Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

TV’s Frink said:

oojason said:

Sean Spicer ‘spent several minutes hidden in the bushes’…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sean-spicer-spent-several-minutes-hidden-the-bushes

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1075247

To be fair - it may not be the first, or last, time that Spicer will likely be hiding in bushes…

😉

(a shame the journalists didn’t turn the cameras on the bushes and start asking ‘why are you hiding in the bushes?’)

This off camera meeting was actually planned ahead of time so it wasn’t like he was hiding for some dubious purpose. The condition of the meeting was that there was no video feed recorded.

Sean Spicer spent several minutes hiding in bushes - and in fact it seems he was hiding for a dubious purpose - in that he didn’t want to be filmed for a meeting taking place - which was agreed upon by the media present during his time whilst hiding in the bushes.

 

from the article…

"After Spicer spent several minutes hidden in the bushes behind these sets, Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed doing so. Spicer then emerged.

“Just turn the lights off. Turn the lights off,” he ordered. “We’ll take care of this…. Can you just turn that light off?”

Spicer got his wish and was soon standing in near darkness between two tall hedges, with more than a dozen reporters closely gathered around him. For 10 minutes, he responded to a flurry of questions, vacillating between light-hearted asides and clear frustration with getting the same questions over and over again.

Actually I believe part of the article is incorrect. I saw the opening of this interview before I turned to something different (before the cameras went off). John Roberts said they were just waiting for this briefing and they might get permission for audio recording. Sean Spicer was nowhere to be seen on the stage by the sets but everything else had been arranged prior. I did not see that woman they say came out.

So I don’t know that it really matters but what I saw and how it is reported starting here is a little different.

Again, what you believe is irrelevant - let’s just try and stick to the facts, yes? and not pass off opinion/belief as the fact, eh?

What the article says is NOT incorrect - and there was no pre-arranged meeting/briefing for those media waiting - as the Press Staff had stated that he may do a briefing - though that he (Spicer) definitely wouldn’t be saying more that night.

Spicer has just finished a pre-arranged outside interview with Fox Business - but to get back to his office he would have to pass a waiting media wanting questions to their answers - Spicer then hid in a bush! Several minutes passed and then Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed. Spicer then emerged…

so it had not ‘been arranged prior’ as you claim.

 

other fuller accounts here;-

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Analysis-After-Trump-fired-Comey-his-staff-11135009.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-spicer-bushes-white-house_us_59133322e4b0a58297e1721f

 

No need to be shitty mate. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a pissing contest.

😦

Not being shitty in the slightest mate. You are right though - this isn’t a pissing contest - it’s just getting to the facts (so far).

Discussion is always welcome - no-one said it isn’t.

And opinion, belief and varied discourse should thrive and be encouraged in the quality forums like we have here - but let’s not get away from the actual events and facts of the matter(s) being discussed - nor try and portray opinion or belief as fact, yes?

I just don’t appreciate you saying that I was trying to portray my opinion or belief as fact. I was just telling you what I saw, nothing more. We have plenty of posts in this thread that read as if they’re doing what you say and for the most part they get left alone. Ask me fine, but there is no need to be smarmy.

😉

No mate - not being smarmy either.

If you find a post that corrects you with actual facts - to your false claims - and call them smarmy or shitty then that is on you. Don’t try and deflect or project these insults onto others who are just supplying facts, and in turn undermining your points with the truth.

I’m being patient with you. I’m being polite - yet to the point (with facts). I’m not saying you are shitty or smarmy etc - like you have me. But enough is enough - if you can’t handle the truth or facts being pointed out to you then that is your problem - no-one elses - so lay off with the sly personal insults.

Okay, your pointing to the articles and that’s fine. I am just relaying what I saw right before the briefing. I didn’t post it to base it as fact. I think we’ve both made sly insults from time to time, point taken. If you didn’t see the TV part of the briefing that I did than I understand why you would say it was false. In return, just because you didn’t see it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t aired, and in turn didn’t happen.

I am not refuting your articles so I ask that you not refute what I saw before the briefing took place.

You stated the “This off camera meeting was actually planned ahead of time…” It was not - as corrected/evidenced by 3 different accounts from the media.

As for your ‘If you didn’t see the TV part of the briefing that I did than I understand why you would say it was false.’ - I haven’t said that was false or that it didn’t happen - so don’t infer that I did. I said your belief that ‘Actually I believe part of the article is incorrect.’ was not incorrect, and gave reasons why via other articles.

You stated “I haven’t found anything that proves this has been confirmed one way or the other so I don’t know why Rachel Maddow would even suggest it has been.” Yet, as was pointed out to you - it was not Rachel Maddow’s article (it was by Steve Benen).

 

If in doubt go back and read the posts again. Have a think about they come across - and how wrong some of your statements were, and your posts on the matter since. I won’t be - as I can’t be bothered to waste more time than I already have on this - only for you to once again dish out deflections, projections and sly insults accordingly - for me just correcting your erroneous claims/comments.

And no, I’ve not made any sly insults - so don’t incorrectly (again) say that I have.

I think this is a good point on to end the matter.

Well then, I hope that since you’re in to clarifying facts, you pick apart all the other erroneous claims/comments being made in this thread based on just people’s opinions of things. That would certainly clear up a lot of the confusion in this thread. The article by Steve Benen and the Sean Spicer in the Bushes story are two different stories and I made two different responses.

Your choice of words used in your responses, read to me, as if you were being crappy. Now, was I wrong, I was. So instead of dragging it out you could have plainly said … I didn’t mean them that way but I could see how you might see it like that. … and we’d have been done. Pretty simple. Just as you don’t want to be antagonized, I don’t either. I’m not going have a disagreement end with one member just to be confronted by another. I’ve got no personal issue with you and I, for one, would like to keep it that way.

I haven’t even picked your erroneous claims/comments apart (let alone any others - are there any?) - I just stated the facts. And look how many posts it has taken to get there. And how many times I’ve mentioned/repeated it. Even I’m bored of it. Let alone offering an opinion on it, or discussing it further.

And yes, I’m well aware the Benen and the Bushes stories are two different things - I just put them together in my last post on the topics as part of a brief overview of your statements pointing out for sake of clarity where I had made my points previously.

No-one else claimed there was pre-planned meetings when there wasn’t, or that Rachel Maddow had made suggestions in articles when she hadn’t etc - and if they had claimed that - I’d have commented on it. If I make a mistake or suggest something not true or factual etc I’d hope to be pulled on it. Thankfully, most people on here don’t make claims like this - they just post news articles or give their opinion on various topics - and that’s great, even if I don’t agree with them or share same/similar beliefs. I’ve bored myself again. I’m going to leave it there (again).

It’s just weird that you’ve started on this new path. I think you’re a bit naive about most other people “just” posting news articles or giving their opinions but that’s just my … opinion.

Anyways, I appreciate the warning, I promise to stay more aware.

No, no new path.

Me being naive about others ‘just’ posting news articles and opinion? I don’t think so - though possibly. Some of the stuff in here doesn’t interest or appeal to me, but seems to me few others continue to make false/mistaken statements.

Making mistakes is only human and we all do them, though posting seemingly continued inaccuracies and claiming things happened which didn’t - isn’t a mistake, and as said before, does you no favours.

Perhaps stopping to think about the content of the subject, checking a couple of similar sources, and consider whether something actually happened - before incorrectly claiming it did. It will help your argument, stance and people who think similar to you - as well as your opinion and beliefs on it. It’ll likely help your reputation on here amongst others - even those you consider ‘on the other side’ as it were. And finally, it’ll also prevent this shitfest of posting ‘from-me-to-you -to-you-to-me’ on this matter - since further highlighting the actual facts doesn’t really do you much favours in the content of your posts.

(plus, I’m sure you agree this is boring, repetitive and we both have better things to do).

And there was no warning.

So please stop with the projections and deflections, yet I think it quite likely you’ll be making yet further reference to this, in the form of a protective dig, yes? I suppose we’ll see.

Happy factual posting to you, good sir. And also respectively to your opinion and beliefs too.

Lawrence Tribe, constitutional law professor at Harvard said something interesting: By claiming Comey had told him that the FBI wasn’t investigating him, Trump waived executive privilege with regard to Trump/Comey exchanges.

Samuel Buell, law professor at Duke (and former federal prosecutor), said that while it’s ambiguous at the moment if firing Comey qualifies as obstruction of justice, threatening him later on Twitter makes the case for obstruction much clearer.

So basically: All the levers of power are Trump’s to lose, so keep tweeting!

CatBus said:

Back in the early days of the Obama administration someone paid for a bunch of billboards with nothing but an image of George W Bush’s smiling face and the words “Miss Me Yet?” At the time, interpreted as “You could be taken back to the Bush years”, it felt like a threat. I actually had a hard time looking at it, the menace of it eliciting such a visceral response from me.

Now, I’ve got an answer. Yes, yes I do miss you, very much even. But the billboard is long gone.

I’d quote my similar post from awhile back about this but I’m too lazy.

TV’s Frink said:

I wonder how many Democrats would be happy to see both Trump and Comey prosecuted.

All of them?

As long as the charges were legit and they were given a fair trial, I think Democrats would be happy to see anyone prosecuted. It’s part of their “soft on crime” schtick to have those two preconditions, though.

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/12/trump_accuses_trump_of_surveilling_trump_in_tapes_tweet.html

It Appears That Trump May Have Just Falsely Accused Himself of Wiretapping Himself

Amazing.

Naw, you’re not seeing the other conspiracy shoe dropping. Trump said “tapes” in quotes, just like “wiretapp”. Meaning, Trump wasn’t recording the Trump/Comey discussion–Obama was. That’s right, Obama’s sitting on a pile of evidence that could not only implicate Obama in criminal wrongdoing, but would also clear Trump of all wrongdoing as well (retroactive to the Trump University fraud suit even). Trump surrogates will take to the airwaves demanding Obama turn over the tapes that show what’s really going on with the Comey firing. Obama will say they’re all nuts, and that just proves he’s hiding something.

For the third act, Sessions will subpoena Obama for the tapes, Obama will say there aren’t any, and they’ll try to get him on obstruction for failing to comply with the subpoena.