Trump -psykoosi

[Loyd]

No jättihän suomen presidentti kerran talvisodan muistojuhlan väliin kun oli saanut tarjouksen osallistua Chilen ay-liikkeen seminaariin. Veteraanit odottivat presidenttiä mutta hän olikin jo matkalla etelä-amerikkaan.

 

[Panssari Salama]

Valkoinen talo on kyllä itse sanonut, että autosaattueella olisi voitu mennä, mutta Trump ei halunnut aiheuttaa ruuhkaa kaduille. Mutta kukin selittäköön tämänkin siten kun omaan maailmankatsomukseen sopii.

Tänään jätti menemättä Arlingtonin hautausmaalle perinteiseen veteraanien päivän muistotilaisuuteen, ehkä oli kovasti ruuhkaa sielläkin

Vettä satoi.

 

[PekkaSavo]

Janne Riiheläinen retweeted
Kaz Weida Kaz Weida
Freelance Journalist & Editor | Photographer | Activist
@kazweida 15h
Three world leaders have very different reactions when they spot the dictator who has attempted to interfere in their elections & gleefully encouraged the rise of fascism in Europe & the Western World. Ours looks like a five year old who is hoping Daddy will give him a lollipop.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kazweida/status/1061647968632107010?p=v

Miksiköhän tämä kuva ei häirinnyt twiitterin urpoja? Siksikö kun on ne jumiutuneet tarinat?

On vielä hauskempaa kuin Trumpilla. DDR-aikaiset kaverukset.

Ja entä tämä:

Ranskan presidentti Emmanuel Macron asetti kätensä Merkelin polvelle lauantain juhlatilaisuudessa. AP

Jospa Trump olisi laittanut? MEEEEEE TOOOOOOOOO!!!

 

[ILoveEU]

Foxnewsin juontajan kotiin hyökättiin Antifan toimesta.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/an...izes-fox-commentator-tucker-carlson-s-n934131

 

[Coffee Man]

Miksiköhän tämä hauska kuva ei häirinnyt twiitterin urpoja? Siksikö kun on ne jumiutuneet tarinat?

On vielä hauskempaa kuin Trumpilla. DDR-aikaiset kaverukset.

Ja entä tämä:


Jospa Trump olisi laittanut? MEEEEEE TOOOOOOOOO!!!

Ei näistäkään mitään kohua noussut....

 

[Leaderwolf]

Moni varmaan toteaisi myös että jos kuitenkin oli asialla niin hyvä että sytytti.

Toisaalta, rakennuskanta alkoi olla jo aika vanhaa.. ehkä ihan hyväkin että annettiin keskustan uusimiselle vähän polkustarttia

PS. Voisi tehdä ihan hyvää Vaasankin kaatop..keskustalle Kunhan oikean Pohjanmaan, eli Etelä-Pohjanmaan kiertävät kaukaa @Panssari Salama

 

[tulikomento]

Washington Postin lähteiden mukaan Trump on aikeissa antaa potkut kotimaan turvallisuudesta vastaavalle ministeri Kirstjen Nielsenille. Syynä odotettaviin potkuihin on se, ettei ministeri ole Trumpin mielestä toteuttanut riittävällä innolla ja tehokkuudella tiukkaa mamupolitiikkaa.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10505036

 

[taantumu]

Roger Stonen kaveri salaliittoteoreetikko James Corsi kertoi odottavansa Muellerin nostavan piakoin syytteet häntä vastaan valehtelusta. Corsia on kuultu Stonen yhteyksistä Wikileaksiin presidentinvaalien aikoihin.

Jerome Corsi, a conspiracy theorist and friend of the longtime Trump adviser Roger J. Stone Jr., said on Monday that his two-month-long cooperation with the special counsel’s office has broken down and he expects to be charged with lying to investigators or a federal grand jury.

Mr. Corsi, who said he has been cooperating since August with prosecutors working for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, predicted his own indictment in a YouTube live stream that included a plea to listeners for money to cover his legal fees.

He offered no independent corroboration, and he has a long history of lobbing public grenades, including insisting that President Barack Obama was raised a Muslim and forged his birth certificate. Mr. Corsi’s lawyer, David Gray, had no comment, nor did a spokesman for Mr. Mueller, who is investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether any Trump associates were involved.

Mr. Corsi, 72, figures in the inquiry because he and Mr. Stone were apparently in touch with each other about WikiLeaks during the final months of the campaign. As part of a wide-ranging effort to undermine the election, Russian intelligence operatives had hacked Democratic emails, including those of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, and gave them to WikiLeaks to distribute.

Investigators have focused heavily on the question of whether Mr. Stone, who served briefly as a Trump campaign adviser and maintained contact with top campaign officials, knew where WikiLeaks got the stolen emails and how it planned to use them. Mr. Stone has said he was only boasting during the campaign when he claimed to be in touch with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, about the purloined documents.

Mr. Corsi has publicly defended Mr. Stone, insisting that he was the source of a suspicious message that Mr. Stone posted on Twitter in August 2016, predicting that it would soon be Mr. Podesta’s “time in the barrel.” Mr. Stone posted the tweet before WikiLeaks began releasing tens of thousands of Mr. Podesta’s emails, throwing Mrs. Clinton’s campaign on the defense only one month before Election Day.

Mr. Corsi said that Mr. Stone was relying on his research into Mr. Podesta’s involvement in an offshore company that he thought cast the campaign official in a negative light. “I am confident that I am the source behind Stone’s tweet,” he said in one article posted on Infowars, a site that promotes conspiracy theories.

In his YouTube video, Mr. Corsi said that he had been interviewed repeatedly about WikiLeaks by a team of three prosecutors and multiple F.B.I. agents and that he had cooperated fully. He also testified before a federal grand jury in September in Washington.

Mr. Corsi said that if he had any inkling of what WikiLeaks had in store for the Clinton campaign, it was only because he knew how to use public information to “connect the dots.” But prosecutors confronted him with a thick binder of all of his communications, he said, and after repeated interrogations, “my mind was mush.”


He said he anticipates that the special counsel’s office will seek criminal charges against him for false statements, perhaps within days, though he believes that he has committed no crime.

“Trying to explain yourself to these people is a lost cause,” he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/politics/jerome-corsi-predicts-indictment.html

 

[Panssari Salama]

Toisaalta, rakennuskanta alkoi olla jo aika vanhaa.. ehkä ihan hyväkin että annettiin keskustan uusimiselle vähän polkustarttia

PS. Voisi tehdä ihan hyvää Vaasankin kaatop..keskustalle Kunhan oikean Pohjanmaan, eli Etelä-Pohjanmaan kiertävät kaukaa @Panssari Salama

Vaasan ja pampaksen vastakkainasettelua usein liioitellaan. Esimerkiksi kun minä kuljen junalla Helsingin ja Vaasan välillä, Seinäjoen kautta, niin ei se tarkoita että seinille hypittääsiin.

Riittää, että sulkee pimennysverhot siksi aikaa kun juna seisoo, ja käy huolella pesemässä kädet kun lähdetty taas liikkeelle.

 

[Panssari Salama]

Takaisin aiheeseen! Vilkas uutispäivä tiedossa:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1062319008341463042

- Trump haluaa erottaa Homeland security pomo Nielsenin (mikä jo tiedossa), mutta Kelly mm haluaa antaa tälle lisää aikaa toteuttaa Trumpin maahanmuuttopolitiikkaa
- Erottamansa Sessionin (joka oli tiukka maahanmuuttokriitikko ja vei lakeja hyvin eteenpäin) tilalle nimitetty Whitaker on konsultoinit Oikeusministeriön etiikkalautakuntaa siitä miten hänen tulisi suhtautua Muellerin tutkimukseen. Tämä on mielestäni iso uutinen, koska on arvioitu, että Whitaker itse todennäköisesti tulee harkitsemaan tarkkaan, mitä voi ja mitä ei voi tehdä, nyt varsinkin kun demarit varmistavat, että kaikki hänen tekemisensä on juridisen luupin alla.
- Lopuksi tuo otsikon mukainen uutinen, että Muellerin odotetaan julkistavan uusia syytteitä pian, mahdollisesti jo tänään.

Kannattaa siis pitää popparivarasto tänäänkin käsillä.

 

[taantumu]

Marylandin osavaltio aikoo tänään pyytää liittovaltion tuomaria päättämään onko lain mukaan virkaatekevä oikeusministeri Matthew Whitaker vai Rod Rosenstein.

In the days since President Trump ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions and declared that he was installing Matthew G. Whitaker as the acting attorney general, many critics have challenged Mr. Whitaker’s fitness for the job. Some have gone further, calling his very appointment illegal.

Now, Mr. Whitaker’s appointment is facing a court challenge. The State of Maryland is expected to ask a federal judge on Tuesday for an injunction declaring that Mr. Whitaker is not the legitimate acting attorney general as a matter of law, and that the position — and all its powers — instead rightfully belongs to the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein.

Mr. Trump may not “bypass the constitutional and statutory requirements for appointing someone to that office,” the plaintiffs said in a draft filing obtained by The New York Times.

The legal action escalates the uproar surrounding Mr. Trump’s installation of Mr. Whitaker as the nation’s top law-enforcement officer, from criticism of his basic credentials and his views on the Russia investigation to challenges to the legality of his appointment. Last week, Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate’s top Democrat, sent a letter demanding to know why Mr. Trump chose an “unconfirmed political appointee” as acting attorney general, rather than follow the Justice Department’s statutory line of succession.

Maryland is asking a judge — Ellen L. Hollander of the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, a 2010 Obama appointee — to rule on who is the real acting attorney general as part of a lawsuit in which it sued Mr. Sessions in his official capacity. Because Mr. Sessions is no longer the attorney general, the judge must substitute his successor as a defendant in the litigation, so she has to decide who that successor legally is.

The stakes are extraordinary. The acting attorney general is the most powerful law enforcement official in the United States and wields tremendous influence, from overseeing criminal and national-security investigations to deciding how to enforce immigration, environmental and civil rights laws.

The head of the Justice Department also supervises Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating whether Mr. Trump’s associates conspired with Russia in its election interference and whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct that inquiry. A Trump loyalist, Mr. Whitaker has been an outspoken critic of the Russia investigation, and interviewed last year for the job of the White House’s top lawyer charged with countering it.

Maryland filed the underlying litigation in response to a separate lawsuit by Texas and several other Republican-controlled states challenging the Affordable Care Act. They argue that the law’s so-called individual mandate to obtain health insurance, which the Supreme Court upheld in 2012, became unconstitutional after Congress last year reduced its tax penalty to nothing.

In June, the Justice Department under Mr. Sessions agreed with Texas and said key parts of the law — including the provision that protects people with pre-existing conditions — must be struck down. In response, Maryland filed its own lawsuit in September. It asked Judge Hollander to declare that the contested parts of the insurance law are constitutional and to direct the government, and Mr. Sessions in particular, to enforce it as written.

The state’s attorney general, Brian E. Frosh, working with the law firm of Goldstein & Russell, brought the litigation. Thomas C. Goldstein, a partner in the firm, said they planned to file the motion on Tuesday morning.

Neither the judge in the Texas lawsuit nor Judge Hollander has ruled on the Affordable Care Act issues. But because the government’s enforcement of the act is set to change on Jan. 1, Maryland said it needed an injunction now to prevent Mr. Whitaker from illegitimately controlling the Justice Department’s policy and legal positions.

Among other things, the lawsuit cited Mr. Whitaker’s declaration, in a 2014 Q. and A., that the 2012 Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act was one of the worst rulings in the court’s history.
In defending Mr. Whitaker’s appointment as lawful, the Trump administration has pointed to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, a 1998 statute. It says that a president may temporarily fill a vacancy for a position that normally requires Senate confirmation with any senior official who has been in the department for at least 90 days. As Mr. Sessions’s former chief of staff, Mr. Whitaker meets that criteria.

But Maryland’s court filing argues that the law applies to routine positions, not to the attorney general. For one thing, it noted, another statute specifically says the deputy attorney general is next in line at the Justice Department. A more specific law, the lawsuit argues, takes precedence when in a conflict with a more general law.

There were good reasons for lawmakers to create an exception that gives the president less flexibility when it comes to replacing the attorney general, the Maryland filing argues. Among them, without that check, a president under investigation could install a “carefully selected senior employee who he was confident would terminate or otherwise severely limit” the inquiry.

The Maryland filing also cites a part of the Constitution, known as the appointments clause, which requires “principal” officers — very powerful and senior officials, like the attorney general — to have been confirmed by the Senate.

In a phone call last week, Mr. Whitaker told Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that a 2003 Office of Legal Counsel opinion held that the president could temporarily appoint him to be acting attorney general even though the Senate had not confirmed him, Mr. Grassley has said.

The 2003 opinion relied on an 1898 Supreme Court case about a man who was appointed the acting American consul in modern-day Thailand when the Senate-confirmed consul became sick, and no Senate-confirmed deputy consul was available.

But the Maryland court filing argues that the circumstances of the 1898 case were too different from today’s situation for it to apply. Among other things, it notes that the office of attorney general did not become vacant through an unexpected emergency, and that several Senate-confirmed Justice Department officials, like Mr. Rosenstein, are available.

The sweeping power of the attorney general “calls for the highest levels of integrity and personal judgment, prerequisites safeguarded by the Constitution’s command that principal officers be subject to the oversight and check provided by Senate confirmation,” the filing said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/us/politics/matt-whitaker-lawsuit-illegal-appointment.html

 

[Kaarne]

Kansliapäällikkö Kelly sattaa olla seuraava lähtijä:

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10506773

 

[Coffee Man]

Seuraava lähtijä saattaa olla Mira Ricardel...

”Ensimmäisen naisen toimiston kanta on, ettei Mira Ricardel enää ansaitse kunniaa palvella Valkoisessa talossa”.

https://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/a/298fec2a-1959-4c4d-a7df-dd5706f89279

Tämän sirkuksen ylivoimaisesti parasta antia on että ikinä ei tiedä kuka saa potkut seuraavaksi

Mattis pysyy vielä talossa ja jopa vahvistaa aavistuksen verran asemiaan ja se on hyvä uutinen...erityisesti Euroopalle, jos Venäjää ei lasketa mukaan.

 

[Panssari Salama]

Trumpilla taas huonohiuspäivä. 20 minuuttia lauseen saamiseksi loppuun, yleisen ahistuksen lisäksi.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1063042585802039296

https://twitter.com/x/status/1063046973857718272

#MAGA, eli #MuellerAin'tGoingAway, oli joku keksinyt

 

[taantumu]

Tuomari määräsi Valkoisen talon palauttamaan lehdistöpassin CNN:n Jim Acostalle, tuomari oli Trumpin nimittämä. Odotettavissa runsaasti Trumpin kiukuttelua.

A federal judge on Friday directed the White House to restore the press credentials of Jim Acosta of CNN, a win for media advocates and news organizations in a major legal test of press rights under President Trump.

The revocation of Mr. Acosta’s press badge, which grants access to the White House grounds, came after a testy exchange with Mr. Trump during a news conference last week. But the episode grew into a legal showdown over journalists’ ability to report on a president who regularly denigrates their work as “fake news.”

The ruling, from Judge Timothy J. Kelly of Federal District Court in Washington, was viewed as a victory for journalism and a timely reminder of press freedoms that advocates say have recently come under threat.

CNN had argued that Mr. Acosta’s free speech and due process rights were violated, warning that a president should not be allowed to pick and choose who reports on him. The administration contended that presidents enjoy broad discretion to bar journalists from the White House, and that Mr. Acosta’s barbed questioning and refusal to yield his microphone was boorish and disrespectful.

Judge Kelly’s decision came in response to CNN’s request for an emergency order restoring Mr. Acosta’s credential. Other legal issues raised by the suit, CNN v. Donald J. Trump, which the network filed this week, were expected to be addressed in subsequent hearings.

The case, CNN v. Donald J. Trump, had come to symbolize the deeply dysfunctional dynamic between Mr. Trump and the White House press corps.

No president relishes his coverage, and administrations have long relied on subtle and not-so-subtle methods to ice out troublesome reporters, like ignoring their questions at briefings or giving scoops to their competitors.

But advocacy groups said that stripping a correspondent’s credential, and essentially barring them from the White House grounds, entered the realm of retaliation, and posed a threat to basic press freedoms.
For Mr. Trump and his supporters, though, penalizing Mr. Acosta was a surefire crowd-pleaser. The CNN correspondent has been a frequent nemesis of Mr. Trump, and the two have publicly clashed on previous occasions.

Mr. Trump’s political team released a fund-raising email touting CNN’s lawsuit as evidence that the media was intent on hurting the president. White House allies like Sean Hannity of Fox News denounced Mr. Acosta as a biased grandstander.

Other presidents have expressed animus toward reporters in memorable ways. In 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt handed out a Nazi Iron Cross at a news conference and asked that it be bestowed on one of his least-loved chroniclers, a columnist at The Daily News of New York.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/business/media/cnn-acosta-trump.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

[PekkaSavo]

Kuinka moni rakastaa tuollaisia toimittajia?

 

[ILoveEU]

Tuomari määräsi Valkoisen talon palauttamaan lehdistöpassin CNN:n Jim Acostalle, tuomari oli Trumpin nimittämä. Odotettavissa runsaasti Trumpin kiukuttelua.

Onko kyse nyt nk "hard pass" palauttamisesta, vai tuomarin määräys, että Acosta pääsee yleensä Valkoisen talon pihalle?


Hiukan hauskaa vinkumista sinänsä. Lauren Southern sai valkoiseen taloon jonkin passin, en vaan muista mitä laatua. Nämä samat toimittajat vaativat, että salainen palvelu estää Southernin pääsyn Valkoiseen taloon ja että ottaisivat vielä luvat pois - että semmoista vapautta.

Youtubesta löytynee Southernin video.

 

[notareal]

Onko kyse nyt nk "hard pass" palauttamisesta, vai tuomarin määräys, että Acosta pääsee yleensä Valkoisen talon pihalle?


Hiukan hauskaa vinkumista sinänsä. Lauren Southern sai valkoiseen taloon jonkin passin, en vaan muista mitä laatua. Nämä samat toimittajat vaativat, että salainen palvelu estää Southernin pääsyn Valkoiseen taloon ja että ottaisivat vielä luvat pois - että semmoista vapautta.

Youtubesta löytynee Southernin video.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/16/media/cnn-trump-lawsuit-hearing/index.html
"Kelly did not rule on the underlying case on Friday. But he granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order on Fifth Amendment grounds. And he said he believes that CNN and Acosta are likely to prevail in the case overall. "

eli tilapäinen kunnes juttu käsitelty loppuun.

 

[Panssari Salama]

Onko kyse nyt nk "hard pass" palauttamisesta, vai tuomarin määräys, että Acosta pääsee yleensä Valkoisen talon pihalle?

Ymmärsin, että prosessi on edelleen kesken, mutta tämä olisi ensi askel kohti hard passin palauttamista.

Tuomari oli pohtinut, että 1. onko Valkoisella talolla velvollisuus päästää kuka tahansa toimittaja paikalle sananvapauden (perustuslain merkityksessä) mukaisesti, ja 2. saako Valkoinen talo poistaa oikeuden sananvapautta loukkaamatta.

Tuomarin mukaan 1. Valkoinen talo saa täysin itse päättää, kenelle passit antaa, mutta 2. sen jälkeen kun henkilö on akkreditoitu niin sananvapaus tulee huomioida ja ketään ei saa mielivaltaisesti/ilman perusteita/tms perua tätä passia siltä kelle se on jo myönnetty.

Tai jotain sinne päin.

 

[PSS]

Kuinka moni rakastaa tuollaisia toimittajia?

...ja presidenttiä?