Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 202

What is going on here?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/327403-trump-removes-bannon-from-national-security-council-report

TV’s Frink said:

What is going on here?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/327403-trump-removes-bannon-from-national-security-council-report

strange. from the source (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-05/bannon-removed-from-national-security-council-role-in-shakeup?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social) it says:

A White House official said that Bannon was placed on the committee in part to monitor Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and never attended a meeting. He’s no longer needed with McMaster in charge of the council, the official said.

which sounds innocent enough. I wonder what the “Spicer” explanation will be.

“A White House official said that Bannon was placed on the committee in part to monitor Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn”

Great job Steve!

Shit, Bannon was probably the one who hired him. Trump was like “yeah whatever, I’m working on a tweet right now.”

Probably

I wonder if charges are going to be brought against the New York Time for outing Ezra Cohen-Watnick? I’m also curioius about the recent smear campaign against Jared Kushner. It leads me to believe that the NY Times knows his name was one of the unmasked names and they are trying to get ahead of the curve by doing so. Since it seems that Maggie Haberman was the one that had the story about the Susan Rice Unmasking and held on to it for 48 hours.

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/susan-rice-requested-unmasking-of-incoming-trump-administration-officials-30085b5cff16

Quite the interesting web being woven here. I would like to know the reason given for the unmasking of the names. Knowing that will be key to unraveling some of this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-harassment_us_58e51f1ee4b0917d347635f9

President Donald Trump said he doesn’t think Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, who has been accused of sexual harassment by several women, did anything wrong.

In an interview with The New York Times on Wednesday, Trump defended O’Reilly after the Times reported that O’Reilly or Fox News paid five women a total of about $13 million to settle claims of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior over the years.

“I think he’s a person I know well — he is a good person,” Trump said on Wednesday.

“I think he shouldn’t have settled; personally, I think he shouldn’t have settled,” Trump added. “Because you should have taken it all the way. I don’t think Bill did anything wrong.”

Last week, Trump declared April National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

Man, speaking of completely empty gestures…

Has proof been published that Bill O’Reilly actually did what he was accused of and that is actually why the money was paid? I haven’t seen anything official as of yet.

doubleofive said:

TV’s Frink said:

“I don’t think Bill did anything wrong.”

He wouldn’t think it was wrong, would he?

That’s how he scores chicks too, so no, he wouldn’t.

SilverWook said:

TV’s Frink said:

What is going on here?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/327403-trump-removes-bannon-from-national-security-council-report

They decided having a crazy person in sensitive top secret meetings wasn’t working out? 😉

But they have one as President!

SilverWook said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Has proof been published that Bill O’Reilly actually did what he was accused of and that is actually why the money was paid? I haven’t seen anything official as of yet.

Isn’t the whole point of paying hush money? To insure that lurid details never come to light?

That is one of many ways to see it, sure, allegations and proof are two separate issues.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Reince Priebus is going to eventually find his way back to his old job (Scott Walker lackey) in Wisconsin. It will suck for us too but here we can get rid of him too. I don’t think he belongs in the White House.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/trump-interview-susan-rice.html

President Trump said on Wednesday that he thought that the former national security adviser Susan E. Rice may have committed a crime by seeking the identities of Trump associates who were swept up in the surveillance of foreign officials by American spy agencies and that other Obama administration officials may also have been involved.

The president provided no evidence to back his claim. Current and former intelligence officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations have said that nothing they have seen led them to believe that Ms. Rice’s actions were unusual or unlawful. When Americans are swept up in surveillance of foreign officials by intelligence agencies, their identities are supposed to be obscured, but they can be revealed for national security reasons, and intelligence officials say it is a regular occurrence.

So to sum up today’s news, Papa Bear is innocent despite no evidence, while Obama wiretapped his phones despite no evidence and Rice is guilty despite no evidence.

said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/trump-interview-susan-rice.html

President Trump said on Wednesday that he thought that the former national security adviser Susan E. Rice may have committed a crime by seeking the identities of Trump associates who were swept up in the surveillance of foreign officials by American spy agencies and that other Obama administration officials may also have been involved.

The president provided no evidence to back his claim. Current and former intelligence officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations have said that nothing they have seen led them to believe that Ms. Rice’s actions were unusual or unlawful. When Americans are swept up in surveillance of foreign officials by intelligence agencies, their identities are supposed to be obscured, but they can be revealed for national security reasons, and intelligence officials say it is a regular occurrence.

So to sum up today’s news, Papa Bear is innocent despite no evidence, while Obama wiretapped his phones despite no evidence and Rice is guilty despite no evidence.

#1, it’s a NY Times attempt at an investigative article.

#2, I know I never accused her of doing anything illegal. As long as she could provide proper reasoning for an unmasking request, it would be allowed by law.

#3, It has already been shown that Trump and associates were caught up in “incidental” surveillance. Flynn’s name was leaked by someone, which is illegal, and his name had been unmasked from the surveillance reports.

SilverWook said:

Does anyone else think there will be some sort of a secret strike on Syria eventually? It might help Trump’s image in the short term, (and distract from all the Russia stuff) especially if it takes that little Hitler mustached bastard Assad out.

Secret strike? You realize the U.S. military has been training, funding, and arming Syrians to kill other Syrians for many years now. Unless that’s the secret you were referring to.

Well, I’m not so sure it would be all that secret. U.S. foreign policy in the middle east is such a cluster****.

Don’t we still have some UFO’s at Area 51? You could use those.

😃