NO. That can't be. Who'd of thunk it? Trump blaming EVERYONE else except himself for the *decisions* that he made.
The Manafort indictment is a historic test for American democracy
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
NO. That can't be. Who'd of thunk it? Trump blaming EVERYONE else except himself for the *decisions* that he made.
I dunno. Napolitano seems scandalized the the Justice Department uses what seem to me like pretty routine investigatory tactics, like wearing a wire. And he seems pretty upset that you can't lie to the FBI. I don't get why he finds this so scandalous.
gcthomas
New member
Is this the same conservative columnist and Fox commentator who claimed that Obama used the British spy agency GCHQ to spy on Trump? That claim didn't stand up, and even Fox News backed away from the claim.
I don't think that Napolitano is really a good judge of what is going on, given this history.
Nope. Napolitano has been proven right. He's much smarter than you.
gcthomas
New member
Even Fox News said that there was no evidence of Napolitano's claims. He might be smart, but he has got sucked into the reputational death that is a conspiracy theory mindset.
Last edited:
Hmm, must be "a Trump supporter..."
Sure walks, talks, and looks like "a Trump supporter."
In other words, the standard "Trump supporter" pattern of "well, see, that's because..."
Thus far, every single Trump supporter I know, have spoken with, have read, or have heard - manifests that exact same pattern.
The exact same "old as dirt" pattern of a battered women, or completely hen-pecked husband - "well, see, the thing is..." and "well, he / she...is a good person - you, you just don't understand him / her like I do..."
There is...no reasoning with such an individual.
None.
All one can do is shake one's head at the absolute mind boggling stupidity with which even the brightest minds among such can so easily fool themselves into being so fully committed a part of.
It is...what it is, anna.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Even though reasoning with them seems all but impossible, we have to do more than shake our heads. We have to keep shining a plight on the lies and disinformation they’re swimming in.
They’re brainwashed.
Here’s a great analysis, worth reading each and every word. Normally I’d excerpt but I’m on my phone so I’ll just provide the link for now and come back to it later.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16588964/america-epistemic-crisis
I'm sure that's why Fox News suspended him last year for his baseless wiretapping claims.
drbrumley
Well-known member
And I'm sure that's why Fox News reinstated him last year for his proven wiretapping claims.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
The pretense for the conservative revolution was that mainstream institutions had failed in their role as neutral arbiters — that they had been taken over by the left, become agents of the left in referee’s clothing, as it were.
But the right did not want better neutral arbiters. The institutions it built scarcely made any pretense of transcending faction; they are of and for the right. There is nominal separation of conservative media from conservative politicians, think tanks, and lobbyists, but in practice, they are all part of the conservative movement. They are prosecuting its interests; that is the ur-goal.
Indeed, the far right rejects the very idea of neutral, binding arbiters; there is only Us and Them, only a zero-sum contest for resources. That mindset leads to what I call “tribal epistemology” — the systematic conflation of what is true with what is good for the tribe.
There’s always been a conspiratorial and xenophobic fringe on the right, but it was (fitfully) held in place by gatekeepers through the early decades of America’s post-war prosperity. The explosion of right-wing media in the 1990s and 2000s swept those gatekeepers away, giving the loudest voice, the most exposure, and the most power to the most extreme elements on the right. The right-wing media ecosystem became a bubble from which fewer and fewer inhabitants ever ventured.
As the massive post-election study of online media from Harvard (which got far too little attention) showed, media is not symmetrical any more than broader polarization is. “Prominent media on the left are well distributed across the center, center-left, and left,” the researchers found. “On the right, prominent media are highly partisan.”
But the right did not want better neutral arbiters. The institutions it built scarcely made any pretense of transcending faction; they are of and for the right. There is nominal separation of conservative media from conservative politicians, think tanks, and lobbyists, but in practice, they are all part of the conservative movement. They are prosecuting its interests; that is the ur-goal.
Indeed, the far right rejects the very idea of neutral, binding arbiters; there is only Us and Them, only a zero-sum contest for resources. That mindset leads to what I call “tribal epistemology” — the systematic conflation of what is true with what is good for the tribe.
There’s always been a conspiratorial and xenophobic fringe on the right, but it was (fitfully) held in place by gatekeepers through the early decades of America’s post-war prosperity. The explosion of right-wing media in the 1990s and 2000s swept those gatekeepers away, giving the loudest voice, the most exposure, and the most power to the most extreme elements on the right. The right-wing media ecosystem became a bubble from which fewer and fewer inhabitants ever ventured.
As the massive post-election study of online media from Harvard (which got far too little attention) showed, media is not symmetrical any more than broader polarization is. “Prominent media on the left are well distributed across the center, center-left, and left,” the researchers found. “On the right, prominent media are highly partisan.”
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9590903/harvard_belfor_media_partisan.jpg)
Again, it's a long article, but a good read. For the TL;DR crowd, bottom-line:
What if facts and persuasion just don’t matter anymore?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
In other news today:
Clovis withdraws his nomination
Carter Page pleads the 5th in a 7 hours-plus marathon day before the House Intelligence Committee
Mercer is selling his stake in Breitbart
FOX news employees are embarrassed by their network's coverage of the indictments
Clovis withdraws his nomination
Carter Page pleads the 5th in a 7 hours-plus marathon day before the House Intelligence Committee
Mercer is selling his stake in Breitbart
FOX news employees are embarrassed by their network's coverage of the indictments
Do some research for a change rex. He was proven to be correct and brought back to FOX.
Right. Because Manafort is the same person as Trump, and somehow there is something illegitimate about the FBI getting a warrant to tap the phone of a suspect in a corruption investigation.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Thank heavens for this. Amazingly it wasn't outrageous enough that he was heading a science division of the USDA and his qualifications were being a climate denying radio talk show host. I'm far more qualified for that position than Clovis is! (Not that I'd want to work under Trump but still
)
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Thank heavens for this. Amazingly it wasn't outrageous enough that he was heading a science division of the USDA and his qualifications were being a climate denying radio talk show host. I'm far more qualified for that position than Clovis is! (Not that I'd want to work under Trump but still
Having read you here for years now - YES, you're absolutely far more qualified for the position than he is.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Here it is:
Republican Rep. Gaetz has introduced a non-binding resolution that Mueller should resign from his position as special counsel.
Republican Rep. Gaetz has introduced a non-binding resolution that Mueller should resign from his position as special counsel.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Are Bannon’s Ongoing Contacts With Trump Illegal?
Bannon-Trump communications may also run afoul of obstruction of justice and witness tampering laws.
The latest news in the saga of Steve Bannon is that the former White House senior adviser has reportedly beenpushing President Donald Trump to be more forceful against special counsel Robert Mueller. Bannon’s ideas allegedly include urging Trump to cut funding for the probe, telling Trump to withhold documents and pressing Trump to bring in more aggressive lawyers. These latest alleged Bannon-Trump communications come on top of other reported contacts between the two since Bannon left the White House. And it all raises serious questions as to whether Bannon is violating federal ethics laws and perhaps other statutes, including those concerning obstruction of justice.
Former White House staff members—whether encamped at Breitbart News or anywhere else—are constrained by 18 USC 207, which governs “restrictions on former officers, employees, and elected officials of the executive and legislative branches.” One provision of this statute prohibits former senior executive branch officials from communicating with their former agency for one year on behalf of other persons, whether their current employers, persons who are targets of a government investigation or anyone else. And former very senior White House officials, such as Bannon, are subject to a two-year cooling off period, which bars them not only from making such communications on behalf of others back to White House staff, but also to other very senior people in the government, such as the attorney general—and also the president.
... further analysis at the link.
Bannon-Trump communications may also run afoul of obstruction of justice and witness tampering laws.
The latest news in the saga of Steve Bannon is that the former White House senior adviser has reportedly beenpushing President Donald Trump to be more forceful against special counsel Robert Mueller. Bannon’s ideas allegedly include urging Trump to cut funding for the probe, telling Trump to withhold documents and pressing Trump to bring in more aggressive lawyers. These latest alleged Bannon-Trump communications come on top of other reported contacts between the two since Bannon left the White House. And it all raises serious questions as to whether Bannon is violating federal ethics laws and perhaps other statutes, including those concerning obstruction of justice.
Former White House staff members—whether encamped at Breitbart News or anywhere else—are constrained by 18 USC 207, which governs “restrictions on former officers, employees, and elected officials of the executive and legislative branches.” One provision of this statute prohibits former senior executive branch officials from communicating with their former agency for one year on behalf of other persons, whether their current employers, persons who are targets of a government investigation or anyone else. And former very senior White House officials, such as Bannon, are subject to a two-year cooling off period, which bars them not only from making such communications on behalf of others back to White House staff, but also to other very senior people in the government, such as the attorney general—and also the president.
... further analysis at the link.