Ja kirsikkana kakun päällä:

AHAHAHA!

Donald J. Trump
I greatly appreciate Nancy Pelosi’s statement against impeachment, but everyone must remember the minor fact that I never did anything wrong, the Economy and Unemployment are the best ever, Military and Vets are great - and many other successes! How do you impeach...
Heehee, liberaalien kyyneleet on mannaa. Mites se oli sen Venäjän kanssa vehtailun ? Unohti ilmoitaa työskennelleensä Ukrainalle/ 3,5 v. Vähällä pääsi. Tuomio antaa osviittaa siitä mitä Flynn tulee saamaan kun työskenteli Turkille.Tackleberry kirjoitti:
Sun höpötykses syytekirjelmistä eivät muuta mustaa valkoiseksi.
Manafort oli Putinin bitch, niin kuin sinäkin.
Ei hyvää päivää, miten tyhmä Trump on. Nancy Pelosi vie äijää kuin laskiämpäriä. Pelosi ymmärtää, että impechmentin nostamisesta seuraisi vain vuosien kaaos, koska senaatissa enemmistönä oleva GOP ei ainakaan näillä näkymillä tule antamaan potkuja hullulle.
Tällähän siis on merkitystä siinä mielessä että kyseessä on samat tyypit jotka koko Trump/Venäjä ruljanssin alkuun panivat.Syytteitä odotellessa voi vain naureskella kuinka korttitalo pikkuhiljaa sortuu.Samaan aikaan alkaa Obaman oikeusministeriön toimet Clintonin sähköpostijupakan suhteen tulla julkisuuteen kun Lisa Page todisti saaneensa syyttämättä jättämis käskyn korkeammalta taholta.![]()
Samaa säälittävää piipitystä kuin Trumpillakin. Kun korttitalo luhistuu joka nurkaltaan, huijari ei osaa mitään muuta kuin heilutella Hillary-korttia. Ketään ei kiinnosta v*tun vertaa Clintonit, Lisa Paget ja Obamat, yesterday's news, hohhoijaa.sikakoira kirjoitti:Tällähän siis on merkitystä siinä mielessä että kyseessä on samat tyypit jotka koko Trump/Venäjä ruljanssin alkuun panivat.Syytteitä odotellessa voi vain naureskella kuinka korttitalo pikkuhiljaa sortuu.Samaan aikaan alkaa Obaman oikeusministeriön toimet Clintonin sähköpostijupakan suhteen tulla julkisuuteen kun Lisa Page todisti saaneensa syyttämättä jättämis käskyn korkeammalta taholta.![]()
Mielenkiintoista sinänsä että tämäkin uutinen kuuluu näköjään niihin jotka eivät suomen neutraalissa mediassa palstatilaa tunnu saavan. Ei ylitä uutiskynnystä.
Se on vain niin että pikkuhiljaa se on suomenkin median alettava näistä uutisoimaan kun koko 2,5 vuoden uutisointi on osoittautunut ankkalinnasta saaduksi.Melko noloa sinänsä.
Heh, kovasti kuitenkin täällä olet meuhkaamassa Venäjä/Trump yhteyksistä vaikka v*tun vertaa kiinnostaaSamaa säälittävää piipitystä kuin Trumpillakin. Kun korttitalo luhistuu joka nurkaltaan, huijari ei osaa mitään muuta kuin heilutella Hillary-korttia. Ketään ei kiinnosta v*tun vertaa Clintonit, Lisa Paget ja Obamat, yesterday's news, hohhoijaa.
Eikös tää just silloin työskennellyt Podesta-groupille. Ja Podesta työskenteli kenelle? Hillarylle ja Obamalle. Obama presidenttinä ja Hillary ulkoministerinä. Hys, hys.sikakoira kirjoitti:Heehee, liberaalien kyyneleet on mannaa. Mites se oli sen Venäjän kanssa vehtailun ? Unohti ilmoitaa työskennelleensä Ukrainalle/ 3,5 v. Vähällä pääsi. Tuomio antaa osviittaa siitä mitä Flynn tulee saamaan kun työskenteli Turkille.
Radiopuhelin kirjoitti: Ma Heinä 30, 2012 2:01 pm Ulkomaalaisia ei tuomita heppoisimmilla perusteilla kuin suomalaisia. Korostuminen raiskaustilastoissa johtuu vain siitä että maahanmuuttajat yksinkertaisesti raiskaavat enemmän.
No juu, tässä nyt on sellainen pikkuinen ero, että tollo Trump on Yhdysvaltojen presidentti, mutta Hillary, Obama, Lisa Page eivät ole vaan ovat yksityisiä kansalaisia. Siinä on vissi ero. Presidentin tekemisillä on erilainen merkitys kuin muiden tekemisillä. Tätä heikkolahjainen Trump ei toki koskaan tule ymmärtämään, vaan tulee heiluttelemaan Hillary-korttia koska vaan ja missä asiassa vaan.sikakoira kirjoitti:Heh, kovasti kuitenkin täällä olet meuhkaamassa Venäjä/Trump yhteyksistä vaikka v*tun vertaa kiinnostaaSamaa säälittävää piipitystä kuin Trumpillakin. Kun korttitalo luhistuu joka nurkaltaan, huijari ei osaa mitään muuta kuin heilutella Hillary-korttia. Ketään ei kiinnosta v*tun vertaa Clintonit, Lisa Paget ja Obamat, yesterday's news, hohhoijaa.Luulisi kiinnostavan vaikka toisaalta ymmärrän kantasi koska harmittaahan se tietysti että totuudet alkavat tulla julki.(ja vielä tässä vaalejen alla)
Ai Husseinko ei presidenttinä ollessaan mm. vakoillut poliittisen vastustajapuolueen republikaanien presidenttiehdokasta ja tilannut venäläisiltä lähteiltä ja brittivakoojalta "törkyä" Trumpista?takka kirjoitti:No juu, tässä nyt on sellainen pikkuinen ero, että tollo Trump on Yhdysvaltojen presidentti, mutta Hillary, Obama, Lisa Page eivät ole vaan ovat yksityisiä kansalaisia.
Radiopuhelin kirjoitti: Ma Heinä 30, 2012 2:01 pm Ulkomaalaisia ei tuomita heppoisimmilla perusteilla kuin suomalaisia. Korostuminen raiskaustilastoissa johtuu vain siitä että maahanmuuttajat yksinkertaisesti raiskaavat enemmän.
Näin se muuri etenee vastusteluista huolimatta.Hienoa että on johtaja joka ajattelee maansa parasta.Yhdysvaltain presidentti Donald Trump käytti perjantaina odotetusti veto-oikeuttaan kongressin päätöstä vastaan.
Torstaina osa republikaanisenaattoreista äänesti demokraattien kanssa Trumpin alkuvuodesta julistamaa kansallista hätätilaa vastaan. Senaatti kumosi hätätilan äänin 59-41.
Trump lupasi kuitenkin heti äänestyksen jälkeen käyttää veto-oikeuttaan.
– Kongressilla on valta äänestää tämän päätöksen puolesta ja minulla on velvollisuus käyttää siihen veto-oikeutta, Trump kertoi toimittajille Valkoisessa talossa perjantaina.
Trump kutsui kongressin päätöstä kumota hätätila ”vaaralliseksi” ja ”holtittomaksi”.
Veton kumoamiseksi päätös pitäisi hyväksyä uudelleen sekä edustajainhuoneessa että senaatissa kahden kolmanneksen enemmistöllä, mikä on erittäin epätodennäköistä.
Trump julisti Yhdysvaltain etelärajalle hätätilan muurihankkeensa rahoittamiseksi. Moni vastustaja myös Trumpin omassa republikaanipuolueessa on sitä mieltä, että presidentti ylitti valtuutensa.
LOCK HER UP,LOCK HER UPThe Justice Department and Hillary Clinton's legal team "negotiated" an agreement that blocked the FBI from accessing emails on Clinton's homebrew server related to the Clinton Foundation, according to a transcript of recently released testimony from last summer by former FBI special agent Peter Strzok.
Under questioning from Judiciary Committee General Counsel Zachary Somers, Strzok acknowledged that Clinton's private personal email servers contained a mixture of emails related to the Clinton Foundation, her work as secretary of state and other matters.
"Were you given access to [Clinton Foundation-related] emails as part of the investigation?" Somers asked
"We were not. We did not have access," Strzok responded. "My recollection is that the access to those emails were based on consent that was negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton." -Fox News
Strzok added that "a significant filter team" was employed at the FBI to "work through the various terms of the various consent agreements."
"According to the attorneys, we lacked probable cause to get a search warrant for those servers and projected that either it would take a very long time and/or it would be impossible to get to the point where we could obtain probable cause to get a warrant," said Strzok.
The foundation has long been accused of "pay-to-play" transactions, fueled by a report in the IBTimes that the Clinton-led State Department authorized $151 billion in Pentagon-brokered deals to 16 countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation - a 145% increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.
Adding to speculation of malfeasance is the fact that donor contributions to the Clinton Foundation dried up by approximately 90% over a three-year period between 2014 and 2017, according to financial statements.
What's more, Bill Clinton reportedly received a $1 million check from Qatar - one of the countries which gained State Department clearance to buy US weapons while Clinton was Secretary of State, even as the department signaled them out for a range of alleged ills," according to IBTimes. The Clinton Foundation confirmed it accepted the money.
Then there was the surely unrelated $145 million donated to the Foundation from parties linked to the Uranium One deal prior to its approval through a rubber-stamp committee.
“The committee almost never met, and when it deliberated it was usually at a fairly low bureaucratic level,” Richard Perle said. Perle, who has worked for the Reagan, Clinton and both Bush administrations added, “I think it’s a bit of a joke.” –CBS
Later in his testimony last summer, Strzok said that agents were able to access "the entire universe" of information on the servers by using search terms to probe their contents - saying "we had it voluntarily."
"What's bizarre about this, is in any other situation, there's no possible way they would allow the potential perpetrator to self-select what the FBI gets to see," said former Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz - former chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee until 2017 and current contributor to Fox News. "The FBI should be the one to sort through those emails -- not the Clinton attorneys."
Chaffetz suggested that the goal of the DOJ was to "make sure they hear no evil, see no evil -- they had no interest in pursuing the truth."
"The Clinton Foundation isn't supposed to be communicating with the State Department anyway," said Chaffetz. "The foundation -- with her name on it -- is not supposed to be communicating with the senior officials at the State Department."
Republican-led concerns that the DOJ, under the Obama administration, was too cozy with the Clinton team during the 2016 presidential campaign have grown louder in recent days. Earlier this week, Fox News exclusively reviewed an internal chart prepared by federal investigators working on the so-called "Midyear Exam" probe into Clinton's emails. The chart contained the words "NOTE: DOJ not willing to charge this" next to a key statute on the mishandling of classified information.
The notation appeared to contradict former FBI Director James Comey's repeated claims that his team made its decision that Clinton should not face criminal charges independently.
But Strzok, in his closed-door interview, denied that the DOJ exercised undue influence over the FBI, and insisted that lawyers at the DOJ were involved in an advisory capacity working with agents. -Fox News
Strzok was fired from the FBI after months of intense scrutiny over anti-Trump text messages he exchanged with his mistress - FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Both Strzok and Page were involved at the highest levels of both the Clinton email investigation and the counterintelligence investigation on President Trump and his 2016 campaign.
Heh ,oikein että aletaan Venäjänkin puolelta pistämään vastapalloon näille mielivaltaisille pakotteille joita on poikinut Muellerin tutkinnan sivutuotteena.Deripaska sanoo, että maa on ylittänyt lain rajat määrätessään pakotteita häntä vastaan.
Venäläismiljardööri Oleg Deripaska on haastanut Yhdysvallat oikeuteen, kertoo uutistoimisto Reuters.
Kanne jätettiin perjantaina liittovaltion tuomioistuimessa Washington DC:ssä.
Deripaskan mukaan Yhdysvallat on ylittänyt lain rajat määrätessään talouspakotteita häntä vastaan ja tehnyt hänestä ”tuoreimman uhrin” Venäjän väitettyä vaalisekaantumista koskevassa tutkinnassa.
Kanteessa Deripaska vaatii tuomioistuinta estämään Yhdysvaltain valtiovarainministeriötä käyttämästä pakotteiden ”musertavaa voimaa”.
Valtiovarainministeriön ja oikeusministeriön tiedottajat kieltäytyivät kommentoimasta asiaa Reutersille.
Tämän vuoden alussa presidentti Donald Trumpin hallinto poisti alumiinijätti Rusalin ja kahden muun Deripaskaan sidoksissa olevan yhtiön vastaisia pakotteita. Pakotteet Deripaskaa vastaan pysyivät kuitenkin voimassa.
Näin,niinkuin alusta asti on sanottu niin median toimet kääntyvät itseään vastaanWASHINGTON – Amid signs that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference may be near its conclusion, a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds that trust in Mueller has eroded and half of Americans agree with President Donald Trump's contention that he has been the victim of a "witch hunt."
Support for the House of Representatives to seriously consider impeaching the president has dropped since last October by 10 percentage points, to 28 percent.
Despite that, the survey shows a nation that remains skeptical of Trump's honesty and deeply divided by his leadership. A 52 percent majority say they have little or no trust in the president's denials that his 2016 campaign colluded with Moscow in the election that put him in the Oval Office.
That number does reflect an improvement from previous polls. One year ago, 57 percent had little or no trust in his denials; in December, 59 percent did.
Twenty-eight percent say they have a lot of trust in former FBI director Mueller's investigation to be fair and accurate. That's the lowest level to date and down 5 points since December.
In comparison, 30 percent express a lot of trust in Trump's denials, the highest to date.
Mueller indicted 34 people, including Russian intelligence operatives and some of Trump's closest aides and advisers. The indictments detailed the eagerness of the Trump campaign to benefit from a sophisticated Russian effort to influence the 2016 election but have not accused the president’s aides of participating in that operation. Last week, Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was sentenced to a total of 7.5 years in federal prison for financial crimes.
The poll's findings set the stage for a ferocious partisan battle when Mueller submits his report to Attorney General William Barr. The president's cascade of criticism of those pursuing him has fortified his support and raised questions about his investigators.
More: Did Trump keep promises to insulate himself from his business? Only he knows
Trump tweets about Mueller
That campaign continued this weekend.
"What the Democrats have done in trying to steal a Presidential Election, first at the 'ballot box' and then, after that failed, with the 'Insurance Policy,' is the biggest Scandal in the history of our Country!" Trump declared in a tweet Sunday night.
Friday, Trump tweeted that "there should be no" report from Mueller, who was appointed in May 2017 to investigate how Moscow tried to influence the presidential election and whether Team Trump cooperated.
"This was an illegal & conflicted investigation in search of a crime," Trump wrote Sunday, adding in a follow-up tweet, "THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO A PRESIDENT AGAIN!"
Fifty percent say they agree with Trump's assertion that the special counsel's investigation is a "witch hunt" and that he has been subjected to more investigations than previous presidents because of politics; 47 percent disagree. Just 3 percent don't have an opinion.
There is, unsurprisingly, a stark partisan divide on that question: 86 percent of Republicans but just 14 percent of Democrats say Trump is the victim of a "witch hunt." Among independents, 54 percent say he is; 42 percent say he isn't.
The president's success in persuading half of the electorate that he’s been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny is notable, says David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk Political Research Center.
"Even among people who said they had ‘some’ trust in the Mueller investigation, half agreed with President Trump's witch hunt allegation,” he says.
More: What happens when special counsel Robert Mueller delivers his report?
"Trump, he gets badgered every single day," says Robert Lynch, 62, of Selden, New York, a Republican who describes himself as a "100 percent" supporter of the president. Mueller's report is "going to say no collusion, absolutely none," he predicts.
Annette Lantos Tillemann-Dick, 66, an innkeeper from Denver and a Democrat, disagrees, saying evidence of collusion by Trump's campaign is obvious: "You don't need a report to see it. It's in our face."
Lynch and Tillemann-Dick were among those surveyed. The poll of 1,000 registered voters, taken by landline and cellphone Wednesday through Sunday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
"I hope that illegal collusion makes it very difficult for the Republicans to continue to defend undefendable behavior on the part of the person who is sitting in the chief executive's office," Tillemann-Dick says. "And I hope that it would lead to him being removed from office." (Tillemann-Dick, who was called randomly in the survey, happens to be the daughter of the late congressman Tom Lantos, D-Calif.)
A shift on impeachment
Support for impeaching Trump has cooled, the poll shows, in the wake of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's declaration that she opposed the idea unless there was bipartisan support for it. Among Democrats, 41 percent say Pelosi's comments had some or a lot of impact on their opinion about impeachment, about equal to the 42 percent who say they had no impact.
Pelosi's argument that trying to remove Trump from office would divide the nation apparently flipped the public's expectations of what Congress will do. Last fall, the poll found that a 54 percent-32 percent majority said a new Democratic majority in the House was likely to seriously consider impeachment.
Now, by 46 percent-41 percent, those surveyed predict that the House won't.
"If he doesn't get impeached, it's not like it's going to be the end of the world because 2020 is not super-far away," says Calvin Crawford, 18, a political independent and a senior at University High School in Spokane, Washington, who was polled. "I think Trump is probably going to lose if a candidate comes out and starts to propose things that people actually want."
Overall, Americans by 62 percent-28 percent say the House shouldn't seriously consider impeaching Trump, compared with 54 percent-39 percent last October. While a 53 percent majority of Democrats support impeachment, just 6 percent of Republicans do.
Gloria Davy, 65, a Democrat from Tucson, says it would bring her "great joy" for Democrats to push for impeachment, but she worries about the upheaval that could follow.
"I can't imagine what would happen to the stock market," the Arizona retiree says. "So it's probably best not to impeach him and to just have him run for his second term and lose. That would be the safest thing for our economy."
She is eager to see Mueller's report. "I'll read it cover to cover," she says.
Release the report?
As Mueller's inquiry winds down, the debate over what to do about the confidential report he is required to submit to the Justice Department is heating up. Last Thursday, the House unanimously passed a resolution calling for public release of the report, but Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., blocked passage of the nonbinding measure in the Senate.
The poll found overwhelming and bipartisan support for releasing the report, whatever it finds. In all, 82 percent say it is important to them that the report be made public; 62 percent call that "very important."
More: What happens after Mueller delivers his report? Congress braces for battles
Assessments of Mueller have become less positive and more partisan during his investigation. In June 2017, before he had brought any indictments or won any convictions, 30 percent viewed him favorably and 16 percent unfavorably, a net positive rating of 14 points. Twenty percent had never heard of him, and 33 percent weren't sure what they thought.
In the new poll, 33 percent view him favorably and 31 percent unfavorably. That net positive rating of 2 points is his narrowest to date. As recently as last October, he had a net positive rating of 17 points, 42 percent-25 percent.
Few Americans expect the conclusion of the special counsel's investigation is going to settle the controversies surrounding the president.
House committees controlled by Democrats launched a series of inquiries into Trump, his administration, his business practices and his family. Views of those investigations are narrowly divided: 49 percent say Democrats are doing the right thing by pursuing the investigations aggressively; 46 percent say they are going too far.
"Now we're going after Ivanka, so there will be more and more and more," said Davy, the Democrat from Arizona, "and he can't veto it."
Lynch, the avid Trump supporter from Long Island, says Mueller's report will clear Trump and should recommend another investigation to follow into his 2016 opponent. "It should say, 'OK, now we're going after Hillary.' "