Trump 43: King of Chaos

[Dandruff]

17 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

His mouth vomits words faster than his chaotic brain can produce coherent thoughts.

The coherent thought, in this case, should have been "STFU".  Or even "I think I'll take a crap and call him back with my spare cell phone".  Better that it was witnessed, though.

I wonder what the foreign leader said that prompted the promise.

[fraurosena]

2 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I wonder what the foreign leader said that prompted the promise.

It could be that the foreign leader may not have solicited the promise. Rather, it could have been that Trump really wanted to impress and cozy up to them.

"Pleaaaaase like me! Look, I can get you this sooper sekrit stuff, and you like me now, right? Right! Do you want more? I have more, so much bigly more sekrits! I can get you lots of things. So we're friends now, aren't we? Oh, please say yes..  We are? Really? YayI I'm so happy... Ivanka! Ivankaaaaa! Come here quick!  Vlad says we're friends! I've got to celebrate. Get me a Big Mac, no, make it two, and an extra large diet Coke!"

[fraurosena]

Sweet Rufus. It's worse than previously thought. There was a pattern to the behavior, and that's probably what triggered the complaint.

Whistleblower concerns were over multiple acts involving Trump, sources say

Quote

The intelligence inspector general told the House intelligence committee today that the whistleblower complaint raised issues with multiple instances involving President Trump, sources tell CNN.

Inspector General Michael Atkinson did not get into the substance of the complaint, the source said. CNN had earlier reported, citing a source familiar, that the complaint dealt with a phone call between the President and a foreign leader but the inspector general suggested there was more than one action.

Atkinson was pressed for details but was mostly resistant to the queries, saying he is not allowed to provide details of the substance of the complaint because he was not authorized to do so, the sources said. He is discussing the process for his handling of the whistleblower's concerns.

The New York Times was first to report there was more than one action by the President at the heart of the whistleblower complaint. 

How can he not be authorized to provide details of the substance of the complaint. The law is pretty clear on this point. Within 7 days of finding a complaint credible and urgent, it has to be transferred to Congress. So what's up with this so-called authorization? 

America needs a patriotic hero to finally stand up and say "You know what, fuck them, I'm going to tell everything., no matter what they say or do to coerce me not to. America's heading towards a dictatorship, and I need to save it."

[GreyhoundFan]

A good one from Dana Milbank: "Correction: Trump never said all those things you heard him say"

Spoiler

Is President Trump losing his marbles?

(Or did he not have a full bag to begin with?)

On Tuesday, with characteristic inhumanity, he insulted journalist Cokie Roberts on the occasion of her death: “I never met her. She never treated me nicely. But I would like to wish her family well.”

On Monday, he declared that he “didn’t say that” he thought Iran was
responsible for the attack on Saudi oil
refineries.

On Sunday, he denied that he had said he would meet with Iran with no conditions.

Last month, he said, of the ongoing trade war, that he “never said China was going to be easy.” And, responding to the Texas and Ohio massacres, he said he wanted “meaningful Background Checks” for firearms sales — something he “never said” before.

There are just a few asterisks to attach to the above statements:

He did meet Roberts. At Trump Tower. In a nationally televised interview. (“Thanks for having us here at your palace,” said she. He replied: “It’s been a great honor.”)

He did suggest he thought Iran was responsible for the attacks, hours before denying he said it.

He did say at least twice, on TV, that he would meet with Iran with “no preconditions.”

He also had previously said a trade war with China would be “really easy to win” and that he wanted “powerful, strong” background checks.

This is the guy who claimed he has “one of the best memories in the world”?

Actually, he forgot that, too. “I don’t remember saying that,” he once declared in a deposition.

Maybe the president’s mind isn’t what it once was. Maybe he misrepresents past statements to get out of trouble. Either way, while the political world focuses on the lapses of 76-year-old Joe Biden, 73-year-old Trump acts as if his frontal lobe is made of Swiss cheese.

Take just a few others from this year.

He said of the de-nuclearization of North Korea: “I never said speed.” But asked seven months earlier about the pace of North Korea’s denuclearization, he replied: “Very quickly. Very, very quickly, absolutely.”

At a rally in Greenville, N.C., he said: “I never said we were going to get, as an example with our vets, that we were going to get choice.” But in October 2016, he promised: “We’re going to give our veterans the right to see their doctor of their choice.”

He said of his border wall: “I never said, ‘I’m going to build a concrete.’ I said, ‘I’m going to build a wall.’ ” But 10 months earlier, he stood in front of a (concrete) wall prototype in San Diego and said: “We’re looking very much at the wall with some see-through capability . . . and then solid concrete on top, or steel and concrete on top.”

He said of his oft-repeated claim that Mexico would pay for the wall: “Obviously, I never said this and I never meant they’re going to write out a check.”

But in 2016, Trump proposed to stop some immigrants’ wire transfers to Mexico unless “the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall.”

The misfires, like Biden’s, are not necessarily a new phenomenon. In 2016, Politifact found Trump claiming he never said what he actually had said about wind farms, Jon Stewart, calling John McCain a “loser,” calling women animals, Marco Rubio, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Megyn Kelly, Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz’s wife, Lee Harvey Oswald, David Duke, Bill Kristol, violent supporters, nuking the Islamic State, arming Japan with nukes, guns and those with disabilities.

But the lapses have become more
serious.

Of Obamacare, he said, “I never said repeal it and replace it within 64 days. I have a long time.” Actually, he said, “we have to immediately repeal and replace Obamacare — so important.”

He claimed that “I never said Russia did not meddle in the election.” But, standing at Vladimir Putin’s side, he famously said: “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

And now he “never met” Roberts? Then who was that talking with her in Trump Tower on ABC’s “This Week” on Dec. 5, 1999?

Twenty years is too long ago? How about 10 hours?

At 5:15 a.m. Monday, Trump tweeted that Iran stuck to “a very big lie” about a previous attack. “Now they say that they had nothing to do with the attack on Saudi Arabia. We’ll see?” His meaning was unmistakable. But when a reporter asked him that afternoon to clarify why he thinks “Iran is responsible for the attack,” Trump replied: “I didn’t say that.”

Whether it’s deceit or memory malfunction, the consequence is the same: Friends and foes alike know that the president’s word is not to be taken seriously.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

A Freudian slip?

 

[Audrey2]

Oh Donnie, there is a solution for that. We just need to elect someone else, so you're not President any more, and so we can investigate you. I'm sure all of the investigations will drag out for years, especially if there's a Democrat in the White House who won't pardon you.

You, too, can have your time in court, in which you "do not recall" them tweet everything you were asked about when you are no longer in the witness stand.

Edited September 20, 2019 by Audrey2

[fraurosena]

Sad facts.

 

[fraurosena]

I just love the way Mirriam-Webster trolls. 

 

[fraurosena]

Oh dear, Trump's a little upset today.

The petty denials are sad attempts at gaslighting.  The misprision is too blatant and obvious for anyone with half a brain cell to fall for it. 

[thoughtful]

8 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

A Freudian slip?

 

So, Trump basically asked himself "when did I stop beating my wife?"

[GreyhoundFan]

From E.J. Dionne: "Why Trump gets away with everything"

Spoiler

A depressing mystery hangs over our politics: Why is it that when we have a president whose behavior puts our security interests in peril, our political parties can’t confront the threat together?

Here we have a whistleblower from the intelligence community who, as The Post reported, found a “promise” that President Trump made to a foreign leader “so alarming” that the “official who had worked at the White House went to the inspector general of the intelligence community.”

If what Trump did is entirely innocent, you’d assume the White House would want everything to become public so the president could be cleared of suspicion. After all, Trump tweeted on Friday that he had had a “perfectly fine and respectful conversation” and that “there was nothing said wrong, it was pitch perfect!” Further, he accused the whistleblower of being “highly partisan.”

So why not share all the information available with the House Intelligence Committee? If Trump’s accuser is some kind of “partisan,” why wouldn’t the president want the world — or at least Congress — to know his basis for saying so?

Instead, the White House and Justice Department are stonewalling, thus ripping apart systems of accountability that were put in place to prevent the abuse of the substantial powers we have given our intelligence services. This is part of a larger undertaking by Trump and his minions to block Congress from receiving information or hearing from witnesses, which is part of Congress’s normal and constitutionally sanctioned work of keeping an eye on the executive branch.

When Republicans held Congress during President Barack Obama’s administration, it seemed that a missing box of staples might have been enough to launch 100 subpoenas and months of hearings. Now, the GOP is going along with a president whose lawyers — in a court filing trying to block the Manhattan district attorney from getting Trump’s tax returns — are asserting that “a sitting President of the United States is not ‘subject to the criminal process’ while he is in office.” It is a sweeping and astonishing assertion that a president is above the law as long as he sits in the White House, no matter which level of government might be investigating him.

There’s also this: On Sunday, without admitting that he tried to encourage Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, Trump acknowledged discussing the former vice president and his son Hunter during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the context of “the corruption already in the Ukraine.” It was classic Trump. Admit to a small piece of a dangerous story floating around about him, and then turn it into a smear of his opposition.

We have become so accustomed to what is blandly called “political polarization” that we don’t think there is any mystery about why the Republicans rally around Trump no matter what he does or what dangers our republic might face. It’s just what they do now.

And so far, this extreme partisanship has worked for Trump and his party. Attorney General William P. Barr’s false account of what special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded in his probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election poisoned the public debate because it sat there for weeks before the report itself was released.

The lie that Mueller had cleared Trump took hold just enough that it turned the discussion of “partisanship” on its head. If Democrats pursued impeachment, the Trumpists argued, they would be the partisans. Fear that this ploy would work has made Democrats in swing districts wary of impeachment.

Thus did Trump pick up an additional benefit from Barr’s initial falsehood, backed up by his own party: While Democrats are united in condemning Trump’s behavior, they have been divided on the impeachment question. A split opposition is exactly what Trump wants and needs — although there were signs Sunday that the latest story may be the last straw for many of the more cautious Democrats. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that while he had been “very reluctant to go down the path of impeachment,” the latest allegations could make it “the only remedy that is coequal to the evil” involved.

Still, the lesson to Trump so far: If lying and stonewalling work, and your own party is too afraid to challenge you, stick with the program.

You might think that Republicans who have made national security their calling card since the Reagan era might finally hit the limits of their cravenness in the face of a whistleblower’s bravery. But the party, our politics and our media system are too broken for the old norms to apply.

Even Republican politicians who know how dangerous this situation is thus prefer to stay in their bunkers and hope to survive. The GOP’s electorate is dominated by Trump’s supporters. Staying mum provides protection from opponents inside their own party — and from their own voters. And if they broke ranks, Trump’s media allies would attack them viciously.

By playing for time, these taciturn Republicans will be able to tell us once Trump is gone how they knew all along just how bad he was.

But when the greatest threat to our country is the corruption of our constitutional system, might at least some of the GOP’s leading politicians decide that there are worse things than losing a primary, or being upbraided by Fox News?

 

[fraurosena]

Could it be true? Is impeachment really imminent? With Nancy Pelosi calling the whole democratic caucus together this afternoon at four, it just might be.

And there is even more reason to impeach immediately:

 

[fraurosena]

Here is the article with the news Laurence Tribe is reacting to in his tweet:

Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president, officials say

Quote

President Trump told his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to hold back almost $400 million in military aid for Ukraine at least a week before a phone call in which Trump is said to have pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate the son of former vice president Joe Biden, according to three senior administration officials.

Officials at the Office of Management and Budget relayed Trump’s order to the State Department and the Pentagon during an interagency meeting in mid-July, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. They explained that the president had “concerns” and wanted to analyze whether the money needed to be spent.

Administration officials were instructed to tell lawmakers that the delays were part of an “interagency process” but to give them no additional information — a pattern that continued for nearly two months, until the White House released the funds on the night of Sept. 11.

Trump’s order to withhold aid to Ukraine a week before his July 25 call with Volodymyr Zelensky is likely to raise questions about the motivation for his decision and fuel suspicions on Capitol Hill that Trump sought to leverage congressionally approved aid to damage a political rival. The revelation comes as lawmakers clash with the White House over a related whistleblower complaint made by an intelligence official alarmed by Trump’s actions — and as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is said to be exploring whether it’s time to allow impeachment proceedings.

Republican senators on the Senate Appropriations Committee said Sept. 12 that the aid to Ukraine had been held up while the Trump administration explored whether Zelensky, the country’s new president, was pro-Russian or pro-Western. They said the White House decided to release the aid after Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) threatened to freeze $5 billion in Pentagon funding for next year unless the money for 2019 was distributed.

One senior administration official said Monday that Trump’s decision to hold back the funds was based on his concerns about there being “a lot of corruption in Ukraine” and that the determination to release the money was motivated by the fiscal year’s looming close on Sept. 30.

There was concern within the administration that if they did not spend the money, they would run afoul of the law, this official said, noting that, eventually, Trump gave the OMB’s acting director, Russell Vought, permission to release the money. The official emphatically denied that there was any link between blocking the aid and pressing Zelensky into investigating the Bidens, stating: “It had nothing to do with a quid pro quo.”

But on Capitol Hill, Democrats were calling for an investigation of what they viewed as potential “extortion,” as Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), the Foreign Relations Committee’s ranking Democrat, put it Monday. Trump, he said, is trying to “reshape American foreign policy” to advance his personal and political goals.

“I don’t think it really matters . . . whether the president explicitly told the Ukrainians that they wouldn’t get their security aid if they didn’t interfere in the 2020 elections,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “There is an implicit threat in every demand that a United States president makes of a foreign power. . . . That foreign country knows that if they don’t do it, there are likely to be consequences.”

Trump on Monday repeated his denial of doing anything improper and insisted that his July 25 conversation with Zelensky was “a perfect phone call.” He also hinted that he may release a transcript of it.

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley rejected claims that Trump was engaged in a quid pro quo. “But because the media wants this story to be true so badly, they’ll once again manufacture a frenzy and drive ignorant, fake stories to attack this president,” Gidley said.

It appears the Ukrainian leader came away from the discussion with a different impression. Murphy, who spoke with Zelensky during an early September visit to Ukraine, said Monday that the Ukrainian president “directly” expressed concerns at their meeting that “the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by the president was a consequence” of his unwillingness to launch an investigation into the Bidens.

Hunter Biden served for nearly five years on the board of Burisma, Ukraine’s largest private gas company, whose owner came under scrutiny by Ukrainian prosecutors for possible abuse of power and unlawful enrichment. Hunter Biden was not accused of any wrongdoing in the investigation. As vice president, Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who Biden and other Western officials said was not sufficiently pursuing corruption cases — at one point, threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. At the time, the investigation into Burisma was dormant, according to former Ukrainian and U.S. officials.

Trump’s allies have frequently said he has been better about distributing military aid, and specifically lethal aid, to Ukraine than his predecessor. Yet according to Democratic and Republican aides, no administration has withheld funds as long and as mysteriously as the Trump administration did this year since the United States began helping Ukraine fend off Russian-backed separatists in the country’s eastern provinces.

Congressional officials were notified twice this year, on Feb. 28 and again on May 23, that the administration intended to release large tranches of military aid to Ukraine. Congress approved two large pots of military aid for Ukraine during fiscal 2019: $250 million, to be managed by the Pentagon, for equipment such as sniper rifles, counter-artillery radar systems, ammunition and grenade launchers; and $141 million, to be funneled through the State Department, for maritime security, NATO interoperability and various initiatives to help Ukraine’s military fend off Russian aggression.

Despite those notifications, the money was not transmitted until this month.

According to administration officials, discussions about Ukrainian aid began in June. Withholding aid from foreign governments is something the president has frequently requested, such as with Central American countries when he said they were not doing their part to help the United States with immigrants amassing at the southern border.

Former national security adviser John Bolton wanted to release the money to Ukraine because he thought it would help the country while curtailing Russian aggression. But Trump has said he was primarily concerned with corruption.

“It’s very important to talk about corruption,” Trump told reporters. “If you don’t talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?”

Besides Bolton, several other administration officials said they did not know why the aid was being canceled or why a meeting was not being scheduled.

The decision was communicated to State and Defense officials on July 18, officials familiar with the meeting said.

By mid-August, lawmakers were acutely aware that the OMB had assumed all decision-making authority from the Defense and State departments and was delaying the distribution of the aid through a series of short-term notices. Several congressional officials questioned whether the OMB had the legal authority to direct federal agencies not to spend money that Congress had already authorized, aides said.

Spokespeople for the Pentagon and the State Department declined to comment.

Mid-August is also when a whistleblower from the intelligence community filed a complaint regarding Trump and Ukraine to Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. Atkinson informed the House and Senate intelligence committees of the complaint’s existence Sept. 9 — the same day three House committees launched an investigation to determine whether Trump and his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, had improperly pushed Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

Capitol Hill has not been briefed on the details of the whistleblower complaint, on orders of the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who after consulting with the Justice Department and the White House declined to transmit the complaint to lawmakers. On Thursday, Maguire is set to testify publicly before the House Intelligence Committee and in a closed session before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

[fraurosena]

While the whole world is contemplating his impeachable offenses, Trump is focussed on the fact that once again, he has not been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[fraurosena]

These are the direct consequences of Trump's hateful rhetoric.

Not only did this nutcase threaten to bomb a local news network, he also threatened Beto O'Rourke.

FBI arrests Army soldier who allegedly discussed bombing news network

Quote

A U.S. Army soldier who allegedly discussed attacking a news station was charged in federal court Monday for sending instructions to build bombs over social media. Jarrett William Smith, 24, was charged with one count of distributing information related to explosives and weapons of mass destruction.

According to FBI investigators, Smith said on Facebook that he was interested in joining the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group in Ukraine. In Facebook chats, he offered to teach other users how to make cellphone explosive devices “in the style of the Afghans.”

Smith talked about killing members of loosely organized left-wing movement antifa and destroying a local news station. On Aug. 21, he told an undercover investigator about how to make a vehicle bomb. Smith also described how to build a bomb that could be triggered by calling a cellphone.

In a Sept. 20 Telegram conversation with an undercover FBI agent, Smith allegedly seemed to threaten former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D), according to ABC News. O’Rourke’s presidential campaign said in a statement to ABC that they are in contact with the FBI over the threat.

“We’re grateful to the FBI for their diligence in handling this case and for their work to keep our country safe in the face of domestic terror threats,” they said. “We take any threat like this very seriously, and our team is in direct contact with the FBI regarding this case.”

Smith faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[fraurosena]

It's obvious he's been drugged up again. He's sniffing, slurring and speaking ever so slowly. And notice how he's making sucking movements with his mouth, as if it's dry. His voice is devoid of any intonation, and as usual he is mispronunciating the silliest things.

 

 

[fraurosena]

Somehow I don't think it was the chopper noise...

 

[fraurosena]

How nice of you.

Except, we all know there was more than one call. In all probability, the transcript of this particular call you made is rather benign-- although I'm not ruling out that you're going to be a mango moron again and implicate yourself in ways you don't expect. 

If you were really honest and upfront, you'd order the release of the whistleblower complaint to Congress.

[smittykins]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Somehow I don't think it was the chopper noise...

 

I like Stephen Colbert’s “Chopper Talk” segments.

[fraurosena]

All the more reason to impeach.

 

[Ozlsn]

9 hours ago, fraurosena said:

These are the direct consequences of Trump's hateful rhetoric.

Not only did this nutcase threaten to bomb a local news network, he also threatened Beto O'Rourke.

FBI arrests Army soldier who allegedly discussed bombing news network

 

That is terrifying. Seriously if bombs start going off on the streets of the US it is going to go downhill faster thsn it already is.

[fraurosena]

Trump is now using your taxpayer money to have federal prosecutors argue for him in court against a state subpoena to release his tax returns -- or those of his company, even from before he took office.

How is this not abuse of office for personal gain?

Federal Prosecutors Join Trump to Block a Subpoena Seeking His Tax Returns

Quote

Federal prosecutors are joining President Donald Trump in asking a federal judge in New York to temporarily block a state court grand jury subpoena seeking his tax returns.

They say in papers filed late Tuesday in Manhattan federal court that Trump has raised “weighty constitutional issues” in trying to stop the subpoena and they want to review them and decide whether to join the fight.

“To the extent that enforcement of the subpoena may adversely affect federal interests of constitutional dimension, those effects could not be redressed after the fact,” the prosecutors said in asking for a “short stay of the subpoena’s enforcement.”

Prosecutors say they could inform the judge by next Tuesday whether they intend to join Trump’s quest to block his longtime accountant from complying with the subpoena, which stems from a criminal probe.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said Trump’s challenge doesn’t belong in federal court and he’s asked U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero to reject the effort to block the subpoena.

Marrero will listen to lawyers as they try to persuade him during a hearing Wednesday morning. A ruling may be immediate or come within hours since Trump’s attorneys are seeking emergency relief in the form of a temporary order preventing a turnover of the tax returns while the legal issues are studied in more depth.

However Marrero rules, his decision is almost certain to be appealed.

The president’s lawyers say Vance is “charging down this blatantly unconstitutional path” by demanding the records from his accountant. They say Vance is subjecting Trump to a criminal probe even though he cannot be criminally charged while president.

They say Trump was cooperating with Vance’s probe until the district attorney “took an outrageous step” after a disagreement ensued over the scope of the subpoena.

Trump’s lawyers say Vance sent a photocopy of a congressional subpoena seeking wide access to Trump and his family’s financial records to his accounting firm. In separate litigation, Trump’s lawyers are challenging the congressional subpoena too.

“Had the District Attorney not acted in such an irresponsible and abusive fashion, the President likely would have cooperated here too,” the attorneys wrote in papers submitted to Marrero Tuesday.

Vance argued in court papers that Trump’s effort to get federal courts to intervene was misplaced since “important separation of powers and federalism concerns prohibit federal litigation of a state court subpoena.”

Vance and his lawyers said Trump was presenting the “remarkable proposition that a sitting President enjoys not only a blanket immunity from criminal prosecution, but that this blanket immunity also protects a president from having to respond to any routine, lawful grand jury request for information about his conduct or that of his businesses or employees before he took office.”

University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said the White House strategy was likely aimed at delaying litigation rather than airing out thorny legal issues.

“The White House has a blanket ‘no’ on everything,” he said. “At some point, they’re not going to be able to stop all of them. I think they’re just trying to run out the clock, get him re-elected.”

 

[fraurosena]

Why would you do this?

'Nightmare' for global postal system if Trump pulls out, U.N. body says

Quote

A threat by Donald Trump to pull the United States out of the global postal system could lead to a “nightmare scenario” of mail going undelivered, packages piling up and American stamps no longer being recognized abroad, the U.N. postal agency said.

The Universal Postal Union (UPU) has been holding an emergency meeting in Geneva to persuade Washington not to follow through on a threat to quit the agency, which sets rules to ensure mail gets delivered around the globe.

The Trump administration says it wants to charge other countries more than UPU rules now permit to have letters and packages delivered in the United States. It has set a deadline of next month for rates to be raised or it will quit.

“It is really a nightmare scenario,” the UPU’s secretary-general, Bishar Hussein, told a news conference, noting that no country had ever left since the agency was founded nearly 150 years ago. It now has 192 members.

“If the United States leaves, you’ll get those piles, because somehow every country has to figure out how to send mail to the United States.... A major disruption is on the way if we don’t solve the problem today.”

Were the United States to quit the UPU, U.S. stamps would no longer be valid abroad, he said. He said he was “very optimistic” that a compromise could be reached.

The UPU is one of the oldest international organizations, set up in 1874 to ensure that mail could be delivered anywhere on earth. It establishes a system for calculating the fees, known as “terminal dues”, that countries collect from each other to deliver mail that arrives from abroad.

Washington says the fees are too low, which unfairly benefits exporters from countries such as China, who can send goods ordered online to U.S. customers while the U.S. Postal Service bears part of the cost of delivering them.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, who heads the U.S. delegation, called for fixing a system “that everyone in this room knows is broken”.

“The mission here today is to retool this system for the brave new world of e-commerce,” he told the three-day talks.

Navarro, speaking to journalists, said: “In an age of e-commerce the United States is being forced to heavily subsidize small parcels coming into our country.  Many are from China but this is not strictly a China problem.”

He said the system meant the U.S. Postal Service was effectively spending $300 million-$500 million to subsidize the cost of delivering imports, including counterfeit goods and drugs mailed to the United States from China.

Other countries that receive more mail than they send, including Brazil, Canada, Norway and South Africa, were also being hit, he said. Countries should be allowed to set their own rates, which he said “might cause some very short-term disruptions” but was “the clearest, cleanest, fairest and quickest path to a reform that is long overdue”.

Democrats Abroad, the arm of the Democratic Party for Americans overseas, has warned of chaos and urged members to lobby Congress against the proposal by the Republican administration to quit the body.

“If the withdrawal goes forward, postal mail service to the United States will be thrown into disarray and the USPS expects postal service to and from the States to be massively disrupted,” the group said in a statement.

Navarro said Washington could quit without problems.

“We have prepared for a seamless transition. There will be absolutely no disruption in military mail, election mail, or holiday mail,” he said.

Oh wait, It's another move in the tariff war. Because packages from China... 

There's an added bonus too:

Navarro said Washington could quit without problems. “We have prepared for a seamless transition. There will be absolutely no disruption in military mail, election mail, or holiday mail,” he said.

No disruption my ample arse. This is simply more voter suppression. 

[AmazonGrace]