Trump -psykoosi

Mustaruuti kirjoitti:
Yhtään syytettä ei ole vielä nostettu Trumpia vastaan.

Sen sijaan muuten syytteitä ja tunnustuksia on jo pitkä lista.

Ei hosuta.

Pleaded Guilty and Known to Be Cooperating

George Papadopoulos
Mr. Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, pleaded guilty on Oct. 5 to lying to the F.B.I. about a conversation with a professor during which he was told that Moscow had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton and “thousands of emails,” according to court records.
Advertisement

Mr. Papadopoulos initially told investigators that he met with the professor, who has known ties to the Kremlin, before he joined the Trump campaign. In fact, the meeting happened days after he became a campaign adviser, and he repeatedly tried to arrange meetings between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign.
He has been cooperating with the Mueller investigation since his arrest last July at Dulles Airport outside Washington. Mr. Papadopoulos was the first person to plead guilty in the inquiry.

Michael T. Flynn
Mr. Flynn, President Trump’s first national security adviser, pleaded guilty in early December to lying to the F.B.I. about conversations he had in 2016 with the Russian ambassador to the United States at the time, Sergey I. Kislyak. Prosecutors said that in separate conversations, Mr. Flynn discussed an upcoming United Nations Security Council vote over whether Israel should be condemned for building settlements and over sanctions that President Barack Obama had issued against Russia.

Although his sentencing is delayed, court documents indicate Mr. Flynn will face zero to six months of prison time.
The first senior White House official to agree to a deal with prosecutors, Mr. Flynn has been cooperating with Mr. Mueller’s investigation. He said in a statement that the decision to cooperate and the guilty plea “reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country.”

Richard Pinedo
Richard Pinedo, a Southern California computer science major, pleaded guilty in February to identity fraud after he created and sold fake bank accounts from 2014 through the end of 2017. While his indictment supported the charges Mr. Mueller brought against 13 Russian nationals for election meddling, a spokesman for the special counsel said prosecutors had “no evidence and there is no allegation he was a witting participant in the Russian efforts to interfere in U.S. elections and political processes.”
Mr. Pinedo has been cooperating with the Mueller investigation.

Alex van der Zwaan
The son-in-law of a Russian billionaire and a lawyer who worked with the former Trump campaign aides Rick Gates and Paul Manafort, Mr. van der Zwaan pleaded guilty on Tuesday to lying to prosecutors about a conversation he had with Mr. Gates in September 2016. Mr. van der Zwaan, a 33-year-old Dutch citizen and former lawyer in London for a powerful New York-based law firm — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — faces up to five years in prison.
It is unclear to what extent Mr. van der Zwaan is cooperating, but his plea agreement does not compel him to do so.

Rick Gates
Rick Gates, the former deputy chairman for Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, pleaded guilty on Friday to a pair of charges, conspiracy against the United States and lying to investigators. The plea deal came as Mr. Mueller was levying dozens of new charges of bank fraud and money laundering against Mr. Gates and Mr. Manafort, the campaign’s former chairman and a longtime associate of Mr. Gates.
The men were first indicted in October, and both pleaded not guilty. For nearly four months, Mr. Gates stood by that decision but said on Friday that “the reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circuslike atmosphere of an anticipated trial” had prompted a change of heart.
Mr. Gates also said he would cooperate with the special counsel’s investigation.

Pleaded Not Guilty

Paul Manafort
Mr. Manafort faces dozens of counts of money laundering and bank fraud charges related to his work as a lobbyist and political consultant for Viktor F. Yanukovych, the Russia-aligned former president of Ukraine who was ousted in 2014.

Since first being charged in October, Mr. Manafort has maintained his innocence and has sued the Justice Department, claiming that Mr. Mueller has overstepped his authority as special counsel by bringing charges unrelated to Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

“Notwithstanding that Rick Gates pleaded today, I continue to maintain my innocence,” Mr. Manafort said in a statement on Friday. “I had hoped and expected my business colleague would have had the strength to continue the battle to prove our innocence. For reasons yet to surface he chose to do otherwise. This does not alter my commitment to defend myself against the untrue piled up charges contained in the indictments against me.”

Others Charged

Thirteen Russians: Yevgeny Prigozhin, Mikhail Bystrov, Mikhail Burchik, Aleksandra Krylova, Anna Bogacheva, Sergey Polozov, Maria Bovda, Robert Bovda, Dzheykhun Ogly, Vadim Podkopaev, Gleb Vasilchenko, Irina Kaverzina and Vladimir Venkov.

Three companies: Internet Research Agency, Concord Management, Concord Catering
In a sprawling 37-page indictment, Mr. Mueller charged the 13 Russians with conspiracy to defraud the United States, and connected them with a four-year effort to undermine and influence the 2016 presidential election. The Russians — and the three companies that facilitated and funded their work — are accused of using social media, the identities of American citizens and politically charged topics to manipulate an already divisive campaign.

Three of the Russians were also indicted with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud and five were also charged with aggravated identity theft.

None of the defendants were arrested, as Russia rarely extradites its citizens to the United States to face legal proceedings. But the indictments are designed to openly name and shame the Russians in order to make it difficult for them to continue to work or travel abroad. They also risk capture and extradition if they travel outside Russia.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
On teillä vahva usko kuin lahkolaisilla. sääli käyttää voimiaan ja energiaansa aivan turhaan.
 
Trump syyttää New York Timesia olemattoman lähteen käytöstä vaikka kyseinen lähde oli Valkoisen talon edustaja ja jutussa käytetyn lainauksen kuuli useampi kymmenen toimittajaa.
President Donald Trump slammed the New York Times Saturday for using “phony sources” in a story citing a White House official – but the comments the paper referred to came from a formal background briefing attended by multiple news organizations and widely reported.

Trump appeared to be responding to a Times story about his on-again, off-again plans for a June 12 summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un..


“The Failing @nytimes quotes ‘a senior White House official,’ who doesn’t exist, as saying ‘even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed,’“ the president wrote on Twitter.

The Times cited a White House official in a story about Trump’s reversal on the summit following his abrupt decision to withdraw from the historic sit-down in a letter sent Thursday.

The paper reported that the official said holding the meeting on the originally scheduled date would be “impossible,” though in fact the official didn’t use the word during the background briefing, held on Thursday afternoon at the White House and organized by the press office.

“There’s a certain amount of actual dialogue that needs to take place at the working level with your counterparts to ensure that the agenda is clear in the minds of those two leaders when they sit down to actually meet and talk and negotiate, and hopefully make a deal. And June 12 is in 10 minutes, and it's going to be – you know,” the official said, according to a White House transcript. “But the President has said that he has – someday, that he looks forward to meeting with Kim.”


POLITICO was among the news organizations that participated in the call and reported the official’s comments at the time.

Reporters were quick to call the president out following his tweet.

“I mean, every reporter on the call knows who this official was, and this official exists,” Mike Warren, a senior writer for the conservative Weekly Standard wrote on Twitter. “And we all heard the official say it.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters Saturday the White House pre-advance team is heading to Singapore as scheduled to move ahead with logistics. Trump has indicated he’s open to holding the June 12 summit, and Kim met Saturday with South Korean President Moon Jae-in to get the meeting back on track.

Trump has repeatedly fumed at the unnamed White House sources in stories about his administration and the leaks that are spread through many of their quotes. POLITICO reported the president demanded and White House chief of staff John Kelly signed off on a plan to that would dismiss junior aides in the communications shop, who have been blamed for the leaks.

“WRONG AGAIN! Use real people,” Trump concluded on Saturday. “not phony sources.”
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...-house-briefing-background-north-korea-609617
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/26/...ml?rref=collection/sectioncollection/politics
 
Muistatte varmaan, kun Trump oli kovana Kiinaa vastaan aikaisemmin keväällä.

Ihmettelikö porukka, miksi Trump sitten lopetti yhtäkkiä kauppasodan Kiinan kanssa ja antoi ZTE:lle synninpäästön?

No, Kiina sijoitti yhteensä miljardi dollaria indonesialaiseen kehityskohteeseen, jossa Trumpin organisaatio on keskeisesti mukana...

Trump's controversial ZTE order came days after the Chinese government provided millions to a Trump Organization-tied project

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/t...mp-organization-tied-project-2018-5?r=US&IR=T

The developer of the project just outside of Jakarta had secured the half billion in funding, in addition to another $500 million from Chinese banks, 72 hours before Trump's Sunday tweet on the Chinese telecom company ZTE. Trump's family business has a deal with that developer to include the Trump name on the resort, which also includes hotels and a golf course.

"President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast," Trump tweeted Sunday. "Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!"
 
Tuli muuten sellainen asia mieleen tästä uusimmasta Spygatesta.

Se on tietysti hyvä että eri viranomaisten toimintaan on tietty läpinäkyvyys. Mutta, vastavakoilu on sellainen ala, jossa se voi tehdä hallaa. Näin myös kävi. Tämän "Spy"n henkilöllisyys on ilmeisesti jo vuodettu julki.

Jokainen varmasti ymmärtää, mitä tällainen vaikuttaa USA:n vastavakoilun toimintakykyyn ja tehokkuuteen. Vastavakoilukaverit miettivät visusti, mitä he uskaltavat tehdä, jos vaarana on, että heidän tekemisensä ja henkilöllisyytensä vuodetaan poliittisista syistä julkisuuteen.

Samaan suuntaan varmasti vaikutti esim. Steelen kohtelu.

Ja Trump mm. kertoi noin vuosi sitten Venäläisille Israelin hankkimasta tiedosta terroriuhkaa koskien.

On hyvin mahdollista, että USA:n kumppanit miettivät tällä hetkellä ihan eri tavoin tarkasti, että mitä tietoa luovuttavat USA:lle.
 
Mustaruuti kirjoitti:
Muistatte varmaan, kun Trump oli kovana Kiinaa vastaan aikaisemmin keväällä.

Ihmettelikö porukka, miksi Trump sitten lopetti yhtäkkiä kauppasodan Kiinan kanssa ja antoi ZTE:lle synninpäästön?

No, Kiina sijoitti yhteensä miljardi dollaria indonesialaiseen kehityskohteeseen, jossa Trumpin organisaatio on keskeisesti mukana...
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Siinä saa todellisuudentaju olla vähitellen aika hämärtynyt jos oikeasti kuvittelee, että USA:n kauppaministeriön väki neuvottelisi Kiinan kanssa sopimuksesta sellaisella ehdolla, että tuleeko Trumpin bisneksille etuja. Trumpin "synninpäästö" ZTE:lle sisältää mm. 1.3 miljardin sakot sekä USA:n etuja valvovien henkilöiden istuttamisen ZTE:n sisälle. Kauppaneuvotteluiden päävastaavat Ross Wilbur ja Steven Mnuchin ovat neuvotelleet sopimuksen ehdoista myös republikaanisenaattoreiden kanssa.
Earlier on Friday, insiders told Bloomberg and The New York Times that the deal, brokered by the US Department of Commerce, would demand the company pay a “substantial” fine, accept American-selected compliance officers into its offices and change its management team.
...
On Friday morning, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross briefed Republican senators on the plans and asked them tone down public criticism and give the administration room to negotiate the matter.

After the briefing, John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, expressed support for placing compliance officers at ZTE. “That would be pretty remarkable,” he said. “Having somebody inside the company to observe what’s going on would be very valuable.”
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1000151354701213696
 
Mortti kirjoitti:
Siinä saa todellisuudentaju olla vähitellen aika hämärtynyt jos oikeasti kuvittelee, että USA:n kauppaministeriön väki neuvottelisi Kiinan kanssa sopimuksesta sellaisella ehdolla, että tuleeko Trumpin bisneksille etuja. Trumpin "synninpäästö" ZTE:lle sisältää mm. 1.3 miljardin sakot sekä USA:n etuja valvovien henkilöiden istuttamisen ZTE:n sisälle. Kauppaneuvotteluiden päävastaavat Ross Wilbur ja Steven Mnuchin ovat neuvotelleet sopimuksen ehdoista myös republikaanisenaattoreiden kanssa.


https://twitter.com/x/status/1000151354701213696
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Niin, oli varmaan vain pelkkä ajallinen yhteensattuma, että Trumpin kurssi kääntyi 180 astetta samaan aikaan kun tämä järjestely tapahtui.

Ymmärrät varmaan, että tämä aiheuttaa kumminkin erilaisia harmillisia eettisiä pohdintoja? Onko USA:n pressa ns. "vaikutukselle altis".

Nämä eettiset pohdinnat ovat onneksi hyvin selkeitä, koska tällaiset on kaukonäköisesti erikseen kielletty USA:n perustuslaissa.

Trump siis rikkoo USA:n perustuslakia. Mutta mitäs siitä?


The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The Constitution also contains a “domestic emoluments clause” (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 6), which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument” from the federal government or the states beyond “a Compensation” for his “Services” as chief executive.

The plain purpose of the foreign emoluments clause was to ensure that the country’s leaders would not be improperly influenced, even unconsciously, through gift giving, then a common and generally corrupt practice among European rulers and diplomats. An early version of the clause, modeled on a rule adopted by the Dutch Republic in 1651 that forbade its foreign ministers from receiving “any presents, directly or indirectly, in any manner or way whatever,” was incorporated into the Articles of Confederation (1781) as Article VI, Paragraph I: Nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

All but the prohibition of titles of nobility was dropped from the initial draft of the Constitution but eventually restored at the request of Charles Pinckney, who argued at the Constitutional Convention for “the necessity of preserving foreign Ministers & other officers of the U.S. independent of foreign influence.” The final text of the clause included a provision that permitted acceptance of foreign gifts with the explicit approval of Congress, perhaps reflecting the awkward experience of Benjamin Franklin, who as American minister to France had been presented with a bejeweled snuff box by Louis XVI and, not wishing to offend the king, asked Congress for permission to keep it (permission was granted).

Although there has been some debate regarding the exact meaning and scope of the foreign emoluments clause, nearly all scholars agree that it applies broadly to all federal officeholders, appointed or elected, up to and including the president. That interpretation is supported by the historical record, such as it is, of the Constitution’s drafting as well as by the past practice of presidential administrations and Congresses. Thus Edmund Jennings Randolph, one of the Framers, remarked at the Virginia ratifying convention that the clause protected against the danger of “the President receiving Emoluments from foreign powers,” even asserting that a president who violates the clause “may be impeached.” There was no recorded dissent from Randolph’s view. From at least the early 19th century, presidents who were offered gifts by foreign states routinely requested Congress’s permission to accept them, and foreign rulers were politely informed (sometimes by the president himself) of the constitutional restriction regarding gifts. (The sole exception seems to have been George Washington, who accepted a print from the French ambassador without consulting Congress.)

The foreign emoluments clause also broadly encompasses any kind of profit, benefit, advantage, or service, not merely gifts of money or valuable objects. Thus, it would prohibit a federal officeholder from receiving special consideration in business transactions with a foreign state (or with a corporation owned or managed by a foreign state) that gave the officeholder a competitive advantage over other businesses. Arguably, as the legal scholar Laurence Tribe and others have suggested, the clause would forbid even competitively fair transactions with foreign states, because the profit accruing to the officeholder would fall within the ordinary meaning of “emolument,” and because such arrangements would threaten exactly the kind of improper influence that the clause was intended to prevent.
 
Mustaruuti kirjoitti:
Tuli muuten sellainen asia mieleen tästä uusimmasta Spygatesta.

Se on tietysti hyvä että eri viranomaisten toimintaan on tietty läpinäkyvyys. Mutta, vastavakoilu on sellainen ala, jossa se voi tehdä hallaa. Näin myös kävi. Tämän "Spy"n henkilöllisyys on ilmeisesti jo vuodettu julki.

Jokainen varmasti ymmärtää, mitä tällainen vaikuttaa USA:n vastavakoilun toimintakykyyn ja tehokkuuteen. Vastavakoilukaverit miettivät visusti, mitä he uskaltavat tehdä, jos vaarana on, että heidän tekemisensä ja henkilöllisyytensä vuodetaan poliittisista syistä julkisuuteen.

Samaan suuntaan varmasti vaikutti esim. Steelen kohtelu.

Ja Trump mm. kertoi noin vuosi sitten Venäläisille Israelin hankkimasta tiedosta terroriuhkaa koskien.

On hyvin mahdollista, että USA:n kumppanit miettivät tällä hetkellä ihan eri tavoin tarkasti, että mitä tietoa luovuttavat USA:lle.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Varmasti tämä touhu on tehnyt suurta vahinkoa tietolähteiden rekrytoimiseen. Tietolähdetoiminta perustuu luottamukseen lähteen henkilöllisyyden salassapidosta, tietolähteiden henkilöllisyyden käyttö politiikan tekemisessä tuskin herättää suurta luottamusta potentiaalisissa rekrytoitavissa.
Recruiting Intelligence Sources: President Trump Makes a Hard Job Harder


Recruiting intelligence sources is hard at the best of times. And President Trump just made it harder.

Observers have rightly criticized the recent efforts of both President Trump and House intelligence chairman Devin Nunes to uncover an FBI source as a blatant, cynical endeavor to derail Robert Mueller’s investigation by translating the normal functioning of governing into something sinister. By using confusing and charged language, Trump seems to believe he can build on his false narrative that there is a deep state—an internal enemy out to get him. Previously, the president crafted that narrative with the similarly unfounded charges that he was wiretapped and his aides were “unmasked” were similar subterfuge. These tactics risk damage to a variety of political and legal norms. They also harm the ability of U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement to do their jobs. And this latest instance is particularly dire.

The president and his allies have presented absolutely no credible evidence to support their theory that the FBI and other entities in the intelligence community did anything wrong in the course of conducting a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. But for intelligence professionals, these recent public charges and accusations will make it harder to develop and recruit new sources in the future. They will also likely put a scare in partner foreign intelligence services who routinely share sensitive information with the U.S.

Spying is a murky business that is little understood outside of the professional agencies that undertake such efforts. This necessary secrecy makes the work of intelligence collection an easy target for people seeking to confuse and scare the public by using charged language like “spy,” “mole,” and “infiltrate.” It also means that it may not be immediately apparent just how damaging the outing of a source in this fashion, by none other than the President of United States, will be to intelligence efforts in the long run.

At its heart, intelligence collection is a simple—yet fragile—process. The success of U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement efforts rests on little more than the ability of intelligence professionals to build trust with people so that they will share information. The only thing the U.S. can really offer potential intelligence sources is to keep them safe and protect their identities. If people don’t want to talk, there is little the intelligence community can do.

Intelligence officers leverage their personal relationships and seek to offer potential sources some form of assistance to make their willingness to engage in dangerous behavior more palatable. They also benefit by the credibility of the United States and what it stands for. However, the personal trust and professionalism of U.S. intelligence officers is of little value if potential sources fear that their identities could become known due the reckless and cruel political climate in Washington. How can an intelligence officer guarantee the safety of his or her sources in the present political atmosphere?

Intelligence can be an incredibly effective tool, but it is not efficient. No matter how hard intelligence officers work, there is no guarantee they will be able to recruit a source with access to the intelligence they need. If they lose a source in a critical position, they may never again gain access to that stream of reporting.

Policymakers often imagine that it is relatively easy for the intelligence community to new source to replace those that quit or are uncovered. In fact, it often takes years and a series of lucky breaks to develop a long-term source. Even in the best of circumstances there are numerous critical intelligence gaps that the intelligence community may never fill. Few people have access to the key secrets the U.S. desires, and of that small group, intelligence officers may not be able to choreograph contact. Even when they do, despite all their charms and best efforts, most people do not want to spy. It is a moon shot to get a dedicated and trained spy into the right place.

Hard work over a long time, combined with a series of fleeting and serendipitous opportunities can help intelligence officers find a key source. But a single slip-up or comment by a politician in Washington can lose that source forever. In this sense, recent events in Washington make it harder for U.S. officers around the world to sit across from those who risk their lives and families and promise them in good conscience we will keep them safe. This is what FBI Director Christopher Wray was talking about when he told the Senate Appropriations Committee that, “The day that we can't protect human sources is the day the American people start becoming less safe.”

Movies and literature sometimes give the impression that “informants” or “snitches” can be bought for transactional purposes with enough money and pressure. Professionals know, however, that it is foolish to bet national security on such tactics. Intelligence officers should be in the business of developing long-term, strategic relationships with sources, building trust and access over time so that the intelligence community has the right information when it needs it.

Certainly, the Trump administration’s cavalier attitude toward secret information is not new; recall the president’s disclosure of classified intelligence to Russian officials in the Oval Office in May 2017. And Washington’s political games have always had national security implications, between leaks of classified information to the press and senior officials who behave as if secretly acquired information is for them to use as they see fit. (Indeed, Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to handle her e-mail was a part of that prevailing attitude.) Often those who damage national security interests in this way are unaware of the impact of their actions.

But the brazen willingness of Nunes and Trump in recent weeks to attack the institutions that protect our secrets is something new entirely. In February, Nunes’ irresponsible memo alleging surveillance abuses openly attacked former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, someone Nunes believed was an FBI source. Now, Trump’s tweets and Nunes’ public rants have also had the effect of uncovering another confidential source, whose identity has now been reported by numerous publications. These actions will damage to the United States’s ability to collect secret intelligence, protect itself from foreign spies and work with foreign partners—they break the trust necessary for intelligence officers and diplomats to do their work. Who would want to talk to the United States after this? If the leaders of the United States don’t trust their own law enforcement and intelligence agencies, why should anyone else?

The damage from this way of doing business will be broad, and we should add to that list the serious damage to our intelligence process. We may never know what sources will not confide in U.S. intelligence officers due to this contrived faux-scandal. Foreign policy is about credibility, and the United States is throwing its away.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/recruiting-intelligence-sources-president-trump-makes-hard-job-harder
 
Valkoisen talon edustaja jota ei Trumpin mukaan ole olemassa on nimeltään Matt Pottinger, turvallisuusneuvonantaja jonka vastuualue on Aasia. NYT ei julkaissut nimeä sillä se on sopinut ettei taustainformaatiota antavien Valkoisen talon edustajien nimiä julkaista.
President Trump’s dual obsession with lying and ridiculing the media reached a new level of lunacy on Saturday when he claimed that one of his White House aides did not exist in an attempt to discredit a news report based on what the aide had said to dozens of reporters during an officially sanctioned press briefing. Insisting that negative media coverage relies on fictional sources is one of Trump’s best known routines, but in this case, the existentially challenged aide’s comments were recorded and that recording has now come out.

According to President Trump’s offending tweet, however, the perpetually “failing” New York Times quoted:

a senior White House official,’ who doesn’t exist, as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.” WRONG AGAIN! Use real people, not phony sources.​
The official in question, later identified as National Security aide Matt Pottinger by roving reporter Yashar Ali , is a real and non-phony person who said exactly what the Times reported he did.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...ide-who-briefed-press-corps-doesnt-exist.html
 
Mutta missä on todisteet trumpin syyllisyydestä tai edes hänen perheensä syyllisyydestä?
Eikö olisi jo aika myöntää että tämä vitja on täyttä VMP ja paremmallaväellä on mopo karannut käsistä ja sen myötä kaikki millä viisaita ajatuksia esitetään.
 
pikkusimo kirjoitti:
Mutta missä on todisteet trumpin syyllisyydestä tai edes hänen perheensä syyllisyydestä?
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Omalla kohdalla Trumpin ja perheen "syyllisyydestä" tai itse asiassa yhteistyöstä tuli selkeä merkki silloin kun samat Pietarin Palkatut Putin Huo...Trollit, jotka levittivät disinformaatiota Ukrainasta ja MH17:sta yht'äkkiä kuin taikaiskusta ryhtyivät rummuttamaan Trumpin puolesta.

Silloin oli helppo tehdä johtopäätös...
 
Teme kirjoitti:
Omalla kohdalla Trumpin ja perheen "syyllisyydestä" tai itse asiassa yhteistyöstä tuli selkeä merkki silloin kun samat Pietarin Palkatut Putin Huo...Trollit, jotka levittivät disinformaatiota Ukrainasta ja MH17:sta yht'äkkiä kuin taikaiskusta ryhtyivät rummuttamaan Trumpin puolesta.

Silloin oli helppo tehdä johtopäätös...
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Tai ovatkin halunneet kaikkien ajattelevan näin ja hölmö hillary menee lankaan.
 
Teme kirjoitti:
Omalla kohdalla Trumpin ja perheen "syyllisyydestä" tai itse asiassa yhteistyöstä tuli selkeä merkki silloin kun samat Pietarin Palkatut Putin Huo...Trollit, jotka levittivät disinformaatiota Ukrainasta ja MH17:sta yht'äkkiä kuin taikaiskusta ryhtyivät rummuttamaan Trumpin puolesta.

Silloin oli helppo tehdä johtopäätös...
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Yhdysvaltain turvallisuuspalvelu NSA sai hälyttäviä viestejä Trumpin kampanjan yhteydenpidosta Venäjälle *seitsemältä* eri kumppanimaalta:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1001103094183325696

NSA isn’t just the world’s most powerful intelligence agency, it’s the hub of the whole Western spy system. In late 2015, based on GCHQ reports, the word went out to NSA’s close friends and partners to be on the lookout for any intercepts touching on Russian efforts to infiltrate the Trump campaign. They found plenty. As the Guardian explained, in the first half of 2016, as Trump’s presidential bid gained unexpected steam, Australia, Germany, Estonia, and Poland all had SIGINT hits that indicated a troubling relationship between Trump and Moscow. So, too, did the French and the Dutch—the latter being an especially savvy SIGINT partner of NSA’s.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

The official went on: “We had several reports in late 2015 and early 2016, mostly from Second and Third Party”—that being spy-speak for NSA’s foreign friends—“but by the spring of 2016 we had plenty of our own collection.” These reports, based on multiple intercepts, were tightly compartmented, that is, restricted to a small group of counterintelligence officials, given their obvious sensitivity, but they painted an indelible picture of a compromised GOP nominee. “The Kremlin talked about Trump like he was their boy, and their comments weren’t always flattering.” The NSA official stated that those above-top-secret reports left no doubt that the Russians were subverting our democracy in 2016—and that Team Trump was a witting participant in the Kremlin’s criminal conspiracy: “Trump and his kids knew what they were doing, and who they were doing it with,” the official explained.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

:camo:
 
Hyvät veljet minne on unohtunut Stormyn tussu, poliittisen historian tärkein asia? Amerikka häviää ja trumppi kaatuu ellei Stormyn tussusta saada viimeisiä uutisia........
 
971c125e38f24c8fc55d1fccd77e909f.jpg
 
Nyt varmaan trumppi eroaa on niin vahvat todisteet, kertokaa vielä ne todisteet ryssässästä ja trumpista, ryssästä on todisteita mutta miten trumppi niihin liittyy se onkin punikkien suuri salaliittofoliohattu juttu.
Punikit toivovat olevansa kuin Hamelnin pillipiipari joka on saksalainen kansansatu salaperäisestä miehestä, joka karkotti rotat ainoa vika taitaa olla että rottia on mutta millä yhdistää trumppi niihin niin ettei omat rottareissut paljastu.
 
Eikös se Hamelnin pillipiipari vienyt myös lapset mukanaan? Näin muistelisin ellen sitten muistele väärin. Sitä on puolivuosisataisen elämän aikana tullut luettu satu jos toinenkn...
 
  • Tykkää
Reactions: PSS
Sinun täytyy kirjautua vastataksesi.
Back
Top