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)

SPOILER: Hoe werkt een impeachment?

Van Arjen van der Horst (Nieuwsuur-correspondent).

Hoe werkt een impeachmentprocedure?

Een afzettingsprocedure kun je niet zomaar beginnen. Er moet sprake zijn van een serieuze schending van de wet. Artikel II van de Amerikaanse grondwet formuleert het zo:

“The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Het Congres fungeert bij een afzettingsprocedure als een soort rechtbank, waarbij het Huis van Afgevaardigden de rol van aanklager heeft en de Senaat de rol van rechtbankjury. Leden van het Congres kunnen een afzettingsprocedure initiëren, maar de aanzet kan in theorie ook van buiten het Congres komen.

De commissie-Justitiële Zaken van het Huis van Afgevaardigden (en in sommige gevallen ook de House Committee on Rules) buigt zich over het verzoek. Veel van het voorwerk en het onderzoek vindt in deze commissie plaats. Als de commissie oordeelt dat Trump de wet heeft overtreden, dan stellen ze de zogeheten Articles of Impeachment op. In wezen is dit de formulering van de aanklacht: wat heeft de president precies fout gedaan? De commissie stuurt een aanbeveling naar het hele Huis van Afgevaardigden.

De procedure bestaat vervolgens uit twee fases.
De eerste is de impeachment zelf. Het Huis van Afgevaardigden moet oordelen of de overtreding van de wet zwaar genoeg is voor afzetting van de president. Een simpele meerderheid voldoet. Nadat het Huis van Afgevaardigden voor impeachment heeft gestemd, selecteert het een aantal ‘managers’. Die fungeren als aanklagers die de zaak presenteren aan de Senaat.
Een impeachment is niet hetzelfde als een afzetting. Alleen de Senaat kan de president daadwerkelijk afzetten.

In de Senaat begint dan ook de tweede fase: trial. De opperrechter van het Supreme Court leidt deze procedure en de senatoren worden beëdigd als juryleden. Zij beslissen uiteindelijk of impeachment ook daadwerkelijk tot afzetting leidt. Voor afzetting is een tweederde meerderheid vereist. Als de Senaat voor afzetting stemt, dan moet de president onmiddellijk aftreden. De uitspraak is niet aanvechtbaar via de rechter. Wel kan de afgezette president in aanmerking komen voor strafrechtelijke vervolging.

In de Amerikaanse geschiedenis is nog nooit een presidentiële afzettingsprocedure met succes afgerond. Wel stemde een meerderheid van het Huis van Afgevaardigden twee keer voor een impeachment van een president (Andrew Johnson in 1868 en Bill Clinton in 1998). Het kwam in beide gevallen niet tot een daadwerkelijke afzetting, omdat er niet genoeg steun was in de Senaat. Tegen Nixon werden tijdens het Watergate-schandaal Articles of Impeachment opgesteld, maar het kwam niet tot een afzetting, omdat Nixon uit eigen beweging aftrad.

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 11:58 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
Je wilde gewoon de laatste post hebben om die TT te kunnen maken he?

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 11:59 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Nee, niet eens, ik zag pas terwijl ik aan het typen was dat ik de lapo had. Maar als het dan toch kan...

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 12:04 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:
Toen we gisteren onder het genot van een flesje wijn de impeachmentprocedure nog eens probeerden te doorgronden bedachten we trouwens dat, ook al wordt Trump niet afgezet en lijkt het hem ook in de verkiezingspolls nauwelijks te deren, het toch nog wel een voordeel heeft voor de democraten - dit beheerst de politiek dusdanig dat alle verdere achterlijkheid die Trump in wetten zou willen gieten, en het land schade toe kan brengen, naar de achtergrond is verdwenen.

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 12:44 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

De wijn was wat zuur begreep ik.

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 12:55 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Haha, nee. Het zorgde eerder voor een soort weemoedige verbazing dat een land waarvan je als kind dacht dat het het toppunt van democratie was, er zo'n verderfelijk systeem op nahoudt.

Dat momenteel overigens symptomatisch is voor zo'n beetje de hele westerse wereld. Vroeger wilde politiek nog wel eens gaan over wat nu het beste was voor het land. Tegenwoordig lijkt het hoogte politieke doel alleen nog 'winnen van die ander' te zijn. Iets wat Donald Trump tot een kunst verheven heeft.

twitter:

SpeakerPelosi twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 14:32:02 The House cannot choose our impeachment managers until we know what sort of trial the Senate will conduct.President Trump blocked his own witnesses and documents from the House, and from the American people, on phony complaints about the House process. What is his excuse now? reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 14:38:33 Pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress, and now she is crying for fairness in the Senate, and breaking all rules while doing so. She lost Congress once, she will do it again! reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 15:22 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

Fantastische topictitel Janneke,

twitter:

SpeakerPelosi twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 14:32:02 The House cannot choose our impeachment managers until we know what sort of trial the Senate will conduct.President Trump blocked his own witnesses and documents from the House, and from the American people, on phony complaints about the House process. What is his excuse now? reageer retweet

En 7 minuten later de reactie. Hij volgt Pelosi op Twitter, dat kan niet anders!

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 14:38:33 Pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress, and now she is crying for fairness in the Senate, and breaking all rules while doing so. She lost Congress once, she will do it again! reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 15:36 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Zou 'ie snappen dat hij nogal helemaal geen trial heeft gehad?

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 19:29 schreef Kansenjongere het volgende:

[..]

Op elke vraag over Trump die begint met "Zou 'ie snappen" is "Nee" een veilig antwoord.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 18:51:07 Remember when I said Trump saying no Senate trial was "good" and McConnell saying he's "happy" with it were lies to cover the fact Pelosi *is* gaining leverage and beating them soundly? Well now we have Trump ranting on Twitter, Lindsey pleading for a trial, McConnell whining... https://t.co/ikNyxtqvYG reageer retweet

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 19:20:01 @joshgerstein JUST IN: Judiciary Committee argues that McGahn testimony is still urgent because it could factor into recommending "additional articles of impeachment." https://t.co/wcBy4NlDFa reageer retweet

twitter:

jgeltzer twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 19:41:19 FILED: "McGahn’s testimony would inform...presentation of the Articles in a Senate trial [&] is also relevant to...ongoing investigations into Presidential misconduct & consideration of whether to recommend additional articles of impeachment."Full brief: https://t.co/kye1hTyZuB reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 19:30 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]

Ik vraag me dan meer af: is er dan niemand die het wil/durft/kan uitleggen?

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 19:51 schreef AnneX het volgende:

[..]

Ws. poep in zijn oren.

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 21:17 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Er is een fantastisch interview met Guliani.
https://mobile.twitter.com/olivianuzzi/status/1209174023944450053

Ach...heeft iemand de tekst in een spoiler?
Ben niet zó handig. Pls...

SPOILER

A Conversation With Rudy Giuliani Over Bloody Marys at the Mark Hotel
By Olivia Nuzzi

As the black SUV came to a stop on 33rd Street in Manhattan, its lights flashing, a pale hand stretched through the open window of the passenger door and gave a little wave. It was attached to Rudy Giuliani, who smiled from behind his tortoiseshell sunglasses. He apologized for being late. “Couldn’t go on sidewalks like I used to,” he said, mourning a perk of his past life as mayor.

It was early in the afternoon on Sunday, December 8, and Giuliani had just returned from Ukraine, where he said he was looking for information to undermine the case to impeach his client, President Donald Trump.

“We snuck out of Kiev to escape having to answer a lot of questions,” he said, though it wasn’t clear if he meant from the press or government officials. “They all thought we were going to leave on Friday morning, and I organized a private plane to go to Vienna on Thursday night.”

The back of the car was cluttered with luggage. His bodyguard, a retired NYPD officer who loves Donald Trump almost as much as he loves his boss of ten years, got out to move the bags to the trunk while Giuliani climbed into the backseat.

When Giuliani got to his hotel in Vienna, he said it was 2:30 in the morning, and the first thing he did was search for opera tickets. “Lo and behold, that Friday night they were performing Tosca, with the conductor Marco Armiliato.” He sang me an aria from Rigoletto, one of the first pieces he fell in love with when he was introduced to opera in high school, as he theatrically conducted with his hands.

Over a sweater, he wore a navy-blue suit, the fly of the pants unzipped. He accessorized with an American-flag lapel pin, American-flag woven wallet, a diamond-encrusted pinky ring, and a diamond-encrusted Yankees World Series ring (about which an innocent question resulted in a 15-minute rant about “fucking Wayne Barrett,” a journalist who manages to enrage Giuliani even in death).

In addition to being the president’s free personal attorney, Giuliani, who is 75, is an informal White House cybersecurity adviser and a high-priced cyber-security contractor. In one hand, he clutched three phones of varying sizes. Two of the devices were unlocked, their screens revealing open tabs and a barrage of banner notifications as they knocked into each other and reacted to Giuliani’s grip. He accidentally activated Siri, who said she didn’t understand his command. “She never understands me,” he said. He sighed and poked at the device, attempting to quiet her.

Giuliani is quick to announce that he knows “every block of this city,” but he lives on the Upper East Side and doesn’t linger much across or below the park. When I asked him to bring me somewhere he likes to hang out, he quickly directed his bodyguard to the Mark, a five-star hotel on East 77th Street. Always a creature of habit, Giuliani is extra-aware of where he’s welcome these days. He says that “because of what’s happened” his circle is tightening, that he doesn’t trust anyone anymore.

I asked him how he ever trusted Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Russian associates with a business called Fraud Guarantee who were arrested by the FBI in October. “They look like Miami people. I know a lot of Miami people that look like that that are perfectly legitimate and act like them,” Giuliani said. “Neither one of them have ever been convicted of a crime. Neither one. And generally that’s my cutoff point, because if you do it based on allegations and claims and — you’re not gonna work with anybody,” he said, laughing. “Particularly in business.”

As we sped uptown, he spoke in monologue about the scandal he co-created, weaving one made-up talking point into another and another. He said former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, whom he calls Santa Maria Yovanovitch, is “controlled” by George Soros. “He put all four ambassadors there. And he’s employing the FBI agents.” I told him he sounded crazy, but he insisted he wasn’t.

“Don’t tell me I’m anti-Semitic if I oppose him,” he said. “Soros is hardly a Jew. I’m more of a Jew than Soros is. I probably know more about — he doesn’t go to church, he doesn’t go to religion — synagogue. He doesn’t belong to a synagogue, he doesn’t support Israel, he’s an enemy of Israel. He’s elected eight anarchist DA’s in the United States. He’s a horrible human being.”

In the grand tradition of Soros conspiracy theorists, Giuliani believes the media is doing the billionaire’s bidding by printing lies about him, yet he often bungles his own attempts to discredit the media’s reporting. While attempting to argue that, despite what has been written, “I have no business interests in Ukraine,” he told me about his business interests in Ukraine.

“I’ve done two business deals in Ukraine. I’ve sought four or five others,” he said. Since he’s been representing the president, he said, he has been approached with two opportunities in Ukraine, both of which he turned down to avoid accusations of impropriety.

“The one that I really wanted to do,” Giuliani said, was a lawsuit on behalf of the Ukrainian government against a large financial institution he claims laundered $7 billion for Viktor Yanukovych, the former president. “It would’ve had nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Burisma, nothing to do with Biden,” he said. He then explained that the reason why he “really wanted” to take on the case was to learn about Ukrainian money laundering, “so I could figure out they utilize the same money-laundering system for Hunter Biden.”

“I thought about it for a month, back and forth, and then I referred it to another lawyer,” he said. “I did take advantage of learning a little about the money-laundering system first.”

In order to take out the president, Giuliani believes you must first take out his men, so he’s under siege, the victim of a conspiracy to remove Trump from office that includes the media and the Democrats and the deep state and even some people he thought he really knew.

And about this, Giuliani is emotional. He reads his own press and sees that his friends, these “sources close” to him, are being weaponized by the conspirators, helping to paint a public portrait of a man unglued. These are the same concerned people who have told him to be careful with his legacy. “And my attitude about my legacy is Fuck it,” he said.

His ex-wife had implied, in an interview with New York, that he was an alcoholic. Others anonymously question his mental state. “Oh yeah, yeah — I do a lot of drugs,” Giuliani said sarcastically. “There was one I was addicted to. I’ve forgotten what it is. I don’t know where the drug things come from — I really don’t. The alcohol comes from the fact that I did occasionally drink. I love scotch. I can’t help it. All of the malts. And part of it is cigars — I love to have them with cigars. I’m a partier.”

And then there’s the Southern District of New York, the biggest betrayal of all. That was supposed to be his world, full of his guys; he ran the office for most of the ’80s. It was unrecognizable now. “If they’re investigating me, they’re assholes. They’re absolutely assholes if they’re investigating me,” he said.

As he spoke, he fixed his gaze straight ahead, rarely turning to make eye contact. When his mouth closed, saliva leaked from the corner and crawled down his face through the valley of a wrinkle. He didn’t notice, and it fell onto his sweater.

“If they are, they’re idiots,” he went on. “Then they really are a Trump-deranged bunch of silly New York liberals.” He added that he didn’t know for sure if he was being investigated at all, though subpoenas issued to Giuliani associates by the SDNY reportedly request documents and correspondence related to Giuliani, his firm, and, specifically, “any actual or potential payment” to or from Giuliani.

“If they think I committed a crime, they’re out of their minds,” he said. “I’ve been doing this for 50 years. I know how not to commit crimes. And if they think I’ve lost my integrity, maybe they’ve lost theirs in their insanity over hating Trump with some of the things they did that I never would’ve tolerated when I was U.S. Attorney.”

He thought they might be jealous of him, he said, because, in the 30 years since he resigned with thousands of convictions under his belt, the office had declined. The new guys, the ones after him, wish they were prosecuting the mob like he did, he said. They couldn’t do what he’d been capable of.

“It’s a terrible thing to say because it will get the Southern District all upset, but I know why they’re all upset,” Giuliani said. “Because they’ve never done anything like me since me. They haven’t done an eight years like I did since I left being U.S. Attorney. Nothing close.”

“Jealousy,” he added, “and because I’m of a different political philosophy than they are. They’re all — they’re all knee-jerk, now logically impaired anti-Trump people, including James Comey’s daughter, who works there. You don’t think she’s bitter? Do you know the things that I’ve called her husband? I hired her husband.”

He meant her father.

“Her father,” he said. “I consider her father a disgrace. I’m embarrassed that I hired him. Never seen anyone run the FBI like that.”

The car stopped at 77th and Madison. “Your honor, do you want me to secure you a table?,” the bodyguard asked. “Uhh,” Giuliani said, pausing, “yeah.”

As we walked into the hotel lobby, Giuliani said he hadn’t yet discussed the possibility of representing the president during the Senate trial, but visions of cross-examining congressional Democrats and witnesses made famous during the hearings, something he hasn’t done since the ’90s, satisfied his desire for revenge.

“I’m great at it. It’s what I do best as a lawyer. That’s what I would be good at,” he said. “Oh, I would love it, I could rip — you know, I hate to sound like a ridiculously boastful lawyer, but cross-examining them would be, I don’t know, I could’ve done it when I was a second-year assistant U.S. Attorney. They’re a bunch of clowns.”

“You plan for days and days how you’re gonna cross-examine them,” he said of his theoretical strategy. “And try to learn his personality. You try to learn when he’s gonna lie, how he’s gonna lie. You try to learn how to make him feel comfortable and confident. You try to work on what kind of personality is he. Is he a boaster? Is he sensitive about certain things? Somebody like Biden, for example, is extraordinarily sensitive about his intellect.”

He had a few ideas for going after the credibility of witnesses. “The guy that overheard the telephone call,” for instance, “anybody check if the guy has an earpiece? Maybe he didn’t have it in. How old is he? How old is that guy?” There was a possibility that he was deaf, he said, and didn’t know what he heard. “How do we know he isn’t a paranoid schizophrenic?,” he said. “How do we know he isn’t an alcoholic?”

But to the extent that he was aware of a strategy from Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, it was to respond to the evidence the Democrats have presented with a shrug: “Deal with it, like, ‘Who cares? How stupid.’”

The hostess led us through a hallway to the dining room. As Giuliani walked down the carpeted ramp, he fell over to his right and hit the wall. He kept on walking as if it hadn’t happened. “My God, it’s Rudy Giuliani,” I heard someone say. He nodded and waved at people he knew seated across the restaurant. He stopped to shake hands with an older man and his wife.

“I’d like some sparkling water. And I know you have wonderful Bloody Marys,” Giuliani told the waiter. “Yes, sir,” the waiter said, “and I know you love them.” Giuliani laughed. “You’re a good man!,” he said.

After he ordered an omelette with extra-crispy bacon, I asked about the mysterious call logs included in the House Intelligence Committee report, which suggested that Giuliani had corresponded with someone at the White House at axial points in Trump’s back-and-forth with Ukraine. The report said the number was “associated” with the Office of Management and Budget.

“I don’t think I talked to OMB at all,” Giuliani told me. “Of course, it’s not clear. I don’t even remember. It might have been my son.” His son, Andrew Giuliani, is the president’s public-liaison assistant. He suggested that perhaps he was calling to discuss with Andrew the White House baseball team, which Andrew was coaching and Giuliani claimed to be very invested in. “I don’t remember who I called. I talk to the president, mostly.”

He said he sometimes calls the White House to talk to Jared Kushner, whom he likes to joke around with — “I just called to kid him because I once said he was indispensable; I thought he was dispensable” — and Dan Scavino, the longtime social-media director. But the president was often the one calling Giuliani. “He calls me a lot before work and after work. I generally don’t like to bother him in the middle of night,” he said. “I call the main switchboard, and then sometimes I get switched to another number. I don’t know who I called.”

He said he and Jay Sekulow, the president’s other lawyer, often call the president together. “We both prefer to do it together, so we can have our own interpretation to the call,” he said.

He swore that although he doesn’t know whom he called, he knows he didn’t discuss anything improper with whoever it was. “Those calls — I can tell you what they don’t have to do with: They don’t have to do with military aid. I never discussed military aid with them. Never discussed military aid with anyone until it first appeared in the New York Times of late August of 2019. I had no idea we were withholding it, if we were.” He didn’t think it was such a big deal once he read about it, he said, because it was “typical Trump; he withholds aid till the last minute until he makes them beg for it.”

He lifted the skewer of olives from his Bloody Mary and removed one with his teeth. He continued speaking as he chewed. He ordered a second Bloody Mary.

I asked Giuliani if he thought he could do a better job representing Trump in a trial than Sekulow. He smiled. “Jay is a different kind of lawyer. Jay is more of an academic lawyer. I mean, I’ve only argued in the Supreme Court once; he’s argued it 14 times. I don’t know how often Jay’s ever cross-examined anyone. I’ve cross-examined a thousand people.” (Then he mused and said, “a hundred.”)

“No, but he would be better arguing the case through the court than I would,” he said. “He knows the justices a lot better; he understands their temperament better.”

Still, if it ever came to it, he thought Trump might pick him instead. “If it’s a very aggressive case, he would be more comfortable with me,” he said. “He was annoyed because over the last couple of weeks I’ve been pulling all his facts together and I haven’t been on television. People who think he doesn’t like me on television, I don’t know where they get that from. It’s just the opposite.”

He made the case that the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for corruption, Viktor Shokin, was in fact not corrupt and had been forced out by the Obama administration precisely because he had the goods on the Bidens. He also claimed to have a secret source with documentary proof that Hunter Biden had been paid off through a Cyprus bank in a transaction routed through a Lithuanian bank. “When I got it” — that is, the document he claims shows this — “I had already lost Lev, and so I had no translator. I translated it with my app,” he said. He took out his phone to show me how Google Translate works.

Back in the black SUV, Giuliani directed his bodyguard to drop him at home and then take me back to my hotel. “Oh, look at those poor people,” he said, glancing out the window to the park, where a man and a woman sat on a bench. “When I was mayor, by the time I was home, there’d be a call to the head of Homeless Services. Have somebody on Fifth between 70 — is that 75 or 76? A couple, they seem to be freezing. See if we can get them in a shelter. All my commissioners were trained to do that. And we got it down to almost nothing, zero.” The couple on the bench did not appear to be homeless.

“Do you have all three phones?,” his bodyguard said as Giuliani stepped out of the car. “Yeah, I got all three phones,” he said. “I gotta get down to two. I’m gonna try that tonight.”

A few minutes later, as we made our way downtown, I saw from the corner of my eye the sun reflecting off of something. It was the screen of one of the phones, which he had left on the seat next to me.

I handed it to the bodyguard, who laughed. He called Giuliani to tell him, and Giuliani laughed too.

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 21:39 schreef IndoorKite het volgende:

[..]

https://nymag.com/intelli(...)er-bloody-marys.html

SPOILER

A Conversation With Rudy Giuliani Over Bloody Marys at the Mark Hotel
By Olivia Nuzzi

As the black SUV came to a stop on 33rd Street in Manhattan, its lights flashing, a pale hand stretched through the open window of the passenger door and gave a little wave. It was attached to Rudy Giuliani, who smiled from behind his tortoiseshell sunglasses. He apologized for being late. “Couldn’t go on sidewalks like I used to,” he said, mourning a perk of his past life as mayor.

It was early in the afternoon on Sunday, December 8, and Giuliani had just returned from Ukraine, where he said he was looking for information to undermine the case to impeach his client, President Donald Trump.

“We snuck out of Kiev to escape having to answer a lot of questions,” he said, though it wasn’t clear if he meant from the press or government officials. “They all thought we were going to leave on Friday morning, and I organized a private plane to go to Vienna on Thursday night.”

The back of the car was cluttered with luggage. His bodyguard, a retired NYPD officer who loves Donald Trump almost as much as he loves his boss of ten years, got out to move the bags to the trunk while Giuliani climbed into the backseat.

When Giuliani got to his hotel in Vienna, he said it was 2:30 in the morning, and the first thing he did was search for opera tickets. “Lo and behold, that Friday night they were performing Tosca, with the conductor Marco Armiliato.” He sang me an aria from Rigoletto, one of the first pieces he fell in love with when he was introduced to opera in high school, as he theatrically conducted with his hands.

Over a sweater, he wore a navy-blue suit, the fly of the pants unzipped. He accessorized with an American-flag lapel pin, American-flag woven wallet, a diamond-encrusted pinky ring, and a diamond-encrusted Yankees World Series ring (about which an innocent question resulted in a 15-minute rant about “fucking Wayne Barrett,” a journalist who manages to enrage Giuliani even in death).

In addition to being the president’s free personal attorney, Giuliani, who is 75, is an informal White House cybersecurity adviser and a high-priced cyber-security contractor. In one hand, he clutched three phones of varying sizes. Two of the devices were unlocked, their screens revealing open tabs and a barrage of banner notifications as they knocked into each other and reacted to Giuliani’s grip. He accidentally activated Siri, who said she didn’t understand his command. “She never understands me,” he said. He sighed and poked at the device, attempting to quiet her.

Giuliani is quick to announce that he knows “every block of this city,” but he lives on the Upper East Side and doesn’t linger much across or below the park. When I asked him to bring me somewhere he likes to hang out, he quickly directed his bodyguard to the Mark, a five-star hotel on East 77th Street. Always a creature of habit, Giuliani is extra-aware of where he’s welcome these days. He says that “because of what’s happened” his circle is tightening, that he doesn’t trust anyone anymore.

I asked him how he ever trusted Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Russian associates with a business called Fraud Guarantee who were arrested by the FBI in October. “They look like Miami people. I know a lot of Miami people that look like that that are perfectly legitimate and act like them,” Giuliani said. “Neither one of them have ever been convicted of a crime. Neither one. And generally that’s my cutoff point, because if you do it based on allegations and claims and — you’re not gonna work with anybody,” he said, laughing. “Particularly in business.”

As we sped uptown, he spoke in monologue about the scandal he co-created, weaving one made-up talking point into another and another. He said former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, whom he calls Santa Maria Yovanovitch, is “controlled” by George Soros. “He put all four ambassadors there. And he’s employing the FBI agents.” I told him he sounded crazy, but he insisted he wasn’t.

“Don’t tell me I’m anti-Semitic if I oppose him,” he said. “Soros is hardly a Jew. I’m more of a Jew than Soros is. I probably know more about — he doesn’t go to church, he doesn’t go to religion — synagogue. He doesn’t belong to a synagogue, he doesn’t support Israel, he’s an enemy of Israel. He’s elected eight anarchist DA’s in the United States. He’s a horrible human being.”

In the grand tradition of Soros conspiracy theorists, Giuliani believes the media is doing the billionaire’s bidding by printing lies about him, yet he often bungles his own attempts to discredit the media’s reporting. While attempting to argue that, despite what has been written, “I have no business interests in Ukraine,” he told me about his business interests in Ukraine.

“I’ve done two business deals in Ukraine. I’ve sought four or five others,” he said. Since he’s been representing the president, he said, he has been approached with two opportunities in Ukraine, both of which he turned down to avoid accusations of impropriety.

“The one that I really wanted to do,” Giuliani said, was a lawsuit on behalf of the Ukrainian government against a large financial institution he claims laundered $7 billion for Viktor Yanukovych, the former president. “It would’ve had nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Burisma, nothing to do with Biden,” he said. He then explained that the reason why he “really wanted” to take on the case was to learn about Ukrainian money laundering, “so I could figure out they utilize the same money-laundering system for Hunter Biden.”

“I thought about it for a month, back and forth, and then I referred it to another lawyer,” he said. “I did take advantage of learning a little about the money-laundering system first.”

In order to take out the president, Giuliani believes you must first take out his men, so he’s under siege, the victim of a conspiracy to remove Trump from office that includes the media and the Democrats and the deep state and even some people he thought he really knew.

And about this, Giuliani is emotional. He reads his own press and sees that his friends, these “sources close” to him, are being weaponized by the conspirators, helping to paint a public portrait of a man unglued. These are the same concerned people who have told him to be careful with his legacy. “And my attitude about my legacy is Fuck it,” he said.

His ex-wife had implied, in an interview with New York, that he was an alcoholic. Others anonymously question his mental state. “Oh yeah, yeah — I do a lot of drugs,” Giuliani said sarcastically. “There was one I was addicted to. I’ve forgotten what it is. I don’t know where the drug things come from — I really don’t. The alcohol comes from the fact that I did occasionally drink. I love scotch. I can’t help it. All of the malts. And part of it is cigars — I love to have them with cigars. I’m a partier.”

And then there’s the Southern District of New York, the biggest betrayal of all. That was supposed to be his world, full of his guys; he ran the office for most of the ’80s. It was unrecognizable now. “If they’re investigating me, they’re assholes. They’re absolutely assholes if they’re investigating me,” he said.

As he spoke, he fixed his gaze straight ahead, rarely turning to make eye contact. When his mouth closed, saliva leaked from the corner and crawled down his face through the valley of a wrinkle. He didn’t notice, and it fell onto his sweater.

“If they are, they’re idiots,” he went on. “Then they really are a Trump-deranged bunch of silly New York liberals.” He added that he didn’t know for sure if he was being investigated at all, though subpoenas issued to Giuliani associates by the SDNY reportedly request documents and correspondence related to Giuliani, his firm, and, specifically, “any actual or potential payment” to or from Giuliani.

“If they think I committed a crime, they’re out of their minds,” he said. “I’ve been doing this for 50 years. I know how not to commit crimes. And if they think I’ve lost my integrity, maybe they’ve lost theirs in their insanity over hating Trump with some of the things they did that I never would’ve tolerated when I was U.S. Attorney.”

He thought they might be jealous of him, he said, because, in the 30 years since he resigned with thousands of convictions under his belt, the office had declined. The new guys, the ones after him, wish they were prosecuting the mob like he did, he said. They couldn’t do what he’d been capable of.

“It’s a terrible thing to say because it will get the Southern District all upset, but I know why they’re all upset,” Giuliani said. “Because they’ve never done anything like me since me. They haven’t done an eight years like I did since I left being U.S. Attorney. Nothing close.”

“Jealousy,” he added, “and because I’m of a different political philosophy than they are. They’re all — they’re all knee-jerk, now logically impaired anti-Trump people, including James Comey’s daughter, who works there. You don’t think she’s bitter? Do you know the things that I’ve called her husband? I hired her husband.”

He meant her father.

“Her father,” he said. “I consider her father a disgrace. I’m embarrassed that I hired him. Never seen anyone run the FBI like that.”

The car stopped at 77th and Madison. “Your honor, do you want me to secure you a table?,” the bodyguard asked. “Uhh,” Giuliani said, pausing, “yeah.”

As we walked into the hotel lobby, Giuliani said he hadn’t yet discussed the possibility of representing the president during the Senate trial, but visions of cross-examining congressional Democrats and witnesses made famous during the hearings, something he hasn’t done since the ’90s, satisfied his desire for revenge.

“I’m great at it. It’s what I do best as a lawyer. That’s what I would be good at,” he said. “Oh, I would love it, I could rip — you know, I hate to sound like a ridiculously boastful lawyer, but cross-examining them would be, I don’t know, I could’ve done it when I was a second-year assistant U.S. Attorney. They’re a bunch of clowns.”

“You plan for days and days how you’re gonna cross-examine them,” he said of his theoretical strategy. “And try to learn his personality. You try to learn when he’s gonna lie, how he’s gonna lie. You try to learn how to make him feel comfortable and confident. You try to work on what kind of personality is he. Is he a boaster? Is he sensitive about certain things? Somebody like Biden, for example, is extraordinarily sensitive about his intellect.”

He had a few ideas for going after the credibility of witnesses. “The guy that overheard the telephone call,” for instance, “anybody check if the guy has an earpiece? Maybe he didn’t have it in. How old is he? How old is that guy?” There was a possibility that he was deaf, he said, and didn’t know what he heard. “How do we know he isn’t a paranoid schizophrenic?,” he said. “How do we know he isn’t an alcoholic?”

But to the extent that he was aware of a strategy from Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, it was to respond to the evidence the Democrats have presented with a shrug: “Deal with it, like, ‘Who cares? How stupid.’”

The hostess led us through a hallway to the dining room. As Giuliani walked down the carpeted ramp, he fell over to his right and hit the wall. He kept on walking as if it hadn’t happened. “My God, it’s Rudy Giuliani,” I heard someone say. He nodded and waved at people he knew seated across the restaurant. He stopped to shake hands with an older man and his wife.

“I’d like some sparkling water. And I know you have wonderful Bloody Marys,” Giuliani told the waiter. “Yes, sir,” the waiter said, “and I know you love them.” Giuliani laughed. “You’re a good man!,” he said.

After he ordered an omelette with extra-crispy bacon, I asked about the mysterious call logs included in the House Intelligence Committee report, which suggested that Giuliani had corresponded with someone at the White House at axial points in Trump’s back-and-forth with Ukraine. The report said the number was “associated” with the Office of Management and Budget.

“I don’t think I talked to OMB at all,” Giuliani told me. “Of course, it’s not clear. I don’t even remember. It might have been my son.” His son, Andrew Giuliani, is the president’s public-liaison assistant. He suggested that perhaps he was calling to discuss with Andrew the White House baseball team, which Andrew was coaching and Giuliani claimed to be very invested in. “I don’t remember who I called. I talk to the president, mostly.”

He said he sometimes calls the White House to talk to Jared Kushner, whom he likes to joke around with — “I just called to kid him because I once said he was indispensable; I thought he was dispensable” — and Dan Scavino, the longtime social-media director. But the president was often the one calling Giuliani. “He calls me a lot before work and after work. I generally don’t like to bother him in the middle of night,” he said. “I call the main switchboard, and then sometimes I get switched to another number. I don’t know who I called.”

He said he and Jay Sekulow, the president’s other lawyer, often call the president together. “We both prefer to do it together, so we can have our own interpretation to the call,” he said.

He swore that although he doesn’t know whom he called, he knows he didn’t discuss anything improper with whoever it was. “Those calls — I can tell you what they don’t have to do with: They don’t have to do with military aid. I never discussed military aid with them. Never discussed military aid with anyone until it first appeared in the New York Times of late August of 2019. I had no idea we were withholding it, if we were.” He didn’t think it was such a big deal once he read about it, he said, because it was “typical Trump; he withholds aid till the last minute until he makes them beg for it.”

He lifted the skewer of olives from his Bloody Mary and removed one with his teeth. He continued speaking as he chewed. He ordered a second Bloody Mary.

I asked Giuliani if he thought he could do a better job representing Trump in a trial than Sekulow. He smiled. “Jay is a different kind of lawyer. Jay is more of an academic lawyer. I mean, I’ve only argued in the Supreme Court once; he’s argued it 14 times. I don’t know how often Jay’s ever cross-examined anyone. I’ve cross-examined a thousand people.” (Then he mused and said, “a hundred.”)

“No, but he would be better arguing the case through the court than I would,” he said. “He knows the justices a lot better; he understands their temperament better.”

Still, if it ever came to it, he thought Trump might pick him instead. “If it’s a very aggressive case, he would be more comfortable with me,” he said. “He was annoyed because over the last couple of weeks I’ve been pulling all his facts together and I haven’t been on television. People who think he doesn’t like me on television, I don’t know where they get that from. It’s just the opposite.”

He made the case that the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for corruption, Viktor Shokin, was in fact not corrupt and had been forced out by the Obama administration precisely because he had the goods on the Bidens. He also claimed to have a secret source with documentary proof that Hunter Biden had been paid off through a Cyprus bank in a transaction routed through a Lithuanian bank. “When I got it” — that is, the document he claims shows this — “I had already lost Lev, and so I had no translator. I translated it with my app,” he said. He took out his phone to show me how Google Translate works.

Back in the black SUV, Giuliani directed his bodyguard to drop him at home and then take me back to my hotel. “Oh, look at those poor people,” he said, glancing out the window to the park, where a man and a woman sat on a bench. “When I was mayor, by the time I was home, there’d be a call to the head of Homeless Services. Have somebody on Fifth between 70 — is that 75 or 76? A couple, they seem to be freezing. See if we can get them in a shelter. All my commissioners were trained to do that. And we got it down to almost nothing, zero.” The couple on the bench did not appear to be homeless.

“Do you have all three phones?,” his bodyguard said as Giuliani stepped out of the car. “Yeah, I got all three phones,” he said. “I gotta get down to two. I’m gonna try that tonight.”

A few minutes later, as we made our way downtown, I saw from the corner of my eye the sun reflecting off of something. It was the screen of one of the phones, which he had left on the seat next to me.

I handed it to the bodyguard, who laughed. He called Giuliani to tell him, and Giuliani laughed too.

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 21:39 schreef IndoorKite het volgende:

[..]

https://nymag.com/intelli(...)er-bloody-marys.html

SPOILER

A Conversation With Rudy Giuliani Over Bloody Marys at the Mark Hotel
By Olivia Nuzzi

As the black SUV came to a stop on 33rd Street in Manhattan, its lights flashing, a pale hand stretched through the open window of the passenger door and gave a little wave. It was attached to Rudy Giuliani, who smiled from behind his tortoiseshell sunglasses. He apologized for being late. “Couldn’t go on sidewalks like I used to,” he said, mourning a perk of his past life as mayor.

It was early in the afternoon on Sunday, December 8, and Giuliani had just returned from Ukraine, where he said he was looking for information to undermine the case to impeach his client, President Donald Trump.

“We snuck out of Kiev to escape having to answer a lot of questions,” he said, though it wasn’t clear if he meant from the press or government officials. “They all thought we were going to leave on Friday morning, and I organized a private plane to go to Vienna on Thursday night.”

The back of the car was cluttered with luggage. His bodyguard, a retired NYPD officer who loves Donald Trump almost as much as he loves his boss of ten years, got out to move the bags to the trunk while Giuliani climbed into the backseat.

When Giuliani got to his hotel in Vienna, he said it was 2:30 in the morning, and the first thing he did was search for opera tickets. “Lo and behold, that Friday night they were performing Tosca, with the conductor Marco Armiliato.” He sang me an aria from Rigoletto, one of the first pieces he fell in love with when he was introduced to opera in high school, as he theatrically conducted with his hands.

Over a sweater, he wore a navy-blue suit, the fly of the pants unzipped. He accessorized with an American-flag lapel pin, American-flag woven wallet, a diamond-encrusted pinky ring, and a diamond-encrusted Yankees World Series ring (about which an innocent question resulted in a 15-minute rant about “fucking Wayne Barrett,” a journalist who manages to enrage Giuliani even in death).

In addition to being the president’s free personal attorney, Giuliani, who is 75, is an informal White House cybersecurity adviser and a high-priced cyber-security contractor. In one hand, he clutched three phones of varying sizes. Two of the devices were unlocked, their screens revealing open tabs and a barrage of banner notifications as they knocked into each other and reacted to Giuliani’s grip. He accidentally activated Siri, who said she didn’t understand his command. “She never understands me,” he said. He sighed and poked at the device, attempting to quiet her.

Giuliani is quick to announce that he knows “every block of this city,” but he lives on the Upper East Side and doesn’t linger much across or below the park. When I asked him to bring me somewhere he likes to hang out, he quickly directed his bodyguard to the Mark, a five-star hotel on East 77th Street. Always a creature of habit, Giuliani is extra-aware of where he’s welcome these days. He says that “because of what’s happened” his circle is tightening, that he doesn’t trust anyone anymore.

I asked him how he ever trusted Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Russian associates with a business called Fraud Guarantee who were arrested by the FBI in October. “They look like Miami people. I know a lot of Miami people that look like that that are perfectly legitimate and act like them,” Giuliani said. “Neither one of them have ever been convicted of a crime. Neither one. And generally that’s my cutoff point, because if you do it based on allegations and claims and — you’re not gonna work with anybody,” he said, laughing. “Particularly in business.”

As we sped uptown, he spoke in monologue about the scandal he co-created, weaving one made-up talking point into another and another. He said former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, whom he calls Santa Maria Yovanovitch, is “controlled” by George Soros. “He put all four ambassadors there. And he’s employing the FBI agents.” I told him he sounded crazy, but he insisted he wasn’t.

“Don’t tell me I’m anti-Semitic if I oppose him,” he said. “Soros is hardly a Jew. I’m more of a Jew than Soros is. I probably know more about — he doesn’t go to church, he doesn’t go to religion — synagogue. He doesn’t belong to a synagogue, he doesn’t support Israel, he’s an enemy of Israel. He’s elected eight anarchist DA’s in the United States. He’s a horrible human being.”

In the grand tradition of Soros conspiracy theorists, Giuliani believes the media is doing the billionaire’s bidding by printing lies about him, yet he often bungles his own attempts to discredit the media’s reporting. While attempting to argue that, despite what has been written, “I have no business interests in Ukraine,” he told me about his business interests in Ukraine.

“I’ve done two business deals in Ukraine. I’ve sought four or five others,” he said. Since he’s been representing the president, he said, he has been approached with two opportunities in Ukraine, both of which he turned down to avoid accusations of impropriety.

“The one that I really wanted to do,” Giuliani said, was a lawsuit on behalf of the Ukrainian government against a large financial institution he claims laundered $7 billion for Viktor Yanukovych, the former president. “It would’ve had nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Burisma, nothing to do with Biden,” he said. He then explained that the reason why he “really wanted” to take on the case was to learn about Ukrainian money laundering, “so I could figure out they utilize the same money-laundering system for Hunter Biden.”

“I thought about it for a month, back and forth, and then I referred it to another lawyer,” he said. “I did take advantage of learning a little about the money-laundering system first.”

In order to take out the president, Giuliani believes you must first take out his men, so he’s under siege, the victim of a conspiracy to remove Trump from office that includes the media and the Democrats and the deep state and even some people he thought he really knew.

And about this, Giuliani is emotional. He reads his own press and sees that his friends, these “sources close” to him, are being weaponized by the conspirators, helping to paint a public portrait of a man unglued. These are the same concerned people who have told him to be careful with his legacy. “And my attitude about my legacy is Fuck it,” he said.

His ex-wife had implied, in an interview with New York, that he was an alcoholic. Others anonymously question his mental state. “Oh yeah, yeah — I do a lot of drugs,” Giuliani said sarcastically. “There was one I was addicted to. I’ve forgotten what it is. I don’t know where the drug things come from — I really don’t. The alcohol comes from the fact that I did occasionally drink. I love scotch. I can’t help it. All of the malts. And part of it is cigars — I love to have them with cigars. I’m a partier.”

And then there’s the Southern District of New York, the biggest betrayal of all. That was supposed to be his world, full of his guys; he ran the office for most of the ’80s. It was unrecognizable now. “If they’re investigating me, they’re assholes. They’re absolutely assholes if they’re investigating me,” he said.

As he spoke, he fixed his gaze straight ahead, rarely turning to make eye contact. When his mouth closed, saliva leaked from the corner and crawled down his face through the valley of a wrinkle. He didn’t notice, and it fell onto his sweater.

“If they are, they’re idiots,” he went on. “Then they really are a Trump-deranged bunch of silly New York liberals.” He added that he didn’t know for sure if he was being investigated at all, though subpoenas issued to Giuliani associates by the SDNY reportedly request documents and correspondence related to Giuliani, his firm, and, specifically, “any actual or potential payment” to or from Giuliani.

“If they think I committed a crime, they’re out of their minds,” he said. “I’ve been doing this for 50 years. I know how not to commit crimes. And if they think I’ve lost my integrity, maybe they’ve lost theirs in their insanity over hating Trump with some of the things they did that I never would’ve tolerated when I was U.S. Attorney.”

He thought they might be jealous of him, he said, because, in the 30 years since he resigned with thousands of convictions under his belt, the office had declined. The new guys, the ones after him, wish they were prosecuting the mob like he did, he said. They couldn’t do what he’d been capable of.

“It’s a terrible thing to say because it will get the Southern District all upset, but I know why they’re all upset,” Giuliani said. “Because they’ve never done anything like me since me. They haven’t done an eight years like I did since I left being U.S. Attorney. Nothing close.”

“Jealousy,” he added, “and because I’m of a different political philosophy than they are. They’re all — they’re all knee-jerk, now logically impaired anti-Trump people, including James Comey’s daughter, who works there. You don’t think she’s bitter? Do you know the things that I’ve called her husband? I hired her husband.”

He meant her father.

“Her father,” he said. “I consider her father a disgrace. I’m embarrassed that I hired him. Never seen anyone run the FBI like that.”

The car stopped at 77th and Madison. “Your honor, do you want me to secure you a table?,” the bodyguard asked. “Uhh,” Giuliani said, pausing, “yeah.”

As we walked into the hotel lobby, Giuliani said he hadn’t yet discussed the possibility of representing the president during the Senate trial, but visions of cross-examining congressional Democrats and witnesses made famous during the hearings, something he hasn’t done since the ’90s, satisfied his desire for revenge.

“I’m great at it. It’s what I do best as a lawyer. That’s what I would be good at,” he said. “Oh, I would love it, I could rip — you know, I hate to sound like a ridiculously boastful lawyer, but cross-examining them would be, I don’t know, I could’ve done it when I was a second-year assistant U.S. Attorney. They’re a bunch of clowns.”

“You plan for days and days how you’re gonna cross-examine them,” he said of his theoretical strategy. “And try to learn his personality. You try to learn when he’s gonna lie, how he’s gonna lie. You try to learn how to make him feel comfortable and confident. You try to work on what kind of personality is he. Is he a boaster? Is he sensitive about certain things? Somebody like Biden, for example, is extraordinarily sensitive about his intellect.”

He had a few ideas for going after the credibility of witnesses. “The guy that overheard the telephone call,” for instance, “anybody check if the guy has an earpiece? Maybe he didn’t have it in. How old is he? How old is that guy?” There was a possibility that he was deaf, he said, and didn’t know what he heard. “How do we know he isn’t a paranoid schizophrenic?,” he said. “How do we know he isn’t an alcoholic?”

But to the extent that he was aware of a strategy from Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, it was to respond to the evidence the Democrats have presented with a shrug: “Deal with it, like, ‘Who cares? How stupid.’”

The hostess led us through a hallway to the dining room. As Giuliani walked down the carpeted ramp, he fell over to his right and hit the wall. He kept on walking as if it hadn’t happened. “My God, it’s Rudy Giuliani,” I heard someone say. He nodded and waved at people he knew seated across the restaurant. He stopped to shake hands with an older man and his wife.

“I’d like some sparkling water. And I know you have wonderful Bloody Marys,” Giuliani told the waiter. “Yes, sir,” the waiter said, “and I know you love them.” Giuliani laughed. “You’re a good man!,” he said.

After he ordered an omelette with extra-crispy bacon, I asked about the mysterious call logs included in the House Intelligence Committee report, which suggested that Giuliani had corresponded with someone at the White House at axial points in Trump’s back-and-forth with Ukraine. The report said the number was “associated” with the Office of Management and Budget.

“I don’t think I talked to OMB at all,” Giuliani told me. “Of course, it’s not clear. I don’t even remember. It might have been my son.” His son, Andrew Giuliani, is the president’s public-liaison assistant. He suggested that perhaps he was calling to discuss with Andrew the White House baseball team, which Andrew was coaching and Giuliani claimed to be very invested in. “I don’t remember who I called. I talk to the president, mostly.”

He said he sometimes calls the White House to talk to Jared Kushner, whom he likes to joke around with — “I just called to kid him because I once said he was indispensable; I thought he was dispensable” — and Dan Scavino, the longtime social-media director. But the president was often the one calling Giuliani. “He calls me a lot before work and after work. I generally don’t like to bother him in the middle of night,” he said. “I call the main switchboard, and then sometimes I get switched to another number. I don’t know who I called.”

He said he and Jay Sekulow, the president’s other lawyer, often call the president together. “We both prefer to do it together, so we can have our own interpretation to the call,” he said.

He swore that although he doesn’t know whom he called, he knows he didn’t discuss anything improper with whoever it was. “Those calls — I can tell you what they don’t have to do with: They don’t have to do with military aid. I never discussed military aid with them. Never discussed military aid with anyone until it first appeared in the New York Times of late August of 2019. I had no idea we were withholding it, if we were.” He didn’t think it was such a big deal once he read about it, he said, because it was “typical Trump; he withholds aid till the last minute until he makes them beg for it.”

He lifted the skewer of olives from his Bloody Mary and removed one with his teeth. He continued speaking as he chewed. He ordered a second Bloody Mary.

I asked Giuliani if he thought he could do a better job representing Trump in a trial than Sekulow. He smiled. “Jay is a different kind of lawyer. Jay is more of an academic lawyer. I mean, I’ve only argued in the Supreme Court once; he’s argued it 14 times. I don’t know how often Jay’s ever cross-examined anyone. I’ve cross-examined a thousand people.” (Then he mused and said, “a hundred.”)

“No, but he would be better arguing the case through the court than I would,” he said. “He knows the justices a lot better; he understands their temperament better.”

Still, if it ever came to it, he thought Trump might pick him instead. “If it’s a very aggressive case, he would be more comfortable with me,” he said. “He was annoyed because over the last couple of weeks I’ve been pulling all his facts together and I haven’t been on television. People who think he doesn’t like me on television, I don’t know where they get that from. It’s just the opposite.”

He made the case that the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for corruption, Viktor Shokin, was in fact not corrupt and had been forced out by the Obama administration precisely because he had the goods on the Bidens. He also claimed to have a secret source with documentary proof that Hunter Biden had been paid off through a Cyprus bank in a transaction routed through a Lithuanian bank. “When I got it” — that is, the document he claims shows this — “I had already lost Lev, and so I had no translator. I translated it with my app,” he said. He took out his phone to show me how Google Translate works.

Back in the black SUV, Giuliani directed his bodyguard to drop him at home and then take me back to my hotel. “Oh, look at those poor people,” he said, glancing out the window to the park, where a man and a woman sat on a bench. “When I was mayor, by the time I was home, there’d be a call to the head of Homeless Services. Have somebody on Fifth between 70 — is that 75 or 76? A couple, they seem to be freezing. See if we can get them in a shelter. All my commissioners were trained to do that. And we got it down to almost nothing, zero.” The couple on the bench did not appear to be homeless.

“Do you have all three phones?,” his bodyguard said as Giuliani stepped out of the car. “Yeah, I got all three phones,” he said. “I gotta get down to two. I’m gonna try that tonight.”

A few minutes later, as we made our way downtown, I saw from the corner of my eye the sun reflecting off of something. It was the screen of one of the phones, which he had left on the seat next to me.

I handed it to the bodyguard, who laughed. He called Giuliani to tell him, and Giuliani laughed too.

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 18:02:03 NEW: DOJ is arguing the House impeachment vote undercuts the their demand for McGahn testimony.It's unclear why the vote would preclude further impeachment investigation, as Dems say they're doing.House brief to come later today. Story w @joshgersteinhttps://t.co/envedTrF43 reageer retweet

quote:

The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.

House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals into whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn after the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” Letter wrote.

It’s the first impeachment-related filing by the House since lawmakers voted, mostly along party lines, to impeach Trump over allegations stemming from efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals. It comes just hours after the Justice Department argued that the impeachment votes undercut lawmakers’ ongoing court case demanding testimony from McGahn, who was special counsel Robert Mueller’s central witness.

In a brief filed early Monday morning, DOJ lawyers acknowledge that the House’s approval of two articles of impeachment — focused on Trump’s alleged effort to withhold aid from Ukraine and his blockade of the House inquiry — do not render moot the legal fight over McGahn.

However, the Justice Department attorneys said the House Judiciary Committee’s decision to move forward with impeachment means there’s no longer urgency to resolve the House’s case. That bolsters the Trump administration’s argument that the courts should simply butt out of the legal showdown, the DOJ filing says.

“The reasons for refraining are even more compelling now that what the Committee asserted — whether rightly or wrongly — as the primary justification for its decision to sue no longer exists,” the DOJ lawyers wrote, without elaborating on that claim.

A second Justice Department brief in a related case — the Judiciary Committee's demand for Mueller's grand jury evidence — suggests without basis that the Judiciary Committee's decision to advance articles of impeachment on the Ukraine scandal have effectively ruled out any effort to impeach the president based on Mueller's evidence, therefore rendering the matter moot.

It's unclear why the Justice Department argues that the committee has conceded that the Mueller impeachment investigation is over when House lawyers and lawmakers have described it as ongoing and active.

SPOILER

House lawyers indicated in advance of last week’s committee and floor votes that the panel planned to push on with its impeachment-related investigations. Democratic lawmakers who led the House impeachment inquiry have long contended that their efforts to gather more evidence would continue and that the timing of the impeachment vote reflected the urgency of the matter, not the conclusion of the effort to obtain witnesses and documents.

Letter’s new filing emphasizes the fact that nothing precludes the House from impeaching Trump again if it unearths new evidence, though no member of Democratic leadership has suggested such a course, particularly with a looming Senate trial and the presidential primary season imminent.

Letter also notes that McGahn’s testimony could become crucial evidence in the upcoming Senate trial.

“McGahn’s testimony is critical both to a Senate trial and to the Committee’s ongoing impeachment investigations to determine whether additional Presidential misconduct warrants further action by the Committee," he argued. Letter added that McGahn’s testimony is important aside from these matters, as the House considers legislation that might arise from the details of Trump’s conduct.

The filings landed Monday amid an ongoing struggle between Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over whether a Senate trial — whose contours remain unsettled — will include testimony from witnesses who never appeared before any House panel. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, in particular, has requested testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton.

Justice Department attorneys argued in their new submission that the coming Senate trial is yet another reason for the judicial branch to stand aside.

“If this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial,” the DOJ legal team wrote. “The now very real possibility of this Court appearing to weigh in on an article of impeachment at a time when political tensions are at their highest levels — before, during, or after a Senate trial regarding the removal of a President — puts in stark relief why this sort of interbranch dispute is not one that has ‘traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.’”

“This Court should decline the Committee’s request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack of jurisdiction,” the Justice Department lawyers added.

The DOJ filing was one of several submissions expected Monday in response to requests the appeals court issued about an hour after the impeachment votes last week, seeking clarification of the impact of the votes on the McGahn case and a parallel legal fight for access to grand jury secrets in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.

Both of those cases are expected to be heard on Jan. 3 by partially overlapping three-judge panels. The Justice Department, which brought the cases to the appeals court, is not urging any delay of those arguments. However, the DOJ lawyers said the court shouldn’t rush to get out a decision in the McGahn case — potentially leaving a ruling until after the expected impeachment trial is complete.

twitter:

tribelaw twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 20:47:48 This is exactly right. Trump's impeachment on Dec.18 can't possibly give him an immunity bath either covering his Russiagate offenses or shielding his ongoing and future crimes against the U.S. This one-man crime wave must be held FULLY accountable.https://t.co/NEHYfNzU2U reageer retweet

twitter:

tribelaw twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 20:57:51 0f course this is right. With a president who knows no bounds, impeachment is a gift that keeps on giving. https://t.co/4G7GJNPBzQ reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 22:39 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Alhoewel...tegelijkertijd triest dat het het welzijn van de wereld betreft.
En van de U.S.

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 23:50 schreef speknek het volgende:
What's better than an impeachment? Two impeachments!

Dat zou wel een ultieme vernedering zijn. En volkomen terecht natuurlijk. Een president die zo leugenachtig is en zo vaak de wet breekt en niet zelf opstapt is letterlijk nog nooit voorgekomen in de Amerikaanse geschiedenis.

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 22:36 schreef AnneX het volgende:

[..]

[..]

Echt. Mijn dank is groot. Smullen. Tijd voor een ouwe mannenhuis. 🇺🇸

twitter:

Olivianuzzi twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 23:44:19 I just got off the phone with Rudy Giuliani, who decided to call me to yell at me after he read “five paragraphs” of my story. He told me, “it’s useless to talk to you. You’re a lost cause.” He then talked to me for another six minutes and said he’d go read the rest of the story. https://t.co/Kbyh5HFuaJ reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 21:39 schreef IndoorKite het volgende:

[..]

quote:

“Don’t tell me I’m anti-Semitic if I oppose him,” he said. “Soros is hardly a Jew. I’m more of a Jew than Soros is. I probably know more about — he doesn’t go to church, he doesn’t go to religion — synagogue. He doesn’t belong to a synagogue, he doesn’t support Israel, he’s an enemy of Israel. He’s elected eight anarchist DA’s in the United States. He’s a horrible human being.”

quote:

He swore that although he doesn’t know whom he called, he knows he didn’t discuss anything improper with whoever it was. “Those calls — I can tell you what they don’t have to do with: They don’t have to do with military aid. I never discussed military aid with them. Never discussed military aid with anyone until it first appeared in the New York Times of late August of 2019. I had no idea we were withholding it, if we were.” He didn’t think it was such a big deal once he read about it, he said, because it was “typical Trump; he withholds aid till the last minute until he makes them beg for it.”

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 23:50 schreef speknek het volgende:
What's better than an impeachment? Two impeachments!

Dat zou wel een ultieme vernedering zijn. En volkomen terecht natuurlijk. Een president die zo leugenachtig is en zo vaak de wet breekt en niet zelf opstapt is letterlijk nog nooit voorgekomen in de Amerikaanse geschiedenis.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 01:30 schreef VoMy het volgende:

[..]


[..]

Zo ziet anti-semitisme eruit. Nu verder lezen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 07:09 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Altijd weer die duivelse SOROS

quote:

Washington Legislator Matt Shea Accused Of 'Domestic Terrorism,' Report Finds

Six-term Washington state Rep. Matt Shea is accused of participating "in an act of domestic terrorism against the United States," according to a report released Thursday.

Independent investigators commissioned by the Washington State House of Representatives found that Shea, as a leader of the Patriot Movement, "planned, engaged in, and promoted a total of three armed conflicts of political violence against the United States government" between 2014 and 2016.

The report also concluded that Shea was involved in training young people to fight a "holy war." He created a pamphlet called Biblical Basis for War and advocated replacing the government with a theocracy and "the killing of all males who do not agree."

[…]

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 09:00 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Yikes. Is van een paar dagen terug, was dit al voorbij gekomen?

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 09:00 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Yikes. Is van een paar dagen terug, was dit al voorbij gekomen?

twitter:

thehill twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 02:22:05 Christianity Today editor says magazine has seen boost in new subscriptions after calling for Trump's removal https://t.co/UF8oqW8K0k https://t.co/yUJ6Ie2woL reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 10:20 schreef Beathoven het volgende:
oud nieuws of niet..

Professor who called Trump election now predicts impeachment

wel een lichtpuntje.

twitter:

AllanLichtman twitterde op donderdag 19-12-2019 om 23:02:46 My followers have been asking what the impeachment means for 2020. It turns the scandal key against @realDonaldTrump bringing him closer to defeat. But the election remains too close to call now. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 11:16 schreef PaarsBeestje het volgende:

[..]

Hij zit ook op Twitter en daar is het nieuws minder positief. Hij denkt dat de kans groot is dat Trump herkozen wordt. Laatste update:

twitter:

AllanLichtman twitterde op donderdag 19-12-2019 om 23:02:46 My followers have been asking what the impeachment means for 2020. It turns the scandal key against @:realDonaldTrump bringing him closer to defeat. But the election remains too close to call now. reageer retweet

twitter:

paulkrugman twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 13:57:17 The usual suspects are out there trying to claim that the Trump tax cut was a big success. So let's look at the numbers. First, corporate taxes have been slashed by more than half, down around 0.75% of GDP since 2017Q3 1/ https://t.co/lsMj42qe1i reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 14:25:26 The ONLY reason we were able to get our great USMCA Trade Deal approved was because the Do Nothing Democrats wanted to show that they could approve something productive in light of the fact that all they even think about is impeachment. She knows nothing about the USMCA Deal! reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 15:02 schreef archito het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 14:25:26 The ONLY reason we were able to get our great USMCA Trade Deal approved was because the Do Nothing Democrats wanted to show that they could approve something productive in light of the fact that all they even think about is impeachment. She knows nothing about the USMCA Deal! reageer retweet

Hahaha.

Creatief is het wel. Janken dat de Dems de deal niet steunen en nu janken dat ze dat alleen maar doen om te laten zien dat ze iets steunen maar er eigenlijk helemaal niks vanaf weten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 14:27 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Evangelicals die zeggen dat Trump de echte messias is tegen hen die beweren dat Jezus Christus de zoon van God is begint een dingetje te worden.

https://www.thedailybeast(...)civil-war-over-trump

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 15:02 schreef archito het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 14:25:26 The ONLY reason we were able to get our great USMCA Trade Deal approved was because the Do Nothing Democrats wanted to show that they could approve something productive in light of the fact that all they even think about is impeachment. She knows nothing about the USMCA Deal! reageer retweet

Hahaha.

Creatief is het wel. Janken dat de Dems de deal niet steunen en nu janken dat ze dat alleen maar doen om te laten zien dat ze iets steunen maar er eigenlijk helemaal niks vanaf weten.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 14:15:57 “The Dems are complicating matters again. Keeping Mueller out of it was the focus. Keeping it crisp & simple was the key, and now all of a sudden they are saying maybe we’ll go back and visit the Mueller probe, which is absolutely unbelievable, and shows they don’t care about.... reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 14:15:58 ....the American public’s tone deafness - & it should be intolerable, because the American people have had it with this.” @kilmeade @foxandfriends The Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats have gone CRAZY. They want to make it as hard as possible for me to properly run our Country! reageer retweet

twitter:

RudyGiuliani twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 19:55:44 Connect with me on my Facebook Page. More to come on my investigation, soon! https://t.co/TmSPBf4qhe reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 22:10 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:
Is Trump nou impeached of niet ? De geleerden zijn het er niet over eens.

https://www.google.com/am(...)man-impeach.amp.html

Stel het huis stuurt de artikelen nooit naar het Senaat. Wat dan ? Nog steeds impeached of toch niet ?

Stel het huis stuurt de artikelen te midden van campagne tijd voor de caucus en primary votes naar het Senaat. Welke senatoren hun campagnetijd en daardoor caucus en primary's zullen daaronder lijden omdat ze nodig zijn in het senaat ? Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar en Michael Bennet ? Wie kunnen daardoor profiteren ? Joe Biden en Pete Buttigieg ?

De eerste caucus en primary votes zullen gehouden worden op 3 en 11 februari.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 22:10 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:
Is Trump nou impeached of niet ? De geleerden zijn het er niet over eens.

https://www.google.com/am(...)man-impeach.amp.html

Stel het huis stuurt de artikelen nooit naar de Senaat. Wat dan ? Nog steeds impeached of toch niet ?

Stel het huis stuurt de artikelen te midden van campagne tijd voor de caucus en primary votes naar de Senaat. Welke senatoren hun campagnetijd en daardoor caucus en primaries zullen daaronder lijden omdat ze nodig zijn in de senaat ? Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar en Michael Bennet ? Wie kunnen daardoor profiteren ? Joe Biden en Pete Buttigieg ?

De eerste caucus en primary votes zullen gehouden worden op 3 en 11 februari.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 22:29 schreef Treinhomo het volgende:

[..]

Als je oude/andermans argumenten herhaalt is het misschien wel handig ze eerst even tegen het licht van de actualiteit te houden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 22:31 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Ik ben verder geen expert voor wat betreft de Amerikaanse grondwet, dus als een Harvard rechtenprof zoiets schrijft zou dat best eens kunnen zijn natuurlijk. Waarom dat belangrijk is anders dan vanwege Trumps gevoelens en wat narratieven is me niet duidelijk. Hoe dan ook, ben je dan ook er aan gebonden de man serieus te nemen op zaken die je niet aanstaan.

Feldman says without impeachment we would live in a monarchy or dictatorship

Feldman says Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors

WATCH: Feldman: President not cooperating in impeachment inquiry ‘putting himself above the law’

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 22:43 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:
Ik ben het niet perse met jullie oneens maar ben dan wel benieuwd naar jullie antwoord op deze vraag;

Stel het huis stuurt de artikelen nooit naar het Senaat. Wat dan ? Nog steeds impeached of toch niet ?

Ik ben het eens dat Trump impeached is aan de hand van de vote. Gevolg van die impeachment is echter wel dat het doorgezet wordt naar het senaat. Als dat uiteindelijk nooit gebeurd kun je imo stellen dat het geen 'echte' of iig een halfslachtige impeachment is geweest. Ik denk dat ze het uiteindelijk wel door zullen zetten maar dat staat even los van deze vraag.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 22:43 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:
Ik ben het niet perse met jullie oneens maar ben dan wel benieuwd naar jullie antwoord op deze vraag;

Stel het huis stuurt de artikelen nooit naar het Senaat. Wat dan ? Nog steeds impeached of toch niet ?

Ik ben het eens dat Trump impeached is aan de hand van de vote. Gevolg van die impeachment is echter wel dat het doorgezet wordt naar het senaat. Als dat uiteindelijk nooit gebeurd kun je imo stellen dat het geen 'echte' of iig een halfslachtige impeachment is geweest. Ik denk dat ze het uiteindelijk wel door zullen zetten maar dat staat even los van deze vraag.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 20:00:25 Wait... everyone knows Trump had Mulvaney put a block on military aid to Ukraine in *2017 also*, right? And that the stated reason at the time was Trump didn't want to "upset Russia"? Everyone knows that, right? Media has made it perfectly clear, I assume? https://t.co/cXinpmaGvf reageer retweet

SPOILER

Croft told congressional impeachment investigators that after the Trump administration greenlit the delivery of Javelin missiles to Ukraine in late 2017—the first delivery of lethal aid to the country since Russian separatists seized territory in its Eastern region in 2014—Mulvaney’s office held it up.

“Did you understand why?” asked the congressional staffer questioning her.

“I understood the reason to be a policy one,” she replied.

“What was the policy one?”

“In a briefing with Mick Mulvaney, the question centered around the Russian reaction,” she continued.

“What was the concern about the Russian reaction?” asked the staffer.

“That Russia would react negatively to the provision of Javelins to Ukraine,” she said.

The Daily Beast first reported last month that OMB held up the 2017 shipment of Javelins to Ukraine. Croft said the hold lasted “about a week or two,” and that “all of the policy agencies” wanted the aid to go to Ukraine. She said OMB’s interest in the decision about whether to send Javelins to Ukraine was abnormal.
“At the beginning of the Ukrainian Javelin process, I had been told that OMB was taking a policy interest,” she continued. “And OMB began sending working level officials to attend meetings... which was very unusual at the time.”

She noted that OMB staff also started attending meetings regarding aid to countries besides Ukraine and that the increase in their involvement was “quite taxing on a very small organization.”

Mulvaney and several other OMB officials have refused to participate in the congressional impeachment inquiry.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 20:02:23 1/ Because, you know, golly, if media *hadn't* been hammering this point home daily, it might well give the GOP an opportunity to falsely argue that the whole impeachment is about "one phone call" and that Trump has *no history* of blocking military aid to Ukraine via Mulvaney. reageer retweet

voor wie nog geen slaap heeft...

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 23:45 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 20:00:25 Wait... everyone knows Trump had Mulvaney put a block on military aid to Ukraine in *2017 also*, right? And that the stated reason at the time was Trump didn't want to "upset Russia"? Everyone knows that, right? Media has made it perfectly clear, I assume? https://t.co/cXinpmaGvf reageer retweet

Mulvaney’s OMB Held Up Lethal Ukraine Aid in 2017 for Fear of Russian Reaction

Under Mick Mulvaney’s leadership, the Office of Management and Budget temporarily put a hold on the delivery of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine in 2017 because of concerns their arrival would upset Russia, according to former White House official Catherine Croft.

She described OMB’s objection as “highly unusual.”

Croft’s testimony indicates that concerns about the U.S. relationship with Russia had a direct—though short-lived—impact on U.S./Ukraine policy in the first year of Trump’s presidency.

SPOILER

Croft told congressional impeachment investigators that after the Trump administration greenlit the delivery of Javelin missiles to Ukraine in late 2017—the first delivery of lethal aid to the country since Russian separatists seized territory in its Eastern region in 2014—Mulvaney’s office held it up.

“Did you understand why?” asked the congressional staffer questioning her.

“I understood the reason to be a policy one,” she replied.

“What was the policy one?”

“In a briefing with Mick Mulvaney, the question centered around the Russian reaction,” she continued.

“What was the concern about the Russian reaction?” asked the staffer.

“That Russia would react negatively to the provision of Javelins to Ukraine,” she said.

The Daily Beast first reported last month that OMB held up the 2017 shipment of Javelins to Ukraine. Croft said the hold lasted “about a week or two,” and that “all of the policy agencies” wanted the aid to go to Ukraine. She said OMB’s interest in the decision about whether to send Javelins to Ukraine was abnormal.
“At the beginning of the Ukrainian Javelin process, I had been told that OMB was taking a policy interest,” she continued. “And OMB began sending working level officials to attend meetings... which was very unusual at the time.”

She noted that OMB staff also started attending meetings regarding aid to countries besides Ukraine and that the increase in their involvement was “quite taxing on a very small organization.”

Mulvaney and several other OMB officials have refused to participate in the congressional impeachment inquiry.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 20:02:23 1/ Because, you know, golly, if media *hadn't* been hammering this point home daily, it might well give the GOP an opportunity to falsely argue that the whole impeachment is about "one phone call" and that Trump has *no history* of blocking military aid to Ukraine via Mulvaney. reageer retweet

Een draad van 25 tweets en 3 PS'sen, _{voor wie nog geen slaap heeft...}

quote:

WASHINGTON, Mar. 1, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Ukraine of Javelin Missiles and Javelin Command Launch Units (CLUs) for an estimated cost of $47 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

..

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

quote:

Ukraine tested its new Javelin anti-tank missiles Tuesday for the first time since the United States approved the sale of the weapon system to assist Ukraine’s defenses in its ongoing conflict with pro-Russian separatists.

Dems call for Durham to resign as Russia probe investigation heats up

quote:

The Democrats Deep State Swamp is far more dangerous for our country and democracy than Putin or the Russians. They don't care about the facts wake up America. Democrat socialist dreamer party are mad that America is doing good the best in American history ever because they want poverty. Democrat socialist dreamer party want to keep you in poverty. America is now seeing this they've done nothing but spread racism to divide our country! Dems are prime example of abuse of power.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 22:43 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:
Ik ben het niet perse met jullie oneens maar ben dan wel benieuwd naar jullie antwoord op deze vraag;

Stel het huis stuurt de artikelen nooit naar het Senaat. Wat dan ? Nog steeds impeached of toch niet ?

Ik ben het eens dat Trump impeached is aan de hand van de vote. Gevolg van die impeachment is echter wel dat het doorgezet wordt naar het senaat. Als dat uiteindelijk nooit gebeurd kun je imo stellen dat het geen 'echte' of iig een halfslachtige impeachment is geweest. Ik denk dat ze het uiteindelijk wel door zullen zetten maar dat staat even los van deze vraag.

twitter:

NoahRFeldman twitterde op zaterdag 21-12-2019 om 05:36:00 For those who still care, see this 1868 Florida SCt opinion unearthed by @kewhittington. The sources at p. 675 et seq. show clearly that impeachment occurs when the case is presented “at the bar of the Senate,” not before. @adamliptak @tribelaw @marty_lederman reageer retweet

twitter:

ghhshirley twitterde op zondag 22-12-2019 om 23:37:43 @NoahRFeldman @kewhittington @adamliptak @tribelaw @marty_lederman The case you cited does not apply here. 1, It applies to the Florida state constitution, not the U.S. constitution. 2, The question was whether the governor was suspended from carrying out his executive duties. There is no such “suspension of executive powers” upon US impeachment reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 23:20 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

[..]

Ja, Trump is impeached, 100 %. Dat doorzetten van de artikelen naar de senaat is niet meer de impeachmentprocedure, maar de afzettingsprocedure.
Wel of niet afzetten van de impeachte president. Kijk naar Clinton, die was ook 100 % impeached, maar mocht van de senaat blijven zitten.
Omdat diverse Republikeinse senatoren al hebben aangegeven zodra ze de artikelen hebben zonder verder onderzoek - let wel, volgens de constitutie, zeg maar de grondwet hebben ze de plicht de artikelen serieus en goed te onderzoeken- te gaan stemmen, worden de artikelen vastgehouden.
Pelosi eist dat de Senaat een "draaiboek" voorde procedure in de Senaat gaat opstellen, dus welke getuigen de senaat gaat oproepen, welk schriftelijk bewijs ze gaan opvragen, een tijdpad.
Trump wil heel graag een echt proces in de senaat, met getuigen en de hele rimram. De senatoren zien de bui al hangen, als ze echt getuigen op moeten roepen blijkt dat Trump onhoudbaar schuldig is, nog erger dan nu al duidelijk is. Dus die willen de artikelen, stemmen en klaar ermee.

Recent op CNN: Trump is Trump, Trump was als zakenman al crimineel, en de Republikeinen wisten dat allemaal, kijk naar wat ze allemaal gezegd hebben voor hij boven kwam drijven als de kandidaat. Ze hoopten dat hij als president door de grote verantwoordelijkheid zou veranderen, en dat is niet gebeurd. En nu zitten ze aan hem vast. Omdat de leden van de Trumpcult iederen verguizen en afzeiken die als Republikein Trump laat vallen, durven ze hem niet los te laten, uit angst, hoewel ze allemaal donders goed weten dat het een klootzak is en altijd een klootzak zal blijven.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 01:42 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 09:16 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Ja, wel een mooie afbeelding!
Maar totale onzin!
Pelosi is bang, heel erg bang!

quote:

Ze heeft die hele 'impeachment' er doorheen gerausd en nu durft ze niet door te zetten.
Hoe langer ze wacht hoe minder mensen (Amerikanen) haar nog serieus nemen!

twitter:

thehill twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 22:01:00 "What did Pres. Putin say to you that convinced you that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election?"DT: "What did he say to me about what?""What did Pres. Putin say--"DT: "You're putting words in somebody's mouth. Who are you referring to? Me? I never said anything about it." https://t.co/ZKWdk7Ka0z reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 23:15 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Volgens mij is “ impeached” gelijk aan verdacht en aangeklaagd m.b.v. getuigen en verklaringen onder ede.
De senaat gaat verder met horen van getuigen en komt tot een stemming met wel/ niet “schuldig”.
Vervolgens wordt Impotus veroordeeld door Hooggerechtshof.

“...Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, ...”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 23:20 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

[..]
Recent op CNN: Trump is Trump, Trump was als zakenman al crimineel, en de Republikeinen wisten dat allemaal, kijk naar wat ze allemaal gezegd hebben voor hij boven kwam drijven als de kandidaat. Ze hoopten dat hij als president door de grote verantwoordelijkheid zou veranderen, en dat is niet gebeurd. En nu zitten ze aan hem vast. Omdat de leden van de Trumpcult iederen verguizen en afzeiken die als Republikein Trump laat vallen, durven ze hem niet los te laten, uit angst, hoewel ze allemaal donders goed weten dat het een klootzak is en altijd een klootzak zal blijven.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 01:28 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Feldman haalt een zaak aan uit 1868 die zijn punt zou onderschrijven:

twitter:

NoahRFeldman twitterde op zaterdag 21-12-2019 om 05:36:00 For those who still care, see this 1868 Florida SCt opinion unearthed by @:kewhittington. The sources at p. 675 et seq. show clearly that impeachment occurs when the case is presented “at the bar of the Senate,” not before. @:adamliptak @:tribelaw @:marty_lederman reageer retweet

Maar dat werd door anderen weer onderuit gehaald:

twitter:

ghhshirley twitterde op zondag 22-12-2019 om 23:37:43 @:NoahRFeldman @:kewhittington @:adamliptak @:tribelaw @:marty_lederman The case you cited does not apply here. 1, It applies to the Florida state constitution, not the U.S. constitution. 2, The question was whether the governor was suspended from carrying out his executive duties. There is no such “suspension of executive powers” upon US impeachment reageer retweet

Maar afgezien van de discussie onder de geleerden wat denk je zelf als je logisch nadenkt over de intentie van het impeachment-proces als er in de Grondwet vastgelegd is dat:

- "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"

- "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"

En er ook nog eens een House Rule is die zegt:

- "The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment."

Mij lijkt het duidelijk. Als zoiets als de (vooral ceremoniële) overdracht van de artikelen aan de Senaat werkelijk zoveel gewicht zou hebben zou dat afdoen aan het gewicht van de stemming in het Huis. Ik denk dat als de Framers/ het Huis dat werkelijk een essentiele voorwaarde voor impeachment hadden gevonden dat ze daar wel meer aandacht/ regels aan besteed hadden. Ze hadden bv vast kunnen leggen dat het Huis verplicht is de artikelen binnen een bepaalde tijd over te dragen.

In ieder geval blijkt uit het standpunt van Feldman wel dat hij geen linkse never-Trumper is zoals hij werd weggezet door Trump & Co.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 09:16 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Ja, wel een mooie afbeelding!

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 13:26 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ze kunnen het uiteindelijk gewoon na de verkiezingen naar de Senaat sturen.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 13:39 schreef ITs_relative het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie het al voor me; Trump wordt herkozen, democraten winnen de senaat en zetten hem dan af. Dat wordt dan een burgeroorlog daar.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 11:36 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:
Waarom impeachment tussen aanhalingstekens?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 13:39 schreef ITs_relative het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie het al voor me; Trump wordt herkozen, democraten winnen de senaat en zetten hem dan af. Dat wordt dan een burgeroorlog daar.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 13:49 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Bij mijn weten zit hij nog lekker kerst te vieren in het Witte Huis met zijn loving family!

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 13:39 schreef ITs_relative het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie het al voor me; Trump wordt herkozen, democraten winnen de senaat en zetten hem dan af. Dat wordt dan een burgeroorlog daar.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 13:56 schreef IndoorKite het volgende:

[..]



Hij is gewoon al impeached hoor.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 15:04 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

Het mag dan wel de werkelijkheid van het Huis van Afgevaardigden zijn!

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 15:12 schreef IndoorKite het volgende:

[..]

Dat is de enige werkelijkheid die telt, want het Huis bepaalt uiteindelijk of iemand impeached is of niet.

De senaat heeft niets te zeggen over impeachment status.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 15:04 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Wat een idiote opmerking!
Is ook typisch voor democraten om zoiets te zeggen! (Compleet de weg kwijt in hun schijnwereld!)

Het mag dan wel de werkelijkheid van het Huis van Afgevaardigden zijn!
Maar zeker niet van de Senaat en de rest van het republikeinse Amerikaanse volk!

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 15:04 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Wat een idiote opmerking!
Is ook typisch voor democraten om zoiets te zeggen! (Compleet de weg kwijt in hun schijnwereld!)

Het mag dan wel de werkelijkheid van het Huis van Afgevaardigden zijn!
Maar zeker niet van de Senaat en de rest van het republikeinse Amerikaanse volk!

twitter:

paulkrugman twitterde op dinsdag 24-12-2019 om 18:23:35 If you're worried that malefactors of great wealth may have too much influence over Pete Buttigieg ... your worries may be justified. I mean, taking advice from Zuckerberg given all we know about Facebook ... https://t.co/l0EOM2Bx4L reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 15:50 schreef Bocaj het volgende:
o, oh oh wat een HAAT allemaal!
Relax mensen, want Trump is here to stay!
Trump 2020
Ivanka 2024 & 2028
Enz, enz.
Wen er maar aan!

Ivanka Trump appears to be snubbed by leaders at G20 | AFP

quote:

When the Senate gets the two articles of impeachment from the House, it will have no choice but to deal with both. The question is how they should do it. The Senate has options.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has already stated that President Trump will not be removed for the threadbare, inadequate articles of impeachment passed by the House. So, here are a few ways that it could turn out:

The Senate could entertain a motion by the president’s counsel to dismiss — before the start of a trial — both articles of impeachment, for failure to meet the constitutional threshold for stating a cause of action. Such a decision would require a simple majority of 51 votes because this would be a procedural motion;

The Senate could begin a trial and, thereafter, could end it whenever the Senate majority deems it has heard enough and calls for a vote. Such a vote would be called when the Senate majority is confident that a supermajority of 67 senators — two-thirds of the Senate — would not vote to convict;

The Senate could conduct a full-blown trial, and it could drag on for as long as the Senate majority feels doing so is in its interests. It has a wide berth for calling or subpoenaing witnesses as it feels is germane. This would cause a circus-like atmosphere that would require the Supreme Court’s chief justice, the presiding officer in a Senate trial, to make numerous rulings, some of which would be unpredictable in their outcomes.

The Senate, after the conclusion of a trial, could once again entertain a motion to dismiss, alleging that House Democrats had failed to prove their case. This is a procedural motion that would require a simple majority to make deliberations by the full Senate moot if passed.

And then there is a “nuclear option.” The Senate majority could make a procedural motion to adjourn the start of a trial until Nov. 4, 2020. That would allow the American people to decide the president’s fate at the ballot box. The Constitution is silent as to when a trial should occur, timewise. A simple majority of 51 votes would be necessary to pass such a motion.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 16:09 schreef tcr het volgende:

[..]

Ja Ivanka, dat wordt nog meer lachen voor de andere wereldleiders:

Ivanka Trump appears to be snubbed by leaders at G20 | AFP

Ivanka Trump under scrutiny for G20 exchange

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 15:14 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Mooiste is dat Trump voor eeuwig in het rijtje staat van presidenten die impeached zijn. Dat zal die narcistische idioot flink pijn doen.

Al zal geschiedenis nog vele malen harder oordelen over zijn presidentschap.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 13:49 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Bij mijn weten zit hij nog lekker kerst te vieren in het Witte Huis met zijn loving family!

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 19:58 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

[..]

Bij mijn weten ook, maar dat is geen antwoord op mijn vraag: Waarom impeachment tussen aanhalingstekens?
Denk je soms dat impeachment zou betekenen dat hij in de boeien geslagen afgevoerd wordt naar Alcatraz? Of dat hij Witte Huisarrest krijgt?
Want, sorry als ik je nu voor heel dom houdt, dat betekent impeachment niet, hij is nog steeds de president van de US, zij het impeached (zonder aanhalingstekens).

Ik geloof niet dat ik degene ben die hier in een schijnwereld leeft.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 20:30 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:

[..]

Ach, zelfs als dat zo was dan zou die niet de enige zijn.

https://pluralist.com/impeachment-day-liberals-confused/

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 20:46 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Er zijn inderdaad mensen die denken dat impeachment betekent dat hij is afgezet, of mensen die denken dat hij nog niet impeached is ofzo. Apart.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 19:38 schreef IndoorKite het volgende:
Wel goed om te zien dat de Democraten impeachment niet als een eindpunt zien, maar juist een eerste stap voor verdere onderzoek. Ik verwacht dat we nog heel wat meer te weten gaan komen over hoe corrupt Trump is.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 20:46 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Er zijn inderdaad mensen die denken dat impeachment betekent dat hij is afgezet, of mensen die denken dat hij nog niet impeached is ofzo. Apart.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 16:09 schreef tcr het volgende:

[..]

Ja Ivanka, dat wordt nog meer lachen voor de andere wereldleiders:

Ivanka Trump appears to be snubbed by leaders at G20 | AFP

quote:

McConnell facing possible GOP revolt after Republican senator blasts him for colluding with Trump on impeachment: CNN (RawStory)

Reacting to comments made by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), where she took a shot at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for openly colluding with the White House on President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, a CNN guest suggested she may have opened the door to more GOP senators to break ranks.

In an interview with local news station KTUU, Murkowski claimed she was “disturbed” about McConnell’s remarks about coordinating with the White House.

“To me it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process,” she stated.

[...]

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 21:08 schreef Kamover het volgende:

[..]

Ik verheug mij nu al op de uitzendingen op de NPO waarin in complete grafstemming de herverkiezing van Trump wordt besproken. Heerlijk die tranen!

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 21:08 schreef Kamover het volgende:

[..]

Ik verheug mij nu al op de uitzendingen op de NPO waarin in complete grafstemming de herverkiezing van Trump wordt besproken. Heerlijk die tranen!

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 21:10 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Lichtelijk overdreven om meteen te spreken van een mogelijke revolte, maar goed dat deze republikeinse senator zich tegen de strapatsen van McConnell uitspreekt.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 21:14 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Druppels op gloeiende platen. Het is nu net als in een wedstrijd van 90 minuten de tijd doodrekken; dat is de strategie van Trump en de GOP.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 21:13 schreef Kamover het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 21:19 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Van alle mensen uitgerekend op iemand als Trump hopen om anderen uit te kunnen lachen is wel bijzonder debiel.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 21:23 schreef Kamover het volgende:

[..]

Het ligt er naar net aan door welke (deug)bril je kijkt.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 22:03 schreef archito het volgende:

[..]

Los van door welke bril je nu precies kijkt kan ik niet begrijpen dat iemand blij is dat zo'n incapabele man president van Amerika is.

Daarnaast hoop ik altijd dat een bepaald persoon president wordt omdat ik hem of haar inhoudelijk steun, niet omdat hij anderen doet janken. Dat laatste vind ik vrij extremistisch en haatdragend.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 21:18 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Mwah, Murkowski was altijd wel al een van de senatoren van wie je dit had kunnen verwachten, Romney en Collins uiteraard de anderen. Dat zij zich zo uitlaat lijkt me geen GOP strategie. Het maakt het mogelijk wel makkelijker voor in ieder geval de twee anderen om zich hierbij aan te sluiten, waarmee het 50/50 zou kunnen worden op bepaalde zaken en Pence zit de Senaat niet voor in geval van impeachment.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 22:12 schreef Kamover het volgende:

[..]

Laten we het omdraaien, wat heeft Obama nu klaargespeeld behalve dood en verderf zaaien in het midden oosten?

quote:

Trump is lomp, maar de manier waarop hij aangepakt wordt door de media is gewoon lachwekkend. En gelukkig zien de meeste Amerikanen dit ook.

quote:

Is hij de ideale kandidaat? Nee natuurlijk niet, eerder de minst slechte.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 22:25 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Het schip gaat inmiddels richting een ijsberg, maar laten we het voor het gemak even over een vorige kapitein hebben.
[..]

cijfers?
[..]

Hij is president.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 20:50 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:

[..]

Haha is dat laatste een steek naar mij ?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 22:12 schreef Kamover het volgende:

Laten we het omdraaien, wat heeft Obama nu klaargespeeld behalve dood en verderf zaaien in het midden oosten?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 22:36 schreef Kamover het volgende:

[..]

Nee men wil liever de echo bubble in stand houden. Dat ik een DM krijg vind ik bizar, dan weet ik voldoende

twitter:

AmericanIndian8 twitterde op woensdag 25-12-2019 om 23:00:00 Nine earthquakes in less than 24 hours hit California on Christmas eve, early morning https://t.co/GPoNBi4B4j #INDIGENOUS #TAIRP reageer retweet

quote:

U.S. CyberCom contemplates information warfare to counter Russian interference in the 2020 election (Washington Post)

Military cyber officials are developing information warfare tactics that could be deployed against senior Russian officials and oligarchs if Moscow tries to interfere in the 2020 U.S. elections through hacking election systems or sowing widespread discord, according to current and former U.S. officials.

One option being explored by U.S. Cyber Command would target senior leadership and Russian elites, though likely not President Vladimir Putin, which would be considered too provocative, said the current and former officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. The idea would be to show that the target’s sensitive, personal data could be hit if the interference did not stop, though officials declined to be more specific.

“When the Russians put implants into an electric grid, it means they’re making a credible showing that they have the ability to hurt you if things escalate,” said Bobby Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “What may be contemplated here is an individualized version of that, not unlike individually targeted economic sanctions. It’s sending credible signals to key decision-makers that they are vulnerable if they take certain adversarial actions.”

Cyber Command and officials at the Pentagon declined to comment.

The military has long used psychological operations — dropping hundreds of thousands of leaflets in Iraq, for instance, to persuade Iraqi soldiers to surrender to the U.S.-led coalition during the Gulf War. But the Internet, social media and smartphones have vastly extended the reach and precision of such tactics.

The development comes as numerous agencies within the Trump administration seek to ensure the United States is shielded against foreign efforts to disrupt the 2020 elections, even as President Trump himself has cast doubt on or belittled his own intelligence community’s finding of Russian interference in 2016.

The intelligence community last month issued a classified update — a “national intelligence estimate” — assessing that Russia’s main goal in the 2020 campaign continues to be to sow discord. “It’s always been about exacerbating fault lines in our society,” said one senior U.S. official.

In the past year, Congress and the Trump administration have eased restraints on the military’s use of cyber-operations to thwart foreign adversaries. The push is part of a move by military officials such as Gen. Paul Nakasone, who heads both CyberCom and the National Security Agency, the government’s powerful electronic surveillance arm, to weave cyber-offensive capabilities into military operations.

SPOILER

The 10-year-old command’s foray into influence operations reflects an evolution in thinking. “It’s a really big deal because we have not done a good job in the past of integrating traditional information warfare with cyber-operations,” Chesney said. “But as Russia has demonstrated, these two are increasingly inseparable in practice.”

While other military organizations, such as Joint Special Operations Command, also have cyber and information warfare capabilities, CyberCom is the first to turn such powers toward combating election interference.

“In 332 days, our nation is going to elect a president,” Nakasone told a defense forum earlier this month. “We can’t let up. This is something we cannot be episodic about. The defense of our nation, the defense of our elections, is something that will be every single day for as long as I can see into the future.”

The options being considered build on an operation CyberCom undertook last fall in the run-up to the midterm elections. Beginning in October 2018, CyberCom used emails, pop-ups and texts to target Russian Internet “trolls” who were seeding disinformation on U.S. social media platforms. The trolls worked for the Internet Research Agency, a private entity controlled by a Russian oligarch close to Putin. CyberCom also messaged hackers working for Russian military intelligence, indicating their identities were known and could be publicized. Although the command did not sign its messages, the Americans knew there would be no mistaking who had sent them, officials said at the time.

When the trolls persisted, CyberCom, beginning on Election Day and for at least two days afterward, knocked their servers offline, The Washington Post previously reported. The Americans also sent messages aimed at spreading confusion and discord among IRA operatives, including computer system administrators. Some personnel were so perturbed that they launched an internal investigation to root out what they thought were insiders leaking personnel information, according to U.S. officials.

The new options contemplate targeting key leaders in the security services and the military and potentially some oligarchs. The messaging would be accompanied by a limited cyber-operation that demonstrates the Americans’ access to a particular system or account and the capability to inflict a cost, said individuals familiar with the matter. The message would implicitly warn the target that if the election interference did not cease, there would be consequences.

The options do not envision any attempt to influence Russian society at large, which officials saw as having limited success given Putin’s control of the country, including much of the media.

Some see the new options as potentially effective at altering a key official’s decision-making calculus without being hugely escalatory because they do not seek to foment a popular uprising, which is Putin’s big fear, analysts note.

Another possibility involves disinformation aimed at exploiting rivalries within the Russian government and power elites. In 2016, National Security Council aides in the Obama administration developed cyber options against Russia similar to those being contemplated by CyberCom now, but “no one had an appetite for it,” a former senior official said.

“There is a night-and-day difference between 2016 and this,” said a second former U.S. official, who said that CyberCom’s thinking several years ago was much more limited and conventional.

Any operation would be reviewed by other agencies, including the State Department and CIA, and require the defense secretary’s approval. It would be aligned with other potential U.S. efforts, such as sanctions or indictments, officials said.

Cyber-operations alone are usually not sufficient to transform an adversary’s behavior. “It can serve a useful message of ‘We’re watching and be careful not to go further,’ ” said Michael Carpenter, a former senior defense policy official in the Obama administration. But generally, he said, it is likely to be more effective when used with other tools such as sanctions — especially those also backed by allies.

Cyber Command got a boost in August 2018 when Congress clarified that cyber actions that fall below the use of force — what practitioners call “the gray zone” — can be conducted as “traditional military activities” as distinct from covert action. That was a key change that meant that clandestine operations such as the IRA takedown last fall, for instance, would not get delayed by disputes about whether they were covert operations.

Also enhancing CyberCom’s flexibility was Trump’s signing the following month of a national security presidential memorandum that revised the process by which cyber-operations are vetted and approved, leaving the final decision with the defense secretary even if other agencies object.

No single office within the Defense Department oversees cyber, electronic warfare and psychological operations. So this month, Congress created a Senate-confirmed position of principal information operations adviser to coordinate strategy and policy in this area across the Pentagon and with other agencies.

Other former U.S. officials are wary of CyberCom’s move into information operations. “I’m not a big fan of the Department of Defense doing messaging operations,” said Richard Stengel, a former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy in the Obama administration. “I’m even skeptical of the State Department doing messaging operations. . . . I just don’t think that’s something we’re good at.”

Meanwhile the Marine Corps has created a position of deputy commandant for information to build information warfare capability. Army Cyber Command has integrated cyber, electronic warfare and information operations into its mission. The 16th Air Force cyber unit is doing the same.

Among the things that cyber officials are discussing are operations that expose adversaries’ malign behavior.

The United States already has experimented with such disclosures, in 2014 releasing satellite images and other sensitive intelligence that showed Moscow had trained and equipped pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine responsible for shooting down a Malaysian airliner, killing 298 civilians. Such efforts could be expanded, officials say, to educate a broader audience about the actions of adversaries.

“Basically, it’s a war of strategic narrative,” said Sean McFate, a foreign policy expert and author of “The New Rules of War.” “We need to get into that domain.”

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 22:12 schreef Kamover het volgende:

[..]

Laten we het omdraaien, wat heeft Obama nu klaargespeeld behalve dood en verderf zaaien in het midden oosten? Trump is lomp, maar de manier waarop hij aangepakt wordt door de media is gewoon lachwekkend. En gelukkig zien de meeste Amerikanen dit ook. Is hij de ideale kandidaat? Nee natuurlijk niet, eerder de minst slechte.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 22:12 schreef Kamover het volgende:

[..]

Laten we het omdraaien, wat heeft Obama nu klaargespeeld behalve dood en verderf zaaien in het midden oosten? Trump is lomp, maar de manier waarop hij aangepakt wordt door de media is gewoon lachwekkend. En gelukkig zien de meeste Amerikanen dit ook. Is hij de ideale kandidaat? Nee natuurlijk niet, eerder de minst slechte.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 21:08 schreef Kamover het volgende:

[..]

Ik verheug mij nu al op de uitzendingen op de NPO waarin in complete grafstemming de herverkiezing van Trump wordt besproken. Heerlijk die tranen!

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 22:12 schreef Kamover het volgende:

[..]

Laten we het omdraaien, wat heeft Obama nu klaargespeeld behalve dood en verderf zaaien in het midden oosten? Trump is lomp, maar de manier waarop hij aangepakt wordt door de media is gewoon lachwekkend. En gelukkig zien de meeste Amerikanen dit ook. Is hij de ideale kandidaat? Nee natuurlijk niet, eerder de minst slechte.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 21:08 schreef Kamover het volgende:

[..]

Ik verheug mij nu al op de uitzendingen op de NPO waarin in complete grafstemming de herverkiezing van Trump wordt besproken. Heerlijk die tranen!

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 01:00 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

[..]

Trump is niet alleen lomp, hij is corrupt tot op het bot en dat is hij zijn hele leven geweest. Narcistisch, egocentrisch en een sociopaat. Als je hem verkiest boven iedere andere kandidaat omdat je mensen zo graag ziet janken ontbreekt het je niet alleen aan een moreel kompas maar ben je ook buitengewoon rancuneus. Wat dat betreft is POTUS voor jou een feest van herkenning vermoed ik.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 04:12:18 Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be allowed to Impeach the President of the United States? Got ZERO Republican votes, there was no crime, the call with Ukraine was perfect, with “no pressure.” She said it must be “bipartisan... reageer retweet

twitter:

RepSwalwell twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 04:13:13 Go to bed. https://t.co/SVjarKmXoD reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 13:49 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Bij mijn weten zit hij nog lekker kerst te vieren in het Witte Huis met zijn loving family!

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 11:04 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 04:12:18 Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be allowed to Impeach the President of the United States? Got ZERO Republican votes, there was no crime, the call with Ukraine was perfect, with “no pressure.” She said it must be “bipartisan... reageer retweet

twitter:

RepSwalwell twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 04:13:13 Go to bed. https://t.co/SVjarKmXoD reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 23:50 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

De ACA bijvoorbeeld. Dat is bovendien iets waar hij zelf heel actief de voortrekkersrol in heeft gespeeld. De paar grote zaken die onder Trump door het congres zijn gekomen zijn zoals de belastingverlagingen komen gewoon uit de koker van de GOP, niet van hem zelf. Hij kan ook helemaal geen beleids- of wetsinhoudelijke bijdrage leveren, want daar mist hij de kennis en intelligentie gewoon voor.

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 19:58 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

[..]

Bij mijn weten ook, maar dat is geen antwoord op mijn vraag: Waarom impeachment tussen aanhalingstekens?
Denk je soms dat impeachment zou betekenen dat hij in de boeien geslagen afgevoerd wordt naar Alcatraz? Of dat hij Witte Huisarrest krijgt?
Want, sorry als ik je nu voor heel dom houdt, dat betekent impeachment niet, hij is nog steeds de president van de US, zij het impeached (zonder aanhalingstekens).

Ik geloof niet dat ik degene ben die hier in een schijnwereld leeft.

quote:

Op maandag 23 december 2019 23:50 schreef speknek het volgende:
What's better than an impeachment? Two impeachments!

Dat zou wel een ultieme vernedering zijn. En volkomen terecht natuurlijk. Een president die zo leugenachtig is en zo vaak de wet breekt en niet zelf opstapt is letterlijk nog nooit voorgekomen in de Amerikaanse geschiedenis.

quote:

Op dinsdag 24 december 2019 01:30 schreef VoMy het volgende:

[..]

[..]

Zo ziet anti-semitisme eruit. Nu verder lezen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 01:00 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Trump is niet alleen lomp, hij is corrupt tot op het bot en dat is hij zijn hele leven geweest. Narcistisch, egocentrisch en een sociopaat. Als je hem verkiest boven iedere andere kandidaat omdat je mensen zo graag ziet janken ontbreekt het je niet alleen aan een moreel kompas maar ben je ook buitengewoon rancuneus. Wat dat betreft is POTUS voor jou een feest van herkenning vermoed ik.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 10:58 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

Mijn bewondering voor jou, je geïnformeerd zijn en je vermogen de dingen raak te kunnen formuleren, groeit met de dag.
Ik hou van deugmensen, het is geen belediging maar een compliment, deugmensen zijn alles wat Trump niet is.
Vrolijk Kerstfeest allemaal en laten we in het komende jaar niet blij zijn omdat anderen moeten huilen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 11:52 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

[..]

En nou écht de azijnfles wegzetten hoor!

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:04 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt er inhoudelijk niks tegenin te brengen zo te zien?

quote:

Op woensdag 25 december 2019 15:14 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Mooiste is dat Trump voor eeuwig in het rijtje staat van presidenten die impeached zijn. Dat zal die narcistische idioot flink pijn doen.

Al zal geschiedenis nog vele malen harder oordelen over zijn presidentschap.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 11:33 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Volgens het Huis van Afgevaardigden mag hij dan inderdaad impeached zijn...
Maar wat denk je van het gewone Amerikaanse volk?
Die zullen dat toch anders zien en er totaal geen waarde aan hechten...
(Vooral ook om welke belachelijke redenen...maargoed, democratisch besloten!)

Trump is nog gewoon de baas en blijft lekker zitten waar hij zit!
2020 zal nog meer zijn jaar zijn, dan de afgelopen glorieuze jaren!
Zijn revanche zal zoet zijn, in so many ways!

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:09 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Was Clinton impeached?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:11 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
Oké misschien een domme vraag maar gezien de jubelstemming over het feit dat hij impeached is wel relevant.
Nu Trump impeached is, zijn er nu concrete gevolgen voor zijn werk als president?
Is hij nu op non actief gesteld of is zijn macht op een of andere manier beperkt?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:15 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Neen!

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:15 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Dan begrijp ik heel de jubelstemming niet.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:09 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Volgens de Amerikaanse grondwet is hij impeached.

Volgens degenen die dat een irrelevant vodje papier vinden niet.

Was Clinton impeached?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:22 schreef theunderdog het volgende:

[..]

De praktijk is dat telt.

De praktijk gaat zijn dat Trump naar alle waarschijnlijkheid in 2020 wordt herkozen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:28 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Waar baseer je dit op? Alle berichten die ik zie zeggen dat het ongeveer 50/50 is.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:29 schreef theunderdog het volgende:

[..]

De approval rate is van belang. Zolang dat voor Trump boven de 42% blijft...

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 11:30 schreef theunderdog het volgende:

[..]

En toch gaat hij in 2020 gewoon weer worden herkozen. Want zijn approval rate blijft waarschijnlijk wel boven de 42%..

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:46 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Bedankt Nostradamus.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:55 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Daar hoef je geen nostradamus voor te zijn. Een blik op de oppositie en je weet dat 2020 voor Trump is.
Warren zakt geleidelijk weg in de polls en is mentaal niet stabiel genoeg om het tegen Trump in de debatten op te nemen.
Biden is de kandidaat die de meeste kans maakt maar die is in de debatten zo zwak dat Trump waarschijnlijk over hem heen loopt.
Sanders is denk ik te extreem voor de Democraten en in mijn ogen een erg zwak persoon.
Als je al niet voor jezelf opkomt waarom zullen de Amerikanen geloven dat hij het wel voor hun doet?
Buttigieg, in principe een goede kandidaat fris jong en welbespraakt. Ik denk alleen niet dat Amerika klaar is voor een homo in het witte huis. Spijtig maar helaas wel waar.
Klobuchar heeft momentum nu en kan zich nog ontwikkelen tot een gevaarlijke outsider. Maar ik denk niet dat ze voldoende aandacht krijgt om haar zelf te profileren.
De persoon die de meeste kans maakt is helaas ook de persoon die het meest gehaat word in haar eigen partij.
Ik denk dat Gabbard wel eens de bruggenbouwer kan zijn die het land zo hard nodig heeft nu.
Een vrouw met principes en die er niet vies van is om uit te delen wanneer nodig.
Ook beledigt ze de helft van het land niet door mensen die Trump steunen dom of racistisch te noemen en heeft ze ook niet meegewerkt aan het politiek circus rondom impeachment.
Helaas is zij volstrekt kansloos juist vanwege haar principes, ontzettend jammer.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:06 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
https://www.thepostmillen(...)e-alone-2-broadcast/

Komkommer nieuws maar toch best ziek om je haar voor een president zo te etaleren.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:02 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
Of ze is kansloos omdat de Democraten zich niet zo makkelijk laten inpalmen door wappies.

twitter:

CNN twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 04:33:05 A former GOP congressman who retired earlier this year says President Trump is "psychologically, morally, intellectually, and emotionally unfit for office" and that he will consider voting for a Democrat in 2020 https://t.co/7FNvvBNJlV reageer retweet

Psychiatrist On ‘The Essential Emptiness Of President Donald Trump’ | The Last Word | MSNBC

Impeach You Trump Parody Song of Shape of You by Ed Sheeran with KevinlyFather feat Amanda Juliet

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:06 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
https://www.thepostmillen(...)e-alone-2-broadcast/

Komkommer nieuws maar toch best ziek om je haar voor een president zo te etaleren.

quote:

Some were outraged, and the snowflakes were thrilled.”

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:03 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Iedereen die nu al harde uitspraken doet over de uitslag van een verkiezing in november 2020 lult gewoon uit z'n nek en is vooral z'n eigen wensen aan het projecteren.

Gabbard is het lievelingetje van de alt-right en dat begint zo langzamerhand een gevalletje Ron Paul te worden. Niemand wordt verder heel warm van Gabbard, maar vooral bij de Europese alt-right ligt ze wel lekker vanwege het feit dat ze wel gezellig doet met Assad en dergelijke.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:13 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Niemand bij de Democraten word echt warm van Tulsi. Ze is dan ook niet bezig om goedkoop te scoren bij de kiezers met holle retoriek over Trump.
Dat de alt Right Tulsi leuk vind (als het waar is) zegt mij helemaal niets.
Je kan geen oordeel over een kandidaat vellen aan de hand van de mensen die hem/haar steunen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:09 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Meen je dit nou serieus of is dit weer een slappe trollpoging?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:13 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Niemand bij de Democraten word echt warm van Tulsi.

quote:

Op [quote] [b]Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:14 schreef Lord-Ronddraai het volgende:
Ik gun Trump supporters ook wel nog 4 jaar Trump. Blijkbaar hebben ze dat heel hard nodig.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:15 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Ik kwam het tegen in mijn twitterfeed, ik dacht ik deel het even.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:23 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Je snapt heus wel waar ik op doel. Een stukje uit een film knippen kwalificeren als 'haat' is natuurlijk lachwekkend stupide.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:25 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Waarom zouden ze het eruit knippen?
De desbetreffende scène is niets meer dan een cameo.
Het dient geen enkel doel behalve het bevredigen van haatgevoelens tegenover de president.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:23 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ja, alleen jammer dat de internationale aanpak van klimaatverandering dan nog 4 jaar verder achteruit holt naast natuurlijk de verdere uitholling van het staatsbestel van onze belangrijkste bondgenoot en uitdrager van westerse liberale waarden.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:22 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Geen wonder als ze de partij constant beschuldigt van alles en nog wat en constant domme rechstzaken start

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:32 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Amerika heeft meer gehandicapte Zweedse meisjes vol van klimaathysterie nodig.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:36 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Dokter gespot.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:32 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Amerika heeft meer gehandicapte Zweedse meisjes vol van klimaathysterie nodig.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:35 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Gek genoeg word dat hier als een kwaliteit gezien als de Republikeinen dat doen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:25 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Waarom zouden ze het eruit knippen?
De desbetreffende scène is niets meer dan een cameo.
Het dient geen enkel doel behalve het bevredigen van haatgevoelens tegenover de president.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:39 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Nee, de VS heeft een goed landsbestuur nodig.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:54 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

En die hebben ze, het gaat goed met de VS. Beter dan de doemdenkers je hebben laten geloven pre 2016.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:46 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Bedankt Nostradamus.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:42 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Er worden wel vaker delen uit een film geknipt, in dit geval dus ook ten faveure van reclame. Maar zelfs als het een bewuste keuze is om specifiek Trump eruit te knippen, dan is dat nog geen 'haat'. Ik weet wel dat alles maar haat noemen een misplaatst spiegeltrucje is, maar het slaat echt nergens op.

Edit, zoals dus hier uitgelegd is er ongeveer 20 minuten weggesneden voor reclame waaronder die scène.

Typisch alt-right slachtoffergejank en paranoia dus weer.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:15 schreef theunderdog het volgende:

[..]

De kans is nu eenmaal aanzienlijk. Qua stemmers zal hij niet veel verliezen, de keesdistricten, replublikeinen blijven hem steunen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:16 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

Nog mooier als mensen het gaan goedpraten.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:46 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Bedankt Nostradamus.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 13:03 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Iedereen die nu al harde uitspraken doet over de uitslag van een verkiezing in november 2020 lult gewoon uit z'n nek en is vooral z'n eigen wensen aan het projecteren.

Gabbard is het lievelingetje van de alt-right en dat begint zo langzamerhand een gevalletje Ron Paul te worden. Niemand wordt verder heel warm van Gabbard, maar vooral bij de Europese alt-right ligt ze wel lekker vanwege het feit dat ze wel gezellig doet met Assad en dergelijke.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:19 schreef theunderdog het volgende:
Wat een onzin. Gabbard is gewoon een nieuw geluid. Vooral omtrent geopolitiek.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:16 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Als je geen inhoudelijke argumenten hebt, dan hoef je niet te reageren hoor.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:16 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Er valt echt nog niets zinnigs te zeggen over de kans. Hoe graag jij dat ook wilt.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:21 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Iets afdoen als 'onzin' en dan een opmerking plaatsen die op generlei wijze gerelateerd is aan de inhoud van een post is niet echt een heel sterke discussietechniek vriend. Doe mij even een peiling waar Gabbard in de dubbele cijfers peilt anders.

Overigens is geopolitiek voor het gros van de Amerikaanse kiezers totaal niet relevant. Het zijn vooral mensen van buiten de VS die zich heel erg druk maken over de geopolitiek van Amerikaanse politici.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:22 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

Ik zeg dus dat het pas mooi wordt als mensen het gaan goedpraten dus.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:23 schreef theunderdog het volgende:

[..]

Bewijs?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:24 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Dat is een beetje alsof ik zeg dat je moeder een hoer is, jij vervolgens beargumenteert dat ze zich nog nooit heeft laten betalen voor seks en ik vervolgens zeg dat het mooi is dat jij dat gaat goedpraten.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:31 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind het vrij ironisch dat types zoals jij die nooit iets onderbouwen en de boel onderspammen met posts van nauwelijks één volzin als eerste staan te schreeuwen om bewijs. Maar goed, voor de geïnteresseerde lezer:
https://www.washingtonpos(...)bout-foreign-policy/

Het staat je vrij om daar recentere cijfers bij te zoeken.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:04 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Economisch gaat het ondanks Trump zijn beleid best aardig, maar buiten dat heerst er meer corruptie dan ervoor, met de president voorop die zijn eigen herverkiezing wilde corrumperen.

Onnodig enorm oplopende staatsschuld, terwijl de belofte was dat die werd weggewerkt, minder economische groei dan beloofd, wetenschappers worden weggewerkt bij de EPA, professionele diplomaten bij de State Department, een minister van Justitie die politiek bedrijft in zijn uitlatingen, onnodig duizenden doden Koerden, aanpak van klimaatverandering staat niet alleen stil federaal, maar lijkt eerder tegengewerkt te worden, oorlogscriminelen krijgen een pardon en de president voert campagne met ze, etc, etc.

Nee, bijna alleen maar kommer en kwel met deze enorm domme man, helaas.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:47 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]
Vooral als je bedenkt dat men aan de andere kant van de wereld (China) men gewoon vrolijk door gaat met kolen stoken etc etc.

quote:

China is op weg om haar klimaatdoelstelling al 10 jaar eerder te bereiken dan was afgesproken. China heeft de afgelopen periode wel drie keer zoveel geïnvesteerd in productie van duurzame energie als de VS en produceert intussen meer groene energie dan enig ander land en distribueert dit in het onwijs grote land door middel van een hoogspanningsnetwerk met gelijkstroom, waarmee het technologisch vèr vooruit loopt. In de steden rijden bij elkaar 400.000 elektrische bussen die allemaal in China worden geproduceerd. Van alle in de wereld verkochte EV’s wordt 60 % in China geproduceerd en door de eigen bevolking gekocht.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:51 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]

Dit fabeltje moet maar eens de wereld uit:
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws(...)en-12902464-a1572802
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws(...)gie-6033368-a1539811
https://www.businessinsid(...)-voor-zonne-energie/

https://www.duurzaamnieuw(...)-weetjes-over-china/
[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 15:26 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

De praatpuntjes zonder enige basis in de empirische werkelijkheid worden inderdaad een beetje vermoeiend. China heeft naast het milieu ook gewoon goede redenen om over te schakelen op bronnen waarvoor ze niet afhankelijk zijn van het buitenland.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:04 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
....maar buiten dat heerst er meer corruptie dan ervoor, met de president voorop die zijn eigen herverkiezing wilde corrumperen.

twitter:

NewGopforUSA twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 16:15:32 Don’t let the 1st-grade grammar and spelling in this tweet distract you from the fact that POTUS signed off on the slaughter of thousands of Kurds at the hands of Turkey- and still depends on Turkey to preserve stability in the region.POTUS is a global embarrassment. https://t.co/bLrzfNOO2C reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 15:12:33 Russia, Syria, and Iran are killing, or on their way to killing, thousands if inocent civilians in Idlib Province. Don’t do it! Turkey is working hard to stop this carnage. reageer retweet

twitter:

eugenegu twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 15:42:00 @realDonaldTrump Trump abandoned the Kurds and this is a brutal consequence of Trump’s inhumane actions. The Kurds sacrificed their lives fighting ISIS for us and Trump repaid then with cruel betrayal. reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zondag 22-12-2019 om 22:08:01 PS3/ The only crime Trump appears not to have committed is murder, and to be very clear I'm only referring to *premeditated domestic murder*, as there's no doubt whatsoever he bears *legal* responsibility for the murder of hundreds or thousands of innocent Kurds in northern Syria reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zondag 22-12-2019 om 22:10:12 PS4/ When the story of what Trump did in Syria is written, it'll be found to have been worse than what he did with Russia and worse than what he did with China and worse than what he did with Ukraine and worse than what he did with UAE and worse than what he did with Saudi Arabia reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 16:23 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat je hier vrij alleen in staat!

De VS zijn nog altijd leidend in de bestrijding van corruptie.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 16:23 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat je hier vrij alleen in staat!

De VS zijn nog altijd leidend in de bestrijding van corruptie.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 19:06 schreef Bocaj het volgende:
Trump heeft vandaag 26-12 twitter ook weer gevonden!
Pak ze Trumpie! Pak ze!

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 19:06 schreef Bocaj het volgende:
Trump heeft vandaag 26-12 twitter ook weer gevonden!
Pak ze Trumpie! Pak ze!

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 19:11 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

En dit draagt wat precies bij aan deze topicreeks?

twitter:

justinamash twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 17:45:56 When Pres. Trump was elected, I was hopeful he would bring our men and women home from endless wars like Afghanistan. Instead, he nearly doubled the number of troops there. Even after reductions, there are still thousands more troops there now than when Pres. Obama left office. reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 19:11 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]

Ben jij nou echt enthousiast over het feit dat Trump fulltime aan het twitteren is? Ik ben blij dat de meeste regeringsleiders wel hun baan serieus nemen en daar hun tijd in steken...

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 13:59:42 Nancy Pelosi’s District in California has rapidly become one of the worst anywhere in the U.S. when it come to the homeless & crime. It has gotten so bad, so fast - she has lost total control and, along with her equally incompetent governor, Gavin Newsom, it is a very sad sight! reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 19:17 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Als Pelosi dat nou ook eens deed!

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 19:16 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

justinamash twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 17:45:56 When Pres. Trump was elected, I was hopeful he would bring our men and women home from endless wars like Afghanistan. Instead, he nearly doubled the number of troops there. Even after reductions, there are still thousands more troops there now than when Pres. Obama left office. reageer retweet

En dat van iemand die je moeilijk voor marxist kun uitmaken.

twitter:

cmarinucci twitterde op vrijdag 20-12-2019 om 05:36:21 In spin room at #DemDebate, @GavinNewsom slams Trump Administration and HUD for doing “nothing” on “housing first,” the priority to solve homelessness. https://t.co/AQXRHUwZys reageer retweet

quote:

After the Dec. 19 Democratic presidential debate in Los Angeles, Newsom accused the Trump administration of “playing politics” with the issue of homelessness. The governor said he expected “nothing but mishegas,” a Yiddish word for nonsense, “nothing but division coming and emanating from the folks at HUD at the Trump administration.” These remarks, recorded by Politico’s Carla Marinucci, eventually made their way to Trump on Twitter, resulting in the Christmas attack from his account.

Earlier this month, Newsom announced that cities and jurisdictions in California would be able to apply for hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency funds. The state also dedicated an additional $1 billion in its 2019-2020 budget to fighting homelessness.

WP

twitter:

WalshFreedom twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 15:48:49 The day after Christmas the “baby in chief” goes on a twitter tear complaining about how he’s being treated. Don’t ever tell me he’s a tough guy. He’s not. All he does is whine and moan about himself. Let’s be done with him in 2020. https://t.co/whF7porWP8 reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:19 schreef theunderdog het volgende:

[..]

De kans is nu eenmaal aanzienlijk. Qua stemmers zal hij niet veel verliezen, de keesdistricten, replublikeinen blijven hem steunen.
[..]

Democrats Strategize Against Renewed GOP Vote Suppression Efforts | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 19:14 schreef Bocaj het volgende:

[..]

Meer dan genoeg! (Alleen al voor het broodnodige evenwicht!)

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 11:40 schreef theunderdog het volgende:

[..]

Dit zijn gewoon feiten.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 00:23 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Wow, meestel is de man van Kellyanne Conway toch wat subtieler

[ afbeelding ]

Niet dat hij ongelijk heeft.

twitter:

nytimes twitterde op vrijdag 27-12-2019 om 07:00:07 The men of Alpha Platoon, SEAL Team 7, described Chief Gallagher as “freaking evil” and “toxic” in videos not shown publicly before.The remarks are blistering testimony about their platoon chief, who was protected by President Trump from punishment. https://t.co/zcNXDkqffF reageer retweet

quote:

Video recordings of the interviews obtained by The New York Times, which have not been shown publicly before, were part of a trove of Navy investigative materials about the prosecution of Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher on war crimes charges including murder.

They offer the first opportunity outside the courtroom to hear directly from the men of Alpha platoon, SEAL Team 7, whose blistering testimony about their platoon chief was dismissed by President Trump when he upended the military code of justice to protect Chief Gallagher from the punishment.

“The guy is freaking evil,” Special Operator Miller told investigators. “The guy was toxic,” Special Operator First Class Joshua Vriens, a sniper, said in a separate interview. “You could tell he was perfectly O.K. with killing anybody that was moving,” Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, a medic in the platoon, told the investigators.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:06 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Hij staat ook eeuwig in het rijtje van presidenten wat al een prestatie is op zich.
Hoe de geschiedenis zal oordelen over zijn termijnen valt nog te bezien. Tot nu toe gaat het absoluut niet slecht en is er werkgelegenheid en optimisme onder de Republikeinen.
Helaas is het land tot op het bod verdeeld, en helaas is dat iets waar de president niets aan kan doen.
Wederom is hier een belangrijke rol voor de media weggelegd om eens objectief verslag te doen over Trump en zijn beleid.
Wat er over Trump in de media komt is voor 90% negatief, en de zure stemming in dit topic is daar het resultaat van.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 09:39 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Denk je nou werkelijk dat geschiedenis positief zal oordelen over een narcistische imbeciel die iedereen die hem in zijn ogen dwarszit de huid vol scheldt via Twitter?

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 12:06 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]
Helaas is het land tot op het bod verdeeld, en helaas is dat iets waar de president niets aan kan doen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:00 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]

Tja, wat te denken van de zin:
[..]

Volgens mij begon Trump over het opsluiten van politieke tegenstanders. Volgens mij scheldt Trump iedereen uit op twitter. Trump heeft het verdeeld zijn misschien niet gecreëerd (onder Obama werd er al niet samengewerkt), hij heeft het wel ernstig verdiept en uitgebreid. In het tijdperk Obama leek het nog wel te redden door een verzoenende president, nu is het een haat en nijd over en weer die voorlopig niet over zal gaan. Trump zal altijd de president zijn die het land ernstig verdeeld heeft.

En trouwens, ook de president die niks voor elkaar kreeg op het moment dat zijn eigen partij een meerderheid had in zowel het Huis als de Senaat, die eerste periode van Trump is wat dat betreft ook wel uniek.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 09:39 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Denk je nou werkelijk dat geschiedenis positief zal oordelen over een narcistische imbeciel die iedereen die hem in zijn ogen dwarszit de huid vol scheldt via Twitter?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:04 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Ik begrijp niet goed waarom dat zinnetje je stoort.
Er is niets wat deze president kan doen om het land bij elkaar te brengen. Hoe is het ook mogelijk met 90% negatieve artikelen vanuit de pers?

twitter:

thehill twitterde op maandag 23-12-2019 om 20:43:06 "On December 18th, 2019 Donald Trump became the first cast member from Home Alone 2 to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives.” https://t.co/rqN0zCYb5W reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:08 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Ben jij niet van mening dat Trump zelf ook actief bezig is met de verdeeldheid in het land in stand te houden of zelfs te vergroten?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:04 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Ik begrijp niet goed waarom dat zinnetje je stoort.
Er is niets wat deze president kan doen om het land bij elkaar te brengen. Hoe is het ook mogelijk met 90% negatieve artikelen vanuit de pers?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:03 schreef Excavator het volgende:
Trump toont de weg, heel de wereld zal volgen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:06 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Waarom niet, hij heeft geen nieuwe oorlogen gestart en wie weet wat hij nog gaat doen in zijn tweede termijn.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 01:47 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Hoe zou kerstmis met de Conways zijn denk je?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:27 schreef Bernd.von.Galen het volgende:

[..]

Rip aan de nabestaanden van de wereld

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:21 schreef cynicus het volgende:
Ik kan me de campagne van Trump nog goed heugen. Er is in de VS zelden (nooit?) iemand geweest die de verdeelheid zo heeft vergroot en uitgebuit dan Trump. Vervolgens moet ik hier lezen dat hij er niks aan kan doen dat het land zo verdeeld is? Totaal ontdaan van de realiteit, Chivaz is..

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:49 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Vertel eens, wat kan hij er aan doen?
Roepen dat ik er naast zit doet iedereen hier maar met een verklaring komen hoe het realistisch gezien anders kan hoor ik niet.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:49 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Vertel eens, wat kan hij er aan doen?
Roepen dat ik er naast zit doet iedereen hier maar met een verklaring komen hoe het realistisch gezien anders kan hoor ik niet.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:56 schreef cynicus het volgende:
Niet doen, bijvoorbeeld? Trump had ook een campagne op argumenten kunnen voeren in plaats van een extreme wij vs hun cultuur voeden... Moet je daar nou echt nog om vragen?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:06 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Waarom niet, hij heeft geen nieuwe oorlogen gestart en wie weet wat hij nog gaat doen in zijn tweede termijn.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:58 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Dus Trump moet een tijdmachine bouwen, helder.....

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:57 schreef archito het volgende:

[..]

Stoppen met liegen en nodeloos mensen beledigen met onder andere sneue bijnamen zou een begin zijn.

Maar jij deed in je eerdere post voorkomen dat het aan de media ligt dat Trump de verdeling niet kan verminderen. Terwijl hij toch echt zichzelf een hoek in heeft gewerkt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 11:03 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Weird, het is net alsof het niet Trump was die begon met beledigen, racistische uitspraken en haat opstoken. Althans, in jouw alternatieve universum.

"Als je die vent op zijn bek slaat betaal ik de boete wel"! Ja, inderdaad, als hij een tijdsmachine had dan had hij dat vast niet gezegd...oh...wacht.

Hou toch op met je flauwekul, man.

Biden "put you all back in chains" remark causes stir

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 11:08 schreef cynicus het volgende:
But ... but... mean media bad!

pfff.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 11:07 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Biden "put you all back in chains" remark causes stir

Joe Biden tegen zwarte Amerikanen over Mitt Romney.
He’s gonna put yall back in chains!!

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 11:04 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Je wilt dat een politicus stopt met liegen?
Dat is nogal een standaard die je daar vraagt. Maar stel dat hij stopt met liegen en politici beledigen.
Zou de media dan stoppen met de constante negatieve artikelen gericht naar Trump en soms ook naar zijn kiezers?
Of denk je dat de media die het moeten hebben van sensatie rustig doorgaan met de negativiteit die ze nu op dagelijkse basis de wereld in slingeren?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 11:07 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Biden "put you all back in chains" remark causes stir

Joe Biden tegen zwarte Amerikanen over Mitt Romney.
He’s gonna put yall back in chains!!

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 11:11 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:
Nou ja, eerlijkheidshalve moet je natuurlijk wel erkennen dat Trump gewoon handig gebruikt heeft gemaakt van een verdeeldheid die al veel langer aanwezig was. Als je dan toch naar de bron van het kwaad wil kijken, dan kom je toch echt uit bij de 'white evangelicals'. Niet geheel toevallig natuurlijk dat daar ook het leeuwendeel van z'n aanhang te vinden is.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 11:14 schreef archito het volgende:

[..]

Want Trump gedraagt zich als een doorsnee politicus? Totaal niet vergelijkbaar.

De media heeft een goede reden om negatief over de president te schrijven, hij liegt en beledigt namelijk bijna nonstop.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 11:14 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

En wat heeft Trump voor zwarte Amerikanen gedaan? OH ja, ik weet het weer, racisme en nazisme bon ton gemaakt. Biden had gelijk alleen was het de verkeerde kandidaat dus.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 11:19 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Dan blijft de loopgravenoorlog gewoon in stand, ongeacht welke president er nu ook naar voren komt.

twitter:

tomiahonen twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 17:56:38 I wonder if #fiftyfive or #fiftyfivepercent will trend? Trump is in deep deep shit now. Nixon resigned at 55%Trump can't resign because Mueller told us he has 12 indictments waiting. Trump would go straight to jail, do not pass Go& Pence can't pardon Trump for NY state crimes reageer retweet

twitter:

Amy_Siskind twitterde op vrijdag 27-12-2019 om 00:34:52 41% of Germans think Trump is the most dangerous of 5 world leaders including Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Vladimir Putin https://t.co/e03MSYKlpy reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 26 december 2019 14:04 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Economisch gaat het ondanks Trump zijn beleid best aardig, maar buiten dat heerst er meer corruptie dan ervoor, met de president voorop die zijn eigen herverkiezing wilde corrumperen.

Onnodig enorm oplopende staatsschuld, terwijl de belofte was dat die werd weggewerkt, minder economische groei dan beloofd, wetenschappers worden weggewerkt bij de EPA, professionele diplomaten bij de State Department, een minister van Justitie die politiek bedrijft in zijn uitlatingen, onnodig duizenden doden Koerden, aanpak van klimaatverandering staat niet alleen stil federaal, maar lijkt eerder tegengewerkt te worden, oorlogscriminelen krijgen een pardon en de president voert campagne met ze, etc, etc.

Nee, bijna alleen maar kommer en kwel met deze enorm domme man, helaas.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 12:27 schreef Excavator het volgende:
Ik zou het niet zo snel met Duitsers eens willen zijn.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 13:53 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

[..]

En dat is waar het allemaal mee begint, de haat en nijd in de wereld: mensen over één kam scheren vanwege hun land van herkomst, hun politieke partij, hun kleur, hun sexe, hun seksuele voorkeur, hun geloof, hun ... , hun..., hun in principe anders zijn dan jij.
Veroordelen zonder te kijken, zonder te praten. Hoeveel Duitsers ken je helemaal?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 14:23 schreef Excavator het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie vooral veel Trumphaat maar deze is gerechtigd zeker?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 14:23 schreef Excavator het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie vooral veel Trumphaat maar deze is gerechtigd zeker?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 14:29 schreef ITs_relative het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou het geen haat willen noemen. Meer een beoordeling.
En die is net zo gerechtigd als de andere die er bij staan.
Wel grappig lijstje zo, Kim Jung Un, Putin.....

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 15:00 schreef Excavator het volgende:

[..]

Jouw keuze als je uw leven verder in angst wil leven.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 14:23 schreef Excavator het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie vooral veel Trumphaat maar deze is gerechtigd zeker?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 15:35 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

[..]


_{Wat jou hier ontgaat is het verschil tussen afkeer van een groep, om de simpele reden dat ze tot die groep behoren, en afkeer van één enkel individu dat langdurig een bepaalde attitude vertoont.}

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 10:16 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie daar ook een belangrijke rol voor de media in, het word tijd dat er weer eens met respect over het electoraat word gesproken en dat elke mening met respect behandelt gaat worden.

twitter:

Kasparov63 twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 20:26:55 This was my message to the media going into 2020. Your responsibility is to the truth, not to "giving both sides" when one side is lies. And you cannot expose lies without spreading them. So repeat the facts. https://t.co/4EavbYO1AI reageer retweet

twitter:

Kasparov63 twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 20:39:39 Repeating the facts, over and over, is the way to be a lighthouse in the fog of misinformation and lies. Otherwise people doubt, tune out, assume the truth is unknowable, or that known facts are up for debate. reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 15:58 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Lijkt me eerder dat de taak van de media is om meningen te checken op juistheid. Feiten staan niet ter discussie.

twitter:

Kasparov63 twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 20:26:55 This was my message to the media going into 2020. Your responsibility is to the truth, not to "giving both sides" when one side is lies. And you cannot expose lies without spreading them. So repeat the facts. https://t.co/4EavbYO1AI reageer retweet

twitter:

Kasparov63 twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 20:39:39 Repeating the facts, over and over, is the way to be a lighthouse in the fog of misinformation and lies. Otherwise people doubt, tune out, assume the truth is unknowable, or that known facts are up for debate. reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 15:00 schreef Excavator het volgende:

[..]

Jouw keuze als je uw leven verder in angst wil leven.

twitter:

CollignonJos twitterde op vrijdag 27-12-2019 om 13:01:14 Help! https://t.co/DORCzGDS29 reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 16:45 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

twitter:

CollignonJos twitterde op vrijdag 27-12-2019 om 13:01:14 Help! https://t.co/DORCzGDS29 reageer retweet

[ afbeelding ]



Wat een fantastische cartoonist is Collignon toch,

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 17:10 schreef Excavator het volgende:

[..]

Het zijn nochtans zij die tegen abortus zijn.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 14:52 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Dus als je constateert dat Kim-Jung Un een gevaar vormt voor de wereldvrede en een grote klootzak is, is er volgens ook sprake van Kimhaat?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 17:59 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

De vergelijking met Trump en dictators gaat een beetje mank.
Derhalve neem ik en anderen die 41% Duitsers niet serieus.

twitter:

funder twitterde op vrijdag 27-12-2019 om 16:25:10 Presidential Aide: There are so many issues we have to deal with right now, what would you like to focus on today? Climate change? Trade policy? Gun reform? Raising minimum wage? Healthcare? Foreign policy? Equality? Letting kids out of cages?Trump: Let’s focus on Jon Voight. reageer retweet

twitter:

Paul_VanDerMeer twitterde op vrijdag 27-12-2019 om 16:31:16 @funder Or his performance in the movie Home Alone 2 being cut out, in 2014 reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 17:10 schreef Excavator het volgende:

Het zijn nochtans zij die tegen abortus zijn.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 18:10 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Trumps critici worden niet gedreven door haat, maar door het simpele feit dat de man in elk opzicht een waardeloze president en betreurenswaardig mens is.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 20:13 schreef Arcee het volgende:

[..]

Dit idd.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 19:55 schreef Treinhomo het volgende:

[..]

Deugmensen dus.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 15:58 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Lijkt me eerder dat de taak van de media is om meningen te checken op juistheid. Feiten staan niet ter discussie.

twitter:

Kasparov63 twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 20:26:55 This was my message to the media going into 2020. Your responsibility is to the truth, not to "giving both sides" when one side is lies. And you cannot expose lies without spreading them. So repeat the facts. https://t.co/4EavbYO1AI reageer retweet

twitter:

Kasparov63 twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 20:39:39 Repeating the facts, over and over, is the way to be a lighthouse in the fog of misinformation and lies. Otherwise people doubt, tune out, assume the truth is unknowable, or that known facts are up for debate. reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 20:55 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

https://m.washingtontimes.com/

Je kan lukken wat je wilt, maar wanneer 90% negatief is dan kun je moeilijk over objectieve media spreken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 20:55 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

https://m.washingtontimes.com/

Je kan lukken wat je wilt, maar wanneer 90% negatief is dan kun je moeilijk over objectieve media spreken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 20:55 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

https://m.washingtontimes.com/

Je kan lukken wat je wilt, maar wanneer 90% negatief is dan kun je moeilijk over objectieve media spreken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 20:55 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

https://m.washingtontimes.com/

Je kan lukken wat je wilt, maar wanneer 90% negatief is dan kun je moeilijk over objectieve media spreken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 15:58 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Lijkt me eerder dat de taak van de media is om meningen te checken op juistheid. Feiten staan niet ter discussie.

twitter:

Kasparov63 twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 20:26:55 This was my message to the media going into 2020. Your responsibility is to the truth, not to "giving both sides" when one side is lies. And you cannot expose lies without spreading them. So repeat the facts. https://t.co/4EavbYO1AI reageer retweet

twitter:

Kasparov63 twitterde op donderdag 26-12-2019 om 20:39:39 Repeating the facts, over and over, is the way to be a lighthouse in the fog of misinformation and lies. Otherwise people doubt, tune out, assume the truth is unknowable, or that known facts are up for debate. reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 21:13 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Kasparov heeft absoluut gelijk maar hij wil toetsbare resultaten in actuele subjectieve materie. In het huidige tijdperk hoef je Trump of Giuliani maar even op de buis en je bent 50 leugens verder, dus hoe pak je dat aan?. Die leugens op zich zijn nieuws. Laat je het kamp van de president weg, dan heeft het nieuws minder waarde.

Theoretisch zal er wel beter nieuws mogelijk zijn maar praktisch is het niet te doen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 23:15 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
Die vergelijkingen ook met Kim Jong Un en Taghi compleet gestoord dit.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 23:17 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Vergelijken met Taghi is wel wat overdreven ja.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 23:30 schreef ITs_relative het volgende:

[..]

Wie vergelijkt hem met Taghi dan?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 23:17 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Vergelijken met Taghi is wel wat overdreven ja.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 23:17 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Vergelijken met Taghi is wel wat overdreven ja.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 00:49 schreef Enchanter het volgende:
Schijnt een Republikein in de senaat zich aangesloten te hebben bij de demoraten.
Bron heb ik ff zo snel niet

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 00:58 schreef archito het volgende:

[..]

Doel je op Murkowski? Want verder is er niks te vinden.

Zij uit kritiek op de houding van McConnel en wil een eerlijk impeachmentproces in de Senaat.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 01:02 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Nou ja, Enchanter heeft het ergens "gehoord", maar heeft geen bron. Misschien de stemmen in zijn hoofd? In de lokale kroeg? Hij kreeg een appje?

twitter:

davidfrum twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 03:49:37 It’s quite scary to think what would happen if the US were struck by a crisis that required a real president on the job instead of a sock puppet insult dog https://t.co/9MgGTV4Vjz reageer retweet

twitter:

atrupar twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 04:36:06 The President of the United States has, today alone, retweeted 2 QAnon fan accounts, a Pizzagate account, an account that compared his following to a cult, and an account that described Obama as "Satan's Muslim Scum." And this insanity isn't even a blip on the news radar. reageer retweet