|
Post by maxinquaye on Dec 1, 2017 11:38:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Dec 1, 2017 22:40:39 GMT -5
Looking like more fake news
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Dec 1, 2017 22:45:02 GMT -5
Looking like more fake news Trump invented the word "fake" you know.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Dec 1, 2017 22:58:08 GMT -5
Looking like more fake news Trump invented the word "fake" you know. Seems to be working for him. #Genius
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 2, 2017 0:25:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 2, 2017 7:21:24 GMT -5
As I said in another thread, I want this investigation to keep going, but...this is all very, very Ken Starr-esque so far (with a potential dash of Ollie North). Flynn is pleading guilty to lying to the FBI because he denied or mischaracterized his contacts with Russian officials. But this apparently represents the big reveal: That's got nothing to do with the election and it seems...well...mundane, like something that might take place all the time. We're not at war with Russia, anymore than we are with England. If this "reaching out" for the purposes of gaining intel was directed at England, would anyone care? Now, true enough, the Russia-Trump collusion story was already out there, so I guess that explains why this could have been a bad idea (or more precisely, why getting caught doing this was a bad idea). But again, Mueller was supposed to be looking into stuff related to the election, no? Not diplomatic communiques that may have been improper...
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Dec 2, 2017 12:36:12 GMT -5
That raises the question then of why Flynn didn't report that contact, yes? What did he have to cover up? Or is Flynn simply copping to a lesser charge in exchange for providing more information on dealings of others in the administration. And I disagree with Rob about the Ken Starr-esque nature of the investigation. The press coverage may have that quality, but I'm content to watch Mueller carry on as he's been doing. Seems to me he's following the book.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Dec 2, 2017 13:29:00 GMT -5
Personally, I think this is more about Mueller than it is about Flynn. As with any big wig, they want the biggest bang for the buck sorta speak. I don't believe a person in Mueller's position would make a deal like this if he had a strong hand to play. The whole thing seems "desperate" to me.
Another thing, this event looks a whole lot Dan Ratherly with the rush to release not so reliable information. Will someone lose their job over this?
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Dec 2, 2017 14:47:00 GMT -5
Another thing, this event looks a whole lot Dan Ratherly with the rush to release not so reliable information. Will someone lose their job over this? I certainly hope so.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 2, 2017 15:34:41 GMT -5
That raises the question then of why Flynn didn't report that contact, yes? What did he have to cover up? Or is Flynn simply copping to a lesser charge in exchange for providing more information on dealings of others in the administration. And I disagree with Rob about the Ken Starr-esque nature of the investigation. The press coverage may have that quality, but I'm content to watch Mueller carry on as he's been doing. Seems to me he's following the book. Well, I think there's an obvious, not-so-horrible reason for Flynn not telling the truth about his contact with Russian officials: optics (there's that word again). Not that I'm saying that's the likely reason, to be clear, but it is a possible reason. It's also possible that he didn't tell the truth because doing so would have opened a big 'ol can of worms. I'm content to wait and see what Mueller produces, as well, but again what he has produced so far just doesn't go towards demonstrating any Trump/Russia collusion with regard to the election. The press coverage--imo--is mostly overselling things, by and large. And I do worry about the investigation having an end point. Because if there just isn't real evidence of collusion to be had, will Mueller say "this investigation is over"? That's something Starr was not willing to do, imo, but instead just kept grinding away until he produced some sort of feather for his cap (if you recall, the Starr investigation was supposed to be about Whitewater, and look where it ended up).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 17:02:59 GMT -5
I am, alas, spending the weekend hammering out a contract with little time to play. Such play time as I do have has been devoted to catching snippets of all the yuuuuge news and looking at cute puppy pictures (good for my stress levels).
But for now --
I'm with Haggis. I don't think this is ANYTHING like Ken Starr. I think there's evidence for both collusion and obstruction of justice. I predict Jared goes down next, and I see Trump himself in the crosshairs.
I also think the odds get better and better for the Dems to pick up a lot of seats in 2018, especially with the passing of that horrendous tax bill they hustled in last night. Which, of course, increases the odds we show Trump the door.
LOL if you like. She who LOLs last LOLs best.
P.S. -- Post cute puppy pics, please.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Dec 2, 2017 18:28:20 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 18:35:32 GMT -5
It would be swell if the peeps at Fox and Breitbart got suspended for their blatantly false stories about, e.g., Seth Rich and Clinton-sponsored pedophile rings in the non-existent basements of pizza parlors (this ABC one struck me as quite possibly an honest mistake).
But that won't happen, of course, because "news" outlets like Fox and Breitbart are just as happy to report false news.
ETA:
Fox issued a wee tiny itty bitty fleeting retraction of its Seth Rich story, which it had been pushing for weeks despite the pleas of Rich's family. I will wager most Fox viewers/readers never even saw the retraction and still believe the story. It does not appear that Fox suspended or disciplined anyone. Hannity is still ranting on...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 18:39:47 GMT -5
If only Trump would be fired for his constant spew of fake news...
...but it will be the treason that gets him in the end, I think.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Dec 2, 2017 18:42:26 GMT -5
That raises the question then of why Flynn didn't report that contact, yes? What did he have to cover up? Or is Flynn simply copping to a lesser charge in exchange for providing more information on dealings of others in the administration. And I disagree with Rob about the Ken Starr-esque nature of the investigation. The press coverage may have that quality, but I'm content to watch Mueller carry on as he's been doing. Seems to me he's following the book. Well, I think there's an obvious, not-so-horrible reason for Flynn not telling the truth about his contact with Russian officials: optics (there's that word again). Not that I'm saying that's the likely reason, to be clear, but it is a possible reason. It's also possible that he didn't tell the truth because doing so would have opened a big 'ol can of worms. I'm content to wait and see what Mueller produces, as well, but again what he has produced so far just doesn't go towards demonstrating any Trump/Russia collusion with regard to the election. The press coverage--imo--is mostly overselling things, by and large. And I do worry about the investigation having an end point. Because if there just isn't real evidence of collusion to be had, will Mueller say "this investigation is over"? That's something Starr was not willing to do, imo, but instead just kept grinding away until he produced some sort of feather for his cap (if you recall, the Starr investigation was supposed to be about Whitewater, and look where it ended up). I can agree with this. How long did Watergate take? If memory serves, and altogether too often nowadays it doesn't, it was about two years. But this is too important to not follow it through to its conclusion, whatever it may be.
|
|