11:19 AM 12/21/2018 - The Daily 202: Mattis resignation and shutdown saber-rattling signal an even more chaotic Trump presidency in 2019 | AP-NORC Poll: Nearly 6 in 10 say Trump impeded Russia probe - Brownsville Herald | Saved Stories
- Get link
- Other Apps
Saved Stories - None  |
|---|
| Donald Trump's Bonkers Tech Boast Leaves Twitter Users In Stitches |
Trump tweeted that he knew tech "better than anyone," which made him a laughingstock on his favorite social media platform.  |
| AP-NORC Poll: Nearly 6 in 10 say Trump impeded Russia probe - Brownsville Herald |
AP-NORC Poll: Nearly 6 in 10 say Trump impeded Russia probe Brownsville Herald
WASHINGTON (AP) — A majority of Americans say they believe President Donald Trump has tried to obstruct the investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia ...
 |
| The Early Edition: December 21, 2018 |
Signup to receive the Early Edition in your inbox here.
Before the start of business, Just Security provides a curated summary of up-to-the-minute developments at home and abroad. Here’s today’s news.
MIDDLE EAST TROOP WITHDRAWAL AND JIM MATTIS RESIGNATION
U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigned yesterday after clashing with President Trump over the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, writing a resignation letter claiming that the president deserves someone to lead the Pentagon who is “better aligned” with his views. Mattis’ “surprise” departure came a day after Trump created shockwaves through Congress and the international community by announcing the U.S. departure from Syria and declared victory over Islamic State group (I.S.I.S.,) contrary to the assessments of his own intelligence and security officials. Paul Sonne, Josh Dawsey and Missy Ryan report at the Washington Post.
“My views on treating allies with respect and also being cleareyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held,” Mattis wrote in his parting letter, adding “because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.” Trump announced that Mattis –the last of his old-guard national security team – will leave at the end of February, and commented that the former Marine was “a great help to me in getting allies and other countries to pay their share of military obligations,” Helene Cooper reports at the New York Times.
Mattis’ resignation letter appears to refute several planks of Trump’s foreign policy, with the outgoing defense secretary stressing the importance of U.S. alliances and of taking an “unambiguous” stance toward adversaries such as Russia and China. Earlier yesterday, a senior administration official told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Mattis was “vehemently opposed” to the Syria decision and his parting letter is notably devoid of any praise for the president, Jeremy Diamond, Barbara Starr and Zachary Cohen report at CNN.
Trump is reportedly planning to withdraw more than 5,000 of the 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with the move following Wednesday’s controversial decision to pull all U.S. troops out of Syria that prompted Mattis’ resignation. One official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told reporters that a decision had been made and verbal orders had been given to start planning for the drawdown – with exact timelines being discussed, Reuters reports.
The disclosure of the Afghan troop reductions comes as U.S. officials had begun to display greater confidence about negotiations to end to the conflict with the Taliban, but the preemptive move to withdraw troops before a deal is reached risks endangering that process. However, one person familiar with the peace talks claimed it is possible that the Taliban might reciprocate with a goodwill gesture, Gordon Lubold and Jessica Donati report at the Wall Street Journal.
Trump repeatedly publicly advocated leaving Afghanistan before his election to the presidency, describing U.S. involvement in the conflict as a waste of money. However, last year the president suggested he would keep U.S. forces there on the ground indefinitely to prevent the country’s collapse, and said the U.S. would send 3,000 extra troops to the country, the BBC reports.
Afghan officials and the U.S.’ western partners reacted with unease today to reports of the planned withdrawal and Mattis’ departure from government. “The withdrawal will certainly affect overall operations but we will have to wait and see which units are going to go home first … it is too early to say anything for now,” one senior Afghan government official commented; Mattis has been widely seen in Afghanistan as a guarantor of U.S. engagement, and his departure will “inevitability” raise concerns in the minds of many Afghan officials, Reuters reports.
Russia does not want anything to happen that could destabilize the situation in Afghanistan, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said today when asked about the possible U.S. withdrawal of troops from the country. Peskov added that the Kremlin needed to monitor whether the withdrawal would actually happen as a previous U.S. pledge to leave Afghanistan had not translated into action, Reuters reports.
Israel will escalate its fight against Iranian-aligned forces in Syria after the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the nation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday. Several hours after he spoke, Netanyahu’s office confirmed he had spoken with Trump about the country and “discussed ways to continue cooperation between Israel and the United States against the Iranian aggression.” Reuters reports.
“We do not share the analyses that the territorial caliphate [of I.S.I.S.] has been annihilated,” French Defense Secretary Florence Parly said yesterday on R.T.L. radio regarding the Syria decision, adding “it’s an extremely grave decision and we think … the job must be finished.” Reuters reports.
Mattis’ departure shook an “already tense” Capitol last night, with lawmakers from both parties anxious about the implications of the development for the Trump administration and the international community. Top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee Sen. Mark Warner (Va.) sent a message on Twitter describing Mattis as “an island of stability amidst the chaos of the Trump administration,” adding “this is scary;” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.,) characterized the developments as a “national security crisis,” Ali Vitali reports at NBC.
An account of the international reaction to Mattis’ departure is provided by Griff Witte and Isaac Stanley-Becker at the Washington Post.
JIM MATTIS RESIGNATION: OPINION AND ANALYSIS
An analysis of the foreign policy disagreements leading up to the point at which Jim Mattis had simply “had enough,” is provided by Scott Bixby at The Daily Beast.
Mattis’ resignation signals a watershed moment for the Trump administration, Edward Luce comments at the Financial Times, arguing that “regardless of who replaces Mr Mattis, the world has lost a critical lifeline … it can still phone plenty of friends, all of whom will sympathize … it can also ask the audience (ditto) … but it knows that military men do not resign in U.S. politics.”
Mattis’ decision “was a warning that will ring through history about an impulsive President who spurns advice … disdains America’s friends and proudly repudiates the codes of U.S. leadership that have endured since World War II,” Stephen Collinson argues at CNN, forecasting that the Defense Secretary’s departure will embolden Trump to act on his more extreme foreign policy positions.
“For two years … Defense Secretary Jim Mattis slow-walked and stymied President Donald Trump’s most dramatic impulses on military policy …that strategy came to a swift end when it came to Syria,” Wesley Morgan comments at POLTICO.
Mattis’ departure follows that of John Kelly and H.R. McMaster, Vivian Salama notes at the Wall Street Journal, commenting that all three were “viewed by many as the voices of experience in a White House that was known for its turbulence,” and locating the development within “the assertion of the president’s ‘America First’ foreign policy … a skepticism of overseas engagements, disdain for allies that he sees benefiting from America’s vast military spending, and a combination of overture and military muscle for rivals and foes such as China and Russia.”
An Op-Ed considering the combined impact of the Syrian departure and Mattis’ resignation is provided by the New York Times editorial board.
MIDDLE EAST TROOP WITHDRAWAL: OPINION AND ANALYSIS
Trump’s decision to abandon the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (S.D.F.) leaves the group exposed, Asser Khattab, Andrew England and Laura Pitel comment in an analysis at the Financial Times, describing the withdrawal as a “stinging blow” to the group.
“A pullout [of Syria] would harm U.S. interests as well,” Tommy Meyerson argues at the Wall Street Journal, arguing that the move will “shred America’s credibility as a counterterrorism partner world-wide, while abandoning a strategic area and making it harder to check jihadist, Iranian and Russian ambitions … Trump should make clear the U.S. stands with the Syrian Kurds and won’t permit a Turkish invasion …. U.S. interests and honor demand that they stay for now.”
A breakdown of the “winners and losers” arising from Trump’s Syria decision is provided by Megan Specia at the New York Times.
SYRIA: OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The U.S.’ principle Kurdish allies in Syria – the Syrian Democratic Forces (S.D.F.) – are discussing the release of 3,200 I.S.I.S. prisoners, according to U.K.-based monitor Syrian Observatory on Human Rights and a Western official of the anti-Islamic State coalition yesterday, with the announcement coming a day following President Trump’s order for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the country. Top S.D.F. officials allegedly met Wednesday to discuss the possibility of releasing about 1,100 Islamic State fighters and 2,080 relatives of the group’s members, according to head of the Observatory Rami Abdul Rahman; however, S.D.F. spokesperson Mostapha Bali denied that there had been any discussion of releasing I.S.I.S. prisoners, Hwaida Saad and Rod Nordland report at the New York Times.
Outgoing U.N. envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura has acknowledged that the committee tasked with writing a new constitution for the war-torn nation would not be in place by the end of 2018 as was previously hoped. “We have nearly completed the work of putting in place a constitutional committee to draft a constitutional reform, as a contribution to the political process – but there is an extra mile to go,” De Mistura told the U.N. Security Council yesterday, adding “I deeply regret what has not been achieved, and I am sorry more was not possible,” in what will be de Mistura’s final address to the body before he steps down, Al Jazeera reports.
U.S.-led airstrikes continue. U.S. and coalition forces carried out 208 airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria between Dec 9. and Dec. 15. [Central Command]
CHINA
The Trump administration increased its pressure campaign on Beijing yesterday, as the Department of Justice (D.O.J.) indicted Chinese nationals Zhu Hua and Zhang Jianguo – both with ties to China’s ministry of state security – for infiltrating the most significant providers of internet services and compromising government computer systems, including a major Department of Energy laboratory. The unsealing of the indictment came as the U.K. identified the same intelligence operation, often labeled A.P.T. 10 by cybersecurity firms – as responsible for separate attacks in the U.K. and elsewhere, David E. Sanger and Katie Benner report at the New York Times.
China strongly rejected allegations of economic espionage, accusing Washington of “fabricating facts.” In a statement today, the Chinese foreign ministry said it resolutely oppose the allegations and called on the U.S. to drop the charges against the two Chinese nationals; “the Chinese government has never participated in or supported anyone in any way in stealing trade secrets,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said, describing the accusations as “deliberate defamation” pulled “out of thin air,” Al Jazeera reports.
An explainer on the A.P.T. 10 group is provided by Yuan Yang and Ben Bland at the Financial Times.
TRUMP-RUSSIA
The Department of Justice (D.O.J.) yesterday concluded that acting attorney general Matt Whitaker had no legal reason to recuse himself from oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian electoral interference according to a person familiar with the decision. Whitaker had formerly made comments strongly critical of the probe, and despite the D.O.J. determination, an agency ethics adviser reportedly told Whitaker the decision was a “close call,” recommending that he step aside — a recommendation Whitaker has declined to follow, Pete Williams and Dartunorro Clark report at NBC.
U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said yesterday that a memo written by Trump’s attorney general nominee William Barr – criticizing Mueller’s investigation – had no impact on the ongoing probe. “The memo that you made reference to reflects Mr. Barr’s personal opinion,” Rosenstein said during a press conference yesterday after announcing criminal charges for Chinese hackers, adding “lots of people offer opinions to the Department of Justice, but they don’t influence our own decision making,” Rebecca Morin reports at POLITICO.
An in-depth analysis of the legal implications of the Barr memo is provided by Marty Lederman at Just Security.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Israel Defense Force (I.D.F.) claims it has begun destroying a network of cross-border tunnels built by Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah militant group. Israel this month announced the discovery of the tunnels on the Lebanon-Israel Frontier, which it alleges were part of a Hezbollah attack plot; thus far, it has uncovered four tunnels in an “open-ended” operation intended to destroy the entire network, the AP reports.
The U.N. Security Council called a vote for today on a resolution that would authorize the use of U.N. monitors to observe the implementation of a cease-fire in Yemen’s key port city of Hodeidah and the withdrawal of warring forces from the area. U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths has urged rapid deployment of U.N. monitors as “an essential part of the confidence” required to help implement the Dec. 13 cease-fire agreement between Yemen’s government-in-exile and Iran-backed Houthi Shiite rebels; the accord also calls for the “phased but rapid mutual withdrawals” of fighters from Hodeidah as well as its main docks and two others in the province, Edith M. Lederer reports at the AP.
Saudi Arabia has claimed it is creating government bodies to enhance oversight of its intelligence operations, in the wake of international outrage over the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The kingdom alleges Khashoggi was killed inside its Istanbul consulate on October 2 in a “rogue operation” led by the then-Deputy Intelligence Chief Ahmad al-Assiri and Royal Court Adviser Saud al-Qahtani, both of whom have been removed from their posts; the international community broadly alleges Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was behind the killing, Al Jazeera reports.
An illustrated op-ed on the rise of digitalpolitik –“an emerging tactical playbook for how governments use their political, regulatory, military, and commercial powers to project influence in global, digital markets,” is provided by Sean McDonald and Xiao Mina at Foreign Policy.
|
| The Technology 202: Washington and Silicon Valley crashed into each other in 2018 |
Our reporters explain what happened.    |
| Jim Mattis' principled departure should make the US rethink - The Independent |
Jim Mattis' principled departure should make the US rethink The Independent
I am former Gurkha and a first Gulf War veteran and I still can't justify what the British army has done in the Middle East in the last 20 years. And now Trump ...
|
| False Comparisons: Obama’s Military Withdrawal from Iraq and Trump’s Syria Disengagement |
President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria yielded bipartisan criticism, and rightly so. The campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria has made substantial progress, but it is not quite over, as evidenced by the fact that the U.S. military took, on average, 30 airstrikes per day against ISIS targets in the first half of December. Announced with apparently no warning to anyone outside the White House, the decision is a betrayal of our coalition partners as well as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who have done most of the fighting and dying on the ground in Syria against ISIS.
Several commentators couldn’t resist comparing Trump’s action with President Obama’s decision to withdraw American forces from Iraq in 2011. While superficially similar, the two cases are far from identical. Understanding their differences helps to show what makes President Trump’s action so dangerous.
Reasons for full withdrawalThe seeds of the American withdrawal in 2011 were sown by the architect of the Iraq War, President George W. Bush. In 2008, as he neared the end of his term, Bush negotiated two agreements with Iraq in an attempt to build a framework for a lasting U.S. commitment. One of these, a status of forces agreement (SOFA), explicitly provided that all U.S. forces would “withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” That building block was in place before President Obama’s national security team ever stepped foot in the White House. President Obama, of course, campaigned against the war, and ordered an orderly drawdown, consistent with the SOFA, soon after taking office. He agreed, nonetheless, to leave a small residual force of 5,000 troops but failed to reach agreement with Iraq over immunity protections for U.S. forces.
It was not for lack of trying. I worked for Vice President Biden at the time; he had Iraqi political leaders on speed-dial and traveled to Iraq multiple times in the first Obama term. For his part, President Obama spoke or met with Prime Minister Maliki three times in 2011. The politics were just too hard for the leaders in Baghdad, who were highly sensitive to sovereignty concerns after eight years of a sizable American presence.
Cost-benefits of maintaining a small U.S. forceIt’s debatable that a small U.S. force could have prevented the rise of ISIS in 2014. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq in 2011, Jim Jeffrey (now Trump’s special envoy for Syria and who also served as Bush’s deputy national security adviser) well understands the complexity of Iraq, disputed that notion at the time:
Maintaining political and economic engagementIn contrast to Trump’s decision to withdraw all U.S. forces as well as political and reconstruction teams from Syria, the Obama administration remained engaged in providing political and economic support to Iraq after 2011, pursuant to the other bilateral accord that Bush signed in 2008, a strategic framework agreement. U.S. government data indicates that we provided $2 billion in U.S. foreign assistance in 2012, though aid was scaled back in subsequent years. And we maintained a large Embassy in Baghdad, with consulates in Basra and Irbil.
Militarily and politically recalibrating to meet the ISIS threatIn the summer of 2014, when ISIS emerged as a mortal threat to the Iraqi state, President Obama quickly authorized U.S. military action and re-supply to Iraqi forces to protect Baghdad and Erbil. He then insisted on a more inclusive national government before committing to a broader counter-ISIS campaign, given that ISIS found fertile ground in the Sunni regions that had been substantially ignored by the Shiite politicians dominant in Baghdad. The military campaign conceived that summer focused on working by, with, and through partners in Iraq and Syria, who have done the bulk of the fighting on the ground. In support, the U.S. and coalition partners provided air power and intelligence, and armed and trained the local partners. Small contingents of U.S. forces on the ground provided advice and engaged in targeted raids. Far from disengaging, President Obama understood that the United States had an obligation to support the democratic government in Iraq, and our partners in Syria.
No comparisonCompare all of that with President Trump’s apparent abandonment of the local forces – the SDF — who expelled ISIS from eastern Syria. The SDF enlisted in the fight not only to take back their towns, but in reliance upon assurances provided during both the Obama and Trump administrations that U.S. support would continue after the war. Part of that commitment was a promise to give them a seat at the table on the political future of Syria; our ability to deliver on that pledge is now in question. Suddenly vulnerable to hostile Turkish forces, the SDF, in particular its Kurdish element, will likely need to cut a deal with the Assad regime. In short, our small military force provided outsized political and military benefits. The cost to U.S. credibility will resonate for years in the region, and perhaps beyond.
We’ve also left many other partners holding the bag. The Defeat-ISIS coalition now consists of over 70 countries and international organizations. As with so many international security challenges, it required U.S. leadership to build and sustain, which was provided over the last four and one-half years by senior officials at the National Security Council and the Departments of State and Defense. A wholesale and sudden retreat from Syria, announced to our closest allies by an impetuous tweet, is no way to maintain the trust required to lead a large multilateral alliance.
To be sure, Presidents Obama and Trump share a belief that we are over-invested in the Middle East. There the comparison ends, and it’s facile to suggest otherwise.
Image credit: (L) President Barack Obama arrives in White House press briefing room on October 21, 2011 to announce withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images).
|
| What We Said in August 2016: Trump 'Would Put at Risk Our Country’s National Security' |
Below is an excerpt from the letter of 50 former senior national security officials who had served in Republican administrations dated Aug. 8, 2016 in which we stated that if elected president, Donald Trump “would be the most reckless President in American history”:
|
| James Mattis helped keep Trump in check. The world will miss him | Peter Beaumont |
The decision to pull out of Syria has dismayed allies, delighted foes – and proved the final straw for the US secretary of defence
In mid-October General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, issued a discreet warning about the continuing threat from Islamic State.
While he noted that the group’s self-proclaimed caliphate had shrunk to almost nothing in terms of territory, he pointed to the hundred foreign fighters a month still crossing Turkey’s border into Iraq and Syria that suggested a continuing level of resilience.
Continue reading... |
| Mueller’s Investigation May Be Coming to an End, But Congress Is Just Getting Started |
On January 3, 2019, a new Congress will head to work with a monumental — but not unprecedented— job to tackle. Close observers of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation predict his “endgame may be in sight.” While Mueller’s work may be drawing toward a close, Congress’s has just begun. As my organization, Protect Democracy, set forth in a collection of reports published this week, Justice Department investigations of executive-branch wrongdoing — especially those that implicate the president — serve as source material, not substitutes, for congressional oversight and legislative reform. If President Donald Trump or his campaign worked with Russian agents to swing an election in his favor, or impeded the Special Counsel’s investigation of a Russian counter-intelligence operation, the American people need to understand how and why that happened and participate in informed debate on policy solutions that will prevent it from happening again. And regardless of what Mueller establishes with respect to criminal liability, Congress — and the American people — must assess the appropriate measure of political accountability if the president committed wrongdoing to win the election or abused the powers of his office.
Of course, Trump has made a career of escaping accountability, and he’s trying to do so again. He repeatedly moves the goalposts in his denials of responsibility for the Kremlin’s electoral machinations. First, he had “nothing to do with Russia.” Then maybe he had something to do with Russia, but there was “NO Collusion!” We now hear that “collusion is not crime,” or maybe if it’s a crime, it shouldn’t be because of the First Amendment. Congress should not let him get away with these attempts at evasion.
The Framers of our Constitution took great pains to preclude foreign influence over our leaders and preserve self-rule for the American people. There can be no doubt that working with a foreign power to influence a federal election is a serious — and criminal — transgression of the principles that inspired our nation’s founding. If Trump, his campaign, or his associates coordinated with Russia to further its criminal interference with the 2016 election, it would constitute a “conspiracy” to commit not just a crime, but potentially many crimes. As we explain in our report When Mueller Concludes: If Conspiracy — by Whatever Name — Occurred, Congress Must Ensure Accountability, the federal criminal conspiracy statute (18. U.S.C. § 371), the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Logan Act, federal bribery laws and the Hobbs Act, and misprision of a felony all could be implicated.
And the Trump campaign’s the-First-Amendment-lets-me-do-it defense to these potential crimes is both remarkably cynical and legally wrong. As Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a 2011 opinion, the Supreme Court has made “plain — indeed, beyond rational debate” its view that the federal government may outlaw support from foreign citizens — let alone agents of a hostile foreign power— to win elections. The First Amendment protects speech and even some expressive acts, but courts have long upheld statutes establishing criminal penalties for soliciting others or conspiring to engage in criminal activity. While a political candidate is free to articulate his or her vision for the country, he or she is not free to solicit any campaign help from a foreign government. The former is “speech”; the latter is a violation of federal campaign finance law and a range of other criminal statutes.
The president’s lawyers — and, apparently, his nominee for Attorney General — have offered an equally cynical and unconvincing defense of allegations the president has abused his powers to interfere with Mueller’s investigation. A president, they say, can’t obstruct justice because, “by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer … that would amount to him obstructing himself.” Or, as Richard Nixon put it, “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
But the president is not above the law. Our report, When Mueller Concludes: Congress’s Role in Assessing any Presidential Obstruction-of-Justice and Abuses of Power and Ensuring Accountability, explains why arguments that he could be are anathema to our constitutional structure. While the president is the head of the executive branch, the Constitution requires that he “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and it does not allow him to abuse his presidential powers for his own personal gain. Even those with the most robust views of executive authority don’t argue that the president may interfere with an investigation into his own wrongdoing; they differ from other scholars of presidential powers in believing that only political, not legal, remedies are available for such abuses of power.
Congress, with its investigative and impeachment powers, has the ability to impose such political remedies. Thus it’s Congress’s role, under any constitutionally grounded theory of executive power, to evaluate the president’s motives and, if those motives are improper, take appropriate actions for accountability. Twice in our history, as we recount in When Mueller Concludes: Lessons from Previous Independent Investigations and Related Congressional Oversight, the House of Representatives has determined that impeachment would be the appropriate remedy for presidential obstruction-of-justice.
Trump’s assaults on the facts and the rule of law are dizzying, but at the end of the day, the American people aren’t buying it. A poll from the nonpartisan group, LawWorks, found that nearly 75% of Americans reject the Trump Campaign’s argument that getting opposition research from a foreign government is A-Okay because of the First Amendment. And 83% of voters, including 62% of Republicans agree that “it would be an abuse of power for Donald Trump to try to stop an ongoing investigation of him and his campaign because no one is above the law, not even the president.”
Congress is now in a position to consider how to provide the accountability that the American people believe is appropriate. It can draw on precedent from previous investigations of presidential wrongdoing and, as described by the Supreme Court, “make investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its legislative function advisedly and effectively.” It should carefully and thoroughly develop a factual record. It must ensure that it receives all of the findings from Mueller’s work and doesn’t allow Trump or the Justice Department to withhold information necessary to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities. And with due consideration of that record and the myriad political questions Congress is best positioned to weigh, it must assess the remedies available in cases of serious presidential wrongdoing — up to, and including impeachment.
Photo of former FBI Director Robert Mueller, special counsel on the Russian investigation, leaving the Capitol on June 21, 2017, by Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images. |
| UK law enforcement halts cooperation with Russia on Browder case - TASS |
UK law enforcement halts cooperation with Russia on Browder case TASS
William Browder, the Hermitage Capital Management founder, is accused of establishing an organized crime syndicate.
|
| Trump’s Syria withdrawal and Mattis’ resignation startle Israel – and undercut Netanyahu - Haaretz |
Trump’s Syria withdrawal and Mattis’ resignation startle Israel – and undercut Netanyahu Haaretz
Officials have tried to downplay the damage to Israel's national security – but the defense establishment is up in arms.
|
| Hunting “Spies” in Russia: Reasons and Implications for the Political Regime - RKK ICDS |
Hunting “Spies” in Russia: Reasons and Implications for the Political Regime RKK ICDS
Introduction On 3 October 2018, Russian president Vladimir Putin submitted for consideration by the State Duma a package of amendments to the Criminal ...
 |
| Hermeneutic Analysis in Political Criminology and Strategic Intelligence - Google Search |
 |
| Hermeneutic Analysis in Political Criminology and Strategic Intelligence - Google Search |
 |
| с паршивой овцы хоть шерсти клок - Google Search |
 |
| 6:33 AM 12/21/2018 - The Russian Lessons – С паршивой овцы хоть шерсти клок: Trump’s withdrawal from Syria |
Russian Lessons – С паршивой овцы хоть шерсти клок: Trump’s withdrawal from Syria
с паршивой овцы хоть шерсти клок — Викисловарь
Translate this pageДавай, Таткин, давай! ― послышались ободряющие голоса. ― С паршивой овцы хоть шерсти клок! Они у нас, гады, без денег все брали, а мы как-никак …Русский · Семантические свойства
С паршивой овцы хоть шерсти клок – Translation into English …
Translations in context of “С паршивой овцы хоть шерсти клок” in Russian-English from Reverso Context: С паршивой овцы хоть шерсти клок.
|
| The U.S. and Global Security Review: 10:11 AM 12/21/2018 - Trump Crisis |
 I have to say, for the sake of fairness and the correct approach to the understanding of the present state of the Trump Crisis that it, in all likelihood, could not be handled differently by the FBI and the IC. It is like an abscess which had to ripen before been drained. All possible connections and contacts had to be traced, the groundwork for the legal interventions had to be laid down. However, the other side of the coin is the crisis itself which, hypothetically, could be easily and constitutionally prevented. This dilemma might be for the good legal minds to entertain. M.N. 12.21.18
Mike Nova’s Shared NewsLinks
|
| Donald Trump & Megan Mullally - Green Acres at the Emmys - YouTube |
Donald Trump & Megan Mullally - Green Acres at the Emmys |
| Trump tweets video of himself singing at Emmy's during time of crisis |
Trump singing Green Acres at the 2005 Emmy's. PHOTO:SCCREENGRAB
President of the United States Donald Trump on Thursday tweeted a video of himself singing a theme song from a 1960’s sitcom at the 2005 Emmy Awards.
In between fighting with Congress over funding for a border wall, hitting back at those criticising his order to withdraw US troops from Syria and announcing the resignation of his defence secretary Jim Mattis, Trump indulged his vanity with a #TBT.
The tweet reads “Farm Bill signing in 15 minutes! #Emmys #TBT” in reference to an expansive bill that will bring relief to agricultural workers and allow welfare benefits in the form of food stamps.
The president had the audio from the video played as he entered the White House’s South Court Auditorium to sign the bill, the New York Times reported.
He then incorrectly told members of his administration he sang ‘Green Acres’ and “received a very nice award that night”.
Trump did not win an award, he won “Emmy Idol,” a skit competition based on “American Idol”.
|
| Trump Crisis - Google Search |
Trump 'flipping out' as conservatives turn on him over border wall crisis ...
The Independent-4 hours ago
President Donald Trump began Thursday under siege, listening to howls of indignation from conservatives over his border wall and thrusting ...
'A tailspin': Under siege, Trump propels the government and markets ...
International-Chicago Tribune-12 hours ago
Under siege, Donald Trump propels US government and markets into ...
In-Depth-Stuff.co.nz-7 hours ago
Analysis: Under siege, Trump propels the government and markets ...
International-Anchorage Daily News-1 hour ago Trump Signals Defeat on Wall Demand as Christmas Crisis Deadline ...
Roll Call-Dec 19, 2018
President Donald Trump signaled defeat Wednesday on his threat to shut down nearly half the federal government over his border wall funding ...
Government shutdown crisis grows as House OKs border wall funds
International-Las Vegas Review-Journal-12 hours ago
Worried about Trump's fragile ego, Republicans negotiate the terms of ...
Opinion-Washington Post-Dec 19, 2018
Trump warns shutdown will last 'a very long time' if wall isn't funded
In-Depth-The Guardian-1 hour ago
Trump says a shutdown would 'last for a very long time'
International-<a href="http://KSL.com" rel="nofollow">KSL.com</a>-1 hour ago Trump tweets video of himself singing at Emmy's during time of crisis
The Express Tribune-2 hours ago
President of the United States Donald Trump on Thursday tweeted a video of himself singing a theme song from a 1960's sitcom at the 2005 ...
Trump is celebrating the farm bill in the most ridiculous way possible
International-The Week Magazine-17 hours ago As Trump Signs Farm Bill, Crisis in Rural Broadband Continues
PRNewswire (press release)-1 hour ago
"The Farm Bill signed by President Trump on Dec. 20 adds precious investment into solving the problem, but we should consider it a down payment in rescuing ...
 Trump is fuming over 'SNL,' but experts say political crisis just fuels the ...
Globalnews.ca-Dec 18, 2018
Many of the recent satire shows, like SNL, have one thing in common: mocking U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration. Trump has ...
 Looming crisis: Trump's made-up figure for the cost of illegal ...
Washington Post-16 hours ago
Making his pitch to Congress for funding for a wall on the border with Mexico on Thursday afternoon, President Trump offered numbers meant ...
 The Fed Can Pause and Still Resist Trump
Bloomberg-Dec 17, 2018
President Donald Trump is not the least bit happy about this. ... to continue its normalization strategy if a full-blown crisis fails to materialize.
|
| Trump Crisis - Google Search |
 |
| Power Up: Trump kicks chaos theory into overdrive with Mattis out and government shutdown in |
Tackling the opioid crisis was a rare bright spot in 2018.    |
| Even with Mattis resigning, Trump is still damaging the military’s credibility as nonpartisan. |
So much for "my generals."    |
| The Daily 202: Mattis resignation and shutdown saber-rattling signal an even more chaotic Trump presidency in 2019 |
The president predicts a “long” shutdown if Democrats don’t give in to his demands for a border wall.   |
| Trump's frontrunners for Pentagon job likely to share Mattis' views on Syria, Afghanistan - Fox News |
Trump's frontrunners for Pentagon job likely to share Mattis' views on Syria, Afghanistan Fox News
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said President Trump deserves a Pentagon leader “whose views are better aligned” with the commander-in-chief's, but a search ...
View full coverage on Google News |
| Note the timing: right before Putin’s the end of the year press conference, to give him something to… |
| Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:46:59 +0100
Note the timing: right before Putin’s the end of the year press conference, to give him something to brag about. This proves one more time that Trump IS NOT a Putin’s puppet! Now we got all sorted out!
|
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment