Trumpling the Truth

[dead man walking]

that's good, thud

[The Ginger Beard Man]

From David Simon (creator of 'The Wire')

A year with some good detectives taught me that often WHAT ISN'T SAID is the actual tell. And note what isn't discussed between Trump and Comey. At no point does Trump make any concerted effort to discern whether or not Russia did in fact attempt to interfere in the election. Indeed, he notes that the claim has created a cloud over his governance -- so he can scarcely say that it isn't of real concern to him; his concern is premised in this meeting. Yet, he doesn't inquire as to what Comey and the FBI is yet discerning about Russia's role. He doesn't even do so as a means of disparaging the claim. (i.e. "I'm sure you're finding out that there's nothing to the claims of Russian interference, right?" It. Doesn't. Come. Up.

In this regard, I am reminded of every innocent and guilty man I ever witnessed in an interrogation room. The innocent ask a multitude of questions about what the detectives know, or why the cops might think X or Y or whether Z happened to the victim. The guilty forget to inquire. They know. An old law school saw tells young trial lawyers to remind their clients to stay curious in front of a jury. There's a famous tale of a murder case in which the body of the defendant's wife had not been recovered yet he was charged with the killing. Defense attorney tells the jury in final argument there's been no crime and the supposed victim will walk through the courtroom doors in 10 seconds. 30 seconds later the door remains shut. "Ok, she isn't coming today. But the point is all of you on jury looked, and that my friends is reasonable doubt. You must acquit."

Jury comes back in twenty minutes: Guilty. Attorney goes to the foreman: "I thought I had you." Foreman: "You had me and ten others. But juror number 8 didn't look at the door, he looked at your client. And he didn't eye the door, he was examining his nails."

Even when he was completely alone with Comey, Trump didn't look at the door. He eyed his nails. It's an absolute tell. Why? Because Trump already knows that there is some fixed amount of Russian interference on his behalf, and possibly, collusion as well.

Everybody knows there was Russian interference. We still have zero evidence for collusion. And Comey on record saying there wasn't.
I didn't even graduate from college, so maybe one of the IGx lawyers can explain to me the relationship between evidence and allegation.

[Thud]

Everybody knows there was Russian interference. We still have zero evidence for collusion. And Comey on record saying there wasn't.
I didn't even graduate from college, so maybe one of the IGx lawyers can explain to me the relationship between evidence and allegation.

Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. All Trump asked Comey was if he personally was under investigation. Knowing there was interference, and knowing his appointees were outright lying about meetings with Russians, shouldn't he be asking if anyone in his admin is a security risk? Wouldn't you want to know, or would you too call any investigation of such a witch hunt and try to shut it down before asking?

[The Ginger Beard Man]

Everybody knows there was Russian interference. We still have zero evidence for collusion. And Comey on record saying there wasn't.
I didn't even graduate from college, so maybe one of the IGx lawyers can explain to me the relationship between evidence and allegation.

Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. All Trump asked Comey was if he personally was under investigation. Knowing there was interference, and knowing his appointees were outright lying about meetings with Russians, shouldn't he be asking if anyone in his admin is a security risk? Wouldn't you want to know, or would you too call any investigation of such a witch hunt and try to shut it down before asking?

If we were talking about a normal person, yes. But we're talking about a narcissist, so I'm not sure that logic applies.

[Thud]

GBM, everyone knows it except Trump. Or maybe he does, sorta, but can't quite admit it. Or doesn't care. Or doesn't want to know. Or wants to hide it. Or who knows what the hell he thinks.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_i ... nald_Trump

Donald Trump
Trump's transition team dismissed the U.S. Intelligence community conclusions.

Prior to his presidential run, Donald Trump made statements to Fox News in 2014 in which he agreed with an assessment by FBI director James Comey about hacking against the U.S. by Russia and China.[285] Trump was played a clip of Comey from 60 Minutes discussing the dangers of cyber attacks.[285] Trump stated he agreed with the problem of cyber threats posed by China, and went on to emphasize there was a similar problem towards the U.S. posed by Russia.[285]

In September 2016, during the first presidential debate, Trump said he doubted whether anyone knew who hacked the DNC, and disputed Russian interference.[286] During the second debate, Trump said there might not have been hacking at all, and questioned why accountability was placed on Russia.[287] During the third debate, Trump rejected Clinton's claim that Putin favored Trump.[282] After the election, Trump rejected the CIA analysis and asserted that the reports were politically motivated to deflect from the Democrats' electoral defeat.[17] Trump's transition team drew attention to prior errors emanating from the CIA,[18] namely stating: "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."[112] The intelligence analysts involved in monitoring Russian activities are most likely different from those who assessed that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.[288] Responding to The Washington Post, Trump dismissed reports of Russia's interference, calling them "ridiculous"; he placed blame on Democrats upset over election results for publicizing these reports,[289] and cited Julian Assange's statement that "a 14-year-old kid could have hacked Podesta."[290] After Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and announced further sanctions on Russia, Trump commended Putin for refraining from retaliatory measures against the United States until the Trump administration would lay out its policy towards Russia.[291]

On January 6, 2017, after meeting with members of U.S. intelligence agencies, Trump released a statement saying: cyberwarfare had no impact on the election and did not harm voting machines. In the same statement, he vowed to form a national cybersecurity task force to prepare an anti-hacking plan within 90 days of taking office.[292] Referring to the Office of Personnel Management data breach in 2015, Trump told The New York Times he was under a "political witch hunt", and wondered why there was no focus on China.[293] Two days later, Reince Priebus reported that Trump had begun to acknowledge that "entities in Russia" were involved in the DNC leaks.[294] On January 11, 2017, Trump conceded that Russia was probably the source of the leaks, although he also said it could have been another country.[295][296]

The CIA assessment, and Trump's dismissal of it, created an unprecedented rupture between the president-elect and the intelligence community.[306][307][308] On December 11, 2016, U.S. intelligence officials responded to Trump's denunciation of its findings in a written statement, and expressed dismay Trump disputed their conclusions as politically motivated or inaccurate. They wrote that intelligence officials were motivated to defend U.S. national security.[306] On the same day, The Guardian reported that members of the intelligence community feared reprisals from Donald Trump once he takes office.[309] Former CIA director Michael Morell said foreign interference in U.S. elections was an existential threat.[310] Former CIA spokesman George E. Little condemned Trump for dismissing the CIA assessment, saying that the president-elect's atypical response was disgraceful and denigrated the courage of those who serve in the CIA at risk to their own lives.[311] Former NSA director and CIA director Michael V. Hayden said that Trump's antagonizing the Intelligence Community signaled the administration would rely less on intelligence for policy-making.[312] Independent presidential candidate and former CIA intelligence officer Evan McMullin criticized the Republican leadership for failing to respond adequately to Russia's meddling in the election process.[313] McMullin said Republican politicians were aware that publicly revealed information about Russia's interference was likely the tip of the iceberg relative to the actual threat.[313]

[Thud]

Everybody knows there was Russian interference. We still have zero evidence for collusion. And Comey on record saying there wasn't.
I didn't even graduate from college, so maybe one of the IGx lawyers can explain to me the relationship between evidence and allegation.

Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. All Trump asked Comey was if he personally was under investigation. Knowing there was interference, and knowing his appointees were outright lying about meetings with Russians, shouldn't he be asking if anyone in his admin is a security risk? Wouldn't you want to know, or would you too call any investigation of such a witch hunt and try to shut it down before asking?

If we were talking about a normal person, yes. But we're talking about a narcissist, so I'm not sure that logic applies.

Yes, well the smell test indicates that collusion by his administration, likely personal financial gains, political patronage toward Russia, and personal obstruction (including withholding tax returns) is the logic that applies.

[Turdacious]

The important thing is that this whole circus is that it's a job creator... for lawyers.

[Herv100]

Thud, there was no collusion or "interference" in the election. It's basically fan fiction at this point.

Even when you press the senators or IC "interference believers" about how Russia "interfered", the answer is now "well, they had people post anti-Hillary stuff on Internet message boards and Twitter"

LMAO!

[dead man walking]

Russian interference:

Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump’s election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.

In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.

[Thud]

Thud, there was no collusion or "interference" in the election. It's basically fan fiction at this point.

I'm more interested in what a thorough classified investigation yields than what's known publicly "at this point."

[Thud]

11kotkin-master768.jpg (58.21 KiB) Viewed 4299 times

[nafod]

Herv100 is a commie infiltrator

[Turdacious]

Republicans say they are turning down job offers to work for a chief executive whose volatile temperament makes them nervous. They are asking head-hunters if their reputations could suffer permanent damage, according to 27 people The Washington Post interviewed to assess what is becoming a debilitating factor in recruiting political appointees. The hiring challenge complicates the already slow pace at which Trump is filling senior leadership jobs across government [...]

But the Senate has just 25 working days until it breaks for the August recess. At this point, Trump has 43 confirmed appointees to senior posts, compared with the 151 top political appointees confirmed by mid-June in President Barack Obama’s first term and the 130 under President George W. Bush, according to data tracked by The Post and the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition. For Cabinet posts, the median wait between nomination and Senate vote for Trump was 25 days, according to data collected by The Post. By contrast, Obama’s nominees faced a median wait of two days, George W. Bush had a median wait of zero days and Bill Clinton had a median wait of one day [...]

But as the president continues to sow doubts about his loyalty to those who work for him, most recently with his tweets on Friday that appeared to attack Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, a number of qualified candidates say they see little upside to joining government at this time. They include eight Republicans who said they turned down job offers out of concern that working for this administration could damage their reputation. Republicans have become so alarmed by the personnel shortfall that in the past week a coalition of conservatives complained to White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus [...]

Potential candidates question whether they could make a lasting contribution in an administration whose policies often change directions. They worry that anyone in the White House, even in a mid-level post, faces the possibility of sizable legal bills serving on a team that is under investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 6d7cf3db8c

[Thud]

Looks like "temperament" really does matter.

The guy is totally unfit to serve.

[Herv100]

Who would win?

Ossof and $40 million vs Handel and 7 Trump tweets

[Turdacious]

Planned Parenthood donated over 700k to Ossof. Looks like the Handel v. Planned Parenthood fight is going to need a trilogy.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/former-kom ... lyard-thug

[dead man walking]

Who would win?

Ossof and $40 million vs Handel and 7 Trump tweets

facts re spending, from the ny times:

candidates and outside groups spending roughly $55 million

the ossoff campaign significantly outspent handel, but repub superpacs greatly outspent the dem outside groups. a partial breakdown here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ction.html

what did we learn?

"money can't buy you love," george, paul, john, and ringo

[powerlifter54]

Georgia 6th.

Next?

[dead man walking]

Georgia 6th.

Next?

Health care vote?

VA gubernatorial?

Travel ban before the supreme court?

Debt ceiling?

Jared Kushner's cellmate?

Lots of action coming up

[nafod]

Georgia 6th.

Next?

Dems need to spend some time in the wilderness, figuring out a reason for people to vote for them.

[powerlifter54]

Georgia 6th.

Next?

Dems need to spend some time in the wilderness, figuring out a reason for people to vote for them.

The reality is eventually the Dems will start winning again. But not with this cast of characters.

[Turdacious]

“The time has come for new immigration rules which say that those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years,” Trump told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa at the U.S. Cellular Center. The president said his administration would be “putting in legislation to that effect very shortly.” But such a law is already in effect and has been in place since 1996.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... since-1996

[Yes I Have Balls]

TIME: Election hackers altered voter rolls, stole private data, officials say.

http://time.com/4828306/russian-hacking ... vate-data/

Next we're gonna find out how much of the stolen voter data (or hacked Facebook data for that matter) found it's way to Team Trump. If I were Brad Parscale, I would lawyer up immediately.

[Turdacious]

TIME: Election hackers altered voter rolls, stole private data, officials say.

http://time.com/4828306/russian-hacking ... vate-data/

Next we're gonna find out how much of the stolen voter data (or hacked Facebook data for that matter) found it's way to Team Trump. If I were Brad Parscale, I would lawyer up immediately.

This could be the first time in American history that voter fraud in Illinois affected a presidential election.

[JimZipCode]

The reality is eventually the Dems will start winning again. But not with this cast of characters.

Cory Booker?