45th President of the United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 7)
Discussion
In the days after President Donald Trump paved the way for Turkey to invade Syria, several of his closest allies went to the White House — twice — to try to change his mind, according to four people familiar with the meetings.
Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News analyst, first walked the president through a map showing Syria, Turkey and Iraq on Oct. 8, pointing out the locations of oil fields in northern Syria that have been under the control of the U.S. and its Kurdish allies, two people familiar with the discussion said. That oil, they said Keane explained, would fall into Iran's hands if Trump withdrew all U.S. troops from the country.
Keane went through the same exercise with Trump again on Oct. 14, this time with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., at his side, according to four people familiar with the meeting. Keane displayed a map showing that nearly three quarters of Syria's oil fields are in the parts of the country where U.S. troops are deployed, the people familiar with the meeting said. They said that Graham and Keane told the president that Iran is preparing to move toward the oil fields and could seize the air space above them once the U.S. leaves.
The president seemed "resigned" to leaving a small number of American troops in northern Syria to keep control of the oil, according to a person who was present.
Before showing Trump the map, Keane and Graham joined the president to listen in on his phone calls with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and with Gen. Mazloum Kobani Abdi, the leader of the Kurdish forces aligned with the U.S., people familiar with the call said. Graham helped arrange the call with Mazloum.
The episodes shed light on how the latest twist on Trump's orders of a Syria withdrawal — that the U.S. needs troops there to "secure the oil" — emerged. Trump's comments in recent days about the need for U.S. troops to secure oil fields in Syria have raised questions about where the idea came from and fueled widespread confusion about what the president's mission is for American forces deployed there
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/graham-fox-n...
Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News analyst, first walked the president through a map showing Syria, Turkey and Iraq on Oct. 8, pointing out the locations of oil fields in northern Syria that have been under the control of the U.S. and its Kurdish allies, two people familiar with the discussion said. That oil, they said Keane explained, would fall into Iran's hands if Trump withdrew all U.S. troops from the country.
Keane went through the same exercise with Trump again on Oct. 14, this time with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., at his side, according to four people familiar with the meeting. Keane displayed a map showing that nearly three quarters of Syria's oil fields are in the parts of the country where U.S. troops are deployed, the people familiar with the meeting said. They said that Graham and Keane told the president that Iran is preparing to move toward the oil fields and could seize the air space above them once the U.S. leaves.
The president seemed "resigned" to leaving a small number of American troops in northern Syria to keep control of the oil, according to a person who was present.
Before showing Trump the map, Keane and Graham joined the president to listen in on his phone calls with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and with Gen. Mazloum Kobani Abdi, the leader of the Kurdish forces aligned with the U.S., people familiar with the call said. Graham helped arrange the call with Mazloum.
The episodes shed light on how the latest twist on Trump's orders of a Syria withdrawal — that the U.S. needs troops there to "secure the oil" — emerged. Trump's comments in recent days about the need for U.S. troops to secure oil fields in Syria have raised questions about where the idea came from and fueled widespread confusion about what the president's mission is for American forces deployed there
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/graham-fox-n...
Byker28i said:
Despite Trump's vow to end ‘endless wars,’ there are now more troops in the Middle East than when he took office and he has continued the mission for tens of thousands of others far from the wars of 9/11.
No wars have ended, though, and more troops have deployed to the Middle East in recent months than have come home. Mr. Trump is not so much ending wars, as he is moving troops from one conflict to another.
Tens of thousands of American troops remain deployed all over the world, some in war zones such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and — even still — Syria. And the United States maintains even more troops overseas in large legacy missions far from the wars following the Sept. 11 attacks, in such allied lands as Germany, South Korea and Japan.
Although deployment numbers fluctuate daily, based on the needs of commanders, shifting missions and the military’s ability to shift large numbers of personnel by transport planes and warships, a rough estimate is that 200,000 troops are deployed overseas today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/world/middleeas...
In response to Iranian attacks and provocations since May, the Pentagon has deployed about 14,000 additional troops to the Persian Gulf region, including roughly 3,500 to Saudi Arabia in recent weeks. Those forces include airborne early warning aircraft, maritime patrol planes, Patriot air and missile defense batteries, B-52 bombers, a carrier strike group, armed Reaper drones and other engineering and support personnel.
The troops that have been hastily withdrawn from the kurdish bit of Syria are not going home, just hopping over the border into Iraq.No wars have ended, though, and more troops have deployed to the Middle East in recent months than have come home. Mr. Trump is not so much ending wars, as he is moving troops from one conflict to another.
Tens of thousands of American troops remain deployed all over the world, some in war zones such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and — even still — Syria. And the United States maintains even more troops overseas in large legacy missions far from the wars following the Sept. 11 attacks, in such allied lands as Germany, South Korea and Japan.
Although deployment numbers fluctuate daily, based on the needs of commanders, shifting missions and the military’s ability to shift large numbers of personnel by transport planes and warships, a rough estimate is that 200,000 troops are deployed overseas today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/world/middleeas...
In response to Iranian attacks and provocations since May, the Pentagon has deployed about 14,000 additional troops to the Persian Gulf region, including roughly 3,500 to Saudi Arabia in recent weeks. Those forces include airborne early warning aircraft, maritime patrol planes, Patriot air and missile defense batteries, B-52 bombers, a carrier strike group, armed Reaper drones and other engineering and support personnel.
Byker28i said:
In the days after President Donald Trump paved the way for Turkey to invade Syria, several of his closest allies went to the White House — twice — to try to change his mind, according to four people familiar with the meetings...
Here's a crazy idea, how about the US military and state department come up with an exit strategy for the president to follow instead of trying to convince him to go against his election pledge to end the forever wars then being surprised when he tells them to go do one?Obama was elected on a platform of trying to get out of middle east wars, as was Trump and in 2020 we may well see this same policy put to the American people again. By 2020 we will have had twelve years of the populace and president trying to disengage from the middle east and there is still no sign of an exit strategy?
It's easy to laugh at Trump being shown strategy on big bits of coloured card, however is it really Trump's failure if all those bit of card show is American troops holding hostile territory for an unspecified length of time with no way to leave and no path towards a long term resolution?
When the president says he wants out of a war it is the job of senior military and diplomats to provide him with options and strategies for doing so. If no such options are given to the president then the failure lies squarely with the secretary of state and the joint chiefs of staff.
Tartan Pixie said:
Here's a crazy idea, how about the US military and state department come up with an exit strategy for the president to follow instead of trying to convince him to go against his election pledge to end the forever wars then being surprised when he tells them to go do one?
Obama was elected on a platform of trying to get out of middle east wars, as was Trump and in 2020 we may well see this same policy put to the American people again. By 2020 we will have had twelve years of the populace and president trying to disengage from the middle east and there is still no sign of an exit strategy?
It's easy to laugh at Trump being shown strategy on big bits of coloured card, however is it really Trump's failure if all those bit of card show is American troops holding hostile territory for an unspecified length of time with no way to leave and no path towards a long term resolution?
When the president says he wants out of a war it is the job of senior military and diplomats to provide him with options and strategies for doing so. If no such options are given to the president then the failure lies squarely with the secretary of state and the joint chiefs of staff.
Get out? And leave all that lovely oil to just float around to the highest bidder? That may not be America? And used to fund anti-US strategies instead?Obama was elected on a platform of trying to get out of middle east wars, as was Trump and in 2020 we may well see this same policy put to the American people again. By 2020 we will have had twelve years of the populace and president trying to disengage from the middle east and there is still no sign of an exit strategy?
It's easy to laugh at Trump being shown strategy on big bits of coloured card, however is it really Trump's failure if all those bit of card show is American troops holding hostile territory for an unspecified length of time with no way to leave and no path towards a long term resolution?
When the president says he wants out of a war it is the job of senior military and diplomats to provide him with options and strategies for doing so. If no such options are given to the president then the failure lies squarely with the secretary of state and the joint chiefs of staff.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nu...
The U.S. needs Middle East oil, or it's population will revolt. Until such time as the US populace is (more) energy self-sufficient, they really daren't leave.
Oh, and Trump loves energy inefficiency - he'd be much happier if everyone was driving around in US-made 6 litre V8s with 120hp. Damn those Japanese and Europeans and the desire for fuel efficiency (and reliability) taking US jobs.
William taylor has been testifying to the impeachment inquiry.
Trump’s top envoy to Ukraine told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday of intense efforts by administration officials to secure politically-motivated investigations of Trump’s rivals in exchange for a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president and critical military aid, according to sources in the room for the testimony.
William Taylor prompted sighs and gasps when he read a lengthy 15-page opening statement
Another person in the room said Taylor’s statement described “how pervasive the efforts were” among Trump's allies to convince Ukrainian officials to launch an investigation targeting former Vice President Joe Biden and another probe centering on a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 election.
Taylor also described the extent to which military assistance to Ukraine and a potential White House meeting with Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart were tied to those investigations, the source added.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/22/willi...
Trump’s top envoy to Ukraine told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday of intense efforts by administration officials to secure politically-motivated investigations of Trump’s rivals in exchange for a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president and critical military aid, according to sources in the room for the testimony.
William Taylor prompted sighs and gasps when he read a lengthy 15-page opening statement
Another person in the room said Taylor’s statement described “how pervasive the efforts were” among Trump's allies to convince Ukrainian officials to launch an investigation targeting former Vice President Joe Biden and another probe centering on a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 election.
Taylor also described the extent to which military assistance to Ukraine and a potential White House meeting with Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart were tied to those investigations, the source added.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/22/willi...
Oh this is brilliant, how have I not known about this before...
Someone is selling flip flops with trumps alternative opinions on each shoe, where each contradicts the other
https://www.presidentflipflops.com/
Someone is selling flip flops with trumps alternative opinions on each shoe, where each contradicts the other
https://www.presidentflipflops.com/
JonChalk said:
Tartan Pixie said:
Here's a crazy idea, how about the US military and state department come up with an exit strategy for the president to follow instead of trying to convince him to go against his election pledge to end the forever wars then being surprised when he tells them to go do one?
Obama was elected on a platform of trying to get out of middle east wars, as was Trump and in 2020 we may well see this same policy put to the American people again. By 2020 we will have had twelve years of the populace and president trying to disengage from the middle east and there is still no sign of an exit strategy?
It's easy to laugh at Trump being shown strategy on big bits of coloured card, however is it really Trump's failure if all those bit of card show is American troops holding hostile territory for an unspecified length of time with no way to leave and no path towards a long term resolution?
When the president says he wants out of a war it is the job of senior military and diplomats to provide him with options and strategies for doing so. If no such options are given to the president then the failure lies squarely with the secretary of state and the joint chiefs of staff.
Get out? And leave all that lovely oil to just float around to the highest bidder? That may not be America? And used to fund anti-US strategies instead?Obama was elected on a platform of trying to get out of middle east wars, as was Trump and in 2020 we may well see this same policy put to the American people again. By 2020 we will have had twelve years of the populace and president trying to disengage from the middle east and there is still no sign of an exit strategy?
It's easy to laugh at Trump being shown strategy on big bits of coloured card, however is it really Trump's failure if all those bit of card show is American troops holding hostile territory for an unspecified length of time with no way to leave and no path towards a long term resolution?
When the president says he wants out of a war it is the job of senior military and diplomats to provide him with options and strategies for doing so. If no such options are given to the president then the failure lies squarely with the secretary of state and the joint chiefs of staff.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nu...
The U.S. needs Middle East oil, or it's population will revolt. Until such time as the US populace is (more) energy self-sufficient, they really daren't leave.
Oh, and Trump loves energy inefficiency - he'd be much happier if everyone was driving around in US-made 6 litre V8s with 120hp. Damn those Japanese and Europeans and the desire for fuel efficiency (and reliability) taking US jobs.
There is basically no good way out of the Middle East mess for the US. As TP said it's been on the cards for a while, but whenever someone tries to do it then often it creates a vacuum that just gets filled up by enemies again (Iraq and ISIS, Afghanistan and the Taliban even now). It's somewhat ironic there has been so much complaints about the US (and us) missing around in the middle east, yet when someone does something to stop it (very badly!) it's a bad thing. And ironically it's one of the few areas he's probably a better option than Clinton would have been with her much more pro-war stance.
Byker28i said:
Despite Trump's vow to end ‘endless wars,’ there are now more troops in the Middle East than when he took office and he has continued the mission for tens of thousands of others far from the wars of 9/11.
No wars have ended, though, and more troops have deployed to the Middle East in recent months than have come home. Mr. Trump is not so much ending wars, as he is moving troops from one conflict to another.
Tens of thousands of American troops remain deployed all over the world, some in war zones such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and — even still — Syria. And the United States maintains even more troops overseas in large legacy missions far from the wars following the Sept. 11 attacks, in such allied lands as Germany, South Korea and Japan.
Although deployment numbers fluctuate daily, based on the needs of commanders, shifting missions and the military’s ability to shift large numbers of personnel by transport planes and warships, a rough estimate is that 200,000 troops are deployed overseas today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/world/middleeas...
In response to Iranian attacks and provocations since May, the Pentagon has deployed about 14,000 additional troops to the Persian Gulf region, including roughly 3,500 to Saudi Arabia in recent weeks. Those forces include airborne early warning aircraft, maritime patrol planes, Patriot air and missile defense batteries, B-52 bombers, a carrier strike group, armed Reaper drones and other engineering and support personnel.
A huge percentage of those troops are likely to be part of the soft power influence of the US. Less about conflict and more about keeping their sphere of influence in different areas/ to counter others. Just look at what China is doing around the world to give them more breathing room from any attacks etc. It's what's been done by basically all the presidents before Trump, and nothing new. What is new is he has avoided any new military conflict in the middle east - different from Bush and Obama before him (so far). One of the few positive areas of his presidency. No wars have ended, though, and more troops have deployed to the Middle East in recent months than have come home. Mr. Trump is not so much ending wars, as he is moving troops from one conflict to another.
Tens of thousands of American troops remain deployed all over the world, some in war zones such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and — even still — Syria. And the United States maintains even more troops overseas in large legacy missions far from the wars following the Sept. 11 attacks, in such allied lands as Germany, South Korea and Japan.
Although deployment numbers fluctuate daily, based on the needs of commanders, shifting missions and the military’s ability to shift large numbers of personnel by transport planes and warships, a rough estimate is that 200,000 troops are deployed overseas today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/world/middleeas...
In response to Iranian attacks and provocations since May, the Pentagon has deployed about 14,000 additional troops to the Persian Gulf region, including roughly 3,500 to Saudi Arabia in recent weeks. Those forces include airborne early warning aircraft, maritime patrol planes, Patriot air and missile defense batteries, B-52 bombers, a carrier strike group, armed Reaper drones and other engineering and support personnel.
JonChalk said:
NRS said:
Old news. America is almost an oil exporter thanks to shale oil.
Don't disagree with most of the rest of your post, but you don't import 9M barrels per day, if you're self-sufficient.https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petrol...
JonChalk said:
Get out? And leave all that lovely oil to just float around to the highest bidder? That may not be America? And used to fund anti-US strategies instead?
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nu...
The U.S. needs Middle East oil, or it's population will revolt. Until such time as the US populace is (more) energy self-sufficient, they really daren't leave.
Oh, and Trump loves energy inefficiency - he'd be much happier if everyone was driving around in US-made 6 litre V8s with 120hp. Damn those Japanese and Europeans and the desire for fuel efficiency (and reliability) taking US jobs.
A fair point however I don't see how that aim is going to be achieved by by forcing a state of constant warfare on the local population until America is so hated that they are forced to leave.https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nu...
The U.S. needs Middle East oil, or it's population will revolt. Until such time as the US populace is (more) energy self-sufficient, they really daren't leave.
Oh, and Trump loves energy inefficiency - he'd be much happier if everyone was driving around in US-made 6 litre V8s with 120hp. Damn those Japanese and Europeans and the desire for fuel efficiency (and reliability) taking US jobs.
Look at Iraq, was all that blood and treasure spent by America so that Iran could greatly increase their influence there while Americans count down the days until the Iraqi government boot them out for being foreign invaders? Do we think Afghanistan is going any better?
This is what the results of the forever war strategy have so far brought.
Imagine we had gone in to Iraq with a reconstruction plan designed to bring prosperity to the population and make Iraq an investment that would in the long term be a financial net positive for both America/UK and Iraq.
All those Iraqi army vets would have had no need to join ISIS, stunting the terror group at birth and potentially averting the Syrian war altogether. Iran's route in to the Iraqi parliament through patronage networks tied to reconstruction would be unavailable to them because their path is blocked by American money and reconstruction. When the Arab spring comes around people are waving American flags because they see how the lives of Iraqis are being improved by investment funds that are tied to improved government and judiciary.
We know this type of foreign policy works because we saw it across Eastern Europe with the colour revolutions. Recently the citizens of Ukraine started waving European flags and then went and fought the Russians, all for the promise of better governance and better lives. Perhaps Iranians might be inclined to do the same if they could look to a prospering Iraq across the border?
I don't think it's the middle east that Americans have spent the last three elections trying to leave, it's the wars, expense and cycle of destructive behavior that people don't like. IMO that could all be avoided by going back to the successful foreign policy playbook that Bush decided to rip up.
Edited by Tartan Pixie on Tuesday 22 October 21:05
Tartan Pixie said:
NRS said:
Thanks for that. Started listening to it, but run out of time now so will continue later. Recently I've been listening to stuff by Mark Blyth, and very interested to see what seems to be a good background/prediction as to how Trump (and the other swings to left/right "extremes") have got into power. Will try and find a good one for the thread later.
The guest was way out of my league, I can just about understand the supply and demand dynamics of oil but once he got in to how futures and reserves affect prices I sat in front of google for a few minutes and then decided fek it, even though this is my area of interest there are people out there who know far more than I do.If I understood him correctly then he's saying the risk premium based on reserves accessible to the market leaves oil underpriced by about $15 a barrel but I can't for the life of me follow his methodology. Either I'm too dumb to get it or he's got so much information asymmetry on me that I can't see it but I struggle to see the mechanism by which oil (brent) is going to move out of the $60 lower limit set by OPEC and the $80 limit set by America.
For futures you can win or lose, but it gives you a known cost and secures the supply from what I understand. So for example some companies had agreements up in the $100 plus during the high oil price for say 2 years, and the oil supplier would have done well as they would keep getting $100 even when the price collapsed. But some shale oil producers also panicked and signed deals at say $40 when the price was low for a couple of years, which meant they were actually losing money when it went back to $50 (a 20% price difference, so significant). And the paper money basically acts as a multiplier on the real oil, so can create it's own effects that become disconnected from the real price on a shorter term period (so someone might think they are too exposed to the price going up, so counter that with certain options etc). That goes more into an area I'm not so secure in - but in a basic sense I think it's to stop yourself going bankrupt if you get your bet on the way the price will go very wrong.
So either the interviewee is "wrong", or the market is being irrational as it does in many different cases (say general market forgetting risk before the Global Financial Crash). Or both! Probably depending on what time scale you look at. In the short term the attack in Saudi has been shown to be a blip rather than a big long term risk, so currently the general market is right... But all it takes is a war in a big supplier for example, and then we'll see a jump. But those kind of things are hard to predict, and to take it back to Trump it seems like he is less interventionist militarily, so probably people view that as a smaller risk than previous presidents.
I think the
Tartan Pixie said:
Look at Iraq, was all that blood and treasure spent by America so that Iran could greatly increase their influence there while Americans count down the days until the Iraqi government boot them out for being foreign invaders? Do we think Afghanistan is going any better?
This is what the results of the forever war strategy have so far brought....
I don't think it's the middle east that Americans have spent the last three elections trying to leave, it's the wars, expense and cycle of destructive behavior that people don't like. IMO that could all be avoided by going back to the successful foreign policy playbook that Bush decided to rip up.
It's even bigger than that. 9/11 was a black swan event which has lead to a chain of events that is part of the reason for the rise of the right wing in Europe. Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq, which created the issues there, and then triggered the Arab Spring. That resulted in a bunch of civil wars such as Syria, which then resulted in the big refugee/migrant movement into Europe, which has resulted in the rise of the right wing in many European countries. And for example is giving Turkey power against Europe ("don't piss us off or we'll release 3.5 million refugees towards you"). And is still playing out now.This is what the results of the forever war strategy have so far brought....
I don't think it's the middle east that Americans have spent the last three elections trying to leave, it's the wars, expense and cycle of destructive behavior that people don't like. IMO that could all be avoided by going back to the successful foreign policy playbook that Bush decided to rip up.
The Washington Post has William Taylors opening statement, which rather makes it look like Gordon Sondland is in danger of perjury charges over his testimony to Congress.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/opening-sta...
"In August and September ... I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons."
"Sondland said that he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added President Zelenskyy to the call."
"By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned on the investigations ... It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani."
"Strangely, even though I was Chief of Mission and was scheduled to meet with President Zelenskyy along with Ambassador Volker the following day, I received no readout of the call from the White House. "
"Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until Pres. Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation ... This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the W.H. meeting—was conditioned on the investigations."
“Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/opening-sta...
"In August and September ... I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons."
"Sondland said that he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added President Zelenskyy to the call."
"By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned on the investigations ... It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani."
"Strangely, even though I was Chief of Mission and was scheduled to meet with President Zelenskyy along with Ambassador Volker the following day, I received no readout of the call from the White House. "
"Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until Pres. Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation ... This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the W.H. meeting—was conditioned on the investigations."
“Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.”
Edited by Byker28i on Wednesday 23 October 06:16
The top U.S. emissary to Ukraine painted a devastating portrait in testimony Tuesday on Capitol Hill of what appeared to be White House-directed efforts to pressure the government in Kiev to investigate a Democratic political rival.
https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-ambassador-offers-d...
https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-ambassador-offers-d...
Vanity Fair have pointed out how trumps treatment of Giuliani is similar to Cohen originally, and how Cohen is still helping the investigations, including information that could be pertinent to the SDNY’s investigation into Lev Parnas
Lanny Davis, one of Cohen’s attorneys, told me over the weekend. “First, in assisting the ongoing congressional impeachment investigation to interpret the Trump code words to lie, as in ‘no quid pro quo, no quid pro quo’ to the E.U. ambassador, when he knows the truth is exactly the opposite. And second, to assist ongoing investigations by state and federal prosecutors.”
This is interesting..
...his attorneys spelled out the extent of his cooperation thus far. The letter reads that Cohen provided the SDNY with detailed information about possible “insurance fraud committed by Donald Trump and the Trump Foundation, illegal campaign contributions by donors, and possible obstruction of justice by certain attorneys,” along with information about “the Trump Joint Defense Agreement and about the financing of the Trump golf courses” and a “nuclear power plant project.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/michael-co...
Lanny Davis, one of Cohen’s attorneys, told me over the weekend. “First, in assisting the ongoing congressional impeachment investigation to interpret the Trump code words to lie, as in ‘no quid pro quo, no quid pro quo’ to the E.U. ambassador, when he knows the truth is exactly the opposite. And second, to assist ongoing investigations by state and federal prosecutors.”
This is interesting..
...his attorneys spelled out the extent of his cooperation thus far. The letter reads that Cohen provided the SDNY with detailed information about possible “insurance fraud committed by Donald Trump and the Trump Foundation, illegal campaign contributions by donors, and possible obstruction of justice by certain attorneys,” along with information about “the Trump Joint Defense Agreement and about the financing of the Trump golf courses” and a “nuclear power plant project.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/michael-co...
Taylor also put Barr's role into the Ukraine scandal back in focus, again proving that trump put a yes man in place and that Barr is working for trump, not the country.
According to Taylor, Sondland said that the public announcement by Ukraine would be made “possibly in coordination with Attorney General Barr’s probe into the investigation of interference in the 2016 elections.”
According to Kyle Cheney, the Department of Justice is releasing a statement saying that it didn’t know Sondland was linking Trump’s Ukraine scandal quid pro quo with Bill Barr. He didn't keep his department informed of the work he was doing for trump.
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/11867437604...
According to Taylor, Sondland said that the public announcement by Ukraine would be made “possibly in coordination with Attorney General Barr’s probe into the investigation of interference in the 2016 elections.”
According to Kyle Cheney, the Department of Justice is releasing a statement saying that it didn’t know Sondland was linking Trump’s Ukraine scandal quid pro quo with Bill Barr. He didn't keep his department informed of the work he was doing for trump.
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/11867437604...
Giuliani had an interview with the Washington Post as the investigate deeper into trumps Ukraine scandal and how it links to Firtash and russian Oligarchs
In it he claimed he didn't directly work for Dmitry Firtash but then said “I did sort of look at Firtash to see if he had any relevant information … As far as I can tell, he didn’t. I looked at maybe 20 of these oligarchs.”
Immediately after claiming that he never tried to do anything with Dmitry Firtash, Giuliani then said that he tried to involve as many as twenty Kremlin oligarchs in Donald Trump’s Ukraine scandal.
As Pelosi recently said that with Trump, all roads lead to Putin
In it he claimed he didn't directly work for Dmitry Firtash but then said “I did sort of look at Firtash to see if he had any relevant information … As far as I can tell, he didn’t. I looked at maybe 20 of these oligarchs.”
Immediately after claiming that he never tried to do anything with Dmitry Firtash, Giuliani then said that he tried to involve as many as twenty Kremlin oligarchs in Donald Trump’s Ukraine scandal.
As Pelosi recently said that with Trump, all roads lead to Putin
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff