Octopus Overlords

ImLawBoy wrote:The New York AG refused to resign because he said that Trump promised him he could keep his job, so his feelings were hurt.

Blackhawk wrote:Being completely politically naive, why do people take a job, leaving whatever they had behind, when job security is almost guaranteed to be zero? Is it just for the line on their resume afterwards?

Scraper wrote:

Blackhawk wrote:Being completely politically naive, why do people take a job, leaving whatever they had behind, when job security is almost guaranteed to be zero? Is it just for the line on their resume afterwards?

Any halfway decent federal prosecutor will be able to get plenty of well paying jobs once they are done with the public job. An AG like him will be able to hand pick damn near any high paying attorney job he wants to. So it's not always about job security or even the income.

Chrisoc13 wrote:At one point CNN has an article about how trump has made a powerful enemy and what a mistake that was. No way around it that smells like bias.

msteelers wrote:

Chrisoc13 wrote:At one point CNN has an article about how trump has made a powerful enemy and what a mistake that was. No way around it that smells like bias.

Was it a news article, or an editorial? Plenty of people confuse the two.

msteelers wrote:Either way, 24 hour cable news channels are garbage.

msteelers wrote:

Chrisoc13 wrote:At one point CNN has an article about how trump has made a powerful enemy and what a mistake that was. No way around it that smells like bias.

Was it a news article, or an editorial? Plenty of people confuse the two.

Either way, 24 hour cable news channels are garbage. Sometimes you'll find a good piece of journalism in there, but usually it's all bad.

Zarathud wrote:The way it usually happens is the US Attorney General (Sessions) works behind the scenes to schedule US Attorneys to leave or stay. If you're working a critical case or well-respected, you can stay on longer. A few US Attorneys stayed on through most/all of Obama's term. New appointees are named shortly after the resignations.

US Attorney Bharara would have been likely to stay--he's a high profile superstar. Trump said he could stay, then changed his mind or allowed Sessions to remove him anyway. Why the sudden change?

It's an issue because (1) it's handled poorly (Bannon), (2) it looks like a loyalty purge especially after Trump fired acting US Attorney General Yates, (3) Trump faces investigation but not by an independent prosecutor, (4) Trump's unknown business and foreign dealings, (5) Trump has been overreaching with his Executive Orders, and (6) no one trusts Trump's motives.

hepcat wrote:While I somewhat agree with you, I only have to head over to Brietbarts for a few minutes to realize CNN could be much worse.

Chrisoc13 wrote:

hepcat wrote:While I somewhat agree with you, I only have to head over to Brietbarts for a few minutes to realize CNN could be much worse.

Haha yeah... I don't touch that cesspool. I would never even venture as far as fox news. I don't trust them in the slightest. I don't need news to confirm my bias, I need news to give me straight up info and I'll make up my mind.

Mainstream media could be worse, but it could be better, and I feel like they are drifting to worse not better.

Chen bills her boutique business as a “relationship consultancy” that helps U.S. companies build connections with highly influential private and public people in China with the goal to expand U.S. business into mainland China.

Property records show Chen bought the penthouse under her Chinese name Xiao Yan Chen for $15.893 million. A source also confirmed to Mansion Global that Chen was the buyer

Holman wrote:Are we to take it literally or not when the POTUS accuses our closest and most important ally of espionage and betrayal?

Paingod wrote:Hint: He's taking it, donating it, and getting a tax break for it - costing the taxpayers more than if he had just taken the money.

Holman wrote:Despite their inability to produce any evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump, the administration is doubling down and suggesting that Obama had help from British intelligence agencies.

Sean Spicer says Trump means it. Unless he doesn't? Maybe? Who knows?

Are we to take it literally or not when the POTUS accuses our closest and most important ally of espionage and betrayal?

--

Looking at the big picture, what's incredible is that every one of Trump's crises since taking office has been self-inflicted. The world has been relatively quiet this winter, but how long can that last? What's going to happen when Trump has to deal with a global event that isn't just him or one of his cronies shooting himself in the foot or the nuts?

RunningMn9 wrote:If I get paid $100,000 and I donate it all to charity, it's true that I get a tax deduction. But the reality is that I'm just not paying taxes on that $100,000 (assuming that my deductions aren't capped which is likely the case for Trump).

So it seems disingenuous to suggest that it is costing the taxpayer even more because it won't get the tax back.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Paingod wrote:Hint: He's taking it, donating it, and getting a tax break for it - costing the taxpayers more than if he had just taken the money.

That seems to be a bad way of looking at it.

If I get paid $100,000 and I donate it all to charity, it's true that I get a tax deduction. But the reality is that I'm just not paying taxes on that $100,000 (assuming that my deductions aren't capped which is likely the case for Trump).

So it seems disingenuous to suggest that it is costing the taxpayer even more because it won't get the tax back.

gilraen wrote:

Chrisoc13 wrote:

hepcat wrote:While I somewhat agree with you, I only have to head over to Brietbarts for a few minutes to realize CNN could be much worse.

Haha yeah... I don't touch that cesspool. I would never even venture as far as fox news. I don't trust them in the slightest. I don't need news to confirm my bias, I need news to give me straight up info and I'll make up my mind.

Mainstream media could be worse, but it could be better, and I feel like they are drifting to worse not better.

You have to separate news from opinions

Chaz wrote:then writes the donation off on his taxes, lowering his tax burden by some amount.

Chrisoc13 wrote:That's why I ignore CNN now

Zarathud wrote:Or he could be contributing to some white nationalist conservative group, with no benefit to the taxpayer.

Chrisoc13 wrote: You don't have to explain to me how news networks work. I'm not some uneducated person uninitiated to our media. Responses like this are... Interesting? To say the least. It's a condescending tone implying I can't separate news from opinion. You can see that right?

The US has made a formal apology to Britain after the White House accused GCHQ of helping Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump in the White House.

Sean Spicer, Mr Trump's press secretary, repeated a claim on Thursday evening – initially made by an analyst on Fox News - that GCHQ was used by Mr Obama to spy on Trump Tower in the lead-up to last November's election.

The comments prompted a furious response from GCHQ, which in a break from normal practice issued a public statement: "Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wiretapping' against the then president-elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored."

Intelligence sources told The Telegraph that both Mr Spicer and General McMaster, the US National Security Adviser, have apologised over the claims. "The apology came direct from them," a source said.

General McMaster contacted Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the Prime Minister's National Security adviser, to apologise for the comments. Mr Spicer conveyed his apology through Sir Kim Darroch, Britain's US ambassador.
...
Mrs May's official spokesman said the White House has assured the Government that allegations that British intelligence services spied on Donald Trump will not be repeated.

The Government "made clear" to the US that the "ridiculous" claims should be ignored and received assurances in return that they will not be repeated, showing that the administration does not give them any credence, Mrs May's spokesman said.
...
The British official told Reuters that under British law, GCHQ "can only gather intelligence for national security purposes" and noted that a US election "clearly doesn't meet that criteria".

The British official told Reuters that under British law, GCHQ "can only gather intelligence for national security purposes" and noted that a US election "clearly doesn't meet that criteria".

Smoove_B wrote:I feel like there needs to be a Trump foreign policy thread. Between the British news this morning and the implication that we're apparently willing to go to war with North Korea, it's apparently a great weekend to head back to Florida.

Chrisoc13 wrote:Right... But that's exactly what I'm saying.