|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jun 18, 2017 20:55:53 GMT
For those who missed Fox News Sunday this morning, you missed great theater in Chris Wallace's interview of Jay Sekulow, who is a brilliant attorney, and one of my favorites. However, Wallace caught Sekulow saying that Trump was under investigation, was not under investigation and it is not known whether Trump is under investigation. A typical interviewer would have allowed these conflicting statements to slip by. Wallace is one of the very few journalists who is a match for Sekulow, maybe the only one. Two giants. It is worth watching: www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/18/trump-lawyer-sekulow-president-has-no-knowledge-being-investigated.html
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jun 18, 2017 22:51:32 GMT
theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/06/18/trump-under-investigation-narrative-begins-falling-apart-abc-no-mueller-trump-investigation/Almost every intellectually honest political observer recognized the Washington Post report about President Trump being under investigation appeared manufactured on the thinnest of available anonymous precepts. In the wake of the Post report, when Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein delivered an unanticipated press release stating not to trust media reports from “anonymous officials” all doubt was essentially confirmed. There is no ‘there’ there; and President Trump was not/is not under investigation. Just another failed media attempt by The Washington Post to undermine the administration, with a blend of partisanship designed to generate an ideological self-fulfilling prophecy. investigating President Trump: WASHINGTON – Special counsel Robert Mueller hasn’t decided whether to investigate President Trump as part of the Russia probe, according to a report on Sunday. “Now, my sources are telling me he’s begun some preliminary planning,” Pierre Thomas, the ABC News senior justice correspondent, said of Mueller on ABC’s “This Week.” “Plans to talk to some people in the administration. But he’s not yet made that momentous decision to go for a full-scale investigation.” (read more) Yes, that means the prior Washington Post report was entirely false; which makes that the eleventyth time CNN, The New York Times, or the Washington Post has run a report that was entirely false. They know it, it’s not false by accident – it is false by design.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jun 19, 2017 0:02:06 GMT
First, conservative Treehouse = Fake News
tigercpa: Almost every intellectually honest political observer recognized the Washington Post report about President Trump being under investigation appeared manufactured on the thinnest of available anonymous precepts.
FHF: You made that up.
tigercpa: In the wake of the Post report, when Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein delivered an unanticipated press release stating not to trust media reports from “anonymous officials” all doubt was essentially confirmed. There is no ‘there’ there; and President Trump was not/is not under investigation. Just another failed media attempt by The Washington Post to undermine the administration, with a blend of partisanship designed to generate an ideological self-fulfilling prophecy.
FHF: Talk about a leap of logic! It is insanity to draw that conclusion, especially after Trump confirmed that he is under investigation, and after his attorney, Jay Sekulow, also confirmed that Trump is under investigation. And is not under investigation And, we don't know if he is under investigation. (take your choice)
tigercpa: investigating President Trump: WASHINGTON – Special counsel Robert Mueller hasn’t decided whether to investigate President Trump as part of the Russia probe, according to a report on Sunday.
"Now, my sources are telling me he’s begun some preliminary planning,” Pierre Thomas, the ABC News senior justice correspondent, said of Mueller on ABC’s “This Week.” “Plans to talk to some people in the administration. But he’s not yet made that momentous decision to go for a full-scale investigation.” (read more).
FHF: Unnamed source automatically means fake news, correct?
tigercpa: Yes, that means the prior Washington Post report was entirely false; which makes that the eleventyth time CNN, The New York Times, or the Washington Post has run a report that was entirely false. They know it, it’s not false by accident – it is false by design.
FHF: No it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jun 19, 2017 10:40:57 GMT
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
I bought a bottle of Stoli orange yesterday, I better lawyer up...with this climate, one never knows.
Mueller now knows that Jay Sekulow is working to defend Trump.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jun 19, 2017 12:34:23 GMT
Lol.
I hope that Sekulow will regain his old form! He is one of the best, but he was off his game yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jun 19, 2017 13:42:45 GMT
Lol. I hope that Sekulow will regain his old form! He is one of the best, but he was off his game yesterday. I didn't think so, he was giving the meager Wallace all he could handle. Wallace intentionally rephrased what Sekulow said in a feeble attempt to trip him up, but Sekulow has always had a tendency to get flustered on TV, yet he argues in front of SCOTUS.
If you read some of the interviews, they are wanting him to prove a negative, something he can't prove. If he can't prove Trump is not under investigation, then the interviewer seems to say, then Trump is under investigation.
You can't prove something that is not happening, unless the one doing it says it is not happening, just like Comey refused to do when he was the FBI director. He refused to say Trump was not under investigation, leading everyone to say he was, and when Trump said he was told three times he was not under investigation, Trump could not prove he was not, till Comey exposed it with the memos hearing.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jun 19, 2017 14:36:26 GMT
For those who missed Fox News Sunday this morning, you missed great theater in Chris Wallace's interview of Jay Sekulow, who is a brilliant attorney, and one of my favorites. However, Wallace caught Sekulow saying that Trump was under investigation, was not under investigation and it is not known whether Trump is under investigation. A typical interviewer would have allowed these conflicting statements to slip by. Wallace is one of the very few journalists who is a match for Sekulow, maybe the only one. Two giants. It is worth watching: www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/18/trump-lawyer-sekulow-president-has-no-knowledge-being-investigated.htmlI was watching this, live.... I thought it got boring, as they were quibbling over a meaningless point and talking past each other. Sekulow let himself get unnecessarily angry. Losing your cool on TV seldom is a good thing. On the other hand, Wallace allowed the conversation to get bogged down in the minutiae. He wasted a lot of valuable air time, when he could have been asking about more interesting things. I thought the BOTH ended up looking bad.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jun 19, 2017 15:03:36 GMT
I'm hardly surprised by your reaction.
Wallace didn't get bogged down in "minutiae". For example, he caught Sekulow claiming that Trump was being investigated, was not being investigated, and that it is not known whether Trump is being investigated. He held Sekulow to account for the contradictions. That is about as substantive as substantive can get.
To be fair, Sekulow was challenged with the unenviable task of defending Trump, when Trump himself had tweeted that he was being investigated.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jun 19, 2017 15:13:13 GMT
I'm hardly surprised by your reaction. Wallace didn't get bogged down in "minutiae". For example, he caught Sekulow claiming that Trump was being investigated, was not being investigated, and that it is not known whether Trump is being investigated. He held Sekulow to account for the contradictions. That is about as substantive as substantive can get. To be fair, Sekulow was challenged with the unenviable task of defending Trump, when Trump himself had tweeted that he was being investigated. 1) Trump's tweet was in response to the WaPo story... Sekulow made that clear. Seems consistent to me with Trump's previous pattern. 2) No one from the FBI has notified anyone at the White House that Trump was under investigation. That seemed pretty clear. 3) "Not being notified" doesn't mean there can't be an investigation. That seems pretty obvious. So, they were arguing about whether or not Sekulow should have said "IF"... before saying anything about an investigation? It was a bunch of poppycock. Two alpha-males butting heads over mis-speak, if anything. I AM surprised that you would think that amounted to anything.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jun 19, 2017 16:08:52 GMT
Bevo: 1) Trump's tweet was in response to the WaPo story... Sekulow made that clear. Seems consistent to me with Trump's previous pattern.
FHF: No it wasn't. Sekulow didn't come up with that lame excuse until after Wallace caught him. Trump was unambiguous.
Bevo: 2) No one from the FBI has notified anyone at the White House that Trump was under investigation. That seemed pretty clear.
FHF: We don't know that.
Bevo: 3) "Not being notified" doesn't mean there can't be an investigation. That seems pretty obvious.
FHF: Generally correct, I think.
Bevo: So, they were arguing about whether or not Sekulow should have said "IF"... before saying anything about an investigation?
FHF: I assume that you know which point in the 11-minute interview you are referencing. I don't.
Bevo: It was a bunch of poppycock. Two alpha-males butting heads over mis-speak, if anything.
FHF: Not poppycock, but definitely two alpha males butting heads. And, it wasn't mis-speak. It was Sekulow getting caught trying to blow smoke by Wallace. I don't expect to see Sekulow making that happen again.
Bevo: I AM surprised that you would think that amounted to anything.
FHF: I never said that it had amounted to anything. I said that it was great theater, like two alpha males butting heads.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jun 19, 2017 16:35:17 GMT
Bevo: 1) Trump's tweet was in response to the WaPo story... Sekulow made that clear. Seems consistent to me with Trump's previous pattern. FHF: No it wasn't. Sekulow didn't come up with that lame excuse until after Wallace caught him. Trump was unambiguous. Bevo: 2) No one from the FBI has notified anyone at the White House that Trump was under investigation. That seemed pretty clear. FHF: We don't know that. Bevo: 3) "Not being notified" doesn't mean there can't be an investigation. That seems pretty obvious. FHF: Generally correct, I think. Bevo: So, they were arguing about whether or not Sekulow should have said "IF"... before saying anything about an investigation? FHF: I assume that you know which point in the 11-minute interview you are referencing. I don't. Bevo: It was a bunch of poppycock. Two alpha-males butting heads over mis-speak, if anything. FHF: Not poppycock, but definitely two alpha males butting heads. And, it wasn't mis-speak. It was Sekulow getting caught trying to blow smoke by Wallace. I don't expect to see Sekulow making that happen again. Bevo: I AM surprised that you would think that amounted to anything. FHF: I never said that it had amounted to anything. I said that it was great theater, like two alpha males butting heads. 1) Well, it seemed clear to me anyway. That's what Trump does... fires off responses to crap he reads in the press 2) yes.. we do know. Sekulow stated such, VERY clearly.. multiple times (also, on multiple Sunday shows) 3) "generally correct"? Sheesh... you won't even concede the obvious? The "IF" should have come when Sekulow was talking near the end of the conversation. He didn't say, just started talking and said something about Trump" "being under investigation"... when Wallace interrupted him and started replaying the whole stupid argument. If you thought that was entertaining, then power to you. Some people think MMA is fun to watch. Other lover watching the Kardashians. I have not much use for any of those.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jun 19, 2017 19:46:46 GMT
Bevo: 1) Well, it seemed clear to me anyway. That's what Trump does... fires off responses to crap he reads in the press FHF: Trump says that he is being investigated. From that, it was clear to you that he meant that he is not being investigated? Most remarkable. Bevo: 2) yes.. we do know. Sekulow stated such, VERY clearly.. multiple times (also, on multiple Sunday shows) FHF: Sekulow also said that Trump is being investigated. Bevo: 3) "generally correct"? Sheesh... you won't even concede the obvious? FHF: I know that there are occasions when the FBI does notify individuals that they are are under investigation. By choice or mandated by law? I dunno. Bevo: The "IF" should have come when Sekulow was talking near the end of the conversation. He didn't say, just started talking and said something about Trump" "being under investigation"... when Wallace interrupted him and started replaying the whole stupid argument. FHF: So, you were referring to the "IF" that should have come, but didn't. My inability to read minds has come back to haunt me again. Bevo: If you thought that was entertaining, then power to you. Some people think MMA is fun to watch. Other lover watching the Kardashians. I have not much use for any of those. FHF: Equating Wallace-Sekulow to MMA and the Kardashians? Wow. You probably would have despised every second of the Buckley-Vidal debates, which were much closer to MMA: youtu.be/nYymnxoQnf8
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Jun 20, 2017 2:45:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jun 20, 2017 2:59:35 GMT
I didn't realize that the Daily Onion had changed its name.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jun 21, 2017 19:51:47 GMT
Judge Andrew Napolitano just straightened it out on Fox News, 'Shepherd Smith Reporting':
"The president is the 'subject' of a criminal investigation. He is not the 'target' of a criminal investigation. 'Target' means they intend to seek your indictment. They can't indict the president for what he did while he's president. They can only send it to the House Judiciary Committee for impeachment. But, can they investigate him? Of course they can, and they are."
The quote above is a transcript I just created. These are the words of Judge Napolitano verbatim. I know that it is accurate because I was able to replay it with my DVR.
|
|