Trump -psykoosi

  • Viestiketjun aloittaja Viestiketjun aloittaja ak.tied
  • Aloitus PVM Aloitus PVM
Panssari Salama kirjoitti:
No, "precedent" kuten uutinen mainitsi kuitenkin löytyi. Pointtihan tässä oli, että Trump:

1. aktiivisesti kielsi Valkoista taloa antamasta lausuntoa McCainin pitkästä urasta ja suostui vain twiittaamaan lyhyesti osanottonsa McCainin perheelle.

2. Sen jälkeen Valkoisen talon lippu takaisin ylös ennen 48 tunnin kulumista, isona keskisormena McCainille kun muut liput ympärillä yhä puolitangossa.

3. Kieltäytyi vastaamasta toimittajien kysymyksiin "mikä mielestänne on McCaini perintö Yhdysvaltain politiikalle" sanallakaan. Mökötti kuin pieni hemmoteltu kakara. Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1034112099465740289
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Eli se ei ole mikään vakio, että WH:n lippua pidetään puolitangossa pitempään, toisin kuin täällä kirjoitetusta olisi (tarkoituksella?) helposti kuvan saanut.

Yksi toimittaja kysyi kolmessa eri yhteydessä, tilaisuuksissa jotka koskivat aivan muuta asiaa, saman kysymyksen kymmenen kertaa.

Pieni, pieni mies.

Mököttämisestä en tiedä, kun Trump itse ilmoitti tämän olevan todella hyvä päivä, kun kauppasopimus USAn ja Meksikon välillä on saatu neuvoteltua ja Trump näin lunastettua yhden
kampanjalupauksistaan.
Toimittaja voi toki kunnioittaa senaattorin muistoa huutamalla saman kysymyksen vielä kymmenen kertaa lisää. Ehkä se siitä.
 
ILoveEU kirjoitti:
Mitä se kertoo McCainista, että kieltää presidenttiä osallistumasta hautajaisiin. Ja ihmiset odottaa, että presidentin pitäisi _näytellä_ surua.

Koko vasemmistolaisuus perustuu näyttelemiseen, että kaikilla on kivaa; siis siinä omassa, tarkkaan valikoidussa piirissä. Muilla ei nyt niin väliä.

Toisaalta eipä kannattaisi Trumpin edes osallistua hautajaisiin. McCainin kaveri on tälle ketjulle tuttu Venäjän tiedustelupalvelun agentti, joten on todennäköistä, että tämä Rinat Akhmetskin osallistuu haitajaisiin.

Siitä sitä otsikoita revittäisiinkin: "Trump oli Venäjän vakoojan kanssa McCainin hautajaisissa".
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
No joo, eiköhän tämä riitä ainakin omalta osaltani tästä aiheesta. En oppinut Trumpista mitään uutta, tuskin kukaan muukaan. Näillä mennään.

Nimerkillä Vainajan kunnioittaminen polsevikkien salajuoni
 
Rantojen mies kirjoitti:
Mikä siinä oli puolivalmista?

Jos kongressin hyväksyntää tarkoitat, niin ei hallinto sitä odottele. Ilmoittaa kun omasta puolestaan on valmis, TJEU Pariisin ilmastosopimus.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Koska "diili" ei vain ole valmis kongressille esitettäväksi. Ei ole edes valmis Meksikon kanssa, saatikka Kanadan kanssa: "In fact, the negotiations with Mexico aren’t yet finalized, the US Trade Representative confirmed later."

Mm. tästä voi tutustua
https://qz.com/1371254/trumps-nafta-deal-with-mexico-is-a-win-for-canada/

Canada wins in Trump’s NAFTA “deal” with Mexico
By Heather TimmonsAugust 28, 2018
Donald Trump announced from the Oval Office that he’d reached a “very special” deal for American manufacturers and farmers, in a bilateral trade arrangement with Mexico he envisions as replacement for the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement that has included Canada.
NAFTA, Trump said again today (Aug 27), was a “ripoff,” and Canada would have to scramble to to negotiate to join the new deal—which he dubbed the US Mexico Trade Agreement—or face tariffs on all cars it exports to the US.
“We’ll give them a chance to have a separate deal, or we could put it into this deal,” Trump said.
It sounds bad for Canada, but what, exactly, have the US and Mexico committed to? Less than it looks like, trade experts say.
The White House press event was another Trump presidency trade moment that was heavy on threats and light on substance (not to mention marred by a glitchy conference call with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto.)
Congress has power on NAFTA
Trump can’t just unilaterally scrap the 25-year-old NAFTA deal, even on behalf of the US. Changes the administration has been re-negotiating for months require congressional approval.
In fact, the negotiations with Mexico aren’t yet finalized, the US Trade Representative confirmed later. The US’s top trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, is expected to file documents Aug. 31 that would include specifics.
Then Congress has 90 days to read and approve the details, thanks to Trade Promotion Authority rules, a process that could extend past the contentious mid-term elections. There’s no guarantee Trump’s Republicans will hold its majority in the House.
Republicans are eager to make sure that Canada is included in a new trade deal. Orrin Hatch, the Utah senator who chairs the Finance Committee that would need to approve any deal, stressed that “a final agreement should include Canada.”
Canada has power on NAFTA
Any changes to NAFTA deal require Canada’s approval, as foreign minister Chrystia Freeland’s office pointed out. Freeland, who is traveling to Washington DC tomorrow (Aug. 28) to continue negotiations, “will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class,” her office said. “Canada’s signature is required,” for any renegotiation, it noted.
The Mexican president was sure to add he was “quite hopeful” that Canada will start discussing “sensitive bilateral issues” with the US. Canadian and Mexican officials are believed to be working together under a “gentlemen’s agreement” that neither would sign a deal with the US without including the other, said Nick Anstett, a director at Albright Stonebridge Group, which consults for global businesses.
Mexican officials have been in touch with their Canadian counterparts all summer, and today Justin Trudeau’s office said the Canadian prime minister had spoken with Peña Nieto on Sunday to share “their commitment to reaching a successful conclusion to this agreement for all three parties.”
Peña Nieto appeared to be sending a signal to the Canadians during the conference call with Trump, Anstett said, by constantly referring to “NAFTA” even as Trump tried to rename the deal.
In saying he was scrapping NAFTA, Trump “completely ad-libbed,” believes Jorge Guajardo, a former Mexican ambassador to China who advises companies on Latin America and China issues from Washington. Mexican officials on the Oval Office phone call with Trump “were not on board with this,” he said, and were caught by surprise.
Canadian officials hold “much more negotiating power than they’re being given credit for,” he said.
Tariffs on Canadian cars hurt US companies
Trump’s threat that he will tax car imports unless Canada agrees to lower tariffs on dairy products appears to be an empty one. Canada doesn’t have any major homegrown vehicle brands. Many of the cars made there last year were models made for the US’s big automakers Ford, GM, and Chrysler, according the Canadian government:

Screen-Shot-2018-08-27-at-4.12.37-PM.png


Putting a tariff on GM’s Cadillacs would only make them more expensive for US consumers, and cut into US companies’ profits.
New wage rules favor Canada
An earlier sticking point in renegotiating NAFTA was the US’s insistence that 50% of the content of cars sold in the US be made in the US, Anstett said. The USTR statement issued today says instead that “40-45 percent of auto content be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour.”
Mexico’s hourly average factory wage are less than $3 per hour, while Canada’s are around C$25 (US$ 19.28) so that shift is likely to restrict Mexican imports to the US, not Canada’s.
Another clause, that requires “75 percent of auto content be made in the United States and Mexico,” is expected to include Canada as well when the final negotiations are over.
The sunset clause is over
One of the biggest sticking points between the US and Canada in earlier negotiations was the Trump administration’s insistence that any agreement end after five years, and be negotiated all over again. Canadian officials balked, because it would make it harder for companies to plan their investments in factories and other facilities.
The new agreement would Mexico would last for 16 years, a senior administration official told reporters after the press conference, but be up for review in six years, with an eye to another 16-year term.
Another confusing day in DC
One House representative from Virginia echoed the thoughts of many in DC, when he expressed bewilderment at what, exactly, Trump had announced.
​
​
???​
​
Does anyone understand what the President is doing with NAFTA? If so, please share details with Congress; he isn't making any sense right now.​
​
Canada is Virginia's biggest export market, and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Mexico and Canada.​
​
​


Canada is the top export market for 36 of the US’s 50 states (the top export market for several of the remaining states is Mexico, particularly those on the US’s southwest border).
Canada-is-the-largest-export-market-for-36-US-states-_mapbuilder-111.png

Canada is the also the US’s longest, and closest defense partner, and helps protect the US’s northern border and bolsters its presence in the Arctic.
Stay up-to-date with Quartz on Twitter
Follow us
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
 
Trumpin autoritarismi nousee taas kovasti pintaan sillä hallinto miettii Googlen hakutulosten sääntelyä valtion toimesta. Taustalla on Trumpin harmi siitä kuinka hakutulokset hänen nimellään eivät häntä miellytä. Valtiojohtoinen sensuuri päälle kuten Kiinassa ja alkaa tulokset miellyttämään. Republikaaninen puolue varmasti riemuitsee sillä heille kaikenlaisen sääntelyn pitäisi olla kauhistus.
The Trump administration is “taking a look” at whether Google and its search engine should be regulated by the government, Larry Kudlow, President Trump’s economic adviser, said Tuesday outside the White House.

“We’ll let you know,” Kudlow said. “We’re taking a look at it.”

The announcement puts the search giant squarely in the White House’s crosshairs amid wider allegations against the tech industry that it systematically discriminates against conservatives on social media and other platforms.

Kudlow’s remark to reporters came hours after Trump fired off a series of predawn tweets complaining about Google search results for “Trump News.”

In a pair of tweets posted before 6 a.m., the president said the results included only “the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media.”

Google, in a statement, said its searches aren’t politically biased: “When users type queries into the Google Search bar, our goal is to make sure they receive the most relevant answers in a matter of seconds. Search is not used to set a political agenda and we don’t bias our results toward any political ideology.

“Every year, we issue hundreds of improvements to our algorithms to ensure they surface high-quality content in response to users’ queries,” Google said. “We continually work to improve Google Search and we never rank search results to manipulate political sentiment.”

The White House has not responded to requests for further comment.

Trump’s tweets came the morning after Fox Business host Lou Dobbs aired an interview Monday night with the pro-Trump commentators Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, popularly known as Diamond and Silk, who have long claimed that their online videos are being suppressed by tech companies.

“I am not for big government, but I really do believe that the government should step in and really check this out,” Hardaway told Dobbs in the interview.

Google search results are affected not only by region but also by personal search history. It was unclear whether the president had Googled himself, or whether he was referring to a recent piece in PJ Media, a conservative blog, alleging that 96 percent of Google search results for news about Trump were from “left-leaning news outlets.” His accusations appeared to mirror those in the Aug. 25 piece.

“Is Google manipulating its algorithm to prioritize left-leaning news outlets in their coverage of President Trump?” asked Paula Bolyard, the “supervising editor” of the site, who describes herself on Twitter as a Christian, a constitutional conservative and a “Cultural nonconformist.”

She said she searched “Trump” on Google News and weighed the results using a media bias chart developed by Sharyl Attkisson, a former CBS News correspondent. Bolyard said left-leaning outlets accounted for 96 percent of the results, with CNN stories making up “nearly 29 percent of the total.” She said she performed the search several times using different computers, and the results did not differ considerably.

But nowhere did the editor and blogger reckon with the fact that the sheer volume of content produced by different outlets plays a major role in determining the share of results they claim. She did, however, acknowledge that her methods are “not scientific.”

Trump, for his part, gave only one specific example, saying “Fake CNN is prominent.” But he concluded, “they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD.” Conservative media, he claimed, is “shut out.”

“Illegal?” he speculated, going on to accuse Google of “controlling what we can & cannot see.” He promised the “very serious situation” would be “addressed,” but didn’t give specifics.

A search for “Trump News” shortly after the president’s posts returned three top stories. There was a Fox News report about Lanny Davis, an attorney and spokesman for Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, admitting he was an anonymous source for CNN’s report about Trump’s possible prior knowledge of the summer 2016 meeting at Trump Tower attended by a Russian lawyer. There was also a CNN account of Trump’s decision to issue, several days late, a statement praising the late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). And there was an NBC story about the surge of Muslim candidates inspired to run for office across the country by Trump’s election.

Trump has raised alarm about what he describes as political bias pervading technology and social media companies. In July, he accused Twitter of using a “discriminatory and illegal practice” to silence conservative voices. Jack Dorsey, the chief executive of the social media giant, said the company’s employees are “more left-leaning” but maintained that political ideology doesn’t affect what appears on Twitter.

Representatives of major technology companies appeared before Congress in July to answer allegations of censorship. Facebook, Google and Twitter also plan to send top executives to Capitol Hill next week for hearings that could result in even further scrutiny of the way they handle political content on their platforms.

“We have a natural and long-term incentive to make sure our products work for users of all viewpoints,” said Juniper Downs, who works on policy for Google-owned YouTube.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-what-he-sees-illegal/?utm_term=.2e1a2ed1700d
 
taantumu kirjoitti:
Trumpin autoritarismi nousee taas kovasti pintaan sillä hallinto miettii Googlen hakutulosten sääntelyä valtion toimesta. Taustalla on Trumpin harmi siitä kuinka hakutulokset hänen nimellään eivät häntä miellytä. Valtiojohtoinen sensuuri päälle kuten Kiinassa ja alkaa tulokset miellyttämään. Republikaaninen puolue varmasti riemuitsee sillä heille kaikenlaisen sääntelyn pitäisi olla kauhistus.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Republikaaneista jopa varsin merkittävä osa voi hyvinkin olla tässä Trumpin puolella. Mahdollisesti myös irtonaisesti demokraatteja / liberaaleja.

Tämä nimenomainen asia on vain osa kokonaisuutta. Asian pihvihän on se, pitäisikö sananvapautta, syrjimättömyyttä jns. säätelevien lakien koskea Googlen kaltaisia de-facto määräävän markkina-aseman omaavia yksityissektorin toimijoita. Trump jo aiemmin twiittasi siitä, kuinka sosiaalisen median toimijat ovat alkaneet rajoittaa tai jopa poistaa konservatiivisten tahojen tilejä.

Toki jotkut piirit ovat varsin tyytyväisiä, jos väärät mielipiteet siivotaan pois suuren yleisön silmistä suosituimmilta keskustelu- ja media-alustoilta (Facebook, Twitter, Googlen hakutulokset jne.). Mutta jotkut toiset taas ymmärtävät, mistä sananvapaudessa on kyse, ja mitä vaaroja siitä lipsuminen tuo tullessaan. Kultainen periaate "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" on kokenut todella melkoisen inflaation.

Yksi rajoitusten kohde on ollut konservatiivinen, ja ainakin suurelta osin varsin asiallinenkin, pulju "PragerU", joka esim. tuottaa konservatiivisia mielipidekirjoituksia ja -videoita. Facebook esimerkiksi esti alla olevan PragerU:n videon "Make Men Masculine Again" näkymisen avoimesti, koska video "rikkoo Facebook-yhteisön normeja". PragerU:lla on menneillään oikeusprosessi Googlea vastaan, koska sen omistama Youtube rajoitti monien PragerU:n videoiden näkyvyyttä. Ja myös Twitter on estänyt PragerU:ta mainostamasta videoitaan.
 
Mortti kirjoitti:
Republikaaneista jopa varsin merkittävä osa voi hyvinkin olla tässä Trumpin puolella. Mahdollisesti myös irtonaisesti demokraatteja / liberaaleja.

Tämä nimenomainen asia on vain osa kokonaisuutta. Asian pihvihän on se, pitäisikö sananvapautta, syrjimättömyyttä jns. säätelevien lakien koskea Googlen kaltaisia de-facto määräävän markkina-aseman omaavia yksityissektorin toimijoita. Trump jo aiemmin twiittasi siitä, kuinka sosiaalisen median toimijat ovat alkaneet rajoittaa tai jopa poistaa konservatiivisten tahojen tilejä.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Sananvapauslakien ulottaminen Googleen olisi melkoisen vaikeaa, vaatisi varmaankin perustuslain muuttamista. Sananvapauslait kun koskevat valtion toimia eivät yritysten päätöksiä.
 
Torontolaislehden mielipidepalstalla kerrotaan miksi Trumpin Meksikon kanssa junailema show oli taas sitä itseään

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...new-nafta-isnt-even-close-to-the-finish-line/

A new NAFTA isn’t even close to the finish line

LAWRENCE HERMAN
CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED 19 HOURS AGOUPDATED AUGUST 27, 2018
Open this photo in gallery
Trucks drive near Otay commercial Port of entry at the US/Mexico border in Tijuana, Baja California state, Mexico on Aug. 27, 2018.
GUILLERMO ARIAS/GETTY IMAGES
Lawrence Herman is a former Canadian diplomat who practices international trade law at Herman & Associates. He is also a senior fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute in Toronto.
Another confusing day in Washington, with U.S. President Donald Trump talking by phone to the Mexican President and then suggesting the two countries could conclude a bilateral agreement, now that some kind of understanding with Mexico on auto rules of origin has been reached.
Telling the Mexican President that the United States might want to pursue a separate trade deal with them seems to have taken the Mexicans aback, Mexico never contemplating having to go up alone against the United States. It’s clear by now that Mr. Trump and his team don’t like dealing with Canada. That’s reflected in Canada being sidelined for weeks while the other two governments held high-level meetings behind closed doors – a disgracefully bad-faith tactic on the part of the Americans. Regardless of claims that the auto issues in the North American free-trade agreement were exclusively a U.S.-Mexico concern, Canadian companies have invested heavily in Mexican operations, and Canada had every right to be at the table while the other two governments hammered things out.

More troubling are reports that other key NAFTA provisions, such as the sunset clause, intellectual property, energy and dispute settlement, were being taken up by the U.S. and Mexican teams behind Canada’s back.
Together with keeping Canada isolated over the past number of weeks was the notable absence of any statement by the U.S. Trade Representative or the White House offering assurances that Canada, as a treaty partner, was very much engaged and informed of developments on an ongoing basis. It was left to the Canadian government and to Canada’s ambassador in Washington to offer these assurances.

These developments, including Mr. Trump’s comments Monday, underscore the regrettable deterioration in the bilateral relationship, having had a major setback with U.S. surcharges on Canadian steel and aluminum, declining further with Mr. Trump’s anti-Canadian tirades following the G7 meeting in Charlevoix, Que., last May.
As to the U.S.-Mexico understanding on autos, technical details are to be sorted out later, once the NAFTA negotiating teams resume their work. But even if short on details, an understanding with Mexico could give Mr. Trump a welcome political boost on the eve of the U.S. mid-term elections.
As to talk of a fully revised NAFTA being concluded in the next few weeks, there seems little possibility of that. At last count, 10 of the 30 chapters of this enormously complex agreement, containing some of the most contentious issues, remain unresolved.
Added to these timing difficulties is that U.S. law requires the President to give Congress 90 days advance notice of his intention to sign the agreement, meaning a final treaty, not just an understanding or statement of principles. And after being signed by the President, Congress has a further 90 sitting days to consider it. It can be approved or rejected during that period.
With U.S. mid-term elections in November, it’s impossible for the current Congress, even under the so-called lame-duck period before year-end, to be presented with a new NAFTA and to examine it within 90 sitting days as mandated by statute.

Even if a fully negotiated trilateral deal emerges from all this, Canada has the right to take its own time to review the total package and proceed according to Canadian constitutional requirements. Until that’s done, the U.S. and Mexico alone can’t change the existing NAFTA, which will remain as is, unchanged and in full force.
Mr. Trump can lambaste Canada and make all kinds of threats – such as applying tariff surcharges on Canadian vehicles and parts – but the fact is the NAFTA can only be revised if Canada agrees to implement the package after full review and parliamentary consideration.
As to the possibility of separate U.S.-Mexico bilateral trade talks as Mr. Trump has suggested, that seems unlikely. Mr. Trump only has authority from Congress to update the NAFTA as a three-way agreement. The statement of his administration’s negotiating objectives sent to Congress in July, 2017, makes that absolutely clear.
Even if that hurdle could be overcome, changing course and doing a bilateral deal with Mexico would require American withdrawal from the NAFTA and the repeal of a slew of U.S. statutes. Only Congress can do that.
As difficult and acrimonious as they may be, this means that three-way NAFTA negotiations will have to resume and the difficult remaining issues tackled, taking us beyond the U.S. mid-term elections in November. Whether these can be resolved sometime in 2019 remains to be seen.
While all this is happening, the Canada-US political relationship will continue under more stress, probably deteriorating further with threats by Mr. Trump to hammer Canadian auto exports and possibly other products with unilateral surcharges.

So while this week’s breakthrough of an understanding with Mexico may possibly indicate a step forward in the NAFTA exercise, Canada needs to gird itself for tough days ahead with its erstwhile friend south of the border.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
 
  • Tykkää
Reactions: PSS
adam7 kirjoitti:
Torontolaislehden mielipidepalstalla kerrotaan miksi Trumpin Meksikon kanssa junailema show oli taas sitä itseään

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...new-nafta-isnt-even-close-to-the-finish-line/
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Kyllähän Suomenkin mielipidepalstoilla kirjoittaa jopa itse E Tuomioja, mutta kukaan ei pidä sitä totuutena vaan poliittisena paskanjauhamisena, tuon mielipidekirjoituksen tekee totuudeksi vain se että kyse on trumpista ja kirjoittaja on ihka antitrumpisti
 
pikkusimo kirjoitti:
Kyllähän Suomenkin mielipidepalstoilla kirjoittaa jopa itse E Tuomioja, mutta kukaan ei pidä sitä totuutena vaan poliittisena paskanjauhamisena, tuon mielipidekirjoituksen tekee totuudeksi vain se että kyse on trumpista ja kirjoittaja on ihka antitrumpisti
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Kyllä mielipidekirjoituksessakin faktoja voi olla, kuten tässä. Mutta saat jatka nimittelyä ja katsotaan miten käy Trumpin "diilin" kanssa.
 
John Brennanilla saattaa edelleen olla luvat salaiseen aineistoon vaikka Trump kertoi poistaneensa Brennanin oikeudet. Brennan ei itse ole saanut minkäänlaista tietoa oikeuksien poistumisesta ja Valkoinen talo ei suostunut antamaan suoraa vastausta asiaan eikä kommentoimaan asiaa virallisesti.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders walked into the briefing room earlier this month and made an unprecedented declaration: President Donald Trump had decided to revoke former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance.

But in the 13 days since Sanders read Trump's 571-word statement to the press, Brennan hasn't heard anything from the White House, the CIA or any other representative of the administration. And he's received no formal notification that his clearance has been pulled.

“Whether or not my clearances have been stripped, I’m still uncertain about,” Brennan said in an interview Tuesday with MSNBC.

Trump used the power of the presidency to override the long-standing government process for pulling security clearances. Whether he's implemented a new process to replace the old one is anybody's guess.

The White House has said little about how it made the determination to revoke Brennan’s clearance other than pointing to what Trump called Brennan’s “erratic conduct and behavior.” Aides have provided few specifics about the team of administration officials weighing whether to pull the clearances of the nine other individuals Trump named in his statement, nor have they outlined the criteria the team is using and when the review will be completed.

Some prominent observers have started to wonder aloud whether Brennan’s clearance has actually been pulled yet.

“In any other administration, the words of the president are presumed to have intrinsic actionable meaning — that is, they are themselves policy and agencies will respond to them as such,” said Benjamin Wittes, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and editor in chief of the blog Lawfare. “With this president, there is an almost total disconnect between what the president says in public and the actions of the executive branch.”

He continued, “Therefore when the president says he is doing something, you have to ask a question that you would never ask with any other president, which is: is he doing that thing or is he just saying that he’s doing that thing?”

The president is not known for his follow-through. Many of his proclamations and promises, which are beamed to his supporters in the form of early-morning Tweets or off-handed comments in interviews, eventually fade from view, never to be brought up again once Trump has made a political point. Administration officials are often befuddled by the president’s statements, uncertain how to interpret and implement them.

Trump for example, caught the Pentagon by surprise when he tweeted last year that he was banning transgender troops from serving in the military — and the policy wasn’t implemented for nearly eight months. The president regularly announces, often on Twitter, that the administration is looking into issues that pique his interest, from directing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to investigate South Africa’s land policies to promising on Tuesday to “address” Google search results for Trump-related news.

In the case of Brennan’s security clearance, POLITICO has repeatedly asked White House officials in recent days whether the clearance has been officially revoked, and none have given a straight answer. A White House spokesman declined to comment on the record. A CIA spokesperson said the agency does not comment on individual clearances.

Since Sen. Rand Paul first broached the subject earlier this summer, Trump has been fixated on revoking security clearances, according to two White House officials, and he has pushed his aides to move quickly on the issue. People close to the president believe the issue resonates with Trump’s conservative base, which is deeply skeptical of the government.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/28/trump-security-clearances-john-brennan-799052
 
pikkusimo kirjoitti:
taantumu kirjoitti:
Sananvapauslakien ulottaminen Googleen olisi melkoisen vaikeaa, vaatisi varmaankin perustuslain muuttamista. Sananvapauslait kun koskevat valtion toimia eivät yritysten päätöksiä.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Mistä sinä tuon laintulkinnan repäisit, ihan täyttä potaskaa.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Jep. USA:n korkein oikeus on aiemmissa päätöksissään (edeltävä linkki on pdf-tiedosto) kallistunut sellaiseen suuntaan, että esimerkiksi sosiaalinen media voidaan rinnastaa julkiseen tilaan. Toisaalta korkein oikeus on lisäksi aiemmin linjannut, että sananvapauden takaamisen velvoite voi koskea myös tilannetta, jossa julkinen tila on yksityisen yrityisen hallinnassa (yksityinen yritys ei saanut rajoittaa sananvapautta hallinnoimassaan julkisessa tilassa, tässä tapauksessa omistamallaan alueella olevalla kadulla). Jos nämä puristetaan yhteen, ollaan aika lähellä lopputulemaa, että sananvapauslakien yms. katsottaisiin koskevan myös yksityisten yritysten ylläpitämiä suuren yleisön yleisesti saatavilla olevia verkkopalveluita.

En olisi lainkaan yllättynyt, jos republikaanit pyrkisivät saamaan tästä aikaan joko eksplisiittisen säädöksen tai sitten korkeimman oikeuden ennakkopäätöksen.
 
Kongressissa on höpötelty jännittäviä yksityiskohtia. FBI:n virkamiehet ovat vuotaneet lehdistölle sopivia tietoja ja niiden perusteella hakeneet FISA lupia oikeudesta. Kuulemma ollut 'maan tapa':

An FBI intelligence analyst admitted to House committees last week that bureau officials were known to leak information to the press and then use the resulting articles to help obtain surveillance warrants, according to a source with knowledge of his testimony.

Jonathan Moffa, who worked with controversial former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, testified last Friday behind closed doors before the House Judiciary Committee and House Oversight Committee.

The source with knowledge of his statements confirmed to Fox News that Moffa said FBI personnel would use media reports based on information they leaked to justify applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants.

The source told Fox News that Moffa acknowledged this “had been a practice in the past.” -DailyCaller, Fox

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ries-then-used-them-to-get-fisa-warrants.html


Samassa linkissä muutakin. Steele ei ollut FBI:n omien tietojen mukaan luotettava lähde.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton on how the FBI released 70 pages of heavily redacted records, which showed that ex-British spy Christopher Steele was admonished and deemed unsuitable as a confidential human source.

-----
https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/27/source-fbi-congress-leaked-stories-spy-warrants/
 
Anti trumppi jengi voi nyt aloittaa uuden foliohattuilun sillä imeisesti Melanie on kloonattu, nyt veljet kiiresti tutkimaan ettei pienet miehet Marssista ole kloonannet Melanieta ja voivat pian käyttää mielipidemuokkaus sädettä jota vastaan voi puolustautua vain koetellulla antitrumpfoliohatulla.

https://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/201808282201166573_ul.shtml

Salaliittoteoriat roihahtivat uudesta videosta: Onko Melania Trumpilla kaksoisolento?
Tänään klo 19:11
Yhdysvaltain presidentin puoliso näyttää hiljattain otetuissa kuvissa silminnähden erilaiselta kuin aiemmin.
 
Trump sanoi tänään Meksikon maksavan muurin maiden rajalle ja Meksiko ilmoitti saman tien ettei näin tule ikinä tapahtumaan. Epäilemättä jokin mestarineuvottelijan korkeamman tason kikka sopimuksen saamiseksi.
President Trump on Tuesday renewed his pledge to build a border wall paid for by Mexico, prompting a sharp rebuttal from the Mexican government one day after both countries announced plans for a sweeping new trade agreement.

The offhand comments by Trump were made to reporters in the Oval Office as he met with the head of international soccer’s governing body, FIFA President Gianni Infantino. The remark underscored the lingering tensions between the two allies over the president’s oft-touted campaign pledge.

“Yeah, the wall will be paid for very easily, by Mexico,” Trump said when asked about plans for a wall at the southern border. “It will ultimately be paid for by Mexico.”

After footage of Trump’s remarks was widely broadcast on television, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray immediately fired back, maintaining that Mexico will never agree to fund a border wall.

“We just reached a trade understanding with the US, and the outlook for the relationship between our two countries is very positive,” Videgaray said in a tweet. “We will NEVER pay for a wall, however. That has been absolutely clear from the very beginning.”

A little over 24 hours earlier, Videgaray was among the Mexican officials who met with Trump in the Oval Office.

The Trump administration announced Monday that it had reached a preliminary 16-year trade agreement with Mexico that would alter the North American Free Trade Agreement. The ultimate scope of the pact, centered largely on manufacturing, could depend on whether Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decides to sign on.

Trump’s promise to build a border wall funded by Mexico has long been a source of friction between the two countries. In February, a 50-minute phone call between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto ended in frustration as the leaders butted heads on the issue. The impasse led both sides to abruptly call off plans for Peña Nieto to visit Washington.

Trump made no mention of the wall during a celebratory phone conversation with Peña Nieto on Monday. On that call, the Mexican leader told Trump that he was sending him “an affectionate hug.”

Trump replied, “A hug from you would be very nice.”
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0b618c98d3c_story.html?utm_term=.70892b40b050
 
Sinun täytyy kirjautua vastataksesi.
Back
Top