From The Guardian.
'Donald Trump survived Comey's testimony, but the fallout could be fatal.'
Nice header for reader-ratings, but already the narrative is set at 'Trump=Evil, The Established=Good'
It implies that the given-situation is that the President is a Russian spy and making jobs, increasing the
value of the dollar and cutting Government waste is done so at the behest of Vladimir Putin.
This malicious hotel-owner seeks to do bad things because... because the writer doesn't like him and
Hillary Clinton lost the election.
Ex-Director of the FBI, James Comey is the Knight in this story. He -along with his people and the
opposing parties of Donald Trump, always-always tell the truth and have never committed any crimes.
'...The former FBI director threw out a trail of clues for the special counsel to follow in the Trump-Russia
investigation, which looks set to shadow his presidency...'
Because regardless of word-smithing a setting of intrigue and importance from a fictional novel, this writer
is telling the reader that James Comey not only had the honour of running an agency that was set-out to
investigate federal crime and protect the people of the United States, he would only relate 'clues' at an
official Hearing and not just tell the plain truth.
Nice.
'...At 10.20pm, Kellyanne Conway wandered in from the landscaped gardens of the British ambassador’s
residence, built in the 1920s and resembling an English country house in the heart of Washington.
An Andy Warhol portrait of the Queen watched from above the ornate fireplace as results of the British
election flashed up on a giant TV screen...'
Mother-Of God, whatever happened to reporting? This painting of surroundings isn't needed unless the
writer is... why, Great Scott...! more of the backdrop of a favoured narrative! Are you setting up the reader
by providing needless badinage to imply fairness with an ulterior motive of being cruel to the person in
question? No... that would be unethical.
'...Conway, a senior adviser at the White House, could not quite escape questions about former FBI director
James Comey’s testimony earlier in the day. Donald Trump had “never intended to tweet” during the session,
she told the Guardian, with a dismissive air that implied he had much better things to do...'
'Dismissive' -or Ms. Conway possibly didn't trust the eager Journalists who waited whilst she perused the
landscaped gardens of the British ambassador’s residence? 'Escape'...? Isn't that the act associated with
someone fleeing a crime? Wow, you're suggestiveness knows no bounds.
By the way, the subtle hint of insult that an established high-moral, higher-civilised 'John-Bull-British' residence
is somehow sullied by a 'New-World'-colonist Andy Warhol rendering of a British monarch and used for
symbolism purposes to reflect Ms. Conway out-of-place at the Ambassadors' home...
It hasn't gone unnoticed.
'...But the president, who broke his Twitter silence less than eight hours later, may be in a similar position to
Theresa May. He survived for sure, but with a self-inflicted wound that could yet prove mortal.
Comey threw out a trail of clues for special counsel Robert Mueller to follow in his investigation of Trump’s
alleged collusion with Russia, which looks set to shadow his presidency for years...'
So let's get this straight. Comey testified under oath that several times he told the President that he wasn't
under any type of investigation regarding Russian hacking. But it seems here in this article that not only did
Donald Trump fail somehow by not adhering to an imagined Twitter-time curfew, he also survived something
he wasn't involved in.
On the plus-side, this piece of spoliation continued the narrative of using 'Trump' and 'Russia' in the same
sentence. So I guess when Hillary stops coughing green phelgm up, there'll be a cheque on it's way to The
Guardian writer.
'...“History will remember it as a significant inflection point,” said Norm Eisen, former ethics czar under Barack
Obama. “We’ve had leaked and hearsay evidence before but now, for the first time, we had direct evidence
of obstruction of justice. It was a giant step forward towards accountability for Trump, but there will be many
more giant steps necessary.”...'
Mr. Eisen wasn't at the Hearing and regardless of your fuzzy attempts at averting the reader's concern that it
was James Comey who admitted to leaking classified informmation to the media via a friend, your narrative
fails.
I agree that Mr. Comey's theatrical ''I'm-the-victim-here' performance did go some way to assisting to illuminate
the dark and shadowy trail of how politicians have been using Government agencies for their own nefarious
deeds. (See...? anyone can type manipulative bullsh'*t)
However, he isn't the same as the average citizen and enjoys the royal allowances afforded to those who he's
assisted in politics. So leaking classified information doesn't mean he'll go to jail for that crime.
Thus is the Establishment.
'...What Comey did not say may ultimately prove as telling as what he did during his blockbuster questioning
by members of the Senate intelligence committee...'
Holy-crap, Batman...this writer KNOWS what Comey refused to tell the Committee!
'...Although he declined to describe Trump’s plea on behalf of Michael Flynn as obstruction of justice, Comey
made the first public suggestion that Mueller will investigate the president himself. “That’s a conclusion that I’m
sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there and whether that’s
an offence,” he said...'
Robert Mueller will investigate a suggestion. The new FBI Director will do what this writer is stating -that Comey
never said and by using an out-of-context sentence, the same scribe reinforces that the vodka-drinking Trump
will be held accountable and then smarter-minds can work out if his non-actions are offences.
'...Republicans seized on Comey’s remark that Trump is not “literally” under a counterintelligence investigation
and was content for his “satellites” to be scrutinised if necessary. But when the ex-FBI director was asked if the
direction of the investigation could include the president, he carefully replied: “As I explained, the concern of one
of my senior leader colleagues was, if you’re looking at potential coordination between the campaign and Russia,
the person at the head of the campaign is the candidate.
So, logically, this person argued, the candidate’s knowledge, understanding, will logically become a part of your
inquiry if it proceeds.”...'
Yep. That's a logical outcome... except the slightly-obscured caveat that the candidate is the leader and the leader
is guilty by default, is a bit much, don't you think?!
'...As for those satellites, Comey implied that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, may have more links to Russia
than have already been established. Sessions announced his recusal from the investigation in March, under
pressure from revelations of previously undisclosed meetings with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak...'
Jeez, I wish James Comey hadn't just 'implied' or 'felt' all these things to the Committee and it will always be a
mystery why the same ex-FBI Director only imparted his beliefs to this writer! Maybe The Guardian should be
called before the Committee with the hopes that this matter of 'feelings' could be sorted out.
Let's not forget that we are now empowered with the knowledge that the FBI works off hunches, hopes and
presumption.
'...“Our judg[e]ment, as I recall, was that he [Sessions] was very close and inevitably going to recuse himself for a
variety of reasons,” Comey said. “We were also aware of facts that I can’t discuss in an open setting that would
make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.”...'
SOURCE:
(I corrected the misspelling of 'judgement' in the effort to show how everyone is fallible. I 'felt' it was the right
thing to do)
Revelations is a word that's used in the current media circles instead of 'biased guessing' For further details,
seek advice from The New York Times and CNN.
If Sessions is a Russian spy, why isn't he in prison? If he's leaking...sorry James, if he's handing over classified
information... sorry again James, giving State secrets to the Ruskies, where's the evidence and what sort of
damage is being done by not confronting Sessions?
Or would an outcome ruin the narrative?
I watched and listened to James Comey's testimony and even though he implied he was working off 'gut-instinct'
I would suggest that this Trump-hating article lies more towards the fecal outcome of a gut production.
There's more of the piece in the link, but in plain terms -and without the flowery decoration, it once again proves
to me that the Establishment care nothing for a self-benefitting unlawful act, but have more interest in the manner
the act is exposed.
The Credo: 'We only do wrong when we get caught doing it'
'Donald Trump survived Comey's testimony, but the fallout could be fatal.'
Nice header for reader-ratings, but already the narrative is set at 'Trump=Evil, The Established=Good'
It implies that the given-situation is that the President is a Russian spy and making jobs, increasing the
value of the dollar and cutting Government waste is done so at the behest of Vladimir Putin.
This malicious hotel-owner seeks to do bad things because... because the writer doesn't like him and
Hillary Clinton lost the election.
Ex-Director of the FBI, James Comey is the Knight in this story. He -along with his people and the
opposing parties of Donald Trump, always-always tell the truth and have never committed any crimes.
'...The former FBI director threw out a trail of clues for the special counsel to follow in the Trump-Russia
investigation, which looks set to shadow his presidency...'
Because regardless of word-smithing a setting of intrigue and importance from a fictional novel, this writer
is telling the reader that James Comey not only had the honour of running an agency that was set-out to
investigate federal crime and protect the people of the United States, he would only relate 'clues' at an
official Hearing and not just tell the plain truth.
Nice.
'...At 10.20pm, Kellyanne Conway wandered in from the landscaped gardens of the British ambassador’s
residence, built in the 1920s and resembling an English country house in the heart of Washington.
An Andy Warhol portrait of the Queen watched from above the ornate fireplace as results of the British
election flashed up on a giant TV screen...'
Mother-Of God, whatever happened to reporting? This painting of surroundings isn't needed unless the
writer is... why, Great Scott...! more of the backdrop of a favoured narrative! Are you setting up the reader
by providing needless badinage to imply fairness with an ulterior motive of being cruel to the person in
question? No... that would be unethical.
'...Conway, a senior adviser at the White House, could not quite escape questions about former FBI director
James Comey’s testimony earlier in the day. Donald Trump had “never intended to tweet” during the session,
she told the Guardian, with a dismissive air that implied he had much better things to do...'
'Dismissive' -or Ms. Conway possibly didn't trust the eager Journalists who waited whilst she perused the
landscaped gardens of the British ambassador’s residence? 'Escape'...? Isn't that the act associated with
someone fleeing a crime? Wow, you're suggestiveness knows no bounds.
By the way, the subtle hint of insult that an established high-moral, higher-civilised 'John-Bull-British' residence
is somehow sullied by a 'New-World'-colonist Andy Warhol rendering of a British monarch and used for
symbolism purposes to reflect Ms. Conway out-of-place at the Ambassadors' home...
It hasn't gone unnoticed.
'...But the president, who broke his Twitter silence less than eight hours later, may be in a similar position to
Theresa May. He survived for sure, but with a self-inflicted wound that could yet prove mortal.
Comey threw out a trail of clues for special counsel Robert Mueller to follow in his investigation of Trump’s
alleged collusion with Russia, which looks set to shadow his presidency for years...'
So let's get this straight. Comey testified under oath that several times he told the President that he wasn't
under any type of investigation regarding Russian hacking. But it seems here in this article that not only did
Donald Trump fail somehow by not adhering to an imagined Twitter-time curfew, he also survived something
he wasn't involved in.
On the plus-side, this piece of spoliation continued the narrative of using 'Trump' and 'Russia' in the same
sentence. So I guess when Hillary stops coughing green phelgm up, there'll be a cheque on it's way to The
Guardian writer.
'...“History will remember it as a significant inflection point,” said Norm Eisen, former ethics czar under Barack
Obama. “We’ve had leaked and hearsay evidence before but now, for the first time, we had direct evidence
of obstruction of justice. It was a giant step forward towards accountability for Trump, but there will be many
more giant steps necessary.”...'
Mr. Eisen wasn't at the Hearing and regardless of your fuzzy attempts at averting the reader's concern that it
was James Comey who admitted to leaking classified informmation to the media via a friend, your narrative
fails.
I agree that Mr. Comey's theatrical ''I'm-the-victim-here' performance did go some way to assisting to illuminate
the dark and shadowy trail of how politicians have been using Government agencies for their own nefarious
deeds. (See...? anyone can type manipulative bullsh'*t)
However, he isn't the same as the average citizen and enjoys the royal allowances afforded to those who he's
assisted in politics. So leaking classified information doesn't mean he'll go to jail for that crime.
Thus is the Establishment.
'...What Comey did not say may ultimately prove as telling as what he did during his blockbuster questioning
by members of the Senate intelligence committee...'
Holy-crap, Batman...this writer KNOWS what Comey refused to tell the Committee!
'...Although he declined to describe Trump’s plea on behalf of Michael Flynn as obstruction of justice, Comey
made the first public suggestion that Mueller will investigate the president himself. “That’s a conclusion that I’m
sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there and whether that’s
an offence,” he said...'
Robert Mueller will investigate a suggestion. The new FBI Director will do what this writer is stating -that Comey
never said and by using an out-of-context sentence, the same scribe reinforces that the vodka-drinking Trump
will be held accountable and then smarter-minds can work out if his non-actions are offences.
'...Republicans seized on Comey’s remark that Trump is not “literally” under a counterintelligence investigation
and was content for his “satellites” to be scrutinised if necessary. But when the ex-FBI director was asked if the
direction of the investigation could include the president, he carefully replied: “As I explained, the concern of one
of my senior leader colleagues was, if you’re looking at potential coordination between the campaign and Russia,
the person at the head of the campaign is the candidate.
So, logically, this person argued, the candidate’s knowledge, understanding, will logically become a part of your
inquiry if it proceeds.”...'
Yep. That's a logical outcome... except the slightly-obscured caveat that the candidate is the leader and the leader
is guilty by default, is a bit much, don't you think?!
'...As for those satellites, Comey implied that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, may have more links to Russia
than have already been established. Sessions announced his recusal from the investigation in March, under
pressure from revelations of previously undisclosed meetings with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak...'
Jeez, I wish James Comey hadn't just 'implied' or 'felt' all these things to the Committee and it will always be a
mystery why the same ex-FBI Director only imparted his beliefs to this writer! Maybe The Guardian should be
called before the Committee with the hopes that this matter of 'feelings' could be sorted out.
Let's not forget that we are now empowered with the knowledge that the FBI works off hunches, hopes and
presumption.
'...“Our judg[e]ment, as I recall, was that he [Sessions] was very close and inevitably going to recuse himself for a
variety of reasons,” Comey said. “We were also aware of facts that I can’t discuss in an open setting that would
make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.”...'
SOURCE:
(I corrected the misspelling of 'judgement' in the effort to show how everyone is fallible. I 'felt' it was the right
thing to do)
Revelations is a word that's used in the current media circles instead of 'biased guessing' For further details,
seek advice from The New York Times and CNN.
If Sessions is a Russian spy, why isn't he in prison? If he's leaking...sorry James, if he's handing over classified
information... sorry again James, giving State secrets to the Ruskies, where's the evidence and what sort of
damage is being done by not confronting Sessions?
Or would an outcome ruin the narrative?
I watched and listened to James Comey's testimony and even though he implied he was working off 'gut-instinct'
I would suggest that this Trump-hating article lies more towards the fecal outcome of a gut production.
There's more of the piece in the link, but in plain terms -and without the flowery decoration, it once again proves
to me that the Establishment care nothing for a self-benefitting unlawful act, but have more interest in the manner
the act is exposed.
The Credo: 'We only do wrong when we get caught doing it'
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.