High-profile resignations highlight the nation’s struggle to prove to the world it is not corrupt, says Orysia Lutsevych, head of Ukraine Forum at Chatham House
============================================
That is so true, and we all need Ukraine to win both, or at least the war with Russia.
As Putin has to be defeated, so that is the war, but if, corruption does continue will the peace last, perhaps not.
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President of the United States did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. … However, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
That was special counsel Robert Mueller’s blunt conclusion about whether President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice. It’s found early in Mueller’s report of his 22-month investigation into potentially criminal aspects of Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency.
Mueller’s full report – submitted to the Department of Justice on March 22 and published online with redactions on April 19 – highlights 10 areas in which the president may have committed obstruction of justice. I’ve read this 400-page document closely, and judging as a law professor and former elected official, I find multiple episodes that describe possible crimes.
These include: firing FBI Director James Comey, who was overseeing an investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government; attempting to curtail the special counsel’s investigation and fire Mueller; and making statements that could have discouraged former campaign aides from testifying truthfully.
After reviewing all Mueller’s evidence, Attorney General William Barr determined that the president did not obstruct justice. But Mueller concluded that he could neither charge nor exonerate Trump, and indicated that Congress should consider the evidence.
Here’s how lawmakers will determine whether Trump committed a crime.
According to federal law, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent. Bribing a judge and destroying evidence are classic examples of obstruction.
Source: Did Trump obstruct justice? 5 questions Congress must answer : The Conversation
As regular readers know, Donald Trump’s keen interest in the FBI’s headquarters has been at the center of an ongoing controversy. Axios reported in July, for example, that there’s been a debate ongoing for quite a while about whether to leave the FBI where it is or relocate the bureau’s headquarters to a nearby suburb. The president is “dead opposed to plans to move it out of D.C.”
Asked for an explanation, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said last month, “The president wanted to save the government money,” which is why he directly intervened in the project. As the Wall Street Journal reports today, Sanders’ argument wasn’t true.
New documents suggest the Trump administration was aware that its decision to keep the FBI headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C., would cost more than a competing proposal to relocate to the suburbs, contradicting public assertions from the White House that it wanted to save taxpayers money.
A newly released email exchange shows that Andrew Abrams, deputy associate director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, attempting to prepare Emily Murphy, chief of the General Services Administration, for testimony before Congress about the FBI headquarters.
In the email, Mr. Abrams says the toughest question Ms. Murphy could receive is, “How is this a good deal for taxpayers?” The email doesn’t dispute that the proposal to keep the facility in Washington would cost more and be less secure than relocating to the suburbs in Virginia or Maryland.
The information was obtained by House Democrats, several of whom wrote a letter to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly today, demanding additional information.
Given the last two years, I can appreciate why a “Sanders lies about a thing” story may seem uninteresting, but in this case, don’t be too quick to dismiss the revelation. We’re talking about a controversy that points to possible presidential corruption, which now also appears to involve multiple officials who haven’t told the truth.
Let’s back up for a minute to review how we reached this point, because there’s a controversy here that could pose meaningful trouble for the White House.
For those unfamiliar with D.C., the Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently located along Pennsylvania Avenue, about four blocks east of the White House.
As we’ve discussed, it’s also about a block from the Trump International Hotel, which the president still owns and profits from. If the current FBI headquarters were redeveloped in its existing space, it’d benefit Trump’s investment. For that matter, keeping the bureau in its current home would guarantee that a competing hotel wouldn’t go in at that location.
All of which makes it interesting that the Trump White House was directly involved in the talks about plans for the building.
Congressional Democrats recently released materials on a Jan. 24, 2018, meeting at which Trump spoke directly with General Services Administrator Emily Murphy about abandoning the plan to relocate the FBI to a larger campus in a nearby suburb.
Source: Did the White House get caught in a lie about the FBI HQ project? | MSNBC
Hoping these polls are correct
By Robert A. Vella
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll Aug. 26-29, 2018 indicates the American public has turned sharply against President Trump. While his poll numbers have never been very good since taking office, it is clear now that the fallout from criminal investigations and prosecutions of his inner circle are having a dramatic effect on public opinion. Check out these stunning results:
View original post 231 more words
What a tangled web they weave and those that suffer are the people of Puerto Rico.
There is more than a hint of corruption, which appears to start with the Governor of Puerto Rico, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and others. The Trump administration should, if they were concerned for the residents of Puerto Rico, a state of the US, look into this as there appears to be a serious fishy smell or hint of corruption. Trump himself could gain some credibility by having this investigated, but will he.
The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) has canceled its outrageous no-bid $300 million contract with Whitefish Energy Holdings, which, among other things, forbid federal and Puerto Rican authorities to audit its labor costs and profit and had no penalties for failure to meet project deadlines.
But questions remain: Why was the contract granted in the first place? And what is PREPA going to do next to restore power?
The whole thing reminds me of the contracts for reconstruction of Iraq. After the invasion, American and other foreign companies were given lucrative, no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq’s electrical systems, other public utilities and physical infrastructure. Well-qualified Iraqi companies and workers were cut out of the process.
The result was that a lot of government contractors made a lot of money and very little reconstruction took place. I can see the same thing happening with Puerto Rico—maybe a little less brazenly…
View original post 399 more words
Foreign aid needs to be effectively monitored so that control can be exercised to avoid the apparent widespread corruption. Aid for the UK vulnerable is monitored and sanctions are a plenty, so why not for foreign aid.
America what have you done and will the World recover.
The freedom of the press is a right to maintain for they should be the eyes and ears of the public. T/oro place any restrictions on this is creating a state where anyone of wealth, influence and/or power could act against matters where there is a public interest. MPs expenses being a point of example.
President-elect Donald Trump is peddling the notion that he can let his sons run his businesses but make no “new” deals after he is inaugurated. On Wednesday, he held a meeting of tech giant chief executives in which three of his adult children and his son-in-law participated.
Ethics experts were flabbergasted. “Donald Trump’s children aren’t just family, they are tasked with running his business completely separate from his running the government. What we’ve seen so far is not an administration avoiding the appearance of conflicts of interest but one actively courting it,” said Jordan Libowitz of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. He continued, “The president-elect of the United States just brought in the heads of many of America’s largest companies to meet with him and the executives of his personal business. He is relying on the senior leadership of his business to help him pick Cabinet officials.” Libowitz added, “There is no explicable reason for his children to be so involved with the running of the government if their focus on the health of Trump’s business interests is what is supposed to allow him to avoid conflicts.” He reiterated what virtually every ethics expert has said: “If he is serious about a separation of government and personal business, he needs to sell the business outside of his family and place the assets in a blind trust.”
Source: Trump is now inviting corruption – The Washington Post
by Sonyo Zofia
A blog for carers of mental health
Thoughts on life... by Donald B. Wilson
By Sandra Js Photography - Make the rest of your life the best of your life.
Counselling for Individuals, Young People and Children
Affiliated to the national Equality Trust
Making Research Real
Voice, Empower, Influence.
from Joe Halewood
We Provide The Facts, You Make The Decisions
Domestic Abuse Survivor 🤍🦋
Your Independent Left Wing pro NHS Media Source
Chris Sterry expressing views and thoughts on disability issues and other interests.
Working Together through Co-production
News, politics, insights, inside information from the left
61chrissterry 