SPOILER: Het Kabinet-Trump

Het kabinet:
Secretary of State - Mike Pompeo
Secretary of Treasury - Steven Mnuchin
Secretary of Defense - Patrick M. Shanahan (Acting)
Attorney General - William Barr
Secretary of the Interior - David Bernhardt (Acting)
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 - Robert Wilkie
Secretary of Homeland Security - Kirstjen Nielsen

Cabinet-level officials:
White House Chief of Staff - Mick Mulvaney (Acting)
Trade Representative - Robert Lighthizer
Director of National Intelligence - Dan Coats
Ambassador to the UN - Jonathan Cohen (Acting)
Director of the Office of Management & Budget - Mick Mulvaney
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency - Gina Haspel
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency - Andrew R. Wheeler (Acting)
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: Overzicht van lopende onderzoeken

Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017)
Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018)
Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019)

quote:

Op zaterdag 20 april 2019 19:03 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Dronebama vs internationale spierballentaal

quote:

Op zaterdag 20 april 2019 19:12 schreef Bluesdude het volgende:

[..]

Dreigen met genocide is laag.
Zulke presidenten moet men direct afzetten.

Als iemand paf paf roept tav van een politicus dan wordt die al veroordeeld in Nederland.
Maar ja..... is die politicus een hoge wannabee-massamoordenaar dan staan er miljoenen klaar hem toe te juichen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 20 april 2019 19:28 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Korea ging altijd al haar gang en doet dat nog steeds. Paar daagjes terug nog rakettestje gedaan. Trump verzaakt net zo erg als de rest.

quote:

Op zaterdag 20 april 2019 21:59 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Dit stuk lees ik als feiten en bijzonder on-presidentieel gedrag.
https://thebulwark.com/portrait-of-the-president-as-a-gangster/

...The Mueller report reads like the indictment of a mob boss, not an investigation of a president...

quote:

Op zaterdag 20 april 2019 23:10 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Het is wat mij betreft uitermate frustrerend dat zo'n volstrekt immoreel individue die de ene misdaad na de ander wil begaan als 't aan hem lag, maar door sheer luck wordt tegengehouden nog steun heeft

Pure ideologische steun. Wij tegen zij. Totaal verwerpelijk wat mij betreft. Het lijkt me ook evident dat hij ook aardig wat misdaden heeft begaan toen hij nog geen president was en zijn orders niet werden tegengehouden. Als dit al boven water komt in twee jaar, laat staan als zijn bedrijf eens echt tegen het licht wordt gehouden.

quote:

Rep. Duncan Hunter Faked a Border Wall Crossing on Facebook
And if he had crossed the border, he would have violated the terms of his bail

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) posted a video on Facebook and Twitter Thursday that he claimed showed him crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. But there’s one catch: the border was actually almost 100 feet away from where Hunter was, Customs and Border Patrol said.

“So here is the grand border wall in Yuma, Arizona,” Hunter said in the video, pointing to a waist-high barrier he could easily step over. “This is what we expect to stop people, transnational terrorists, families, all illegal aliens from coming across the border. This is it.”

He then did step over the fence and said to the camera, “There you go. That’s how easy it is to cross the border in Yuma, Arizona.”

Except no, that wasn’t the border, nor did he climb an actual border wall or set foot in Mexico. A Customs and Border Patrol spokesman told the Times of San Diego that the barrier Hunter climbed was a vehicle barrier located in the United States, 75-100 feet from the actual U.S.-Mexico border, which is located along the Colorado River.

Had Hunter actually crossed the border, he would have created even more trouble for himself. The congressman is currently out on bail because he has been indicted for allegedly misusing campaign funds for personal family expenses to pay for luxury family vacations, dentistry and other bills, and even his children’s school lunches. According to the terms of his bail, Hunter is not allowed to leave the country, so if he had actually crossed over to Mexico, it would have been a violation of his bail.

According to the indictment, Hunter and his wife not only spent $250,000 of campaign funds on themselves, they did so while claiming to make donations to charities. For example, they claimed a $200 shoe purchase at Dick’s Sporting Goods was actually hunting equipment to benefit “wounded warriors.” And Hunter’s wife Margaret purchased $152 of make-up at Nordstrom then falsely claimed it was for “gift basket items for the Boys and Girls Clubs of San Diego.”

So, if you consider all their alleged lies about use of campaign funds, it’s not too far of a stretch that Hunter did the same in his “border wall” jumping video.

quote:

The FBI arrested a 69-year-old New Mexico man who allegedly illegally detained immigrants crossing the border under the guise of working for the United States Border Patrol.

Larry Mitchell Hopkins, who runs The United Constitutional Patriots (UCP), an armed border militia group that spreads far-right conspiracies and rounds up asylum seekers on the border, was arrested by FBI in New Mexico Saturday on charges of possessing firearms and ammunition as a convicted felon.

Recent video footage released by UCP shows two members holding what appear to be semi-automatic rifles near immigrants, many of them children.

The group also peddles conspiracy theories and produces a radio show where members spread information about QAnon, and accuse migrants of associating with ISIS. Hopkins has also claimed that president Trump has personally asked him about ‘Muslim immigration.’

UCP and Hopkins claim to work with Border Patrol, which has publicly denied doing so. Border Patrol agents sometimes appear in the periphery of the groups videos, which show camo-clad UCP members interacting with migrants at the southern border.

“There’s no question about whether or not we work with Border Patrol,” said Jim, a UCP spokesperson who declined to give his last name. “That’s all documented, and not just once. It’s documented hundreds and hundreds of times over in the videos that I post.”

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection does not endorse private groups or organizations taking enforcement matters into their own hands,” a Border Patrol official told The Daily Beast.

Border Patrol is not supposed to interact with border vigilantes, but has been documented doing so. A Mother Jones reporter who embedded with a border militia in 2016 witnessed the group getting information from Border Patrol agents.

UCP is only one of several vigilante groups patrolling the southern border with guns.

SPOILER

New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas issued a statement on Saturday, praising the FBI over Hopkins' arrest.

“This is a dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families,” Balderas wrote in a statement. “Today's arrest by the FBI indicates clearly that the rule of law should be in the hands of trained law enforcement officials, not armed vigilantes.”

Hopkins, of Flora Vista, N.M., is expected to have an initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Las Cruces, New Mexico on Monday. Federal authorities said they would not released additional details about Hopkins’ arrest until after the appearance.

The arrest was the latest fallout for the group. On Friday, the UCP Facebook group announced to its members that they no longer accept donations through PayPal, as the service has suspended their account.

“TO ALL PATRIOTS, I wish to thank all of you that has donated to the Border Ops mission up till now. We can no longer accept payments thru PAYPAL, they have permanently suspended our account,” the post read. “... And is hold $1300.00 in donations for 180 days. I am looking for another outfit that we can go thru.”

PayPal and GoFundMe announced Friday that they would no longer allow UCP to raise funds on their platforms.

A PayPal spokesperson told BuzzFeed News in a statement that UCP had been banned from their platform following a video that shows the group rounding up nearly 200 migrants.

“The account associated with United Constitutional Patriots has been closed due to a violation of our Acceptable Use Policy,” the spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. “We do not allow PayPal services to be used to promote hate, violence, or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory.”

quote:

Op zaterdag 20 april 2019 22:29 schreef WhiteBeard het volgende:

[..]

Dus toch maar genocide op de Noord Koreanen of wat? Leg eens uit wat hij zou moeten doen als niks doen geen optie is, maar een nucleaire oorlog ook niet. Verbaas mij

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 08:05 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Alsof je daar ook maar iets mee gaat doen. Met je Deep State gezever. Als je dat al gelooft dan maakt de rest niets meer uit. Trump is een held die tegen de elite vecht....

quote:

Op zaterdag 20 april 2019 20:39 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:
Man man, wat een topicreeksen weer. Het is echt niet te filmen hoe sommigen iemand verdedigen, terwijl het bewijs overal ligt. Die nu een overwinning zien in iets wat juist nog meer bewijs leverd.

Wat ik ook frappant vind is dat er vaak bepaalde termen ineens trending zijn bij precies dezelfde mensen. Van Gutmenschen naar NPC's en nu dat gedoe over "The Radical Left"...Wat een niveau..

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 09:07 schreef Elzies het volgende:

[..]

Tot nu toe is er geen enkel juridisch vervolgbaar bewijs geleverd. Alleen maar eigen suggesties over mogelijke obstructies waarvan maar moet worden vastgesteld of het ooit tot juridische vervolging komt.

Feit blijft overeind staan dat het Muller rapport Trump heeft vrij gesproken van enige samenwerking met de Russen. De hoofdreden dat dit onderzoek werd ingesteld.

Ook toen moest de wereld twee jaar lang via suggestie journalistiek aanhoren dat dit bewijs zou worden geleverd en dat een impeachmentprocedure in gang zou worden gezet. Het bleek allemaal een wassen neus.

Benoem de kwestie gewoon zoals het is. Het is een politiek georkestreerde zet van de Democratische partij om Trump zoveel als mogelijk politiek te blijven beschadigen uit afgunst dat niet Hillary maar Trump de presidentsverkiezingen won in 2016.

Nogmaals, een Amerikaanse president wordt democratisch gekozen en dan dien je de uitslag te respecteren, ook al bevalt de gekozen president niet. Na vier jaar is er weer een nieuwe kans. Voer oppositie op beleid en niet op suggestieve schandalen en complotten. Het is echt een afbraak van de democratie te noemen. Een wanvertoning om naar te kijken. Triest gevolg is dat wat in de VS gebeurd nu ook overwaait naar Europa. Zorgelijke ontwikkeling.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 09:12 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Jij kan niet lezen, blijkbaar. 'Van enige samenwerking met de Russen'. Ga het nog eens lezen, probeer het met de ogen open.

En wat een onzin dat een gekozen president niet onderzocht moet worden. Nixon was ook gekozen, vind je het daar ook van?

En weer "B-b-but Hillary"...

Kom op man, iets beter je best doen.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 09:45 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Nogmaals, in een normaal functionerende democratie met volksvertegenwoordigers die integer zijn en hun land op de eerste plaats zetten, was Trump allang afgezet. Het Mueller-rapport laat zien dat de president gedrag vertoont dat niet wenselijk is voor een politiek leider. Een Nederlandse Trump was inmiddels het Torentje uitgeschopt door de Tweede Kamer.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 09:29 schreef Elzies het volgende:

[..]

Blijf bij de feiten. De uitkomst van het Mueller rapport laat onomstotelijk zien dat er geen sprake was van samenwerking tussen Trump en de Russen. Daar is geen juridisch vervolgbaar bewijs voor geleverd.

Dus richten de Democraten zich op het overgebleven stokpaardje, de mogelijke obstructie van dit onderzoek door de zittende president en de middelen om hem hier juridisch voor te vervolgen.

Maar ook hier is buiten suggestie vorming nog geen concreet vervolgbaar juridisch bewijs geleverd. Men zit nog in een eigen onderzoeksfase. Dat politiek gespeelde spelletje rondom mogelijke obstructie zullen de Democraten natuurlijk tot aan de komende presidentsverkiezingen blijven volhouden.

Ze kunnen ook niet anders want toegeven dat ze fout zaten is natuurlijk een politiek verlies voor de komende campagne. Men heeft zich er zo diep ingenesteld dat het haast onmogelijk is om er nog geloofwaardig uit te komen.

Dus ik verwacht veel van hetzelfde. Ze lopen natuurlijk wel het risico Trump hiermee in de kaart te spelen. Ik zou inzetten op een geloofwaardige tegenkandidaat. Maar die is er tot nu toe niet.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 09:57 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Elke president heeft wenselijk en onwenselijk gedrag laten zien. Ook Trump. En de AIVD zou geen politieke tegenstanders bespioneren... Hoop ik. Daarbij, het Amerikaanse en Nederlandse politieke systeem en klimaat vergelijken op dit vlak werkt gewoon niet.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 09:59 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Wanneer een partij die meedoet aan onze verkiezingen twijfelachtige contacten onderhoudt met Russen die banden hebben met het Kremlin, dan mag ik hopen dat de AIVD haar werk doet en die partij extra goed in de gaten houdt.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 10:11 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

En in plaats van die zorgen te delen met de partij, zodat ze er zelf iets aan kunnen doen, dan maar gelijk bespioneren? Wel handig als je vuil wil, in plaats van integere politiek.

En het is natuurlijk ook niet vreemd om als president(skandidaat) contacten met het buitenland te hebben. Geopolitiek is een van je belangrijkste taken.

En bovendien, "twijfelachtige contacten", da's heerlijk vaag. Beter gewoon iedereen bespioneren. En meteen volgens Chinees model, zodat ongewensten en onproductieven rechten kwijtraken.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 09:29 schreef Elzies het volgende:
Blijf bij de feiten. De uitkomst van het Mueller rapport laat onomstotelijk zien dat er geen sprake was van samenwerking tussen Trump en de Russen. Daar is geen juridisch vervolgbaar bewijs voor geleverd.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 10:11 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

En in plaats van die zorgen te delen met de partij, zodat ze er zelf iets aan kunnen doen, dan maar gelijk bespioneren? Wel handig als je vuil wil, in plaats van integere politiek.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 10:17 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

En wat betreft het delen van zorgen:

The FBI warned Trump that Russia would try to infiltrate his campaign team

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 10:17 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

En wat betreft het delen van zorgen:

The FBI warned Trump that Russia would try to infiltrate his campaign team

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 10:23 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Dit weten ze ook allemaal wel. Ze kiezen er gewoon voor om dat te negeren. Want ze vinden het eigenlijk helemaal niet erg dat Trump zo moreel corrupt is als de pest. Net zoals ze het niet erg vinden dat hij pussygrabber-in-chief is. Of het absolute record heeft in het vertellen van aantoonbare leugens.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 10:13 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Knul, verdiep je nou eerst eens in de bevindingen van Mueller.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 10:17 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

En wat betreft het delen van zorgen:

The FBI warned Trump that Russia would try to infiltrate his campaign team

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 10:29 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Dat Trump geen crimineel is?

SPOILER

Of nog langer daarvoor:

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 10:15 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Trump's campaign heeft niet bewezen samengezweerd (of ze hebben het wel gedaan maar zoveel gelogen -ook letterlijk in Mueller's rapport- dat het daardoor niet bewijsbaar genoeg was).

Trump's campagin heeft [i]wel[/u] bewezen samenwerking gezocht met Russen over vele kanalen en gekregen.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 11:13 schreef Elzies het volgende:

[..]

De uitkomst van dit rapport is duidelijk. Er is geen bewijs gevonden voor samenwerking met de Russen waarin Trump zou zijn bij betrokken. Dus heb je juridisch beschouwd geen mogelijkheid tot vervolging of tot het starten van een impeachmentprocedure.

Dan verbaasd het me toch dat er mensen zijn die deze uitkomst als onwaar proberen te framen.

Doet me een beetje denken aan het 09/11 complot waarin ook geen enkel juridisch onderbouwd bewijs is aangetroffen wat aantoonde dat de regering Bush achter de aanslagen van the Twin Towers zat. Desondanks bleven believers roepen dat dit niet zo was en ze bleven doorgaan met hun suggestieve complot theorieën die uiteraard telkens qua inhoud werden aangepast. Je kunt dit soort mensen toch niet overtuigen al ligt de harde conclusie voor hun neus.

Maar in dit geval ligt er natuurlijk een politiek motief aan ten grondslag. Zeker met de presidentsverkiezingen in aantocht.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 11:13 schreef Elzies het volgende:

[..]

Dus heb je juridisch beschouwd geen mogelijkheid tot vervolging of tot het starten van een impeachmentprocedure.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 11:51 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:
Je kan een impeachmentprocedure starten zonder onderliggende criminele feiten. Je kan ook examens ingaan zonder een boek te hebben geopend. Je kan de presidentsverkiezingen ingaan zonder standpunten. Je kan een strafzaak starten zonder sterk bewijs. Je komt alleen niet ver

quote:

In the United States, for example, impeachment at the federal level is limited to those who may have committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors[1]".[2]"

quote:

In de grondwet van de Verenigde Staten wordt als maatstaf voor een afzetting gegeven dat de functionaris schuldig moet worden geacht aan zogenaamde "high crimes and misdemeanors", iets wat niet nader wordt omschreven. Er kan worden gedacht aan bijvoorbeeld verraad, maar ook andere overtredingen van de wet die ernstig worden bevonden komen in aanmerking.

quote:

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 11:57 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

He, maar hoe zit dat dan? Hij zegt letterlijk dat je geen impeachment kan starten, maar volgens jou kan het dan weer wel, maar doelpalen verder.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 12:14 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Nog meer van wikipedia:
[..]

Dus zowel bewijslast als de aard van de aanklacht is anders. Volgens mij is het niet crimineel om bijvoorbeeld chronisch dronken te zijn, maar kun je dus wel hierom uit je ambt gezet worden.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 12:04 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:
Van Wikipedia:
[..]


[..]

quote:

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 12:14 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Ten eerste heb je een grond voor impeachment nodig. En dat is in principe wat het Huis maar wil. Vindt het Huis Trump te oranje? Dan kunnen ze hem daarop impeachen.

En daarna is het in principe stemmen.

Dus, ja, je kan de procedure starten om welke reden dan ook. Maar de realiteit is dat het om criminele handelingen gaat. Dus om de hele poppenkast over te slaan, kan je best stellen dat zonder misdaad, impeachment niet zal slagen. En met de potentiele politieke zelfmoord die aan een fop-impeachment hangt, kan je stellen dat je hem niet kan impeachen. Starten ja, voltooien nooit.

Maak er zelf van wat je wil. Resultaat is dat Trump ten minste tot 2020 in het Witte Huis zit. En als dit doorgaat tot 2024.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 12:17 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

En wat was het misdrijf met Clinton's impeachment.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 12:16 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

wel het hele stukje quoten dan he:
[..]

Dikgedrukte zijn dingen waar Trump zich schuldig aan heeft gemaakt en/of gezegd zich schuldig aan te maken ("That makes me smart")

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 12:36 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:

[..]

Dat was gewoon het volledige stukje van de impeachment pagina. Wat jij post komt van een compleet andere wiki pagina. Niets mis mee maar vul dan gewoon aan en doe dan niet alsof ik expres dingen achter houd ofzo.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 12:36 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:

[..]

Dat was gewoon het volledige stukje van de impeachment pagina. Wat jij post komt van een compleet andere wiki pagina. Niets mis mee maar vul dan gewoon aan en doe dan niet alsof ik expres dingen achter houd ofzo.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 12:43 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Maar het is een verdieping op jouw quote die laat zien dat het wel degelijk impeachbaar is. Dus jij quote iets, terwijl de betekenis van die quote de reden van quoten tegenspreekt.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op vrijdag 19-04-2019 om 23:50:56 I just want us all to take a moment to celebrate the *tremendous courage* it took for Susan Collins to call the Mueller Report "unflattering" reageer retweet

quote:

According to a footnote in the special counsel's report, which was released Thursday, Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze in October 2016 that said: "Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there's anything else. Just so you know..."

Rtskhiladze told Mueller that "tapes" referred to "compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group," which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant, according to the report (the pageant was owned by Trump for years). Cohen told the special counsel that he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving Rtskhiladze's text.

quote:

There is no indication that such a tape exists and Trump has vehemently denied it. Rtskhiladze also told prosecutors that he was told the tapes were fake, but that he didn't convey that to Cohen.

twitter:

funder twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 01:04:44 Here’s Trump giving a thumbs up as if he’s milking a cow after he played golf today on his vacation @DevinCow https://t.co/hCzt2h1NEX reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 13:31 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Uit hetzelfde stuk. Er werd geclaimed that X bestaat. X werd onderzocht. X blijkt niet te bestaan.

Ulx zegt X bestaat. Ulx verspreidt nepnieuws.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 13:45 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Als Trump en de zijnen denken dat het bestaat bestaat de tape. Anders haalt Trump zijn schouders op. Het gedrag dat Trump vertoont is het gedrag van iemand die op heterdaad betrapt is.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 13:55 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Als iemand een fake tape in die context van mij zou verspreiden, zou ik ook flink pissig zijn. Ik zou pissig zijn als iemand neppe dingen over mij verspreid in vrijwel elke context. Als ik geen (extra) imagoschade wil, dan gedraag ik me als iemand die op heterdaad is betrapt?

Hier is mijn inzicht. Voor Trump-haters is het een slow news day. Dat is overduidelijk aan jouw laatste 3 links. Gevallen messias Seth, die de ongelofelijke moed van een Republikeinse Senator prijst voor het zeggen dat het rapport niet flatteus is voor Trump. WAUW. Vervolgens onzin over tapes. En dan hoe hij zijn duimen opsteekt. Als dit het beste anti-Trump nieuws van vandaag is, heeft Trump een geweldige dag. En gezien de irrelevante dingen die je post, heb je vast nog goed gezocht ook

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 13:55 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Als iemand een fake tape in die context van mij zou verspreiden, zou ik ook flink pissig zijn. Ik zou pissig zijn als iemand neppe dingen over mij verspreid in vrijwel elke context. Als ik geen (extra) imagoschade wil, dan gedraag ik me als iemand die op heterdaad is betrapt?

Hier is mijn inzicht. Voor Trump-haters is het een slow news day. Dat is overduidelijk aan jouw laatste 3 links. Gevallen messias Seth, die de ongelofelijke moed van een Republikeinse Senator prijst voor het zeggen dat het rapport niet flatteus is voor Trump. WAUW. Vervolgens onzin over tapes. En dan hoe hij zijn duimen opsteekt. Als dit het beste anti-Trump nieuws van vandaag is, heeft Trump een geweldige dag. En gezien de irrelevante dingen die je post, heb je vast nog goed gezocht ook

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 13:57 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Wat zou jij ervan vinden als er een president allerlei treiterberichtjes stuurt? Of is het dan gewoon normaal?

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 13:58 schreef Freak188 het volgende:

[..]

Buiten dat ie een corrupte idioot is, waar nog een aantal strafrechtelijke onderzoeken naar lopen, heeft ie een geweldige dag.

Hoe zou je gereageerd hebben als Obama dit aan z'n broek had hangen?

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 15:00:00 House Oversight Chair Elijah Cummings has accused Jim Jordan of deliberately trying to undermine the Committee's probe into rising drug prices."Your efforts to interfere with this investigation represent a new low for a Member of this Committee." https://t.co/cYnJ2pT1Zf reageer retweet

quote:

House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) on Wednesday accused ranking member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) of deliberately trying to undermine the committee’s investigation into rising drug prices.

In a letter sent Wednesday, Cummings condemned what he claimed were Jordan’s efforts to “actively obstruct” the committee’s investigation into prescription drug pricing.

“You personally may have no interest in bringing down drug prices for your constituents, you honestly may believe it is more important to protect drug company profits and stock prices than the budgets of American families, and you may even disagree with President Trump that drug companies are ‘getting away with murder,’ but your efforts to interfere with this investigation represent a new low for a Member of this Committee,” Cummings wrote.
Cummings was responding to letters sent by Jordan and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) earlier this month, warning a dozen different drug company executives that Cummings was conducting a partisan investigation, essentially telling them not to participate.

“We hope to persuade Chairman Cummings to work with us on this matter but, in the interim, we felt that it was prudent to raise these issues with you directly,” Jordan and Meadows wrote to the industry executives.

SPOILER

The response from Cummings marks an escalation in his ongoing political battle with Jordan over the committee’s handling of sensitive information.

Jordan and Meadows in their letters indicated they were worried Cummings might decide to publicly release proprietary business information, even though it could harm the company's competitiveness.

Their letters to the drug companies specifically cited what they called Cummings’s unilateral decision to release excerpts of closed-door testimony from Tricia Newbold, a White House whistleblower who told the committee about alleged failures in the current security clearance process.

Cummings said the committee has been working for weeks on a protocol to protect sensitive documents obtained during an investigation, but Jordan has been blocking it.

“After spending weeks trying to consult with you and work with your staff on a bipartisan basis, it is difficult to view the claim in your letters” about wanting to work collaboratively “as anything but hypocritical,” Cummings wrote.

Cummings launched a sweeping investigation into the prescription drug industry’s pricing practices in January. He said companies have been cooperating with the review.

"It is one thing to have an honest disagreement about the Committee’s policy or approach — which would command respect — but it is quite another to actively obstruct an investigation in the service of placing corporate interests over those of the American people,” Cummings wrote.

Jordan’s letter accused Cummings of only being interested in bringing down drug company’s stock prices. Cummings said Jordan ignored his full comments about the committee’s impact, which he said were about saving taxpayers money.

In a statement to The Hill Wednesday, a spokesperson for Jordan said that "hurting private businesses will cost taxpayers more money" and that if Cummings really wants to save taxpayers money, "he should stop partisan investigations into the President, and actually start legislating."

twitter:

kaitlancollins twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 15:12:20 “There’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians,” Rudy Giuliani tells @jaketapper. reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op zaterdag 20-04-2019 om 23:23:53 🚨Barr '18 memo: "if a President...commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity…of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction"Mueller report: Trump "ORDERED" White House Counsel to create false record to impair "ongoing investigation." 1/ https://t.co/YSNESEBd8D reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 15:38 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

kaitlancollins twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 15:12:20 “There’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians,” Rudy Giuliani tells @:jaketapper. reageer retweet

Wow.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 15:45:20 Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, defends using information that was illegally hacked by a foreign power to sway a presidential election. "There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians."Via CNNhttps://t.co/T17JzYaCzt reageer retweet

twitter:

funder twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 16:06:13 BREAKING: Chairman Schiff says Congress is considering impeachment proceedings against Trump. He said impeachment would likely be unsuccessful due to Republicans helping Trump “no matter how corrupt” his conduct may be. Says Congress may ”undertake an impeachment nonetheless.” reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 16:14 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

funder twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 16:06:13 BREAKING: Chairman Schiff says Congress is considering impeachment proceedings against Trump. He said impeachment would likely be unsuccessful due to Republicans helping Trump “no matter how corrupt” his conduct may be. Says Congress may ”undertake an impeachment nonetheless.” reageer retweet

Goed zo. Laat de GOP Trump's gedrag maar goedpraten. Dan straft de kiezer ze wel af in 2020.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 16:23:37 Can you believe that I had to go through the worst and most corrupt political Witch Hunt in the history of the United States (No Collusion) when it was the “other side” that illegally created the diversionary & criminal event and even spied on my campaign? Disgraceful! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 16:26 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 16:23:37 Can you believe that I had to go through the worst and most corrupt political Witch Hunt in the history of the United States (No Collusion) when it was the “other side” that illegally created the diversionary & criminal event and even spied on my campaign? Disgraceful! reageer retweet

Hij is weer lekker in paniek.

quote:

For nearly two years, the public, Congress and the White House waited to learn if special counsel Robert S. Mueller III would find that President Trump had committed crimes. When the answer was finally revealed, it turned out Mueller didn’t think that was his job at all.

The special counsel ended his investigation last month, pointedly choosing not to reach a conclusion about whether the president had obstructed justice.

In a report of its findings, Mueller’s team said that choice was driven in large part by a long-standing legal opinion at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that a sitting president should not be indicted, even if the charges remained sealed.

Mueller's team concluded that also meant they could not accuse the president of a crime, even in secret internal documents, the report said.

That move surprised everyone, including Attorney General William P. Barr and his senior advisers, according to current and former Justice Department officials. When Mueller presented his findings without reaching a decision about the president, Barr reviewed the evidence and decided that Trump had not obstructed justice.

The unusual ending to the investigation stems from a key legal disagreement between Mueller’s team and Barr — opening the door to further political fights over presidential power, Justice Department policies and decision-making inside the Trump administration.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Mueller’s choice not to make a decision on obstruction was “one of the biggest surprises of the report,” and he was still struggling to understand the special counsel’s thought process.

“It doesn’t make any sense, because on collusion, he seemed to be perfectly empowered to reach a conclusion on whether the president committed a crime,” Turley said. “The other problem is that his mandate clearly allowed him to make a decision, and [Justice Department headquarters] had clearly indicated he could make a decision.”

Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the special counsel’s office declined to comment.

SPOILER

The redacted Mueller report released Thursday makes clear that he and his prosecutors viewed the OLC opinion to mean they also could not come to a conclusion about whether the president had committed a crime because it would violate Justice Department standards of fairness to make such an accusation — even secretly — without giving the person a chance to fight the accusation.

Barr disagreed.

In releasing the report Thursday, the attorney general told reporters that Justice Department officials asked Mueller “about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion.”

“He made it very clear, several times, that he was not taking a position — he was not saying but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime,” Barr said.

Mueller’s approach to the question of whether the president tried to obstruct justice has created tension inside the Justice Department, according to current and former officials. Privately, some senior officials at the Justice Department have been unhappy that Mueller did not reach a conclusion about whether Trump’s conduct rose to the level of a crime, said the officials, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing sensitivity surrounding the probe.

Barr, according to officials, first learned at a meeting with Mueller on March 5 that the special counsel would not make a decision about whether the president had committed a crime. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who tapped Mueller to take the job nearly two years ago and has overseen it since, has told others that he, too, was surprised by Mueller’s comments in early March, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The Mueller report suggests that the OLC opinion weighed heavily on his team’s thinking, and said the special counsel’s office “conducted a thorough investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” suggesting that perhaps another prosecutor could file a charge against Trump after he leaves office.

At other points the report implies — but never says outright — that Congress should assume the role of making prosecutorial decisions when it comes to the president.

“The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law,” Mueller’s team wrote.

Legal analysts said they were hopeful Mueller would clarify why he left open the question of whether he believed Trump obstructed justice — perhaps during congressional testimony next month.

Barr was attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration, when Mueller headed the Justice Department’s criminal division, and Barr has said he considers the special counsel a friend. It is unclear to what extent, if any, they have discussed recent events. Barr said at his news conference that he had not spoken with Mueller directly about the decision that Trump did not obstruct justice, but he understood it was his “prerogative” to make the call.

Mueller, Barr said Thursday, “did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress,” and added: “I hope that was not his view, since we don’t convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose.”

Analysts noted that lawmakers, in effect, gave Barr authority over Mueller when they let the independent counsel law expire in 1999. That law created a prosecutor position with even more autonomy than Mueller, who was appointed under more restrictive special counsel regulations.

“There has to be a final decision-maker. And this is not an independent counsel case, which means it is the attorney general,” said Jacob Frenkel, a white-collar defense attorney who used to work in the independent counsel’s office. “If Congress does not like the decision, because it was made by the attorney general, Congress only has itself to blame for not renewing the independent counsel statute.”

Former independent counsel Robert W. Ray said that Mueller might have felt hamstrung because he was weighing not only factual and legal concerns, but also Justice Department policy. Policy concerns, Ray said, are generally in the purview of the attorney general, and Mueller might have felt he couldn’t by himself work around the OLC opinion barring such a criminal charge.

“He doesn’t set department policy. He has no say in that,” Ray said. “You got to be careful about playing God here. That’s one of the things about being independent counsel and investigating presidents. All you can do is your job.”

But Ray said he suspected another reason for Mueller’s punt: He did not want to put Barr in a position of having to overrule him.

“I do think it’s a component of the special counsel’s thinking that if he had gone that direction, he was well aware of the fact that the Department of Justice’s view would be and the attorney general’s decision would be to overrule it, and that is not a desirable place for the country to be,” Ray said. “I’m sure the attorney general didn’t appreciate the fact that he was put in the position of having to resolve the matter either, but given those two choices, I think it was better to have left it unresolved and have the attorney general take it from there.”

Ray said he was sympathetic to Barr’s predicament: “My view is that if I had been in that position, and I were the attorney general, I step in and I resolve it, because that’s your job.”

After reviewing Mueller’s report privately last month, Barr announced that he and Rosenstein had concluded that the president did not violate the law. Some members of the special counsel team have been frustrated by Barr’s characterizations of their work, these officials said.

On Thursday, Barr publicly acknowledged some disagreements with Mueller, the former FBI director brought back into government service at a time of crisis nearly two years ago to investigate the president.

Barr said Thursday that he and Rosenstein “disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law” but that they accepted the special counsel’s “legal framework” as they analyzed the case.

And in a letter to Congress the same day, Barr emphasized what he views as the core role of a prosecutor — to reach a conclusion about criminal conduct.

“The Attorney General has ultimate responsibility for all criminal investigations conducted by the Department. The very function of a federal prosecutor conducting a criminal investigation is to determine whether an offense has been committed, and if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence that attaches to every person,” Barr wrote.

[Read the Mueller report: The full redacted version, annotated]

That wasn’t the only disagreement between the attorney general and the special counsel — Mueller’s report features a lengthy pushback against a legal theory of obstruction advocated by Barr.

As a lawyer in private practice last year, Barr wrote a scathing memo critical of what he viewed as Mueller’s overly broad interpretation of a part of the federal law against obstruction, saying it was meant to be limited to very specific acts such as destruction of documents.

“It is inconceivable to me that the department could accept Mueller’s interpretation,” Barr wrote. “It is untenable as a matter of law and cannot provide a legitimate basis for interrogating the president.”

At the time, Mueller’s team was pressing for an interview with the president, and Barr’s memo argued forcefully that no interview was justified because of what he viewed as Mueller’s erroneous, overly broad view of the obstruction law.

In what is arguably the most technical and dense section of the report, Mueller’s team pushes back hard against such arguments, saying the law in question is broad and “captures corrupt conduct, other than document destruction, that has the natural tendency to obstruct contemplated as well as pending proceedings.”

In the same section describing the Mueller team’s view of obstruction law, they again suggested that Congress could make such a determination.

“Congress can validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice,” the report said.

Barr plans to testify to Congress in two weeks, setting the stage for more questions about his disagreements with Mueller.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 16:09 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Met de beelden in tweet:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 15:45:20 Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, defends using information that was illegally hacked by a foreign power to sway a presidential election. "There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians."Via CNNhttps://t.co/T17JzYaCzt reageer retweet

Giuliani zou het zelf niet gedaan hebben en informatie gebruiken van een vijandige mogendheid is niet verboden, hooguit immoreel maar immoraliteit is geen misdaad

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 17:00:02 Elijah Cummings says that even if the House moves to impeach Trump and the Senate votes against it, "history would smile upon us for standing up for the Constitution."Via CBShttps://t.co/OPrjACfQFN reageer retweet

twitter:

Amy_Siskind twitterde op zaterdag 20-04-2019 om 20:31:58 First poll conducted after the redacted Mueller report came out shows Trump's approval falling to 37%, the lowest level of 2019 - and down from 43% in March after the now infamous and then-misreported Barr letter. https://t.co/nhDfM3CBa0 reageer retweet

SPOILER

twitter:

NBCPolitics twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 17:39:05 House Judiciary Cmte. Chairman Nadler did not rule out the prospect of impeaching President Trump over allegations detailed in the Mueller report, arguing Congress has to see the full unredacted report. https://t.co/udY99e3Qwg reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 17:59 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:
Al die seniele Democraten zien de mogelijkheid voor onsterfelijkheid. Dat ze zichzelf onsterfelijk belachelijk maken, dat zien ze dan weer niet

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 18:08 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Je denkt dat het een soort Benghazi-flop wordt?

Think again.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 18:51 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Babydoden nog wel. Het klinkt wanhopig.

Handjes boven de deken hoor! Opdat je geen zonde begaat!

twitter:

tribelaw twitterde op zaterdag 20-04-2019 om 22:22:38 “Even if it’s true, it is not.” — Rudy Giuliani, the once-upon-a-time “America’s Mayor,” on national tv today. Did you think Crazy Rudy could ever top “Truth isn’t truth”? I must admit I didn’t. reageer retweet

twitter:

peterdaou twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 00:36:59 I'll start. This is @senatemajldr in 1999:"Time after time, the President came to a fork in the road. Time after time, he had the opportunity to choose the noble and honorable path. Time after time, he chose the path of lies and lawlessness..." reageer retweet

twitter:

peterdaou twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 00:39:17 Here's @LindseyGrahamSC: “[Clinton] doesn’t have to say, ‘Go lie for me,’ to be a crime,” Graham said at the time. “You don’t have to say, ‘Let’s obstruct justice’ for it to be a crime. You judge people on their conduct, not magic phrases.”https://t.co/fYWcojMPBW reageer retweet

twitter:

peterdaou twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 00:47:38 Oh, how about #MikePence:"The President of the United States can incinerate the planet. Seriously, the very idea that we ought to have at or less than the same moral demands placed on the Chief Executive that we place on our next door neighbor is ludicrous and dangerous." reageer retweet

twitter:

peterdaou twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 01:05:24 A gem from #MikeCrapo: "Tampering with the truth-seeking functions of the law undermines our justice system and the foundations on which our freedoms lie. All Americans must abide by the rule of law, including the president of the United States." reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 19:06 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Dit is leuke thread met allerlei uitspraken van GOP mensen. Dit waren uiteraard uitspraken tijdens de impeachment van Clinton, maar ik ben wel benieuwd of die lui nog steeds achter deze uitspraken staan.

twitter:

peterdaou twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 00:36:59 I'll start. This is @:senatemajldr in 1999:"Time after time, the President came to a fork in the road. Time after time, he had the opportunity to choose the noble and honorable path. Time after time, he chose the path of lies and lawlessness..." reageer retweet

twitter:

peterdaou twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 00:39:17 Here's @:LindseyGrahamSC: “[Clinton] doesn’t have to say, ‘Go lie for me,’ to be a crime,” Graham said at the time. “You don’t have to say, ‘Let’s obstruct justice’ for it to be a crime. You judge people on their conduct, not magic phrases.”https://t.co/fYWcojMPBW reageer retweet

twitter:

peterdaou twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 00:47:38 Oh, how about #MikePence:"The President of the United States can incinerate the planet. Seriously, the very idea that we ought to have at or less than the same moral demands placed on the Chief Executive that we place on our next door neighbor is ludicrous and dangerous." reageer retweet

twitter:

peterdaou twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 01:05:24 A gem from #MikeCrapo: "Tampering with the truth-seeking functions of the law undermines our justice system and the foundations on which our freedoms lie. All Americans must abide by the rule of law, including the president of the United States." reageer retweet

twitter:

peterdaou twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 00:45:26 And #JeffSessions: "The chief law-enforcement officer of the land, whose oath of office calls on him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, crossed the line and failed to defend and protect the law and, in fact, attacked the law..." reageer retweet

twitter:

yashar twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 18:58:56 I’m amazed no one did this sooner. I believe it’s the first time Mueller has been approached this way during his term as Special Counsel (outside of his visits to the Capitol of course) https://t.co/D8M4XX4tD6 reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 00:05:46 The FBI has arrested Larry Mitchell Hopkins, the leader of The United Constitutional Patriots, an armed border militia group that spreads far-right conspiracies and rounds up asylum seekers on the border, according to The Daily Beast. https://t.co/Ov2HUIPGyw reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 19:03 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Oh ja, die vergat ik even; volslagen debiele hyperbolen maken en denken dat het argumenten zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 20:42 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Ik snap dat niet, dat mensen echt denken dat democraten baby's na de geboorte willen gaan omleggen.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 20:56 schreef nostra het volgende:

[..]

Dat denken ze ook niet werkelijk, het is een wonderlijk stukje 'ergens bij willen horen' waarbij nog wonderlijker is dat het om een ander land gaat waar je sowieso nooit bij zal horen. Het is wel koddig, beetje als vol overtuiging "Rotterdam hooligans" scanderen vanuit Wijchen.

Rotterdamse Denker

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 20:56 schreef nostra het volgende:

[..]

Dat denken ze ook niet werkelijk, het is een wonderlijk stukje 'ergens bij willen horen' waarbij nog wonderlijker is dat het om een ander land gaat waar je sowieso nooit bij zal horen. Het is wel koddig, beetje als vol overtuiging "Rotterdam hooligans" scanderen vanuit Wijchen.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 21:26 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

Alleen zijn dit geen hooligans die even beetje lopen te rellen. Dit zijn mensen die democratie langzaam, beetje bij beetje slopen. Terwijl ze zeggen deze te beschermen. Gevaarlijk en onwetend volk. Tyranny's footsoldiers.

twitter:

hemantmehta twitterde op zaterdag 20-04-2019 om 19:11:04 Franklin Graham Cites Death-to-Gays Bible Verse in Post About Pete Buttigieg https://t.co/uPO4bQMx1n https://t.co/K9Q1CiG45r reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 21:47 schreef nostra het volgende:

[..]

Snap het gevaar dat je schetst, maar de checks and balances in de VS houden ondertussen prima stand binnen de idiotie van dit presidentschap en het voetvolk dat hier op een forumpje wat schreeuwt komt bepaald niet als acuut gevaar voor de democratie over.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 21:47 schreef nostra het volgende:

[..]

Snap het gevaar dat je schetst, maar de checks and balances in de VS houden ondertussen prima stand binnen de idiotie van dit presidentschap en het voetvolk dat hier op een forumpje wat schreeuwt komt bepaald niet als acuut gevaar voor de democratie over.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 22:14 schreef buckets_of_lube het volgende:

[..]

Klopt, jou hadden ze voor de geboorte al moeten aborteren.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 21:26 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Alleen zijn dit geen hooligans die even beetje lopen te rellen. Dit zijn mensen die democratie langzaam, beetje bij beetje slopen. Terwijl ze zeggen deze te beschermen. Gevaarlijk en onwetend volk. Tyranny's footsoldiers.

twitter:

jimsciutto twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 18:54:33 Question: with Trump allies defending acceptance of Russian campaign help - & Mueller absolving them of criminal wrongdoing - has the US given license to its citizens to do same in 2020 & beyond? What will stop the next American from accepting the next offer of Russian help? reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 22:28 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:
Ga je ook nog bewijs posten van je bewering over abortus?

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 12:15 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Lijkt me meer een gevalletje 25th amendment.

twitter:

nytimesworld twitterde op zaterdag 20-04-2019 om 04:17:03 President Trump abruptly reversed American policy toward Libya on Friday, issuing a statement that endorsed a militia leader who is battling to control Tripoli and depose the United Nations-backed government. https://t.co/mGuI6IfNPx reageer retweet

twitter:

JRMcGrail twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 10:30:45 @nytimesworld "Moscow has until now been seen as throwing in its lot with Khalifa Haftar, a military strongman who controls most of the oil-producing east of Libya."https://t.co/cXMWgzYlxd reageer retweet

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 20:56:30 What it’s like fact-checking Trump: Trump spoke about his plan to visit the plant where Caterpillar makes its new “D12” bulldozer. An acquaintance messaged me to say there is no D12. I twice emailed Caterpillar’s press people to ask if a D12 now exists. They have not responded. reageer retweet

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 20:56:30 What it’s like fact-checking Trump: Trump spoke about his plan to visit the plant where Caterpillar makes its new “D12” bulldozer. An acquaintance messaged me to say there is no D12. I twice emailed Caterpillar’s press people to ask if a D12 now exists. They have not responded. reageer retweet

The truth about lies | The Economist

twitter:

RVAwonk twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 20:37:54 Two months before special counsel Mueller was appointed, Trump called & asked NSA Director Mike Rogers if he could do anything to rebut news reports about Trump's ties to Russia.This confirms prior reporting re. Trump asking intel directors to intervene.https://t.co/ybAbr4fp1C reageer retweet

twitter:

RVAwonk twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 20:44:56 May 2017: Trump asked NSA Director Mike Rogers and DNI Dan Coats to publicly push back against the FBI's Russia probe after Comey revealed its existence. https://t.co/n4mt18heEY reageer retweet

twitter:

RVAwonk twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 20:47:04 Deputy NSA Director, who was present for the call, said Trump's request was the “most unusual thing he had experienced in 40 years of government service.”https://t.co/I5P2OBpzwa reageer retweet

twitter:

GMA twitterde op vrijdag 19-04-2019 om 13:43:13 “That’s not a slip of the tongue Sarah, that’s a deliberate false statement.” @GStephanopoulos presses @PressSec Sarah Sanders on the culture of lying, exposed by the #MuellerReport, in the White House. https://t.co/wBBIUQ2Xfo https://t.co/d5A4MOgqi1 reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 01:28:25 CBS News has now linked to my 451-tweet thread analyzing Vol. 1 of the Mueller Report. Very grateful to CBS for giving this sort of focus to my work; I knew what I was doing was something unusual and taboo—but wanted to sound an alarm on national security. https://t.co/3XLcADGVMf reageer retweet

twitter:

JWVerret twitterde op zaterdag 20-04-2019 om 21:55:08 Finished a second read through the Mueller Report. I don’t say this lightly, as a life long Republican, former R Hill staffer, and someone who has worked on every R campaign and pre-transition team for the last ten years. There is enough here to begin impeachment proceedings. reageer retweet

twitter:

JWVerret twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 21:38:14 I’m a law professor at Scalia Law School, I worked as a Republican Senior Counsel for the House Financial Services Committee. We can agree to disagree, but it’s time to impeach Trump. There’s more than enough evidence in the Mueller Report to start. Retweet if you agree! reageer retweet

twitter:

neal_katyal twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 02:03:51 Now that I've digested it, the single thing leaping out about MuellerRpt is it is far more devastating to Trump than anything most anticipated. Barr attempt with Trump to pre-spin it will fail. Presidency will go down in history (perhaps soon) as corrupt+incompetent.More at 9 with Ari https://t.co/2E6RID37Fq reageer retweet

quote:

The outgoing French ambassador to the US has compared the Trump administration to the court of King Louis XIV, filled with courtiers trying to interpret the caprices of a “whimsical, unpredictable, uninformed” leader.

Gérard Araud, who retires on Friday after a 37-year career that included some of the top jobs in French diplomacy, said Donald Trump’s unpredictability and his single-minded transactional interpretation of US interests was leaving the administration isolated on the world stage.

“When they say ‘America first’, it’s America alone,” Araud said in an interview with the Guardian. “Basically, this president and this administration don’t have allies, don’t have friends. It’s really [about] bilateral relationships on the basis of the balance of power and the defence of narrow American interest.”

He cautioned the UK against expecting any special treatment from Washington in post-Brexit trade talks, predicting that the administration would force London to accept US imports on US terms, such as looser standards for genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

“They [the Trump administration] are not thinking in terms of multilateral cooperation first. And secondly, they don’t have any affection towards the Europeans. They treat Europeans the way they treat the Chinese,” Araud said. “And when the British come for a free-trade agreement, there will be blood on the walls and it will be British blood. It will be GMOs breakfast, lunch and dinner.”

SPOILER

Araud has been France’s ambassador to Washington since 2014, and before that was the country’s envoy to the UN and to Israel, and the foreign ministry’s director for strategic affairs, security and disarmament.

In Washington he stood out among the diplomatic corps in part because he lived with his partner, the photographer Pascal Blondeau, at a time when the administration is increasingly inhabited by conservative evangelical Christians hostile to gay marriage.

The couple threw spectacular parties at the chateau-like French residence. The invitation to their last winter bash featured them posing with a stuffed white tiger, and guests were welcomed on the night by Blondeau reclining in a lumberjack shirt on a large illuminated Christmas tree tipped on its side in the main hall. There was also a stuffed polar bear and ballet dancers.

Araud was also unusual on the diplomatic circuit for his blunt and acerbic language – in person and on Twitter – in defence of multilateral diplomacy, liberalism and international law at a time when they have been under siege.

At 2am on the night Trump was elected, the ambassador tweeted: “It is the end of an era, the era of neoliberalism. We don’t yet know what will succeed it … After Brexit and this election, anything is possible. A world is collapsing before our eyes. Vertigo.”

He deleted the tweet minutes later, even before the anxious calls started coming in from the Quai d’Orsay in Paris, but few now would dispute that this moment in the early hours of 9 November 2016 marked a cliff edge in modern history. And Araud himself could not have foreseen the volatility that was to engulf US foreign policy.

Araud spoke to the Guardian before Trump tweeted unsolicited, impractical and potentially disastrous advice for putting out the Notre Dame fire, but after a period of whiplash on other issues. These have been difficult times for diplomatic missions tasked by their capitals to predict US policy.

On the issue of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, for example, Trump has gone from threatening “fire and fury” against the Pyongyang regime, to meeting Kim Jong-un in Singapore and declaring himself to be “in love” with the dictator. He said then he was in “no hurry” for disarmament, but at a second summit in Hanoi in February he demanded full denuclearisation in advance of any sanctions relief, before cancelling sanctions imposed by his own administration in March because “President Trump likes Chairman Kim” and declaring himself once more open to a “step-by-step” approach.

“It’s like [trying] to analyse the court of Louis XIV,” Araud said. “You have an old king, a bit whimsical, unpredictable, uninformed, but he wants to be the one deciding.”

Like the Sun King who dominated France in the 17th and 18th centuries, Trump “doesn’t want to appear under any influence and he wants to show it”, Araud said.

He portrayed the current situation as the opposite extreme of the meticulous though sometimes ponderous decision-making process pursued by the previous administration.

“Obama was the ultimate bureaucrat: you know every night he was going to bed with 60 pages and in the morning they were coming back all annotated by the president,” he said. For decisions such as the troop surge in Afghanistan, there were months of meetings between the relevant government departments.

Now that inter-agency process is largely dead, killed off and replaced by John Bolton, the ultra-hawkish national security adviser, while other centres of power in the state department and Pentagon are withering, weakened by multiple unfilled senior positions, and top officials serving in acting capacity only, without Senate confirmation.

“Actually, we don’t have interlocutors,” Araud said. “[When] we have people to talk to, they are acting, so they don’t have real authority or access. Basically, the consequence is that there is only one centre of power: the White House.

“Bolton is really very competent. He is very knowledgeable. He has been around for 40 years. At the same time you have to understand that he doesn’t control this president, because this president is uncontrollable.”

Araud said the tweeted cancellation of North Korean sanctions, and the exclusion of Bolton from key meetings and meals at the Hanoi summit, were designed to “humiliate” Bolton and demonstrate that the president “is the master and the bureaucrats are nothing”.

Bolton’s unilateralism is nonetheless ascendant for the time being, with the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) arms control treaty, and the recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, which Araud described “as one more nail in the coffin of international law”.

He said Bolton’s view was that international law was mere convention, with “no gendarme and no judge” to enforce it. “But it’s a sort of a fragile wall or dam against barbarians,” he said.

Araud expressed anxiety about the implications of the administration’s maximum-pressure campaign against Iran, championed by Bolton and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo.

“[The policy is] increasing the pressure until the Iranians surrender, or in some quarters they believe until the regime collapses,” Araud said. “But if the regime collapses, what happens? And to this question the Americans are unable to answer.”

Leaving his post, Araud said he was more convinced than ever that the fear expressed in his deleted election-night tweet had been borne out by events.

“I had a lot of trouble with my own capital. Unfortunately, to be right early is to be wrong,” he observed. “I had deleted it after two minutes but the sin had been committed. But looking at it in retrospect, of course I was right.

“My world, our world of certainties, really was collapsing and we were facing a real, substantial, dangerous crisis, which could basically really overwhelm my own country,” Araud said. “I believe we are entering a new era. I just don’t know what this era will be.”

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 01:00:23 Kansas Republicans are moving to strip Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly of her power to fill vacant state offices. https://t.co/pdYj2f0w4R reageer retweet

twitter:

brianstelter twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 19:38:49 Re: Trump's tweet about "138 million people" being killed in Sri Lanka, which stayed up for 20 minutes today: When someone can't get the little stuff right, it makes you worry about the big stuff. https://t.co/YwC4bDFq30 reageer retweet

twitter:

Gr33nFairy twitterde op zaterdag 20-04-2019 om 17:22:14 When you ask what it's like living in a small town in the bible belt, I give you exhibit A: https://t.co/i8cHIqcjFo reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 18:55 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Ik geloof niet in zonden. Ik geloof wel dat abortus na de geboorte een beetje te laat is.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 22:21 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb het dan ook niet over die paar trolletjes hier, ik doel meer op dat blinde #MAGA leger gesponsord door de nra.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 11:43 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Niet meer gesponsord door rusland?

twitter:

MeetThePress twitterde op zondag 21-04-2019 om 15:14:05 .@RudyGiuliani on the use of stolen material: 'People had a right to know' #MTP https://t.co/I6XBiDsjmV reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 03:25 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
'Whimsical, uninformed': French ambassador's parting verdict on Trump

Exclusive: Gérard Araud compares regime to court of Louis XIV and warns UK over post-Brexit trade
[..]

quote:

Like the Sun King who dominated France in the 17th and 18th centuries, Trump “doesn’t want to appear under any influence and he wants to show it”, Araud said.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 11:43 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Niet meer gesponsord door rusland?

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 13:07 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

De doelpalen worden steeds verschoven. Rusland, NRA, white supremacists... Zo wordt er gerold. Beginnen bij de conclusie en kijken wat er in zou kunnen passen.

Zie ook dat hele Rusland gebeuren. "Trump is slecht, en deze randzaken onderschrijven mijn conclusie". Waar normale mensen hun conclusie trekken aan de hand van data die voor handen ligt. En dus, no collusion, no obstruction.

Gelukkig gaat niet iedereen in de Democratische partij mee met die waanzin: Tulsi Gabbard: Mueller report found 'no collusion took place,' Dems shouldn't push to impeach Trump
https://www.foxnews.com/p(...)ush-to-impeach-trump

Goed nieuws voor iedereen dat er ook heldere geesten in die partij zitten.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 18:35 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:
Anderen van moreel faillissement betichten terwijl je voor de partij van het babydoden bent. Tsja, met zo'n plaat voor je hoofd nemen alleen je bubbelgenoten je serieus. Maar gelukkig voor jullie is het wel een hele grote bubbel, hoef je niet zo alleen te zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 22:28 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:
Ga je ook nog bewijs posten van je bewering over abortus?

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 00:15:07 Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly has signed a bill to make voting easier in the state. Residents can vote at any polling place & use an app to find a convenient location."I hope this will be the first of many laws that help ensure that every voice is heard."https://t.co/bTa6I32y93 reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 13:55 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 00:15:07 Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly has signed a bill to make voting easier in the state. Residents can vote at any polling place & use an app to find a convenient location."I hope this will be the first of many laws that help ensure that every voice is heard."https://t.co/bTa6I32y93 reageer retweet

De GOP zal wel razend zijn, die zijn niet zo van het makkelijk stemmen.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 13:59 schreef Geytenbeekje het volgende:

[..]

makkelijk stemmen ?

twitter:

tribelaw twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 13:34:21 A central focus of the impeachment hearings that need to begin without delay must be whether Donald Trump has betrayed his duty to protect our country as Commander in Chief. I believe he has — but only televised hearings will nail him & convince America.https://t.co/eiLTXrm4ZB reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 13:40 schreef archito het volgende:

[..]


[..]

Je post er weer op los dus dan kun je meteen bovenstaande vraag nog even beantwoorden.

Ik vind het namelijk tekenend hoe je de onterechte frame van conservatieve republikeinen napapegaait.

twitter:

washingtonpost twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 15:21:30 Trump and his business sue House Oversight chairman to block congressional subpoena of financial records https://t.co/ftMANuf2MH reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 15:47:41 Only high crimes and misdemeanors can lead to impeachment. There were no crimes by me (No Collusion, No Obstruction), so you can’t impeach. It was the Democrats that committed the crimes, not your Republican President! Tables are finally turning on the Witch Hunt! reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 15:43 schreef nostra het volgende:
Wat is er de laatste tijd eigenlijk met al die Indiërs die aan het trollenleger zijn toegevoegd?

twitter:

washingtonpost twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 15:34:36 Trump administration says it is preparing to start imposing sanctions on some key U.S. allies, unless they stop buying oil from Iran https://t.co/QPOPiu2CTB reageer retweet

quote:

The Trump administration said Monday it will start imposing sanctions on some key U.S. allies unless they stop buying all oil from Iran after waivers expire next month.

"If you don't abide by this, there will be sanctions," said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in announcing an end to waivers granted last year to eight countries and jurisdictions that rely heavily on Iranian oil.

"This is what we're laying out this morning. We have a requirement. To conduct these transactions, one almost always needs to participate in financial markets. We intend the enforce the sanctions."

The waiver decision came after oil prices have already risen by a third this year, and threatens to take more than a million barrels a day off the market. In anticipation of the move, crude oil prices rose 3 percent overnight.

"This decision is intended to bring Iran's oil exports to zero, denying the regime its principal source of revenue," said a statement from the White House. It said the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates would ensure global demand is met.

Pompeo said Iran had been taking in $50 billion a year in oil revenue before the sanctions were reimposed. He estimated U.S. sanctions have cost the Islamic Republic $10 billion so far.

"The regime would have used that money to support terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and continue with its missile development in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolution 2231," he told reporters. "And it would have perpetuated a humanitarian crisis in Yemen."

Last November, the administration re-imposed sanctions that had been lifted with the 2015 nuclear agreement. President Trump granted waivers to eight of Iran's biggest customers, allowing them a six-month grace period to wind down their purchases. The big buyers are China, India, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Taiwan.

The waivers expire May 2, one year after the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. Initially, countries were given six months to wean themselves from oil, but seven countries and Taiwan could not meet the target and were given another six months.

Some of them expected yet another extension, but none will be granted.

"We're going to zero," Pompeo said. "We're going to zero across the board. We will continue to enforce sanctions and monitor compliance. Any nation or entity interacting with Iran should do its diligence and err on the side of caution. The risks are simply not going to be worth the benefits."

twitter:

emptywheel twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 15:53:36 I'm really looking forward to a Democrat (I sort of imagine it'll be @jacksonleeTX18) asking Bill Barr why he thought impeaching Clinton over lying about a blowjob was cool but Trump didn't obstruct bc the evidence of any underlying crime wasn't enough to charge him. reageer retweet

twitter:

emptywheel twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 16:14:22 @JacksonLeeTX18 And yes, I'm also hoping this means I can go on TV and talk about a blowjob again, but that's prolly not going to happen. reageer retweet

twitter:

emptywheel twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 16:17:58 Here's Barr, in his audition memo, suggesting that impeaching Clinton for lying about a blowjob was proper. There was no underlying crime. Just ... a thoroughly inappropriate blowjob. Kind of like Trump's thoroughly inappropriate cheering of Russia.https://t.co/cTEijcpmwl reageer retweet

twitter:

TheBeatWithAri twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 04:01:26 .@NatashaBertrand and @AriMelber go through questions the Mueller report did NOT answer https://t.co/cEWT6a6Omf reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 16:27 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Aquitted on both. Weer een leugen van dat glasaaltje.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 16:35 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Het geeft trouwens wel goed aan hoe wanhopig de trumpanzees zijn; incorrect verwijzen naar acties van anderen om het maar niet over hun ochtendfapje te hoeven hebben.

Als het verspreiden van leugens, het onderwerp proberen te veranderen en uitspraken uit hun context halen je modus operandi is tijdens een discussie is het wel duidelijk dat je geen enkel argument hebt. Dan ben je een gelovige aanhanger van de GOP cult.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 16:24 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:
Tsja, bij Clinton was er sprake van aangetoonde perjury en obstruction. Maar dat weten jullie ook wel. Of.. wellicht niet, want die zaken zullen jullie bronnen nooit melden

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 13:59 schreef Geytenbeekje het volgende:

[..]

makkelijk stemmen ?

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 17:05 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Ulx is van mening dat niet-blanken te dom zijn om een voter-id te regelen.

Dem Rep Smears Candace Owens, Her Response Was Fiery

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 17:05 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Om het topic maar weer eens van enig niveau te voorzien een aardig stuk van Politico magazine over de mensen achter Reagan's supply side economics die onder Trump een comeback hebben gemaakt:
https://www.politico.com/(...)trump-economy-226704

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 17:36 schreef Monolith het volgende:
En nog een stuk over hoe de Republikeinen abortuswetgeving in willen zetten voor de volgende verkiezingen:
https://www.politico.com/(...)-alive-bills-1365192

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 17:43 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Hoe verstandig is dat als de meerderheid voor abortus is? Vooral omdat uit dat stuk blijkt dat hun standpunt alleen maar verhard. Behoudens de echte hardliners gaat ze dit stemmen kosten, vooral onder vrouwelijke stemmers lijkt me.

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

twitter:

kaitlancollins twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 17:22:57 “Nobody disobeys my orders,” President Trump tells me when I asked about the portrayal in the Mueller report that his staff often ignored his directives. reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 17:05 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Om het topic maar weer eens van enig niveau te voorzien een aardig stuk van Politico magazine over de mensen achter Reagan's supply side economics die onder Trump een comeback hebben gemaakt:
https://www.politico.com/(...)trump-economy-226704

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 18:16:38 My friend Herman Cain, a truly wonderful man, has asked me not to nominate him for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board. I will respect his wishes. Herman is a great American who truly loves our Country! reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 18:19 schreef nostra het volgende:

[..]

Het blijft toch altijd merkwaardig - en tegelijkertijd 'begrijpelijk' als je naar de korte termijn kijkt - dat juist in dat kamp het hele concept van fiscale discipline totaal genegeerd wordt. Prima hoor die belastingverlagingen (en voor een deel zijn die niet eens zo heel vreemd), maar iedereen begrijpt - en ziet nota bene - dat dat niet in zijn volledigheid tot meer revenuen leidt, dus dan zal je toch echt aan de uitgavenkant wat moeten gaan doen en wat meer dan halfslachtige vergezichten schetsen op het gebied van de sociale zekerheid. Hakken in het AOW-equivalent of in de zorg, veel meer laaghangend fruit is er niet, net als in Nederland.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 18:42 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Mja, het idee achter supply side economics is eerder dat de overheid meer inkomsten zou krijgen doordat de economische groei de lagere belastingtarieven zou compenseren. Zo werkt het in hun economische hypotheses.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 18:59 schreef nostra het volgende:

[..]

Snap ik, alleen laat het CBO alleen maar deficits zien tot 2029 van gemiddeld 4,4% - dat zijn echt bizarre percentages die ook nog eens uitgaan van stabiele onderliggende groei. Dan kan je die H₀ wel een keer verwerpen, tenzij je in la-la-land leeft.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 08:05 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Alsof je daar ook maar iets mee gaat doen. Met je Deep State gezever. Als je dat al gelooft dan maakt de rest niets meer uit. Trump is een held die tegen de elite vecht....

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 17:18 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Doet me denken aan Ted Lieu, die denkt dat zwarten dom zijn.

Dem Rep Smears Candace Owens, Her Response Was Fiery

En we zien ook de ware aard van Nadler. Die seniele dwaas die niet kan luisteren, en totaal geen gevoel van rechtvaardigheid heeft. Het is speculeren of dat is omdat ze zwart is, of omdat Nadler geen moreel kompas bezit.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 17:05 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Ulx is van mening dat niet-blanken te dom zijn om een voter-id te regelen.

twitter:

RealCandaceO twitterde op donderdag 11-04-2019 om 16:13:43 Democrats say voter ID laws would be "racist" bc black people can't figure out how to gather documents. They are now calling for reparations because I'm sure gathering the paperwork to prove our ancestry to slaves will be MUCH easier. ??DEMOCRATS THINK BLACKS ARE STUPID! reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 19:15 schreef WhiteBeard het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb het in de discussie over Noord Korea niet gehad over Deep State. Dus nog eens. Wat zou Trump volgens jou moeten doen met Noord Korea? Leg eens uit.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 16:38 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Flinke plaat heb je voor je hoofd.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 19:41 schreef speknek het volgende:
Te dom, te druk, te arm, te lamlendig, hoe het ook zij, het zijn duidelijke voter suppression techniques die onevenredig zwarte Amerikanen benadelen, is voldoende wetenschappelijk bewijs voor. Vaak zijn de plekken waar je voter ID kunt regelen ook zo ver mogelijk weg van de wijken waar ze wonen.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 19:39 schreef archito het volgende:

[..]

Ga je nog antwoord geven op die vraag over abortus of wil je alleen maar trollen?

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 21:28 schreef Blue_Panther_Ninja het volgende:
MSM doen zichzelf een grote dienst me hun recente fake new.

quote:

Op zondag 21 april 2019 22:25 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

De waarheid raakt altijd een gevoelige snaar bij hen die zich verheven voelen boven anderen. De confrontatie met de realiteit wekt de agressieve respons, want het ideale zelfbeeld komt niet overeen met de morele verdorvenheid die men in werkelijkheid bezit.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 21:02 schreef capricia het volgende:
Je zult even geduld moeten hebben voor een antwoord.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 22:19 schreef Treinhomo het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 22:28 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Was jij geen mod?

quote:

In recent months, the Trump administration has taken a hard line, refusing to agree to any UN documents that refer to sexual or reproductive health, on grounds that such language implies support for abortions. It has also opposed the use of the word “gender”, seeking it as a cover for liberal promotion of transgender rights.

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 23:05:02 Breaking now: @RepJerryNadler has subpoenaed Don McGahn. https://t.co/0eMlT9167r reageer retweet

twitter:

tedlieu twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 02:53:24 One reason we want Don McGahn to testify under oath is because the Obstruction of Justice law is broad. A person is guilty merely for "endeavoring" to obstruct justice with corrupt intent. Giving an order to obstruct justice violates the law even if the order is not carried out. https://t.co/bfldp1fysC reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 18:02:12 Big item in #MuellerReport:Russians didn't just tell Papadopoulos they had emails on Clinton. They PREVIEWED their plan for "anonymous release."And who was one member of Congress who informed the public?Video, transcript: @RepAdamSchiff @chrislhayes https://t.co/BYQbjMUOxM reageer retweet

quote:

A significant recent revelation in the Russia investigation has been largely overlooked in the rush of several breaking news stories over the past few days. A nugget of information is contained in the memo written by Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee (the so-called Schiff Memo), which was released on Saturday morning.

Prior to the memo, we knew that a Russian agent told Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos of “Moscow possessing ‘dirt’” on Hillary Clinton “in the form of ‘thousands of emails,’” according to Papadopoulos’s plea statement. The memo went a legally significant step further. As Rep. Adam Schiff recently told Chris Hayes, “our memo discloses for the first time that the Russians preview to Papadopoulos that they could help with disseminating these stolen emails.” Rep. Schiff added, “When Donald Trump openly called on the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, they’d be richly rewarded if they released these to the press, his campaign had already been put on notice that the Russians were prepared to do just that and disseminate these stolen emails.” (The full transcript and video clip is below.)

This new revelation is legally important and, if true, could have exposed Papadopoulos and potentially other campaign officials to significant criminal liability. I spoke with several leading experts in campaign finance law and former federal prosecutors to gather their views.

Rep. Schiff’s statement adds clarity to two stray statements in the memo itself. The memo states, “Russian agents previewed their hack and dissemination of stolen emails.” The memo also refers to this part of the record in stating, “We would later learn in Papadopoulos’s plea that that[sic] the information the Russians could assist by anonymously releasing were thousands of Hillary Clinton emails.”

SPOILER

A legally important question is what the Trump campaign did after the Russians previewed that they could help disseminate the stolen emails. If Trump campaign officials consulted with the Russians on their plans to disseminate the emails, it could involve direct violations of campaign finance laws (see the statement below from leading election law expert Paul Seamus Ryan). If Trump campaign officials gave tacit assent or approval or support, it could directly implicate them in the “conspiracy to defraud the United States” by evading the Federal Election Commission—the very conspiracy for which Mueller has already indicted thirteen Russian nationals (see the statement below by former White House official and also top election law expert Bob Bauer). If Papadopoulos intentionally encouraged the Russians and if he was instructed to do so by other campaign officials, they could be liable as accomplices (see statements below from law professors and former federal prosecutors Barbara McQuade and Alex Whiting). The Trump campaign as an organization could also be criminally liable (see statement below from McQuade). Finally, if members of the Trump campaign tried to conceal the facts of a crime (potentially including either the original DNC hack or the dissemination of the stolen emails) they could be guilty of “misprision of a felony” (see statements below by former federal prosecutors including Renato Mariotti).

First, consider how the new revelation might fit into Mueller’s recent conspiracy charges against Russian officials. Bauer wrote to me in an email:

We have learned time after time that we know far less than the special counsel and his team do, and we should be ready to be surprised. But the facts that have come to light suggest that it is wrong to dismiss a legal case based on an electoral alliance between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. It appears that the Russians made a point of secretly advising the campaign that they had stolen emails and were planning to disseminate them, and that the campaign either a) gave tacit assent or approval to the Russian plan, or b) more expressly approved and supported the scheme. Mr. Trump’s public appeal to the Russians to find and release the emails may well look less and less like another norm-busting “Trumpism,” and more like an overt act that, in the context of a wider, private understanding with the Russians, furthered the criminal conspiracy that Mueller alleged in his recent indictment of the thirteen Russian nationals.

Paul Ryan, Vice President of Common Cause, explained how consultation or other communications between Papadopoulos and the Russians on a plan to influence the election through the dissemination of stolen emails could violate federal campaign finance laws:

Federal campaign finance law prohibits a candidate campaign committee from coordinating with a foreign national on any expenditure made by the foreign national for the purpose of influencing a U.S. election. More specifically, federal law treats an expenditure made in coordination with a candidate as a “contribution” to such candidate. Foreign nationals are prohibited from making contributions to U.S. candidates, and U.S. candidates are prohibited from receiving contributions from foreign nationals. “Coordinated” is defined in the law to mean “in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, his authorized political committee, or their agents.” Papadopoulos was an agent of the Trump campaign. If any Russian made any expenditure to disseminate the stolen emails for the purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential election, and did so in cooperation or consultation with or at the request or suggestion of Papadopoulos, then both the Russian and the Trump campaign violated federal law.

In addition to direct involvement in campaign finance law violations or a conspiracy, Alex Whiting, a professor at Harvard Law School and former federal prosecutor, spelled out in detail the potential case for accomplice liability for Papadopoulos and any other campaign officials who may have given him instructions. The most relevant legal question here turns on whether Papadopoulos intentionally encouraged the Russians once they previewed that they were prepared to disseminate the stolen emails:

Assuming that the dissemination of the stolen Hillary Clinton emails formed part of the conspiracy to defraud the United States that Mueller has already alleged against multiple Russian citizens and entities — on the theory, for example, that such dissemination constituted a foreign national expenditure or financial disbursement for the purpose of influencing federal elections — Papadopoulos could be charged with accomplice liability if at the time he learned of the Russian plan he knowingly and intentionally encouraged them to go forward. Such encouragement could take the form of words or actions. The key piece of information that we have learned is that Papadopoulos learned of the Russian plan before they acted. What we do not yet know, though Mueller presumably knows, is how Papadopoulos reacted to this information. Did he stand mute, or did he push the Russian plan forward? His own liability, and the liability of those who might have been telling Papadopoulos what to do, could turn in part on this question.

What about the subsequent actions of other Trump campaign officials like Donald Trump Jr. and his interactions with the Russians? Whiting explained:

Donald Trump, Jr.’s excitement some weeks later at the prospect of receiving “dirt” on Hillary Clinton certainly suggests a posture of encouragement within the campaign with respect to the actions by the Russians. To the extent we are looking for indications that the campaign aided and abetted the Russian activities through words or actions, the Don, Jr. emails provide a big clue.

Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and former federal prosecutor, explained that if Papadopoulos encouraged the Russians efforts to disseminate the stolen emails, he could potentially be liable under aiding and abetting or conspiracy, and so could the campaign itself be criminally liable as an organization:

The language in the FISA application supports a legal theory that, if the facts pan out, Papadopoulos may have aided and abetted or conspired with others to defraud the United States by interfering with the fair administration of our election. Mueller would need to show the Papadopoulos either intentionally helped or encouraged the commission of the crime. The conduct could be imputed to the campaign if Mueller can establish that Papadopoulos was acting in the scope of his employment for the benefit of the campaign.

Bauer has also twice written for Just Security on the potential criminal liability of the Trump campaign as an organization.

Finally, what about the potential crime of helping to conceal the Russians’ felony? Just Security’s Renato Mariotti explained how “misprision of a felony” requires not just knowledge of the underling crime but also that the defendant “actively conceal the commission of a felony.” How might that apply to the revelations in the Schiff memo? A former federal prosecutor told me:

Misprision of a felony may be an especially fruitful avenue in this case if the Russians informed the campaign about their plans to disseminate the stolen emails. We know that Papadopoulos himself lied to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians, and that other former campaign officials misled federal authorities about the campaign’s contacts with the Russians. These could add up to a strong case of misprision in having not only failed to notify authorities but more importantly in also having actively concealed important information about the Russians’ involvement in the DNC hack and dissemination of those stolen emails.”

So what do we know about Trump associates’ actions subsequent to the Russians’ previewing their plan to disseminate the stolen emails? Rep. Schiff highlighted the potential connections with Donald Trump’s calling on the Russians to hack and disseminate Clinton’s emails, and Don Trump Jr.’s positive response to being offered dirt on Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” One could add to those instances Don Jr.’s direct communications with WikiLeaks, Roger Stone’s communications with Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, and the head of Cambridge Analytica reaching out to Wikileaks to help release Clinton emails. There is, of course, also a long series of former Trump campaign officials’ misleading federal authorities about the campaign’s contacts with the Russians, and recent reporting that Hope Hicks allegedly said that Don. Jr. emails “will never get out” in discussions with President Trump about releasing a false statement to cover up the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians.

In short, the new revelation in the Schiff memo adds an important piece to the puzzle, and helps explain why Mueller’s team is asking former campaign associates what they knew about the Russian hack and plans to disseminate stolen emails and when they knew it.

Schiff on Russians Previewing their Email Dissemination

twitter:

TCleveland4Real twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 18:59:17 I haven't seen this emphasized enough. The President attempted to stop any investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, not only any investigation into his campaign or himself. He wanted to stop the investigation of a criminal espionage operation of a foreign power https://t.co/HPXbM66yb2 reageer retweet

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 00:48:10 NEW: PELOSI once again rejected calls to launch impeachment proceedings in the aftermath of special counsel Mueller's report. A few new Dems are speaking up to demand it, but leaders aren't ready to budget. with #HeatherScoop @heatherscope and @desiderioDC https://t.co/YCOfFD02Qo reageer retweet

quote:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told lawmakers Monday that there are no plans to immediately open impeachment proceedings against President Trump, rejecting calls from several Democrats to initiate steps to try to oust the president.

In a rare Monday night conference call, the California Democrat stressed that the near-term strategy in the wake of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's report is to focus on investigating the president and seeing where the inquiries lead. Members of Pelosi's leadership team reaffirmed her cautious approach, according to four officials on the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

"We have to save our democracy. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. It's about saving our democracy," Pelosi said.

But Pelosi's message did not go over well with several Democrats, who argued that Congress has a duty to hold Trump to account with impeachment despite the political blowback Pelosi has long feared.

Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, argued that as someone with more than 25 years of experience in law enforcement, she thought the House had enough evidence to proceed.

"While I understand we need to see the full report and all supporting documents, I believe we have enough evidence now," Demings said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said the party has a duty to openly discuss the downside of not impeaching Trump for his actions and the precedent it could set for the future.

SPOILER

Mueller, in the 448-page redacted report released last week, identified 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump but he did not find that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

The report has divided Democrats, with several clamoring for impeachment, notably White House candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), while others argue such a step is futile with the GOP controlling the Senate. Several Democrats maintain that impeachment would embolden Trump and his Republican backers ahead of the 2020 election.

Despite leadership's effort to tamp down impeachment talk, they did not rule it out completely. In fact, after some of her members spoke up, Pelosi clarified that "if it is what we need to do to honor our responsibility to the Constitution -- if that's the place the facts take us, that's the place we have to go."

"I wish you would just read my letter because it, I think succinctly, presents some of the reasons, I think -- whether it's articles of impeachment or investigations, it's the same obtaining of facts," she said to her members. "We don't have to go to articles of impeachment to obtain the facts, the presentation of facts."

The nearly 90-minute call with lawmakers scattered around the country during the congressional recess came just hours after Pelosi appeared to tap the brakes on impeachment discussions. She argued in a letter to her colleagues that while Democrats would hold Trump accountable for his actions in the Mueller report, "it is . . . important to know that the facts regarding holding the president accountable can be gained outside of impeachment hearings."

"Whether currently indictable or not, it is clear that the president has, at a minimum, engaged in highly unethical and unscrupulous behavior which does not bring honor to the office he holds," Pelosi wrote.

She added: "As we proceed to uncover the truth and present additional needed reforms to protect our democracy, we must show the American people we are proceeding free from passion or prejudice, strictly on the presentation of fact."

The speaker's caution comes despite an impeachment push by some 2020 presidential hopefuls and even some of her Democratic chairmen, who suggested on the Sunday talk shows that it might be an option.

But as they briefed lawmakers on the call Monday night, those same chairmen appeared to push that notion to the side for now, suggesting Democratic leaders -- who spoke privately before the call -- have decided it is not the time to start such proceeding.

Even House Financial Services Chairman Maxine Waters, who last week warned that "Congress's failure to impeach is complacency in the face of the erosion of our democracy and constitutional norms," did not push the matter. Instead, the California Democrat, a vocal Trump critic who is probing the president's business practices before he won the 2016 election, made a point on the call of clarifying that she is not pressuring lawmakers to join her effort.

Waters instead spoke of her latest effort to subpoena a bank that lent money to Trump despite his bankruptcies. Just minutes before the call, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) subpoenaed former White House counsel Donald McGahn, who was a central witness in Mueller's probe into possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

Nadler also spoke on the call about his own next steps in investigating Trump.

According to an official on the call, leadership tried to emphasize that impeachment is not a political decision and that they would let the chairmen do what they need to keep investigating Trump. But Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) challenged that assertion, telling leadership not to "shy away from the notion that impeachment isn't political."

"It is political," he retorted.

But leadership had allies. Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the leader of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, said he was committed to ensuring Trump doesn't get reelected but also wondered if the party would guarantee the Republican's second term with an impeachment push.

Himes asked for impeachment data from leaders so Democrats knew where the country was on the issue. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.) agreed.

According to a recent survey, roughly 6 in 10 Democrats said Congress should begin impeachment hearings in a Washington Post-Schar School poll conducted after Attorney General William P. Barr's initial letter to Congress about the investigation's findings but before the release of the final report. But the same survey found the public overall leaned against impeaching Trump, with 41 percent saying Congress should begin hearings and 54 percent saying lawmakers should not.

At one point on the call, a lawmaker brought up a question about whether House Democrats could censure the president. Nadler explained how it has no legal effect but would just be a simple expression of disapproval.

Nadler said it was an option, though did not endorse it explicitly.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), one of the most liberal members in leadership, said no option, including impeachment, should be taken off the table. She asked leadership to give lawmakers messaging about how House Democrats can both push for economic issues they ran on while also holding up the rule of law by checking Trump.

Despite Democratic leadership's move to down play the prospects of impeachment at this time, they did not rule it out completely. Officials following the House probes closely say that's intentional.

Should Pelosi declare "no impeachment" flat out, she probably would undercut her chairmen's bid to sue the Trump administration for the full Mueller report, including grand jury information. To get those documents, impeachment probably would have to be on the table, lawyers say, justifying the House move to get such information.

Pelosi would also risk the ire of the far left, which has typically viewed her as an ally of their cause.

Before the Mueller report, Pelosi had argued that impeachment was too divisive, politically costly and that Trump was "not worth it." Pelosi also set a high threshold for taking up impeachment, arguing it would have to be bipartisan.

But after the Mueller report's release, Republicans have largely gone silent, even as Mueller detailed the Trump campaign welcoming Russia's interference in the 2016 election and Trump's effort to thwart the investigation.

Mueller, however, did not establish conspiracy and did not answer the question of whether Trump obstructed justice, appearing to kick the issue to Congress. Barr said the president did not obstruct justice.

Republicans control the Senate, and even if the Democratic-led House voted to impeach Trump, it would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict the president and remove him from office. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday dismissed the notion of impeachment.

"Well, look, I think it's time to move on. This investigation was about collusion, there's no collusion, no charges brought against the president on anything else, and I think the American people have had quite enough of it," McConnell said when questioned during a stop in Owensboro, Ky.

Pelosi in her Monday letter took a shot at the GOP for its muted reaction to the Mueller report.

"It is also clear that the congressional Republicans have an unlimited appetite for such low standards," she wrote. "The GOP should be ashamed of what the Mueller report has revealed, instead of giving the president their blessings."

Pelosi also called on the GOP-controlled Senate to take up campaign finance legislation that passed the House earlier this year, which included sweeping ethics changes. On Sunday, the president's legal team argued that it was acceptable for the Trump campaign to seek to benefit from Russia's hacking of the Clinton campaign.

"[I]n light of the President's defenders arguing in defense of receiving and weaponizing stolen emails, we continue to press our Republican House counterparts to take up our pledge to refuse to use stolen, hacked, or falsified information in campaigns because the American people deserve honest debate," Pelosi wrote.

Meanwhile, White House officials taunted House Democrats as they considered their next steps.

"If they have to get a conference call together to figure out where they're going from here, they shouldn't be in office in the first place," said White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on "Fox and Friends." "I think it's quite sad that they've got to have a conference call with all of their members to figure out what they're going to do with themselves now that the Mueller report is out and proven that there was no collusion and no obstruction."

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 02:28 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 00:48:10 NEW: PELOSI once again rejected calls to launch impeachment proceedings in the aftermath of special counsel Mueller's report. A few new Dems are speaking up to demand it, but leaders aren't ready to budget. with #HeatherScoop @:heatherscope and @:desiderioDC https://t.co/YCOfFD02Qo reageer retweet

Fout besluit imho

House Democratic leaders say no immediate plans to open impeachment proceedings against Trump
[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 00:50 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

TCleveland4Real twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 18:59:17 I haven't seen this emphasized enough. The President attempted to stop any investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, not only any investigation into his campaign or himself. He wanted to stop the investigation of a criminal espionage operation of a foreign power https://t.co/HPXbM66yb2 reageer retweet

[ afbeelding ]

Trump heeft dus geprobeerd om het Mueller-onderzoek alleen maar over inmenging in toekomstige verkiezingen te laten gaan

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 16:40 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Bovendien loog Trump er ook op los over zijn affaires.

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 18:27 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 18:16:38 My friend Herman Cain, a truly wonderful man, has asked me not to nominate him for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board. I will respect his wishes. Herman is a great American who truly loves our Country! reageer retweet

Cain trekt zich terug.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 08:08 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Een impeachement procedure zou zoals ze het de vorige keer aangaf het land verdelen in twee kampen en voor stevige onrust onder de bevolking zorgen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 08:08 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Een impeachement procedure zou zoals ze het de vorige keer aangaf het land verdelen in twee kampen en voor stevige onrust onder de bevolking zorgen.

twitter:

415holgate twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 01:44:23 Rex Tillerson says Trump ‘asked him to do illegal things’ as secretary of state https://t.co/HoPth77u1s reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 08:50 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Dat is waar. Goddank dat men de huidige eenheid niet in gevaar wil brengen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 09:08 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
Nou, kom maar op met die impeachment op basis van het tegenwerken van een onderzoek waarvan de conclusie was, zoals we nu weten, dat Trump niet samenwerkte met de Russen. Ze denken niet serieus dat dit kans van slagen heeft?

De Democraten maken zich compleet belachelijk. Moeilijk om je verlies te erkennen, blijkbaar.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 09:08 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
Nou, kom maar op met die impeachment op basis van het tegenwerken van een onderzoek waarvan de conclusie was, zoals we nu weten, dat Trump niet samenwerkte met de Russen.

twitter:

Megankstack twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 08:41:47 The US wants to veto a UN resolution against rape as a weapon of war because it refers to "sexual and reproductive health." As in, uses the words. Which the Trump administration now regards as taboo. Because "such language implies support for abortion."https://t.co/5Wd0UwRX2a reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 09:24 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:
Moet je je toch voorstellen dat je een president hebt die zelfs een onderzoek naar iets waarvan hij zelf weet dat hij onschuldig is gaat lopen dwarsbomen.

Dat zou toch wel wat vraagtekens moeten oproepen over hoe nauw Trump het met de wet neemt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 09:35 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

Megankstack twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 08:41:47 The US wants to veto a UN resolution against rape as a weapon of war because it refers to "sexual and reproductive health." As in, uses the words. Which the Trump administration now regards as taboo. Because "such language implies support for abortion."https://t.co/5Wd0UwRX2a reageer retweet

Wauw

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 10:09 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Helemaal van het padje.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 08:43 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Én Mike Pence een kans geven die hij beslist niet verdiend.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 11:29 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Er kan uiteraard wèl een doorbraak komen als de populariteit van Trump onder 20% duikt. Dan zullen kwetsbare republikeinen stoppen met het beschermen van Trump.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 10:57 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Die toelichting is een indicatie dat er eigenlijk een onbreekbare patstelling is en er geen doorbraak zal gaan komen tot Trump via democratische wegen verliest.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 11:39 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Het zou nuttiger zijn als het bleef zoals het nu is. En een week voor de verkiezingen sterk gaat droppen. Ik heb liever dat de kiezer zich tegen de republikeinen (die er een zooitje van hebben gemaakt) keren, zodat die hele partij een keer stevig op de schop kan. Want dat is nodig.

twitter:

walterdellinger twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 06:41:03 It's not correct to say impeaching Trump requires Republican support. The House can vote Articles of Impeachment by simple majority. A trial in the Senate would follow with 2/3rs required for conviction. But impeaching Trump itself would itself be a significant act. https://t.co/QALBh3Ljsd reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 11:58 schreef Ulx het volgende:
En even voor de duidelijkheid:

twitter:

walterdellinger twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 06:41:03 It's not correct to say impeaching Trump requires Republican support. The House can vote Articles of Impeachment by simple majority. A trial in the Senate would follow with 2/3rs required for conviction. But impeaching Trump itself would itself be a significant act. https://t.co/QALBh3Ljsd reageer retweet

Je moet het proces in het Huis wel rekken. Veel openbare hoorzittingen. Alle documenten openbaar. Dag in dag uit live op primetime televisie. Maandenlang. Je moet het niet volgende week door het Huis jassen.
Laat die 21 GOP senators die in 2020 hun plek moeten verdedigen daarna maar on record gaan als verdedigers van Trump.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 11:44 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

En het risico lopen dat Dems en Independents thuisblijven omdat er ondanks alles niks tegen Trump gedaan werd?

Dat risico loop je als je niks doet.

twitter:

starsandstripes twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 02:35:00 Rudy Giuliani said Sunday that there is “nothing wrong” with a campaign accepting information from Russians, defending the Trump team’s efforts to obtain damaging material about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 race. https://t.co/3Do4PjQlC9 reageer retweet

twitter:

MarkHertling twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 04:04:19 @jimsciutto Not in Europe now, but as a former commander of US Army, Europe - and having seen intelligence during my 12 years In Europe about what Russia was constantly doing to undermine our NATO alliance and partners - I’ll go on record to say the comments counters the soldiers’ mission. reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 13:00:01 Reminder: Today is the revised deadline that House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal set for the IRS to provide six years of Trump's tax returns to the Committee. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 13:13 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
Intussen wordt het helemaal niet racistische Congreslid Omar zelfs door de allerkleinsten onthaald als een heldin. Nou ja, met enige aanmoediging van de leraren, maar het gaat om de gedachte.

Vraag mij af waar ik zo'n prachtige kleurplaat kan bestellen voor mijn eigen peuters.

[ afbeelding ]

https://www.dailywire.com(...)amanda-prestigiacomo

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 13:13 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
Intussen wordt het helemaal niet racistische Congreslid Omar zelfs door de allerkleinsten onthaald als een heldin. Nou ja, met enige aanmoediging van de leraren, maar het gaat om de gedachte.

Vraag mij af waar ik zo'n prachtige kleurplaat kan bestellen voor mijn eigen peuters.

[ afbeelding ]

https://www.dailywire.com(...)amanda-prestigiacomo

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 13:04:37 “Harley Davidson has struggled with Tariffs with the EU, currently paying 31%. They’ve had to move production overseas to try and offset some of that Tariff that they’ve been hit with which will rise to 66% in June of 2021.” @MariaBartiromo So unfair to U.S. We will Reciprocate! reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 13:22 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 13:04:37 “Harley Davidson has struggled with Tariffs with the EU, currently paying 31%. They’ve had to move production overseas to try and offset some of that Tariff that they’ve been hit with which will rise to 66% in June of 2021.” @:MariaBartiromo So unfair to U.S. We will Reciprocate! reageer retweet

Cry me a river, met je staaltarieven.

quote:

The European Union has placed an additional 25-percent tariff on all American-made motorcycles exported to Europe. The tariff went into effect June 22 and is a direct response to the recent tariffs the Trump administration placed on aluminum and steel exports from Europe bound for the United States.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 13:46:34 The Wall is being rapidly built! The Economy is GREAT! Our Country is Respected again! reageer retweet

quote:

Donald Trump brengt begin een juni een staatsbezoek aan het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Dat is precies wat Nederlandse diplomaten al hoopten: mogelijk reist de Amerikaanse president dan meteen door naar een groot Amerikaanse zakencongres dat dan in Den Haag wordt georganiseerd.

https://www.ad.nl/politie(...)-nederland~ab53eb81/

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:21 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
De kans is aanwezig dat jullie favoriete president straks naar Nederland komt!!!
[..]

Ben benieuwd of Tunahan Kuzu weer in de rij gaat staan om een hand te geven en die dan breed grijnzend op het laatste moment niet uitsteekt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:21 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
Ben benieuwd of Tunahan Kuzu weer in de rij gaat staan om een hand te geven en die dan breed grijnzend op het laatste moment niet uitsteekt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:23 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou het eerder bescheuren als Trump op klassieke Trumpiaanse wijze de hand van een NL politicus krachtig naar zich toetrekt en de beste man vervolgens voorover met zijn kop tegen Trump aan stoot

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:21 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
De kans is aanwezig dat jullie favoriete president straks naar Nederland komt!!!
[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:25 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

De kans is aanwezig dat de sneuste trol van die topic weer niet gaat reageren op elke reactie die hij hier krijgt!!!!

quote:

Op maandag 22 april 2019 22:05 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Welke 'msm' met welk recent 'fake new'?

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:23 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou het eerder bescheuren als Trump op klassieke Trumpiaanse wijze de hand van een NL politicus krachtig naar zich toetrekt en de beste man vervolgens voorover met zijn kop tegen Trump aan stoot

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:36 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Zolang hij BNW items kan strooien hier zal hij niet inhoudelijk op je reageren. Monolith wacht ook nog steeds..

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:38 schreef Blue_Panther_Ninja het volgende:

[..]

Iedereen tegen DJT en co.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:41 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]



Reageer inhoudelijk of ga ergens anders baggeren joh

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:51 schreef Blue_Panther_Ninja het volgende:

[..]

Waar en van wie komt meeste nieuws(nogal negatief en verdraaid) over Trump gedoe vandaan? Hier zijn voorbeelden van reacties waarbij DJT erbij wordt gehaald.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:51 schreef Blue_Panther_Ninja het volgende:

[..]

Waar en van wie komt meeste nieuws(nogal negatief en verdraaid) over Trump gedoe vandaan? Hier zijn voorbeelden van reacties waarbij DJT erbij wordt gehaald.

twitter:

tribelaw twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 17:10:04 I’ve been making the same point as @walterdellinger does here: Mueller’s report reveals a president who is AWOL as Commander in Chief. If he were a General, he’d be court martialed. As POTUS, he should face impeachment proceedings. https://t.co/He83lDGPzC reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:21 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
De kans is aanwezig dat jullie favoriete president straks naar Nederland komt!!!
[..]

Ben benieuwd of Tunahan Kuzu weer in de rij gaat staan om een hand te geven en die dan breed grijnzend op het laatste moment niet uitsteekt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:51 schreef Blue_Panther_Ninja het volgende:

[..]

Waar en van wie komt meeste nieuws(nogal negatief en verdraaid) over Trump gedoe vandaan? Hier zijn voorbeelden van reacties waarbij DJT erbij wordt gehaald.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 15:34 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Trololololololol,

als je echt verstand van zaken hebt zou je niet telkens van die kinderachtige posts doen en dan nergens meer op reageren.

Het zegt wat over jouw intenties.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 15:20:00 Evan McMullin: Trump welcomed the Russian attack and obstructed resulting investigations, an impeachable offense."Trump must be held accountable. This means we must convene public hearings in Congress leading to impeachment proceedings in the House."https://t.co/flldJnFPgW reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 15:43 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 15:20:00 Evan McMullin: Trump welcomed the Russian attack and obstructed resulting investigations, an impeachable offense."Trump must be held accountable. This means we must convene public hearings in Congress leading to impeachment proceedings in the House."https://t.co/flldJnFPgW reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 15:45 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Simpelweg doorgaan is het devies. En niet aflaten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 14:51 schreef Blue_Panther_Ninja het volgende:

[..]

Waar en van wie komt meeste nieuws(nogal negatief en verdraaid) over Trump gedoe vandaan? Hier zijn voorbeelden van reacties waarbij DJT erbij wordt gehaald.

twitter:

matthewamiller twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 17:11:05 He's trying to define Russia's interference as their social media operations and ignore the hacking and release of emails, which the candidate publicly encouraged and then discussed 141 times on the campaign trail. https://t.co/irob80R8JB reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 17:35:18 Jared Kushner, at the TIME 100 summit, just claimed that the ensuing investigations that stemmed from the Russia investigation have been more harmful to the country than the initial Russian interference itself, which he described as a couple of Facebook ads. @MSNBC reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 15:42 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Daar is een mooie Amerikaanse uitdrukking voor: changing the narrative Het gaat om het effect, niet om de inhoud.

twitter:

existentialfish twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 03:24:09 Sean Hannity, April 22, 2019: "Hillary Clinton's email server is a real threat to our safety and security" https://t.co/AqaTC2IRKY reageer retweet

twitter:

npfandos twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 02:33:40 Pelosi also addressed Val Demings' remarks:“I know it’s going to take courage on the part of all of our members to stick with a program that might not be as fast as they want. But, again, I confess to you ... I’m not struggling with this decision.”https://t.co/4XsdUquqSC reageer retweet

twitter:

JeffreyGoldberg twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 15:06:29 A Trump transition staffer (and law professor) says enough is enough, and calls for impeachment (via @TheAtlantic):https://t.co/ppTZgHtxVh reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 11:41 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

allicht. Pence is er een die maar al te graag het "beleid" van Trump wil doorzetten. En dit weet Pelosi.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 18:00:09 Mike Pence hasn't released any tax returns since taking office, WSJ reports.It's getting less attention, but it's just as precedent-breaking: Going back to Walter Mondale in the 1970s, all of Pence's predecessors have disclosed their returns. https://t.co/MrSiZyBr4K reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 18:13 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Precies.

Misschien klinkt het als desinteresse. Ik volgde de ontwikkelingen iedere dag, maar met het signaal van Pelosi heb ik me er eigenlijk al bij neergelegd dat men in een bananenstaatsituatie zit.

Gezien de weinige kansen of openingen die er nu zelfs met het grofst mogelijke "geschut" zijn en Trump theoretisch gezien opnieuw gekozen kan worden is het imho stukken minder interessant geworden om de doorsudderende Amerikaanse politiek of die van een andere corrupte regering van dag tot dag te volgen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 18:28 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Nixon kon ook niet meteen rekenen op een impeachment procedure. Die had eerst hoorzittingen in de Senaat (waarna hij voordat de procedure werd ingezet af trad). Het zou nog best wel kunnen dat als bijvoorbeeld Mueller gehoord wordt er aan de hand van wat hij verklaart een dergelijke procedure gestart zou worden al blijf ik me af vragen hoe electoraal verstandig dat zou zijn ... staat tegenover dat een precedent scheppen door niks te doen ook eigenlijk niet kan, maar ja.

quote:

The White House plans to fight a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee for former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify, according to people familiar with the matter, setting up another showdown in the aftermath of the special counsel report.

The Trump administration also plans to oppose other requests from House committees for the testimony of current and former aides about actions in the White House described in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, according to two people familiar with internal thinking.

White House lawyers plan to tell attorneys for administration witnesses called by the House that they will be asserting executive privilege over their testimony, officials said.

Such a move will intensify an ongoing power struggle between the Trump administration and congressional Democrats, potentially setting up a protracted court battle.

McGahn was mentioned more than 150 times in Mueller’s report and provided damaging accounts to investigators about how the president pressured him to oust the special counsel and then pushed him to publicly deny the episode.

McGahn's lawyer, William Burck, began discussions with the House Judiciary Committee about his potential testimony after the panel issued a subpoena Monday, according to people familiar with the matter.

SPOILER

Securing McGahn’s testimony would be a boon for the Judiciary Committee, which hopes to focus on potential obstruction of justice by Trump in a series of public hearings this spring while exploring other “abuses of power,” Democratic aides said.

Public testimony from McGahn could create a spectacle that would parallel the June 1973 testimony of President Richard Nixon’s former White House Counsel John Dean, whose live televised appearance before a Senate committee painted a vivid portrait for the country of the White House coverup of the Watergate burglary.

People close to McGahn, who were not authorized to speak publicly, said McGahn is “following the process” and working with the White House on his next steps, despite Trump’s public and private anger about his former White House counsel’s prominence in the Mueller report.

“He’s not eager to testify. He’s not reluctant. He got a subpoena. It compels him to testify. But there are some countervailing legal reasons that might prevent that,” said one person close to McGahn, who requested anonymity to describe private discussions. “He doesn’t want to be in contempt of Congress nor does he want to be in contempt of his ethical obligations and legal obligations as a former White House official.”

Trump has told advisers that McGahn was disloyal to him and he criticized the lawyer for taking extensive notes of meetings that were cited in Mueller’s report. While initially seeing the report as a total exoneration, Trump has grown frustrated with the depiction of his White House.

The two men had an adversarial relationship, with McGahn contemplating quitting several times during his tenure. But he was also key to some of the president’s main accomplishments, like the confirmation of two Supreme Court judges and a record number of federal judiciary appointments.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 01:20:24 Chairman Nadler responds: "This evening's reports, if accurate, represent one more act of obstruction by an Administration desperate to prevent the public from talking about the President's behavior. The Committee's subpoena stands. I look forward to Mr. McGahn's testimony." reageer retweet

twitter:

AdamSchiff twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 04:36:05 Trump is resisting every Congressional request for testimony and documents related to our oversight responsibility.Like an aspiring autocrat, he doesn't recognize the co-equal branches of our government.He has lived his entire life without accountability.That ends now. https://t.co/QixgD7zGBs reageer retweet

quote:

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Tuesday told a key lawmaker he would make a final decision as to whether to furnish President Trump’s tax returns by May 6, committing for the first time to a specific deadline in what has become a major Washington power struggle.

In a 10-page letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), Mnuchin said the Democrats’ request for Trump’s tax returns raised constitutional and privacy issues that needed to be resolved by the Justice Department before he could make a decision on how to proceed.

The letter repeatedly cast doubt on the motivations of Democrats in seeking the tax return information. Mnuchin served as Trump’s finance chairman during the 2016 presidential campaign, and the president already has signaled he does not want the information released, but multiple legal scholars have said they don’t see much precedent for Mnuchin to ignore the congressional inquiry.

Still, Treasury Department officials have taken steps to make their reluctance to turn over the records legally defensible. Tuesday’s letter contained 48 footnotes.

SPOILER

Neal has twice formally requested the tax returns from Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles P. Rettig, and the latest deadline was Tuesday at 5 p.m. Mnuchin has responded to both requests with a letter of his own, saying more time was needed while also casting doubt as to why Democrats are seeking the records in the first place.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that exposure for the sake of exposure is never a permissible purpose of congressional inquiries, and this principle is all the more important when private and legally protected tax information is at stake,” Mnuchin wrote.

House Democrats must now decide how forcefully to respond. They could wait until May 6 or move more aggressively and subpoena the records under a 1924 law that appears to give them access to virtually any tax return. Several House Democrats have accused the White House of stalling and implored their colleagues to ratchet up pressure.

One House Democrat asked his colleagues Monday to consider whether they should seek to impeach Rettig for failing to comply with their legal demands.

The White House has not offered any legal precedent for so far refusing to turn over the records. Instead, they have said that Trump is not releasing his tax returns because they are being audited.

“There is nothing nefarious there at all,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said Tuesday on Fox News. “This was litigated in 2016, and [Democrats] are going to keep pushing.”

Trump has not provided any details of the audit, however, and Trump’s former lawyer — Michael Cohen — has said he doesn’t believe the records are actually under audit.

Last week, Neal sent Rettig a pointed request for six years of Trump’s personal and business tax returns, giving him the new Tuesday deadline. The IRS is a division of the Treasury Department, and Mnuchin has said he has taken charge of the administration’s response.

Mnuchin’s resistance so far is part of a broader Trump administration effort to block myriad congressional investigations into the White House and Trump’s business background. The White House instructed a former personnel security director not to show up for questioning before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Tuesday, and Monday the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit to prevent an accounting firm from complying with a committee subpoena for eight years’ worth of Trump’s financial records.

As the White House tries to mobilize opposition to the congressional investigations, some Democrats said they will ultimately prevail.

“We can squeeze these birds,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. “We can go to court. . . . Anyone who denies us is at risk.”

During a call with other House Democrats on Monday, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) asked other lawmakers whether they should consider beginning impeachment proceedings against Rettig for failing to comply with the law.

“I think it’s important to put this commissioner on notice that all of the legal backstops are in play here,” he said in an interview. “You don’t just get to follow Donald Trump’s orders when he is telling you to violate the law.”

House Democratic leaders were noncommittal on Huffman’s request. IRS and Treasury Department spokesmen did not respond to requests for comment.

Tuesday’s deadline was set by Neal after the IRS missed an initial April 10 cutoff date to produce six years’ worth of Trump’s personal and business returns.

Neal’s request relies on a 1924 federal law that says the IRS “shall furnish” any individual’s tax returns if they are sought by a chairman of Congress’s tax-writing committees. The law was written this way to make it nearly impossible for the White House to block disclosure of tax returns, following the Teapot Dome scandal during the Harding administration.

Neal contends that his request for Trump’s returns is part of his committee’s oversight responsibilities. IRS guidance directs the agency to audit the tax returns of presidents and vice presidents, and Neal said that he wants to determine if such an audit is taking place as appropriate, among other things.

Mnuchin has questioned the legitimacy of the request, while Trump’s personal attorney has dismissed it as a politically motivated fishing expedition and rejected Neal’s stated reasons.

In his letter Tuesday, Mnuchin said the historic nature of Neal’s request for the tax returns could play out long into the future.

“The resolution of this issue could set a precedent that will reverberate for years to come — again, regardless of which party is in power,” he wrote.

The wording of the statute does not appear to offer discretion to the commissioner of the IRS to refuse Neal’s request. However, the situation amounts to “uncharted territory” given that there has not previously been an occasion where a request for tax returns under the little-used statute has been refused, according to George K. Yin, a University of Virginia law professor who has testified on the topic before the Ways and Means Committee.

The statute itself does not specify a timeline for compliance or a penalty for an IRS commissioner or treasury secretary who fails to comply.

“Presumably if there was a refusal, and if the Congress doesn’t simply back off the request, there would be some type of conflict that would be resolved in court in some way, and then it would be up to the court to make a determination of at what point the treasury secretary has violated the law,” Yin said.

Although Neal has proceeded carefully with his request and rejected suggestions that politics are at play, other Democrats have been more open about their desire to get the returns in time to examine their contents ahead of the next presidential election. As Democrats proceed to investigate Trump and his administration on various fronts, some of them say that the contents of Trump’s tax returns could be key to their efforts.

The returns could provide insight into Trump’s entanglement with foreign governments, whether he improperly inflated or deflated the value of his assets in dealing with financial institutions, and potentially whether he benefited personally from the 2017 tax law.

“The center of this discussion better be the finances of the president of the United States. If it isn’t, it’s going to wind up as a draw, a jump ball, and that’s where we are,” said Pascrell, the New Jersey congressman, adding that the returns could show whether Trump is “fit for office.”

The issue has become a rallying cry for liberal activists, who staged a rally outside the IRS on Tax Day, April 15, to demand Trump release his returns. But Republicans have closed ranks around the president and objected to Democrats’ pursuit of the topic, particularly after special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report concluded without accusing Trump of collusion or obstruction of justice.

“The Democratic request for the President’s tax returns is unprecedented and sets a dangerous precedent,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), the top Ways and Means Republican, said in a statement this month. “The intent of Section 6103 is clear: the tax code must not to be used for political fishing expeditions.”

Both sides anticipate the issue will turn into a heated court battle, and some Democrats fear the Trump administration’s strategy will be to drag the issue out past the election.

“At some point you do have to have the House attorneys go to court for you,” said Janice Mays, a managing director at PwC who formerly served as the longtime staff director for Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee. “My personal view, I don’t know why this wouldn’t be summary judgment on the side of Richie Neal because the statute is so clear, but my instinct is the lawyers for the administration would be doing their damnedest to push against that.”

Presuming Democrats ultimately are successful in obtaining the returns, they would not become public but instead would have to be closely held by Neal as confidential taxpayer information. At some point, the Ways and Means Committee could vote to begin a process that would make the returns public.

quote:

Jared Kushner, in his first public comments since the public release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report, on Tuesday downplayed the effect of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which saw his father-in-law win the Oval Office.

“You look at what Russia did, buying some Facebook ads and trying to sow dissent. It’s a terrible thing,” Kushner, who is also one of President Donald Trump’s senior advisers, said at a Time magazine event in New York. “But I think the investigations and all of the speculation that’s happened for the last two years has a much harsher impact on our democracy than a couple Facebook ads.”

The Justice Department, however, is offering a starkly different assessment of the potential dangers of a Russian intelligence operation to U.S. national security — and argues that it doesn’t take a master spy to do serious harm.

In a little-noticed court filing on Friday, an expert witness for the government, Robert Anderson Jr., a former assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, outlined how the activities of Russian gun-rights activist Mariia Butina during the election contained all the hallmarks of a sophisticated intelligence operation.

Anderson’s declaration has spawned a new fight between the government and Butina’s lawyers, who countered that it was speculative and blurred the line between informal networking and clandestine intelligence operations.

But the filing also sheds light on how the Justice Department views the ongoing threat of Russian attempts to influence American politics and goes well beyond what Mueller’s team was able to say in its 448-page report.

Allowing Russia to “bypass formal channels of diplomacy, win concessions, and exert influence within the United States” by entertaining backchannel lines of communication could result in “commensurate harm to the United States, including harm to the integrity of the United States’ political processes and internal government dealings, as well as to U.S. foreign policy interests and national security,” Anderson wrote.

SPOILER

Butina created a plan called the Diplomacy Project in March 2015 aimed at cultivating Republican presidential candidates and their advisers and reporting her progress back to Alexander Torshin, a deputy governor of the Central Bank of Russia.

She also tried to connect members of the National Rifle Association with Kremlin officials in December 2015 during a trip to Moscow, prosecutors say, and held U.S.-Russia “friendship dinners” to “exert the speediest and most effective influence on the process of making decisions in the American establishment,” according to a document she wrote during the runup to the election.

Butina pleaded guilty in December to conspiring against the U.S., agreed to cooperate with federal investigators and is in jail awaiting sentencing.

Butina wasn’t the only Russian trying to make inroads outside formal diplomatic structures before and after the election, however. And she was arguably the least successful.

Mueller confirmed in his report that Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign’s chairman, discussed ways to forge a Russia-Ukraine “peace plan” that would bolster Moscow’s influence over Kiev; that the incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn, discussed sanctions relief with the Russian ambassador before Trump even took office; that Kushner suggested using Russian Embassy facilities to discuss Syria policy during the transition period, thereby evading detection from the U.S. intelligence community; and that a two-page document outlining a U.S.-Russia reset made its way from the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund to then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

The first half of Mueller’s report was laser-focused on answering the question of whether Trump or members of his campaign had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia to steal Democrats’ emails or influence the election through social media; it concluded that they had not.

Mueller had little to say about the broader national security implications of Russia’s efforts to cultivate Trump associates. But Andrew Weiss, the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he oversees research on Russia and Eurasia, noted on Twitter on Monday that, seen against the backdrop of Anderson’s declaration, “it’s clear that the conduct outlined in Volume I of the Mueller Report created enormous damage to US national security.”



Because the U.S. is Russia’s primary target “for malign and intrusive intelligence operations,” Anderson wrote, the Kremlin is not just looking for classified information or trade secrets. It’s looking for access points and opportunities to influence policy.

“In targeting the United States, Russia works … to collect any information that could, by itself or in conjunction with other efforts, assist the Russian government in increasing its geopolitical power or undermining and harming that of the United States,” he continued.

The special counsel’s counterintelligence findings could illuminate the extent to which people in Trump’s orbit — and the president himself — have been, or remain, compromised. But those findings were largely handed off to the FBI over the course of the 22-month probe and were not enumerated in the final report.

Butina’s lawyers, meanwhile, have argued that the broad theory Anderson put forward — that a foreign national may be acting as an “access agent” when hobnobbing with Washington operatives and sending information about those dalliances back to his or her government — “effectively criminalizes all networking behavior if done by a foreign national.” Her lawyers said in another court filing on Tuesday that it could take months for them to respond to Anderson’s declaration if the judge declines to strike it, indefinitely delaying Butina’s sentencing hearing. The hearing had originally been set for April 26.

Washington prosecutors have been aggressive in the Butina case, as evidenced by their assertion early on that she was trading sex for a position in a special-interest organization — an accusation that the government walked back after realizing that it had misinterpreted a piece of evidence.

Prosecutors also recommended an 18-month sentence for Butina, despite her lawyers’ expectation that they would not make a specific recommendation given the 10 months she’s already spent in jail.

Butina’s lawyers also feel the government blindsided them with the last-minute Anderson affidavit that made her look complicit in a Russian intelligence operation.

“The fact that the government used this filing — made late in the evening on Good Friday … less than a week before sentencing — to unveil a complete new theory of the government’s case creates additional due process issues,” they wrote in a motion to exclude and strike Anderson’s declaration.

Disputes over the government’s conduct aside, the Anderson declaration was a striking — and ominous — analysis of the Russian government’s intelligence-collection methods.

“Russia’s efforts targeting the United States take a myriad of forms — it is, in essence, a numbers game,” he wrote. “Not every intelligence campaign needs to be successful for Russia to have achieved its goals.”

twitter:

JohnWDean twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 03:11:11 Trump says he is opposed to White House aides testifying to Congress. Unless the witness agrees Trump can't stop them without a court order, which would be unprecedented and doubtful. He can't gag his former aides, and it is criminal to threaten them. https://t.co/VruD3j4kyW reageer retweet

twitter:

mkraju twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 00:58:36 Neal response: "This afternoon, Secretary Mnuchin notified me that once again, the IRS will miss the deadline for my 6103 request. I plan to consult with counsel about my next steps." https://t.co/nOlYJtMUnM reageer retweet

twitter:

EamonJavers twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 17:32:27 I asked Hogan Gidley if President Trump will accept Russian help in the 2020 election. He said “I don’t understand the question” and pointed out that the president has “already denounced multiple times Russian involvement” in the 2016 cycle. https://t.co/QeZ6xwPEai reageer retweet

twitter:

maggieNYT twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 17:35:05 When did potus “denounce” Russian involvement? https://t.co/ldFugDiyGY reageer retweet

Lawrence's Last Word: The Honorable Republican In Nixon Impeachment Hearings | The Last Word | MSNBC

quote:

Congressman Larry Hogan was the only Republican to vote for all three Nixon articles of impeachment. He quoted Abraham Lincoln saying "we cannot escape history."

twitter:

EvanMcMullin twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 03:40:30 I can't stress enough the extent to which Trump's base now lives in an alternative info environment and who can blame them? Everyone is lying to them. Trump. His team. Many right-wing commentators. Congressional Republicans. The GOP. Fox News. This is a huge long-term problem. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 18:19 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 18:00:09 Mike Pence hasn't released any tax returns since taking office, WSJ reports.It's getting less attention, but it's just as precedent-breaking: Going back to Walter Mondale in the 1970s, all of Pence's predecessors have disclosed their returns. https://t.co/MrSiZyBr4K reageer retweet

Benieuwd wat Pence te verbergen heeft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 18:19 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 18:00:09 Mike Pence hasn't released any tax returns since taking office, WSJ reports.It's getting less attention, but it's just as precedent-breaking: Going back to Walter Mondale in the 1970s, all of Pence's predecessors have disclosed their returns. https://t.co/MrSiZyBr4K reageer retweet

Benieuwd wat Pence te verbergen heeft.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 05:10 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Nog even de beelden van Kushner:

Jared Kushner Interview At The TIME 100 Summit | TIME

"You look at what Russia did, buying some Facebook ads to try to sow dissent and do it, and it's a terrible thing," Kushner said. "But I think the investigations and all of the speculation that's happened for the last two years has had a much harsher impact on our democracy than a couple of Facebook ads."

Russian Influence Reached 126 Million Through Facebook Alone

twitter:

Joe_Gerth twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 21:26:29 Is the Russian mob coming to Kentucky? https://t.co/5ghtJhHDGr via @courierjournal reageer retweet

twitter:

Joe_Gerth twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 21:29:35 Oh, and I had a hunch the Russians were involved nearly a year and a half ago when Braidy didn't want its employees criticizing the president. https://t.co/MgZ02nJ9Xk reageer retweet

twitter:

MollyMcKew twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 02:33:05 Why local journalism is important: Kentucky governor put taxpayer $$ into an aluminum plant owned by one of his backers. Then the 2 KY senators, McConnell+Paul, were 2 of 3 votes needed to overturn sanctions on Deripaska, whose Rusal then invested $200mil in the plant. Get it? https://t.co/p8wrTT1jtU reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 23:55:40 Trump complained about his follower count in his White House meeting with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey today, WaPo reports.https://t.co/V7IWu9jM65 reageer retweet

twitter:

RepMaxineWaters twitterde op dinsdag 23-04-2019 om 22:15:41 Another strike against Treasury Sec. Mnuchin. Sears sued Mnuchin, claiming that he was among the board members who helped the CEO strip Sears of $2 BILLION in assets. Wow! Trump, his cabinet, & his inner circle show up in so many fraudulent efforts! Are they all crooks? reageer retweet

twitter:

maggieNYT twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 11:02:31 Before Nielsen was forced out, she tried to focus the White House on one of her highest priorities as DHS secretary: preparing for new and different Russian forms of interference in 2020. Mulvaney told her not to bring it up in front of the president. https://t.co/WDNjfC52O4 reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 14:00:46 Mexico’s Soldiers recently pulled guns on our National Guard Soldiers, probably as a diversionary tactic for drug smugglers on the Border. Better not happen again! We are now sending ARMED SOLDIERS to the Border. Mexico is not doing nearly enough in apprehending & returning! reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 14:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 14:00:46 Mexico’s Soldiers recently pulled guns on our National Guard Soldiers, probably as a diversionary tactic for drug smugglers on the Border. Better not happen again! We are now sending ARMED SOLDIERS to the Border. Mexico is not doing nearly enough in apprehending & returning! reageer retweet

Benieuwd. Een beetje lekkere oorlog is goed voor de ratings.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 13:30:00 Trump's washing machine tariffs cost U.S. consumers $815,000 for every job created, according to new research. https://t.co/FvunJwzcMm reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 14:10:06 The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only...... reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 14:18:31 .....are there no “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” there are no Crimes by me at all. All of the Crimes were committed by Crooked Hillary, the Dems, the DNC and Dirty Cops - and we caught them in the act! We waited for Mueller and WON, so now the Dems look to Congress as last hope! reageer retweet

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 14:48:24 1) Trump has offered no proof of crimes by people who investigated him; 2) Trump can ask all he wants, but the Supreme Court doesn't hear challenges to impeachment, a political process; 3) "High crimes and misdemeanors" don't have to be actual criminal offenses. https://t.co/GkqcMRMao7 reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 15:04:56 I raised serious concern of Giuliani’s conduct in tweet below👇But he’s not alone. Trump personal lawyers’ participation in obstruction occurs several times in pages of #MuellerReportSo I asked country’s top legal ethics expertRead Gillers’ analysis: https://t.co/xidSPiEYvA https://t.co/eL5ykVazk6 reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 15:41 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 14:10:06 The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only...... reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 14:18:31 .....are there no “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” there are no Crimes by me at all. All of the Crimes were committed by Crooked Hillary, the Dems, the DNC and Dirty Cops - and we caught them in the act! We waited for Mueller and WON, so now the Dems look to Congress as last hope! reageer retweet

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 14:48:24 1) Trump has offered no proof of crimes by people who investigated him; 2) Trump can ask all he wants, but the Supreme Court doesn't hear challenges to impeachment, a political process; 3) "High crimes and misdemeanors" don't have to be actual criminal offenses. https://t.co/GkqcMRMao7 reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 15:47 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Hij snapt ook werkelijk de ballen niet van de procedures. he?

twitter:

RichardRubinDC twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 15:37:09 New from me: Trump's tax returns would be interesting, sure. But the audit files Neal wants could be much more revealing. https://t.co/plGp0d77gQ via @WSJ reageer retweet

quote:

Democrats want six years of President Trump’s tax returns, and those should be plenty interesting. But it is the other documents they are seeking—administrative files for the president’s IRS audits—that may prove most revealing.

Experienced tax lawyers could take the returns, the audit files and Mr. Trump’s responses to IRS questions and quickly understand the status and core issues of any IRS inquiry into the president.

“That IRS working file is a treasure trove of information,” said Josh Ungerman, a former IRS and Justice Department attorney who represents taxpayers in Dallas.

The file would show what the IRS was examining and why, and could include the agency’s audit plan, auditors’ notes, back-and-forth with Mr. Trump and correspondence within the IRS. Each piece could reveal financial information the president has kept from the public and from House members who are invoking a law that requires the administration to provide anyone’s tax documents to them.

If lawmakers obtain those files after a court battle that now seems likely, they could learn whether the issues examined were flagged by agency computers or whistleblowers.

The files could show which figures the IRS agents considered doubtful and why, said Mark Matthews, a former senior IRS official now at Caplin & Drysdale law firm. They might indicate whether penalties should be imposed, as well as IRS managers’ comments on agents’ findings. In addition, workpapers could reveal what issues the IRS didn’t address.

SPOILER

The files requested by the House Ways and Means Committee are familiar to tax lawyers—because they can request and get them from the IRS when defending taxpayers. Lawyers sometimes sue the IRS under the Freedom of Information Act to get the documents, and the government can hold back information regarding internal deliberations and consultations with attorneys.

Committee Chairman Rep. Richard Neal (D., Mass.), whose jurisdiction includes the tax code, requested the administrative files related to six years of Mr. Trump’s personal returns and some of his business returns.

The administration missed Mr. Neal’s April 23 deadline and the president’s personal lawyer has said the request is politically motivated and thus doesn’t have a legitimate legislative purpose. The Treasury Department said Tuesday that it and the Justice Department are studying the legal issues and expect to reach a decision by May 6.

Democratic investigators’ stated purpose for requesting the returns is to probe how adequately IRS employees are auditing the president who oversees them.

That is an issue that reaches back to Richard Nixon’s presidency. Mr. Nixon asked congressional investigators to go through his returns and they found problems that resulted in the president paying more than $400,000 in back taxes and other costs.

If Mr. Neal eventually gets the documents, he couldn’t release them publicly without a committee vote. He could designate members of his staff or the nonpartisan experts at the Joint Committee on Taxation to review the documents.

Any returns that Mr. Trump files as president are presumably subject to a mandatory audit under an IRS policy dating to 1977. During the 2016 presidential campaign, he declined to release any of his tax returns as previous candidates had, saying at times that he couldn’t do so because he was under audit, though no law prohibits that. His lawyers released a letter that year saying that the IRS had finished audits from 2002 through 2008 but was still examining tax returns since then. The combination of mandatory and pre-presidential audits means the IRS likely has a significant file on Mr. Trump and his businesses. Mr. Trump’s lawyers haven’t provided any updates on his audits since 2016.

The apparent extent of Mr. Trump’s audits suggests that he and the government have agreed to extend deadlines that typically require the IRS to finish audits within three years after a return is filed—or six years for certain significant omissions of income.

For the overburdened IRS, agreeing to extend that deadline provides more time. For the taxpayer, extending the date can prevent a dispute from heading into the public forum of the court system.

The administrative files and work papers would contain all of that extension information. They would also show what additional information the auditors are seeking.

“The administrative files are going to show what efforts they made,” whether superficial or in-depth, said Robert McKenzie, a partner at Saul, Ewing, Arnstein & Lehr LLP in Chicago.

Mr. Neal’s request isn’t broad enough, said Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center in Washington.

The chairman should have asked for more years of information, going all the way back to the oldest tax year that is still under audit. That way, he said, lawmakers could see the origins of any inquiries into Mr. Trump and explore how the IRS handled the case before he was president and after.

“If you really want to see how the process unfolds, you really have to go back,” he said.

Sophisticated business owners often treat a tax return as the opening bid in a negotiation with the IRS, he said, knowing they can settle later. That is a pattern, Mr. Rosenthal adds, that fits the president’s way of doing business.

“He views taxes like he views other financial arrangements from lenders and the like,” he said. “Ok, maybe I owe you money, but how much can we settle for?”

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 15:30:00 Checks and Balances, the conservative legal group founded in part by George Conway, on the Mueller report: "We believe the framers of the Constitution would have viewed the totality of this conduct as evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors." https://t.co/yvu4Eu4hv7 reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 16:09:35 I didn’t call Bob Costa of the Washington Post, he called me (Returned his call)! Just more Fake News. reageer retweet

twitter:

costareports twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 16:11:46 Yes, I noted this last night, before the interview posted. https://t.co/brT1URp6F4 https://t.co/grFXjTzOdC reageer retweet

twitter:

costareports twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 01:42:14 President Trump called me this evening, in response to my request for comment on a profile story on a Trump World figure. After speaking on that topic, he took a few questions about his administration's standoff with Congress. We'll publish those remarks tonight. reageer retweet

twitter:

NBCPolitics twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 16:16:01 NYTimes report: Acting White House chief of staff told former Sec. Nielsen that conversations on Russian meddling in 2020 election shouldn't be elevated to President Trump because he still tied the subject to questions about the legitimacy of his election. https://t.co/Me7eXMMTuQ reageer retweet

twitter:

ShimonPro twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 16:05:26 William Barr said in a 1998 interview that he was "disturbed" that Attorney General Janet Reno had not defended independent counsel Ken Starr from "spin control," "hatchet jobs" and "ad hominem attacks."https://t.co/xNpcpNkLvQ reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 17:30:19 Ex-Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste: "Executive privilege was waived when McGahn was permitted to give testimony and to be interviewed [Mueller] ... I don't see how the W.H. can assert exec privilege with something that has already been revealed." https://t.co/y0X8LnCuDH reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 14:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 14:00:46 Mexico’s Soldiers recently pulled guns on our National Guard Soldiers, probably as a diversionary tactic for drug smugglers on the Border. Better not happen again! We are now sending ARMED SOLDIERS to the Border. Mexico is not doing nearly enough in apprehending & returning! reageer retweet

Benieuwd. Een beetje lekkere oorlog is goed voor de ratings.

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 16:33:01 The U.S. military says the incident "was an honest mistake by the Mexican soldiers." Trump says the Mexican soldiers were probably trying to create a diversion to help drug smugglers. https://t.co/FBoXNJBvrw reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 15:34:41 Can anyone comprehend what a GREAT job Border Patrol and Law Enforcement is doing on our Southern Border. So far this year they have APPREHENDED 418,000 plus illegal immigrants, way up from last year. Mexico is doing very little for us. DEMS IN CONGRESS MUST ACT NOW! reageer retweet

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 16:01:05 Trump spent 2017 boasting that border apprehensions were way down ("down 78% at the border!"), a decrease he said was evidence that he was succeeding. When apprehensions then went way up, he switched to saying that the increase was evidence that he was succeeding. https://t.co/SkHEjyStK1 reageer retweet

twitter:

AnnCoulter twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 17:42:52 Yes, and all you morons say" "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' means whatever a majority of the House says it is," which is just as ignorant. https://t.co/36dbw6Rg5Z reageer retweet

twitter:

PuestoLoco twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 16:23:11 @realDonaldTrump “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic..Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. It's about restoring honor & integrity to the office”– Lindsey Graham Jan 1999https://t.co/d2zKWpK94W https://t.co/lFpbSLcRgS reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 18:02 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ann Coulter pakt Lindsey Graham aan! Ze noemt hem een ignorant moron!

twitter:

AnnCoulter twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 17:42:52 Yes, and all you morons say" "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' means whatever a majority of the House says it is," which is just as ignorant. https://t.co/36dbw6Rg5Z reageer retweet

twitter:

PuestoLoco twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 16:23:11 @:realDonaldTrump “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic..Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. It's about restoring honor & integrity to the office”– Lindsey Graham Jan 1999https://t.co/d2zKWpK94W https://t.co/lFpbSLcRgS reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 18:35:09 At a meeting of House leaders this month, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler suggested fining officials personally if they deny or ignore subpoenas, Bloomberg reports. Nadler even mentioned jailing admin officials as a consequence for contempt of Congress.https://t.co/uVgj3BHp16 reageer retweet

twitter:

funder twitterde op maandag 22-04-2019 om 19:52:44 "We are completely rebuilding our military. It was very depleted as you know. A lot of the military folks can tell you," Trump said to a group of children at the WH Easter Egg Roll https://t.co/srgCRzoapz reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 april 2019 17:18 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Natuurlijk is er reden om te impeachen. Tien gevallen van obstructie. Niet alleen obstructie van onderzoeken naar hem, maar ook obstructie van het onderzoek naar een aanval op de VS. Dan ben je gewoon aan het heulen met een vijand. Er waren tijden dat je daarvoor gewoon de kogel kreeg.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 18:38 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 24-04-2019 om 18:35:09 At a meeting of House leaders this month, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler suggested fining officials personally if they deny or ignore subpoenas, Bloomberg reports. Nadler even mentioned jailing admin officials as a consequence for contempt of Congress.https://t.co/uVgj3BHp16 reageer retweet

LOCK THEM UP!

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 22:13 schreef WhiteBeard het volgende:

[..]

Tien gevallen waar Mueller niet tot de conclusie kon komen dat Trump obstructie had gepleegd, maar hem tevens niet vrijpleitte. Als Mueller met al die kennis niet tot de conclusie kon komen dat Trump obstructie had gepleegd zegt dat mij genoeg. En al die zogenaamde experts vooral van linkerzijde die anders beweren hebben kennelijk meer informatie dan Mueller? Ik dacht het niet

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 23:03 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Mueller kon vooral niet tot conclusies komen omdat hij niet in staat is om Trump als zittende president te veroordelen en te vervolgen. Dus het vervolg ligt bij het congres. Erdogan is ook voor vele zaken te veroordelen maar in functie van zittende president met een web om zich kunnen ze niet bij 'm.

"Oh God I am fucked" - Trump zou met zijn kennis vermoedelijk al willen terugtreden maar wetende dat hij als president-af meteen naar het beklaagdenbankje moet zal hij dit zo lang mogelijk willen uitstellen. Zie ook Assange die lang onaanraakbaar was maar recent alsnog is opgepakt.

quote:

It’s not in the Constitution. It’s not a law. It’s not even a regulation.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 23:23 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Mueller kan dat natuurlijk wel: https://thebulwark.com/th(...)s-surprisingly-weak/
[..]

Natuurlijk is het niet practisch voor relatief lichte vergrijpen. Maar hiet is niet zo dat Mueller het niet kon.

En dat I am fucked commentaar, dat is niet omdat hij schuldig is. Dat is omdat het zijn presidentschap overschaduwt, en het momentum van zijn verkiezing wegneemt. Deze hele Ruslandfarce heeft zijn presidentschap ondermijnd.

Maar het zou fijn zijn om te stoppen met de leugen dat Trump niet kon worden aangeklaagd. Het lijkt wel alsof de anti-Trump zijde zich steeds moet indekken. Het afzwakken van de beschuldigingen, de impeachmentkeutel intrekken, Mueller van held tot verrader verklaren. Barr die het loopjongetje van Trump is. Alles om maar het meest voor de hand liggende te ontkennen; Trump is onschuldig.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 23:28 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

En jij weet dit zo zeker, omdat?

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 23:34 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Ten eerste omdat het logisch is. Ten tweede omdat de onderzoeksresultaten de anti-Trump lezing niet ondersteunen.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 23:34 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Ten eerste omdat het logisch is. Ten tweede omdat de onderzoeksresultaten de anti-Trump lezing niet ondersteunen.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 23:38 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

En hoe is dit in hemelsnaam enig bewijs?

quote:

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 23:40 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Occam's razor.