Election - Scaramucce alla casa bianca

[Gio]

Possiamo iniziare con i vari link a cavolo tipo quello su Wikileaks ...?

Che non ha nulla a vedere con le accuse di trump a obama (wire tap alla trump tower, non phone hacking).

Continuiamo con i link sui gli statemt fasi di obama per poi tirare in ballo Kim dotcom .... tutto per buttare in caciara....

[Gio]

Dietto un update veloce, veloce ... cosi tanto per rendere l'idea:

... "There is no reason that we should -- that we have to think that the President is the target of any investigation whatsoever,"....

Sean Spicer.

[Dietto]

Se l'ha detto Spicer sarà vero. Vedremo

Sul messaggio sopra, forse ti sfugge qualche consecutio.

EDIT: magari riportiamo tutto però:
“The one question dealt with whether or not the tweet dealt with wiretaps during the thing,” Spicer added, referring to the 2016 election. “The other is an investigation. They are two separate issues, and there is no reason to believe that there is any type of investigation with respect to the Department of Justice"

[Angyair]

E invece avevano ragione Trump e Dietto....

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LcP4R9_QkA[/youtube]

[Dietto]

Ahahahahahahahaah


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[Gio]

Se l'ha detto Spicer sarà vero. Vedremo

Sul messaggio sopra, forse ti sfugge qualche consecutio.

EDIT: magari riportiamo tutto però:
“The one question dealt with whether or not the tweet dealt with wiretaps during the thing,” Spicer added, referring to the 2016 election. “The other is an investigation. They are two separate issues, and there is no reason to believe that there is any type of investigation with respect to the Department of Justice"

Sara` vero

Comunque a me sfuggono parecchie cose, quello che non mi sfugge, in questo caso, e` il fatto che spicer (e la casa bianca) abbia /stia rigirando la frittata in modo patetico : “The one question dealt with whether or not the tweet dealt with wiretaps during the thing,”? che vuole dire? "una domanda riguarda se i tweet riguardassero la "sorveglianza" durante la "cosa" o meno"? Mi pare assodato che trump abbia accusato obama di aver ordinato la sua sorveglianza, direttamente, prima e dopo le elezioni.... non e` una "domanda" e` una accusa precisa, non sostanziata da prove ma precisa. Non ci sono "due" questioni, ma una sola. Se non c'e una investigazione non c'e` neppure una sorveglianza. Fatto sta che continua ad non esserci assolutamente nessuna prova che confermi i tweet di trump su obama (tweet di Kim a parte), e nessuno e` in grado di confermare qualsisi tipo di sorveglianza su trump prima e dopo le elezioni.



Che trump abbia veramente chiesto a kelly e pompeo delle delucidazioni sul fatto?

[Dietto]

Parlava di una domanda di un giornalista in conferenza. Te stai a fa un film raro


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[Gio]

Parlava di una domanda di un giornalista in conferenza. Te stai a fa un film raro


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Onestamente il film lo sta facendo tu. Non rispondeva a nessuna domanda (e il dubbio se abbia mai risposta a qualsisi domanda onestamente e` piu che leggittimo), il mio citato originale e` quello che ha letto, da una nota, ufficiale della casa bianca a questo punto, che gli era stata consegnata pochi secondi prima, alla fine della conferenza stampa di ieri, ci sono i trascritti. E poi ha continuato spiegando, incartandosi, cosa intendeva.

Fatto sta che le prove dell' accusa ancora non ci sono ......

[Dietto]

Lui ha risposto ad una domanda ambigua, pensando si parlasse di indagini su Trump e la Russia. Alla fine ha spiegato che la risposta non era riguardo ai tap ma all'eventuale indagine. Sta tutto scritto eh. Poi se vogliamo riportare mezza frase e farla passare per altro facciamolo, tanto mi sembra sia diventato sport nazionale qui sopra


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[Gio]

Lui ha risposto ad una domanda ambigua, pensando si parlasse di indagini su Trump e la Russia. Alla fine ha spiegato che la risposta non era riguardo ai tap ma all'eventuale indagine. Sta tutto scritto eh. Poi se vogliamo riportare mezza frase e farla passare per altro facciamolo, tanto mi sembra sia diventato sport nazionale qui sopra


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Ha risposto ad una domanda e poi si e` ricorretto..... La domanda non era ambigua, era abbastanza chiara.

ABC News(WASHINGTON) — The White House on Wednesday said that President Trump was not the target of any investigation, even though five days earlier he claimed in a series of tweets that he had indeed been the target of a wiretap initiated by former President Barack Obama.

“There is no reason that we should — that we have to think that the President is the target of any investigation whatsoever,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said during his daily briefing with reporters.

Spicer’s comments came several minutes after he had first implied that the White House was unsure whether the president was a target or not.

Responding to a reporter’s question asking if the president was the “target of a counter-intelligence investigation,” Spicer initially said, “I think that’s what we need to find out. There’s obviously a lot of concern.”

But apparently, that wasn’t the final answer.

At the end of the briefing, Spicer was handed a sheet of paper by an aide, from which he read the aforementioned assertion that the White House had no reason to believe the current commander in chief was a target of an investigation.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - There is no reason to believe that U.S. President Donald Trump is the target of any investigation, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Wednesday.

"There is no reason that we have to think that the president is the target of any investigation whatsoever," Spicer said at a news briefing. Trump, without offering evidence, said in tweets on Saturday that he had been wiretapped by then-President Barack Obama during the 2016 presidential campaign.

[08:35:03] Let me get your read on something else, this statement from Sean Spicer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There is no reason that we should -- that we have to think that the president is the target of any investigation whatsoever. The one question dealt with whether or not -- the tweet dealt with wiretaps during the thing. The other is an investigation. They are two separate issues. And there is no reason to believe that there is any type of investigation with respect to the Department of Justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now, that is a very confusing statement.

CAMEROTA: Your thoughts, David. No, just kidding.

CUOMO: We got a --

DRUCKER: Why am I supposed to translate that gobbledygook.

CUOMO: Well, we've helped you. We've helped. We actually did Spicer a favor with that edit, by the way, because it make it sound a little bit better than it was. There was a couple more iterations in there. He got a note after he gave the first answer.

CAMEROTA: First he said that, yes, Donald Trump is the subject of a federal investigation.

CUOMO: Right, of an investigation. Then a note came out and he came out with this.

CAMEROTA: Then somebody came out moments later and he was handed a note.

CUOMO: My suggestion is, do you think this might have been the note? Can you come tight on this? Might this explain the answer that he wound up giving afterwards? You think this might have been that note and that might have explained why he seemed to go in seven different directions?

DRUCKER: Well, look, I think this is the -- inevitably what happens when you have a president who doesn't consult with his top aides before he decides to make an issue of something. And if there's anything we know, and this is true, is that Donald Trump, the president, at any time after he sees something on television or just gets something that bothers him, will go to Twitter and start -- start pontificating. That's what he did. H didn't consult with anybody. And then his aides are left to clean up the mess. Then, of course, we beat up on them. How come you can't explain it? You need to explain this, what's really going on. They don't know what's going on. They didn't ask him to do this. This wasn't some grand strategy where they sat in a room and decided how this was going to go. That's the way most presidents have worked in the past. Some people have found it to be overly rehearsed. But this is the downside of being completely free and clear and unrehearsed.

So I'm going to cut Spicer a break here. They don't know what's going on. There's no proof of anything that the president said, but they're left trying to make it sound legitimate and that's a really hard thing to do.

(CNN)

[joesox]

235,000 posti di lavoro in più in febbraio. Ovviamente sono ancora l'effetto della politica di Obama.

Invece Trump, che non hai mai creduto ai dati governativi definendoli falsi, ora dice "very clearly" che è un suo successo.

Ipocrita.

[Jakala]

Lui ha risposto ad una domanda ambigua, pensando si parlasse di indagini su Trump e la Russia. Alla fine ha spiegato che la risposta non era riguardo ai tap ma all'eventuale indagine. Sta tutto scritto eh. Poi se vogliamo riportare mezza frase e farla passare per altro facciamolo, tanto mi sembra sia diventato sport nazionale qui sopra


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/10/why ... -no-sense/

Nel link c'è anche la registrazione dell'intervista. Difficile mandare la palla in tribuna se c'è un autogol.

Inviato dal mio ONE A2003 utilizzando Tapatalk

[joesox]

As The Hill reported on Saturday, “President Trump paid a visit to one of his golf courses again Saturday, marking apparently his ninth visit to a golf course in the seven weeks since he took office.” The site pointed out, “Trump has made several weekend trips to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., as well, calling the property the ‘Winter White House.’ ”

In February, numerous media outlets pointed out that Trump was spending on travel in a month nearly as much as what the Obamas spent in a year. This doesn’t even include the travel and security costs of Trump’s children or the cost of Trump’s wife and son remaining in Trump Tower in New York, at least for now, which is estimated to cost taxpayers hundreds of thousand of dollars a day.

This was particularly jarring because Trump had been a chief critic of the amount of money the Obamas spent on vacations. Indeed, Trump tweeted in 2012: “President @BarackObama’s vacation is costing taxpayers millions of dollars — Unbelievable!”

No, what is unbelievable is the staggering nature of the hypocrisy of Trump and his current spending and the near silence of Obama’s conservative critics.

Trump appears to view the Treasury as a personal piggy bank and the presidency as a part-time job.

I think any who have been holding out hope that Trump will eventually change into someone more polished, professional and amenable than the man we have come to know must simply abandon that hope.

This is a 70-year-old man who has lived his entire life as the vile, dishonest, incurious creature who got elected. That election validated his impulses rather than served as a curb on them.

Trump will continue to debase and devalue the presidency with his lies. Trump will continue to follow Bannon’s philosophy of internal deconstruction of our government, its principles and its institutions. And Trump will continue to leech as much personal financial advantage as he can from the flesh of the American public.

That’s who Trump is. America elected a parasite.

NYT

[Dietto]

Che spettacolo..


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[joesox]

Vergognoso ed ipocrita, altro che spettacolo...