Michael Flynn Resigns As Trump's National Security Adviser (go.com) 895
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: President Donald Trump's embattled national security adviser Michael Flynn, who faced questions about a call to the Russian ambassador prior to the inauguration, has resigned. Retired Army General Keith Kellogg was named acting national security adviser to replace Flynn. ABC News reported Monday that Flynn called Vice President Mike Pence on Friday to apologize for misleading him about his conversation with the ambassador in November. Flynn previously denied that he spoke about sanctions the U.S. imposed on Russia for its suspected interference in the 2016 election, a claim repeated by Pence in January. An administration official later claimed Pence was relying on information provided to him by Flynn. In his resignation later, Flynn cited the "fast pace of events" for "inadvertently" briefing "the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding [his] phone calls with the Russian Ambassador." You can view Flynn's full resignation letter, as provided by the White House, here.
I'm sure he had nothing to hide (Score:5, Funny)
Right?! This was just because of a miscommunication of a phone call, that's all. *waves hand*
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's see how quickly the Trumpanzees can blame this on Obama somehow, or call it all fake news :)
Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide (Score:5, Informative)
The line from the Breitbart crowd seems to be that Flynn is a minor figure of no importance and it's all Sally Yates' fault.
Okay - that was quick. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that ability on their part is fading fast. The polls showing Trump's precipitous fall in popularity tell the story of a presidency in the kind of crisis that hasn't been seen since Iran-Contra or the Lewinsky affair, and, as with Watergate before it, those scandals didn't hit until second terms. The fact that one of Trump's longest supporters has been outed being chatty with the Russian Ambassador just weeks into the Presidency just blows me away. This is like a presidency on amphetamines.
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, except that all of those Republicans don't get to name nominees. They only get to "advise and consent" if they are sitting members of the United States Senate - and that advice can be freely ignored by the President, who has the sole power to appoint cabinet nominees for Senate confirmation.
If you want to see a real horror show of government, it would be Trump White House vs. the United States Congress. Vetoing bills out of spite, sending even more unqualified people for confirmation just to troll the Senate, etc. And don't think this guy wouldn't do it.
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like a presidency on amphetamines.
This is like a presidency at amature hour.
The really stupid thing is that for all the shaking-up that has been done to world leaders, the One China policy remains; Israel is still scolded; refugees are still being accepted; and there is no replacement for Obamacare on the horizon. For all the bravado, he has achieved nothing at the cost of the US's image and brand. Put another way, far from being the anti-Obama he portrayed himself to be, he has arrived at exactly the same policy positions.
The #1 thing he could do right now to show some statesmanship is to get to California, stand by the Oroville Dam and declare US infrastructure be his priority. Forget the Great Wall of Mexico. Here is a genuine crisis that is symptomatic of a deeper problem, and here is a genuine crisis handed to him on a silver platter. He want to build? Build. He wants a short-term sugar high on jobs? Employ people to build. Yes thre is a cost; but what the heck; borrow the money. He could probably borrow enough to do most of this work and still be able to say he didn't raise the national debt as much as Obama did.
But instead, he tweets about Nordstrom and how unfair they are to Ivanka.
No fall, no change (Score:4, Informative)
I think that ability on their part is fading fast. The polls showing Trump's precipitous fall in popularity.. .
The polls are not showing a "precipitous fall in popularity". So far, three weeks after inauguration, the people who liked Trump before still like him and think he's doing good; the people who didn't like Trump before still don't like him and think he's doing badly.
Really. Look at the actual poll numbers, not the misleading headlines: no real change.
http://elections.huffingtonpos... [huffingtonpost.com]
His approval ratings almost certainly will change as people start to judge him on what he does, not what his campaign said-- but this has not happened yet.
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong.
It's illegal for a private citizen to engage in diplomacy for the US.
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong.
It's illegal for a private citizen to engage in diplomacy for the US.
You're absolutely right. But that isn't what undid him.
1. He lied to Pence about his son having a security clearance, causing Pence to repeat that lie publicly
2. He lied about the content of his conversation with the Russian ambassador.
#1 put him in Pence's sights. #2 ensured the outcome.
Re: Okay - that was quick. (Score:3)
Yeah he should have just said "of course we talked (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah I agree the problem is lying about it. He's the incoming national security advisor. He should have said "yeah, I talked to the Russian ambassador, and I'm preparing my recommendations and report for the President based on those discussions". Just blow it off as doing his job, albeit prematurely, before the inauguration.
In theory he might have violated the Logan Act, but in
200 years nobody has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act (one person has been indicted). As a member of the incoming administration's foreign policy team, it's not *that* weird that he would talk to diplomats from other nations and start getting to them and their positions.
Not that I'm saying it was hunky-dory to have those conversations at that time, but he certainly could have made it seem like no big deal, if he didn't lie about it.
Re:Yeah he should have just said "of course we tal (Score:5, Informative)
Fact remains though - when the call was made he was
1) Not in any way part of the executive branch
2) Not in any way authorized to speak on behalf of the executive branch
And therefore: flagrantly undermining the foreign policy objectives of the sitting president of the united states. Which is a crime and this application of the Logan act would almost certainly pass constitutional muster. The problem isn't that he spoke to Russia - it's what he spoke about, things that the constitution CLEARLY reserves for the executive branch and which he had no authority to intervene in.
The fact that, if he had waited a few weeks, he would have been perfectly within the law should not make a difference. If a cop finds a 17 year old working in a strip club they won't fail to prosecute the owner because her birthday is really, really close. They won't fail to prosecute even if her birthday is tomorrow ! She's there before it's legal and that's the end of the matter. Hell in the red states they'd probably prosecute HER as well and come up with some reason to make her register as a sex offender. I mean if they do it for sexting teens they sure as hell won't let a stripper get away with it. Even if she's a totally empowered young women doing it because it makes her, personally, feel good and pays well. Actually - that would probably make them MORE eager to punish her, punishing a drug-addicted girl from extreme poverty for doing what she had to, to survive doesn't play that well with the public (even the religious right), but punishing a proud slut sure does !
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no, if Trump has started firing people for lying, where will it all end?
Trump arguing with the guy in the mirror: "No, you're fired" ...
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Tea Party did the same to Obama. Remember those angry townhalls to block health care which ultimately handed the houses to the same Republicans today? They cried against executive orders. Now they have no problem with them and are outraged Democrats are doing the same back
Replace it... with what? (Score:5, Insightful)
...And, sorry, Obamacare actually *is* something to oppose. It's amazing how many of my friends lost their insurance and are now paying double or triple for less coverage. And this was all fully predictable to anyone paying attention....
I would think it would be prudent to wait to hear what the politicians who are cancelling it tell us what they are going to implement instead.
So far, it's a pig in a poke-- they're saying "we'll come up with something much much better, trust us, it will be great"-- but they don't seem to have any idea what this "better" system is going to be or how it will work.
Sorry, but I'm skeptical: I want to see some details before I'm convinced.
Re:Replace it... with what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. I mean, I can imagine those Republicans are so stupid that they'll come up with something and then say "duh, but, der, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". That'd be just like a stupid Republican, amiright?
I love that quote; it's an easy way to separate idiots from people who care about facts. Intelligent people listen to the two sentences before it and realize what Pelosi was saying. Idiot partisans just assume it means "we won't show you what's in this bill before we pass it, neener neener", and of course never look deeper because they're idiots.
I encourage you to look up the whole quote. Then think about where you first heard about this quote, and ask yourself why they lied about the meaning, and why you accepted it. Also ask yourself if listening to that source is a good idea. You won't, but since this country would be better off with fewer sheep and more thinkers, I feel that I should at least encourage you.
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing how many of my friends lost their insurance and are now paying double or triple for less coverage. And this was all fully predictable to anyone paying attention.
Can you elaborate on this? I'm truly curious, because most of the times I've come across stories of people blaming Obamacare for rising costs, it turns out that they weren't actually using Obamacare and that their increases were pretty much in line with the trend which has been going on for decades. Are these people who were using high deductible plans which were phased out, or did their employers drop coverage, or what?
Re: (Score:3)
I was aware that some Obamacare exchanges had had significant price increases (Arizona appears to have had price hike in the exchanges of 50-75%, which is high but not "more than doubled"). What I am referring to is, why are these self employed farmers using Obamacare? Presumably they had health care before, but did the ACA force the removal of their plans? In which case, my understanding of how that was supposed to work is that only plans that didn't meet minimum standards would be removed. But you said th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but the reaction of the looney left has made me so glad he won.
A celebration of irrational thinking. Politics are bizzare.
The point, which you likely missed, is that as much as I don't like or trust Trump, I really don't want to give more political power to the people who are out rioting now. And that's what Hillary would do.
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:4, Informative)
Riiight. The guy hasn't even been in office 90 days and the left...
Left? I'm pretty sure John McCain isn't left...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you ever heard the term "RINO?" As in "Republican In Name Only?" Neocon McCain is the chief RINO, and is generally regarded by conservatives to be a traitor who can always be counted on to attack other Republicans to the delight of the leftist media.
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:5, Interesting)
The selection pool is actually limited to "very rich people" but Trump makes exceptions for people who have publicly said things he likes to hear. Trouble is he only TRUSTS rich people. Like many rich people, he assumes everybody who isn't rich is trying to rob him - and regardless of how he blew smoke up their asses on the campaign trail it's becoming extremely clear that he distrusts anybody who isn't very wealthy. ... but his position is secure, Trump trusts him because Bannon is rich. Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer on the other hand are getting constant flack from their boss - those two have actually done a halfway decent job, to the extent that it's possible in this administration. Spicer's sheer exasperation is visible every time he has to stand before the American people and say something flagrantly ridiculous because that's what the boss wants. Yet he had done it, even if he had to resort to prefacing it with "the president really does believe that..."
You can see the fracture lines all over the white house and the ones struggling are constantly those who aren't rich. Bannon has caused some serious fuck-ups, up to getting himself on the national security commission (and leaks suggest Trump didn't like that and hadn't known what he was signing)
Which is what you normally preface a statement with when you have difficulty accepting that the person under discussion can really belief something that stupid...
But either way - he's done exactly the job Trump wanted him to do. The guy hitched his wagon to a star (even if it was a red dwarf) to jump the capitol-hill line to the front but he's been loyally toeing the boss's line ever since, and yet his loyalty isn't being rewarded, he's just getting crapped on because we won't believe the bullshit Trump sends him to relay.
What's the real difference between Steve "I wasn't happy with how much power you gave me so I tricked you into giving me more because I'm just using you" Bannon and Sean "Yes sir, I'll tell them exactly what you want me to tell them" Spicer ? Spicer isn't rich.
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:5, Interesting)
I kind of feel sorry for the people that brought his whole line about fighting money in politics and draining the swamp.
Sure he fired all the policy wonks, but now he's just got a white house full of money-in-politics and nobody knows what they are doing, and all the people who would normally say "No Mr President thats an extremely bad idea" to an incoming greenhorn have been fired or sidelined. I mean it was obvious to me what was gonna happen, but i've been around the block a few times and seen plenty of similar types go into govenor roles and completely screw the whole place up. These alt-right people, I just dont know about . Pepe memes and actually believing fox-news conspiracy theories does not make for a particularly useful political movement.
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:4, Funny)
Spicer is awesome. His most commonly said sentence in the back must be "You want me to say what?... ok".
The only way he lasts 4 years is if he picks up a tremendous drinking problem.
Re: That's not what rich people think (Score:3)
Good point. Generally the rich measure personal worth by wealth - and assumes everybody else does too.
Re: (Score:3)
Chief Justice John Roberts had five years of experience as a judge before being nominated for Associate Justice to replace retiring Justice O'Connor and then being nominated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist when he died. While I don't agree with everything he says, he's done a good job of steering the court overall.
Going after the most experienced usually means going
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She did win in a landslide in the only thing polls measure: number of voters. That popular vote win WAS in fact a landslide. No, landslide is not strong enough a word - it was a fucking avalanche.
That she lost the college is also true - she won a massive amount of votes - she just won them in the wrong places, but polls don't really measure THAT.
There were a large number of reasons why Clinton didn't win the presidency. She wasn't a very inspiring candidate, a lot of democrats felt she didn't deserve the no
Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score:4, Interesting)
+5 insightful?
Sorry, but if we don't self-police this sort of bullshit we'll end up as bad as the other side.
Drumph Hil-bot
62,985,106 65,853,625
45.9% 48.0%
She won by 2.1%. That's not a landslide.
she just won them in the wrong places, but polls don't really measure THAT.
What the hell are you smoking? Polls most certainly measure the location of the poll and the state of the voter. You could argue about how the delegates vote as opposed to their constituents, but they don't appear to have been faithless.
-he was the worst choice to ever RUN let alone WIN a presidency in the USA.
You're not looking at anyone other than republican or democrats are you? Plenty of people "run". As for winning, what about Andrew Jackson? All those dead Indians? The last guy who won the election and lost the popular vote also got a few people killed. I'm not too hip on that. Trump hasn't gotten hundreds of thousands killed... Yet. ....Point taken about the train full of dynamite.
there's no point in crying that Clinton didn't win
We should reform the Democrat's election process, remove super-delegates, reprimand the DNC for so blatantly playing favorites, and reaffirm our belief in democracy. Also, teach our bloody leaders a thing or two about internal security. And maybe re-establish the 4th estate as something trustworthy.
I care about a lot of things. Tunnel vision will ruin us.
Re: (Score:3)
Are these polls from the same media that showed Hiilldog as winning in a landslide? Can you even trust them? Or at least cite your sources?
You fail to understand polls. You can poll all you want, but if people don't show up to vote, they will be wrong.
Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no need to placate the Russians. They have a GDP lower than Italy and their military power is a shadow of what it used to be. Yes, they have nukes, but they, like all the other nuclear powers, have no intention to use them other than to maintain territorial integrity. So the real issue here is why Trump seems so keen to placate Russia, when the US's military and economic might literally dwarfs Russia's abilities.
Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide (Score:4, Insightful)
trump doesn't understand that or if he does then he thinks he can have an advantage of the situation, he was brought up during the cold war years and for that period there's like two powers in the world, usa and russia. his followers understand this much. makes it a lot easier for him to deal with china when he doesn't understand them too and they are "outside" of the power game(when they really aren't).
for Putin it suits well because Trump doesn't want Putin out of the office, trump doesn't care if Russia is democratic or not. if anything trump would want to have the same powers Putin has.
Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
So the real issue here is why Trump seems so keen to placate Russia, when the US's military and economic might literally dwarfs Russia's abilities.
That is a really backwards way of looking at it. We do indeed have all the power in the bilateral relationship, but how should we use that power? The Russians are a very paranoid people, who think the whole world is out to "get them". By trying to push them down, we are playing into their paranoia, and making them turn inward. But the end result will not be good. They are going to keep Crimea and Donbas no matter what. So should we accept that and move on to other issues? Or should we try to "punish" them, and end up with a frozen conflict and instability in Ukraine, and continued military tensions with Poland and the Baltic countries, while the war in Syria goes on and on, and more and more refugees pour into Turkey and Europe? The Russians have had a bad couple decades, and they feel like the West, and especially America, is bullying them. Treating them with some respect may go a long way. This is not a zero-sum relationship.
Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus, you could pass for Chamberlain in a heart beat.
"So yeah, Germany has had it rough lately and isnt getting any respect (the The Treaty of Versailles was not kind to them). So what if they invaded a few countries? Let's just pretend we all didnt see it and know that nothing bad could possibly come from just letting Germany invade a little bit."
I'm sure anyone living in the Baltic states felt very reasured by your post.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if we go by the GP's logic ("There is no need to placate the Russians. They have a GDP lower than Italy") then who cares about the Baltic states? They together have a GDP lower than Hamburg.
Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
As to why we should worry about someone (Russia or otherwise) invading the Baltic states, do I really need to explain why we believe that countries shouldn't be allowed to just invade other countries? That's the core reason WW2 was fought, and why the UN was created - to basically outlaw aggressive war. Yes, I realize that hasn't eliminated war entirely, but every conflict fought since then has at least made some sort of excuse of operating within the UN framework. We do not want to go back to the pre-1914 world order where might makes right.
Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide (Score:5, Funny)
And to combat this vile slander from WashPo, he bravely stood up to them, and resigned.
Re: (Score:3)
So whines the anonymous coward.
So much winning... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is everybody tired of winning yet?
General Michael Flynn's tenure as NSA adviser is the shortest in US history (24 days). The previous record-holder was 348 days (Reagan's first NSA director). And I guarantee that Reagan's NSA director didn't resign because he was too cozy with and taking money from the Russians.
So much for "extreme vetting", I guess.
Conversations before Appointment (Score:4, Interesting)
And it's far worse. He had conversations BEFORE he was appointed by Trump. The Russian Ambassador KNEW he would be appointed.
Remember Trump's "only I know who will be my choices"?? comment? Well no, Putin and the Russians had an in too.
And the timing of those calls, matched up with the stated timings in the pee memos. Giving further credence to the pee memos.
The pee memos, list Putin's courting of Flynn back in August, way before the election. So Putin picked this man back in August way before Trump picked him. Which places Trump's thoughts in Putin's head by some sort of mind-meld..... or more likely, the two worked together to put Trump in power, which means Trump committed treason to be President.
At this point, GOP need to clean house. They'll be left with Mike Pence as President, whose believed to be a Republican American, pro-business, pro-trade, pro-security. Not this Russian asshole who lies, blocks cyber-security bills, defend Russian attacks on Ukraine, removes Generals from the National Security Council meetings (FFS that's their job!), attacks NATO, attacks allies, defends Putin, attacks America, repeats Putin lies about Syria, attacks the Judicial system, defends Putin some more.... yeh we get it.
Re:Conversations before Appointment (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we are a long way from a Trump impeachment and conviction. I still can't see the Republicans sacrificing themselves when they control Congress and, at least no.inally the White House.
The smarter way to play this is to let Trump destroy his credibility and remaining political capital, and then inform him that he can either hand over day to day governance to Pence and then spend the rest of his term playing President on TV, or face impeachment. You get an effective Pence presidency without the nightmare that would be a forced removal from office.
Re:Conversations before Appointment (Score:4, Interesting)
The Republicans took over using the same fear and tactics Democrats are using now with their tea party early in Obama's tenure and still own both houses today.
My prediction is Democrats will swing both houses back if Trump is a divider and will hold him in check and roadblock until a liberal is president again.
Re: (Score:3)
The Republicans took over using the same fear and tactics Democrats are using now with their tea party early in Obama's tenure and still own both houses today.
My prediction is Democrats will swing both houses back if Trump is a divider and will hold him in check and roadblock until a liberal is president again.
Great prediction, care to lay some money on it? It will be a huge hill for the democrats to climb to gain any seats in the Senate in the 2018 midterms, there are 25 democratic seats up for grabs but only 8 republican. Sure, the democrats might hold on to all 25 and gain some of the 8 but it's not very likely.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And he was fired for it (or forcefully stepped down). How long did it take for Hillary to step down from her post after her e-mail snafu?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's not why he resigned (Score:5, Informative)
You could try repeating facts, or, you know, come up with more Fake News like him being "paid by the Russians".
Flynn Was Paid By Russia for 2015 Trip [talkingpointsmemo.com]
Trump adviser Michael T. Flynn on his dinner with Putin [washingtonpost.com]
But don't let facts get in the way of calling everything "Fake News."
Re:That's not why he resigned (Score:5, Insightful)
Fake news had a very specific meaning, which is propaganda consisting of outright lies masquerading as real news to influence public opinion in a given way. We're not talking about traditional media (many people now believe the majority of the MSM are "fake news", which is in itself a triumph of fake news) We know most of it comes out of Eastern Europe, and is supporting Russian moves to destabilise and break apart the west. And it appears to be succeeding. You'll notice I've not mentioned Trump even once in that, because this story has been around for a couple of years *before* the US elections, and I've been following it. What the alt-right has done is taken the term "fake news" when applied correctly to articles supporting their cause, and turned it around to mean "any news I don't like", be it real or fake.
Fake news is real (Score:5, Informative)
Fake news had a very specific meaning, which is propaganda consisting of outright lies masquerading as real news to influence public opinion in a given way.
No, the term "fake news" is looney left propaganda made up in the face of Hillary's loss to explain why she lost.
No, fake news really exists, although it the term has been coopted to mean "stuff I don't agree with." There were web sites that basically completely made stuff up. some of them had small print claiming that they were satire, like this one http://www.thatsfake.com/did-e... [thatsfake.com] but some of them were just clickbait sites, making shit up and trying to go viral with links reposted so that they could score with clicks, like this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
You're right to this extent, though, the term is much over-used recently.
Re:Fake news is real (Score:4, Insightful)
Both items were passed off as "news" by seemingly legitimate news organizations. Both items are fake news - literally fake.
You seem to not understand the difference between "fake" and "incorrect/erroneous" If you hand a bouncer a "fake ID" at a bar, it doesn't mean you accidentally handed them someone else's ID or maybe accidentally handed credentials that were expired or otherwise unacceptable to get into a bar. A "fake ID" implies that you KNOWINGLY manufactured a false ID (or had someone do it for you) with intent to pass it off as real.
Do you have evidence that the reporters in question actually INTENTIONALLY passed along false information? If not, they were not "fake news" according to the standard definition of the English word "fake."
And they offered corrections. Here's the detailed account [time.com] from Time about the MLK bust. The reporter corrected his tweets as soon as he had recognized an error. That's NOT what actual "fake news" sites do -- because fake news sites KNOW their information is false when they MAKE IT UP, so they don't offer corrections.
As for the other incident, it's yet another example of poor reporting, but only because the Olympian gave an interview that IMPLIED a connection with Trump's immigration policies and only FOUR DAYS LATER tweeted that actually the incident occurred in December. Again, we should be critical for poor reporting here that then made an EXPLICIT connection with Trump, it should have fact-checked when the event actually occurred, but the Olympian in question was vague in her original interview and implied it had happened recently.
So, who exactly is at fault here? The Olympian was expressing concern over current immigration policies and made a vague reference to detention, which was only later clarified. Was she part of some massive media "conspiracy" to hide the truth until four days later? Or did she just innocently make reference in an interview to an unpleasant experience that occurred to her in immigration recently -- and some media articles misinterpreted her vague timeline?
I'm NOT going to excuse those media reporters who implied a Trump connection -- they made a serious journalistic error by not doing appropriate fact-checking. We should condemn their actions and poor journalism.
But once more detailed information became available, they corrected their stories -- once again, that's NOT the practice of "fake news."
There are various bad journalistic practices in the world. And we should condemn them, and even fire journalists sometimes for making truly egregious errors or showing unreasonable bias or whatever. BUT UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS ARE NOT "FAKE NEWS." Fake news is a separate problem -- and a serious one that we ignore by misusing the English word "fake" or redefining it to dilute its meaning.
Wrong is not the same as fake (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong is not the same as "fake". Fake news is stuff that's made up.
One way you can tell the difference is by whether a correction is made when the error is pointed out. The Time story about the MLK bust you list as fake news, for example, was followed by a correction and an apology. That's journalism. Nobody is perfect; journalism consists of acknowledging and correcting mistakes.
Check here:
http://time.com/4645541/donald... [time.com]
To verify, here is the article, dated 20 January. Note that the incorrect information is removed, and the article has a correction also dated 20 January:
http://time.com/4642088/trump-... [time.com]
The correction reads: Correction: An earlier version of the story said that a bust of Martin Luther King had been moved. It is still in the Oval Office.
To verify that the correction wasn't backdated, here's the archived version of the article as of 1AM on Jan 21. Notice the correction: http://web.archive.org/web/201... [archive.org]
That's the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure he acted without the knowledge of Trump and/or Pence? I think the Democrats are going to attempt to disprove that assumption.
Re:That's not why he resigned (Score:5, Informative)
No that was Trump's earlier campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who did PR work for Russian separatists in Ukraine and was paid by the Russian government for it. He quit and was replaced by Bannon because of that taint.
We live in "interesting" times. The most ridiculous fake news is uncomfortably close to reality.
Re: (Score:3)
And I guarantee that Reagan's NSA director didn't resign because he was too cozy with and taking money from the Russians.
... that is Mr Ratzo ...
Mr Ratzo? The proper way to address a pope is. "Your Holiness.", or if you want to be formal: "Your Holiness, Pope Ratzo I, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God".
You may not have considered this, but it's possible he's not the actual Pope.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, to a point it's better for Putin, but if Trump finally does force Congress's hand, and Pence ends up in charge, that very moment everything shifts back to the Truman Doctrine. Frankly, I think Putin overplayed his hand. He should have found a friendly candidate who wasn't a complete idiot, or worse, senile.
Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know about that. I'm thinking of interviews with him from the 80s and 90s, and while he's obviously got a pretty healthy ego, I don't recall him ever behaving erratically like this. I seriously wonder if he's got some old person's disease. He's at the age where various forms of dementia start kicking in. And that's not always a bad thing, the latter days of the Wilson Administration lumbered on because of a decent cabinet, in particular the VP, and of course there's Reagan, who no one will ever admit was already suffering Alzheimers, the signs were there (the disarray of his last year or two, falling asleep at cabinet meetings and the like). The problem with Trump is that unlike Wilson and Reagan, he has an astonishingly terrible inner circle, although Pence probably does have some ability, even if he's hardly the nicest of people around. And seeing as Pence is the one who seems to have finally given Flynn the boot, I wonder if we're seeing this first shambolic weeks finally seeing the VP maneuver into a position of supremacy. I can well imagine within a year that Pence and the Kushners will effectively be in charge, that the likes of Bannon will be a distant memory, and they'll limp through a term with Trump playing the President for the cameras.
Re: (Score:3)
Four to eight years or when it gets dragged out of his cold, dead hands. He's not the sort of guy to resign over a scandal no matter how large and an impeachment could be dragged out over four years.
Before people suggest that I'm morbid or suggesting Trump's "second amendment solution" I'll point out that I wrote that because I can't see Trump doing a Castro and resigning if bedridden.
Re: (Score:3)
General Michael Flynn's tenure as NSA adviser is the shortest in US history (24 days).
Does Flynn's brief "defense" quality as "alternative facts" yet, or is there some sort of requirement in #PresidentTweety's White House for Kellyanne Conway to say it first? After all, she merely said Trump had "full confidence" in Flynn about an hour before he resigned. Or maybe she'll tell us it isn't a real resignation now?
Oh, I just hope her embarrassment and humiliation is so extreme that the Donald fires her next.
Conway will be one of the last ones to go, unless she herself chooses to leave. She's one of Trump's loyalists, a yes-(wo)man, and a designated mouthpiece. Personally, I think she is planning to attach herself to a Breitbart (or at least Bannon-led)TV or internet network as a lead talking head. Bannon is obviously a driving force behind a lot of Trump's policies. With all the concerted attacks against the "MSM" they are clearly setting up an opening for an alt-right "honest" media outlet. Trump is just
Re: (Score:3)
It took about 1.5 hours for someone to blame the Obama administration. You guys are losing it.
Re: (Score:3)
It took about 1.5 hours for someone to blame the Obama administration. You guys are losing it.
Don't you know the drill? Everything will be Obama's fault until the next Democratic president is elected, and then suddenly everything will be retroactively that person's fault.
Tech Angle (Score:4, Insightful)
For the US, not for a political party (Score:4, Insightful)
I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons. I'm not for Trump, or for the Republican party. I'm for the US - I want good government.
So even though I agree with most of Trump's positions, I'm glad that the Democrats and the press point out the ways that Trump messes up, like selecting a national security adviser who can be blackmailed. We have to correct problems like that.
Re:For the US, not for a political party (Score:5, Insightful)
So how's that working out for you?
Given that it took less than week for him to violate the Constitution how do you rate your chances on getting to vote again?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't vote for Trump, but so far, I have no complaints.
I see, still following the advice of your hero: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
Re: (Score:3)
Given that it took less than week for him to violate the Constitution
[Citation needed].
Re:For the US, not for a political party (Score:4, Interesting)
You screwed up. The current government is a joke. Bogged down in legal proceedings, and its relationship with the press is a disaster. Trump is so divisive half the country is basically pulling in the opposite direction to the other, and governance is only possible as long as the Republicans control both houses. Policies are made based on alternate facts and fake news, fed directly to Trump's brain through his favourite sources of media - Fox News, Brietbart and Infowars.
Trump is in it to enrich himself and his friends, and to inflate his ego. Your dislike of Clinton resulted in a narcissist with no experience and no chance of doing a good job taking power. The best you can hope for is that other people manage to salvage something from the next four years.
Re:For the US, not for a political party (Score:4)
So far we have had the climb-down on the Muslim ban
It wasn't a Muslim ban. Even the appeals court in the 9th circuit had a hard time buying that justification from the plaintiff. Of course you would know that if you read the E.O. or listened to the arguments. The only people parading "Muslim ban" are outraged by their own shadow. This just in, candidate made promises and trying to keep them within the extent of the law.
Trump looks like a fascist trying to overrule the constitution and an idiot for proposing an illegal flagship policy and not taking proper legal advice.
Right... were you concerned about Obama's executive order that redefined how the law was interrupted? I bet not. What really happened was that the E.O. was a little vague for some parties that may be affected by the ban and so on those grounds were dismissed but if the order had been a little more specific with those parties, Washington State would not have a claim. So, the courts said: "fix your order instead of relying on us to fix it for you" and he is doing so... What is the problem? He isn't redefining law. He is using existing laws to service the security of the nation as he sees necessary, you know his job as POTUS. He is operating within the existing laws that Obama refused to enforce. He is not redefining law. He is not interpreting law. He is using existing law to direct the government. What is wrong here?
needs to have a working relationship with the press
No it doesn't. The press can investigate the governments actions without a good working relationship. Or do we need a ministry of truth to facilitate that relationship? The press isn't some authority on truth any more than the government. A press that dislikes the government will be more critical of the governments actions and willing to investigate potential abuses. Unlike what we saw for Obama or Clinton. No scandals from Obama? Sheesh, you don't buy that fake news do you? I guess, no scandals if they target the right opponents. As we have learned from feminists and other democrats, there are no wrong tactics just wrong targets.
re.re. experience. Oh sorry I was equating bad experience with no experience. The later isn't an issue and that is why the only requirements to be POTUS is: native born citizen and 35 yro. Sure, Clinton has "experience" at being a terrible politician and being married to Bill. Gratz? I guess. I would rather take an unknown than a known bad.
Re: (Score:3)
I can say it was at least a partial Muslim ban, specifically it targeted Muslims fleeing religious persecution.
It prioritized minorities being religiously persecuted. Before, it was random lottery. Just because the prioritization changed doesn't mean religious ban or even partial. 80% of all Muslims were still able to enter the country and then from these countries after reassessment. I think that is a pretty large leap to say "religious ban" because of that and the courts struggled with that reasoning as well. But because preliminary the plaintiffs didn't have much burden of proof. All they had were allegations of
Re:For the US, not for a political party (Score:5, Insightful)
I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons.
Everything you said after this was bullshit.
You didn't vote for Trump because he was more qualified. He wasn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he had better policies: He didn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he was a more stable candidate: He wasn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he wasn't dangerous: He is.
You didn't vote for Trump because you want good government: He was always the worst candidate.
You voted for Trump because you hated something else. Don't pretend he was the better candidate, every act and objective measure demonstrates that to be false. At least be honest, you voted for him because you care more about seeing your team win politics than about your country.
You are what is broken in a democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons.
Everything you said after this was bullshit. You didn't vote for Trump because he was more qualified. He wasn't. You didn't vote for Trump because he had better policies: He didn't. You didn't vote for Trump because he was a more stable candidate: He wasn't. You didn't vote for Trump because he wasn't dangerous: He is. You didn't vote for Trump because you want good government: He was always the worst candidate. You voted for Trump because you hated something else. Don't pretend he was the better candidate, every act and objective measure demonstrates that to be false. At least be honest, you voted for him because you care more about seeing your team win politics than about your country. You are what is broken in a democracy.
Thank you. I'm not sure about the OP, but I know for a fact that many people voted for him simply because Trump went George Wallace. That was an appetite long repressed and buried deep within closets. It just needed someone like Trump to yell the modern equivalent of the n* word (Mexicans and Muslims) for that appetite to burst out of the closets.
Re: (Score:3)
I did not get the same meaning out of his words that you did... or you have weird logic. ;)
What I heard him say was that he could not in all conscience vote for Clinton. The only choice left at that point is Trump.
Or Johnson. Or Stein. Or that one Mormon guy from Utah. Or any number of write-in candidates. Sure, none of them were going to win-it was always going to be Trump or Clinton. But at least your conscience would be clear. I know mine is.
Re:For the US, not for a political party (Score:5, Insightful)
Since you are the first potentially rational Trump supporter, I honestly want to understand your positions. Do you want a wall between the US and Mexico, and if so, why? Do you want to forgive Russia for the annexation of Crimea? Let's see..what else.... do you support ending the child care tax credit? Do you believe in global warming?
Re:For the US, not for a political party (Score:5, Insightful)
I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons. I'm not for Trump, or for the Republican party. I'm for the US - I want good government.
So even though I agree with most of Trump's positions, I'm glad that the Democrats and the press point out the ways that Trump messes up, like selecting a national security adviser who can be blackmailed. We have to correct problems like that.
You voted for a racist motherfucker who spearheaded the Birther movement, why that God-awful racist attempt to delegitimize the first African-American president of the United Status. Since it was no longer fashionable to call Obama a n*, the best option was to call him a Muslim (as if that was a bad thing) born in Kenya (which was patently false.) And Trump spearheaded that, to deny an US born American citizen his birthright of being, you know, a US born citizen.
And this ape went on to call Judge Curiel, a US born judge, a "Mexican", questioning Curiel's ability to do his job because his parents were Mexican.
A man who to this day blames those poor black guys known as the Central Park Five for a crime they did not commit.
A man who stated the majority of illegals were murderers and rapists, with some he magnanimously assumed, being good people.
A man who pretty much promised a Muslim ban, a ban based on faith.
That man, Trump, is a fucking bigot (or played one for the bigoted masses, of which there is really no difference.)
And you looked the other way and voted for him.
That's who you are.
Re: (Score:3)
I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons. I'm not for Trump, or for the Republican party. I'm for the US - I want good government.
You want good government, so you voted for someone who has no idea how to run a government and who has all the subtlety and diplomatic skills of an angry rhino in a china shop; and all because you have some childish dislike for the Clintons.
Perhaps you should rethink your strategy next time.
Emails (Score:5, Insightful)
Any regrets yet?
Forget about Darth Vader... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why vote for the "lesser of 2 evils", when you could vote for Cthulhu [cthulhuforamerica.com] ?
Re: (Score:3)
During the PRIMARIES he did. The left wanted Trump to be the GOP front-runner so they could have an easy win in the general. Then they nominated literally the only person that could lose to him.
WikiLeaks is a different beast (Score:3)
In response to these events, WikiLeaks has tweeted "Trump's National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigns after destabilization campaign by US spies, Democrats, press."
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/... [twitter.com]
Wow. WikiLeaks has become a completely, utterly, totally different animal from what they were when they started out.
Re:Whipslash? A suggestion? (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot customer service here. I'm sorry you're having difficulty with the site. OK, I am happy to help:
Donald Trump is technically a puppet of the Kremlin.
Are you satisfied now? Do you think you can answer a short survey to help us maintain this dedication to our customers?
Re: Whipslash? A suggestion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nerds care about politics when it's this fucked up. Therefore political news is nerd news.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish I could outright filter out A/C posts, instead of just seeing them at -6.
Re:#PresidentTweety is an abuser of technology (Score:5, Interesting)
My (repeated and ignored) suggestion would be a maturity filter. A kill list can handle long-lived trolls, but the maturity filter would deal with the fresh sock puppets. It should be an option, but I'd set mine for about 2 months as the youngest identity I could see.
I think it should also include a self-debasing feature. If a troll (or disposable sock puppet) replies to someone who won't see it, there would be a warning first, and if the warning is ignored, the comment would get a prefix warning like "Not a sincere reply, since [ID] was notified this comment is not visible to the ostensible recipient."
(I'm not doing a good job of putting my Slashdot affairs in order before departing...)
Re: (Score:3)
And some of enjoy discussing politics. Particularly when we have, without a doubt, the worst president in history. A man who is a climate denier [theguardian.com] and anti-vax [theatlantic.com]. A president who releases classified intelligence on his phone in a country clu [esquire.com]
No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Trumped up alternative facts don't last long in the face of the truth. Deal with it.
Re:Whipslash? A suggestion? (Score:4)
Re:Pence is consolidating his position (Score:5, Informative)
You might want to google "Spiro Agnew".
Re: (Score:3)
You got me to wondering. Maybe it was PENCE who blackmailed #PresidentTweety on this one? I didn't think Pence was that smart or vicious, but maybe he's insanely ambitious to go with his religious extremism? Might even be setting the stage for playing the 25th?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pence is consolidating his position (Score:4, Insightful)
D'ya suppose Trump'll pardon him?
Eh, he might, but I doubt he really gives a damn.
Loyalty means a lot to Trump. That is to say he expects other people to be fiercely loyal to him. He, on the other hand, seems to feel no obligation to be loyal to his followers.
Re:Peaceful transition Obama DOJ gets revenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's see. On the one hand, we had a known philanderer playing "hide the cigar" with his intern. It was the worst-kept secret in Washington; you can't blackmail someone with something everyone already knows. On the other hand, we have a National Security Adviser forced to resign because he himself is a threat to national security. This, after engaging in back-door negotiations with America's competing superpower, and leaving some actual kompromat in the wake of his Moscow visits.
Yes, totally equivalent situations. ::eyeroll::
Re: (Score:3)
Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd go on, but I really suppose I ought to leave the rest up to SNL.
Re:slashdot == political paparazzo tabloid (Score:4, Insightful)
There is talk among Washington reporters that they actually wonder if Trump is in possession of his faculties.
If it were you or me that would be a forgone conclusion. However, the problem with claiming that Trump is mental is that his behavior is exactly why you'd expect from a spoiled brat billionaire grown old and cranky.
Re:w00t (Score:4, Insightful)
It was funny when there was talk of him being nominated for cabinet that he'd have to get permission from his probation officer.
Re: (Score:3)
Already rats leaving the sinking ship.
Funny way of clearing the swamp.