July 23, 2017

Jake Tapper encounters Anthony Scaramucci.

2 freeze frames I took watching "State of the Union" this morning:





Here's the whole thing. It was very lively. Scaramucci is very much like Trump, so I was picturing Trump watching this and loving it:



Scaramucci is there to fight for the President. That's plain to see. And Jake Tapper was there to fight too.

Here's the transcript. I made a note to tell you about 3 things, which are in no way the most important things:

1. Asked whether the President believes he has the power to pardon himself, Scaramucci said he didn't know, but he's talked to Jay Sekulow, who's a scholar, and he "took constitutional law from Larry Tribe." And then he spoke directly to Professor Tribe: "And if professor Tribe is listening, I know he doesn't like the president, but I did get an A-minus in your course."

2. Scaramucci was asked whether he was going to be appearing in more press briefings, he said "Sarah Huckabee" is the press secretary. And he kept jabbering...
I think Sarah does a great job. She's an incredibly warm person. She's incredibly authentic. And what I told Sarah on Friday, you get the big office. I will take the small communications office. You deserve the big office because you're taking the hits from the press. And bring the press into the office. Let's soften up our relationship with the press. They're tough on us. But let's be tough on them. I have no problem with. And my job, as I see it, Jake, is that these people work with me, and I'm there to serve them. If you think about the American military, the leaders eat last. If you think about the American military, the leaders' job is to serve the people that are working alongside of them. And so, me, for Sarah Huckabee, I want to do everything I can to make her better at that podium. I think she is phenomenal there now. But like every athlete that is training for the Olympics, every day, we have got to make ourselves incrementally better. The only thing I ask Sarah -- Sarah, if you're watching, I loved the hair and makeup person that we had on Friday. So, I would like to continue to use the hair and makeup person. 
I couldn't believe he ended that by talking about hair and makeup! She's a woman, so, you know, she's an incredibly warm person and we can get her fixed up to look the way women need to look. Tapper swooped in to change the tone with:
"All right, Anthony, you can always swing by CNN. We have hair and makeup here, if you ever need it. Thanks." 
Reading the transcript, I see that Scaramucci could have been referring to his own need for hair and makeup. He said "I loved the hair and makeup person that we had on Friday. So, I would like to continue to use the hair and makeup person." So maybe it was not another weird Trump-related comment by a male about a female. Maybe Scaramucci is looking out for his own appearance and liked that person they had on Friday, the one who stuck big, thick fake eyelashes on Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

3. You see in that "jabbering" quote above, Scaramucci said: "Like every athlete that is training for the Olympics, every day, we have got to make ourselves incrementally better." That reminded me of something he'd said earlier. This was in response to a question about Trump's NYT interview, in which he, as Tapper put it, "attacked the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, the special counsel, the former FBI director, the acting FBI director." Scaramucci used the athletics metaphor, and Trump is the coach:
Listen, I don't want to be a career guidance counselor for those people that [Trump is] talking about. But let me give some advice to those people on your show. That's the president. The president likes speaking from the heart. He likes telling what he likes and he dislikes. He's the type of coach that I worked very well with in high school football. It's OK with me if the president doesn't like certain things that I'm doing. We're all on the same team. I would prefer that direct and immediate feedback, as opposed to anything else. What I don't like about Washington, if we say one syllable or one sentence, or this guy said something bad about me, then, all of a sudden, they have to be my mortal enemy. I don't think that's how it works in American business. I can sit across the table from somebody that worked with me and my company that I founded and say, here are five things I don't like about what you're doing, and we have to fix it. And, by the way, tomorrow, I'm going to be having a meeting with the communications staff and say, hey, I don't like these leaks. And so we're going to stop the leaks. And, if we don't stop the leaks, I'm going to stop you. It's just really that simple.
Scaramucci also used that Trump-as-coach idea on "Face the Nation":
Okay. So from the business world... what I would say about that and from my experience with the president, the president's a pretty wear-his-heart-on-the-sleeve sort of a guy. If people are very, very thin skinned, I think it's going to be super tough to work for this president. The president has said things to me in a tough, and honest, direct way. I think he's a very good athletic coach, if you will. And so what I would recommend to all of my-my colleagues in Washington and know the president very well, if he's saying stuff about you that you don't like, call him up. Go see him. Go get in the Oval Office or the study.
4. One more thing Scaramucci said on "Face the Nation": Tweeting about everything is "the crystal essence of the president." The crystal essence!

5. One more from "Face the Nation": "What I know about President Trump is... he's got very, very good karma."

138 comments:

Comanche Voter said...

I don't know about the hair and makeup---but Scaramucci has one heck of a tailor.

Achilles said...

I miss the media talking about how well spoken the president is, how awesome his pants creases are, or how the president is "sort of a God."

I miss the tingles too.

The left/media really are pathetic and the people that follow them are stupid.

Fabi said...

Tapper looks like he ate some bad Fugu.

Hagar said...

I think Sean Spicer is a good guy, but not cut out for showbiz.
This guy may do all right; he certainly will be more fun.

Unknown said...

"Trump's 38.8% average job approval for his first six months in Gallup Poll is lower than Obama ever got for even a single week."

Ouch!

tds said...

Jake looks tired and it's been only 6 months

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Polls! OMG! Ouch.

Trust the polls. Trust the press. *look deep into my eyes*

Christopher said...

I am pretty sure Scaramucci was referring to himself with the hair and makeup person remark. There's a clip on Twitter where he's speaking from the podium about that--

July 23, 2017

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Jake Tapper makes better faces than Tucker Carlson! Winning!

Khesanh 0802 said...

I won't read the entire transcripts , but your excerpts show right away why Trump hired this guy. He understands Trump and how the guy works and he communicates that very directly. I was very sure that before Trump went off on Sessions he had told Sessions the same thing face to face. In business you get people to improve their performance by being honest about their failures and then setting realistic goals for their improvement. Sometimes it doesn't work- as with Spicer - so you replace them with someone who is a better fit. I am sure Trump told Sessions not to make the same kind of mistake again and, I'll bet, Trump had a few words to say about how Sessions should manage the Mueller circus. If Sessions were really unhappy or didn't feel that he deserved a little tongue lashing he would have resigned. Anyway your excerpts show me that the White House is far from "imploding" as Dowd hopes.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

Huckabee's hair did look much better than usual. She needs help dressing too, what looks lovely in person may not be camera friendly. Scoff if you want, but image is a big part of that job. Huckabee is a better speak than Spicer (who also needed wardrobe help) but doesn't come close to Scaramucci's ability. Hopefully they find someone better suited to the position.

Fabi said...

38.8% reported

+ 4.0 for under-sampling Republicans
+ 5.5 for the phony Russia! media saturation
+ 3.0 for push-poll bias
+ 2.5 for margin of error correction

53.8% adjusted for reality

Sebastian said...

"And Jake Tapper was there to fight too." Of course. Out of curiosity, were the MSM flacks on these shows ever there to "fight" Obama's people in anything like the routine way they approach Trump and his people?

rcocean said...

I got through about 1/2 the transcript but had to stop.

I'm tired of some so-called "Objective Journalist" interrupting and arguing with the Republican guest.

Jake tapper should start wearing a "Hillary 2020" badge - and be honest about it.

Achilles said...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Trust the polls. Trust the press. *look deep into my eyes*

If Inga was smart enough to get your joke, she would be smart enough to understand why her post was stupid in the first place. Of course your joke wasn't directed at her but still.

Polls! OMG! Ouch.

The media is finished.

I Like how Ohio is "even" and Trump has a 6% chance of winning Pennsylvania and a 4% chance of winning Michigan.

I looked up at the Gym and MSNBC had a graphic up that said "The Trump Voter Suppression Injustice league." That isn't even an exaggeration. Clean voter rolls will end the democrat party.

William said...

Sarah Huckabee looks authentic. I think that means she's not especially glamorous and has a weight problem. Plus, she's likable and has a sense of humor at the podium. Perhaps these assets and debits will work give her some immunity. I would vote Scaramucci as the one most likely to be ridiculed by SNL. He's good looking and has a lot of money. Such people are more fun to mock. Sarah might get a pass for a few weeks.

Birkel said...

The coach references are a way to relate to the working class, middle America voters who were crucial to the President's Michigan (cue Chuck to say "inconceivable") win.

traditionalguy said...

Tapper was subdued. CNN is so beat up they are starting to refuse to come out of their corner and instead the assholes are No Mas about the interviews. With White House spokespersons.

Even attack pit bull Stelter seemed almost drugged and subservient today letting Kellyanne unload on him uninterrupted. Twilight Zone!

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Trump wants to do combat with the press. Spicer just didn't fit that mole. Scaramuchi appears to relish combat. It does make for more compelling television. Let's face it. Content is not what television is about.

Hagar said...

I don't know about that, William. Scaramucci is already pretty close to an SNL skit, and that is difficult to parody without the skit falling flat.

Brookzene said...

He's good looking and has a lot of money. Such people are more fun to mock.

The ones who are fun to mock (and see mocked) are the ones who so obviously lie.

Feste said...

"One more thing Scaramucci said on 'Face the Nation: Tweeting about everything is 'the crystal essence of the president.' The crystal essence!"

Crystal essence messes with guys. Too much stuff floating around. Cut him slack. Every white powder man understands. “Women sense my power, and they seek the life essence.”

@RealMen just feel it.

"53.8% adjusted for reality."

Bow to thee, Lord Bayes. Weather reports.

Rob said...

When you're president, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the karma.

traditionalguy said...

Mouche is the Marshall Chauvin of Trumpoleon. My guess is that Anthony is Sicilan. And CNN has already seen him in action and wants no more war with him.

It is intriguing that Mouche chose Scott Walker as his candidate guy early on. Maybe he warned Walker to get out early after he saw Trump come out with his firepower on full.

Michael K said...

I liked Spicer and am open minded about this guy.

I am shutting down on the news and the media. Life is too short to watch and listen to this stuff.

The left is in monomania condition and you see it in that poll about the press and the public and how different are the things they want to talk about.

I'd rather post things about basset hounds.

antiphone said...

Scaramucci, he looks the part but can he dance?

Mr. Majestyk said...

Notice how Tapper refers to the Russian meddling in the election as a "disinformation or misinformation campaign." How is releasing John Podesta's emails through Wikileaks disinformation or misinformation?

Ralph L said...

Mooch should have gone for the full Ginsburg. They could rename it for him.
Get Scary.
Screw the Mooch.

Brookzene said...

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "It's very sad that Republicans, even some that were carried over the line on my back, do very little to protect their President."

How can you represent a president that petty and self-centered without damaging yourself? That was Spicer's problem, which he was not able to solve. Now it's Scaramucci's.

Feste said...

“Scaramucci, he looks the part but can he dance?”

"You need to breathe in the aaaa's', through your body."

"Sc
aaaaaaah aaaaaaah, aaaaaaaa!
r
aaaaaohhhhh ohhhh! ahhhhh!!
mucci"

"I should be sharing it with the entire world!"

grackle said...

Clean voter rolls will end the democrat party.

Only a slight exaggeration.

We Trump supporters have noticed over the years how uniformly the Democrats have ruled all the big city governments. You know, the ones that have not had a GOP mayor for generations and are too busy being sanctuaries for illegal aliens to be much bothered by possible illegal voting.

I think a big change is coming for many of our urban centers.

And, as always … the polls are shit, as proven by Prez Trump’s totally unexpected victory last November. But the anti-Trumpers need to cling to the polls. All they have for hope are the polls and the fake news Russian bullshit.

It’s going to be a hard time in the next 8 years for the MSM, the Democrats and the eGOP.

But cheer up, NeverTrumpers! Failure builds character.

h said...

From Wikipedia:
Scaramuccia (literally "little skirmisher"), also known as Scaramouche or Scaramouch, is a stock clown character of the Italian commedia dell'arte. The role combined characteristics of the zanni (servant) and the Capitano (masked henchman). Usually attired in black Spanish dress and burlesquing a don, he was often beaten by Harlequin for his boasting and cowardice.

(Burlesquing a don?? Which Don is that?)

Chuck said...

Isn't it one of the blandest cheap shots that anyone can take in the internet era; the business of freezing a video of someone with their face locked into some terrible (but wholly out-of-context and unrepresentative) exression? We've seen them on almost a daily basis as we surf the 'net. Eyes closed; mouth cocked in a weird position; some sour/surprised/weird-looking expression?

Sometimes I feel certain that the freeze frames are selected purposefully, for the purpose of the aforementioned cheap shot. Sometimes, they are legitimately the beginning of a pre-selected video cut and are completely accidental.

Rarely have I ever seen anything like this, where Professor Althouse seems to have openly and selectively chosen the unflattering screen-caps. And then said as much in her commentary.

Here's a good video, if someone wanted to look for places to freeze Ann Althouse's face into odd expressions. Of course, her face isn't weird at all. She's just (in this video) being very emphatic (and rightfully so, in fact) about the Wisconsin capital protests. And so that makes for some good stills, with her eyes closed, or her mouth in mid-expression:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxD9NIesgUM

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

@William

SNL attacked Huckabee months ago, as soon as she appeared at the podium.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/was-snls-take-on-sarah-huckabee-sanders-sexist

antiphone said...

Burlesquing a don?? Which Don is that?

Don Juan, mijo, Don Jaun.

donald said...

There is nothing pit bull about Brian Stelter. He's some fat little pussy that keeps mewling about the awfulness of non democrats and projecting his slimy fat ass dishonesty onto anybody who Is not a democrat.

He's also gay I think, NTTAWWT. I remember him talking about how he thought some republican operative was "trying to date him", which I have never heard any actual man say in my entire life.

Fabi said...

#StrongCNNDefender

Kevin said...

And Jake Tapper was there to fight too.

Why would someone objectively reporting the news feel the need to "fight"? The purpose of the interview was to have the public learn more about the new Communications Director and what changes he might have in store for the White House Communications Team.

It's literally two questions, with some follow-up for things which might have been unclear:

1. Who are you?
2. What do you plan to do differently?

This should have been an easy and non-confrontational interview for Tapper. Of course he had to turn it into an argument. I don't know if this will continue to be his strategy, but we may have learned that Scaramucci's plan is to not engage the media in arguments so as to make the media look even more argumentative.

How many "gotcha" questions did Tapper throw and Scaramucci decline to answer? It will be interesting to see if the pattern continues.

h said...

Karl Marx famous quote, reimagined: "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as a punch and judy show."

Incidentally: Marx, from the preface to the second edition of the work where this quote appears (The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon), said: [the purpose of this essay is to] "demonstrate how the class struggle ... created circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero's part."

I'd love to see an essay by Karl Marx about the rise and early Presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Birkel said...

It's odd that He Who Must Not Be Named, fopdoodle extraordinaire, should object to the tactics of the Left when used against the Left. Better to lose, and lose again, than act in a way that might offend our betters in D.C. who have decided they are elite and elitist?

Pass. Thanks anyway.

Obergefell
Boo!

Annie C said...

"Here's a good video, if someone wanted to look for places to freeze Ann Althouse's face into odd expressions. Of course, her face isn't weird at all. She's just (in this video) being very emphatic (and rightfully so, in fact) about the Wisconsin capital protests. And so that makes for some good stills, with her eyes closed, or her mouth in mid-expression:"

Creepy, Chuck, really nasty and creepy.

Robert said...

Tapper and Scaramucci were agruing about whether or not the stolen emails given to WikiLeaks are proven beyond all doubt to have come from Russian government hackers or not (that has not been proven). Tapper then says to make those suggestings means you don't believe all the intel officials who say they have no doubt Russia attempted to interfere with the election.
The word "interfered" covers a lot of things. A lot of that "interference", according the the intel officials, was Russian propaganda on RT TV, a channel hardly anyone watches.
Saying it has been proven Russia sought to interfere with the election does not mean its been proven the WikiLeaks materials came from Russian government hackers. And while we're not privy to the secret evidence, I don't see how that could be proven beyond all doubt without the intel agencies having being able to analyze the DNC servers themselves.

Jim at said...

"Trump's 38.8% average job approval for his first six months in Gallup Poll is lower than Obama ever got for even a single week."

How low does it need to go before Hillary! becomes President?

antiphone said...

Usually attired in black Spanish dress and burlesquing a don, he was often beaten by Harlequin for his boasting and cowardice.

Tristano Martinelli or 'alias Arlechino', the actor believed to be the originator of the Harlequin character, was also successful politically.

Martinelli became attached to the Mantuan court of Duke Ferdinando I Gonzaga, with a regular stipend, about 1596–97. Within a few years he was overseeing all the professional acting troupes in the Gonzaga territories.[9] Martinelli, in service of the Duke, acted as both police and a tax collector for the actors and other street performers and merchants.[10] A decree from the Duke mandated that Arlecchino and Martinelli were superior to all other performers and street vendors, and that all were required to have a license from Tristano in order to perform, lest they be heavily fined. It was also declared that Arlecchino would act as a supervisor for public events as the Duke's personal representative.[11]

Tommy Duncan said...

Kevin said: "This should have been an easy and non-confrontational interview for Tapper. Of course he had to turn it into an argument."

Could "Chuck" be Jake Tapper's screen name?

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

Jeez, Chuck, I knew you were a little bitch after your attack on Barron Trump but your 4:03 is obsessively creepy even for you.

James K said...

the business of freezing a video of someone with their face locked into some terrible (but wholly out-of-context and unrepresentative) exression

It can just as easily be done with still photography, as we have seen with practically every single MSM head shot of Trump, selectively chosen to be snarling or otherwise crazy-looking. But that doesn't seem to bother you.

brylun said...

Jake Tapper was a Dem operative. A leopard doesn't change its spots.

mockturtle said...

I still miss Ari Fleischer. :-(

Laslo Spatula said...

Curious to see if the 4:03 comment is doubled down with righteous indignation or simply self-deleted.

I am Laslo.

buwaya puti said...

I don't think it's possible to clean up Californian voter rolls. You would have to ask everyone to re-register with proper ID.

Chuck said...

Kevin said...
"And Jake Tapper was there to fight too."

Why would someone objectively reporting the news feel the need to "fight"

Ann Althouse claimed that Jake Tapper was there to fight. Jake Tapper didn't say that, he didn't stipulate to the Atlhouse categorization, and I expect he wouldn't agree.

I think I'd have to agree, that it was a combative interview, in fact. I think everyone would have expected it to be a combative interview. You wanna see some more combative interviews? Tune in to Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity, most weeknights.

The Trump Administration -- and Scaramucci himself, repeatedly -- have assailed CNN with charges of "fake news." On at least one occasion, in relation to Scaramuuci, in fact, CNN seems to have been caught red-handed in the reporting of a false story. So there is that. But the Trump Administration maintains an openly hostile stance toward CNN. Personally, if I were a CNN interviewer, I'd want to ask the Trump Administration a lot of hard questions. And I'd insist on answers. And I'd expect Trump officials to dodge, because that is what they do and because the things that Trump does and says are so often indefensible. And so the interview's turning combative is something I'd expect.

Why do all of you treat CNN like it was a public utility, and it owed all of you something? So what if CNN hates Trump? Sean Hannity hates Obama, and Democrats and, it seems, most congressional Republicans.

Don't like CNN? Click on Breitbart, then. Tune into Alex Jones. Listen to Rush. Nobody makes you watch CNN.

Unknown said...

"Creepy, Chuck, really nasty and creepy."

No different than posting the freeze frames of Tapper that Althouse chose to use. Why try to make Tapper look bad?

Francisco D said...

"I am shutting down on the news and the media. Life is too short to watch and listen to this stuff. I'd rather post things about basset hounds."

I'm with Michael K on this one, but substitute Golden Retrievers.

I watched "A Dog's Purpose" last night and cried like a baby. It was great! Almost as good and as tearfully joyous as the book.

Life IS too short to waste it on bullshit.

victoria said...

Huckabee-Sanders may be a better speaker than Spicey, but she has a real touch of mean in her. She tends to be really condescending to the press, "I told you this at the beginning of the week but, if you must, i will repeat what i said". A touch of the mean. Like her dad. A gregarious person upon first watching, but gets a little mean the longer you have him on screen. One of the reasons why he would have never been a good president. Like Newtie. He is really nice for about 3 minutes, then descends into nasty.

Sory, Sara. Would have liked you to be more likeable, but you're not.

Press conferences will never be any more fun. Bummer

Now if Scarymucci would take over, love that. He is entertaining,and he went to Harvard Law School (Which he told Jake Tapper 3 times in 2 minutes) Who cares. Trust me, i know plenty of tools who went to Harvard Law School. Tool-ness knows no socioeconomic confines. Look at Tucker. As tooly as they come. Come on, Tuck, roll those eyes one more time.


Vicki From Pasadena

Unknown said...

Scaramucci is just a younger smarter Trump. Trump will probably get jealous of the Mooch soon because he'll get more attention...for a while, than Trump will, then the Mooch will be out on his ear too.

victoria said...

Jake runs a close second to Tucker. Faces, boys, faces.



Vicki from Pasadena

James K said...

I think everyone would have expected it to be a combative interview.

Sure, because we remember all those combative interviews during the Obama administration. Oh, wait, that never happened.

David Begley said...

I thought Jake was crazy insane about Russia. Just speculating and reaching. Note that Althouse didn't find his questions about Russia worth quoting.

Russia did little. Russia hacked Podesta's emails but the MSM has obsessed about it for over 7 months. We don't care. It was no big deal.

Birkel said...

If anybody knows younger and smarter, I trust UnknownInga51 to know it.

Unknown said...

It's such a tell to constantly hear the denials about Russia. Why try so hard to deny It? If it's just BS, why not just wait until the investigations are over and then you could say "I told you so". It's hilarious to hear Trumpists and his spokespeople claiming there is nothing to Russia because....Trump said so. LOL.

Unknown said...

"We don't care. It was no big deal."

We know you don't care, but 63% of people polled DO care. So you can go pound sand.

James K said...

Why try so hard to deny It?

Ask Democrats like Dershowitz and Turley, who both have said there's nothing criminal in what's being alleged.

Of course with dozens of investigators and an unlimited budget, there's no telling what a fishing expedition might come up with that could be turned into a crime. Ask Lewis Libby.

Birkel said...

Things that mean Trump is guilty, according to UnknownInga51:
1) there is an investigation,
2) The press is talking about an investigation,
3) Trump got attorneys,
4) Trump is defending himself,
5) REASONS!!

David Begley said...

Unknown:

If that poll is accurate (which I doubt given the recent record of polling), people only care because they have been subjected to wild and teasing speculative stories. Everyone wants to go inside the circus tent and see the bearded lady or Siamese conjoined twins. It is exciting.

We've been duped. Russia and the MSM have really hampered the first six months of Trump's presidency. Pretty effective.

Fabi said...

1. Russia
2. ???
3. Profit!

Humperdink said...

LLR said: "Don't like CNN? Click on Breitbart, then. Tune into Alex Jones. Listen to Rush. Nobody makes you watch CNN."

LLR, ever go to an airport? That's all you see.

Ever watch a White House press briefing? There he is, noted a-hole, Jim Acosta monopolizing the conversation. If you are a political junkie, it's downright impossible to tune out CNN.

I have yet to press station #200 on my Dish remote, yet I still see these CNN clowns on a regular basis. Kinda like reading your comments....... they're hard to miss, even if I make a concerted effort to avoid them.

Birkel said...

Off topic:

Of respondents who stated a preference between Debbie Stabenow and Robert Ritchie, 54% stated they would vote for Ritchie while 46% said they would vote for Debbie Stabenow.

https://delphianalytica.org/kidrock-stabenow-michigan/

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

"That woman, Natalia"? Dude, refresh your memory.

Unknown said...

Hahahaha, Trumpist's like to claim Trump never brought up or discussed pardons. Not according to Scaramucci.

"I want to be clear on this, we have not, and continue to have not, conversations with the President of the United States regarding pardons. Pardons have not been discussed and pardons are not on the table. I want to be clear on this, we have not, and continue to have not, conversations with the President of the United States regarding pardons. Pardons have not been discussed and pardons are not on the table.”
Jay Sekulow

“I’m in the Oval Office with the president last week and we were talking about that, he says he brought that up, but he doesn’t have to be pardoned, there’s nobody around him that has to be pardoned. He was just making the statement about the power of the pardon.”
Anthony Scaramucci

FullMoon said...

Would be fun if every republican would answer "russia" questions with,"I'll get to that in a second, but what is important is what was said in Podesta's email, such as..."

Tommy Duncan said...

Chuck said: "Don't like CNN? Click on Breitbart, then. Tune into Alex Jones. Listen to Rush. Nobody makes you watch CNN."

You've said some harsh things about our host recently. Don't like Ann's blog? Click on DU or HuffPo. Nobody makes you post here.

FullMoon said...


Blogger Unknown said...

Hahahaha, Trumpist's like to claim Trump never brought up or discussed pardons. Not according to Scaramucci.


I'll get to that in a second, but what is important is treasonous Jill Steins obvious connection to the Russian hacking of the electoral process.."

George M. Spencer said...

Unbearable to listen to or watch.

Whatever happened to getting a question, listening to the answer, accepting it, and moving to another topic...like, oh, North Korea, the health bill, tax policy, regulations, and anything else in the world...

Kevin said...

The Trump Administration -- and Scaramucci himself, repeatedly -- have assailed CNN with charges of "fake news." On at least one occasion, in relation to Scaramuuci, in fact, CNN seems to have been caught red-handed in the reporting of a false story.

Hannity runs a late-night opinion show on Fox. Tapper is CNN's Chief Washington Correspondent.

Tapper is supposed to be at the center of his "news network's" news team. His network fired three people after running fake news ABOUT SCARAMUCCI!

Had he wanted to be professional, that interview should have opened with "We're very sorry" and then gone to listen to what the guy had to say, because whatever he had to say upon taking the job was in itself newsworthy.

But no, it was yet another round of "how can we turn this interview into gotcha"? How can we as newspeople make news? That's exactly how fake news happens, and Tapper either doesn't know or doesn't care.

Which is too bad. He used to be very good when he was with ABC.

In contrast, listen to the opening of the Sam Harris podcast with Scott Adams where he explicitly states he doesn't do "gotcha" and the interviewee has the opportunity even after the interview to request some segments not be included if they don't clearly represent the interviewee's thinking and positions.

That's how you keep from having people yell "FAKE NEWS" at you.

Fabi said...

Did you download the raw data, Birkel? Fopdoodle's next US Senator (The Hon. Mr. Rock) has solid support across the age demographics!

Kevin said...

It's such a tell to constantly hear the denials about Russia. Why try so hard to deny It? If it's just BS, why not just wait until the investigations are over and then you could say "I told you so".

It's such a tell to constantly hear the assertions about Russia. Why try so hard to push the story when every dry hole makes it seem more ridiculous? If it's real, why not just wait until the investigations are over and then you could say "I told you so".

MayBee said...

I tuned in just in time to see Jake Tapper say that Russia "hacked" our election. Oh, Jake.

Fritz said...

Unknown said...
It's such a tell to constantly hear the denials about Russia. Why try so hard to deny It? If it's just BS, why not just wait until the investigations are over and then you could say "I told you so". It's hilarious to hear Trumpists and his spokespeople claiming there is nothing to Russia because....Trump said so. LOL.


Classic Kafka trap.

Tom said...

Scaramucci, Scaramucci, can he do the Fandango?!

Yes. Yes, I believe he can.

FullMoon said...


But no, it was yet another round of "how can we turn this interview into gotcha"? How can we as newspeople make news? That's exactly how fake news happens, and Tapper either doesn't know or doesn't care.

Apparently Jake is in a minor situation because he insinuated growing up blue collar. On twitter explaining himself in anticipation.

Fabi said...

CNN is licensed by the FCC for certain public bandwidth usage. That makes it my business.

MayBee said...

Saying it has been proven Russia sought to interfere with the election does not mean its been proven the WikiLeaks materials came from Russian government hackers. And while we're not privy to the secret evidence, I don't see how that could be proven beyond all doubt without the intel agencies having being able to analyze the DNC servers themselves.

Agreed.
One of the most boring ways to spend an interview is to try to get someone to agree or disagree with what everyone else is saying. Let them have their own words. And you know what, sometimes the consensus turns out to be wrong (like the anti-salt people). So don't act like shaming people into agreeing with the majority is a good way to get information out to the people.

The election was only a year ago. We all lived through it. They don't need to keep rehashing, rewriting, re-poking it with a stick to see if they can get Donald Trump to finally, at last, apologize for being president. They can pretend that's not what they're doing, but it is. Because what is the point otherwise?

Finally.....haven't we heard other countries do, indeed try to get involved in our elections? Surely they must. Surely we get up all in some other countries' election insider info, too, right? I mean, we are obviously bugging every word that goes through the Russian embassy. We have to be doing that times a million.

MayBee said...

Jake Tapper did do combative interviews with Obama administration people. The problem for him now is he's on CNN, which is bonkers when it comes to Trump. Everything is combative toward Trump. Everything is a crisis and breaking news. In fact, just the other night, Jake hosted a show titled "White House in Crisis".

Plus, nobody else gets grilled the way Trump people get grilled. Not by Jake (read his Twitter timeline), and certainly not by anyone else at the network. CNN cannot quit Trump, and it makes Tappers reporting look less fresh. The new fresh thing to do would be to *not* bring up Russia/the election for a whole interview. Imagine what we could learn!!

Brookzene said...

Everything is combative toward Trump.

From the get-go Trump pretty much put everyone on notice that he was the combative guy in the room and it wasn't just the media he was combative with, it was anyone who stood opposed to him.

h said...

Antiphone (and I think Tom) thanks for the posts. We're over here in this little corner, and all the the other commenters are "your mother wears combat boots; No Your mother wears combat boots." I'm not sure if anybody else gets what we are posting about, since it is not combat boots.

MayBee said...

From the get-go Trump pretty much put everyone on notice that he was the combative guy in the room and it wasn't just the media he was combative with, it was anyone who stood opposed to him.

Is the media opposed to Trump?

Brookzene said...

Is the media opposed to Trump?

Many of them opposed Trump's craven and crude attacks against them. Just think this week his falsely saying that the NYT was responsible for foiling a plot to kill or capture al-Baghdadi. That's just the past couple of days. Sure they opposed the self-serving bs, shouldn't they? Everyone say how he lied against his opponents in the worst way from GOP primaries - and earlier. It's a little silly to complain about how everyone is soooo combative with DJT.

MayBee said...

That's just the past couple of days. Sure they opposed the self-serving bs, shouldn't they?

Self-serving bs from a guy running for president? Imagine that!
Do you think the media was opposed to Obama?

Brookzene said...

Self-serving bs from a guy running for president? Imagine that!

No, now it's from a guy who is president. And no, president's should not be this self-serving, certainly not as obviously self-serving as this guy is.

And the media was opposed to some policies of the Obama administration. They didn't "declare war on the media."

Fabi said...

"..the media was opposed to some policies of the Obama administration."

Do tell.

Brookzene said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MayBee said...

And no, president's should not be this self-serving, certainly not as obviously self-serving as this guy is.

And the media was opposed to some policies of the Obama administration. They didn't "declare war on the media."


It's easy to believe Trump is very different because you don't agree with him, and he isn't your guy.
I wouldn't mind if the media simply was opposed to "some" of the policies of the Trump administration. I think you see the difference-- key words "some" and "policies".

Also, I don't know that Obama didn't declare war on the media. He tried to ostracize Fox news. He tapped Rosen's phone (declared co-conspirator to do it!). James Risen said Obama's DOJ went after more reporters than any president every had. Obama's White House communications department called Glenn Beck "unAmerican" because he laughed about Chicago not getting the Olympics. They openly bragged about using the press corps to gin up support for the Iran deal, and lied to the press about the billions of cash sent to Iran. They openly bragged about using members of the press to attack critics of the Iran deal.

I suspect you didn't notice it because he was putting HuffPo people in the press briefings rather than Brietbart, so it seemed to you like he was just expanding the circle of those who covered him.

narciso said...

I saw hacksaw ridge a powerful film, about the last successful hot war with a totalitarian power.

Of course there are many stories of ,for example who are some of Wilmer Pickering clients likely affected by trump oliticies, Qatar for one, who seems very tied to the terror networks from Syria to western europe

Barry Dauphin said...

Irony: Megyn Kelly gets preempted for NASCAR.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

On the question of presidential pardon powers : has constitional expert obama - the world renowned and totally praiseworthy - been asked for his views? Surely he has learned about it from tv.

Why not ask all the other living presidents also to get a range of views.

narciso said...


Nothing to see here:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/exclusive-fbi-seized-smashed-hard-drives-from-wasserman-schultz-it-aides-home/

rcocean said...

I see "Scaramucci" and instantly think of "Scaramouche" the 1952 film based on the popular novel by Rafael Sabatini.

Note to self: Stop watching so much TCM.

Brookzene said...

Also, I don't know that Obama didn't declare war on the media.

On the matter of who was the greater threat to the media and our democracy, Trump or Obama, I trust the opinions of NYT, WaPo, WSJ on that more than the opinions of the Trump team or apologists. I'm not saying Obama comes off well, I'm just saying it's evident that Trump is in his own league when it comes to combativeness with the press or with anyone who opposes him. The bullying and the lies are more blatant. Why shouldn't there be pushback?

James K said...

"I wouldn't mind if the media simply was opposed to "some" of the policies of the Trump administration."

I suppose that would be an improvement, but why should the media collectively have an obvious and virtually unanimous opposing viewpoint? It interferes with their primary job, which is to inform the public. Why should we not mind that?

MayBee said...

I trust the opinions of NYT, WaPo, WSJ on that more than the opinions of the Trump team or apologists.

Really? I trust my own opinion.

As for pushback, of course there should be pushback! But it doesn't have to be on everything, constantly, with no end. There also can be pushback of other people, other parties, and their policy solutions. There can be neutral reporting. There can be policy-based reporting, of Trump, of Republicans, of Democrats. It doesn't all have to be reactive. It can be spread around more.

There's too much heat from the media- from CNN as a channel- and not nearly enough light. They are not serving us well.

Brookzene said...

Really? I trust my own opinion.

You can hardly get your own opinion without relying on some sources. Unless you just make things up.

Brookzene said...

But it doesn't have to be on everything, constantly, with no end.

With all due respect I think Trump more often brings this on himself than otherwise. Far more often.

That's not to say there aren't unfair attacks on Trump. Everyone takes some unfair attacks and a president who is almost deliberately inviting them as part of his style is going to get some that are unfair as well as others that are spot on. Critical people have to sort through that.

But Trump has asked for a lot of this in a way other presidents had not and would not. He's the one who set the combative tone against anyone who opposed him, and way too many of his followers went down that road. "Lock her up!"

Khesanh 0802 said...

@Brookzene Clearly if you are currently reading the WSJ you haven't been reading it long. They don't think much of Obama and his relationship to the truth and have made that very clear over the last 8 years.

Khesanh 0802 said...

@Brookzene I certainly agree with your cry to "Lock her up!" Hillary has been very lucky to escape prosecution.

MayBee said...

Unless you just make things up

Just making things up seems to be en vogue right now.

But why would I trust the NYT or WaPo to tell me if Trump is somehow more a threat to democracy (as you say) than was Obama? They liked Obama! They wanted him to succeed. They don't like Trump. Why would I trust that their opinions don't color everything they report? I don't! The way they are reporting on Trump has made me think less of all of them. They have lost my trust.

Brookzene said...

@Kheshanh Yes I know that - I'm familiar with the WSJ. And I'd trust its opinion and their reporters' views of the media relationship to the Trump administration (whether it is/was fair or unfair, or just how dangerous it is) before I'd trust Trump's word. His lies are blatant and he shows an incredibly reckless disregard for truth and what's real.

Brookzene said...

But why would I trust the NYT or WaPo to tell me if Trump is somehow more a threat to democracy (as you say) than was Obama? They liked Obama! They wanted him to succeed.

Well, you just said this a few minutes ago:

I don't know that Obama didn't declare war on the media. He tried to ostracize Fox news. He tapped Rosen's phone (declared co-conspirator to do it!). James Risen said Obama's DOJ went after more reporters than any president every had. Obama's White House communications department called Glenn Beck "unAmerican" because he laughed about Chicago not getting the Olympics. They openly bragged about using the press corps to gin up support for the Iran deal, and lied to the press about the billions of cash sent to Iran. They openly bragged about using members of the press to attack critics of the Iran deal.

Now you're arguing that Obama and the press were all buddy buddy. IMO you need to explain or qualify that contradiction before going any further.

Michael K said...

Just think this week his falsely saying that the NYT was responsible for foiling a plot to kill or capture al-Baghdadi.

That was the general who was involved, not Trump.

Do you people ever check anything ?

Brookzene said...

What is your theory of the media?

Brookzene said...

That was the general who was involved, not Trump.

Trump tweeted it. Facts iz facts.

Rusty said...

Brookzene said...
"Also, I don't know that Obama didn't declare war on the media.

On the matter of who was the greater threat to the media and our democracy, Trump or Obama, I trust the opinions of NYT, WaPo, WSJ on that more than the opinions of the Trump team or apologists."


Should be an esay decision. Which one did more to subvert the rule of law?

Dr Weevil said...

I've already explained this twice, but I guess I have to explain this to Unknown one more time (see his 2:43pm comment). Can I convince him to acknowledge the gross error in all his boasting about Trump's supposed approval rating? We shall see.

The poll Unknown was so gleefully quoting a few days ago gave Trump only a 36% approval rating. However, only 23% of the people polled were Republicans. You can adjust the poll either of two ways, with much the same result:

1. Republicans are actually something like 30-33% of the voting population. Adjusting for the gross undersampling, we use simple algebra to calculate 23 : 36 :: 30-33 : X and get a range of 47-51.5. It appears from the very poll quoted that Trump is likely supported by half or close to half of the voting population.

2. Perhaps my first argument is oversimple. After all, we know that some Republicans (even a few "life-long" ones) oppose Trump, while a few Democrats and a lot of Independents support him. Do these two groups cancel out? No: the very poll in which only 23% of the polled admit to being Republicans gives him 36% support, so the number of non-Republicans (at least among those polled) who support him is vastly larger than the number of Republicans (polled) who oppose him. Apparently, he has huge cross-over appeal. Again, the idea that only 36% of Americans support him is absurd.

Will Unknown acknowledge my argument and try to refute it, or will he (once again) pretend not to have seen it, and pretend that his own boasting about polls is still somehow valid?

As already stated, we shall soon see.

Brookzene said...

Should be an esay decision. Which one did more to subvert the rule of law?

Trump's full responsibility is under investigation - we'll see if he allows it to continue.

It's not only subversion of the law that makes a president dangerous to democracy. And there are ways to subvert the law without seeming to break it.

Chuck said...

Annie C said...
...

Creepy, Chuck, really nasty and creepy.

What's so "nasty and creepy"?

If somebody wanted to, they could go to a YouTube video of Althouse herself, and (in what I regard as a perfectly normal, intelligent video) "freeze" her face into some weird poses. And, I suppose, post them on the internet. Just like what she did to Jake Tapper.

If my merely remarking about that, and not actually doing it, is "really nasty and creepy," what do you call what Ann Althouse did on the home page of her blog?

JohnJMac862 said...

For a guy who has never done this job before, he definitely held his own.

I actually like Tapper, and he came across pretty poorly. What happened to just asking questions and letting people answer them? Everybody's looking for their youtube moment linked by some lefty website to the effect that Tapper destroys Scaramucci...also, this weird trick can take 10 years off your face!.

D said...

Crystal Blue Persuasion was #2 on the summer pop charts 48 Julys ago (1969). Im thinking maybe he heard it on the radio, driving over.

"A new day is coming, people are changing, aint it beautiful, oh: Crystal Orange Essence"

MayBee said...

Now you're arguing that Obama and the press were all buddy buddy. IMO you need to explain or qualify that contradiction before going any further.

Obama declared war on the media. The media didn't declare war on Obama. That's not a contradiction at all.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brookzene said...


Obama declared war on the media. The media didn't declare war on Obama. That's not a contradiction at all.

You just said they (WaPo and NYTimes) liked Obama. "They liked Obama!. They wanted him to succeed.


They liked Obama! They wanted him to succeed.
Obama declared war on the media.
That's not a contradiction at all.

Sorry, but in my book that is a contradiction and at the very least requires an explanation.

Unknown said...

"Curiously you did not suggest freeze framing Scaramucci. Instead, went for the woman, in this case AA. To your credit, when it comes to violence or hatred, you treat men and women equally. Surprised you used AA as your target, as you are usually attempting to curry favor by addressing her in a complimentary fashion.

As if imagining yourself as being somehow her equal in intelligence, wit, experience and imagination."

Certainly, you're not.

He chose AA to use as an example because it was she who put up the unflattering freeze frames of Tapper, it has nothing to do with her being a woman. What an idiotic premise.

Fabi said...

"If my merely remarking about that..."

Oh, your 4:03 merely remarked about it. Merely. Yeah -- that's the ticket!

MayBee said...

Sorry, but in my book that is a contradiction and at the very least requires an explanation.

How can it be a contradiction? Obama was terrible to the press. The press loved him. That's not a contradiction. That's a description of the problem.

Birkel said...

Obama actually used the IRS to deprive people of their civil liberties. But Leftists cannot see that as a subversion of the rule of law.

Leftists only care about power. Everything they say is a lie in service of the pursuit of power. If they don't know that about themselves, they are ignorant.

Fen's Law.

FullMoon said...

He chose AA to use as an example because it was she who put up the unflattering freeze frames of Tapper, it has nothing to do with her being a woman. What an idiotic premise.
7/23/17, 9:49 PM


The Greta van Sustern abuse fantasy and resultant hysterical continued defense of same might suggest my opinion is not idiotic, buy reasonable. The original LLR comment was meant to show that anybody could look silly by cherry picking a screenshot. The fact he chose her confirms lack of awareness on his part, shared by you.

FullMoon said...

Women habitually and vociferously insulted by ?
Greta van Sustern
Debbie Stabenow
Ann Althouse


Even a blind man can see the pattern







Achilles said...

Obama used the intelligence agencies to tap certain reporters phone conversations and put reporters under investigation by the FBI and NSA.

Trump sends out critical tweets and calls the media on their fake news.


One of these is a threat to liberty and the free press. The other is not. But if you are just stupid enough you might be a leftist...

Unknown said...

> "Trump's 38.8% average job approval for his first six months in Gallup Poll is lower than Obama ever got for even a single week."

He doesn't need EVERYONE, but a large enough base to beat Kamala.

Tommy Duncan said...

Brookzene said:

They liked Obama! They wanted him to succeed.
Obama declared war on the media.
That's not a contradiction at all.


"Sorry, but in my book that is a contradiction and at the very least requires an explanation."

Obviously "your book" is not a dictionary. You embarrass yourself.

Robert Cook said...

"Leftists only care about power. Everything they say is a lie in service of the pursuit of power. If they don't know that about themselves, they are ignorant."

This is true of all factions in politics. Life is not a movie, where one side is "good" and the other "bad." You're beloved Republicans are no different.

Now...who is this "left" that you're talking about? The Dems can be called "left" only by stretching the meaning of the word and only in comparison to the knuckle-dragging Republicans. They're all working for the same people, and those people are not the American public.

Drago said...

Vookie: "Life is not a movie, where one side is "good" and the other "bad."

Shorter cookie: allies, axis powers...meh. what's the difference?

Considering the Stalinists were on both sides over the course of that time period it is easy to see where cookie is coming from.

Robert Cook said...

"Shorter cookie: allies, axis powers...meh. what's the difference?"

Don't be pedantic.

Besides, the Allies all have their own crimes to answer for.

Chuck said...

Full Moon I don't have any "Greta van Susteren abuse fantasy." You already know that. You know better, but you keep on polluting Althouse comments pages with that old story in an attempt to troll me. Most readers here know it so well that they are bored by it.

Short version: I never "threatened" Greta van Susteren and you know it. What happened was that (while still with Fox), Greta declared that what Cory Lewandowski did to reporter Michelle Fields could never qualify as a simple assault. So I proposed grabbing Greta in the same way that Lewandowski grabbed Michelle. To see how Greta liked it, with the strict constraint that if I had grabbed Greta in precisely the same way, Greta could never claim that it was a simple assault.

Trouble was, Greta then left Fox, went to MSNBC, and soon thereafter declared that video of a black female heckler being forcibly shoved out of a Trump rally WAS an assault. So there went my rhetorical consistency theory. Greta will say pretty much anything she is paid to say, it seems.

So while I never had any "fantasy" whatsoever about Greta van Susteren, I might confess to a Corey Lewandowski assault fantasy.

holdfast said...

Anyone else think that Scaramucci looks like Scott Wolf from Party Of Five?

FullMoon said...

I never "threatened" Greta van Susteren and you know it. What happened was that (while still with Fox), Greta declared that what Cory Lewandowski did to reporter Michelle Fields could never qualify as a simple assault. So I proposed grabbing Greta in the same way that Lewandowski grabbed Michelle. To see how Greta liked it, with the strict constraint that if I had grabbed Greta in precisely the same way, Greta could never claim that it was a simple assault.

Right, O.K. No need to keep posting the same old excuse, as most readers here are aware of the truth.

Now explain away tour choice to use AA in your comment about simplicity of using a screenshot to make any person look foolish. Complete with Google search, copying and pasting the URL.Your anger with AA for making your idol Jake look silly clouded your judgement on that one.

Dis respecting Debbie is natural, her opposing Kid Rock and all, but the way you do it is slightly more than the average well adjusted person would do.

I wonder if there are more antagonistic screeds in your commenting history.
Seriously, rather than reflexively challenge my observations, invest some time in introspection.

Not to puff myself up or anything, but I did get an A in eighth grade psychology,and have known some unfortunately strange people, so I have more experience in these matters than the average person.

rhetorical question said...

"One more thing Scaramucci said on "Face the Nation": Tweeting about everything is "the crystal essence of the president." The crystal essence!"

Actually, that's something Trump needs a lot of:

"Crystal essence deodorants are available in Roll-on, Spray, and Towelettes"

Bad Lieutenant said...

"Most readers here know it so well that they are bored by it. Short version: I I I I I."

Cool story bro, now tell us the one about Barron Trump.