I just watched a Fake reporter from the Amazon Washington Post say the White House is “chaotic, there does not seem to be a strategy for this Shutdown. There is no plan.” The Fakes always like talking Chaos, there is NONE. In fact, there’s almost nobody in the W.H. but me, and...
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2019
MEANWHILE:
There is only one right answer to the incredible question: Are you a foreign asset? And it doesn’t take 2 minutes to explain... pic.twitter.com/tb76DPP8D1
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) January 13, 2019
That tweet is a wonderful demonstration of where Trump derangement syndrome takes you. Campbell apparently can't see that the question is sarcasm and not a serious effort to pin Trump down. And if Trump thought it was serious and was a "foreign asset," he would be far more likely to say "no" than to say anything else. How could anyone think that if he were a "foreign asset," he wouldn't lie? It makes no sense!
Posts
69 comments:
Another, and to my mind more seriously damaging, place Trump Derangement Syndrome takes you lies in the fact that Campbell is not at all disturbed that the FBI opened a secret investigation of the President of the United States.
Where does Campbell think the authority to do that cones from? Does he care? [Narrator: No, he doesn’t care.]
How could anyone think that if he were a "foreign asset," he wouldn't lie?
Those people believe he wrote 'FOREIGN AGENT' in the occupation line of his tax return.
Agree Tim. And wasn't this supposed investigation opened a couple of years ago? Have they not, by now, established whether Trump is a foreign asset or not? Has Mueller anything to say about this?
tim said ... Where does Campbell think the authority to do that cones from?
The authority to open a secret investigation of the President of the United States comes from
the organization the FBI reports to: the democrat party
The founding purpose of the FBI is to investigate enemies of the democrat party.
Just don't call them 'leftists',
or Robert Cooke will say: "they're not Left OF ME! ergo, they aren't Leftists!!!"
I found the clip on youtube so I could play it, but couldn't make it far. What an annoying women.
There's no recognition of the rhetorical game that's going on between Trump and the left and its friends.
Idiot newsbabe.
I became exhausted with this stuff a few months ago.
The Democrat's lawfare, fake news strategy and general 24 hour a day howling in the wind has, in a way, worked on me. I just don't want to hear or know about this shit any more.
Paying attention to it gets in the way of enjoying being with my grandkids and playing music. I don't want to sit down at the piano with the fumes of this BS occupying my thoughts.
So, I've tried to exit the madness. Sometimes I falter and get drawn back in. Less and less as time passes.
Yes, because when you are the President of the Bloody United States, that is only an interim position on the way to Putin Secret Agent. Sure it is...
If I won the lottery, somehow, what my boss wants suddenly doesn't matter. The very best he might hope for is 'suggest' jobs to me. His 'influence' is sharply curtailed.
There is this vast and elaborate list of lies one has to believe for any of this to make sense and Inga is the best example: "Oh...he had to be almost bankrupt again...and Putin needed a NY real estate developer on staff because...of course he did...and they had to forecast he would win against the best financed political team on the planet by...magically rigging remote voting machines...and once he is in power, videos of him peeing on Obama's bed was sufficient to make him Putin's 'yes' man...'
Sure it is. It is laughable and frankly, CNN had a video of one of their producers admitting it is a game to them...but it drives ratings by the people Althouse used to be friends with.
So they happily lie.
The Will Smith and Gene Hackman movie “ Enemy of the State” was on the Syfy channel yesterday. A few years ago I would have believed it was indeed science fiction. Now we know it was a blueprint for the Obama Administration. Oddly though, at the end the FBI comes across as heroic. Events have shown that to be fiction as well.
Fake news is always everywhere. We should always filter any information we receive.
Mzuri Springs
Every question from Jeanine Pirro, to President Trump, is sarcasm and not a serious attempt to pin him down, right?
She is a "journalist" who also happened to appear at a campaign stop to urge everyone to vote for the candidate. Trump.
Althouse, we all start from the premise that nothing about a Jeanine Pirro interview of Trump is serious or newsworthy. Unless by accident, which this seems to be. Dog and pony show, gone awry.
Unlike CNN, Jeannine Pirro doesn't pretend to be a journalist. She's a commentator. Maybe you should learn the difference between journalism and advocacy.
you need to remember, our LLR's have stated, that their ONLY REASON to be here is to smear Trump. Facts can't get in the way of smears, otherwise; they wouldn't be smears
Chuck, you're a lawyer.
Where does the FBI get the authority to investigate a sitting President?
Trump wants a wall and the left wants women's votes.
Trump is taking the male wall-stand but, ill advised, using women's rhetoric to justify it, at the moment. The wall-stand though survives so far.
You don't want masses of Mexicans because they don't assimilate in masses. You want to spread them out so assimilation is the easy choice. I don't know what's hard about that. Cultural sensitivity probably. This isn't America, is cultural sensitivity land.
@Chuck
You're making my point, so why are you taking a challenging tone?
iowan2 said...
Chuck, you're a lawyer.
Where does the FBI get the authority to investigate a sitting President?
U.S. v. Nixon, 419 US 683 (1974), for one...
"I have a feeling we're going to be seeing the Mueller Report within 48 hours. Too much is comign[sic] out too fast. It's ready." -- Scott Candage, legal assistant in Williston, North Dakota, wrote 11 hours ago.
"Too much is coming out too fast. It's ready." That's my line.
I wonder how RBG is feeling today? Will she ever be seen again?
There was as much reasonable grounds to open an investigation on President Donald Trump as there was to open investigations on his campaign advisers George Papadopolous and Carter Page.
There were no reasonable grounds for any of these FBI investigations that the FBI conducted.
Some British dude, Christopher Steele, said he obtained incriminating information from Russian Intelligence insiders. Specifically, those insiders were:
* Source A
* Source B
* Source C
* Source D
* Source E
Based on Steele's information -- obtained from those five sources -- the FBI argued that it had reasonable grounds to search and seize communications from these supposed "foreign assets".
I see "foreign asset" made the journalist and was deployed, when, yesterday? I can't keep up.
N.B.: Josh Campbell was Comey’s PR flack at the FBI, and now does the same job at CNN. Never trust content from Josh Campbell...
some LLR said about Jeanine Pirro...
She is a "journalist" who also happened to appear at a campaign stop to urge everyone to vote for the candidate.
we all start from the premise that nothing about a Jeanine Pirro interview of Trump is serious or newsworthy.
nothing she says is serious or newsworthy? on account of because of the fact that she is biased? How serious or newsworthy should we (then) take the rantings of someone who has explicitly stated that they have No Interest in being fair, And are only here to Smear Trump?
smear
[smir]
VERB
damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
it is incredible to me that anyone entertains this. Preposterous is too mild. BHO was most assuredly biased (an agent?) for foreign governments but no one batted an eye. I think we have reached peak TDS.
secret investigations into the President? secret grand juries and cases by Mueller? a CIA operative (contractor) using federal resources (theft of time and resources) to create salacious rumors and fund a dossier.
You cant make this stuff up and it is DANGEROUS territory.
Althouse, the logical extension of your point is that Jeanine Pirro is not a serious questioner of Trump, and Trump's answers to her 'questions' are not news as such. It is Trump's own messaging, and it is FNC entertainment.
I'm taking your point as face value and using it to insult Jeanine Pirro. She's a blot on an enterprise that I used to like quite a lot and respect. (Fox News.) Given a chance to interview the President at a time where a dozen critical issues are facing him, she scarcely asked a single good question. (She asked one good question, which is why is there a national emergency on the border, if Trump is still waiting for Congressional negotiations? Trump didn't supply a good answer, other than what he preferred to do. She asked the same thing later, "If this isn't an emergency, what is?")
She let Trump claim that he has been in the White House all along, ready to negotiate a deal, and that in 15 minutes he could negotiate a deal. But the fact is, the Democratic leadership came to the White House and within about 15 minutes, Trump walked out of the meeting.
Then there was the answer about how the New York Times was failing, and is a "disaster" as a newspaper. The New York Times is the paper that Trump called "a great jewel."
The thing that I liked in truth about this interview, is that an unguarded Trump agreed that he would release all notes and documents relating to his meeting in Helsinki. Which should be helpful to House Democrats who want those documents and who probably thought that they'd be facing a claim of executive privilege. Neither Trump nor Pirro probably intended that. Again, the dog-and-pony show.
alanc709 said...
Unlike CNN, Jeannine Pirro doesn't pretend to be a journalist. She's a commentator. Maybe you should learn the difference between journalism and advocacy.
So Pirro is not a journalist, and isn't doing journalism. Agreed.
But to you and to Althouse; why do you insist that the reaction to the Pirro non-news is some sort of "news," and constrained by journalism ethics? Jeanine Pirro and Trump are engaged in trashtalk, and so are their detractors. Evens.
Chuck mentioned Nixon. I was reminded yesterday about who busted that open, who Deep Throat was. It was Marc Felt, career FBI, who was butt hurt that Nixon had skipped over him, and other career FBIers, for an outsider as Director, in order to clean up the agency after Hoover, who had run it as a private fiefdom, essentially through blackmailing top politicians to support him. Far be it from progressive heroes Speaking Truth to Power - instead Watergate turned out to have been the FBI Deep State taking down a duly elected President who wouldn't play ball, by the use of selective leaks to privileged reporters (Woodward and Bernstein). The difference this time is that we have seen it before. We know much of what is going on, and it is deeply unAmerican. Also, that time, there were actual crimes committed, and the President tried to help hide them. This time around though, the crimes are all on the side of the FBI and Deep State, and the basis for the investigation completely fabricated, appearing more and more to be by a combination of foreign actors hired by the President's opponent in the last election and the previous CIA Director.
But the fact is, the Democratic leadership came to the White House and within about 15 minutes, Trump walked out of the meeting.
Why, Chuck?
Could it be that Schumer and Pelosi showed up with nothing more in their hands than a fait accompli? (Pro-tip, that is not a synonym for "negotiation.")
Then there was the answer about how the New York Times was failing, and is a "disaster" as a newspaper.
The NYT is a disaster as a newspaper. Its Op-Ed section has long been a banal, provincial, fortress of thoroughly unexamined ideas. That was bad enough, but its straight reporting has been heading down sinkhole for at least a couple years now (I subscribe to both the NYT and the WSJ — the difference is stark, and not in the NYT's favor).
Its climate stories have degenerated into an every other day dose of propaganda.
And over the past few days, the NYT has pushed this FBI investigation story supported by a fog of innuendo and spin, with not a fact to be seen. They have become practically emetic in their use of "Trump said, without evidence ..." Accurate description, you might say. Okay fair enough. But fair is fair, and the NYT didn't once use that on Dr. Blaisey Ford, did it?
I'm trying to figure out why the Democrats don't have to declare the NYT as a campaign contribution in kind.
And now the narrative has been established. Trump might have been a foreign asset! We HAD to spy on him! It was our duty!
They weren't spying for political purposes see, it was because he might have been compromised!
She let Trump claim that he has been in the White House all along, ready to negotiate a deal, and that in 15 minutes he could negotiate a deal. But the fact is, the Democratic leadership came to the White House and within about 15 minutes, Trump walked out of the meeting.
I knew before the meeting that someone was going to walk out of the meeting. The one that walks first is usually in the stronger negotiating position. Usually the other side can see that the negotiations will end, and will offer a small compromise (or at least the appearance of one) to keep the dialog going. This happens in car showrooms everyday. But politicians aren't good negotiators.
It cost Trump nothing to walk away from that meeting.
Brian, it's fine for you to say that Trump was right to walk out of the meeting. For strategic/negotiation/integrity/whatever reasons.
But it is downright psychotic, for Trump to say that he is sitting in the White House, waiting for a meeting that would need to last only 15 minutes, when the last time that such a meeting occurred, he walked out in 15 minutes. In the face of history. History dating all the way back to... last week.
Isn't it ironic that Trump supposedly should have given a simple "no" instead of a long-winded answer, and I gave Chuck a simple prod that deserves the answer, "you're right," and he reacted with a 5-paragraph answer?
Chuck is an ass hole.
Took me five words and Althouse suggested three (contractions are cheating, LOL) but I think I get points for precision.
I even edited "fopdoodle extraordinaire" which was hard to do.
But it is downright psychotic, for Trump to say that he is sitting in the White House, waiting for a meeting that would need to last only 15 minutes
And it might only last 15 mins if the Schumer & Pelosi came with some kind of proposal, along the lines of, say, "We send you a one month continuing resolution, and that gives us time to fill work out the details for the additional border barriers."
That pretty much everyone agrees the US needs.
But they are so addled by TDS they have stopped whatever it is they used to do that approximated thinking.
In relation to my previous post about Watergate being the FBI Deep State taking down a duly elected President for the sin of going outside the agency to select its Director after J Edger Hoover:
https://victorygirlsblog.com/comey-firing-led-to-fbi-trump-investigation/
It is looking more and more like the appointment of Mueller as special prosecutor is in direct response for Trump having FBI Dir Comey fired for cause. Déjà vu all over again.
I still don't get why people say the FBI has "become" corrupted.
The FBI, and its predecessor the Bureau of investigation, have been corrupt for more tha a century. They were born corrupt.
The fbi should be abolished. I doubt it could ever be fixed.
John Henry
I said born corrupt and that needs a bit more.
It was created by the great progressive (a/k/a fascist) himself Theodore Roosevelt, to combat a political movement and radical unions.
This would best have been left to the states.
And later, the American Legion /s
John Henry
Noted racist commenter: "So Pirro is not a journalist, and isn't doing journalism. Agreed."
LOL
Racall that LLR Chuck has very recently gleefully praised the "masterful" journalist performance of one Lawrence O'Donnell!!
Yes, Lawrence f'n O'Donnell!!
Too funny.
There is but one criteria for LLR Chuck to consider you an actual journalist: Are you an unhinged leftist talking head offering up non-stop lefty spin?
If you are, LLR Chuck cant get enough of you, ever.
Lawrence O'Donnell: "masterful" journalist joining the LLR Chuck Pantheon of Journalistic Greats, which include previous winners Ezra Klein and the gang at vox, the entire staff at NPR, the very very very "brilliant" Maddow and Don Lemon.
"True Conservative"
LOL
Btw, Andy McCarthy has a nice synopsis of the corrupt Clinton/dem/Establishment/LLR's have been doing to subvert the law and undermine our Constitution.
At NRO, which has only gone about 30% of the way to full-blown leftist like LLR Chuck's heroes at The Cuckly Standard.
Birkel said...Chuck is an ass hole.
And gaping one at that with that extra space.
Trump - What's your evidence that I'm a foreign asset?
Reporter - People who hate you say you might be.
Trump - Okey Dokey
The real scandal is the GPS Fusion - British Spy -Dirty Dossier - FISA warrant surveillance of the Trump campaign by dirty cops Comey and Brennan.
And Comey's attempts to undercut Trump with Leaks and misdirection early in 2017.
That's the outrage.
We know that McCain was up to his eye-balls in trying to "get Trump" with the Dirty Dossier. He didn't just "read it and give to Comey". He had his Chief of Staff leak it to the media.
But he was a war hero. So its OK.
Chaos: a process (e.g. evolution, human life) that is incompletely, and, in fact, insufficiently characterized and unwieldy, therefore unpredictable outside of the near domain and notable for its progressive accuracy inversely proportional to the product of time and space offsets from an established frame of reference.
@ Lawyer Chuck: the case you cite doesn't hold that the FBI has the power to investigate a President. It's a case about the limitations of a president's claim to executive privilege.
The FBI hadn't initiated any investigation against the POTUS.
Nixon's AG had appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Watergate break-in, which at the time did not implicate Nixon.
As Wikipedia puts it:
"In April 1974,[Special Prosecutor] Jaworski obtained a subpoena ordering Nixon to release certain tapes and papers related to specific meetings between the President and those indicted by the grand jury [Jaworski had empaneled]. Those tapes and the conversations they revealed were believed to contain damaging evidence involving the indicted men and perhaps the President himself."
Nixon tried to avoid surrendering the tapes, and lost the case. He resigned shortly thereafter.
So...nothing in that case relates to the FBI's power to investigate the President.
Remember that McCain had employed Manafort as well, that arranged visas for Deripaska just like Waldman (allegedly source a) did, he worked with akmetshin on campaigns in Kazakhstan, who headed the trump tower delegation his thinktank iri had hired klimnik from a gru connected sinecure
McCain had as many connections to milian, allegedly source d) it was the fact that Manafort and McCain were hanging out on Deripaska yacht that prompted weaver to float that item about eiseman to the times
The lobbyist accused of being his mistress that the times had to personally apologize to her, but pay no damages
They could only do so if Nixon partisans recused so you ended up with Kennedy's solicitor general (shirley) as special prosecutor, and Richardson and ruckelshaus were best buds. The ranks of that office were stocked with Nixon haters (sound familiar)
The author fought one of these critters on appeal and won, she also defended the real norma rae,
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/there_is_a_pony_in_the_mueller_heap_of_dung.html
Jay Elink has explained law, to the lawyer...again.
Internet fake lawyer, cited a case. Must have found the talking point some where, never bothered to READ the cite he provided. If he did, his four years of college and 3 years of law school failed to impress upon him, the difference between responding to a subpoena and the power to investigate a sitting President with no evidence of wrong doing, ie, a crime.
iowan2 said...
Chuck, you're a lawyer.
Where does the FBI get the authority to investigate a sitting President?
U.S. v. Nixon, 419 US 683 (1974), for one...
Primary Holding
The President cannot shield himself from producing evidence in a criminal prosecution based on the doctrine of executive privilege, although it is valid in other situations.
Facts
This is fun. Asking a lawyer legal question, then waiting for the idiocy that ensues.
She also investigated nazis behind the iron curtain and the murder of a union leader in west Virginia (they made a movie about it, with Charles Bronson)
What's the crime, chuck, I sound like a peanuts character.
Btw what happened to that other prosecutor, he ended up a law firm partner and vice president at United technology. His prey died in 2016, after having been a local GOP party chair
“the Amazon Washington Post”
A dig and a warning in the same phrase. Nicely done.
Jay:
Point One: The FBI was investigating the Watergate break-in. Indeed, the "smoking gun" tape that was later revealed was the one where Nixon was understood to have been asking his senior staff (was it Haldeman and Dean? I can't recall exactly) to contact the CIA Director, to get him to intervene with FBI Director L. Patrick Gray, to call off the FBI's investigation.
Point Two: Does anyone think that Nixon's order, had it been carried out, would have been legal? As the FBI's investigation clicked along, it got to the point where the Senate got involved, took open testimony, the tapes were revealed, and then the Special Counsel sought a subpoena for some of the tapes. The FBI was effectively investigating the President in any common understanding.
Point Three: I didn't want to do this, but I just have to ask; what reason would there be, for the FBI to NOT investigate a President if the Bureau came into information that fit all of the Bureau's criteria for opening and inquiry, and then an investigation. (This was an "inquiry" about Trump, I think is what the NYT reporting is.)
Point Four: There is some writing at Lawfare by Jack Goldsmith, from the perspective of his questioning why the FBI would be doing a counterintelligence investigation of the President. I commend it to you. It will figuratively be music to the ears of many Trump supporters. Goldsmith says that Presidents have to do all sorts of extraordinary things to preserve national security, and the Bureau should not be second-guessing the President.
Here is that link, and note that they did a Lawfare discussion group on the issue as well:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-grounds-can-fbi-investigate-president-counterintelligence-threat
Last point: In response to Jack Goldsmith, I have at least one simple response. And that is, that according to the NYT reporting, the FBI's inquiry was both a criminal and a counterintelligence investigation. (Goldsmith asks a really tough additional question, which may not be relevant, and that is whether the President can be subject to a FISA warrant.) But in the context of an FBI inquiry that is in part a criminal inquiry, I don't think that even the best current-day legal critic of the FBI -- Jack Goldsmith -- takes the position that the FBI is powerless to investigate a sitting President.
what was the basis of the counterintelligence investigation, the dossier which was financed by Clinton counter parties, by a Russian connected burnt spy which became the basis for the fisa warrant, and the intel assessment, after two and a half years there has been no indictment on carter page, the principal target, so what do we have, papadopoulus mistook the date of his communications with mifsud, who had british and Saudi intelligence ties, and those ties to Timofeev, whose salon has had many guests including the late effendi khashoggi,
the follow on, halper also has ties to a fmr deputy svr chief, so this is as dubious as nixons surveillance of McGovern, because he had pro castro regime sympathies,
So at this point Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, has abandoned the argument that Obama didn't wiretap Trump.
Now the argument is that Obama should have wiretapped Trump.
That is the same argument to which all the Leftists have turned.
Chuck cites a NeverTrump critic of the president.
Not our kind, said the Harvard professor.
josh campbell, comey's fbi coffee boy that reinvented himself as a cnn senior intelligence analyst, like 'noodlehead' ned price, ben Rhodes manuensis, lol,
then of course, there is real life alex parish, mrs ashrappa who was a bureau analyst 15 years ago,
Short answer to crack lawyer Chuck:
The FBI was investigating the Watergate break-in--not the POTUS.
The case you cited, as further explained by iowan2, does not hold that the FBI has the power to investigate a sitting president.
All your coulda shoulda mighta woulda's count for naught. The case YOU cited is not on point. Jack Goldsmith's speculations are not a holding.
End of story.
Birkel: "So at this point Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, has abandoned the argument that Obama didn't wiretap Trump."
Quite so, quite so.
In an entirely "unexpected" turn of events, LLR Chuck's talking points evolve from the previously lefty-aligned talking points to the brand spankin' newest lefty-aligned talking points.
In an even bigger stunner, both sets of lefty aligned talking points are utterly specious but do helpfully serve the far left narrative cause.
Gee, what are the odds LLR Chuck, who so recently praised with great praise indeed the work of noted "journalist" Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC (I kid you not!), would once again, as always, be in pitch perfect alignment with the crazy left?
I mean, talk about an "unbelievable" string of 3 straight years worth of such daily "bad luck"!!!
Only Venezuela has had a worse run of luck.
"In fact, there's almost nobody in the White House but me!"
Professional Liars: "The president is increasingly isolated..."
It never stops. That's okay. This president is awesome. He just plows ahead for us.
btw; we just had a Manchurian Preznit. Persian, to be exact.
Trump has nearly destroyed the Russian economy with cheap energy. Thank heavens he is "on their side", if he was opposed he would have had to use nukes to more damage.
Chuck, if the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was a legitimate investigation, why did they not notify the Gang of 8 as they were requir3d to do. That’s the process they should go through, but they didn’t until after the election. Comey tried to throw Baker under the bus for it, during some of his testimony to Congress in 2017.
Trumps a bad guy but that means all Republicans are? The gang of 8 are all elected people too in a different branch of govt. if the FBI thinks they have a case against a presidential candidate they should notify them, no?
Or are we subservient to the guys with the guns.
Post a Comment