SPOILER: Het Kabinet-TrumpOm spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.Amerikaans Congres:
Political groups house:
Political groups Senate:
Independents (2)SPOILER: Overzicht van lopende onderzoekenOm spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.
Ik denk dan ook dat jij een verkeerd beeld hebt van de persoon Trump. In jouw beleving is de huidige POTUS een intelligente, sympathieke kerel. Dat baseer jij op het feit dat hij de Amerikaanse ambassade naar Jeruzalem heeft verplaatst. Iemand die zoiets doet, moet immers wel een geschikte peer zijn, nietwaar?quote:
Dat hij een poging waagt, daar is in principe niets mis mee. Het gaat echter fout als hij een zieke dictator veren in de reet gaat steken.quote:
quote:‘Why shouldn’t I like him?’ Trump piled praise on Kim Jong Un in his first interview since their summit collapsed
In his first interview since the collapse of his summit with Kim Jon Un, President Donald Trump praised Kim as “very sharp” and a “real leader.”
Talking to Sean Hannity of Fox News – who went with Trump to their summit in Vietnam – the president asked “Why shouldn’t I like him?”
Hij ziet dit wel in, maar als een anti EU adept zet hij dit maar al te makkelijk van zich af. Hij is niet voor niets bewonderaar van een Sovjet generaal. Maar het gaat hier ook niet om over het stokpaardje van DeParo (oorlog en militairisme) maar over politiek. Dus dwaal dus niet met hem af richting BNW niveau.quote:Op woensdag 13 maart 2019 12:27 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Oeps, vergeten TT aan te passen. Oh wel.....[..]
Ik denk dan ook dat jij een verkeerd beeld hebt van de persoon Trump. In jouw beleving is de huidige POTUS een intelligente, sympathieke kerel. Dat baseer jij op het feit dat hij de Amerikaanse ambassade naar Jeruzalem heeft verplaatst. Iemand die zoiets doet, moet immers wel een geschikte peer zijn, nietwaar?
Trump is een grote, egocentrische lul. Snap werkelijk niet dat je dat niet in kunt zien.
Hij zou zelfs Pol Pot pijpen als hij er beter van zou worden.quote:
Ik vond dit wel een aardige analyse van de mislukte onderhandelingen:quote:
bronquote:How the White House Is Spinning the North Korea Summit Collapse
The administration no longer thinks Trump alone can reach a deal with Kim Jong Un.
It’s now known rather famously, in Donald Trump’s Twitter feed at least, as the “walk”—the president cutting short his summit in Vietnam with Kim Jong Un because, per a wisdom that fast took root back in Washington, no nuclear deal was better than a bad one.
Since the standoff in late February, however, the reasons Trump walked and where he’s headed on North Korea have remained obscure. In a classified briefing last week to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the president’s special representative for North Korea, Stephen Biegun, dropped a number of hints—including, according to one senator who was in the room, that the administration is now placing hope for a breakthrough in the lower-level negotiations it once ridiculed. Biegun himself has since argued publicly that even though the summit didn’t yield a deal, Trump’s personal diplomacy with Kim may yet compel the North Korean leader to direct those negotiating on his behalf to reach one.
A year ago, when Trump became the first U.S. president to agree to a meeting with his North Korean counterpart, a senior administration official declared that the history of unsuccessful working-level talks to denuclearize North Korea during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations “speaks for itself.” Under Trump, who cites his “great relationship” with Kim as the primary reason he will succeed where his predecessors failed, the approach has been to set a date and location for the leaders to get together and then have their deputies scramble to deliver results, rather than the other way around.
Critics have argued that in placing such emphasis on his personal dealings with Kim, Trump has undercut his advisers. After the second summit ended without a deal, however, the Trump administration is pointing to a silver lining: The summit’s collapse could paradoxically empower the leaders’ diplomats and technocrats.
Ahead of their meeting in Hanoi, “it just seemed pretty clear to [Biegun] that Kim was playing the waiting game for the one-on-one” with Trump, the Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy told me. Biegun’s argument is that walking away “sets the conditions for serious negotiations [by lower-level officials] that couldn’t happen until Kim realized he couldn’t pull one over on Trump.”
Asked for comment on these and other characterizations of Biegun’s briefing provided to The Atlantic by senators who met with him, a State Department spokesperson declined to “comment on remarks made in a classified setting.”
At a conference in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Biegun defended Trump’s approach of engaging directly with Kim. “We have tried for 25 years to percolate positions up from the working level to the leadership level, with no success,” he said. Kim is the only “one who can truly create the space for my counterparts sitting across the table from me to be flexible, to be agile, to be creative, to find solutions to these issues.”
Nevertheless, a senior State Department official conceded that Kim has yet to grant his subordinates space to negotiate. “We need the North Korean negotiators to have much more latitude than they did in the run-up to the summit on denuclearization,” the official said in a briefing with reporters last week, while stressing that Trump’s meetings with Kim were an indispensable feature rather than a bug in that effort.
Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin who also attended Biegun’s briefing, told me he still understands the leader-to-leader talks to be a critical component of the administration’s approach.
As Johnson sees it, Kim wrongly assumed that he could wring economic concessions from Trump for little in return, as North Korea’s leaders have done with previous American presidents. “Obviously, he came [to Vietnam] thinking he could talk Trump into a bad deal, and good thing he wasn’t able to,” the senator said.
But Murphy left Biegun’s briefing with the sense that both leaders—in spending the months following their first summit in Singapore pinning progress exclusively on their personal abilities to make a deal with each other—had made strategic mistakes ahead of Hanoi.
Kim’s was his “refusal to engage in any serious pre-negotiations” through his subordinates, Murphy told me. “Biegun was knocking at the door, day after day, and for the most part, nobody was answering. Kim seemed to make the calculation that he had buttered Trump up so sufficiently to be more likely to get what he wanted from Trump directly than through intermediaries.”
Biegun, who was appointed last August, managed to get meetings with his North Korean counterpart only in January, just as the second Trump-Kim meeting was announced. The State Department has acknowledged that Biegun’s talks with North Korean officials in the weeks before the summit didn’t make much headway on the core issue of denuclearization. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was reportedly snubbed by his North Korean counterpart even as Trump made his way to Vietnam on Air Force One.
Trump’s blunder, in Murphy’s telling, was that he “thought that by sheer force of personality in Hanoi, he could get Kim to agree to a comprehensive deal, which was never going to be possible, and so instead of immediately setting the table with some confidence-building measures, he went for the whole enchilada and lost badly.”
“I think Kim walked in thinking that his love letters [to Trump] were going to get sanctions released for something much less than full denuclearization,” Murphy said. “Trump thought that these love letters meant he was going to get full denuclearization for sanctions relief. I think it was pretty clear pretty quickly that neither of those things was going to happen.”
In his remarks on Monday, Biegun credited the leaders’ exchange of letters with breaking an impasse in working-level negotiations in late December. But he also confirmed Murphy’s distillation of the basic dispute in Hanoi. Kim, Biegun explained, offered to dismantle only a portion of his nuclear program at the country’s main Yongbyon facility in exchange for the United States lifting the bulk of international sanctions. (U.S. negotiators had dismissed this idea as unworkable in meetings with their North Korean counterparts in the weeks before the summit.) Trump’s counteroffer was for Kim to “go big” and commit to eliminating his entire weapons-of-mass-destruction program, including nuclear, chemical, and biological arms. In exchange, the United States would help transform North Korea’s economy and relationship with the United States. Each side balked at the other’s proposal.
Many experts had interpreted a speech Biegun had delivered at Stanford ahead of the Vietnam summit as a sign that the administration had recognized the folly of pressuring North Korea into swiftly giving up all its nuclear weapons—and was instead pivoting to a more protracted process of phased peace building, political normalization, sanctions relief, and rollback of the North Korean nuclear program. But on Monday, Biegun stated that the United States would not lift sanctions “until North Korea completes the process of denuclearization,” echoing an overlooked line from his Stanford speech. “We are not going to do denuclearization incrementally.”
What the United States and North Korea are engaged in, Biegun argued, “is much bigger than denuclearization” and of a different nature than what he characterized as Barack Obama’s narrow nuclear deal with Iran. That’s why at Stanford he sketched a vision of North Korea shipping out its last nuclear weapons, the United States removing sanctions and opening an embassy in Pyongyang, and the two sides signing a peace treaty at the same time.
The much-reported details of which nuclear facilities North Korea was willing to trade for which sanctions in Vietnam, in other words, are something of a red herring. What mattered is that the North Koreans viewed a partial nuclear agreement as the only way to move forward, and the Americans considered such a deal the surest way to move backward.
“What North Korea has done consistently in the past is promised to denuclearize and then, by the way, not do it, to get economic benefits, which provide their economy a lifeline … and then allow them to go back to the nuclear program,” National Security Adviser John Bolton said after Hanoi.
Biegun came across in his briefing as “pretty confident that [the administration’s] basic strategy here is the only one that’ll actually work,” said Johnson. “Nobody can predict what Kim Jong Un will do, but I didn’t sense any concern or panic … He fully realizes how difficult this is.”
Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, said his sense from the briefing was that the administration’s strategy is “we’re going to keep pressing economic sanctions, we think it’s having a toll on them, and they’ll eventually come around” to “make this grand deal,” despite signs that North Korea is finding ways to bypass sanctions, and China, the North’s principal trading partner, isn’t enforcing them as strictly as it once was.
The administration is characterizing Trump’s walk in Hanoi as a message to North Korea “that partial [nuclear] dismantlement is just not an acceptable place to end up,” he told me, and North Korea, with its renewed work at nuclear-weapons-related sites in recent weeks, is sending its own message that “we’re going to keep going forward unless you adopt the partial vision that we have of getting rid of these sanctions in exchange for [a] first step” on denuclearization. Each side, he noted, is trying to convey to the other “that we’re really serious: Your position is not acceptable.”
As Victor Cha, who negotiated with the North Koreans during the George W. Bush administration, recently noted, each side appears to have learned the same lesson in Hanoi: “Pressure works.” (“The pressure’s not on us,” Biegun declared this week, even as he admitted that “we don’t know” what North Korea’s revived activity at nuclear sites signifies.)
The infinite-loop debate about whether to go big or go small in their talks, Cha added, harks “back to the sort of negotiations that we have been in for the past 25 years.”
The “two leaders have learned that love does not conquer all,” Alexander Vershbow, the former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, said in his conversation with Cha.
In holding out for a Big Deal with North Korea, Trump is banking on the country’s leaders deciding to do what his own intelligence officials (and top advisers, such as Bolton) say is highly unlikely: fully give up a nuclear program they have invested heavily in for decades and come to consider essential for the survival of their regime. What the United States is now angling for, a year into its diplomacy with North Korea, is to have it all: breakthroughs in negotiations at both the leader and lower levels, an indefinite and unrelenting pressure campaign that produces a swift grand bargain on peace and denuclearization.
Such a deal would be an utterly unprecedented accomplishment if Trump pulls it off. But if the dim history of nuclear negotiations with North Korea isn’t exactly repeating itself in the wake of the Vietnam summit, it’s starting to rhyme.
Typisch gevalletje van Dunning-Krugereffect iddquote:
twitter:NatashaBertrand twitterde op woensdag 13-03-2019 om 15:46:50 Manafort is now addressing the court. "In my previous allocation I told Judge Ellis I was ashamed for my conduct...I want to say to you now that I am sorry for what I have done and for all the activities that have gotten me here today." reageer retweet
twitter:NatashaBertrand twitterde op woensdag 13-03-2019 om 15:49:34 Manafort: "As I've sat in solitary confinement, I've reflected on my life and can see I've behaved in ways that did not always comport with my personal values. ...my behavior in the future will be very different." Says he's "a different person" than he was in October 2017. reageer retweet
twitter:NatashaBertrand twitterde op woensdag 13-03-2019 om 16:24:54 Judge ABJ, pointedly: The question of collusion or conspiracy with Russia was not presented in this case, therefore it was not resolved in this case.(Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing had said last week that the Virginia trial proved there was no evidence of collusion.) reageer retweet
twitter:NatashaBertrand twitterde op woensdag 13-03-2019 om 16:43:37 Oof. Judge ABJ has called out Manafort over his comments today-- says they seem to have been prompted by the comments he made at the last hearing. Says "elements of remorse and acceptance of responsibility" in submissions so far have been "completely absent." reageer retweet
Ze wijst er nog maar eens op dat 'collusion' in deze zaak niet relevant is:twitter:
twitter:ryanjreilly twitterde op woensdag 13-03-2019 om 16:48:16 Jackson says the "the no collusion refrain" that runs through defense documents has no relevance here. "The 'no collusion' mantra is simply a non-sequitur." Not particularly persuasive to say an investigation hasn't found anything when you've lied to investigators, she says. reageer retweet
twitter:ZoeTillman twitterde op woensdag 13-03-2019 om 16:59:00 Jackson says 30 months of her sentence must be concurrent with the EDVA sentence, because the tax and reporting crimes were covered in both cases (and in EDVA he got 24 months for the tax crimes and 30 months for the reporting crime, to run concurrent) reageer retweet
twitter:NatashaBertrand twitterde op woensdag 13-03-2019 om 17:01:31 BREAKING: Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentences Manafort to 60 months on count 1, which will run concurrent to 30 months of EDVA, and 13 months on count 2 to be served CONSECUTIVELY to sentence on count 1 and sentence imposed by EDVA. reageer retweet
Met dank aan de eerdere uitspraak van Judge Ellisquote:
House Democrats Target Ivanka Trump (but Through a Side Door)twitter:
quote:Rhona Graff, President Trump’s longtime executive assistant, was asked for documents related to foreign governments providing gifts or money to Ivanka Trump or her businesses.
Anatoli Samochornov, the Russian translator who sat in on a meeting between Trump campaign officials and Russian lobbyists, was asked to hand over handwritten notes showing any capital investment from Russian entities to Ms. Trump or her businesses.
And Jeff Sessions, the former attorney general, was asked for any documents related to loans or capital investments from Russians directed to Ms. Trump.
The president’s eldest daughter and top White House adviser was notably absent from a blitz of document requests that the House Judiciary Committee sent earlier this month to 81 individuals and organizations linked to the president. House Democrats have been cautious about targeting Ms. Trump and the other Trump children as they investigate the president, worried about triggering a backlash.
But a close read of the document requests suggests they aren’t exactly tiptoeing around the first daughter, either.
Of the 81 document requests sent, 52 individuals and organizations were asked to turn over documents related to Ms. Trump or her business interests.SPOILER“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”— Bertrand Russell
Wat een timing!quote:
En als Manafort financieel wordt uitgekleed...blijft er dan genoeg over om de advocaten te betalen?quote:
quote:Op woensdag 13 maart 2019 19:49 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Er werd overigens nogal geklaagd over vermeende discriminatie in de toelating in het onderwijs in de VS en daar blijkt toch wel degelijk sprake van:
Dit zegt heel veel natuurlijk:quote:
Voor wie nog dacht dat de VS een meritocratie was.quote:Many colleges enroll more students from the top 1 percent of earners than the bottom 60 percent combined.
twitter:RVAwonk twitterde op woensdag 13-03-2019 om 21:54:12 #BREAKING: Rep. Jerry Nadler says during today's closed-door meeting, former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker "did not deny that the president called him to discuss the Michael Cohen case and personnel decisions in the Southern District" -- something he denied last month. reageer retweet
quote:Before he pleaded guilty and began assisting federal prosecutors last summer, Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s former fixer, spoke with a lawyer who agreed to reach out to the president’s legal team on his behalf.
The lawyer, Robert J. Costello, had about a dozen conversations with Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, according to emails and documents reviewed by The New York Times and interviews with people involved in the matter. In one email, the discussions were characterized as a “back channel of communication.”
During one of the conversations last April, Mr. Costello said in an interview, he asked whether Mr. Trump might put a pardon “on the table” for Mr. Cohen, who was under federal investigation for a variety of possible crimes, including arranging hush-money payments to two women who had said they had affairs with Mr. Trump. Mr. Giuliani told Mr. Costello that the president was unwilling to discuss pardons at that time, Mr. Costello said in the interview, and they did not discuss it again.
Now federal prosecutors have requested the emails and documents from Mr. Costello, according to a copy of the request, which cited an investigation into “possible violations of federal criminal law” but offered no further detail. The request, sent last week, was for any documents related to Mr. Cohen as well as any bills Mr. Costello had sent him.
In one of the emails, sent by Mr. Costello in April 2018 after a conversation with Mr. Giuliani, he assured Mr. Cohen, “Sleep well tonight, you have friends in high places.” He added, in a postscript: “Some very positive comments about you from the White House. Rudy noted how that followed my chat with him last night.”
A spokesman for the federal prosecutors, from the United States Attorney’s office in Manhattan, declined to comment.
There was no indication that prosecutors suspected Mr. Costello of wrongdoing, and the focus of their inquiry is not clear.SPOILER“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”— Bertrand Russell
quote:Federal prosecutors are conducting a criminal investigation into data deals Facebook struck with some of the world’s largest technology companies, intensifying scrutiny of the social media giant’s business practices as it seeks to rebound from a year of scandal and setbacks.
A grand jury in New York has subpoenaed records from at least two prominent makers of smartphones and other devices, according to two people who were familiar with the requests and who insisted on anonymity to discuss confidential legal matters. Both companies had entered into partnerships with Facebook, gaining broad access to the personal information of hundreds of millions of its users.
The companies were among more than 150 firms, including Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Sony, that had cut sharing deals with the world’s dominant social media platform. The agreements, previously reported in The New York Times, let the companies see users’ friends, contact information and other data, sometimes without consent. Facebook has phased out most of the partnerships over the past two years.
“We are cooperating with investigators and take those probes seriously,” a Facebook spokesman said in a statement. “We’ve provided public testimony, answered questions and pledged that we will continue to do so.”
It is not clear when the grand jury inquiry, overseen by prosecutors with the United States attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York, began or exactly what it is focusing on. Facebook was already facing scrutiny by the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. And the Justice Department’s securities fraud unit began investigating it after reports that Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, had improperly obtained the Facebook data of 87 million people and used it to build tools that helped President Trump’s election campaign.
The Justice Department and the Eastern District declined to comment for this article.SPOILER“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”— Bertrand Russell
quote:The Senate on Wednesday again rebuked President Trump for his continued defense of Saudi Arabia after the killing of the dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, voting for a second time to end American military assistance for the kingdom’s war in Yemen and to curtail presidential war powers.
The 54-to-46 vote, condemning a nearly four-year conflict in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians and inflicted a devastating famine, sets the foundation for what could become Mr. Trump’s first presidential veto, with the House expected to overwhelmingly pass the measure, possibly this month. The vote also might be the opening salvo in a week where Senate Republicans have the opportunity to hit back at the president’s aggressive use of executive power. On Thursday, the chamber will vote on a resolution that would overturn Mr. Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.
“The United States Congress is going to reassert its constitutional responsibility over issues of war that have been abdicated for presidents, Democrats and Republicans, for too many years,” said Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, encouraged lawmakers on Wednesday to oppose the Yemen resolution, calling it “inappropriate and counterproductive” and warning them not to conflate their displeasure with the administration’s response to Mr. Khashoggi’s death with the broader issue of the conflict in Yemen. But in a show of defiance, seven Republican senators broke ranks to join the resolution: Mike Lee, of Utah; Susan Collins of Maine; Steve Daines of Montana; Jerry Moran of Kansas; Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; Rand Paul of Kentucky; and Todd Young of Indiana.
Still, Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and one of the lead backers of the Yemen resolution, warned that “we shouldn’t overstate the Republican anti-Trump renaissance,” noting that both resolutions under consideration this week had 50-vote thresholds and that Republican defections were relatively limited.
Supporters of the Yemen resolution have faced a long and grueling road to get the legislation onto the president’s desk. The Senate — led by the resolution’s authors, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Lee — first passed the measure 56 to 41 in December, but Paul D. Ryan, the House speaker at the time, refused to take up the resolution.
His successor, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, did take it up, and the House easily passed it last month. But House Democrats inadvertently derailed the process by supporting a surprise procedural motion offered by Republicans to declare the chamber’s opposition to anti-Semitism. By attaching an unrelated amendment to the Yemen resolution, the House ended its “privileged” status, which would have forced the Senate to quickly take it up and send it to Mr. Trump.
The vote on Wednesday was essentially a do-over, and House leadership and the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wary of a repeat derailment, are already urging Democrats to oppose any unrelated amendments that Republicans might add.SPOILER
Wel echt pijnlijk zeg, om over iets te beginnen als advocaat waarvoor hij niet veroordeeld is... helemaal in het licht van de aanklacht op staatsniveau.quote:Op donderdag 14 maart 2019 01:36 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
En de rechter er bovendien juist een punt van gemaakt had dat het 'no collusion'-verhaal nergens op sloeg:quote:
Als zelfs klootjesvolk met van die bordjes al door heeft dat je loopt te liegen en de woorden van de rechter totaal verdraait....quote:Op donderdag 14 maart 2019 01:36 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Ik vraag me ook af of hij hiervoor niet op de vingers getikt kan worden als advocaat?quote:
Nu nog Biden en het feestje is compleetquote:
Mss is Biden-Beto wel een goede combinatiequote:
twitter:staceyabrams twitterde op maandag 11-03-2019 om 20:43:33 In #LeadFromTheOutside, I explore how to be intentional about plans, but flexible enough to adapt. 20 years ago, I never thought I'd be ready to run for POTUS before 2028. But life comes at you fast - as I shared in Q&A w @Yamiche at @sxsw. Now 2020 is definitely on the table... reageer retweet
Jup. Je kunt het zien alsof iemand is veroordeeld voor brandstichting waarbij een dode is gevallen. De rechter heeft hem dus straf gegeven voor het delict brandstichting, waarop zijn advocaat luid scandeert: Maar hij is onschuldig voor doodslag, dus dáár kunnen ze hem niet meer op pakken!quote:
Ben ik mee eens. Twee jaar onervarenheid in het witte huis is genoeg geweest..quote:
Tegelijkertijd ben ik wel groot voorstander van een wat jongere president. Van zo'n opa Biden word je toch ook niet vrolijk?quote: