SPOILER

Vice President - Mike Pence

Het kabinet
Secretary of State - Mike Pompeo
Secretary of Treasury - Steven Mnuchin
Acting Secretary of Defense - Patrick M. Shanahan
Acting Attorney General - Matthew Whitaker
Secretary of the Interior - ???
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

Cabinet-level officials:
Acting White House Chief of Staff - Mick Mulvaney
Trade Representative - Robert Lighthizer
Director of National Intelligence - Dan Coats
Ambassador to the UN - ???
Director of the Office of Management & Budget - ???
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency - Gina Haspel
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency - ???
Administrator of the Small Business Administration - Linda McMahon

Andere kopstukken:
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).

Verdwenen of voormalige kopstukken:
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, General Jim 'Mad Dog' Mattis, Jeff Sessions. John F. Kelly, Ryan Zinke, Nikki Haley, Scott Pruitt

SPOILER

twitter:

Proud_Cons twitterde op woensdag 02-01-2019 om 19:08:43 LOL John Kasich is running for president. His (secret) website: https://t.co/CF2Rm109xX and you can already join his mailing list. #Kasich #Trump #Romney #GOP #primary2020 #MAGA #maga2020 reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 17:47 schreef JimmyDean het volgende:

[..]

Bloomberg zou ik prima vinden.

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 17:50 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:
geen idee of het waar is:

twitter:

RealSaavedra twitterde op maandag 31-12-2018 om 23:38:01 Pete Hegseth: Elizabeth Warren "says she's in the fight all the way Mr. President, do you really think she believes she can win?"President Donald Trump: "Well, that I don't know. You'd have to ask her psychiatrist." https://t.co/sOzH6JZFrk reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 03-01-2019 om 17:10:31 https://t.co/JzfXMAPwKP reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 03-01-2019 om 17:10:31 reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 18:00 schreef Arcee het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 03-01-2019 om 17:10:31 [ afbeelding ] reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 17:54 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Het probleem is dat wanneer de democraten komen met een centrist zoals Beto, Bloomberg of Brown er een zekere kans aanwezig is dat er een linkse onafhankelijke kandidaat komt en dan gaat Trump door die verdeeldheid waarschijnlijk winnen. Trump één op één tegen een centrist, dan verliest Trump.

Wanneer de democraten komen met een ‘’echte’’ linkse kandidaat zoals Sanders of Warren, dan wint Trump zelfs misschien één op één. Maar ik denk dan dat er een onafhankelijke centristische kandidaat komt. Dan wint Trump hoogstwaarschijnlijk zijn herverkiezing.

De democraten moeten dus met een kandidaat komen die zowel het midden als de linkerkant aanspreekt. Ik zie alleen Biden momenteel die dat kan doen.

twitter:

frankthorp twitterde op donderdag 03-01-2019 om 18:02:18 Just showed this tweet to @ewarren. Her response: "Yea, again, how about the president spends his time getting the government back open..." https://t.co/L4U6aDmq4Y reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 17:57 schreef Nintex het volgende:
De campagne is al begonnen trouwens

twitter:

RealSaavedra twitterde op maandag 31-12-2018 om 23:38:01 Pete Hegseth: Elizabeth Warren "says she's in the fight all the way Mr. President, do you really think she believes she can win?"President Donald Trump: "Well, that I don't know. You'd have to ask her psychiatrist." https://t.co/sOzH6JZFrk reageer retweet

Wie de Democraten ook gaan opofferen om in 2020 het tegen Trump op te nemen is kansloos.
Trump's favoriete bezigheid is politici die niet zo handig zijn met de media tot de grond toe afbranden en alle media aandacht opeisen, zodat geen van de plannen die ze hebben ook maar een minuutje zendtijd krijgt

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 03-01-2019 om 17:10:31 https://t.co/JzfXMAPwKP reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 18:13 schreef JimmyDean het volgende:

[..]

Stel je voor dat ze samen op een debatpodium staan. Trump zal haar volledig vernederen met zijn lichaamstaal, daar kan ze niet tegenop. Warren heeft nu al geen schijn van kans.

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 18:19 schreef Tweek het volgende:

[..]

Lichaamstaal? Als die er weer als een demente zak aardappelen over het podium gaat rond dwalen bedoel je?

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 18:19 schreef Tweek het volgende:

[..]

Lichaamstaal? Als die er weer als een demente zak aardappelen over het podium gaat rond dwalen bedoel je?

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 18:21 schreef JimmyDean het volgende:

[..]

Trump's grootste asset is dat hij de anderen op het podium non-verbaal domineert, en de conversatie naar zich toe trekt. Zo heeft hij de republikeinse nominatie ook weten te winnen. De andere kandidaten waren figuranten in de Trump show. Clinton won het debat op inhoud, maar Trump's manier van doen zorgde er toch voor dat je niet die indruk kreeg.

quote:

Writing on September 28, FiveThirtyEight found that every scientific poll so far suggests that voters thought Hillary Clinton performed better than Donald Trump in the debate.[38] A CNN/ORC poll of debate viewers found that 62% believed Clinton won, compared to 27% for Trump.[39] A poll conducted by Public Policy Polling found that 51% thought Clinton won the debate, while 40% thought Trump won.[40] A YouGov poll found that 57% of Americans declared Clinton the winner, while 30% declared Trump the winner.[41] A Politico/Morning Consult poll showed that 49% of likely voters thought that Clinton won the debate, while 26% thought that Trump won, and 25% were undecided.[42] Echelon Insights polling showed that Clinton won the debate 48-22, and that the debate made 41% of respondents more likely to vote for Clinton while 29% were more likely to vote for Trump.[43] A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 56% of Americans thought Clinton did better, while 26% thought Trump did.[44] An NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll shows that 52% of likely voters who followed the debate chose Clinton was the winner, 21% chose Trump, and 26% did not choose either candidate.[45] A Gallup poll showed that more respondents thought Clinton did a better job than Trump by a margin of 61% to 27%.[46] A Fox News poll shows that 61% of respondents thought that Clinton won the debate while 21% said Trump did.[47] An ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that 53% of respondents thought that Clinton won the debate while 18% said Trump did.[48] A CBS News poll shows that 32% of likely voters say that they thought better of Clinton after watching the debate, but only 10% of voters said that they thought better of Trump afterward.[49]

A panel of Los Angeles Times analysts consisting of Doyle McManus and two others found that Clinton won all six of the debate segments.[50] Among swing-state party officials and strategists surveyed by Politico, 79% agreed that Trump did not win the debate.[51]

quote:

A Politico/Morning Consult poll showed that 42% of respondents considered Clinton the winner of the debate, while 28% considered Trump the winner, and a slightly higher percentage (30%) were undecided.[81] A CNN/ORC poll found that 57% of viewers believed Clinton won, compared to 34% for Trump, despite the fact that most respondents felt that the latter exceeded expectations.[82] An NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll showed that Clinton won the debate with 44% to Trump's 34%, while 21% said neither won.[83] A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 53% of viewers said Clinton won while 32% said Trump won.[84] According to a Gallup poll, 53% of viewers considered Clinton to be the winner while 35% considered Trump the winner.[85] A Fox News poll of debate watchers found 52% considered Clinton the winner compared to 39% for Trump, with 9% saying they tied or did not know.[86] A Baldwin Wallace University Community Research Institute (CRI) poll of likely Ohio voters showed that 52% found that Clinton won the debate, 31% that Trump won, and 17% found that it was a tie.[87] According to a Qriously poll of likely voters in eight key battleground states, 44% gave the win to Clinton while 33% gave it to Trump.[88] According to a Fox 2 Detroit/Mitchell Poll of likely Michigan voters, 48% gave the win to Clinton while 36% gave it to Trump.[89]

Trump's claim that he won the second debate with Hillary Clinton "in a landslide" in "every poll" was found to be false by Politifact, which noted that "not only did Trump not win by a landslide margin, he didn’t win any of the polls at all".[90]

quote:

A Morning Consult/Politico poll found that 43% of respondents considered Clinton the winner of the debate, with 26% saying Trump.[102] An NBC/SurveyMonkey poll showed that 46% of respondents considered Clinton as the winner, where as 37% considered Trump the winner.[103] An ABC News poll found that 52% of likely voters thought that Clinton was the winner, with 29% saying that Trump won the debate.[104] A Gallup poll showed that Clinton beat Trump 60% to 31% in perceptions of who won debate.[105] A poll by the CBS News Battleground Tracker of viewers in 13 swing states found that 49% of voters in those states thought that Clinton won the debate, while 39% thought Trump won, with 12% calling it a tie.[106]

Donald Trump's use of the phrases "bad hombres" and "nasty woman" spurred massive viral backlash.[107][108][109][110]

An Associated Press/GfK poll, which asked respondents about the candidates' performance in all three debates, found that 69% thought that Clinton performed better while 29% thought that Trump did.[111]

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 18:00 schreef Arcee het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 03-01-2019 om 17:10:31 [ afbeelding ] reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 18:52 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:
Pence zou nog een budget deal aan Trump hebben voorgelegd vandaag, maar Trump wou er niets van weten. De shutdown continues...

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 18:52 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:
Pence zou nog een budget deal aan Trump hebben voorgelegd vandaag, maar Trump wou er niets van weten. De shutdown continues...

twitter:

nickconfessore twitterde op donderdag 03-01-2019 om 18:27:01 A good illustration to me of how weird the wall debate is.Trump campaigned to build a thing that basically already exists, to solve a problem that was already diminishing.Dems don't want to give him the thing that already exists, which most of them already voted for. https://t.co/GplhlQW5L9 reageer retweet

quote:

The RNC has a great Chairwoman in Ronna McDaniel and the @GOP has never been stronger. We achieved historic wins with her help last year! #MAGA🇺🇸

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 19:54 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

twitter:

nickconfessore twitterde op donderdag 03-01-2019 om 18:27:01 A good illustration to me of how weird the wall debate is.Trump campaigned to build a thing that basically already exists, to solve a problem that was already diminishing.Dems don't want to give him the thing that already exists, which most of them already voted for. https://t.co/GplhlQW5L9 reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 20:10 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
David Frum vraagt zich af waarom Trump Russische propaganda verspreidt.

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 20:19 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:
Ik moest vandaag opeens denken aan Elfletterig die zo'n fan was van Martin O'Malley. Hij zal wel een baaldag hebben nu

Persoonlijk denk ik dat O'Malley deze race best een kleinse kans had gehad en als surrogaat voro Beto had kunnen dienen in de race.

quote:

For two years, the Republican Majority refused to hold the Trump Administration accountable. That ends today.

We will do our jobs. We will work to raise incomes and help all families succeed. We will protect healthcare. And we will do vital oversight.

Now, let's get to work.

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 20:05 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Pelosi House Speaker

Dow -600 points

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 18:32 schreef Nintex het volgende:
De hele gimmick van Trump is ook niet dat hij goed zijn best moet doen bij zo'n debat.
Iedereen gaat voor de TV zitten voor de 'show'. Je kijkt niet een debat met Donald Trump, omdat je er inhoudelijk iets van probeert op te steken.

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 22:32 schreef Freak188 het volgende:

[..]

Hoe gaat dat gezegde ook alweer? Een pestkop trekt in een discussie naar zijn (lagere) niveau en wint de discussie.

Trump is een straatvechter en doet dat ket verve. Jammer dat hij voor de rest totaal geen idee of visie heeft. Korte termijn blijft ie als een kind om zn muur vragen, dat doet het goed bij zn simpele aanhangers. Lange termijn zal de meerderheid weleens klaar zijn met die Calimero.

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 22:56 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ik begrijp dat Trump ook een poging deed aandacht te krijgen op het moment van Pelosi?

twitter:

ComfortablySmug twitterde op donderdag 03-01-2019 om 23:02:10 Latest Instagram photo from the President of the United States https://t.co/DWLxVpitEw reageer retweet

twitter:

thehill twitterde op donderdag 03-01-2019 om 21:15:00 .@SenatorSinema sworn in by @VP. https://t.co/uIBiIhqqXF https://t.co/TYWVHujtHm reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 23:33 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

ComfortablySmug twitterde op donderdag 03-01-2019 om 23:02:10 Latest Instagram photo from the President of the United States https://t.co/DWLxVpitEw reageer retweet

Donald gooit er nog even wat hype memes tegenaan

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 22:36 schreef Ulx het volgende:
#BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: GOP senator calls on Congress to reach deal ending shutdown without border wall funding https://t.co/dECoTCZ95X https://t.co/156xjws9vI

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 20:05 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Pelosi House Speaker

Dow -600 points

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 20:19 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:
Ik moest vandaag opeens denken aan Elfletterig die zo'n fan was van Martin O'Malley. Hij zal wel een baaldag hebben nu

Persoonlijk denk ik dat O'Malley deze race best een kleinse kans had gehad en als surrogaat voro Beto had kunnen dienen in de race.

quote:

Op donderdag 3 januari 2019 20:05 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Pelosi House Speaker

Dow -600 points

quote:

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 02:45:02 Inbox: Rep. Steve Cohen introduced two Constitutional Amendments today. One to eliminate the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the POTUS and VPOTUS. One to prohibit presidents from pardoning themselves, family members, members of their admin and campaign. reageer retweet

quote:

President Donald Trump’s Cabinet is increasingly stocked with temporary stand-ins and Washington insiders with deep ties to the industries they regulate, complicating Trump’s ability to govern as he approaches the most perilous period of his presidency and opening up his advisers to conflict-of-interest investigations by resurgent Democrats.

As of Thursday, at least four key Cabinet-level agencies — the Defense Department, the Health and Human Services Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department — are being led by former corporate executives or industry lobbyists.

Meanwhile, Trump’s Cabinet is more unsettled than any time since he took office two years ago. The heads of the EPA and the Interior and Defense departments, as well as the attorney general and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, are all serving in an acting capacity while Trump searches for permanent replacements or waits for the Senate to confirm his picks. That’s not to mention Mick Mulvaney, who is serving as acting White House chief of staff while also running the Office of Management and Budget.

“This is unprecedented,” said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit that advised the Trump transition team as it set up the government. “Fundamentally, permanent leadership is required to be able to run the government effectively.”

Lawyers, government watchdogs and veterans of past administrations warn that Trump’s reliance on acting officials and former lobbyists could unleash a litany of potential problems.

Controversial decisions made by acting secretaries could be challenged in court by injured parties who dispute the legitimacy of the appointed department head, as has already happened with acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker. Temporary leaders may not be equipped to respond to a major crisis like a terrorist attack or take the lead in implementing crucial policy directives.

And House Democrats have already signaled that they intend to investigate Cabinet secretaries’ potential conflicts of interest, likely subjecting agency leaders to contentious oversight hearings and an explosion of document requests.

“I definitely see this as the swamp times 10,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a watchdog group. “I have been doing this for 30 years, and I can’t remember a time when we’ve had so many agencies being run by people who are coming from the industries they regulate or are recipients of multibillion-dollar contracts.”

SPOILER

Facing a new Democratic majority in the House and the looming conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, the Trump administration has often had difficulty recruiting top-tier candidates for high-level jobs, according to people familiar with the matter.

One lawyer who represents people seeking jobs in the government said a client recently turned down an administration job because the person “was not eager to be constantly sitting in a House hearing room.”

Trump, for his part, has signaled that he isn’t concerned about being surrounded by so many acting Cabinet secretaries. Late last month, the president said acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan might stay on for a “long time,” though an administration official confirmed to POLITICO on Thursday that the administration was considering former Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, among others, for the job. The New York Times first reported that Webb was in contention for the position.

Trump’s decision to force Defense Secretary James Mattis to depart at the beginning of this month, instead of allowing him to stay on until the end of February as he originally planned, created a leadership gap at the department unlike any seen since the George H.W. Bush administration.

The Defense Department has not had an acting secretary since 1989, according to Anne Joseph O’Connell, a law professor at Stanford University who tracks federal vacancies. Even when they are pushed out, departing defense secretaries traditionally stay on until their successors are confirmed by the Senate, in order to ensure the department has a permanent leader who can manage high-stakes global and domestic conflicts.

“It’s part of a pattern of either conscious or negligent inattention to staffing top positions in the government,” O’Connell said.

Even though he has regularly expressed frustration with key members of his Cabinet, from former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Mattis, Trump has also praised his current crop of top advisers, arguing that he has assembled a great team. The president is particularly high on current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, whom he views as a loyal defender.

Yet White House officials have privately expressed deep annoyance with the ethical lapses of some in Trump’s Cabinet, including now-former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, whose last day was Wednesday. Aides believed that the constant negative stories about Zinke, as well as former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and former HHS Secretary Tom Price, became a distraction, and they pushed for Trump to fire them.

But for now, at least, aides said they expected the wave of departures to slow.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who has lost favor with the president and faced a slew of allegations about financial conflicts of interest, had been seen as the next Cabinet secretary to go. However, the sheer number of high-level vacancies is seen as making Ross’ future in the administration more secure for the time being.

Still, the loose network of outside groups who probe conflict-of-interest and ethics concerns see Ross as a case study for how they might conduct oversight of other top Trump administration officials. One person closely tracking the issue, for example, called the Campaign Legal Center’s aggressive investigations into problems with Ross’ financial disclosures a “roadmap” for House Democrats.

In addition to Ross, House Democrats are expected to keep a close eye on the potential conflicts of interest of at least four other agency leaders: HHS Secretary Alex Azar, acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Shanahan, the acting defense secretary.

Azar is the former president of drug giant Eli Lilly’s U.S. operations. Wheeler, who Trump announced last year would be his nominee as full time head of the EPA, is a former lobbyist for the coal industry. Bernhardt is a former lobbyist for the oil and natural gas industries. He took over for Zinke in an acting capacity.

Shanahan, who stepped in as acting defense secretary this week, is a former longtime Boeing executive. The Defense Department announced this week that he would recuse himself from any Pentagon matters related to Boeing.

The president’s decision to tap lobbyists and former industry executives to lead major departments, even on a temporary basis, appears to conflict with his repeated promises during the campaign to “drain the swamp” and limit the influence of vested interests in government decision making.

“We have to break the cycle of corruption, and we have to give new voices a chance … so that we can have a government that works again and can function properly,” Trump said during a 2016 campaign speech in Colorado in which he outlined lobbying restrictions.

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

Shortly after Trump became president, he signed an executive order mandating that, for a period of two years from the date of employment, government officials could not “participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.”

But the administration’s critics have alleged that the White House has loosely enforced that provision.

For example, Wheeler lobbied for Murray Energy, a major coal producer and significant opponent of environmental regulations during President Barack Obama’s time in office. (Wheeler has complained before about press descriptions of him as a former coal lobbyist, noting other clients such as cheesemaker Sargento.)

Wheeler lobbied Congress on Murray’s behalf, but disclosures indicate that he did not directly lobby the EPA for the coal company. Photos leaked in December 2017 show Wheeler attending a meeting earlier that year between CEO Robert Murray and Energy Secretary Rick Perry. Murray used the meeting to pass along an “action plan” of deregulatory actions for the Trump administration to use to help the coal industry.

Once at the EPA, Wheeler did recuse himself from any “particular matters” involving Murray and other former clients. But that narrow category applies to the agency’s specific permitting or enforcement actions that involve Murray, not the coal company’s deregulatory wish list, such as rolling back carbon dioxide and mercury rules for coal-fired power plants — two issues he oversees as acting head of the EPA.

Trump, for his part, insists that he has kept his promise to “drain the swamp.”

“From the day I took the oath of office,” he said during a White House event last year, “I’ve been fighting to drain the swamp, and sometimes it may not look like it, but believe me, we are draining the swamp.”

twitter:

MEPFuller twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 03:29:16 Two Republicans already on the board supporting the stopgap spending bill for DHS. Currently at 163-164.There are shutdown cracks in the GOP, but they are still small. reageer retweet

twitter:

MEPFuller twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 03:35:33 House passes stopgap spending bill for DHS, and five Republicans break ranks to support it.Bill passes 239-192. reageer retweet

quote:

When supporters of Elizabeth Warren gathered on Capitol Hill today, they were ostensibly celebrating the Massachusetts senator’s swearing in to a second term.

But it was hard to miss that crackle of presidential politics in the air. “The state of Warren nation is strong,” shouted a gleeful Senator Ed Markey, as he introduced Ms. Warren to her fans. “The chief is here.” Not long after, President Trump tweeted a meme featuring a “Warren 2020” sticker edited to mock her.

Ms. Warren’s highly choreographed announcement on Monday that she is exploring a bid for president was the political version of firing a starting pistol for the 2020 Democratic primary. She is the highest-profile Democratic contender to have entered the race, with national poll numbers, substantial grass-roots support and a sizable donor network. She’s even headed to Iowa this weekend.

Basically, it’s game on.

But, honestly, at this point, there isn’t all that much of a game. Yes, more than three dozen candidates are considering running. And yes, as my colleague Alex Burns and I covered in the paper over the weekend, they’re interviewing staff, scouting headquarters and fleshing out financial plans.

But almost no one is actually running — at least not yet. We’re still in that period of wild speculation. And with little visibly happening, political clichés like “likability” and “electability” are bound to appear out of the ether to fill the void.

That’s part of what Ms. Warren discovered this week.

SPOILER

Within hours of her tweet, she was “battling the ghosts of Hillary Clinton” to avoid being written off as unlikable. She was a “below par candidate,” based on the size of her Senate victory in deep blue Massachusetts, who faces real “electability” problems.

It’s hard to see how these terms apply in the traditional sense in 2020. For the first time in 15 years, Democrats have an open field with no establishment favorite, so measuring electability is pretty difficult. And besides, being in the establishment may not be the asset it once was considered. At this point in 2015, Mrs. Clinton was seen as the most electable, even if she wasn’t likable — and we all know how that story ended.

The Democratic pollster Margie Omero says terms like “likability” aren’t quite accurate in the Trump era. And you should forget about the old political chestnut that voters want “the guy they can have a beer with.”

“Obviously, people want someone that they like,” says Ms. Omero. “But this sense that likability is the be-all and end-all of how voters view candidates is not really consistent with how we explore public opinion.”

A better measure, she says, comes from tracking job approval, empathy and the sense voters have that a candidate will fight for people like them. “There are plenty of successful politicians out there who seem like they’re striving more to be tough fighters than huggy, baby-kissing kind of candidates,” says Ms. Omero.

Ahem, President Trump. Senator Mitch McConnell. Senator Ted Cruz. Senator Bernie Sanders.

You might notice that they’re all men. That’s not surprising.

A whole body of academic research on “likability bias” shows it’s not enough for female leaders to be qualified — they have to be likable, too. Take Representative Nancy Pelosi, for example. For years, she’s been a top target of Republicans in attack ads, a situation her opponents often attribute to the fact that she’s a San Francisco liberal. But her equivalent in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, is a liberal from Brooklyn and far less targeted by Republicans.

Or take those comparisons between Ms. Warren and the “ghosts of Hillary Clinton.” They’re both blond. They’re both grandmothers. They’re both female Democratic politicians. And they’re both lawyers. Other than that, it’s hard to see what, exactly, Ms. Warren and Ms. Clinton have in common.

For her part, Ms. Warren largely refused to engage with issue of sexism or likability when I caught up with her on Capitol Hill today, dismissing the debate as a distraction. “I’m going to keep fighting on the issues because I think that’s what matters most,” she said.

But her team saw some the value in the conversation: On Wednesday, they sent out a fund-raising email with the subject line “likability.”

So, does this mean that if you don’t like Ms. Warren, you’re sexist? Obviously not. There are plenty of reasons for Democrats to decide that Ms. Warren shouldn’t be their nominee in 2020.

But perhaps there needs to be a bit more specificity in the conversation when we talk about who we like and who we don’t — and what, exactly, that means.

So, does this mean that if you don’t like Ms. Warren, you’re sexist? Obviously not. There are plenty of reasons for Democrats to decide that Ms. Warren shouldn’t be their nominee in 2020.

But perhaps there needs to be a bit more specificity in the conversation when we talk about who we like and who we don’t — and what, exactly, that means.

twitter:

mkraju twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 04:33:15 The five House Rs who broke with Trump and voted to reopen DHS til February 8: Hurd, Smith of New Jersey, Fitzpatrick, Katko, Stefanik reageer retweet

twitter:

mkraju twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 04:51:57 The seven House Republicans who voted to fund the other shuttered agencies for the rest of the fiscal year: Hurd, Stefanik, Upton, Fitzpatrick, Pete King, Walden, Katko reageer retweet

quote:

For weeks, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, has remained conspicuously on the sidelines, insisting that it was up to President Trump and Democrats to negotiate an end to the partial shutdown of the federal government.

But with the shutdown soon to enter its third week, and Mr. Trump dug in on his demand for $5 billion to build a border wall, Mr. McConnell for the first time is facing pressure from members of his own party to step in to resolve the stalemate that has left 800,000 federal workers either furloughed or working without pay.

By absenting himself, Mr. McConnell had hoped to push the blame for a prolonged shutdown onto Democrats while protecting Republicans running for re-election in 2020 — including himself. Much as Democrats did in 2018, Republicans will face a difficult map in 2020, with a handful of incumbent senators facing re-election in swing states or states won by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race.

But on Thursday, as a new era of divided government opened in Washington, perhaps the most vulnerable Republican, Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, broke ranks to become the first member of his party to call for an end to the shutdown — with or without Mr. Trump’s wall funding.

“I think we should pass a continuing resolution to get the government back open,” Mr. Gardner, whose state has a heavy federal presence, told The Hill newspaper. “The Senate has done it last Congress, we should do it again today.”

A second vulnerable Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the chamber’s most moderate members, said Thursday that she would support separating homeland security funding from the other bipartisan appropriations bills already approved in committee to reopen much of the government — as Democrats have proposed. But Mr. McConnell is refusing to take up the Democrats’ measures.

“It would be great to have them signed into law because there is not great controversy over them, and at least we’d be getting those workers back to work,” Ms. Collins said.

SPOILER

Mr. McConnell’s distant posture reflects his new status as the man in the middle in a Capitol where Democrats now control the House of Representatives and Republicans have netted two seats to hold a 53-to-47 majority in the Senate. He has repeatedly said he will not bring up legislation that Mr. Trump does not support — a point he reiterated in a speech on Thursday on the Senate floor.

“I’ve made it clear on several occasions, and let me say it again: The Senate will not take up any proposal that does not have a real chance of passing this chamber and getting a presidential signature,” Mr. McConnell said. “Let’s not waste the time. Let’s not get off on the wrong foot, with House Democrats using their new platform to produce political statements rather than serious solutions.”

After two years of trying to advance Mr. Trump’s agenda, Mr. McConnell now sees his primary job as standing in the way of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who vowed in her inaugural speech on Thursday to “reach across the aisle in this chamber,” but who is also poised to pass legislation on a bevy of liberal priorities, including gun restrictions and protections for young undocumented immigrants.

“I think McConnell is going to be Trump’s best friend when it comes to blocking all of Nancy Pelosi’s worst shots,” said Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist who is close to Mr. McConnell. “For Trump and McConnell, there’s a lot of good politics for that — particularly for McConnell in Kentucky.”

Democrats are trying to drive a wedge between Republican leaders and their vulnerable incumbents up for re-election in 2020, especially Mr. Gardner, Ms. Collins, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Senator Martha McSally of Arizona, who was appointed to fill the seat left vacant after Senator John McCain’s death. The campaign arm of the Senate Democrats released a series of statements to local news media on Thursday targeting each senator and demanding they make a choice to fund the government or “own” the consequences.

“Cory Gardner owns every miserable consequence of his pointless government shutdown, and he just realized it’s a problem for his own political career,” read one from David Bergstein, a campaign committee spokesman. “When he votes 99 percent of the time with President Trump and then tries to run away from his record, all it proves is Coloradans can’t trust him to look out for anyone but himself.”

And Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, called on Mr. McConnell to jump into the talks with Mr. Trump.

“The power to end the shutdown is in two people’s hands: Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell,” Mr. Schumer said Thursday in a brief hallway interview. “Either one of them could end the shutdown. They both should try.”

Mr. McConnell, 76, is the longest-serving Senate Republican leader in history and is a wily tactician. While he is not generally considered vulnerable, his popularity is lagging at home. A poll by Western Kentucky University last spring found that only 30 percent of Kentuckians approve of his job performance. Sticking with Mr. Trump, whose approval ratings top 50 percent in Kentucky, is in his own political interest.

But if he wants to hang onto his job as majority leader, Mr. McConnell must also be mindful of the political fortunes of Republicans seeking re-election in states won by Mrs. Clinton in 2016 or by Democrats in November. A prolonged government shutdown is the last thing those lawmakers need. And even some Republicans up for re-election in states won by Mr. Trump, like Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, sound uneasy.

“A shutdown, in my view, is a no-win proposition,” Ms. Capito said, adding that she heard complaints from Transportation Security Administration workers as she was returning to Washington for the start of the new Congress this week. Ms. Capito is the chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security; the panel has already passed a bill funding the department, including $1.6 billion for border security including fencing — but with no money for Mr. Trump’s wall.

“It is just a lot of unneeded stress on a lot of people,” she said of the shutdown.

“I would like to see it resolved soon,” said Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, who also faces re-election in 2020. She repeated herself for emphasis: “I would like to see it resolved soon.”

For Mr. McConnell, the shutdown fight presents a dynamic that is likely to become familiar over the next two years, as House Democrats rush to pass long-sought liberal policies and, in many cases, try to use the chamber to highlight Republicans’ opposition to legislative changes they believe are overwhelmingly popular. Mr. McConnell has already been burned once, having negotiated and passed through the Senate a plan to avoid the shutdown in the first place only to have Mr. Trump pull his support at the last minute.

“He faces that reality now on every issue: What’s the White House going to do with this?” said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and Mr. Schumer’s No. 2. He predicted that Mr. McConnell’s approach — to simply stand in the way so that Mr. Trump is not forced to use his veto pen — would only change if Republican senators up for re-election begin to fear political costs of carrying the president’s water.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Mr. McConnell’s former No. 2, compared Mr. McConnell’s task to “threading a needle.” Mr. McConnell’s former chief of staff, Josh Holmes, said it was considerably more simple than that.

“He’s seen this situation many times before and knows where the leverage points are,” Mr. Holmes said. “He knows that there are attempts to try to get Republicans to negotiate against themselves. But he’s not going to be bullied into putting his conference into a disadvantage.”

Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama and the Appropriations Committee chairman, has taken a more activist stance, running sideline negotiations with Democrats over the holidays to try to hatch a compromise that they and Mr. Trump could support. But those negotiations ultimately amounted to nothing, and on Thursday, Mr. Shelby predicted a protracted shutdown.

“I am thinking we might be in for a long haul here,” he told reporters. “If we can ever get over this, then you have a new week, a new day and so forth. But if we don’t get over this, if this goes on for months and months — it could, hope not — then this might be a preview of coming attractions.”

Mr. Shelby predicted the standoff would end with one side agreeing to come to the negotiating table, but he bemoaned the half-dozen appropriations bills he helped guide through committee that have, at least for now, been laid to waste.

“Absolutely — it’s frustrating that we have not reached a resolution,” he said.

quote:

The former US marine who is being held in Moscow on charges of spying is a British citizen, it has emerged.

Paul Whelan, who is thought to be facing 20 years in a Russian prison if convicted, was initially thought to be American, but was revealed to be a dual national on Thursday evening. The UK Foreign Office said: “Our staff have requested consular access to a British man detained in Russia after receiving a request for assistance from him.”

The 48-year-old’s lawyer, Vladimir Zherebenkov, has said he has applied for Whelan to be released on bail, though a decision is not expected soon. According to the Associated Press, Zherebenkov said he visited Whelan on Wednesday and found him in a “very hopeful” mood.

The US ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman, met Whelan at Lefortovo prison, the former KGB facility where he is being held, the same day. The ambassador said Washington had complained to the Russian government about the length of time it had taken to grant consular access to Whelan after his arrest.

Whelan works for a Michigan-based car parts supplier and, according to the Rosbalt news agency, was arrested shortly after receiving a USB drive containing a classified list of names. The information could not be independently verified by the Guardian.

His brother, David, said: “We have not had any details from the state department about the circumstances of Paul’s arrest.”

David Whelan has previously said that his brother was in Moscow for the wedding of a fellow former marine. “This visit was entirely for pleasure, from what I understand,” he said. Whelan’s family added that he has been to Russia “numerous times”, as far back as 2007.

The Russian authorities have said little about Whelan’s arrest, save that he had been held accused of “carrying out an act of espionage”.

twitter:

McFaul twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 04:03:39 Just learned from @vkaramurza via @maddow that Putin's party IS seeking to rewrite the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan! And our president just echoed the same. Amazing. I had no idea from where Trump had picked up this crazy idea. Now I have a theory. Thanks Rachel. https://t.co/j63ULNhhb4 reageer retweet

quote:

Women lawmakers had to wait until 2011 to get a restroom off the floor of the House.

On Thursday for the first time, there was a line to get in.

The opening day of the 116th Congress was heavy with symbolism underscoring women’s historic gains in power as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) retook the speaker’s gavel and more than 100 women were sworn in on the floor of the House.

Beneath the portraits of male speakers past, history seemed to be changing.

Dozens of newly elected women queued to receive their member pins. Husbands affixed those pins to their wives’ lapels. They held tote bags, corralled relatives and quieted children.

The day served as a powerful reminder of the shifting gender dynamics of the House as Democrats ascend to power. When Pelosi arrived on Capitol Hill in 1987, there were 23 female members. As of Thursday, there are 102, nearly 90 percent of whom are Democrats.

“It’s been a work in progress,” said freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), escorting her family through the halls of the Capitol. “I look forward to ushering in further progress so that my daughters and their daughters don’t have to have these conversations about what this moment means because it would just become really normal.”

Pelosi underscored these hopes in her opening speech to the House as speaker, noting that her election comes amid the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage.

Later, she invited the children present in the chamber to join her on the dais.

“Let us pray that God may bless our work, and crown our good with brotherhood — and sisterhood — from sea to shining sea,” she said.

SPOILER

Women brought the allure of political celebrity to a day of celebration for Democrats.

New Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was mobbed by supporters as she and her aides sought to make their way through throngs of people outside of Pelosi’s office.

An anonymous Twitter account affiliated with the far-right had tried to spoil her week by posting a video of Ocasio-Cortez dancing on a rooftop during college, a move that seemed only to strengthen her support online.

In another made-for-Twitter moment, Republicans audibly groaned when Ocasio-Cortez cast her vote for Pelosi for speaker. “Sorry,” she mouthed with a smile.

Freshman Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) said he was inspired by his new female colleagues.

“I hope it’s the beginning of a trend, where we’re going to have gender equity hopefully in the workplace, but also here in our workplace,” said Levin, wearing a “Madam Speaker” pin. “I have a daughter here and a son here, so I hope that they each have the same opportunity if they choose to do this someday, where gender is not an issue.”

Yet throughout the day, the reality of the political moment threatened to intrude on the festivities.

Much of the government remained closed Thursday, the product of an impasse between President Trump and Democratic leaders. Trump congratulated Pelosi for her “tremendous achievement” of again becoming speaker but suggested he would remain firm in demanding funds for a border wall.

“There is certainly a somber note as we think about the 800,000 people who are living in economic uncertainty because of a president who won’t grow up and reopen the government because of a vanity wall,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), co-chair of the ascendant Congressional Progressive Caucus, as she reflected on the day.

The shutdown appeared to unite Democratic factions and, at least for a day, tamped down talk of their differences.

Women lawmakers vowed to find a way forward.

“I think right now in our country, we’re in a real crisis,” Omar said. “I look forward to the women of Congress and the female speaker all bonding together to bring about real change to reopen our government and to restore hope.”

The difference between the Democratic and Republican caucuses was striking as members assembled midday on the House floor.

To the left of the dais — the Democratic side — the typical sea of men’s suit jackets was balanced by pops of green, blue and white worn by women. Bald heads alternated with bobbed haircuts. Scanning the rows, the record number of women and lawmakers of Hispanic, Asian and African American heritage who will serve this term was clear.

To the right of the dais — the Republican side — older white men occupied nearly every seat. Visually, granddaughters provided most of the contrast.

Freshman Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) compared the scene to “an old movie.” A former state legislator, she enters Congress as one of four women representing Pennsylvania. Last term, there were none.

“It means a lot,” Dean said of the new women in the House. “I’m optimistic because I believe that what that kind of diversity will bring is problem-solving.”

The women’s bathroom off the House floor became a natural gathering place as incoming lawmakers and their families sought to navigate the events of the day.

Once the House parliamentarian’s office, the facility opened when there were only 76 women in the lower chamber. To access it from the floor, women must walk beneath the portraits of five men dating as far back as 1843.

Gathering outside, a group of women expressed the mood by channeling singer Nina Simone.

Said one: “It’s a new dawn, it’s a new day, and I’m feeling good.”

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 01:03 schreef Tweek het volgende:
De Republikeinen klappen zelfs niet meer voor Reagan:
https://edition.cnn.com/v(...)dreamers-gop-vpx.cnn

[..]

Was waarschijnlijk ook een vuile democraat in hun ogen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 00:55 schreef Elfletterig het volgende:

[..]

Voor mij is er een directe parallel tussen O'Malley en de partij waar ik bij de afgelopen Tweede Kamerverkiezingen op stemde: Nieuwe Wegen. Niet zozeer qua opvattingen, maar qua behandeling door de media. Over de inhoud gaat het namelijk niet. Media negeren partijen (cq. personen) puur omdat ze onbekend zijn en (nog) weinig navolging hebben.

Een goede verkiezingsstrijd en -tijd vindt plaats op basis van goede, inhoudelijke debatten. In de VS, maar ook in Nederland is het echter vooral politiek theater dat de klok slaat. Ik stoor me mateloos aan het hysterische gedrag van politici, de dubieuze rol van de media en aan luie kiezers die zich totaal niet in de politiek verdiepen.

Ik ben politiek ontheemd en gedesillusioneerd. Op Nieuwe Wegen na - geen idee of dat ooit nog terugkeert - is er geen enkele politieke partij meer die past bij mijn denkbeelden. Hoewel ik overwegend links ben, walg ik van de politieke correctheid en selectieve verontwaardiging van linkse partijen en de wijze waarop ze de belangen van migranten/buitenlanders steevast voorop stellen. Alles dat Nederlands is, moet, kan én zal kapot.

Het toppunt van ergerlijk zijn gladde ventjes als Klaver en Jetten die klimaatpolitie spelen en met averechts werkend beleid de burgers onnodig op kosten jagen. Het zijn (samen met de PvdA) ook dezelfden die wegkijken als het om zaken als integratie en inburgering gaat. Geef GroenLinks macht en ze halen half Afrika hierheen.

Met rechts-nationalisme heb ik echter ook niks. Ik kan niks met dat islam-gebash van Wilders, die al jaren een soort toneelstuk opvoert en niks meer klaarspeelt. De stoere taal van de VVD hoef ik ook niet: stevige taal en hippe filmpjes voor de bühne, maar uiteindelijk niks doen. Ja, nog meer neo-liberaal beleid doordrukken: de lasten bij burgers neerleggen en bedrijven ontzien.

Maar goed, dit topic gaat over Amerikaanse politiek...

Wat O'Malley betreft: veruit de beste kandidaat in 2016, maar hij heeft nooit een eerlijke kans gehad, omdat de media bepaalden dat de strijd louter tussen Clinton en Sanders moest gaan. Het draait in de Amerikaanse politiek allang niet meer om inhoud. Onbekend zijn is reden genoeg om te worden genegeerd, bespot of neergesabeld.

De man telt nu z'n zegeningen en doet in 2020 niet meer mee. Dat is tot daar aan toe, maar veel idioter vind ik het dat hij zich schaart achter iemand met beduidend minder ervaring dan hijzelf en iemand die de voorverkiezing in Texas niet wist te winnen van Ted Cruz. Los van een leuk smoeltje zie ik niet welke meerwaarde die Beto O'Rourke heeft.

Ik denk dat ik nu maar hoop op een kandidatuur van Cory Booker, want ik deel namelijk wél de opvatting van O'Malley dat het tijd is voor een nieuwe generatie politieke leiders. De VS moet nodig eens af van al die bejaarden die nu de dienst uitmaken. Nancy Pelosi, vandaag verkozen tot voorzitter van het Huis van Afgevaardigden, is godbetert 79 jaar. Bernie Sanders is 77, Joe Biden - ook nog steeds als serieuze kandidaat gezien - is 76, Hillary Clinton is 71, de 'piepjonge' Elisabeth Warren is 69 en de vooraanstaande senator Chuck Schumer is 68.

Doe me een lol, stelletje bejaarden, en maak eens plaats voor de volgende generatie. Jullie hebben tijd genoeg gehad; een nieuwe generatie is aan zet.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 14:16:20 How do you impeach a president who has won perhaps the greatest election of all time, done nothing wrong (no Collusion with Russia, it was the Dems that Colluded), had the most successful first two years of any president, and is the most popular Republican in party history 93%? reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 14:27 schreef Arcee het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 14:16:20 How do you impeach a president who has won perhaps the greatest election of all time, done nothing wrong (no Collusion with Russia, it was the Dems that Colluded), had the most successful first two years of any president, and is the most popular Republican in party history 93%? reageer retweet

OMG, deze zelfbevlekking weer.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 00:55 schreef Elfletterig het volgende:

De man telt nu z'n zegeningen en doet in 2020 niet meer mee. Dat is tot daar aan toe, maar veel idioter vind ik het dat hij zich schaart achter iemand met beduidend minder ervaring dan hijzelf en iemand die de voorverkiezing in Texas niet wist te winnen van Ted Cruz. Los van een leuk smoeltje zie ik niet welke meerwaarde die Beto O'Rourke heeft.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 14:06:40 As I have stated many times, if the Democrats take over the House or Senate, there will be disruption to the Financial Markets. We won the Senate, they won the House. Things will settle down. They only want to impeach me because they know they can’t win in 2020, too much success! reageer retweet

twitter:

christinawilkie twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 14:32:27 BRK: Big monthly jobs number: The US created 312,000 jobs in December, vs 176,000 expectedhttps://t.co/rM4JMePou5 @CNBC reageer retweet

twitter:

RealSaavedra twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 03:56:26 BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College https://t.co/crEEOiY2XR reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 14:35 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

RealSaavedra twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 03:56:26 BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College https://t.co/crEEOiY2XR reageer retweet

Nu al een directe aanval op de Democratie vanuit het blauwe kamp.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 15:04 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Wat is er precies ondemocratisch aan het opheffen van het Electoral College? Stel dat de VS zou overstappen op hetzelfde systeem als dat wij hier kennen, oftewel wie de meeste stemmen binnensleept wint. Wat is daar precies mis mee?

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 14:31 schreef Hexagon het volgende:
Kunnen de partners van Sanders en Biden niet gewoon gevraagd worden of ze het hun man willen verbieden om nog een gooi naar het presidentschap te doen? Gewoon laten vragen de laatste jaren van hun leven nog van elkaar te kunnen genieten.

quote:

Het was geen voorverkiezing die Beto verloor. Gewoon de senaatszetel. En hij kwam dan wel net tekort maar dat is in Texas voor een democraat wel een zeer knappe prestatie. Zn meerwaarde is wel dat hij kennelijk wel een boodschap heeft die kan aanslaan bij kiezers die normaal niet warm worden van de democraten. Had Beto die niet dan zou Cruz het een stuk gemakkelijker hebben gehad.

En zijn deelname zou een goede optie zijn om die bejaarden uit de race te knikkeren. Want die moeten inderdaad een keer ophouden met denken dat er nog mensen op zitten te wachten.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 15:48 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:
Ik snap niet helemaal hoe meer banen en een hogere werkloosheid samengaan.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 15:48 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:
Ik snap niet helemaal hoe meer banen en een hogere werkloosheid samengaan.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 15:48 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:
Ik snap niet helemaal hoe meer banen en een hogere werkloosheid samengaan.

quote:

NEW in challenge to AG Matt Whitaker's appointment: Maryland judge refuses DOJ's request to put the case on hold because of government shutdown. Background: https://t.co/7WxGVyHCSw


"Given the potential significance of this matter to the health and well-being of the citizens of Maryland, I shall deny the government's motion for a stay," writes Judge Hollander in case brought by @BrianFrosh

twitter:

Neil_Irwin twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 14:33:21 The rise in the unemployment rate was mainly for benign reasons. Rise in participation rate, 237k decline in people not in labor force. https://t.co/qTRekIteGE reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 15:38 schreef Lord-Ronddraai het volgende:

[..]

Dat zou geen verkeerd idee zijn. Van de andere kant is Trump niet veel jonger. Misschien dat Amerikaanse kiezers alleen warmlopen voor bejaarden. Misschien denken ze daar dat als je ouder bent je automatisch wijzer bent

quote:

Het lijkt me dat weer een centrumkandidaat verkiezen een slecht plan is. Welke democraat zit nou te wachten op een kandidaat die helemaal niet ver van de republikeinen afzit. Het aantal republikeinen dat je op die manier overhaalt is ook niet indrukwekkend zie Clinton.
Daarbij kan hij blijkbaar toch ook niet echt veel kiezers overtuigen als hij niet eens kan winnen van Lyin' Ted. Blijft over dat zijn enige meerwaarde zijn leeftijd is, maar om dat nou hét criterium te maken van een goede politicus lijkt me ook onzinnig, neem dan ook daadwerkelijk iemand die precies 35 is als hij beëdigd moet worden.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 16:13 schreef Hexagon het volgende:

[..]

Trump is ook een ouwe bok, maar dat straalt waarschijnlijk minder op hem af omdat hij toch een nieuwkomer in de politiek is. Die oude democraten zijn ook nog eens lui die er al decennia op hebben zitten. De houdbaarheidsdatum is gewoon verstreken.

[..]

Zo plat is de politiek natuurlijk niet. Hij zal toch een bredere coalitie moeten sluiten dan zn eigen stroom om een kans te maken. Dus komt hij met een overtuigende visie voor wat hij als president van plan is dan kan hij daarmee een heel goed alternatief vormen. En ook zijn persoon, een keurig burgermannetje met een vlotte uitstraling, is in de huidige context wel een goede. Ik denk dat heel veel kiezers met de puinhoop en onkunde in het witte huis graag iemand zien die wel degelijk en betrouwbaar is en het wat minder uitmaakt hoe vaak hij wel of niet met de republikeinen meestemt. Na de Trump-gekte zit men ook niet te wachten op een of andere linkse activist die op zijn manier de boel op stelten gaat zetten.

En in Texas het de republikein moeilijk maken, een flinke campagnebase opbouwen en heel veel stemmers mobiliseren, blijft gewoon een grote prestatie. Niet voor niets blijft hij aandacht trekken. Anders was men hem al lang weer vergeten.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 16:21 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat men uiteindelijk gewoon iemand wil die begrijpt dat de situatie buiten de grote steden gewoon matig is, en dat het moet verbeteren. Trump deed dat door te beloven dat banen in de kolenmijnbouw weer terug zouden komen enzo. De rural areas zijn in feite ook gewoon ten dode opgeschreven daarom klinken ze vast aan wat laatste hoop van Trumps beloftes enzo.

De democraten moeten dit op een andere manier gaan aanpakken. Bv door mensen te belonen om naar de stad te verhuizen, of toch een basisinkomen (hoewel dat in socialisme-is-eng Amerika erg lastig zal zijn)

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 16:28 schreef Hexagon het volgende:

[..]

Als Beto O'Rourke een beetje politiek vernuft heeft zal hij weten dat hij daarvoor een visie moet meenemen in zn kandidatuur.

Nou zijn de beloftes van Trump onzin maar wat ik wel in zijn boodschap deel is dat het uitgaat van het blazen van nieuw leven in die gebieden. Ik denk dat een boodschap van "we maken er hier weer wat moois van" wat beter verkoopt dan "ga maar weg naar waar wel werk is" of "hier heb je gratis geld en nu ophouden met zeuren".

quote:

On the first day of the 116th Congress, Reps. Deutch, McGovern, Raskin, and Katko introduced a bipartisan constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

quote:

Ron Wyden today introduced a bill requiring sitting presidents and presidential nominees to release their tax returns to the public. https://t.co/ahBPxoPQHf

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 16:33 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:

[..]

Dat is waar, maar wat zou je van die gebieden willen maken? Feit is dat vrijwel alle banen de komende 50-100 jaar gaan verdwijnen. Iig die banen die nu bestaan.

En binnen 30 jaar zullen de meeste traditionele banen op het platteland al verdwijnen. landbouw mijnbouw, transport, winkels, etc. Het zal allemaal de komende 20 jaar volledig geautomatiseerd worden. En wat niet geautomatiseerd wordt kan gedaan worden door een handjevol personen.

Beste idee is dan denk ik om mensen om te scholen en hier veel geld voor vrij te maken. Maar zelfs dat is een beetje een lapmiddel eigenlijk. Want de banen waarvoor mensen zich dan omscholen kunnen ook in een vingerknip verdwenen zijn.

quote:

The filing was expected as party's leaders have repeatedly said they would swiftly work to uphold the health care law.

As part of its rules package for the 116th Congress, the Democrats granted themselves authorization to intervene in the lawsuit that threatens to bring down the landmark health care law. It directed the House's Office of General Counsel to represent lawmakers in any litigation involving the act and authorizes hiring of outside counsel.

The House late Thursday voted in the rules package, which the majority party -- now the Democrats -- adopts at the start of a new Congress.

The newly empowered Democratic leadership also scheduled a vote for next Wednesday on a standalone resolution affirming the House's authorization to intervene in the lawsuit. This would put Republicans on the record voting specifically for or against defending Obamacare and its protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

quote:

JUST IN: Exclusive: Speaker Pelosi addresses Rep. Tlaib's "impeach the motherf---er" comment:

"I probably have a generational reaction to it, but in any event, I'm not in the censorship business." https://t.co/0Nt1hvRgyt

More with @JoyAnnReid tonight at 10 p.m. ET on @MSNBC.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 17:24 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]



Go Nancy!

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 17:28 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

78 jaar!

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 17:37 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ik vind de Amerikaanse politiek ineens een heel stuk leuker. Ik werd bijna depressief van het geklungel van de laatste twee jaar, maar de berichten van gisteren en vandaag geven me wel reden tot optimisme.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 17:38 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Bij mij is het nou net andersom

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 17:38 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Bij mij is het nou net andersom

quote:

At this critical time in our history I'm grateful for the opportunity to serve as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. And I'm mindful of the great responsibility that goes with it.

We will do our constitutional duty, and put the rule of law and our nation's security first. https://t.co/BeH7elnsTx

quote:

OPTICS: While federal workers go without pay, senior Trump administration officials are poised to get $10,000 raises. https://t.co/mNysAJOZRF

twitter:

CNN twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 16:11:13 Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is proposing taxing the wealthy as high as 70% to fund a climate change plan she's pushing called the "Green New Deal" https://t.co/7GrM9d9Dbb https://t.co/8Cmeyyzjce reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 18:10 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

CNN twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 16:11:13 Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is proposing taxing the wealthy as high as 70% to fund a climate change plan she's pushing called the "Green New Deal" https://t.co/7GrM9d9Dbb https://t.co/8Cmeyyzjce reageer retweet

Tax the rich 70%!

Ach ja het is beter dan gas verbieden, zoals ze in Nederland willen.

twitter:

BoKnowsNews twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 17:02:25 .@RashidaTlaib would not address her comment last night that she wants to “impeach the motherf**cker” https://t.co/NgEyN7znmq reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 18:29 schreef Nintex het volgende:
En na 1 dag rennen de doorgedraaide linkse gekkies al weg van de camera

twitter:

BoKnowsNews twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 17:02:25 .@RashidaTlaib would not address her comment last night that she wants to “impeach the motherf**cker” https://t.co/NgEyN7znmq reageer retweet

Gaat een leuk jaar worden.

twitter:

BarstoolNewsN twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 05:02:10 We got congresspeople out here calling the president a mother fucker https://t.co/GCXSPQbPb8 reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 18:42 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Mjah, mevrouw was heel stoer,

twitter:

BarstoolNewsN twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 05:02:10 We got congresspeople out here calling the president a mother fucker https://t.co/GCXSPQbPb8 reageer retweet

maar je mag er geen vragen over stellen.

Ze willen gewoon een coup plegen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 18:48 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Nou ja Trump slaat natuurlijk hard terug op zulke scheldpartijen en dan is het straks weer huilen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 19:01 schreef Hexagon het volgende:
Zou me niks verbazen als dit relletje voorgekookt is als politieke intimidatie om vooral Mueller met rust te laten

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 19:07 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Nah, het is gewoon GOP calimero gejank. Net dat gedoe over die dansende afgevaardigde waar de hele puriteinse meute nu over loopt te jankballen.
De Dems zijn gewoon hard bezig met belangrijke zaken en Trump gaat hard af op een politieke afgang van epische proporties, dus alles moet uit de kast worden gehaald om maar de aandacht af te leiden.

twitter:

AOC twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 18:01:19 I hear the GOP thinks women dancing are scandalous.Wait till they find out Congresswomen dance too! 💃🏽Have a great weekend everyone https://t.co/9y6ALOw4F6 reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 18:42 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Mjah, mevrouw was heel stoer,

twitter:

BarstoolNewsN twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 05:02:10 We got congresspeople out here calling the president a mother fucker https://t.co/GCXSPQbPb8 reageer retweet

maar je mag er geen vragen over stellen.

Ze willen gewoon een coup plegen.

Donald Trump - "Listen you motherfuckers, we're gonna tax you 25%."

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 19:22 schreef Em31 het volgende:

[..]

De obsessie met Ocasio-Cortez is wel echt bizar ja. Helemaal omdat ze er zelf goed mee omgaat waardoor ze juist alleen maar populairder wordt. Spelen haar alleen maar in de kaart zo, dat is dan wel weer mooi

twitter:

AOC twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 18:01:19 I hear the GOP thinks women dancing are scandalous.Wait till they find out Congresswomen dance too! 💃🏽Have a great weekend everyone https://t.co/9y6ALOw4F6 reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 19:44 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Aardig stuk over het mislukken van Ocasio-Cortez' plan.

https://www.politico.com/(...)rtez-congress-223690

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 19:51 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Wel dom van de Democraten om de nieuwe mensen weer aan de kant te schuiven, maar ja de lobbyisten en boomers zijn belangrijiker.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 19:54 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/

Trump gaat zo spreken. Weet niet waarover precies maar de onderhandelingen over het budget zijn weer vastgelopen, dus het zal wel weer veel geraas worden.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 20:05 schreef JimmyDean het volgende:
Wat lult hij nu over "drug finding equipment"?

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 20:06 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Is hij zijn Adderal weer kwijt?

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 20:00 schreef JimmyDean het volgende:

🚨LIVE: President Donald Trump URGENT Press Conference on the Government Shutdown

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 20:07 schreef JimmyDean het volgende:

[..]

Het is een nogal onsamenhangend verhaal.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 20:09 schreef Arcee het volgende:

[..]

Dat is het altijd.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 19:22 schreef Em31 het volgende:

[..]

De obsessie met Ocasio-Cortez is wel echt bizar ja. Helemaal omdat ze er zelf goed mee omgaat waardoor ze juist alleen maar populairder wordt. Spelen haar alleen maar in de kaart zo, dat is dan wel weer mooi

twitter:

AOC twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 18:01:19 I hear the GOP thinks women dancing are scandalous.Wait till they find out Congresswomen dance too! 💃🏽Have a great weekend everyone https://t.co/9y6ALOw4F6 reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 20:25 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Trump is goed bezig. Kijk en leer.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 20:27 schreef speknek het volgende:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 20:38 schreef Roamnroll het volgende:

[..]

Leren hoe het vooral niet moet dan toch, want je kan de caroteenclown nu bepaald bezwaarlijk verdenken van enig raffinement.
Veel verder dan hysterisch gebries komt de arme opa gewoonweg niet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 20:54 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Mooi dat Trump wil onderhandelen, maar alternatief is dus een national emergency.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 20:57 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Hoezo? Ze hebben het 250 jaar zonder muur gedaan.

Reagan on Mexico Border 1980 - No Wall!

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 18:42 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Mjah, mevrouw was heel stoer,

twitter:

BarstoolNewsN twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 05:02:10 We got congresspeople out here calling the president a mother fucker https://t.co/GCXSPQbPb8 reageer retweet

maar je mag er geen vragen over stellen.

Ze willen gewoon een coup plegen.

twitter:

RashidaTlaib twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 15:08:00 I will always speak truth to power. #unapologeticallyMe reageer retweet

twitter:

MikeDelMoro twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 15:46:39 Rep. Tlaib office statement on her "impeach the motherf****r" remark https://t.co/OumTV6MPqQ reageer retweet

quote:

The New York Times published a powerful story last week about President Trump’s growing isolation in the White House, with colorful details such as Trump’s tendency to interrupt advisers during meetings to call them “freaking idiots” (except he doesn’t use the word “freaking”).

Asked to comment by the Times’s reporters about this, the White House said nothing. It did not respond.

Similarly, it offered no response when The Washington Post asked the White House about Trump’s false claim during a post-Christmas Day visit to U.S. troops in Iraq that he boosted military pay by 10 percent.

Reporters are used to officials who respond to their inquiries with a terse “no comment.” This was typically the practice in prior presidential administrations when officials saw no strategic value in rebutting an unflattering story.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 21:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ik vraag me af of iemand van de 800.000 niet betaalde werkers ooit nog op de GOP zal stemmen. Je weet gewoon dat je dan een gijzelaar bent.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 21:09 schreef AnneX het volgende:


die kale witte hoofden achter hem

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 21:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ik vraag me af of iemand van de 800.000 niet betaalde werkers ooit nog op de GOP zal stemmen. Je weet gewoon dat je dan een gijzelaar bent.

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 21:02:17 Trump in conclusion: "The people that won't get next week's pay or the following week's pay, I think if you ever really looked at those people, I think they'd say, 'Mr. President, keep going, this is far more important.'" reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 21:12 schreef pullup het volgende:

[..]

Geen probleem

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 21:02:17 Trump in conclusion: "The people that won't get next week's pay or the following week's pay, I think if you ever really looked at those people, I think they'd say, 'Mr. President, keep going, this is far more important.'" reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 21:22 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

In that case: Why pay them at all?

quote:

Trump's confusing message: He claims he can declare a national emergency and build wall himself; Mexico is paying for it through a trade deal that hasn't been approved by Congress; and the wall is already being built.

But he wants Congress to appropriate $5 billion for the wall

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 21:12 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Alt-Right Said Fred.

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 21:54 schreef klaasweetalles het volgende:
Trump de meest gestoorde president van de united states of amerikca

quote:

With a shutdown that could last months or years, @AprilDRyan asks Trump about a safety net for federal workers so they can pay their bills.
'Well the safety net is going to be having a strong border, because we're going to be safe.'

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 23:25 schreef slarti_bartfast het volgende:
Ondertussen hebben honderden TSA-medewerkers, die zonder salaris door worden geacht te werken, zich ziek gemeld, zegt CNN.

quote:

Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 00:36 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:
Meer over wat de POTUS kan tijdens een State of Emergency.

Hij kan de Wall zo als excuus opvoeren om veel meer macht te krijgen..

What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency

[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 21:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ik vraag me af of iemand van de 800.000 niet betaalde werkers ooit nog op de GOP zal stemmen. Je weet gewoon dat je dan een gijzelaar bent.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 01:03 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Hangt er vanaf waar deze individuen de schuld leggen. Een groter deel van de bevolking legt de schuld bij Congress dan bij Trump, want cult (?), bizar genoeg. Een groter deel legt bij Congress de schuld bij de republikeinen dan de democraten, dat dan weer wel.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 01:03 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Hangt er vanaf waar deze individuen de schuld leggen. Een groter deel van de bevolking legt de schuld bij Congress dan bij Trump, want cult (?), bizar genoeg^*. Een groter deel legt binnen Congress de schuld bij de republikeinen dan de democraten, dat dan weer wel.

^* Valt wel wat voor te zeggen, want in de polling van destijds hadden de republikeinen van het Huis net de unanieme stemming van de Senaat naast zich neergelegd om er een muurbudget in te klussen, waarmee ze vrij direct schuldig waren. Ondanks dat Trump uiteraard zelf zei een veto uit te spreken, heeft hij dat vooralsnog niet gedaan.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 01:40 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Hoeveel Dems wonnen of scoorden in traditioneel GOP gebied?

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 02:31 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Zevenhonderdvijfendertig? Hoe traditioneel bedoel je? Zoals potsierlijk traditioneel verwezen wordt, met de vlag van de zuidelijke staten in den hand, naar Lincoln? Ik vind je vraag niet helder.

twitter:

MichaelCBender twitterde op zaterdag 05-01-2019 om 01:26:42 In one tense exchange during the White House meeting today, Pelosi interrupted Nielsen while she was reciting border stats. "I re­ject your facts," Ms. Pelosi said. "These aren't my facts," Ms. Nielsen claimed. "These are *the* facts." https://t.co/p0vCfDpTPE reageer retweet

twitter:

LauraLitvan twitterde op zaterdag 05-01-2019 om 01:36:15 NEW: DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is about to go under the microscope. House Homeland Security Chair Bennie Thompson tells her in a letter this evening she is “long overdue” for an oversight hearing, having appeared just once when the panel was under GOP control. https://t.co/UVtTYXSM00 reageer retweet

twitter:

kenvogel twitterde op zaterdag 05-01-2019 om 02:00:13 NEW: It's not just Democrats who want more information about the TRUMP administration's move to lift sanctions on Russian oligarch OLEG DERIPASKA's businesses. The GOP staff of the Senate Banking Committee is working with Dems to review the decision. https://t.co/Gsjr6cvSJf reageer retweet

quote:

Congress is reviewing the Trump administration’s decision to lift sanctions on companies owned by Oleg V. Deripaska, an influential Russian oligarch with close ties to President Vladimir V. Putin, Democrats said on Friday.

The reviews could fuel a congressional effort to block the administration’s decision, which came after an aggressive lobbying and legal campaign against the sanctions by Mr. Deripaska’s corporate empire.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, laid the groundwork to block the lifting of the sanctions on Friday, filing a congressional resolution disapproving of the move by the Treasury Department.

In a statement accompanying the resolution, Mr. Schumer said that “critical questions” remained unanswered about the agreement to lift the sanctions between the Treasury Department and Mr. Deripaska’s companies, including the aluminum giant Rusal.

If a formal review process — which is being conducted by multiple committees, including the bipartisan staff of the Senate Banking Committee — is unable to resolve those questions to his satisfaction, Mr. Schumer signaled that he would push forward with the resolution.

To keep the sanctions in place, the resolution would have to be approved by both chambers of Congress before Jan. 18. That seems unlikely, given that it would require the Senate’s Republican majority to split with the administration. In the absence of congressional action, the sanctions would automatically be lifted from Rusal and the holding company that controls it, EN+, as well as a third Deripaska company.

SPOILER

The sanctions, which were first imposed on Mr. Deripaska and his companies last spring, have created a tricky situation for both the administration and its Democratic critics, who contend that President Trump has been too soft on Russia.

The goal of the sanctions was to punish the Russian government and key supporters for Moscow’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and other hostile acts.

The Treasury Department’s justification for the sanctions noted that, in addition to Mr. Deripaska’s connections to the Russian government, he had been accused of having ties to organized crime; committing extortion, racketeering and bribery; and even ordering the killing of a rival businessman.

More recently, he has emerged as a bit player in the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the election and any connection to the Trump campaign.

But the sanctions had roiled the global aluminum market, leading even some sanctions advocates to acknowledge unintended negative effects on companies in the United States, Ireland, Sweden, Jamaica, Guinea and elsewhere.

The solution approved by the Treasury Department would lift the sanctions against Mr. Deripaska’s companies in exchange for him reducing his stake in EN+ from approximately 70 percent to less than 45 percent, and giving up control of that company and Rusal.

Mr. Deripaska himself would remain on the sanctions list, the department said, casting the agreement as a way to punish the oligarch by separating him from his companies without creating broader economic problems.

Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas, accused the administration of approving “a Rusal ruse” to “cover for one of Putin’s closest buddies.”

Other Democrats contended that the Treasury Department was trying to ram the sanctions-relief decision through before the new Congress had time to stop it, and before the special counsel issued findings that might touch on Mr. Deripaska’s work with Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman and a target of the special counsel investigation.

In a letter sent Friday to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey questioned whether Mr. Deripaska’s companies had agreed to the terms. Mr. Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is also reviewing the sanctions decision, asked Mr. Mnuchin how the Treasury Department could “ensure that Mr. Deripaska does not retain and exercise informal influence over the decision making and operations of Rusal.”

The department referred questions to a spokesman, whose email said he was “currently out of the office on furlough,” presumably because of the government shutdown.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 09:16 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
Dems zijn maar weer eens debiel bezig.... en waarvoor?
Op een budget van 3600 miljard is een muurtje van 6 miljard natuurlijk peanuts. Nog niet eens 0.2%.

Het hele dem circus de afgelopen dagen was sowieso al niet om aan te zien zo triest. Gaat nog een leuk jaar worden

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 09:57 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Trump geeft dan ook geen flikker om die muur. De enige reden dat hij door blijft drammen is omdat hij vreest dat hij 'foolish' overkomt als hij niet voor elkaar krijgt.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 09:16 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
Dems zijn maar weer eens debiel bezig.... en waarvoor?
Op een budget van 3600 miljard is een muurtje van 6 miljard natuurlijk peanuts. Nog niet eens 0.2%.

Het hele dem circus de afgelopen dagen was sowieso al niet om aan te zien zo triest. Gaat nog een leuk jaar worden

quote:

McConnell says bill passed by the House to reopen government is a "non-starter" w Senate Republicans.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 11:35 schreef Mike het volgende:
Dit vind ik eigenlijk pijnlijker:

[..]

Dat is een bill waarbij de Republikeinen 2 weken geleden nog unaniem voor gestemd hebben.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 11:35 schreef Mike het volgende:
Dit vind ik eigenlijk pijnlijker:

[..]

Dat is een bill waarbij de Republikeinen 2 weken geleden nog unaniem voor gestemd hebben.

quote:

The vice president also pointed to language in the funding bill passed late Thursday that would reverse the so-called Mexico City policy, which denies U.S. assistance to foreign groups that offer or promote abortions.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 11:38 schreef Arcee het volgende:
Maar een grotere klootzak dan McConnell loopt er ook niet rond in DC.

Als Trump trouwens via de noodtoestand z'n muur gaat afdwingen zal-ie nog meer op handen worden gedragen door z'n fans.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 11:43 schreef Puddington het volgende:

[..]

Trumps base lijkt me dan ook wel types te bevatten die flirten met fascisme, met name die incels op the_donald.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 11:38 schreef Arcee het volgende:
Maar een grotere klootzak dan McConnell loopt er ook niet rond in DC.

Als Trump trouwens via de noodtoestand z'n muur gaat afdwingen zal-ie nog meer op handen worden gedragen door z'n fans.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 11:53 schreef Tweek het volgende:

[..]

Hij heeft dan wel gedaan waar ze zo bang voor waren dat Obama het zou doen, bezit afpakken van burgers door de noodtoestand uit te roepen.

quote:

More coal plants shut down in Trump’s first two years than in Obama’s entire first term
The administration's own data reveal coal isn't coming back.

The last time U.S. coal consumption was this low, Jimmy Carter was president.

Despite campaigning on a pledge to save the dirtiest of fossil fuels, President Donald Trump has presided over a faster rate of coal plant retirements in his first two years than President Barack Obama saw in his entire first term.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that while 15 gigawatts of coal-fired plants were shut down in Obama’s first four years, Trump’s first two years have seen some 20 gigawatts retired (with more than two thirds of those occurring last year).

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 09:16 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
Dems zijn maar weer eens debiel bezig.... en waarvoor?
Op een budget van 3600 miljard is een muurtje van 6 miljard natuurlijk peanuts. Nog niet eens 0.2%.

Het hele dem circus de afgelopen dagen was sowieso al niet om aan te zien zo triest. Gaat nog een leuk jaar worden

quote:

A former employee of the Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey said that her name was removed from a list of workers to be vetted by the Secret Service after she reminded management that she was unlawfully in the United States, NYT reports. https://t.co/8PUhj1pwxa

quote:

Trump referred to the shutdown as a “strike” during his meeting with lawmakers today, CNN has confirmed.

quote:

Many people currently a part of my opposition, including President Obama & the Dems, have had campaign violations, in some cases for very large sums of money. These are civil cases. They paid a fine & settled. While no big deal, I did not commit a campaign violation!

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 15:12 schreef Hexagon het volgende:
Maar kan hij effectief veel met zo'n noodtoestand zonder draagvlak? Ik bedoel als er teveel weerstand in het apparaat is krijgt hij dan ook niks gedaan.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 15:18 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Lees het stuk. Hij kan aardig wat uithalen. En van het klapvee van de GOP hoef je niets te verwachten.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 11:14 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Refragmental zal zich ook wel hebben verbaasd over de schandalige video die is uitgelekt, waarop is te zien dat Ocasio-Cortez loopt te dansen in haar tienerjaren.

Typische Dem-waanzin.

twitter:

AOC twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 18:01:19 I hear the GOP thinks women dancing are scandalous.Wait till they find out Congresswomen dance too! 💃🏽Have a great weekend everyone https://t.co/9y6ALOw4F6 reageer retweet

'Congresswomen dance too': Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hits back with new video

quote:

I don’t care that most of the workers not getting paid are Democrats, I want to stop the Shutdown as soon as we are in agreement on Strong Border Security! I am in the White House ready to go, where are the Dems?

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 16:04 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

twitter:

AOC twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 18:01:19 I hear the GOP thinks women dancing are scandalous.Wait till they find out Congresswomen dance too! 💃🏽Have a great weekend everyone https://t.co/9y6ALOw4F6 reageer retweet

'Congresswomen dance too': Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hits back with new video

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 16:08 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Zij is echt zo cringy .

quote:

kevin mccarthy finished speaking and trump said "thank you, steve" https://t.co/AXUOjXFXMs

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 11:10 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Uiteraard zijn de democraten bizar bezig omdat ze niet eens even 6 miljard gunnen aan een plan waar zij totaal niet achter staan.

Het is weer een helder verhaal.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 16:07 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Was die tweet met dat filmpje trouwens van een bekend account ofzo? Had er nog nooit van gehoord en kan me moeilijk voorstellen dat republikeinen moeite hebben een dansende vrouw buiten mogelijk een enkele incel her en der.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 16:30 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Als de Democraten het altijd fout moeten doen worden de doelredeneringen om daarbij uit te komen natuurlijk steeds maffer. Dit sloeg natuurlijk ook weer nergens op. Het is een duur en compleet nutteloos plan.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 16:34 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Het was geen "Republikeins" account ofzo. Maar om de een of andere reden werkt AOC als een soort rode lap voor een hele hoop rednecks. Ik vermoed dat ze het niet kunnen hebben om een jonge vrouw van niet Europese afkomst op zo'n positie te zien.

twitter:

JakeSherman twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 17:18:56 NEWS — THE PRESIDENT has sent a letter to members of congress of both parties calling for a border wall. “Walls work. That’s why rich, powerful, and successful people build them around their homes.” https://t.co/MpIiQT7qkQ reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 16:46 schreef Puddington het volgende:

[..]

Dat, en ze hoort bij de linkervleugel van de democraten. Haar plan om 60/70 procent belasting van de rijken te vragen jaagt heel veel van die "Tax is theft!"-Libertariers in het harnas.

quote:

Trump is the #1 expert on…
- Taxes
- Construction
- Campaign finance
- Drones
- Technology
- U.S. History
- Infrastructure
- ISIS
- Facebook
- Renewables
- Polls
- Courts
- Steel workers
- Golf
- Banks
- Nuclear arms
- The system
- Debt
- Politicians

…according to Donald Trump https://t.co/gExCCRD5Hb

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 16:08 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Zij is echt zo cringy .

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:21 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Wtf, meen je dat nou? Zo leuk als zij kom je niet vaak tegen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 16:34 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Het was geen "Republikeins" account ofzo. Maar om de een of andere reden werkt AOC als een soort rode lap voor een hele hoop rednecks. Ik vermoed dat ze het niet kunnen hebben om een jonge vrouw van niet Europese afkomst op zo'n positie te zien.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:27 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Hahahahahaha

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 15:56 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Trump heeft met het NRA-volk natuurlijk wel een zwaarbewapende privé militie. Ik zie die lui eerder Trump verdedigen dan zich weren tegen een "tirannieke overheid."

Dus of het zo makkelijk gaat is ook maar de vraag.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:29 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ja, ook dat gekke gebries toen ze voor Pelosi stemde. Het maakt wat los.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:32 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Een burgeroorlog gaan de republikeinen wel winnen met inderdaad miljoenen gewapende NRA'ers.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:32 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Een burgeroorlog gaan de republikeinen wel winnen met inderdaad miljoenen gewapende NRA'ers.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:35 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Natuurlijk niet. Wat ga je met je AR-15 doen tegen een pantserwagen of tank?

quote:

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2019 14:35 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

RealSaavedra twitterde op vrijdag 04-01-2019 om 03:56:26 BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College https://t.co/crEEOiY2XR reageer retweet

Nu al een directe aanval op de Democratie vanuit het blauwe kamp.

quote:

Trump: Well, I’m going to let the President answer the second part of that question. But, as you know, the whole concept of that came up perhaps a little bit before, but it came out as a reason why the Democrats lost an election — which, frankly, they should have been able to win, because the Electoral College is much more advantageous for Democrats, as you know, than it is to Republicans.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:35 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Natuurlijk niet. Wat ga je met je AR-15 doen tegen een pantserwagen of tank?

quote:

A senior admin official tells me lawyers from Pentagon, DHS and White House are "working out the details" over how the president could declare a national emergency to use DOD to build his wall, bypassing Congress.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:32 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Een burgeroorlog gaan de republikeinen wel winnen met inderdaad miljoenen gewapende NRA'ers.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:47 schreef Tweek het volgende:

[..]

Lachen man je eigen kinderen en familie neerschieten om Trump te verdedigen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:50 schreef Zelva het volgende:

[..]

Het land in een burgeroorlog storten om zogenaamd het land veiliger te maken

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:32 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Een burgeroorlog gaan de republikeinen wel winnen met inderdaad miljoenen gewapende NRA'ers.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:46 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

https://twitter.com/JuliaEAinsley/status/1081296255026896897?s=19

Wauw. Niemand die tegengas geeft.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:21 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Wtf, meen je dat nou? Zo leuk als zij kom je niet vaak tegen.

quote:

Joe Biden: "Republicans overwhelmingly voted to keep the government open. Then Rush Limbaugh and the conservative blonde woman says he's losing his base, and so he's changed his mind." Via CNN https://t.co/5qTS88l5I6

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 19:22 schreef Ericr het volgende:
The Purge live binnenkort

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:32 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Je hoeft het ideologisch niet met haar eens te zijn. Maar zo moeilijk is het toch niet om haar te zien als aantrekkelijke vrouw met een mooie uitstraling? Ik zie haar iig niet als 'crinchy', zoals firefly.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 19:35 schreef Xa1pt het volgende:

[..]

Waarschijnlijk voelen sommigen zich bedreigd door zo'n type vrouw.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 19:35 schreef Xa1pt het volgende:

[..]

Waarschijnlijk voelen sommigen zich bedreigd door zo'n type vrouw.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 19:39 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Of ze prikken gewoon moeiteloos door het toneelspelletje. Ik vind haar waardeloos, maar haar standpunten zijn behalve de extremen niet zo gek.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:59 schreef AnneX het volgende:

[..]

Het kan toch niet gebeuren: de helft van de amerikanen interesseert het niet en de andere helft is verdeeld tot op het bot. Ongeveer.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 20:42 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Een goed stuk van professor Krugman over belastingnonsens van de GOP en waarom AOC een punt heeft....

https://www.nytimes.com/2(...)ps://t.co/HG4w7pFGSy

quote:

WATCH: @MickMulvaneyOMB says President Trump is willing to “take a concrete wall off the table” in negotiations with Democratic leaders over the shutdown. Catch more of the interview tomorrow on #MTP

https://t.co/AXhoIrg2SC https://t.co/XiNrsOrpfD

quote:

Pelosi: "House Democrats will begin passing individual appropriations bills ... starting with the appropriations bill that covers the Dept. of the Treasury and the IRS ... The certainty of the tax returns ... should no longer be held hostage to the President's reckless demands."

twitter:

mkraju twitterde op zaterdag 05-01-2019 om 23:07:57 Seeking to force Senate R defections, Pelosi says: “Next week, House Democrats will begin passing individual appropriations bills to re-open all government agencies, starting with the appropriations bill that covers the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service” reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 17:32 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:

[..]

Een burgeroorlog gaan de republikeinen wel winnen met inderdaad miljoenen gewapende NRA'ers.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 23:14 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

twitter:

mkraju twitterde op zaterdag 05-01-2019 om 23:07:57 Seeking to force Senate R defections, Pelosi says: “Next week, House Democrats will begin passing individual appropriations bills to re-open all government agencies, starting with the appropriations bill that covers the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service” reageer retweet

Kan nog interessant worden. Lastig om losse bills te weigeren.

Edit: Ah, Ulx was me voor.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 23:47 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Mitch neemt geen enkele bill in behandeling waar Trump tegen is.
Pelosi kan doen wat ze wil hij laat gewoon geen stemming toe of hij stelt uit.

Daar is Mitch inmiddels heer en meester in.

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 00:02 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Prima hoor. Dat mag hij proberen.

Dan mag hij volgende week de burgers en bedrijven van de VS gaan uitleggen waarom de IRS gesloten moet blijven en ze voorlopig geen teruggave krijgen. De Dems hebben hun werk dan gedaan.

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 19:04 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Iedereen die tegengas gaf is vervangen door derderangs ja-knikkers. Blinde adoratie aan Trump is immers het belangrijkste criterium.

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 00:19 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Er komt gewoon een deal dit weekend.
Geen idee waar al het doem denken vandaan komt.

Sommige mensen zien het liefste de VS veranderen in een 3e wereldland en iedereen werkloos. Plus een oorlog met Syrie en Rusland.

En alleen omdat Trump aan de macht is. Het is gewoon ziekelijk.

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 00:24 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Hij mag niet eens een muur!

quote:

Poll of the week: A Gallup poll out this week finds that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a favorable rating of 38% and an unfavorable rating of 48%. That's bad enough for a net favorability rating of -10 points.
The same poll also showed that President Donald Trump's favorable rating is 40% to unfavorable rating of 58%. That means his net favorability rating is -18 points.

President Trump Curiously Well Versed In Specific Russian Talking Points | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zaterdag 05-01-2019 om 23:29:31 (THREAD) A couple days ago, MSNBC's @maddow presented compelling preliminary evidence that Trump gets intelligence and propaganda from Kremlin sources. Tonight I'll add to her report in a significant way by discussing the meeting pictured below. I hope you'll read on and retweet. https://t.co/XNLnDEvz7Q reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 00:29 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
En alle rijken hebben een muur dus het moet wel een goed idee zijn!

quote:

"After two years in the Pentagon, I've decided the time is right to return to the private sector. It has been an honor to serve again alongside the men and women of the Department of Defense."

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 00:50 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Nog even terugkomend op Trump's voorliefde voor Russische propaganda

President Trump Curiously Well Versed In Specific Russian Talking Points | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zaterdag 05-01-2019 om 23:29:31 (THREAD) A couple days ago, MSNBC's @maddow presented compelling preliminary evidence that Trump gets intelligence and propaganda from Kremlin sources. Tonight I'll add to her report in a significant way by discussing the meeting pictured below. I hope you'll read on and retweet. https://t.co/XNLnDEvz7Q reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 00:35 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Jerry Faldwell jr, de leider van de Evangelicals, krijgt er even van langs. En terecht. Zijn creatieve interpretatie van de bijbel is gewoon ketterij.

https://www.washingtonpos(...)tter_impression=true

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 01:34 schreef SuzieQ89 het volgende:

[..]

Onze anti christ Ulx is ookal bedreven in het geloofsleer ?

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 00:50 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Nog even terugkomend op Trump's voorliefde voor Russische propaganda

President Trump Curiously Well Versed In Specific Russian Talking Points | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zaterdag 05-01-2019 om 23:29:31 (THREAD) A couple days ago, MSNBC's @maddow presented compelling preliminary evidence that Trump gets intelligence and propaganda from Kremlin sources. Tonight I'll add to her report in a significant way by discussing the meeting pictured below. I hope you'll read on and retweet. https://t.co/XNLnDEvz7Q reageer retweet

quote:

“The national security advisory board was total nonsense. They had absolutely no say in anything,” one of the former advisers said. “Most of them are just names on paper.”

twitter:

DavidRutz twitterde op zondag 06-01-2019 om 01:37:43 https://t.co/5x1c09zqZU reageer retweet

quote:

NEW: It's not just Democrats who want more information about the TRUMP administration's move to lift sanctions on Russian oligarch OLEG DERIPASKA's businesses. The GOP staff of the Senate Banking Committee is working with Dems to review the decision. https://t.co/Gsjr6cvSJf

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 02:05 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Bizar weer...
https://apnews.com/a92b04(...)m_medium=AP_Politics
Shutdown spares federal park rangers at site in Trump hotel.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 06-01-2019 om 03:06:29 Will be going to Camp David tomorrow morning for meetings on Border Security and many other topics with @WhiteHouse senior staff. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 06-01-2019 om 03:15:10 https://t.co/iSFAokoIP7 reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2019 19:44 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Welke standpunten?

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 03:30 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Dat geeft hem nog steeds geen mogelijkheid zelf geld voor de muur te pakken.

What happens if Trump declares border crisis a national emergency?

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 03:47 schreef Houtenbeen het volgende:

[..]

What happens if Trump declares border crisis a national emergency?

Gewoon wat schuiven in het budget van de DoD

quote:

President Trump on Friday said that he was considering the declaration of a “national emergency” along the border with Mexico, which he apparently believes would allow him to divert funds from the military budget to pay for a wall, and to use military personnel to build it.

While it is hard to know exactly what the president has in mind, or whether he has any conception about what it would entail, one thing is clear: Not only would such an action be illegal, but if members of the armed forces obeyed his command, they would be committing a federal crime.

SPOILER

Begin with the basics. From the founding onward, the American constitutional tradition has profoundly opposed the president’s use of the military to enforce domestic law. A key provision, rooted in an 1878 statute and added to the law in 1956, declares that whoever “willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force” to execute a law domestically “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years” — except when “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.”

Another provision, grounded in a statute from 1807 and added to the law in 1981, requires the secretary of defense to “ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel)” must “not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.”

In response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, Congress created an express exception to the rules, and authorized the military to play a backup role in “major public emergencies.” But in 2008 Congress and President Bush repealed this sweeping exception. Is President Trump aware of this express repudiation of the power which he is threatening to invoke?

The statute books do contain a series of carefully crafted exceptions to the general rule. Most relevantly, Congress has granted the Coast Guard broad powers to enforce the law within the domestic waters of the United States. But there is no similar provision granting the other military services a comparable power to “search, seize and arrest” along the Mexican border. Given Congress’s decision of 2008, this silence speaks louder than words. Similarly, the current military appropriations bill fails to exempt military professionals from criminal punishment for violating the law in their use of available funds.

It is, I suppose, possible to imagine a situation in which the president might take advantage of the most recent exception, enacted in 2011, which authorized the military detention of suspected terrorists associated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban. But despite President Trump’s unsupported claims about “terrorists” trying to cross the border, it is an unconscionable stretch to use this proviso to support using the military for operations against the desperate refugees from Central America seeking asylum in our country.

It is even less plausible for the president to suspend these restrictions under the National Emergencies Act of 1976. From the Great Depression through the Cold War, presidents systematically abused emergency powers granted them by Congress in some 470 statutes, culminating in the Watergate fiasco. In response, the first section of the 1976 act terminated all existing emergencies and created a framework of checks and balances on the president’s arbitrary will.

If President Trump declared an emergency, Section Five of the act gives the House of Representatives the right to repudiate it immediately, then pass their resolution to the Senate — which is explicitly required to conduct a floor vote within 15 days. Since President Trump’s “emergency” declaration would be a direct response to his failure to convince Congress that national security requires his wall, it is hard to believe that a majority of the Senate, if forced to vote, would accept his show of contempt for their authority.

The Supreme Court’s 1953 decision in Youngstown v. Sawyer would be critical in Congressional consideration of such a decision. In a canonical opinion by Justice Robert Jackson, the court invalidated President Truman’s attempt in 1952 to use his powers as commander in chief to nationalize steel mills in the face of labor strikes. The decision imposed fundamental constitutional limits on the president’s power to claim that a national emergency — in this case, the Korean War — allowed him to override express provisions preventing him from using those powers domestically.

The law is clear; how it would play out is less so. But undoubtedly, we would see a period of passionate debate on Capitol Hill, with scores of representatives, from both parties, condemning the president’s move as an unconstitutional abuse of his powers as commander in chief.

This would play out in public, with millions of service members watching closely. They would immediately be obliged to decide whether to obey President Trump — and risk criminal punishment. For the president to put these men and women in such a position, simply out of petulance over congressional opposition, would be especially unconscionable.

Should the president proceed, he should ask the Office of Legal Counsel to issue an opinion explaining to service members why they would not be “willfully” acting illegally if they heeded the president’s command. But we know this president well enough to know that will not happen.

Instead, he will likely take the most irresponsible path possible, issuing his “national emergency” through a tweet or a question-begging written pronunciamento. Recall how legally flawed his first stabs at the so-called travel ban were; if anything, his willingness to seek legal advice, and the ability of those around him to provide it, has declined since then.

What this all adds up to is a potential crisis much graver than whatever immigration emergencies the president has in mind: A legally ignorant president forcing our troops to choose between his commands and the rule of law in a petty political struggle over a domestic political question.

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 02:02 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Democrats’ potential move has drawn criticism from some former government officials. Dan Fried, a former State Department official who helped craft sanctions against Russia during the Obama administration, told The Daily Beast that he thinks Democrats should allow the sanctions be lifted.

“It may surprise you to hear this, given my reputation as a Putin hawk, but I think that Treasury made the right call in this deal,” Fried said. “They dug themselves out of a hole that they shouldn’t have jumped down in the first place. I think Deripaska certainly deserved to be sanctioned, but he would not have been my first choice because hitting Deripaska meant hitting Rusal, and that had downstream implications that I don’t think the U.S. government fully understood when they took that step.”

And Mike Dobson, a lawyer with the firm Morrison and Foerster who recently left the office within Treasury responsible for sanctions, said a congressional move to keep the sanctions in place would undermine Treasury’s credibility. Deripaska complied with Treasury’s requests, Dobson said, so failure by the U.S. government to uphold its end of the deal would signal to other potential sanctioned entities that changing their behavior could be fruitless.

“For Congress to come in and make what should be a straightforward administrative process into something political undermines the credibility of U.S. sanctions,” he said.

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 09:42 schreef Arcee het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op zondag 6 januari 2019 10:46 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:
Bijzonder verhaal: https://www.nu.nl/buitenl(...)orzaakt-krekels.html