If their new source of soybeans isn’t as volatile and unpredictable as the US, especially if they used their weight to get some contracts and guarantees, then yeah, why would they come back to us?
Trade wars are easy to win. You produce a good or service that people want to buy, and you win. You purchase goods and services that others want to sell, and you win.
Any non-punitive restrictions on international trade makes everyone lose.
It depends on the elements of the offence in question.
Indeed, that is why usually felons like Trump get caught in the part where they make extraordinary moves to stop the offense from being found out.
In short, Trump is attempting to draw unfounded conclusions about Bruce Ohr and his wife, Nellie, that suit his narrative but have no basis in reality. Plays well to the base, though.
“Ohr, me hearties! Ohr! Ohr!” said the President.
(No, he didn’t really, its a scummy internet rumor. No one seems to know how these things get started.)
I thought I read that they’ve found a new market in India.
Good for the farmers.
India is offering to export Indian soybeans to China. China also buys from Brazil.
Will China switch back to the USA?
Assuming that the country is being lead by one of the premier negotiators who ever lived, then yes because that would be a condition of the deal that ended the Trade War.
If they need encouragement, the America-hating fuckstick will probably tell the Chinese that he’s ordered American soybean farmers to offer several new flavors of soybean, including: chocolate, cinnamon, strawberry, Double-Stuft, cookies&cream, and with marshmallow bits.
If THAT doesn’t bring 'em back, NOTHING will!
Ahem.
“led.”
That is all.
until you inevitably show up one day talking of “reign[ing] in” a rogue actor of some sort…
The existence of the lies about the payoffs is evidence of consciousness of guilt. We’re not talking here about a man lying to hide the fact that he’d had affairs. We’re talking about a man lying to hide the fact that he’d paid off women to keep their stories from derailing his political campaign.
The affairs themselves were not secrets*; many at In Touch magazine became familiar with Stormy Daniels’ account back in 2011, though they didn’t publish at the time. Similarly, David Pecker’s National Enquirer offices is said to hold a safe filled with what’s common knowledge to many–Trump’s affairs.
So what Trump was protecting with his lies was disclosure of attempts to thwart campaign finance laws. That’s evidence that he knew that thwarting campaign finance laws is illegal conduct.
But as you say: Mueller may well have even harder evidence, not yet made public.
Ooooo…this should be interesting.
**
Done With Michael Cohen, Federal Prosecutors Shift Focus to Trump Family Business **
As AK84 commented, it depends on the exact wording of the offence. While ignorance of the law isn’t a defence, some offences are drafted to require specific knowledge by the individual. If the offence uses words like “wilfully” or “knowingly”, that means that the prosecutor must prove that the accused did in fact know that he was committing the offence.
The reason for this type of wording, especially in financial offences, is to avoid criminalising negligence. For instance, when you’re running a major campaign, there will be mistakes made about how money is collected, how it’s allocated, how it’s spent. Errors of those sort need to be corrected and may attract civil penalties, but criminal penalties may be reserved for clear cases where the person knowingly and intentionally violated the law.
Especially in financial crimes, there is such a thing as “willful blindness,” something banks take great pains to avoid tripping over.
I hadn’t realized that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, like Sessions, has recused himself from the Trump investigations. His deputy seems to be the guy calling the shots, and working closely with Mueller.
This was actually a really big deal when it happened, because Berman was one of Trump’s handpicked, personally-interviewed choices to head up SDNY after he fired Preet Bharara.
Might have been one of the first times Trump was confronted with the fact that just because he is awarding these positions doesn’t mean these folks will deviate from their oaths of office to be loyal to him.
Let’s hope he learns the same lesson if/when he nominates William Barr as AG and the Senate confirms him.
BEEP
Reference to thump “learning a lesson” – does not compute. Sorry, no soup for you!