45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 4)
Discussion
frankenstein12 said:
Incorrect but feel free to continue in that misconception. I am under no legal obligation to keep secret the fact I work for the government. I am also perfectly entitled to criticise them and hold and express my opinion on world affairs.
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.
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
You've had time to work on that since I first picked you up on this. You have gone way beyond what would be allowed if you were subject to the OSA, often saying that your comments are based on your insight from your working for the Government.You can't have it both ways: either you do have access to information, in which case you should be in trouble or you are a bulls
tter.frankenstein12 said:
My black cat is blacker than your black cat
Of course the media is biased, of course politicians are corrupt lying egotistical psychopaths, of course systemic nepotism, swindling and big business influence usurps the nation's well being. Anyone with any wit understands this. However Trump is a sheep in wolf's clothing in that he promised to be a mixture of John Wayne's Sheriff, Swamp Drainer in Chief and Mr Smith Goes to Washington all rolled into one; the truth is that he's more corrupt, narcissistic, duplicitous and deranged than any of the corrupt, narcissistic, duplicitous and deranged 'leaders' that proceeded him; credit where it is due.Saying Hillary and CNN are bad doesn't mean Fox and Trump are good.
My observation at the time was that it pulls back the curtain on politics in general if you have such a caricature occupying the highest political post in, arguably, the world - what does that say about the lesser politicians and ultimately ourselves for putting these weird people in charge.
frankenstein12 said:
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
I'm sure DT is allowed to have his own phone so he can call his family and friends, no issue with that at all. But he cannot on one hand say how bad HC was for using her own emails to conduct work as Secretary of State, and then use his other hand to pick up his normal phone to make work-related calls.
This isn't the same as you or I using our phones to make a call to work or similar - we don't work at the White House and are not subject to several layers of security by the Secret Service/NSA/FBI/CIA etc to ensure that there are not hacks/leaks etc. When Obama appeared on Bear Grylls it was mentioned he wasn't allowed a smartphone because it was not secure enough to be locked down to prevent anyone hacking it. I expect the same is true of DT. And his work phone will have some secure stuff on it, I expect
frankenstein12 said:
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.
That's not quite right. First, context. Cohen's lawyer's argued that the search order obtained against him was too wide because it bit on all his papers, not just those concerning Trump. The Govt said two things: first, he wasn't acting as a lawyer but rather as a business consultant, so there could be no attorney-client privilege to protect; and secondly, who were these other clients?
Cohen's lawyers twisted and turned on the second point, trying not to name them/him/it in open court. They Cohen offered to identify the unnamed client to the Judge, and only the Judge. Lawyers for the media, who, like it or not, have an interest in open justice, which itself is something that is in the public interest, argued against that course.
At that point no one knew who the unnamed client was though.
Then the Judge rules, and out comes Hannity's name, apparently to the genuine astonishment of all present.
So it isn't right to say that the non-Fox media stepped in "to make sure Hannity was named publicly" - that suggests that they knew, before the naming, that he was the unnamed client and wanted the world to know that too, which isn't how it happened.
Secondly, Hannity's dealings are legitimately newsworthy. He has the ear of the President; his talking points become the President's talking points; he had publicly attacked in strong terms the raid on Cohen's offices, asking on his show, rhetorically "where will it end?" in the context of attorney-client privilege. Well, when he asked that, he knew exactly where it could end. His doorstep.
He's a sanctimonious bulls
t artist, and he's been caught with his trousers down. He has decried welfare claimants for years, and foreclosures under Obama, and here he is picked up foreclosed houses with Govt handouts. If you don't think going after him is legit, look at Fox News's website on a regular basis. Part of their regular content consists of sniping attacks on journalists at CNN, ABC and MSNBC. It's part of their stock in trade. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Shakermaker said:
No, but I'd think that if he is using his personal phone to make outgoing calls for Presidential business, that is not on, just as HC using her own email server to do work was not acceptable to protocols etc.
I'm sure DT is allowed to have his own phone so he can call his family and friends, no issue with that at all. But he cannot on one hand say how bad HC was for using her own emails to conduct work as Secretary of State, and then use his other hand to pick up his normal phone to make work-related calls.
This isn't the same as you or I using our phones to make a call to work or similar - we don't work at the White House and are not subject to several layers of security by the Secret Service/NSA/FBI/CIA etc to ensure that there are not hacks/leaks etc. When Obama appeared on Bear Grylls it was mentioned he wasn't allowed a smartphone because it was not secure enough to be locked down to prevent anyone hacking it. I expect the same is true of DT. And his work phone will have some secure stuff on it, I expect
You may recall at some point over the last year pro-Trump talking heads in the US media discussing the point that it is logically impossible for the President to leak classified information, because if the President leaks that information, he thereby declassifies it. I'm sure DT is allowed to have his own phone so he can call his family and friends, no issue with that at all. But he cannot on one hand say how bad HC was for using her own emails to conduct work as Secretary of State, and then use his other hand to pick up his normal phone to make work-related calls.
This isn't the same as you or I using our phones to make a call to work or similar - we don't work at the White House and are not subject to several layers of security by the Secret Service/NSA/FBI/CIA etc to ensure that there are not hacks/leaks etc. When Obama appeared on Bear Grylls it was mentioned he wasn't allowed a smartphone because it was not secure enough to be locked down to prevent anyone hacking it. I expect the same is true of DT. And his work phone will have some secure stuff on it, I expect
No, I didn't buy into that either. At its extreme, it would mean that he could spy for a foreign power with impunity.
andy_s said:
frankenstein12 said:
My black cat is blacker than your black cat
Of course the media is biased, of course politicians are corrupt lying egotistical psychopaths, of course systemic nepotism, swindling and big business influence usurps the nation's well being. Anyone with any wit understands this. However Trump is a sheep in wolf's clothing in that he promised to be a mixture of John Wayne's Sheriff, Swamp Drainer in Chief and Mr Smith Goes to Washington all rolled into one; the truth is that he's more corrupt, narcissistic, duplicitous and deranged than any of the corrupt, narcissistic, duplicitous and deranged 'leaders' that proceeded him; credit where it is due.Saying Hillary and CNN are bad doesn't mean Fox and Trump are good.
My observation at the time was that it pulls back the curtain on politics in general if you have such a caricature occupying the highest political post in, arguably, the world - what does that say about the lesser politicians and ultimately ourselves for putting these weird people in charge.
As to corruption etc of Trump I really dont know if he is any better or worse than any before him. Presently there is plenty of rumour and accusation but no proof of any wrongdoing.
At this point the only thing I think may be his undoing is the porn star/stripper/escort saga.
My biggest issues with Trump presently have nothing to do with Russian collusion etc but the fact that one of the main reasons I supported his election over Hillary was his long held position that the US should sort out its own problems and stop interfering in everyone elses and yet here he is bombing Syria and doing everything he can to p
s off the Russians.I have also always said you cannot trust any media or government but as ever that gets ignored.
I don't keep up with this thread anymore, but I did have a quick look & couldn't see this posted.
https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-to-visit-u...
It'll be good to have a great man like Trump visit our shores.
https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-to-visit-u...
It'll be good to have a great man like Trump visit our shores.
I had’nt seen this from last year before. It’s a long but very interesting essay on how 4chan came about and it posits interesting theories on why Trump has a lot of support amongst its users. I commend it to you if you’ve some time to kill.
https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-the-skeleton-k...
https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-the-skeleton-k...
Shakermaker said:
frankenstein12 said:
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
I'm sure DT is allowed to have his own phone so he can call his family and friends, no issue with that at all. But he cannot on one hand say how bad HC was for using her own emails to conduct work as Secretary of State, and then use his other hand to pick up his normal phone to make work-related calls.
This isn't the same as you or I using our phones to make a call to work or similar - we don't work at the White House and are not subject to several layers of security by the Secret Service/NSA/FBI/CIA etc to ensure that there are not hacks/leaks etc. When Obama appeared on Bear Grylls it was mentioned he wasn't allowed a smartphone because it was not secure enough to be locked down to prevent anyone hacking it. I expect the same is true of DT. And his work phone will have some secure stuff on it, I expect
That said i would be interested to know what their security policy is on personal mobile device use and whether it explicity states you may not discuss work related matters on a personal mobile phone either verbally or in written format.
mygoldfishbowl said:
I don't keep up with this thread anymore, but I did have a quick look & couldn't see this posted.
https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-to-visit-u...
It'll be good to have a great man like Trump visit our shores.
3/10. Try harder. https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-to-visit-u...
It'll be good to have a great man like Trump visit our shores.
Greg66 said:
frankenstein12 said:
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.
That's not quite right. First, context. Cohen's lawyer's argued that the search order obtained against him was too wide because it bit on all his papers, not just those concerning Trump. The Govt said two things: first, he wasn't acting as a lawyer but rather as a business consultant, so there could be no attorney-client privilege to protect; and secondly, who were these other clients?
Cohen's lawyers twisted and turned on the second point, trying not to name them/him/it in open court. They Cohen offered to identify the unnamed client to the Judge, and only the Judge. Lawyers for the media, who, like it or not, have an interest in open justice, which itself is something that is in the public interest, argued against that course.
At that point no one knew who the unnamed client was though.
Then the Judge rules, and out comes Hannity's name, apparently to the genuine astonishment of all present.
So it isn't right to say that the non-Fox media stepped in "to make sure Hannity was named publicly" - that suggests that they knew, before the naming, that he was the unnamed client and wanted the world to know that too, which isn't how it happened.
Secondly, Hannity's dealings are legitimately newsworthy. He has the ear of the President; his talking points become the President's talking points; he had publicly attacked in strong terms the raid on Cohen's offices, asking on his show, rhetorically "where will it end?" in the context of attorney-client privilege. Well, when he asked that, he knew exactly where it could end. His doorstep.
He's a sanctimonious bulls
t artist, and he's been caught with his trousers down. He has decried welfare claimants for years, and foreclosures under Obama, and here he is picked up foreclosed houses with Govt handouts. If you don't think going after him is legit, look at Fox News's website on a regular basis. Part of their regular content consists of sniping attacks on journalists at CNN, ABC and MSNBC. It's part of their stock in trade. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
As I have also said i read the documents and I dont disagree with either the media and or judges decision in law as they were both right that Hannity should be/could be named as he was not according the Cohen/Hannitys lawyers a client and as such not subject to a/c privilege but the paranoid part of me wonders just how much the media aka CNN/ABC and their lawyers truly knew about whether Hannity was an associate of Cohens or not.
Its one of those just too convenient things to me.
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.
Right now on the Fox(news) website two of the first three stories are these:
CNN?MSNBC etc are quite entitled to fight back if attacled by Fox etc. Reality is they are all doing it to each other.
Maybe Trumps bromance with Macron will cool - Macron has just attacked nationalism and isolationism in his speech to Congress. He also lauded the WTO and effectively said trade wars were ridiculous.
I get the feeling that he’s been playing Trump.
Mind you that wouldn’t be difficult, a little (or lot) of pandering with a dash of obsequiousness and he’d be giving you the nuclear codes.
I get the feeling that he’s been playing Trump.
Mind you that wouldn’t be difficult, a little (or lot) of pandering with a dash of obsequiousness and he’d be giving you the nuclear codes.
Edited by Seventy on Wednesday 25th April 17:39
frankenstein12 said:
but the paranoid part of me wonders just how much the media aka CNN/ABC and their lawyers truly knew about whether Hannity was an associate of Cohens or not.
Its one of those just too convenient things to me.
There's obviously scope for different but reasonably held views on that. FWIW, as I recall the immediate fallout (ie that day and the following day) the reaction of the media was one of genuine shock (I include Fox because it appeared to be taken as much by surprise about the naming of Hannity as everyone else. No one at Fox initially knew where he was, and the on-air anchor looked genuinely perplexed. They eventually ran him down to his radio show where he memorably shot from the hip). Moreover, if CNN/MSNBC knew Hannity's name was in the offing, then so did Fox, and that means Fox was complicit in Hannity's secret pre-uncloaking and then complicit in a false series of very public steps that consisted of getting him in, getting his side of the story, then deciding to continue to back him.Its one of those just too convenient things to me.
I heard a reporter say that if this set up had been pitched as a film script it wouldn't have touched the sides of the waste bin. My guess - and it is no more than that - is that the media (I include Fox here too) certainly had their suspicions about Cohen's unnamed third client, and those were that it was either a total fiction concocted by Cohen as a defensive ploy to keep the Govt's hands off his files, or it was a Russian of some description for whom Cohen was money laundering.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff