Trumpin puhdistukset ja linjamuutokset

taantumu

Eversti
Paul Manafort sai toisen tuomionsa tänään ja lopputulemana hän istuu 7,5 vuotta vankilassa. Liittovaltion tuomiot istutaan kokonaisuudessaan, hyvällä käytöksellä voi tuomio lyhentyä joillakin viikoilla.

Heti Manafortin saatua tuomionsa ilmoittivat New Yorkin syyttäjät suuren valamiehistön päättäneen 16 kohdan syytteiden nostosta häntä vastaan. Syytteet tulevat erilaisista talousrikoksista.

Once a globe-trotting lobbyist and consultant to presidents, Paul Manafort was sentenced Wednesday to federal prison for the second time in seven days, giving him a total sentence of 7 1 / 2 years for his pair of federal cases.

Minutes after he left the court hearing in Washington in a wheelchair to return to the cell in Alexandria, Va., where he has been held for nine months , prosecutors in New York announced a 16-count grand jury indictment charging the former Trump campaign chairman with mortgage fraud, falsifying business records and conspiracy.

President Trump would not be able to pardon Manafort, 69, on the separate state case. Under the Constitution, presidents have wide authority to pardon, but that power applies only to federal convictions.

In court Wednesday, Judge Amy Berman Jackson criticized Manafort and his attorneys for repeatedly casting his hard fall from power as collateral damage from the special counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

“This defendant is not public enemy number one, but he’s also not a victim either,” Jackson said. “There’s no question this defendant knew better, and he knew exactly what he was doing.”

Outside the courthouse, Manafort attorney Kevin Downing called Jackson’s 43-month sentence “callous, hostile and totally unnecessary.”

He emphasized that the judge had acknowledged that there was “no evidence of any collusion with Russia in this case.” As he addressed dozens of reporters, Downing was repeatedly interrupted by protesters shouting, “liar!” and “traitor!”

Jackson called the defense’s repeated claims about the lack of collusion with the Russian government “a non-sequitur.”” Jackson recounted how often Manafort’s lawyers had asserted that, adding that it was not persuasive to her, but perhaps was intended for another “audience.”

The question of whether anyone in Trump’s campaign “conspired or colluded with” the Russian government “was not presented in this case,” she said.

She added that the assertion may not even be “accurate,” because special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe is not over and she found that Manafort had lied to investigators about issues at the heart of that inquiry.

“It’s not appropriate to say investigators haven’t found anything when you lied to the investigators,” she said.

Manafort had faced as many as 10 more years in prison Wednesday after pleading guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States by illegally lobbying in Ukraine and hiding the proceeds overseas, then encouraging witnesses to lie on his behalf.

At least 20 people from the special counsel’s office were in the courtroom Wednesday, a sign of the importance of Manafort’s conviction to the investigation.

Trump, in remarks to questions from reporters Wednesday after a White House briefing on border security, said “I feel very badly for Paul Manafort,” and that “certainly on a human basis, it’s a very sad thing.”

Asked if he would pardon Manafort, Trump said “I have not even given it a thought, as of this moment. It’s not something that’s right now on my mind” and said he was not aware of the state charges.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said in a statement announcing the indictment that “no one is beyond the law in New York” and the state case emerged out of an investigation that began in March 2017 and addresses “the integrity of our residential mortgage market.”

Jackson’s characterizations of Manafort stood in contrast to those of Judge T.S. Ellis III, who sentenced Manafort to 47 months in prison last week in Alexandria. Ellis said that Manafort has lived an “otherwise blameless life.”

Jackson spent nearly 40 uninterrupted minutes describing the highflying influence-peddler as a persistent liar who undermined democracy out of personal greed.

His crimes were “not just a failure to comply with some pesky regulations,” she said, but “lying to the American people and the American Congress . . . It is hard to overstate the number of lies and amount of money involved.”

Manafort’s motivation, she added, was “not to support a family, but to sustain a lifestyle that was ostentatiously opulent and extravagantly lavish — more houses than a family can enjoy, more suits than one man can wear.”

But she agreed with Ellis that sentencing guidelines in the case were excessive, and said that Manafort’s age, the millions he forfeited, and the fact that his finances and career are “in tatters” minimized the chances that he would offend again.

Manafort will receive credit for the nine months he already has served in Alexandria since June when Jackson ordered him detained after he was accused of trying to tamper with witnesses.

He apologized to “all those negatively affected by my actions,” acknowledging that he had not expressed such regret when he was sentenced in Virginia for bank and tax fraud.

“Let me be very clear: I accept responsibility for the actions that led me to be here today, and I want to apologize for all I contributed to the impacts on people and institutions. While I cannot change the past, I can work to change the future,” Manafort said from his wheelchair, turning to face Jackson. “I want to say to you now, I am sorry for what I have done and for all of the activities that have gotten us here today.”

He added that nine months in what he called “solitary confinement” gave him “new self-awareness.” Manafort had been held in protective custody, away from other inmates.

Prosecutors questioned whether Manafort was capable of change, depicting him as a mastermind of a conspiracy in which he was paid $50 million over more than a decade by a Russian-backed politician and party in Ukraine, and Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“His work was corrosive to faith in the political process, both in the United States and abroad,” prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said. “He served to undermine, not promote, American ideals of honesty, transparency and playing by the rules.”

Manafort’s attempt to cover up his crimes by asking witnesses to lie for him, Weissmann said, “is not reflective of somebody who has learned a harsh lesson. It is not a reflection of remorse. It is evidence that something is wrong with sort of a moral compass.”

Manafort led a sophisticated scheme “to avoid a duty all Americans have” to pay their taxes, Weissmann said, hiding wealth in 30 foreign bank accounts containing more than $50 million for his work for the government of Ukraine and Deripaska.

Downing said his client is genuinely remorseful and has endured a “media frenzy.” Downing said all sides have sought to spin Manafort’s predicament to their political advantage, adding that “but for a short stint as campaign manager in a presidential election, I don’t think we would be here today. I think the court should consider that, too.”

Jackson dismissed that argument, telling Manafort, “Saying ‘I’m sorry I got caught’ is not an inspiring call for leniency.”

The investigation of Manafort predated Mueller’s appointment in 2017, and it wasn’t the special counsel’s office that made Manafort lie to investigators, she said.

Manafort asked for mercy on more personal grounds, asking Jackson to weigh the effect on his wife, too. “She needs me, and I need her . . . Please let my wife and I be together,” he said.

Jackson ruled earlier this year that Manafort breached his plea deal by lying to the FBI, prosecutors and a grand jury during more than 50 hours of interviews.

She found that Manafort’s lies included matters “material” to the Mueller investigation, including interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, his longtime Russian aide in Ukraine, whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence.

Kilimnik has denied having connections to Russian intelligence and is thought to be in Russia. He was indicted with Manafort on charges of conspiring to tamper with witnesses in Manafort’s D.C. case but is unlikely to be brought to court because Russia does not extradite its citizens.

Those lies, she said, tainted any cooperation he may have genuinely offered.

“So was he spinning the facts beforehand to get a good deal, or was he spinning the facts afterward to protect other people?” Jackson asked. “We don’t know.”

The sentencing Wednesday is part of a legal saga that began in October 2017 when Manafort and his longtime employee and campaign deputy Rick Gates became the first defendants publicly charged in the Mueller investigation . Gates later pleaded guilty to conspiracy and lying to the FBI. He agreed to cooperate with the inquiry and has yet to be sentenced.

Manafort faced two federal trials because he exercised his option to keep the tax and bank fraud charges in the state where he lived.

At trial in Virginia in August, a jury found him guilty on eight counts and deadlocked on 10 others. But Manafort admitted guilt on all charges in his D.C. plea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/paul-manafort-faces-sentencing-in-washington-in-mueller-special-counsel-case/2019/03/12/d4d55dd4-44d0-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.fb5691ba2138
 

Mustaruuti

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
ELSO 1.0
Todennäköisesti Manafort tulee vielä saamaan myös syytteet salaliitosta Yhdysvaltoja vastaan. Kunhan tämä kaikki on ensin muuten ohitse.
 

SJ

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
Miksi näin? Mitä Trump ajaa takaa? Onko Trumpilla tietoa poliittisten vastustajien yhteyksistä huumekartellien toimintaan? Jos näin, terrorismirikoksista sotaoikeuteen ja gitmoon? Aika näyttää?
Itse veikkaan, että tyyppi ei ajattele asiaa noin monimutkaisesti, vaan sitä että mikäli kartellit voisi julistaa terroristijärjestöiksi, niin sen tunnetut jäsenet voitaisiin arvatenkin vangita ihan puhtaasti sen perusteella. Ja vangitseminen voisi kestää varsin kauan.
 

taantumu

Eversti
Senaatti päätti äänin 59-41 ettei presidentti voi käyttää hätätilaa rajamuurin rakentamiseen. Trump luultavasti käyttää veto-oikeuttaan senaatin päätöstä vastaan mutta äänestystulos tarkoitti 12 republikaanin katsoneen presidentin ylittäneen valtaoikeutensa.
The Senate passed a resolution Thursday to overturn President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, with 12 Republicans joining all Democrats to deliver a bipartisan rebuke to the president.

The disapproval resolution passed the House last month, so the 59-41 Senate vote will send the measure to Trump’s desk. Trump has promised to use the first veto of his presidency to strike it down, and Congress does not have the votes to override the veto.

“VETO!” Trump tweeted moments after the vote.

Still, the Senate vote stood as a rare instance of Republicans breaking with Trump in significant numbers on an issue central to his presidency — the construction of a wall along the southern border.

For weeks Trump had sought to frame the debate in terms of immigration, arguing that Republican senators who supported border security should back him up on the emergency declaration. But for many GOP lawmakers, it was about a bigger issue: The Constitution itself, which grants Congress — not the president — control over government spending.

By declaring a national emergency in order to bypass Congress to get money for his wall, Trump was violating the separation of powers and setting a potentially dangerous precedent, these senators argued.

“It’s imperative for the president to honor Congress’ constitutional role,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said Thursday on the Senate floor as he announced his vote in favor of the disapproval resolution. “A national emergency declaration is a tool to be used cautiously and sparingly.”

Republicans who voted with Trump and against the disapproval resolution said the president was acting within his authority under the National Emergencies Act, and taking necessary steps to address a humanitarian and drug crisis at the border that Democrats had ignored.

“There is a crisis at the border and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have prevented a solution,” said Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), naming the House speaker and Senate minority leader. “It should never have come to this, but in the absence of congressional action, the President did what Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer refused to do.”

Many GOP senators agonized at length before deciding how to vote, with significant numbers of them — including Portman and Gardner, who is up for re-election next year — waiting until Thursday to announce their positions.

In the end only one Republican who is up for re-election next year — Susan Collins (R-Maine) — voted for the disapproval resolution.

In addition to Collins and Portman, the other 10 GOP senators voting for the disapproval resolution were: Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rand Paul (Ky.), Mitt Romney (Utah), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.), and Roger F. Wicker (Miss.).

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another senator up for re-election in a politically divided state, had announced last month that he would vote for the disapproval resolution. He wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post at the time arguing there would be “no intellectual honesty” in supporting executive overreach by Trump that he had opposed under former President Barack Obama.

But on Thursday Tillis flipped and cast his vote with the president, saying he was reassured by indications that Trump would support changes to the National Emergencies Act itself, to rein in presidential powers going forward.

Tillis’ flip-flop highlighted the political pressure Republicans felt over potentially crossing the president. I

Thursday’s vote followed numerous failed efforts at compromise by vacillating GOP senators, including a dramatic incident Wednesday evening where a trio of GOP senators -- Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) — showed up nearly unannounced at the White House, interrupting Trump at dinner in a last-ditch effort to craft a compromise.

Their efforts failed, and Graham, Cruz and Sasse all ended up voting against the disapproval resolution.

“I said thank you for meeting with us. Sorry we ruined your dinner. And again, if it’d been me, I would have kicked us out after about five minutes,” Graham said later.

Ahead of the vote, Trump took to Twitter to goad his critics and insist that defectors would be siding with Pelosi.

“A vote for today’s resolution by Republican Senators is a vote for Nancy Pelosi, Crime, and the Open Border Democrats!” Trump wrote.

The president said he would support GOP efforts to update the National Emergencies Act at a later date — something that’s been under discussion as a way to rein in presidential powers going forward — “but today’s issue is BORDER SECURITY and Crime!!! Don’t vote with Pelosi!”

Pelosi herself told reporters: “The Senate will hopefully vote for the Constitution of the United States to uphold the oath of office that we all take by voting to reject the president’s measure that does violence on the Constitution. . . . We’ll then send the bill to the president.”

Concern among GOP senators has focused on Trump’s use of the National Emergencies Act to grab $3.6 billion appropriated by Congress for military construction projects nationwide — and use it to build barriers along the border instead.

Graham declined to specify what exactly was discussed when he and the others showed up to interrupt Trump’s dinner Wednesday night, but said it focused on satisfying those concerns.

The attempted last-minute intervention by Graham and the others was just the latest attempt by Republicans to find some kind of compromise, as they choose between siding with Trump or crossing him on Thursday’s vote. But Trump repeatedly shot down the GOP’s attempts at dealmaking, calling Lee during a private GOP lunch Wednesday to reject a proposal to curtail presidential powers under the National Emergencies Act.

Shortly after that, Lee announced he would be voting for the disapproval resolution.

The vote on the disapproval resolution came a day after a Senate vote to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, marking unusual twin rebukes from a Senate that has mostly bowed to Trump’s wishes.

Schumer and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered contrasting takes on the Senate floor Thursday morning about what is at stake.

“This is not a normal vote,” Schumer said. “This will be a vote about the very nature of our constitution and the separation of powers.”

But McConnell argued that Trump was acting well within his powers and consistently with previous invocations of the National Emergencies Act.

“Let’s not lose sight of the particular question that’s before us later today, whether the facts tell us there’s truly a humanitarian and security crisis on our Southern border and whether the Senate, for some reason, feels this particular emergency on our own border does not rise to the other national emergencies current in effect,” McConnell said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-renews-veto-threat-as-senate-prepares-to-rebuke-him-on-national-emergency/2019/03/14/2efbea36-4647-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.29954d6b5602
 

Rannari

Ylipäällikkö
Senaatti päätti äänin 59-41 ettei presidentti voi käyttää hätätilaa rajamuurin rakentamiseen. Trump luultavasti käyttää veto-oikeuttaan senaatin päätöstä vastaan mutta äänestystulos tarkoitti 12 republikaanin katsoneen presidentin ylittäneen valtaoikeutensa.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-renews-veto-threat-as-senate-prepares-to-rebuke-him-on-national-emergency/2019/03/14/2efbea36-4647-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.29954d6b5602
Tämä on taas niitä äänestyksiä joissa olisi ollut mielenkiintoista nähdä salainen lippuäänestys. Republikaanisenaattorien uudelleenvalintanäkymät olivat nyt vahvasti vaikuttamassa äänestyskäyttäytymiseen.
 

Kent Uranium

Luutnantti
Jos muistelet tätä, niin täsmälleen ottaen meni vähän eri tavalla eri syistä: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Francen_lento_447

Sen sijaan tuoreeseen Boeingiin liittyy se, että koneen automatiikka tappeli pilottia vastaan ainakin silloin aikaisemmassa onnettomuudessa 2018 lopulla.
Ja Boeing markkinasyistä halusi uuden 737:n version lennettäväksi vanhan mallin tyypityksellä. Siksi epävakaammaksi isompien moottoreiden sijainnin siirron vuoksi muuttuneeseen koneeseen lisättiin automaattinen sakkauksenestojärjestelmä, säästösyistä koulutuksessa johtuen kouluttamatta lentäjille järjestelmän toimintaa.
Kun systeemi vikaantuu ja kääntää koneen syöksyyn, kouluttamattomien lentäjien tulisi a) Ymmärtää, että ongelma johtuu MCAS-järjestelmästä, jota heille ei ole koulutettu.

b) Etsiä ohjeet kolme, nelivaiheiseen järjestelmän poiskytkemiseen manuaalista.

Se onnistunee, jos on korkeutta. Mutta matalalla aika loppuu kesken vaikka minkälaiselta lentäjä-ässältä, jota ei ole simulaattorissa moiseen koulutettu, vaan järjestelmä ja vikaantuminen tulee ns. puskista.

Syy tässä löytyy Boeingista, joka lisäsi järjestelmän kouluttamatta sitä..
 

Mustaruuti

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
ELSO 1.0
Tämä on taas niitä äänestyksiä joissa olisi ollut mielenkiintoista nähdä salainen lippuäänestys. Republikaanisenaattorien uudelleenvalintanäkymät olivat nyt vahvasti vaikuttamassa äänestyskäyttäytymiseen.
Sama on tullut monta kertaa mieleen, ja juuri tässä tapauksessa vahvasti, kun tosiaan uudelleenvalintastatus oli tärkein äänestyskäyttäytymistä määrittänyt tekijä.

Ilmeisesti jenkkien systeemissä ei tunneta suljettua lippuäänestystä. Tämä on kyllä merkittävä puute.
 

Rannari

Ylipäällikkö
Sama on tullut monta kertaa mieleen, ja juuri tässä tapauksessa vahvasti, kun tosiaan uudelleenvalintastatus oli tärkein äänestyskäyttäytymistä määrittänyt tekijä.

Ilmeisesti jenkkien systeemissä ei tunneta suljettua lippuäänestystä. Tämä on kyllä merkittävä puute.
Kyllähän tuota menettelyä on kaivattu Suomeenkin. Nykymallilla pääsee liian pieni porukka vaiheittain painostamaan koko Eduskuntaa.
 

Mustaruuti

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
ELSO 1.0
Kyllähän tuota menettelyä on kaivattu Suomeenkin. Nykymallilla pääsee liian pieni porukka vaiheittain painostamaan koko Eduskuntaa.
Aivan. Suomessahan se on olemassa, mutta onko se sitten vain, jos julkinen menee tasatulokseen?
 

Sardaukar

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
Jos muistelet tätä, niin täsmälleen ottaen meni vähän eri tavalla eri syistä: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Francen_lento_447

Sen sijaan tuoreeseen Boeingiin liittyy se, että koneen automatiikka tappeli pilottia vastaan ainakin silloin aikaisemmassa onnettomuudessa 2018 lopulla.
Huolestuttavaa oli, että käsitääkseni Boeing ei ollut kertonut piloteille mikä MCAS on ja miten sen saa pois päältä... Tässä voipi yhtiön taseeseen tulla lovi...ns. "class suing".
 

StepanRudanskij

Kenraali
Lahjoittaja
Sama on tullut monta kertaa mieleen, ja juuri tässä tapauksessa vahvasti, kun tosiaan uudelleenvalintastatus oli tärkein äänestyskäyttäytymistä määrittänyt tekijä.

Ilmeisesti jenkkien systeemissä ei tunneta suljettua lippuäänestystä. Tämä on kyllä merkittävä puute.
Toisaalta, eivätkö nämä edustajat ole juuri äänestäjiään edustamassa ja heidän pitääkin silloin toimia sen mukaan? Tässä kysymyksessäni on sarkasmia mutta muutakin. Ei ole ihan kakkosnelonen tämäkään juttu.
 

Rannari

Ylipäällikkö
Toisaalta, eivätkö nämä edustajat ole juuri äänestäjiään edustamassa ja heidän pitääkin silloin toimia sen mukaan? Tässä kysymyksessäni on sarkasmia mutta muutakin. Ei ole ihan kakkosnelonen tämäkään juttu.
Ei mikään yksinkertainen asia todellakaan. Onko siellä toisaalta oikeat ihmiset äänestämässä jos eivät voi noudattaa vakaumustaan? Miten ihmeessä he ovat tulleet alkujaan valituksi?

Sipilän sotesoppa oli hyvä esimerkki. Juha ja Petsku päättivät jossain saunaillassa että nyt aletaan kuoria kermaa terveysfirmoille ja rakentaa uutta byrokratiaa. Nyt nähdään ettei käytännössä kukaan Kepussa tai Kokoomuksessa kannattanut tuota kokonaisuutta. Silti kaikki em. puolueiden kansanedustajat olisi velvoitettu äänestämään sen puolesta. Olisiko kansanedustaja tuolloin edustanut asianmukaisesti äänestäjiään? Vai olisiko hän kuitenkin ollut lähinnä puolueensa puheenjohtajan sätkynukkena? Ymmärrän kyllä periaatteessa ryhmäkurin tarpeen jne. mutta isoissa kokonaisuuksissa voisi olla hyvä saada edustajien todellinen näkemys esiin. Heillä on kuitenkin ylivertaiset mahdollisuudet perehtyä asioihin niin halutessaan.
 

Mustaruuti

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
ELSO 1.0
Joo, vilkaisin aikaisemmin tuota jenkkien äänestysmallia, ja sielläkin on ollut kyllä debattia puolesta ja vastaan. Kun onhan siitä läpinäkyvyydestä myös etunsa. Jossain tilanteissa taas sitten haittaa. Kuten todennäköisesti oli nyt.

Yksi hyvä malli voisi olla että esim. Suomessa kansanedustaja voisi ennen äänestystä ilmoittaa puhemiehen sihteeristölle, että hän todennäköisesti äänestäisi suljetusti omantuntonsa ja näkemyksensä mukaan toisin, kuin mitä esim. julkinen ryhmäkuri edellyttäisi.

Jos näitä henkilöitä tulisi esiin esim. vähintään kaksi, sitten äänestettäisiin suljetusti.

Nämä asiaa esittäneet henkilöt pysyisivät salassa, mutta heidän pyyntönsä julkistettaisiin esim. 9 vuoden jälkeen (välissä ainakin kaksi täyttä eduskuntakautta). Näin läpinäkyvyys asiassa olisi myös tältä osin, mutta taannehtivasti.
 

Talvela

Ylipäällikkö

taantumu

Eversti
Trump kertoi harkitsevansa vakavasti Brasilian ottamista NATO:n jäseneksi. Tämä kylläkin vaatisi NATO:n sääntöjen muuttamista sillä nykyisellään vain eurooppalaisten valtioiden on mahdollista liittyä puolustusliittoon. Lisäksi artikla 6 rajaa artikla 5:n koskemaan kravun kääntöpiirin pohjoispuolista aluetta, Brasilia on eteläpuolella.
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he was strongly considering NATO membership for Brazil as he welcomed Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to the White House.

“We’re going to look at that very very strongly in terms of - whether it’s NATO or it’s something having to do with alliance,” Trump told reporters, sitting next to Bolsonaro.

Trump also said he supported Brazil’s efforts to join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a club of the world’s advanced economies.

Brazil, the world’s eighth-largest economy, applied in 2017 to join the OECD, which has around three dozen members including Latin American countries Mexico, Chile and Colombia.

A senior member of Bolsonaro’s economic team said last week Brazil did not expect the U.S. government to announce support for its bid to join the OECD during Bolsonaro’s visit.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-brazil-nato/trump-says-looking-at-nato-membership-for-brazil-idUSKCN1R024O
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Top