(05-10-2017 07:08 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]The Democrats hate him. The Republicans hate him. James Comey is truly his own island now. But how can you hate James Comey Island?
Reading the long story the NYTimes did on Comey was a real eye opener to me. It was published about a week ago and did, IMO, a very good job portraying his struggle in handling the Clinton emails and Trump investigation.
It stuns me that Trump thought this was a good idea, or perhaps more so that no one was able to convince him it was a bad idea. It makes it really hard not to think there is something to the Russia links. Why do something that makes you look guilty if you aren't?
Having said that, it's entirely possible that he just didn't get the implications.
(05-10-2017 01:34 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]And then Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minister, giving Russian press access but not US media...
I'm honestly beginning to wonder if Trump is tired of presidenting and looking for an out.
what exactly is the problem? This meeting was planned and publicized. I knew of it, and not through my Russian contacts. Is it that he didn't have CNN in to take pictures?
(05-10-2017 01:34 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]And then Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minister, giving Russian press access but not US media...
I'm honestly beginning to wonder if Trump is tired of presidenting and looking for an out.
what exactly is the problem? This meeting was planned and publicized. I knew of it, and not through my Russian contacts. Is it that he didn't have CNN in to take pictures?
I think it's bad form not to include American press in these meetings.
If anything, this is just bad optics from POTUS. The day after you fire the head of the FBI who is currently investigating your campaign's relationship to Russia AND news breaks that subpoenas have been issued for the same thing, you basically have a closed door meeting to the US press with only the country of interest being a witness?
(05-10-2017 01:34 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]And then Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minister, giving Russian press access but not US media...
I'm honestly beginning to wonder if Trump is tired of presidenting and looking for an out.
what exactly is the problem? This meeting was planned and publicized. I knew of it, and not through my Russian contacts. Is it that he didn't have CNN in to take pictures?
I think it's bad form not to include American press in these meetings.
If anything, this is just bad optics from POTUS. The day after you fire the head of the FBI who is currently investigating your campaign's relationship to Russia AND news breaks that subpoenas have been issued for the same thing, you basically have a closed door meeting to the US press with only the country of interest being a witness?
That is just a bad look, at best.
It was a meeting, where they had a discussion. Not a public event. Not a town hall meeting, not a press briefing. Meetings are private. It was not public. I am sure the Russian photographer was not a part of the meeting, just called in when it was over.
AFTER the meeting, they took commemorative pictures of the President and his guests shaking hands. I don't know why they didn't use the regular WH photographer, and instead let the Russians bring their own guy - maybe a courtesy? In any case, the photo ops are INSIDE the WH and media is not normally called upon to take souvenir photos. Now if they had gone outside to announce the results of the meeting, then maybe CNN could snap all the pictures they want.
(05-10-2017 01:34 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]And then Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minister, giving Russian press access but not US media...
I'm honestly beginning to wonder if Trump is tired of presidenting and looking for an out.
what exactly is the problem? This meeting was planned and publicized. I knew of it, and not through my Russian contacts. Is it that he didn't have CNN in to take pictures?
I think it's bad form not to include American press in these meetings.
If anything, this is just bad optics from POTUS. The day after you fire the head of the FBI who is currently investigating your campaign's relationship to Russia AND news breaks that subpoenas have been issued for the same thing, you basically have a closed door meeting to the US press with only the country of interest being a witness?
That is just a bad look, at best.
It was a meeting, where they had a discussion. Not a public event. Not a town hall meeting, not a press briefing. Meetings are private. It was not public. I am sure the Russian photographer was not a part of the meeting, just called in when it was over.
AFTER the meeting, they took commemorative pictures of the President and his guests shaking hands. I don't know why they didn't use the regular WH photographer, and instead let the Russians bring their own guy - maybe a courtesy? In any case, the photo ops are INSIDE the WH and media is not normally called upon to take souvenir photos. Now if they had gone outside to announce the results of the meeting, then maybe CNN could snap all the pictures they want.
If the press isn't normally called in to take souvenir photos, then how did we get the following souvenirs?
Report comes out that Comey had asked the DOJ for more manpower and money to support the Trump campaign and Russia investigation a few days before he was fired, to help speed things up (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/po...fbi.html).
However, news is breaking that Comey told those exact things to Burr and Warren of the Intel Committee (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/...ays.html), but it is not yet clear if that request actually made it to the DOJ.
I can guess what one of the first questions that Comey will be asked when he appears in the public hearing. If it turns out the DOJ is lying about this, that could be a serious red flag. Likewise, if it turns out that the reporting was intentionally deceptive, then boy does that look bad for the other side.
Report comes out that Comey had asked the DOJ for more manpower and money to support the Trump campaign and Russia investigation a few days before he was fired, to help speed things up (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/po...fbi.html).
However, news is breaking that Comey told those exact things to Burr and Warren of the Intel Committee (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/...ays.html), but it is not yet clear if that request actually made it to the DOJ.
I can guess what one of the first questions that Comey will be asked when he appears in the public hearing. If it turns out the DOJ is lying about this, that could be a serious red flag. Likewise, if it turns out that the reporting was intentionally deceptive, then boy does that look bad for the other side.
Well, at least we can rest assured that the AG isn't a guy who was rejected as a judge by fellow Republicans for being too racist or who lied to the Senate about his Russia ties during the confirmation hearings...
(05-10-2017 01:34 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]And then Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minister, giving Russian press access but not US media...
I'm honestly beginning to wonder if Trump is tired of presidenting and looking for an out.
what exactly is the problem? This meeting was planned and publicized. I knew of it, and not through my Russian contacts. Is it that he didn't have CNN in to take pictures?
I think it's bad form not to include American press in these meetings.
If anything, this is just bad optics from POTUS. The day after you fire the head of the FBI who is currently investigating your campaign's relationship to Russia AND news breaks that subpoenas have been issued for the same thing, you basically have a closed door meeting to the US press with only the country of interest being a witness?
That is just a bad look, at best.
It was a meeting, where they had a discussion. Not a public event. Not a town hall meeting, not a press briefing. Meetings are private. It was not public. I am sure the Russian photographer was not a part of the meeting, just called in when it was over.
AFTER the meeting, they took commemorative pictures of the President and his guests shaking hands. I don't know why they didn't use the regular WH photographer, and instead let the Russians bring their own guy - maybe a courtesy? In any case, the photo ops are INSIDE the WH and media is not normally called upon to take souvenir photos. Now if they had gone outside to announce the results of the meeting, then maybe CNN could snap all the pictures they want.
If the press isn't normally called in to take souvenir photos, then how did we get the following souvenirs?
"With three high profile firings in quick succession, it's beginning to feel a little bit like Nicaragua around here. A very pro-American European friend weighed in with me by email shortly after the White House announcement: “Astonishing. Your institutions appear to be in meltdown.”
(05-10-2017 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]what exactly is the problem? This meeting was planned and publicized. I knew of it, and not through my Russian contacts. Is it that he didn't have CNN in to take pictures?
I think it's bad form not to include American press in these meetings.
If anything, this is just bad optics from POTUS. The day after you fire the head of the FBI who is currently investigating your campaign's relationship to Russia AND news breaks that subpoenas have been issued for the same thing, you basically have a closed door meeting to the US press with only the country of interest being a witness?
That is just a bad look, at best.
It was a meeting, where they had a discussion. Not a public event. Not a town hall meeting, not a press briefing. Meetings are private. It was not public. I am sure the Russian photographer was not a part of the meeting, just called in when it was over.
AFTER the meeting, they took commemorative pictures of the President and his guests shaking hands. I don't know why they didn't use the regular WH photographer, and instead let the Russians bring their own guy - maybe a courtesy? In any case, the photo ops are INSIDE the WH and media is not normally called upon to take souvenir photos. Now if they had gone outside to announce the results of the meeting, then maybe CNN could snap all the pictures they want.
If the press isn't normally called in to take souvenir photos, then how did we get the following souvenirs?
It would really be bad optics for the Government of the US to depend on media for photographic services.
OO - what is your point? I never said that the WH doesn't have a photographer on staff to cover day-to-day events and activities. I was commenting on how odd it looked to not allow in the American media (press pool) to take photos, while allowing in Russia state media.
And to compound my point, the photo and video above are not provided by the single WH photo who is hired to document the POTUS. They were provided by multiple media outlets that were allowed in for these exact moments - when the POTUS is meeting with dignitaries.
You originally said that during these sort of photo ops, media outlets aren't brought into the WH, and I provided evidence that directly countered that claim. Heck, on the same day that this meeting with the Russian officials took place, in the same room, Trump brought in the media to talk to Henry Kissinger (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/10/politics/d...ssinger/). So don't go acting like the media at large (pretty much the press pool) is not in the Oval Office for photo ops and questioning on a regular basis.
But I do find it funny that the White House is more on board with me, as opposed to you, when it comes to Russian media being involved with these photos.
(05-11-2017 09:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]General Michael Hayden:
"With three high profile firings in quick succession, it's beginning to feel a little bit like Nicaragua around here. A very pro-American European friend weighed in with me by email shortly after the White House announcement: “Astonishing. Your institutions appear to be in meltdown.”
The optics are just horrible - and I have no idea how the top echelon of the Trump team did not see this coming.
They fired a guy who was in the middle of leading an investigation into the Trump team for a reason that was NOT timely.
That's after they already fired an acting AG for not agreeing with them. AND after firing another attorney who was investigating Trump in his home state (Bharara).
At some point, the admin needs to do something to indicate that they have nothing to hide, and so far it's been questionable decision and deflect, on repeat. If this was the first head scratching decision that had been made, I wouldn't be as concerned. But after 110 days, it makes me incredibly uneasy as I don't think Trump really gets the difference between running a private company and a public institution.
(05-11-2017 09:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]General Michael Hayden:
"With three high profile firings in quick succession, it's beginning to feel a little bit like Nicaragua around here. A very pro-American European friend weighed in with me by email shortly after the White House announcement: “Astonishing. Your institutions appear to be in meltdown.”
The optics are just horrible - and I have no idea how the top echelon of the Trump team did not see this coming.
They fired a guy who was in the middle of leading an investigation into the Trump team for a reason that was NOT timely.
That's after they already fired an acting AG for not agreeing with them. AND after firing another attorney who was investigating Trump in his home state (Bharara).
At some point, the admin needs to do something to indicate that they have nothing to hide, and so far it's been questionable decision and deflect, on repeat. If this was the first head scratching decision that had been made, I wouldn't be as concerned. But after 110 days, it makes me incredibly uneasy as I don't think Trump really gets the difference between running a private company and a public institution.
You soft-pedaled at least one of them, maybe two of them.
They fired Yates for refusing to enforce an executive order. One that had passed the scrutiny of an opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel. Last I heard, emforcing and defending these things is one of the DOJ's perogatives (that is when they are not ginning up on Title IX enforcement actions....)
As for Bharara, I'll assume you know that US Attorneys are routinely 'fired' by each President. Bharara was 'unique' in that he disregarded the request to resign. Such changeover is very routine and in the norm and is never really an issue (except when the President is Republican, I guess...). But it truly is amazing to see the Democrats and their supporters in kind in the main stream media go batshit crazy when 'reporting' (should I say 'blowing up the issue for their like minded compatriots') on this when an evil crooked Republican does these actions that are simply rehashes of what always happens and is expected. Gets tiresome....
By the way, you are fully cognizant that each position serves at the pleasure of the President, right? Your final sentence leads me to believe that you don't quite get the import of that.
The jury is still out on the Comey firing, at least until more solid details are revealed. But the 'pattern' when it includes Yates and Bharara is stupid, but that is Vox-spin for you.
(05-11-2017 09:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]General Michael Hayden:
"With three high profile firings in quick succession, it's beginning to feel a little bit like Nicaragua around here. A very pro-American European friend weighed in with me by email shortly after the White House announcement: “Astonishing. Your institutions appear to be in meltdown.”
The optics are just horrible - and I have no idea how the top echelon of the Trump team did not see this coming.
They fired a guy who was in the middle of leading an investigation into the Trump team for a reason that was NOT timely.
That's after they already fired an acting AG for not agreeing with them. AND after firing another attorney who was investigating Trump in his home state (Bharara).
At some point, the admin needs to do something to indicate that they have nothing to hide, and so far it's been questionable decision and deflect, on repeat. If this was the first head scratching decision that had been made, I wouldn't be as concerned. But after 110 days, it makes me incredibly uneasy as I don't think Trump really gets the difference between running a private company and a public institution.
You soft-pedaled at least one of them, maybe two of them.
They fired Yates for refusing to enforce an executive order. One that had passed the scrutiny of an opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel. Last I heard, emforcing and defending these things is one of the DOJ's perogatives (that is when they are not ginning up on Title IX enforcement actions....)
As for Bharara, I'll assume you know that US Attorneys are routinely 'fired' by each President. Bharara was 'unique' in that he disregarded the request to resign. Such changeover is very routine and in the norm and is never really an issue (except when the President is Republican, I guess...). But it truly is amazing to see the Democrats and their supporters in kind in the main stream media go batshit crazy when 'reporting' (should I say 'blowing up the issue for their like minded compatriots') on this when an evil crooked Republican does these actions that are simply rehashes of what always happens and is expected. Gets tiresome....
By the way, you are fully cognizant that each position serves at the pleasure of the President, right? Your final sentence leads me to believe that you don't quite get the import of that.
The jury is still out on the Comey firing, at least until more solid details are revealed. But the 'pattern' when it includes Yates and Bharara is stupid, but that is Vox-spin for you.
Yes, I'm detecting a bit of pearl-clutching as well. I'm pretty sure the people professing to be "concerned" about Trump here on Day 110 were just as "concerned" about Trump every day before now, going back to when he descended the Trump Tower escalator. And look, not without good reason. But "bad optics" is a charge against political competence. Really, RiceLad wishes Trump were more politically deft? He'd be less concerned if Trump were more able to get his wishes, impulses, and brain farts translated into law and policy? As a #NeverTrumper, leave the charge of "bad optics" to me and others who are furious that Trump is setting back the cause of intelligent conservatism, haha. Actually, I'm fine with Trump digging his own grave because every day he does that brings us closer to President Pence being sworn in and the adults being back in charge.
Nevertheless while I do not wish to take on the role of anti-anti-Trumper (others here have that role covered quite nicely), I will concede that like a stopped clock Trump is right about twice a day and firing Yates and Bharara was in no way shape or form some sort of cause for alarm (of which there are plenty others). The honorable thing for Yates to do would have been to resign, which still would have allowed her to stick it to Trump politically, but instead she opted for the even more politically grandstanding move of being insubordinate. And that Bharara was overtly politically grandstanding cannot be seriously disputed.
(05-11-2017 09:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]General Michael Hayden:
"With three high profile firings in quick succession, it's beginning to feel a little bit like Nicaragua around here. A very pro-American European friend weighed in with me by email shortly after the White House announcement: “Astonishing. Your institutions appear to be in meltdown.”
The optics are just horrible - and I have no idea how the top echelon of the Trump team did not see this coming.
They fired a guy who was in the middle of leading an investigation into the Trump team for a reason that was NOT timely.
That's after they already fired an acting AG for not agreeing with them. AND after firing another attorney who was investigating Trump in his home state (Bharara).
At some point, the admin needs to do something to indicate that they have nothing to hide, and so far it's been questionable decision and deflect, on repeat. If this was the first head scratching decision that had been made, I wouldn't be as concerned. But after 110 days, it makes me incredibly uneasy as I don't think Trump really gets the difference between running a private company and a public institution.
You soft-pedaled at least one of them, maybe two of them.
They fired Yates for refusing to enforce an executive order. One that had passed the scrutiny of an opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel. Last I heard, emforcing and defending these things is one of the DOJ's perogatives (that is when they are not ginning up on Title IX enforcement actions....)
As for Bharara, I'll assume you know that US Attorneys are routinely 'fired' by each President. Bharara was 'unique' in that he disregarded the request to resign. Such changeover is very routine and in the norm and is never really an issue (except when the President is Republican, I guess...). But it truly is amazing to see the Democrats and their supporters in kind in the main stream media go batshit crazy when 'reporting' (should I say 'blowing up the issue for their like minded compatriots') on this when an evil crooked Republican does these actions that are simply rehashes of what always happens and is expected. Gets tiresome....
By the way, you are fully cognizant that each position serves at the pleasure of the President, right? Your final sentence leads me to believe that you don't quite get the import of that.
The jury is still out on the Comey firing, at least until more solid details are revealed. But the 'pattern' when it includes Yates and Bharara is stupid, but that is Vox-spin for you.
The DOJ is meant to enforce and defend the Constitution, as they interpret it. That's why during Yates' confirmation hearing back in 2015(?) Sessions made it a point to ask her whether or not she would follow the POTUS's command if she did not believe the law the POTUS was trying to enforce was Constitutional. So, as Yates explained very well, while the Legal Counsel may not find anything wrong with an EO, they are not evaluating the Constitutionality of it, just the ability to enforce it. And what Yates did (standing up to POTUS), is exactly what Senators want someone in her position to do when something like an EO is signed that is viewed as being unconsitutional.
With Bharara, you're right that people in his position are routinely replaced with a new admin. But Bharara had specifically been told by Trump that he would be staying on in his position. That's what makes that situation abnormal (but I'll admit, this is less optically bad than the other two).
And while you're right that people serve at the pleasure of the POTUS (which hasn't been disputed) the government is not set up such that each appointee is supposed to look out for the POTUS's best interest.
My comment about Trump not getting the difference between public vs private is just about that. In the private sector all he had to worry about was his bottom line since there were no shareholders. He is now, however, beholden to all of us and should take that into consideration when making decisions. It's not obvious he is doing that.
(05-11-2017 09:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]General Michael Hayden:
"With three high profile firings in quick succession, it's beginning to feel a little bit like Nicaragua around here. A very pro-American European friend weighed in with me by email shortly after the White House announcement: “Astonishing. Your institutions appear to be in meltdown.”
The optics are just horrible - and I have no idea how the top echelon of the Trump team did not see this coming.
They fired a guy who was in the middle of leading an investigation into the Trump team for a reason that was NOT timely.
That's after they already fired an acting AG for not agreeing with them. AND after firing another attorney who was investigating Trump in his home state (Bharara).
At some point, the admin needs to do something to indicate that they have nothing to hide, and so far it's been questionable decision and deflect, on repeat. If this was the first head scratching decision that had been made, I wouldn't be as concerned. But after 110 days, it makes me incredibly uneasy as I don't think Trump really gets the difference between running a private company and a public institution.
You soft-pedaled at least one of them, maybe two of them.
They fired Yates for refusing to enforce an executive order. One that had passed the scrutiny of an opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel. Last I heard, emforcing and defending these things is one of the DOJ's perogatives (that is when they are not ginning up on Title IX enforcement actions....)
As for Bharara, I'll assume you know that US Attorneys are routinely 'fired' by each President. Bharara was 'unique' in that he disregarded the request to resign. Such changeover is very routine and in the norm and is never really an issue (except when the President is Republican, I guess...). But it truly is amazing to see the Democrats and their supporters in kind in the main stream media go batshit crazy when 'reporting' (should I say 'blowing up the issue for their like minded compatriots') on this when an evil crooked Republican does these actions that are simply rehashes of what always happens and is expected. Gets tiresome....
By the way, you are fully cognizant that each position serves at the pleasure of the President, right? Your final sentence leads me to believe that you don't quite get the import of that.
The jury is still out on the Comey firing, at least until more solid details are revealed. But the 'pattern' when it includes Yates and Bharara is stupid, but that is Vox-spin for you.
So to your bolded - should the acting FBI director be fired too? The FBI will not routinely update the WH on the investigation, which certainly means that they won't be doing what POTUS wants them to do.
My point is that serving at the pleasure of the POTUS doesn't exactly translate to doing what the POTUS wants to do. And unlike a private firm, there are consequences for firing someone solely because they may be doing their job which has a negative impact on your personally. It is a thin and difficult line to balance, I imagine.
(05-11-2017 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And to compound my point, the photo and video above are not provided by the single WH photo who is hired to document the POTUS. They were provided by multiple media outlets that were allowed in for these exact moments - when the POTUS is meeting with dignitaries.
But yeah, keep bending over backwards. It's quite impressive how far back you're willing to go at this point.
Impressive how far you and others are willing to go (bending over backwards) to cast shade on the President.
The photo quite clearly says screen shot.
The video was when reporters were invited in to hear the results of the meeting.
When reporters are invited in, it is to do their job, not the job of the White House staff.
Neither was a "handshake shot". Neither will end up on the shakee's wall.
If all you want are commemorative handshake shots, you don't need to throw the door open and ask "Who wants to take a picture for us".
(05-11-2017 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And to compound my point, the photo and video above are not provided by the single WH photo who is hired to document the POTUS. They were provided by multiple media outlets that were allowed in for these exact moments - when the POTUS is meeting with dignitaries.
But yeah, keep bending over backwards. It's quite impressive how far back you're willing to go at this point.
Impressive how far you and others are willing to go (bending over backwards) to cast shade on the President.
The photo quite clearly says screen shot.
The video was when reporters were invited in to hear the results of the meeting.
When reporters are invited in, it is to do their job, not the job of the White House staff.
Neither was a "handshake shot". Neither will end up on the shakee's wall.
If all you want are commemorative handshake shots, you don't need to throw the door open and ask "Who wants to take a picture for us".
Which photo says screenshot? If you're talking about the photo with the Russian rep, it is from the Russia state media rep who was let into the Oval Office (who apparently at the time was not actually identified as such - the WH only learned about that after Russian media published it).
And you're right about the timing of those photos, but I was using those to counter your argument that the media was not brought in for photo shoots. Stop moving the goal post.
My original comment was about how strange it was that Russian media was allowed into a meeting and American media was not. To me, it would be strange to favor a foreign country's media over our own. It turns out, that happened because the Russians lied about who the photographer was and tricked the WH.
![[Image: screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.png]](https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-7-57-26-pm-e1486774727718.png)