[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #631 Tantrumtime again and again

quote:

Op donderdag 6 juni 2019 16:59 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

Fahrenthold twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 15:54:35 NEW: We got leaked documents detailing 1,200+ different stays at @:realDonaldTrump's hotel. Here's the guest who stayed the longest: a sheikh who wants to be president of Iraq, and who wants the U.S. to strike Iran.He spent 26 nights in a suite.https://t.co/d4qF2xTE8t reageer retweet

twitter:

Fahrenthold twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 16:18:21 His story parallels @:TMobile's extensive use of @:realDonaldTrump's hotel:1. Both asked for something big from Trump's admin2. After they asked, both became big-time customers of Trump's hotel.3. Both say #2 has nothing to do with #1.https://t.co/6OwajJyOr9 https://t.co/l0r5jn603A reageer retweet

twitter:

Fahrenthold twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 16:21:39 In fact, three different @:TMobile execs, including CEO @:JohnLegere, came and went at the Trump hotel during the sheikh's 26-night stay. T-Mobile says it spent $195K at Trump's hotel in the months after it announced a merger needing Trump admin approval.https://t.co/fRJrJAtiCd https://t.co/tZhLFY3tHW reageer retweet

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 17:12:26 BREAKING: Michael FLYNN has fired his counsel and is retaining a new lawyer ahead of his sentencing. https://t.co/T5kqfassDX reageer retweet

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 14:34:27 Compromise solution that all should consider by @tribelaw“House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict”— not necessarily refer to Senate for trial and removal— more fitting than censure resolutionhttps://t.co/fTODnF23uV reageer retweet

quote:

It is possible to argue that impeaching President Trump and removing him from office before the 2020 election would be unwise, even if he did cheat his way into office, and even if he is abusing the powers of that office to enrich himself, cover up his crimes and leave our national security vulnerable to repeated foreign attacks. Those who make this argument rest their case either on the proposition that impeachment would be dangerously divisive in a nation as politically broken as ours, or on the notion that it would be undemocratic to get rid of a president whose flaws were obvious before he was elected.

Rightly or wrongly — I think rightly — much of the House Democratic caucus, at least one Republican member of that chamber (Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan) and more than a third of the nation’s voters disagree. They treat the impeachment power as a vital constitutional safeguard against a potentially dangerous and fundamentally tyrannical president and view it as a power that would be all but ripped out of the Constitution if it were deemed unavailable against even this president.

That is my view, as well.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 18:10:16 House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal on Trump's proposed tariffs on Mexico: "If the President does declare a national emergency and attempt to put these tariffs into place, I will introduce a resolution of disapproval to stop his overreach." reageer retweet

quote:

President Trump plans to address the nation from the Lincoln Memorial on July 4 as part of an overhauled Independence Day celebration that would bring a host of new security and logistical challenges, D.C. officials and the U.S. Park Police said Wednesday.

The president had floated the idea of speaking at the nationally televised event, but his participation had not been confirmed. His appearance could reshape a decades-old, nonpartisan celebration that annually draws hundreds of thousands of visitors to the city’s monumental core.

U.S. Park Police spokesman Sgt. Eduardo Delgado confirmed that Trump plans to speak at the memorial. He said the agency was working with the White House to determine how the president’s movements would affect security surrounding the speech, and was awaiting details from the U.S. Secret Service about timing and duration of the speech.

“It’s still kind of an evolving event,” Delgado said.

National Park Service spokesman Mike Litterst declined to give details of the rebranded celebration, which Trump and White House officials are calling “A Salute to America.”

“The White House will make a statement,” Litterst said. “We continue to work with the White House on creating a Salute to America program that will bring Americans from all over the country together in [a] celebration of our great nation.”

A White House official could not immediately confirm the president’s plans.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op donderdag 6 juni 2019 12:39 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Diskwalificerende uitspraken kennen natuurlijk verschillende gradaties. Neem nou zijn gezwam over de Noord-Ierse grens. Dat hij de benodigde dossierkennis ontbeert, is tot daar aan toe. Maar houd dan gewoon je bek dicht als je over het onderwerp wordt bevraagd. Of lees je in voordat je ergens heen reist.

Maar dit is de zoveelste keer dat Trump blijk geeft van een stuitend gebrek aan kennis. Het is duidelijk dat hij weigert zich te (laten) informeren.

Nogmaals, sommigen vinden dat blijkbaar een prima eigenschap. Ik sta daar persoonlijk iets anders in. Ik heb dan ook aan afkeer van mensen die te koop lopen met hun domheid.

quote:

Op donderdag 6 juni 2019 13:51 schreef archito het volgende:

[..]

Dit is wel een van de onderliggende redenen waarom discussies op dit forum zich blijven herhalen. Argumenteren met bronnen werkt niet want men accepteert elkaars bronnen niet en mensen hebben zo'n verschillend beeld van wat Trump werkelijk is dat ook daar niet over valt te praten.

Ik kan me bijvoorbeeld niet voorstellen dat iemand echt gelooft dat Trump niet meer liegt dan elke andere president en dat hij deskundig en authentiek is. Die belevingswereld is zo verschillend dat praten eigenlijk al bijna zinloos is, los van wie er dichter bij de waarheid zit.

quote:

Op donderdag 6 juni 2019 16:23 schreef Roamnroll het volgende:

[..]

“Inhouden” is zelfs nog een understatement te noemen. Bovendien verlagen ze zich niet tot het deplorabel scheld-niveau dat Donald zelf wel maar al te vaak tentoonspreidt.
Ik kan overigens maar moeilijk vatten dat jij, die niet gespeend lijkt van een gezonde dosis (verbale) intelligentie, het niet uiterst verwerpelijk vindt dat uitgerekend de POTUS, of all people, als een lagere-school-bully kwistig in het rond strooit met kinderachtige bijnamen & beledigingen.
Een mens zou nog haast gaan vermoeden dat je een bepaalde agenda hebt.

Er is dan ook een heel simpele reden waarom Donald zoveel weerzin & weerstand oproept: Hij grossiert namelijk in bijzonder betreurenswaardig laakbaar & non-presidentieel, soms zelfs ronduit kleuterachtig, gedrag.

quote:

Op donderdag 6 juni 2019 18:44 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:

[..]

Het heeft wel iets. Het "how hard can it be?"-gehalte van een gebrek aan kennis.
[..]

quote:

Misschien vind ik Trump gewoon makkelijker te pruimen omdat ik alles niet zo serieus neem. Wellicht is het zo simpel

quote:

Op donderdag 6 juni 2019 18:44 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:
Zelf vind ik zijn bijnaampjes zowel grappig als triest. Het beste wat je kan doen is er gewoon geen waarde aan hechten. Maar daar zit het probleem bij hen die professioneel verontwaardigd zijn. "Let it go" kennen ze niet. En wat doe je als je critici zo makkelijk op zijn te naaien? Juist!

twitter:

joshscampbell twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 22:57:38 NEW: Voicemail of Trump's lawyer calling Mike Flynn's attorney for a "heads up" on the Mueller case. He says if Flynn "implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue..."A reminder as we wait to hear from Mueller, audio and visuals are always more powerful. https://t.co/VG1PHVeqJs reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op vrijdag 07-06-2019 om 02:10:21 It’s sentences like this in the NYT that should make people go back and read @walterdellinger’s recent Op-ed.NYT: “Democrats insist they need the information from Mr. Barr ... to weigh whether impeachment is warranted.”Dellinger Op-ed👇https://t.co/Qw1nbxkwEA 1/2 reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op vrijdag 07-06-2019 om 02:10:21 “My concern is that the House’s focus on process — such as requesting redacted material — constitutes a strong, implicit suggestion that what we have seen from Mueller is not enough to assess the president. That is just false.”- Walter Dellinger reageer retweet

quote:

My concern is that the House's focus on process -- such as requesting redacted material -- constitutes a strong, implicit suggestion that what we have seen from Mueller is not enough to assess the president. That is just false. The report lays out in detail specific acts of obstruction by the president, as well as the extensive evidence that backs up those claims. More than 900 former federal prosecutors (including Republicans and Democrats) have publicly declared that, if anyone else had committed those same acts, they would be under indictment.

What will we say in the event the remaining 7 percent of text adds little or nothing to the overwhelming case of presidential wrongdoing already made out by the report? By not having begun impeachment proceedings or taken other strong action, Democrats may have conceded the debate over the Mueller report's conclusion. Democrats are fighting on process grounds where the White House has some plausible arguments and where winning may add little or nothing to what we already know.

The burden, the House should assert, is now clearly on the president to show (if he can) where the report is inaccurate and why it is not the basis for severe condemnation and sanction of the president.

I'm not one to second-guess Nancy Pelosi. She is the greatest majority leader of the House of Representatives in my lifetime. I could be convinced that an impeachment inquiry has its own time for ripening. Or that in the end some form of censure is the better disposition in light of intransigent Republican control of the Senate.

All I am saying is that every day we should have been shouting from the rooftops: "The president is failing to defend democracy from attack"; "The president's campaign welcomed and encouraged Russia's efforts to change our election results"; "The president obstructed justice"; and "The president daily undermined the rule of law." But we have instead been whispering in the hallways of Congress that "we need to see the redactions." That emphasis is a mistake that needs to be (and hopefully can be) rectified.

NYT

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 15:30:13 WaPo confirms Politico: Nadler has been asking Pelosi to let him launch an impeachment inquiry for weeks. But Pelosi suggested she wants Trump to face charges after leaving office rather than to be impeached by the House when the Senate would acquit him. https://t.co/6kFXdU0Ti4 reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juni 2019 03:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 15:30:13 WaPo confirms Politico: Nadler has been asking Pelosi to let him launch an impeachment inquiry for weeks. But Pelosi suggested she wants Trump to face charges after leaving office rather than to be impeached by the House when the Senate would acquit him. https://t.co/6kFXdU0Ti4 reageer retweet

Dat snap ik niet helemaal. Ook na een impeachment kun je Trump in de boeien slaan.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juni 2019 03:59 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Trump zal niet-impeachen ook claimen als een overwinning. Dan kan hij blijven beweren dat er helemaal niks aan de hand was. Wat daar nou het voordeel van is voor de democraten? Ik zie het niet.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 17:00:25 Members of the military deployed near the border have been assigned to spend a month painting a mile-long stretch of barriers to improve their "aesthetic appearance," CBS News reports.Rep. Joaquin Castro: "These are soldiers, they are not painters."https://t.co/Wp7h9KslOt reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juni 2019 04:07 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 17:00:25 Members of the military deployed near the border have been assigned to spend a month painting a mile-long stretch of barriers to improve their "aesthetic appearance," CBS News reports.Rep. Joaquin Castro: "These are soldiers, they are not painters."https://t.co/Wp7h9KslOt reageer retweet

National Emergency!

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juni 2019 04:05 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb mijn vorige post nog ge-edit. Stel nou dat de publieke opinie door de impeachment-verhoren drastisch verandert en daardoor de Senaat hem afzet/ Trump aftreedt?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juni 2019 04:12 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

De kans dat zijn approvalrating onder de 20% duikt na hearings lijkt me groot. En daarmee sla je de hele GOP stuk.
Er is niks mis met geduld, maar impeachmenthearings uitsluiten is gewoon stom.

twitter:

ndrew_lawrence twitterde op vrijdag 07-06-2019 om 03:33:27 Sean Hannity actually just said this about Pelosi thinking Trump should be locked up: "She wants a political opponent locked up, in prison? That happens in Banana Republics. Beyond despicable behavior" https://t.co/b14ASWIB0i reageer retweet

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 20:00:16 NEWS: The House is preparing to grant sweeping authority to all committees to sue the Trump administration and Mueller witnesses who refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas. The text of a resolution authorizing the move was revealed Thursday: https://t.co/Mgf0gBCEQi reageer retweet

quote:

House Democratic leaders are preparing to grant sweeping authority to committee chairs to sue the Trump administration over its refusal to comply with congressional demands for information — from President Donald Trump's tax returns to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s underlying files.

The draft resolution, which the House will consider on Tuesday, formally holds Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn in contempt of Congress for defying House Judiciary Committee subpoenas seeking Mueller’s unredacted report, its underlying evidence, and additional witness testimony.

But the most dramatic proposal will empower the chairs of all House committees to initiate legal action each time a witness or administration official defies a committee subpoena, a move to streamline and speed up the House’s ability to respond to a mounting list of confrontations with the White House.

Under the proposal, committee chairs seeking to enforce its subpoenas in federal court would still be required to obtain the approval of a bipartisan — but Democrat-controlled — panel of House leaders that includes Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise.

The resolution can also apply to subpoenas that have not yet been issued. Committee leaders will have the authority to enforce those subpoenas without requiring the full House to vote on each one. Democrats emphasize that the reason for the wholesale change is to prevent contempt citations from dominating House's limited floor time.

“There’s a concern that there could be a lot of floor time eaten up if we handle these one at a time," said a Democratic congressional aide. “We are carefully prioritizing the fights we choose to elevate to this level.”

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op donderdag 06-06-2019 om 21:33:37 From newly released 302: “During the call, KISLYAK asked FLYNN to set-up a [video teleconference] between President-elect Trump and Russian President PUTIN on January 21st.” https://t.co/MI2eJV3Xk9 https://t.co/64KtRB8J9t reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op vrijdag 07-06-2019 om 04:20:31 The Justice and Commerce departments have rejected House Democratic demands for more documents on the 2020 census citizenship question.That should now lead to contempt citations for A.G. Barr and Commerce Secretary Ross. https://t.co/g28e5IOsRS reageer retweet

quote:

The committee has been investigating the decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, with lawmakers accusing the Trump administration -- Ross in particular -- of lying about its origins.

New evidence emerged last week that the administration allegedly "concealed" the role of now-deceased Republican gerrymandering expert Thomas Hofeller, who believed that adding a citizenship question to the census would boost Republicans in future elections.