45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 4)
Discussion
Shakermaker said:
Someone on Twitter the other day mentioned that Trump has been using his personal mobile phone to make calls that are for "work" purposes more and more, rather than using the WH-issued mobile phone that he is meant to use for things like that.
Not seen it discussed further, just wondering if that was actually the case, or just speculation from a political journalist in the USA using "sources" badly?
If he hasn't done so - fine, no issue.
If he has done so - similar to Hillary and her emails, surely?
Sort of yes.Not seen it discussed further, just wondering if that was actually the case, or just speculation from a political journalist in the USA using "sources" badly?
If he hasn't done so - fine, no issue.
If he has done so - similar to Hillary and her emails, surely?
With Hillary she claimed not to know or understand what the letters or classifaction markings on emails and documents she had meant. She also had staff remove the classifcation markings and then email the documents to her private email server.
It is also believed she used personal mobile phones to make and recieve work calls and emails. These were all mysteriously destroyed.
In the case of Trump I am not sure what the US information handling policies are regarding using personal mobiles to make work phone calls. I personally recall being told or advised that i cannot make or receive work calls on my mobile phone but that I cannot send or receive any documents.
Likewise my work phone is the only one I am supposed to use for any work and is linked to my office so if it goes missing it can be remotely securely scrubbed.
Edited by frankenstein12 on Wednesday 25th April 16:07
Shakermaker said:
Someone on Twitter the other day mentioned that Trump has been using his personal mobile phone to make calls that are for "work" purposes more and more, rather than using the WH-issued mobile phone that he is meant to use for things like that.
Not seen it discussed further, just wondering if that was actually the case, or just speculation from a political journalist in the USA using "sources" badly?
If he hasn't done so - fine, no issue.
If he has done so - similar to Hillary and her emails, surely?
Sort of yes.Not seen it discussed further, just wondering if that was actually the case, or just speculation from a political journalist in the USA using "sources" badly?
If he hasn't done so - fine, no issue.
If he has done so - similar to Hillary and her emails, surely?
With Hillary she claimed not to know or understand what the letters or claissifaction markings on emails and documents she had meant. She also had staff remove the classification markings and then email the documents to her private email server.
It is also believed she used personal mobile phones to make and recieve work calls and emails. These were all mysteriously destroyed.
In the case of Trump I am not sure what the US information handling policies are regarding using personal mobiles to make work phone calls. I personally recall being told or advised that i cannot make or receive work calls on my mobile phone but that I cannot send or receive any documents.
Likewise my work phone is the only one I am supposed to use for any work and is linked to my office so if it goes missing it can be remotely securely scrubbed.
Edited by frankenstein12 on Wednesday 25th April 16:08
frankenstein12 said:
What i am referring to is CNN's cult like determination to bring down Trump and anyone associated with him or who supports him.
Have you actually watched Fox(I won't call it news)?
CNN however had their lawyers come forward and argue successfully that Hannities name should be made public and dragged into it.
Not sure if you're serious here. Is that not what lawyers are paid to do? He also represented ABC, Associated Press, NYT and Newsday.
They then also almost immediately started reporting that he should be fired or should resign. All seems very dirty to me.
Have you watched Fox?
I dont believe him to be racist at all.
Well, that's your prerogative, but the evidence proves you wrong.
If you really look into things there is a very nasty web of collusion all around the DNC Clinton etc.
Propagated by who? Wouldn't be Fox keeping it on the first page would it?
There was Hillaries Emails
Ahh! Eventually. I was waiting.
There is also recently evidence that Hillary and her campaign and the DNC broke election funding laws and a case was put together and filed with the FEC who promptly did nothing with it even though it apparently shows misappropriation of millions of dollars in campaign funding to the extent a private group are now taking legal action against the FEC to get them to deal with it.
Case tried and convictions handed out? Who would the private group be, I wonder?
Have you actually watched Fox(I won't call it news)?
CNN however had their lawyers come forward and argue successfully that Hannities name should be made public and dragged into it.
Not sure if you're serious here. Is that not what lawyers are paid to do? He also represented ABC, Associated Press, NYT and Newsday.
They then also almost immediately started reporting that he should be fired or should resign. All seems very dirty to me.
Have you watched Fox?
I dont believe him to be racist at all.
Well, that's your prerogative, but the evidence proves you wrong.
If you really look into things there is a very nasty web of collusion all around the DNC Clinton etc.
Propagated by who? Wouldn't be Fox keeping it on the first page would it?
There was Hillaries Emails
Ahh! Eventually. I was waiting.
There is also recently evidence that Hillary and her campaign and the DNC broke election funding laws and a case was put together and filed with the FEC who promptly did nothing with it even though it apparently shows misappropriation of millions of dollars in campaign funding to the extent a private group are now taking legal action against the FEC to get them to deal with it.
Case tried and convictions handed out? Who would the private group be, I wonder?
Edited by Seventy on Wednesday 25th April 15:37
Seventy said:
frankenstein12 said:
What i am referring to is CNN's cult like determination to bring down Trump and anyone associated with him or who supports him.
Have you actually watched Fox(I won't call it news)?However some people pay quite a bit to be pissed on because they like it... The same is true of Fox News (which is a subscription service).
Lazermilk said:
Byker28i said:
andy_s said:
p1stonhead said:
Wow that dandruff thing is insane. 
I think he has an Alpha Male Handbook from 1958 with a well thumbed section on 'Dominating the Stairs'.
Is he the missing link?
captain_cynic said:
Seventy said:
frankenstein12 said:
What i am referring to is CNN's cult like determination to bring down Trump and anyone associated with him or who supports him.
Have you actually watched Fox(I won't call it news)?However some people pay quite a bit to be pissed on because they like it... The same is true of Fox News (which is a subscription service).
Zod said:
frankenstein12 said:
Likewise my work phone is the only one I am supposed to use for any work and is linked to my office so if it goes missing it can be remotely securely scrubbed.
Why would they give you a work phone?frankenstein12 said:
(deleted whataboutery)
You failed to respond to my question completely. You say CNN, when other News Orgs were also represented by that lawyer.
And you conveniently omit that there is a genuine public interest in knowing that Sean Hannity was the mysterious client of Michael Cohen, and instead attempt to frame it as a CNN stitch up.
No doubt CNN had more than public interest in mind; but this does not and should not absolve Hannity.
You're whataboutry that rails on Clinton is now entirely irrelevant. She's not President, and probably never will be. Her alleged crimes do not mitigate any wrong doing by Trump or his family, friends and campaign.
frankenstein12 said:
captain_cynic said:
Seventy said:
frankenstein12 said:
What i am referring to is CNN's cult like determination to bring down Trump and anyone associated with him or who supports him.
Have you actually watched Fox(I won't call it news)?However some people pay quite a bit to be pissed on because they like it... The same is true of Fox News (which is a subscription service).
frankenstein12 said:
Zod said:
frankenstein12 said:
Likewise my work phone is the only one I am supposed to use for any work and is linked to my office so if it goes missing it can be remotely securely scrubbed.
Why would they give you a work phone?esxste said:
frankenstein12 said:
(deleted whataboutery)
You failed to respond to my question completely. You say CNN, when other News Orgs were also represented by that lawyer.
And you conveniently omit that there is a genuine public interest in knowing that Sean Hannity was the mysterious client of Michael Cohen, and instead attempt to frame it as a CNN stitch up.
No doubt CNN had more than public interest in mind; but this does not and should not absolve Hannity.
You're whataboutry that rails on Clinton is now entirely irrelevant. She's not President, and probably never will be. Her alleged crimes do not mitigate any wrong doing by Trump or his family, friends and campaign.
Given that they are regular targets of his and fox news they know full well it would potentially be of huge benefit to them to out him and potentially bring him down by association. As I pointed out within no time at all of him being named publicly they were calling for his dismissal or resignation.
I havent at any point said anything anyone does absolves any alleged crimes by Trump his family friends or associates.
What I have said is there seems to be a huge double standard where Hillary and Democrats are given free passes to do whatever they like by the media and judiciary whereas Republicans, Trump and his family, friends and associates are constantly under attack and allegation of wrongdoing
esxste said:
frankenstein12 said:
(deleted whataboutery)
You failed to respond to my question completely. You say CNN, when other News Orgs were also represented by that lawyer.
And you conveniently omit that there is a genuine public interest in knowing that Sean Hannity was the mysterious client of Michael Cohen, and instead attempt to frame it as a CNN stitch up.
No doubt CNN had more than public interest in mind; but this does not and should not absolve Hannity.
You're whataboutry that rails on Clinton is now entirely irrelevant. She's not President, and probably never will be. Her alleged crimes do not mitigate any wrong doing by Trump or his family, friends and campaign.
frankenstein12 said:
CNN's cult like determination to bring down Trump and anyone associated with him or who supports him
Or as others would say - reporting the news. It's hardly a cult and if theres several stories running it's because theres so much to be revealed.
Collusion, obstruction, the whole money trail from the russians going back to 2013 (and probably even more), the money trail through the NRA and GOP, money laundering. It's the gift that keeps on giving as more is revealed.
Rather than follow trumps lead in attacking CNN (which is so last year darling - haven't you kept up with his latest rants at sections of the media), why not actually read whats being written by many, many award winning journalists, then compare it to the many lies trumps told on the same subject. Lies that have been exposed as false.
esxste said:
You failed to respond to my question completely.
You say CNN, when other News Orgs were also represented by that lawyer.
And you conveniently omit that there is a genuine public interest in knowing that Sean Hannity was the mysterious client of Michael Cohen, and instead attempt to frame it as a CNN stitch up.
No doubt CNN had more than public interest in mind; but this does not and should not absolve Hannity.
You're whataboutry that rails on Clinton is now entirely irrelevant. She's not President, and probably never will be. Her alleged crimes do not mitigate any wrong doing by Trump or his family, friends and campaign.
Of course F12 also ignored that the lawyer put the argument to the judge that the name should be revealed but it's the judge that ruled it so. She made the judgement, not the lawyer.You say CNN, when other News Orgs were also represented by that lawyer.
And you conveniently omit that there is a genuine public interest in knowing that Sean Hannity was the mysterious client of Michael Cohen, and instead attempt to frame it as a CNN stitch up.
No doubt CNN had more than public interest in mind; but this does not and should not absolve Hannity.
You're whataboutry that rails on Clinton is now entirely irrelevant. She's not President, and probably never will be. Her alleged crimes do not mitigate any wrong doing by Trump or his family, friends and campaign.
Zod said:
frankenstein12 said:
Zod said:
frankenstein12 said:
Likewise my work phone is the only one I am supposed to use for any work and is linked to my office so if it goes missing it can be remotely securely scrubbed.
Why would they give you a work phone?What I am not entitled to do is discuss any aspect of my work or work environment that could be considered covered under the OSA.
Edited by frankenstein12 on Wednesday 25th April 16:34
captain_cynic said:
frankenstein12 said:
captain_cynic said:
Seventy said:
frankenstein12 said:
What i am referring to is CNN's cult like determination to bring down Trump and anyone associated with him or who supports him.
Have you actually watched Fox(I won't call it news)?However some people pay quite a bit to be pissed on because they like it... The same is true of Fox News (which is a subscription service).
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/business/fox-ne...
Byker28i said:
esxste said:
You failed to respond to my question completely.
You say CNN, when other News Orgs were also represented by that lawyer.
And you conveniently omit that there is a genuine public interest in knowing that Sean Hannity was the mysterious client of Michael Cohen, and instead attempt to frame it as a CNN stitch up.
No doubt CNN had more than public interest in mind; but this does not and should not absolve Hannity.
You're whataboutry that rails on Clinton is now entirely irrelevant. She's not President, and probably never will be. Her alleged crimes do not mitigate any wrong doing by Trump or his family, friends and campaign.
Of course F12 also ignored that the lawyer put the argument to the judge that the name should be revealed but it's the judge that ruled it so. She made the judgement, not the lawyer.You say CNN, when other News Orgs were also represented by that lawyer.
And you conveniently omit that there is a genuine public interest in knowing that Sean Hannity was the mysterious client of Michael Cohen, and instead attempt to frame it as a CNN stitch up.
No doubt CNN had more than public interest in mind; but this does not and should not absolve Hannity.
You're whataboutry that rails on Clinton is now entirely irrelevant. She's not President, and probably never will be. Her alleged crimes do not mitigate any wrong doing by Trump or his family, friends and campaign.
My primary issue as stated is with Fox news competitors stepping in to make sure Hannity was named publicly so they could go after him in a case where he was not under any suspicion of wrongdoing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff