Trumpin puhdistukset ja linjamuutokset

Mustaruuti

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
ELSO 1.0
Kannattaa ehkä sitten jättää tällaiset pois, jos on epäselvää tai ei ymmärrä, mitä muut foorumilla kirjoittavat.

Keskustelu on kaikille paljon mukavampaa siten. Eiks jeh?
 

ILoveEU

Kapteeni
Kongressi päättää viraltapanosta ja senaatti sen jälkeen pitää oikeudenkäynnin jossa päätetään presidentin kohtalo.
Nippelitietona vielä tähän. Ei ole olemassa erikseen kongressia ja senaattia.

Edustajainhuone ja senaatti kuuluvat yhdessä kongressiin. Kysymyksessä siis kongressin ala- ja ylähuoneet. Ensin edustajainhuone äänestää viraltapanosta ja sen jälkeen äänestää senaatti, jossa tarvitaan kaksi-kolmasosaa äänistä, että viraltapano menee läpi.

Omasta mielestä tuo senaatin "oikeudenkäynti" on hiukka raflaava. Siellä voidaan todistella jokin postirikos tai vaalirahaan liittyvä todennäköisesti tapahtuneeksi, mutta se ei tarkoita, että senaattorin pitäisi äänestää viraltapanosta. Senaatti punnitsee, että onko tässä tolkkua heittää ukko pihalle. Vähän veikkaan, että postirikos ei riitä.

Erikseen on vaalirahoitusta seuraava viranomainen, joka toki sitten erikseen voi lätkäistä sakon Trumpin kampanjalle.

Muellerin turkimus menee ennen kongressia oikeusministerin luettavaksi, joka vielä kaiken lisäksi päättää, että viedäänkö Muellerin aineistoa ensinkään kongressin punnittavaksi, eli ts käynnistetäänkö viraltapanoprosessi, äänestyksineen.

Oikeusministeri myös punnitsee, että mitä Muellerin tutkimuksesta julkistetaan, vai julkistetaanko mitään. Todennäköisesti julkistetaan jotain, mutta jos asiaan liittyy esim amerikkalaisia vakoilijoita, niin suttaaminen on varma. Demarit toki saavat siitä tuulta purjeisiin, mutta laki ei anna myöten julkistaa jotain, mikä on valtionsalaisuus.

Kuten sanoin aikaisemmin, niin Manafort on minun silmään aika todennäköinen vakooja (amerikkalainen). Sitten se toinen ukko.. Olikos se Carter Page. Page on varmasti vakooja, koska Page on työskennellyt FBI:n kanssa, käräyttäen venäläisiä vakoojia.

Sitten oli toki kongressin omat tutkimukset (oliko niitä kaksi), mutta ne on käyty jo läpi, eikä tutkimuksissa löydetty yhtikäs mitään. Eli siltä puolelta ei ole tulossa ainakaan mahdolliseen viraltapanoprosessiin yhtikäs mitään.
 

ILoveEU

Kapteeni
Edelliseen kirjoitukseen vielä.

Ei sinänsä ihme, jos esim Carter Page pääsi Steelen muistioon, jonka tiedot on Kremlistä lähtöisin. Kun Page on käräytellyt venäläisiä vakoojia, niin Putinilla on varmasti jäänyt hampaankoloon.

Manafortista on tosiaan länsimaisissa uutislähteissä ollut kummallisia juttuja, että olisi käynyt Ecuadorin lähetystössä, taivuttelemassa Ecuadoria luovuttamaan Assange Yhdysvaltoihin. Sitten olen erikseen törmännyt juttuun, missä kerrottiin, että Manafort työskenteli Ukrainassa, yrittäen taivutella Yanukovych kääntymään EU:n puolelle - eli ottaen etäisyyttä Venäjään. Lähde kuitenkin on epämääräinen - Kyivpost.
 

taantumu

Eversti
Hanoin neuvotteluista on molemmilla puolilla erilaiset näkemykset. Trumpin mukaan Pohjois-Korea olisi suostunut yhden ydinlaitoksen sulkemiseen kaikkien sanktioiden poistoa vastaan ja tähän hän ei voinut suostua. Pohjois-Korean ulkoministerin mukaan Kim vaati vain osittaista sanktioiden poistoa. Ulkoministerin mukaan Kim on menettänyt kiinnostuksensa neuvotteluihin USA:n kanssa kun edes osittainen sanktioiden poisto vaikuttaa kovin vaikealta.
President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un abruptly cut short their two-day summit Thursday, with talks collapsing amid differing accounts of why both leaders walked away without an agreement or a clear plan on how to keep the dialogue alive.

The fundamental disagreements rested on the trade-offs between sanctions relief by the United States and North Korea’s steps to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

The two leaders and their delegations departed the meeting site in Vietnam’s capital without sitting for a planned lunch or participating in a scheduled signing ceremony.

The breakdown raised serious doubts about whether the two sides can keep the diplomatic outreach moving forward. A possible U.S.-North Korea chill could also have wider spillover into the groundbreaking exchanges between the North and U.S. ally South Korea.

Trump said the main impediment to a deal was Kim’s requirement that the United States lift all economic sanctions on North Korea in exchange for the closure of only one nuclear facility, which still would have left Pyongyang with a large arsenal of missiles and warheads.

But Trump also raised concerns about North Korea’s concealment of parts of its nuclear industry.

Hours later, North Korea’s foreign minister, Ri Yong Ho, offered a slightly different take at a rare news conference, arguing that Kim’s regime sought only “partial” sanctions relief in return for dismantling the North’s main enrichment capabilities for fissile material.

In a separate news conference, North Korea’s vice foreign minister, Choe Son Hui, suggested Kim had “lost the will to engage in dealmaking” as the talks unraveled. The United States, she said, was missing a “once in a lifetime opportunity,” and said no future meetings between the two sides were planned.

“We had some options, but at this time we decided not to do any of the options,” Trump said. He added, “Sometimes you have to walk, and this was just one of those times.”

White House spokesman Sarah Sanders told reporters that Trump was aware of the North Korean statements about what happened at the summit. She made no other comments.

For Trump, the surprising turn of events amounted to a significant diplomatic setback. The president flew 20 hours to Vietnam with hopes of producing demonstrable progress toward North Korea’s denuclearization, building upon his first summit with Kim last summer in Singapore.

The breakdown sent shivers through financial markets in Asia, with South Korea’s stock market falling sharply just before the close of trading, to end down 1.8 percent. The South Korean won also slipped, and Japan’s main Nikkei 225 share index ended down 0.8 percent. The Dow was down on Wall Street.

At a news conference before he left Vietnam to return to Washington, Trump said he and Kim did not commit to holding a third summit. Still, he said they parted ways on positive terms.

“This wasn’t a walkaway like you get up and walk out,” Trump told reporters. “No, this was very friendly. We shook hands . . . There’s a warmth that we have, and I hope that stays. I think it will. But we’re positioned to do something very special.”

But Choe, North Korea’s vice foreign minister, was less optimistic.

“The impression I got observing this summit from the side, was that our chairman seems to have difficulty understanding the U.S. way of reckoning,” she said. “I felt that our chairman has lost the will to engage in dealmaking, with the U.S. saying that even a partial lifting of sanctions for the civilian economy is hard.”

The United States says U.N. sanctions cannot be unwound until North Korea fully denuclearizes. But it had left open the door to some marginal relief of unilateral U.S. sanctions if North Korea took steps in the right direction.

North Korea’s foreign minister said the North had sought an end to “sanctions that hamper the civilian economy, and the livelihood of all people in particular,” citing five out of 11 sanctions packages imposed by the United Nations Security Council.

While not total sanctions relief, that would have amounted to a very significant easing of the pressure on North Korea.

Trump said Kim promised he would not conduct missile launches or test nuclear weapons. In return for sanctions relief, he said Kim was willing to close the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center, the site of North Korea’s main nuclear reactor and its only source of plutonium to make bombs. But Trump said Kim did not offer to close other, covert facilities to enrich uranium.

“I think they were surprised we knew,” he said. “We know the country very well, believe it or not. We know every inch of that country, and we have to get what we have to get.”

Ri Yong Ho later confirmed that the North would be willing to “permanently dismantle all the nuclear material production facilities” at the main Yongbyon nuclear site, and would allow U.S. nuclear experts to observe.

But he did not mention uranium enrichment facilities at other sites, leaving serious doubts about the North’s sincerity in the talks.

“It is difficult to say whether there might be a better agreement than the one based on our proposal at current stage,” said Ri. “Our principal stance will remain invariable and our proposal will never be changed even though U.S. proposes negotiation again in the future.”

Trump zeroed in on sanctions as the key sticking point.

“It was about the sanctions,” he said. “Basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn’t do that. They were willing to de-nuke a large portion of the areas that we wanted, but we couldn’t give up all of the sanctions for that.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he hopes that negotiators from the two countries will be able to narrow differences in the future, but he did not announce any firm plans to continue talking.

“We were certainly closer today than 36 hours ago, and we’re closer than we were a month or two before that. So real progress was made,” he said. “I think everybody hoped we could do this better, but the departure was with an agreement we continue to work on what has been an incredibly difficult problem. Everyone walked away in that spirit.”

It was clear that the two sides remain far apart on some key issues, including a fundamental one: what denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula would actually mean. It is still not clear what demands Kim would place on U.S. forces in South Korea and in the region for him to be willing to surrender his nuclear arsenal.

“He has a certain vision,” Trump said. “It’s not exactly our vision, but it’s a lot closer than it was a year ago.”

In the run-up to the talks, the United States had been offering to declare an end to the 1950-53 Korean War and to open liaison offices in each other’s capitals, and had been demanding that North Korea at least agree to end its production of fissile material to make bombs.

But it was clear that the North Korean counteroffer left a large gap between the two sides.

Still, after two days of meetings with Kim at the lavish Sofitel Legend Metropole Hanoi hotel, Trump continued to praise Kim. He called him a great leader and boasted about the warmth of their friendship.

Trump did not publicly address Kim’s record of brutality and human rights atrocities during his Vietnam trip.

Asked by a reporter whether he had discussed with Kim the case of Otto Warmbier, a University of Virginia student who was detained in North Korea for 17 months for allegedly stealing a propaganda poster, Trump said he had.

Warmbier was in a coma through most of his imprisonment and died at age 22shortly after being sent home to Cincinnati. Kim rules a totalitarian state, and his government has insisted that Warmbier was nothing but a “criminal.”

Yet Trump said Kim denied to him any knowledge of or role in his treatment.

“He tells me that he didn’t know about it, and I will take him at his word,” Trump said. “Those prisons are rough. They’re rough places, and bad things happen. But I don’t believe he knew about it.”

Analysts have said Trump’s strategy of engaging Kim was risky, given that U.S. intelligence officials have said the North Korean leader is unlikely to surrender an arsenal that is thought to include 20 to 65 nuclear warheads.

But Bruce Klinger at the Heritage Foundation said no deal was better than a bad deal at this summit, commending Trump for walking away.

Although Trump has pointed to a moratorium on testing that has been in place since November 2017, U.S. intelligence officials say North Korea has continued to develop its weapons programs while publicly engaging with the United States and South Korea in denuclearization talks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-kim-downplay-expectations-as-key-summit-talks-begin/2019/02/28/d77d752c-3ac5-11e9-aaae-69364b2ed137_story.html?utm_term=.5c898c64bdbd
 

Mustaruuti

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
ELSO 1.0
Jos ottaa esiin vielä yhden näkökulman tuohon Cohen-kuulemiseen. Se sivuaa sitä, mistä oli aikaisemmin keskusteltu. Eli Muellerin vs Kongressin tutkimuksia.

Jokainen, joka seurasi eilistä kuulemista, saattoi varmaan todeta, että kongressin komiteat ovat aika surkea tutkintatoimikunta.

Tähän on useita syitä.
  • Yhdysvaltain kaksipuoluejärjestelmän yleinen onneton tila
  • Kuulemistilaisuuden formaatti, jossa yhdellä komitean jäsenellä on vain viiden minuutin vuoro ei mahdollista kunnollista kuulustelua
  • Poliitikot eivät ammattimaisia tutkijoita. He eivät vain osaa.
Näistä syistä, vakava tutkintavastuu asiassa on Müllerillä.

Jokainen voi miettiä vertauskuvaa Suomeen. Oletetaan että Venäjä olisi vastaavalla tavalla sekaantunut Suomen vaaleihin ja vaikuttanut vaikka tulevissa vaaleissa pääministeripuolueen taustalla.

Luottaisitteko te missä määrin johonkin eduskunnan valiokuntaan? Esim. hallintovaliokunta voisi olla soveltuvin. https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/lakiensaataminen/valiokunnat/hallintovaliokunta/Sivut/default.aspx

Versus se, että tutkintaa tekisi Suojelupoliisi?

Ero olisi aivan jäätävä.

Toki se pitää kommentoida, että sekä valiokunta, että komiteat voivat käyttää apuna lakimiehiä. Ihan pelkästään poliitikkojen varassa se ei olisi. Mutta silti...
 

taantumu

Eversti
Jos ottaa esiin vielä yhden näkökulman tuohon Cohen-kuulemiseen. Se sivuaa sitä, mistä oli aikaisemmin keskusteltu. Eli Muellerin vs Kongressin tutkimuksia.

Jokainen, joka seurasi eilistä kuulemista, saattoi varmaan todeta, että kongressin komiteat ovat aika surkea tutkintatoimikunta.

Tähän on useita syitä.
  • Yhdysvaltain kaksipuoluejärjestelmän yleinen onneton tila
  • Kuulemistilaisuuden formaatti, jossa yhdellä komitean jäsenellä on vain viiden minuutin vuoro ei mahdollista kunnollista kuulustelua
  • Poliitikot eivät ammattimaisia tutkijoita. He eivät vain osaa.
Näistä syistä, vakava tutkintavastuu asiassa on Müllerillä.

Jokainen voi miettiä vertauskuvaa Suomeen. Oletetaan että Venäjä olisi vastaavalla tavalla sekaantunut Suomen vaaleihin ja vaikuttanut vaikka tulevissa vaaleissa pääministeripuolueen taustalla.

Luottaisitteko te missä määrin johonkin eduskunnan valiokuntaan? Esim. hallintovaliokunta voisi olla soveltuvin. https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/lakiensaataminen/valiokunnat/hallintovaliokunta/Sivut/default.aspx

Versus se, että tutkintaa tekisi Suojelupoliisi?

Ero olisi aivan jäätävä.

Toki se pitää kommentoida, että sekä valiokunta, että komiteat voivat käyttää apuna lakimiehiä. Ihan pelkästään poliitikkojen varassa se ei olisi. Mutta silti...
Toki suuri ero on myös siinä että Muellerilla on valta nostaa syytteitä, poliittiset komiteat eivät tätä voi tehdä.
 

PSS

Kenraali
Aikoinaan jos googlaillut sanan failure, tuli ensimmäiseksi vastaukseksi Valkoisen talon silloista isäntää (jonka nimessä oli W) koskeva sivu.
 

taantumu

Eversti
Kun Jared Kushner viime keväänä pääsi vihdoin käsiksi huippusalaisiin tietoihin sen kerrottiin tapahtuneen normaalin lupaprosessin kautta. Uusimpien tietojen mukaan todellisuudessa Trump määräsi kansliapäällikkö Kellyn myöntämään turvallisuusluokituksen Kushnerille. Kelly sekä Valkoisen talon juristi Donald Gahn kirjoittivat sisäiset muistiot. Kelly kirjoitti muistioonsa saanensa käskyn ja Gahn omassa muistiossaan muistutti ettei suositellut turvallisuusuokituksen myöntämistä Kushnerille sillä mm. CIA vastusti asiaa. Trump myöhemmin haastattelussa kertoi ettei itse koskaan sekaannu turvallisuuslukituksien myöntöprosesseihin.
President Trump ordered his chief of staff to grant his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, a top-secret security clearance last year, overruling concerns flagged by intelligence officials and the White House’s top lawyer, four people briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Trump’s decision in May so troubled senior administration officials that at least one, the White House chief of staff at the time, John F. Kelly, wrote a contemporaneous internal memo about how he had been “ordered” to give Mr. Kushner the top-secret clearance.

The White House counsel at the time, Donald F. McGahn II, also wrote an internal memo outlining the concerns that had been raised about Mr. Kushner — including by the C.I.A. — and how Mr. McGahn had recommended that he not be given a top-secret clearance.

The disclosure of the memos contradicts statements made by the president, who told The New York Times in January in an Oval Office interview that he had no role in his son-in-law receiving his clearance.

Mr. Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe D. Lowell, also said at the time the clearance was granted last year that his client went through a standard process. Ivanka Trump, the president’s eldest daughter and Mr. Kushner’s wife, said the samething three weeks ago.

Asked on Thursday about the memos contradicting the president’s account, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said, “We don’t comment on security clearances.”

Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Mr. Lowell, said on Thursday, “In 2018, White House and security clearance officials affirmed that Mr. Kushner’s security clearance was handled in the regular process with no pressure from anyone. That was conveyed to the media at the time, and new stories, if accurate, do not change what was affirmed at the time.”

The decision last year to grant Mr. Kushner a top-secret clearance upgraded him from earlier temporary and interim status. He never received a higher-level designation that would have given him access to need-to-know intelligence known as sensitive compartmented information.

It is not known precisely what factors led to the problems with Mr. Kushner’s security clearance. Officials had raised questions about his own and his family’s real estate business’s ties to foreign governments and investors, and about initially unreported contacts he had with foreigners. The issue also generated criticism of Mr. Trump for having two family members serve in official capacities in the West Wing.

Mr. Kushner has spent this week abroad working on a Middle East peace plan. Among his meetings was one with Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

While the president has the legal authority to grant a clearance, in most cases, the White House’s personnel security office makes a determination about whether to grant the clearance after the F.B.I. has conducted a background check. If there is a dispute in the personnel security office about how to move forward — a rare occurrence — the White House counsel makes the decision. In highly unusual cases, the president weighs in and grants one himself.

In Mr. Kushner’s case, personnel division officials were divided about whether to grant Mr. Kushner a top-secret clearance.

In May 2018, the White House Counsel’s Office, which at the time was led by Mr. McGahn, recommended to Mr. Trump that Mr. Kushner not be given a clearance at that level. But the following day, Mr. Trump ordered Mr. Kelly to grant it to Mr. Kushner anyway, the people familiar with the events said.

The question of Mr. Kushner’s access to intelligence was a flash point in the White House almost from the beginning of the administration. The initial background check into Mr. Kushner dragged on for more than a year, creating a distraction for the White House, which struggled to explain why one of the people closest to the president had yet to be given the proper approval to be trusted with the country’s most sensitive information.

The full scope of intelligence officials’ concerns about Mr. Kushner is not known. But the clearance had been held up in part over questions from the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. about his foreign and business contacts, including those related to Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Russia, according to multiple people familiar with the events.

During the campaign Mr. Kushner was part of a group that met with a Russian lawyer who came to Trump Tower claiming to have political “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. And during the presidential transition, Mr. Kushner had a meeting with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, and the head of a Russian state-owned bank. When he applied for a security clearance, he did not reveal those meetings.

He later made several amendments to that section of his application, known as an SF86. His aides at the time insisted he had omitted those meetings inadvertently.

Mr. Kushner initially operated with a provisional clearance as his background check proceeded.

In an entry to Mr. Kushner’s personnel file on Sept. 15, 2017, the head of the personnel security division, Carl Kline, wrote, “Per conversation with WH Counsel the clearance was changed to interim Top Secret until we can confirm that the DOJ or someone else actually granted a final clearance. This action is out of an abundance of caution because the background investigation has not been completed.”

In a statement to The Times when Mr. Kushner received the clearance last year, Mr. Lowell said that “his application was properly submitted, reviewed by numerous career officials and underwent the normal process,” Mr. Lowell said.

During a review of security clearances in February 2018 that was prompted by the controversy surrounding the then-White House staff secretary, Rob Porter, who had been accused of domestic abuse, Mr. Kushner’s clearance was downgraded from interim top secret to secret, limiting his access to classified information. At the time, Mr. Kelly wrote a five-page memo, revoking temporary clearances that had been in place since June 1, 2017.

That affected both Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump, who told friends and advisers that they believed that Mr. Kelly and Mr. McGahn were targeting them for petty reasons instead of legitimate concerns flagged by officials.

Both complained to the president about the situation, current and former administration officials said. In Mr. Kushner’s case, Mr. Trump would often turn to other aides and say in frustration, “Why isn’t this getting done?” according to a former administration official. On at least one occasion, the president asked another senior official if the person could sort out the issue. That official said no, according to this account.

Mr. Kelly did not believe it was appropriate to overrule the security clearance process and had brushed aside or avoided dealing with Mr. Kushner’s requests, a former administration official said. Mr. Kelly did not respond to a request for comment.

House Democrats are in the early stages of an investigation into how several Trump administration officials obtained clearances, including Mr. Kushner.

Mr. Trump’s precise language to Mr. Kelly about Mr. Kushner’s clearance in their direct conversation remains unclear. Two of the people familiar with Mr. Trump’s discussions with Mr. Kelly said that there might be different interpretations of what the president said. But Mr. Kelly’s believed it was an order, according to two people familiar with his thinking.

And Mr. Trump was definitive in his statements to The Times in a January interview.

“I was never involved with the security” clearances for his son-in-law, Mr. Trump said. “I know that there was issues back and forth about security for numerous people, actually. But I don’t want to get involved in that stuff.”

A recent report by NBC revealed that Mr. Kline had overruled two career security specialists who had rejected Mr. Kushner’s application based on the F.B.I.’s concerns. A senior administration official confirmed the details laid out in the NBC report.

Mr. Kline was acting on the directive sent down by the president, one of the people familiar with the matter said.

The day that Mr. Lowell described Mr. Kushner’s process as having gone through normal routes, aides to Mr. Kushner had asked White House officials to deliver a statement from Mr. Kelly supporting what Mr. Lowell had said. But Mr. Kelly refused to do so, according to a person with knowledge of the events.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/us/politics/jared-kushner-security-clearance.html
 

Gyllis1

Ylipäällikkö
 

Oho

Majuri
Jokainen voi miettiä vertauskuvaa Suomeen. Oletetaan että Venäjä olisi vastaavalla tavalla sekaantunut Suomen vaaleihin ja vaikuttanut vaikka tulevissa vaaleissa pääministeripuolueen taustalla.
No mutta eikös se suunnilleen ollut maan tapa sotien lopusta vähintäänkin NL:kaatumiseen asti. Mikä on maailman suurin teatteri? Suomen eduskuntatalo, kuiskaaja on Moskovassa.
 

Kolttasoturi

Korpraali
No mutta eikös se suunnilleen ollut maan tapa sotien lopusta vähintäänkin NL:kaatumiseen asti. Mikä on maailman suurin teatteri? Suomen eduskuntatalo, kuiskaaja on Moskovassa.
Kai se kuiskaajanpaikka on vaihdellu tasaisesti Berliinin ja Moskovan välillä. Puolet näyttelijöistä kuulee toisen ja melkein kaikki loput toisen. Kuka kuuntelee kotimaan kansaa, ja kannattaako meitä ihan kaikkia edes kuunnella?

edit. ja mitä sanoisivat perinteiset poliitikot, jos joku kuuntelisikin kansaamme?
 

taantumu

Eversti
Kongressin oikeusvaliokunnan johtaja Jerrod Nadler ilmoitti valiokunnan aloittavan tutkimuksen Trumpin mahdolliseen vallan väärinkäyttöön, korruptioon ja oikeuden estämiseen. Valiokunta aikoo vaatia dokumentteja yli 60 henkilöltä ja organisaatiolta joihin kuuluu mm. Donald Trump jr., Trump organisaation talousjohtaja Allen Weisselberg ja oikeusministeriö.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that he plans to request documents from more than 60 people and organizations connected to President Trump as part of an inquiry that could eventually lead to his impeachment.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said on ABC News’s “This Week” that the targets include the president’s son Donald Trump Jr.; Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization; and the Justice Department.

The materials, the congressman said, would be used “to begin investigations to present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power.”

“Impeachment is a long way down the road. We don’t have the facts yet. But we’re going to initiate proper investigations,” he said.

Nadler’s announcement came just days after another House committee publicly questioned the president’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who implicated Trump in several serious crimes, including potential campaign finance violations connected to hush-money payoffs to women and possible fraud charges concerning falsified documents provided to banks and insurance companies.

Nadler said he has made no determination about whether to proceed with impeachment, but he said he has grown increasingly convinced that Trump has obstructed justice — an offense that was included in the impeachment articles passed in the House against both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

“We have to do the investigations and get all this,” Nadler told “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos. “We do not now have the evidence all sorted out and everything to do an impeachment. Before you impeach somebody, you have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen . . . We may or may not get there. But what we have to do is protect the rule of law.”

A person who was familiar with the pending document requests but was not authorized to comment publicly on the matter said requests surrounding potential obstruction of justice would focus on Trump’s alleged efforts to remove perceived enemies at the Justice Department, including former FBI Director James B. Comey, and install more loyal replacements. The requests would also look at potential abuses of power, the person said, including the possible dangling of pardons and witness tampering, as well as Trump’s broader attacks on the entities investigating him and the press.

A spokesman for the Judiciary Committee declined to comment.

Nadler’s announcement comes as the investigation led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III appears to be nearing an end. Nadler said that probe, focused on ties between Russia and Trump’s business and campaign, would represent the beginning, not the end, of his committee’s probe.

“This investigation goes far beyond collusion. We’ve seen all the democratic norms that we depend on for democratic government attacked by the administration,” Nadler said Sunday, pointing to Trump’s attacks on the press, intelligence agencies and federal law enforcement. “All of these are very corrosive to liberty and to the proper functioning of government and to our constitutional system. All this has to be looked at and the facts laid out to the American people.”

Responding to Nadler on “This Week,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said the House Democrats’ investigations represented an effort to leave a cloud over Trump even after Mueller’s findings are released.

“There’s no collusion, so they want to build something else,” McCarthy said, adding that Nadler “decided to impeach the president the day the president won the election.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-judiciary-chairman-says-he-will-launch-probe-of-trumps-abuse-of-power/2019/03/03/df672f78-3dc0-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html?utm_term=.ea2c3b9d220c
 

taantumu

Eversti
Rand Paulista tuli neljäs republikaanisenaattori joka vastustaa Trumpin yritystä käyttää hätätilan julistamista muurinsa rahoittamiseksi. Kongressi äänesti hätätilan lopettamisen puolesta ja asia tulee senaatin äänestettäväksi parin viikon sisällä ja näillä näkymin menisi läpi myös senaatissa. Trump joutuisi siis käyttämään ensimmäistä kertaa veto-oikeuttaan vaikka puolue hallitsee senaattia. Toki Rand Paulilla on tapana ennen äänestyksiä esittää periaatteen miestä ja lopulta kääntää takkinsa.
Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) indicated over the weekend that he would oppose President Trump’s efforts to redirect federal funds toward building a border wall, potentially forcing the president to issue his first veto.

Mr. Paul’s comments suggested he would be the fourth GOP senator to vote with Democrats on a resolution disapproving of Mr. Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the border, giving the measure sufficient support to pass. Mr. Trump has said he would veto the resolution.

“I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” Mr. Paul said at a dinner Saturday in Kentucky, according to the Bowling Green Daily News. “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.”

It is unlikely there would be enough support in the Senate to override Mr. Trump’s veto. But passage of the measure would mark an unusual check on the Republican president from the GOP-led Senate.

The resolution passed the Democratic-controlled House last week and will automatically come up for a vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, where it needs a simple majority to pass. All 47 Senate Democrats are expected to support the House measure, and GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have indicated they will vote for it.

Mr. Paul’s office didn’t immediately confirm that his comments meant he would vote for the resolution of disapproval. And the Kentucky Republican has changed his mind before on high-profile votes, initially saying he would defy Mr. Trump before later backing down.

But Mr. Paul is unlikely to remain the deciding vote on the resolution, which Senate GOP lawmakers and aides expect to pass. Many Republicans have said they are uncomfortable with Mr. Trump’s circumventing Congress to obtain more money to help fund a border wall after bipartisan legislation passed last month allocated $1.38 billion.

On Thursday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) warned Mr. Trump against tapping funds dedicated for military construction, although he didn’t say whether he would vote against the emergency declaration.

If the resolution terminating the national emergency were to become law, it would block Mr. Trump from siphoning $3.6 billion from military-construction funding to go toward the border wall. The congressional resolution wouldn’t thwart the White House from tapping $2.5 billion that Mr. Trump plans to divert from the Defense Department’s effort to fight illegal drugs or $600 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, although lawmakers are also pushing back against using those funds.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rand-paul-indicates-he-would-vote-against-trumps-emergency-order-11551643277
 

Bushmaster

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
Poimittu usarin puheenvuorosta....ainoa yllätys jutussa oli ja on se, että WP on tämän julkaissut :oops:

Taitaa olla niin että ainoat trollitehtaat USA:n vaaleissa olivat amerikkalaisia, mutta syy laitettiin Venäjälle.

Demokraatteja tuleka New Knowledge -yhtiö jota johtaa Jonathan Morgan, joka työskenteli aiemmin DARPA:lle eli USA armeijan tutkimuslaboratoriolle. Hänen liikekumppaninsa on Ryan Fox, 15 vuotta NSA:ssa ja Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC):issa tietokoneasiantuntijana toiminut henkilö.

Nämä kirjoittavau Senaatille raportin "Venäjän härinnästä", mutta jäivät sitten kiinni Alabaman sanaattorin vaaleissa joihin New Knowledge pystytti satoja "Venäjäbotteja" levittämään perätöntä tietoa Roy Mooresta.

Yhtiö jonka piti muka toimia "Venäjän botteja" vastaan, mutta teki ja käytti niitä itse, ne olivat vain naamioitu näyttämään Venäjän tekemiltä. Se kuka syytti Venäjää senaatille, olikin itse tämä etsitty trollitehdas.

Vielä huolestuttavampaa on se että Moore on mukana toteuttamassa Hamilton 68 Dashboard -hanketta, jonka tavote on "seurata Venäjän vaikuttamista verkossa".

Samat henkilö jonka firma käytti lavastattuja Venäjä -botteja on sitten toisella puolella löytämässä niitä ja syyttämällä niistä Venäjää. Näin ollen kyseessä voi olla se että sama Moore tehtailee tekaistuja Venäjä-botteja ja toisessa roolissaan löytää niitä.

Tämä Russiagate näyttää yhä enemmän Demarien pelivälineeltä, jolla se kävi kahden inhokkinsa kimppuun koplaamalla vaikka väkisin jollain lokakytkennällä Trump ja Venäjä yhteen.

Lähde: Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/19/researcher-affiliat...

 
Top