Trump -psykoosi


Kongressin tiedustelukomitea julkaisi Michael Cohenin komitealle suljettujen ovien takana antamat lausunnot. Cohenin mukaan Trumpin asianajaja Jay Sekulow kannusti Cohenia valehtelemaan kongressille Moskovan Trump Tower-projektista. Sekulow kertoi Cohenille presidentin harkitsevan armahduksia tavoitteenaan lopettaa tutkimukset.
Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former longtime personal attorney, told a House panel during closed-door hearings earlier this year that he had been encouraged by Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow to falsely claim in a 2017 statement to Congress that negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow ended in January 2016, according to transcripts of his testimony released Monday evening.

In fact, Cohen later admitted, discussions on the Moscow tower continued into June of the presidential election year, after it was clear Trump would be the GOP nominee. Cohen is serving three years in prison for lying to Congress, financial crimes and campaign finance violations.

House Democrats are now scrutinizing whether Sekulow or other Trump attorneys played a role in shaping Cohen’s 2017 testimony to Congress. Cohen has said he made the false statement to help hide the fact that Trump had potentially hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in a possible Russian project while he was running for president.

“We’re trying to find out whether anyone participated in the false testimony that Cohen gave to this committee,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said in an interview.

Jane Serene Raskin and Patrick Strawbridge, attorneys for Sekulow, said in a statement that “Cohen’s alleged statements are more of the same from him and confirm the observations of prosecutors in the Southern District of New York that Cohen’s ‘instinct to blame others is strong.’ ”

“That this or any Committee would rely on the word of Michael Cohen for any purpose — much less to try and pierce the attorney-client privilege and discover confidential communications of four respected lawyers — defies logic, well-established law and common sense,” they added.

It is unclear how much detailed knowledge Sekulow had about the timeline of Trump’s most recent effort to build a branded tower in Moscow, which Cohen began in September 2015 and ended in June 2016, according to court documents. Sekulow joined Trump’s legal team after he was elected.

Cohen’s claims about Sekulow were first described to The Washington Post by people familiar with his testimony and laid out in transcripts of his February and March appearances before the House intelligence panel released Monday evening.

In those depositions, Cohen acknowledged that he used January 2016 as the end date for work on the Moscow project when he originally drafted his 2017 statement to Congress. He said Sekulow urged him to stick to that date, even though he believed Sekulow and others knew that the deal was actually discussed far later than that.

“As Mr. Sekulow had explained, just let’s keep it to that date, which is prior to the lowa caucus,” the opening contest of the White House race, Cohen told the committee.

Cohen’s closed-door testimony before the committee led congressional Democrats this month to press Sekulow and other Trump family lawyers who were involved in a joint defense agreement for more information about work they did preparing Cohen’s 2017 statement. Schiff has asked four attorneys to turn over documents and schedule interviews with the panel, a request they have so far rebuffed, calling it a threat to the long-standing protection of communications between lawyers and their clients.

In his public testimony before the House Oversight Committee in January, Cohen said that “Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before I gave it.”

He accused Sekulow of making changes to the 2017 statement.

“There were changes made, additions, Jay Sekulow, for one,” Cohen told the panel.

Sekulow denied making any changes to Cohen’s planned testimony about the timing of the Trump Tower Moscow project, calling Cohen’s allegation “completely false.”

In subsequent closed-door depositions before the House Intelligence Committee, Cohen was more specific.

Cohen said he spoke with Sekulow 20 or more times about his 2017 statement before submitting it to Congress, though those conversations were sometimes nebulous. Asked what he recalled from those conversations with Sekulow, Cohen said: “Stay on message. Minimum contact. No Russia. No collusion. Nothing here.”

Cohen said he discussed with Sekulow the fact that his statement said the Trump Tower Moscow deal was aborted in January 2016, and Sekulow responded, “Good. Good. Let’s just stay on message. Keep this thing short.”

Asked what the message was, Cohen said, “It was the period of time, it was before the lowa caucus. And it was just a good time. It was just — it was before, it was a couple weeks before the lowa caucus, and let’s just keep it that way.”

He was asked by Schiff whether Sekulow was aware that the original draft was false when it said that negotiations on the project ended in January. Cohen responded: “Yes, sir.”

Cohen said also he spoke to Sekulow about a potential pardon “quite a few” times “before and after” his testimony to the committee. He said Sekulow didn’t say directly that the president was considering giving him a pardon, but rather said “there’s always the possibility of a pre-pardon.”

Cohen said Sekulow said the reason the president was considering pardons was “to shut down the inquiries and to shut the investigation down.”

In a tweet Monday night, fellow Trump attorney Rudolph Giuliani wrote, “Jay Sekulow is one of the very most ethical lawyers and honest men I have ever known. Michael Cohen is a serial liar. Cohen should be prosecuted for his blatant perjury before the House committee. Jay should receive the most effective and ethical lawyer of the year award.”

In his closed-door deposition, Cohen also testified that the proposed Trump Tower Moscow project would have been more profitable for Trump’s company than other development deals because it envisioned Trump receiving a higher licensing fee than for other projects, along with a $4 million upfront fee to be paid to Trump as the project began.

The Trumps knew that any potential real estate deal — especially worth “hundreds of millions” of dollars, much larger than Trump’s normal licensing deals — would have to be approved by the Kremlin and even Russian President Vladimir Putin himself, Cohen said.

At one point, Cohen testified that business partner Felix Sater came up with the idea of selling the building’s penthouse to Putin as a marketing ploy.

Cohen said that he relayed the idea to Trump, who appeared amused, neither blessing it nor dismissing it. “He just thought it was clever, funny,” Cohen said.

Despite Cohen’s history of lying to Congress, senior Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees indicated that they are taking his allegations seriously.

“If it is accurate that one of the President’s personal attorneys encouraged him or edited his testimony to give Congress a false date, it’s further evidence that the President had some reason for not wanting the American people, or the Senate Intelligence Committee, to know the truth about his dealings with Russia as a candidate,” Sen. Mark R. Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

Cohen’s claims were reviewed by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who sought without success to question one of Trump’s personal attorneys about interactions he had with Cohen about the 2017 testimony.

According to Mueller’s report, Cohen spoke to a counsel for Trump frequently in the days before he submitted his statement to Congress on Aug. 28, 2017. The Trump lawyer was not named in the report.

Cohen told investigators that he recalled telling the president’s lawyer that the statement did not reflect the extent of communications with Russia and Trump about the Moscow project.

The Trump attorney told Cohen that it was not necessary to include other details in the statement, which he advised should be kept “tight.” Cohen told investigators he also recalled that the lawyer told him “his client” appreciated Cohen and he should stay on message and not contradict the president, according to the report

Mueller’s team sought to speak to the Trump lawyer about the conversations with Cohen, “but counsel declined, citing potential privilege concerns,” according to the report.

Cohen’s claims led Schiff to demand information from Sekulow and three other lawyers who played a role reviewing Cohen’s 2017 testimony: Abbe Lowell, an attorney for Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump; Alan Futerfas, an attorney for Donald Trump Jr.; and Alan Garten, an attorney for the Trump Organization.

The four lawyers have said they cannot answer Schiff’s requests because of attorney-client privilege, which bars them from discussing confidential conversations.

Schiff has promised to push ahead, threatening to issue a subpoena for the lawyers’ cooperation if necessary, noting that they had an incentive to encourage Cohen’s initial testimony.

“Cohen himself stood little to gain by lying to our committee,” Schiff told The Washington Post. “Donald Trump and others around him stood far more to gain from that being concealed from our investigation. So it obviously begs the question of whether this was something he did on his own . . . or were there others who participated in the falsehood before our committee.”

Schiff also warned that the privilege claim may not allow the attorneys to avoid testifying before his committee.

“The privilege doesn’t apply if it’s being used to conceal a crime or a fraud,” he said. “And if the attorneys were conferring amongst themselves and Mr. Cohen about a false statement they were going to make to our committee, there’s no privilege that protects that kind of conduct.”

On Monday, after the release of the Cohen transcripts, when asked about possible subpoenas for the Trump family and Trump lawyers, Schiff said, “We’ll consider what compulsion we need to use given that they have thus far refused to cooperate with us.”

In a letter to Schiff on Friday, attorneys for the four Trump lawyers expressed dismay at his effort to compel their testimony.

“We find the Committee’s outright, blanket refusal to recognize the attorney-client privilege — a bedrock principle of common law dating back centuries — to be stunning, unwise, and unwarranted,” they wrote.

They called the inquiry “an attempt to pursue a law-enforcement investigation which is outside the constitutional authority of the legislative branch.”

Schiff has also expressed interest in hearing from Sater, who was working the Russian side of the Trump Tower Moscow proposal in 2016.

Lawyers for Cohen said it appears that Sater and his attorney Robert Wolf reviewed Cohen’s testimony before it was submitted to Congress in 2017, according to documents they reviewed. Sater’s involvement negates any privilege claim, Cohen’s attorneys said.

“Because it appears that the draft statement was shared with two non-privileged individuals — Mr. Sater and his lawyer — the joint defense privilege was in our professional opinion waived,” said Lanny Davis, one of two criminal defense attorneys representing Cohen.

Sater and Cohen had discussions about the Moscow project into June 2016, but Sater did not correct Cohen’s original assertion to Congress that the project ended that January.
Sater declined to comment on questions about Cohen’s testimony, but he said he stands ready to cooperate with Schiff’s inquiries.

“I have always cooperated with the U.S. government and look forward to continued cooperation,” Sater said. “I will make myself available to Congressman Schiff’s committee or any other committee as they deem necessary.”

Panssari Salama

Washington Postin opinion-kirjoittaja Millbanks kutsuu Trumpia jo avoimesti hulluksi (transparently mad). Aika hurjaa, olisipa mielenkiintoista tietää, minkälaista tämä Yhdysvaltain hallinto ja johtaminen oikeasti on presidentti Trumpin johtamana ja alaisuudessa. Jos se on yhtäänkään miltä näyttää, niin huh.

Tässä huomio, josta otsikko oli johdettu:

“I don’t do coverups,” announced the man who paid hush money to an adult-film star and who is now fighting legal battles to conceal his tax returns and business records. “I’m the most transparent president, probably, in the history of this country,” he also said.

In one sense, that’s true: Trump’s state of mind is utterly transparent, revealed in real time. At the moment, he seems to be transparently mad.

Panssari Salama

Pitkä säie tämän kuuluisan Steele-muistion (joukko muistioita) käsittelystä UK:n tiedustelupavelussa ja poliittisessa johdossa. Mielenkiintoista luettavaa, harmi että en pääse käsiksi Telegraphin artikkeliin. Telegraph antaa lukea premium-artikkeleita oliko se artikkelin per viikko, mutta olin jo lukenut jotain tärkeämpää kuten kenties jalkapallouutisia.



Pääseekö joku lukemaan, onko siellä jotain erityistä uutta?


Jälleen yksi "only the best people" sai syytteet. Trumpin kampanjan talousneuvonantaja pankinjohtaja Stephen Calk sai syytteet annettuaan Paul Manafortille 16 milj.$ lainat, Manafortin oli tarkoitus vastineeksi hankkia Calkille homma Trumpin hallinnosta. Calk antoi Manafortille toivelistan haluamistaan hommista ja ykkösvaihtoehtona oli valtionvarainministerin paikka. Tarjolla Calkille on jopa 30 vuoden tuomio.
Stephen Calk, a former economic adviser to President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, was indicted Thursday for allegedly approving $16 million in loans to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in exchange for his help seeking a top post in the administration.

Calk, the founder of mortgage lender Federal Savings Bank of Chicago, illegally used the bank’s resources to curry favor with Manafort, ignoring internal standards and lying to regulators, according to the indictment unsealed in the Southern District of New York.

Calk gave Manafort a list ranking the administrative jobs he wanted, starting with Treasury Secretary, the indictment alleges. The list also included 19 ambassadorships, including to the United Kingdom, according to the indictment.

Calk ultimately was interviewed as a candidate for undersecretary of the Army but didn’t get the job, prosecutors said.

“Stephen M. Calk abused the power entrusted to him as the top official of a federally insured bank by approving millions of dollars in high-risk loans in an effort to secure a personal benefit,” Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said in a statement.

Manafort was not named in the indictment, but the description of the borrower in the court filing matches that of the former Trump campaign chairman.

The indictment is a reminder of the financial crush that was facing Manafort during the same months when he was working as Trump’s campaign chairman, a job he won in part by arguing to Trump that he was independently wealthy and thus able to work for free.

At Manafort’s trial last year, prosecutors presented evidence that he was swimming in debt while working for the campaign and struggling to juggle mortgages on several pricey properties.

According to Calk’s indictment, Manafort took a break from his duties running Trump’s campaign on July 27, 2016, to attend an initial meeting in New York with a loan officer to discuss a multimillion-dollar loan. Calk joined by video and, according to prosecutors, told Manafort he would be interested in work on Trump’s campaign. That same day in Florida, Trump asked at a news conference if Russia could locate deleted emails belong to his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Calk did not testify at Manafort’s 2018 trial for bank and tax fraud, but other officers from his bank took the stand to describe the unusual process by which the bank approved a loan for Manafort.

Manafort was convicted at trial and later pleaded guilty to additional charges, including acting as an unregistered foreign agent while working for a Ukrainian politician before joining Trump’s campaign.

Manafort is now serving a 7½-year prison sentence. He began cooperating with authorities after his guilty plea. Prosecutors have told a judge that he provided evidence both to the special counsel’s investigation and to matters being handled by other prosecutors. References to those other investigations have been redacted from documents filed so far in Manafort’s case, but it is likely that Manafort provided evidence in Calk’s case.

Transcripts show that during a bench conference at Manafort’s trial last year, prosecutor Greg Andres described Calk as a “co-conspirator” who faced possible “criminal liability.”
Calk faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted of the charge of financial institution bribery.


Sopii tähän ketjuun, kevennyksenä:

Video Joe Bidenin puheesta v. 2006, missä vaaditaan muuria Meksikon rajalle - kuulemma pitäisi olla 700mailia pitkä ja 40-kerroksisen talon korkuinen. Lisäksi jotain huumeista, että niitä tulvii rajan yli....

The clip itself is sure to provide plenty of fodder for Biden’s progressive enemies. “Folks, I voted for a fence, I voted, unlike most Democrats—and some of you won't like it—I voted for 700 miles of fence,” he says during an appearance at a South Carolina rotary club in November 2006, defending his vote for the Secure Border Act, which allocated over a billion dollars for hundreds of miles of double-layered fence. He went on:
“But, let me tell you, we can build a fence 40 stories high—unless you change the dynamic in Mexico and—and you will not like this, and—punish American employers who knowingly violate the law when, in fact, they hire illegals. Unless you do those two things, all the rest is window dressing.”
“Now, I know I'm not supposed to say it that bluntly, but they're the facts, they're the facts. And so everything else we do is in between here. Everything else we do is at the margins. And the reason why I add that parenthetically, why I believe the fence is needed does not have anything to do with immigration as much as drugs” ... “And let me tell you something folks, people are driving across that border with tons, tons, hear me, tons of everything from byproducts for methamphetamine to cocaine to heroin and it's all coming up through corrupt Mexico ...”


Trump muutti omaa arviotaan itsestään hyvin vakaasta nerosta (very stable genius) äärimmäisen vakaaseen neroon (extremely stable genius).
The war of words between President Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi escalated in dramatic fashion on Thursday, with each leader questioning the other’s temperament and mental fitness in an extraordinary exchange of personal insults.

The president, who has largely avoided direct personal attacks on the speaker, finally gave her a derogatory nickname — calling her “Crazy Nancy,” after Ms. Pelosi had suggested Mr. Trump’s behavior was so erratic it required an “intervention” from his family and staff.

“She’s a mess. She’s lost it,” the president said during an event to announce $16 billion in aid to farmers, in part to compensate for his tariffs policy on China. That event transformed into a monologue and a question-and-answer session with reporters, which included a reprisal of an old self-assessment that Mr. Trump is an “extremely stable genius.

Ms. Pelosi quickly shot back on Twitter, saying, “When the ‘extremely stable genius’ starts acting more presidential, I’ll be happy to work with him on infrastructure, trade and other issues.”

Their public feuding comes as Mr. Trump is headed to Japan on Friday and Congress goes on a weeklong Memorial Day recess, ensuring that little will be resolved any time soon. But the collision was anything but accidental. Ms. Pelosi set out Thursday morning to pick a fight with Mr. Trump, three people close to her said, part of a strategy to unnerve a president who has defied the efforts of House Democrats to subpoena documents and summon witnesses to testify about his conduct.

But her decision to dramatize the fight also represented an embrace of Mr. Trump’s own signature political tactic: an attempt to divert attention from a divisive internal debate — in this case a drive by two dozen of her caucus members to push ahead with impeachment — with a headline-grabbing attack, in hopes of uniting her own political base. Other leaders who have fought Mr. Trump on his own terms have failed.

Mr. Trump’s response was visceral and reactive. He questioned Ms. Pelosi’s intellectual capacities, saying that she was incapable of understanding the details of a proposed new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. A day after saying he would not work with Democrats on legislation until they stop investigating him, he demanded that the House pass his revised trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.
As he spoke, a group of farmers and ranchers, some wearing cowboy hats in the White House, stood and stared.

The president then enlisted a series of aides — Kellyanne Conway, Mercedes Schlapp, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Larry Kudlow and Hogan Gidley — to bolster his contention that he was calm during his brief infrastructure meeting on Wednesday with Ms. Pelosi and other congressional Democratic leaders, a meeting that ended after three minutes.

One by one, his aides acceded to his wishes and affirmed his characterization in a ritual rarely seen in democratic governments.

“Very calm. No temper tantrum,” Ms. Conway said. “Very calm and very direct,” Ms. Schlapp added. “Mercedes is right. Kellyanne is right. You were calm,” Mr. Kudlow said. “Very calm,” Ms. Sanders said when prompted. “I’ve seen both. This was definitely not angry or ranting.”

It was the second day in a row in which Mr. Trump had bitterly attacked the Democrats, in sessions that were a rambling blend of his consistent roll call of villains in the Russian inquiry, larded with a heavy ladle of grievance.

For her part, Ms. Pelosi was intent on playing a two-pronged game: bashing Mr. Trump publicly while toiling in the Capitol to dissuade House Democrats from impeaching him.

Ms. Pelosi said on Thursday that House Democrats were “not on a path to impeachment,” even as she accused Mr. Trump of trying to whip her caucus into a distracting political battle by stonewalling congressional oversight.

Buoyed by two recent victories in court over the White House, Ms. Pelosi suggested that Mr. Trump was too unstable to govern. The president’s theatrical scrapping of Wednesday’s infrastructure meeting at the White House raised questions about his temperament and behavior, she said.

Mr. Trump had “another temper tantrum,” she told reporters at her weekly news conference at the Capitol. “Again, I pray for the president of the United States. I wish that his family or his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country.”

In a side spat, Ms. Conway, for the second day, tried to engage Ms. Pelosi.

After Wednesday’s brief meeting in the White House Cabinet Room, Ms. Conway asked Ms. Pelosi if she wanted to respond to the president’s speech in the Rose Garden — to which the speaker responded, “I’m responding to the president, not staff,” according to her aides.

On Thursday, Ms. Conway accused Ms. Pelosi of treating her “like I’m either her maid or her driver or her pilot or her makeup artist.”

Ms. Pelosi shrugged off the comments, telling reporters, “I’m not going to talk about her.”

But such spats are sideshows for Ms. Pelosi as she tries to stem the momentum toward impeachment. On Wednesday, during a caucus meeting, she faced down calls from about 25 House Democrats who wanted her to move immediately on impeachment. Instead, she urged them to “follow the facts” by allowing court cases to play out before passing final judgment.

Since then, a federal court on Wednesday affirmed the House’s right to obtain Mr. Trump’s financial records, the second such ruling this week.

“What really got to him,” Ms. Pelosi said on Thursday, was “these court cases and the fact that the House Democratic caucus is not on a path to impeachment.”

“That’s where he wants us to be,” she told reporters, adding, “The White House is just crying out for impeachment” to divide Democrats and take the focus off the president’s failures and policy inaction.

Earlier Thursday, during a closed-door session with her caucus, Ms. Pelosi made the case more explicitly, arguing that the president hoped to provoke impeachment in order to achieve public exoneration by the Republican-controlled Senate, which acts as the final arbiter on impeachment hearings.

For the moment, Ms. Pelosi seems to have stopped a mass defection of Democrats to the pro-impeachment cause. But to do so, allies said, she must avoid the appearance that she is being soft on Mr. Trump.
That appears to mean amplifying her criticism of him, and giving public voice to opinions about the president that she has kept private until now.

On Thursday, she jokingly referenced the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, which allows for a president to be removed from office if it is determined that he is “unable to discharge the duties of the office.”
“Article 25,” Ms. Pelosi said, “that’s a good idea.”

An aide later said she was referring to the 25th Amendment.


Trump totesi, että Yhdysvaltain turvallisuusviranomaisten johto on syyllistynyt maanpetokselliseen toimintaan, kun aloitti Venäjä tutkimuksen. Ja heidän jälkeensä tulivat perässä vielä "18 Mullerin tappajaa".

Trump on nyt aloittanut prosessin Yhdysvaltain turvallisuusviranomaisten palauttamiseksi ruotuun.


Sen jälleen kun näkis, että Supo tutkisi presidentti Niinistöä, ja Sauli lehdistötilaisuudessa toteaisi, että Supo on poliittinen salamurharyhmä...


Sen jälleen kun näkis, että Supo tutkisi presidentti Niinistöä, ja Sauli lehdistötilaisuudessa toteaisi, että Supo on poliittinen salamurharyhmä...
Onneksi Suomi ei olekaan (ainakaan vielä!) niin vahvasti poliittisesti kahtiajakoinen paikka kuin USA. No, Trumpin kielenkäyttö jne. toki on mitä on, mutta peruskuvio on vähän samantapainen kuin esim. Hillary Clintonin parikymmentä vuotta sitten termillä "vast right wing conspiracy" kuvaamat Clintoneihin kohdistuneet tutkimukset.


Onneksi Suomi ei olekaan (ainakaan vielä!) niin vahvasti poliittisesti kahtiajakoinen paikka kuin USA. No, Trumpin kielenkäyttö jne. toki on mitä on, mutta peruskuvio on vähän samantapainen kuin esim. Hillary Clintonin parikymmentä vuotta sitten termillä "vast right wing conspiracy" kuvaamat Clintoneihin kohdistuneet tutkimukset.
Muistaakseni niistä ei juuri villoja tullut erittäin sinnikkäistä yrityksistä huolimatta. Vähän toinen tilanne tämän toisen tapauksen kanssa...


Respected Leader
Nyt ei Trump osaa enää edes pelätä BööKorean ohjustestejä...
Trump vähättelee Pohjois-Korean äskettäin tekemiä ohjustestejä
Pohjois-Korea laukaisi ”vain jotakin pikkuaseita”, jotka eivät minua häiritse, sanoi Trump.
26.5.2019 klo 03:52
Jaa artikkeli Facebookissa0
Jaa artikkeli Twitterissä

Yhdysvaltain presidentti Donald Trump ei ole huolissaan Pohjois-Korean viimeaikaisista ohjustesteistä. Trump sanoi, että hän luottaa Pohjois-Korean johtajan Kim Jong-unin pitävän hänelle antamansa lupauksen.
– Pohjois-Korea laukaisi vain jotain pikkuaseita, jotka häiritsivät joitakin hallinnossani, ja muitakin, mutta minua ne eivät häirinneet, Trump kirjoitti Twitterissä.
Pohjois-Korea laukaisi kaksi lyhyen matkan ohjusta 9. toukokuuta. Nämä ovat ensimmäiset ohjustestit 18 kuukauteen.
Trump on parhaillaan valtiovierailulla Japanissa. Pohjois-Korea on yksi pääaiheista, kun Trump tapaa Japanin pääministerin Shinzo Aben.


Nyt ei Trump osaa enää edes pelätä BööKorean ohjustestejä...
Pohjois-Korea laukaisi ”vain jotakin pikkuaseita”, jotka eivät minua häiritse, sanoi Trump.
No tuohan on nimenomaan se paras tapa reagoida asiaan. Se on täysin päivänselvää, ettei Pohjois-Korealla ole mitään oikeaa aietta tehdä ohjushyökkäystä niin amerikkalaisia kuin Etelä-Koreaakaan vastaan. Ohjuskokeet ovat Pohjois-Korean epätoivoisia lapsellisia yrityksiä kerätä huomiota ja saada muuta maailmaa tekemään sille myönnytyksiä. Kokeiden jälkeiset Pohjois-Korean toimia kauhistelevat ja pelkäävät kommentit satavat Kim Jong Unin poppoon laariin. Sitävastoin voi vain arvailla, kuinka pahasti heitä ketuttaa, kun maa on nälänhädän ja taloudellisen (mitä rippeitä ennestään olikaan) tuhon partaalla ja vastassa on Trump, joka kohauttelee olkapäitään ja pitää pakotteet tiukasti ruodussa.


No tuohan on nimenomaan se paras tapa reagoida asiaan. Se on täysin päivänselvää, ettei Pohjois-Korealla ole mitään oikeaa aietta tehdä ohjushyökkäystä niin amerikkalaisia kuin Etelä-Koreaakaan vastaan. Ohjuskokeet ovat Pohjois-Korean epätoivoisia lapsellisia yrityksiä kerätä huomiota ja saada muuta maailmaa tekemään sille myönnytyksiä. Kokeiden jälkeiset Pohjois-Korean toimia kauhistelevat ja pelkäävät kommentit satavat Kim Jong Unin poppoon laariin. Sitävastoin voi vain arvailla, kuinka pahasti heitä ketuttaa, kun maa on nälänhädän ja taloudellisen (mitä rippeitä ennestään olikaan) tuhon partaalla ja vastassa on Trump, joka kohauttelee olkapäitään ja pitää pakotteet tiukasti ruodussa.
Varmaankin näin mutta kovin johdonmukaista politiikkaa ei ole ensin uhkailla ohjuskokeiden jälkeen tuholla jota maailma ei ole ennen nähnyt ja myöhemmin vähätellä toisia ohjuskokeita.


Tähänkin tulee ehkä lisävaloa vielä joskus.
Siihen tuli jo, jopa tuossa Ylen uutisessa, vaikka taidokkaasti yritetään se hämärtää.

"Wolff sanoo tietojensa perustuvan sisäisiin asiakirjoihin, jotka hän on saanut erikoissyyttäjän kansliaa tuntevalta lähteeltä. Muellerin edustaja on kiistänyt kirjan väitteet ja todennut, että kyseisiä asiakirjoja ei ole olemassa.

Guardian kertoo nähneensä asiakirjat, joihin Wolffin väitteet perustuvat.

Wolffin paljastukset ovat yllättäviä, sillä Muellerin Venäjä-tutkinnan loppuraportissa erikoissyyttäjä ei ottanut kantaa siihen, syyllistyikö Trump oikeuden estämiseen."
Yllättäviä = full of shit. Wolff jäi kiinni valheesta, näköjään yhdessä Guardianin toimittajan kanssa.

Foxin uutinen avaa enemmän.

Suomessa jäi aikoinaan uutisoimatta tapaus edelliseen kirjaan liittyen, joka katkaisi Wolffin aikaisemman varttitunnin julkisuudessa, ja mahdollisesti myös tuhosi kirjan myynnin.

While promoting the first book on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Wolff said he was “absolutely sure” that President Trump was currently having an extramarital affair and teased that his book reveals the mistress if you “read between the lines.”

Internet sleuths quickly pointed to then-United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, who was forced to deny the speculation and many media members seemed to turn on the author because of the speculation after initially treating him like an anti-Trump hero. Wolff eventually admitted he didn’t know if Trump was having an affair and once appeared to pretend his audio malfunctioned to avoid the topic during an interview.

EDIT: tuo Ylen juttu ei ole edes uutinen, vaan mainos. South Park pureutui tähän maailmaa vaivaavaan ongelmaan:

Viimeksi muokattu:


Greatest Leader
The Trump administration is planning to cut over a thousand jobs — including many wildland firefighting jobs — in what’s thought to be the largest federal jobs cut in a decade. The move comes ahead of another wildfire season and amid threatened halts to financial assistance following deadly fires last year.

The latest attempt in what appears to undermine wildfire preparedness includes ending a federal program that trains young people for jobs including wildfire fighting, while at the same time withholding wildfire reimbursements California officials say are owed from last year. All of this serves to deepen the feud between President Donald Trump and West Coast states over disaster assistance. Meanwhile, multiple states are preparing for another brutal wildfire season based on current federal projections.

In an announcement buried on the Friday before the Memorial Day weekend, the Trump administration announced that it will end a program under the Forest Service, run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers (CCCs) train young people between the ages 16 to 24 in rural and disadvantaged areas for jobs including wildland firefighting and forestry, in addition to disaster recovery. The 25 centers are predominantly in the South and West and located on federal lands, with more than 3,000 students employed by the program.

Nine of the centers will close, with another 16 set to move to state control or to be taken over by private entities, as control of the program shifts to the Labor Department. Centers in Washington, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Virginia, and North Carolina are all slated for closure. Roughly 1,100 jobs will be lost — potentially the largest federal workforce reduction in a decade.

Ehkä Trumpin kiinteistöjen annetaan palaa loppuun, kun presidentti leikkaa palomiesten määrärahoja.



Ehkä Trumpin kiinteistöjen annetaan palaa loppuun, kun presidentti leikkaa palomiesten määrärahoja.
Se olisi sopiva vitunhaistatus tälläisestä ''hyvästä'' Trumpille. Evakuoidaan vaan kaikki ihmiset Trump Towerista, mutta annetaan itse tornin vaan palaa poroksi, ja sitten syytellään itse miestä että näin nyt kävi vaan kun ei ollut tarpeeksi määrärahoja tehtävien suorittamiseen.

Siinä saisi Trump vähän ihmetellä, että mihin sitä Presidenttikauden jälkeen asettuisi aloilleen.
  • Tykkää
Reactions: ctg


Greatest Leader
Many of the tales of controversy to emerge from the Trump administration have been abstract, or complicated, or murky. Whenever anyone warns about destruction of “norms,” the conversation quickly becomes speculative—the harms are theoretical, vague, and in the future.

This makes new Washington Post reporting about President Donald Trump’s border wall especially valuable. The Post writes about how Trump has repeatedly pressured the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Homeland Security to award a contract for building a wall at the southern U.S. border to a North Dakota company headed by a leading Republican donor.

The story demonstrates the shortcomings of Trump’s attempt to bring private-sector techniques into government. It shows his tendency toward cronyism, his failures as a negotiator, and the ease with which a fairly primitive attention campaign can sway him. At heart, though, what it really exemplifies is Trump’s insistence on placing performative gestures over actual efficacy. And it is a concrete example—almost literally—of how the president’s violations of norms weaken the country and waste taxpayer money.

Miksi tämä ei enään yllätä ollenkaan?