192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Sturgis
 
  2  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 01:57 pm
@revelette1,
Sort of agree. While wanting the media to completely ignore Trump, sadly he is a candidate and the media needs to or should at least, attend these things and then report.

My big issue here is that they do a very poor job of actually reporting. Instead they grab soundbite blibbits and try to make that their entire focus.

Apparently the media which played games in 2015-16, thus handing Trump his craved for attention, is doing the same again.


It would seem schools of journalism are idiot factories now (for the most part). Horribly departed from the NYU School of Journalism my grandmother attended early last century.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 02:00 pm
Quote:
A man believed to be the leader of the Islamic State group has made a rare camera appearance vowing to seek revenge for its loss of territory.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has not been seen since 2014, when he proclaimed from Mosul the creation of a "caliphate" across parts of Syria and Iraq.

In this new footage, he acknowledges defeat at Baghuz, the group's last stronghold in the region.

It is not clear when the video was recorded. IS says it was shot in April.

The footage was posted on the militant group's al-Furqan media network.

According to news agency Reuters, Baghdadi says the Easter Sunday Sri Lanka attacks were carried out as revenge for the fall of the Iraqi town of Baghuz.

He also says that he has had pledges of allegiance from militants in Burkina Faso and Mali, and talks about the protests in Sudan and Algeria - claiming that jihad is the only solution to "tyrants". Both countries have seen their long-term rulers overthrown this month.

However, Baghdadi's image disappears towards the end of the video and an audio recording of him discussing the Sri Lanka attacks is played instead, suggesting that this part was recorded after the main video was filmed.

Baghdadi - an Iraqi whose real name is Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim al-Badri - was last heard from in an audio recording last August.

At the time, he appeared to be trying to shift attention away from his group's crippling losses, BBC Middle East correspondent Martin Patience says.

But this latest 18-minute video addresses the losses head on.

"The battle for Baghuz is over," he says, before adding: "There will be more to come after this battle."

He also reportedly says the group is fighting a "battle of attrition".

At its peak, IS ruled over 88,000 sq km (34,000 sq miles) stretching across the Iraq-Syria border.

But by 2016 it was a group in retreat. The next year, it lost Mosul in Iraq, depriving Baghdadi and his followers of the city where they had declared the caliphate's creation.

In October, they were driven from Raqqa, in Syria.

They continued to lose territory throughout 2018, culminating in the group retreating to Baghuz.

The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) declared they had taken control of the town, announcing the end of the five-year "caliphate" in March 2019.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was born in 1971 in Samarra, Iraq.

As a child he is said to have had a passion for Koranic recitation and religious law, chastising members of his own family for falling short of his stringent religious standards.

But it was during his time in graduate school, when he was completing a Master's and PhD in Koranic Studies at Iraq's Saddam University for Islamic Studies, that he became involved with hardline Islamist groups.

By the end of 2000 he had embraced Salafist jihadism, and would go on to become involved with al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) - from which the Islamic State militant group was born.

Since his 2014 public appearance he has remained silent for long periods, punctuated only by unconfirmed reports of his death and a few unverified audio recordings.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48098528
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 02:06 pm
What would happen if, by some magic spell or something, every journalist who talks to Trump is more interested in getting at the truth than in maintaining access?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 02:08 pm
@Sturgis,
Quote:
It would seem schools of journalism are idiot factories now (for the most part). Horribly departed from the NYU School of Journalism my grandmother attended early last century.


It's been this way since before Trump was elected. The MSM did everything in their power to protect Obama while he was in office. They decided after the 2016 election that they now had to start doing their jobs, jobs they weren't doing for the last 10 years.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 04:15 pm
@revelette1,
They play right into his hands.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 04:33 pm
@hightor,

hightor wrote:

. As I said, these sorts of accusations have been leveled at the Clinton woman for thirty years. For christ's sake the woman has been accused of involvement in multiple murders. And people are incensed because she supposedly broke the rules around organizing a tax free foundation?
I'm not aware of any murder accusations. Vince Foster's suicide is a conceivable possibility but I believe the evidence for suicide was quite strong. She has been accused of helping in the shaming of several women her husband was accused of assaulting sexually, but I doubt that was criminal. I believe the real concern is a long term pattern of misusing public office for personal gain. The Clinton's are hardly alone in this, as, to varying degrees, the practice is widespread across the political spectrum. However the Clintons have been far more successful at it and a bit more flagrant in their practices. There are also the very serious matters of her evasion of responsibility for the Bengazi attack & murders, as well her rather flagrant misuse of a private server for her perrsonal and official public communications (clearly an attempt to avoid FOIA disclosures). In so doing she exposed highly classified "compartmented intelligence" matters, as well as the day-to day communications of the Secretary of State, to foreign hackers who almost certainly read them. Lastly there are all the many lies she so piously told to evade accountability, and the apparently willing conspiracy of the Obama Administration to prevent any serious investigation of these matters.

The Clinton foundation is still operating and still providing a rich income for daughter Chelsea as well as salaries for a now shrinking coterie of political assistants.

maporsche
 
  4  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 04:41 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
The Clinton foundation is still operating and still providing a rich income for daughter Chelsea


This is false (underlined).
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 05:09 pm
Michael Tracey did a comprehensive interview with Rob Goldstone, the organizer of the Trump Tower meeting. It's long but rather enlightening just like Micheal's interview with George Papadopoulos was. How things got blown up in the media as 'bombshells' and spy novel level 'news' is ghastly, not to mention how peoples lives got ruined over nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRBoQNdH6tw

Papadopoulos interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjGLCCP_lPg&t=267s
Brand X
 
  1  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 05:41 pm
@aaronjmate

'Hey remember that time from like, January 2017 to mid-April 2019 when we were convinced that the nation was imperiled because Trump was Putin’s puppet? Are we still going with that, or did the final report from the guy investigating that whole thing kinda kill the vibe?'

Navy Times

Verified account

@NavyTimes
Follow Follow @NavyTimes
More
US rolls ‘100K tons of international diplomacy’ into the Med. Will Russia get the message? https://trib.al/3c2Meao
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 06:32 pm
Mattis ignored orders from Trump, White House on North Korea, Iran: report

Quote:
Former Defense Secretary James Mattis declined to carry out orders from President Trump or otherwise limited his options in various attempts to prevent tensions with North Korea, Iran and Syria from escalating, The New Yorker reported Monday, the latest report of Trump's own officials trying to check his worst instincts.

"The president thinks out loud. Do you treat it like an order? Or do you treat it as part of a longer conversation? We treated it as part of a longer conversation," a former senior national security official told The New Yorker.

"We prevented a lot of bad things from happening."

In 2017, following a series of North Korean ballistic-missile tests, Trump ordered the Pentagon to begin removing the spouses and children of military personnel from South Korea, where the U.S. military has a base. An administration official told the magazine that "Mattis just ignored" the order.

In another instance in the fall 2017, as White House officials were planning a private meeting at Camp David to develop military options for a possible conflict with North Korea, Mattis allegedly stopped the gathering from happening. He ignored a request from then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster to send officers and planners, according to a former senior administration official.

The accounts, included in a profile of national security adviser John Bolton, reveal that the former Marine Corps general routinely sought to downplay any potential conflicts across the globe.

Mattis resigned from his Pentagon position last December, one day after Trump announced that he would withdraw troops from Syria, a decision that Mattis opposed.

The defense chief also sought to ward off possible conflicts in the Middle East.

As Iraq was preparing for parliamentary elections in late 2017, McMaster was worried about any meddling from Iran and asked the Pentagon to give options to counter such a move.

A former aide of McMaster's said Mattis later sent a Pentagon official to the White House without any options in hand.

"I asked him what happened to the options," the former aide told The New Yorker. "He told me, 'We resisted those.' You could feel everyone in the meeting go, 'Excuse me?

Mattis also reportedly prevented Gen. John Nicholson, then head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, from meeting Trump.

After Bolton replaced McMaster, he asked the Pentagon for multiple options in April 2018, after the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dropped chemical weapons on civilians in a suburb of Damascus. Mattis gave only one option, a limited strike with cruise missiles, which angered Bolton.

Administration officials told the magazine that Mattis was likely attempting to limit information to Trump so he could not make ill-advised decisions.

"There are a lot of people in the administration who want to limit the president's options because they don't want the president to get anything done," a former senior Administration official said.
blatham
 
  2  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 08:20 pm
@revelette1,
Provided the US is still a functioning society in 3 or 4 years, there are going to be a lot of books written that will reveal just how close to the edge this period is.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Mon 29 Apr, 2019 10:30 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
I find the criticism of the press by Greenwald and others puzzling. The report is devastating.

Allegations of obstruction that there is a very strong defense against? That's hardly devastating.

And that's not even considering the precedent that the Democrats set when they said that a $25,000 fine was the appropriate penalty when Bill Clinton committed multiple counts of obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct.


hightor wrote:
the report is hardly the dud that Greenwald seems to think it is. It -- and the other investigations it spun off -- could lead to Trump's resignation or impeachment.

Not much chance of that. Even if one of these investigations managed to prove actual wrongdoing, the Bill Clinton precedent would let Trump off the hook with a $25,000 fine.

So if wrongdoing is ever proved, just have him cut a check and be done with it.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Tue 30 Apr, 2019 12:57 am
Quote:
Rod Rosenstein, the US deputy attorney general who oversaw the special counsel inquiry into President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, has resigned.

Mr Rosenstein, who had a fraught working relationship with Mr Trump, will step down on 11 May in a departure that had been expected for months.

In his letter, he paid tribute to Mr Trump, even praising the president's "courtesy and humour".

Mr Trump once tweeted an image showing Mr Rosenstein jailed for treason.

Mr Rosenstein - who was originally appointed by Republican President George W Bush - had been expected to resign in March following the appointment of William Barr as attorney general.

But the justice department second-in-command stayed in the job a while longer to help Mr Barr manage a redacted public release of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

The report did not determine that the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia to sway the 2016 election, but did not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice.

In his letter, Mr Rosenstein praises some of what he calls the Department of Justice's achievements and its employees' "devotion to duty".

"I am grateful to you for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humour you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set in your inaugural address: patriotism, unity, safety, education, and prosperity," he wrote, addressing the president directly.

"The Department of Justice pursues those goals while operating in accordance with the rule of law. The rule of law is the foundation of America. It secures our freedom, allows our citizens to flourish, and enables our nation to serve as a model of liberty and justice for all."

He goes on to say that "truth is not determined by opinion polls".

"We ignore fleeting distractions and focus our attention on the things that matter, because a republic that endures is not governed by the news cycle."

In his conclusion, he echoes one of Mr Trump's campaign slogans: "We keep the faith, we follow the rules, and we always put America first."

The White House said Mr Trump had already nominated Deputy Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Rosen to replace Mr Rosenstein.

Rod Rosenstein is leaving the justice department, and he's doing it on his own terms.

Not too long ago, such a dignified exit would have come as a real surprise to most observers.

Donald Trump frequently seemed to view Mr Rosenstein as an internal threat. It got so bad that Mr Rosenstein reportedly expressed fear that he would be unceremoniously sacked via presidential tweet.

Rosenstein managed to navigate the hazardous terrain of the Trump administration, however, seeing the special counsel investigation that he initiated to its conclusion. It is that Russia inquiry, with its no-Trump-conspiracy conclusion and open question on presidential obstruction, that will be Mr Rosenstein's legacy.

Mr Rosenstein announced his departure with a six-paragraph mini-lecture on the importance of a justice department free of political influence and respect for the rule of law.

That could be viewed as a not-so-subtle rebuke of the president's near-constant badgering of justice department officials, although it will almost certainly fall on deaf ears.

Perhaps, however, it will allow the long-time government lawyer a measure of satisfaction, believing he had the last word.

In this administration, that is a not unremarkable achievement.

In May 2017, Mr Rosenstein was left in charge of appointing someone to oversee the Russia investigation after Mr Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.

Jeff Sessions, who was attorney general at the time, had already recused himself, meaning that his deputy had to take on the responsibility.

Mr Rosenstein surprised the White House by appointing Mr Mueller, a former FBI director.

The deputy attorney general spent the past two years overseeing Mr Mueller's work and defending the inquiry from attacks by Mr Trump, who continually condemned the probe as a "witch hunt".

Mr Rosenstein's departure seemed imminent after the New York Times last September reported that he had discussed ousting Mr Trump.

Citing anonymous sources, the newspaper said Mr Rosenstein had suggested secretly recording the president in order to prove he was dysfunctional.

He had supposedly cited the 25th amendment of the constitution, which allows for the removal of a president if deemed unfit for office.

Mr Rosenstein dismissed the claims as "inaccurate and factually incorrect", and a justice department source told the BBC at the time that the comment had been sarcastic.

But former acting FBI chief Andrew McCabe said in a TV interview that Mr Rosenstein was serious when he suggested wearing a wire inside the White House to covertly tape the president.

Mr Trump accused Mr Rosenstein on Twitter of "illegal and treasonous" activity.

While the deputy attorney general managed to weather that controversy, Mr Trump in November retweeted an image of the deputy attorney general behind prison bars.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48100665
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Tue 30 Apr, 2019 02:40 am
@Brand X,
Quote:
...not to mention how peoples lives got ruined over nothing.

Who had his life "ruined"?
Brand X
 
  2  
Tue 30 Apr, 2019 04:33 am
@hightor,
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/28/mueller-investigation-michael-caputo-trump-first-person-226336
hightor
 
  2  
Tue 30 Apr, 2019 04:41 am
Twenty Democrats Are Vying to Beat Trump. Can They Avoid Blowing It?

Polls show that Democrats want someone who is “electable,” but there is little agreement about what that term means.

Quote:
The Democratic Presidential field became, last week, a game of twenty questions, the latest being: Joe Biden? The former Vice-President finally joined the race on Thursday, with a three-and-a-half-minute video that was much less about him than about Donald Trump’s apologia for white supremacists in Charlottesville. Perhaps Biden figured that voters already know his story. That’s not a luxury shared by the nineteen other candidates, who range alphabetically from Senator Cory Booker, of New Jersey, to Andrew Yang, a tech entrepreneur—or, by first names, from Senator Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, to Mayor Wayne Messam, of Miramar, Florida—and, by age, from Mayor Pete Buttigieg, of South Bend, Indiana, who is thirty-­seven, to Senator Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, who is forty years older.

The shorthand questions (John Hick­enlooper? Eric Swalwell?) are already giving way to deeper inquiry. Did Biden miss his moment four years ago, or in 1991, when he failed to stand up for Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings? (Last week, Biden called her to express his regret; she was not convinced.) Did Sanders go too far in seizing his moment from Hillary Clinton? Is Buttigieg the new Beto O’Rourke, or the new Booker? Are you following Chasten Buttigieg, the candidate’s husband, on Twitter yet? Why, some would ask, keep talking about the men?

There are, after all, six women running. Four are senators: Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris, of California, and Kirsten Gillibrand, of New York. They are joined by Representative Tulsi Gabbard, of Hawaii, and Marianne Williamson, who has never held elected office but has written best-selling books offering spiritual advice, and is close to Oprah. Williamson is running against American “dysfunction.” (And why not?) There are also candidates who are African-­American (Booker, Harris, and Messam); Latino (Julián Castro, a former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development); Asian-American (Yang, who argues that a universal basic income is crucial to redressing the displacement of the working class by automation); Pacific Islander (Gabbard); and South Asian-American (Harris, whose mother is from India). Three—Buttigieg, Gabbard, and Representative Seth Moulton, of Massachusetts—are veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, at an event in Des Moines, when an audience member asked Buttigieg what to tell acquaintances who doubted whether America was ready to elect a gay man, he said, “Tell your friends I say ‘Hi.’ ”

Polls show that Democrats want someone who is “electable,” but there is little agreement about what that term means, and also a justified impatience with its use as a euphemism for demographic blandness. Last week, the group She the People sponsored a forum, in Texas, at which several candidates were asked why, given the richness of the choices, women of color should vote for them. For a lot of Democrats, particularly in the Party’s activist wing, this is a central question, for reasons of both justice and practicality; in many states, African-American and Latina women are the Party’s electoral bedrock.

In response, Sanders and Warren made impassioned remarks about the racial dimension of economic inequality. But Sanders, who is polling only slightly behind Biden in surveys of likely primary voters, at about twenty-three per cent, was booed, while Warren, who is at just above six per cent, was cheered—a reminder that, at this stage, neither polls nor viral YouTube moments are reliable. Harris talked about her “mentorship of young women of color.” O’Rourke, an El Paso native, said that he had been talking backstage to Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, of Houston, who was “a mentor to me.” The real test, though, might be how well he listens when the woman doing the talking is not backstage but onstage, competing with him in the debates, which is where the contest will begin in earnest.

As it happens, twenty is the cap that the Democratic National Committee has set for the number of participants in the official debates, the first of which will play out in Florida, a swing state, over two nights in June. (The second will be a month later, in Michigan.) There is a formula to qualify: candidates must either have the support of at least one per cent of respondents in three recognized polls or have received contributions from sixty-five thousand “unique donors,” with at least two hundred in each of twenty states. (Sixteen candidates are already there, including John Delaney, a former congressman from Maryland, and Tim Ryan, a current one from Ohio.) The candidates will be randomly assigned to appear on one of the two nights, meaning that fan favorites may not be onstage together.

How the candidates interact will be a measure not only of their capacity for respect but of their instinct for victory. Will they refrain from demagoguery? How tough, or how cheap, will the shots be? (The goal is to defeat Trumpism, too.) How will the candidates respond when—as will almost certainly be the case—someone’s campaign is hacked, or a “deep fake” video of an opponent emerges, or their allies set up deceptive Facebook pages? One risk, in a heavily contested primary, is that momentous questions, such as whether to impeach Trump, or to abolish ICE, will be reduced to a litmus test—a matter of hands raised on a stage. Another, as Barack Obama recently warned, is that “a circular firing squad” will form, leaving the Party fractured. But a search for the safe haven of an early consensus pick may not serve the Party well, either; arguably, it didn’t in 2016.

A sensible approach for undecided Democrats, then, is what might be called radical agnosticism. The truth is that no one yet knows who can beat nineteen other Democrats—and Trump. In this varied field, there is a heightened possibility for surprises or breakouts. (If Governor Jay Inslee, of Washington, answers every debate question with a call to focus on climate change, will people drift away or be exhilarated?) Preëmptive dismissals of one candidate or another as a spoiler, or an impostor, or too young or too old, or too staid or too outré, or just a big drag are not likely to be helpful.

Those who want to see the current President defeated might, in other words, stop worrying and learn to love this twenty-person mob. Some of them may be maddening; none of them is Donald Trump. On Thursday, he tweeted, “Welcome to the race Sleepy Joe,” with a prediction that the primaries would be “nasty,” and involve “people who truly have some very sick & demented ideas. But if you make it, I will see you at the Starting Gate!” One of them will. And it may not be the candidate Trump, or anyone else, expects.

nyer
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  2  
Tue 30 Apr, 2019 04:47 am
Current Affairs

Verified account

@curaffairs
4h4 hours ago
More
trump is able to attack the press for its credibility because @MSNBC so shamelessly pulls stunts like this

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5YVP7IXkAAzMrw.jpg:large
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 30 Apr, 2019 04:49 am
@Brand X,
Quote:
Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign adviser, is managing director of Buffalo-based Zeppelin Communications. He is a 30-year veteran of Republican and international campaigns.

Great source!
Lash
 
  -2  
Tue 30 Apr, 2019 04:49 am
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:

Current Affairs

Verified account

@curaffairs
4h4 hours ago
More
trump is able to attack the press for its credibility because @MSNBC so shamelessly pulls stunts like this

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5YVP7IXkAAzMrw.jpg:large

This is one of the many reasons why Bernie voters won’t vote for who benefits from cheating.
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 30 Apr, 2019 04:51 am
Quote:
What the right’s positioning on inequality, climate and now Russian election interference have in common is that in each case the people pretending to be making a serious argument are actually apparatchiks operating in bad faith.

What I mean by that is that in each case those making denialist arguments, while they may invoke evidence, don’t actually care what the evidence says; at a fundamental level, they aren’t interested in the truth. Their goal, instead, is to serve a predetermined agenda.

Thus, inequality denial is about using whatever argument comes to hand to defend policies that benefit the rich at the expense of working Americans. Climate denial is about using whatever argument comes to hand to defend fossil fuel interests. Russia denial is about using whatever argument comes to hand to defend Donald Trump.
https://nyti.ms/2IPNAJR
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.49 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 08:17:20