[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2018-June-12, 12:33, said:

Dennison got what he wanted from the summit - 15 more minutes of fame.

Or maybe it was this.

A highlight: Reporters thought this video was North Korea propaganda. It came from the White House.

Quote

Trump admitted that some of the imagery he pitched may have been a little far-fetched, as North Korea is mired in poverty, internationally isolated, and has been mismanaged for decades by a family of dictators — Kim, his father and grandfather.

“That was done at the highest level of future development,” Trump said of his pitch video. “I told him, you may not want this. You may want to do a much smaller version. ... You may not want that — with the trains and everything.”

He waved his hands. “You know, with super everything, to the top. It's going to be up to them,” he said.

And then, in his usual style, Trump was thinking out loud about the “great condos” that might one day be built on the “great beaches” of North Korea.

“I explained it,” he said. “You could have the best hotels in the world. Think of it from the real estate perspective.”

As the screens above Trump emphasized, he certainly had.

The Kim-Trump brand is launched..

[MrAce]

I ♥ Robert De Niro!



https://youtu.be/1zNr8Pf1QkY

[Winstonm]

Oh, look, another Dennison accomplishment:

Quote

.
Wisconsin Democrats scored a major upset victory Tuesday night, winning a state Senate seat in a district that went for Donald Trump by double digits in 2016.

[hrothgar]

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming

https://abcnews.go.c...al_twitter_abcn

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2018-June-13, 08:38, said:

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming

https://abcnews.go.c...al_twitter_abcn

I can't say that I think very highly of the ABC report.

For example:"Jones reported last week that of the first 300,000 items reviewed, she had determined that just 162 of them were covered by attorney-client privilege."Ok, but sometimes the rejection of 1 important item because of attorney-client privilege is a big deal. Surely the percentage of items that were rejected is of no importance at all.

Also, my understanding is that lawyers cannot simply walk away from a client, there has to be either a very strong reason, perhaps it requires approval by the court, or it has to be by mutual agreement. Did they ask the source why/how this all came about? If the source either didn't know or reused to say, that could have been mentioned.

Never mind pro or anti Trump, this just strikes me as lazy reporting.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-June-13, 10:00, said:

I can't say that I think very highly of the ABC report.

For example:"Jones reported last week that of the first 300,000 items reviewed, she had determined that just 162 of them were covered by attorney-client privilege."Ok, but sometimes the rejection of 1 important item because of attorney-client privilege is a big deal. Surely the percentage of items that were rejected is of no importance at all.

Also, my understanding is that lawyers cannot simply walk away from a client, there has to be either a very strong reason, perhaps it requires approval by the court, or it has to be by mutual agreement. Did they ask the source why/how this all came about? If the source either didn't know or reused to say, that could have been mentioned.

Never mind pro or anti Trump, this just strikes me as lazy reporting.

Ken,

This is more likely the result of the competitive news markets than lazy reporting. With cable news and instant internet news and social media news, no one can afford to stop and smell the roses on the way to airtime. They report what they have. My guess is that they probably tried to get more information but were stymied due to the sensitive nature of that information - so they reported what they had.

Here's the other side of your dissatisfaction: 299,838 documents that Dennison/Cohen wanted to be kept secret will see the light of day. Untangling oneself from attorneys would normally signal either a change in strategies or a decision to not fight any charges.

It may not be all the news, or satisfying news, but it definitely is newsworthy news.

Here is an update from the New York Times: https://www.nytimes....yers-trump.html

Quote

Mr. Cohen’s current legal team is expected to stay with him for the rest of the week as they struggle to complete a laborious review of a trove of documents and data files seized from him by the authorities two months ago. But after that review is finished, he will seek new legal counsel, the people familiar with his case said. The issue is primarily over payment of the legal bills of one of his lawyers, Stephen Ryan, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

And a Daily Beast update:

Quote

The Wall Street Journal reported that Cohen is seeking new representation and hasn’t made up his mind as to whether he will cooperate with prosecutors.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2018-June-13, 10:35, said:

Ken,

This is more likely the result of the competitive news markets than lazy reporting. With cable news and instant internet news and social media news, television cannot afford to stop and smell the roses on the way to airtime. They report what they have. My guess is that they probably tried to get more information but were stymied due to the sensitive nature of that information - so they reported what they had.

Here's the other side of your dissatisfaction: 299,838 documents that Dennison/Cohen wanted to be kept secret will see the light of day. Untangling oneself from attorneys would normally signal either a change in strategies or a decision to not fight any charges.

It may not be all the news, or satisfying news, but it definitely is newsworthy news.

Well, probably of the 300,000 (so far) there are maybe 250,00 that he doesn't give a damn about what happens to them. And the article says there are at least 2.7 million altogether. That's a pretty astounding number. His team has gone through 300,000? Some with more care than others, I imagine. And there are a couple of million more? By Friday?
I agree that the result of wanting to be the first to get the news out. I think that has become a real problem. Again it's not a matter of pro or anti this or that, it's rather that news comes spinning out, everyone starts tweeting, and then it's on to the next. I don't like this approach. But yes, I understand how it happens.

I keep seeing that I am getting old. Monday evening we went to a graduating event for 8th grade! A big auditorium and it went on forever. In 1952 they had all of us in 8th grade out in front of the building and took a group photo. I still have a copy. That was it. Much much better..I have to live in the new world, but I don't have to praise it.
Anyway, yep, I agree that is pretty much the explanation..

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-June-13, 10:55, said:

Well, probably of the 300,000 (so far) there are maybe 250,00 that he doesn't give a damn about what happens to them. And the article says there are at least 2.7 million altogether. That's a pretty astounding number. His team has gone through 300,000? Some with more care than others, I imagine. And there are a couple of million more? By Friday?
I agree that the result of wanting to be the first to get the news out. I think that has become a real problem. Again it's not a matter of pro or anti this or that, it's rather that news comes spinning out, everyone starts tweeting, and then it's on to the next. I don't like this approach. But yes, I understand how it happens.

I keep seeing that I am getting old. Monday evening we went to a graduating event for 8th grade! A big auditorium and it went on forever. In 1952 they had all of us in 8th grade out in front of the building and took a group photo. I still have a copy. That was it. Much much better..I have to live in the new world, but I don't have to praise it.
Anyway, yep, I agree that is pretty much the explanation..

Although I, too, am unhappy with the direction being taken by news organizations, I am much more troubled by the results of last night's Republican primaries and Senator Corker's comments that the party is turning into a cult of personality.

Why this is so dangerous is that a branch of government that is supposed to be equal to the president, in fact a deterrent to presidential overreach, is now so cowed by his popularity within his own party that the president/Congressonal relationship is more like Putin's relationship to the Duma and Federation Council than anything resembling a normal equality of branches.

When personal loyalty to the president is the defining test for voters, we are in quite significant and dangerous times.

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2018-June-13, 10:00, said:

I can't say that I think very highly of the ABC report.

For example:"Jones reported last week that of the first 300,000 items reviewed, she had determined that just 162 of them were covered by attorney-client privilege."Ok, but sometimes the rejection of 1 important item because of attorney-client privilege is a big deal. Surely the percentage of items that were rejected is of no importance at all.

Also, my understanding is that lawyers cannot simply walk away from a client, there has to be either a very strong reason, perhaps it requires approval by the court, or it has to be by mutual agreement. Did they ask the source why/how this all came about? If the source either didn't know or reused to say, that could have been mentioned.

Never mind pro or anti Trump, this just strikes me as lazy reporting.

If you look at the byline, the author of the article was George Stephanopoulos who is known more as a talk show personality than an investigative reporter. I'm not making excuses, just stating the obvious. Certainly this was a summary of more detailed reporting by other ("real") reporters.

The 162 documents has been widely reported by other news agencies and reporters. Nothing new and just a rehash of old news. Would it make a difference if 299,999 items were covered by attorney-client privilege? What if the 1 document not covered was the SMOKING GUN? The public doesn't know what's in those documents one way or another, so the best you can do is report the numbers of accepted and rejected documents. Or do you want the reporting to say something like:

"Jones reviewed 300,00 documents. Some were rejected, some were accepted"?

As for why the attorneys were leaving, the article gave no reason. It's a 100% fact that the reporters would have reported a reason if they knew (unless that part of the conversation was off the record) since the reason for leaving is probably more important than the leak of the actual leaving. I have no problem with no explanation.


Addendum - NY Times reports that lawyer split due to unpaid bills

https://www.nytimes....yers-trump.html

[johnu]

Could Dennison have misstated facts about North Korea summit?

https://www.msn.com/...zodr?li=BBnbcA1

In defense of Comrade Dennison, for every fact, there are a million alternative facts, so it's at least a million to 1 against getting the correct fact. It's actually incredible that he gets things right as often as he does with those kind of odds. Well done Comrade Dennsion.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2018-June-13, 10:55, said:

I keep seeing that I am getting old. Monday evening we went to a graduating event for 8th grade! A big auditorium and it went on forever. In 1952 they had all of us in 8th grade out in front of the building and took a group photo. I still have a copy. That was it. Much much better..I have to live in the new world, but I don't have to praise it.
Anyway, yep, I agree that is pretty much the explanation..

I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one who groans at this kind of foolishness. Last Friday I went to my granddaughter's kindergarten graduation!

All of the graduates marched down the aisle to the stage wearing graduation caps, and out again after the ceremony. During the ceremony, each graduate came to the mic, announced his or her name, and described the most valuable thing learned during the year. There was a video that showed, at the end, all of the graduates standing in front of the school tossing their graduation caps in the air.

I wonder what will happen when she finishes first grade.

[Winstonm]

Isn't this just wonderful.

Quote

Mari Stull, a former food lobbyist and wine blogger recently appointed as a senior adviser at the State Department, has been making a list of government officials and employees of international organizations who are loyal to President Trump, Foreign Policy's Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer report.

[hrothgar]

https://www.nytimes....WT.nav=top-news

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2018-June-14, 09:17, said:

https://www.nytimes....WT.nav=top-news

Addendum

[Winstonm]

This may well turn out to be the initial crack in the wall the brings Humpty Dennison crashing down.

NYT

Quote

Conservative religious leaders who have long preached about the sanctity of the family are now issuing sharp rebukes of the Trump administration for immigration policies that tear families apart or leave them in danger.

This is a perilous position for a dotard whose white privilege base cares nothing about brown children, so he has to appease them, while the evangelical base is feeling the sting of conscience watching this border children travesty unfold, and now Dennison is getting shaky with that group.

When Dennison starts touting the Republican brothel owner candidate from Nevada, the evangelical base may need a full-fledged Elmer Gantry-type revival to wash away their sins.

[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2018-June-14, 13:11, said:

This may well turn out to be the initial crack in the wall the brings Humpty Dennison crashing down.

NYT


This is a perilous position for a dotard whose white privilege base cares nothing about brown children, so he has to appease them, while the evangelical base is feeling the sting of conscience watching this border children travesty unfold, and now Dennison is getting shaky with that group.

Hmmm, those evangelicals speaking out against separating children from parents must be fake Christians. Comrade Dennison is on a mission from God in separately jailing children. Sarah Sanders said that "I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law, that is actually repeated a number of times throughout the Bible". And Jeff Sessions has said ""I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order, .. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful." How can you disagree with God and the Bible if you are a real Christian?

[PassedOut]

johnu, on 2018-June-15, 02:52, said:

Hmmm, those evangelicals speaking out against separating children from parents must be fake Christians. Comrade Dennison is on a mission from God in separately jailing children. Sarah Sanders said that "I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law, that is actually repeated a number of times throughout the Bible". And Jeff Sessions has said ""I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order, .. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful." How can you disagree with God and the Bible if you are a real Christian?

Slavery, Hitler, Sessions, and Romans 13

Quote

Romans 13 is invoked by defenders of the South or defenders of slavery to ward off abolitionists who believed that slavery is wrong,” John Fea, a professor of American history at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, told The Post on Thursday. “I mean, this is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made.”

According to Anxious Branch’s Gehrz, the passage largely disappeared from American pulpits after the Civil War. It did, however, make appearances overseas in the darkest moments of the early 20th century. Romans 13 was reportedly favored by Adolf Hitler and pushed by the Nazis to legitimize their authoritarian rule in 1930s Germany.

The same Bible verse was also cited by South Africa’s white Afrikaner minority as the country was locked down under a series of racist laws after World War II.

“Afrikaner theologians, pastors, and politicians alike all emphasized Paul’s admonition in Romans 13 that everyone must submit to the governing authorities as the central Scripture concerning Christian relations to the state,” scholars Joel A. Nichols and James W. McCarty III wrote in a 2014 article in the St. John’s Law Review. “Read through an ‘Afrikaner Calvinist’ lens that emphasized a concept known as ‘sphere sovereignty,’ theologians claimed that the apartheid state was ordained by God and must be obeyed by all living in South Africa.”

And here we are again. Sad.

[RedSpawn]

RedSpawn, on 2018-April-03, 12:23, said:

The firing of Comey makes sense when his agency stonewalls the discovery of evidence regarding the clandestine meeting on the Phoenix tarmac between Clinton and Lynch AND THE VERY strange announcement by Comey that he is reopening the email investigation a week before the Presidential election.

The media presented Comey's firing as if it was just a disloyalty matter and that was simply misleading and irresponsible.

Both actions taken as a whole demonstrate Comey's inability to lead the FBI in a prudent, unbiased, and disciplined manner. Comey consistently failed to follow protocol in dealing with the email scandal and demonstrated that his judgment was compromised.

Trump used the wrong reasoning for Comey's firing. But know this, Comey knew he had fu#$ed up big time and started taking extra contemporaneous notes of conversations with Trump on FBI letterhead to help a wrongful termination lawsuit should he get fired because the knucklehead knew his days were numbered and rightfully so.

Comey is a lawyer so he was covering his behind because he unintentionally left FBI $hit stains all over the federal election. Plus Comey was going to take Trump down with him if Trump fired him. That's a game recognize game move in the D.C. swamp.

Comey is no saint or victim in this matter.

Source: https://www.national...explain-timing/

https://www.cbsnews....enerals-report/

Quote

James Comey described as "insubordinate" in DOJ inspector general's report

Agreed. The Inspector General has concluded that Comey was insubordinate as I was intimating in the above-mentioned e-mail in April 2018.

[y66]

From The Big Scary Question Hanging Over the Trump-Kim Meeting by Amanda Taub and Max Fisher at NYT:

Quote

There’s a big question hanging over President Trump’s summit meeting with Kim Jong-un that nobody quite knows how to ask, but that could turn out to be really important — maybe more important than the actual agreement or meeting itself.

What happens when Mr. Trump’s claims about the meeting collide with reality?

“Yeah, he’s de-nuking, I mean he’s de-nuking the whole place,” Mr. Trump said this week, referring to Mr. Kim. “I think he’s going to start now.”

Except that Mr. Kim is doing no such thing. Virtually every independent analyst we’ve spoken with reads Mr. Kim’s statements from the meeting as merely reaffirming long-held North Korean positions, rather than making any new promises, even in the most rhetorical or abstract sense.

In the days since the meeting, Mr. Trump’s sense of what happened seems to have only grown. He later declared, “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.”

Mr. Trump’s habit of making exaggerated or false claims is certainly nothing new. But his self-affirming narrative of the North Korea meeting — which he seems to earnestly believe — poses an unusually severe risk.

North Korea is not disarming. It has not ceased to pose a nuclear threat to the United States. And it has not abandoned the foreign policy positions that put it so at odds with the United States that they sometimes come to the brink of war.

At some point, that black-and-white reality will reimpose itself, contradicting Mr. Trump’s claims of a great détente and disarmament.

When that happens, there is a risk that Mr. Trump and his supporters — unwilling to concede that he’d overpromised based on false claims — will convince themselves that, in fact, North Korea was the dishonest party. Pyongyang, by merely continuing its long-held policies, could compel Mr. Trump to paint the North Koreans as transgressing, even if only to save face.

Or perhaps Mr. Trump will feel humiliated and personally betrayed by Mr. Kim, with whom he seems to feel he has forged a real personal bond. Recall that only a week earlier, at the Group of 7 meeting in Canada, Mr. Trump had significantly altered United States foreign policy — refusing to sign the official G-7 official statement — because he had taken (and possibly misunderstood) a mildly critical statement by Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, as a personal betrayal.

When Mr. Trump lashes out at Canada, the result is tariffs and political disputes that cost the United States trade and jobs, as well as some bonhomie with a longtime ally. But what happens if Mr. Trump lashes out at North Korea, a nuclear-armed adversary whose leaders live in existential fear of an American invasion?

Remember that North Korea’s nuclear strategy — with warheads pointed at major American cities — is designed explicitly to prevent or turn back the American invasion that Pyongyang officials see as a real possibility.

These sorts of high-stakes misunderstandings are already taking place.

In the days after the meeting, North Korean officials exploited the fact that Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim did not release official readouts of their conversation — a normal diplomatic practice to ensure that neither side can set the narrative or the facts to their advantage.

Official North Korean statements said that Mr. Trump had submitted to Mr. Kim’s “demand” to end American military exercises on the Korean Peninsula. And they said the two leaders had agreed that denuclearization would be simultaneous, implying that Mr. Trump had agreed to disarm as well.

Mr. Trump said that he had not bothered with official readouts of the meeting because, he told reporters, “I don't need to verify as I have one of the great memories of all time."

At some point, that black-and-white reality will reimpose itself? Reimpose reality on Trump? Biggest LOL ever.

[Winstonm]

Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch put James Comey into an uncomfortable situation which he handled poorly. To make any type of claim, though, that his firing by the one person who benefited from his actions is somehow justifiable is ridiculous and nonsensical.

Clinton should not have met Lynch.
Lynch should have recused herself.
Comey should have confided in Lynch how her decision not to recuse affected him.
Comey should have notified the AG of his intentions to act.
Even if approved, the damage should have been limited by a straightforward statement of facts.
Comey, no doubt, felt pressure to "appear not to be soft" on Democrats after all the anti-Clinton rhetoric and actions from Republicans.
The second notification to Congress placed the reputation of the FBI above the need for fair and unbiased elections in the U.S.

I doubt anyone would defend any of these choices by the various actors.

None of this absolves Dennison the dotard. The dotard first praised Comey for his actions against Clinton, then once elected he asked Comey for two things: Can you see your way to letting Flynn go?, and, Will you be loyal to me?

When Comey answered, No, to both questions, he was ushered out the door. No amount of spin changes reality.