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.

twitter:

mkraju twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 05:54:33 Trump, just before midnight on the Friday after Christmas, retweeted a tweet that singled out the alleged whistleblower by name to his nearly 68 million followers reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 05:59 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

mkraju twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 05:54:33 Trump, just before midnight on the Friday after Christmas, retweeted a tweet that singled out the alleged whistleblower by name to his nearly 68 million followers reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 06:11 schreef AnneX het volgende:

[..]

Tweet comment:...” Sounds like Miller is in charge today...”

https://mobile.twitter.com/sally_blinn/status/1210771499046465537

quote:

He prefers Sharpies over email. His aides cart around cardboard boxes of work papers -- not laptops -- for him to sift through on Air Force One. On pressing technology matters, including drones at the border, clean energy and, most recently, the evolution of airplane engineering, he prefers a nonscientific approach.

In short, President Trump often operates on the theory that older is better.

"Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly," Mr. Trump said on Twitter on Tuesday, sharing his views on the still-unconfirmed cause of an Ethiopian Airlines plane crash last weekend that killed all 157 people on board. "Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better."

At a time when experts are citing a serious need to bolster the nation's infrastructure and science initiatives to remain globally competitive, Mr. Trump has long used partisan language to encourage his supporters to follow him in embracing a 1950s Rockwellian approach to technology.

In his continuing crusade to build a wall along the country's southwestern border, for instance, Mr. Trump dismissed the idea of drones to secure the border. He wanted a wall, an ancient technology he has said never fails, much like its Mesopotamian cousin, the wheel.

"The fact is there is nothing else's that will work," Mr. Trump said on Twitter in December, "and that has been true for thousands of years. It's like the wheel, there is nothing better."

Mr. Trump added, "I know tech better than anyone."

SPOILER

But it is a tactic that current and former administration officials said overshadowed efforts that in any other universe would look a lot like bipartisanship: Mr. Trump, they say, has privately committed to expansions of several technological initiatives that were hatched in the Obama White House, including revamping the government's technology system and digitizing health care records.

Not that this is evident when Mr. Trump addresses the public. He tends to frame the willingness to embrace technology as a partisan issue, which his fans lap up. His mocking examination of wind power led to laughter from a crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference this month.

"When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your electric," Mr. Trump said before mimicking a man trying to watch TV: "'Darling, is the wind blowing today? I'd like to watch television, darling.'"

His theatrical approach tends to dazzle fans, but it has alarmed experts who worry that the president's analog behavior has failed to signal to Americans which technological ideas they should be excited about -- or which they should be worried about -- as global competitors, including China, pour money into technology initiatives like the race to master artificial intelligence.

"It doesn't put the best face forward for the United States to have a president talking that way," Darrell West, the director of the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution, said in an interview. "It makes us look like we're not a scientifically literate country."

Cristin Dorgelo, who was chief of staff in the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Barack Obama, said a commander in chief was supposed to be the nation's most effective intermediary between the public and the science and technology communities.

Mr. Obama, she pointed out, edited an issue of Wired magazine and was notorious for imbibing detailed memorandums on technology policy.

"I think that we have a problem where there are people doing good work inside of the building to advance policy on technology issues," Ms. Dorgelo said, "but a president who at the same time does not ground his remarks about science and technology in fact and in evidence."

It's not as if Mr. Trump dismisses all technology in his public life. He likes hobnobbing with technology executives at the White House, like Tim Cook of Apple (although he called him "Tim Apple"), and has masterfully re-engineered the presidential Twitter account to serve as his e-bully pulpit. Aides say he is also adept at using his DVR systems to record television shows. Mr. Trump, after all, believes TiVo is "one of the great inventions of all time."

Mr. Trump has also used an executive order to establish a national strategy for artificial intelligence and another to develop a strategy to lead the world in fifth-generation, or 5G, cellular networks. (Mr. Trump remarked recently on Twitter that 6G would be even better.)

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 21-02-2019 om 14:55:02 I want 5G, and even 6G, technology in the United States as soon as possible. It is far more powerful, faster, and smarter than the current standard. American companies must step up their efforts, or get left behind. There is no reason that we should be lagging behind on......... reageer retweet

"The Trump administration has been laser-focused on an ambitious national tech policy agenda that drives innovation and American leadership in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, 5G networks and quantum computing," Michael Kratsios, the deputy assistant to the president for technology policy, said in a statement. "The president cares deeply about ensuring these technologies are developed by American innovators, built by American workers and reflect American values and priorities."

Some experts are concerned that the commitment is little more than lip service. Mr. West, from Brookings, said the White House established an A.I. policy a year and a half after China announced that it planned to create an A.I. industry worth $150 billion to its economy by 2030.

"It's too little, too late," Mr. West said. "If you're not funding a major initiative, agencies are not going to take it seriously."

But Aneesh Chopra, who was Mr. Obama's chief technology officer, said in an interview that in other matters there was a "surprising alignment on a number of key areas" where the Trump White House has worked to expand a blueprint left by predecessors.

"I may strongly disagree with the president's views of health care reform," Mr. Chopra said, "but I am pleased with the president's commitment to build on progress on the long-term technical foundation of what we refer to as a health care internet."

Mr. Chopra and several of the president's aides credited Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, with pushing Mr. Trump to recognize the importance of some of those efforts.

A key to getting Mr. Trump to respond to technological efforts, several of his advisers said, is to frame the pitch in cost-saving and customer-service terms. During a 2017 meeting to get him on board with revamping government technology systems, a project Mr. Kushner championed after helping establish the Office of American Innovation, aides said they told Mr. Trump the effort could save billions.

After asking his aides what Americans would see if the systems to apply for farming loans or veterans health care benefits were redesigned, Mr. Trump eventually approved the effort. But Mr. Trump said at the time that he knew he would never get credit for it, according to two people familiar with his remarks.

After all, this is the same president who said the Navy should get rid of an electromagnetic catapult system on a new aircraft carrier and replace it with an old one that used steam.

"They have digital," Mr. Trump told Time magazine in 2017. "What is digital? And it's very complicated; you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out." The Navy, Mr. Trump said, told him it had to stay with digital. "I said, 'No you're not,'" Mr. Trump recounted. He added that the Navy had to switch to "goddamned steam; the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money, and it's no good."

John Cleese on Stupidity

twitter:

gtconway3d twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 05:27:50 GOP senators: You all know he's nuts, right? reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 06:45 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:
Vandaar!

Trump supporters are promoting a bizarre website that claims the president’s IQ is 156 ‘at the minimum’

TRUMPGOD!

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 06:45 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:
Vandaar!

Trump supporters are promoting a bizarre website that claims the president’s IQ is 156 ‘at the minimum’

TRUMPGOD!

quote:

The questions surrounding "what is Donald Trump's IQ" will still not be correct answers.

Perhaps this is the parent's decision to go through since the academy has completely changed Trump.

He was the focus of human morality so he set out his views on abortion as unethical behavior.

Being at the peak of success must have been unavoidable at times of pressure, but he always said no to alcohol, cigarettes, and especially to stimulants. Because deep in his heart is the obsession with the death of his brother for long periods of alcoholism.

With his father teaching experience with the genius of the business and the boldness of youth, Donald Trump is keen to dominate the market with huge scale projects.

Having gone through many ups and downs, having filed for bankruptcy four times, success has, many failures, so far he has become a billionaire has a reputation and entered the top billionaires of the famous Forbes.

His money is bank money, but Donald is very cash spent. When to pay in advance, when to deposit. As long as there are contracts in need. When the opportunity came, he resolved immediately and proved by always ready cash bags.

Donald Trump has a passion for writing before reaching the presidential race. The number of books Trump wrote at least 50 books.

Make a lot of money and he also spends a lot to enjoy the results he creates. The construction of the Trump Tower in Manhattan is enough to know what his luxury.

Despite being considered a psychological boss with staff, getting along with everyone, but Donald Trump has very few friends.

quote:

According to PerScholar.com, Wharton’s SAT requirements are currently set at 1500. This roughly translates to an free IQ test scores between 145 and 149, not 156. Regardless, Wharton’s admission requirements are irrelevant, since Trump did not enter Wharton as a freshman. He transferred there is his junior year and Wharton does not list SAT scores among its requirements for transfer students.

Trump’s grades at Fordham were just respectable and that he got into Wharton mainly because he had an interview with and admissions officer who had been a high school classmate of his older brother.
And Wharton’s admission team surely knew that Trump was from one of New York’s wealthiest families.

twitter:

RobertMaguire_ twitterde op vrijdag 27-12-2019 om 17:26:47 In Dec 2015, candidate Trump criticized Obama, who had been president for 7yrs, saying Obama had "played 250 rounds of golf"Today, Trump is making his 251st taxpayer-funded visit to one of the golf resorts he still profits from and said he wouldn't visit if elected. https://t.co/qB1CwDASCE reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 06:50 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Het wordt weer eens tijd voor deze:

John Cleese on Stupidity

[...]

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 13:44 schreef Toby56 het volgende:

[..]

Lol.
"David Dunning at Cornell, who's a friend of mine I'm proud to say."

Ik ben dol op Cleese & Python et al, maar was deze man ook niet de intellectueel die volmondig Brexit steunde en, na zijn jammerlijk mislukte huwelijk met Connie Booth, nog enkele malen hertrouwde met dames die hem alleen maar financieel wilden leegtrekken?

Wat zou zijn IQ eigenlijk zijn?

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 13:49 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Volgens mij claimt Cleese niet dat hij juist zo slim is inderdaad.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 13:53 schreef Toby56 het volgende:

[..]

Dat vind ik een mooie zin.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 10:09 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

En ze baseren dat IQ van 156 op het feit dat hij tot Wharton toegelaten werd

twitter:

McJesse twitterde op vrijdag 27-12-2019 om 19:08:39 Forget Home Alone 2, here’s the REAL 1992 clip of Trump talking to a child in a hotel lobby you should see. https://t.co/EpXBIBO3aO reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 15:58 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

McJesse twitterde op vrijdag 27-12-2019 om 19:08:39 Forget Home Alone 2, here’s the REAL 1992 clip of Trump talking to a child in a hotel lobby you should see. https://t.co/EpXBIBO3aO reageer retweet

Wat een viespeuk is die Trump toch. Bah.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 13:44 schreef Toby56 het volgende:

[..]

Lol.
"David Dunning at Cornell, who's a friend of mine I'm proud to say."

Ik ben dol op Cleese & Python et al, maar was deze man ook niet de intellectueel die volmondig Brexit steunde en, na zijn jammerlijk mislukte huwelijk met Connie Booth, nog enkele malen hertrouwde met dames die hem alleen maar financieel wilden leegtrekken?

Wat zou zijn IQ eigenlijk zijn?

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 14:33:58 California and New York must do something about their TREMENDOUS Homeless problems. They are setting records! If their Governors can’t handle the situation, which they should be able to do very easily, they must call and “politely” ask for help. Would be so easy with competence! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 17:46 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 14:33:58 California and New York must do something about their TREMENDOUS Homeless problems. They are setting records! If their Governors can’t handle the situation, which they should be able to do very easily, they must call and “politely” ask for help. Would be so easy with competence! reageer retweet

Typisch POTUS weer. Zijn ego is belangrijker dan een oplossing voor het probleem.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 06:52 schreef Megumi het volgende:

[..]

Je kan ook zeggen dat een hoog IQ hebben dus niet alles is. Maar los van Trump wat naar mijn mening ook een groot probleem is dat er vrijwel geen positieve samenwerking meer is op alle lagen in het bestuur tussen de democraten en de republikeinen waardoor veel zaken niet van de grond komen. In de essentie is het twee partij het grootste probleem binnen de VS.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 21:53 schreef ITs_relative het volgende: [..] Je kan in ieder geval notoire leugenaars minder ruimte geven. Als je die interviews kijkt met bijvoorbeeld Kelly-Anne Conway, die zijn tenenkrommend en zitten vol met leugens. Daarnaast zitten er in veel nieuwsshows analysten in het panel, vaak van beide partijen, om niet partijdig over te komen. Als er daar 1 non stopzit te liegen mag die van mij weg blijven. Dat is volgens mij waar hij op doelt. Hier op dit forum moet eigenlijk ook niet iedereen evenveel aandacht krijgen. Monolith onderbouwt zijn stellingen bijvoorbeeld altijd en Koosvogels en kijkertje komen met goede nieuwsartikelen. Anderen komen met dubieuze bronnen en achterhaalde "feiten". Op een forum kan dit maar als nieuws moet niet voor beide ruimte zijn.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 20:39 schreef Ulx het volgende:
A Gangster in the White House

Een prima stuk over het mafiagedrag van de Criminal-in-Chief.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 21:13 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Er zijn bijna geen overtreffende trappen meer te bedenken bij Trump.

Als ik 'm naast 99 negatieve punten 1 positieve moet geven is het dat hij altijd uiterst transparant is geweest over z'n onvermogens en corruptie.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 22:28 schreef AnneX het volgende:

[..]

Héél positief punt ja.

Weet niet zo goed wat ik hiervan moet denken.
"The witnesses must testify." This ad from Republicans for the Rule of Law is up in the states of key GOP senators; it will run on Fox nationally Monday.“

https://mobile.twitter.com/billkristol/status/1210925407198961665

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 22:31 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Waarom weet je niet zo goed wat je daar van moet denken? Lijkt me een prima zaak.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 22:38 schreef AnneX het volgende:

[..]

Dus ik begrijp het goed, dat de adv. op fox getoond gaat worden all over de States en al te zien is in de staten waar de R’s als Mitch en trawanten zetelen.
Hier wordt Impotus niet blij van.

What Is Trump Afraid Of?

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 22:43 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ja, dat is wat het betekent. Deze groep republikeinen is al een tijdje actief met dit soort advertenties. Zie bv. van vorige maand:

What Is Trump Afraid Of?

Al weet ik niet of dat landelijk op Fox News draaide.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 05:59 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

mkraju twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 05:54:33 Trump, just before midnight on the Friday after Christmas, retweeted a tweet that singled out the alleged whistleblower by name to his nearly 68 million followers reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 23:18 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:

[..]

Hij heeft die tweet inmiddels toch maar verwijderd.

https://www.washingtonpos(...)a4d2c2166_story.html

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 23:29 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Of zijn juridische staf. Wat een ploert.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 23:36 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:

[..]

Het verwijderen van die tweet zou een overtreding op zich te zijn, zo lees ik tenminste van mensen die er verstand van hebben.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 23:39 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Mja, dat lijkt me dan weer spijkers op laag water zoeken.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 23:18 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:

[..]

Hij heeft die tweet inmiddels toch maar verwijderd.

https://www.washingtonpos(...)a4d2c2166_story.html

twitter:

brianstelter twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:30:57 A Twitter spokesman confirms that the platform has suspended some of the MAGAsphere accounts that Trump RTed in a tweetstorm last night -- for unspecified violations of Twitter Rules. Some of the accounts looked very spammy and suspicious. reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 23:39 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:

[..]

O hoezo?

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:14:37 So sad to see that New York City and State are falling apart. All they want to do is investigate to make me hate them even more than I should. Governor Cuomo has lost control, and lost his mind. Very bad for the homeless and all! reageer retweet

twitter:

gtconway3d twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:16:47 Is there something going on in the NYAG investigation that we should know about? https://t.co/cF8BmtTa8J reageer retweet

twitter:

jentaub twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:19:56 @realDonaldTrump Sir, could you please elaborate a bit more on the investigation to which you refer? Also. In case you forgot. Impeachment is forever. Enjoy! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 23:54 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Hoe zie je dit verder voor je? Dat een groep burgers de president aanklagen en dat een rechter uiteindelijk zegt dat het niet mag op sanctie van niks. Dit terwijl er zoveel ernstigere zaken zijn omtrent deze man.

Ik vind het bovendien niet erg als hij een tweet verwijdert waarin hij iemand beschuldigt en vind het veel erger dat hij de tweet stuurde. Doen alsof dit ofwel tegen de presidential records act in gaat ofwel het verwijderen van bewijs zou zijn, lijken me moeilijk serieus te nemen.

Voor de eerste situatie kunnen de mensen die het bij houden gewoon hun taak doen voordat het verwijderd werd (en gezien de hoeveelheid bewijs, ook nadat), en voor de tweede situatie is er voldoende publiek bewijs dat hij dit getweet heeft.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 23:59 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
En nu is Coumo weer het doelwit van zijn ongenoegen. Zou er iets broeien?

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:14:37 So sad to see that New York City and State are falling apart. All they want to do is investigate to make me hate them even more than I should. Governor Cuomo has lost control, and lost his mind. Very bad for the homeless and all! reageer retweet

twitter:

gtconway3d twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:16:47 Is there something going on in the NYAG investigation that we should know about? https://t.co/cF8BmtTa8J reageer retweet

twitter:

jentaub twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:19:56 @:realDonaldTrump Sir, could you please elaborate a bit more on the investigation to which you refer? Also. In case you forgot. Impeachment is forever. Enjoy! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 00:20 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:

[..]

Het gaat er helemaal niet om hoe ik het voor me zie (of jij for that matter) er bestaat gewoon iets als de 'Federal Records Act'. Het mag gewoon niet.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 23:53 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Blijkbaar heeft Twitter een aantal accounts verwijderd nav de RT's

twitter:

brianstelter twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:30:57 A Twitter spokesman confirms that the platform has suspended some of the MAGAsphere accounts that Trump RTed in a tweetstorm last night -- for unspecified violations of Twitter Rules. Some of the accounts looked very spammy and suspicious. reageer retweet

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 00:14:24 1/ Legally speaking, it's far *more* interesting that Trump illegally deleted a 12/27 tweet seeking to out the whistleblower while leaving *up* a 12/26 attempt to do the same thing, as it means two things: (1) Trump knows it's wrong to do what he's doing; (2) he's still doing it. reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 00:20 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:

[..]

Het gaat er helemaal niet om hoe ik het voor me zie (of jij for that matter) er bestaat gewoon iets als de 'Federal Records Act'. Het mag gewoon niet.

twitter:

JYSexton twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 15:52:57 My conversations with Trump supporters have changed recently. After initial pushback, they’re admitting he’s too concerned with himself, that he’s a volatile rich guy helping other rich guys. They admit he’s a weapon, but they’re tiring of him.The facade is breaking. https://t.co/hbDZhvTihJ reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 00:48 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Treedt de eerste Trump-moeheid op bij de fans?

Draadje:

twitter:

JYSexton twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 15:52:57 My conversations with Trump supporters have changed recently. After initial pushback, they’re admitting he’s too concerned with himself, that he’s a volatile rich guy helping other rich guys. They admit he’s a weapon, but they’re tiring of him.The facade is breaking. https://t.co/hbDZhvTihJ reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 00:51 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

Kan het niet bevestigen.

twitter:

JYSexton twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 15:57:11 You’re not going to get the Trump cultists, the ones who’ve wrapped their identities around him, the ones who need him as a culture warrior. But the ones who saw him as a populist champion who would fight for him? They’re shifting. And they’re wide open for the taking. reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 00:51 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

Kan het niet bevestigen.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 00:55 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt nog 3 dagen...

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 00:56 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

Voor?

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 00:56 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:

[..]

The Great Awakening!

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 00:58 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

Die is al begonnen, al veel eerder zelfs dan 2019.

twitter:

KaivanShroff twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 01:08:48 NEW: Biden says he’d nominate Obama to the Supreme Court (if he would accept). reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 09:02 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:
Wat heeft Obama daar nu te zoeken; die man is geen rechter
Gaf wel les in Recht aan een van de meest prestigieuze universiteiten van de VS trouwens.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 13:11 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Taft ging ook na zijn presidentschap naar het SC.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 09:42 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
https://www.nytimes.com/2(...)-poultry-plants.html

Nu blijkt dus dat Amerikanen dus wel die banen wilden hebben. En nu hebben ze dus dankzij optreden van Trump weer een baan en een betere toekomstperspectief.

quote:

Two of the most widely quoted and shared poems in the closing years of this decade were William Butler Yeats’s “The Second Coming” (“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”), and W.H. Auden’s “September 1, 1939” (“Waves of anger and fear / Circulate over the bright / And darkened lands of the earth”). Yeats’s poem, written just after World War I, spoke of a time when “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.” Auden’s poem, written in the wake of Germany’s invasion of Poland, described a world lying “in stupor,” as democracy was threatened and “the enlightenment driven away.”

Apocalypse is not yet upon our world as the 2010s draw to an end, but there are portents of disorder. The hopes nourished during the opening years of the decade — hopes that America was on a progressive path toward growing equality and freedom, hopes that technology held answers to some of our most pressing problems — have given way, with what feels like head-swiveling speed, to a dark and divisive new era. Fear and distrust are ascendant now. At home, hate-crime violence reached a 16-year high in 2018, the F.B.I. reported. Abroad, there were big geopolitical shifts. With the rise of nationalist movements and a backlash against globalization on both sides of the Atlantic, the liberal post-World War II order — based on economic integration and international institutions — began to unravel, and since 2017, the United States has not only abdicated its role as a stabilizing leader on the global stage, but is also sowing unpredictability and chaos abroad.

A 2019 Freedom House report, which recorded global declines in political rights and civil liberties over the last 13 years, found that “challenges to American democracy are testing the stability of its constitutional system and threatening to undermine political rights and civil liberties worldwide.”

SPOILER

If Lin-Manuel Miranda’s dazzling 2015 musical “Hamilton,” about the founders’ Enlightenment vision of the United States, embodied the hopes and diversity of America during the Obama years, dystopian fables and horror-driven films and television series — including “Black Mirror” (2016), a rebooted “Twilight Zone” (2019), “Joker” (2019), “Get Out” (2017), “Watchmen” (2019), “The Handmaid’s Tale” (2017) and “Westworld” (2016) — spoke to the darkening mood in the second half of the decade, as drug overdose deaths in America rose to nearly half a million by the decade’s end, life expectancy fell in the United States and Britain, and many of us started to realize that our data (tracking everything we viewed, bought and searched for online) was being sold and commodified, and that algorithms were shaping our lives in untold ways. In what was likely the hottest decade on record, scientists warned that climate change was swiftly approaching a “point of no return”; we learned that glaciers were melting at record speed at the top of the world; and fires ravaged California and Australia and threatened the very future of the Amazon rainforest.

Many of these troubling developments didn’t happen overnight. Even today’s poisonous political partisanship has been brewing for decades — dating back at least to Newt Gingrich’s insurgency — but President Trump has blown any idea of “normal” to smithereens, brazenly trampling constitutional rules, America’s founding ideals and virtually every norm of common decency and civil discourse.

The biggest casualty of the decade was trust. According to a Pew survey earlier this year, only 17 percent of Americans trust the government to do what is right “most of the time" or “just about always.” America’s reputation tumbled even further on the world stage: A 2018 Pew survey of 25 countries found that 70 percent of respondents said they lack confidence that the American president would make the right foreign policy moves. Between the end of President Barack Obama’s second term and late 2018, positive views of America fell 27 percentage points in Germany, 26 points in Canada, and 25 points in France. As with many things, Donald Trump is both a symptom and a radical accelerant of the decline in trust. While exploiting the anger at the establishment that snowballed around the world in response to the 2008 financial crisis, Mr. Trump has also cruelly amplified existing divisions and resentments in America, fueling suspicion of immigrants and minorities and injecting white nationalist views into the mainstream, in efforts to gin up his base.

Mr. Trump’s improbable rise benefited from a perfect storm of larger economic, social and demographic changes, and the profoundly disruptive effects of new technology. His ascent also coincided with the rising anxieties and sense of dislocation produced by such tectonic shifts. Around the world, liberal democracy is facing grave new challenges, authoritarianism is on the rise and science is being questioned by “post-fact” politicians. Echoes of Mr. Trump’s nativist populism can be found in Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain’s recent electoral victory and the Brexit referendum of 2016, and in the ascent of the far-right President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil. Democracy is under threat in Hungary and Poland. Once fringe right-wing parties with openly racist agendas are rebranding themselves in Sweden and Belgium. And far-right groups in Germany and Spain are now the third-largest parties in those nations’ parliaments.

At the same time, Donald Trump remains a uniquely American phenomenon. Although the United States was founded on the Enlightenment values of reason, liberty and progress, there has long been another strain of thinking at work beneath the surface — what Philip Roth called “the indigenous American berserk,” and the historian Richard Hofstadter famously described as “the paranoid style.”

It’s an outlook characterized by a sense of “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy,” Hofstadter wrote in his 1964 essay, and focused on perceived threats to “a nation, a culture, a way of life.” Its language is apocalyptic (Mr. Trump’s “American carnage” is a perfect example); its point of view, extremist. It regards its opponents as evil and ubiquitous, while portraying itself, in Hofstadter’s words, as “manning the barricades of civilization.”

The “paranoid style,” Hofstadter observed, tends to occur in “episodic waves.” The modern right wing, he wrote, feels dispossessed: “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it.” In their view, “the old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals,” and national independence has been “destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners but major statesmen seated at the very centers of American power.”

One well-known eruption of the “paranoid style” occurred in the 1950s with the anti-Communist hysteria led by Joseph McCarthy. It would surface again in the 1960s with the emergence on the national stage of George C. Wallace, who ran a presidential campaign fueled by racism and white working-class rage.

In his 2018 book “The Soul of America,” the historian Jon Meacham also wrote about the cycles of hope and fear in American history, emphasizing the role that presidents play in setting a tone for the country and defining — or undermining — its founding ideals. He wrote about presidents who have worked to unify the country and appeal to what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature,” and those who have courted discord and division.

Lincoln was followed in office by his vice president Andrew Johnson, a champion of white supremacy who pardoned more than 7,000 Confederates and opposed the 14th Amendment. Johnson was impeached in 1868: And while he was not convicted in the Senate, the historian Brenda Wineapple argues, the House’s decision to impeach him implied “the glimmering hope of a better time coming, a better government, a fairer and more just one” down the road in the years to come.

Mr. Meacham notes that “extremism, racism, nativism, and isolationism, driven by fear of the unknown, tend to spike in periods of economic and social stress.” Periods, that is, like our own, when change of every sort is blowing across the globe.

The event that turned people’s sense of dislocation and disillusionment into populist anger on both the right (the Tea Party) and the left (Occupy Wall Street and, later, Bernie Sanders’s candidacy) was the 2008 financial crisis. Trust in government had been in sharp decline in previous decades — driven by Watergate and Vietnam in the 1970s, and more recently by the invasion of Iraq and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction there, and by frustration with worsening partisan gridlock in Washington. But the lingering fallout of the 2008 crash — growing income inequality, declining social mobility and dwindling job security — ignited rage against the elites and the status quo.

While the banks were bailed out and the fortunate 1 percent soon made back its losses (and more), working- and middle-class voters struggled to make up lost ground. Many students realized they were looking at jobs in the gig economy and years of crippling debt, while workers in the manufacturing sector found themselves downsized or out of work. As a candidate, Mr. Trump sold himself as the champion of such voters — whom he called “the forgotten men and women” — and he promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington. But once in office, he enlarged the swamp, hiring some 281 lobbyists, and set about cutting taxes for corporations and the very rich.

He also began a war on the institutions that were the very pillars of the government he now headed. In early 2017, Mr. Trump’s then adviser and strategist Steve Bannon vowed that the administration would wage a tireless battle for the “deconstruction of the administrative state” and the administration has done so ever since — nihilistically trying to undermine public faith in the efficacy, the professionalism, even the mission of the institutions that are crucial for guarding our national security, negotiating with foreign governments and ensuring the safety of our environment and workplaces. Mr. Trump also launched chilling attacks on those he reviled — from the F.B.I. to the judiciary — for having failed to put loyalty to him ahead of loyalty to the Constitution.

This is familiar behavior among authoritarians and would-be dictators, who resent constitutional checks and balances, and who want to make themselves the sole arbiters of truth and reality. A reporter said that in 2016 when she asked Mr. Trump why he continually assailed the press, he replied: “I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.” It was fitting, then, that in January 2017, the month of his inauguration, George Orwell’s classic novel “1984” shot to the top of best-seller lists. The nearly 70-year-old novel suddenly felt unbearably timely with its depiction of a world in which the truth is whatever Big Brother says it is.

One of the terrible ironies of Mr. Trump’s presidency is that his administration’s dysfunction — little to no policymaking process on many issues, impulsive decision-making, contempt for expertise and plunging morale at beleaguered agencies — creates a toxic feedback loop that further undermines public trust in the government and lends momentum to his desire to eviscerate the “deep state.” The conflicts of interest that swirl around Mr. Trump and his cronies further increase the public’s perception of corruption and unfairness.

Meanwhile, tectonic shifts were occurring in technology: Not just game-changing developments in artificial intelligence, genetic research and space exploration, but also new platforms, apps and gadgets that almost immediately altered people’s daily habits, including Instagram (2010), Snapchat (2011), the iPad (2010), Uber (2009), and digital assistants Siri (2011) and Alexa (2014). In these years, we also developed a growing appreciation of technology’s dark side: Gamergate, N.S.A. surveillance, Russian attacks on our elections, the fear that you might not only lose your job to a stranger on the other side of the planet, but also to robots in your hometown.

In the 2010s, we also became addicted to podcasts, and binge-watching became a thing. In fact, immersion or escape into compelling fictional worlds seemed to be one strategy people were embracing to cope with political outrage fatigue. Perhaps this also explains why nostalgia became so popular in the 2010s with reboots and returns of old television shows like “Mad About You,” “Twin Peaks,” “The X-Files,” “Dynasty,” “Lost in Space,” “Roseanne,” “Will & Grace,” “Gilmore Girls” and “The Odd Couple” — a phenomenon that’s both a reflection of the retro-mania catalyzed by the endless availability of old content on the web and a longing for older, saner times.

With his calls to “Make America Great Again,” Mr. Trump appealed to a different sort of nostalgia — for an era when white men were in charge and women, African Americans, Hispanics and immigrants knew their place.

At the same time, Mr. Trump and his campaign revived the culture wars of the 1960s and ’70s, and politicized everything from football and Starbucks coffee cups (criticized by some evangelicals for being too secular and part of the “war on Christmas”) to plastic straws and windmills. It might have been funny if we were living in a satirical novel, not in the real world with a former reality TV star as president.

In his insightful forthcoming book, “Why We’re Polarized,” Ezra Klein observes that “our partisan identities have merged with our racial, religious, geographic, ideological, and cultural identities.” This is coming at a moment when the nation’s demographics are rapidly changing — census statistics project that America will become “minority white” in 2045 — and putting more emphasis than ever on questions of identity. Our political identities have become so crucial to us, Mr. Klein writes, that “we will justify almost anything or anyone so long as it helps our side, and the result is a politics devoid of guardrails, standards, persuasion, or accountability.”

It’s a measure of just how partisan our politics has become that most Republicans now reflexively support Mr. Trump — despite broken promises, ballooning deficits, and tariffs that have hurt Americans, never mind the astonishing volume of lies he emits. Many Trump supporters inhabit a soundproofed echo chamber: A 2017 study, published in the Columbia Journalism Review, found that pro-Trump audiences got most of their information from an insulated media system, anchored around Breitbart News, that reinforced “the shared worldview of readers” and shielded “them from journalism that challenged it.”

No surprise, then, that the president’s hard-core supporters stubbornly repeat the lies and conspiracy theories that cycle through his Twitter feed, connecting him with Russian trolls, white nationalists and random crackpots, or that Mr. Trump’s assertions and fictional narratives are amplified further by Republican politicians and the right-wing media noise machine.

Social media, which came into its own in the 2010s, accelerated the filter bubble effect further, as algorithms designed to maximize user “engagement” (and therefore maximize ad revenues) fed people customized data and ads that tended to reinforce their existing beliefs and interests. This is why Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, increasingly have trouble even agreeing upon shared facts — a development that has undermined trust between different groups, fueled incivility and sped up the niche-ification of culture that began years ago with the advent of cable television and the internet.

In addition, platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have enabled politicians (as well as advertisers, Russian agents and alt-right conspiracy theorists) to circumvent gatekeepers like the mainstream media and reach out directly to voters. “Influencers” replaced experts, scientists and scholars; memes and misinformation started to displace facts. As the news cycle spun faster and faster, our brains struggled to cope with the flood of data and distraction that endlessly spilled from our phones. And in an era of data overload and short attention spans, it’s not the most reliable, trustworthy material that goes viral — it’s the loudest voices, the angriest, most outrageous posts that get clicked and shared.

Without reliable information, citizens cannot make informed decisions about the issues of the day, and we cannot hold politicians to account. Without commonly agreed upon facts, we cannot have reasoned debates with other voters and instead become susceptible to the fear-mongering of demagogues. When politicians constantly lie, overwhelming and exhausting us while insinuating that everyone is dishonest and corrupt, the danger is that we grow so weary and cynical that we withdraw from civic engagement. And if we fail to engage in the political process — or reflexively support the individual from “our” party while reflexively dismissing the views of others — then we are abdicating common sense and our responsibility as citizens.

In his wise and astonishingly prescient “Farewell Address,” from 1796, George Washington spoke of the dangers he saw the young new nation facing in the future. He warned against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence,” “the impostures of pretended patriotism,” and, most insistently, of “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” — imploring his fellow citizens not to let partisan or geographic differences plant seeds of mistrust among those who “ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.”

Every portion of the country, he wrote, should remember: “You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.” Citizens, he urged, must indignantly frown “upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.”

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 december 2019 23:18 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:

[..]

Hij heeft die tweet inmiddels toch maar verwijderd.

https://www.washingtonpos(...)a4d2c2166_story.html

twitter:

brianstelter twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 04:03:51 Thread, 1/4: Earlier today I said Trump had RTed, then removed, a post with the unsubstantiated name of the Ukraine whistleblower. Tonight, Twitter said that Trump never un-RTed the post. A Twitter glitch made it LOOK like he had removed it. I've updated my story the new info. reageer retweet

twitter:

brianstelter twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 04:07:45 4/4: We've updated my @CNN story with a new headline:"Trump attacks whistleblower in tweetstorm full of rants and conspiracies"https://t.co/UoqUHMmWLR reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 13:30 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Waarom laten die Republikeinen hun megarijke donors daar elke keer mee wegkomen? Die Koch broertjes moeten toch keihard aangepakt worden omdat ze illegalen in dienst nemen? Net als Trump zelf overigens in Mar-a-Lago.

Pak de oorzaak aan: Rijke (blanke) Amerikanen die de illegale immigratie wel prima vinden, want goedkope arbeidskrachten en niet op mega agressieve wijze die arme harde werkers oppakken als beesten.

Ik zeg: Miljardenboete voor Koch&co en dat ten goede laten komen aan de extreem gebrekkige sociale vangnetten in de VS.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 16:37 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Daar verpest je het trickle-down effect mee.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 16:49 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

In tegendeel, juist door het laks optreden tegen illegalen druk je mensen daar de bijstand in.
Met als gevolg dat je een permanente onderklasse krijgt omdat ze simpelweg niet kunnen concurreren met de illegalen.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 16:58 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:

[..]

Ja, eigen onderklasse eerst! Gast, zelfs als ze die smerige kutbaantjes van illegalen krijgen vormen zij nog steeds die 'onderklasse' hoor.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 16:49 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

In tegendeel, juist door het laks optreden tegen illegalen druk je mensen daar de bijstand in.
Met als gevolg dat je een permanente onderklasse krijgt omdat ze simpelweg niet kunnen concurreren met de illegalen.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 17:15 schreef OMG het volgende:
Alsof die werkgevers meer gaan betalen voor hetzelfde kutbaantje wat nu door een undocumented persoon wordt gedaan. En alsof die werklozen dan wel opeens staan te springen om plees te schrobben. .

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 17:23 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Welnee. Als je de rijken laat betalen investeren ze minder. Dat weet iedereen.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 17:30 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

ULX is pro slavernij.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 17:36 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Chivaz is een marxist.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 17:29 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Als het aanbod aan goedkope krachten opdroogt dan is meer betalen voor hetzelfde kutbaantje niet meer dan logisch.
Maar in het artikel staat trouwens letterlijk dat dankzij de ICE raid Amerikanen weer aan het werk zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 17:38 schreef mcmlxiv het volgende:

[..]

Goeie krant die New York Times he?

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 15:06 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:
Food for thought: The 2010s Were the End of Normal
[..]

twitter:

CBSThisMorning twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 18:30:19 Republican Senator James Lankford criticized President Trump for his tweets and language, saying he doesn't believe the president is someone who young people can look up to. https://t.co/qUYfty2S0g reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 19:24 schreef Ulx het volgende:
James Lankford

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 19:23 schreef Jojoke het volgende:

[..]

De komende 10 jaar zijn voor de VS belangrijk. Keren ze zich tegen de afbraak van Trias Politica, of gaan ze mee en wordt het alleen erger?

twitter:

gmaniatis twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:48:24 Count’em: 15 Republican governors defy Trump, ask for more refugees:Reynolds: IADucey: AZStitt: OKLee: TNBurgum: NDNoem: SDSununu: NHHerbert: UTRicketts: NEJustice: WVHolcomb: INScott: VTBaker: MADeWine: OHHutchinson: AK https://t.co/n72LDmh2VY reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 19:27 schreef Jojoke het volgende:

[..]

Iemand begint het licht te zien.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:14:37 So sad to see that New York City and State are falling apart. All they want to do is investigate to make me hate them even more than I should. Governor Cuomo has lost control, and lost his mind. Very bad for the homeless and all! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 19:40 schreef kladderadatsch het volgende:

[..]

10 jaar? Was het maar zo'n feest. Denk eerder dat het ervan afhangt of Trump een 2e termijn krijgt en de christen extremisten in zijn kielzog hun destructieve agenda verder door kunnen voeren.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 19:51 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Nou ja, hij is het geloof ik nog steeds eens met het afpakken van kinderen van vluchtelingen om die te verkopen aan adoptieouders.

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 20:10 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Weinig outrage van de Magats dat Trump zegt Amerikanen te haten. Is zelfhaat ineens bon ton in die kringen?

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:14:37 So sad to see that New York City and State are falling apart. All they want to do is investigate to make me hate them even more than I should. Governor Cuomo has lost control, and lost his mind. Very bad for the homeless and all! reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 20:10 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Weinig outrage van de Magats dat Trump zegt Amerikanen te haten. Is zelfhaat ineens bon ton in die kringen?

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zaterdag 28-12-2019 om 22:14:37 So sad to see that New York City and State are falling apart. All they want to do is investigate to make me hate them even more than I should. Governor Cuomo has lost control, and lost his mind. Very bad for the homeless and all! reageer retweet

twitter:

JoyceWhiteVance twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 21:57:25 Buried in this story-Trump had executive branch lawyers working on a theory that he could override Congressional funding decisions because he was POTUS. Every Republican lawmaker must be asked if they support this destruction of checks & balances. https://t.co/Zv7bcwiff4 reageer retweet

quote:

Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion (NYTimes)
The inside story of President Trump’s demand to halt military assistance to an ally shows the price he was willing to pay to carry out his agenda.

WASHINGTON — Deep into a long flight to Japan aboard Air Force One with President Trump, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, dashed off an email to an aide back in Washington.

“I’m just trying to tie up some loose ends,” Mr. Mulvaney wrote. “Did we ever find out about the money for Ukraine and whether we can hold it back?”

It was June 27, more than a week after Mr. Trump had first asked about putting a hold on security aid to Ukraine, an embattled American ally, and Mr. Mulvaney needed an answer.

The aide, Robert B. Blair, replied that it would be possible, but not pretty. “Expect Congress to become unhinged” if the White House tried to countermand spending passed by the House and Senate, he wrote in a previously undisclosed email. And, he wrote, it might further fuel the narrative that Mr. Trump was pro-Russia.

Mr. Blair was right, even if his prediction of a messy outcome was wildly understated. Mr. Trump’s order to hold $391 million worth of sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, night vision goggles, medical aid and other equipment the Ukrainian military needed to fight a grinding war against Russian-backed separatists would help pave a path to the president’s impeachment.

SPOILER

The Democratic-led inquiry into Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine this spring and summer established that the president was actively involved in parallel efforts — both secretive and highly unusual — to bring pressure on a country he viewed with suspicion, if not disdain.

One campaign, spearheaded by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, aimed to force Ukraine to conduct investigations that could help Mr. Trump politically, including one focused on a potential Democratic 2020 rival, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The other, which unfolded nearly simultaneously but has gotten less attention, was the president’s demand to withhold the security assistance. By late summer, the two efforts merged as American diplomats used the withheld aid as leverage in the effort to win a public commitment from the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to carry out the investigations Mr. Trump sought into Mr. Biden and unfounded or overblown theories about Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election.

Interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials, congressional aides and others, previously undisclosed emails and documents, and a close reading of thousands of pages of impeachment testimony provide the most complete account yet of the 84 days from when Mr. Trump first inquired about the money to his decision in September to relent.

What emerges is the story of how Mr. Trump’s demands sent shock waves through the White House and the Pentagon, created deep rifts within the senior ranks of his administration, left key aides like Mr. Mulvaney under intensifying scrutiny — and ended only after Mr. Trump learned of a damning whistle-blower report and came under pressure from influential Republican lawmakers.

In many ways, the havoc Mr. Giuliani and others Trump loyalists set off in the State Department by pursuing the investigations was matched by conflicts and confusion in the White House and Pentagon stemming from Mr. Trump’s order to withhold the aid.

Opposition to the order from his top national security advisers was more intense than previously known. In late August, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper joined Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser at the time, for a previously undisclosed Oval Office meeting with the president where they tried but failed to convince him that releasing the aid was in interests of the United States.

By late summer, top lawyers at the Office of Management and Budget who had spoken to lawyers at the White House and the Justice Department in the weeks beforehand, were developing an argument — not previously divulged publicly — that Mr. Trump’s role as commander in chief would simply allow him to override Congress on the issue.

And Mr. Mulvaney is shown to have been deeply involved as a key conduit for transmitting Mr. Trump’s demands for the freeze across the administration.

The interviews and documents show how Mr. Trump used the bureaucracy to advance his agenda in the face of questions about its propriety and even legality from officials in the White House budget office and the Pentagon, many of whom say they were kept in the dark about the president’s motivations and had grown used to convention-flouting requests from the West Wing. One veteran budget official who raised questions about the legal justification was pushed aside.

Those carrying out Mr. Trump’s orders on the aid were for the most part operating in different lanes from those seeking the investigations, including Mr. Giuliani and a number of senior diplomats, including Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, and Kurt D. Volker, the State Department’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia.

The New York Times found that some key players are now offering a defense that they did not know the diplomatic push for the investigations was playing out at the same time they were implementing the aid freeze — or if they were aware of both channels, they did not connect the two.

Mr. Mulvaney is said by associates to have stepped out of the room whenever Mr. Trump would talk with Mr. Giuliani to preserve Mr. Trump’s attorney-client privilege, leaving him with limited knowledge about their efforts regarding Ukraine. Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he learned of the substance of Mr. Trump’s July 25 call weeks after the fact.

Yet testimony before the House suggests a different picture. Fiona Hill, a top deputy to Mr. Bolton at the time, told the impeachment inquiry about a July 10 White House meeting at which Mr. Sondland said Mr. Mulvaney had guaranteed that Mr. Zelensky would be invited to the White House if the Ukrainians agreed to the investigations — an arrangement that Mr. Bolton described as a “drug deal,” according to Ms. Hill.

Along with Mr. Bolton and others, Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Blair have declined to cooperate with impeachment investigators and provide information to Congress under oath, an intensifying point of friction between the two parties as the Senate prepares for Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial.

At the center of the maelstrom was the Office of Management and Budget, a seldom-scrutinized arm of the White House that during the Trump administration has often had to find creative legal reasoning to justify the president’s unorthodox policy proposals, like his demand to divert Pentagon funding to his proposed wall along the border with Mexico.

In the Ukraine case, however, shock about the president’s decision spread across America’s national security apparatus — from the National Security Council to the State Department and the Pentagon. By September, after the freeze had become public and scrutiny was increasing, the blame game inside the administration was in full swing.

On Sept. 10, the day before Mr. Trump changed his mind, a political appointee at the budget office, Michael P. Duffey, wrote a lengthy email to the Pentagon’s top budget official, with whom he had been at odds throughout the summer about how long the agency could withhold the aid.

He asserted that the Defense Department had the authority to do more to ensure that the aid could be released to Ukraine by the congressionally mandated deadline of the end of that month, suggesting that responsibility for any failure should not rest with the White House.

Forty-three minutes later, the Pentagon official, Elaine McCusker, hit send on a brief but stinging reply.

“You can’t be serious,” she wrote. “I am speechless.”

‘We Need to Hold It Up’

For top officials inside the budget office, the first warning came on June 19.

Informed that the president had a problem with the aid, Mr. Blair called Russell T. Vought, the acting head of the Office of Management and Budget. “We need to hold it up,” he said, according to officials briefed about the conversation.

Typical of the Trump White House, the inquiry was not born of a rigorous policy process. Aides speculated that someone had shown Mr. Trump a news article about the Ukraine assistance and he demanded to know more.

Mr. Vought and his team took to Google, and came upon a piece in the conservative Washington Examiner saying that the Pentagon would pay for weapons and other military equipment for Ukraine, bringing American security aid to the country to $1.5 billion since 2014.

The money, the article noted, was coming at a critical moment: Mr. Zelensky, a onetime comedian, had called ending the armed conflict with Russia in eastern Ukraine his top priority — a move that would likely only happen if he could negotiate from a position of strength.

The budget office officials had little idea of why Mr. Trump was interested in the topic, but many of the president’s more senior aides were well aware of his feelings about Ukraine. Weeks earlier, in an Oval Office meeting on May 23, with Mr. Sondland, Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Blair in attendance, Mr. Trump batted away assurances that Mr. Zelensky was committed to confronting corruption.

“They are all corrupt, they are all terrible people,” Mr. Trump said, according to testimony in the impeachment inquiry.

The United States had been planning to provide $391 million in military assistance to Ukraine in two chunks: $250 million allocated by the Pentagon for war-fighting equipment — from sniper rifles to rocket-propelled grenade launchers — and $141 million controlled by the State Department to buy night-vision devices, radar systems and yet more rocket-grenade launchers.

With the money having been appropriated by Congress, it would be hard for the administration to keep it from being spent by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

The task of dealing with the president’s demands fell primarily to a group of political appointees in the West Wing and the budget office, most with personal and professional ties to Mr. Mulvaney. There was no public announcement that Mr. Trump wanted the assistance withheld. Neither Congress nor the Ukrainian government was formally notified.

Mr. Mulvaney had first served in the administration as the budget director, after three terms in the House, where he earned a reputation as a firebrand conservative.

The four top political appointees helping Mr. Mulvaney execute the hold — Mr. Vought, Mr. Blair, Mr. Duffey and Mark Paoletta, the budget office’s top lawyer — all had extensive experience in either congressional budget politics or Republican and conservative causes.

Their efforts would cause tension and at times conflict between officials at the budget office and the Pentagon, some of whom watched with growing alarm.

A Question of Legality

The single largest chunk of the federal government’s annual discretionary budget, some $800 billion a year, goes to the Pentagon, spy agencies and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The career official in charge of managing the flow of all that money for the budget office is an Afghanistan war veteran named Mark Sandy.

After learning about the president’s June 19 request, Mr. Sandy contacted the Pentagon to learn more about the aid package. He also repeatedly pressed Mr. Duffey about why Mr. Trump had imposed the hold in the first place.

“He didn’t provide an explicit response on the reason,” Mr. Sandy testified in the impeachment inquiry. “He simply said we need to let the hold take place — and I’m paraphrasing here — and then revisit this issue with the president.”

From the start, budget office officials took the position that the money did not have to go out the door until the end of September, giving them time to address the president’s questions.

It was easy enough for the White House to hold up the State Department portion of the funding. Since the State Department had not yet notified Congress of its plans to release the money, all it took was making sure that the notification did not happen.

Freezing the Pentagon’s $250 million portion was more difficult, since the Pentagon had already certified that Ukraine had met requirements set by Congress to show that it was addressing its endemic corruption and notified lawmakers of its intent to spend the money.

So on July 19, Mr. Duffey proposed an unusual solution: Mr. Sandy should attach a footnote to a routine budget document saying the money was being temporarily withheld.

Approving such requests is routine; Mr. Sandy processed hundreds each year. But attaching a footnote to block spending that the administration had already notified Congress was ready to go was not. Mr. Sandy said in testimony that he had never done it before in his 12 years at the agency.

And there was a problem with this maneuver: Mr. Sandy was concerned it might violate a law called the Impoundment Control Act that protects Congress’s spending power and prohibits the administration from blocking disbursement of the aid unless it notifies Congress.

“I asked about the duration of the hold and was told there was not clear guidance on that,” Mr. Sandy testified. “So that is what prompted my concern.”

Mr. Sandy sought advice from the top lawyers at the budget office.

A Pivotal Day

For a full month, the fact that Mr. Trump wanted to halt the aid remained confined primarily to a small group of officials.

That ended on July 18, when a group of top administration officials meeting on Ukraine policy — including some calling in from Kyiv — learned from a midlevel budget office official that the president had ordered the aid frozen.

“I and the others on the call sat in astonishment,” William B. Taylor Jr., the top United States diplomat in Ukraine, testified to House investigators. “In an instant, I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened.”

That same day, aides on the House Foreign Affairs Committee received four calls from administration sources warning them about the hold and urging them to look into it.

A week later came Mr. Trump’s fateful July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky. Mr. Bolton, the national security adviser, had recommended the call take place in an effort to end the “incessant lobbying” from officials like Mr. Sondland that the two leaders connect.

Some of Mr. Trump’s aides had thought the call might lead Mr. Trump to lift the freeze. But Mr. Trump did not specifically mention the hold, and instead asked Mr. Zelensky to look into Mr. Biden and his son and into supposed Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election. Among those listening on the call was Mr. Blair.

Mr. Blair has told associates did not make much of Mr. Trump’s requests during the call for the investigations. He saw the aid freeze not as a political tool, but as an extension of Mr. Trump’s general aversion to foreign aid and his belief that Ukraine is rife with corruption.

Just 90 minutes after the call ended, and following days of email traffic on the topic, Mr. Duffey, Mr. Sandy’s boss, sent out a new email to the Pentagon, where officials were impatient about getting the money out the door. His message was clear: Do not spend it.

“Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction,” Mr. Duffey wrote in his note, which was released this month to the Center for Public Integrity.

This caused immediate discomfort at the Pentagon, with a top official there noting that this hold on military assistance was coming on the same day Ukraine announced it had seized a Russian tanker — a potential escalation in the conflict between the two nations.

On that same day, Mr. Sandy, having received the go-ahead from the budget office’s lawyers, took the first official step to legally impose what they called a “brief pause,” inserting a footnote into the budget document that prohibited the Pentagon from spending any of the aid until Aug. 5.

By that point, officials in Ukraine were getting word that something was up. At the same time, the effort to win a commitment from the Ukrainians for the investigations sought by Mr. Trump was intensifying, with Mr. Giuliani and a Zelensky aide, Andriy Yermak, meeting in Madrid on Aug. 2 and the diplomats Mr. Sondland and Mr. Volker also working the issue.

And inside the intelligence community, a C.I.A. officer was hearing talk about the two strands of pressure on Ukraine, including the aid freeze. Seeing how they fit together, he was alarmed enough that by Aug. 12 he would take the extraordinary step of laying them out in detail in a confidential whistle-blower complaint.

A ‘POTUS-level Decision’

Keeping a hold on the assistance was now a top priority, so officials moved to tighten control over the money.

In a very unusual step, the White House removed Mr. Sandy’s authority to oversee the aid freeze. The job was handed in late July to Mr. Sandy’s boss, Mr. Duffey, the political appointee, the official ultimately responsible for apportionments but one who had little experience in the nuts and bolts of the budget office process.

As the debate over the aid continued, disagreements flared. Two budget office staff members left the agency after the summer. Mr. Sandy testified that their departures were related to the aid freeze, a statement disputed by budget office officials.

Pentagon officials, in the dark about the reason for the holdup, grew increasingly frustrated. Ms. McCusker, the powerful Pentagon budget official, notified the budget office that either $61 million of the money would have to be spent by Monday, Aug. 12 or it would be lost. The budget office saw her threat as a ploy to force release of the aid.

At the White House, which had been looped into the dispute by the budget office, there was a growing consensus that officials could find a legal rationale for continuing the hold, but with the Monday deadline looming, it was a “POTUS-level decision,” one official said.

Complicating matters, another budget battle was escalating. Mr. Vought was attempting to impose cuts of as much as $4 billion on the nation’s overall foreign aid budget. It was an entirely separate initiative from the Ukraine freeze, and was quickly abandoned, but helped the White House establish that its concern about aid was not limited to Ukraine.

By the second week of August, Mr. Duffey had taken to issuing footnotes every few days to block the Pentagon spending. Office of Management and Budget lawyers approved each one.

Mr. Trump spent the weekend before the Pentagon’s Aug. 12 deadline at Bedminster, his New Jersey golf resort.

In a previously unreported sequence of events, Mr. Mulvaney worked to schedule a call for that day with Mr. Trump and top aides involved in the freeze, including Mr. Vought, Mr. Bolton and Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel. But they waited to set a final time because Mr. Trump had a golf game planned for Monday morning with John Daly, the flamboyant professional golfer, and they did not know how long it would take.

Late that morning, Ms. McCusker checked in with the budget office. “Hey, any update for us?” she asked in an email obtained by Center for Public Integrity.

Mr. Duffey was still waiting for an answer as of late that afternoon. “Elaine — I don’t have an update,” he wrote back. “I am attempting to get one.”

The planned-for conference call with the president never happened. Budget office lawyers decided that Ms. McCusker had inaccurately raised alarms about the Aug. 12 date to try to force their hand.

In Bedminster with Mr. Trump, Mr. Mulvaney finally reached the president and the answer was clear: Mr. Trump wanted the freeze kept in place. In Washington, the whistle-blower submitted his report that same day.

The National Security Team Intervenes

Inside the administration, pressure was mounting on Mr. Trump to reverse himself.

Backed by a memo saying the National Security Council, the Pentagon and the State Department all wanted the aid released, Mr. Bolton made a personal appeal to Mr. Trump on Aug. 16, but was rebuffed.

On Aug. 28, Politico published a story reporting that the assistance to Ukraine had been frozen. After more than two months, the issue, the topic of fiery internal debate, was finally public.

Mr. Bolton’s relationship with the president had been deteriorating for months, and he would leave the White House weeks later, but on this front he had powerful internal allies.

On a sunny, late-August day, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Esper and Mr. Pompeo arrayed themselves around the Resolute desk in the Oval Office to present a united front, the leaders of the president’s national security team seeking to convince him face to face that freeing up the money for Ukraine was the right thing to do. One by one they made their case.

“This is in America’s interest,” Mr. Bolton argued, according to one official briefed on the gathering.

“This defense relationship, we have gotten some really good benefits from it,” Mr. Esper added, noting that most of the money was being spent on military equipment made in the United States.

Mr. Trump responded that he did not believe Mr. Zelensky’s promises of reform. He emphasized his view that corruption remained endemic and repeated his position that European nations needed to do more for European defense.

“Ukraine is a corrupt country,” the president said. “We are pissing away our money.”

The aid remained blocked. On Aug. 31, Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, arranged a call with Mr. Trump. Mr. Johnson had been told days earlier by Mr. Sondland that the aid would be unblocked only if the Ukrainians gave Mr. Trump the investigations he wanted.

When Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Trump directly if the aid was contingent on getting a commitment to pursue the investigations, Mr. Johnson later said, Mr. Trump replied, amid a string of expletives, that there was no such demand and he would never do such a thing.

Around the same time, White House lawyers informed Mr. Trump about the whistle-blower’s complaint regarding his pressure campaign. It is not clear how much detail the lawyers provided the president about the details of the complaint, which noted the aid freeze.

Mr. Trump was scheduled to travel to Poland on Sept. 1 to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, and had planned to get together with Mr. Zelensky. Some administration officials hoped meeting the new Ukrainian president in person would change Mr. Trump’s mind.

But a hurricane was bearing down on the United States, and Mr. Trump sent Vice President Mike Pence in his place. When Mr. Zelensky raised the issue with the vice president, Mr. Pence said he should speak with Mr. Trump.

Behind the scenes in Warsaw, Mr. Sondland, the American envoy who was Mr. Trump’s point person on getting the Ukrainians to agree to the investigations, had a blunter message. Until the Ukrainians publicly announced the investigations, he told Mr. Yermak, the Zelensky adviser, they should not expect to get the military aid. (Mr. Yermak has questioned Mr. Sondland’s account.)

An Abrupt Reversal

By late summer, top lawyers at the budget office were developing a proposed legal justification for the hold, based in part on conversations with White House lawyers as well as the Justice Department.

Their argument was that lifting the hold would undermine Mr. Trump’s negotiating position in his efforts to fight corruption in Ukraine.

The president, the lawyers believed, could ignore the requirements of the Impoundment Control Act and continue to hold the aid by asserting constitutional commander in chief powers that give him authority over diplomacy. He could do so, they believed, if he determined that, based on existing circumstances, releasing the money would undermine military or diplomatic efforts.

But divisions within the administration continued to widen; Mr. Bolton was opposed to using an argument proffered by administration lawyers to block the funding. And pressure from Congress was intensifying. Mr. Johnson and another influential Republican, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, were both pushing for the aid to be released.

On a call with Mr. Portman on Sept. 11, Mr. Trump repeated his familiar refrain about other nations not doing enough to support Ukraine.

“Sure, I agree with you,” Mr. Portman responded, according to an aide who described the exchange. “But we should not hold that against Ukraine. We need to release these funds.”

Democrats in the House were gearing up to limit Mr. Trump’s power to hold up the money to Ukraine, and the chairmen of three House committees had also announced on Sept. 9 that they were opening an investigation.

Still, White House officials did not expect anything to change, especially since Mr. Trump had repeatedly rejected the advice of his national security team.

But then, just as suddenly as the hold was imposed, it was lifted. Mr. Trump, apparently unwilling to wage a public battle, told Mr. Portman he would let the money go.

White House aides rushed to notify their counterparts at the Pentagon and elsewhere. The freeze had been lifted. The money could be spent. Get it out the door, they were told.

The debate would now begin as to why the hold was lifted, with Democrats confident they knew the answer.

“I have no doubt about why the president allowed the assistance to go forward,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “He got caught.”

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 21:57:11 NYT reports that Pompeo, Bolton, Esper met with Trump in late August to plead with him to release military aid. He rebuffed their effort. https://t.co/XNx42P7HLv reageer retweet

SPOILER

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 21:59:05 This is interesting because other officials told investigators that this top-level interagency meeting over aid never happened because of conflicting schedules among the secretaries and Bolton. reageer retweet

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 23:03:00 This from George Kent's deposition on Oct. 15: reageer retweet

Men blokte Kent van de kennis van deze meeting?

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 23:01 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Dit is ook wel een dingetje. Goede timing ook nu Chivaz de NYTimes omarmd heeft als een goede nieuwsbron. Een longread over het Oekraine- cq. herverkiezingsschandaal.
[..]

Edit: Klaarblijkelijk volg er ook wat nieuws uit:

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 21:57:11 NYT reports that Pompeo, Bolton, Esper met with Trump in late August to plead with him to release military aid. He rebuffed their effort. https://t.co/XNx42P7HLv reageer retweet

SPOILER

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 21:59:05 This is interesting because other officials told investigators that this top-level interagency meeting over aid never happened because of conflicting schedules among the secretaries and Bolton. reageer retweet

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 23:03:00 This from George Kent's deposition on Oct. 15: [ afbeelding ] reageer retweet

Men blokte Kent van de kennis van deze meeting?

twitter:

BillKristol twitterde op maandag 30-12-2019 om 01:02:11 “Mulvaney...stepped out of the room when Trump would talk with Giuliani to preserve Trump’s attorney-client privilege....” Amazing and incriminating. Makes clear Trump was pursuing personal, non-governmental interests in dealing as president with Ukraine. https://t.co/ZR4p3vVJO3 reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 23:05:25 @EricLiptonNYT @maggieNYT @MarkMazzettiNYT @K8brannen Oddity in David Hale's testimony about date he learned of Ukraine hold.Deposition: "I first started to hear that there was aproblem with it on June 21; that OMB had stopped the aid"Public testimony: He revised and said July 21.But now looks like June 21 would've made sense https://t.co/ErIviUNSkT reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 23:11:50 @EricLiptonNYT @maggieNYT @MarkMazzettiNYT @K8brannen fwiw it's also odd that Hale, unlike all other witnesses in public hearings, decided not to make an opening statement, which would have been appropriate occasion to make the correction.Instead, it was when @RepSwalwell asked him that Hale said he "misspoke" in his deposition. reageer retweet

quote:

Op zondag 29 december 2019 20:33 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Het is zorgelijk dat een president geen lijnen uiteenzet maar zich bezig houdt met het opzetten van persoonlijke oorlogen. Op de werkvloer ontslaan ze je als manager of halen ze je uit je functie voor een gewone baan op dezelfde werkvloer als je je inlaat met dit soort laagdrempelige onzin.

twitter:

ThePlumLineGS twitterde op maandag 30-12-2019 om 16:10:29 Damning new details uncovered by NYT about Trump's freezing of Ukraine aid render a sham trial so indefensible that even the media's both-sidesing can't obscure what's happening.Also: What if Rs run a sham trial, and big revelations blow up later?New:https://t.co/l64qRKMRF5 reageer retweet

twitter:

gtconway3d twitterde op maandag 30-12-2019 om 16:19:56 “If McConnell does pull off a sham trial leading to a quick acquittal, more might surface later that, in retrospect, will get hung around Republicans’ necks and reverse-reveal just how corrupt their cover-up really was.” https://t.co/nxlyC3sXSw reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 december 2019 17:18 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Afwachten dus hoe de feiten zich ontwikkelen.

Hóe komt NYT aan die mails?
En wat weet Pelosi en dems allang voordat het publiek bekend is...

quote:

Op maandag 30 december 2019 17:18 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Afwachten dus hoe de feiten zich ontwikkelen.

Hóe komt NYT aan die mails?
En wat weet Pelosi en dems allang voordat het publiek bekend is...

quote:

Op maandag 30 december 2019 17:24 schreef PaarsBeestje het volgende:

[..]

Of gewoon werknemers die het zich niet kunnen veroorloven om hun baan te verliezen of niet zo opgejaagd willen worden als de whistleblower maar ook niet kunnen leven met het feit dat mensen zomaar weg komen met deze gigantische corruptie.

Wat me blijft verbazen is hoeveel mensen hierbij betrokken waren en dat we er bijna niets van af hadden geweten. Dit is geen kleine organisatie waarbij de baas met dingen weg komt omdat er toch verder niemand controleert. Hier zijn echt vele tientallen mensen bij geweest en diverse departementen. Aan de andere kant gebeurt het hier ook gewoon natuurlijk gezien het schandaal met de toeslagenaffaire bij de belastingdienst

twitter:

thehill twitterde op maandag 30-12-2019 om 17:43:03 Graham calls on Giuliani to share info with intel community to ensure "it's not Russian propaganda" https://t.co/lk5mXrfUO3 https://t.co/vRwUmJ5bUt reageer retweet

twitter:

JuliaDavisNews twitterde op zondag 29-12-2019 om 20:25:55 The Kremlin about Trump's conversation with Putin:"The two presidents discussed a range of issues of mutual interest..." https://t.co/sEySQl8PHa reageer retweet

quote:

Judge dismisses lawsuit from Bolton deputy regarding Ukraine testimony (Politico)

Charles Kupperman filed suit in October after he was subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee.

A federal judge on Monday scrapped an effort by a former top aide to John Bolton to determine whether he could be required to testify before House impeachment investigators, declaring the matter moot and outside the court’s power to resolve.

Charles Kupperman, who was Bolton’s deputy when Bolton was national security adviser, filed suit in October after he was subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee but ordered to ignore the subpoena by President Donald Trump. In his suit, Kupperman asked for a judge’s help to resolve the conflicting demands.

Story Continued Below
The matter was put before Judge Richard Leon, a federal judge in the D.C. District Court. But before Leon could weigh in, the House withdrew its subpoena for Kupperman’s testimony, declaring it a transparent effort to stonewall the impeachment investigation and mire it in months of legal delays. Both the House and the White House asked Leon to dismiss the case, and Leon ultimately agreed.

Story Continued Below
“[The Intelligence Committee] has withdrawn Kupperman’s subpoena ... As a result, Kupperman no longer faces the ‘irreconcilable commands’ of two coordinate branches of government,” Leon wrote in a 14-page ruling, “and he accordingly lacks any personal stake in the outcome of this dispute. Thus, it would appear that this case is moot and should be dismissed.”

Kupperman had pressed for a ruling despite the subpoena withdrawal, arguing that the House could reissue it at any time or punish him by holding him in contempt of Congress. But Leon cited repeated assurances by the House that it would do no such thing, as well as a guarantee by the Justice Department that it would not prosecute Kupperman for refusing to comply with the subpoena. Leon also noted that the House issued its final impeachment report in December, underscoring its lack of interest in pursuing Kupperman’s testimony.

“The House clearly has no intention of pursuing Kupperman, and his claims are thus moot,” Leon wrote.

To underscore its point, Leon pointed to the articles of impeachment adopted by the House, noting that even in the charge that Trump obstructed Congress’ investigation, the article does not name Kupperman as one of the nine officials whom Trump blocked from testifying. It’s a further indication of what some Democrats noted was an attempt to disentangle the impeachment effort from any ongoing litigation to avoid mixing legal matters with the upcoming Senate trial.

The decision effectively ends any long-shot chance that the courts would deliver a last minute directive for Kupperman to provide testimony to the House’s ongoing inquiry. Witnesses described Kupperman as a central witness to events surrounding allegations that Trump pressured Ukraine’s government to investigate his Democratic rivals, allegedly by withholding military assistance and a White House visit from Ukraine’s newly elected president.

Kupperman’s suit was also seen as a proxy for Bolton, who cited its existence as a reason to refrain from speaking publicly about Ukraine matters, even though witnesses also described him as a high-level witness to Trump’s conduct.

Leon, who made clear that he was eager to resolve the substance of the dispute, noted that although it’s conceivable the House could change course and pursue Kupperman’s testimony again, the matter would surely end up back in court “seeking a solution to a Constitutional dilemma that has long-standing political consequences: balancing Congress’s well-established power to investigate with a President’s need to have a small group of national security advisors who have some form of immunity from compelled Congressional testimony.”

“A dilemma, I might add, that I particularly appreciate having served on a number of occasions in both the Legislative and Executive branches,” Leon wrote. “Fortunately, however, I need not strike that balance today!”

twitter:

jgeltzer twitterde op maandag 30-12-2019 om 23:14:27 2 takeaways from this obviously correct dismissal of Kupperman case:- The definitive word on Trump’s absolute immunity claim remains that it’s bogus.- Given that & now given yesterday’s new Ukraine reporting, Bolton’s refusal to testify is utterly unjustified & unjustifiable. https://t.co/GyNscQLADl reageer retweet

twitter:

neal_katyal twitterde op maandag 30-12-2019 om 23:15:41 See below. Now that Judge Leon has dismissed the Kupperman/Bolton case, Judge Jackson's ruling is the definitive word. Bolton must testify. https://t.co/majJapeyAj reageer retweet

twitter:

thedailybeast twitterde op dinsdag 31-12-2019 om 03:30:42 NEW: Team Trump’s furious hunt to find out who “liked” a Chelsea Clinton tweet https://t.co/b2HeEMb3Bj reageer retweet

quote:

WASHINGTON — The Senate trial of President Trump must include witnesses and documents that answer new questions that have emerged about the roles top White House aides played in blocking the release of $391 million in military aid for Ukraine, Senator Chuck Schumer said Monday.

The comments by Mr. Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, came in response to an article published Sunday by The New York Times. It detailed how a number of White House advisers — including the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney — dealt with Mr. Trump’s order to freeze military aid that was approved by Congress for Ukraine as it fights a war against Russia-backed separatists.

twitter:

maggieNYT twitterde op dinsdag 31-12-2019 om 04:57:59 White House aide: China gave info on Biden after Trump urged probe https://t.co/XEnWP3tyml reageer retweet

twitter:

JoyceWhiteVance twitterde op dinsdag 31-12-2019 om 03:38:17 Delay is the Democrats' impeachment BFF. More info surfaces almost daily. Now, Lev Parnas wants to give Congress the contents of an IPhone DOJ seized from him & SDNY has no objection. Sounds like this is more than just butt dials from Rudy. https://t.co/vYJPKf4SA1 reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 30 december 2019 19:27 schreef Hyperdude het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]
Iets meer bewijs van de Rusland-connectie zou wel handig zijn. Ook al doet Donnie precies wat je van een Putibitch zou verwachten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 11:36 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

....
Gelukkig had het WH het slim aangepakt door het onderzoek uitsluitend te beperken tot 'conspiracy met de Russen'. En dat boven enige twijfel bewijzen lukte dus net niet. ...

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 11:51 schreef Hyperdude het volgende:

[..]

Hetzelfde als bij een rechtzaak in NL dus.
Gebrek aan bewijs = vrijspraak.

Ik neem het niet op voor Donnie; die doet, vreemd genoeg altijd wat Rusland/Putin/overige oligarchen het best uitkomt. Maar niemand weet precies waarom, ook al is het bloody obvious.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 11:51 schreef Hyperdude het volgende:

[..]

Hetzelfde als bij een rechtzaak in NL dus.
Gebrek aan bewijs = vrijspraak.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 12:16 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:
Godsamme, welke stemmen denkt Biden hiermee te gaan trekken
Leuk als de VP de beslissende stem heeft en weer een totale moron als judge aanwijst

https://www.reddit.com/r/(...)er_a_republican_for/

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 12:18 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Volgens mij is dit aardig uit zijn verband gerukt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 12:16 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:
Godsamme, welke stemmen denkt Biden hiermee te gaan trekken
Leuk als de VP de beslissende stem heeft en weer een totale moron als judge aanwijst

https://www.reddit.com/r/(...)er_a_republican_for/

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 15:39 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Stemmen in het midden, je weet wel die stemmen die je nodig hebt om president te worden.
Ik vind het wel een goede poging om het land weer te verenigen. Een Republikein als VP zal misschien wel een beetje helpen.

twitter:

GeoffRBennett twitterde op dinsdag 31-12-2019 om 13:48:09 Sen. Susan Collins in a new interview with @MainePublic appears to support McConnell's current vision for a Senate impeachment trial. She says "it's premature to decide" before the trial starts which, if any, witnesses should be called to testify. https://t.co/NBCjNGmcgt reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 12:16 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:
Godsamme, welke stemmen denkt Biden hiermee te gaan trekken
Leuk als de VP de beslissende stem heeft en weer een totale moron als judge aanwijst

https://www.reddit.com/r/(...)er_a_republican_for/

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 17:16 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind het in het landsbelang niet eens zo gek. Een periode met een soort 'centrumregering' kan de gemoederen wellicht wat bedaren en er voor zorgen dat de partijen weer naar de mogelijkheden kijken van samenwerken, ipv de mogelijkheden om elkaar te saboteren.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 17:19 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Niet echt. De republikeinen schuiven steeds meer naar rechts op zonder compromis en de democraten moeten maar mee gaan? Terwijl de meerderheid van de Amerikanen juist steeds linkser wordt. Slecht plan dus.

GOP heeft al bewezen dat geen enkel plan van de democraten ook maar ter overweging neemt. Er liggen er enkele honderden op de plank. Daarnaast uiteraard jarenlang alle centristische en progressieve rechters geblokkeerd inclusief een SCOTUS. Denk dat de democraten gewoon een goede meerderheid moeten halen en hun best doen het land te herstellen.

Met een meerderheid in de senaat kunnen ze in ieder geval hun transparantie-regels enzo er doorheen drukken zodat geen president ooit meer kan doen wat Trump flikt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 17:25 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]

Als de democraten een meerderheid hebben in beide kamers is het inderdaad niet nodig, dit lijkt me meer een voorsorteren op de toch ook reële mogelijkheid dat de Republikeinen de Senaat houden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 17:26 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

En dan gaan ze ineens samenwerken? Je weet nu al dat ze direct alles gaan doen om de democratische president te impeachen of iets. Of in ieder geval de taktiek van de verschroeide aarde toepassen.

Ze wilden Obama al impeachen om de meest onbenullige zaken. Hillary kreeg onderzoek na onderzoek aan haar broek in de Benghazi-hoax. Wat dikke peanuts was t.o.v. Trump allemaal uitvreet.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 17:19 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]

Niet echt. De republikeinen schuiven steeds meer naar rechts op zonder compromis en de democraten moeten maar mee gaan? Terwijl de meerderheid van de Amerikanen juist steeds linkser wordt. Slecht plan dus.

GOP heeft al bewezen dat geen enkel plan van de democraten ook maar ter overweging neemt. Er liggen er enkele honderden op de plank. Daarnaast uiteraard jarenlang alle centristische en progressieve rechters geblokkeerd inclusief een SCOTUS. Denk dat de democraten gewoon een goede meerderheid moeten halen en hun best doen het land te herstellen.

Met een meerderheid in de senaat kunnen ze in ieder geval hun transparantie-regels enzo er doorheen drukken zodat geen president ooit meer kan doen wat Trump flikt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 17:41 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Trouwens, moet Pompeo nu ook aan tien onderzoeken onderworpen worden vanwege wat er bij de ambassade in Irak aan de hand was/is?

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op dinsdag 31-12-2019 om 14:21:14 Former US Ambassador to UN:“One wonders...how much consideration was given to the bombing of Kataib Hezbollah”#Iraq Prime Minister 12/30: “American attack on the Iraqi armed forces...unacceptable vicious assault that will have dangerous consequences.”https://t.co/85x3fuI7yl reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-12-2019 om 16:44:53 To those many millions of people in Iraq who want freedom and who don’t want to be dominated and controlled by Iran, this is your time! reageer retweet

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op dinsdag 31-12-2019 om 17:43:49 Trump's motorcade has now left the golf club, less than an hour after his arrival and just after the Secretary of Defense announced that additional forces would be sent to the embassy in Baghdad. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 31 december 2019 17:54 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-12-2019 om 16:44:53 To those many millions of people in Iraq who want freedom and who don’t want to be dominated and controlled by Iran, this is your time! reageer retweet

Oh toch maar niet golfen:

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op dinsdag 31-12-2019 om 17:43:49 Trump's motorcade has now left the golf club, less than an hour after his arrival and just after the Secretary of Defense announced that additional forces would be sent to the embassy in Baghdad. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-12-2019 om 22:19:04 The U.S. Embassy in Iraq is, & has been for hours, SAFE! Many of our great Warfighters, together with the most lethal military equipment in the world, was immediately rushed to the site. Thank you to the President & Prime Minister of Iraq for their rapid response upon request.... reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 31-12-2019 om 22:19:07 ....Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost, or damage incurred, at any of our facilities. They will pay a very BIG PRICE! This is not a Warning, it is a Threat. Happy New Year! reageer retweet

quote:

Up to 4,000 US troops could deploy to Middle East amid Baghdad unrest: officials

The U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division’s alert brigade has been issued orders to deploy rapidly to Kuwait amid the unrest in Baghdad, three U.S. defense officials told Fox News on Tuesday.

At least 500 paratroopers are already making their way to Kuwait, Fox News is told.

The alert brigade of roughly 4,000 paratroopers, known as the DRB -- the Deployment Ready Brigade -- has been told to pack their bags for a possible deployment in the days ahead after hundreds of Iranian-backed militiamen tried to storm the U.S. embassy in Baghdad Tuesday.

Within that alert brigade, three rifle battalions have a certain alert sequence, 18 hours, 36 hours and 54 hours for the third. The entire brigade has a 96-hour alert window to deploy.

The Pentagon is expected to issue a statement in the coming hours about the deployment.

Some of the paratroopers already have left their base in Fort Bragg, N.C., to fly overseas in Air Force C-17 cargo planes, according to officials.

There are roughly 5,000 U.S. troops currently deployed to Iraq now, among the roughly 60,000 U.S. troops currently deployed to the region. According to the Pentagon, 14,000 have been added since May as the threat from Iran increased.

The aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman has been in the Gulf of Oman, its strike group armed with hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles in addition to the dozens of strike aircraft aboard Truman.

More than 100 U.S. Marines arrived at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad earlier Tuesday to help bolster security after the mob of Iranian-backed Shite militiamen tried to storm the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

The crowd attacked the embassy following funerals for 25 Iranian-backed fighters killed in U.S. airstrikes Sunday in Iraq and Syria--retribution for an American defense contractor killed in Iraq Friday, according to U.S. defense officials.

twitter:

neal_katyal twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 06:23:18 A timely message from our Chief Justice for 2020: "We should reflect on our duty to judge without fear or favor, deciding each matter with humility, integrity and dispatch. ... 1/2 reageer retweet

twitter:

neal_katyal twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 06:23:55 As the new year begins, and we turn to the tasks before us, we should each resolve to do our best to maintain the public's trust that we are faithfully discharging our solemn obligation to equal justice under law."https://t.co/qpkiPgPpst reageer retweet

quote:

Chief Justice John Roberts — who’s on the verge of an extraordinarily high-profile balancing act presiding over the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump — issued a warning on Tuesday about the dangers of misinformation in the internet era.

“In our age, when social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the public’s need to understand our government, and the protections it provides, is ever more vital,” Roberts declared in his annual New Year’s Eve message summing up the work of the federal judiciary.

Roberts was not explicit about whether his call for increased civics education was intended as a rebuke of Trump, although some quickly read it that way. Trump has been widely criticized for repeating false information released online and for retweeting messages posted by conspiracy theorists and racists.

The view of Roberts’ message as a critique of the president was also reinforced by the fact that the two men have clashed publicly over a topic related to the chief justice’s year-end report: Trump’s tendency to label adverse court rulings he and his administration face as the work of judges doing the political bidding of previous, Democratic presidents.

SPOILER

A little over a year ago, Roberts issued a highly unusual public statement that lashed back at Trump’s claims that many federal judges are nakedly partisan and illegitimate.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Trump, angry over court orders blocking many of his immigration policies, shot back that Roberts was burying his head in the sand.

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country,” Trump wrote last November. “Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security — these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!”

Roberts’ year-end report included no language remotely as pointed as that exchange, but he did use the message to again extol the virtues and vitality of judicial independence.

“We should celebrate our strong and independent judiciary, a key source of national unity and stability,” the chief justice wrote on Tuesday. “But we should also remember that justice is not inevitable. We should reflect on our duty to judge without fear or favor, deciding each matter with humility, integrity, and dispatch. As the New Year begins, and we turn to the tasks before us, we should each resolve to do our best to maintain the public’s trust that we are faithfully discharging our solemn obligation to equal justice under law.”

Roberts also used his four-page message to note that, in the early days of the republic, rumors sometimes drove citizens to riot. He pointed to a 1788 attack on founder John Jay, who was struck in the head with a rock while trying to quell a lawless mob whipped up by talk that medical students were robbing graves to experiment on corpses.

The episode appears to have limited Jay’s contributions to the Federalist Papers, leaving most of those writings to be prepared by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Roberts observed.

“It is sadly ironic that John Jay’s efforts to educate his fellow citizens about the Framers’ plan of government fell victim to a rock thrown by a rioter motivated by a rumor,” Roberts wrote. “Happily, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay ultimately succeeded in convincing the public of the virtues of the principles embodied in the Constitution. Those principles leave no place for mob violence.”

In the coming weeks, Roberts is expected to become the third chief justice to preside over the trial of a sitting American president, as the Senate takes up two articles of impeachment the House passed against Trump in December.

The outing will be an unusual one for the chief justice, not only because of the rarity of such events, but also because he’s not accustomed to his work being televised. Supreme Court sessions are closed to cameras, but the Senate’s impeachment trial is expected to be a spectacle carried live on television.

While Roberts celebrates educational programs and initiatives undertaken by the federal judiciary, his report ignored the lack of video or still cameras at the high court and most lower federal courts. Roberts’ discussion of the courts’ daily work also overstates the extent of other efforts toward openness.

“Today, federal courts post their opinions online, giving the public instant access to the reasoning behind the judgments that affect their lives,” the chief justice wrote.

In fact, two decades after the internet became widely used, most federal district courts do not take the simple step of posting their opinions on the courts’ public-facing websites.

Often, citizens who want to get such rulings directly from the court must register for an account, figure out how to navigate the federal court system’s clunky online docketing system, and pay for the privilege of tracking down the decisions they are seeking.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 januari 2020 18:52 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Dit is toch niet te geloven. Sad, very sad.
https://mobile.twitter.com/phil_lewis_/status/1212027706453430274

quote:

Op woensdag 1 januari 2020 20:13 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

[..]

Dat deze dingen in de metro overal waren neergezet was "sad". Dat de passagiers gezamenlijk de trein hebben schoongemaakt met papieren zakdoekjes en spullen uit hun tassen vind ik eigenlijk wel hoopgevend.
Het vervuilen met hakenkruizen en haatleuzen was het werk van een eenling, het reinigen en verwijderen van deze rotzooi is het werk van een groep mensen die elkaar niet kennen.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 januari 2020 02:10 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Wag the dog...

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

twitter:

kathymitchell56 twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 18:15:07 Just a reminder....Trump has more troops in Middle East than Obama didNo Middle East peaceIran Empowered by Trump breaking treatyUS looked cowardly as they deserted KurdsUS Embassy in Iraq was nearly taken by Iran forcesTired of winning MAGAts? reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 05:57 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
https://twitter.com/mooncult/status/1212549854016106496?s=21

White nationalist Biden.

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 04:41:19 A wildly out of context Biden clip is circulating on Twitter.He spoke for 10+ minutes in NH about his history of work against domestic violence and sex assault, which he repeatedly described as a "cultural problem" he argued goes back to permissive English common law. 1/3 reageer retweet

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 04:41:19 He told a story about past English judges tolerating wife-beating. Minutes later, returning to his argument about how American permissiveness toward the abuse of women descends from centuries-old English permissiveness, he said this: https://t.co/RxOYylfwz0 reageer retweet

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 04:42:34 In summary, the clip circulating on Twitter omits 1) the entire subject of Biden's comments; 2) Biden saying "Folks, this is about changing the culture" at the beginning; 3) Biden explaining at the end that he was talking about a culture "that says it's alright" to abuse. reageer retweet

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 04:47:04 Biden's claims about the roots of domestic violence in America can certainly be disputed -- I'm not sure if he has all of his old-England history correct -- but he certainly wasn't making some general argument that America is solely a country of European culture, or something. reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 05:57 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
https://twitter.com/mooncult/status/1212549854016106496?s=21

White nationalist Biden.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 09:21 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
Heerlijk om het nieuwe jaar in te gaan met dubbele standaarden en uit verband gerukte uitspraken.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 09:21 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
Heerlijk om het nieuwe jaar in te gaan met dubbele standaarden en uit verband gerukte uitspraken.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 09:21 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
Heerlijk om het nieuwe jaar in te gaan met dubbele standaarden en uit verband gerukte uitspraken.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 10:45 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

2020 gaat echt niet anders zijn dan 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, etc.

Hopelijk gaat die impeachment (waarvan de dems zeiden dat het belangrijk was om snel te doen en het daarom in sneltreinvaart door het huis ging) snel naar het senaat.
Al ben ik bang dat de dems liever wachten tot het senaat volledig in Dem handen is om de impeachement (waarvan de dems zeiden dat het belangrijk was om snel te doen en het daarom in sneltreinvaart door het huis ging) bijna pas een jaar later naar het senaat te sturen. Je weet wel, omdat het snel moest gebeuren.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 10:45 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

2020 gaat echt niet anders zijn dan 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, etc.

Hopelijk gaat die impeachment (waarvan de dems zeiden dat het belangrijk was om snel te doen en het daarom in sneltreinvaart door het huis ging) snel naar het senaat.
Al ben ik bang dat de dems liever wachten tot het senaat volledig in Dem handen is om de impeachement (waarvan de dems zeiden dat het belangrijk was om snel te doen en het daarom in sneltreinvaart door het huis ging) bijna pas een jaar later naar het senaat te sturen. Je weet wel, omdat het snel moest gebeuren.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 10:45 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

2020 gaat echt niet anders zijn dan 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, etc.

Hopelijk gaat die impeachment (waarvan de dems zeiden dat het belangrijk was om snel te doen en het daarom in sneltreinvaart door het huis ging) snel naar het senaat.
Al ben ik bang dat de dems liever wachten tot het senaat volledig in Dem handen is om de impeachement (waarvan de dems zeiden dat het belangrijk was om snel te doen en het daarom in sneltreinvaart door het huis ging) bijna pas een jaar later naar het senaat te sturen. Je weet wel, omdat het snel moest gebeuren.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 11:38 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Zo ver we nu weten is er geen misdaad begaan door Trump. Als ze hem uiteindelijk veroordelen in de senaat dan kan dat uiteindelijk gevolgen hebben voor de stabiliteit van het land.
Ik hoop dat de Democraten tegen die tijd een beetje bij hun zinnen zijn gekomen.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 11:38 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Zo ver we nu weten is er geen misdaad begaan door Trump. Als ze hem uiteindelijk veroordelen in de senaat dan kan dat uiteindelijk gevolgen hebben voor de stabiliteit van het land.
Ik hoop dat de Democraten tegen die tijd een beetje bij hun zinnen zijn gekomen.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 11:38 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Zo ver we nu weten is er geen misdaad begaan door Trump. Als ze hem uiteindelijk veroordelen in de senaat dan kan dat uiteindelijk gevolgen hebben voor de stabiliteit van het land.
Ik hoop dat de Democraten tegen die tijd een beetje bij hun zinnen zijn gekomen.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 12:10 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

[..]

Aanranding en verkrachting zijn geen misdaad?
En er bestaat een bandje waarop hij daar zelf over opschept.

Hij moet een boete betalen vanwege het frauduleuse gemanipuleer met het geld van een liefdadigheidsinstelling, als dat geen misdaad is, waarom dan die boete?

Maar hier https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/atrocities-112-196 vind je een heel lijstje, met handige kleurcodes want ze vallen in de categorieën
– Sexual Misconduct & Harassment

(April, 2016 – Jill Harth accused Donald Trump of sexual assault. In a 1997 lawsuit, Harth stated in court documents that Trump harassed and groped her in 1993. She later dropped the suit but stood by her story.)

– White Supremacy

– Public Statements / Tweets

(In 2011, Donald Trump stoked false claims that Barack Obama had lied about his education. During a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said, “Our current president came out of nowhere. Came out of nowhere. In fact, I’ll go a step further: The people that went to school with him, they never saw him, they don’t know who he is. It’s crazy.” This is false. Numerous accounts from Obama’s college classmates refute Trump’s claim, including Obama’s Columbia roommate, Phil Doerner.)

– Collusion with Russia & Obstruction of Justice
– Trump Staff /Administration
– Trump Family Business Dealings

(November 18, 2016 – Even though he said he would not settle the case, Donald Trump agreed to pay $25 million to settle his Trump University fraud lawsuits. The real estate seminar program was not an accredited university and used misleading marketing tactics to recruit students.)

– Policy
– Environment

Veel leesplezier.

SPOILER

althans, zoiets zal de gemiddelde alt rechtser roepen

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 10:45 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

2020 gaat echt niet anders zijn dan 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, etc.

Hopelijk gaat die impeachment (waarvan de dems zeiden dat het belangrijk was om snel te doen en het daarom in sneltreinvaart door het huis ging) snel naar het senaat.
Al ben ik bang dat de dems liever wachten tot het senaat volledig in Dem handen is om de impeachement (waarvan de dems zeiden dat het belangrijk was om snel te doen en het daarom in sneltreinvaart door het huis ging) bijna pas een jaar later naar het senaat te sturen. Je weet wel, omdat het snel moest gebeuren.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 11:44 schreef archito het volgende:

[..]

Maar ben je het er niet mee eens dat de getuigenissen tot nu toe dermate verontrustend zijn dat een fatsoenlijk proces in de Senaat nodig is om een goede afweging te kunnen maken?

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 14:00:04 "[John] Bolton has no excuse anymore," says former prosecutor Mimi Rocah. "The standing case law says testify. Wanting to sell a book says testify. Doing the right thing for the good of your country says testify." https://t.co/y97kyn4SFE reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 15:08:02 Breaking via NYT: Julián Castro, the former housing secretary who was the only Latino candidate in the Democratic primary, said Thursday he would end his bid for the presidency. https://t.co/CHeuWR5byI reageer retweet

twitter:

just_security twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 14:55:27 EXCLUSIVE: @just_security has obtained unredacted versions of Trump administration emails about Ukraine aid.They show the Pentagon repeatedly sounded the alarm that the freeze on funding was in violation of the law. @K8brannen reports:https://t.co/hDce01mK5E reageer retweet

quote:

“Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.”

This is what Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, in an Aug. 30 email, which has only been made available in redacted form until now. It is one of many documents the Trump administration is trying to keep from the public, despite congressional oversight efforts and court orders in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.

Earlier in the day on Aug. 30, President Donald Trump met with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the president’s hold on $391 million in military assistance for Ukraine. Inside the Trump administration, panic was reaching fever pitch about the president’s funding hold, which had stretched on for two months. Days earlier, POLITICO had broken the story and questions were starting to pile up. U.S. defense contractors were worried about delayed contracts and officials in Kyiv and lawmakers on Capitol Hill wanted to know what on earth was going on. While Trump’s national security team thought withholding the money went against U.S. national security interests, Trump still wouldn’t budge.
(...)

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 11:44 schreef archito het volgende:

[..]

Maar ben je het er niet mee eens dat de getuigenissen tot nu toe dermate verontrustend zijn dat een fatsoenlijk proces in de Senaat nodig is om een goede afweging te kunnen maken?

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 12:10 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

[..]

Aanranding en verkrachting zijn geen misdaad?
En er bestaat een bandje waarop hij daar zelf over opschept.

Hij moet een boete betalen vanwege het frauduleuse gemanipuleer met het geld van een liefdadigheidsinstelling, als dat geen misdaad is, waarom dan die boete?

Maar hier https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/atrocities-112-196 vind je een heel lijstje, met handige kleurcodes want ze vallen in de categorieën
– Sexual Misconduct & Harassment

(April, 2016 – Jill Harth accused Donald Trump of sexual assault. In a 1997 lawsuit, Harth stated in court documents that Trump harassed and groped her in 1993. She later dropped the suit but stood by her story.)

– White Supremacy

– Public Statements / Tweets

(In 2011, Donald Trump stoked false claims that Barack Obama had lied about his education. During a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said, “Our current president came out of nowhere. Came out of nowhere. In fact, I’ll go a step further: The people that went to school with him, they never saw him, they don’t know who he is. It’s crazy.” This is false. Numerous accounts from Obama’s college classmates refute Trump’s claim, including Obama’s Columbia roommate, Phil Doerner.)

– Collusion with Russia & Obstruction of Justice
– Trump Staff /Administration
– Trump Family Business Dealings

(November 18, 2016 – Even though he said he would not settle the case, Donald Trump agreed to pay $25 million to settle his Trump University fraud lawsuits. The real estate seminar program was not an accredited university and used misleading marketing tactics to recruit students.)

– Policy
– Environment

Veel leesplezier.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 15:41 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Nope,

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 15:46 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

En in het Huis dan?

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 15:48 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Nogmaals blijkbaar vind Pelosi het niet interessant genoeg om in het huis door te gaan dus......

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 15:49 schreef Burner82 het volgende:
Ik ben nieuw, dus even inventariseren... Wie is links en wie is rechts hier? (Go Bernie!!)

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 16:23 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

We willen hier graag inhoudelijke discussie dus dit soort hokjesdenken laten we liever achterwege.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 16:30 schreef Burner82 het volgende:

[..]


De hele USA-politiek bestaat uit hokjes denken, smearen en liegen....
Dan ga jij zeggen dat je een inhoudelijke discussie wilt voeren, als mensen het hier hebben over de fake-media van linkse gut-menschen....

Misschien een andere keer

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 16:32 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Smilies zijn niet zo'n heel sterk argument, maar dit is precies het type post waar we hier niet op zitten te wachten. Bij overduidelijk trollgedrag en het gooien met dat soort terminologie kun je gewoon de rapporteerknop gebruiken of een bericht in feedback plaatsen.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 16:34 schreef Burner82 het volgende:

[..]

Ok, en nu?
Ben je pro Trump, of Pro Dem?

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 16:39 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben anti infantiel hokjesdenken.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 16:23 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

We willen

quote:

“Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.”

This is what Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, in an Aug. 30 email, which has only been made available in redacted form until now. It is one of many documents the Trump administration is trying to keep from the public, despite congressional oversight efforts and court orders in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.

Earlier in the day on Aug. 30, President Donald Trump met with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the president’s hold on $391 million in military assistance for Ukraine. Inside the Trump administration, panic was reaching fever pitch about the president’s funding hold, which had stretched on for two months. Days earlier, POLITICO had broken the story and questions were starting to pile up. U.S. defense contractors were worried about delayed contracts and officials in Kyiv and lawmakers on Capitol Hill wanted to know what on earth was going on. While Trump’s national security team thought withholding the money went against U.S. national security interests, Trump still wouldn’t budge.

Thanks to the testimony of several Trump administration officials, we now know what Trump was waiting on: a commitment from Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.

But getting at that truth hasn’t been easy and the Trump administration continues to try to obscure it. It is blocking key officials from testifying and is keeping documentary evidence from lawmakers investigating the Ukraine story. For example, this note from Duffey to McCusker was never turned over to House investigators and the Trump administration is continuing to try to keep it secret.

Last month, a court ordered the government to release almost 300 pages of emails to the Center for Public Integrity in response to a FOIA lawsuit. It released a first batch on Dec. 12, and then a second installment on Dec. 21, including Duffey’s email, but that document, along with several others, were partially or completely blacked out.

Since then, Just Security has viewed unredacted copies of these emails, which begin in June and end in early October. Together, they tell the behind-the-scenes story of the defense and budget officials who had to carry out the president’s unexplained hold on military aid to Ukraine.

The documents reveal growing concern from Pentagon officials that the hold would violate the Impoundment Control Act, which requires the executive branch to spend money as appropriated by Congress, and that the necessary steps to avoid this result weren’t being taken. Those steps would include notifying Congress that the funding was being held or shifted elsewhere, a step that was never taken. The emails also show that no rationale was ever given for why the hold was put in place or why it was eventually lifted.

What is clear is that it all came down to the president and what he wanted; no one else appears to have supported his position. Although the pretext for the hold was that some sort of policy review was taking place, the emails make no mention of that actually happening. Instead, officials were anxiously waiting for the president to be convinced that the hold was a bad idea. And while the situation continued throughout the summer, senior defense officials were searching for legal guidance, worried they would be blamed should the hold be lifted too late to actually spend all of the money, which would violate the law.

The emails also reveal key decision points, moments when senior officials hoped the hold might be lifted. This includes Vice President Mike Pence’s September meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which a senior defense official expected would resolve the funding issue, raising the question: Why? What was supposed to come out of that meeting that would pave the way for Trump to lift the hold? What was Pence expected to communicate?

But, the hold wasn’t immediately lifted after Pence’s meeting with Zelenskyy. Instead, the president finally released the money on Sept. 11, just as the whistleblower complaint was about to break into the open.

As for how the story begins, it was in mid-June when Defense Department officials first heard the president had questions about the Ukraine money.

[..]

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 15:22:23 Many revelations in this SCOOP by @K8brannen (including remarkable reference to Pence's meeting with Zelenskyy).Here I'll outline the significant trouble these unredacted emails spell for Mick Mulvaney's OMB and evidence of a cover up.<thread>...https://t.co/Or12CFjdlf reageer retweet

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 16:54:32 The Justice Department also redacted a simple question from the Pentagon comptroller to OMB: Had the hold on Ukraine funds gone through the Pentagon's general counsel? https://t.co/fP1S16tDCU https://t.co/ziin8y8VT6 reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 17:02 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

We? Spreek voor jezelf alstublieft.

twitter:

costareports twitterde op vrijdag 20-09-2019 om 02:56:44 VP Pence met with Ukraine's Zelensky a few weeks ago in Poland, sitting in for Pres. Trump, who couldn't make the trip. The meeting was in a windowless hotel room. Bolton sat silent, Sec. Perry there, too, as pool reporters were brought int. Zelensky kept bouncing his knees... reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 15:32:38 @K8brannen 2. The emails appear to contradict OMB General Counsel Paoletta's letter to Congress (which set forth new rationale for hold on Ukraine aid on eve of HJC vote on impeachment articles).It's hard to see why sentences like this in his letter are not intentional false statements.👇 https://t.co/WVPsoo5j6k reageer retweet

twitter:

rgoodlaw twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 18:17:24 Senator Schumer releases a Statement based on our article by @K8brannen reporting on unredacted Ukraine emails obtained by @just_security.(hat tip: @NatashaBertrand)#UkraineDocs https://t.co/LfmMDp3uxW reageer retweet

twitter:

pewresearch twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 18:43:02 Only 31% of Americans say the current economic conditions are helping them and their family. 46% say the current conditions are hurting them and their families. https://t.co/Yc16OH86av https://t.co/OiwAdABVOR reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 15:41 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Nope, en blijkbaar is Pelosi het met mij eens aangezien zij de getuigenissen van “the inner circle” niet via de rechter wilt afdwingen.
In plaats daar van speelt ze de hete aardappel door naar de senaat. Althans ze wilt het doorspelen naar de senaat met een aantal voorwaarden.

twitter:

tribelaw twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 15:39:17 I’ve heard some chatter that @senatemajldr McConnell could unilaterally begin an impeachment trial without waiting for @SpeakerPelosi to transmit the articles to the Senate. Not so.The standing Senate Rules preclude that option. Amending that rule would require a 2/3 majority. reageer retweet

twitter:

SpeakerPelosi twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 21:17:53 Trump engaged in unprecedented, total obstruction of Congress, hiding these emails, all other documents, and his top aides from the American people.His excuse was a phony complaint about the House process.What’s the excuse now? Why won’t Trump & McConnell allow a fair trial? https://t.co/S3ZlEJMMDB reageer retweet

twitter:

glennkirschner2 twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 20:16:06 Which is EXACTLY why the 2020 Dem nominee must pledge to establish a #TrumpCrimesCommission #TCC to investigate/prosecute all crimes by Trump & his co-conspirators/aiders & abettors/accessories. This is essential to restoring the rule of law & deterring future crimes. #NoPardons https://t.co/QQjFgQtV20 reageer retweet

twitter:

craigunger twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 20:53:23 And it must investigate more than crimes. Often, the biggest scandal is what IS legal. The counterintelligence part of Mueller probe has never been released. We need to know how Russian $$ has compromised so many politicians--eg RU Mafia laundered $$ thru Trump real estate. https://t.co/xsF38vbZy6 reageer retweet

twitter:

CNN twitterde op donderdag 02-01-2020 om 21:31:07 Greater clarity regarding the future of President Trump's impeachment could be derived Friday when the US Senate reconvenes and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is likely to speak on the floor https://t.co/rGcebMwcbP reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 2 januari 2020 15:41 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

In plaats daar van speelt ze de hete aardappel door naar de senaat. Althans ze wilt het doorspelen naar de senaat met een aantal voorwaarden.

twitter:

kaitlancollins twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 00:08:49 CNN and BuzzFeed just got more than 350 pages of FBI memos from witness interviews in Mueller's investigation. There are big redactions, but one of the interviews is completely blacked out — including who was being interviewed! https://t.co/0dNrWS0b5V reageer retweet

quote:

BuzzFeed News has obtained some of the most important and highly sought-after documents from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation: summaries of FBI interviews with key White House officials.

The hundreds of pages of documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, were the subject of a protracted legal dispute between the Justice Department and the House Judiciary Committee, which sought them over the summer as part of its impeachment inquiry. The committee had requested access to an unredacted copy of the Mueller report, grand jury testimony from the investigation, and the FBI's summaries of 33 interviews. The Justice Department resisted, claiming the impeachment inquiry does not entitle the panel to see those records. A federal judge disagreed, ruling in October that "DOJ is wrong" and that the White House and the Justice Department were "openly stonewalling" the committee.

In the documents released Thursday, the FBI withheld portions under a number of FOIA exemptions -- including one that says the disclosure of information would interfere with ongoing investigations. They also withheld information from these records claiming disclosure would threaten national security.

The documents also include a contains a 31-page interview that is completely redacted -- including the name of the person being interviewed.

[..]

twitter:

alihashem_tv twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 01:28:00 My sources suggesting that commander of #IRGC Quds force Qassem #Suleimani and Deputy chief of #PMU Abu Mahdi AlMuhandes were in the convoy hit by the #US airstrike near #Baghdad airport #Iraq reageer retweet

twitter:

alihashem_tv twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 02:11:51 Iraq state tv quoting a #PMU source: deputy commander of #PMU Abu Mahdi #Muhandes and #IRGC Quds force commander Col. Qassem #Soleimani were killed in a strike that targeted their convoy near #Baghdad international airport #Iraq https://t.co/lWh7dTxrAr reageer retweet

twitter:

alihashem_tv twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 02:28:05 Reuter’s quoting US officials: the #US executed strikes on two targets related to Iran in #Baghdad on Friday https://t.co/w7frBsdhA5 https://t.co/fRnptSyjo6 reageer retweet

twitter:

ilangoldenberg twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 01:37:37 IF TRUE (HUGE IF). This would likely mean all out conflict between US forces and Iranian supported Shia militia in Iraq https://t.co/q3Bky2wNLX reageer retweet

twitter:

yashar twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 02:47:36 1. There are unconfirmed reports that Qasem Soleimani commander of Qods Force (Iran's external security agency) has been killed in drone strikes. If true, this will be a major moment in US-Iran relations & Supreme Leader will undoubtedly see this as a major provocation/act of war https://t.co/nLZNbvalsT reageer retweet

twitter:

PeterBeinart twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 03:06:37 Suleimani has lots of blood on his hands. So did Saddam Hussein. And assassinating him is the single most reckless act of American foreign policy since the Iraq War. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 03:32:53 https://t.co/VXeKiVzpTf reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 03:36 schreef trein2000 het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 03:32:53 https://t.co/VXeKiVzpTf reageer retweet

De commander in chief heeft gereageerd. Slechts deze foto: [ afbeelding ]

twitter:

gtconway3d twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 03:37:38 It’s really a bad and dangerous thing that the president of the United States is an impulsive, incompetent, and delusional narcissistic sociopath. reageer retweet

twitter:

RichardHaass twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 03:40:06 It would be ironic and worse yet tragic as well as dangerous if an administration that wanted to reduce the US footprint in the Mideast has set in motion a dynamic that will draw us in much further at a time we face challenges from China and NK in Asia and Russia in Europe. reageer retweet

twitter:

DanLamothe twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 03:48:08 Pentagon: "At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization." reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 03:00 schreef trein2000 het volgende:
De beproefde techniek wordt uit de kast gehaald. Het is oorlog.

Een hoge Iraanse generaal is vermoord door de US. Ook berichten van arrestaties ...

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 29-11-2011 om 20:48:51 In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran. reageer retweet

twitter:

aliarouzi twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 04:09:01 A former head of the IRGC has just promised that Iran will strike a strong revenge against the USA over the death of Qassem Soleimani reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 01:55:01 One of my greatest honors was to have gotten CHOICE approved for our great Veterans. Others have tried for decades, and failed! https://t.co/NcVbbnrT5O reageer retweet

twitter:

svdate twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 04:43:10 This is a lie. Sens McCain and Sanders got the bill written and passed. Barack Obama signed it into law. There are photos and video. https://t.co/4qBb4gciFO reageer retweet

twitter:

ChrisLu44 twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 18:00:58 @svdate Here’s Obama signing the Veterans Choice Act in 2014 that was sponsored by Bernie Sanders and John McCain. Trump will keep saying that only he could get this bill passed. But we have this thing called the Internet to call out his lies. https://t.co/m6VgMeDVpp https://t.co/DmRxdNtWma reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 04:42 schreef Mensen_doe_rustig het volgende:
Misschien al voorbij gekomen maar toch hilarisch! De geschiedvervalser in chief had weer wat te pochen.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 01:55:01 One of my greatest honors was to have gotten CHOICE approved for our great Veterans. Others have tried for decades, and failed! https://t.co/NcVbbnrT5O reageer retweet

twitter:

svdate twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 04:43:10 This is a lie. Sens McCain and Sanders got the bill written and passed. Barack Obama signed it into law. There are photos and video. https://t.co/4qBb4gciFO reageer retweet

twitter:

ChrisLu44 twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 18:00:58 @:svdate Here’s Obama signing the Veterans Choice Act in 2014 that was sponsored by Bernie Sanders and John McCain. Trump will keep saying that only he could get this bill passed. But we have this thing called the Internet to call out his lies. https://t.co/m6VgMeDVpp https://t.co/DmRxdNtWma reageer retweet

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 17:33:58 Trump told this lie at least 56 times in 2019. He's up to at least 109 times for his presidency. https://t.co/6t0JbVsq8a reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 04:45 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Het is idd al een oude

twitter:

ddale8 twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 17:33:58 Trump told this lie at least 56 times in 2019. He's up to at least 109 times for his presidency. https://t.co/6t0JbVsq8a reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 07:41 schreef Ringo het volgende:
Hoera, de stars en stripes kunnen weer bulderend wapperen, POTUS has his war.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 08:22 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
Dit zou Trump de herverkiezing kunnen opleveren...

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 08:20 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Ik mag toch hopen dat de rest van het westen het aan de VS overlaat om het allemaal alleen op te gaan knappen?

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 08:27 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Na al die 'bringing the troops home' retoriek van hem?

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 08:22 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
Dit zou Trump de herverkiezing kunnen opleveren...

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 08:20 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Ik mag toch hopen dat de rest van het westen het aan de VS overlaat om het allemaal alleen op te gaan knappen?

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 08:39 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:
Geen nieuwe oorlogen beginnen was 1 van de belangrijkste argumenten van de Trump adepten. Wat moeten die nu zeggen als het daadwerkelijk oorlog wordt?

quote:

A day after Donald Trump designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organisation, reports are reemerging of the Trump Organization's alleged participation in a scheme that likely helped the IRGC launder money to fund its interests abroad.
[..]
But according to a 2017 report by the New Yorker, the Trump Organization signed contracts in 2012 with developers to build a skyscraper in Azerbaijan that appeared “to be a corrupt operation engineered by oligarchs tied to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard”.

The family the Trumps partnered with on the Trump Tower Baku project were the Mammadovs, whose billionaire patriarch Ziya Mammadov was the then-Azerbaijani transport minister, on a reported salary of little over £9,000.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 09:15 schreef cynicus het volgende:
@:ExtraWaskracht kun je dit lijstje nog eens bijwerken? Hoop dat het niet teveel werk is...

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 09:35 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
NO MORE BENGHAZIS

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 08:54 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:
Ondanks dat dit een belangrijke hoge pief was, denk ik dat Iran de VS op haar blote knieën dankt voor dit geweldige propagandamoment. Al was het voor Iran nog beter geweest als er vanaf de Amerikaanse ambassade op de demonstranten was geschoten met doden en gewonden als gevolg.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 09:35 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:
NO MORE BENGHAZIS

De anti Trump mongooltjes zullen wel weer huilen, maar Israelische, Syrische, Irakese en Iraanse families vieren feest. Verdiend einde van een monster.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 08:20 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Ik mag toch hopen dat de rest van het westen het aan de VS overlaat om het allemaal alleen op te gaan knappen?

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 09:39 schreef Doublepain het volgende:
Trumpgod

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 09:36 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:

[..]

Ja fantastisch, wat een geweldig propagandamoment als je belangrijkste millitair sterft. Helemaal geen aderlating ofzo.

Iran staat schaakmat. Als ze aanvallen, valt het regime. Als ze niks doen, verzwakt het regime.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 09:47 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Jeetje. Wat een expert ben je toch.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 09:36 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:

[..]

Ja fantastisch, wat een geweldig propagandamoment als je belangrijkste millitair sterft. Helemaal geen aderlating ofzo.

Iran staat schaakmat. Als ze aanvallen, valt het regime. Als ze niks doen, verzwakt het regime.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 08:27 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

Na al die 'bringing the troops home' retoriek van hem?

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 08:32 schreef Ringo het volgende:

[..]

Meevechten in zoʼn onnutte, zelfgestarte oorlog? Daar is ons minder-dan-2%-budget te krap voor.

twitter:

RepAdamSchiff twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 05:31:43 Soleimani was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him.But Congress didn’t authorize and American people don’t want a war with Iran.All steps must now be taken to protect our forces against the almost inevitable escalation and increased risk. https://t.co/Z4HTnScFg7 reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 09:15 schreef cynicus het volgende:
@:ExtraWaskracht kun je dit lijstje nog eens bijwerken? Hoop dat het niet teveel werk is...

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 10:28 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Is het wel toegestaan dat de president zo maar even wat mensen om laat leggen zonder dat er een oorlog gaande is?

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 10:36 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]

Ja, omdat de VS de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde als terroristische organisatie hebben bestempeld. Soleimani was de leider van die organisatie.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 09:36 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:

[..]

Ja fantastisch, wat een geweldig propagandamoment als je belangrijkste millitair sterft. Helemaal geen aderlating ofzo.

Iran staat schaakmat. Als ze aanvallen, valt het regime. Als ze niks doen, verzwakt het regime.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 10:36 schreef Hanca het volgende:

Nou kun je betwisten of het goed is dat je het leger van een land op de lijst van terroristische organisaties zet.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 10:36 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]

Ja, omdat de VS de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde als terroristische organisatie hebben bestempeld. Soleimani was de leider van de buitenlandbrigade van die organisatie. Een Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi mocht ook zo worden gedood.

Nou kun je betwisten of het goed is dat je het leger van een land op de lijst van terroristische organisaties zet.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 10:49 schreef cynicus het volgende:

[..]

De Revolutionaire Garde is niet het leger van Iran, naast de Garde heeft Iran ook nog een regulier leger.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 10:53 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Heb je een bron voor hoe je tot dit inzicht gekomen bent?

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 09:36 schreef Vader_Aardbei het volgende:

[..]

Ja fantastisch, wat een geweldig propagandamoment als je belangrijkste millitair sterft.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 10:53 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]

Een leger of legeronderdeel dan. Iran ziet de Garde gewoon als (onderdeel van) hun leger.

quote:

I assume you don't know what was his position, Iran has 2 armies (weird, I know) a regular army and IRGC or as we call it simply Sepah, they created Sepah after 1979 revolution because they didn't trust the "army" at the time. they were afraid of a coup , the country wasn't stable at all.

after 40 years Sepah is not just military anymore, they are in everything, everywhere, something like mafia.

Sepah has different units, one of them is Quds (or Ghods) which was leaded by this guy in past 23 years. Quds force "manages" things outside of Iranian border. that's why I said he was in shadow for so many years. I'm quite sure 7-8 years ago most people didn't know him here. the regime for a reason (which we don't know but we can guess) tried to bold him in past few years.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 11:03 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Net even een uitleg gevraagd van een Iraniër, die altijd wel snapt hoe dit soort zaken zitten. Het is niet een onderdeel van 'het leger', Iran heeft 'gewoon' twee aparte legers.
[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 10:48 schreef speknek het volgende:

[..]

Lol. Iran is verenigd tegen de VS. Niemand in de VS behalve Trumps herverkiezingscampagne wil een oorlog met Iran. Iran heeft nu carte blanche om eindeloos te gaan zitten zieken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 11:02 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Belangrijkste militair

Daar zit nu alweer een andere generaal, geen probleem. Hij was wellicht de beoogd president over een paar jaar, wie weet, maar verder zal Iran hier echt niet zoveel schade door hebben hoor. Het is maar een persoon.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 11:02 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Belangrijkste militair

Daar zit nu alweer een andere generaal, geen probleem. Hij was wellicht de beoogd president over een paar jaar, wie weet, maar verder zal Iran hier echt niet zoveel schade door hebben hoor. Het is maar een persoon.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 29-11-2011 om 20:48:51 In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 09-10-2012 om 23:39:26 Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 22-10-2012 om 18:43:36 Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 16-09-2013 om 23:23:53 I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 25-09-2013 om 19:44:06 Remember what I previously said--Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 11-11-2013 om 03:55:04 Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly-not skilled! reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 12:00 schreef cynicus het volgende:
Uit de serie, voor alles in Trumpworld is een tweet:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 29-11-2011 om 20:48:51 In order to get elected, @:BarackObama will start a war with Iran. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 22-10-2012 om 18:43:36 Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 16-09-2013 om 23:23:53 I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 11-11-2013 om 03:55:04 Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly-not skilled! reageer retweet

Zou Donald ook onthouden hebben dat hijzelf kennelijk niet bekwaam is?

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 12:10 schreef mcmlxiv het volgende:

[..]

Maar jij weet ook dat alle trumpanisten nu 180 graden zullen draaien en vol lof zullen zijn over deze geweldige man. Ook als dit een echte oorlog met Iran oplevert.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 12:00 schreef cynicus het volgende:
Uit de serie, voor alles in Trumpworld is een tweet:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 29-11-2011 om 20:48:51 In order to get elected, @:BarackObama will start a war with Iran. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 22-10-2012 om 18:43:36 Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 16-09-2013 om 23:23:53 I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 25-09-2013 om 19:44:06 Remember what I previously said--Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 11-11-2013 om 03:55:04 Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly-not skilled! reageer retweet

Zou Donald ook onthouden hebben dat hijzelf kennelijk niet bekwaam is?

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 12:10 schreef mcmlxiv het volgende:

[..]

Maar jij weet ook dat alle trumpanisten nu 180 graden zullen draaien en vol lof zullen zijn over deze geweldige man. Ook als dit een echte oorlog met Iran oplevert.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 16-03-2012 om 20:28:58 We should have gotten more of the oil in Syria, and we should have gotten more of the oil in Iraq. Dumb leaders. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 31-08-2014 om 23:56:25 Saudi Arabia should fight their own wars, which they won't, or pay us an absolute fortune to protect them and their great wealth-$ trillion! reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 12:31 schreef Selqae het volgende:
WWIII is trending op Twitter, de hysterie is weer losgebarsten

twitter:

blakesmustache twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 03:16:28 Didn’t we all expect Trump to start a war when the walls finally started closing in on him? Well... https://t.co/QetnKFdwWq reageer retweet

twitter:

Wobbledance1 twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 04:27:04 @blakesmustache Trump has wagged the dog. What’s happened isn’t fiction, it is fact, and because of his ineptitude has placed thousands of American lives at risk around the world. The country we’re on the verge of going to war with isn’t Iraq. Trump voters this is what your votes have wrought. reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 06:05:41 Pelosi: "The Admin has conducted tonight's strikes ... without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran. Further, this action was taken without the consultation of the Congress. The full Congress must be immediately briefed on this serious situation." reageer retweet

twitter:

RepAdamSchiff twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 05:31:43 Soleimani was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him.But Congress didn’t authorize and American people don’t want a war with Iran.All steps must now be taken to protect our forces against the almost inevitable escalation and increased risk. https://t.co/Z4HTnScFg7 reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 12:59 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

twitter:

blakesmustache twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 03:16:28 Didn’t we all expect Trump to start a war when the walls finally started closing in on him? Well... https://t.co/QetnKFdwWq reageer retweet

twitter:

Wobbledance1 twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 04:27:04 @:blakesmustache Trump has wagged the dog. What’s happened isn’t fiction, it is fact, and because of his ineptitude has placed thousands of American lives at risk around the world. The country we’re on the verge of going to war with isn’t Iraq. Trump voters this is what your votes have wrought. reageer retweet

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 06:05:41 Pelosi: "The Admin has conducted tonight's strikes ... without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran. Further, this action was taken without the consultation of the Congress. The full Congress must be immediately briefed on this serious situation." reageer retweet

twitter:

RepAdamSchiff twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 05:31:43 Soleimani was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him.But Congress didn’t authorize and American people don’t want a war with Iran.All steps must now be taken to protect our forces against the almost inevitable escalation and increased risk. https://t.co/Z4HTnScFg7 reageer retweet

Trump heeft wel een paar mensen gewaarschuwd: zijn eigen kinderen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 13:03 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Eric Dumpf had er de 31e al over getweet, maar heeft die tweet, heel toevallig, al verwijderd.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 13:17 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:

[..]

Is een screenshot van in het andere topic.

twitter:

realTuckFrumper twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 03:35:21 Why (the better question is HOW) did @EricTrump know anything about this in advance...and why has he since deleted this tweet? https://t.co/0xKbTweQVs reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 13:20 schreef cynicus het volgende:

[..]

O.a. hier

twitter:

realTuckFrumper twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 03:35:21 Why (the better question is HOW) did @:EricTrump know anything about this in advance...and why has he since deleted this tweet? https://t.co/0xKbTweQVs reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 13:31 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:

[..]

Ik kon die tweet al nergens meer vinden, maar hij was dus alweer verwijderd.

Ik begrijp ook niet waarom sommige mensen zo blij zijn met deze actie, en posts met "Trumpgod" plaatsen. Die gek stort (een deel van) de wereld in oorlog en ellende, wat is daar zo fantastisch aan? En dat alles om herkozen te worden en zo nog 4 jaar de nor te ontlopen. (En denk wel: hij heeft al meerdere malen serieus gespeculeerd over 8 of 12 jaar verlenging).

Begrijpen ze nu ook bij de GOP niet dat ze deze man in dwangbuis moeten afvoeren naar een psychiatrische kliniek? Of zo snel mogelijk moeten afzetten en daarna: "Ga door naar de gevangenis, u komt niet langs start", (Mueller's rapport bevat voldoende munitie).

twitter:

GoAngelo twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 04:27:58 "Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get reelected and is sure as you're sitting there is to start a war with Iran." https://t.co/Ad6IPLhOWg reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 11:02 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Belangrijkste militair

Daar zit nu alweer een andere generaal, geen probleem. Hij was wellicht de beoogd president over een paar jaar, wie weet, maar verder zal Iran hier echt niet zoveel schade door hebben hoor. Het is maar een persoon.

quote:

Amerikaanse regering vereffent rekening met Iraanse ‘spookgeneraal’ die de wereld hielp IS te verslaan

quote:

Eric Trump is not a member of the Trump administration, and helps his brother, Donald Trump Jr., with operations of the Trump Organization. His knowledge of an impending attack against a foreign leader would be a breach of security protocols, and highly unusual.

twitter:

SecPompeo twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 12:41:34 I spoke today with Chinese Politburo Member Yang Jiechi to discuss @realDonaldTrump's decision to eliminate Soleimani in response to imminent threats to American lives. I reiterated our commitment to de-escalation. reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 13:50 schreef la_perle_rouge het volgende:
https://www.volkskrant.nl(...)e-verslaan~b5beec16/
[..]

Amerikaanse regering? Als Trumps kinderen het wisten, maar
[..]

en het Congres niet op de hoogte was, was het dan de Amerikaanse regering? Trump is toch net zo min in zijn eentje de regering als Macron, Merkel of Rutte? Of is dat in Amerika anders?

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 16-08-2012 om 22:24:23 I always said @BarackObama will attack Iran, in some form, prior to the election. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 16-09-2013 om 23:23:53 I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face! reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 25-09-2013 om 19:44:06 Remember what I previously said--Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is. reageer retweet

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op maandag 11-11-2013 om 03:55:04 Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly-not skilled! reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 04:42 schreef Mensen_doe_rustig het volgende:
Misschien al voorbij gekomen maar toch hilarisch! De geschiedvervalser in chief had weer wat te pochen.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 01:55:01 One of my greatest honors was to have gotten CHOICE approved for our great Veterans. Others have tried for decades, and failed! https://t.co/NcVbbnrT5O reageer retweet

twitter:

svdate twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 04:43:10 This is a lie. Sens McCain and Sanders got the bill written and passed. Barack Obama signed it into law. There are photos and video. https://t.co/4qBb4gciFO reageer retweet

twitter:

ChrisLu44 twitterde op woensdag 01-01-2020 om 18:00:58 @:svdate Here’s Obama signing the Veterans Choice Act in 2014 that was sponsored by Bernie Sanders and John McCain. Trump will keep saying that only he could get this bill passed. But we have this thing called the Internet to call out his lies. https://t.co/m6VgMeDVpp https://t.co/DmRxdNtWma reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 12:31 schreef Selqae het volgende:
WWIII is trending op Twitter, de hysterie is weer losgebarsten

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:31 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Het lijkt wel alsof men HOOPT op een 3e wereldoorlog. Bizar.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:29 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Onder Trump is de VA Choice dan ook aanzienlijk verbeterd.

https://mvets.law.gmu.edu(...)rogram-through-2017/

https://eu.usatoday.com/s(...)thursday/1345046001/

Neemt overigens niet weg dat zijn uitspraak feitelijk onjuist was. Maar das niet de eerste keer toch?
Lijkt een tactiek te zijn om mensen verder te laten graven in wat hij zegt.
Zo hebben we vandaag bijvoorbeeld geleerd dat Trump aanzienlijke verbeteringen heeft aangebracht.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:39 schreef Mensen_doe_rustig het volgende:

[..]

Dus hij liegt om aan te tonen dat hij de waarheid spreekt? Wat is dit voor doublespeak? Waarom kan Trump dan niet gewoon zeggen dat Obama de wet officieel gemaakt heeft en hij het verbeterd heeft? Waarom moet hij altijd in superlatieven spreken? Oh, wacht. Want Obama bad..

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 13:53 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:
Wat moet ik hier nu weer van denken?
https://mobile.twitter.co(...)/1213078681750573056

Serieuze vraag.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:45 schreef _-_ratjetoe_-_ het volgende:
Is altijd een beetje doem- (wens-?)denken rondom Trump.

• Trump aan de macht zou zogenaamd een schok voor de economie veroorzaken - gebeurde niet.
• Handelsoorlog zou de wereld in een crisis storten - gebeurde niet.
• Iraanse generaal uitschakelen zal nu WWIII veroorzaken - gaat niet gebeuren.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:47 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Iemand?

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:45 schreef _-_ratjetoe_-_ het volgende:
Is altijd een beetje doem- (wens-?)denken rondom Trump.

• Trump aan de macht zou zogenaamd een schok voor de economie veroorzaken - gebeurde niet.
• Handelsoorlog zou de wereld in een crisis storten - gebeurde niet.
• Iraanse generaal uitschakelen zal nu WWIII veroorzaken - gaat niet gebeuren.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:49 schreef Mensen_doe_rustig het volgende:

[..]

- De economie is er niet stabieler op geworden sinds Trump's beleid is ingevoerd en het heeft eigenlijk alleen de bovenste laag van de bevolking voordeel opgeleverd ten koste van de rest.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:51 schreef Mensen_doe_rustig het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat Trump het atoomakkoord bedoelt. Het was immers de 'slechtste deal ooit' voor de VS dus moet het wel de beste ooit zijn voor Iran. Zoals ik al eerder zei werkt Trump alleen met superlatieven. Iets dat tekenend is voor zijn persoonlijkheidsstoornis.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 13:30:06 Brett McGurk, former special envoy to coalition to defeat ISIS: "We need to presume we are now in a state of war with Iran … and that is not something that the Trump administration appears to have been prepared for." https://t.co/PRptuVXCdO reageer retweet

twitter:

TravelGov twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 09:17:30 #Iraq: Due to heightened tensions in Iraq and the region, we urge U.S. citizens to depart Iraq immediately. Due to Iranian-backed militia attacks at the U.S. Embassy compound, all consular operations are suspended. U.S. citizens should not approach the Embassy. https://t.co/rdRce3Qr4a reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 13:20 schreef cynicus het volgende:

[..]

O.a. hier

twitter:

realTuckFrumper twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 03:35:21 Why (the better question is HOW) did @:EricTrump know anything about this in advance...and why has he since deleted this tweet? https://t.co/0xKbTweQVs reageer retweet

twitter:

JaneLytv twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 04:56:42 ⬆️Additional note on Eric Trump tweet: PolitiTweet didn't archive it in full. It was a quote-tweet of a video. This is important context. https://t.co/BEBnIJtXFR reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:51 schreef Mensen_doe_rustig het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat Trump het atoomakkoord bedoelt. Het was immers de 'slechtste deal ooit' voor de VS dus moet het wel de beste ooit zijn voor Iran. Zoals ik al eerder zei werkt Trump alleen met superlatieven. Iets dat tekenend is voor zijn persoonlijkheidsstoornis.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:54 schreef Selqae het volgende:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:49 schreef Mensen_doe_rustig het volgende:

[..]

- De economie is er niet stabieler op geworden sinds Trump's beleid is ingevoerd en het heeft eigenlijk alleen de bovenste laag van de bevolking voordeel opgeleverd ten koste van de rest.
- Ook hier kwam het de stabiliteit niet ten goede en mede daardoor zijn de tekenen van de volgende crisis wel al te zien.
- Wat niet is kan nog komen. Ook hier komt het de stabiliteit in de wereld niet ten goede.

Al met al zal de wereld niet vergaan door Trump, maar hij maakt de wereld zeker geen betere plek.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:51 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Natuurlijk leidt dit niet tot WOIII. Maar je moet wel beseffen dat de Amerikanen zichzelf in deze positie hebben gemanoeuvreerd. De Iran-deal moest en zou worden opgezegd en het land werd onder druk gezet.

Dan kun je verwachten dat de spanningen oplopen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 15:27 schreef _-_ratjetoe_-_ het volgende:

[..]

Tja ik ben blij dat iedereen zo goed weet wat wijsheid is met Iran, maar als je leest dat er zeker 208 Iraanse betogers zijn gedood (dixit Amnesty International) krijg je toch ernstige twijfels over het Iraanse regime. Het idee van Obama en Europa is dat zaken doen met zo'n land zorgt voor de-escalatie. Zou kunnen, maar bijvoorbeeld bij Saoudi-Arabië zie ik dat niet.

twitter:

LisPower1 twitterde op vrijdag 03-01-2020 om 14:52:20 All out brawl on Fox & FriendsKilmeade: You're making excuses for Iran.Geraldo: Dammit, I'm not making excuses Brian that's absolute baloney! ... Your arrogance is exactly what's wrong with the region. https://t.co/ULtzgNOk4I reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:45 schreef _-_ratjetoe_-_ het volgende:
Is altijd een beetje doem- (wens-?)denken rondom Trump.

• Trump aan de macht zou zogenaamd een schok voor de economie veroorzaken - gebeurde niet.
• Handelsoorlog zou de wereld in een crisis storten - gebeurde niet.
• Iraanse generaal uitschakelen zal nu WWIII veroorzaken - gaat niet gebeuren.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 16:16 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Een lekkere move is het niet, maar natuurlijk is WWIII overdreven ja

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 14:45 schreef _-_ratjetoe_-_ het volgende:
Is altijd een beetje doem- (wens-?)denken rondom Trump.

• Trump aan de macht zou zogenaamd een schok voor de economie veroorzaken - gebeurde niet.
• Handelsoorlog zou de wereld in een crisis storten - gebeurde niet.
• Iraanse generaal uitschakelen zal nu WWIII veroorzaken - gaat niet gebeuren.

quote:

Op vrijdag 3 januari 2020 16:20 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]

Ja, daarvoor zijn China en Rusland toch niet genoeg bevriend met Iran. WWIII krijg je alleen als Amerika China, Rusland of een land onder de paraplu van Rusland aan valt (Kazachstan of Oezbekistan bijvoorbeeld). Iran gaat geen steun krijgen, dus is er geen wereldoorlog.