Yes. I imagine his home life and personality to have been something like the depiction of Benedict Arnold in AMC's "Turn"
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Spicer searching for candidates to take over White House briefing
The press secretary has spoken with radio host Laura Ingraham and Daily Mail editor David Martosko, among others.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article
The press secretary has spoken with radio host Laura Ingraham and Daily Mail editor David Martosko, among others.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article
Toss up between a fox news personality and a Daily Mail editor. Wow. Such choices.
The Georgia 6th District election today could see Ossoff take a seat that's been safe for the GOP since the late 70's.
The Twitter-Kid might have to be reigned in if that goes down.
The Twitter-Kid might have to be reigned in if that goes down.
The press should be up in arms about this - no idea why they are all just accepting it as the new status quo.
I cannot believe a politician in the UK would be allowed to get away with doing the things Trump is doing and not be held accountable by supposed journalists.
To be honest, they let May get away with platitudes in press conferences and without meeting actual humans during almost an entire election campaign. It was only towards the end that they started to strain against the managed-to-within-an-inch-of-its-life public interaction.
Fair point - but if her response to unfavourable coverage would be to simply not have press conferences, then I cannot believe the press would accept it.
Isn't that basically exactly what she did during the election?
They turned unfavourable because she did that. Big distinction there.
Eh, she didn't show up to the "leaders" debate.
Another example:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-chickens-out-womans-hour-10543234
How is that a distinction? It's not like the US press are tripping over themselves to say nice things about the moron in the White House. The antics in the White House press briefing room have pissed off a lot of journalists.
Not to cross-contaminate this thread, but it's questionable that the majority actually turned unfavourable. The only one I can think who actually visibly modified their bias in that period would be Kuenssberg (I'll await disputation of that 
). Newspapers etc mostly held their party line. Post-election is a different story.
). Newspapers etc mostly held their party line. Post-election is a different story.Not to cross-contaminate this thread, but it's questionable that the majority actually turned unfavourable. The only one I can think who actually visibly modified their bias in that period would be Kuenssberg (I'll await disputation of that
I can't be arsed to go digging up quotes because it wasn't a radical overnight change, but there was a palpable frustration amongst the press that grew the more she tried to hide. Previously supportive journalists started getting growly and taking cheap shots.
His name sounds like an order to attack the nearest female so I guess it's a tribute to the man that he got into media despite that.
No words!
I think Trevor Noah's comment on The Daily Show was "… I can't believe I'm saying this but, if that is his lawyer, perhaps Donald Trump would be better off defending himself"
I think Trevor Noah's comment on The Daily Show was "… I can't believe I'm saying this but, if that is his lawyer, perhaps Donald Trump would be better off defending himself"
Anyone who is paid to defend him has to walk a laser-etched line between a spin and a lie. Not easy task with both results being embarrassed to really humiliated. Job only for teh true believers or some really desperate folks out there.
This guy must be on some sort of career damage limitation bonus, as you say, but to shoot himself in the foot by contradicting his own statement (and the one he's paid to defend) live on camera is insane
This guy must be on some sort of career damage limitation bonus, as you say, but to shoot himself in the foot by contradicting his own statement (and the one he's paid to defend) live on camera is insane
Who would work for Trump in view of his one-sided loyalty whilst the world sees the entire regime as a farce. We must be seeing this Trump regime with such a tainted prism that we just cant see it.
But somehow, Trump seems to roll out new faces regularly.
The feck?
I am more convinced than ever before that dementia is a lot more prevalent amongst the media and political classes. Vocational hazard.
Bless them.
To be fair to Sekulow, it must be tough trying to get his talking points right when he's out busting ghosts every night...
I'm an idiot I didn't watch the whole (12 second) thing on the original link, on post #40487 above, I naturally thought all the fuss was about the full coverage that I'd seen of the attempts to contradict Trump's accusation of being under investigation (stay with me, it seems to get complicated but it really isn't), however … the link above is a mere snippet of the feck-up that Jay Sekulow made during the interview I saw on the June 19th Daily Show last night … it was taken from yesterday's abc coverage … I've tried to transcribe it below as it's much funnier (I'll find the actual footage if I can):This guy must be on some sort of career damage limitation bonus, as you say, but to shoot himself in the foot by contradicting his own statement (and the one he's paid to defend) live on camera is insane
abc News VO: "President Trump is now back at The White House and once again under fire. After he sent this tweet (shows tweet) saying he 'is being investigated', now his legal team is making the rounds with this contradiction:
Jay Sekulow (Trump lawyer) Soundbite #1: "The President has not been, and is not under investigation."
JS Soundbite #2: "Let me be clear, the President is not under investigation."
abc "New this morning" VO lady: "But the attempts to correct the record, (are) leading to more confusion …"
JS Soundbite #1 talking with abc News guy: "…and now he's being investigated by the Department of Justice."
JS Soundbite #2 talking with abc News guy: "…so, he's being investigated for taking the action that the Attorney General , er, the Deputy Attorney General, recommended him to take … by the agency who recommended the termination."
FOX News Sunday guy: "You've now said that he IS being investigated after saying that he isn't …"
JS (interrupting): "NO!"
FOX News Sunday guy: "You, you just said Sir, that …
JS (interrupting again): "No, no. Not …
Cut to next soundbite of JS: "I do not appreciate you putting words into my mouth when I have been crystal clear that The President is not, and has not, been under investigation …"
EDIT: Fixed the two FOX News guy credits that UL thought were so funny!
Last edited:
Fox News guy, no?
About time democrats woke up.
Yup … can't expect me to get everything right but FOX makes it worse for Trump really doesn't it?Fox News guy, no?
In true Trumpian style, you should have doubled down and said he does work for ABC
There were only two references to change as what I originally saw was the abc coverage of the Sunday FOX News interview … in true Trump style you are fudging the real issue … the guy made a statement, backtracked and tried to call everyone else out!In true Trumpian style, you should have doubled down and said he does work for ABC
I've just seen the FOX Sunday interview in full and it's even more explosive than the selective soundbites that I quoted above. It seems that the FOX might be for turning!
Chris Wallace and Shepard have not towed the party line consistently.
Am I the only one who thinks the media is being a little facetious with Trump's lawyer?
His point was that:
- There's no confirmation of Trump being investigated.
- IF the reports in the Post are true that he is, it's ridiculous that he's being investigated by the JD for doing something the JD recommended in the first place.
It's not fair to say that he contradicts himself as his point about the Justice Department was in the context of the Post article. Or am I missing something here?
His point was that:
- There's no confirmation of Trump being investigated.
- IF the reports in the Post are true that he is, it's ridiculous that he's being investigated by the JD for doing something the JD recommended in the first place.
It's not fair to say that he contradicts himself as his point about the Justice Department was in the context of the Post article. Or am I missing something here?
If Ossof wins Georgia today, it'll shake up the GOP establishment greatly. If he loses, Dems go back to their sulking.
I'm going to ignore the decades of Newt!
2002 - Republican (79.9%)
2004 - Republican (uncontested)
2006 - Republican (72.4%)
2008 - Republican (68.5%)
2010 - Republican (99.9%) - no Dem candidate
2012 - Republican (64.5%)
2014 - Republican (66%)
2016 - Republican (62%)
2017 - ???
If this even ends up close, it's a repudiation of Trump.
Of course - Trump will spin a victory as victory for him
What time are the results in? I guess it will be tomorrow UK time or has the voting already happened?
Nothing short of an outright loss will repudiate Trump. Even in a close loss, he'll try the fixed/cheated excuses.
Trump can spin it any way he likes. But, I think this will end up being a close loss for the Dems. But, it won't cause sulking, rather bring about more hope.
If you can make a seat like this contested...things are going to be crazy in a lot of places and there are going to be Republicans running scared, fighting for their political lives.
- Status