Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

06-07-2017 , 12:33 PM
john mccain plugging the washington post article bigly.

coats: "just because it's published in the washington post doesn't mean it's now unclassified"
06-07-2017 , 12:37 PM
These men saw Donald Trump speak and know of the chaos that surrounds him at all times and still thought, "Now that's a guy I want to work for bigly!" I'm not sure why anyone thought we were going to get anything useful out of them.
06-07-2017 , 12:38 PM
so the impression i get from news accounts, live tweets and this thread I gather that Trump didn't "pressure" these 2 clowns, however as I see it that is based upon their own moral code and sense of pressure. The key question remains, did Trump mention it, or ask about it ,or anything of that nature.
06-07-2017 , 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
that's 100% the republican agenda. bet your ass that pence would be more discrete/subtle and effective about implementing it.
Right, and I think being discrete hurts you at the polls when you're trying to implement a garbage agenda. You gotta sell that **** as hard as you can by demonizing the media and tweeting constantly. Pence will do all the horrible **** trump wants to do, but it'll cost him votes without a cult of followers dedicated to muddying the waters of political discourse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoder
You know you are one of the tunnel-visioned one-siders when you can not even see that both sides are engaged in the scorched earth demonization of the other side.

Talk to people in the middle, the ones who see and understand the excesses of both sides, you know, all those swing voters out there, they are more perceptive than you may think.
Perceptive people voted for Hillary. Demonization of racists like Bannon and Sessions is a good thing. Republicans and Democrats agree racism is bad, so calling out the Nazis in the WH is a way to unite the country again.
06-07-2017 , 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sighsalot
so the impression i get from news accounts, live tweets and this thread I gather that Trump didn't "pressure" these 2 clowns, however as I see it that is based upon their own moral code and sense of pressure. The key question remains, did Trump mention it, or ask about it ,or anything of that nature.
Correct. As Toobin just pointed out, these hearings are supposed to be about evidence. They were asked about the conversations. That would be evidence. Instead they volunteered their own feelings about whether they felt pressured. Which really wasn't even asked.
06-07-2017 , 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippa58
Correct. As Toobin just pointed out, these hearings are supposed to be about evidence. They were asked about the conversations. That would be evidence. Instead they volunteered their own feelings about whether they felt pressured. Which really wasn't even asked.
interesting stuff, and I agree.

At the tail end of the Mccain thing they mentioned this can be discussed in closed session. Has this been scheduled?

"McCain confirms with Coats that in a closed session he'd be ready to discuss the situation. Coats adds: "I would hope we have the opportunity."

www.cnn.com
06-07-2017 , 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sighsalot
interesting stuff, and I agree.

At the tail end of the Mccain thing they mentioned this can be discussed in closed session. Has this been scheduled?

"McCain confirms with Coats that in a closed session he'd be ready to discuss the situation. Coats adds: "I would hope we have the opportunity."

www.cnn.com
2 PM today (after the current lunch break).
06-07-2017 , 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miajag
the anti-Comey ads are from a PAC
It seems really bizarre to run a commercial to destroy someone's credibility. How is it considered political speech? The guy is a private citizen. Why do the networks run the ad? What if I am rich and there is a person I don't like and I want to harrass them via a TV commercial? That's legal and/or acceptable by the networks standards and practices department?
06-07-2017 , 01:04 PM
06-07-2017 , 01:06 PM
Will Kansas admitting defeat hurt Trump's chances for tax cuts?

Seems like his proposal of huge cuts didn't even have much GOP support to begin with.
06-07-2017 , 01:08 PM
"I'm not prepared to answer your question today." -Dan Woats

06-07-2017 , 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onlydo2days
Will Kansas admitting defeat hurt Trump's chances for tax cuts?

Seems like his proposal of huge cuts didn't even have much GOP support to begin with.
Most people won't notice and the one or two questions will be easily muddied.
06-07-2017 , 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onlydo2days
Will Kansas admitting defeat hurt Trump's chances for tax cuts?

Seems like his proposal of huge cuts didn't even have much GOP support to begin with.
Probably not. Many people who don't live in Kansas in addition to all people who consume Fox News remain blissfully unaware of the budget problems Brownback created. It'll be cash-grab now, fallout later.
06-07-2017 , 01:14 PM
Speaking of Sopranos, those clowns at the congressional hearing reminded me of Jackie Jr and Dino Zirelli before they robbed the card game.

"Let's do this hearing before the crank wears off."
06-07-2017 , 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ligastar
2 PM today (after the current lunch break).
So this is what I don't understand. In a closed session is Mccain allowed to come out and say what was discussed? If he is able to do that, why not just say it in the open session? If he's not able to "leak" or disclose the tangible parts of the closed session and the public does not find out, what was the point to begin with?

prob a dumb question, but i don't understand the rules of the game.
06-07-2017 , 01:16 PM

https://twitter.com/JMunozActor/stat...93018963685376
06-07-2017 , 01:16 PM
They're stonewalling on orders from Trump, it's that simple.

If the answer is no they could just ****ing say no and move on to the next question
06-07-2017 , 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namath12
They're stonewalling on orders from Trump, it's that simple.

If the answer is no they could just ****ing say no and move on to the next question
If that is the case, why have a closed session at 2pm?
06-07-2017 , 01:20 PM
Whoa Cooper is really putting himself out there with this one



https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/...45688273133569

(fwiw I don't believe a word of it)
06-07-2017 , 01:21 PM
man, people will believe any obvious lies the white house puts out
06-07-2017 , 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sighsalot
If that is the case, why have a closed session at 2pm?
Indeed! Why have a closed session to answer a question that has nothing to do with classified intel and which also has not been preempted by executive privilege?

a. because stonewalling

ETA

06-07-2017 , 01:23 PM
Sessions leaked that to make himself look good prior to Comey hearing.
06-07-2017 , 01:25 PM
ISIS claims responsibility for two attacks that killed 12 in Iranian capital

Trump going to be real confused about terrorists attacking Iran and providing the location of our largest ME base.
06-07-2017 , 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Sessions leaked that to make himself look good prior to Comey hearing.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit

I figure it'll take some kind of breakdown either mental or physical for Spicey to leave given that he's still there after all we've seen so far

Also there's been a lot of chatter lately about the admin putting out false info in order to identify leakers, this could be some of that.
06-07-2017 , 01:28 PM
That was really an incredible level of stonewalling. Can't they be held in contempt for not answering these questions? This seems like it can't be legal. They didn't take the fifth or anything.

      
m