[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #691 Guiliani under the Bus?

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 17:53 schreef LelijKnap het volgende:

[..]

Er zijn er die hem prefereren boven anderen kandidaten, omdat die geen oorlog in Syrië willen.

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 18:04 schreef LelijKnap het volgende:

[..]

Welke video's?

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 18:32 schreef Floris_Stempel het volgende:
Vandaag weer een nieuwe poll dat Trump het prima doet bij niet-blanken.

Hillary verloor de verkiezing met 88% van de zwarten achter zich...niet meer dan 12% voor Trump dus, in 2016. Trump lijkt, na de drie polls, nu zo'n 30% achter zich te krijgen. Toch bijzonder, aangezien het zo'n racist is.

http://maristpoll.marist.(...)911181224.pdf#page=3

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 18:43 schreef Xa1pt het volgende:

[..]

Ah, dus iemand kan pas als racist worden aangemerkt als er geen donkere mensen op diegene stemmen.

Bijzondere redenering.

Interessant leesvoer:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 18:48 schreef Floris_Stempel het volgende:

[..]

Ohnee, dat bedoel ik niet. 'k Bedoel meer dat ie wel wat goeds moet doen voor de gekleurden om zo'n enorme steun te krijgen. Vooral in vergelijk met 2016.

edit:
puff, da's best een lap leesvoer...maar 'k ga het wel even doornemen

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 18:58 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

"Gekleurden" zijn geen homogene groep natuurlijk.

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 19:03 schreef Floris_Stempel het volgende:

[..]

klopt, zitten ook Latino's tussen, die geven aan dat 1 op de 4 op Trump zullen stemmen. Voor een Rep. niet verkeerd.

Toch zaten de overige twee polls (Rasmussen en Emerson U), met alleen zwarten, op eenzelfde percentage.

Vind ik toch bijzonder.

twitter:

JillWineBanks twitterde op maandag 02-12-2019 om 02:56:23 Finally, Trump got the TIME cover he coveted and deserves. https://t.co/Zsxo67VZ9S reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 02-12-2019 om 19:05:03 Sen. King on Mulvaney, Pompeo, et al. not testifying: "Because it would be so easy for these people to clear the president, it's hard to escape the conclusion that their silence is ... about not wanting to testify under oath as to what actually happened." https://t.co/bhxh5cAi7w reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 18:08 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Iemand brengt video's naar dit forum over hoe creepy Biden zou zijn, vervolgens kom jij hem verdedigen en een paar posts later stel je dat sommige hem toch prefereren ivm met oorlog in Syrië. En daarom kom je blijkbaar even benadrukken dat hij creepy is...

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 19:32 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
@:heywoodu check submit

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 20:58 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]



Bij Mulvaney en Pompeo nog even duidelijk gemaakt dat ze die kans niet van de Democraten niet krijgen (anders zie ik de bui al hangen), maar van het Witte Huis

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 21:01 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Goed detail inderdaad. Ik zou ik niet verwachten dat een bericht zomaar zonder editeur op de FP verschijnt .

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 21:02 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Wat denk je wel niet van me, ik lees het wel door

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 19:13 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op maandag 02-12-2019 om 19:05:03 Sen. King on Mulvaney, Pompeo, et al. not testifying: "Because it would be so easy for these people to clear the president, it's hard to escape the conclusion that their silence is ... about not wanting to testify under oath as to what actually happened." https://t.co/bhxh5cAi7w reageer retweet

[ afbeelding ]

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op maandag 02-12-2019 om 22:32:55 House Judiciary Committee announces four witness for Weds 10 a.m. ET Impeachment Hearing:1. @NoahRFeldman (@Harvard_Law)2. @MichaelGerhard8 (@unc_law)3. Pamela Karlan (@StanfordLaw)4. @JonathanTurley (@gwlaw) reageer retweet

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op maandag 02-12-2019 om 22:43:20 NEW: The GOP-controlled Senate Intel Committee investigated & cleared Ukraine of an election interference campaign in 2016. Testimony from Ali Chalupa was useless, sources said, & Republicans didn’t follow up/request more witnesses related to the issue. https://t.co/jlEdc8tCYf reageer retweet

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op maandag 02-12-2019 om 22:46:30 Sen. Angus King said that as a member of the Senate Intel Committee, he's “probably been to between 20-30 briefings and hearings on the subject of election interference in 2016, and I have never heard one word about any culpability on the part of Ukraine.” https://t.co/jlEdc8tCYf reageer retweet

quote:

With the impeachment inquiry charging forward, President Donald Trump’s allies have defended his demand for political investigations from Ukraine by claiming that the government in Kyiv tried to sabotage his candidacy and boost Hillary Clinton in 2016.

“Russia was very aggressive and they're much more sophisticated, but the fact that Russia was so aggressive does not exclude the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Clinton,” Republican Sen. John Kennedy claimed on Sunday in an interview with NBC, referring to the former Ukrainian president.

But the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee thoroughly investigated that theory, according to people with direct knowledge of the inquiry, and found no evidence that Ukraine waged a top-down interference campaign akin to the Kremlin’s efforts to help Trump win in 2016.

The committee’s Republican chairman, Richard Burr of North Carolina, said in October 2017 that the panel would be examining “collusion by either campaign during the 2016 elections."

But an interview that fall with the Democratic consultant at the heart of the accusation that Kyiv meddled, Alexandra Chalupa, was fruitless, a committee source said, and Republicans didn’t follow up or request any more witnesses related to the issue.

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:

ThePlumLineGS twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 00:32:46 Adding to @NatashaBertrand's reporting here: I'm told the report on the collusion stuff (which will find the Ukraine 2016 theory is nonsense) is just beginning to be written. So it's time to pressure Senate Intel Rs to come clean on what the probe found: https://t.co/xwJdU50gdR https://t.co/afsxzKeypL reageer retweet

twitter:

joshgerstein twitterde op maandag 02-12-2019 om 23:22:17 BREAKING: Judge denies Trump admin request to stay order requiring McGahn to appear for testimony. Also flays DOJ, calling its arguments 'disingenuous' & 'unacceptable mischaracterization'. Doc: https://t.co/gCQs18Ivq6 reageer retweet

twitter:

neal_katyal twitterde op maandag 02-12-2019 om 23:35:29 This is remarkable language for any Judge to say about a DOJ brief, particularly from a judge as well respected as Judge Jackson. Says volumes about what has happened to this justice department under Trump. https://t.co/UoHpZmNs1R reageer retweet

quote:

The federal judge in Washington who ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to comply with a congressional subpoena will not put that ruling on hold while it's appealed.

U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson denied Monday the administration's request for a stay. The administration has already asked an appeals court to put on hold her order from last week that McGahn testify. The appeals court has put the ruling on an administrative hold, and has scheduled briefing and oral arguments on the merits of the appeal.

On Monday, the judge said that the Justice Department could not "make a persuasive showing of irreparable harm in the absence of a colorable argument that McGahn's mere appearance before the Judiciary Committee would, in and of itself, be harmful."

She also brought up the House Judiciary Committee's emphasis, in opposing the stay request, on the possibility that McGahn could testify for the ongoing impeachment proceedings.

"[T]the Judiciary Committee would almost certainly lose the chance to question McGahn as part of the present impeachment inquiry if a stay order issues, which would unquestionably harm the ongoing investigation that the Judiciary Committee is conducting, and by extension, would also injure the public's interest in thorough and well-informed impeachment proceedings," she said.

The underlying lawsuit was filed in August, after McGahn blew off requests for his testimony dating back from last spring. The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the former White House counsel as part of its investigation into Trump for obstruction of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.

The Trump administration claimed that McGahn, as a former top advisor to the President, had absolute immunity that allowed the President to direct him to not show up for the compelled testimony.

Judge Jackson said last week that the President could not issue such a directive.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that the administrative stay would last "pending further order of" the appeals court. It has scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 3.

Read Judge Jackson's opinion denying the stay request below:

[..]

quote:

House Republicans have released a report detailing their conclusions from the initial stages of the impeachment investigation, issuing a staunch defense of President Trump's dealings with Ukraine and accusing Democrats of conducting "an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system."

The 110-page report, written by Republican staffers on the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees and obtained earlier Monday by CBS News, is meant to supplement the Democrats' report on their findings. Both reports will ultimately be sent to the Judiciary Committee, which is set to begin holding its own hearings this week.

The Republicans' report argues that the evidence collected over nearly two months of private and public testimony does not support the allegations at the center of the impeachment inquiry, which they portray as an attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 campaign.

"The Democrats' impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system," it says. "The Democrats are trying to impeach a duly elected President based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump's policy initiatives and processes."

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 dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 01:15:43 Schiff: "The Minority's rebuttal document ... ignores voluminous evidence that the president used the power of his office to pressure Ukraine ... the Minority dismisses this as just part of the President's 'outside the beltway' thinking. It is more accurately, outside the law." reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 01:40:05 A reminder regarding the new WaPo report: "The inspector general operates independently of Justice Department leadership, so Barr cannot order Horowitz to change his findings." https://t.co/VAH27e9Ypc reageer retweet

quote:

Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department’s inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report — that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, is due to release his long-awaited findings in a week, but behind the scenes at the Justice Department, disagreement has surfaced about one of Horowitz’s central conclusions on the origins of the Russia investigation. The discord could be the prelude to a major fissure within federal law enforcement on the controversial question of investigating a presidential campaign.

Barr has not been swayed by Horowitz’s rationale for concluding the FBI had sufficient basis to open an investigation on July 31, 2016, these people said.

Barr’s public defenses of President Trump, including his assertion that intelligence agents spied on the Trump campaign, have led Democrats to accuse him of acting like the president’s personal attorney and eroding the independence of the Justice Department. But Trump and his Republican allies have cheered Barr’s skepticism of the Russia investigation.

It’s not yet clear how Barr plans to make his objection to Horowitz’s conclusion known. The inspector general report, currently in draft form, is being finalized after input from various witnesses and offices that were scrutinized by the inspector general. Barr or a senior Justice Department official could submit a formal letter as part of that process, which would then be included in the final report. It is standard practice for every inspector general report to include a written response from the department. Barr could forgo a written rebuttal on that specific point and just publicly state his concerns.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department, the inspector general and the FBI all declined to comment.

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 dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 03:45:31 Chairman Schiff tells @maddow that the Intelligence Committee will release the impeachment report tomorrow to the public. reageer retweet

twitter:

atrupar twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 03:41:56 REP. RANDY WEBER (R): Is CrowdStrike in part owned by a Ukrainian?CHRIS CUOMO: No!WEBER: ... ... really?CUOMO: Yes!WEBER: That's not the information that we have.CUOMO: You have bad information! https://t.co/byfAq1eXov reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 04:25:01 Absolutely shameful—Representative Randy Weber @TXRandy14)—repeating outright falsehood that’s a Russian propaganda talking point.Like Senator Kennedy, Weber needs to do an about face—“I was wrong”—after this disastrous interview with @ChrisCuomo. https://t.co/Io5X8xs9pM reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 04:31:15 Rep. Weber, surely you can attempt a defense of the President that doesn’t involve advancing Russian disinformation.Even Giuliani backed away from Crowdstrike conspiracy after confronted with President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor calling it utterly bogus on ABC. reageer retweet

quote:

As the self-proclaimed embodiment of the American popular will, the demagogue portrays impeachment deliberations as necessarily a threat to democracy, a facade for powerful interests arrayed against the people that only he represents. Critics and congressional opponents are traitors. Norms and standing institutional interests are fraudulent.

President Trump has made full use of the demagogic playbook. He has refused all cooperation with the House. He lies repeatedly about the facts, holds public rallies to spread these falsehoods and attacks the credibility, motives and even patriotism of witnesses. His mode of “argument” is purely assaultive. This is the crux of the Trump defense, and not an argument built on facts in support of a constitutional theory of the case.

Uit: Trump Is the Founders’ Worst Nightmare

quote:

President Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, told federal investigators that a lawyer from Trump’s legal team encouraged him to hold back details from Congress in 2017 about “more communications with Russia” on the Trump Tower Moscow project, including correspondence with a “woman from the Kremlin,” according to newly released documents from the Mueller investigation.

In summaries of interviews conducted during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and obtained by BuzzFeed News, Cohen said he spoke to Jay Sekulow on Aug. 27, 2017—one day before he turned over a letter to Congress that said the Trump Tower Moscow deal came to an end shortly before Trump ran in the Republican presidential primaries.

Cohen, who is currently serving a three-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to lying to Congress, has previously claimed Sekulow urged him to tell lawmakers Trump Tower Moscow negotiations ended months earlier than they actually had, and that Sekulow had edited his written testimony to Congress when he and Trump were under a joint-defense agreement in the Mueller probe. Sekulow has denied the claims.

According to the newly released transcripts, Cohen said Sekulow more or less shut him down when he offered more information on contacts with Russia regarding Trump Tower Moscow.

“Cohen said there were more communications with Russia and more communications with Trump than were reflected” in the written testimony to lawmakers, according to the memo. He said he specifically recalled telling Trump he had spoken to a “woman from the Kremlin who asked specific and great questions about Trump Tower Moscow.” He also said he told Trump that he was “waiting to hear back from them.”

Sekulow responded that it was “not necessary to elaborate or include those details because the transaction did not take place,” the memo reads. Sekulow kept pushing him, according to Cohen, urging him to “stay on message and not over elaborate.” He also told him he would be “protected” if he didn't go “rogue.”

Sekulow is also said to have told Cohen that it was “time to move on” and to avoid contradicting the president.

“Sekulow told Cohen ‘his client,’ referring to Trump, wanted Cohen to cooperate and appreciated him,” the memo states.

Cohen also told investigators he inquired with Sekulow about pardons after the FBI raided his home and office. He said he been “a loyal lawyer and servant” who was “all of the sudden subject to search and seizure,” and wanted to know “what was in it for him.”

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 05:24 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

PostRoz twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 03:06:27 Democrats quietly debate expanding impeachment articles beyond Ukraine Via @:rachaelmbade https://t.co/OjsbZRM1sS reageer retweet

Goed, lijkt me geen overbodige luxe. Mueller/Rusland en de corruptie en zelfverrijking mogen wat mij betreft ook wel worden genoemd.

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 09:59 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Dat zouden ze kunnen doen, maar dan jaag je misschien wel de helft van de republikeinen tegen je in het harnas die niet meer geconfronteerd willen worden met het Mueller onderzoek.

twitter:

blakesmustache twitterde op dinsdag 27-08-2019 om 15:15:18 Thread: House Democrats have a strategy for removing Trump from office. Not only is it a good strategy, it’s the very best strategy available in terms of both substance and timing. This thread will explain what the House is doing and why. Please read on and retweet. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 10:34 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

[..]

Wat hij allemaal boven tafel bracht kan je heel helder uitgelegd beluisteren op https://www.lawfareblog.com/tagged/report-podcast

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 10:46 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Jammer dat ze geen transcripts van de podcasts geven...

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 dinsdag 3 december 2019 11:12 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Dat kan allemaal wel zijn, maar hoe gaat dit het stemgedrag bepalen bij de republikeinen als er moet worden beslist over een eventuele afzetting? Misschien gaan ze hun mening laten beïnvloeden omdat het Barr report van afgelopen zomer dat ook deed, en simpelweg de feiten negeren.

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 11:12 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Dat kan allemaal wel zijn, maar hoe gaat dit het stemgedrag bepalen bij de republikeinen als er moet worden beslist over een eventuele afzetting? Misschien gaan ze hun mening laten beïnvloeden omdat het Barr report van afgelopen zomer dat ook deed, en simpelweg de feiten negeren.

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 11:27 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Blijkbaar ging de leider - op papier - helemaal los in de pressco van 52 minuten, terwijl nato-overleg nog moet beginnen. Londen.
CNN ontploft met verontwaardiging.

En als een Rep.senator al zó nitwit reageert op de opmerkingen van Cuomo in een interview...hoe moet de stemmer dan weten hóe het zit.
Voorgelogen en bedrogen.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 16:35:35 Breaking via CNBC: A federal appeals court has ruled that Deutsche Bank and Capital One can hand over years of Trump's financial records in compliance with House Democrats' subpoenas. https://t.co/teihyFYRJv reageer retweet

quote:

KEY POINTS

• A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Deutsche Bank and Capital One can hand over years of President Donald Trump’s financial records in compliance with House Democrats’ subpoenas.

• The ruling offers another loss in the courts for Trump, who has fought attempts to obtain his financial records through multiple lawsuits.

• The case is likely destined for the Supreme Court, where the president has already appealed two other lower court decisions requiring the disclosure of his financial records.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 16:05:03 A former Ukraine official says the country knew of the U.S. military aid freeze during the Trump admin's pressure campaign."We had this information," Olena Zerkal said in an interview with NYT. "It was definitely mentioned there were some issues."https://t.co/hdJ1OGvBrA reageer retweet

quote:

As deputy foreign minister, it was Olena Zerkal’s job to read incoming diplomatic cables from embassies around the world. One from Washington caught her eye back in July, she recalled: It said the Trump administration had frozen military aid for Ukraine.

“We had this information,” Ms. Zerkal said in an interview. “It was definitely mentioned there were some issues.”

The timing of when Ukraine knew of the hold on the military aid is a critical question in the impeachment hearings in Congress. Democrats are trying to build a case that President Trump pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky by withholding the aid and a White House meeting — at the same time he was pressing for a public announcement that Ukraine would investigate his political rivals.

Mr. Trump and his allies have also made the timing issue part of his defense. How could Ukrainian officials feel the pressure of the aid freeze, they ask, if they did not know about it when the White House was pushing them to investigate Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., one of Mr. Trump’s biggest challengers in the 2020 American presidential election?

“They didn’t even know the money wasn’t paid,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter last month.

Ms. Zerkal’s account is the first public acknowledgment by a Ukrainian official that senior figures in Kyiv knew about the aid freeze during the Trump administration’s pressure campaign — and that the Zelensky administration sought to keep that fact from surfacing to avoid getting drawn into the American impeachment debate.

She said her own government blocked a trip she had planned to Washington to meet members of Congress in October, worried she would discuss matters related to impeachment and drag its president into an inquiry he has been eager to avoid.

“They worried about this,” she said of Mr. Zelensky’s advisers. “They said, ‘This is not the time for you to travel to D.C.’” The cancellation of her trip was confirmed by Congressional aides.

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:

MSNBC twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 16:19:31 President Trump and President Macron trade barbs over handling of foreign ISIS fighters:“Would you like some nice ISIS fighters? I can give them to you. You can take every one you want.” https://t.co/n7ICITIozD reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 17:07 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

revrrlewis twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 13:03:46 President Donald Trump: "I had legal scholars looking at the transcripts the other day and they said 'these are absolutely perfect, Trump is right when he uses the word'" https://t.co/hQHJErl3oD reageer retweet

En wie waren dat en mag men ze ondervragen?

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 17:27 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Als legal scholars iets zeggen als "these are absolutely perfect" kun je er redelijk vanuit gaan dat ze bedoelen dat schimmige zaken perfect geformuleerd zijn om er mee weg te komen. Als ze dat überhaupt gezegd hebben natuurlijk.

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 17:36 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

"Legal scholars" formuleren sowieso niet op het niveau van een 8-jarige.

quote:

Op maandag 2 december 2019 19:08 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Zoals ik volgens mij hier al eerder heb uitgelegd moet je aan dat soort subgroepanalyses bij beperkte sample sizes geen waarde hechten. Bij de afgelopen verkiezingen was met uitzondering van de zwarte kiezer de steun onder "niet blanken sowieso al rond de 25-30%:
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016

Is dat uitzonderlijk voor een republikein? Nee hoor, Romney deed het in 2012 vergelijkbaar en die had een aanzienlijk populairdere tegenkandidaat:
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2012

Sterker nog, de laatste Republikeinse president voor Trump deed het nog aanzienlijk beter onder minderheden:
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2004

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 17:07 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

revrrlewis twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 13:03:46 President Donald Trump: "I had legal scholars looking at the transcripts the other day and they said 'these are absolutely perfect, Trump is right when he uses the word'" https://t.co/hQHJErl3oD reageer retweet

En wie waren dat en mag men ze ondervragen?

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 17:36 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

"Legal scholars" formuleren sowieso niet op het niveau van een 8-jarige.

quote:

Macron Uses Toddler Reverse Psychology Trick to Fool Trump Into Supporting NATO

(..)

Amusingly, what seems to have worked instead is Emmanuel Macron’s completely different ploy. The French president gave an interview last month decrying the “brain death” of NATO, which he said had failed to account for America’s shrinking commitment under Trump.

Trump himself has called NATO “obsolete,” openly questioned whether the U.S. would come to the defense of allies under attack (the very foundation of the alliance), and privately told aides on several occasions last year he wants to withdraw from the alliance. But the notion that somebody else would question NATO, and blame its demise on Trump, has enraged him.

And now Trump is lashing out at Macron. “NATO serves a great purpose,” he declared today. “And I hear that President Macron said NATO is ‘brain dead.’ I think that’s very insulting to a lot of different forces … When you make a statement like that, that is a very, very nasty statement to 28 — including them — 28 countries.”

Manipulating children into doing what you want by pretending to demand they do the opposite thing is a trick most parents learn to use. It usually stops working around the age of 5.

http://nymag.com/intellig(...)tter_impression=true

twitter:

CNBCnow twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 19:10:08 BREAKING: Kamala Harris drops out of presidential race after plummeting from top tier of Democratic candidateshttps://t.co/NLBrpVq6zY reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 19:11 schreef Houtenbeen het volgende:

twitter:

CNBCnow twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 19:10:08 BREAKING: Kamala Harris drops out of presidential race after plummeting from top tier of Democratic candidateshttps://t.co/NLBrpVq6zY reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 19:22 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Benieuwd waar haar achterban naartoe gaat.

quote:

Exclusive: White House considered kicking Huawei out of U.S. banking system - sources

The Trump administration considered banning China’s Huawei from the U.S. financial system earlier this year as part of a host of policy options to thwart the blacklisted telecoms equipment giant, according to three people familiar with the matter.

The plan, which was ultimately shelved, called for placing Huawei Technologies Co Ltd [HWT.UL], the world’s second largest smartphone producer, on the Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list.

One of the people familiar with the matter, who favors the move, said it could be revived in the coming months depending on how things go with Huawei.

The plan was considered by the White House National Security Council, and seen by officials as a nuclear option atop a ladder of policy tools to sanction the company, two of the people said. Such a designation can make it virtually impossible for a company to complete transactions in U.S. dollars.

Administration officials drafted a memo and held interagency meetings on the issue, according to one of the people, showing the extent to which administration officials mulled deploying the United States’ most aggressive sanctioning tool against the Chinese company.

[..]

Annie Fixler, a cyber expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, said designating the company “would have broad, widespread implications for Huawei across the globe,” noting that its business would be “severely impacted” in Europe and in Asia outside of China.

The U.S. government has brought criminal charges against Huawei, alleging theft of trade secrets, bank fraud, violations of U.S. sanctions against Iran, and has sought to convince allies to ban it from 5G networks over spying fears.

But placing the company on the “SDN list” would mean a host of logistical, diplomatic and economic difficulties for the U.S. government.

The designation prohibits American companies or citizens from trading or conducting financial transactions with those listed and freezes assets held in the United States.

Adding Huawei would therefore hammer U.S. allies that already rely on the company for their 4G networks, since almost all dollar payments clear through U.S. financial institutions.

The Treasury could grant licenses to exempt U.S. banks involved in those transactions. But it has generally shied away from doing so, concerned that too many exemptions would blunt the strength of the tool, experts said.

Huawei’s sprawling size, with dozens of subsidiaries, would significantly complicate enforcement and carve-out efforts, experts said.

“The larger an entity is, the harder it is for a U.S. Administration to foresee and prepare for the major effects, foreign and domestic, that placing it on the SDN list may cause” said Matthew Tuchband, a former Treasury official who added that careful consideration is needed before designating a company the size of Huawei.

[..]

Nevertheless, some lawmakers still see designating Huawei as worth considering.

“Given Huawei’s relentless drive to dominate the 5G landscape, it is one of the most urgent national security threats facing the free world,” Republican Congressman Michael Gallagher said.

“All options should be on the table in order to impose maximum pressure,” he added.

twitter:

jaketapper twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 19:52:41 House Intel Committee has released its report:https://t.co/UtrIoDW5IX reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 21:07:45 Looks like Devin #Nunes is in deep, deep trouble.Comprehensive list of call records listed in #ImpeachmentReport Nunes/senior aide Derek Harvey callswithGiuliani and indicted Lev Parnas, who were engaged in disinformation campaign and Ukraine dirt on Bidens. https://t.co/n0bKgBnpIX 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 dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 21:16:01 Bingo"The call" (supposed Trump "no quid pro" call) took place on Sept 7 and was not a quid pro quo call whatsoever—but the call that sent Bolton, Morrison to report it directly to NSC lawyers because of the alarming quid pro quo conditions on military aid.#ImpeachmentReport https://t.co/f0yykPaTVF reageer retweet

twitter:

npfandos twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 21:15:20 @RepAdamSchiff Schiff on newly disclosed phone records included in the report: "The phone records show that there was considerable coordination among the parties, including the White House." reageer retweet

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 21:36:01 Giuliani says he passed on representing Lutsenko, but Toensing and diGenova didn't—A retainer agreement obtained by HPSCI stipulated that Toensing and diGenova would help Lutsenko “discuss with U.S. government officials the evidence of...interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.” https://t.co/thvMzA6ZIk reageer retweet

quote:

Rep. Devin Nunes on Tuesday filed a defamation suit against CNN for its Nov. 22 “demonstrably false hit piece” that said the California Republican traveled to Vienna in 2018 to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

“Devin Nunes did not go to Vienna or anywhere else in Austria in 2018,” declared the law suit seeking $435 million in damages. He said he visited two countries: Libya and Malta on what is called a “codel.” or congressional delegation.

The CNN story said Mr. Nunes supposedly met with former Ukraine chief prosecutor Vicktor Shokin.

“Devin Nunes has never met Viktor Shokin,” says the complaint lodged in U.S. District Court in Richmond. “This meeting never took place. Viktor Shokin doesn’t know and hasn’t even heard of Devin Nunes.”

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:

blakesmustache twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 23:03:30 Thread: Analysis of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Deutsche Bank DecisionBack in April, the House Intelligence Committee and Financial Services Committee each issued identical subpoenas to Deutsche Bank, asking for everything they have on Trump, his family, and businesses. reageer retweet

twitter:

blakesmustache twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 23:03:42 At the time the subpoenas were issued, the House was not yet in an impeachment inquiry, so both Financial Services and Intelligence has to demonstrate valid “legislative purposes” for the subpoenas. reageer retweet

twitter:

blakesmustache twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 23:03:43 Financial Services said it wanted Trump’s banking records because it believed Trump was a money launderer and its “legislative purpose” was to see whether it needed to consider enacting new laws to stop the kind of money laundering Trump engages in. reageer retweet

twitter:

blakesmustache twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 23:03:43 Intelligence said it wanted Trump’s banking records because it too believed Trump was a money launderer and said its “legislative purpose” was to determine whether Trump is hopelessly compromised by indebtedness to and money laundering for Russians and Saudis. reageer retweet

twitter:

blakesmustache twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 23:03:44 Trump sued to block the subpoenas in April and the District Court for SDNY ruled against Trump in May, finding that both Financial Services and House Intelligence had valid “legislative purposes” for issuing the subpoenas, and that the subpoenas were not too broad. reageer retweet

twitter:

blakesmustache twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 23:03:44 Today (12/3/19), the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the House, finding the committees had valid legislative purposes and the subpoenas were not overly broad, even though they cover Trump’s family members, because money laundering often is done through family members. reageer retweet

twitter:

blakesmustache twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 23:03:47 In any event, it now appears likely that both cases will be accelerated, with both being decided by no later than June and very likely being decided by March, or even this month if cert is denied.Trump’s house of cards is falling apart and I’m fucking here for it. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 23:06 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
Volgens de Washington Times heeft Nunes z'n aanklacht tegen CNN ingediend.
[..]

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.

https://www.washingtontim(...)on-defamation-lawsu/

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 23:06 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
Volgens de Washington Times heeft Nunes z'n aanklacht tegen CNN ingediend.
[..]

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.

https://www.washingtontim(...)on-defamation-lawsu/

twitter:

josephabondy twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 21:27:37 Devin Nunes, you should have recused yourself at the outset of the #HIC #ImpeachingHearings. #LetLevSpeak https://t.co/HeG8kFEDwl reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 december 2019 23:18 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
“It was obvious to everyone – including disgraceful CNN – that Parnas was a fraudster and a hustler,” the law suit says.

Toevallig dat vandaag uit het impeachment rapport bleek dat Nunes meermaals telefonisch gesproken heeft met Parnas op vrij verdachte momenten. Misschien dat hij dat even toe kan lichten.

twitter:

BobCusack twitterde op dinsdag 03-12-2019 om 20:36:07 The Hill is conducting a meticulous review of opinion columns written by John Solomon on the subject of Ukraine that will be handled by a team of editors and reporters. All results of the review will be transparent and public. reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 04-12-2019 om 00:50:17 Inbox: Tonight, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted to adopt and issue the report – "The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report." The vote passed 13 – 9. reageer retweet

quote:

Given the proximate threat of further presidential attempts to solicit foreign interference in our next election, we cannot wait to make a referral until our efforts to obtain additional testimony and documents wind their way through the courts. The evidence of the President’s misconduct is overwhelming, and so too is the evidence of his obstruction of Congress.

quote:

Op woensdag 4 december 2019 01:31 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Wat een stinkende beerput is dit zeg? En ik hoop dat Nunes gedaan is nu. Met z'n rechtszaken

quote:

Op woensdag 4 december 2019 01:43 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

In 2017 moest hij zich ook al terugtrekken uit het Rusland-onderzoek wegens het openbaar maken van geheime informatie

quote:

Op woensdag 4 december 2019 01:43 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

In 2017 moest hij zich ook al terugtrekken uit het Rusland-onderzoek wegens het openbaar maken van geheime informatie

quote:

Op woensdag 4 december 2019 01:49 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Hoewel hij daar later, door gebrek aan bewijs (omdat het Witte Huis zoals gewoonlijk niet meewerkte) wel weer van werd vrijgesproken door de Ethics Committee.

quote:

Op woensdag 4 december 2019 01:51 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Ja, dat wist ik nog. Ik was al verbaasd dat hij in deze commissie zat Maar ik ben dan ook niet echt op de hoogte van het proces om op dergelijke posities te komen, eerlijk gezegd

quote:

Op woensdag 4 december 2019 01:49 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Hoewel hij daar later, door gebrek aan bewijs (omdat het Witte Huis zoals gewoonlijk niet meewerkte) wel weer van werd vrijgesproken door de Ethics Committee.