Trumpin puhdistukset ja linjamuutokset

No tutkinnat eivät koskaan ole hyvä asia. Senhän ovat jo Ylenkin toimittajat kertoneet, että niillä pystytään vaikeuttamaan hallituksen töitä.

Mutta edelleen; New Yorkin syyttäjät voivat tutkiskella, mutta siitäkään huolimatta istuvaa presidenttiä ei voi syyttää rikoksesta. Eli ratakiskosta, oman valtion virkamiehet eivät voi asettaa omaa presidenttiään syytteeseen - materiaalia voidaan kaivaa ja peukalo ahterissa toivoa, että se menee senaatissa läpi.

Toki asia on toinen, kun virkakausi loppuu.

New Yorkin syyttäjät voivat kaivella jonkun _epäilyn_ "postirikoksen" (vaimikäseoli) tai joku kevyt kampanjarahaan liittyvä, mutta täytyy olla aika toiveikas, että sellainen 'haistap**ka' materiaali menisi republikaanien senaatissa läpi, tässä poliittisessa tilanteessa - vaikka kuinka haluaisi sen unohtaa, niin amerikkalaiset eivät tule unohtamaan tätä FBI korruptiota Clintonin kampanjan kanssa. Siitähän nämä Muellerit ja muut lähti.

Edustajainhuoneessa demarit toki voivat impeach juttujaan ajella. Se saattaa olla tarkoituskin. Voidaan sitten omille kannattajille mussuttaa, että kyllä me olis oltu, mutta ilkeät valkoiset repu miehet esti.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Seurasin noin vajaan tunnin puhetta...Vakaa Nero oli yllättävän rauhallinen ja puhe oli sujuvaa. Kokonaisuutena tilaisuus oli koomista katseltavaa toisten taputtaessa seisaaltaan ja toisten ollessa naamat norsun vitulla...:cool:
Jossain vaiheessa Trump sanoi jotenkin näin, että "Yhdysvalloista ei koskaan tule sosialistista valtiota". Silloin kuva leikkautui Bernie Sandersin ilmeeseen.

Nauroin kyllä.
 
Seurasin noin vajaan tunnin puhetta...Vakaa Nero oli yllättävän rauhallinen ja puhe oli sujuvaa. Kokonaisuutena tilaisuus oli koomista katseltavaa toisten taputtaessa seisaaltaan ja toisten ollessa naamat norsun vitulla...:cool:
Trump osaa puhua, mutta ei siitä oikein kansan yhdistäjäksi ole :ROFLMAO:

Washington natisee liitoksistaan, mutta Moskovassa on pitkä joulu.



https://atena.fi/kirjat/yhteiskunta/venalainen-ruletti1

Trump! Trump! Trump! Väkijoukko mylvi baarissa äänestystulosten selvitessä. Yhdessä nurkassa oli suuri ihmisen kokoinen suurennos Trumpia esittävästä valokuvasta, jonka edessä kannattajat saivat ottaa valokuvia. Vieressä oli kuva Putinista. Baari sijaitsi Moskovan keskustassa.

Viis Clintonin ajamasta nollauksesta, tämä se on todellinen nollaus. Läntinen maailma nollataan nyt

-Dmitri Drobnitski

Mielenkiintoinen kirja, suosittelen.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:

hansai

Ylipäällikkö
Kommenteista päätellen tosi hyvä puhe..:LOL:

”Tuo on kuin ’lue omat twiittisi’ -taputus.”

”Onnittelut Pelosille haistatustaputuksen keksimisestä.”

”Tämä on [Pelosin] huone, ja Trump on paperiton vieras.”

”Pelosi muuttaa taputuksensa aseeksi.”

”Naama kertoo, että ’oiii, sinä yritit’, mutta taputus sanoo: ’Painu helvettiin.”

Tämän hyvin merkittävän infon tarjosi vastuullisen mediamme kärkiairut, Helsingin Sanomain puisto-osasto NYT, joka ei kuuleman mukaan liity mitenkään Helsingin Sanomiin..

https://www.hs.fi/nyt/art-2000005991847.html
 
Hyökkää se edelleenkin. Painopiste on vaan siirtymässä vasemmalta laidalta sohimiseksi. Missähän vaiheessa se mahdetaan uskoa?

Vasemman laidan kautta vaikuttaminen on joillekin edelleen vaan sitä että "ohjataan toiminnan synnyttämiä tuntemuksia siihen suuntaan, mihin niitä kuuluu ohjata". Vaikka sitä tehtäisiin Kiinasta tai Moskovasta käsin :D :D :D

Jos Pietarin trolli pukeutuu "suvakin kaapuun" niin eihän sitä tunnisteta. Hänhän polarisoi ja potkii toimintaa sinne suuntaan minne toisen äärilaidan mielestä "kuuluukin ohjata" :D
Putin vetää kaikista naruista mistä voi vetää ja trollit pukeutuvat ihan mihin tahansa kaapuun, jos sillä voi ajaa Venäjän asiaa. Voi hyvinkin olla että se naru mistä vedetään huomaa vain sen narun mistä on jo vedetty ja vain sen kaavun mihin trolli on edellisellä kerralla pukeutunut :ROFLMAO: Juuri siksi tuo on niin helkkarin tehokasta touhua.

USA on jo pelattu pussiin, eikä tilanne muutu muuksi edes silloin kun Trump lähtee muihin hommiin...esimerkiksi Moskovaan rakentamaan pilvenpiirtäjää.

Jos asuisin jossain muualla kun Venäjän naapurissa, niin nauraisin itseni kipeäksi ja kohottaisin maljan Putinille, ihan vain siksi että jätkä on pelimies ja harvinaisen taitava pelimies onkin. Kun kuitenkin asun Venäjän naapurissa, niin homma ei pahemmin naurata. Venäjällä on vain yksi ainoa tavoite ja se on lisätä painoarvoa Euroopassa ja aivan erityisesti Venäjän lähialueilla...USA on pelkkä pelinappula vaikka iso pelinappula onkin.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Minusta tuo Putintrollihomma menettää jo vitsiään. Miten EU-ihmiset suostuvat leimaamaan kaiken maalaisjärjen käytön "vihollisen" omaisuudeksi?

Muutama esimerkki:
-Suomeen virtaa turvallisesta Ruotsista 32000 nuortamiestä ja heitä sanotaan haavoittuviksi. Entä tytöt ja naiset?
-He vaativat rahaansa
-He saavat yhä uudestaan kielteisiä päätöksiä
-Kaikesta huolimatta sossurahat juoksevat heille ja heitä asutetaan Suomen kalleimmille alueille
-Ryöstävät ja raiskaavat kuten ympäri Euroopan. Päättäjät huolissaan vihapuheesta.
-Tappavat ja tekevät terrori-iskuja ja ratkaisu tähän on aseistariisua kansat
-Trumppi on ihan tyhmä, mutta Eu:n ryyppäävä deeku on lehdistön ja viranomaisten erikoissuojeluksessa
-Vanhukset ja vaivaiset makaa likaisissa vaipoissaan, mutta rahaa riittää annettavaksi joka puolelle maailmaa
-Rangaistukset törkeistäkinrikoksista jotain naurettavan ja itkettävän pituusluokkaa ja sen näkee ihmisten turvallisuudessa ja turhautuneisuudessa.
-Miksi Eu on huolissaan kun muualla mellakoitsijoita pamputetaan ja sitten katsotaan muualle kun kataloniassa ja ranskassa tapahtuu kauheita
-Ollaan huolissaan välimereen hukkuvista, mutta samaan aikaan heilutellaan rahanippua toisella rannalla ja maanitellaan ottamaan riski. Palkkiona ikuinen kelan sponssaama taikaseinä.
-Sukupuolia on 57, mutta vain valkoisella miehellä on velvollisuuksia
-Lukutaidoton, kielitaidoton ja ammatiltaan tuntematon on tärkeä ja tarvittava voimavara Suomen työelämään samalla kun suomalaisia ammatti-ihmisiä työllistetään 9e päivä

Ja kaikki nuo kysymykset ja ihmettelyt voidaan leimata putinintrollailuksi ja unohtaa.

Eu on hieno idea, mutta toteutus alkaa pikkuhiljaa muistuttamaan V-niinkuin verikosto elokuvaa ahdasmielisyydessään.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Minusta tuo Putintrollihomma menettää jo vitsiään. Miten EU-ihmiset suostuvat leimaamaan kaiken maalaisjärjen käytön "vihollisen" omaisuudeksi?

Ja kaikki nuo kysymykset ja ihmettelyt voidaan leimata putinintrollailuksi ja unohtaa.

Eu on hieno idea, mutta toteutus alkaa pikkuhiljaa muistuttamaan V-niinkuin verikosto elokuvaa ahdasmielisyydessään.
Venäjän trollailut menettävät merkityksensä vasta sitten kun Venäjä lopettaa trollaamisen, mutta sitä odotellessa en kyllä henkeä pidättele :ROFLMAO: Homma toimii yllättävän hyvin ja syyt siihen löytyvät ihan muualta kun Venäjältä...esimerkiksi täältä...



Maalaisjärki on hieno asia, mutta ei sen varaan kannata ihan kaikkea laskea...maailma on monimutkainen paikka, eikä se pelkällä maalaisjärjellä aukene.

Pakolaisista olen kanssasi samaa mieltä, se asia on hoidettu päin persettä, vaikka ei tuokaan mikään yksinkertainen ja maalaisjärjellä aukeava asia ole.

EU:sta olen kanssasi eri mieltä, minun mielestä se oli ihan paska idea jo ennen syntymää ja toteutus oli vielä paskempaa (n) Äänestin aikoinaan sitä vastaan, enkä ole muuttanut kantaani mihinkään suuntaan. Tämäkin on toki monimutkainen asia ja aivan erityisen monimutkainen asia se on juurikin Suomelle. Siinä yhteydessä pitää pohtia jäljelle jääviä vaihtoehtoja, joista ainakin osa veisi ojasta allikkoon tai pitäisikö sanoa ohjasta allikkoon...



Trolliarmeijat, Trumpit ja kumppanit kykevät toimimaan vain sellaisessa maaperässä missä niille löytyy kysyntää ja se kysyntä syntyy ihan muualla kun Putinin tai Trumpin päässä.

 
Olet Putinintrolli, mielipidettäsi ei tarvitse huomioida. Vain Putintrolli haluaa euroopasta hajanaisen.

Ja tähän se pakollinen hymiö: ;)
Voi olla niin... :ROFLMAO:



https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9932747
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
National Enqurer ja sen omistaja AMI onnistui syksyllä välttämään rangaistukset rikosistaan tekemällä yhteistyösopimuksen syyttäjien kanssa. Rikoksethan liittyivät Trumpin naissuhteiden kätkemiseen maksamalla naisille ja kun tämän toiminnan tarkoitus oli vaikuttaa vaaleihin tuli lehti samalla rikkoneeksi lakia. Syyttäjän kanssa tehdyn sopimuksen mukaan lehti ei seuraavan kolmen vuoden aikana saa rikkoa lakia tai sopimis purkaantuu.

Nyt National Enquirer yritti kiristää maailman rikkainta miestä Jeff Bezosia alastonkuvien julkaisulla mutta Bezos ei tähän suostunut vaan julkisesti kertoi lehden touhuista. Lehteä luultavasti odottaa entistä tiukemmat rangaistukset hölmöilyjen takia. Bezos kertoi ettei aio säästellä kustannuksista oikeustoimissaan lehteä vastaan.
The richest man on earth accused the nation’s leading supermarket tabloid publisher of “extortion and blackmail” on Thursday, laying out a theory that brought together international intrigue, White House politics, nude photos and amorous text messages.

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, made his accusations against American Media Inc., the company behind The National Enquirer, in a lengthy post on the online platform Medium. Last month, The Enquirer published an exposé of Mr. Bezos’ extramarital affair with Lauren Sanchez, a former host of the Fox show “So You Think You Can Dance.”

The headline of Mr. Bezos’ post — “No thank you, Mr. Pecker” — targeted David J. Pecker, the head of the tabloid company. In the sometimes digressive text that followed, he accused American Media of threatening to publish graphic photographs of Mr. Bezos, including a “below-the-belt selfie,” if he did not publicly affirm that The Enquirer’s reporting on his affair was not motivated by political concerns.
“Well, that got my attention,” Mr. Bezos wrote of the threat. “But not in the way they likely hoped.”

The inciting event in this battle of American titans was the Jan. 28 edition of The Enquirer, which hit supermarket racks on Jan. 10, one day after Mr. Bezos and his wife of 25 years, MacKenzie, announced that they would be getting a divorce. The tabloid devoted 11 pages to the story of Mr. Bezos’ affair with Ms. Sanchez, calling it “the biggest investigation in Enquirer history!”

The Enquirer boasted that it had tracked the couple “across five states and 40,000 miles,” furtively observing them as they boarded private jets, rode in limousines and repaired to “five-star hotel hideaways.” The article was illustrated with paparazzi shots of the unwitting couple as they stepped onto a tarmac and arrived together at what the tabloid called “their beachfront love nest in Santa Monica.”

The tabloid also published amorous text messages that Mr. Bezos had sent to Ms. Sanchez. “I am crazy about you,” he wrote, according to The Enquirer. “All of you.”

Tech executives are not the usual subjects of Enquirer covers, and the story set off speculation in Washington and New York media circles that the tabloid’s aggressive coverage of Mr. Bezos was tied to the closeness of Mr. Pecker, The Enquirer’s chief, and the White House. That alliance came fully to light last year in the legal drama involving hush payments to women alleging affairs with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Pecker were longtime friends — but the relationship between the two was said to be frayed in recent months, when American Media’s leadership entered into a deal with federal prosecutors looking into the company’s role in the hush payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign. Mr. Pecker and his associates had helped orchestrate the deals involving two women who alleged past affairs with Mr. Trump in “catch and kill” deals: the former Playboy model Karen McDougal and the porn star Stormy Daniels.

After The Enquirer made his private life public, giving Twitter wags and late-night hosts the chance to weigh in on his high-flown texting style, Mr. Bezos sprang into action, starting his own investigation of the tabloid’s motives and how it had come to possess his texts to Ms. Sanchez.

The Amazon founder, who at last count was worth $136 billion, suggested that he would spare no expense in taking the fight to the tabloid publisher. Leading the investigation was Gavin de Becker, Mr. Bezos’ longtime security chief, whom Mr. Bezos said he had instructed “to proceed with whatever budget he needed to pursue the facts in this matter.”

It was a bold move for someone who has often tried to evade the spotlight, even amid the frequent insults hurled his way by Mr. Trump, who has labeled the newspaper that Mr. Bezos purchased in 2013 as “The Amazon Post” and recently called him “Jeff Bozo” in a tweet.

Mr. de Becker confirmed to The Daily Beast on Jan. 31 that he was leading the investigation into the matter of how the Enquirer had obtained the text messages. Not long afterward, The Post prepared an article exploring competing theories about the motivation behind the publication of the tawdry tale.

American Media made the next move, offering Mr. Bezos an offer that it wrongly assumed he could not refuse. And if he did say no? A future issue of The Enquirer would make him very unhappy, with the selfies and more of the steamy texts it had apparently obtained.

“Of course I don’t want personal photos published, but I also won’t participate in their well-known practice of blackmail, political favors, political attacks and corruption,” Mr. Bezos wrote. “I prefer to stand up, roll this log over and see what crawls out.”

Amazon declined to comment. American Media did not respond to a request for comment.

By using Medium to reveal The Enquirer’s backstage maneuvers, Mr. Bezos — one of the world’s most powerful tech titans and the owner of one of the country’s most influential newspapers — showed the best means of communications can be a simple blog post.

Sometimes rambling — while also showing the occasional flair of tabloid columnists of yore — the Bezos post pulled together random strands of the yearlong legal drama involving the president, American Media and the allegedly illegal payments to women.

That federal inquiry resulted in a guilty plea from Mr. Trump’s former attorney and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who said he had paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 and asked American Media to pay Ms. McDougal $150,000 at the president’s direction, to protect his election prospects.

Federal prosecutors with the Southern District of New York determined that the American Media payment was an illegal corporate contribution. Because the company cooperated with prosecutors, the authorities did not bring charges. But they made American Media sign onto a non-prosecution agreement, in which it affirmed that it had made the payment to “influence the election.”

That agreement, signed in September, stipulated that A.M.I. “shall commit no crimes whatsoever” for three years, and that if it did, “A.M.I. shall thereafter be subject to prosecution for any federal criminal violation of which this office has knowledge.”

If American Media’s threat to publish the personal photos of Mr. Bezos is determined to have been criminal, it would find its deal with federal prosecutors in jeopardy.

“One thing we can be certain of is these allegations will be looked at hard by the federal prosecutors,” said Jeff Tsai, a former federal prosecutor. “The nature of that non-prosecution agreement — to not commit any crimes — was to give A.M.I. the opportunity to really think hard about the nature of its practices.”

He added, “You can sometimes get a pass from federal prosecutors; it’s much harder to get two passes.”

The agreement put American Media, Mr. Pecker and Dylan Howard, the company’s chief content officer, at odds with Mr. Trump, which served to tamp down speculation that the Enquirer had somehow pursued the Bezos story in alliance with the president and his allies.

On Feb. 5, though, that possibility surfaced in The Post. Mr. de Becker told the paper that the Enquirer story had begun with a “politically motivated’’ leak. Mr. de Becker has served as a protector to Olivia Newton-John, Michael J. Fox and friends and family of Ronald Reagan. He declined to comment.

American Media appeared to warn Mr. Bezos away from raising any political speculation in an email to Mr. de Becker’s attorney, which he shared on Medium. In the letter, which he quoted in full, a lawyer for the company, Jon Fine, demanded that Mr. Bezos state publicly that he had “no knowledge or basis for suggesting that” American Media’s “coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces.” Mr. Fine has worked as a lawyer at Amazon.

In his post Mr. Bezos also appeared to imply that the tabloid company was doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia, quoting from a New York Times report last year: “After Mr. Trump became president, he rewarded Mr. Pecker’s loyalty with a White House dinner to which the media executive brought a guest with important ties to the royals in Saudi Arabia. At the time, Mr. Pecker was pursuing business there while also hunting for financing for acquisitions.

The Post has been reporting determinedly on intelligence assessments that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, ordered the grisly murder of the Saudi dissident — and Post global opinion contributor — Jamal Khashoggi.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
 
Syyttäjien mukaan Paul Manafort valehteli äärimmäisen arkaluontoisesta asiasta tehtyään yhteistyösopimuksen, syynä valehtelulle oli yritys parantaa mahdollisuuksia presidentin antamalle armahdukselle. Tieto on peräisin oikeudena asiakirjoista joista on tietenkin mustattu mikä tämä arkaluontoinen asia on.
Federal prosecutors told a judge this week that Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, might have lied to them about “an extremely sensitive issue” in hopes of increasing the chances that he would be pardoned for his crimes, according to a transcript of the hearing unsealed Thursday.

The heavily redacted document leaves unclear what issue Mr. Manafort was being questioned about. Prosecutors working for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, are accusing Mr. Manafort of lying to them repeatedly last year after he agreed to cooperate with their investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race and the Trump campaign in exchange for a possibly lighter sentence.

The discussion of whether Mr. Manafort could have been angling for a presidential pardon came during a closed session Monday in Federal District Court in Washington before Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Judge Jackson is exploring the prosecution’s claims that Mr. Manafort lied before she sentences Mr. Manafort for two felonies to which he pleaded guilty in her court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/us/politics/manafort-pardon-russia-inquiry.html
 
Vapaan maailman johtajalla on asiaa :ROFLMAO:

Trump tviittaa uskovansa, että Kimin johdolla Pohjois-Koreasta kasvaa taloudellinen mahti.

– Hän saattaa yllättää joitakin, mutta ei minua, koska olen saanut tutustua häneen ja ymmärrän täysin, kuinka kyvykäs hän on, Trump luonnehtii.



https://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/a/fd3f02a1-0ca6-4d31-844f-943f212466a5
 
Senaatti ja kongressi pääsivät alustavaan sopuun perjantaina alkavan hallinnon sulun välttämiseksi. Sopimuksessa annetaan 1,375 mrd$ paaluaidan rakentamiseksi 55 mailin matkalle, samalla vangittujen siirtolaisten maksimimäärää tiputetaan 17%. Trump hylkäsi joulukuussa paremman sopimuksen joka olisi antanut 1,6 mrd$ aidan rakentamiseksi 65 mailin matkalle.
House and Senate negotiators on Monday night agreed in principle to provide $1.375 billion for fencing and other physical barriers at the Mexican border, part of a broader agreement that would stave off another partial government shutdown without funding President Trump’s wall.

The agreement would allow for 55 miles of new bollard fencing, with some restrictions on location based on community and environmental concerns, according to two congressional aides, who requested anonymity to disclose details of the private negotiations. That is a fraction of the more than 200 miles of steel-and-concrete wall that Mr. Trump demanded — and 10 miles less than negotiators agreed on last summer, before Democrats took control of the House.

The deal, which must still pass the House and the Senate, and secure Mr. Trump’s signature, came together just before Mr. Trump, framed by banners emblazoned with “Finish the Wall” at an event in El Paso, doubled down on his demands.

“We’re building the wall anyway,” he told the crowd, saying that aides had told him that the negotiators had made progress.

The funding for 55 miles of new fencing is a figure far lower than the $5.7 billion that Mr. Trump had demanded and marginally less than the $1.6 billion for 65 miles of pedestrian fencing in the bill that the Senate Appropriations Committee had passed last year.

In December, the president, concerned about reneging on his signature campaign promise, refused to sign onto that legislation, forcing the nation’s longest government shutdown.

The negotiators also agreed to reduce the number of migrants and undocumented immigrants who can be held in detention. Democrats’ demand for a limit on how much detention space could be used for unauthorized immigrants arrested within the United States had threatened to derail the negotiations over the weekend, but lawmakers agreed to waive the demand.

Instead, lawmakers agreed to adhere to levels, set by a number of detention beds, established in the previous budget. That would fund 40,520 beds, a decrease of about 17 percent from current levels, which Immigration and Customs Enforcement reached in recent months only by surpassing its funding caps.

Beyond the border barriers, the agreement, which primarily funds the Department of Homeland Security, would provide $1.7 billion more for border security, including technology at ports of entry, more officers and humanitarian aid.

The Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees announced the agreement, which includes seven unfinished spending bills, after three private meetings on Monday. Disaster relief for areas affected by storms and natural disasters last year will not be included, and lawmakers said they would address it separately.

It is expected to be finalized as early as Tuesday, well before the Friday deadline when funding would again lapse for a number of federal agencies. With fears of another damaging shutdown, lawmakers seemed confident that they had the support of party leadership and that Mr. Trump would be willing to sign the agreement.

“We think so,” Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters when asked about the likelihood of the president’s signature. “We hope so.”

“The specter of another government shutdown this close, I thought tonight we didn’t want that to happen,” he added later.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, had urged him to “get it done” in negotiations, Mr. Shelby said. Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of New York and the chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, said she had been in close communication with Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and expected her support.

“She has confidence that I made the right decision,” Ms. Lowey told reporters.

White House officials did not respond to requests for comment about the terms of the agreement, and the president’s conservative allies on Monday night were already denouncing the deal. Sean Hannity, a Fox News commentator and a confidant of the president’s, called it “a garbage compromise.”

Pentagon officials spent the weekend readying for the possibility that Mr. Trump would declare a national emergency, something that his allies said he is still considering as a means to secure border wall funding.

But Republican lawmakers remained optimistic that their agreement would hold.

“This has been a difficult one,” said Representative Kay Granger of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. “I think everyone will say, ‘Good work.’”
A specific point of contention had been the number of detention beds under the control of ICE, which had stalled talks over the weekend.

House Democrats, urged on by immigration rights groups, had pushed hard, hoping to leverage White House fears of another damaging shutdown into a softening of the president’s hard-line immigration policies that they say have torn apart families, wrenched productive workers from the communities they have lived in for years and infused a heartlessness into official American immigration policy.

The Democrats’ goal was to cut the overall number of detention beds, including those occupied by asylum seekers and people caught at the border, from its current level of around 49,000 to 34,000, the number funded during the Obama administration, Democratic aides said. That, they say, would end sweeps and roundups, and force ICE to focus on pursuing hardened criminals.

“We started at zero on the wall, and we compromised a lot after that, and we are now asking them to change, too,” said Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, Democrat of California and a member of the 17-member House and Senate conference committee tasked with hammering out a compromise.

Mr. Trump caught on. When Mr. Shelby presented him with the Democrats’ demand, he rejected it quickly, according to two people briefed on the exchange.

“These are the people coming into our country that we are holding and we don’t want in our country,” the president told reporters at the White House on Monday. “That’s why they don’t want to give us what we call ‘the beds.’ It’s much more complicated than beds, but we call them ‘the beds.’”

In private, Republicans responded with a plan that would exempt many detained immigrants from the cap, including those people either charged with or convicted of crimes, including misdemeanor drug offenses and violent felonies. That, in turn, was rejected by Democrats.

“You have ICE agents picking up mothers and fathers and children in their own neighborhoods. That’s why the beds issue is so much more important than the wall,” said Ms. Roybal-Allard, whose Los Angeles-area district is 85 percent Hispanic, the highest percentage of any district in the country.

The number of beds occupied by detainees fluctuates over time, influenced by a variety of factors, including ICE enforcement policies and the flow of migrants at the border with Mexico. The rate of that flow is unpredictable and determined by factors such as the performance of the economies north and south of the border, crime, gang activity and the business practices of coyotes paid to transport migrants from Mexico and Central America to California and the Southwest.

The number of monthly apprehensions of migrants at the border has averaged 25,000 to 40,000 for most of the past decade, but has risen to about 50,000 over the past several months, according to statistics compiled by the Department of Homeland Security.

If ICE does not have enough room to place individuals and family members they detain, they must loosen their enforcement actions, creating a powerful motive for new migrants to enter the country illegally, Trump administration officials say.

“You cannot have border security, without strong interior enforcement, whether there is a wall there or not,” said Matt Albence, the deputy director of ICE, on Monday in a conference call with reporters.
Republicans closed ranks to blast the plan.

“This is a poison pill that no administration, not this one, not the previous one, should ever accept,” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor. “Imagine the absurdity of this: House Democrats want to set a limit on how many criminal aliens our government can detain.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
 
Paul Manafort ja Rick Gates tapasivat Konstantin Kilimnikin New Yorkin Grand Havana Roomissa kesken kuumimman kampanjoinnin 2. elokuuta 2016. Ilmeisesti sikariklubi oli paikka jossa Manafort antoi kampanjan sisäisiä mielipidetiedustelujen tuloksia Kilimnikille. Manafort on valehdellut juuri tästä tapaamisesta tutkijoille. Tapaamisen jälkeen kaikki kolme poistuivat paikalta eri ovista.
The 2016 nominating conventions had recently concluded and the presidential race was hitting a new level of intensity when Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, ducked into an unusual dinner meeting at a private cigar room a few blocks away from the campaign’s Trump Tower headquarters in Manhattan.

Court records show that Manafort was joined at some point by his campaign deputy, Rick Gates, at the session at the Grand Havana Room, a mahogany-paneled space with floor-to-ceiling windows offering panoramic views of the city.

The two Americans met with an overseas guest, a longtime employee of their international consulting business who had flown to the United States for the gathering: a Russian political operative named Konstantin Kilimnik.

The Aug. 2, 2016, encounter between the senior Trump campaign officials and Kilimnik, who prosecutors allege has ties to Russian intelligence, has emerged in recent days as a potential fulcrum in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation.

It was at that meeting that prosecutors believe Manafort and Kilimnik may have exchanged key information relevant to Russia and Trump’s presidential bid. The encounter goes “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating,” prosecutor Andrew Weissmann told a federal judge in a sealed hearing last week.

One subject the men discussed was a proposed resolution to the conflict over Ukraine, an issue of great interest to the Russian government, according to a partially redacted transcript of the Feb. 4 hearing.
During the hearing, the judge also appeared to allude to another possible interaction at the Havana Room gathering: a handoff by Manafort of internal polling data from Trump’s presidential campaign to his Russian associate.

The new details provide a rare hint at what Mueller is examining in the final stretch of his nearly 21-month-old investigation — and underscore his deep interest in the Grand Havana Room gathering, which ended with the three men leaving through separate doors, as Judge Amy Berman Jackson noted.

Weissmann said in the hearing that one of the special counsel’s main tasks is to examine contacts between Americans and Russia during the 2016 race and determine whether Trump associates conspired with the Russian-backed interference campaign.

“That meeting — and what happened at that meeting — is of significance to the special counsel,” he said pointedly.

The hearing was held in a closed courtroom, and only a partial transcript was released because the special counsel has argued that public disclosure of the issues discussed could harm “ongoing law enforcement investigations.”

A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment.

A spokesman for Manafort, who prosecutors have alleged breached a cooperation agreement by lying to investigators, also declined to comment. Manafort has pleaded guilty to crimes related to consulting work he did in Ukraine. He has not been accused of coordinating with the Russians to tilt the election.

Kilimnik, whom prosecutors have charged with working with Manafort to obstruct the investigation, did not respond to a request for comment.

In a 2017 statement to The Washington Post, he denied any connection to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik said the Grand Havana Room meeting had nothing to do with politics or the presidential campaign.
Instead, he called the session a “private” visit, during which he and Manafort gossiped about “bills unpaid by our clients” and the political scene in Ukraine, where Manafort had worked as a political consultant for a decade before joining Trump’s campaign.

There have long been questions about why Manafort would break away from his duties running Trump’s campaign to meet with his Russian employee, an encounter The Post first reported in 2017.

Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former CIA official who now teaches at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said that episode raises many red flags.
Manafort “goes way outside the normal bounds of behavior,” Mowatt-Larssen said.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, called the details about what occurred at the Grand Havana Room gathering “the most interesting and potentially significant development we have seen in a long time.”

Prosecutors have alleged that among the false statements Manafort made to investigators during his interviews in recent months were key lies about the Aug. 2 meeting and other interactions with Kilimnik.

Manafort’s lawyers have acknowledged he gave incomplete and sometimes conflicting information during 12 interviews and two sessions in front of a grand jury. But they said he did not intend to lie, but was instead confused and at times forgetful.

Jackson told the lawyers she will probably rule Wednesday on whether she believes that Manafort lied to prosecutors, a decision that could impact his sentencing in March.
The Grand Havana Room meeting took place during a critical moment in the 2016 race.

Less than two weeks earlier, the issue of Russia’s role in the campaign exploded into view when WikiLeaks published thousands of emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s supporters immediately fingered Russia in the hack, a view later embraced by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Instead of condemning the Kremlin, Trump mockingly asked Russia to find emails Clinton had deleted while serving as secretary of state. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said at a July 27 news conference.

Trump also made a series of public statements in July that appeared to echo Kremlin talking points on foreign policy. In an interview with the New York Times, he questioned the U.S. commitment to defending NATO partners from Russian aggression. Then he promised to look into recognizing Russia’s invasion of Crimea.

“You know, the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were,” he said in an ABC News interview July 31.
In court last week, prosecutors focused on Manafort’s choice to meet with Kilimnik in person during this period.

“There is an in-person meeting at an unusual time for somebody who is the campaign chairman to be spending time and to be doing it in person,” Weissmann said.

At the same time, Manafort was strategizing about how to use his prominent role with the Trump campaign to halt a personal financial spiral, court records show. He owed millions in property taxes and for home improvements, insurance policies, credit cards and other debts, according to documents introduced during his trial in Virginia last summer.

Manafort viewed Kilimnik — his liaison to high-level Ukrainian politicians and Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska — as key to leveraging his unpaid role as Trump’s campaign chairman, emails reviewed by The Post show. The two were in frequent contact during Manafort’s tenure at Trump’s campaign, according to court records.

A Russian army veteran who had trained at a military language academy known as a feeder school for the intelligence services, Kilimnik had worked for Manafort since 2005, when he began serving as a translator for Manafort’s Ukraine operation.

In documents filed in court last year, Mueller’s prosecutors wrote that Gates, Manafort’s deputy, said Kilimnik told him he had formerly been an officer in the GRU, the Russian military intelligence unit accused of engineering the 2016 election interference. Prosecutors said the FBI has assessed that Kilimnik’s intelligence ties continued into 2016.

Kilimnik was also well known at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, and officials there met with him frequently to discuss Ukrainian politics, according to people familiar with his work. During last week’s hearing, prosecutors acknowledged there was “no question” Kilimnik had been in communication with State Department officials.

Manafort told the Times in February 2017 he had never “knowingly” spoken to a Russian intelligence officer. “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer,’ ” he added.

In April 2016, Manafort emailed Kilimnik to ask if the “OVD operation” had seen the positive press Manafort was receiving for his Trump work, The Post previously reported. That was an apparent reference to Deripaska, a onetime Manafort business partner.

“How do we use to get whole?” Manafort wrote.

Kilimnik has told The Post he came to the United States and met with Manafort on May 7 to discuss business issues. Then, on July 7, Manafort emailed Kilimnik, asking him to inform Deripaska that if he needed “private briefings” about the campaign, “we can accommodate.”

A Deripaska spokeswoman has said he was never offered nor received campaign briefings. Manafort spokesman Jason Maloni also said no briefings for Deripaska took place, telling The Post in 2017 the email exchanges reflected an “innocuous” effort to collect past debts.

On July 29, 2016, Kilimnik wrote Manafort a cryptic note.

Kilimnik told Manafort he had met that day with the man who had given Manafort “the biggest black caviar jar several years ago.” The Post has previously reported that congressional investigators believed Kilimnik’s reference to “black caviar” was a code for money.

Kilimnik wrote that he and the man had talked for five hours and he had important messages to relay to Manafort as a result. Kilimnik asked when Manafort would be available to meet.

“Tuesday would be best,” Manafort responded. The following Tuesday was Aug. 2.

When they saw each other days later at the Grand Havana Room, one topic the men discussed was a peace proposal for Ukraine, an agenda item Russia was seeking as a key step to lift punishing economic sanctions, according to court records.

Prosecutors have accused Manafort of lying to them about how frequently he and Kilimnik discussed the matter — initially telling investigators he would not “countenance” the idea because he viewed it as a “backdoor” of some kind. Despite Manafort’s claim of disinterest, prosecutors said he and Kilimnik continued to pursue the subject in several subsequent meetings, including one in January 2017 when the Russian was in Washington for Trump’s inauguration.

In court, Manafort’s lawyers contended that he was candid about the discussions when reminded by prosecutors and denied that his account has been inconsistent.

There are also indications in the transcript of last week’s hearing that prosecutors have explored whether it was at the Manhattan cigar bar that Manafort shared polling data related to the 2016 White House race with Kilimnik — another topic about which Manafort lied, they allege.

The sharing of that data was first disclosed, apparently inadvertently, in a court filing by Manafort’s attorneys last month. At the time, it was unclear when Manafort passed along the information to his Russian employee — as well as the substance of the material.

During last week’s hearing, the judge devoted a significant portion of time to discussing what appeared to be the polling data — something she noted Manafort initially said “just was public information.”
Weissmann said Manafort had a motive to lie about sharing material with Kilimnik as he was running Trump’s campaign. “It’s obviously an extremely sensitive issue,” the prosecutor said, adding, “We can see what it is that he would be worried about.”

What exactly might have been shared with Kilimnik at the Grand Havana Room appears to be a matter of dispute.

On the day of the gathering, Manafort sent Gates an email asking him to print material for a meeting, according to court records. The substance of the material has not been publicly disclosed.
An attorney for Gates declined to comment.

Jackson indicated in the hearing that Gates has testified that the material was shared at the Grand Havana Room gathering. “Didn’t he say it happened at the meeting?” she asked.
“I don’t believe so,” responded Richard W. Westling, an attorney for Manafort.

Westling noted that the email Gates printed did not specifically reference Kilimnik, implying the material may not have been for the Russian. And he argued that Gates has offered inconsistent accounts and should not be believed.

Manafort’s defense team also suggested that the information was too detailed to be helpful and would have been useless to Kilimnik. “It frankly, to me, is gibberish . . . It’s not easily understandable,” Westling said.

Jackson appeared skeptical. “That’s what makes it significant and unusual,” the judge said.

As a longtime aide to Manafort, Kilimnik had experience using public surveys. In a February 2017 interview, Kilimnik described to Radio Free Europe the key role polling has played in Manafort’s political consulting.

“I’ve seen him work in different countries, and he really just does, you know, takes very seriously his polling and, you know, he can stand, you know, two weeks going through the data, and he’ll come with the best strategy you can ever have, and he’ll put it on the table of the candidate,” Kilimnik said.

It is unclear how long Kilimnik remained in the United States after the Grand Havana Room meeting.

Flight records show that a private plane belonging to Deripaska landed at Newark Liberty International Airport shortly after midnight on Aug. 3, just hours after Kilimnik and Manafort met. The plane spent only a few hours on the ground before taking off again and returning to Moscow.

Larissa Belyaeva, a spokeswoman for Deripaska, said the plane carried only members of his family.

“We can confirm that Mr. Deripaska has never lent his private jet to Mr. Kilimnik nor has ever had any interaction with him,” she said.

In the days after the meeting, Manafort’s work in Ukraine bubbled into public view. On Aug. 19, he resigned from Trump’s campaign.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a5b113ecd3c_story.html?utm_term=.d242f5341872
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
EIkös Manafortilla tänää oikeudenkäynti päivä?

Reppana pysty mitää diiliä tehdä. Loppuelämä vankilassa... ehkä se oli sen väärti..? :D
 
Top