SPOILER

Secretary of State - Mike Pompeo
Secretary of Treasury - Steven Mnuchin
Secretary of Defense - General Jim 'Mad Dog' Mattis
Attorney General - Jeff Sessions
Secretary of the Interior - Ryan Zinke
Secretary of Agriculture - Sonny Perdue
Secretary of Commerce - Wilbur Ross
Secretary of Labor - Alexander Acosta
Secretary of Health and Human Services - Alex Azar
Secretary of Housing & Urban Development - Ben Carson
Secretary of Transportation - Elaine Chao
Secretary of Energy - Rick Perry
Secretary of Education - Betsy DeVos
Secretary of Veterans Affairs - Ronny Jackson??? Robert Wilkie (Acting)
Secretary of Homeland Security - Kirstjen Nielsen

SPOILER

White House Chief of Staff - John F. Kelly
Trade Representative - Robert Lighthizer
Director of National Intelligence - Dan Coats
Ambassador to the UN - Nikki Haley
Director of the Office of Management & Budget - Mick Mulvaney
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency - Gina Haspel
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency - Scott Pruitt
Administrator of the Small Business Administration - Linda McMahon

SPOILER

Ivanka Trump (Advisor to the President), Jared Kushner (Senior Adviser Strategic Planning), Stephen Miller (Senior Adviser Policy), John Bolton (National Security Adviser), Kellyanne Conway (Counselor), Donald McGahn (White House Counsel), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Press Secretary), Christopher Wray (Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation), Robert Mueller (Special Counsel), Rod Rosenstein (United States Deputy Attorney General).

SPOILER

Kabinet: Tom Price (HHS), David Shulkin (VA), Rex Tillerson (State)
DOJ/FBI: Sally Yates, James Comey, Preet Bharara, Andrew McCabe
Communicatie WH: Mike Dubke, Sean Spicer, Anthony Scaramucci, Hope Hicks
Adviseurs enzo: Michael Flynn, Herbert McMaster, Reince Priebus, Rob Porter, Gary Cohn, Steve Bannon, John McEntee

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 14:50:00 The White House has assumed control over hiring at a small federal agency that promotes economic growth in poor countries, installing political allies and loyalists in appointed jobs intended for development experts. https://t.co/u1eHIqP4e7 reageer retweet

quote:

The White House has assumed control over hiring at a small federal agency that promotes economic growth in poor countries, installing political allies and loyalists in appointed jobs intended for development experts, according to documents and interviews.

Until the Trump administration, only the chief executive and several other top officials of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) were selected by the White House, former agency officials said. The chief executive, in turn, used authority granted to the agency by Congress to appoint about two dozen other staffers, primarily for their technical ­expertise.

But starting last year, the White House began naming political appointees to the lower-level positions, according to internal rosters obtained by The Washington Post and interviews with former employees and other knowledgeable people. The employees were warned by an agency leader they could lose their jobs to make way for the new political appointees, the former employees said.[....]

twitter:

LeslieCockburn twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 00:46:32 My opponent Denver Riggleman, running mate of Corey Stewart, was caught on camera campaigning with a white supremacist. Now he has been exposed as a devotee of Bigfoot erotica. This is not what we need on Capitol Hill. https://t.co/0eBvxFd6sG reageer retweet

twitter:

christinawilkie twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 15:03:42 NEW: Giuliani just moved the goal posts in 2 big ways on Fox & CNN :1. He's no longer claiming Trump didn't collude with Russia. He's claiming "collusion is not a crime." 2. He's not saying Trump did not know abt 2016 Russia mtg in advance. He's saying Trump did not ATTEND it. reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 15:28 schreef Ulx het volgende:
[url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bigfoot-porn-house-race-

Dat hoor ik wel vaker, dat Republikeinen nogal geil worden van Sasquatchporno. Er moet dus wel een kern van waarheid inzitten. Wat bezielt deze mensen?

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 15:44 schreef zalkc het volgende:
De Nederlandse politiek is ook niet alles, maar hier raak je nog wel eens iemand kwijt als duidelijk word dat ie de boel verdraaid.

Hoe kan het in vredesnaam dat er zo opzichtig kan worden gedraaid en gelogen. Wat moet Trump in hemelsnaam doen om daadwerkelijk de steun van de Republikeinen kwijt te raken?

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 15:44 schreef zalkc het volgende:
De Nederlandse politiek is ook niet alles, maar hier raak je nog wel eens iemand kwijt als duidelijk word dat ie de boel verdraaid.

Hoe kan het in vredesnaam dat er zo opzichtig kan worden gedraaid en gelogen. Wat moet Trump in hemelsnaam doen om daadwerkelijk de steun van de Republikeinen kwijt te raken?

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 15:42 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Wat mensen geil vinden of niet mogen ze toch zelf weten?

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 15:40 schreef Mryc het volgende:

twitter:

christinawilkie twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 15:03:42 NEW: Giuliani just moved the goal posts in 2 big ways on Fox & CNN :1. He's no longer claiming Trump didn't collude with Russia. He's claiming "collusion is not a crime." 2. He's not saying Trump did not know abt 2016 Russia mtg in advance. He's saying Trump did not ATTEND it. reageer retweet

https://edition.cnn.com/2(...)ime-cnntv/index.html

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 16:09 schreef remlof het volgende:

[..]

"Collusion is not a crime"

quote:

Fraud
Wire Fraud
Bribery
Bank Fraud
Computer Crimes (Theft)
Computer Crimes (Espionage)
Extortion
Identity Theft
Obstruction
Hindering Apprehension/Prosecution
Witness Tampering
Perjury
Lying to Congress
Making False Statements
Conspiracy (Attempted)
FARA Nonregistration
RICO
Money Laundering
Tax Evasion

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 15:50:00 The Koch Network says that Trump admin policies "right now are hurting people," and "they’re also doing very long-term damage to the country." https://t.co/dR40TSEayM reageer retweet

quote:

The conservative political network led by billionaire Charles Koch opened a conference in Colorado with sharp criticism of President Donald Trump’s trade policies and leadership style, as it sought to demonstrate a desire for more bipartisan solutions.

“The policies right now are hurting people,” Brian Hooks, president of the Charles Koch Foundation and Charles Koch Institute, told reporters Saturday. “But they’re also doing very long-term damage to the country.”

Hooks, who also serves as co-chairman of the semi-annual donor gatherings that are formally called the Seminar Network, also specifically called out Trump’s no-compromise style.

“The divisiveness of the White House is causing long-term damage,” he said. “When in order to win on an issue, somebody else has to lose, it makes it very difficult to unite people to solve the challenges in this country.”

James Davis, a spokesman for the network, criticized the $12 billion Trump has pledged in aid to farmers hurt by falling commodity prices triggered by the president’s expanding trade war with China, Canada and other countries that are significant purchasers of U.S. pork, soybeans and other agricultural products.

SPOILER

Policy Bailout

“It’s a bailout of bad policy,” Davis said.

The network, like many traditional Republican groups, has long opposed protectionism and promoted the benefits of free trade. Charles and brother David Koch didn’t support Trump in the 2016 campaign, but the network they built has since praised his efforts to cut taxes and regulations.

The criticism of Trump came as more than 500 donors to the Koch network gathered for a three-day meeting at a luxury resort in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The network, with more than 700 donors who give at least $100,000 per year, has convened such gatherings twice annually since 2003.

“We’ve made more progress in the last five years than I did in the previous 50,” Charles Koch told the donors at a welcome reception.

Not Slowing

He stressed that he’s not slowing in his efforts to change the nation. “I am not getting weak in the knees,” the 82-year-old said.

Some of the elected officials expected included Governor Rick Scott of Florida, who’s running for U.S. Senate, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who’s running for U.S. Senate, Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, and Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, who’s running for governor. All are Republicans.

In June, the network said it was planning a “multi-year, multi-million-dollar” campaign to promote free trade and oppose Trump’s moves to impose tariffs on billions of dollars worth of imports from China and elsewhere. The effort is to include advertising, voter mobilization and lobbying.

Role Downplayed

At least in the initial hours of the gathering, the network sought to downplay its role in this year’s midterm congressional campaign, even as ads paid for by the network have hammered Democrats in battleground states in recent months. Planned spending on campaign-associated activities was prominent when the network last assembled in January.

Since then, analysts and polling have increasingly suggested Democrats have a good chance of winning control of the U.S. House in November’s midterm elections. The party needs a net gain of 23 seats to do that.

“We’ve shown that we can work productively with both parties,” Davis said, pointing to work the network has done with Democrats and Republicans in criminal justice reform and other issues.

“We need to earn some trust and show that we’re going to do the right thing,” he added. “We will be able to build these really broad policy coalitions.”

Plans call for the network to spend about $400 million on state and federal policy and politics during the two-year cycle that culminates with November’s balloting, a 60 percent increase over 2015-16. In addition to trying to influence electoral politics, the network also works on education, criminal justice, workforce and poverty issues.

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 16:09 schreef remlof het volgende:

[..]

"Collusion is not a crime" haha. Wel als je daarmee een buitenlandse macht invloed op de verkiezingen laat uitoefenen natuurlijk.

Ben benieuwd of Trump nu stopt met z'n dagelijkse "there was NO collusion"-mantra

twitter:

AshaRangappa_ twitterde op zaterdag 28-07-2018 om 05:24:07 On @AC360 tonight explaining that "collusion" doesn't have to rise to a criminal conspiracy: From an intelligence standpoint, anyone who is knowingly and secretly encouraging, facilitating, or participating in a foreign adversary's covert operation against the U.S. *is* colluding https://t.co/56VNJ2whoV reageer retweet

twitter:

AshaRangappa_ twitterde op zaterdag 28-07-2018 om 05:25:41 I explained the counterintelligence/criminal distinction in this piece. Basically, the next time someone says, "Collusion is not a crime," the appropriate response should be, "You're right. It's worse." https://t.co/gvHIA5ENlS reageer retweet

quote:

Rudy Giuliani told me that President Trump is fed up with Robert Mueller and wants him to "put up or shut up."

What he's saying: "Why don't you write a report and show us what you have, because they don't have a goddamn thing. It's like a guy playing poker. He's bluffing and he's only got a pair of twos."

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 16:21:41 Mueller has indicted 32 people and 3 Russian companies. He has secured 5 guilty pleas. That's something. https://t.co/77dyW1tHUc reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 16:40 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Rudy on Mueller probe: "They don't have a goddamn thing"

[..]

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 16:21:41 Mueller has indicted 32 people and 3 Russian companies. He has secured 5 guilty pleas. That's something. https://t.co/77dyW1tHUc reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 16:41 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Wat is dan het probleem?

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 16:50:04 Russia's requests to Interpol to issue Red Notices—the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today—against Kremlin opponents are being met with increasing deference by the Department of Homeland Security, The Atlantic reports. https://t.co/iNW5dSPauW reageer retweet

quote:

Russia’s requests to Interpol for Red Notices—the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant—against Kremlin opponents are being met with increasing deference by the Department of Homeland Security.

After seven months in prison, Sasha—whose full name is being withheld by The Atlantic at his lawyer’s request—pleaded guilty without knowing why. In court weeks later, Russian prosecutors revealed the substantive case against him for the first time: Sasha, along with two others, had been accused and convicted of kidnapping someone, holding him in an apartment, and beating him repeatedly with a hammer. Sasha maintains that he never learned who the alleged victim was—no photo was ever submitted into the criminal record. But he served a brief prison sentence and was released on probation in December 2012, at which point he fled to the United States on a B-2 tourist visa and applied for asylum at the end of 2013.

In October 2017, Sasha and his wife were driving to work in Atlanta when they were pulled over by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. They told Sasha that the International Criminal Police Organization, or Interpol, had issued a Red Notice at Russia’s behest, alerting authorities that he had violated the terms of his probation by traveling to the U.S. years earlier.

Much attention has been paid to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the fear of a repeat in the upcoming midterms. Less examined, however, has been Russia’s abuse of Interpol and the American court system to persecute the Kremlin’s rivals in the United States—a problem that the Atlantic Council described in a recent report as another form of “interference” by Russia. Russia’s requests to Interpol to issue Red Notices—the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today—against Kremlin opponents are being met with increasing deference by the Department of Homeland Security, according to immigration attorneys and experts in transnational crime and corruption with whom I spoke.

Interpol cannot compel any member country to arrest an individual who is the subject of a Red Notice, according to its guidelines, and “the United States does not consider a Red Notice alone to be a sufficient basis for the arrest of a subject because it does not meet the requirements for arrest under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution,” according to the Justice Department. But the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. immigration courts are effectively facilitating “backdoor extraditions,” as one immigration attorney said, in their reliance on Red Notices as a basis for detention and, ultimately, removal.

SPOILER

Brendan Raedy, a spokesman for ice, told me that it is the agency’s “responsibility to carefully vet any alleged Russian criminal violator that has come to the United States, and make the very best and most educated determination of whether the individual is indeed a criminal: Do they present an ongoing threat, are they fleeing criminal prosecution, or have they lied about their criminal activity in order to gain entry to the United States?” Raedy noted that ice has attaché offices who vet “criminal/fugitive leads to ensure that the individual in question is a true criminal, and not simply a political target of those in power.”

“Only after completing this process and determining which individuals are clearly the targets of legitimate criminal investigations do we then prioritize which of these criminals to pursue for either criminal investigation or deportation,” Raedy said. LaTonya Turner, Interpol Washington’s communications chief, declined to comment.

But Michelle Estlund, a criminal defense attorney who focuses on Interpol defense work, told me, “There is a disconnect between our decision to not have an extradition treaty with Russia and the decision to allow Russia to circumvent the extradition process using Red Notices. The effect is that we are removing people to countries that we would not normally extradite to.”

Sasha was initially detained on the basis of overstaying his visa, according to court records. DHS ultimately argued that he was not eligible for asylum because he had been convicted of “a particularly serious crime” in Russia—one that Sasha and his lawyer had argued was politically motivated, as criminal charges in Russia so often are. Despite an immigration judge’s finding that Sasha “testified credibly” with regard to his fears of political persecution, the court denied his request for asylum and ordered him “removed to Russia” in early June. He is still in detention, and his lawyer, Danielle Claffey, is fighting the decision.

“It was the worst asylum denial I have ever seen in the 10 years I have been doing this,” Claffey told me. Louise Shelley, the founder and director of the Terrorism, Transnational Crime, and Corruption Center at George Mason University who testified in the case as an expert witness, called the decision “a travesty.”

“For all the years that I studied and worked with Russian experts within the law enforcement apparatus and the human rights community, Kalmykia was known as one of the locales with the most abusive of the legal systems,” Shelley wrote in her expert testimony for Sasha’s case. “It was particularly harsh on members of the Yabloko party that represented a political opposition and a voice of integrity in Russian politics … The liberal Yabloko party of which [Sasha] is a member has reported multiple cases of intimidation, threat and use of physical force, fabrication of criminal cases against its members, and even the outright murders of their activists.”

Two other Russian nationals currently being detained in the U.S. on the basis of a Red Notice argue that DHS and the immigration courts have relied exclusively on Russian charges—which they contend are politically motivated—to keep them detained and deny them bond hearings.

Alexey Kharis, the head of the construction company ZAO Rosdorsnabzhenie, based in the Russian port city of Vladivostok, fled to the U.S. from Russia in 2013 and applied for asylum after the Kremlin seized his private assets and bankrupted his company in a practice known as corporate raiding. This has been “the norm in Russia since the beginning of Putin’s reign,” according to the Atlantic Council. Then, in 2015, Russian authorities accused Kharis and his business partner, Igor Borbot, of massive fraud and put out a Red Notice for their arrests.

Kharis’ B-2 tourist visa was revoked in March 2017 because of the Red Notice: Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determined that there was “reason to believe,” based on the Russian accusations against him, that Kharis had committed money laundering, according to a copy of the decision letter that I obtained. Still hoping for asylum, he traveled to the DHS asylum office in August 2017 to receive a formal decision. He was immediately detained by ice because he had overstayed his visa, according to court records. He has been held at the West County Detention Facility in Richmond, California, ever since.

“ice can technically detain anyone in proceedings,” said an immigration lawyer who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with reporters. “However, it’s extremely unusual for them to do so in the case of a mere visa overstay.”

Under Donal Trump’s administration, ice has been cracking down on visa overstays. Meanwhile, the Justice Department and DHS have relied on Red Notices to “bulk out their list of so-called criminals to arrest and remove” since at least June 2015, according to Ted Bromund, an expert witness in the Kharis case who works at the Heritage Foundation. “Some of these individuals are indeed criminals, and fully deserve to be deported,” Bromund told me. “But as the abuse of Interpol by Russia and other nations has increased, DHS and DOJ have more and more put themselves in the position of doing Vladimir Putin’s dirty work for him by using his abusive Red Notices as the basis for arresting dissidents and businessmen who fled to the U.S. after they fell foul of Putin’s regime.”

In Kharis’s case, DHS used the Interpol Red Notice requested by Russia and a letter from the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation to argue that Kharis is an “international fugitive” who presents a serious flight risk. In other words, court filings show that DHS placed significant weight on the Red Notice, despite Russia being “the single most significant abuser of the Interpol system,” Bromund said.

“A Red Notice has no independent evidentiary or probative value,” Bromund wrote in his testimony. “The fact that there was, as of June 4, 2015, a Red Notice on Mr. Kharis proves only that the Russian Federation filled out the appropriate Interpol form.” In its brief on appeal to keep Kharis detained, DHS claimed that “the validity of the arrest warrant is supported by both an INTERPOL Red Notice and a letter from the Russian government,” according to the court filing. But Interpol “makes no independent effort to assess the validity of an arrest warrant,” Bromund noted. “All it requires is a statement that a valid arrest warrant exists.”

Borbot, Kharis’s former business partner, speaking to me from a detention center in New Jersey, told me his last bond hearing was more than two years ago. Like Kharis, Borbot had fled to the U.S., where he was arrested in 2016 for overstaying his visa and kept in detention because of the Red Notice. “I’ve shared a cell with people who were charged with things like assault, or were arrested on weapons charges, who got bond hearings. I’ve never committed a crime in the U.S., and even in Russia it was just a preliminary investigation,” he said. “I was never convicted of anything.” In early May, after submitting materials to a New York immigration court challenging the merits of his Red Notice and requesting a bond hearing, Borbot was told that the court was “unable to adjudicate” the criminal charges he faced in Russia, “and it would be inappropriate for the court to attempt to do so.” The immigration judge added that the court was “unable to make a finding as to the validity of the respondent’s INTERPOL notice.”

Borbot’s Russian attorney traveled to the United States to testify in his immigration case in 2016, but Russian investigators compelled him—and, subsequently, Kharis’s attorney in Russia—to sign a declaration prohibiting them from disclosing the details of the Russian investigation to any third party under the threat of criminal prosecution, according to Kharis’s Interpol attorney, Yuriy Nemets.

Russia’s courts are not known for their transparency or rule of law. Accusations of corruption and bribery are rampant, and fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and even murder are common charges leveled against political dissidents like Sasha and wealthy business owners like Kharis and Borbot, who have been subjected to corporate raiding.

Perhaps the best-known examples of this phenomenon since Putin came to power are the Russian opposition leader Aleksey Navalny; Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the CEO of Yukos, the Russian oil giant; and Bill Browder, the co-founder of Hermitage Capital Management—one of those Putin asked be returned to Russia for questioning during his July 16 summit with Trump in Helinski.

In 2013 and 2014, Navalny was convicted of embezzlement and money laundering in trials widely perceived as attempts to silence him and dampen his political ambitions. Navalny appealed the embezzlement conviction, and the European Court of Human Rights later declared that his right to a fair hearing had been violated. But as he was gearing up for a presidential bid against Putin in 2016, Russia’s supreme court subjected Navalny to a retrial. He was again found guilty, putting his presidential bid in jeopardy because candidates cannot have felony convictions. In October, Europe’s top human-rights court ruled that Navalny’s conviction for money laundering in 2014 had been “arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable,” and ordered Russia to pay him compensation.

Khodorkovsky, the oil tycoon who was once one of the richest men in Russia, was arrested in 2003 and charged with fraud and money laundering aftre a televised meeting with Putin in which he accused high-level Kremlin officials of corruption. The case was widely denounced as politically motivated, and, after nearly a decade in prison, Amnesty International declared him a prisoner of conscience. In 2015, just two days after calling a revolution in Russia “inevitable and necessary,” Khodorkovsky was charged in absentia with involvement in two murders.

Pavel Ivlev, a Russian lawyer who advised Yukos and Khodorkovsky and fled to the U.S. as a refugee in 2005, wrote in expert testimony for Kharis that the case brought against him in Russia was “not different from the politically motivated cases against those who have challenged the Russian ruling elite and its interests in the past.”

Browder, a London-based financier, was charged by Russia in absentia with crimes such as tax evasion and murder after his lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, blew the whistle on a tax-fraud scheme implicating the Kremlin. Magnitsky was subsequently arrested and put in prison, where he died after what Browder says were months of torture. Browder had been the largest portfolio investor in Russia during the early 2000s before he fell out of favor with the Kremlin over his criticism of Russia’s lax corporate-governing standards.

Interpol is not blind to the rising number of politically motivated requests it receives, not only from Russia but also from Turkey, Venezuela, and other countries with little respect for the rule of law. Interpol has repeatedly rejected Russian requests to issue a Red Notice for Browder, deeming them politically motivated. But that hasn’t stopped Russia from issuing less formal “diffusion” notices, which resulted in Browder’s brief detention in Madrid in May.

Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia whose return was also requested by Putin in Helsinki, said after the summit that he wants Trump “to state emphatically that this would be outrageous behavior to go after us—and to do it proactively, now, so that we don’t have to be litigating this when I’m, you know, sitting in Kiev or Lisbon or somewhere and I get a Red Notice.”

In essence, Russia has figured out how to use Interpol and U.S. immigration courts to go after Kremlin rivals. But it doesn’t end there. Anders Aslund, a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who worked as an economic adviser to the Russian government from 1991 to 1994, believes Russia’s efforts to target its rivals abroad goes well beyond Red Notices and to the heart of the U.S. judicial system. “In recent years, Kremlin proxies have exploited U.S. courts by pursuing superficially legitimate lawsuits,” Aslund wrote in a recent report, in order to perpetrate “global harassment campaigns against the Kremlin’s enemies” and “enrich themselves through bad faith claims made possible by the Russian state’s abuse of disfavored individuals and their businesses.”

One such case involving the U.S. federal courts, he and other legal experts say, stands out: In August 2015, the Central Bank of Russia revoked the operating license of the privately owned Probusinessbank, seized its assets, and forced it into bankruptcy. Although the central bank had deemed Probusinessbank financially sound just two months before it was seized, the Russian Deposit Insurance Agency (DIA) was appointed as Probusinessbank’s temporary administrator—and immediately began dividing up its assets to Kremlin-friendly institutions such as B&N Bank.

Probusinessbank’s co-owners, Sergey Leontiev and Alexander Zheleznyak, fled to the U.S. in 2015 after the bank was raided, but the DIA filed two applications for judicial assistance from the Southern District of New York to obtain discovery on them. Leontiev moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that they had been orchestrated by two sanctioned Russian oligarchs close to the Kremlin, but the court denied his motion. While acknowledging its concern “about the legitimacy of these requests,” which was “heightened by the involvement of two sanctioned individuals,” the court reiterated that “the only issue before the district court is discovery; the underlying litigation rests before a foreign tribunal.”

Estlund, the attorney who focuses on Interpol defense work, said, “The problem is that our courts act like, and think, that they are operating on the same type of playing field as the Russians. But they’re not—the system there is completely different from here. And when the courts are properly responding to what appears to be a legally authorized request for assistance with discovery, often what they’re doing is assisting with an extremely corrupt court proceeding.”

A lawyer who has been following this phenomenon closely, and who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press, put it this way: “The Russians have figured out how to weaponize this. We have this tremendous system of justice here which isn’t equipped to address nonjudicial questions, like ‘Is this litigant seeking to abuse our entire judicial system?’”

twitter:

tedlieu twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 17:23:46 Rudy Giuliani is a former prosecutor. He knows that conspiracy is a crime. If anyone on the @realDonaldTrump campaign took even one overt act in furtherance of the Russian hacking attack on American elections in 2016, that would constitute a conspiracy and a felony. https://t.co/vZ2wPB1D37 reageer retweet

twitter:

awprokop twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 16:49:35 Underappreciated: Per Rudy, Cohen claims that before the Trump Tower meeting, five Trump aides met to talk "the strategy of the meeting with the Russians" — and *Rick Gates* was there.https://t.co/MG9WrpKJeq reageer retweet

twitter:

joshtpm twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 16:40:57 This is going to be a pretty problematic admission for Rudes and Trump. I'll explain in a moment. https://t.co/fQkeMjdXVa reageer retweet

twitter:

thehill twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 17:47:59 #BREAKING: Rand Paul announces support for Trump Supreme Court pick after being “undecided” https://t.co/7w8v82xMs0 https://t.co/9RgY1VEc7l reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 18:20:26 Mueller says that Manafort earned more than $60,000,000 as a political consultant in Ukraine, providing the first tally of Manafort's income there according to Bloomberg. https://t.co/PmglcBC4gR reageer retweet

quote:

Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s onetime campaign chairman, earned more than $60 million as a political consultant in Ukraine, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller said on the eve of his criminal trial, providing the first tally of Manafort’s income there.

Prosecutors intend to prove that Manafort made that much and “failed to report a significant percentage of it on his tax returns,” according to a filing by Mueller on Monday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Jury selection begins Tuesday in Manafort’s bank- and tax-fraud trial.

Lawyers for Manafort asked the judge to bar jurors from seeing 51 exhibits detailing his work over a decade in Ukraine, where he advised former President Viktor Yanukovych, his Party of Regions and its successor, the Opposition Bloc. Manafort argued that the 474 pages include “irrelevant, prejudicial and unnecessarily time-consuming evidence.”

But in response, Mueller’s prosecutors said the exhibits proved “the precise manner in which Manafort worked for Ukraine,” including how he worked on the presidential election in 2010 and parliamentary elections in 2012. He also worked on local elections and did political consulting and lobbying work for Yanukovych.

“The documents establish the breadth of the work that Manafort performed, including commissioning television ads, writing speeches and carrying on campaign-related activities,” according to the filing. “There is nothing prejudicial about documents setting forth how the ads were made, how consultants were paid and who approved their work.”

SPOILER

Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s onetime campaign chairman, earned more than $60 million as a political consultant in Ukraine, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller said on the eve of his criminal trial, providing the first tally of Manafort’s income there.

Prosecutors intend to prove that Manafort made that much and “failed to report a significant percentage of it on his tax returns,” according to a filing by Mueller on Monday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Jury selection begins Tuesday in Manafort’s bank- and tax-fraud trial.

Lawyers for Manafort asked the judge to bar jurors from seeing 51 exhibits detailing his work over a decade in Ukraine, where he advised former President Viktor Yanukovych, his Party of Regions and its successor, the Opposition Bloc. Manafort argued that the 474 pages include “irrelevant, prejudicial and unnecessarily time-consuming evidence.”

But in response, Mueller’s prosecutors said the exhibits proved “the precise manner in which Manafort worked for Ukraine,” including how he worked on the presidential election in 2010 and parliamentary elections in 2012. He also worked on local elections and did political consulting and lobbying work for Yanukovych.

“The documents establish the breadth of the work that Manafort performed, including commissioning television ads, writing speeches and carrying on campaign-related activities,” according to the filing. “There is nothing prejudicial about documents setting forth how the ads were made, how consultants were paid and who approved their work.”

Some exhibits also show how some Ukrainian oligarchs paid Manafort through foreign accounts, particularly in Cyprus. The indictment of Manafort said he made “tens of millions” of dollars in Ukraine from 2006 to 2015, moved money from Cyprus to pay U.S. vendors to fund a lavish lifestyle and avoided paying taxes on income by disguising it as loans from offshore shell companies. It said that $75 million flowed through the accounts and that he laundered $30 million.

The emails and memorandums in dispute contain evidence about the identity of sources of income in Ukraine, particularly “the oligarchs who instituted the practice of paying Manafort via foreign accounts,” the filing said.

Although prosecution witnesses will testify about the work Manafort did and how he was paid, it would be “fundamentally unfair” to keep jurors from seeing evidence that corroborates such testimony, according to the filing.

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 18:20 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

thehill twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 17:47:59 #BREAKING: Rand Paul announces support for Trump Supreme Court pick after being “undecided” https://t.co/7w8v82xMs0 https://t.co/9RgY1VEc7l reageer retweet

"Undecided" my ass!

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 17:59 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

awprokop twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 16:49:35 Underappreciated: Per Rudy, Cohen claims that before the Trump Tower meeting, five Trump aides met to talk "the strategy of the meeting with the Russians" — and *Rick Gates* was there.https://t.co/MG9WrpKJeq reageer retweet

Rick Gates!

Rick Gates, Trump Campaign Aide, Pleads Guilty in Mueller Inquiry and Will Cooperate

Beelden in de link:

twitter:

joshtpm twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 16:40:57 This is going to be a pretty problematic admission for Rudes and Trump. I'll explain in a moment. https://t.co/fQkeMjdXVa reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 19:03 schreef Szura het volgende:
Ik snap trouwens niet waarom seniele Rudy zo veel tv-interviews blijft geven, die man doet de zaak zo meer slecht dan goed .

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 18:54 schreef Montov het volgende:

[..]

Een pre-meeting. Dat is nieuw. Blijf graven Mueller.

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 18:14:37 I agree with Josh this is potentially BIG admission.Josh's analysis: https://t.co/o3J9Y1YFN1My add on: Giuliani places Kushner at Russia pre-plan meeting!That puts Kushner at risk of perjury. He testified he didn't know what June 9 meeting was about: https://t.co/1B5ktpNAww https://t.co/TuPlIjRT2X reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 19:14 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Yups en vergeet Kushner niet:

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 18:14:37 I agree with Josh this is potentially BIG admission.Josh's analysis: https://t.co/o3J9Y1YFN1My add on: Giuliani places Kushner at Russia pre-plan meeting!That puts Kushner at risk of perjury. He testified he didn't know what June 9 meeting was about: https://t.co/1B5ktpNAww https://t.co/TuPlIjRT2X reageer retweet

twitter:

amandacarpenter twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 16:10:51 Giuliani claimed 2 important things on CNN today. 1) Collusion isn't a crime and 2) That Trump was not "physically" present at the Trump Tower meeting. But, did Trump have advance knowledge of the meeting and was he briefed afterward? Those are the real questions. reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 19:25 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Dusss....

twitter:

amandacarpenter twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 16:10:51 Giuliani claimed 2 important things on CNN today. 1) Collusion isn't a crime and 2) That Trump was not "physically" present at the Trump Tower meeting. But, did Trump have advance knowledge of the meeting and was he briefed afterward? Those are the real questions. reageer retweet

En heeft Trump 'meegeluisterd'?

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 19:25 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Rudy

quote:

How do you know when the seriousness of the Russia scandal has intensified? When Donald Trump’s allies discover it’s time to move the goal posts again.

Take, for example, National Review’s Andrew McCarthy arguing on Fox News last week that there’s nothing necessarily wrong with the president’s political operation possibly having turned to a foreign adversary to help win an American election.

“Look, I don’t think that it’s bad if campaigns are turning to foreign governments for dirt. It’s not collusion, it’s not something that’s impeachable, it’s icky. But that’s what this is.”

A day later, The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway wrote, “I don’t have a problem [with] getting dirt on election opponents from foreigners.” She added that relying on the Steele dossier is effectively the same thing.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson quickly endorsed the line, telling his viewers, “Nobody is claiming that any information changed hands, though, even if it did, so what?” [Update: Rudy Giuliani went even further this morning. See below.]

This may have been inevitable, but that doesn’t make the new talking point any less pitiful.

First, if receiving campaign assistance from foreign adversaries is perfectly kosher, why has Trump invested so much time and energy lying about it? If the underlying accusation is effectively meaningless, why didn’t the president adopt this line months ago?

Second, those who constantly feel the need to move the goalposts are nearly always the folks losing an argument. The original line from Trump World and its allies was that Russia didn’t attack our elections. The evolution soon followed: OK, maybe Russia did attack, but the Trump campaign wasn’t in communication with our adversaries during their attack. OK, maybe they were in communication, but their talks had nothing to do with the campaign. OK, maybe Team Trump did talk to our adversaries about the campaign during their attack, but is that really so bad?

Please.

As for the comparison between the Steele dossier and the Russian attack, this is so embarrassingly weak, I’m a little surprised the right would take the line seriously. There’s a qualitative difference between a research firm relying on sources to put together an oppo report and a foreign government using military intelligence officers to illegally steal materials and weaponize them in the hopes of putting an ally in power.

Those who see these two activities as identical simply are either deeply confused or they aren’t arguing in good faith.

Update: Though the line from Trump World for months has been that there was “no collusion,” as the Washington Post reported, Rudy Giuliani adopteda very different posture this morning. “I don’t even know if that’s a crime — colluding with Russians,” Giuliani said on CNN. “Hacking is the crime. The president didn’t hack. He didn’t pay for the hacking.”

He added on Fox: “I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime. Collusion is not a crime.”

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 19:28 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Moeten ze dat blocked nr dat Con Jr belde ook eens achterhalen, moet wel bijna Con Sr zijn

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 16:24 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

twitter:

AshaRangappa_ twitterde op zaterdag 28-07-2018 om 05:24:07 On @AC360 tonight explaining that "collusion" doesn't have to rise to a criminal conspiracy: From an intelligence standpoint, anyone who is knowingly and secretly encouraging, facilitating, or participating in a foreign adversary's covert operation against the U.S. *is* colluding https://t.co/56VNJ2whoV reageer retweet

twitter:

AshaRangappa_ twitterde op zaterdag 28-07-2018 om 05:25:41 I explained the counterintelligence/criminal distinction in this piece. Basically, the next time someone says, "Collusion is not a crime," the appropriate response should be, "You're right. It's worse." https://t.co/gvHIA5ENlS reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 20:54 schreef PippenScottie het volgende:
Het is een gevalletje ‘hoe gooi ik mijn reputatie in een paar maanden volledig te grabbel’ van Rudy G.

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 20:51 schreef Mryc het volgende:
Zou Giuliani zijn diploma hebben gehaald op Trump University ?

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 21:12 schreef Montov het volgende:
Trump says he’s willing to meet Iranian President Rouhani without preconditions
https://www.washingtonpos(...)80e1fdf43_story.html

Nobelprijs.

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 23:26 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Trump wil nog een extra 100 Miljard belastingverlaging voor de 0.1%.

Het schijnt mogelijk te zijn buiten het Congres om.

quote:

The Trump administration is considering bypassing Congress to grant a $100 billion tax cut mainly to the wealthy, a legally tenuous maneuver that would cut capital gains taxation and fulfill a long-held ambition of many investors and conservatives.

Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, said in an interview on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit meeting in Argentina this month that his department was studying whether it could use its regulatory powers to allow Americans to account for inflation in determining capital gains tax liabilities. The Treasury Department could change the definition of “cost” for calculating capital gains, allowing taxpayers to adjust the initial value of an asset, such as a home or a share of stock, for inflation when it sells.

“If it can’t get done through a legislation process, we will look at what tools at Treasury we have to do it on our own and we’ll consider that,” Mr. Mnuchin said, emphasizing that he had not concluded whether the Treasury Department had the authority to act alone. “We are studying that internally, and we are also studying the economic costs and the impact on growth.”

Currently, capital gains taxes are determined by subtracting the original price of an asset from the price at which it was sold and taxing the difference, usually at 20 percent. If a high earner spent $100,000 on stock in 1980, then sold it for $1 million today, she would owe taxes on $900,000. But if her original purchase price was adjusted for inflation, it would be about $300,000, reducing her taxable “gain” to $700,000. That would save the investor $40,000.

The move would face a near-certain court challenge. It could also reinforce a liberal critique of Republican tax policy at a time when Republicans are struggling to sell middle-class voters on the benefits of the tax cuts that President Trump signed into law late last year.

“At a time when the deficit is out of control, wages are flat and the wealthiest are doing better than ever, to give the top 1 percent another advantage is an outrage and shows the Republicans’ true colors,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “Furthermore, Mr. Mnuchin thinks he can do it on his own, but everyone knows this must be done by legislation.”

SPOILER

Capital gains taxes are overwhelmingly paid by high earners, and they were untouched in the $1.5 trillion tax law that Mr. Trump signed last year. Independent analyses suggest that more than 97 percent of the benefits of indexing capital gains for inflation would go to the top 10 percent of income earners in America. Nearly two-thirds of the benefits would go to the super wealthy — the top 0.1 percent of American income earners.

Making the change by fiat would be a bold use of executive power — one that President George Bush’s administration considered and rejected in 1992, after concluding that the Treasury Department did not have the power to make the change on its own. Larry Kudlow, the chairman of the National Economic Council, has long advocated it.

Conservative advocates for the plan say that even if it is challenged in court, it could still goose the economy by unleashing a wave of asset sales. “No matter what the courts do, you’ll get the main economic benefit the day, the month after Treasury does this,” said Ryan Ellis, a tax lobbyist in Washington and former tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform.

Liberal tax economists see little benefit in it beyond another boon to the already rich.

“It would just be a very generous addition to the tax cuts they’ve already handed to the very wealthy,” said Alexandra Thornton, senior director of tax policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, “and it would play into the hands of their tax advisers, who would be well positioned to take advantage of the loopholes that were opened by it.”

The decades-long push to change the taxation of investment income has spurred a legal debate over the original meaning of the word “cost” in the Revenue Act of 1918, and over the authority of the Treasury Department to interpret the word in regulations.

“I think we ought to look at not penalizing Americans for inflation,” said Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who said he would like to see the Treasury Department make the change through regulation.

Mr. Bush’s Treasury Department determined that redefining “cost” by regulatory fiat would be illegal — a conclusion buttressed by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which found that “cost” means the price that was paid for something.

But conservatives have disputed this conclusion. Pushing Mr. Trump to make the change, Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, has cited a 2002 Supreme Court decision in a case between Verizon Communications and the Federal Communications Commission that said regulators have leeway in defining “cost” to make the case that the Treasury Department can act alone.

“This would be in terms of its economic impact over the next several years, and long term, similar in size as the last tax cut,” Mr. Norquist said, suggesting that making the change would raise revenue for the government by creating new economic efficiencies and faster growth. “I think it’s going to happen and it’s going to be huge.”

He and others said last year’s tax cut would also pay for itself, but despite strong economic growth, corporate tax receipts have plunged and the deficit has soared.

According to the budget model used by the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, indexing capital gains to inflation would reduce government revenues by $102 billion over a decade, with 86 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent. A July report from the Congressional Research Service said that the additional debt incurred by indexing capital gains to inflation would most likely offset any stimulus that the smaller tax burden provided to the economy.

“It is unlikely, however, that a significant, or any, effect on economic growth would occur from a stand-alone indexing proposal,” the report said.

Michael Graetz, a tax law professor at Columbia University who worked in the Treasury Department’s tax policy office when the department determined that taxing capital gains could not be changed by regulation, said he still thought that the decision to change the law should fall to Congress.

He pointed out that the department would have to make decisions about what types of assets would be indexed and that it would essentially be picking winners and losers.

“There’s certainly no legal authority for Treasury to choose what assets to treat this way,” Mr. Graetz said.

Two law professors, Daniel J. Hemel of the University of Chicago and David Kamin of New York University, wrote in a paper last month that states, charities and other entities could sue the Treasury Department if it tried to make the change. Mr. Kamin said in an interview that the change would create opportunities for gaming the tax code, in part because other parts of the code, such as interest payments, would still be unadjusted for inflation.

A framework for a second round of tax cuts, released by the Ways and Means Committee last week, did not address taxation of capital gains. It is highly unlikely that Congress will pass another tax bill this year because of the slim Republican majority in the Senate.

Democratic senators have written to Mr. Mnuchin, urging him to stand down.

“Treasury does not have the unilateral authority to take our tax code and expose it to widespread gamesmanship,” said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee. “Indexing capital gains under this regime is a boondoggle for the rich, plain and simple.”

A Treasury Department official wrote Mr. Wyden a two-paragraph reply this month. “We appreciate your taking the time to express the thoughts outlined in the letter,” it read. “We will take them under advisement.”

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 23:26 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Trump wil nog een extra 100 Miljard belastingverlaging voor de 0.1%.

Het schijnt mogelijk te zijn buiten het Congres om.

twitter:

joshgerstein twitterde op maandag 30-07-2018 om 23:28:22 BREAKING: On eve of trial, Manafort drops appeal of dismissal of his civil suit challenging Mueller's authority. Doc: https://t.co/2SCoAwDIkj reageer retweet

quote:

U.S. spy agencies are seeing signs that North Korea is constructing new missiles at a factory that produced the country’s first intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States, according to officials familiar with the intelligence.

Newly obtained evidence, including satellite photos taken in recent weeks, indicates that work is underway on at least one and possibly two liquid-fueled ICBMs at a large research facility in Sanumdong, on the outskirts of Pyongyang, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe classified intelligence.

The findings are the latest to show ongoing activity inside North Korea’s nuclear and missile facilities at a time when the country’s leaders are engaged in arms talks with the United States. The new intelligence does not suggest an expansion of North Korea’s capabilities but shows that work on advanced weapons is continuing weeks after President Trump declared in a Twitter posting that Pyongyang was “no longer a Nuclear Threat.”

The reports about new missile construction come after recent revelations about a suspected uranium enrichment facility, called Kangson, that North Korea is operating in secret. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged during Senate testimony last week that North Korean factories “continue to produce fissile material” used in making nuclear weapons. He declined to say whether Pyongyang is building new missiles.

During a summit with Trump in June, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un agreed to a vaguely worded pledge to “work toward” the “denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula. But since then, North Korea has made few tangible moves signaling an intention to disarm.

Instead, senior North Korean officials have discussed their intention to deceive Washington about the number of nuclear warheads and missiles they have, as well as the types and numbers of facilities, and to rebuff international inspectors, according to intelligence gathered by U.S. agencies. Their strategy includes potentially asserting that they have fully denuclearized by declaring and disposing of 20 warheads while retaining dozens more.

twitter:

thehill twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 03:19:04 Trump legal team writing "counter-report" to discredit Mueller charges https://t.co/NX8iLwSXsU https://t.co/rYb9a9PyvO reageer retweet

quote:

The former top human resources official at FEMA is facing disturbing sexual misconduct allegations, ones that encompass both his personal relationships and his hiring and management decisions.

An internal, seven-month investigation found that Corey Coleman, the former chief component human capital officer, transferred female FEMA employees to different departments or regional offices within the agency so that his male colleagues could attempt to have sexual relationships with them, reports the Washington Post’s Lisa Rein, who obtained an executive summary of the preliminary investigation.

The report also found that Coleman hired his male friends for positions; that he hired and promoted women he met at bars and on dates to work in FEMA outside normal hiring protocols; and that he had sexual relationships with at least two subordinates, one in 2015, and another in 2017-’18. One woman said he created a position for her at the agency for which she was unqualified. Another said when she tried to end her relationship with Coleman, he attempted to retaliate, according to the Post:

Both women accompanied him on work trips, but one had no official duties on the trips. When the first woman ended the relationship, Coleman pressured her for dates — then denied her a promotion and tried to fire her, she told FEMA investigators. She said she kept her job by telling him she might be willing to go on dates with him again, according to the preliminary report.

Coleman joined FEMA in June 2011, and in his most recent role, oversaw the agency’s entire staff and all of its 10 regional offices, according to the Post. He resigned last month, on June 18, before investigators could interview him about the sexual harassment and misconduct violations. The allegations in the report against Coleman date back to at least 2015.

“What we uncovered was a systemic problem going back years,” FEMA Administrator William “Brock” Long told the Washington Post, adding that the allegations against Coleman may include possible criminality.

Long also said Monday, in a statement, that he was instituting measures to address “lapses in professional responsibility,” including referring the case to the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general and mandating additional training and a review of the agency’s handling of misconduct allegations.

“These allegations are deeply disturbing, and harassment of any kind will not be tolerated at FEMA,” Long said in the statement.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 02:56:16 A highly respected Federal judge today stated that the “Trump Administration gets great credit” for reuniting illegal families. Thank you, and please look at the previous administrations record - not good! reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 08:54 schreef Arcee het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 02:56:16 A highly respected Federal judge today stated that the “Trump Administration gets great credit” for reuniting illegal families. Thank you, and please look at the previous administrations record - not good! reageer retweet

Hij is weer eens trots op het oplossen van een probleem dat hij zelf gecreëerd heeft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 08:54 schreef Arcee het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 02:56:16 A highly respected Federal judge today stated that the “Trump Administration gets great credit” for reuniting illegal families. Thank you, and please look at the previous administrations record - not good! reageer retweet

Hij is weer eens trots op het oplossen van een probleem dat hij zelf gecreëerd heeft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 08:54 schreef Arcee het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 02:56:16 A highly respected Federal judge today stated that the “Trump Administration gets great credit” for reuniting illegal families. Thank you, and please look at the previous administrations record - not good! reageer retweet

Hij is weer eens trots op het oplossen van een probleem dat hij zelf gecreëerd heeft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 08:54 schreef Arcee het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 02:56:16 A highly respected Federal judge today stated that the “Trump Administration gets great credit” for reuniting illegal families. Thank you, and please look at the previous administrations record - not good! reageer retweet

Hij is weer eens trots op het oplossen van een probleem dat hij zelf gecreëerd heeft.

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 16:13 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Fair enough.

Maar:

[..]

Zijn misschien wel strafbaar.

quote:

Sadly it is no exaggeration, no hyperbole, to say that Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared a holy war on LGBT people, LGBT equality, and LGBT rights on Monday.

He declared war on anything that could be perceived to trespass on the "religious freedom" or "religious liberty" of Christians—which is loosely defined enough to be construed as trespassing on pretty much anything he and his allies choose it to mean.

Sessions said this was because there was a “dangerous movement” to erode the Christian right to worship.

There isn’t, of course; it’s an invented bogeyman for a ravenously-pursued ideological crusade. Women, religious minorities, LGBT people: Prepare to fight for your bodies, your rights to worship, your wedding cakes.

Sessions’ announcement of a “Religious Liberty Task Force” at a “Religious Liberty Summit” follows President Trump’s religious liberty executive order of May. It also follows the Department of Health and Human Services' announcement in January of a new “Conscience and Religious Freedom Division” to be housed within the agency’s Office for Civil Rights.

The “Religious Liberty Task Force”—which summons up images of a pirate ship filled with the staffs of the ADF, Liberty Counsel, and Family Research Council, sallying forth and liberating prejudiced bakers everywhere—will apparently ensure that everything Sessions laid out in his “religious liberty” memo of last October is pursued to the letter. That memo outlined how multiple government agencies should seek to uphold “religious liberty” even if it conflicts with existing anti-discrimination policies.

The “task force” will be co-chaired by Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio and Beth Williams, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy.[....]

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 09:44 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

En dan vraag ik me af waarom collusion zo'n big issue is, of heeft dit een beetje te maken met de regels van de grondwet, en niet met criminele activiteiten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 08:54 schreef Arcee het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 02:56:16 A highly respected Federal judge today stated that the “Trump Administration gets great credit” for reuniting illegal families. Thank you, and please look at the previous administrations record - not good! reageer retweet

Hij is weer eens trots op het oplossen van een probleem dat hij zelf gecreëerd heeft.

quote:

Op maandag 30 juli 2018 19:14 schreef speknek het volgende:
Interview met Giuliani maar halverwege uitgezet. Geen touw meer aan vast te knopen. Misschien zat ie onder de coke, maar ik vermoed dat ze bij het team inmiddels ook zien dat het hopeloos is, en dat de strategie nu is om zoveel mogelijk FUD te spuien dat de Republikeinse base te verward raakt om boos te zijn als hij zichzelf en zijn familie een pardon geeft.

quote:

Proclaiming himself to be the second coming of Jesus Christ, former South Carolina “Republican” party executive director and social media provocateur Todd Kincannon ritualistically slaughtered a dog inside the Simpsonville, S.C. home where he resides with his parents.

According to police, the 37-year-old attorney and political operative – who gained infamy in recent years for his brash and provocative social media pronouncements – told them he killed the dog because he had received a command from God.

Officers discovered the deceased animal in the kitchen of Kincannon’s parents’ home – located at 216 Jones Avenue in Simpsonville – shortly after 1:30 a.m. EDT on morning of Thursday, July 26.

They arrived on the scene in response to a 9-1-1 call from Kincannon’s father, Jim Kincannon, who told them Kincannon’s mother Roxie Kincannon had “locked herself in (a) bathroom” inside the home because “she was absolutely terrified of Todd because he had killed one of their dogs with his bare hands.”

Upon entering the home, police found “a deceased medium sized brown and black dog” – an animal which “appeared to have suffered numerous stab wounds and was laying in a large pool of blood.”

“Several suspect puncture marks” were observed on the left side of the deceased animal.

Police found a pair of knives in the kitchen sink, which were taken into evidence – along with images of the carnage.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 10:09 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Todd Kincannon Proclaims Himself As Jesus Christ, Slaughters Dog

Ondertussen ergens anders....

[..]

Thoughts & Barks voor de nabestaanden.

quote:

“With current America and these policies, there will definitely not be the possibility of dialogue and engagement,” Bahram Qassemi said at a Tehran news conference, according to The New York Times. “The United States has shown that it is totally unreliable.”

In a tweet responding to Trump’s offer, an adviser to President Rouhani later said Iran would be open for talks only if the U.S. “return[s] to the nuclear deal” and respects “the Iranian nation’s rights,” per a BBC translation.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 11:58 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Trump’s Offer To Meet With Iran Discounted By Tehran And President’s Own Advisers

[..]

Dat antwoord was te verwachten.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 12:14:18 The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. They love my Tax & Regulation Cuts, Judicial picks & more. I made..... reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 12:23:41 ....them richer. Their network is highly overrated, I have beaten them at every turn. They want to protect their companies outside the U.S. from being taxed, I'm for America First & the American Worker - a puppet for no one. Two nice guys with bad ideas. Make America Great Again! reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:16 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 12:14:18 The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. They love my Tax & Regulation Cuts, Judicial picks & more. I made..... reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 12:23:41 ....them richer. Their network is highly overrated, I have beaten them at every turn. They want to protect their companies outside the U.S. from being taxed, I'm for America First & the American Worker - a puppet for no one. Two nice guys with bad ideas. Make America Great Again! reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:36 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Op zich wel respect dat hij het opneemt tegen de gebroeders Koch. Eerlijk is eerlijk.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:38 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Ach ja, als ze terugslaan kan ik het ook wel begrijpen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:36 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Op zich wel respect dat hij het opneemt tegen de gebroeders Koch. Eerlijk is eerlijk.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:41 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Hoewel ik op het gebied van handel niet eens ben met Trump, vind ik het van lef getuigen dat hij op felle toon uitspreekt tegen de belangrijkste geldschieters van de Republikeinen. En laten we wel wezen: op de meeste vlakken zijn die gebroeders Koch een stel nare conservatieve engnekken.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:39 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:
Of het is allemaal voor het gewone volk. Trump ff wat boze tweetjes eruit. De gebroeders Koch even een dealtje ergens diep begraven in papierwerk waardoor het niet opvalt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:44 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Er komt een boek uit van Woodward over, ja Trump.
Vol met info van Deep Throats.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:42 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Als Elmo iets gemeens over hem zegt in Sesamstraat gaat hij klagen over Elmo, in hoeverre hij daar respect voor moet krijgen vraag ik me af.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 10:09 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Todd Kincannon

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:45 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Dan had ik het eerder van Avenatti verwacht.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:47 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Avenatti is een clown, geen onderzoeker.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:49 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Avenatti heeft genoeg zaken gewonnen om geen clown te zijn.

Hij heeft gewoon een prima tactiek. Hij gebruikt Trumptrucjes op Trump en trawanten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:51 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

Maar de beste man is geen onderzoek van het kaliber Woodward.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:36 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Op zich wel respect dat hij het opneemt tegen de gebroeders Koch. Eerlijk is eerlijk.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:58 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Let maar op, deze tweet is weer iets wat deze week vast nog terug gaat komen. Dat hij er nog even bij moet zeggen nooit geld van ze nodig hebt gehad doet mij denken aan die vader van dat meisje in scary movie. Er is een moord gepleegd en de politie staat voor de deur en de vader zegt:

"And the sick bastard planted drugs all over the house!"

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:45 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Dan had ik het eerder van Avenatti verwacht.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:58 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Let maar op, deze tweet is weer iets wat deze week vast nog terug gaat komen. Dat hij er nog even bij moet zeggen nooit geld van ze nodig hebt gehad doet mij denken aan die vader van dat meisje in scary movie. Er is een moord gepleegd en de politie staat voor de deur en de vader zegt:

"And the sick bastard planted drugs all over the house!"

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 12:50:28 Rush Limbaugh is a great guy who truly gets it! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 13:00:41 One of the reasons we need Great Border Security is that Mexico’s murder rate in 2017 increased by 27% to 31,174 people killed, a record! The Democrats want Open Borders. I want Maximum Border Security and respect for ICE and our great Law Enforcement Professionals! @FoxNews reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 13:20:00 Ex-FBI senior official Chuck Rosenberg: "Collusion is a crime — we just happen to call it something else. We call it 'conspiracy.' But it is absolutely a crime." https://t.co/aSc7Inaufl reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:49 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Avenatti heeft genoeg zaken gewonnen om geen clown te zijn.

Hij heeft gewoon een prima tactiek. Hij gebruikt Trumptrucjes op Trump en trawanten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 13:01 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Nee joh, de Kochs hebben vrij opzichtig niks aan hem gedoneerd tijdens de campagne. Dat gebruikt hij nu gewoon om aan te geven dat hij ze toch niet nodig heeft om te winnen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 13:32 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Koch zag de bui al hangen. Slim.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 13:34 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Nee, die vinden Trump gewoon een idioot die wellicht incidenteel wat Republikeinse speerpunten kan regelen maar verder gewoon een ongeleid projectiel is met nogal wat andere opvattingen dan die van hen.

Met slim zijn of buien zien hangen heeft dat verder weinig van doen.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 13:58:58 Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)! reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 14:12 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 13:58:58 Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)! reageer retweet

Hillary heeft dus geen misdaad begaan volgens Trump.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 14:16 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

daar had hij in zijn enthousiasme even geen rekening mee genomen.. met andere woorden: Hij heeft de FBI op grond van Collusion het dak van Hillary Clinton gestuurd en wordt nu geplaagd door de nasleep van die actie.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 14:03:30 I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn’t seem to make much sense! reageer retweet

twitter:

SenSchumer twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 14:31:47 Your administration approved this. What kind of incompetence and dangerous governing is this?And to check with the NRA? Holy moly. https://t.co/MyctYPoci0 reageer retweet

twitter:

adamcbest twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 05:30:57 The Koch Bros just got bashed on Fox News. Can't believe my eyes and ears. Ivy League-educated Laura Ingraham, whose net worth is easily in the tens of millions, attacked them as "elitists." Gotta love it when the right gets so crazy it turns on itself. https://t.co/wWZijNactx reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 14:44 schreef speknek het volgende:
Op Fox News zijn ze nu ook de Koch bros aan het bashen.

twitter:

adamcbest twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 05:30:57 The Koch Bros just got bashed on Fox News. Can't believe my eyes and ears. Ivy League-educated Laura Ingraham, whose net worth is easily in the tens of millions, attacked them as "elitists." Gotta love it when the right gets so crazy it turns on itself. https://t.co/wWZijNactx reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 13:32 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Koch zag de bui al hangen. Slim.

twitter:

PaulaReidCBS twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 14:48:42 JUST IN: No deal. Manafort attorney Kevin Downing tells me “No chance!” his client will cooperate with Special Counsel in order to avoid trial today. @CBSNews reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 13:24 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 13:20:00 Ex-FBI senior official Chuck Rosenberg: "Collusion is a crime — we just happen to call it something else. We call it 'conspiracy.' But it is absolutely a crime." https://t.co/aSc7Inaufl reageer retweet

Ik zou het gezicht van Rudy wel willen zien als hij de aanklachten hoort. "No collusion? Conspiracy you say?But, my....whole....defense....was....based......on....charges...of....collusion....!!!". En Trump die wanhopig twittert dat het veranderen van woorden zo gemeen is.....

Chuck Rosenberg: 'Rudy Giuliani Makes Absolutely No Sense' | MTP Daily | MSNBC

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 15:34:47 The Fake News Media is going CRAZY! They are totally unhinged and in many ways, after witnessing first hand the damage they do to so many innocent and decent people, I enjoy watching. In 7 years, when I am no longer in office, their ratings will dry up and they will be gone! reageer retweet

quote:

BASHING America’s legacy media organisations may be Donald Trump’s most consistent hobby. America’s president has repurposed the term “fake news”, which originally referred to online political-disinformation campaigns, to apply to all unfavourable coverage of his administration, regardless of its veracity. Since his inauguration, he has used the term in 258 different tweets—one out of every 16 messages he has sent on the platform as president.

On July 29th Mr Trump invoked his favourite scapegoat once again. The president described as “very good and interesting” a meeting with the publisher of the New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger, in which he claimed they “spent much time talking about…[how] Fake News has morphed into phrase, ‘Enemy of the People.’” (Mr Sulzberger later said he had implored the president during their meeting to tone down his rhetoric regarding the press, lest it incite violence against journalists.) Shortly thereafter, Mr Trump fired off a series of tweets claiming that the “failing” New York Times and “Amazon” Washington Post —so nicknamed because Amazon’s boss, Jeff Bezos, owns the newspaper—are “dying”, and that “confidence in the media is at an all time low”.

So far, however, Mr Trump’s broadsides have failed to dent faith in his targets. On behalf of The Economist, during the past three years YouGov, a pollster, has asked a representative sample of Americans to rate large American news organisations on a scale from “very trustworthy” to “very untrustworthy”. (We calculate net trustworthiness on a scale of -100 to 100 from a weighted average of “very trustworthy” (100), “trustworthy” (50), “neither trustworthy or untrustworthy” (0), “untrustworthy” (-50) and “very untrustworthy” (-100).) From October 15th 2016, shortly before he was elected, to this month, confidence in Mr Trump’s two most frequently targeted newspapers, the New York Times and Washington Post, has actually grown. During the same period, trust in two media outlets that offer him reliably fawning coverage, Fox News and Breitbart, has withered.

This trend is not only a product of liberal readers flocking to publications criticised by the president they revile. Instead, trust in America’s mainstream print media has improved across the political spectrum. Unsurprisingly, people who said they would or did vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 now trust the Times and Post more, and Fox less, than they did two years ago. Yet even among people who support the president, net trust of Mr Trump’s bêtes noires has increased, albeit by much smaller amounts. Meanwhile, during the past two years, the New York Times’ monthly online readership has doubled to 130m. If anything is failing, it appears to be Mr Trump’s campaign to undermine trust in the press, not the Gray Lady.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 15:38 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 15:34:47 The Fake News Media is going CRAZY! They are totally unhinged and in many ways, after witnessing first hand the damage they do to so many innocent and decent people, I enjoy watching. In 7 years, when I am no longer in office, their ratings will dry up and they will be gone! reageer retweet

Totally unhinged......Oh ja....

Maar zegt hij nou dat hij geniet als onschuldigen worden aangepakt?

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 15:41 schreef Mryc het volgende:

[..]

Hij denkt echt dat hij de komende zeven jaar nog president is

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 15:46 schreef zalkc het volgende:

[..]

Ik vertrouw de gemiddelde Amerikaan volkomen in staat te zijn om hem te herkiezen. Zolang de Democraten geen goede kandidaat hebben maakt hij veel kans.

twitter:

CNNPolitics twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 01:01:53 Former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden surprised a Washington, D.C., bakery when they stopped in for lunch https://t.co/EjTgT8VE1a reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 15:39 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Donald Trump’s attacks on the media may have backfired

Trust in mainstream American newspapers has grown, even among conservatives

[ afbeelding ]

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 17:27 schreef speknek het volgende:

[..]

Het is maar wat voor positieve spin je eraan wil geven hoe kun je nou Breitbart en Fox News 40 tot 60 procentpunten betrouwbaarder achten dan de New York Times, dan ben je toch volkomen van het padje af.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 17:27 schreef speknek het volgende:

[..]

Het is maar wat voor positieve spin je eraan wil geven hoe kun je nou Breitbart en Fox News 40 tot 60 procentpunten betrouwbaarder achten dan de New York Times, dan ben je toch volkomen van het padje af.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 15:39 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Donald Trump’s attacks on the media may have backfired

Trust in mainstream American newspapers has grown, even among conservatives

[ afbeelding ]

[..]

quote:

Over the past three months, a handful of highly placed Russians have discovered their secrets seeping onto the web.

It happened to a Russian Interior Ministry official whose emails were published online in April. It happened again this month, when details about a former Kremlin chief of staff’s American energy investment were exposed by Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

Last week, Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with U.S. President Donald Trump’s son during the 2016 presidential campaign, saw her ties to senior Russian government officials laid bare in an Associated Press investigation .

And the man behind the disclosures tells the AP that more are coming.

A key source for the recent stories has been Russian opposition figure Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s new project, dubbed the Dossier Center . Launched in November, the center is billed as an investigative unit. Its website features a sprawling, interactive diagram of interconnected Russian officials described as the “main beneficiaries” of Russian corruption.

“We have no shortage of material we’re currently evaluating,” Khodorkovsky said in a television interview last week from his office in central London.

SPOILER

The exiled former energy executive is funding the Dossier Center himself and said it was born out of frustration with the inability of journalistic investigations to lead to real change in a Russia dominated by his foe, President Vladimir Putin. He wanted the project to produce more than occasional stories and to gather enough actionable information on the Kremlin’s leadership to bring its members, eventually, to court.

“We understand it’s a long-term ambition,” Khodorkovsky said with a smile.

By his telling, the center gets its data from a series of anonymous digital drop boxes . The leaks carry evidence not only of high-level corruption in Moscow, but of the Kremlin’s “illegal attempts to influence Western public opinion and Western politicians,” he said.

Although the Dossier Center has remained relatively low-profile — the group barely had more than 100 followers on Twitter as of early Tuesday — the recent stories it helped feed have attracted attention, and reporters have begun making their way to the center’s door.

If Khodorkovsky’s business model — to receive leaked data anonymously and share it with journalists — sounds a bit like the early days of WikiLeaks, Dossier Center staff members bristle at any comparison.

The Dossier Center says it rejects the indiscriminate information dumps that made WikiLeaks notorious. Its five full-time employees cross-reference incoming data to verify it and sift through files with an eye toward what might help build a legal case or feed a news story.

In any case, Khodorkovsky said his group has a fundamentally different mission than WikiLeaks’.

“Our ambition is not simply to expose information in general, but to use material relating to Putin’s circle and his allies so that they can be put on trial in Russia,” he said.

Khodorkovsky was Russia’s richest man before he was imprisoned in 2005 for tax evasion in what was largely seen as the Kremlin’s payback for his political ambitions. Putin pardoned him a few weeks before the 2014 Winter Olympics got underway in Sochi, but the feud lives on. From exile, Khodorkovsky supports an array of civil society groups in Russia, where authorities continue to investigate him on a variety of charges.

The Russian Embassy in London said in response to a question about Khodorkovsky’s project that rooting out corruption was one of Moscow’s top priorities. In an email, it invited anyone “who has data on corruption” to contact Russian authorities.

Khodorkovsky said the Dossier Center’s laser focus on changing Russia meant his group would avoid taking sides in American or European politics, even if it came across evidence of Russian government interference.

“If we receive information about Kremlin meddling, then we’ll provide that information regardless of the side it took,” he said. “The question is: ‘Was it lawful or unlawful?’ and that’s it.”

The provenance of the Dossier Center’s data remains a mystery. Khodorkovsky said some of his sources — the ones that asked for money — identified themselves, but many others didn’t. At least one of the Russians exposed by the center’s work, Veselnitskaya, has alleged the emails Khodorkovsky’s group relied on had been hacked.

The murkiness of the material’s origin does not in and of itself disqualify the center as a source, said Frederik Obermaier, a senior investigative reporter with the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung who shared a Pulitzer Prize last year for his role in the Panama Papers tax haven revelations .

“If I came to the conclusion that it’s authentic and it’s in the public interest, I would — with a certain and important portion of caution — try to work with the material,” he said in a telephone interview.

At the same time, Obermaier said he would give his readers “all the facts that I have about the origin of the data — all the facts that I can put out in public without putting the sources at risk.”

Transparency about where leaked data comes from has shot up the media’s agenda following the 2016 U.S. election hacks. Some argue that American journalists were manipulated into publishing stories based on hacked material and did not pay enough attention to the motives of the people releasing it. An anguished debate on the propriety of relying on material that mysteriously appears in the public domain has ensued.

The question is a fraught one for Khodorkovsky, too.

Data obtained by the AP last year from the cybersecurity firm Secureworks show he and his entourage were repeatedly targeted by the same group — allegedly Russian military intelligence officers — that humbled U.S. Democrats in 2016. Several batches of emails from people within Khodorkovsky’s orbit were subsequently published to a now-defunct Russian-language leak site in an apparent bid to sully their reputations.

But even having been hit by hackers doesn’t mean Khodorkovsky rules out accepting documents from them.

He told the AP he would weigh such material on its merits, suggesting that the brutal environment of Russian politics, where opponents of the government can be gunned down and poisoned, didn’t leave much room for squeamishness.

“I’ll say this to you, weighing it up in my own moral balance. If I think that this information might prevent such things from happening then I don’t give a damn how it was obtained,” he said.

quote:

Facebook announced on Tuesday that it has identified a coordinated political influence campaign, with dozens of inauthentic accounts and pages that are believed to be engaging in political activity ahead of November’s midterm elections, according to three people briefed on the matter.

In a series of briefings on Capitol Hill this week, the company told lawmakers that it detected the influence campaign on Facebook and Instagram as part of its investigations into election interference. It has been unable to tie the accounts to Russia, whose Internet Research Agency was at the center of an indictment earlier this year for interfering in the 2016 election, but company officials told Capitol Hill that Russia was possibly involved, according to two of the officials.

“We’re still in the very early stages of our investigation and don’t have all the facts — including who may be behind this,” the company said in a statement. “But we are sharing what we know today given the connection between these bad actors and protests that are planned in Washington next week.”

In its statement, Facebook said that it first discovered the accounts — eight Facebook pages, 17 Facebook profiles, and seven Instagram accounts — two weeks ago.

The company has been working with the F.B.I. to investigate the activity.

SPOILER

Like the Russian interference campaign in 2016, the recently detected campaign dealt with divisive social issues. Facebook discovered coordinated activity around issues like a sequel to last year’s deadly “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va. Specifically, a page called “Resisters,” which interacted with one Internet Research Agency account in 2017, created an event called “No Unite the Right 2 — DC” to serve as a counterprotest to the white nationalist gathering, scheduled to take place in Washington in August. Facebook said it disabled the event.

How Russian Bots Invade Our Elections

Coordinated activity was also detected around #AbolishICE, a left-wing campaign on social media that seeks to end the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, according to two people briefed on the findings.

That echoed efforts in 2016 to fan division around the Black Lives Matter movement.

After being caught flat-footed by the Internet Research Agency’s efforts to use social media to sow division ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Facebook is trying to avoid a repeat disaster in 2018. The company has expanded its security team, hiring counterterrorism experts and recruiting workers with government security clearances.

The company is using artificial intelligence and teams of human reviewers to detect automated accounts and suspicious election-related activity. It has also tried to make it harder for Russian-style influence campaigns to use covert Facebook ads to sway public opinion, by requiring political advertisers in the United States to register with a domestic mailing address and by making all political ads visible in a public database.

On a conference call with reporters earlier this month, Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, declined to directly answer multiple questions about whether the company had detected additional Russian information campaigns.

“We know that Russians and other bad actors are going to continue to try to abuse our platform — before the midterms, probably during the midterms, after the midterms, and around other events and elections,” Mr. Gleicher said. “We are continually looking for that type of activity, and as and when we find things, which we think is inevitable, we’ll notify law enforcement, and where we can, the public.”

American intelligence and law enforcement officials have been warning for months that Russia’s efforts to undermine American democracy remain active and pose a threat to this year’s elections. If in fact Russian, the activity would provide vivid evidence that the kind of cyber operations used around the 2016 campaign were still in use.

“We think it’s inevitable that we will find evidence, and we will find other actors, whether these are from Russia, from other countries, or domestic actors that are looking to continue to try and abuse the platform,” Mr. Gleicher said.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:41 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Hoewel ik op het gebied van handel niet eens ben met Trump, vind ik het van lef getuigen dat hij op felle toon uitspreekt tegen de belangrijkste geldschieters van de Republikeinen. En laten we wel wezen: op de meeste vlakken zijn die gebroeders Koch een stel nare conservatieve engnekken.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 12:46 schreef speknek het volgende:

[..]

Wat is dat toch met Alt-reich internet celebrities die na hun dertigste nog bij hun ouders wonen en doordraaien.

https://www.buzzfeednews.(...)ttle4truth-alt-right

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 18:47 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Facebook Has Identified Ongoing Political Influence Campaign

[..]

SPOILER

Even terzijde dit is volkomen een anachronisme, games waren in de begintijd vrij populair bij vrouwen en kunstzinnige types, en vooral kinderen, maar die zijn op een gegeven moment verdrongen door de PlayStation generatie, puberjongens met een nerdinslag

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 20:52 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Nog een stukje realisme omtrent handelsakkoorden:
https://buff.ly/2OuOACY

twitter:

jjouvenal twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 18:28:29 Manafort jury pool so far: Largely white, appears to be well-educated, and have gov connections -- not surprising for Northern Virginia. Attorneys, software developers and other government workers in mix. reageer retweet

twitter:

jjouvenal twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 19:56:51 BREAKING: Jury is seated in Paul Manafort trial. It will be six men and six women with 4 alternates. The alternates are 3 women and 1 man. reageer retweet

quote:

Flynn, Comey, and Mueller: What Trump Knew and When He Knew It

Previously undisclosed evidence in the possession of Special Counsel Robert Mueller—including highly confidential White House records and testimony by some of President Trump’s own top aides—provides some of the strongest evidence to date implicating the president of the United States in an obstruction of justice. Several people who have reviewed a portion of this evidence say that, based on what they know, they believe it is now all but inevitable that the special counsel will complete a confidential report presenting evidence that President Trump violated the law. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel’s work, would then decide on turning over that report to Congress for the House of Representatives to consider whether to instigate impeachment proceedings.

(..)

I have learned that a confidential White House memorandum, which is in the special counsel’s possession, explicitly states that when Trump pressured Comey he had just been told by two of his top aides—his then chief of staff Reince Priebus and his White House counsel Don McGahn—that Flynn was under criminal investigation.

(..)

In arguing in their January 29 letter that Trump did not obstruct justice, the president’s attorneys Dowd and Sekulow quoted selectively from this same memo, relying only on a few small portions of it. They also asserted that even if Trump knew there had been an FBI investigation of Flynn, Trump believed that Flynn had been cleared. Full review of the memo flatly contradicts this story.

The memo’s own statement that Trump was indeed told that Flynn was under FBI investigation was, in turn, based in part on contemporaneous notes written by Reince Priebus after discussing the matter with the president, as well as McGahn’s recollections to his staff about what he personally had told Trump, according to other records I was able to review. Moreover, people familiar with the matter have told me that both Priebus and McGahn have confirmed in separate interviews with the special counsel that they had told Trump that Flynn was under investigation by the FBI before he met with Comey.

(..)

The February 15 memo, combined with accounts given to the special counsel by Priebus and McGahn, constitutes the most compelling evidence we yet know of that Donald Trump may have obstructed justice. In an effort to persuade the American people that the president has done nothing wrong, Trump and his supporters have blamed those they identify as their political adversaries—from President Barack Obama to Jim Comey, and including entire institutions such as the FBI and CIA, and an ill-defined “Deep State.” But the most compelling evidence that the president may have obstructed justice appears to come from his own most senior and loyal aides. The greatest threat to his presidency is not from his enemies, real or perceived, but from his allies within the White House.

https://www.nybooks.com/d(...)and-when-he-knew-it/

twitter:

lawfareblog twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 20:22:18 In a letter to @benjaminwittes, the Justice Department formally acknowledged that the President of the United States lied in a speech to Congress. https://t.co/DyU4WOYeUK reageer retweet

twitter:

JeffFlake twitterde op zondag 29-07-2018 om 19:20:26 Sunset this evening in rural Zimbabwe. Tomorrow, election day, marks a new day for this beautiful country. reageer retweet

twitter:

JamesHasson20 twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 01:14:28 Here is the upshot of what Flake is doing:Mitch McConnell kept the Senate in session in August (instead of recessing), so they could confirm Trump's judicial nominees, but Flake took his own recess for most of August. He's on judiciary, so now they can't confirm the judges. reageer retweet

twitter:

byrdinator twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 22:17:37 Senate Judiciary spox responds: "The Committee doesn’t have a markup this week and then goes into recess, so this won’t be an issue. As evidenced by today's confirmation... we don’t have any indication that Sen. Flake’s absence will impede consideration of judicial nominations." https://t.co/JCKADGxM8P reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 23:02 schreef FlipjeHolland het volgende:
Iedereen doet hier alsof Trump's laatste uur elke dag geslagen is, maar iedere keer weet 'ie zich er toch weer uit te lullen. Die vent gaat gewoon lekker die vier jaar volmaken en als het een beetje meezit mag 'ie van die domme hamburgervreters nog eens vier jaar aan de bak.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 23:04 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Nee dat doet niet iedereen hier en nee hij lult zich niet elke keer weer ergens uit, want het onderzoek van Mueller is nog steeds in volle gang.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 23:07 schreef FlipjeHolland het volgende:

[..]

Dat onderzoek levert helaas nog niet veel dikke vissen op. Een paar guppies tot nog toe. Het wordt hoog tijd dat Mueller eens met echte resultaten komt, en het liefst voor de nieuwe verkiezingen.

quote:

En dan nog... Iedereen heeft de hoop gevestigd dat Mueller de enige is die Trump ten val kan brengen, maar wie zegt dat 'ie dit ook niet overleeft? Trump is rasnarcist, die weet precies hoe 'ie de mensen moet bespelen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 23:23 schreef speknek het volgende:
Ik denk dat als de Dems in de midterms de house en Senate flippen, dat Trump niet de vier jaar vol gaat houden. Als ze dat niet doen, dan wel. Zo simpel is het volgens mij gewoon. Trump gaat niet voor iets van deze federale aanklachten de bak in, want hij pardont zichzelf en zijn familie, maar hij kan nog wel impeached worden.
Als Mueller dus enige politieke gogme heeft, en ik denk dat hij dat heeft, brengt hij de volledige aanklacht pas na de midterms (Of anders de zaak), maar lekt hij genoeg in de tussentijd om de Dems te helpen.

Oh en de campagneleider, national security advisor en naar het zich laat aanzien Don Jr geen grote vissen? Please.

twitter:

mahoneysthename twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 23:11:39 .@Acosta is trying to do a stand-up at #trumptampa and the crowd is booing and chanting “CNN sucks” behind him. https://t.co/XiULajB1Li reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 23:34 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Senate zou echt heel fijn zijn, maar het House is het belangrijkst. Dan kan er namelijk ook op politiek niveau een onderzoek gehouden worden, en dat zou heel veel bewijs tegen Trump kunnen opleveren en ook (niet onbelangrijk) betekenen dat dat bij het publiek bekend zou worden. Dat kan het laatste zetje in approval zijn waardoor de Republikeinen (ook in de Senaat) hem niet meer willen verdedigen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 23:46 schreef FlipjeHolland het volgende:
https://www.spectator.co.(...)igation-on-its-head/

quote:

From time to time I've been catching up with a Republican strategist who is trying to help the GOP keep control of the House in this November's midterm elections. It's been an up-and-down ride.

"I would put the odds of keeping the House at exactly 50-50," he told me in January.

"I get how bad things seemingly are," he said during a particularly tumultuous time in April. "But if the election were today, I'd bet my son's college tuition we'd keep the House."

He was even more confident by June. "We keep the House," he told me. "I'd bet a lot of money on that."

And now: "The last 30 days have been really bad. I really wouldn't want to have the election today."

Looking back, each change in the strategist's mood has been the result of whatever President Trump was doing at that particular moment. His current anguish is the product of what he called "30 days of sh-t." By that, he meant the period of time beginning with Trump's decision to separate families crossing illegally into the United States and ending with his performance at the Helsinki summit.

Both hurt Republicans, the strategist said, but probably the Trump-Putin summit hurt more. When the president met with North Korea's Kim Jong Un, he said, many Republican-targeted voters saw a certain method in the madness. It actually helped GOP candidates. But when Trump met Vladimir Putin, those voters didn't see the method part.

If the past is any lesson, memories will fade. But the problem going forward is that as future Trumpian incidents occur, Republicans will have less and less time to recover before Nov. 6.

"The next couple of weeks/months are critical in that we have had peaks and valleys before, but they always got fixed," the strategist said. "The fear is that we're running out of time and maybe they won't get fixed."

SPOILER

Perhaps the biggest underlying question of the coming elections is the relationship between presidential job approval and House GOP's re-election chances. It's often observed that Trump is keeping the favor of his base supporters. He is. But Republican strategists are watching his approval sink in some educated, affluent congressional districts with lots of independent voters the party needs to hold the House.

That undoubtedly hurts Republican candidates. "The Trump numbers, I don't know what to make of," said another GOP strategist working on the midterm elections. "It's not that his job approval ratings are good — they're not good — but we're not sure what role they play."

The second GOP strategist pointed to the economy, a subject of lots of undeniably good news. But whatever happy stories there are about growth and the stock market, he said, "It's still income and wages."

"With over half the country living paycheck-to-paycheck, the question for them is, is there enough improvement occurring that they can see themselves beginning to break out of that paycheck-to-paycheck cycle? If the answer is yes, that's a positive environment for Republicans. If the answer is no, then they [voters] are going to be willing to rock the boat again. I don't believe they have reached a conclusion yet."

Right now, the RealClearPolitics average of polls has Democrats up 7.3 percentage points in the so-called generic ballot question, which asks which party a voter plans to choose for his or her representative in Congress. That Democratic lead might be a little high; it could be skewed a bit by a recent Quinnipiac poll that found Democrats with a 12-point lead, which is four points higher than any other recent poll. But in any event, Democrats have long had the advantage this cycle; look at a graph of the polling average, and the blue line, on top, and the red line, on bottom, have never come close to meeting.

Many Republican strategists would feel comfortable about keeping the House if the Democratic poll lead were kept to four, or perhaps five, points. But it appears higher than that.

"Most of the data would lead a sober person to expect control of the House to be a 50-50 proposition, maybe a little worse for Republicans," said a third GOP strategist. "But most of the data at this time last election cycle led most of the pundits to celebrate President Hillary Clinton. I'm starting to think that this could be another instance where the group-think is wrong."

Maybe. But Republicans face a huge task. In a way, there has already been a wave in this election. It is the wave of 42 Republicans leaving the House. It's a record number, and there's no way to spin it as optimism for the future.

Still, all three strategists are keeping hope alive. Even the first strategist, rattled after those 30 bad days, sees the problems of the Democratic Party and remembers that Nancy Pelosi — just saying the name — is a great motivator for Republicans to get to the polls. Put that together with the Democrats who have embraced the unpopular issue of abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and that's a party a lot of voters do not want to embrace.

So GOP victory remains possible. What Republicans would like now is the absence of noise and distraction coming from the White House.

"We just need a decent level of calmness so we can message," said the first strategist. "If we could just have calmness, we could talk about the economy and ICE. And if we could talk about the economy and ICE, we'd be fine."

twitter:

AP twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 00:17:15 BREAKING: Federal judge issues temporary restraining order stopping release of downloadable blueprints for 3D-printed guns reageer retweet

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 00:18:43 We also got the first glimpse of Manafort’s defense strategy: the argument that Mueller’s mandate was too broad has been thrown out the window, and Gates has been thrown under the bus. https://t.co/gxoPEO7rTr reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 00:50:00 Robert Mueller has reportedly referred a collection of cases to New York federal prosecutors concerning whether several high-profile American lobbyists and operatives failed to register their work as foreign agents. https://t.co/Vphci9Gg5M reageer retweet

twitter:

AshaRangappa_ twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 23:44:59 I love that the Trumpers believe it is SO UNFAIR for Manafort to be punished for things he did a decade ago -- but it's totally OK to arrest undocumented kids who were brought to this country when they were 2yo decades later for "breaking the law" 🙄 https://t.co/5gkeYESoBK reageer retweet

quote:

Federal investigators say some of the money went to Maria Butina’s campaign to help Russia infiltrate American politics.

A $45,000 payment to an undisclosed law firm. A cash withdrawal for $14,000. Almost $90,000 sent to or from a Russian bank. These and other bank transactions totaling nearly $300,000, none of which have been made public, offer the first detailed look at how an accused foreign agent and a Republican operative financed what prosecutors say was a Russian campaign to influence American politics.

Anti-fraud investigators at Wells Fargo flagged the transactions — by Paul Erickson, a conservative consultant from South Dakota, and Maria Butina, who is in jail awaiting trial on charges of secretly acting as a Russian agent — as “suspicious,” noting in some cases that they could find no “apparent economic, business, or lawful purpose” to explain them. Now counterintelligence officers say the duo’s banking activity could provide a road map of back channels to powerful American entities such as the National Rifle Association, and information about the Kremlin’s attempt to sway the 2016 US presidential election.

Cash withdrawals, most of them from Erickson’s personal and business accounts, make up $107,000 of the financial transactions now being investigated. The largest of those withdrawals — $14,000 — occurred in December 2015, when Erickson reportedly traveled to Moscow as part of an NRA delegation. The visit was sponsored by a Russian gun rights organization started by Butina, federal authorities say.

The duo also deposited about $90,000 in cash in their accounts, which has made it difficult for investigators to determine the source or purpose of the funds.

SPOILER

Bank documents indicate Wells Fargo’s anti–money laundering team began checking Butina’s and Erickson’s bank activity in early 2017, after receiving a referral from the FBI. In a report the bank prepared and shared with the bureau and the US Department of the Treasury's financial crimes division, Wells Fargo officials expressed suspicion about the “significant control” Erickson had over Butina’s account. He had access, Wells Fargo found, to her personal checking account, which she opened in 2014. He frequently made payments on her behalf; the recipients have not been identified. He sometimes appeared to write checks that Butina signed. The bank closed the duo’s personal and business accounts in late 2017.

Erickson did not return a message left on his cellphone or detailed emails seeking comment. He has not been charged with wrongdoing.

Bank officials could find no “apparent economic, business, or lawful purpose” for the transactions.

Among the suspicious transactions cited by the bank and federal investigators:

• About $89,000 passed between Erickson’s US accounts and one held by Butina at Russia’s Alfa Bank. In 2014, Erickson received $8,000 from Butina’s Alfa account. Between June 2016 and March 2017, Erickson sent a dozen wires to her Alfa account totaling $27,000.

• About $93,000 was sent or received during a single four-month period — from May to August 2017, after Butina had arrived in the US and was attending graduate school at American University in Washington, DC. Bank officials discovered wires, checks, transfers, and cash deposits totaling that amount, including checks made out to cash, between the duo’s accounts last year.

• In June and July 2017, Erickson wired $45,000 to an unidentified law firm in Washington on Butina’s behalf. It is not known why Butina retained an attorney at that point, and her current lawyer, Robert Driscoll, told BuzzFeed News that his firm was not the recipient of the money.

• Last summer, Erickson sent two wires for $15,000 to a California company established by the son and brother of Jack Abramoff, a disgraced former lobbyist who is Erickson’s longtime friend, political ally, and business partner. The company, Landfair Capital Consulting, was incorporated in March 2017. Abramoff’s son, Alex, a recent college graduate, is the CEO and sole director; Abramoff’s brother, Robert, is the registered agent. Because the company was newly established and based out of the home of Alex Abramoff, who does not list it on his public profiles, bank investigators flagged it as a possible shell company established to hide Jack Abramoff’s interests.

Abramoff has not been accused of wrongdoing and neither he, his son, nor his brother returned messages from BuzzFeed News.

Investigators from Wells Fargo flagged dozens of other suspicious transactions involving Butina and Erickson for FBI agents and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes division. Bank investigators told Treasury officials they were suspicious about where the money came from and that they could find no “apparent economic, business, or lawful purpose” for the transactions. The cash withdrawals are of particular interest to federal agents, a source with knowledge of the matter told BuzzFeed News.

Last month, Butina was arrested and indicted on charges of “conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign government.” Court documents in the case state that she sought to establish relationships with American political groups, including an unnamed “gun rights organization” believed to be the NRA, as well as US politicians in order to establish a “back channel” line of communication “for representatives of the Government of Russia.” The NRA did not return a message seeking comment. Her attorney, Driscoll, said she is innocent and will fight the charges in court.

In a statement, Driscoll wrote: “The truth is that a review of Ms. Butina’s banking activities will show no illegal, or even remarkable, activity. As she is a Russian national with a Russian bank account, it is hardly surprising that some of her international transactions triggered reports. It is unfortunate that the FBI chose to leak information based on such reports and/or to allow its investigative concerns to become public.”

Getting "the project" off the ground

According to federal prosecutors, Butina began her secret influence campaign in 2014 with the help of an unnamed US political operative. That operative, law enforcement sources told BuzzFeed News, is Erickson.

Court documents say the 29-year-old Butina was romantically involved with Erickson, a 56-year-old political consultant from South Dakota. Bank officials found that he paid her rent, her tuition at American University, and even a monthly furniture bill, and that he received money from individuals described as personal connections. Some of the funds were characterized as “family support.”

But bankers also saw that Erickson was often in dire financial straits. His personal and business accounts were overdrawn by a total of $2,300. He was hit with 77 overdraft fees. He took out payday loans of about $3,000 and had a balance of just $9 in one of his accounts.

Butina, meanwhile, began visiting the US in 2014 and making allies in conservative politics, particularly among guns rights advocates, prosecutors say. In March 2015, according to an email in which the duo discussed what prosecutors describe as a covert influence operation, Erickson told Butina that she would need significant resources to get “the project” off the ground.

She moved to Washington on a student visa in August 2016 and enrolled in a graduate program at American University, a move that was part of her cover story, prosecutors alleged.

But her first known financial transaction with Erickson was much earlier than that. In December 2014, she sent a pair of wires from her Alfa Bank account to Erickson in the US. They totaled $8,000, and Butina noted they were for “grant assistant.” Shortly after the email suggesting that she would need money to get her “special project” off the ground, Erickson sent a dozen wires to her Russian bank account for more than $27,000 and an additional $30,000 to a US account.

The two also appeared to use a company, Bridges LLC, to conduct suspicious transactions. Bank officials said they couldn’t determine the purpose of the company, which was incorporated in South Dakota in February 2016. Butina was listed as the “sole signer” on its checking account, but Erickson wrote and signed checks from it. He told McClatchy that Bridges was formed to help Butina obtain financial assistance for her graduate studies.

Last year their financial activity seemed to escalate.

In summer 2017, the two made about $93,000 in wires, checks, transfers, and cash transactions that were deemed suspicious, including more deposits to Butina’s Russian account. In June and July, Erickson sent two checks labeled “Butina retainer” to a Washington law firm. It appeared to bank examiners that he was filling out checks for her rent and utilities, but she was signing them. She paid a Washington limousine service $5,300.

But during their review, Wells Fargo officials paid close attention to how the duo handled cash. Through March 2017, the two had withdrawn about $107,000 from ATMs, bank branches, and checks made out to cash. Erickson made the vast majority of these withdrawals. Counterintelligence officials said they are trying to learn how the funds were used and whether they played a role in Butina’s suspected operation.

Erickson is also the subject of a federal fraud investigation in South Dakota, and some of the transactions flagged by Wells Fargo pertain to that probe, law enforcement sources told BuzzFeed News. Last week, Driscoll, Butina’s attorney, disclosed a letter from a federal prosecutor offering her a chance to provide any information she has on the “illegal activity of others.”

Erickson has not been charged with a crime.

Torshin’s role

In addition to Erickson’s help in the US, Butina, prosecutors say, had a powerful benefactor back in Russia. Her indictment said that she was communicating with Russian intelligence while here and was “acting at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government.”

That person, federal authorities told BuzzFeed News, is Alexander Torshin — Butina’s former boss, once a member of Russia’s upper house of parliament, and a close confidant of President Vladimir Putin.

In 2015, Torshin was appointed deputy governor of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and Butina was hired as his special assistant. Torshin is believed to have close ties to gun rights activists in the US, and McClatchy reported that the FBI is investigating whether Torshin illegally funneled money to the NRA.

According to her indictment, Butina worked for Torshin until May 2016, and she came to the US on a student visa later that summer. The same month, Spanish authorities reported that Torshin had been laundering money for the Moscow-based Taganskaya crime syndicate.

This year, Torshin was among the Russian oligarchs sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for playing a key role in “advancing Russia’s malign activities.” Law enforcement sources told BuzzFeed News that tens of millions of dollars in his suspicious financial transactions were flagged by Treasury officials working on the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Russian influence.

These transactions included large, round-number wire transfers — a hallmark of money laundering — from Istanbul and Dubai, the sources said. Reports on this suspicious behavior, which do not involve Wells Fargo, were shared with the FBI last year.

BuzzFeed News has also learned that financial dealings by Torshin, Erickson, and Butina were shared with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team and the Senate Intelligence Committee, both of which are investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. It is not clear whether Mueller’s team is involved with the Butina case, which was brought by prosecutors in the national security division.

Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have also requested access to the records of suspicious financial activity by Torshin, Erickson, and Butina.

quote:

'It's more evidence that she had a broader agenda, she was doing other work for the Kremlin,' one observer tells The Daily Beast.

[..]

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 04:24:30 (IMPORTANT) Maria Butina's Russian bank pinged Trump Tower *thousands of times* between May and September 2016. Those pings--along with one other server--made up 99% of *all pings* to Trump Tower during that period.Who owns the other server? Erik Prince's brother-in-law.Really. https://t.co/4udysEORVD reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 04:33:08 I'm ONLY posting this to get cybersecurity experts to weigh in. This is NOT my field; I don't understand this document AT ALL. So I'm asking any experts reading this--is this a plausible theory of the Alfa Bank-Trump Tower pinging, or no? @KimZetter @dakami https://t.co/XSDsxE1dfh reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 23:42 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Trump is onderweg naar een nieuwe rally.

Het publiek draait alvast warm

twitter:

mahoneysthename twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 23:11:39 .@Acosta is trying to do a stand-up at #trumptampa and the crowd is booing and chanting “CNN sucks” behind him. https://t.co/XiULajB1Li reageer retweet

CNN reporter Jim Acosta heckled at Trump rally

twitter:

Emilylgoodin twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 23:20:23 Attendees at Trump rally line up behind Jim @Acosta live shot to scream at him “CNN sucks” “tell the truth” and “liar” He calmly spoke to them when he was done https://t.co/bLuZ4ZpfiB reageer retweet

WATCH: CNN's Jim Acosta just responded to Trump Tampa rally hecklers with hilarious comeback

quote:

“I answered a bunch of questions from some of these Trump supporters here about all sorts of things — a lot more questions than the president has taken from us in recent days,” he quipped.

twitter:

Acosta twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 03:32:45 Just a sample of the sad scene we faced at the Trump rally in Tampa. I’m very worried that the hostility whipped up by Trump and some in conservative media will result in somebody getting hurt. We should not treat our fellow Americans this way. The press is not the enemy. https://t.co/IhSRw5Ui3R reageer retweet

twitter:

thehill twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 02:58:07 Russian journalists killed while investigating Putin-linked mercenary group https://t.co/Rkt4IrUgZy https://t.co/ZNLmWCt6oL reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 04:18:30 REMEMBER the president's infamous (and only) comment on this topic: "we kill a lot of people too" https://t.co/os8zY9C6cu reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 15:30:02 Ex-federal prosecutor Daniel Goldman: Rudy Giuliani knows that "collusion" is just shorthand for potentially several crimes, so the fact that he's now pushing this simplistic argument suggests to expert observers that something is up. https://t.co/Iek5CWFvVe reageer retweet

President Donald Trump Camp Shifts Talking Points On Possible Collusion | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 02:11 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Russian "Agent" And A GOP Operator Left A Trail Of Cash, Documents Reveal

[..]

Accused Russian Spy Maria Butina Told American CEO: Send Cash to Moscow

[..]

Draadje:

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 04:24:30 (IMPORTANT) Maria Butina's Russian bank pinged Trump Tower *thousands of times* between May and September 2016. Those pings--along with one other server--made up 99% of *all pings* to Trump Tower during that period.Who owns the other server? Erik Prince's brother-in-law.Really. https://t.co/4udysEORVD reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 04:33:08 I'm ONLY posting this to get cybersecurity experts to weigh in. This is NOT my field; I don't understand this document AT ALL. So I'm asking any experts reading this--is this a plausible theory of the Alfa Bank-Trump Tower pinging, or no? @KimZetter @dakami https://t.co/XSDsxE1dfh reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 05:00 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

En dat is niet de eerste keer: CNN star Jim Acosta shamed at Trump rally as crowd chants, 'Go home, Jim'

[ afbeelding ]

CNN reporter Jim Acosta heckled at Trump rally

twitter:

Emilylgoodin twitterde op dinsdag 31-07-2018 om 23:20:23 Attendees at Trump rally line up behind Jim @Acosta live shot to scream at him “CNN sucks” “tell the truth” and “liar” He calmly spoke to them when he was done https://t.co/bLuZ4ZpfiB reageer retweet

WATCH: CNN's Jim Acosta just responded to Trump Tampa rally hecklers with hilarious comeback

The disappearing White House press briefing

Jim Acosta:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]

twitter:

Acosta twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 03:32:45 Just a sample of the sad scene we faced at the Trump rally in Tampa. I’m very worried that the hostility whipped up by Trump and some in conservative media will result in somebody getting hurt. We should not treat our fellow Americans this way. The press is not the enemy. https://t.co/IhSRw5Ui3R reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 23:04 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Nee dat doet niet iedereen hier en nee hij lult zich niet elke keer weer ergens uit, want het onderzoek van Mueller is nog steeds in volle gang.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 09:14 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]

Deze mensen zijn volstrekt verloren van de realiteit. Het zal niet lang duren of ze delen aluhoedjes uit bij de ingang.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 09:01 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Fatsoen? in Nederland...dream on.
Oók doodeng als je buiten je bubble hoort en luistert.
Dan zit ik werkelijk met mijn oren te klapperen.
Lees eens de comments onder bepaalde telegraaf artikelen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 20:33 schreef speknek het volgende:
Ha ja "it's actually about ethics in game journalism" werd de ietwat morbide cynische meme rond het gebeuren. Games is mijn vakgebied dus ik kan je wel de Cliff Notes geven.

<KNIP>

dat het een uitstekende generale repetitie was voor de alt-right. Kennis hoe je het sluimerende ongenoegen kon kanaliseren bij alle westerse mannen die vonden dat ze terrein aan het verliezen waren aan nieuwkomers.

quote:

Dat aantal neemt vooral rond Sinterklaas, verkiezingen en demonstraties van de PVV toe.

twitter:

paulkrugman twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 09:50:20 Dear media: Trump is not a populist. He's a protectionist, which isn't at all the same thing. (William McKinley was also a protectionist.) His actual policies have been relentlessly elitist https://t.co/DuPKl7myM7 reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 09:09 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Toch denk ik dat al tot een conclusie is gekomen. En als dit bekend wordt, dan kan Trump lullen wat hij wil, maar zal zich toch moeten schikken naar de uitkomst.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 09:52 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

paulkrugman twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 09:50:20 Dear media: Trump is not a populist. He's a protectionist, which isn't at all the same thing. (William McKinley was also a protectionist.) His actual policies have been relentlessly elitist https://t.co/DuPKl7myM7 reageer retweet

Krugman heeft gelijk. Trump is een elitair figuur die niets weet over het leven van de normale mensen. Een miljonair die denkt dat mensen een identiteitskaart nodig hebben om boodschappen te doen. Hij is zo van de realiteit verwijderd.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 10:00 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Populisme heeft natuurlijk niet zo gek veel van doen met het daadwerkelijke beleid, maar veel meer met de retoriek.

En als er dan iemand het prototype populist is, dan is het Trump wel.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 10:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Keihard liegen is populisme?

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 10:16 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Maar ja, wat DOET hij voor het volk? Niet veel. De koopkracht gaat niet bepaald vooruit voor het grootste deel der mensen. Zelfs fans van populisten willen denk ik ook wel tastbare resultaten zien.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 10:19 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou niet weten hoe dat relevant is voor het feit dat hij een populist is verder, maar blijf lekker roepen.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 09:50 schreef DestroyerPiet het volgende:

[..]

dankjewel voor je uitleg nu is het me het inderdaad duidelijker wat heel het gamergate verhaal inhoud.

Maar lijkt me niet alleen een Generale Repetitie het komt op mij over dat een een hoop "Alt-Righters" lijken geactiveerd te zijn door heel dat GamerGate verhaal. en dat ze daarna alleen maar verder zijn geradicaliseerd.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 10:20 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Die snap ik even niet. Wat bedoel je?

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 juli 2018 20:33 schreef speknek het volgende:
Ha ja "it's actually about ethics in game journalism" werd de ietwat morbide cynische meme rond het gebeuren. Games is mijn vakgebied dus ik kan je wel de Cliff Notes geven.

Het ging nooit echt om ethics in game journalism, maar het was een handige bliksemafleider om een grote randgroep mee te mobiliseren. Een sluimerende onvrede over het wegvallen van traditionele printmedia op het gebied van games, ten faveure van online game review sites die vaak amateuristisch waren en gesponsord door dezelfde gameuitgevers die de sites zouden moeten beoordelen. (En de gamers nooit beseffend dat het hun eigen schuld is dat dit zo gekomen is). Wat gaandeweg tot een boel slechte YouTube influencers en bedroevend slechte reviews leidde.

Die onvrede werd gebruikt voor iets anders, namelijk een nog veel grotere onvrede over games die mainstream gingen. Dertig jaar lang waren games een uitstekend toevluchtsoord voor sociaal onhandige mensen. In het echte leven een loser, online een winner (winner chicken dinner). Zo cultiveerde ze een nieuwe identiteit, die van de gamer, in een online wereld waar ze wel wat betekenden, vaak rond competitieve (schiet)spellen. Maar games werden steeds populairder, en de type mensen waar ze zich veilig voor waanden, populaire extraverte mensen, kunstzinnige types, vrouwen, begonnen ook te gamen...

SPOILER

Even terzijde dit is volkomen een anachronisme, games waren in de begintijd vrij populair bij vrouwen en kunstzinnige types, en vooral kinderen, maar die zijn op een gegeven moment verdrongen door de PlayStation generatie, puberjongens met een nerdinslag

...en die begonnen zich na verloop van tijd af te vragen waarom alle vrouwen rondborstige sletten waren, en of je misschien ook games met interessantere politieke boodschappen kon hebben dan alles kapotschieten enzovoorts. Allemaal bedreigend voor de gamer way of life. Immers, als je favoriete game uitgever zich hiermee bezig gaat houden, dan zijn ze niet meer volledig op jouw wensen gericht.

Die culture war was al eventjes gaande, Anita Sarkeesian kreeg veel bedreigingen voor haar feministische kritiek van games, een andere invloedrijke vrouw had geschreven dat gameuitgevers niet meer hun oren moesten laten hangen naar deze loser pubers, maar toen kwam er een ideaal geval dat beide onvredes combineerde, Zoe Quinn.

Zoe Quinn was een ideaal slachtoffer. Een beetje een kunstzinnig linksig meisje dat een simpele game over haar depressie had gemaakt, en naar bed was geweest met een journalist van Kotaku, een soort buzzfeed van games (eigenlijk bezit van Gawker). Dus een linkse(!) vrouw(!) die seks(!) had met iemand die haar game zou kunnen reviewen(!). Al vrij snel bleek van corruptie helemaal geen sprake (de medewerker van de site had geen review over haar game geschreven), maar het had net genoeg zweem van legitimiteit om haar stelselmatig jarenlang online en in het echt lastig te vallen, in de hoop dat ze weer in een depressie zou geraken en misschien wel zelfmoord zou plegen.

Daar hadden natuurlijk andere vrouwen in de industrie en later ook andere gameontwikkelaars wel wat over te zeggen (die dan ook gelijk bedreigd en lastig gevallen werden). Jullie zeggen dat jullie voor ethiek zijn, zeiden de mensen uit de industrie, maar jullie zijn eigenlijk een stel vrouwenhatende miscreanten. Wat al snel de schijn opwekte dat het werkelijk "de gamers" tegen "de industrie" was, en aangezien de zweem van corruptie gebruikt kon worden, was het "De elite" die "geen rekenschap wilde geven naar de eerlijke gewone man". Zie hoe ze voortdurend de aandacht afleiden van ethiek in game journalisme en ons uitmaken voor rotte vis! Dat was koren op de molen voor geboren trolls als Milo Yiannopoulos, die vlak daarvoor nog had gezegd dat gamers vieze bleke losers waren met het verstandelijk vermogen van kinderen, om zich op te werpen als de held van gamers, die hen zou bevrijden van het juk van de overeisende vrouwen.

Ja en dat bleek zo'n succes, de conspiracy theories, het reactionaire gedrag tegenover vrouwen en mensen die verandering willen, dat het een uitstekende generale repetitie was voor de alt-right. Kennis hoe je het sluimerende ongenoegen kon kanaliseren bij alle westerse mannen die vonden dat ze terrein aan het verliezen waren aan nieuwkomers.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 10:37 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

het is toch niet zo moeilijk? Een populist verkoopt een utopie. Die kun je sowieso nooit realiseren, dus dan moet je wel liegen.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 11:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Maar hij is niet bezig voor de gewone mensen. Alleen voor de rijke elite.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 11:07 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Je hoeft als populist ook helemaal niet bezig te zijn voor de gewone mensen. Waarom denk je dat?

quote:

In politics, populism refers to a range of approaches which emphasise the role of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite".

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 11:12 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

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

De eerste regel van dit artikel gaf me dat idee:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 09:57 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Wat is er tot conclusie gekomen? En wat is er waar Trump zich naar moet schikken?
De Republikeinen hebben al meermaals vrij duidelijk te kennen gegeven schijt te hebben aan enige vorm van integriteit, dus een impeachment zal er niet van komen.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 11:52 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

De support van Trump onder de mainstream republikein is gaandeweg aan het slinken. Nixon had daar ook mee te maken in 1974 en de populariteit van Trump is nu akelig dichtbij hetzelfde niveau gekomen en zelfs daaronder. Zelfs Nixon had een harde kern supporters. Op gegeven moment zullen zij zich aansluiten bij de mainstream republikeinen. Je moet je niet blind staren op het fanatisme van de Trumpeteers..

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 12:03 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Ik kan me voorstellen dat de harde kern iets is waarmee je niet geassocieerd wil worden als MSR. En als die de overhand (lijken) krijgen doordat de MSR afhaakt kan het proces zichzelf versterken.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 11:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Een populist kan natuurlijk ook niet zonder resultaten. Hij moet wel iets laten zien, anders is het ook bij populisten snel voorbij. (Tenzij ze mensen laten verdwijnen of zo.).
Een utopie verkopen is niet per sé populistisch. Het is maar van welke kant je die utopie bekijkt.

Trump vind ik nou niet echt een populist. Hij doet een drol in een mooi doosje en verkoopt dat als chocolademousse. Dat kan hij heel goed. Maar hij is niet bezig voor de gewone mensen. Alleen voor de rijke elite.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 11:13 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

alleen hij kan Het Volk redden.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 12:46 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

En toch slikt zijn aanhang het. Dus blijkbaar hoef je helemaal geen resultaten te kunnen tonen als je de rethoriek maar blift opvoeren.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 12:49 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Het uitblijven van concrete resultaten zal hem op gegeven moment toch eens opbreken. Zelfs een zwevende kiezer heeft een doel.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 08:47 schreef AnneX het volgende:

[..]

Als bovenstaande (óok) allemaal waargebeurd is, is toch dood- en doodeng.
En dat kan Trump nooooit zelf hebben bedacht en/of hebben (laten) uitvoeren.
De aides en sources klappen om de haverklap uit de school, en zijn er blijkbaar ook niet van.
Wie zit hierachter dan? die dit orkestreert / manipuleert.
# wacht af.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 14:20:00 NBC News has confirmed via arms control experts that both satellite photos and U.S. intelligence show North Korea is continuing to produce ballistic missiles and work on its missile program. https://t.co/ugKpn8T304 reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 13:29 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Hier een analyse:
http://www.deependresearc(...)et-server-story.html

Kan ook gewoon een marketing-server zijn. Ik vind Seth hier wel heel erg sensatiebelust zijn, zelfs voor zijn doen.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 15:03:08 “FBI Agent Peter Strzok (on the Mueller team) should have recused himself on day one. He was out to STOP THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP. He needed an insurance policy. Those are illegal, improper goals, trying to influence the Election. He should never, ever been allowed to........ reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 15:15:24 .....remain in the FBI while he himself was being investigated. This is a real issue. It won’t go into a Mueller Report because Mueller is going to protect these guys. Mueller has an interest in creating the illusion of objectivity around his investigation.” ALAN DERSHOWITZ.... reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 15:24:03 ..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 15:34:03 Paul Manafort worked for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other highly prominent and respected political leaders. He worked for me for a very short time. Why didn’t government tell me that he was under investigation. These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion - a Hoax! reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 15:39 schreef Belabor het volgende:
De persoonlijke aanvallen van Trump worden feller en feller.

Echt het gedrag van een onschuldige man ook, dit.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 15:16 schreef Ulx het volgende:
TWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET FRENNNNNZZZZZZZZYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 15:03:08 “FBI Agent Peter Strzok (on the Mueller team) should have recused himself on day one. He was out to STOP THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP. He needed an insurance policy. Those are illegal, improper goals, trying to influence the Election. He should never, ever been allowed to........ reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 15:15:24 .....remain in the FBI while he himself was being investigated. This is a real issue. It won’t go into a Mueller Report because Mueller is going to protect these guys. Mueller has an interest in creating the illusion of objectivity around his investigation.” ALAN DERSHOWITZ.... reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 15:10:12 Peter Strzok was so out to get Trump that he never revealed the FBI counterintelligence investigation into possible links between the Trump camp and Russia before the election. https://t.co/LbgkTOXmDA reageer retweet

quote:

"There is ... one extraordinarily important piece of evidence supporting my integrity, the integrity of the FBI and our lack of bias," Strzok said. "In the summer of 2016, I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly defeat, Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind."'
NYT

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 15:26 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 15:24:03 ..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA! reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 16:31 schreef Re het volgende:
Ondertussen is het eerste kind gestorven in een ICE concentratie kamp

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 16:31 schreef Re het volgende:
Ondertussen is het eerste kind gestorven in een ICE concentratie kamp

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 16:37 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Eenzaam sterven ver weg van je ouders in een gevangeniskamp in een vreemd land. Goed bezig USA

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 15:16 schreef Ulx het volgende:
TWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET FRENNNNNZZZZZZZZYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!

-tweets weg-

quote:

Because of summer vacation schedules, we had fallen a month behind in updating The Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president.

It turns out that’s when the president decided to turn on the spigots of false and misleading claims. As of day 558, he’s made 4,229 Trumpian claims — an increase of 978 in just two months.

That’s an overall average of nearly 7.6 claims a day.

When we first started this project for the president’s first 100 days, he averaged 4.9 claims a day. But the average number of claims per day keeps climbing the longer Trump stays in office. In fact, in June and July, the president averaged 16 claims a day.

Put another way: In his first year as president, Trump made 2,140 false or misleading claims. Now, just six months later, he has almost doubled that total.

SPOILER

Just on trade, the president has made 432 false or misleading claims. He frequently gets the size of trade deficits wrong or presents the numbers in a misleading fashion.

He also indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. In June and July, more than 20 times the president said some variation of the claim that the United States “lost” money on trade deficits. Just about every economist would give a student an “F” for making such a statement.

A trade deficit simply means people in one country are buying more goods from another country than people in the second country are buying from the first. Trade deficits are also affected by macroeconomic factors, such as the relative strength of currencies, economic growth rates, and savings and investment rates.

Not surprisingly, immigration is the top single source of Trump’s misleading claims, now totaling 538. Thirty times just in the past five months, for instance, the president has falsely claimed his long-promised border wall with Mexico is being built, even though Congress has denied funding for it.

But moving up the list quickly are claims about the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether people in the Trump campaign were in any way connected to it. The president has made 378 statements about the Russia probe, using hyperbolic claims of “worse than Watergate,” “McCarthyism” and, of course, “witch hunt.” He often asserts the Democrats colluded with the Russians, even though the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign were victims of Russian activities, as emails were hacked and then released via WikiLeaks. All told, nearly 160 times the president has made claims suggesting the Russia probe is made up, a hoax or a fraud.

Misleading claims about taxes — now at 336 — are also a common feature of Trump’s speeches. Eighty-eight times, he has made the false assertion that he passed the biggest tax cut in U.S. history.

On foreign policy, the president consistently misstates NATO spending. More than 60 times, he has falsely said the United States pays as much as 90 percent of the alliance’s costs and that other NATO members “owe” money. But he is conflating overall defense spending with NATO obligations — and the United States, unlike many NATO allies, has global responsibilities.

We also have catalogued the president’s many flip-flops, since those earn Upside-Down Pinocchios if a politician shifts position on an issue without acknowledging that he or she did so.

Given that the president has been in office more than 18 months, we decided to begin phasing out the listing of his astonishing flip-flop on the accuracy of the unemployment rate. During the campaign, he repeatedly claimed that it was a phony number and the real unemployment rate was really many times higher. Now, he regularly touts unemployment statistics as proof of his economic agenda’s success, though he does not always get them right. His refusal to acknowledge this shift has been frustrating, but even flip-flops have a statute of limitations.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 17:00:26 An immigration judge was removed from a case and replaced with a judge who would order the man in the case immediately deported, a move that smacks of judicial interference by the Trump admin, according to a letter signed by a group of retired judges. https://t.co/wnJZANDzlW reageer retweet

quote:

The Justice Department replaced an immigration judge who'd blocked the deportation of a man who failed to show up for a hearing. The new judge ordered the man deported.

A Philadelphia immigration judge was removed from a high-profile case and replaced with a judge who would order the man in the case immediately deported, a move that smacks of judicial interference by the Trump administration, according to a letter signed by a group of retired judges this week.

Advocates call the removal of a judge in the middle of a case the latest in a line of steps by the Trump administration to undercut the independence of immigration judges, further a political agenda, and accelerate deportations.

“As a democracy, we expect our judges to reach results based on what is just, even where such results are not aligned with the desired outcomes of politicians,” read the letter, signed by 15 former judges and members of the immigration appeals board, and circulated Monday.

SPOILER

It all began when Judge Steven Morley presided over a case involving Reynaldo Castro-Tum — a man who’d failed to show up at his immigration court hearings. Morley suspended the case using a procedure known as "administrative closure," citing the fact that the notice sent to Castro-Tum may have been sent to the wrong address. “Administrative closure” has been used in hundreds of thousands of cases across the country.

In his position overseeing the immigration court, Attorney General Jeff Sessions referred the case to himself and wrote an opinion in May restricting the use of “administrative closures,” a decision that could dramatically alter the way deportation cases are handled and potentially add hundreds of thousands of cases to an already backlogged court system.

Sessions said that “administrative closures” lacked legal foundation and undermined the court’s ability to quickly hear cases.

In the meantime, Sessions sent the case back to Morley’s court, writing that if Castro-Tum did not appear for his hearing, he should be ordered deported. He didn’t show up but an attorney advocating on his behalf, Matthew Archambeault, argued that Castro-Tum didn’t have enough notice and that he wanted to file a brief on the case.

Morley then scheduled a hearing in late July to go over those issues. But before the hearing, Morley was replaced with a supervising judge by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Department of Justice body that oversees the immigration courts, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The new judge, whom Archambeault identified as Deepali Nadkarni, an assistant chief immigration judge, ordered Castro-Tum deported.

Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge who heads the judges' union, the National Association of Immigration Judges, said her organization was “deeply concerned” about the incident and that they were exploring “all available legal actions.”

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the letter or Morley’s removal. Nadkarni did not respond to a voicemail requesting comment.

Tensions have increased in recent months between the union and Sessions, who has warned that immigration judges, who are Justice Department employees, will be evaluated on the basis of how many cases they’ve heard. His referring cases to himself to establish policy also has rankled the immigration judges' union.

Former immigration judge Jeffrey Chase, who was among those signing the letter, said that Morley is an experienced and well-respected judge who served as a private attorney before being appointed to the immigration bench in 2010. Morley, Chase said, was pushed off of the case “because he had the courage to exercise his independent judgment in the pursuit of a fair result.”

César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a University of Denver law professor, said the case would be remarkable if it turns out that a judge was pushed off the case for another judge who would rule the way the Justice Department wanted.

“Judges should never be assigned to a case because of how they are likely to rule," he said.

He noted that unlike other federal judges, whose positions can only be second-guessed by appeals courts, immigration judges report to Sessions. "Regrettably, the immigration courts are susceptible to this type of manipulation,” he said. “Immigration judges are not protected from internal pressures or politics in the same way that other federal judges are.”

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 10:16 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Maar ja, wat DOET hij voor het volk? Niet veel. De koopkracht gaat niet bepaald vooruit voor het grootste deel der mensen. Zelfs fans van populisten willen denk ik ook wel tastbare resultaten zien.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 17:23:13 “We already have a smocking gun about a campaign getting dirt on their opponent, it was Hillary Clinton. How is it OK for Hillary Clinton to proactively seek dirt from the Russians but the Trump campaign met at the Russians request and that is bad?” Marc Thiessen, Washington Post reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 17:35:47 Looking back on history, who was treated worse, Alfonse Capone, legendary mob boss, killer and "Public Enemy Number One," or Paul Manafort, political operative & Reagan/Dole darling, now serving solitary confinement - although convicted of nothing? Where is the Russian Collusion? reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 17:31 schreef drexciya het volgende:

[..]

Hij hoeft niet veel te doen, als de andere partij ook niet met iets nuttigs aankomt. De Democraten (specifiek de gevestigde orde daar) zijn heel druk met Russia, Russia, Russia roepen, janken over ICE en kinderen, maar hebben niets te bieden wat de kiezer aanspreekt. Dat is sowieso waarom Trump zo ver is gekomen.

Opmerkelijk is trouwens dat ze dit willens en wetens doen; een hoger uurloon of iets doen aan zorg scoort veel beter, maar men probeert kandidaten, die dit soort onderwerpen als uitgangspunt hebben, te blokkeren.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 17:31 schreef drexciya het volgende:

[..]

Hij hoeft niet veel te doen, als de andere partij ook niet met iets nuttigs aankomt. De Democraten (specifiek de gevestigde orde daar) zijn heel druk met Russia, Russia, Russia roepen, janken over ICE en kinderen, maar hebben niets te bieden wat de kiezer aanspreekt. Dat is sowieso waarom Trump zo ver is gekomen.

Opmerkelijk is trouwens dat ze dit willens en wetens doen; een hoger uurloon of iets doen aan zorg scoort veel beter, maar men probeert kandidaten, die dit soort onderwerpen als uitgangspunt hebben, te blokkeren.

quote:

First, we're going to increase people's pay. Second, we're going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we're going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy.

Over the next several months, Democrats will lay out a series of policies that, if enacted, will make these three things a reality. We've already proposed creating jobs with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan; increasing workers' incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15; and lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 17:59 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Wat is dit nou weer voor BNW gelul .

CAUGHT! Leaked Audio Reveals Democrats Cheating Progressives Again

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 18:18 schreef drexciya het volgende:

[..]

Als je een beetje kijkt naar de gang van zaken, dan zie je dat de Democraten, om precies te zijn de DCCC, inzetten op kandidaten die in de centristen lijn zitten, en progressieve kandidaten worden zelfs actief aangemoedigd om uit een verkiezing te stappen.

The Intercept heeft een gesprek gepubliceerd wat een "ongewenste" kandidaat had opgenomen, toen hij door een vertegenwoordiger (bobo in de partij) werd gebeld om druk om hem uit te oefenen. Dat is geen BNW niveau. In dezelfde lijn zit alle ophef over een vrouw (Ocasio-Cortez) die recentelijk in een verkiezing in een district in New York een kandidaat van de gevestigde orde had verslagen.

Links:
https://theintercept.com/(...)ngress-progressives/
https://theintercept.com/(...)udio-levi-tillemann/

CAUGHT! Leaked Audio Reveals Democrats Cheating Progressives Again

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 18:04 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Bron?

Chuck Schumer: A Better Deal for American Workers

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 18:25 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Hmm. Om beschuldigingen van BNW-gelul te bestrijden kom je met de Intercept...

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 18:27 schreef drexciya het volgende:

[..]

Als de Democraten echt iets zouden willen doen, zouden ze niet steeds meestemmen met de Republikeinen. Zoals de verhoging van het defensiebudget.

Wat merkwaardig trouwens dat men daar zogenaamd een paar punten uit het Bernie programma willen overnemen, terwijl ze daar niets mee deden toen Hillary campagne voerde. Als ze echt menen wat in dat stukje staat, zouden we toch iets heel anders moeten horen als officieel geluid. Maar nee, daar hebben ze zich de afgelopen tijd helemaal niet hard voor gemaakt.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 18:35 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Je doet net alsof er zoiets is als "de Democraten". Ik weet niet over welk voorstel je het concreet hebt als je praat over "meestemmen met het verhogen van het defensiebudget", maar meestal is dat slechts een deel van de partij en dan ook nog omdat er aardige concessies zijn afgedwongen op andere vlakken.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 18:43 schreef drexciya het volgende:

[..]

Welke concessies? Wanneer het op bepaalde onderwerpen aankomt, zoals defensie, is er effectief gezien geen verschil tussen de partijen. Men roept altijd dat er geen geld is voor X, Y of Z, maar ondertussen wordt er een enorm bedrag aan defensie uitgegeven. De verhoging van het defensiebudget (September 2017 alweer) was bijna even groot als het totale defensie budget van Rusland (en het was meer dan waar Trump om gevraagd had). https://qz.com/935663/tru(...)tire-defense-budget/

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 17:51 schreef pullup het volgende:
Hij gaat gewoon door vandaag

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 17:23:13 “We already have a smocking gun about a campaign getting dirt on their opponent, it was Hillary Clinton. How is it OK for Hillary Clinton to proactively seek dirt from the Russians but the Trump campaign met at the Russians request and that is bad?” Marc Thiessen, Washington Post reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 17:35:47 Looking back on history, who was treated worse, Alfonse Capone, legendary mob boss, killer and "Public Enemy Number One," or Paul Manafort, political operative & Reagan/Dole darling, now serving solitary confinement - although convicted of nothing? Where is the Russian Collusion? reageer retweet

quote:

OHIO CD12 SPECIAL POLL: US House Vote
All potential voters - R+1 (was R+10 in June)
@Troy_Balderson (R) 44 (was 43)
@DannyOConnor1 (D) 43 (was 33)

Likely voter models:
Standard midterm turnout - R+1
Low turnout - R+5
Dem surge - D+1

#OH12 #Midterms2018
https://t.co/PFmKlEVjXX

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 14:34 schreef vigen98 het volgende:
Komen de sancties op Turkije nog ?

twitter:

foxnewsalert twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 19:51:02 Trump administration sanctions Turkish officials over detained American pastor https://t.co/ZCwe3oy1mG reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 19:46 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Volgende week (7 augustus) special election in OH-12 (R+9). Het vermoeden was al dat het een stuk spannender zou gaan worden dan eerst werd vermoed, omdat uit het niets Pence en Trump werden opgetrommeld om campagne te komen voeren en de Republikeinse partij inmiddels al meer dan een miljoen dollar aan deze race heeft besteed. Nu is een recente Monmouth poll uitgekomen:

[..]

Statistisch praktisch gelijk dus. In een R+9 district. Als de Republikeinen hier verliezen is dat na PA-17 de tweede kanarie in de kolenmijn. Ik ben benieuwd.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 19:52 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Daar zijn ze: tegen de ministers van Justitie en Binnenlandse Zaken.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 18:25 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Hmm. Om beschuldigingen van BNW-gelul te bestrijden kom je met de Intercept...

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 20:14 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Met alle respect: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-intercept/
Factual reporting: HIGH

Bovendien is heeft het blad een linkse bias, dus is het geen rechts-gekkie-gelul.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 19:17 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Hij heeft het steeds over collusion van Hillary en de Democraten. Waar doelt hij precies op?

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 20:20 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Als ik het goed begrijp, gaat het in die kringen er om dat Christopher Steele informatie verkregen heeft van Russische informanten. Steele is bij het maken van het roemruchte dossier ingehuurd door Fusion GPS, Fusion GPS werd betaald door de Clinton campagne en de DNC en de deze werkten voor niemand anders dan Clinton.

Ergo, Clinton heeft samengewerkt met (de) Russen. Leuk voer voor simpel volk.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 16:29 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Weer eentje voor het archief van Mueller

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 18:45:17 Giuliani and Sekulow seem to be downplaying Trump's tweet, saying that Trump was not ordering Sessions to take specific action.Sekulow: "The president has issued no order or direction..."Giuliani: "...the president uses tweets to express his opinion."https://t.co/gqHN7x0wWa reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 19:15:07 Richard Blumenthal on Trump's tweets: "It seems even more vivid and serious evidence of criminal intent to obstruct justice — whether it is obstruction itself or not, it certainly indicated intent." https://t.co/gqHN7x0wWa reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 19:45:01 Sarah Sanders just said that Trump's Mueller/Sessions tweet is "not an order. It's the president's opinion."Last year, Sean Spicer said Trump's tweets were official statements. https://t.co/ZCGy6Gp4Z5 reageer retweet

Trump's tweets are 'official statements': Spicer

Sanders: Trump tweet on Russia probe ‘not an order’

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 20:15:38 Ex-federal prosecutor Harry Litman responds to Sarah Sanders: "The basic argument is: Come on ... You just look at this statement in isolation. It reads, it quacks, it walks like a command. It's a command." @MSNBC reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 20:20 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Als ik het goed begrijp, gaat het in die kringen er om dat Christopher Steele informatie verkregen heeft van Russische informanten. Steele is bij het maken van het roemruchte dossier ingehuurd door Fusion GPS, Fusion GPS werd betaald door de Clinton campagne en de DNC en de deze werkten voor niemand anders dan Clinton.

Ergo, Clinton heeft samengewerkt met (de) Russen. Leuk voer voor simpel volk.

quote:

To debate whether Trump acted criminally is to miss the greater point: He’s a national-security threat.

It’s a crime for a U.S. presidential campaign knowingly to receive—or even solicit—anything of value from any foreign entity. It’s a crime for anyone, campaign or not, to knowingly receive stolen data. In fact, receiving stolen data triggers a complex nexus of crimes, both state and federal. Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and other top Trump aides met with a lawyer who identified herself as an agent of the Russian government offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

Lying to Congress is a crime, albeit one seldom prosecuted. Donald Trump Jr. was under oath when he testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 17, 2017, that he did not tell his father about the Trump Tower meeting with the lawyer. “I wouldn’t have wasted his time with it,” he said. Should that testimony prove untrue, the younger Trump could also face perjury charges.

Money laundering is a crime. Tax evasion is a crime. Obstruction of justice is a crime. Lying to federal investigators is a crime.

It’s true, as Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani keeps insisting, that you will not find the word “collusion” in the federal criminal code. You will not find the word “hacking” there either. But that does not mean that hacking is legal, only that lawyers speak differently from other people.

SPOILER

The kernel of truth in the “collusion is not a crime” defense is this: If the Trump campaign avoided tripping over federal election law and computer fraud in the course of a hypothetical collaboration with the Russian GRU, then it is very possible it did not violate any criminal statutes. I wrote about such a possibility here last May. But the predicate for that possibility is that there be no direct contact between the Trump campaign and the Russian state, that any information sharing was channeled via WikiLeaks. Federal election law carves out exemptions for media organizations, and WikiLeaks has a colorable claim to be considered “media.”

But Special Counsel Mueller’s second indictment of Russians claimed that voter analytic data was stolen by Russian hackers from Democratic servers. If those analytics were shared by the Russians with the Trump campaign, that would be a straightforward crime, just as much as the Watergate burglary of the Democratic National Committee in 1972.

The crucial context for assessing the claim that “collusion is not a crime” is the way the Trump-Russia story has emerged into the light, denial after denial collapsing into dust.

Trump, his campaign, and the White House have denied the campaign had Russia contacts. The campaign met with Russian agents.

They denied that the meeting discussed stolen email. The meeting discussed stolen email.

They denied Trump had knowledge of the meeting, either in advance or before it was exposed in the media. That denial is now disputed by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen. Trump’s current personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, gave a bewildering series of interviews this week in which he first referred to a planning meeting two days before the Russia meeting attended by Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort, and then insisted he had actually meant to deny that such a meeting had ever taken place.

They denied that the Russian intervention was intended to help elect Trump. At the Helsinki summit of the two leaders, Vladimir Putin said, plainly, that he wished to see Trump elected.

Only this year, and only thanks to the Mueller investigation, have Americans begun to learn the full industrial scale of the Russian intrusion into the 2016 election. Only last month, and again only thanks to the Mueller investigation, was it confirmed that the hackers of the Democratic Party were indeed agents of the Russian state—a truth that Trump still will not unequivocally accept.

How much still remains to learn?

Yet there is one way in which the “collusion is not a crime” talking point actually directs attention in the right direction. The Trump presidency’s connections to Russia are a national-security issue first, a criminal-justice issue only second.

Donald Trump owes his presidency at least in considerable part to the illegal assistance of the Russian state: hacking, data theft, prohibited election advertising. This compromised president has in office launched himself against U.S. alliances and trade arrangements built by administrations of both parties over the past three-quarters of a century. The president describes the European Union as a “foe,” quarrels with Canada and Germany, and enters into agreements with Putin that he seems not to have shared even with his own secretary of state and national-security adviser. He blabs vital secrets to the Russian foreign minister, resists holding Russia to account for nerve-agent attacks on British soil, and refuses to implement sanctions voted almost unanimously by Congress. Meanwhile, the single data point that supposedly proves how tough he is on Russia—the provision of lethal aid to Ukraine—may actually prove something very different. Ukraine halted its cooperation with the Mueller probe ahead of the sale, to “avoid irritating the top American officials.”

“Collusion is not a crime” in the same way that a counter-intelligence investigation is not a criminal prosecution. Aspects of collusion may be criminal, but collusion itself is above all a threat to national security: the installation of a president beholden to some greater or lesser degree to a hostile foreign power.

The United States is a highly legalistic society. Public ethics debates are often reduced to technical legal arguments about the meanings of statutes. But in Trump-Russia, the most urgent concerns before the country are not prosecutable offenses but loyalty risks. During the Northern Ireland troubles of the 1980s, British police used to distinguish between those they ironically called “decent ordinary criminals” and IRA terrorists. It was—or should have been—obvious to anyone paying attention on voting day 2016 that Donald Trump was not an honest businessman. What has come further and further into the light since election day is something much more dangerous even than dishonesty.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 22:41 schreef Freak188 het volgende:

[..]

En fusion gps was eerst ingehuurd door de Republikeinse tegenstanders van trump. Toen die allemaal verloren pakte Clinton het over.

quote:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office wants to ask President Donald Trump about obstruction of justice, sources close to the White House tell ABC News. According to sources, the president learned within the last day that the special counsel will limit the scope of questioning and would like to ask questions both orally and written for the President to respond to.

According to sources familiar with the President’s reaction Wednesday morning, that was the genesis for his early morning tweet storm. Trump took to twitter in one of his strongest attacks against the federal probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, saying: "This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!"

twitter:

renato_mariotti twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 00:12:53 Trump is negotiating with Mueller over an interview because he has leverage. He can fight a subpoena in court for months and then take the Fifth if he loses, all while publicly attacking the Mueller investigation. https://t.co/MvEx1hSdFZ reageer retweet

twitter:

renato_mariotti twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 00:12:53 I suspect that Trump's team has already decided that he won't sit for an interview, but they're dragging out the process to glean information from the negotiation and to ensure that their decision not to sit for an interview isn't announced until after the midterms. reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 01:07:32 (1 of 2) If I had to guess, one of two major reasons prosecutors are considering not calling Rick Gates at the Manafort trial is that they do not want to subject him to a "fishing expedition" cross-examination in which Manafort's attorneys try to find out what he's told Mueller. reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 01:09:20 (2 of 2) They may also be so confident they can win without Gates they don't want to take the chance his character or campaign narrative is impeached or otherwise degraded by cross-examination. They will need his testimony when it comes time to refer major felonies against Trump. reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 01:11:17 (PS) While it may not in the end hold *major* drama for Americans, the Manafort trial is a gold mine of intelligence for Trump's attorneys if Gates testifies or if prosecutors drift into areas they don't need to go into, thereby revealing something about their *broader* strategy. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 23:19 schreef speknek het volgende:
Waarom ging Trump vanochtend zo over de zeik? Hierom blijkbaar:

[..]

https://abcnews.go.com/US(...)es/story?id=56973384

Mueller: probeer je de rechtspraak te frustreren?
Trump: nee, en ohja Sessions moet nu het onderzoek platleggen want het zint me niet.

twitter:

EricColumbus twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 02:07:20 To qualify slightly, the reporter *appears* not to have seen the purported Mueller letter, based upon this graf. https://t.co/14IBBZ4h4t reageer retweet

twitter:

EricColumbus twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 02:04:42 Keep in mind: (1) this story almost certainly comes from Trump’s team and (2) the reporter hasn’t seen the purported Mueller letter. https://t.co/2CAl52lcGv reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 02:20:05 Republican Senator Rob Portman says more sanctions should be imposed against Russia: "We need to do more because what we're doing isn't working." https://t.co/rw5YnN5oQT reageer retweet

Sen. Portman on China Trade Tariffs, Russian Sanctions

quote:

The Senate on Wednesday approved the release of internal Intelligence Committee documents to the Justice Department regarding alleged Russian agent Mariia Butina.

The Senate Intelligence Committee interviewed Butina as part of its lengthy investigation into Russian influence on U.S. elections in 2016. In a joint statement, the committee's leaders said they planned to turn over records of those interviews to the federal government.

"In response to requests from the Department of Justice and counsel for Maria Butina, we have sought authorization from the Senate to release to both parties the transcript of Ms. Butina's testimony before the committee," said Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.). and ranking member Mark Warner (D-Va.). "The committee intends to provide the transcript, provided both parties agree to include it under the auspices of a protective order, which we understand is currently under discussion."

Butina, whose first name has been rendered as both Mariia and Maria, is accused of working as an unregistered Russian agent while attending American University in Washington from 2015 to 2017.

The Senate measure passed unanimously as the chamber prepared to go into a recess of nearly two weeks.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 20:41 schreef Szura het volgende:
Sanders

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 23:19 schreef speknek het volgende:
Waarom ging Trump vanochtend zo over de zeik? Hierom blijkbaar:

[..]

https://abcnews.go.com/US(...)es/story?id=56973384

Mueller: probeer je de rechtspraak te frustreren?
Trump: nee, en ohja Sessions moet nu het onderzoek platleggen want het zint me niet.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 18:25 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Hmm. Om beschuldigingen van BNW-gelul te bestrijden kom je met de Intercept...

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 08:38 schreef Arth_NL het volgende:

[..]

Waren die voorspellingen niet zo vaag dat ze altijd wel kunnen kloppen, als je maar genoeg fantasie hebt?

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 09:00 schreef DestroyerPiet het volgende:

[..]

het is een beetje de Nostradamus van de moderne tijd.

de Trol die die Qanon heeft bedacht moet zich nu toch ook helemaal kapotlachen?

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 19:17 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Hij heeft het steeds over collusion van Hillary en de Democraten. Waar doelt hij precies op?

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 09:00 schreef DestroyerPiet het volgende:

[..]

het is een beetje de Nostradamus van de moderne tijd.

de Trol die die Qanon heeft bedacht moet zich nu toch ook helemaal kapotlachen?

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 09:38 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Afgelopen week keek ik voor de grap in BNW en daar werd het feit dat Trump in november als een halve mongool aan een flesje Fiji water liep te lurken gezien als een of andere meesterlijke hint richting het oprollen van een of andere misbruikclub die opereert vanuit Fiji.

Heel bijzonder.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 06:47:25 Thank you to Chairman Kim Jong Un for keeping your word & starting the process of sending home the remains of our great and beloved missing fallen! I am not at all surprised that you took this kind action. Also, thank you for your nice letter - l look forward to seeing you soon! reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 08:59 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

OMFG

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 12:38:15 Charles Koch of Koch Brothers, who claims to be giving away millions of dollars to politicians even though I know very few who have seen this (?), now makes the ridiculous statement that what President Trump is doing is unfair to “foreign workers.” He is correct, AMERICA FIRST! reageer retweet

twitter:

thehill twitterde op woensdag 01-08-2018 om 23:40:08 Judge in Manafort case tells lawyers to stop rolling their eyes after talking to him https://t.co/XEh7pHUNzP https://t.co/B4KL9QdqlU reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 09:38 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Afgelopen week keek ik voor de grap in BNW en daar werd het feit dat Trump in november als een halve mongool aan een flesje Fiji water liep te lurken gezien als een of andere meesterlijke hint richting het oprollen van een of andere misbruikclub die opereert vanuit Fiji.

Heel bijzonder.

quote:

The overwhelming majority of Q’s assertions are hilariously untrue: that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was placed in power by the CIA, that Seth Rich was murdered by MS13 under orders from former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that many prominent Democrats are currently wearing ankle monitors because they are secretly under arrest.

The fact is that QAnon’s base assertion — that Trump really is in control of everything — is an inherently strange one to make when the Trump administration does, actually, control the entire federal government.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 13:20:00 Richard Blumenthal: "These kinds of threats are no accident, they reflect a state of mind to obstruct justice. The threats and bullying from the President of the U.S. against a law enforcement officer constitute evidence of obstruction of justice." https://t.co/KjCkRwG9tb reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 13:45 schreef Berkery het volgende:

[..]

Dat heb ik ook gelezen, het zat ergens tussen Life of Brian en Being There in

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 20:32 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:
http://www.lepoint.fr/eco(...)-2018-2241050_28.php

Net op het nieuws in Frankrijk. Ik dacht dat dit oud nieuws was, maar volgens de Fransen is het een paar uur oud:

Trump assouplit les normes anti-pollution des voitures, colère de la Californie

L'administration Trump est passée à l'acte jeudi en suspendant les normes de pollution contraignantes pour les voitures particulières, une décision jugée "stupide" par la Californie, Etat en pointe sur les voitures "propres", qui a promis de s'y opposer par tous les moyens.

Deze krant, die ik niet mag lezen zegt ook 3 uur geleden:

Trump's EPA formally launches attack on California's fuel-economy rules
www.latimes.com/.../la-na-pol-trump-fuel-economy-20180802-sto...

3 uur geleden - California fires rage, and Gov. ... Vehicle use remains the largest single source of emissions blamed for warming the world's climate. ... other areas where officials are already struggling to clean smog and ease rates of asthma and other illnesses. California's attorney general is waging war against Trump.

quote:

Trump's EPA formally launches attack on California's fuel-economy rules; Gov. Brown vows to fight


The Trump administration Thursday pushed ahead with plans to unravel the federal government’s most effective action to fight climate change — aggressive fuel economy standards aimed at getting the nation’s cars and trucks to average more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025.

After months of discussion and drafts, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration formally unveiled their plan to rewrite those rules and replace them with ones so lax even automakers are wary.

The administration’s plan would freeze miles-per-gallon targets in 2020. It would also move to end California’s power to set its own, higher standards. The administration’s proposal asserts that “attempting to solve climate change, even in part” is “fundamentally different” from the Clean Air Act’s “original purpose of addressing smog-related air quality problems."

The administration’s plan could set off a high-stakes legal battle with California and the 13 other states that follow its more stringent rules. Those states argue the Clean Air Act empowers them to keep the Obama-era fuel economy standards in place in their markets.

The states following California’s lead account for more than a third of the vehicles sold nationwide.

The Trump administration proposal could also invalidate California’s mandate that automakers sell a certain number of electric vehicles.

The rollback would undermine efforts by California and several other states to meet commitments the U.S. made in the Paris agreement on climate change. It would also worsen air quality problems in Southern California and other areas where officials are already struggling to clean smog and ease rates of asthma and other illnesses.

SPOILER

The administration argues its proposal will reduce traffic fatalities by keeping the cost of vehicles down compared with costs under the current emissions standards, which it claims are a safety hazard that “restrict the American people from being able to afford newer vehicles with more advanced safety features, better fuel economy, and associated environmental benefits.”

“More realistic standards can save lives while continuing to improve the environment,” said EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler.

Officials also acknowledged that flat-lining fuel economy improvements would come at the expense of pollution reductions and public health.

“If we lock in the 2020 standards, we’re not getting as much emissions reductions as we otherwise would, and that translates into incrementally less protection of health and the environment,” said EPA Assistant Administrator Bill Wehrum. “But balanced against that … we get substantial improvement in vehicle and highway safety.”

Gov. Jerry Brown vowed that California would fight the new plan “in every conceivable way possible.”

“For Trump to now destroy a law first enacted at the request of Ronald Reagan five decades ago is a betrayal and an assault on the health of Americans everywhere,” Brown said, referring to the Clean Air Act. “Under his reckless scheme, motorists will pay more at the pump, get worse gas mileage and breathe dirtier air.”

The release of the administration’s proposal was repeatedly delayed in recent weeks as officials debated how aggressively to push. In the end, the White House approved taking a hard line, despite fears of some administration officials that their plan is based on weak evidence that will not hold up under court challenge.

Those internal tensions were on display during a call with reporters Thursday as transportation officials steadfastly defended the proposal while the EPA emphasized that it was not final and that a compromise with California and the auto industry could be reached.

“There’s nothing about how greenhouse gases and potential climate change affects California that’s any different than any other state in the country,” Wehrum said, and he added “there’s no justification for California to have its own standards.”

But he left room for compromise: “Having said that, this is just a proposed rule, and on the other hand we are committed to working with California to try to find a mutually agreeable set of regulations.”

California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said the state “will use every legal tool at its disposal to defend today's national standards and reaffirm the facts and science behind them.”

The prospect of an extended legal fight has discomfited automakers, who had asked the administration to relax the Obama-era rules but don’t want to see the U.S. market split in two, with different models of cars required in blue and red states.

Their unease was reflected in a statement released by Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which urged negotiations between California and the federal government “to find a common sense solution that sets continued increases in vehicle efficiency standards while also meeting the needs of America’s drivers.”

Vehicles are the single largest source in the U.S. of emissions that cause global warming, recently surpassing the electricity sector. The plunge in natural gas prices and other market forces have steadily lowered the climate impact of utilities, but transportation is proving more stubborn. Electric cars and trucks still account for a tiny fraction of those sold, and driver preference for SUVs, along with relatively low gas prices, have inhibited progress.

The existing federal fuel economy targets, which were championed by California, ensure automakers keep moving toward higher efficiency vehicles, as other nations also require. The impact of freezing those targets for six years, as the administration favors, would be enormous.

The Bay Area firm Energy Innovation, which models the environmental impact of energy policies, projects the proposal would increase U.S. fuel use 20% by 2035. The firm projects the policy would cost the U.S. economy $457 billion and cause 13,000 deaths by 2050, as air quality suffers.

But the Trump administration is arguing its plan, which it dubbed Safer and Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles Rule, or SAFE, would save lives, replacing current standards that officials claim drive up the cost of vehicles too much and create a safety hazard for motorists.

Those assertions are refuted by thousands of pages of data the Obama administration used in developing the regulation. In scrapping it, the administration is relying on disputed modeling that projects vehicles that get more miles to the gallon would lead motorists to drive more frequently, thus increasing the number of traffic fatalities.

The administration also projects the efficiency rules would drive up the price of cars enough to push some buyers out of the market, leaving them to remain in older vehicles lacking life-saving new technologies like assisted braking and blind-spot warning.

The argument may prove a tough sell in court, where attorneys for states and environmental groups will come armed with a wealth of data undermining it.

“The fleet of new vehicles today is the most fuel efficient ever, and they have gotten safer every year,” said Luke Tonachel, director of clean vehicles and fuels at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “These arguments are not new. They have failed before.”

Federal data show the increased cost consumers would pay for the more efficient vehicles is dwarfed by the amount of money they would save at the pump, undermining the argument that drivers will stay in older, unsafe vehicles, advocates for the tougher rules say.

Trump administration officials conceded Thursday that labor, parts and other costs — not fuel economy rules — are the main reason cars and trucks are getting more expensive.

Automakers themselves have also confirmed they can build lighter cars to meet tougher emissions standards without sacrificing safety, UCLA environmental law professor Ann Carlson wrote Thursday. “The arguments about cost and safety are makeweights designed to provide cover for a proposal that is likely to be struck down in court.”

At a May meeting in the White House, auto firms appealed to Trump to tap the brakes on the administration’s aggressive rollback plan. He assured them he would, ordering his EPA chief and Transportation secretary to try to broker a deal with California.

Those negotiations have gone nowhere. California is confident the administration has no legal authority to revoke the waiver the state has been granted under the Clean Air Act allowing it to keep the Obama-era rules in place. In May, California and 16 other states filed a preemptive lawsuit arguing the rollback would be illegal.

“There is no precedent for revoking California’s waiver,” said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign of the Center for Auto Safety, an advocacy group in Washington. “There is no provision in the Clean Air Act for revoking a waiver. … The world is looking to California to hold its ground.”

8:15 a.m.: This article was updated with comments from Wheeler and Wehrum.
6:50 a.m.: This article was updated with a statement by Gov. Jerry Brown.
This article was originally published at 6:25 a.m.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 20:55 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Onderzoek gedaan:

[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]

https://www.prri.org/rese(...)e-sex-lgbt-marriage/

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 20:39 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Hier het hele artikel van de latimes:

[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 21:59 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Het verschil in die 2e figuur tussen mannen en vrouwen is nogal groot.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 22:02 schreef livelink het volgende:

[..]

Tijd dat California het verdrag met de VS opzegt.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 22:02 schreef livelink het volgende:

[..]

Tijd dat California het verdrag met de VS opzegt.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 22:07 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Er gaat nog wel veel water door de Mississippi voordat dit erdoor is. En daarbij, je bent dan dus voor een tweede burgeroorlog, of wat voor legaal principe zonder oorlog zou er zijn om dat te bewerkstelligen?

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 22:08 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Dat kan niet...

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 22:11 schreef livelink het volgende:

[..]

Sorry, het was ook met een knipoog naar de opzegging van het klimaatverdrag door Trump.
Ik weet dat het niet kan, maar je moet de sentimenten wel serieus nemen.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 22:13 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Oh, zeker, er loopt nu overigens een poging om de staat in 3 staten te splitsen zodat ze meer Senatoren krijgen, die is wel leuk gevonden

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 22:22 schreef livelink het volgende:
Overigens zijn de meningen of een afscheiding uberhaupt kan nog wel erg verdeeld (en de vraag leeft wel). Waar de meningen niet over verdeeld zijn is dat het praktisch gezien zo goed als onmogelijk is.

https://www.quora.com/Can(...)ss-be-done-by-voting

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 22:34 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou een gecrowdsourcede mening niet zo vertrouwen, maar wat ik daar uit haal is dat de best onderbouwde meningen, voor zover ik het kan beoordelen (in deze korte tijd), vrij duidelijk 1 kant op wijzen --> oorlog.

SPOILER

The people saying "no" aren't understanding the primary issue of secession -- namely, can people determine how they wish to be governed and by what means? Secession, by its very nature, has nothing to do with the "legality" of the act within the government it is trying to secede from - the law is completely irrelevant (even if there were one).

So, YES, YES, YES a State can secede from the union. Though many assumed that the Civil War "solved" the issue of secession it did no such thing. Even those that argue that it is illegal can't point to anywhere in the Constitution that does not allow for secession. However there is plenty of evidence from the framers that it's not only legitimate, it's a given, a true human right.

In reality, the framers of the Constitution always felt that the nation was nothing more than an agreement between sovereign entities that could part when the union did not suit their needs. The framers of the Constitution always saw that government was there to protect the inalienable rights on the people (not grant them rights). When government ceased doing that effectively, then the people -- and states -- had the natural right to leave the union (since, in essence, the union left them). The Federal government - and the United States - was only meant to provide for things that the individual states would have had a hard time doing as individual entities (protecting itself from foreign invasion, for instance).

It's popular to argue that this is "settled" - it's the easily argument for people not willing to make the effort to look into the issue more deeply. Or those that just don't understand the what "secession" really means.

One only needs to look at how the country was formed to understand how it can be taken apart. The Constitution is only in power because of the agreement of the individual, sovereign states. Every state had to vote on it - and if they voted "no" there was no desire to "force" them into the Union. North Carolina voted "no" 3 times and was successfully not invaded by the others each time. In fact, they could have just went their own way and the other states would have been fine with it.

While it's known that James Madison understood that secession was always a viable option for states, he would have likely argued that nullification was the better course of action -- something he and most of the attendees of the conventions saw as a given at the time. In other words, there's no need to leave the Union because a State can always choose to ignore, or nullify, Federal laws that overstepped the bounds of the Constitution.

But there is a buffer issue here. The question isn't about legality of secession -- which is an absurd notion to begin with. It's about if a State (i.e. the people) can leave the Union. The very simple answer is Yes, of course.

Why? Well, one of the better arguments is the Declaration of Independence.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Much like the Colonies, a State could just say, "We are done with it, thanks." The Colonies weren't looking to whether an English law existed for them to sever ties with Great Britain. Rather, they looked to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God as the deciding factor -- in short, they said that the oppressed have a natural right to choose their own destiny.

In that sense, every State, through the desires of their people, have a right to decide how they want to be governed. If, for instance Rhode Island's people no longer wanted to be a part of the Union -- would you, as a citizen of Montana, support a military action to force the people of Rhode Island into your little club? Would you support killing people in Rhode Island to make them join? Bomb Providence?

The point is, that the world today is NOT the 1860's -- it's vastly different. The Federal government would use many means to prevent the secession of a State -- primarily withholding Federal funds. In the end, however, if there was a vast groundswell of support in a state (especially a major State like Texas) there would be little that the Federal government could do if the State were willing to take the short-term economic hit.

Now, I've seen some argue that the Federal government would go to war -- Russia/Ukraine style to "protect" the rights of US citizens not in favor of the State's secession. My argument would be that unless the State used military force in their secession rather than economic and will to be peacefully left alone to their own devices, there would be no support for military action (in all likelihood those citizens would be offered a dual citizenship).

Many see secession only in the light of a bloody civil war -- the fact is that when the US breaks up, it'll likely be peacefully and for geographic and economic reasons and not result in bloodshed.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 22:40 schreef livelink het volgende:

[..]

Het zijn wel veelal deskundigen die hier antwoord op geven. Ik heb ze allemaal gelezen en was eigenlijk wel onder de indruk van dit antwoord. Of beter gezegd. Dit antwoord verwoordt het best mijn idee hierover.

SPOILER

The people saying "no" aren't understanding the primary issue of secession -- namely, can people determine how they wish to be governed and by what means? Secession, by its very nature, has nothing to do with the "legality" of the act within the government it is trying to secede from - the law is completely irrelevant (even if there were one).

So, YES, YES, YES a State can secede from the union. Though many assumed that the Civil War "solved" the issue of secession it did no such thing. Even those that argue that it is illegal can't point to anywhere in the Constitution that does not allow for secession. However there is plenty of evidence from the framers that it's not only legitimate, it's a given, a true human right.

In reality, the framers of the Constitution always felt that the nation was nothing more than an agreement between sovereign entities that could part when the union did not suit their needs. The framers of the Constitution always saw that government was there to protect the inalienable rights on the people (not grant them rights). When government ceased doing that effectively, then the people -- and states -- had the natural right to leave the union (since, in essence, the union left them). The Federal government - and the United States - was only meant to provide for things that the individual states would have had a hard time doing as individual entities (protecting itself from foreign invasion, for instance).

It's popular to argue that this is "settled" - it's the easily argument for people not willing to make the effort to look into the issue more deeply. Or those that just don't understand the what "secession" really means.

One only needs to look at how the country was formed to understand how it can be taken apart. The Constitution is only in power because of the agreement of the individual, sovereign states. Every state had to vote on it - and if they voted "no" there was no desire to "force" them into the Union. North Carolina voted "no" 3 times and was successfully not invaded by the others each time. In fact, they could have just went their own way and the other states would have been fine with it.

While it's known that James Madison understood that secession was always a viable option for states, he would have likely argued that nullification was the better course of action -- something he and most of the attendees of the conventions saw as a given at the time. In other words, there's no need to leave the Union because a State can always choose to ignore, or nullify, Federal laws that overstepped the bounds of the Constitution.

But there is a buffer issue here. The question isn't about legality of secession -- which is an absurd notion to begin with. It's about if a State (i.e. the people) can leave the Union. The very simple answer is Yes, of course.

Why? Well, one of the better arguments is the Declaration of Independence.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Much like the Colonies, a State could just say, "We are done with it, thanks." The Colonies weren't looking to whether an English law existed for them to sever ties with Great Britain. Rather, they looked to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God as the deciding factor -- in short, they said that the oppressed have a natural right to choose their own destiny.

In that sense, every State, through the desires of their people, have a right to decide how they want to be governed. If, for instance Rhode Island's people no longer wanted to be a part of the Union -- would you, as a citizen of Montana, support a military action to force the people of Rhode Island into your little club? Would you support killing people in Rhode Island to make them join? Bomb Providence?

The point is, that the world today is NOT the 1860's -- it's vastly different. The Federal government would use many means to prevent the secession of a State -- primarily withholding Federal funds. In the end, however, if there was a vast groundswell of support in a state (especially a major State like Texas) there would be little that the Federal government could do if the State were willing to take the short-term economic hit.

Now, I've seen some argue that the Federal government would go to war -- Russia/Ukraine style to "protect" the rights of US citizens not in favor of the State's secession. My argument would be that unless the State used military force in their secession rather than economic and will to be peacefully left alone to their own devices, there would be no support for military action (in all likelihood those citizens would be offered a dual citizenship).

Many see secession only in the light of a bloody civil war -- the fact is that when the US breaks up, it'll likely be peacefully and for geographic and economic reasons and not result in bloodshed.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 22:51 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ik waardeer het dat je antwoord geeft en dat er een argument gemaakt wordt, maar het ultieme argument zal denk ik altijd zijn of de federale regering het accepteert.

Staten willen zich nota bene pas afscheiden, naar het zich doet aanzien, als ze dermate diametraal tegenover de huidige regering staan, dat de regering het niet zal toestaan... wat is anders het punt van regeren, nietwaar?

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 12:27 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 02-08-2018 om 06:47:25 Thank you to Chairman Kim Jong Un for keeping your word & starting the process of sending home the remains of our great and beloved missing fallen! I am not at all surprised that you took this kind action. Also, thank you for your nice letter - l look forward to seeing you soon! reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 22:56 schreef livelink het volgende:

[..]

Ja, maar het wordt pas een burgeroorlog als de andere staten bereid zijn ervoor te vechten. En dat is maar de vraag of een federale regering dat voor elkaar krijgt.
Maar het is allemaal theoretisch, want praktisch inderdaad zo goed als onmogelijk.

quote:

LONDON — Shortly after leaving the G7 Summit in Canada in June, President Donald Trump tweeted to say he had instructed US officials not to endorse a statement he had agreed just hours earlier with other world leaders. Trump was displeased with something Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said during the summit’s closing press conference, which the president was following on TV from Air Force One.

But almost two months on, those instructions from Trump have never been acted upon, apparently ignored, two sources who were directly involved in the G7 process told BuzzFeed News.

US inaction means Trump effectively endorsed the final statement after all.

Etc.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 23:06 schreef Szura het volgende:
Er is blijkbaar helemaal geen navolging gegeven aan de G7-tweet van de fucking moron in chief

https://www.buzzfeednews.(...)delli/trump-g7-tweet

[..]

twitter:

ScottAdamsSays twitterde op vrijdag 03-08-2018 om 00:41:37 Today I had the honor of meeting your favorite president. I already feel sorry for whoever runs against him in 2020. @POTUS @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Ln1kpX6tUn reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 23:06 schreef Szura het volgende:
Er is blijkbaar helemaal geen navolging gegeven aan de G7-tweet van de fucking moron in chief

https://www.buzzfeednews.(...)delli/trump-g7-tweet

[..]

quote:

“The White House and State Dept. are actively ignoring the tweets of the president,” one of the sources said. “It's like there's a reality TV president, in his own bubble, thinking he controls stuff. It's like The Truman Show.”

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 19:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:


Welk topic?

quote:

Op donderdag 2 augustus 2018 23:06 schreef Szura het volgende:
Er is blijkbaar helemaal geen navolging gegeven aan de G7-tweet van de fucking moron in chief

https://www.buzzfeednews.(...)delli/trump-g7-tweet

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 1 augustus 2018 18:51 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Ik weet nog steeds niet over welk concreet voorstel je het hebt. Je stuk gaat enkel over wensen van Trump. Link even naar de resolution met bijbehorende stemming.
Als we het over concessies hebben dan bedoel ik dat bijvoorbeeld non-defense spending ook stijgt, sociale zekerheid wordt ontzien en meer van dat soort zaken.

quote:

US counter-intelligence investigators discovered a suspected Russian spy had been working undetected in the heart of the American embassy in Moscow for more than a decade, the Guardian has learned.

The Russian national had been hired by the US Secret Service and is understood to have had access to the agency’s intranet and email systems, which gave her a potential window into highly confidential material including the schedules of the president and vice-president.

The woman had been working for the Secret Service for years before she came under suspicion in 2016 during a routine security sweep conducted by two investigators from the US Department of State’s Regional Security Office (RSO).

They established she was having regular and unauthorised meetings with members of the FSB, Russia’s principal security agency.

The Guardian has been told the RSO sounded the alarm in January 2017, but the Secret Service did not launch a full-scale inquiry of its own. Instead it decided to let her go quietly months later, possibly to contain any potential embarrassment.

An intelligence source told the Guardian the woman was dismissed last summer after the state department revoked her security clearance. The dismissal came shortly before a round of expulsions of US personnel demanded by the Kremlin after Washington imposed more sanctions on the country.

The order to remove more than 750 US personnel from its 1,200-strong diplomatic mission is understood to have provided cover for her removal.

“The Secret Service is trying to hide the breach by firing [her],” the source said. “The damage was already done but the senior management of the Secret Service did not conduct any internal investigation to assess the damage and to see if [she] recruited any other employees to provide her with more information.

“Only an intense investigation by an outside source can determine the damage she has done.”

SPOILER

Asked detailed questions about the investigation into the woman, and her dismissal, the Secret Service attempted to downplay the significance of her role. But it did not deny that she had been identified as a potential mole.

In a statement, it said: “The US Secret Service recognizes that all Foreign Service Nationals (FSN) who provide services in furtherance of our mission, administrative or otherwise, can be subjected to foreign intelligence influence.

“This is of particular emphasis in Russia. As such, all foreign service nationals are managed accordingly to ensure that Secret Service and United States government interests are protected at all times. As a result, the duties are limited to translation, interpretation, cultural guidance, liaison and administrative support.

“It was specifically the duties of the FSN position in Moscow to assist our attaches and agency by engaging the Russian government, including the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), the Russian Ministry of the Interior (MVD), and the Russian Federal Protective Service (FSO) in furtherance of Secret Service interests.”

It said: “At no time, in any US Secret Service office, have FSNs been provided or placed in a position to obtain national security information.”

The state department said it would not comment “on allegations related to intelligence or personnel matters, and we have no information for you on this alleged incident.”

But it said it was aware “that US government employees, by virtue of their employment with the US government, may be targeted by foreign intelligence services … when we identify an employee in violation of security directives, we take appropriate action at the appropriate time.”

The Secret Service is a US federal law enforcement agency that sits within the Department of Homeland Security and has more than 150 offices worldwide. Its mission, it says, is the “protection of the nation’s leaders and the financial and critical infrastructure of the United States”.

The discovery of a suspected FSB mole on its staff within the US embassy in Moscow would be hugely damaging to its reputation and could have severe consequences for the safety of other Secret Service staff and those it is mandated to protect.

The Guardian has been told the name of the suspected spy and her job title within the agency. She did not respond to numerous email requests to discuss her role at the embassy or the allegations made against her.

It is understood she came under suspicion two years ago during a routine review of Secret Service personnel in the so-called Paris district of the agency, which includes Moscow, London and Frankfurt. The RSO reviews take place every five years.

With a role that gave her an insight into ongoing Secret Service investigations, the woman had access to the Secret Service intranet, its internal email and its counterfeit-money tracking system.

A source claimed “her frequent contacts with the FSB gave her away ... numerous unsanctioned meetings and communications”.

The Guardian has been told the state department’s resident agents in charge alerted the Secret Service in January 2017 and at least nine high-ranking Secret Service officials became aware of the findings.

At the time, separate CIA and FBI inquires were also under way, but it appears the Secret Service was expected to take the lead. It failed to do so, according to a source.

“She had access to the most damaging database, which is the US Secret Service official mail system,” the source said. “Part of her access was schedules of the president – current and past, vice-president and their spouses, including Hillary Clinton.”

She had plenty of time to gather intelligence without supervision, the source said. “Several employees interacted with her on a personal level by emailing her personally on a non-work account. This isn’t allowed.”

The Department of Homeland Security was apparently notified about the case but it is unclear how much detail was passed on to officials outside the agency. It is also unclear why the woman, a Russian national, was hired by the Secret Service in the first place or what kind of vetting took place.

The Guardian has been told that the potential breach was not reported to any of the congressional intelligence or oversight committees.

A source said: “A government committee needs to investigate the Secret Service for hiding this breach.”

Another option would be to include it in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into suspected Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election.

“The US Congress is focusing on Russian hackers when it is possible that all of the information they needed to get into the system came from the internal breach in the Secret Service,” the source said.

“Her activities of stealing and sharing information could shed more light on how the Russians were able to hack the 2016 presidential election office of the DNC [Democratic National Committee].”

They added: “I think that the special counsel would be the perfect outside entity to investigate the level of damage that [she] caused. They have access to all types of counterintelligence information and they wouldn’t lie ... to avoid reporting this serious operational and security breach.”

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 augustus 2018 02:45 schreef Berkery het volgende:

[..]

Deze post vooral: BNW / The Cabal; the Weaponization of Government - deel II

Ik heb geprobeerd me in te lezen in de reeks maar dat ging ongeveer zo:

[ afbeelding ]

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op vrijdag 03-08-2018 om 01:50:08 "I have great respect for the U.K. United Kingdom. Great respect. People call it Britain. They call it Great Britain. They used to call it England, different parts." (via Fox) https://t.co/IgLQ6CFjzQ reageer retweet

twitter:

daHoovster twitterde op vrijdag 03-08-2018 om 02:41:04 @MollyJongFast @kylegriffin1 "Also, Lucky Charms come from Ireland. Which some say is is part of Great Britain, but really is imaginary. Nobody knows this. Only me." reageer retweet

twitter:

thoughtwhirl twitterde op vrijdag 03-08-2018 om 03:30:30 @JMBloomfield @daHoovster @TheRickWilson @MollyJongFast @kylegriffin1 I mean England. Like they used to call it. And the different parts, the great tigers. People are saying all the Britains want me to be their President. reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 augustus 2018 09:50 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op vrijdag 03-08-2018 om 01:50:08 "I have great respect for the U.K. United Kingdom. Great respect. People call it Britain. They call it Great Britain. They used to call it England, different parts." (via Fox) https://t.co/IgLQ6CFjzQ reageer retweet

twitter:

daHoovster twitterde op vrijdag 03-08-2018 om 02:41:04 @MollyJongFast @kylegriffin1 "Also, Lucky Charms come from Ireland. Which some say is is part of Great Britain, but really is imaginary. Nobody knows this. Only me." reageer retweet

twitter:

thoughtwhirl twitterde op vrijdag 03-08-2018 om 03:30:30 @JMBloomfield @daHoovster @TheRickWilson @MollyJongFast @kylegriffin1 I mean England. Like they used to call it. And the different parts, the great tigers. People are saying all the Britains want me to be their President. reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 augustus 2018 12:39 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Een overzicht van de smoesjes van Trump om maar niet met Mueller te praten staat hier.

https://www.vox.com/2018/(...)obstruction-giuliani

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 augustus 2018 00:48 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

ScottAdamsSays twitterde op vrijdag 03-08-2018 om 00:41:37 Today I had the honor of meeting your favorite president. I already feel sorry for whoever runs against him in 2020. @POTUS @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Ln1kpX6tUn reageer retweet

Scott Adams ontmoet de 4D Chess master.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 augustus 2018 13:17 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Ik al die tijd maar denken dat Lincoln dood is en niet meer mag meedoen met de elections.