President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Becuase I don't see anyone on here supporting censorship against other media sources. What part of that don't you understand? What does dismissing a CNN story have to do with Media Matters publishing a list of Hannity sponsors? Do you really not see any difference between the two?

You're continually engaging in useless strawman arguments in here.

What's wrong with publishing a list of Hannity sponsors?

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes you could, and you and others called it fake news when the story doesn't suit you.

Why are you, and Trump, allowed to dismiss huge parts of the media as biased and fake yet when people call Fox news and Hannity out suddenly its all about freedom of speech?

I'm not arguing about people calling Hannity out, call him fake news if you want. It's media matters, an organisation run by David Brock who ran super pacs for the Democrats, coordinating attacks after publicising sponsors to get him pulled off the air. His sole goal post election is to take down conservative news sources.

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What's wrong with publishing a list of Hannity sponsors?

If there's nothing wrong with it why not publicise everybody's, I'm sure the folks over at 4chan and other cesspools would enjoy it.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm not arguing about people calling Hannity out, call him fake news if you want. It's media matters, an organisation run by David Brock who ran super pacs for the Democrats, coordinating attacks after publicising sponsors to get him pulled off the air. His sole goal post election is to take down conservative news sources.

But the advertisers still have the ability to continue to advertise with him. Nobody is forcing them to quit. How does publishing a list of sponsors mean that Hannity will go off the air?

The sponsors will only move away if they feel that continuing to stick with it will damage the brand rather than enhance it.

We have POTUS standing up and telling hte world that the likes of CNN, BBC, etc are fake news, telling reporters they are fake etc. You don't think that effects how the public sees them

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If there's nothing wrong with it why not publicise everybody's, I'm sure the folks over at 4chan and other cesspools would enjoy it.

Nobody is stopping anyone doing that.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nobody is stopping anyone doing that.

Well whatever.

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/05/23/these-are-sean-hannitys-advertisers/216607

Correct the record did similar stuff and it didn't work.

Kitsunegari

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What's wrong with publishing a list of Hannity sponsors?

Becuase David Brock, a partisan democrat, published the list of sponsors. Can you work out why he may have done it? Do you really have to ask that question?

Trent Houseboat

Kitsunegari wrote:

It's still censorship.

It's not censorship.
He can say whatever he wants. But companies don't have to sponsor his show if they don't like what he says.
And if companies do sponsor his show people a free to tell those companies that they don't like it and that they will spend their money elsewhere. It's capitalism in action. If companies want to continue to sponsor his show they can and suffer the losses. Look how ruinous that was to Hamilton and Chick Fil a.

Calina

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Becuase David Brock, a partisan democrat, published the list of sponsors. Can you work out why he may have done it? Do you really have to ask that question?

IT doesn't matter why he did it. He has the full right under the US constitution to do it and let me say I think it's a lot less of a sin than using a family's grief for political purposes in the way Hannitty has been pushing the Seth Rich issue. I refuse to call it a saga because even Fox has fully withdrawn the story. Frankly, we wouldn't be here if Hannity had actually employed a bit of critical thinking and possibly some self-censorship. David Brock's political views are irrelevant in this context.

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Becuase David Brock, a partisan democrat, published the list of sponsors. Can you work out why he may have done it? Do you really have to ask that question?

Rather tetchy response to a simple question. Politics is a dirty business. Just look at Trump's nasty campaign to become president, his tweets alleging all sorts of wild and inaccurate accusations, his conduct as president etc.

So what if Brock has a political agenda? Ever heard of Steve Bannon?

So a list of sponsors is published. Is it illegal? Can people now make an informed choice? All good.

.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Well whatever.

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/05/23/these-are-sean-hannitys-advertisers/216607

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Becuase David Brock, a partisan democrat, published the list of sponsors. Can you work out why he may have done it? Do you really have to ask that question?

Of course I know why he did it, just like I know why Trump asked for the Russians to leak e-mails. He wants to get Hannity off the air. Hardly a surprise. He thinks this is the best way to go about it as the viewers that seem to want to stop on their own.

So he goes after the key thing that driver media, money. Fox only got rid of O'Reilly when the sponsors started to drop away. So the clear message is that Fox don't care until the money is in question.

So it makes sense to target that. But as I said, merely asking for people to boycott does not achieve anything unless people actually do it, and enough to make a difference.

Kitsunegari

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

It's not censorship.
He can say whatever he wants. But companies don't have to sponsor his show if they don't like what he says.
And if companies do sponsor his show people a free to tell those companies that they don't like it and that they will spend their money elsewhere. It's capitalism in action. If companies want to continue to sponsor his show they can and suffer the losses. Look how ruinous that was to Hamilton and Chick Fil a.

It's just another form of censorship. You can dress it up whatever way you want; it's still censorship. If you feel so strongly about Hannity I would suggest you just turn him off instead of trying to attack his sponsors. If you think that companies believe in the shows that they sponsor then that's incredibly naive too.

I don't agree with X's views so I won't buy product Y until they stop sponsoring X. That's not what is happening. Media Matters and David Brock release the sponsors so that people can put pressure on them. Getting people to attack sponsors based on who they support politically is a form of censorship.

There is a major move from the likes of David Brock to attempt to censor anyone that doesn't agree with his blinkered viewpoints of the world. If you want to support that feel free, the rest of us will just continue to call it as it is; censorship.

Celticfire

Overheal wrote: »

Excuse my French, but that ****ing piece of **** Donald Trump bragged to the Philippines about exactly how many nuclear subs we operate off the coast of North Korea. The Philippines then leaked the transcript out, so now everyone knows it.

This is not at all okay. His flapping mouth will start a war. The Pentagon is PISSED

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/23/read-the-full-transcript-of-trumps-call-with-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte/

"The Pentagon is PISSED".... says who? The Huffington post, Buzzfeed?

Considering CNN covered the arrival of USS Michigan in Busan, South Korea on April 25 and the Navy has no problem notifying the world through it's webpages and Facebook pages when a submarine visits port I fail to see how this story lives up to it's hysterical headlines.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wow, just wow.

I removed that from my post before you quoted it , unquote it please as I do enjoy quarrelling here occasionally, poor judgement. need to get some sleep.

Kitsunegari

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Rather tetchy response to a simple question. Politics is a dirty business. Just look at Trump's nasty campaign to become president, his tweets alleging all sorts of wild and inaccurate accusations, his conduct as president etc.

So what if Brock has a political agenda? Ever heard of Steve Bannon?

So a list of sponsors is published. Is it illegal? Can people now make an informed choice? All good.

.

What does Steve Bannon have to do with Media Matters and David Brock's attempts to censor the viewpoints of those that he doesn't believe in. We all know what Steve Bannon is and does. Your post is the definition of whataboutery.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The Russian collusion story is being presented as fact when there's no evidence

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's wrong, there is evidence of pay to play with regards the Clinton foundation, the state department and actual transferring of monies. If you want me to list examples I will.

There's no evidence of the Trump campaign exchanging money to influence the election, which is what the allegation is, collusion.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

As of now, there's no evidence Trump colluded

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I want to see some tangible evidence.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Where's the evidence Trump colluded during the election with the Russians

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

there's no evidence of any collusion with campaign
He's not under investigation and there's no evidence of any collusion from his campaign aides.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Feinstein, who's a Democrat, said there's no evidence of any collusion with associates.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yes it might not bode well for the future, but his position has become almost untenable and at the foundation of the hysteria there is simply no evidence. I can understand why he did it.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

But yet, at the very bottom of it all, of all the shouting and hysteria, no evidence of wrongdoing.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yeah, it's diversion when somebody asked me to show evidence that collusion with the media exists. You lot are pathetic tbh. Keep listening to Rachel Meadow and the other loonies.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Getting away with what? This Russian garbage and accusations have been going on for a year and there's still no evidence. I hope it all comes out now

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

On the topic of fake news, it's been muh Russia for 6 months now in the media and not a shred of evidence proving collusion. The msm are nothing more than political activists.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That said I agree with you, there needs to be a proper investigation, there has already been investigations where no evidence of collusion has been found.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

When the "establishment", the media, the Intel agencies, the Democrats, and parts of the GOP want nothing more than to nail Trump, they've been unable to provide a shred of evidence showing Russian collusion.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

There's nothing you can point to directly that shreds any inking that there was collusion going on during the campaign.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I might have gone overboard making such a wild and crazy observation. When it all starts to come out, which inevitably it will, I fear you'll still be holding the belief of some huge Russia conspiracy. On the flip side, if new evidence does come to light showing actual collusion, I'll eat my words, but right now there is nothing after all the investigations and cries of foul play

OK. You have wasted hours of peoples time on here deliberately stating what you know to be false and refusing to address it when its put to you. Youre objective is to time waste and derail.
Here is a couple of non exhaustive posts about collusion. Please address.

demfad wrote: »

I'm getting sick of this!

• Please note evidence does not equal proof.
• Also note all investigations still ongoing.
• Also note sources for media are ALWAYS anonymous. That is because often the act of leaking can get a whistleblower in trouble. The pertinent question is are the leaks DENIED.

There has been more than substantial evidence shown here to YOU specifically every time you make this claim. When it is presented to you you make little or no attempt to refute it, just returning again later to repeat the same baseless claim. So here we go, last time a non exhaustive list which was already put to you:

Trump associates who lied about meetings/contacts with Ambassador Kislyak:

Attorney General-Jeff Sessions
Mike Flynn-Fired NSA
Trump Campaign Manager: Paul Manafort
Carter Page
Jared Kushner
JD Gordon
Roger Stone
Michael Cohen

People who lied about these meetings:
Donald Trump and anyone in the Trump admin who commented on it.

Other meetings with Russians:
Flynn met Putin and the Russian secret service at a dinner in 2015
Flynn contacts with a younger female Russian spy in Cambridge in 2014. She called him 'General Misha'.
Manafort campaigned for Putin Puppet Yanukovitz, got 12 million in back money from there, worked with pro Russian billionaire Firtash, and his partner was in Russian SS.
Worked for Depriska for 10 million a year from 2006 to further Russian interests internationally.

Kushner:
Met with Sanctioned head of sanctioned VEB bank in secret. This man was in Russian SS. VEB bank bankrolled TRump partner who Financed Trump tower Toronto.
Page: Met sanctioned head (Sechin) of Rosneft in Moscow.

Trump:

Many Russian contacts through his business including Felix Sater conencted to Russian boss of boss Mogilevich.
Bailed out by Russian banks in 2000's according to ex MI6 chief
Sater and Bayrock being prosecuted for money laundering in several Trump tower projects.
Trump Taj Mahal charged with 10 million in money laundering offenses largest ever.
Many, many more contacts

Lets just go recent, last week:


Trump/Pence let compromised Flynn be NSA for 18 days.
Trump fires Comey because of Russian probe (said so himself)
Trump gives coded classified information to Russia in the Oval Office.
Speaker of the House revealed as agreeing Trump was being paid by Putin.
Comey reveals that Trump tried to obstruct Flynn investigation.
Revealed Flynn and Manafort under criminal investigation for 6 months. Trump/Pence knew and went with him anyway..

Not to mention that many parts of Steele dossier, Russian on Russian conversations and more have been verified.
Leaked extensive and continuous contacts between team Trump and Russian Intel.
British media leaked that more than 1 salubrious recording existed.
Also leaked more than circumstantial evidence and strong evidence of collusion.
Schiff also said that he had seen this.

This is just a selection of evidence

Please address it. If you dont and come back with the 'no evidence' mallarkey again later I will have to report you quoting this post.

Enough is enough.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And just to add to Demfad's post, the fact that the DOJ has now appointed a Special Counsel to oversee the investigation, and left the terms of that investigation open is a very strong signal that there is something very serious to look into. They don't appoint SC based on rumours and MSM bias. Recall as well that Comey had moved from a weekly debrief on the case to a daily debrief, hardly a point to nothing being uncovered.

The Democrats have been looking for an independent investigation from the off. Chavez, Ryan and especially Nunes have done everything they can to try to avoid that. Even with that they couldn't stop it.

You need to ask yourself why the DOJ would go this route. It has already been looking into this for some time and if there was nothing there why would they be going this route? It makes no sense. The only sensible conclusion is that they feel that this investigation needs specific resources and non-partisan work with no threat of involvement from the WH.

Trump has lost control over this, his AG is not able to be involved, his Ex NSA is at the very centre of it and he seems very concerned about a man he hardly knew even 18 months ago Given Trumps clear disdain for anyone he believes offers him nothing (Guiliani, Christie) etc) there is a clear contradiction of why is he going to bat for Flynn in a such a way. What does he care? The damage to the WH has already been done, let Flynn deal with his own problems, away from the WH. It would have been much easier to simply let him off and claim that they hired him on the best of intentions but it didn't work out and allow the legal system to take its course blah blah. It goes against every piece of common sense to think that it is out of any loyalty or care for Flynn, so the only conclusion one can make is that Flynn has something that Trump feels could damage Trump.

Why did Trump ask everyone else to leave the room when he allegedly asked Comey to let it go? Why not say it in front of others if there was nothing untoward?
Why has the WH not given its version of the meeting yet? All they seem to have said is that Comey is wrong. Given Trumps recent claim that with so much going on his press corp can be expected to know everything, why are we supposed to believe they know the truth about this? Has Trump given them the full version, and if so why not present it to cut this off?

Hank Scorpio

What did I say that's incorrect? Still no evidence of collusion. Talking to Russians isn't a crime.

You put some other Political figure in the chair and search for Russian connections you'll find them.

demfad

AG Sessions did not disclose Russia meetings in security clearance form, DOJ says

That makes three now (Sessions, Flynn, Kushner) who failed to disclose recent Russian meetings on their SF-86 form. Failing to fill out this security clearance correctly is a similar felony to lying to the FBI i.e can be 5 years in jail. If and when the investigations are concluded, all of this, all of it, will come back to haunt these men and they will be made to account for this criminal behaviour.

The omission comes after problems that Trump adviser Jared Kushner and the President's ex-national security adviser, Michael Flynn, have had on their own security forms. Kushner prematurely submitted his SF-86 form without listing foreign contacts and had to notify the FBI the next day that he was willing to provide the information. Flynn is under investigation for not properly disclosing payments linked to Russia for his foreign trips.

Kitsunegari

Let's remind ourselves what demfad had posted earlier on the thread:

demfad wrote:

The people who are trying to oust Trump are the FBI and wider IC community both in US and Internationally. Their efforts are backed by the vast majority if democrats and a small few Republicans (openly at least to be fair). Assuming Trump fails in his efforts to kill investigations then you will have many indictments, arrests prisecutions. The vast majority of them will be Republicans. The use of election manipulation, propaganda and corruption in corporate Republicanism has been easily exploited by Russian opps to mutate into the international axis we see now. The threats of a black president and potential female president meant the authoritarian religious right and far right united with other Reps with the racist, misogynistic ethics of the formers dominating the group.
This is why an entire RICO grand jury is dedicated to dark money flowing into the GOP. This cuts deep into the disease.
Russian measures worked so well in the US that they were able to recruit these Republican criminal billionaires to help in their world wide democracy destabilising efforts.
At the end of the day when the prosecutions are being counted in the US and abroad the conspirators will overwhelming come from the conservative to far-right side.
They are not all at it as you maintain.
Underlying issues of billionaire power and inequality can be addressed postvTrumo in the US or by us starting to assert ourselves as EU citizens here in the EU.

You keep accusing people of spreading misinformation yet you provided us with this gem, which you subsequently deleted.

The Russians are coming!!!

And yet here we are with NO EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION to date.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What did I say that's incorrect? Still no evidence of collusion. Talking to Russians isn't a crime.

You put some other Political figure in the chair and search for Russian connections you'll find them.

Talking to Russians can be a crime if you lie to the FBI about it and if you fail to include it on your SF-86 form.

There is a lot more on the (non exhasutive) list above. Please address all before repeating your 'no evidence' falsehood.

BTW the question put to Feinstein was quite clearly about 'non-classified' evidence. She would render any classified evidence useless if she disclosed it to the media. No non-classified evidence of collusion does not equal no classified evidence of even no non-classified intelligence.

Hank Scorpio

demfad wrote: »

AG Sessions did not disclose Russia meetings in security clearance form, DOJ says

That makes three now (Sessions, Flynn, Kushner) who failed to disclose recent Russian meetings on their SF-86 form. Failing to fill out this security clearance correctly is a similar felony to lying to the FBI i.e can be 5 years in jail. If and when the investigations are concluded, all of this, all of it, will come back to haunt these men and they will be made to account for this criminal behaviour.

"Sessions initially listed a year's worth of meetings with foreign officials on the security clearance form, according to Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores. But she says he and his staff were then told by an FBI employee who assisted in filling out the form, known as the SF-86, that he didn't need to list dozens of meetings with foreign ambassadors that happened in his capacity as a senator."

Huge headline, nothing story, as always.

demfad

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Let's remind ourselves what demfad had posted earlier on the thread:



You keep accusing people of spreading misinformation yet you provided us with this gem, which you subsequently deleted.

The Russians are coming!!!

And yet here we are with NO EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION to date.

You've just been supplied with an extensive list of evidence. Address it without fibbing please.

Hank Scorpio

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Let's remind ourselves what demfad had posted earlier on the thread:



You keep accusing people of spreading misinformation yet you provided us with this gem, which you subsequently deleted.

You missed the gems he wrote about Russian Politicians being dragged out of Government and killed to cover for Trump winning.

I'm not going to condemn Trump before they find evidence of collusion, as much as I think he's messed up in recent months, he ran a tough campaign and deserves some credit.

How do you even define collusion or give an example of it in the sense of a campaign, at worst they told Russia to hack the DNC, but that's just a dumb theory.

oscarBravo

Kitsunegari wrote: »

It's just another form of censorship. You can dress it up whatever way you want; it's still censorship.

No, it's not. I get that it has become fashionable to invent new definitions of words to prop up feeble arguments, but that doesn't make those arguments less feeble.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution is the basis of freedom of speech in US law.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."

That's the prohibition on censorship in its entirety. Nothing about listing sponsors; nothing about being able to lie without consequence.

If Congress were to pass a law preventing Hannity from lying on air, that would be censorship. This - no matter how you dress it up - isn't.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

"Sessions initially listed a year's worth of meetings with foreign officials on the security clearance form, according to Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores. But she says he and his staff were then told by an FBI employee who assisted in filling out the form, known as the SF-86, that he didn't need to list dozens of meetings with foreign ambassadors that happened in his capacity as a senator."

Huge headline, nothing story, as always.

Sessions spokesperson saying anything is worthless. What is required is truthfulness in filling out the form. And applicants are advised to sweat the small details, put everything down.

From the official site:

16. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying also include:

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;

The question is: Is Jeff Sessions meeting twice with Kislyak during teh Trump campaign something that he should conceal from the FBI on his security form?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What does Steve Bannon have to do with Media Matters and David Brock's attempts to censor the viewpoints of those that he doesn't believe in. We all know what Steve Bannon is and does. Your post is the definition of whataboutery.

I was just pointing out how politics works as you seemed a little naïve in your attitude towards Brock. Here, I'll just say this instead:

So a list of sponsors is published. Is it illegal? Can people now make an informed choice? All good.

BabyCheeses

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Becuase David Brock, a partisan democrat, published the list of sponsors. Can you work out why he may have done it? Do you really have to ask that question?

So? If it is the truth why does anything else matter?

Christy42

Wait so now publishing a list of sponsors is censorship? Free speech gives you the ability to say things. Not to have people listen to you or get paid for it.

Also the bloody point of being a sponsor is that people associate your name with the event/ people. I mean seriously if there is a bad concert at the 3 arena should we not mention a mobile phone company put some money up for the arena?

The argument that publishing that list is entirely devoid of logic in any way, shape or form. Why does Hannity have some intrinsic right to speak on Fox that the vast majority of Americans don't have? Fox is a business. If Hannity is a liability then they can drop him. If sponsors do not wish to help pay for his show that is their right. If worst comes to worst he can shout his cracking pot theories through a megaphone-free speech is not an intrinsic right to your own TV show ffs.

Edit: In fact I imagine the sponsors announce themselves on his show! I mean that is what they are paying for so how is announcing whst the company already announces on a major network censorship?

Hank Scorpio

demfad wrote: »

Sessions spokesperson saying anything is worthless. What is required is truthfulness in filling out the form. And applicants are advised to sweat the small details, put everything down.

From the official site:



The question is: Is Jeff Sessions meeting twice with Kislyak during teh Trump campaign something that he should conceal from the FBI on his security form?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

As a senator in Obama's administration meeting formally, ohh you got him.

The little man from Alabama must be having sleepless nights.

You know why they went after Sessions? It was the day after Trumps congress speech and they needed something to distract from it. Sessions was asked questions in relation to the dossier and his meetings were public knowledge, end of story.

Billy86

Let's taker a minute to remind ourselves of the definitions of the words 'proof' and evidence:

proof
pruːf/Submit
noun
1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament; More

evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/Submit
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; More


Evidence is used to establish proof. There is abundant evidence out there hence the number of investigations, not least of all the actions of Trump in recent weeks such as firing the guy investigating him, however the investigation is ongoing and proof is typically the end point of any such investigation. Continuing an investigation after proving in the eyes of the the relevant body that the proof exists would be like searching for the TV remote after having found the TV remote.