Trump -psykoosi

Miljardööri-Mikella on kiire presidenttikisaan – maailman 14. rikkain mies tekee vaaleista entistäkin erikoisemmat
rac


Michael Bloomberg lähti mukaan demokraattien presidenttikisaan
art-2000006320883.html





Julkaistu: 26.11. 6:46

Trump nimitteli pikku-Michaeliksi, demokraattiehdokkaat saivat sylkykupin, kun Michael Bloomberg lähti presidenttikisaan.

MILJARDÖÖRI Michael Bloombergin, 77, ilmoittautuminen Yhdysvaltain demokraattipuolueen presidenttiehdokaskisaan tekee ensi vuoden vaaleista monella tapaa erikoiset.

Bloomberg aikoo syytää seuraavan kahden viikon aikana yli 60 miljoonaa euroa vaalimainontaan valikoiduissa vaa’ankieliosavaltioissa. Hän lyö näin Barack Obaman vuonna 2012 tekemän törsäysennätyksen.

Kaiken lisäksi Bloomberg, maailman 14. rikkain mies noin 50 miljardin euron omaisuudellaan, käyttää vain omia rahojaan, eikä vastaanota kampanjalahjoituksia.

Tällä tietämällä hän ei myöskään osallistu demokraattien vaaliväittelyihin.
...
www.is.fi

Miljardööri-Mikella on kiire presidenttikisaan – maailman 14. rikkain mies tekee vaaleista entistäkin erikoisemmat

Trump nimitteli pikku-Michaeliksi, demokraattiehdokkaat saivat sylkykupin, kun Michael Bloomberg lähti presidenttikisaan.
www.is.fi www.is.fi
 
Fox Newsin Opinion puolen iltaohjelmien stara Carlson Tucker liputtaa avoimesti Venäjän puolta Ukraina-kriisissä. Tai sodassa, siis. GOP puolustaa Trumpia virkasyytöksiltä vastaavasti ajamalla Venäjän Ukraina-salaliittoteoriaa. Reagan ei enää puoluettaan tuntisi... :facepalm:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1199146493464043520
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Liittovaltion tuomari päätti että entisen Valkoisen talon juristin Donald McGahnin on todistettava viraltapanotutkimuksessa, tuomarin mukaan sama koskee muitakin preisdentin avustajia mukaanlukien kansallisen turvallisuuden toimijat. Tuomarin mukaan presidentti ei ole kuningas ja Valkoisen talon väitteet avustajien täydellisestä koskemattomuudesta on fiktiota.
The former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II must testify before House impeachment investigators about President Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Mueller inquiry, a judge ruled on Monday, saying that senior presidential aides must comply with congressional subpoenas and calling the administration’s arguments to the contrary “fiction.”

The 120-page decision by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia handed another lower-court victory to House Democrats in their fight to overcome Mr. Trump’s stonewalling.

“Presidents are not kings,” wrote Judge Jackson, adding that current and former White House officials owe their allegiance to the Constitution. “They do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.”

The Justice Department, which is representing Mr. McGahn in the lawsuit, will appeal, a spokeswoman said. Still, the ruling by Judge Jackson, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, could have broader consequences for the investigation into Ukraine affair.

In rejecting the Trump administration’s sweeping claim that top presidential advisers, as Mr. McGahn was, are absolutely immune from being compelled to talk about their official duties — meaning they do not even have to show up — the judge said the same is true even for those who worked on national security issues.

Notably, John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, has let it be known that he has significant information about the Ukraine affair at the heart of the impeachment inquiry but is uncertain whether any congressional subpoena for his testimony would be constitutionally valid. He wants a judge to decide.

Judge Jackson’s ruling also came on the same day that another federal judge in Washington held out the possibility that more documents about the Ukraine affair could yet see the light of day, ruling that emails between the White House and the Pentagon about the freezing of military aid to Ukraine should be released under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

But even as those rulings suggested that more potential evidence for impeachment investigators might become available as the cases play out, House Democrats said the Intelligence Committee would deliver a report soon after Thanksgiving making the case for impeaching Mr. Trump, moving forward rather than waiting for the inevitable appeals to drag on.

Democrats are compiling a list of “noncompliance with lawful subpoenas” as part of the report so the Judiciary Committee can consider drafting an article of impeachment charging Mr. Trump with obstructing Congress, the intelligence panel’s chairman, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, wrote in a letter to colleagues on Monday.

Indeed on Monday, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked an appeals court ruling in another case that required Mr. Trump’s accounting firm to turn over financial records to another House committee while justices decide whether to take the case. If they do choose to hear arguments, the justices might not issue a final ruling on the matter until late June.

Several potential witnesses to what Mr. Trump said and did to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that could benefit him politically — like Mr. Bolton and Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney — have declined to testify because the administration instructed them not to, claiming that current or former senior officials are constitutionally immune.
Mr. Bolton, who met alone with Mr. Trump about why he was freezing a military aid package to Ukraine in August, has threatened to sue if Democrats try to compel him to testify, seeking a court ruling about whether such a subpoena is legally valid.

A lawyer for Mr. Bolton, Charles J. Cooper, has previously argued that Mr. Bolton’s situation is different from Mr. McGahn’s because Mr. Bolton’s official duties centered on foreign affairs and national security matters. But Mr. Bolton’s intentions and desires are unclear.

Mr. Bolton has become an enigmatic figure in the impeachment drama. According to other testimony, he strongly opposed the Ukraine pressure campaign and told aides to report what was going on to White House lawyers. He left the White House under rancorous circumstances in September and has since criticized Mr. Trump’s foreign policy.

But it remains unclear what he would tell impeachment investigators if he were to appear, and House Democrats are nervous that he is such a wild card he could just as easily hurt their case as help it. He accused the White House last week of not giving him back his Twitter account when he left, then teasingly asked if it was “out of fear of what I may say?”

In her ruling, Judge Jackson appeared to respond to Mr. Cooper’s notion. She wrote that the law required not just Mr. McGahn, but also “other current and former senior-level White House officials” who receive a subpoena to appear — and that it made no difference if they worked on domestic or national security matters.

Still, she emphasized, her ruling is only about whether Mr. McGahn must show up to be asked questions. It leaves unanswered whether the questions that lawmakers want to ask him — primarily about conversations with Mr. Trump detailed in the Mueller report — are subject to executive privilege, suggesting that even if Congress ultimately wins a Supreme Court ruling forcing Mr. McGahn to show up, the litigation process might have to start all over again.

The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Mr. McGahn in May after the release of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. It showed that Mr. McGahn was a key witness to several of the most serious episodes in which Mr. Trump sought to obstruct the Russia investigation.

But Mr. Trump, who had openly vowed to block “all” oversight subpoenas after Democrats took control of the House in the 2018 midterm election, instructed Mr. McGahn not to cooperate.
In August, the House Judiciary Committee sued Mr. McGahn, seeking a judicial order that he comply with the subpoena. That same day, the panel also asked a judge for an order permitting it to see secret grand jury evidence gathered by Mr. Mueller, which Attorney General William P. Barr declined to provide to Congress. (Another federal judge ruled for Congress in the grand jury case a month ago, but the administration has appealed.)

The court filings said the House needed the information not just for oversight purposes, but also for an impeachment inquiry. While the impeachment focus has since shifted to the Ukraine affair that burst into public view in September, House Democrats are still considering an article of impeachment that would accuse Mr. Trump of obstruction of justice.

A question pervading both disputes is whether the Constitution permits Congress to subpoena aides to a president like Mr. McGahn and, potentially, Mr. Bolton, to talk about their official duties — or whether the president’s secrecy powers make his aides absolutely immune from such subpoenas.

Administrations of both parties have taken the position that “Congress may not constitutionally compel the president’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties,” as a 15-page legal opinion from Steven A. Engel, the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, put it. But there is no definitive court precedent on the issue.

In 2008, another Federal District Court judge, John D. Bates, rejected that theory in a subpoena dispute. He ruled that President George W. Bush’s former White House counsel Harriet Miers had no right to skip a hearing for which she had been subpoenaed. Judge Bates, a Bush appointee, said she had to show up — although she might still refuse to answer specific questions based on a claim of executive privilege.
But because the Miers dispute was then resolved before an appeals court weighed in, Judge Bates’s opinion does not count as a controlling precedent for other disputes raising the same issue. That left the Obama administration, in a 2014 memo, free to take the position that Judge Bates had been wrong, and the Trump legal team echoed that logic.

In declaring that absolute immunity from congressional subpoenas for senior-level presidential aides “simply does not exist,” Judge Jackson spoke scornfully of the memos by the Office of Legal Counsel, sometimes called O.L.C., saying otherwise.

“Absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level White House aides appears to be a fiction that has been fastidiously maintained over time through the force of sheer repetition in O.L.C. opinions, and through accommodations that have permitted its proponents to avoid having the proposition tested in the crucible of litigation,” she wrote.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/mcgahn-testimony-ruling.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Panssari Salama kirjoitti:
Fox Newsin Opinion puolen iltaohjelmien stara Carlson Tucker liputtaa avoimesti Venäjän puolta Ukraina-kriisissä. Tai sodassa, siis. GOP puolustaa Trumpia virkasyytöksiltä vastaavasti ajamalla Venäjän Ukraina-salaliittoteoriaa. Reagan ei enää puoluettaan tuntisi... :facepalm:
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

:D

Tukkeri kysyi, että miksi Bideni korruptiota ei saa tutkia, niin Clintoni tyyppi vastasi, että - "Siksi, koska Venäjä tappaa Ukrainassa". Haastattelu jatkuu vielä siitä eteenpäin, mutta haastattelu ei liittynyt venäjään millään tavalla, vaan kyse oli Hunter Bidenistä, johon Clintonin tyyppi antoi järjettömän vastauksen.

Kohdasta 9:15


----

Mielenkiintoisesti mm. Huffpostissa hämmennetään ihan sekaisin tuo juttu ja konteksti. Siellä on näköjään tuttuja, kuten Seth Abramson, joka on todella epäilyttävä, kuten ketjussa aikaisemmin oli puhetta.

Muutenkin kun kuuklettaa "Why shouldn't I root for Russia", niin näyttää siltä, että siellä on pietarin röllit vauhdissa.
 
Kai tämäkin on väärin tehty?


Trump Signs Law Making Cruelty To Animals A Federal Crime
November 25, 201911:08 PM ET


America's animals have new federal protections against abuse.

Cruelty to animals is now a federal crime under a new law signed by President Trump Monday.

The Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT) is a bi-partisan initiative that bans the intentional crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating, impalement or other serious harm to "living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians."
 
Ulkoministeri Mike Pompeo päätti lähteä mukaan Venäjän disinformaatiokampanjaan ja kertoi kannattavansa tutkimusta siitä kuinka Venäjän sijaan Ukraina olikin syypää vuoden 2016 vaaleihin sekaantumiseen.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tuesday that a debunked conspiracy theory pursued by President Trump accusing Ukraine, not Russia, of interfering in the 2016 presidential election by hacking the network of the Democratic National Committee is a worthy subject of investigation.

In a news conference at the State Department, Pompeo was asked if the United States and Ukraine should investigate the conspiracy theory, which several former senior Trump officials have called a “fictional narrative” with “no validity.”

“Anytime there is information that indicates that any country has messed with American elections, we not only have a right but a duty to make sure we chase that down,” Pompeo told reporters.

Pompeo, who previously served as the director for the CIA, said he learned during his time leading the nation’s premier spy service that “there were many countries that were actively engaged in trying to undermine American democracy, our rule of law, the fundamental understandings we have here in the United States.”

Trump’s interest in the fringe theory came into prominence following the release of the rough transcript of his July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president, in which Trump asked if Ukraine could “find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine” and “CrowdStrike.”

The theory, which former White House official Fiona Hill last week said is “being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services,” is that Ukrainians actually hacked into the DNC’s networks in 2016 and framed Russia for the cyber-meddling.

Advocates of the theory charge that the Internet security firm CrowdStrike, which first investigated the DNC hack in June 2016, is led by a Ukrainian national who assisted in framing Russia with the election interference. They charge that the server was later taken to Ukraine.

Trump repeated this idea on Fox News last week. “They gave the server to CrowdStrike, or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian, and I still want to see that server.”

CrowdStrike is not run by a wealthy Ukrainian. It is a California-based company co-founded by a Russian-born American tech executive. Former Trump officials have expressed exasperation with how this theory continues to be perpetuated.

“It’s not only a conspiracy theory, It is completely debunked,” Tom Bossert, a former homeland security adviser in the Trump administration, said in September. “At this point, I am deeply frustrated with what [Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani] and the legal team are doing and repeating that debunked theory to the president.”

“It sticks in his mind when he hears it over and over again, and for clarity let me just repeat that it has no validity,” Bossert added.

Hill, who recently stepped down from the Trump administration, said these conspiracy theories weren’t just false but also “harmful, even if they’re deployed for purely domestic political purposes.”

“President Putin and the Russian security services operate like a super PAC. They deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives,” she said. “When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each other, degrade our institutions and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy.”

During the 2016 elections, some Ukrainian officials criticized Trump’s remarks about Russia’s seizure of the Crimean peninsula, including a former Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Valeriy Chaly, who penned an op-ed in August of that year. While it is unorthodox for a foreign diplomat to criticize a major candidate in an American election, Hill and other analysts said such moves are not equivalent to Russia’s concerted and top-down intervention in the U.S. election

Pompeo, however, without specifically endorsing the server conspiracy theory, suggested that any accusations related to the 2016 election are worth pursuing.

“To protect elections, America should leave no stone unturned,” Pompeo said.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...394e98-106e-11ea-9cd7-a1becbc82f5e_story.html
 
Sinun täytyy kirjautua vastataksesi.
Back
Top