islamic activist who organized a campaign against a mosque near 9/11's ground zero in Manhattan, having written the foreword for a book she co-wrote and appearing on her internet radio show.

Bolton is also on the record criticizing Trump’s initial plan, announced in December 2015, to temporarily ban all Muslims from entering the United States.

Yet in fanning anti-Muslim news, Gatestone had a common purpose with a broader Russian disinformation campaign that sought to portray Western society as at risk of “Islamization.”

“We see this kind of pattern emerge where a website puts up something, it looks like a news story, then bots and trolls amplify it,” Polykova said.

Some of the group’s work was widely distributed, including a claim about Muslim-controlled “no-go zones” in France that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz cited in an op-ed during the 2016 Republican presidential primary campaign.

Gatestone’s president, Sears Roebuck heiress Nina Rosenwald, said in an email that Bolton was not involved in any of the articles and that Gatestone has no knowledge of Russian trolls having promoted its work.

Rosenwald emailed numerous links to support Gatestone’s claims, including a number in French and German. One entry flagged as documenting “warring Muslim gangs” in Marseille, France, when translated into English, says only that the city had deployed specialized police officers to a high-crime area, with no mention of warring Muslims.

Another links to comments by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In calling for uniform regional police standards, Merkel said “no-go” areas where the police avoid going should not be allowed; yet a German government spokesman in Berlin, Johannes Pepping, told NBC News that Merkel was not referring to immigrants or Muslims.

(....)

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 23-04-2018 om 18:35:16 The Treasury Department has softened its position on sanctions against Russian metals giant Rusal--Oleg Deripaska's company--giving it a 6-month reprieve while considering the company's appeal. https://t.co/pOWUuPWsCt reageer retweet

Aluminum Prices Drop as U.S. Softens Stance on Sanctions

quote:

James Shaw Jr., who grabbed the scalding barrel of an AR-15 to take it away from a gunman in Nashville who massacred four people and shot two others at a Waffle House on Sunday, has already raised more than $16,000 for the victims of the rampage.

Police are on the hunt for suspected shooter Travis Reinking, 29, who allegedly killed Taurean C. Sanderlin, 29; Joe R. Perez, 20; Deebony Groves, 21; and Akilah Dasilva, 23.

Shaw, who has been hailed as a hero by witnesses and authorities alike, created a GoFundMe account for those injured in the shooting, in which a nearly naked Reinking allegedly started shooting at a Waffle House at about 3:30 a.m. Sunday.

“Please take the time to donate as all of the proceeds will be given to the families,” Shaw, 29, wrote on the page. “Thank you again for your generosity and blessings!”

“You don’t get to meet too many heroes in life,” Waffle House Chief Executive Walter Ehmer said of Shaw, at a press conference several hours after the attack. “We are forever in your debt.”

“I was completely doing it just to save myself,” Shaw, who was grazed by a bullet and treated for a minor gunshot wound, said at the press briefing. “Now, me doing that, I did save other people. But I don’t want people to think that I was the Terminator or Superman or anybody like that. It was just, I figured, if I was going to die he was going to have to work for it.”

He added, “It was life or death.”

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 19:57 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
Waffle House Hero Is Raising Money for Attack’s Victims (Daily Beast)

[..]

33½ uur en nog steeds hult God-Keizer Dotard I zich in stilte.

twitter:

kanyewest twitterde op maandag 23-04-2018 om 18:34:57 new ideas will no longer be condemned by the masses. We are on the frontier of massive change. Starting from breaking out of our mental prisons. reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 20:24 schreef Nintex het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

2016: Donald Trump
2020: Donald Trump
2024: Kanye West

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 20:26 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Je faalt, je plaatje doet het niet. Niet dat je post wel wat had toegevoegd als het plaatje wel had gewerkt.

quote:

The police said Monday that they had arrested a suspect in the killing of four people at a Waffle House in Nashville, ending a wide search that had unnerved one of the largest cities in the South.

About 160 law enforcement officials had been involved in the search for the suspect, Travis Reinking, 29, who officials said used an AR-15 rifle to carry out a rampage at a restaurant southeast of downtown on Sunday morning. In addition to the four people who were killed — Akilah Dasilva, 23; DeEbony Groves, 21; Joe R. Perez, 20; and Taurean C. Sanderlin, 29 — four people were wounded.

The authorities said there would have been greater bloodshed had a 29-year-old customer, James Shaw Jr., not wrested the rifle away from Mr. Reinking while he was reloading. Mr. Reinking fled the restaurant after the attack, the police said, naked except for a green jacket.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation had added Mr. Reinking to its Top Ten Most Wanted list, describing him as a 6-foot-4 white male with brown hair and brown eyes who weighs 180 pounds. Mr. Reinking has had other encounters with law enforcement, including an arrest near the White House last July when he crossed a security barrier in pursuit of a meeting with President Trump.

Police reports show family members expressed concern for his welfare after he exhibited delusional behavior for an extended time, including expressing a belief that the entertainer Taylor Swift was stalking him and hacking his phone and Netflix account.

SPOILER

And after his arrest for the White House episode, Mr. Reinking, who lived in Morton, Ill., was forced to surrender three rifles and a handgun to officials in August, just months before he moved to Nashville.

After the rampage in Nashville on Sunday, officials could not fully explain how Mr. Reinking regained possession of his weapons. The Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office in Illinois gave the weapons he owned — including the AR-15 he took to the Waffle House on Sunday — to his father, Jeffrey Reinking.

Sheriff Robert M. Huston of Tazewell County said in a news conference on Sunday that while Travis Reinking “voluntarily surrendered” the weapons on Aug. 24, his father had a firearm owner’s identification card and a legal right to take the weapons.

“He was allowed to do that after he assured deputies that he would keep them secure and away from Travis,” Sheriff Huston said. “We have no information about how Travis came back into possession of those firearms.”

The police in Nashville indicated that Mr. Reinking’s father returned the weapons to his son. He could not be reached for comment on Sunday.

The Nashville authorities said Mr. Reinking had worked in the crane and construction industries. Mr. Reinking was fired from a job about three weeks ago and found a new job, but had not been seen at work since Monday, a police spokesman said.

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 20:44 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Amerikanen zijn achterlijk genoeg om te stemmen op een idioot die zichzelf tijdens Earth Day op de borst klopt wegens het slopen van maatregelen die als doel hebben het beschermen van het milieu.

Dan is Kanye ook mogelijk. Hoewel hij vanwege zijn huidskleur niet op veel steun hoeft te rekenen uit het Trump-kamp.

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 20:58 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Wat een onzin weer.

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 20:39 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Kijk maar op de timeline van Kanye
https://twitter.com/kanyewest

Hij luistert goed naar Scott Adams en helpt Candace Owens. Onderschrijft de theorie van de vrije denkers vs. de eeuwige slachtofferrol en betutteling van links en de democrats.

Kanye gaat in 2024 het stokje overnemen van Trump.

quote:

President Donald Trump twice gave James Comey an alibi for why a salacious report about the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow couldn’t be true: He never even spent the night in Russia during that trip, Trump told the former FBI director, according to Comey’s memos about the conversations.

Yet the broad timeline of Trump’s stay, stretching from Friday, Nov. 8, 2013, through the following Sunday morning, has been widely reported. And it’s substantiated by social media posts that show he slept in Moscow the night before the Miss Universe contest.

Now, flight records obtained by Bloomberg provide to-the-minute details, from wheels down to departure. Combined with existing accounts and Trump’s own social-media posts, they capture a mere 45 hours and 43 minutes that, nearly five years later, loom large in the controversy engulfing the White House and at the heart of the Comey memos, which the Justice Department turned over last week to Congress.

Neither the White House nor Trump Organization immediately responded to requests for comment.

SPOILER

According to Comey’s accounts of his 2017 meetings with the president, Trump said the Moscow trip was so quick that his head never hit a pillow -- even for one night. Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017.

The first denial came over dinner at the White House in late January 2017. “He said he arrived in the morning, did events, then showered and dressed for the pageant at the hotel," and then left for the event, Comey wrote. “Afterwards, he returned only to get his things because they departed for New York by plane that same night."

On the second occasion in February 2017, Trump “explained, as he did at our dinner, that he hadn’t stayed overnight in Russia during the Miss Universe trip," Comey wrote.

A reconstruction of events shows the future U.S. president’s journey to Moscow began in North Carolina, where he attended a birthday tribute to evangelist Billy Graham on Thursday, Nov. 7, 2013. While flight records show Trump’s own Cessna jet headed back to New York that night from Asheville, North Carolina, Trump himself apparently wasn’t aboard.

Instead, Trump flew to Moscow on a Bombardier Global 5000 private jet owned by Phil Ruffin, his partner in the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Las Vegas, the New York Times reported in January 2017. Trump’s use of Ruffin’s jet is also reported in the newly published book, “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump," by Michael Isikoff and David Corn.

The jet -- tail number N443PR -- had flown from Las Vegas to Asheville on Nov. 6, according to the flight records, which Bloomberg purchased from FlightAware, an aviation data company. The flight records don’t say who was aboard the jet, which took off from Asheville at 9:15 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 7, bound for Moscow’s Vnukovo International Airport.

At the Ritz

The Bombardier jet landed in Moscow at 6:15 a.m. on Friday, Nov. 8. From Vnukovo airport, it’s less than an hour’s drive to the Ritz-Carlton hotel, where Trump stayed, according to the pageant’s host, developer Aras Agalarov.

Trump surfaced online later that day in a Facebook post by the restaurant Nobu Moscow. That night he attended a birthday party for Agalarov.

The next day, Saturday, Nov. 9, Facebook posts showed Trump at the Ritz during the day, and in the afternoon he tweeted that he’d gotten a tour of Moscow. That evening, he attended the Miss Universe pageant, followed by an after-party whose scheduled start time was 1 a.m. -- by that time, Sunday, Nov. 10.

At this point, the flight records support a narrow slice of what Trump told Comey: On the night of the pageant itself, the plane Trump was said to be using didn’t fully overnight in Russia. Ruffin’s Bombardier took off from Vnukovo airport at 3:58 a.m. Moscow time, the records show.

When the jet touched down at Newark Liberty International Airport, just outside New York City, it was still Sunday morning -- 4:11 a.m. local time. That evening, Trump tweeted about his return, “I just got back from Russia-learned lots & lots. Moscow is a very interesting and amazing place!"

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op maandag 23-04-2018 om 21:36:25 (THREAD) A U.S. media outlet has FINALLY published in-depth reporting on the story I began researching 15 months ago: the Steele dossier's "kompromat" allegation. I break down the news and add significant context to the story in this thread—hope you'll RT. https://t.co/Gd1wgSEa1D reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 20:24 schreef Nintex het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

2016: Donald Trump
2020: Donald Trump
2024: Kanye West

twitter:

kanyewest twitterde op maandag 23-04-2018 om 18:34:57 new ideas will no longer be condemned by the masses. We are on the frontier of massive change. Starting from breaking out of our mental prisons. reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 22:14 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Flight Records Illuminate Mystery of Trump's Moscow Nights

[..]

Told you so

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op maandag 23-04-2018 om 21:36:25 (THREAD) A U.S. media outlet has FINALLY published in-depth reporting on the story I began researching 15 months ago: the Steele dossier's "kompromat" allegation. I break down the news and add significant context to the story in this thread—hope you'll RT. https://t.co/Gd1wgSEa1D reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 23-04-2018 om 22:08:34 Here’s a great stat - since January 2017, the number of people forced to use food stamps is down 1.9 million. The American people are finally back to work! reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 20:39 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Kijk maar op de timeline van Kanye
https://twitter.com/kanyewest

Hij luistert goed naar Scott Adams en helpt Candace Owens. Onderschrijft de theorie van de vrije denkers vs. de eeuwige slachtofferrol en betutteling van links en de democrats.

Kanye gaat in 2024 het stokje overnemen van Trump.

quote:

Did you have a happy Tax Day? Are you feeling grateful for the Republican tax cut? Evidently, most American taxpayers are not.

In a sublime case of poetic justice, the so-called Tax Cut and Jobs Act is backfiring on the Republicans big time. Most voters are unimpressed, and Republicans themselves are ceasing to emphasize it in their campaign material.

In the March 13 special election for the Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District, where Democrat Conor Lamb narrowly beat Republican Rick Saccone, Republicans actually pulled ads that bragged about the tax act, because their polls showed that it was more of a target than an achievement.

Republican strategists who wanted President Donald Trump to emphasize the tax cut this spring were initially annoyed that he was talking about trade, immigration and Korea instead. Now they realize that Trump may be onto something.

Even better, Democrats are sensing that the tax issue can be turned against the Republicans in the 2018 and 2020 elections. This outcome is the result of Republican overreach, opportunism, and sheer greed.

SPOILER

Previous Republican tax cuts, under Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush, were also tilted to the top, but made sure to include some real benefits for regular people. But this bill was so heavily skewed to the wealthy that most people won’t see any benefits at all in their paychecks.

In their excess, Republicans also managed to accomplish something ― for their opposition ― that has entirely eluded Democrats on tax politics since Reagan: total party unity. Reagan’s two big tax cuts in 1981 and 1986 peeled off lots of Democratic votes in Congress. Though the substance of the supply-side cuts was bogus, many Democrats figured that if the bill was going to pass anyway, they should share in the credit. The same thing happened with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

This time, however, the tax bill was both so extreme in its substance, and so purely partisan in the way it was enacted, that not a single Democrat in either the House or the Senate voted for it.

Republicans were counting on the sheer complexity of tax policy to put one over on the voters, but their con was much too easy to grasp.

By increasing the deficit to the tune of some $1.8 trillion over a decade, they were setting up demands for offsetting cuts in widely supported programs like Medicare and Social Security. Those calls are already coming, from Republicans who belatedly and disingenuously discovered the tax bill’s impact on the deficit. And this presents a fat target for Democrats.

Some of the law’s specific measures, such as the $10,000 limit on the deductibility of state sales and income taxes and local property taxes, were intended to punish voters in blue states with relatively progressive taxes and decent public services, such as New York and California. But there are at least 20 endangered Republican House members in such states who will find out that this spiteful provision is impossible to defend.

When the bill passed, many Democrats were gun-shy about making this a prime election issue, on the premise that tax cuts are invariably popular. This one isn’t.

The tax law also gives Democrats the chance to ask: What else might we do with $1.8 trillion? For instance, a true invest-in-America program that rebuilds archaic infrastructure and creates lots of good jobs. Or substantial relief from crippling college debt. On multiple levels, the tax act invites debates that play to the strengths of Democrats.

Each claim in the Republican propaganda is phony. The growth stimulated by the bill will not enable the cuts to pay for themselves. The changes in the tax code are not increasing investment — mainly, they are promoting more corporate stock buybacks that artificially pump up share values and further enrich the rich.

Far from creating incentives to reverse offshoring, the law actually enables corporations to pay a lower rate of tax on profits earned overseas. And despite a good deal of messaging by corporate allies of Trump claiming that worker raises and bonuses are the fruit of the tax cuts, the small number of pay increases are a pittance compared with the tax savings for companies.

Last week, headlines were made by the news that regulators had levied a $1 billion fine against Wells Fargo for chronic frauds against its customers. That $1 billion was less than a third of the money that Wells Fargo saves from the tax cut.

The ancient Greeks held that character is fate. And the tax act speaks volumes about the character of today’s Republican Party.

Republicans are supposed to be for fiscal balance. But when there is an opportunity to deliver trillion-dollar favors for corporations and the rich, deficits are no problem.

Republicans are allegedly for states’ rights. But this law greatly limits the ability of states to make their own choices about taxing and spending.

Republicans are supposed to be for economic efficiency. But this tax bill creates incentives for economically perverse activity, such as stock buybacks and sheer gimmicks such as “pass-through” entities where the point is not to improve the economy, but to merely to give the wealthy a break.

Trump promised to Make America Great Again. This law promotes more offshoring.

The law is such a political loser for Republicans, and the hypocrisy is so ripe, that one has to believe that Republicans sensed this was going to be their last chance for a long while to grab whatever they could. They made few concessions to political realism.

Now, they brace themselves for a long period in the political wilderness, knowing this law has helped to seal their fate.

^{by Robert Kuttner}

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 22:57 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
The Great Republican Tax Cut Backfire (HuffPo Oponion)

[..]

quote:

Trump is reportedly increasingly relying on his personal cell phone to contact outside advisers, according to multiple sources inside and outside the White House

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 23-04-2018 om 23:10:52 More than 100 retired military generals and admirals have written a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, raising questions about Gina Haspel's nomination to be CIA director. (via @playbookplus) https://t.co/Y1rVeHOfd9 https://t.co/KrG2HmzekE reageer retweet

SPOILER

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 23:27 schreef Nintex het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

Art of the Deal

twitter:

CNN twitterde op maandag 23-04-2018 om 23:51:01 Following their arrival at the White House, French President Macron and his wife joined President Trump and the first lady in planting a tree on the South Lawn https://t.co/foTVcV5oEb https://t.co/XqldT5t9TJ reageer retweet

twitter:

Breaking911 twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 00:00:49 Pres. Trump and French Pres. Macron plant a tree on the South Lawn of the White House ahead of tonight's State Dinner - ABC https://t.co/bhpyCcTvtN reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 23:27 schreef Nintex het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

Art of the Deal

quote:

Senate lawmakers have postponed the confirmation hearing for Ronny L. Jackson, President Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, after top Republicans and Democrats raised concerns about his qualifications and oversight of the White House medical staff, White House and other administration officials were told Monday.

The development came just two days before Jackson was scheduled to testify before the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and threw what was already looking to be a difficult confirmation process into further jeopardy.

In addition to Jackson’s lack of management experience, the White House physician and former combat surgeon had come under fire for his glowing appraisal of Trump’s health in January, during which he said the president might live to the age of 200 with a healthier diet. In recent days, fresh concerns arose about his management of the White House medical office, said the officials, who declined to provide details.

“I can tell you we’re vetting out Jackson,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the committee’s ranking Democrat. “I can’t get into specifics, but we’re doing our job to make sure he’s fit for the job.”

The White House, at Tester’s request, also is assessing whether the questions that have been raised about Jackson have any validity, a former White House official said.

Aides to committee Chairman Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) declined to comment on the issue. Jackson was a surprise nominee to succeed David Shulkin, whom President Trump fired March 28.

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 23:05 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/988518136004493312?s=20

Is dat niet net zoiets als een privé mailserver gebruiken?

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 04:30:23 On the news that Trump is reportedly using his personal cell phone more, I can't help but think of this quote from last year: "If President Trump is carrying around an unsecured Android phone, that's 1,000 times worse than using a personal email server." https://t.co/m7T2oZf8Nl reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 20:44 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Amerikanen zijn achterlijk genoeg om te stemmen op een idioot die zichzelf tijdens Earth Day op de borst klopt wegens het slopen van maatregelen die als doel hebben het beschermen van het milieu.

Dan is Kanye ook mogelijk. Hoewel hij vanwege zijn huidskleur niet op veel steun hoeft te rekenen uit het Trump-kamp.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 08:24 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Mwa, volgens de American National Election Study stemden 13% van de Trump voters in 2012 voor Obama. Dat vind ik verrassend veel.

quote:

Op maandag 23 april 2018 20:39 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Kijk maar op de timeline van Kanye
https://twitter.com/kanyewest

Hij luistert goed naar Scott Adams en helpt Candace Owens. Onderschrijft de theorie van de vrije denkers vs. de eeuwige slachtofferrol en betutteling van links en de democrats.

Kanye gaat in 2024 het stokje overnemen van Trump.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 00:55 schreef Szura het volgende:
Overigens ligt Bush Sr. nu kennelijk op de intensive care

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 08:29 schreef SureD1 het volgende:

[..]

Dat lijkt me dan vooral de Rustbelt, niet?

quote:

The controversial performance artist, host of the eponymous unreality TV show, has been revealed by The Guardian as a beneficiary of a federal mortgage guarantee program.
The Guardian found that Hannity owns millions of dollars of real estate through more than 20 shell corporations, which shield his identity. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Guardian notes, insured the mortgage loans with which Hannity purchased the properties. Let's be clear: This is a subsidy. This is a benefit. This is big government aiding a very wealthy man. This is welfare.
On his state-run media platform, Hannity can be found decrying welfare. He once expressed shock as he interviewed a California surfer and musician who received $189 a month in food stamps, as well as government health insurance. "Welfare Wave" the graphic blared. In 2012, comedian Jon Stewart slammed Hannity for promoting the fiction that President Barack Obama had created "an entitlement society."
In 2013, Hannity complained that an African-American man in Tennessee had allegedly fathered 22 children who were receiving welfare. A Hannity guest called for sterilizing the man. Another Hannity guest opined that "the women should have kept their legs closed."
But when it came to accepting government support for his real estate investments, Hannity didn't keep his wallet closed. The ethic of rugged individualism gave way to the desire to have the federal government help line Hannity's pocket.

The ugly welfare stereotypes that Hannity advances -- an indolent African-American, a long-haired California hippy -- feed the grievances of his audience. Little do they know it is actually Hannity with his hand in the welfare cookie jar.
He is not alone. One of the biggest welfare queens of all is living large in public housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. By one account, President Donald Trump has received $885 million in tax breaks from the government of New York alone. That doesn't count the federal goodies Trump scarfs up, most recently the millions he stands to gain from the tax cut he signed into law. (We won't know for sure until he releases his taxes. My guess is that will happen just after the hockey game played in hell.)
President Ronald Reagan, who popularized the concept of a welfare queen, understood the outrage many folks feel when people who don't need government assistance take it anyway. "The truly needy," he said in his 1983 State of the Union Address, "suffer as funds intended for them are taken not by the needy, but by the greedy."
Hannity issued a statement Monday: "It is ironic that I am being attacked for investing my personal money in communities that badly need such investment and in which, I am sure, those attacking me have not invested their money," he said. "The fact is, these are investments that I do not individually select, control, or know the details about; except that obviously I believe in putting my money to work in communities that otherwise struggle to receive such support."
Cohen's third client is Sean Hannity

Cohen's third client is Sean Hannity 02:35
Yes, Sean, I'm sure it's your own money. But it's being guaranteed with taxpayers' money. That's a government subsidy. And my guess is you used shell corporations to keep your name out of the documents because you didn't want your hypocrisy exposed.
Sean Hannity is a lot of things. Needy isn't one of them. Greedy, in President Reagan's framing, seems more like it. Perhaps the program that guarantees Hannity's investments is a wise one. Perhaps, on the other hand, it is a wasteful welfare program. That's not the point. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Hannity is a very wealthy man. So is Donald Trump. It appears that part of the way they became rich was by decrying welfare for poor folks, then grabbing it for themselves. They view their voters, their viewers, as saps. Stooges. Suckers. As another great huckster said, there's one born every minute. And Hannity is laughing all the way to the bank.

quote:

The ranking Democrat on the Senate Veterans Affairs committee is reviewing allegations he's hearing about Ronny Jackson, the White House physician and President Trump's pick to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was unclear late Monday whether the Senate panel would postpone Jackson's confirmation hearing, which was scheduled for Wednesday, in light of stories about the nominee told by current or former White House medical staff.

Sources familiar with the tales say Sen. Jon Tester's committee staff is reviewing multiple allegations of a "hostile work environment." The accusations include "excessive drinking on the job, improperly dispensing meds," said one of the people familiar, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly about the situation. The other people familiar with the stories also confirmed those details.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 12:57 schreef clumsy_clown het volgende:
Ondertussen lijkt ook Ronny Jacksons aanstelling verder in gevaar te komen.

[..]

https://www.cbsnews.com/n(...)onfirmation-hearing/

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 13:03 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Dan vraag ik mij wel af hoe de fuck je vice-admiraal word met dat soort gedrag.

Dat hij ongeschikt is als hoofd van de VA op grond van zijn gebrek aan kwalificaties was allang duidelijk.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 13:44 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Je hoeft alleen maar "loyaliteit" aan Trump te geven, dan is je toekomst verzekerd voor maar liefst een paar weken.

quote:

Sources familiar with the tales say Sen. Jon Tester's committee staff is reviewing multiple allegations of a "hostile work environment." The accusations include "excessive drinking on the job, improperly dispensing meds," said one of the people familiar, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly about the situation. The other people familiar with the stories also confirmed those details.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 13:03 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Dan vraag ik mij wel af hoe de fuck je vice-admiraal word met dat soort gedrag.

Dat hij ongeschikt is als hoofd van de VA op grond van zijn gebrek aan kwalificaties was allang duidelijk.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 14:28 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:

[..]

Dat vroeg ik me bij James T Kirk ook altijd af

quote:

Colorado's state Supreme Court ruled Monday that GOP Rep. Doug Lamborn cannot appear on the primary ballot in his district because of a problem with his ballot petitions.

The court ruled that a petition gatherer working for Lamborn's campaign did not live in the state at the time, rendering the signatures he gathered invalid and moving Lamborn below the threshold for ballot access in his conservative district.


"Therefore, the supreme court holds that the Secretary [of State] may not certify Representative Lamborn to the 2018 primary ballot for Colorado's Fifth Congressional District," the court ruled.

quote:

He was once reported to the police in Illinois for stashing an AR-15 in the trunk of his car and then diving into a public pool wearing a women’s pink housecoat. There was the time he complained to an officer that the singer Taylor Swift had demanded a rendezvous. And then last July he was grabbed by the Secret Service when he tried to force his way on to the White House grounds.

Travis Reinking, 29, was on the radar of law enforcement well before he was taken into custody on Monday and accused of barging into a Nashville Waffle House over the weekend and opening fire, killing four and injuring four more.

Yet even after the Illinois police revoked his firearms license and ordered that his guns be transferred to his father, Mr. Reinking got them back, including the AR-15 used in the Tennessee shooting, the police said. His case raises questions over how such a troubled individual could have legally carried weapons for so long and could have continued to carry them even after he was ordered to give them up.

SPOILER

“We have a man who has exhibited significant instability,” acknowledged Don Aaron, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department.

The police say that Mr. Reinking’s father, Jeffrey, the owner of a crane business near the town of Morton, Ill., returned the guns to his son, enabling Travis Reinking to carry out the killings over the weekend.

Jeffrey Reinking’s act of returning the guns to his son is “potentially a violation of federal law,” Marcus Watson, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said at a news conference.

Jeffrey Reinking could not be reached for comment on Monday. After Travis Reinking’s arrest in Washington last year, the F.B.I. passed on information about him to local authorities in Illinois, where he was ordered to complete 32 hours of community service at a Baptist church near Morton. The F.B.I. closed its investigation of Mr. Reinking in October.

About 160 law enforcement officials were involved in the search for Mr. Reinking, who officials said began his rampage at the restaurant southeast of downtown Nashville just before 3:30 a.m. on Sunday. The episode unnerved one of the largest cities in the South, focusing attention yet again on the ease with which so many people, including those with mental health issues, can access guns.

Mr. Reinking was seized on Monday afternoon in a wooded area less than a mile from the Waffle House. He was wearing a backpack containing a loaded handgun, but Nashville police said he surrendered without incident. The authorities said he was refusing to speak to detectives.

The police also said on Monday that Mr. Reinking had stolen a BMW last week after posing as a customer at a local dealership, and eluded officers in a chase.

The authorities identified those who were killed as Akilah Dasilva, 23; DeEbony Groves, 21; Joe R. Perez, 20; and Taurean C. Sanderlin, 29. The authorities said there would have been greater bloodshed had a 29-year-old customer, James Shaw Jr., not wrested the rifle away from Mr. Reinking while he was reloading. Mr. Reinking fled the restaurant after the attack, the police said, naked except for a green jacket.

Mr. Reinking is white, and the four victims were either African-American or Hispanic, but Mayor David Briley of Nashville said he had no reason to believe that these were racially motivated killings. Instead, Mr. Briley said, there was “enough indication that there was some element of mental illness associated with it.”

Mr. Reinking lived in Illinois for most of his life and only recently moved to the Nashville area to work in construction.

In reports, the sheriff’s department in Tazewell County, Ill., had described Mr. Reinking as a man who was hostile to the police, had threatened suicide and believed his family was harassing him.

His father, mother and grandmother were all worried enough about his behavior that they called for help. They told the police that Mr. Reinking had been having delusions since August 2014.

In May 2016, police officers responded to a CVS parking lot in Morton after Mr. Reinking’s family reported that he had talked of committing suicide, and owned firearms. Mr. Reinking told officers that Ms. Swift had stalked him and hacked into his Netflix account.

A few weeks earlier, he told officers, he had chased Ms. Swift in an attempt to get her to stop harassing him. “Travis stated he was telling the truth and he had proof on his phone since it was hacked,” the report said. “However, Travis would not show us his phone.”

Mr. Reinking was transported to a hospital to be evaluated. In June 2017, the police were called to a public pool in Tremont, Ill., where he had dived into a pool wearing a housecoat, then had shed the coat, wearing only underwear.

According to the report, Mr. Reinking began yelling at lifeguards and then “showed his genitals, saying he was a man.”

Still, he was not arrested.

“This is an informational report showing the state of mind of Travis Reinking,” the report noted. When the police contacted Mr. Reinking’s father, he said that he had taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son “when Travis was having problems,” then gave them back to him.

The officers advised Jeffrey Reinking that “he might want to lock the guns back up until Travis gets mental help, which he stated he would.”

In August 2017, Travis Reinking, driving a blue Mitsubishi, pulled up alongside a police car and said he wanted to file a report. About 20 to 30 people were hacking into his phone and computer, he told the police. He could hear people outside his home barking like dogs, but didn’t know who they were. At a Walmart recently, he felt that a man in a black shirt was watching him, and no one else.

“Travis said he is tired of people messing with him,” the report said. The officer advised Mr. Reinking to call the police if he heard people barking like dogs again. “No further action is being taken,” the report said.

Later that month, after the White House incident, the police approached Mr. Reinking and his father to deliver a copy of the paper revoking his license. He handed over the card and helped the police retrieve all of his weapons and ammunition, which were handed over to Jeffrey Reinking.

“Jeffrey was advised that he needed to keep the weapons secure and away from Travis,” the police report said. “Jeffrey stated he would comply.”

According to Illinois gun law, a person must be granted a Firearm Owners Identification card, or FOID, to possess a firearm. About 2.1 million people in Illinois have the cards.

But under the law, the process to keep firearms out of the hands of a person whose card has been revoked is weak, allowing many people to keep access to the weapons with little threat of enforcement or penalty.

The Illinois State Police revoked more than 11,000 cards in 2016, said a spokesman, Lt. Matthew Boerwinkle. People whose cards have been revoked are required to surrender the card and any weapons to a local law enforcement agency. But there is a provision that allows people whose license has been revoked to transfer their weapons to another person with a valid card, as Mr. Reinking’s father had.

Those local police departments are then required to document that the person has turned over the card and weapons.

But local law enforcement agencies frequently fail to take action. In 2016, only about 4,000 of the 11,000 people whose cards were revoked submitted the mandatory reports explaining what they did with their guns, The Chicago Tribune reported in 2017.

“They’re required to do it, but there’s essentially no teeth in the law that holds the law enforcement agencies accountable to do it,” Lieutenant Boerwinkle said on Monday.

There is nothing in the law requiring that the person holding the weapons must lock them up, or even live in a different house than the person whose FOID card was revoked, Lieutenant Boerwinkle said.

Transferring firearms to another Illinois resident who does not have a valid card is a crime in Illinois. Jeffrey Reinking has indicated to the police that he gave his son’s guns back to him, but it is not clear how and when he did so, said Mr. Aaron, the spokesman for the Nashville police.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 15:02 schreef OMG het volgende:
Very fine people.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 15:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Tot hij vier mensen doodschoot was er niet veel aan de hand.

quote:

Ever since Donald J. Trump began his improbable political rise, many pundits have credited his appeal among white, Christian and male voters to “economic anxiety.” Hobbled by unemployment and locked out of the recovery, those voters turned out in force to send Mr. Trump, and a message, to Washington.

Or so that narrative goes.

A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.

“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”

SPOILER

The study is not the first to cast doubt on the prevailing economic anxiety theory. Last year, a Public Religion Research Institute survey of more than 3,000 people also found that Mr. Trump’s appeal could better be explained by a fear of cultural displacement.

In her study, Dr. Mutz sought to answer two questions: Is there evidence to support the economic anxiety argument, and did the fear of losing social dominance drive some voters to Mr. Trump? To find answers, she analyzed survey data from a nationally representative group of about 1,200 voters polled in 2012 and 2016.

In both years, participants were asked the same wide-ranging set of questions. Party loyalty overwhelmingly explained how most people voted, but Dr. Mutz’s statistical analysis focused on those who bucked the trend, switching their support to the Republican candidate, Mr. Trump, in 2016.

Leaving Behind the ‘Left Behind’ Theory

Even before conducting her analysis, Dr. Mutz noted two reasons for skepticism of the economic anxiety, or “left behind,” theory. First, the economy was improving before the 2016 presidential campaign. Second, while research has suggested that voters are swayed by the economy, there is little evidence that their own financial situation similarly influences their choices at the ballot box.

The analysis offered even more reason for doubt.

Losing a job or income between 2012 and 2016 did not make a person any more likely to support Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found. Neither did the mere perception that one’s financial situation had worsened. A person’s opinion on how trade affected personal finances had little bearing on political preferences. Neither did unemployment or the density of manufacturing jobs in one’s area.

“It wasn’t people in those areas that were switching, those folks were already voting Republican,” Dr. Mutz said.

For further evidence, Dr. Mutz also analyzed a separate survey, conducted in 2016 by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It showed that anxieties about retirement, education and medical bills also had little impact on whether a person supported Mr. Trump.

Last year’s Public Religion Research Institute report went even further, finding a link, albeit a weak one, between poor white, working-class Americans and support for Hillary Clinton.

Status Under Threat: ‘Things Have Changed’

While economic anxiety did not explain Mr. Trump’s appeal, Dr. Mutz found reason instead to credit those whose thinking changed in ways that reflected a growing sense of racial or global threat.

In 2012, voters perceived little difference between themselves and the candidates on trade. But, by 2016, the voters had moved slightly right, while they perceived Mr. Trump as moving about as far right as Mrs. Clinton had moved left. As a result, the voters, in a defensive crouch, found themselves closer to Mr. Trump.

On the threat posed by China, voters hardly moved between 2012 and 2016, but while they perceived both presidential candidates as being to their left in 2012, they found Mr. Trump as having moved just to their right by 2016, again placing them closer to the Republican candidate than the Democratic one.

In both cases, the findings revealed a fear that American global dominance was in danger, a belief that benefited Mr. Trump and the Republican Party.

“The shift toward an antitrade stance was a particularly effective strategy for capitalizing on a public experiencing status threat due to race as well as globalization,” Dr. Mutz wrote in the study.

Her survey also assessed “social dominance orientation,” a common psychological measure of a person’s belief in hierarchy as necessary and inherent to a society. People who exhibited a growing belief in such group dominance were also more likely to move toward Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found, reflecting their hope that the status quo be protected.

“It used to be a pretty good deal to be a white, Christian male in America, but things have changed and I think they do feel threatened,” Dr. Mutz said.

The other surveys supported the cultural anxiety explanation, too.

For example, Trump support was linked to a belief that high-status groups, such as whites, Christians or men, faced more discrimination than low-status groups, like minorities, Muslims or women, according to Dr. Mutz’s analysis of the University of Chicago study.

What does it matter which kind of anxiety — cultural or economic — explains Mr. Trump’s appeal?

If wrong, the prevailing economic theory lends unfounded virtue to his victory, crediting it to the disaffected masses, Dr. Mutz argues. More important, she said, it would teach the wrong lesson to elected officials, who often look to voting patterns in enacting new policy.

quote:

Tuesday is Election Day in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, where Democrats have mounted a serious bid to flip a GOP-held House seat in a district Donald Trump won by 21 percentage points.

Democrat Hiral Tipirneni, a health care advocate and physician, is battling Republican Debbie Lesko, a conservative former state senator, for a seat representing an area that encompasses a swath of Phoenix’s western and northern suburbs.

Although national Republican operatives privately profess their confidence in a Lesko victory, the party brass is investing heavily in the race to guard against another embarrassing defeat. Three national GOP arms ― the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Republican National Committee, and the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) ― have together spent more than $1.2 million on Lesko’s behalf.

In addition, President Donald Trump recorded a robocall for Lesko, and several Republican leaders have traveled to the district to campaign and raise money for her. The GOP would suffer a blow to morale from even a narrow win in the solidly Republican seat, which explains why national GOP leaders are not taking any chances, according to Gina Woodall, an Arizona State University politics expert.

“If this very safe Republican seat flips, then anything goes at the state level and at the federal level in November,” Woodall said. “Republicans have a tremendous amount to lose in Arizona.”

SPOILER

The fact that the contest has been competitive is a promising sign for Democrats. The state party, which has set up a field office and dedicated staffers to Tipirneni’s bid, is using the race as an opportunity to generate excitement and infrastructure for upcoming midterm opportunities.

Democrats have a serious shot in November of flipping the state Senate, where the GOP has a four-seat edge. The party plans to target at least six GOP-held state Senate seats, and has fielded promising candidates for an open U.S. Senate seat as well, including Rep. Kyrsten Sinema.

The 8th District special election has “already done some magic” for local Democrats, said Ann Johnson, a retiree from Sun City West. “Because there is a primary and an election again so soon, I think it would carry over.”

The demographics of Arizona’s 8th fundamentally favor Republicans. Over 84 percent of residents are white, and nearly 22 percent are aged 65 or older ― both groups that generally lean Republican.

Prior to his resignation in December, Rep. Trent Franks (R) routinely won re-election by more than 30 percentage points. (Franks resigned in December after allegedly offering a female aide $5 million to serve as a surrogate mother for him and his wife.)

Democratic Energy That’s A ‘Little Different’

A number of forces have converged to give Democrats a fighting chance in the district, nestled in a section of Maricopa County known as the West Valley.

Chief among them are energized Democratic voters, and grassroots groups that have sprouted since the 2016 election.

Ann Johnson, who has used the Democratic National Committee’s digital programs to make calls and text messages for Tipirneni, joined Rogue Democratic Women, a 100-person group that organized a Democratic candidate forum during the primary. Tipirneni’s bid has unleashed Democratic pride that has wowed Johnson, who likens the Republican stronghold to hostile territory.

Johnson shows her partisan colors with a bumper sticker that says, “Had Enough? Vote Democratic.” On a number of occasions in recent weeks, people have left notes on her windshield to share their agreement with the sticker’s message.

“I’ve been in Democratic politics a long time and it is a little different,” Johnson said. “I haven’t seen something like this.”

The struggle to increase Arizona teachers’ pay and funding for the state’s schools has only heightened the excitement for Tipirneni’s bid. Tens of thousands of teachers, students, parents and other supporters wore red during a school walkout on April 11, protesting low pay and school budget cuts.

The movement, which they christened #RedforEd, got the attention of Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican up for re-election in November. Ducey vowed to give teachers a 20-percent raise by 2020, and restore education funding. Nonetheless, teachers skeptical that the money would not be cut from other essential services plan a statewide strike on Thursday.

Tipirneni, an ardent supporter of #RedforEd and public-school parent, has found an appealing foil in Lesko, who championed a costly private-school voucher bill. The legislation aroused opposition from many of the same suburban women now attracted to Tipirneni’s bid. While Lesko helped shepherd the bill into law, grassroots resistance to the measure has won voters the opportunity to decide its fate on the November ballot.

Spinning The Outcome

Tipirneni, who has focused her campaign on kitchen-table issues like health care, education and retirement, has proven a prodigious fundraiser. As of the beginning of the month, she had raised nearly $180,000 more than Lesko.

But the national cavalry for Lesko, which has more than closed the individual candidates’ fundraising gap, has not been matched by Democratic cash. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which helps elect Democrats to the House, has spent nothing toward Tipirneni’s bid.

The outside GOP money appears to be having an impact. One public poll that showed Tipirneni leading by 1 percentage point two weeks ago, more recently found Lesko with a 6-point lead.

Election watchers pessimistic about Tipirneni’s chances of an upset also point to the makeup of voters who have already cast their ballots in the state’s capacious early voting program. Arizonans have been able to vote in person and by mail since March 28, and the types of voters who have already submitted ballots bode well for Lesko.

Of more than 154,000 ballots already cast, 49 percent of voters were registered Republicans, compared with 28 percent Democrats and 23 percent independents. The median age of the people who have already voted is 67.

National Republicans are already casting a Lesko win as a referendum on progressive health care policies. Tipirneni advocates allowing Americans of all ages to buy into Medicare, as well as offering Medicaid beneficiaries the opportunity to purchase private coverage. But Lesko and national Republicans have dubbed her a proponent of single-payer health care in which the federal government would be the sole insurer for all Americans.

“Hiral Tipirneni will be the first of many single-payer supporters to suffer defeat this year,” said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Jesse Hunt.

Progressives hope to argue that Tipirneni kept the race close because she ran strongly as a champion of affordable health care, and defender of Social Security and Medicare. Tipirneni has vowed to protect the social insurance programs and denounced the budget-busting GOP tax cuts for creating a political impetus to cut them.

Ady Barkan, an ALS-stricken progressive activist whose “Be A Hero” initiative targets Republicans who voted for, or back the tax cuts, traveled to the district to campaign on Tipirneni’s behalf. While in Arizona, Barkan, who will need Medicare as his body deteriorates, asked Lesko to respond to the stated intentions of several Republican leaders, including House Speaker Ryan and White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, to seek major cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Barkan features a key moment in the exchange in a one-minute ad that the progressive Working Families Party has spent $100,000 to air in the district. In the snippet, Lesko tells Barkan, who will be on Medicare, she is “not familiar” with GOP plans to cut social programs.

The video cuts to a Washington Post article from December: “Ryan says Republicans to target welfare, Medicare, Medicaid spending in 2018.”

Lesko “didn’t even know that her agenda would rip health care away from people like me,” Barkan concludes.

(Okee, ik vind Tipirneni leuker en ze is een echte dokter, dus ik blijf hopen. )

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 15:42:33 I'm still waiting for someone to offer an explanation as to why Trump lying to the FBI on a fact material to a pending investigation is not a violation of federal criminal law. Mueller has already indicted several Trump compatriots for less egregious versions of the same conduct. reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 15:46:02 2/ It's not complicated:(1) Trump learns from the FBI that they have a pending investigation into allegations made in the Steele dossier.(2) Trump, having just been told the allegations involve him, manufactures an exculpatory alibi he knows is false and gives it to the FBI. reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 15:48:11 3/ The government must also show the president knew his lies to the FBI were unlawful. I'll check the dates again, but wasn't Trump already aware of the trouble Mike Flynn was in for violating the very same statute at the time he lied to the FBI? That would establish knowledge. reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 15:52:18 4/ The Trump-Comey talk fits the statute, as a discussion with the FBI on a pending investigation. It doesn't matter if Trump was sworn, because the statute doesn't require that. And faking an alibi is worse than lying about a discussion (Flynn; Papadopoulos; the Dutch lawyer). reageer retweet

quote:

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether President Trump’s nationality-based travel ban may continue. The case is important to every American and, indeed, the integrity of the republic, because the ban threatens a cornerstone of our system of government: the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

All presidents push the limits of the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. President Trump’s travel ban tears the fabric.

The legal question before the court is this: Does a president have the authority to ban immigration and travel, based on nationality, in ways that contradict limits set by Congress?

SPOILER

The framers and ratifiers of the Constitution have answered that question. They revolted against the autocracy of a king whose offenses, as cataloged in the Declaration of Independence, included restricting “migrations” and “obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners.” This mattered because, as James Madison told the Constitutional Convention, “America was indebted to emigration for her settlement and prosperity.” Accordingly, Article I of the Constitution gives the power over immigration and travel to America by foreigners to Congress, not to the president.

President Trump’s unilateral executive order restricting travel from seven nations, five of them predominantly Muslim, shows how far the presidency has strayed from the role the founders envisioned. One reason is that Congress is deliberative and often divided, while presidents frequently act decisively. Over time, presidents have assumed more and more unilateral power over immigration and travel by foreigners.

This is part of a larger pattern, and a larger problem. Presidents have asserted unilateral authority over many other areas where Article I also expressly gave the power to Congress — including tariffs, commerce and starting wars. Some in Congress may be quietly contented with this pattern. The more presidents do unilaterally, the fewer votes that members of Congress need to cast that may be fodder for political opposition.

It isn’t, though, the system our Constitution established. And it is the Supreme Court’s responsibility to uphold that system.

The Trump administration argues that its travel ban is lawful because Congress has given the president the power to ban any nationality or all foreigners for any reason, for as long as he sees fit. Under that thinking, a president in effect would have a line-item veto over the immigration statutes with which he disagrees. But the Supreme Court decided 20 years ago that line-item vetoes violate the separation of powers.

The separation of powers is not about the wisdom or popularity of any president or policy but speaks to the very foundations of our republic. As Alexander Hamilton warned in the first Federalist Paper: “Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”

As George Washington cautioned in his Farewell Address, violating the separation of powers “is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” He added, “The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit.” The court must be vigilant against permitting any violation of separation of powers, regardless of the practical justifications that are offered in any given instance.

The Trump administration asserts in its opening brief that separation of powers is at its “nadir”when foreign affairs and national security are invoked. This argument reprises the justification for the infamous Alien Act of 1798 that allowed the president to remove any alien that he determined was dangerous to the country. James Madison showed that the Alien Act violated the separation of powers, and President John Adams never enforced it.

President Trump’s travel ban is far broader than that act. He is claiming the power to make immigration and foreign travel laws, but the Constitution grants that power to Congress. Congress cannot give any president the power to dismantle our immigration statutes.

We have joined in an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to restore the separation of powers and place limits on Mr. Trump’s assertion of unilateral executive power. In 1965, 2002 and 2015, Congress addressed the appropriate requirements for immigration and travel by citizens of numerous countries, including the very countries later included in Mr. Trump’s travel ban. Each time, Congress rejected the kind of nationality ban Mr. Trump has now imposed.

Mr. Trump has every right to propose that Congress change the law. After 15 months in office, he has had ample time to try to persuade Congress to adopt his travel ban. Yet he has not proposed to Congress anything like that ban. The Supreme Court should embrace the coequal footing our founders gave it, restore the separation of powers and end the president’s unilateral nationality ban.

twitter:

AP twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 16:07:23 BREAKING: Senate committee says it has delayed Wednesday's confirmation hearing for Trump's VA nominee Ronny Jackson. reageer retweet

quote:

WASHINGTON — The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee is examining allegations that President Trump’s nominee to lead the Veterans Affairs Department oversaw a hostile work environment as the White House physician and allowed the overprescribing of drugs, according to congressional officials briefed on the committee’s work.

They have also received claims that Dr. Ronny L. Jackson drank too much on the job.

The allegations, which have been under investigation since last week, forced the postponement of Dr. Jackson’s confirmation hearing, planned for this Wednesday as senators scrutinize the nominee’s time leading the White House medical staff. Officials familiar with the allegations against Dr. Jackson declined to offer precise details but said that they suggest a pattern of behavior, not just one or two isolated incidents.

quote:

President Donald Trump has been hinting that he might try to fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating possible criminal wrongdoing related to Russian election interference and matters related to it, such as the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. As Trump put it last Monday when asked about his plans for Mueller, “We’ll see what happens. Many people have said, ‘You should fire him.’”

Although Trump claims he can fire Mueller directly, many legal scholars disagree. They contend that a special counsel can only be subject to firing for a valid legal reason by the attorney general, and since Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the investigation, Mueller’s fate would fall to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. But even on this understanding, Trump might pressure Rosenstein into sacking Mueller by threatening to fire Rosenstein himself. Or he might simply replace Rosenstein with a more compliant supervising attorney. If Mueller is removed and his investigation thwarted, the public might never learn what misconduct, if any, was uncovered by the special counsel’s probe.

Fortunately, while he retains his position, Mueller has a powerful tool at his disposal: the “sealed,” or secret, indictment. If Mueller indeed determines that he has a strong case against Trump, a secret indictment returned by a grand jury will help protect the integrity of his investigation even if he is fired, while also avoiding the risk of provoking Trump to try to further impede the probe.

SPOILER

Sealed indictments are routinely employed by federal prosecutors in sensitive investigations, particularly when a public indictment might have a negative effect on an ongoing investigation. To carry out this strategy, Mueller would request that the already empaneled grand jury—the one considering matters related to Russian interference in the election—issue criminal charges against Trump himself. If the grand jury were to find probable cause for the charges to proceed, whatever they might be, a magistrate judge would then decide whether the indictment could remain secret. If the judge were to determine that it could, the charges would then remain hidden from public view until the criminal defendant is taken into custody or released on bail.

If Trump were to fire Mueller, an already filed sealed indictment would outlast Mueller’s tenure. A sealed indictment can only be dismissed by a judge, meaning Trump cannot rid himself of a legal headache simply by terminating the special counsel. A sealed indictment would also ensure that the statute of limitations for crimes Trump might be charged with would not expire. This leaves open the possibility of Trump being tried in the future.

Some might object that using a sealed, rather than public, indictment seems counterintuitive: After all, isn’t the point of indicting Trump to expose his potentially criminal acts? If Mueller sought a public indictment, it would also preserve the case against Trump. It too would have to be dismissed by a judge in the event of Mueller’s firing, and it retains the advantage of ensuring the statute of limitations on many crimes would not run out. Moreover, public indictments have the benefit of immediate transparency, of letting the American people know immediately what their chief executive is accused of doing, rather than making the people wait until the indictment is unsealed.

But as Mueller weighs his options, he might conclude that such a public indictment now would only further provoke Trump’s ire. The negative effects the president could create for the investigation and the public turmoil a public indictment could spawn might persuade Mueller to pursue a sealed indictment instead. Doing so would allow Mueller to avoid tumultuous consequences for now. And in fact, the objective of transparency that a public indictment seemingly serves could actually be undermined by such an action, if it provokes steps that curtail the investigation. For example, Trump might threaten to fire any public official who cooperates with the investigation or disparage private citizens who cooperate. With a sealed indictment, we can be confident that transparency will ultimately be served when it is unsealed and the charges and evidence come to light.

In making his case to a judge for the seal, Mueller could cite the potential negative consequences to his investigation that would come from a public indictment. As the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put it, the “power to seal an indictment is broad; sealing an indictment is generally permitted when it is in the public interest or serves a legitimate law-enforcement purpose.” This case, dealing with the president and his potential to thwart a federal investigation, qualifies, if Mueller can show that a public indictment would impede his investigation.

Neither a sealed nor a public indictment guarantees a conviction or even that the indictment will remain in place. If Mueller is fired and replaced by a new special counsel, the new prosecutor could argue that the original charges were unfounded. Still, the ultimate decision would again rest with an independent judge, not with an executive branch employee whose job security relies on the whims of the president. A new prosecutor would also have to actively request the charges be withdrawn. These checks could be disregarded, but they might also be enough to preserve the indictment if Mueller were to be fired.

Of course, only Mueller and his team know whether they have a strong enough criminal case against the president to merit an indictment—sealed or otherwise. If they do, with Trump’s threats to fire Mueller looming, there is significant advantage to moving forward soon.

Any indictment of Trump—sealed or otherwise—would raise the deeper constitutional question of whether a sitting president can be indicted at all. The Supreme Court has not decided that issue definitively, but the precedent in Clinton v. Jones suggests that its answer should be “yes.” When Paula Jones sued then-President Bill Clinton for events that occurred while he was governor of Arkansas, Clinton’s attorneys argued that he could not be subject to legal proceedings because the process would imperil the functioning of the executive branch. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reaffirming that not even the president is above the law. The Jones case was about a civil, not a criminal, matter. But that case demonstrated our constitutional commitment to the rule of law, not of people. That fundamental principle should hold true in both civil and criminal matters. Ken Starr’s office of independent counsel agreed, concluding that a president could be indicted in office for a criminal offense, drawing on the basic principle that presidents are not above the law and that they can manage their affairs even if they are indicted.

Still, the president will argue that he is immune from prosecution. In his defense he can cite Office of Legal Counsel memos from the Nixon and Clinton administrations. But those memos defended a broad view of presidential immunity inconsistent with Jones and an earlier Supreme Court case, US v. Nixon, that forced Nixon to comply with a special prosecutor’s subpoena.

Moreover, the memos relied on flawed arguments. They contended that the executive branch would be debilitated by a sitting president who was indicted or forced to stand trial. But the Jones case went forward without the executive branch collapsing. In Trump’s case, the executive branch is already in disarray and facing numerous investigations; it’s not clear the administration would perform noticeably worse if Trump had just one more legal matter to address.

The memo from the Clinton-era OLC also discusses how the indictment of a sitting president would harm the dignity of the office. But what really tarnishes the dignity of the office are crimes committed by a president, a reality exacerbated by granting a president immunity from prosecution. The harm is even worse in cases where the statute of limitations might run out, precluding an indictment even once Trump left office, regardless of whether new incriminating evidence is found. The statute of limitations for obstruction of justice, for instance, is five years, which could expire by the time Trump is out of office if he were elected for a second term.

Mueller could avoid these challenges to his prosecutorial authority by taking a step short of requesting an indictment from the grand jury. He could issue a sealed report to be handed to the attorney general’s office or members of Congress, consistent with the special counsel’s reporting obligations. But this option might be too weak, as it risks leaving any decisions to take action to a future attorney general who could be completely under Trump’s sway, or to a congressional body that might act based more on politics than on its own constitutional duty.

Considering the situation, a sealed or public indictment gives Mueller or a future special counsel the widest array of options. It allows for the route that Starr took, pursuing a criminal case first and then turning the information gathered from the investigation to Congress for use in impeachment proceedings. It also allows a future prosecutor to ensure that justice can eventually be served: Even if the trial were delayed until the president was no longer in office—avoiding the constitutional question about trying a sitting president—Trump would still be held accountable for any potential crimes.

Some might think that all this talk is meaningless, since any indictment sought by Mueller would be stopped by Rosenstein, who legally must sign off on such an indictment. But Rosenstein is supposed to defer to the special counsel. If Rosenstein wanted to stop Mueller, he could claim that the Clinton and Nixon OLC memos remain Justice Department policy and that Mueller is bound by them. But it is more likely that Rosenstein does have the authority to reject the findings of the memos and to support a decision to indict the president. Indeed, Walter Dellinger III, a former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, recently argued publicly for why, despite the memos, the president can in fact be indicted while in office. With the threat looming that Trump will fire Rosenstein and replace him with a crony, the pressure is on to seek an indictment now.

It will take a savvy prosecutor to give meaning to the principle that no one—not even a president—is above the law. A sealed indictment is one strong way to help in that pursuit.

quote:

The first full term of the Supreme Court in the Trump era is wrapping up with a lawsuit that epitomizes the nature of the person occupying the Oval Office.

On Wednesday the justices will hear oral arguments in the final and perhaps biggest case of the term — Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the legality and constitutionality of President Trump’s travel ban, which indefinitely bars 150 million people, a vast majority of them Muslim, from entering the United States.

The ban, now in its third iteration, is ostensibly about protecting national security, but it has been steeped from the start in the reactionary xenophobia at the heart of Mr. Trump’s campaign and presidency. It was issued with a procedural sloppiness and lack of attention to detail that Americans have come to expect from an administration that can’t issue even a news release mourning the death of a former first lady without getting the date wrong. And the limits continue to be hawked as a necessary defense against terrorist attacks despite the lack of any evidence that they would improve on the careful legal framework Congress adopted to handle national security issues related to immigration.

SPOILER

To its credit, the White House has learned from its early missteps. The original order, which landed one week after Mr. Trump took office and barred entry by all citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries, was marked by such haste and dubious reasoning that it ran into immediate trouble with federal judges across the country, not to mention intense public outcry. The White House retracted it and issued a slightly amended version in March 2017, but that one didn’t fare much better. In September, Mr. Trump tried once again, issuing the proclamation that is now before the court.

It bars entry into the United States by most citizens of six countries with “inadequate” security protocols — Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, along with some groups from Venezuela. (Chad was originally on the list but was removed this month.) The administration says it came up with the list after a “worldwide review,” but it has not shared the underlying evidence with any court.

Particularly in the absence of such evidence, it’s worth noting that no citizen of any country on the list has carried out a fatal terrorist attack on American soil in the last two decades. In contrast, Saudi Arabia is not on the list, even though 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Could the president be privy to information the rest of us are not? Of course he could. And yet somehow it’s hard to have confidence that a man who appears to get his daily intelligence briefing from “Fox & Friends” is particularly concerned with the details of the global war on terrorism. Anyway, no matter how much he tries to finesse this order, the underlying question for the court remains the same: Does the president have the legal authority to issue this ban?

He clearly does not, according to the federal appeals court for the Ninth Circuit, which issued the December decision that the Supreme Court is now reviewing. A three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled that while federal immigration law gives the president the authority to temporarily bar certain classes of noncitizens from entering, a sweeping, indefinite ban like Mr. Trump’s exceeds that authority. In addition, a civil-rights-era law prohibits discrimination based on nationality in the issuing of immigrant visas. Finally, the administration has not claimed there is any emergency and has given no rationale for why letting in people from these particular countries would harm the United States.

The government’s response to the courts is, in short, butt out. Mr. Trump can exclude whomever he wants in order to protect the country from attack, and no judge may second-guess him. That’s an astonishing claim of unchecked executive authority. It also contradicts the structure of federal immigration law, which is the province of Congress. No one is saying that the president is powerless to protect the nation from attack. What they are saying is that he must do so without violating the law or the Constitution.

Speaking of the Constitution, and especially of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, anyone with a passing awareness of American politics knows what’s at the root of the travel ban: Mr. Trump’s special animus against Muslims, which he’s been nursing at least since December 2015. That’s when he called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the country until we “can figure out what is going on.” Since then he has given his lawyers a constant headache by tweeting regularly about the ban, saying just days before the latest version that it should be “far larger, tougher and more specific,” but that this would be “politically incorrect.” In case anyone was still unclear about where he stands, last November the president retweeted inflammatory videos from a fringe ultranationalist group in Britain showing Muslims purportedly engaged in violence. (The videos were, as Mr. Trump likes to say, fake news.)

From this angle, the travel ban looks a lot like Mr. Trump’s other attempts to weaponize the federal government in the service of his own personal vendettas. Remember the election integrity commission? An entire operation created solely to justify the president’s false claims that millions of people voted illegally in 2016. The commission folded in January without making any findings of fraud. In the case of the travel ban, Mr. Trump is surrounded by anti-immigrant hard-liners, including his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who donated one of his favorite staffers, a zealot named Stephen Miller, to help draft the ban.

In truth, the latest proclamation functions as little more than legal backfill “to legitimize a presidential command that was born of animus, persists in animus, and seeks to make animus the law of the land,” as a supporting brief says.

That brief is one of many the court has received arguing against the ban; more than four times as many briefs oppose the ban as support it. They come from immigrants’-rights groups and anti-discrimination advocates, naturally, but also from business and legal leaders, scholars of constitutional and international law, conservatives and liberals and libertarians, cities and states — and, notably, former national security and military officials, who warn that by encouraging the perception that the United States is anti-Muslim, it “jeopardizes the stability of the support that the United States receives from its allies, erodes essential good will, makes it more difficult for the United States to win hearts and minds abroad.”

This leads the justices to a thornier question: What to do with a president like Mr. Trump? Should they simply ignore everything he’s said? Are they holding him to a different standard than previous presidents? That’s hard to answer, because no past president behaved like Mr. Trump. In its brief to the justices, the administration argues that the court must not engage in “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” But there’s no need to get Mr. Trump on a couch. He’s said over and over exactly what he thinks.

The Supreme Court has been faced with situations like this before. In World War II, it bowed to claims of unfettered executive authority and allowed American citizens to be locked up for years simply because of their Japanese heritage. It was a shameful moment for the court and for the United States. Today, in the face of an executive order again based on racial animus and unfounded fears, the justices have the chance to deliver a very different message about executive power, and the meaning of America.

quote:

Could the president be privy to information the rest of us are not? Of course he could. And yet somehow it’s hard to have confidence that a man who appears to get his daily intelligence briefing from “Fox & Friends” is particularly concerned with the details of the global war on terrorism.

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 16:43:22 .@jonkarl asked Trump just now if he was considering a pardon for Cohen. Trump replied angrily: "Stupid question." reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 16:50 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 16:43:22 .@jonkarl asked Trump just now if he was considering a pardon for Cohen. Trump replied angrily: "Stupid question." reageer retweet

quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Trump says North Korea wants meeting 'as soon as possible,' praises Kim Jong Un as 'very open' and 'very honorable'

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 13:44 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Je hoeft alleen maar "loyaliteit" aan Trump te geven, dan is je toekomst verzekerd voor maar liefst een paar weken.

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 16:55:59 Another Manafort employee cooperating with the FBI...The employee gave the bureau information that helped agents secure a search warrant on Manafort's VA condo last summer https://t.co/AYcmziZ5I0 https://t.co/l0mwFbnYf5 reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 18:22 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Trump krijgt waarschijnlijk de belofte dat de testlocatie (die van dat ongeluk) buiten gebruik zal worden gesteld en nog wat betekenisloze bull en hangt daarvoor de vlag uit.

Wat een sucker.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 18:14 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Inderdaad. Een man van eer die Kim. Een voorbeeld voor ons allen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 19:25 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Er stond een aantal dagen geleden al een analyse in de Volkskrant die stelde dat Kim niks heeft te verliezen en alleen maar kan winnen, zelfs als er helemaal niks uit die onderhandelingen komt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 19:32 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Trump noemde hem vandaag een eervol mens. Dus tja, gewonnen heeft hij al. Hij heeft er niets voor hoeven doen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 19:06 schreef Stabiel het volgende:
Trump kust Macron tijdens persco en zegt 'I like him very much'.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 19:35 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Precies. Het meest dictatoriale regime ter wereld wordt gewoon gelegitimeerd hiermee. Precies wat Kim Jong Un Dos Tres wilt. Kernwapens opgeven hoeft ook niet eens aangezien dat geen vooropgestelde eis was van Trump voordat hij het aanbod accepteerde. Geen wonder dat z'n casinos failliet gingen. Beetje poker is al te moeilijk voor hem.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 20:07 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Yep. Kim laat mensen in stadions executeren door ze met een mortier of luchtafweerkanon te beschieten als ze geluk hebben, en met een vlammenwerper bij pech. Gebruikte VX tegen zijn halfbroer. Vermoordde zijn oom. En dan heb ik het niet over de kampen.

Inderdaad een toffe peer. Wat is Trump een domme klapjosti.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 21:26 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 21:38 schreef Falco het volgende:

[..]

Macron heeft een blik alsof ie zojuist iemand keihard getrolled heeft. Wat een baas

twitter:

CBSNews twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 21:20:03 Adm. Harry Harris, the outgoing commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, who was President Trump's pick to be U.S. ambassador to Australia, will instead likely be nominated U.S. ambassador to South Korea instead. https://t.co/mjnrivHaYC https://t.co/VUU0N2r37f reageer retweet

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 21:46:19 Another overlooked data point: Trump said he discussed "adoption" policy with Putin—one day before dictating Trump Jr.'s misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting https://t.co/COP7SVsshl reageer retweet

quote:

President Donald Trump personally “dictated” a misleading statement about his son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer last year that said they primarily “discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children,” The Washington Post reported Monday.

The initial statement Donald Trump Jr. provided to the press, which was reportedly dictated by his father, read:

“It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up. I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.”

The statement did not mention that Donald Trump Jr. had been offered compromising information about Hillary Clinton in exchange for taking the meeting. And it was crafted by the president one day after he discussed “adoptions” with Russian President Vladimir Putin during a dinner at the G20 summit.

Asked about that dinner later, Trump told the New York Times that he and Putin “just talked about things. Actually, it was very interesting; we talked about adoptions.”

SPOILER

The fact that Trump and Putin spoke about the adoption issue – which is intimately connected to the US’ sanctions policy – the night before Trump reportedly crafted his son’s statement about the Trump Tower meeting raises questions about whether Putin played a role, directly or indirectly, in influencing the version of events Trump’s team relayed to the press.

Trump told Reuters on July 12 that he had only just learned of the June 2016 meeting, which included his son, son-in-law, former campaign chairman, and two Russians who had been lobbying to repeal the Magnitsky Act. The 2012 law targeting Russians suspected of human-rights led Putin to retaliate by banning US adoption of Russian children. But Trump’s legal team reportedly knew about the meeting as early as June.

According to Yahoo, Marc Kasowitz, Trump’s chief lawyer in the Russia investigation at the time, and Alan Garten, executive vice president and chief legal officer of the Trump Organization, were apprised in the third week of June of the email chain between Trump Jr. and music publicist Rob Goldstone.

Goldstone told Trump Jr. in an email that a Russian “government attorney” wanted to meet to give him dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of the Kremlin’s support for Trump’s candidacy.

Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting, replying, “If it’s what you say it is, I love it, especially later in the summer.” He then forwarded the email chain to Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman at the time, and Jared Kushner.

It is unclear if Kasowitz or Garten told the president about the emails or the Trump Tower meeting before he dined with Putin on July 7. Trump has insisted he did not find out about either until the New York Times broke the story on July 8. Trump Jr. published the full email chain on Twitter three days later.

Putin had already given Trump one talking point during their first, formal meeting, however, that the president subsequently relayed to his aides, according to the New York Times: Namely, that if the Russians had hacked into the Democratic National Committee, they wouldn’t have gotten caught.

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

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 21:58:49 Another reason the FBI would have eyed the Trump campaign for treacherous collusion long before it saw the Steele dossier—not only had the FBI previously interviewed Trump's Campaign Manager, it had deleterious Russia-related intel on 40% of the first adds to Trump's NatSec team. https://t.co/TUxZL51mD2 reageer retweet

quote:

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was interviewed by the FBI twice while he was working as a political consultant for a Ukrainian political party — several years before he was named a top adviser to Donald Trump, newly filed court documents revealed.

The documents filed late Monday by prosecutors in the office of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign, show that the FBI had interviewed Manafort in March 2013 and again in July 2014. Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates, who also held a top role with Trump’s campaign, was interviewed by the FBI in July 2014, the documents show.

The information raises fresh questions about how closely the Trump campaign vetted staff members and whether Manafort and Gates told officials about their interactions with the FBI.

Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Manafort, declined to comment, citing a gag order imposed by the judge in Manafort’s case.

A lawyer for Gates did not immediately respond to requests for comment, nor did Michael Glassner, executive director of Trump’s campaign committee.

Manafort ultimately resigned as Trump’s campaign chairman in August 2016 after a series of stories about his work in Ukraine, including a New York Times report that alleged he had received more than $12 million in off-the-books payments from Viktor Yanukovych’s political party.

SPOILER

Manafort denied receiving the payments and doing anything improper in Ukraine, but said at the time that he was stepping down to spare the campaign distraction.

In all, three Trump associates are known to have been interviewed by the FBI about their interactions with people from the former Soviet Union before joining the Trump campaign.

In addition to Manafort and Gates, the FBI interviewed campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page about his interactions with a man the FBI alleged was a Russian intelligence agent. The FBI’s interviews with Page occurred in 2013 and in March 2016 — the same month he was named a volunteer adviser to Trump’s campaign.

Page has said that he did nothing wrong and that he assisted the FBI in its investigation of a New York-based Russian spy ring.

A person familiar with Manafort’s work on the campaign said there was no information to suggest FBI had alerted the Trump campaign to any concerns the bureau had with Manafort.

The new court filings indicate that prosecutors provided Manafort with copies of his past interviews to help him prepare for trial on charges including conspiracy, money laundering, and tax and bank fraud. Manafort has pleaded not guilty.

Gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy and lying to the FBI in February and is cooperating with Mueller’s investigation.

Manafort worked as a political consultant in the former Soviet state beginning in 2005, ultimately helping to elect Yanukovych president in 2010. Yanukovych was ousted after public protests in 2014 and fled to Moscow.

Manafort’s work in Ukraine had been the subject of media coverage and was known before he joined the Trump campaign, but his FBI interactions were not publicly known before he went to work for Trump.

In a previous court document, Manafort had said he met voluntarily with the FBI and prosecutors with the Justice Department in July 2014 to discuss his “offshore consulting activities.” BuzzFeed reported in February that Manafort had been interviewed in 2014 as part of an investigation in Yanukovych’s spending.

The newly filed documents show that Manafort also gave statements to the FBI during the investigation last year, including after his condominium in Alexandria, Va., was searched in July and after he was arrested in October.

The documents were filed as Manafort fights in court to have evidence that was seized from a Virginia storage unit excluded from use at his trial.

He also has sought to have the charges against him dismissed, arguing that Mueller’s office exceeded its authority by charging him with crimes that do not relate to Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign.

Manafort is scheduled to go to trial in Virginia in July and on related charges in Washington in September.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 21:36:02 2/ Glenn Greenwald of @theintercept called me "a conspiracy theorist" (August), "deranged" (November), and a "charlatan and con artist" (December) for calling the evidence of collusion "strong"—and itemizing it on this feed. Now The Intercept *also* says the evidence is "strong." reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 21:21:52 2/ I think the difference between The Intercept and others in digital media is we spent months looking at the evidence and concluded the case was strong--whereas The Intercept spent months *not* looking at the evidence and denying it. And now they *look* and see what all of us do. reageer retweet

quote:

WHEN I BEGAN this series of columns about Trump and Russia for The Intercept, I believed that evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow was thin. Collusion, I thought, was the weak link in the middle of the larger Trump-Russia narrative.

At that time, I believed there was much stronger evidence that the Russians had intervened in the 2016 election to help Trump win through a cyberoffensive targeting the American political system. I also thought there was powerful evidence that Trump and his aides had engaged in efforts to obstruct justice and impede Mueller’s investigation. Further, I suspected that congressional Republicans were engaged in a similar conspiracy to obstruct justice in Mueller’s inquiry. I was much less convinced that there was compelling evidence to show that Trump or those around him had actually conspired with the Russians to win the presidency. Like many others, I was willing to believe that Trump and his aides were too haplessly disorganized and incompetent to have coordinated with the Russians.

But as I’ve dug deeper into the evidence made public so far, I have become convinced that the case for collusion is much stronger than I thought. There are still plenty of unanswered questions, but that case is getting more persuasive as new facts come to light. (On Monday, the FBI raided the office and hotel room of one of Trump’s lawyers, although it’s unclear whether that will yield evidence of collusion.)

Bron

twitter:

BChappatta twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 19:08:14 just watching a Treasury auction and then this: https://t.co/8NoMUInoOI reageer retweet

twitter:

AP twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 22:29:16 BREAKING: Watchdog report says VA nominee Ronny Jackson, in power struggle with rival doctor, exhibited 'unprofessional behaviors' reageer retweet

twitter:

AP twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 22:33:17 BREAKING: 2012 inspector general report suggested removing VA nominee Ronny Jackson and rival from White House roles after finding 'severe and pervasive lack of trust in the leadership' reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 22:33 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

AP twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 22:29:16 BREAKING: Watchdog report says VA nominee Ronny Jackson, in power struggle with rival doctor, exhibited 'unprofessional behaviors' reageer retweet

twitter:

AP twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 22:33:17 BREAKING: 2012 inspector general report suggested removing VA nominee Ronny Jackson and rival from White House roles after finding 'severe and pervasive lack of trust in the leadership' reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 23:19 schreef skysherrif het volgende:
Hey ik moet morgen 5 minuutjes over een random onderwerp dat je interesseert een presentatie geven.

Ik ga het denk ik houden over, wie gaat er winnen in 2020 en waarom.
Iemand die toevallig nog wat aardige artikels heeft om me wat informatie te geven?

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 23:29 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

In algemene zin niet... voor potentiele Democratic kandidaten had WaPo er een maandje geleden een artikel over: https://www.washingtonpos(...)s-for-2020-ranked-2/

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 23:32 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Thanks.

https://fivethirtyeight.c(...)-worried-about-2020/

Ik had zelf dit alvast gelezen mocht het je interesseren.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 21:40 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Dit is tijdens/direct nadat de vraag gesteld werd over een eventueel pardon en dat Trump aangaf dat hij de vraag stom vond.

President Trump Holds Meeting With French President Macron4/24/18

twitter:

profcarroll twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 23:14:43 In the House of Representatives, the Republicans do not even show up to a hearing with a Cambridge Analytica whistleblower. In Ottawa, a committee is deep into it, even mentioning campaigns in the US, including Bolton, Cruz, Trump and lots of Brexit talk.https://t.co/BnhyxQJyMm reageer retweet

twitter:

profcarroll twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 16:46:22 Chair of Canadian Parliament committee ends a tense hearing with: “Something doesn’t smell right here.” Asks AggregateIQ to “do the right thing.” (wow.)https://t.co/xeYgf6xyIZ reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 22:33 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

AP twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 22:29:16 BREAKING: Watchdog report says VA nominee Ronny Jackson, in power struggle with rival doctor, exhibited 'unprofessional behaviors' reageer retweet

twitter:

AP twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 22:33:17 BREAKING: 2012 inspector general report suggested removing VA nominee Ronny Jackson and rival from White House roles after finding 'severe and pervasive lack of trust in the leadership' reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 01:19 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Only the best people!

IG-rapport was bij McCabe goed voor ontslag en een lading boze tweets, wat zou ie over dokter Ronny gaan tweeten?

quote:

"I told Admiral Jackson just a little while ago, what do you need this for?" Trump said of his conversation with the White House physician. "This is a vicious group of people, they malign ... what do you need it for?"

In case there was still any doubt about what path Trump wants Jackson to take, the President noted that "I don't want to put a man through a process like this. It's too ugly and too disgusting. ... If I were him, I wouldn't do it."

Bron

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 00:55:22 POLITICO confirms my thread from earlier today: Trump lying to Comey about whether he was at the Ritz Moscow at the time alleged in the Steele dossier could lead to additional referrals in Mueller's report to Rosenstein at DOJ. https://t.co/KlqdleXFsh reageer retweet

quote:

The former NBC host won’t say if he has been interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

In a fateful private White House dinner early last year, President Donald Trump raised with then-FBI Director James Comey the issue of “the golden showers thing”—a particularly salacious portion of an intelligence dossier claiming Trump hired Russian prostitutes to urinate on a Moscow hotel-room bed in 2013, while he was in town for the Miss Universe pageant.

According to Comey’s memos about that conversation, Trump claimed it was impossible for him to have done any such thing, because “he had spoken to people who had been on... the trip with him and they had reminded him that he didn’t stay over night in Russia for that.”

All available evidence proves otherwise—from flight records obtained by Politico to social-media posts from the time to testimony from Trump’s own bodyguard. And now there’s more proof.

Thomas Roberts, host of that year’s Miss Universe pageant, confirmed to The Daily Beast on Tuesday that Trump was in Moscow for one full night and at least part of another.

“The first time I met Donald Trump it was in Moscow on November 8th, 2013,” the former NBC anchor said. “I taped a sit-down interview with Trump the next day on November 9th. That was also the date for the Miss Universe broadcast.”

Roberts continued: “During the after-party for the Miss Universe event, Mr. Trump offered to fly me and my husband back to New York. He said he would be leaving directly from the party. We were unable to accept the invitation. That was the early morning hours of November 10th.”

Roberts’ retelling of those days in Moscow represents one of the first public contradictions of the timeline Trump offered Comey. While it does not necessarily prove the existence of a so-called “pee tape,” it does raise further questions as to why the president misled his one-time FBI director in the first place.

The findings of the dossier have already been of interest to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, with news emerging a few weeks ago that it had corroborated portions of the explosive document.

Asked whether he has been interviewed by Mueller‘s team, Roberts told The Daily Beast: “No comment.”

twitter:

ThomasARoberts twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 01:05:51 To be clear...I confirmed the dates of my introduction, interview, work and social interactions with Donald Trump in Moscow. The dates areNovember 8th, 2013November 9th, 2013November 10, 2013 https://t.co/EE9kH3xYof reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 20:07 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Yep. Kim laat mensen in stadions executeren door ze met een mortier of luchtafweerkanon te beschieten als ze geluk hebben, en met een vlammenwerper bij pech. Gebruikte VX tegen zijn halfbroer. Vermoordde zijn oom. En dan heb ik het niet over de kampen.

Inderdaad een toffe peer. Wat is Trump een domme klapjosti.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 02:00:39 White House officials are cautioning Republican lawmakers and other conservative allies to temper their defense of Scott Pruitt, according to two people familiar with the discussions, in a sign that administration support may be waning. https://t.co/QWP0GvhduM reageer retweet

quote:

White House officials are cautioning Republican lawmakers and other conservative allies to temper their defense of Scott Pruitt, according to two people familiar with the discussions, in a sign that administration support for the embattled EPA chief may be waning.

The warnings come as several top GOP lawmakers have stepped forward to publicly criticize Pruitt in recent days, marking a dramatic turn of fortune for one of the most conservative members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet who has been heralded for dismantling Obama-era regulations.

Republicans are now sharpening their criticisms of Pruitt amid a revelation that he met at least once with the lobbyist whose wife rented him a bedroom on Capitol Hill.

SPOILER

Pruitt’s performance in front of two congressional committees this week could be key in determining how long he remains at the agency’s helm. The back-to-back House hearings scheduled for Thursday -- nominally on the EPA budget -- are set to be Pruitt’s first public appearance on Capitol Hill since the deluge of damaging revelations that began late last month.

The scrutiny also coincides with the arrival of a deputy administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency who could take Pruitt’s place: former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, who was hurriedly installed as the EPA’s No. 2 official after being confirmed by the Senate 11 days ago.

It’s the "president’s decision to make" whether Pruitt should stay, said John Thune, of South Dakota, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate. “They have to resolve this and get those questions answered," he added. "I don’t think they’re probably going away."

White House officials have discouraged lawmakers from vigorously defending the administrator, said the two people, who asked for anonymity because the discussions weren’t public.

Pruitt is under fire for his unorthodox $50-per-night rental of a Capitol Hill bedroom from a lobbyist, frequent travel to his home state of Oklahoma, questionable spending decisions at the EPA, raises for two top aides and allegations that employees who challenged the administrator’s decisions were sidelined. There are at least a half dozen formal investigations now targeting Pruitt and even more informal inquiries, including requests by Republican lawmakers seeking documents and information.

“We’re reviewing some of those allegations," White House spokesman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters in a briefing Monday. She added that while Pruitt has done a good job of implementing Trump’s policies, "the other things are certainly something that we’re monitoring."

Trump has been clear that Pruitt hasn’t done anything wrong, Sanders said, but the White House was "continuing to review a number of the reports" about him.

Four Republicans have now publicly called on Pruitt to resign, including New Jersey Representative Frank LoBiondo in a tweet on Sunday -- echoing a formal push by 170 Democrats in the House and Senate last week. But it’s the dramatic shift among Pruitt’s allies on Capitol Hill -- including some top lawmakers who have praised the administrator -- that is most notable.

Senator Jim Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who until recently had been one of Pruitt’s staunchest defenders, told reporters Tuesday he had become concerned about some of the recent allegations against the administrator.

"If they are all accurate, I would be very disturbed. And quite frankly I am checking to see their level of accuracy," Inhofe said. Asked if Pruitt should step down if the allegations are true, Inhofe said it "depends on which ones we are talking about."

John Barrasso, a Republican senator from Wyoming, is another lawmaker who previously lauded Pruitt’s work to rewrite environmental regulations imposed during former President Barack Obama’s administration and is now asking questions about his spending. Barrasso praised Pruitt for accomplishing "key priorities as head of the EPA," in an April 9 statement, describing the administrator as having been "instrumental in returning the agency to its original mission" and reversing "punishing regulations."

Barrasso’s tone changed after the Government Accountability Office concluded on April 16 that the EPA had violated spending laws by failing to tell Congress about plans to install a $43,000 soundproof phone booth in Pruitt’s office. In a terse statement hours later, Barrasso demanded "a full public accounting of this expenditure and explain why the agency thinks it was complying with the law.”

Barrasso also sent a letter to Pruitt alleging the administrator was using four email addresses and insisting he prove they were being searched in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. (The EPA subsequently said it is customary to maintain secondary accounts for administrators and said they had also been searched in response to inquiries).

Republican Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who heads the House Oversight Committee that is probing Pruitt, openly mocked the EPA chief’s reliance on first-class airfare, which agency officials have said was necessary amid escalating threats. Sitting in first class is a guarantee you’ll come in contact with other passengers, Gowdy said on “Fox News Sunday” on April 15.

“So the notion that I’ve got to fly first class because I don’t want people to be mean to me?" Gowdy said. "You need to go into another line of work if you don’t want people to be mean to you -- like maybe a monk, where you don’t come in contact with anyone.”

And top Republicans are increasingly drawing a distinction between Pruitt’s performance on policy and perceived ethical lapses. "Substantively, I think he has done an excellent job; certainly in a state like mine he is a welcome change from what was there before," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky. "But it is really up to the president to decide who his team is and whether he wants to continue the EPA administrator."

Trump publicly defended Pruitt in an April 7 tweet, saying "Pruitt is doing a great job!" But that was before the GAO report and an announcement that the White House Office of Management and Budget was investigating the phone booth purchase.

Pruitt has been maintaining a low profile. Although he has kept up public appearances -- Pruitt visited Georgia to talk about forest management on Monday -- he has forgone the kind of media blitz that White House officials had urged against, following a tough Fox News interview earlier this month.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 02:02:16 Jeff Sessions should recuse himself from the Michael Cohen case. Otherwise, Trump will call him on his personal cell phone Lord knows how many times to get inside information (or at least try to). No one in America really thinks Donald Trump is above this. https://t.co/laFSJKyzDQ reageer retweet

quote:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has decided against recusing himself from the investigation into President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, but will consider stepping back from specific questions tied to the probe, according to a person familiar with the matter.

By contrast, Sessions recused himself from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election that’s now led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a decision that angered Trump and left Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in charge of the inquiry.

Sessions, who was a top adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign, announced in March 2017 that he had decided he should steer clear of “any matters arising from the campaigns” for president. Trump has called Sessions weak for doing so and said he never would have named him as attorney general had he known the recusal would follow.

SPOILER

Entitled to Briefings

By staying involved in the Cohen probe, Sessions is entitled to briefings on the status of the investigation, which is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York. That could put Sessions in the position of being asked by Trump, who strongly condemned the FBI’s raid on his longtime lawyer, to divulge information about the Cohen investigation.

Sessions could also weigh in on specific decisions by prosecutors, including whether to pursue subpoenas and indictments.

The attorney general is expected to be asked about his role in the Cohen investigation when he testifies before congressional panels on Wednesday and Thursday, as Democrats argue he should recuse himself and Republicans contend he shouldn’t.

The Justice Department declined to comment specifically about decisions on recusal in the Cohen investigation, saying only that Sessions follows appropriate procedures.

‘Matter-By-Matter Basis’

“The attorney general considers his potential recusal on a matter-by-matter basis as may be needed,” the department said in a statement. “To the extent a matter comes to the attention of his office that may warrant consideration of recusal, the attorney general would review the issue and consult with the appropriate Department ethics experts.”

Rosenstein, as the No. 2 official at the Justice Department, is responsible for coordinating and resolving any conflicts between the Mueller probe and the Cohen investigation. The investigation into Cohen’s finances and past work was opened based in part on a referral from Mueller.

In a sign of how senior Justice Department officials can become involved in investigative matters, Rosenstein approved the FBI raid earlier this month on Cohen’s home, office and hotel room that seized a trove of information.

Trump denounced the raid as “an attack on what we all stand for” and repeated that it was a “terrible mistake” for Sessions to recuse himself from the Mueller probe.

Lawmakers’ Arguments

Five Republican House members asked Sessions in a letter released Tuesday why he left up to Rosenstein the decision to raid Cohen’s office.

“In light of the fact that the action was not directly related to the Russian investigation, and the subject was the personal attorney of the president of the United States, it would appear that the attorney general should have been involved,” Representatives Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Lee Zeldin, Ron DeSantis and Matt Gaetz wrote.

But Senator Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, took the opposite tack in advance of Sessions’s testimony before one of the panel’s subcommittees on Wednesday.

He suggested in a letter to Sessions dated April 20 that the attorney general’s recusal from campaign-related investigations should apply to the Cohen probe. He said the lawyer’s $130,000 payment to the adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing her allegations of an affair with Trump during the 2016 campaign may have “violated federal campaign finance law.”

Absent a full recusal from the Cohen investigation, Sessions can weigh in on certain matters related to the investigation that reach Justice Department headquarters, said Stanley Twardy, a former U.S. attorney for Connecticut who’s now a white-collar criminal defense lawyer at the law firm Day Pitney LLP.

No Hard Rules

There are no hard rules governing when Sessions would need to step aside, and decisions will depend on the specific issues at hand, Twardy said. “It’s a question of what Sessions has decided to do," Twardy said.

However, there are multiple layers protecting the integrity of the Cohen investigation, Twardy said. For example, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is fiercely independent and comprised of career prosecutors Trump can’t fire.

Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, has recused himself from the Cohen probe, according to a U.S. official. It’s unclear what triggered his recusal.

Instead, the Cohen probe is being overseen by Robert Khuzami, Berman’s deputy and a former Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement director.

The FBI is also involved in the investigation, and there’s a grand jury that can make independent decisions -- all of which help insulate the probe from any political interference, Twardy said.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 03:00:42 Mick Mulvaney told banking industry executives and lobbyists today that they should increase their campaign donations to influence lawmakers, revealing that he would meet only with lobbyists who contributed to his campaign when he served in the House. https://t.co/jZe7Fhj3hB reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 03:05:05 “We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mulvaney told 1,300 bankers and lobbyists at an American Bankers Association conference in Washington. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.” https://t.co/48Dg9VWfGi reageer retweet

quote:

Mick Mulvaney, the interim director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, told banking industry executives and lobbyists on Tuesday that they should increase their campaign donations to influence lawmakers, revealing that he would meet only with lobbyists who contributed to his campaign when he served in the House.

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mr. Mulvaney, a former Republican lawmaker from South Carolina, told 1,300 bankers and lobbyists at an American Bankers Association conference in Washington. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”

Mr. Mulvaney, who also runs the White House budget office, is a longtime critic of the Obama-era consumer bureau, including while serving in Congress. He was tapped by President Trump in November to temporarily run the bureau, in part because of his promise to sharply curtail its enforcement actions.

SPOILER

Since then, he has frozen all new investigations and slowed down existing inquiries by requiring career employees to produce detailed justifications for their work and by sharply restricting the bureau’s access to bank data, arguing that its investigations created unnecessary online security risks. And he has scaled back the agency’s efforts to go after payday lenders, auto lenders and other financial services companies accused of preying on vulnerable consumers.

But he wants Congress to go further and has urged it to wrest funding of the independent watchdog from the Federal Reserve, a move that would give lawmakers — and those with access to them — more influence on the bureau’s actions. On Tuesday, he implored the financial services industry to help support the legislative changes he has requested to diminish the bureau’s power by increasing campaign donations.

Mr. Mulvaney said that trying to sway legislators that way was one of the “fundamental underpinnings of our representative democracy. And you have to continue to do it.”

“If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talked to you without exception, regardless of the financial contributions,” said Mr. Mulvaney, who received nearly $63,000 from payday lenders for his congressional campaigns.

Asked about the comments, John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Mr. Mulvaney, said: “He was making the point that hearing from people back home is vital to our democratic process and the most important thing our representatives can do. It’s more important than lobbyists and it’s more important than money.”

In his remarks, Mr. Mulvaney also announced a series of moves intended to reduce the bureau’s power. The agency was championed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democratic of Massachusetts, and Richard Cordray, who served as the bureau’s director from its inception until last year.

Such moves include shutting off public access to the bureau’s online database of consumer complaints, which the agency had used to help guide its investigations and enforcement actions.

“I don’t see anything in here that says I have to run a Yelp for financial services sponsored by the federal government,” he said, suggesting the posting of suspected misdeeds by lenders was comparable to bad reviews on the popular online review site.

Mr. Mulvaney also said he would begin calling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by its official statutory name, the more obscure Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Administration officials said the rebranding was an attempt to diminish the agency’s public profile.

Mr. Mulvaney’s political appointees at the agency have asked The Associated Press, which sets the style standard for many publications and broadcasters, to change how it refers to the bureau.

“I’m trying to get in the habit of now saying the ‘B.C.F.P.’ It’s really, really hard to do that when you’ve said the C.F.P.B. for so long,” Mr. Mulvaney told the bankers.

The consumer bureau was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Law as a way to prevent banks and other financial companies from preying on vulnerable consumers. But the bureau has become a target of Republican lawmakers, who complain that it has unchecked power and is too aggressive in trying to punish financial firms.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 03:45:28 Pasquale Perrotta, the man who leads the security detail for Scott Pruitt, worked on assignments for American Media Inc. (the parent company of the National Enquirer) during the 2016 campaign, according to records and interviews reported on by NYT. https://t.co/B7iYtkfPij reageer retweet

quote:

The former Secret Service agent who leads the security detail for Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, worked on assignments for the tabloid news publisher American Media Inc. during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to records and interviews.

The security official, Pasquale Perrotta, had received a waiver from the E.P.A. under the Obama administration to hold outside employment, but the work has now become the subject of scrutiny in both the agency and Congress.

Federal law enforcement personnel face stringent restrictions on outside jobs to prevent conflicts of interest.

A.M.I.’s chairman, David J. Pecker, is a friend of President Trump’s, and his publications — The National Enquirer and Radar chief among them — have put an emphasis on helping Mr. Trump and hurting his rivals, including endorsing his presidential bid. The company’s payment in August 2016 to Karen McDougal, the former Playboy model who claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump, has been drawn into a federal investigation of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen.

Mr. Perrotta declined to discuss the nature of his assignments for A.M.I. According to several people familiar with his work and documents reviewed by The New York Times, some of the activities included physical security, cybersecurity and investigative services involving litigation.

A spokesman for A.M.I. also declined to comment on Mr. Perrotta’s assignments, but did not challenge that the company had worked with him. It is unclear when he began working with A.M.I. or how he first came into contact with the company.

SPOILER

Mr. Perrotta has been at the center of intense criticism of Mr. Pruitt for deploying expensive security measures at the E.P.A. He was named chief of the administrator’s security detail when his boss was removed after resisting Mr. Pruitt’s requests, such as using lights and sirens to cut through traffic during trips around Washington, including to restaurants.

Mr. Perrotta’s relationship with Mr. Pruitt is expected to be a subject of questions on Thursday, when the E.P.A. administrator is scheduled to appear before two separate House committees.

In an email to The Times, Mr. Perrotta said he was being unfairly attacked.

“I was a highly respected federal agent,” said Mr. Perrotta, 50, who worked in the Secret Service before joining the E.P.A. in 2004 and made his name investigating the Gambino crime family for the Bronx district attorney.

He said recent news coverage of his role in Mr. Pruitt’s E.P.A. had “tarnished” his image. “I am retiring as planned,” he wrote, referring to his intended departure from the agency this summer, “but has anyone mentioned that I served with honor and distinction the Obama Administration? I served two former Administrators and now to end my career this way is totally unacceptable.”

During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Perrotta was assigned to the security detail protecting Gina McCarthy, who served as the head of the E.P.A. from 2013 until the end of the Obama administration. Liz Purchia, a spokeswoman, said Ms. McCarthy was not aware of the work Mr. Perrotta did for A.M.I.

Two E.P.A. employees who served on security details with Mr. Perrotta in recent years also said they did not know about his outside work. In 2013, Mr. Perrotta founded a consulting firm, Sequoia Security Group.

On Tuesday, two Democratic senators sent a letter to the E.P.A.’s Office of General Counsel asking questions about the nature of Mr. Perrotta’s outside work.

In the letter, the senators — Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island — suggested that Sequoia offered a range of services that appeared to be outside the scope of the waiver Mr. Perrotta received in 2013.

Among the services advertised on the firm’s website are “the collection and analysis of intelligence and media investigations” and “executive protection.”

The two-page waiver from the E.P.A. only specifically cleared Mr. Perrotta to operate “a security firm that will provide cybersecurity and denial of service insurance to consumers.”

The letter from the senators also asked the E.P.A. to provide copies of any financial disclosure statements filed by Mr. Perrotta detailing his outside income.

Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, who is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has separately asked him and four other top aides to submit to a “transcribed interview” with investigators about the security detail and Mr. Perrotta’s firm.

Mr. Perrotta set up his security consulting business, based in Maryland, to prepare for life after leaving the federal government, he has told associates. They said he planned to retire from the E.P.A. in July. Last month, he requested and received an extension of the outside-work waiver for another year, according to people familiar with the waiver.

Mr. Perrotta has been registered as both a Republican and a Democrat, according to voter records, and associates say he has described himself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

He is acquainted with an important gatekeeper for the president — Keith Schiller, who served as Mr. Trump’s longtime bodyguard and later as his head of Oval Office operations — as well as a top executive at Mr. Trump’s company, Matthew Calamari. Mr. Perrotta offered them advice on security for Mr. Trump’s Washington hotel, which is across the street from the E.P.A.’s headquarters, but was not paid, according to people who know the men.

Mr. Perrotta’s associates say his outside work seems to be motivated by a desire to be at the center of the action and to make money, rather than by politics.

“I’ve never heard him make a disparaging comment about either party,” Edwin Steinmetz, a business partner, said earlier this month. Pointing out that Mr. Perrotta has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, Mr. Steinmetz said, “You either get in line and follow protocol, or you find a new job.”

Mr. Steinmetz conducted a security sweep of Mr. Pruitt’s office last year, and the E.P.A.’s inspector general is investigating Mr. Perrotta’s role in steering the $3,000 contract to him. The money was paid to Mr. Steinmetz’s firm, Edwin Steinmetz Associates, according to an invoice, and Mr. Steinmetz said that Mr. Perrotta did not receive any compensation for the work. Mr. Steinmetz is also listed as a company official on the Sequoia website.

Mr. Steinmetz did not find any listening devices in Mr. Pruitt’s office, according to documents from the E.P.A.’s homeland security division. The documents indicate that the sweep was “very basic and cursory” and “did not employ the equipment, proper certification, or necessary processes” required by the federal government for sweeps of sensitive facilities.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 23:10 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Iets zegt me dat Trump Obama de schuld gaat geven van het niet goed vetten van Trumps VA secretary nominee.

quote:

Documents provided to Fox News show Dr. Ronny Jackson received glowing praise for his work as White House physician by then-President Barack Obama, amid new allegations that President Trump's pick to run the Department of Veterans Affairs exhibited poor behavior in the workplace.

“Ronny’s positive impact cannot be overstated. He is a tremendous asset to the entire White House team. Already at a level of performance and responsibility that far exceeds is current rank, promote to Rear Admiral now,” said an undated performance review that was signed by Obama.

The former president sent years of positive reports about Trump’s White House doctor, who is giving no indication he will withdraw his nomination for the V.A.

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 april 2018 19:59 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
New York State Senate District 37
Oorzaak: George Latimer (D) nam ontslag om een 'Westchester County executive' te worden
2016 verkiezing deze zetel: D 55,69% - 44,31% R
2014 verkiezing deze zetel: D 49,9% - 45,8% R - 4,3% "Blank" - 0% "Scattering"
2012 verkiezing deze zetel: D 54,1% - 45,9% R
2016 presidentiële verkiezing: Clinton 59,30% - 37,54% Trump
2012 presidentiële verkiezing: Obama 53,95% - 44,97% Romney
Kandidaten: Julie Killian (R), Shelley Mayer (D)

quote:

New York State Assembly District 10
Oorzaak: Chad Lupinacci (R) nam onstlag om 'supervisor of Huntington' te worden.
2016 verkiezing deze zetel: R 58,77% - 41,23% D
2014 verkiezing deze zetel: R 62,7% - 37,3% D
2012 verkiezing deze zetel: R 55,3% - 44,7% D
2016 presidentiële verkiezing: Trump 44,85% - 52,08% Clinton
2012 presidentiële verkiezing: Romney 47,80% - 51,06% Obama
Kandidaten: Steve Stern (D), Janet Smitelli (R)

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 02:15 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dus we moeten Kim wel gewoon verdrijven? Regime change! En eigenlijk was die Iran-deal dan ook maar gewoon een hele domme zet.

quote:

The Washington Post credulously says Trump made a "hasty exit" from Moscow the night of November 9, 2013 (after staying overnight November 8). But the after-party started at 1AM at the latest, and he left at 4AM—and somewhere in there *asked Kata Sarka to come to his hotel room*.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 05:48 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Als jij denkt dat dat de oplossing is.

Ik beweer het niet.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 06:46 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat doe je feitelijk wel.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 06:46 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat doe je feitelijk wel.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 06:46 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat doe je feitelijk wel.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 07:09 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Nee hoor. Dat maak jij ervan.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:27 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ironisch dat je niet eens achter je eigen woorden kan staan, tekent je niveau hier, of in ieder geval wat je hier eigenlijk wilt bereiken.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:27 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ironisch dat je niet eens achter je eigen woorden kan staan, tekent je niveau hier, of in ieder geval wat je hier eigenlijk wilt bereiken.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:46 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Vind jij het ook niet wat ongepast dat Trump een dictator een 'eervol man' noemt? Zou je ook schouderophalend reageren als hij hetzelfde zei over de leiders van Iran, die aan de lopende band Israël hebben bedreigd?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:47 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Trump gebruikt de wortel en stok techniek en dat blijkt opnieuw een succesvolle manier om met dictators om te gaan. Het moment dat Kim de kleinste verkeerde beweging maakt zal de stok uit de lucht vliegen is Kim weer die afschuwelijke dictator geworden.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:47 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Trump gebruikt de wortel en stok techniek en dat blijkt opnieuw een succesvolle manier om met dictators om te gaan. Het moment dat Kim de kleinste verkeerde beweging maakt zal de stok uit de lucht vliegen is Kim weer die afschuwelijke dictator geworden.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:53 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

En is Trump een draaikont.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:47 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Trump gebruikt de wortel en stok techniek en dat blijkt opnieuw een succesvolle manier om met dictators om te gaan. Het moment dat Kim de kleinste verkeerde beweging maakt zal de stok uit de lucht vliegen is Kim weer die afschuwelijke dictator geworden.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:54 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Tsja, ik ben misschien slechts een eenvoudige Veluwenaar, maar ik vind het persoonlijk wat gek om dictators te overladen met lof (terwijl hij geen goed woord over heeft voor zijn politieke tegenstanders in de VS en iemand als Comey uitmaakt voor alles wat mooi en lelijk is). Kim heeft hiermee al z'n doel bereikt: de VS behandelt hem met respect en beschouwt zijn regime als een volwaardige gesprekspartner.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:56 schreef Chewie het volgende:

[..]

De enige winnaar is Kim, Trump laat overduidelijk met zich spelen en de enigen die dat niet zien zijn Trump en zijn fanboys.

NK wordt eindelijk erkend en daar wachten ze al meerdere decennia op en het lijkt er op dat NK geen enkele concessies hoeft te doen alleen een paar loze beloften , na "stupid watergate" nu "stupid China" om in de Nixon terminologie te blijven.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:58 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Of Kim dat heeft bereikt is volstrekt irrelevant zolang het Westerse en Amerikaanse doel maar wordt bereikt. Als Comey morgen een stuk tekst laat publiceren in de NYT waar hij zegt fout te zijn geweest, Trump correct was, dan schrijft Trump dezelfde dag waarschijnlijk nog een tweet waarin hij zegt wat voor geweldige kerel die Comey is en wellicht biedt hij hem zelfs nog een baan aan. Het probleem met die tactiek is dat het werkt met dictators, op het internationale toneel en zelfs in internationale handel, maar het werkt niet in de binnenlandse politiek van Amerika, in de Westerse maatschappij, dat zijn toch twee werelden van verschil.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:01 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Zelfs al zou Noord-Korea morgen bij wijze van toenadering de kernwapens in het openbaar zou demonteren en alle barrieres richting Zuid-Korea en het Westen zou verwijderen dan zouden mensen hier nog roepen dat Kim wint en Trump verliest. Hilarisch.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:03 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Nogmaals, jij zou anders piepen als Trump vijanden van Israël veren in de reet zou steken.

quote:

Persoonlijk vind ik dat een stuk stront als Kim het niet verdient om door westerse leiders met zoveel respect te worden behandeld. Het is bovendien ook nergens voor nodig. Kim gaat echt niet z'n arsenaal ontmantelen omdat Trump hem 'eervol' noemt. Het is derhalve een onnodige fluim in het gezicht van de slachtoffers van het regime.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:06 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Zoals wie? Dat hij Noord-Korea op dit moment lovend benadert schopt toch ook niet tegen het zere been van Zuid-Korea of Japan? Zij lijken wel redelijk tevreden.

[..]

Persoonlijk vind ik ook niet dat hij het verdient maar als dat nodig is om daadwerkelijke verandering nodig te brengen dan moet je het wellicht overwegen. Je kan zeggen wat je wilt maar de traditionele benadering heeft sinds de Korea-oorlog niet gewerkt en met nog geen twee jaar Trump hebben we het opeens over het demonteren van kernwapens in Noord-Korea en vrede.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:06 schreef DeParo het volgende:


Persoonlijk vind ik ook niet dat hij het verdient

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:49 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:
https://www.vox.com/2018/(...)ona-special-election

Met maar 53% van de stemmen. In het uiterst conservatieve Arizona!

Dat scheelde dus niet veel.

quote:

Regardless of the exact outcome though, this is just another terrible special election result for the Republicans. Zero excuse, given the permanent absentee list.
And you're feeling great if you're, say, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Arizona

It probably won't get covered this way, but this is arguably the worst special congressional election result yet for the GOP

There just aren't any excuses. The Republican wasn't Roy Moore. The Democrat wasn't Conor Lamb. The turnout wasn't low. The district doesn't have, say, a latent Democratic tradition. It oddly has the effect of making all the prior excuses seem less relevant, too.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/988981303260442625?s=19

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:04 schreef Chewie het volgende:

[..]

Daar hebben we de inhoudsloze deparo weer zoals we hem kennen

Noemt zichzelf echt geen fanboy van de oranje gek maar bij elk beetje kritiek op de oranje gek moet hij toch echt wel even reageren dat het toch echt anders is in deparo's bizarre, waar het nooit concreet mag worden, wereld.

quote:

Ja zo'n akkoord leek er in de jaren 90 ook te komen en toen waren er objectief gezien toch echt wel betere diplomaten bij betrokken en we weten waar dat toe heeft geleid.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:09 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Oh. Je wil regime change?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:08 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Nogmaals, als hij daadwerkelijk overgaat tot het ontmantelen van zijn kernwapenarsenaal - wat Kim niet gaat doen, want dat is de enige troef die hij in handen heeft en de enige reden dat hij aan mag schuiven bij de grote jongens - dan is dat niet omdat Trump een 'eervol' heeft genoemd. Het is een onnodig compliment voor een van de grootste stukken stront op aarde. Een westerse leider hoort zich niet lovend uit te laten over dictators.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:10 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie dat je weer op de man aan het spelen bent gelukkig bent bij gebrek aan de kunde om een fatsoenlijke discussie te hebben.

quote:

Ik ben blij dat je zo ver moest teruggaan om enige succesvolle gesprekken te vinden en of er objectief gezien betere diplomaten bij betrokken waren moet nog maar blijken uit de uitkomst van de huidige gesprekken.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:12 schreef Chewie het volgende:

[..]

Ach ja dat is jou natuurlijk compleet vreemd

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:12 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Integendeel. Het is de PR die Noord-Korea kan gebruiken binnen de eigen dictatuur om dergelijke stappen te verkopen. Ik denk dus dat jij je daar aardig in kan vergissen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:13 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:
Misschien dat een MOD Deparo uitleg geeft dat hier politieke en geen militaire discussies worden gevoerd? Het valt me op dat onze Shukov liefhebber maar al te graag de aandacht op militaire zaken wil draaien. Het gaat hier nog steeds over politiek, en militair ingrijpen is het resultaat van het falen van de politiek.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:13 schreef Chewie het volgende:
Wel grappig dat deparo die meerdere malen heeft aangegeven niet concreet te willen worden begint over inhoudsloos

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:14 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Kom op, gast. Denk je nou werkelijk dat het regime iets moet verkopen? Aan wie dan? De bevolking?

En nogmaals, Kim gaat z'n kernwapenarsenaal niet ontmantelen. Dat zou namelijk zo'n beetje het domste zijn wat hij kan doen. En hoewel die papzak er misschien uitziet als een dom kind, kan ik je verzekeren dat hij wordt omringd door adviseurs die weten hoe ze een machtspositie uit moeten buiten.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:17 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Zelfs een dictatuur heeft verantwoording nodig ja, als het Kim-regime na decennialang te hebben verkondigt dat kernwapens nodig zijn tegen het kwade Westen dan moet je wel enig wisselgeld hebben om het ontmantelen van je kernwapens te kunnen verkopen, verder hebben dictators zoals Kim een behoorlijk opgeblazen ego dus vinden ze het wel degelijk prettig om dit soort lofuitingen te kunnen lezen over zichzelf.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 00:05 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

De beelden

President Trump Holds Meeting With French President Macron4/24/18

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:15 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Volgens mij gaat het zeer duidelijk ook over politieke zaken, in dit geval buitenlandse politiek, en ook defensie is onderdeel van de politieke bevoegdheid dus wat dat betreft.......

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:19 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

En wij westerlingen vinden dat minder grappig. Wij koesteren bepaalde waarden en het handelen van die smeerlap Kim is daarmee in strijd. Het is moreel verwerpelijk om Kim te overladen met lof.

Verder: als je werkelijk denkt dat Kim zijn arsenaal gaat ontmantelen, dan ben je echt grenzeloos naïef.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:20 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Het valt op dat je bij voorkeur over het militaire aspect een mening wil uiten hier. Daar hebben we [DEF] voor. Vervoeg je daar.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:23 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb echt geen idee waar je het over hebt. Wat voor mening?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:23 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb echt geen idee

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:21 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Natuurlijk vinden wij dat maar dat wij dat vinden, en dat we bij onze principes blijven, heeft niet altijd het gewenste effect. Zal het doel de middelen heiligen, dat is wat je je af moet vragen, aangezien beide Korea's op dit moment zeer constructieve gesprekken lijken te hebben denk ik dat het wellicht zo'n geval is misschien. Het ziet er interessant uit.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:24 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

hou je niet van de domme. we hebben je wel door.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:27 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Na jarenlang hard werken beschikt Noord-Korea eindelijk over een operationeel kernwapenarsenaal. Denk je nou werkelijk dat Kim bij de eerste de beste onderhandelingen besluit om dat te ontmantelen, in ruil voor het warme woorden van Trump?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:27 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Na jarenlang hard werken beschikt Noord-Korea eindelijk over een operationeel kernwapenarsenaal. Denk je nou werkelijk dat Kim bij de eerste de beste onderhandelingen besluit om dat te ontmantelen, in ruil voor het warme woorden van Trump?

quote:

Kim handelt momenteel vanuit een positie van macht. Sterker, Noord-Korea heeft nooit eerder zo'n waardevolle troef in handen gehad. Die is het kwijt als het arsenaal van de hand wordt gedaan.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:27 schreef Bernhard.von.Galen het volgende:

[..]

Klopt.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:30 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Niet alleen voor de warme woorden uiteraard het is een opeenstapeling van toenadering en constructieve gesprekken.

quote:

Het was toch echt Noord-Korea dat de toenadering begon te zoeken en niet andersom. Dus ik weet niet hoe jij precies die 'positie van macht' meen te zien.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:34 schreef Treinhomo het volgende:
Ik ben alweer DeParo-moe.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:35 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Denk eerder dat ze zich daar in Noord-Korea de ballen uit de broek lachen. Trump wordt behoorlijk geminacht door de top van het regime. Niemand daar heeft een hoge pet van hem op. Dat hij Kim eervol noemt, is voor het regime bewijs dat ze met een simpele ziel hebben te maken.

Maar je kunt het Trump niet eens verwijten. Hij is z'n hele leven omringd door ja-knikkers en heeft nooit ergens voor hoeven knokken. Zijn vermogen maakte dat alle deuren voor hem opengingen.

Van zo'n iemand kun je niet verwacht dat hij geopolitiek gezien hoge ogen gooit.

quote:

Noord-Korea heeft nu de luxe om toenadering te zoeken omdat het eindelijk beschikt over een operationeel kernwapenarsenaal. Het regime gaat dus vanuit een positie van macht het gesprek in.

quote:

Snap je dat echt niet?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:34 schreef Treinhomo het volgende:
Ik ben alweer DeParo-moe.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:38 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Kritiek. Ander Geluid. Eng eng eng eng eng.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:38 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Kritiek. Ander Geluid. Eng eng eng eng eng.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:39 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Ratio & logica. Moeilijk, moeilijk, moeilijk.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:40 schreef Treinhomo het volgende:

[..]

Nee. Totaal geraaskal en langs de aangedragen argumenten heen praten.
Erg vermoeiend om te lezen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:37 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Nu ga je weer je persoonlijke mening over Trump door de war gooien met wat er daadwerkelijk gebeurt of hoe deze lieden over elkaar denken.

quote:

Dan ga je wel even voorbij aan het punt dat diezelfde kernwapens helemaal niet nodig waren om toenadering te bereiken. De gesprekken zoals nu gevoerd en zoals ze gevoerd gaan worden zaten al die landen al veel eerder op te pushen. Dus hoe verklaar je dat precies.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:47 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
DeParo denkt toch niet echt dat Noord-Korea zijn kernwapens gaat opgeven, of wel?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:42 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Het regime heeft Trump in verklaringen meerdere keren gekleineerd en uitgescholden. Kim komt uit een geslacht van politieke dictators en zijn adviseurs staan aan de top van een meedogenloos regime.

quote:

Denk je nou werkelijk dat dergelijke figuren veel respect hebben voor een of andere blaaskaak die is opgegroeid met een gouden lepel in z'n reet en keer op keer laat blijken extreem onzeker te zijn?

quote:

Kernwapens waren voor Noord-Korea nodig om een sterke positie te hebben tijdens de onderhandelingen. Toenadering zoeken zonder beschikking te hebben over dat arsenaal was funest voor het regime.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:47 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
DeParo denkt toch niet echt dat Noord-Korea zijn kernwapens gaat opgeven, of wel?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:51 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat er concrete stappen in die richting zullen worden gezet, dat zal niet van de ene op de andere dag gebeuren, maar elke stap is al een flinke verbetering.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:51 schreef Ulx het volgende:
De opstelling van de VS is wèl veranderd.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:51 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Waarom denk je dat?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:49 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:
Holy shit, wat is dit weer een kutparotopic zeg.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:53 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Omdat het voor Noord-Korea de enige manier is dat het daadwerkelijk uit de economische malaise en het internationaal isolement kan komen op dit moment.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:52 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Oh.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:54 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Lijkt me een nogal boude stelling.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:54 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Honerable.

Zo noemde niemand ooit de leider van NK.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:53 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Omdat het voor Noord-Korea de enige manier is dat het daadwerkelijk uit de economische malaise en het internationaal isolement kan komen op dit moment.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:56 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik verwacht dat Trump dat ook niet heeft gezegd want dit is een aardige verkrachting van de Engelse taal.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:54 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Wat is dan precies het alternatief en verwacht Noord-Korea te bereiken?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:50 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Dat hadden we wellicht kunnen constateren als Noord-Korea enige moeite had gedaan om tot dergelijke gesprekken te komen maar dat hebben ze niet gedaan. Wat betreft de Westerse opstelling is er bizar weinig veranderd. Evenmin gaan we er aan voorbij dat Kim nog maar net aan de macht is en ook hij zijn regime moet verankeren, het operationeel maken van de kernwapens ligt meer in die lijn dan in een sterkere machtspositie internationaal te creeeren, want als een ding is gebleken is dat de machtspositie van Noord-Korea juist minder groot is geworden omdat het de Chinese hoon over zich heen heeft gekregen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:59 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Is je argument hiervoor dat Trump geen taalfouten maakt, want dan wil ik je best nog een aantal tweets laten zien.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:57 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Ze zouden ook eens kunnen proberen geen militaire dictatuur te zijn, met bijbehorende mensenrechten schendingen, maar dat terzijde.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 09:59 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Legitimering van het regime, die ze in principe al hebben doordat ze met de leider van de vrije wereld op gelijke voet een gesprek gaan hebben.

Verder denk ik dat de sancties wel afgebouwd gaan worden als Kim wat testlocaties sluit. De wapens opgeven zal hij nooit mee akkoord gaan, want dat is serieuze bescherming die ze hebben tegen eventuele agressie van andere landen.

Uitkomst is dat Trump kan roepen dat hij een goede deal heeft gesloten omdat er geen nieuwe kernwapens meer komen, Kim zijn machtspositie verstevigt en internationaal wat deuren open heeft gekregen zonder dat hij zijn dictatuur hoeft af te bouwen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:04 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Chinese hoon? Kim werd met toeters en bellen ontvangen een Peking, een duidelijk teken van respect richting het kleine, bolle dictatortje.

Noord-Korea heeft de onderhandelingstafel altijd gemeden omdat het niet beschikte over kernwapens. Nu het arsenaal operationeel is, is Kim bereid te praten. Een zeer logische opstelling.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:05 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Dat zou wellicht een mogelijkheid zijn geweest als Noord-Korea even sterke bondgenoten was gebleven met China als de afgelopen jaren en als elke andere bondgenoot in de regio, met een direct belang, ernstige bezwaren had gemaakt tegen deze gesprekken. Maar tegelijkertijd zien we dat Zuid-Korea bijvoorbeeld, niet al te onbelangrijk in deze context, ook serieuze toenadering zoekt met Noord-Korea en dat ook lijkt te vinden, we zien dat China serieuze pogingen doet uberhaupt betrokken te worden bij de onderhandelingen tussen Noord-Korea en de Verenigde Staten. De opstelling van zelfs Japan. Dan ben ik toch redelijk optimistisch over de concrete stappen die Noord-Korea zou willen maken om dit soort toenadering in stand te houden.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:07 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Het was de eerste keer dat Kim uberhaupt met Xi Jinping op gelijk niveau mocht spreken, juist omdat China buitengesloten leek te raken van de gesprekken tussen Noord-Korea en de VS, nadat Xi Jinping jarenlang heeft laten blijken een tegenstander van de persoon Kim te zijn plus de manier van leiden, die niet alleen zijn broer uit de weg heeft laten ruimen maar daarmee ook een belangrijke Chinese partner, wat dat betreft heb je de warme Chinese ontvangst toch wat verkeerd beschouwd..

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:08 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

'Andere landen praten ook met NK, dus zullen ze wel bereid zijn hun kernwapens op te geven'. Dit is wel een heel karige analyse, hoor.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:15 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat staat er niet. De vraag was hoe realistisch is het dat Noord-Korea serieus is in deze gesprekken.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:13 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Juist omdat China heel even buitengesloten dreigde te raken, heeft Xi de kleine Kim direct weer tegen de borst gedrukt en hem duidelijk gemaakt dat China zijn bondgenoot is en dat ze een gezamenlijk front moeten vormen tegen het westen. Eerlijk is eerlijk, dat heeft Kim slim gespeeld.

quote:

Verder heeft Noord-Korea er totaal geen belang bij om zijn kernwapenarsenaal te ontmantelen. Daarmee zou het direct alle troeven uit handen geven.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:16 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Nee, de vraag is of Noord-Korea bereid is om de kernwapens weg te doen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:05 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Nee. Mijn argument is dat Ulx er een heeft gemaakt.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:23 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Nee, je zei letterlijk dat Trump dit niet zou zeggen, omdat het een verkrachting van de Engelse taal is. Ergo: Je impliceert dat Trump geen taalfouten maakt en het daardoor dus nooit gezegd kan hebben.

Dat bedoel met logica en ratio DeParo.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:17 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Hoe serieus Noord-Korea is om de kernwapens weg te doen en zoals hierboven 'geanalyseerd' ben ik dus redelijk optimistisch dat er significante stappen zullen worden gezet.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:23 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Nee. Mijn argument is dat Ulx een spelfout maakt. En argument bewezen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:24 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Ik geef het weer op.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:25 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Maar dat zei je niet, maat. En iedereen kan lezen dat je dat niet zei.

Kun je de boel wel om gaan draaien nu, maar dat is een beetje te laat.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:16 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat heeft Kim zeer slim gespeeld maar de vraag blijft hoe direct is China betrokken bij wat Noord-Korea nu doet.

quote:

Dat zal stapsgewijs gebeuren wellicht.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:25 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Puur en alleen omdat iemand het niet eens is met je mening en daarvoor heb je zelf geen enkel argument hoeven te gebruiken (ik heb geteld).

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:28 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

China is de enige echte bondgenoot die Noord-Korea heeft. Dat heeft Xi recentelijk nog maar eens laten zien aan Kim en de wereld.

quote:

En dat baseer je waarop precies?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:30 schreef DeParo het volgende:

Omdat ik net zo min als jij verwacht, of het als realistisch beschouw, dat Noord-Korea van de ene op de andere dag afstand doet van het voltallige kernwapenarsenaal dus.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:28 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Nee, niet daarom.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:31 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Aha, dus je acht de kans aanwezig dat Noord-Korea in de verre toekomst mogelijk zijn kernwapenarsenaal stapsgewijs ontmantelt?

Gewaagde stelling.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:29 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:
Jongens, laat je niet in een oeverloze discussie verleiden.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:32 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Laat je sowieso niet tot een discussie verleiden zoals Klappernoot in deze reeks .

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:33 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:26 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Jawel tot twee keer toe nu zelfs. Vriend.

quote:

Ik verwacht dat Trump dat ook niet heeft gezegd

quote:

want

quote:

dit is een aardige verkrachting van de Engelse taal.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:33 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Haha zat ie op te wachten.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:31 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ja. Wel daarom.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:33 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Ok, lesje Nederlands dan maar:

[..]

Je spreekt hier uit dat je verwacht dat Trump het woord 'Honerable' niet gezegd/geschreven heeft.

[..]

Impliceert logisch verklarend verband.

[..]

Het woord 'Honerable' is inderdaad geen correct Engels.

Dus:

Stelling: Trump heeft het woord 'honerable' niet gebruikt.
Argument: Trump maakt geen Engelse taalfouten.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:34 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:36 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik zit echter nog altijd te wachten op jouw uitspraak wat mijn mening precies is die ik hier op BNW-achtige wijze probeer te verkondigen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:34 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Je hoeft niet voor me in te vullen waarom ik iets doe. Dat weet ik zelf toch echt beter.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:36 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:35 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dus:

Stelling: Trump heeft het woord 'honerable' niet gebruikt want dit is geen correct Engels.
Argument: Ulx maakt een spelfout.

Conclusie: Stelling bewezen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:39 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Nope, dat is niet wat je zei.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:37 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Begin daar dan eens mee, gebruik dan eens een argument om enige stelling van je kracht bij te zetten, je bent niet zo sterk hoor in de discussie.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:39 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb het al zelfs twee keer gezegd.

quote:

Stelling: Trump heeft het woord 'honerable' niet gebruikt want dit is geen correct Engels.
Argument: Ulx maakt een spelfout.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:41 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Dan kan ik je de hand schudden.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:41 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Nope, sterker nog, dit:

[..]

Het hier aangeleverde argument is met betrekking tot de stelling zelfs een non-sequitor.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:44 schreef DeParo het volgende:
Ik heb het wel degelijk twee keer gezegd. Kan ze wel citeren hoor als je dat wilt. Maar ik begin vooral het vermoeden te krijgen dat je moeilijk wilt doen om moeilijk te doen. Jammer in een net zo vloeiend lopend gesprek.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:46 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Nou nee, ik wil gewoon aantonen dat je moeite hebt met logische verbanden zien, omdat je allerlei conclusies aan argumenten verbind die helemaal niet bij elkaar horen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:47 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Je zegt zelf dat Ulx een spelfout maakt dus dan bak je er zelf ook niet veel van schijnbaar haha.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:48 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Het feit dat Ulx een spelfout maakt zegt niks over het feit of Donald Trump een spelfout zou kunnen maken.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:48 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ik maakte geen spelfout. Ik schreef het zoals Trump het uitsprak.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:48 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Maar Ulx maakte wel een spelfout en daar zijn we het dus gewoon over eens.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:51 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Ik merk dat je inhoudelijk niet wilt reageren op wat ik zeg, maar meteen focust op dat ene kleine puntje waarvan je kunt zeggen: "Zie, je zegt dat ik gelijk heb!"

De rest wordt vakkundig genegeerd. Wederom symptomatisch voor je gedrag hier.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 10:58 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Oh, daar gaat het helemaal niet om. Ik probeer gewoon te kijken of je in staat bent toe te geven wanneer je foutieve argumentatie gebruikt en een lesje logisch redeneren te delen met de rest.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 08:49 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:
https://www.vox.com/2018/(...)ona-special-election

Met maar 53% van de stemmen. In het uiterst conservatieve Arizona!

Dat scheelde dus niet veel.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 12:37 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Nu alleen nog wat meer mensen die gaan stemmen in november en de DCCC die bereid is er wat tijd en geld in te steken, vooral op het moment dat Tipirneni nog geen enkele kans scheen te hebben.

Maar ja, bij de Dems geldt nog te vaak "With friends like these..." en je kunt toch echt niet hebben dat kiezers gaan denken dat je als DCCC graag geld in bodemloze putten gooit.

Tipi had gewoon moeten (en kunnen) winnen. (Stomme kut-DCCC.)

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 12:37 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Nu alleen nog wat meer mensen die gaan stemmen in november en de DCCC die bereid is er wat tijd en geld in te steken, vooral op het moment dat Tipirneni nog geen enkele kans scheen te hebben.

Maar ja, bij de Dems geldt nog te vaak "With friends like these..." en je kunt toch echt niet hebben dat kiezers gaan denken dat je als DCCC graag geld in bodemloze putten gooit.

Tipi had gewoon moeten (en kunnen) winnen. (Stomme kut-DCCC.)

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 13:07 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Hier ben ik het echt niet mee eens. Gezien het district is dit een uitstekende score, ver boven verwachting. Maar er zijn veel meer districten waarin de Democraten een veel betere kans hebben dan hier. Zonde van je geld om het uit te geven aan dit soort races.

quote:

It is supposed to be a last line of defense against a Sept. 11-style attack on the United States. But a federal program that puts armed undercover guards on commercial airliners is in such disarray that it does little to deter terrorists, many of its employees say, and is being investigated by Congress.

Alcohol abuse among some in the Federal Air Marshal Service is so rampant that the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees the program, has had to monitor whether the armed guards show up for their flights sober, according to five people familiar with the situation. T.S.A. said its office of inspection makes quality assurance visits to ensure that the air marshals are properly prepared for their missions.

Female and minority air marshals said in court documents and interviews that they faced discrimination at work, including being subjected to sexually explicit messages and racist jokes and memes sent on government-issued cellphones. Other air marshals said they were fired or threatened with termination for minor infractions, while misconduct by managers was overlooked. Just 22 percent of the marshals thought their leaders maintained “high standards of honesty and integrity,” according to a federal employee survey completed last year, one of the lowest rankings among agencies.

SPOILER

“I ultimately decided to leave (retire) because I was denied the ability to leverage my experience for the good of the FAMs and I realize that I was part of a system which was putting the emotional well-being of FAMs at risk,” Kathleen Christian, who resigned last year as a clinical psychologist with the federal air marshals, said on Nov. 17 in a scathing email to several marshals. A copy was obtained by The New York Times.

Congress has asked the Government Accountability Office, its investigative arm, to review the workplace complaints raised by air marshals, said Charles Young, a spokesman for the office.

Employees with the air marshals view their jobs as crucial to overall efforts to protect airplanes and airports from terrorist attacks. But interviews with more than two dozen former and current federal air marshals describe an agency in crisis.

Burnout is high. Morale is low. Some of those interviewed said they were aware of colleagues who had committed suicide or attempted it. Nearly all described having a variety of job-related health problems; one marshal said he had depression, sleep apnea and dizzy spells.

“The conditions in the air marshals make it more likely that a FAM will not react to a threat than react to one,” said Clay Biles, a former air marshal, who resigned from the agency in 2013 after a five-year stint.

Most of the current and former air marshals spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss operations of the security agency; some said they feared retaliation for speaking out.

The Transportation Security Administration declined to respond to specific questions about the complaints, but said all allegations of misconduct are investigated.

“T.S.A. and the Federal Air Marshal Service leadership take the care of our people very seriously and vigorously dispute any indication otherwise,” said Thomas H. Kelly Jr., a spokesman for the air marshals.

Mr. Kelly acknowledged that alcoholism has been a problem for some air marshals — he said about 13 marshals had gotten D.U.I.s in the last three years — and he said that one marshal in the last five years had committed suicide. But he said neither issue represented systemic problems within the program.

The federal air marshals program was created in 1961, during the Kennedy administration, in response to an increase in airline hijackings linked to Cuba. It has since grown from about a dozen air marshals to a force that officials have said numbers about 3,000, with an $800 million annual budget to safeguard against terrorist attacks aboard domestic and international flights.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the program was pulled into the newly created T.S.A. and under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. Since then, it has been the focus of a number of congressional investigations, internal inquiries and news media reports documenting a series of scandals — including marshals hiring prostitutes and managers scheduling flights to meet up for sexual trysts.

Government reports have questioned the air marshals’ effectiveness and suggested that its budget be redirected to other counterterrorism programs.

A two-paragraph unclassified statement from the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general last year said parts of the air marshals program could be “discontinued” and its “funds could be put to better use.”

A report by the Government Accountability Office, also published last year, found that T.S.A. could not accurately describe the marshals’ ability to deter terrorist attacks. “T.S.A. does not have information on its effectiveness in doing so, nor does it have data on the deterrent effect resulting from any of its other aviation security countermeasures,” the auditors wrote.

Critics note other security measures — including fortifying cockpit doors and arming thousands of pilots — reduced in-flight threats and, in turn, made the protection provided by air marshals less necessary. T.S.A. has also enacted stricter passenger screening measures to prevent terrorists from boarding planes.

With a small work force, air marshals are able to protect only a small fraction of the more than 42,000 flights in the United States each day. There were no air marshals aboard the trans-Atlantic flight carrying the shoe bomber Richard C. Reid in December 2001, nor the one carrying the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in December 2009. Both men were linked to Al Qaeda.

Representative John J. Duncan Jr., Republican of Tennessee and longtime critic of the air marshals program, said the agency averaged one arrest each year per 1,000 marshals. Most of those arrests were for rowdy passengers or immigration violations, according to several air marshals.

And instead of putting marshals on flights deemed to be the highest risk, they are spread across as many flights as possible, including on domestic regional 50-seat planes. The strategy has been ridiculed as “flights to nowhere” by the Air Marshal Association, a union that is pushing the Senate to approve a bill requiring that air marshals be assigned to higher-risk flights. (It has already passed the House.)

“Based on how the program is run now, most of what the air marshals do is just security theater — it serves absolutely no purpose other than showing that they are doing something,” said Robert MacLean, an air marshal who was fired by T.S.A. in 2006 after disclosing to an MSNBC reporter that the agency was planning to reduce the number of air marshals on overnight flights. He was rehired after a nearly 10-year battle that reached the Supreme Court.

Air marshals interviewed for this article said their biggest problem was the number of hours they were expected to fly. They are not allowed to sleep on flights, and back-to-back international trips involving prolonged periods of sitting awake take a toll. Several air marshals said they took medication or drank alcohol to stay awake — despite a policy prohibiting alcohol consumption within 10 hours before work.

The agency said it had begun an alcohol awareness program, but several air marshals said it has had little effect. One marshal who was a recovering alcoholic and featured in an awareness video later committed suicide, according to two employees. The agency declined to comment, and the employees said the video was not being released.

Air marshals blamed their lack of sleep for losing their weapons or leaving them where passengers could find them. It is unclear how often this has happened, but in one case last year, operations at Indianapolis International Airport were shut down for several hours after a marshal lost his weapon.

Air marshals also blame management, which they said had turned a blind eye to their concerns — including complaints about being subjected to sexist and racist behavior at work.

In recent court filings, Kristina Hickey, an air marshal in New Jersey who is suing the agency over claims of gender discrimination and a hostile work environment, said she was stalked by a supervisor who repeatedly sent her sexually explicit and threatening messages on a government-issued phone.

Ms. Hickey said she had reported the man to managers, but no action was taken. Instead, she said, managers expressed sympathy for her accused stalker, including at one point saying they did not want to lose their “best guy.” The supervisor, who was not identified in court documents, was later reprimanded for misusing a government phone and remains an air marshal. The lawsuit is pending.

Air marshals who are minorities said they had experienced similar problems, including hearing colleagues using racial slurs. But employees who report misbehavior describe retaliation by managers. Just 36 percent of air marshals said they felt that they could report a violation of law or misconduct without fear of reprisal, according to the 2017 federal employee survey.

Mr. MacLean said that not long after returning to work in 2015 he was taken off flight assignments and worked for six months in a remote office with no colleagues and no duties. He was eventually assigned to one of T.S.A.’s prevention and response squads to perform random security sweeps at transportation hubs across the United States.

Last October, Mr. MacLean said his badge and weapon were taken away, and he was ordered to submit to a psychiatric examination after he questioned security decisions. He was cleared to return to duty in November.

Several air marshals have asked Congress to remove the program from T.S.A.’s purview and entrust it to a different agency, like Customs and Border Protection or the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“T.S.A. is just not capable of overseeing the federal air marshals because it’s not a law enforcement agency,” Mr. MacLean said. “The past 15 years or so have shown that.”

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 13:12 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Ze wisten dat ze hier niet zouden kunnen winnen, de leverage was te zwaar. Maar dat neemt niet weg dat ze in Arizona een naar verhouding heel goed resultaat hebben gehaald. Je gooit er natuurlijk geen bak geld naar toe om een kandidaat op 49% te laten stranden. Daarvoor is die gok te duur.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 13:13 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Precies. Het is vooral een hoopvol resultaat voor Sinema gezien de Senaatsverkiezingen van november. Als de verhoudingen dan hetzelfde zijn wint ze die race met dubbele cijfers.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 13:07 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Zonde van je geld om het uit te geven aan dit soort races.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 13:14 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

als ze het nét winnen is het ook al mooi

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 13:16 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Die ze met een héél klein beetje meer moeite gewoon gewónnen hadden?

Is niet zonde, is winnen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 13:18 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Hoe weet je dat?

quote:

Op maandag 16 april 2018 17:40 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
24 april is er weer een special election, ditmaal in Arizona's achtste district (R +13). De suburbs van Phoenix en traditioneel Republikeins territorium. De meeste polls voorspellen een winst voor Lesko, de Republikeinse kandidaat. Maar een recente poll laat echter zien dat haar tegenstander, Tipirneni, haar op 1 punt is genaderd

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 13:46 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Om even jezelf te quoten... er was zelfs een poll waar ze nog maar 1 punt achterstond. Toen had haar partij echt de knip moeten trekken:

[..]

(Ik ben trouwens verre van de enige die de krebserigheid van de DCCC als minstens-medeschuldige aanwijst.)

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 13:52 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Ik weet dat er veel mensen zijn die afgeven op de DCCC en de DNC omdat ze in de meeste gevallen het beter denken te weten maar ik weet ook dat dat in de meeste gevallen niet klopt en zelfoverschatting is.

quote:

National Democrats, however, stayed away from the race, deducing that a district that has sent only Republicans to Congress for four decades was out of reach. (NYTimes)

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 13:56 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Toch blijft het punt dat de DCCC het op een gegeven moment ruim vóór de verkiezing heeft opgegeven omdat ze dachten geen enkele kans te hebben. Is dat echt zelfoverschatting van degenen die dat nogal voorbarig vonden?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 13:16 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Dat is waar, maar nogmaals, je hebt maar beperkte middelen. Ik denk dat er vooral geld zou moeten gaan naar Senaatsraces in conservatieve staten. Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota. Die zijn het meest kwetsbaar en met het huidige politieke klimaat heb je een unieke kans om het Democratische mandaat daar met zes jaar te verlengen. Zonder Trump waren ze waarschijnlijk kansloos geweest.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 14:00 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Firing Mueller won't end Trump investigation, Mueller made sure:
https://www.msnbc.com/rac(...)e-sure-1218520643890

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 14:02 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Het psychologische effect van deze uitslag moet hard aankomen bij het republikeinse kamp. Dat is een overwinning an sich.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 14:12 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Zeker, omdat er nu ook geen excuus meer is. Lesko was geen Moore. Tipirneni was geen Lamb.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 15:12 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:
Ligt het aan mij of is het niveau van dit topic vandaag echt extreem laag?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 15:12 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:
Ligt het aan mij of is het niveau van dit topic vandaag echt extreem laag?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 15:20 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Het ligt niet aan jou.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 15:17 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Dat ligt aan jou want het niveau hier is zelden hoger geweest.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 15:46 schreef thesiren.nl het volgende:
Paro doet graag aan topic kaping terwijl we het hebben over de huidige stand in het leven van Trump en de Amerikaanse politiek, stuurt paro ons lekker naar geopolitiek. Moet ik weer trump says china linken soms?

quote:

President Donald Trump’s unrelenting attacks on the free press have created a “Trump effect” promoting antagonism against journalists in the U.S. and abroad, the media watchdog and advocacy group Reporters Without Borders said Wednesday in its annual World Press Freedom Index.

The U.S. dropped two spots in the world ranking, to 45th, from last year. The group, also known as Reporters Sans Frontières, attributed the downgrade to Trump’s incendiary anti-press rhetoric and his attempts to curtail media access.

SPOILER

The rankings cite an overall decline in global press freedom, with a “climate of hatred” for the press that is “openly encouraged by political leaders.” The report said this is occurring in authoritarian countries that regularly rank at the bottom, including Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Russia, China and North Korea.

But the group also warned anti-media hatred is rising in democratic nations like the United States, which is “disappointing for the country of the First Amendment,” Margaux Ewen, the group’s North America executive director, said an event unveiling the rankings. Reporters Without Borders blamed Trump, calling him “a media-bashing enthusiast.”

“More and more democratically elected leaders no longer see the media as part of democracy’s essential underpinning, but as an adversary to which they openly display their aversion,” the group wrote.

Trump’s “violent anti-press rhetoric” and attempts to block access to government information has influenced local officials, and has led to the arrests of journalists for covering protests or for asking questions of public officials. Reporters also have faced violent attacks by public figures, such as Montana Republican Greg Gianforte’s body-slam of Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs last year during a congressional campaign.

This “Trump effect” has spread outside the U.S., Reporters Without Borders said, citing examples of other world leaders adopting Trump’s anti-media slur “fake news” for unfavorable coverage.

Reporters Without Borders also warned against Trump’s crusade against the media in its 2017 rankings. It said the president’s rhetoric was part of “a highly toxic anti-media discourse that drove the world into a new era of post-truth, disinformation and fake news.”

While an overall decline in press freedom preceded Trump’s presidency, “the Trump effect has only served to amplify the disappointing press freedom climate,” the group wrote in this year’s report.

Ewen said that the danger is that “this rhetoric is coming down from the highest office in the country,” and sets a bad example around the world.

Reporters Without Borders presented this year’s rankings Wednesday at an event in Washington co-hosted by The Washington Post ― a frequent target of Trump’s “fake news” derision for its deep reporting on the investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 15:46 schreef thesiren.nl het volgende:
Paro doet graag aan topic kaping terwijl we het hebben over de huidige stand in het leven van Trump en de Amerikaanse politiek, stuurt paro ons lekker naar geopolitiek. Moet ik weer trump says china linken soms?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 17:05 schreef thesiren.nl het volgende:

Donald Trump ft. Daft Punk - China, China, China, China

Alstublieft u vraagt wij draaien.

twitter:

rolandscahill twitterde op dinsdag 24-04-2018 om 19:49:12 Worst ABBA cover band ever https://t.co/TtpMoEXQHj reageer retweet

twitter:

kanyewest twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 21:19:31 we got love https://t.co/Edk0WGscp6 reageer retweet

quote:

Mulvaney, Watchdog Bureau’s Leader, Advises Bankers on Ways to Curtail Agency

Mick Mulvaney, the interim director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, told banking industry executives on Tuesday that they should press lawmakers hard to pursue their agenda, and revealed that, as a congressman, he would meet only with lobbyists if they had contributed to his campaign.

[...]

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 21:35 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Het zoveelste stukje corruptie van de Trump-kliek:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 21:26 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

kanyewest twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 21:19:31 we got love https://t.co/Edk0WGscp6 reageer retweet

Kanye met een #MAGA hat

twitter:

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

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 21:33:07 Thank you Kanye, very cool! https://t.co/vRIC87M21X reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 21:39 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Corruptie is van alle tijden maar de arrogantie waarmee het in alle openheid nu gebeurt is tekenend voor deze regering. Ze doen niet eens meer hun best om het te verbergen omdat ze weten dat ze door de tribale verhoudingen in het Congres toch ongestoord door kunnen gaan.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 21:41 schreef Mani89 het volgende:

[..]

We have the best endorsements.

twitter:

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

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 21:33:07 Thank you Kanye, very cool! https://t.co/vRIC87M21X reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 21:43 schreef _-_ratjetoe_-_ het volgende:

[..]

Mijn stem heeft 'ie

twitter:

kanyewest twitterde op woensdag 25-04-2018 om 21:38:27 my MAGA hat is signed ?????????????????????????????? https://t.co/DrDHJybS8V reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 21:39 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Corruptie is van alle tijden maar de arrogantie waarmee het in alle openheid nu gebeurt is tekenend voor deze regering. Ze doen niet eens meer hun best om het te verbergen omdat ze weten dat ze door de tribale verhoudingen in het Congres toch ongestoord door kunnen gaan.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 21:57 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Mag ik het ironisch vinden dat uitgerekend de meest psychisch labiele celebrity van de VS een Trumpfan blijkt te zijn.

quote:

In Trump's first year, FISA court denied record number of surveillance orders
More surveillance orders were denied during President Donald Trump's first year in office than in the court's history.

[...]

The report said that, in three cases, the FISA court advised the Trump administration that it was "considering appointment of an amicus curiae to address a novel or significant question of law raised in proposed applications," but that the government either pulled or modified the application.

"This is the first report including information about such occurrences," the report said.

[...]

quote:

French President Emmanuel Macron extolled the Franco-American relationship on multiple fronts but issued a stern warning about the need to address climate change during his address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

Speaking entirely in English, Macron laid out the numerous ways ― human rights, trade, terrorism ― in which both the U.S. and France must strengthen multilateral ties in order to confront what he called a “new world order” marked by violence and conflict.

His most forceful comments came in the form of a veiled rebuke against President Donald Trump on climate policy. Macron has emerged as a leader in the fight to protect the legitimacy of the Paris climate agreement after Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw last June. Minutes after Trump’s announcement, Macron tweeted a slogan riffing off of Trump’s own campaign rallying cry: “Make our planet great again.”

On Wednesday, he demanded again that the U.S. do its part to provide future generations with “a planet that is still habitable in 25 years.” Some people, he continued, feel that securing jobs and restoring industry are more urgent concerns, yet he insisted that the long-term goal of creating a low-carbon economy is primordial.

“What is the meaning of our life, really, if we work and live destroying the planet, sacrificing the future of our children?” he asked as the room erupted, mostly among Democratic members of Congress, in applause.

SPOILER

He’s confident, he added, that the U.S. and France can work out their disagreements on the matter because “on the long term we will have to face the same realities.”

Travis Nichols, media director for Greenpeace USA, applauded Macron’s address.

“Donald Trump should never have rejected the Paris Climate Accord in the first place, and he should by all means reverse course immediately,” Nichols said on Wednesday. “Trump must listen to not only President Macron, but the majority of people in this country who want the United States to stay in the Paris Agreement. As climate-fueled disasters around the world continue to worsen, even Trump should now see that the Paris terms are immensely favorable when compared to climate inaction, denial, and isolation. Destruction wrought from climate change is only going to get worse, and the rest of the world already knows it.”

Macron’s time in Washington, D.C., this week marks the first official state visit of the Trump administration. Macron and Trump have quickly developed an affability that the U.S. leader hasn’t displayed toward other key allies. A series of praiseworthy comments ― Trump at one point called Macron “perfect” ― plus a variety of hugs and handshakes during public events on Tuesday pointed to the warmth between the two.

Yet a handful of thorny international issues are on the table as the two leaders meet, most notably the Iran nuclear deal and Western involvement in the ongoing civil war in Syria.

Many view Macron as the only person with a shot at getting Trump to change his mind about pulling out of the Iran nuclear agreement. Trump has long railed against the deal signed during the Obama administration. He yet again called the agreement “insane” and “ridiculous” on Tuesday but did signal a willingness to negotiate a new deal.

Trump set a deadline of May 12 to determine the fate of the current Iran deal. In classic Trump fashion, he has so far not indicated what he plans to do.

“Nobody knows what I’m going to do on the 12th, although Mr. President, you have a pretty good idea,” Trump said on Tuesday, addressing Macron. “We’ll see also if I do what some people expect, whether or not it will be possible to do a new deal with solid foundations.”

Macron said Wednesday that France doesn’t plan to leave the agreement but is happy to work with Trump in crafting a new, more comprehensive deal that addresses some of the issues that both countries feel were left out of the current deal.

As for Syria, Macron is thought to be playing an integral role in influencing Trump’s decisions. He said in a recent interview that he was the one to convince Trump not to pull troops out of the beleaguered country.

“We’ll be coming home but we want to leave a strong and lasting footprint,” Trump said Tuesday of his decision to leave troops in Syria.

Macron also took credit for persuading the president to carry out joint strikes with France and the U.K. on Syrian military targets following a deadly chemical attack on civilians earlier this month.

“This action was one of the best evidence of strong multilateralism,” Macron said Wednesday, promising to continue working together towards humanitarian solutions to the crisis.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 22:58 schreef skysherrif het volgende:
Wel interessant trouwens dat in de laatste 70 jaar ofzo een zittende president zonder tegenstand in de primaries een 2e termijn krijgt en de 3 keren dat een zittende president wel nadrukkelijke tegenstand krijgt in de primaries het verliest in de GE.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 23:22 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Vermoedelijk doel je dan op Obama, W. Bush en Reagan, maar die hadden strikt genomen wel anderen die ook meededen (hoewel dat bij voorbaat al echt volstrekt kansloos was).

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 22:32 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
Het einde van de bromance is alweer in zicht...

Emmanuel Macron Takes Aim At Trump On Climate Change In Congressional Address (HuffPo)

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 23:26 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Nouja, er doen er inderdaad altijd mee, maar het is wel vrij duidelijk wanneer iemand serieuze oppositie heeft en wie niet.

Alleen Carter, Ford en Bush kregen serieuze oppositie in de primaries en verloren daarna dus ook de general election.

Volgens mij sinds 1880 ook niet meer voorgekomen dat een zittende president die wel meedeed aan de primaries ook verloor.

Dus ik vraag me af of er een serieuze kandidaat is die Trump gaat uitdagen en wie. Moeten vermoedelijk naar iemand kijken die weinig te verliezen heeft of echt puur ideologisch tegen Trump gaat runnen. Rubio etc zeker niet.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 23:26 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Dus Macron trollt Trump even big time in het congres.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 23:28 schreef thesiren.nl het volgende:

[..]

En Macron is bij het MLK monument geweest. Ik vraag me af of de president daar blij mee is.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 23:27 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Ik kan wel een aantal figuren bedenken.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 23:31 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Wie, Kasich is de enige die ik kan opnoemen die ik het zie doen, op wat 'nobuddies' na.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 april 2018 23:26 schreef Wombcat het volgende:
Dus Macron trollt Trump even big time in het congres.