Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
His words, what do they mean?
#1
In this thread I am going to post the words of the guy in the White House and hope that someone here

a) can explain what he means
b) justify and defend his words
or
c) just laugh at his stupidity.

So let's kick off then


"You have to treat 'em like shit." Referring to women (New York magazine, Nov. 9, 1992)

Well, I'm sure it was probably taken out of context and there is a logical explanation for saying something like that. Feel free to enlighten me, and attempt to justify this person's vile words. I am not going to go for the obvious "grab 'em by the pussy" that is too obvious, well documented and unjustifiable.


Let's have a more recent one

   

He doesn't get it does he??  This scares me that George Bush (not an intellectual heavyweight, let's admit) can use a metaphor and Trump does not understand it.  That is scary as hell.

"I don’t stand by anything.  You can take it the way you want." (his wild and baseless statement that Obama wiretapped Trump tower.)

Can you imagine him saying this in a meeting with world leaders? Sadly I can.

There will be more to come, as he says random shit daily, so it is not too hard to find ridiculous statements he has made.  What is hard is having someone justify and explain them.


Hence this thread

Oh, and also for entertainment value.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=944]
Reply
#2
OK, I'll bite.
Like most Trump haters, why don't people do research?


 Anything the left MSM or The DNC has to say is all Unresearched Bull-Shit.
This Supposed comment from trump was first aired on TV sponsored by a Democratic Super-Pac, the tv ad had an actress reading of a list of Supposed Quotes by Trump.

Just more Liberal-Progressive Attacks, Trump Won, Hillary Loss (Thank God) America has a fighting Chance Again.

I mean if you really wanted to go into thing that REALLY happened in the 90's, look at Slick-Willie (Bill Clinton) and His Lying to America about a Girl in her 20's and a Blue Dress.

No, Trump needs to get back to his Game Plan and Start Draining The Swamp.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#3
1984hasarrived Said:

In this thread I am going to post the words of the guy in the White House and hope that someone here

a) can explain what he means
b) justify and defend his words
or
c) just laugh at his stupidity.

So let's kick off then...

First off, I'm not defending Donald Trump, I'm defending rationality and the belief that some people
have different views on the world that may not allign with others.
I don't like deceivers, not because they lie... that is up to them and not because it's against a law,
it's because it wastes my time.

I don't like those that imply a characteristic is connected to conduct, it's not. There are influencial
people in the world who wouldn't last five minutes in a war zone, but one will tend to find that such
powerful people are the ones who delegate others to do it.
That may seem unfair, but the real world is like that.

Secondly, anything put into print or in an edited piece of video footage is there to draw in ratings.
I worked in the busines for almost thirty years and I can tell you, the media doesn't give a rat's-ass
about the meaning behind a comment or it's value. As long as it's got a cleavage, an idiot and
someone to explain to the person staring at the boob-tube that the rules are what they telll them,
then the media are fine with it.

When was the last time you saw a reporter talk to a member of the pubic without adding their
own opinion on what was said at the end of the article...? It's about established control and that
doesn't mean 'New World Order'.
It means an easy shift for the Journalist that doesn't involve them getting shot or their feet wet.

Politicians know the game and know that to run out the clock of the interview by speaking in a
manner that explains at length what the people they represent want and use words that avoid
any blow-back from a media-deemed controversial comment.

It's not that they truly mean it, it's just that they know their interview in reality is a piece that fits
into a designed programme. and any personal opinion could be used as a filler at a later date
and force them to be accountable.
Not because of some high-moral standing of the newspaper or television company, but because
it can be exploited in the name of entertainment... and entertainment brings ratings.

With that said and you say, let's kick off then.
.....................................................

"You have to treat 'em like shit. Referring to women (New York magazine, Nov. 9, 1992)

In this piece, Trump is talking man-shit. He's leaning on an old saying 'treat 'em men, keep 'em keen'
It's the way men talk when they're trying to impress other men. It might seem callous and not very
presidential, but he wasn't president then and people can say things we might not agree with.

'Chicks love me and my big schlong' -Boy In A Dress.
The comment doesn't really make me feel good and it's hoped to impress men around me because
men are insecure around other men and protect themselves with bravado and bullshit.

It wouldn't work on females because it would be seen that a big-headed fool -who's thinks he's God's
-gift to women is not decent material for woman seeking a trusting relationship with a male partner
who would want someone like that?!
That's why the majority of men behave in a different manner when in the respective companies.
It's just life.
.....................................................

Let's have a more recent one

(From article)
John Dickerson:
"George W. Bush said the reason the Oval Office is round is there are no corners you can hide in."
President Donald Trump:
"Well there's truth to that. There is truth to that. There are certainly no corners. And you look,
there's a certain openness. But there's nobody out there. You know, there's an openness, but
I've never seen anyone actually out there, as you can imagine."
John Dickerson:
"But he... what he meant was it's all comes...
President Donald Trump:
"Sure. Sure.
 John Dickerson:
"...Back to you"   

He doesn't get it does he?? 
This scares me that George Bush (not an intellectual heavyweight, let's admit) can use a metaphor and
Trump does not understand it.  That is scary as hell.
.....................................................
[Please Note, I haven't seen the documentary, this only my opinion]

Nope... the United States current leader doesn't understand the metaphor... That must be it.

I would suggest the fact that if the majority of the same country's citizens accepted the rules of an
election, never complained about them enough to get them altered and then watched as others
around them voted for Donald Trump, there's a symbolism there that casts a dim light on not only
the assumed manner that 'somebody' voted him in, but the blindness of the opposing party had
on what he represented to the public who voted for him.
But that's for another day.

Without using any biased, I would offer the idea -based on the words used, that the interview between
Mr. Dickerson (CBS...?! come on man!) and President Trump was a 'moving' situation.
'Out there' implies the area outside the Oval Office, Dickerson's remark about Bush Jnr's comment may
have been brushed aside because of what Trump was wanting talk about.
Maybe Trump felt that Dickerson was veering towards asking him questions that would have made
him squirm..?

Maybe Trump was just not interested in sagacious metaphors or maybe he's just too thick to appreciate
that he was supposed to talk like he was addressing five year-olds who don't know their Government kills
for influence.
Whatever the reason, I wouldn't take it personally as one tends to find that figure-heads are not the ones
doing the real thinking. It's the policies that count.

And without sounding vindictive or cruel, I wouldn't be scared, there's plenty of people in the background
dealing with the real serious issues.
.....................................................

"I don’t stand by anything.  You can take it the way you want." (his wild and baseless
statement that Obama wiretapped Trump tower.)

Can you imagine him saying this in a meeting with world leaders? Sadly I can.
.....................................................

It's a classic, nuh...? An edited piece that was said to a media the person saying it, does't trust.
Imagine my horror.

What was written in regards of the televised interview was this:
'...In an interview that aired Monday, Dickerson pressed the president to explain his March tweets claiming
Obama wiretapped him during the 2016 election.

"You're the president of the United States," Dickerson said. "You said he was 'sick and bad' because he
had tapped you."
"You can take it any way you want," Trump replied.

"I'm asking you," Dickerson said, "because you don't want it to be fake news. I want to hear it from
President Trump."

The president insisted that he had his opinions and that Dickerson could draw his conclusions about what
Trump meant.
"But I want to know your opinions," Dickerson said. "You're the president of the United States."

"OK, it's enough. Thank you. Thank you very much," Trump said, walking away from Dickerson....'
SOURCE:

Well it sounds like he was unwilling to talk about it...? Why? Mr. Dickerson pressed him using a good
stance that if he's Mr. Dickerson's President, he'd like to know his President's opinion on the wire-tapping
matter. Trump refused and shut-down that part of the conversation.

Maybe he lied. Maybe Trump imagined that the wire-tapping by the previous President had happened and
for no other reason than to impress people on Twitter, he lied.

(Forgive me for being flippant below!)
I can now see your concern, the idea that Obama sneaked into Trump Towers, placed the bugging devices
near the phones or possibly he never entered the building, but sat outside in a van and listened using the 
latest technology to what the man who enjoyed being urinated on, was really up to.

Unless... unless there's an agency that does that? Unless there are men and women who perform such covert
operations for reasons that may have nothing to do with Trump? Maybe President Trump should reveal the
names of all the employees of the CIA, the FBI and the NSA?

The reason we can shoot-the shit on the internet, decide who gets to sit behind the Resolute desk and
teach diverse subjects in our educational facilities is because we don't really know what is wild and baseless,
we don't really know what goes on in the secretive areas of running a democratic country.
But it could be argued that the bucks stops somewhere and Obama was in charge a that time.

But yes, that silly-haired man with the little hands should all release all the information of what really goes
on in the world for the sake of proving himself correct on Twitter.
Or maybe he's just full of shit and the voters bought it.

Still, if people get back to work in his term and he takes credit for it (although I doubt he can be at every job
interview taking place)... then some good has come from having him in the round Oval Office.
Policies, policies in an ever-changing world.

No, I don't think he would say that in a meeting with world leaders, but I can suggest that if he did, the said
leaders won't swagger and relate it to the media. Politics doesn't work that way and true honesty belongs in
the movies.
.....................................................

There will be more to come, as he says random shit daily, so it is not too hard to find
ridiculous statements he has made.  What is hard is having someone justify and explain
them.

He does say strange things, 1984 and I can understand your concern, truly I do.
I can't justify or explain them because I don't know the man, but I can offer my thoughts -if that helps.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#4
I know this lady has appeared in other different threads on Rogue Nation
and I would wager she's not a kind of 'fruitcake' or nut-ball
Catherine Austin Fitts relates an interesting interview that offers a view on
the current state of politics in the USA.



[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#5
(05-03-2017, 08:18 PM)BIAD Wrote: I know this lady has appeared in other different threads on Rogue Nation
and I would wager she's not a kind of 'fruitcake' or nut-ball
Catherine Austin Fitts relates an interesting interview that offers a view on
the current state of politics in the USA.




No, she's not a nut ball, for sure. 

Quote:Fitts served as managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc., as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing[2] Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration, and was the president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc., an investment bank and financial software developer.

Fitts has a BA from the University of Pennsylvania, an MBA from the Wharton School and studied Mandarin at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Source

I've listened to her for several years, and she knows what she's talking about. She's been right there in the middle of it.
Reply
#6
@BIAD Excellent video.
She Nailed the Clintons and Obama and the Global Elites.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#7
This just in over here in the UK...

Trump scores healthcare victory in House.

'The US House of Representatives has passed a healthcare bill, bringing President Trump's
pledge to repeal and replace Obamacare a stride closer.

The American Health Care Act (AHCA) passed with a vote to spare, after weeks of cajoling
within the Republican party to muster enough support.

Democrats were unanimously opposed and their House leader Nancy Pelosi called it a
"cowardly choice". President Trump predicted this "great plan" would now get Senate backing.

"Make no mistake, this is a repeal and a replace of Obamacare," he said from the Rose
Garden at the White House, soon after the vote. Its safe passage through the US lower chamber
provides the new president with his first legislative victory, three months into his term.

And it marks a remarkable turnaround after the bill was left for dead in March when Republicans
were unable to agree on its provisions.

But it was a close-run thing - Republicans needed 216 votes in the House and it passed with 217.
No Democrats voted in favour...'
The BBC:
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#8
In the interest of fairplay, I've been going over some of the speechs that Donald Trump has
said during the campaign and after he'd been made President and they're quite enlightening.

I took the stance of looking at what he actually says in regards of policies and not the buzzwords,
crowd-pleasing rhetoric and assumed out-of-context insults during live debates.

I can see by the general slant put on the Youtube videos I watched, that he does sound like an
angry loose cannon that ignores political nuance and offers his opinions in the manner of the
average person in the street.
And I think that's where the confusion come into it.

I hope we can all agree that nothing happens in Government without a general consent.
A President can't just walk up to a mobile nuclear missile activator and press a button to start
up a war and he-or-she cannot just pass a law.
(Jeez, this is 101 stuff!)

There are advisors of many sectors who not only work for a President, but are requested to assist
from private companies, world-wide financial corporations and religous denominations.

The benefits of an idea that the majority can utilise is discussed, whilst keeping in mind any fallout
that can effect a multitude of political areas and whether that proposed idea will be soluble to those
for-and-against factions with the power to help create such a policy or law.

Opinions and counter-views of an opposing group have to be taken into consideration with the
basic forethought that any movement to install a policy doesn't undermine the current elected power
base and the idea is then still valid for a multi-graded society to agree with.

At the end of all of this, I think we can agree that the same average person from the street would
consider all of the above f*cking boring... and right there is why many average people voted him
in as President.

For years, the different facets of information-delivering has created a social level of receiving that
information. We listen and read the words of politicians and at the end of the interview, nothing is
really said and no indication of a strong, reliable person is implied. It became grey.

Trump is a businessman. The thrust and parry of subtle political negotiation is not his forte.
I've seen it written that during talks over peace-keeping in a foreign area, it's suggested his eyes
glaze over because it doesn't interest him. But when deal-making and business-orientated meetings,
he's there being a bully, pulling people towards them during an handshake and dominating the
situation.

In my view, what pisses people off is the change of the tide in political forum, the establishment wasn't
ready for the Buddy Repperton-style of brusque, boastful, 'down-to-earth' bullying, masculine manner
that Donald Trump brings to today's leadership environment.

Put it this way, with the constant pushing from the mainstream media, many of the same middle-class
news outlets believed that whether their viewer wore a suit and worked in an office or donned a hard
-hat and could be found on a construction site, we all thought the same.

And at the very least, the working-class held the capability to accept that if something was said in jest
and a working-class listener didn't understand the gag, they would understand that it must be funny
because a joke from those with wealth and power must always say things relevant.

The highbrow, giggling-behind-the-hand in hope of not offending, jovial roasting by Barack Obama at
a White House Correspondent Dinner towards Donald Trump offers this view when Obama said:

"...Donald Trump is here tonight. Now I know that he’s taken some flak lately. But no one is happier
-no one is prouder—to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald.

And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter: Like, did we
fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?

All kidding aside, obviously we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience.
For example … no seriously, just recently, in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice, at the steakhouse,
the men’s cooking team did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks..."
'SOURCE:

It's funny, politely demeaning towards Donald Trump and implies the man sitting quietly at the dinner
table with the weird hairstyle belongs to a class level of those that fails to understand serious political
refinement and the many subtle flavours different cultures around the world adhere to.

On the other-hand, the stereotypical construction worker in his plaid shirt and standing shooting
the shit with his buddies next to his pick-up would appreciate this joke from Donald Trump:

"...What's the difference between a wet raccoon and Donald J. Trump's hair...?
A wet raccoon doesn't have seven billion f*ckin' dollars in the bank!"
SOURCE:

It's macho, self-demeaning and boastful at the same time. It hints that anyone can make it in Trump's
country as long as you put the work in. It's old-style Americana and it's upbeat.
Political Rule 103... give 'em what they wanna hear.

So, what kind of people voted for Trump...? In my view, I would suggest the average guy and woman in
the street who were sick and tired of realising that wealth is an indicator of intelligence and those without
employment, ill or work in menial, physical-labour orientated jobs were 'lesser' and could only exist through
assistance from those in power and governance.

Again... it's only mine, a foreigner's point of view.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#9
@BIAD  Well said.
You're correct in every thing you said.
Then again, the 9th district court has interfered with some of his goals, actually key campaign promises.
I believe Eric Holder in California is earning his multi million dollar pay check.
Quote:SACRAMENTO — Fasten your seat belts, Californians. The Golden State has found a new driver for its legal efforts to protect its bluer-than-blue policies over the next four years: Eric Holder.


President Barack Obama’s former attorney general has been enlisted by the nation’s most populous state in what’s shaping up as an epic battle between California and soon-to-be President Donald Trump.


As lawmakers returned to work Wednesday, the state Capitol was buzzing with news that two top California lawmakers — the Assembly speaker and the leader of the Senate — had retained Holder’s firm at $25,000 per month to prepare for clashes with the new Republican
White House over everything from immigration enforcement to health care to offshore oil drilling.


“We’re bracing ourselves, more than anything,” Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said in an interview Wednesday. “It seems as though the president-elect wants to undo a lot of what we consider to be very important.”
Source
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#10
(05-09-2017, 12:07 PM)BIAD Wrote: In the interest of fairplay, I've been going over some of the speechs that Donald Trump has
said during the campaign and after he'd been made President and they're quite enlightening.

I took the stance of looking at what he actually says in regards of policies and not the buzzwords,
crowd-pleasing rhetoric and assumed out-of-context insults during live debates.

I can see by the general slant put on the Youtube videos I watched, that he does sound like an
angry loose cannon that ignores political nuance and offers his opinions in the manner of the
average person in the street.
And I think that's where the confusion come into it.

I hope we can all agree that nothing happens in Government without a general consent.
A President can't just walk up to a mobile nuclear missile activator and press a button to start
up a war and he-or-she cannot just pass a law.
(Jeez, this is 101 stuff!)

There are advisors of many sectors who not only work for a President, but are requested to assist
from private companies, world-wide financial corporations and religous denominations.

The benefits of an idea that the majority can utilise is discussed, whilst keeping in mind any fallout
that can effect a multitude of political areas and whether that proposed idea will be soluble to those
for-and-against factions with the power to help create such a policy or law.

Opinions and counter-views of an opposing group have to be taken into consideration with the
basic forethought that any movement to install a policy doesn't undermine the current elected power
base and the idea is then still valid for a multi-graded society to agree with.

At the end of all of this, I think we can agree that the same average person from the street would
consider all of the above f*cking boring... and right there is why many average people voted him
in as President.

For years, the different facets of information-delivering has created a social level of receiving that
information. We listen and read the words of politicians and at the end of the interview, nothing is
really said and no indication of a strong, reliable person is implied. It became grey.

Trump is a businessman. The thrust and parry of subtle political negotiation is not his forte.
I've seen it written that during talks over peace-keeping in a foreign area, it's suggested his eyes
glaze over because it doesn't interest him. But when deal-making and business-orientated meetings,
he's there being a bully, pulling people towards them during an handshake and dominating the
situation.

In my view, what pisses people off is the change of the tide in political forum, the establishment wasn't
ready for the Buddy Repperton-style of brusque, boastful, 'down-to-earth' bullying, masculine manner
that Donald Trump brings to today's leadership environment.

Put it this way, with the constant pushing from the mainstream media, many of the same middle-class
news outlets believed that whether their viewer wore a suit and worked in an office or donned a hard
-hat and could be found on a construction site, we all thought the same.

And at the very least, the working-class held the capability to accept that if something was said in jest
and a working-class listener didn't understand the gag, they would understand that it must be funny
because a joke from those with wealth and power must always say things relevant.

The highbrow, giggling-behind-the-hand in hope of not offending, jovial roasting by Barack Obama at
a White House Correspondent Dinner towards Donald Trump offers this view when Obama said:

"...Donald Trump is here tonight. Now I know that he’s taken some flak lately. But no one is happier
-no one is prouder—to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald.

And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter: Like, did we
fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?

All kidding aside, obviously we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience.
For example … no seriously, just recently, in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice, at the steakhouse,
the men’s cooking team did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks..."
'SOURCE:

It's funny, politely demeaning towards Donald Trump and implies the man sitting quietly at the dinner
table with the weird hairstyle belongs to a class level of those that fails to understand serious political
refinement and the many subtle flavours different cultures around the world adhere to.

On the other-hand, the stereotypical construction worker in his plaid shirt and standing shooting
the shit with his buddies next to his pick-up would appreciate this joke from Donald Trump:

"...What's the difference between a wet raccoon and Donald J. Trump's hair...?
A wet raccoon doesn't have seven billion f*ckin' dollars in the bank!"
SOURCE:

It's macho, self-demeaning and boastful at the same time. It hints that anyone can make it in Trump's
country as long as you put the work in. It's old-style Americana and it's upbeat.
Political Rule 103... give 'em what they wanna hear.

So, what kind of people voted for Trump...? In my view, I would suggest the average guy and woman in
the street who were sick and tired of realising that wealth is an indicator of intelligence and those without
employment, ill or work in menial, physical-labour orientated jobs were 'lesser' and could only exist through
assistance from those in power and governance.

Again... it's only mine, a foreigner's point of view.

Thanks for taking the time to compose such a lengthy and well thought out response. 

I agree with most of what you say, but feel that Trump really is way out of his depth, and his administration is lurching from one crisis to the next.  The dismissal of Cromey today, as much as some people think it is a good move, is unpresidented (sic - intentional), and should scare people as it is an abuse of his power (he still thinks he is on The Apprentice).  Many politicians on both sides are rattled, and quite a few are speaking out.

Oh, and this point you raised
"I hope we can all agree that nothing happens in Government without a general consent.
A President can't just walk up to a mobile nuclear missile activator and press a button to start
up a war and he-or-she cannot just pass a law.
(Jeez, this is 101 stuff!)"

No need to tell me, or any rational person, but you might want to tell Trump about these points, as he seems to actively enjoy flouting protocol and procedure.


And as if that is not enough - who is Trump meeting on Wednesday?  Very sfshy?

   
[Image: attachment.php?aid=944]
Reply
#11
@1984hasarrived  
Quote:The dismissal of Cromey today, as much as some people think it is a good move, is unpresidented (sic - intentional), and should scare people as it is an abuse of his power (he still thinks he is on The Apprentice).  Many politicians on both sides are rattled, and quite a few are speaking out.

So did you say this in 1983 when B. Clinton fired his FBI director? Link
Quote:That FBI Director, William Sessions, was fired by President Bill Clinton in 1993. According to the Congressional Research Service, “There are no statutory conditions on the President’s authority to remove the FBI Director. Since 1972, one Director has been removed by the President.”


The low number is a little misleading because one FBI director had a stranglehold on the position for decades. J. Edgar Hoover was FBI director for 48 years until 1972.

According to the FBI, there have only been 18 directors in the nation’s history, but the position has only been a presidential appointment since 1968, according to the Congressional Research Service.


“The current process dates from 1968, when the FBI Director was first established as a presidentially appointed position requiring Senate confirmation,” the service reports. “Since 1972, seven nominations for FBI Director have been confirmed, and two other nominations have been withdrawn.”

In modern times, though, FBI directors serve 10-year terms, and only Clinton – and now Trump – has chosen to fire one.

Here’s what’s sort of interesting in juxtaposition: Clinton was perceived as firing Sessions in part because he was a Republican holdover from the Reagan administration.
Source
So, not so unusual after all.
Besides, the POTUS has the Authority, doesn't he/she?
I applaud the firing of an employee of the People that has as many Flaws and Misdeeds (as listed in above post) as Cromey has.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#12
(05-10-2017, 04:18 AM)1984hasarrived. Wrote: ...And as if that is not enough - who is Trump meeting on Wednesday?  Very sfshy?

Donald Trump meets Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov one day after
firing FBI chief James Comey.

'Donald Trump will meet Vladimir Putin's senior diplomat at the White House on Wednesday
in a signal that US relations with Russia have improved.

The US president recently described them as being at an "all-time low" but his talks with Sergey
Lavrov mark the highest level, face-to-face contact with Russia of the American leader's term in office.

Mr Trump's talks with Moscow's foreign minister will take place after the Russian's meeting earlier
in the day with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

A Russian plan to stabilise Syria after more than six years of civil war is the most urgent foreign
policy topic on the agenda. But the meeting will be impossible to separate from the Trump
administration's unfolding political drama in Washington.

FBI and congressional investigations are looking into possible collusion between Trump campaign
associates and the Kremlin related to last year's presidential election.

US intelligence agencies accuse Moscow of meddling to help Mr Trump's chances of victory.
The stigma of the Russia investigations has been impossible for Mr Trump to shake...'
SOURCE:

[Image: attachment.php?aid=1783]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#13
It's a pickle indeed... or a two-scoops of ice-cream dilemma.

When a document is offered before a private meeting between President Donald Trump and Russia's Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov, it publicly shows the discussion is closed to the Press.

Then The Washington ComPost releases a story that states that President Trump told Mr. Lavrov information
that could jeopardise a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

But where does the culprits of this 'crime' lay...? The Post reports that 'current and former U.S. officials' told
the media that President Trump boasted the information the Russian Foreign Minister and that's how the
story broke. The media were not in the room as the document proclaimed, so what were the logistics of how
the private information was brought to light.

One of the important questions we have to ask is -is this standard practice for Government officials to
leak sensitive information or are these unnamed parties merely noble 'whistle-blowers' concerned for
their fellow-American's well-being?

I suppose the simple task would be to name who was in the meeting or close enough to overhear the
releasing of the information. The Washington Comic Post don't have to, President Trump just has to
recall who was there and it can be all dragged out into the light!

'President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador
in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s
disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence
-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly
restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials
said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings
of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage,
placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers
to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies.
Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”

The revelation comes as the president faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related
fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into possible
links between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as
attempted obstruction of justice...'
SOURCE:

However, later in the Washington Post's article, it states:
'...For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal.
As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that
his disclosures broke the law.

White House officials involved in the meeting said Trump discussed only shared concerns about
terrorism...'

Oh. President Trump didn't break the law because this newspaper said so. Phew! thank God that
was said, but I think a more-responsible, non-partisan news outlet should've really put that up front
in the piece so that it didn't give the appearance of scare-mongering and sensationalising for click
-bait purposes.
But that's just me as a neutral being forced to defend someone in the name of fairness.

This for the adults in the room:
Do you really think that a background-checked, constantly monitored US Government Official who is
aware of highly classified information that relates to an external 'partner's' secret efforts to penetrate
a terrorist organisation would tell a newspaper of such an ongoing action...?!
Seriously?

It's implied that someone approached the Washington ComPost with information that could not only
cause serious damage in relationships with trusted countries and have this 'official' incarcerated as a
traitor, it's indicated that this person was willing to put themselves in this situation just so it can be
said 'Well, Trump said it first'! -And the newspaper takes their word for it?!!

But still, The Washington Arse-wipe Post have give us enough evidence that the Leader of The United
States of America told Russia's Foreign Minister -Sergei Lavrov highly classified information that is
only illegal to do so until he utters it. But surely, that is enough to haul his ass out of the White House?

Wait a moment... There's more!

The White House isn’t denying that Trump gave Russia classified information — not really.

'White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster just emerged from the White House to declare that
The Washington Post’s story about Trump giving highly classified information to Russia “as reported,
is false.”

But the rest of McMaster’s statement made clear he wasn’t actually denying the report.
And his entire brief statement — punctuated by McMaster walking away without taking shouted questions
— speaks volumes.

Here’s what McMaster said:

There’s nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people.
The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false.
The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries,
including threats to civil aviation.

At no time — at no time — were intelligence sources or methods discussed.
And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.
Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state, remember it being
the same way and have said so.
Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources.
And I was in the room. It didn’t happen...'
SOURCE:


Hmmm. The Post will not reveal their informant who's committed treason and has no actual evidence
of the alleged revelations and a security adviser comes out and states that the article is false.

I think this is the point where The Washington Post must 'up their game' and produce the person
who was at least, in the room when Trump is supposed to have said what it's said he didn't say.
So who was in the room that is next to be removed?

Look at that or get back to be being a serious news outlet again.
Naaah... just kidding.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#14
An alternative look...




[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)