Octopus Overlords

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 11:08 am Its an opinion piece more or less stating that the FBI's refusal to turn over information to Nunez must be because the FBI was spying (unsaid but clearly intended to suggest illegal spying) on the Trump campaign. Of course, there is nothing mentioned about the fact that Nunez has been leaking like a sieve any information he thinks help Trump, which would clearly ruin any FBI asset's cover, if not put them in danger. So, more or less, it's more pro-Trump, anti-FBI propaganda.

I mean, pretty much everything on the WSJ op-ed page is propaganda on one type or another. Hence Isg's post, noting the split between the WSJ reporters (who are great) and the WSJ op-ed board (who are partisan propagandists).

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would publish an op-ed piece as if it were fact finding news or that insinuation would be treated as research and presentation of a complete picture. Very difficult.

Quartz

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson didn’t mince his words in a memo to staff: ”Our reputation has been damaged. There is no other way to say it—AT&T hiring Michael Cohen as a political consultant was a big mistake,” he wrote, according to a memo obtained by CNBC.

Top executive Bob Quinn is leaving the company over the decision to pay $600,000 to president Donald Trump’s personal lawyer. Stephenson framed the departure as Quinn “retiring,” though the Wall Street Journal reports (paywall) he is being ousted.
...

Randall Stephenson wrote:To be clear, everything we did was done according to the law and entirely legitimate. But the fact is, our past association with Cohen was a serious misjudgment. In this instance, our Washington D.C. team’s vetting process clearly failed, and I take responsibility for that.

”Our reputation has been damaged. There is no other way to say it—AT&T hiring Michael Cohen as a political consultant was a big mistake,

hahahahahahahhaha like it hasn't been for decades. I should ask what reputation?

I like how the CEO takes personal responsibility, then fires someone else instead of resigning himself. Classic executive move.

CNBC

Asked if Trump, too, believed it was a mistake for his personal attorney to work with these companies, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it only proved the president's mettle.

"I think this further proves that the president is not going to be influenced by special interests," Sanders said. "This is actually the definition of draining the swamp, something the president talked about repeatedly during the campaign."

Pressed on how corporate spending to the president's personal lawyer, specifically for insights into the president, constituted "draining the swamp," Sanders referred to the proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner that was opposed in a lawsuit by Trump's Justice Department in November.

"I think it's pretty clear that the Department of Justice opposed the merger, and so certainly the president has not been influenced by any, or his administration influenced by any outside special interests," Sanders said.

Simon Cameron, US financier & politician (1799 - 1889) wrote:An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.

How stupid do you have to be to believe anything Sarah Sanders says?

Asking for 42% of a friend.

"I think this further proves that the president is not going to be influenced by special interests," Sanders said. "This is actually the definition of draining the swamp, something the president talked about repeatedly during the campaign."

Thank you. I really needed that laugh just now.

Drain the swamp of money?

"We're so corrupt you can trust us!" Is a terrible slogan.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 9:13 pm "We're so corrupt you can trust us!" Is a terrible slogan.

Remember when Trump's supporters totally seriously and sincerely claimed "He's too rich to be corrupted"?

Hardy har har har.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 9:46 pm

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 9:13 pm "We're so corrupt you can trust us!" Is a terrible slogan.

Remember when Trump's supporters totally seriously and sincerely claimed "He's too rich to be corrupted"?

Hardy har har har.

or

Smutly wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:43 pm
Trump is a businessman. I know what to expect from him. He did it in the private sector. BUT, he wasn't representing the public trust when he did it.

I've said this before...

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 5:22 pm CNBC

Asked if Trump, too, believed it was a mistake for his personal attorney to work with these companies, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it only proved the president's mettle.

"I think this further proves that the president is not going to be influenced by special interests," Sanders said. "This is actually the definition of draining the swamp, something the president talked about repeatedly during the campaign."

Pressed on how corporate spending to the president's personal lawyer, specifically for insights into the president, constituted "draining the swamp," Sanders referred to the proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner that was opposed in a lawsuit by Trump's Justice Department in November.

"I think it's pretty clear that the Department of Justice opposed the merger, and so certainly the president has not been influenced by any, or his administration influenced by any outside special interests," Sanders said.

Simon Cameron, US financier & politician (1799 - 1889) wrote:An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.

Wait...so is this the same DoJ that is investigating Trump? I thought they were all corrupt or on witch hunts or something? I'm so confused.

And I believe Giuliani along the same lines just said in an interview, "The president denied the merger."

Apparently he thought this was a slam-dunk against the charge of swampiness, but all he did was give AT&T an opening to sue on the grounds that Trump intervened politically against them because they are CNN's parent company.

GungHo wrote: ↑Sat May 12, 2018 1:28 am

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 5:22 pm CNBC

Asked if Trump, too, believed it was a mistake for his personal attorney to work with these companies, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it only proved the president's mettle.

"I think this further proves that the president is not going to be influenced by special interests," Sanders said. "This is actually the definition of draining the swamp, something the president talked about repeatedly during the campaign."

Pressed on how corporate spending to the president's personal lawyer, specifically for insights into the president, constituted "draining the swamp," Sanders referred to the proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner that was opposed in a lawsuit by Trump's Justice Department in November.

"I think it's pretty clear that the Department of Justice opposed the merger, and so certainly the president has not been influenced by any, or his administration influenced by any outside special interests," Sanders said.

Simon Cameron, US financier & politician (1799 - 1889) wrote:An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.

Wait...so is this the same DoJ that is investigating Trump? I thought they were all corrupt or on witch hunts or something? I'm so confused.

I was going to point this out too.

Suddenly they are willing to claim the work of the DoJ? Hell, for all we know the DoJ opposed the merger AGAINST the wishes of the administration. And, obviously all of it beside the point that they secretly collected money for access, via a LLC owned by a goon.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat May 12, 2018 9:10 am Hell, for all we know the DoJ opposed the merger AGAINST the wishes of the administration. And, obviously all of it beside the point that they secretly collected money for access, via a LLC owned by a goon.

I think we all actually "know" that the administration opposed the merger because of Trump's vendetta against CNN. From the scraps of information I've seen, it sounds like AT&T used Cohen to get access to Ajit Pai, so I'd expect they were attempting to influence the FCC position on net neutrality more than anything else.

The money came in four installments of $50,000, starting in early 2017 and ending in January 2018, right after Trump’s pick for FCC chair, Ajit Pai, rushed through the repeal of net neutrality, despite overwhelming outcry from across the political spectrum.

AT&T confirms the payment, and explains it away saying they paid Cohen as a consultant to “gain insight” into the Trump White House.

Not conclusive, but certainly fishy and worth looking into.

However, pointing at the merger issue is a not horribly bad diversion from the net neutrality shenanigans -- by this administrations standards, it's fairly deft.

Rudy is on the case

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's lead personal defense lawyer, sought to walk back a potentially explosive claim in which he suggested the president intervened in the Time Warner-AT&T merger being scrutinized by the US Department of Justice.

Giuliani told CNN Saturday that Trump "didn't interfere" with the merger.

However, in an interview with HuffPost published on Friday night, Giuliani asserted that Trump has been unreceptive to lobbying efforts and pointed to the Time Warner merger as an example. "He did drain the swamp ... The president denied the merger. They didn't get the result they wanted," Giuliani said according to HuffPost.

It was not immediately clear whether Giuliani was saying emphatically that Trump personally intervened to kill the $85 billion merger, but Trump has publicly expressed his disdain for it. On Friday, he seemed to respond to the HuffPost article, by railing against media outlets.

Get me more TV lawyers!

“Trump gripes that he needs better ‘TV lawyers’ to defend him on cable news and is impatient to halt the 'witch hunt' that he says undermines his legitimacy as president," according to the report.

I assume Arnie Becker will be his next lawyer then?

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 11:23 am Get me more TV lawyers!

“Trump gripes that he needs better ‘TV lawyers’ to defend him on cable news and is impatient to halt the 'witch hunt' that he says undermines his legitimacy as president," according to the report.

It's been clear all along that he is more interested in lawyer-type spokespeople than in actual legal experts. Notice how many of his team and his attempted hires have Fox talking-head experience.

This can mean only:
1) he's even dumber than we think, and/or
2) he believes he doesn't need serious legal representation because he can shut it all down before it touches him.

Holman wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 11:48 am

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 11:23 am Get me more TV lawyers!

“Trump gripes that he needs better ‘TV lawyers’ to defend him on cable news and is impatient to halt the 'witch hunt' that he says undermines his legitimacy as president," according to the report.

It's been clear all along that he is more interested in lawyer-type spokespeople than in actual legal experts. Notice how many of his team and his attempted hires have Fox talking-head experience.

This can mean only:
1) he's even dumber than we think, and/or
2) he believes he doesn't need serious legal representation because he can shut it all down before it touches him.

I'm going with 2). Celebrities are popular, and popular shows don't get canceled (unless they're on SyFy). With enough rabid supporters, Trump is untouchable; for that strategy to work, he has to keep them fired up and control the spotlight. It has worked for him ever since he announced his candidacy.

Kraken wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 11:58 am

Holman wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 11:48 am

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 11:23 am Get me more TV lawyers!

“Trump gripes that he needs better ‘TV lawyers’ to defend him on cable news and is impatient to halt the 'witch hunt' that he says undermines his legitimacy as president," according to the report.

It's been clear all along that he is more interested in lawyer-type spokespeople than in actual legal experts. Notice how many of his team and his attempted hires have Fox talking-head experience.

This can mean only:
1) he's even dumber than we think, and/or
2) he believes he doesn't need serious legal representation because he can shut it all down before it touches him.

I'm going with 2). Celebrities are popular, and popular shows don't get canceled (unless they're on SyFy). With enough rabid supporters, Trump is untouchable; for that strategy to work, he has to keep them fired up and control the spotlight. It has worked for him ever since he announced his candidacy.

Nah, it's more (1). Trump has a demonstrated fixation on having people from "central casting" for their roles. Sometimes that has good effects - Mattis is certainly no Trumpian, but he fit Trump's image of a bulldog general, so he got the part. And Bolton literally did not get the Secretary of State role because of his mustache.

Trump is just incredibly superficial. He wants attorneys from TV, not from the real world.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 11:44 am I assume Arnie Becker will be his next lawyer then?

No, he needs a criminal lawyer.

Call Denny Crane.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 2:06 pm Call Denny Crane.

Beat me to it.

Are those claims public? And are they written in crayon?

Would love to see them.

The Senate has released it's transcripts from interviews about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians. I especially like this gem:

There is a second suggestion in congressional documents that Trump Jr. may have talked with his father at the time he was arranging the Trump Tower meeting. Trump Jr. told both House intelligence committee and Senate Judiciary Committee investigators that he spoke with someone who had a blocked number but that he couldn't remember whom.

Other witnesses have said that Donald Trump has a blocked number.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 10:21 am The Senate has released it's transcripts from interviews about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians. I especially like this gem:

There is a second suggestion in congressional documents that Trump Jr. may have talked with his father at the time he was arranging the Trump Tower meeting. Trump Jr. told both House intelligence committee and Senate Judiciary Committee investigators that he spoke with someone who had a blocked number but that he couldn't remember whom.

Other witnesses have said that Donald Trump has a blocked number.

Funny how recollections exist only when there is clear evidence. "No evidence? Then I do not recall..."

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 11:03 am Funny how recollections exist only when there is clear evidence. "No evidence? Then I do not recall..."

https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understa ... v-on17.php

Learning from those who had a shred of respect for the government and people and country they served. Trump has improved the process. If there can be no consequences, there should be no pretense. Which goes back to, I'd love to back to a time when I was could give them the benefit of the doubt. That good will has been cashed in and spent. And that's where the Truminsta (or would that be the ConTrumps) have it right. Loyalty is important insofar as betrayal is something unimaginably hard to come back from. Contervatism has been betrayed and ursurped by liars and snakeoil salesmen and zealots. How does one allow himself near that sort of treachery, even if he largely disagrees with contemporary liberalism? What circumstance can bring you back in to alignment? I dunno. I feel like the alcoholic who copes with not drinking seemingly by looking down on those who drink or the very public vegan who quit meat and I don't like that feeling.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 11:03 am

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 10:21 am The Senate has released it's transcripts from interviews about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians. I especially like this gem:

There is a second suggestion in congressional documents that Trump Jr. may have talked with his father at the time he was arranging the Trump Tower meeting. Trump Jr. told both House intelligence committee and Senate Judiciary Committee investigators that he spoke with someone who had a blocked number but that he couldn't remember whom.

Other witnesses have said that Donald Trump has a blocked number.

Funny how recollections exist only when there is clear evidence. "No evidence? Then I do not recall..."

It does seem strange to remember speaking with someone who had a blocked number, but not remember who that person was.

However, there is always evidence when it comes to phone calls. The telcos' signalling infrastructure and call records don't rely on call display information. It's just a question of the desire and legal authority to access that information.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 11:18 am It does seem strange to remember speaking with someone who had a blocked number, but not remember who that person was.

However, there is always evidence when it comes to phone calls. The telcos' signalling infrastructure and call records don't rely on call display information. It's just a question of the desire and legal authority to access that information.

Right. Which is why Mueller almost certainly already knows who was on the phone.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 11:18 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 11:03 am

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 10:21 am The Senate has released it's transcripts from interviews about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians. I especially like this gem:

There is a second suggestion in congressional documents that Trump Jr. may have talked with his father at the time he was arranging the Trump Tower meeting. Trump Jr. told both House intelligence committee and Senate Judiciary Committee investigators that he spoke with someone who had a blocked number but that he couldn't remember whom.

Other witnesses have said that Donald Trump has a blocked number.

Funny how recollections exist only when there is clear evidence. "No evidence? Then I do not recall..."

It does seem strange to remember speaking with someone who had a blocked number, but not remember who that person was.

However, there is always evidence when it comes to phone calls. The telcos' signalling infrastructure and call records don't rely on call display information. It's just a question of the desire and legal authority to access that information.

And he's forcing their hand. They're not going to open up Carnivore or whatever they have or subpoena telcos for this.

Or at least that's the Trump camp's hope.

If you like Maddow, a little more info on that:

I really hope that there is a good reason for them to be missing or this whole saga may really have taken a bleak(er) turn for the worse. As if the possibility that foreign Governments thought they needed to funnel money to the President's personal consigliere for 'advice' around major deals wasn't horrible enough.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 8:23 am I really hope that there is a good reason for them to be missing or this whole saga may really have taken a bleak(er) turn for the worse.

Bleaker than the mafia being in the White House and attempting to destabilize the world?

Remus West wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 8:26 am

malchior wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 8:23 am I really hope that there is a good reason for them to be missing or this whole saga may really have taken a bleak(er) turn for the worse.

Bleaker than the mafia being in the White House and attempting to destabilize the world?

Ha! You caught me - I had just added that to my post.

As an aside, I'm going to assume the Treasury leaker is going to be unmasked pretty soon. Unless they were extremely careful the official claims to have searched for the records extensively which probably created an audit trail leading to them. That person was clearly positioning themselves as a whistle-blower but I doubt it'll save them in the short term.

I'm not smart enough to know what opinion to have here.

From the article, it reads like all of those protections are in place for very very very good reasons.
And yet there needs to be whistle blowing.
Assuming they find this person, it's going to make Snowden look small and the punishment for this looks like it could be insanity incarnate.

And yet from my hiding under the bed in ignorance, that person looks like they could be a true American hero.

Has Fed told me what I'm supposed to believe yet? My pay grade isn't even in the same zip code as someone capable of forming an informed opinion.