EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7766
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On June 06 2017 11:29 NewSunshine wrote: I'm disinclined to believe the things he says going forward, not necessarily because of what the article says but because a number of the things he reported were simply wrong. Without corroboration from a known source, he could be making it up for all I know. And Trump's presidency isn't one that requires you make stuff up. The man is plenty a buffoon on his own. my opinion is rather less charitable - he's a loony. i do think he knows a couple people who are able to feed him scraps and hints, but nothing more than what a well-placed reporter would have access to. just that he's much willing to charge in and report it before verification of any sort and add #impeachment #FISAorder #russialeaks to it. On June 06 2017 11:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: Is he fuming that he recused himself and couldn't intervene like Trump wants him to or that he recused himself then did a bunch of stuff that may or may not be inappropriate given recusal? Oh, who am I kidding, of course it's the former. man with no sense of shame becomes angry at man with slightest sense of shame. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 06 2017 11:43 ticklishmusic wrote: my opinion is rather less charitable - he's a loony. i do think he knows a couple people who are able to feed him scraps and hints, but nothing more than what a well-placed reporter would have access to. just that he's much willing to charge in and report it before verification of any sort and add #impeachment #FISAorder #russialeaks to it. man with no sense of shame becomes angry at man with slightest sense of shame. This political climate is unfortunately very conducive to looneys who say things people want to hear. Behind "anonymous sources" you can find endless BS. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On June 06 2017 12:07 LegalLord wrote: This political climate is unfortunately very conducive to looneys who say things people want to hear. Behind "anonymous sources" you can find endless BS. That's bullshit. If the legions of anonymous sources that WaPo and NYT gather up before they publish a story were wrong, where are the real denials of the factual charges asserted in the articles? The only careful speaker in the Trump administration (McMaster) always studiously avoids denying the central charges in the big Comey and Kushner stories. TO put it simply, if the sources were wrong, why aren't they being contradicted? No. Trump's allegations that all the leaks are criminal (because they are truthful) and also fake news (because the leaks are lies) do not count as credible denials. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Mr Trump’s third tweet—“The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version!”—highlighted the president’s weak grasp of what his administration is doing—and what courts are empowered to do. Last week, the Justice department did ask for an expedited hearing of the second travel ban in two cases: State of Hawaii v Trump (pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) and International Refugee Assistance Project v Trump (in which the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals refused on May 25th, by a 10-3 vote, to let the ban go into effect). The Supreme Court seems quite willing to speed things up: on June 2nd, the day after the administration filed its petition, the justices ordered the ban’s challengers to respond in writing by June 12th at 3pm. By the end of the month, we should know if the Supreme Court will take the case (requiring the votes of four justices) and whether it will give the green light to the ban in the meantime (requiring five votes). But there is no sense in which the administration lawyers could seek a “much tougher version” of the travel ban from the Supreme Court; the judiciary does not make policy. www.economist.com | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not dispute the account. In a statement, he said that Mr. Comey had behaved politically and put unnecessary pressure on the president’s ability to conduct diplomacy with Russia on matters such as Syria, Ukraine and the Islamic State. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html The worst of the worst leaks (Trump's words from inside the White House), have all gone unrebutted. 'but anonymous sources' isn't a defense when the White House won't even take a stand against the facts alleged. | ||
|
rageprotosscheesey
2 Posts
On June 06 2017 09:31 xDaunt wrote: Shocking. Well, it looks like she will be able to add "felon" to her resume. Now Trump just needs to root out all of the other leakers and press charges against them, too. You might want to tell Trump that he needs to go after Steve Bannon, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner then. A good number of leaks have their fingerprints all over them. There's a reason why the administration is so leaky and its not because of the DEEP STATE. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
rageprotosscheesey
2 Posts
People don't want to constantly deal with people reacting negatively to Trump's antics; people don't want to deal with Trump dragging your reputation through the dirt, like what he's doing with Spicer and what he's done with Comey, whenever he's threatened; people don't want to deal with the Bannon (Christian Dominionism) vs. Kushner (cynical personal enrichment) power struggles. If you were a skilled diplomat, there's no reason to work for this administration. You get a thankless job where you get abused no matter where you are and your own president constantly contradicts whatever you attempt to achieve. You might as well get a private sector job. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 06 2017 09:31 xDaunt wrote: Shocking. Well, it looks like she will be able to add "felon" to her resume. Now Trump just needs to root out all of the other leakers and press charges against them, too. Three cheers for Rosenstein, Sessions and everybody else involved. Hopefully this is the first of many. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 06 2017 11:08 LegalLord wrote: We still live in a country where proving you're a good Christian is a necessity to get elected to most high offices. I don't think too much of it, really. It's more a matter of checking the right boxes. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4428 Posts
Reality Winner. What a name. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 06 2017 11:38 LegalLord wrote: That one, on the other hand, needs not much more in the way of proof than looking at Trump's Twitter page. Right from the source. Publically yes. Privately, if it's actually been sharper, at this point who knows? And Trump's undercutting his own legal defense of the EO-2, so the justice department should be reciprocally frustrated. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24135 Posts
While she didn't seem to have the most basic understanding of how to leak if she wanted to, it's not looking good for whoever at The Intercept who couldn't have done much more if their intention was to out their source. The Intercept has to come out soon with an explanation or they'll never get a leak again (and that's pretty much their bread and butter). | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On June 06 2017 13:44 GreenHorizons wrote: While she didn't seem to have the most basic understanding of how to leak if she wanted to, it's not looking good for whoever at The Intercept who couldn't have done much more if their intention was to out their source. The Intercept has to come out soon with an explanation or they'll never get a leak again (and that's pretty much their bread and butter). Well, if she used her work computer to contact the Intercept about leaking this document, then that's on her... Did she also use a work printer to print it out so she could hand them the documents in the parking lot of the building? I mean how stupid can you get? The Intercept could have avoided publishing the details of the document I guess... | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24135 Posts
On June 06 2017 13:49 a_flayer wrote: Well, if she used her work computer to contact the Intercept about leaking this document, then that's on her... Did she also use a work printer to print it out so she could hand them the documents in the parking lot of the building? I mean how stupid can you get? The Intercept could have avoided publishing the details of the document I guess... Well according to wikileaks a lot of the information came from The Intercept freely giving it over. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
