Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise
Steve Bannon. - Printable Version

+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Steve Bannon. (/Thread-Steve-Bannon)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

RE: Steve Bannon. - Dill - 04-06-2017

(02-10-2017, 10:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: Is Bannon the chief manipulator, the one holding the strings?

Not anymore. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/steve-bannon-national-security-council/index.html

Perhaps Ivanka and Kuschner have levered him out of the NSA.

Cohen-Watnik, a Bannon protege whom McMasters was not allowed to fire, engineered the silly Nunes drama, giving him documents to bring back to the White House to show the White House. MSNBC commentator thinks maybe the adults on the NSC put their foot down--it's Bannon or us.

RE: Steve Bannon. - hollodero - 04-06-2017

(04-06-2017, 04:11 AM)Dill Wrote: Not anymore. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/steve-bannon-national-security-council/index.html

Perhaps Ivanka and Kuschner have levered him out of the NSA.

Cohen-Watnik, a Bannon protege whom McMasters was not allowed to fire, engineered the silly Nunes drama, giving him documents to bring back to the White House to show the White House. MSNBC commentator thinks maybe the adults on the NSC put their foot down--it's Bannon or us.

OK, Bannon is out of the council, for the record I don't give Trump credit for that, as I would give no one who makes a mess and after some time cleans it up. What for? I stop criticizing him for Bannon on the Council, that's all there is to give.
But never mind, that Nunes thing, I need that one explained. Here's what I gathered: He heads a committee investigating Trump associates, drives somewhere one night, gets a call, changes cars, rushes to the White house to see intelligence handed to him by White House aides, then runs back to wherever, gives a press conference, rushes back to the White House to brief Trump on the documents the Trump staffers gave to him, gives another press conference, all while not consulting his committee, then cancels a Yates hearing for a Comey hearing that then gets cancelled, cancelled every meeting ever since. I've seen strange stuff, but that doesn't make any sense. Not even if I would assume conspiracies, that is. 
Any possible explanation, no matter how wild, to make some sense out of this?

RE: Steve Bannon. - GMDino - 04-06-2017



"Give him a chance!" ™

RE: Steve Bannon. - hollodero - 04-06-2017

(04-06-2017, 07:04 AM)GMDino Wrote:

"Give him a chance!" ™

lool... is that tweet for real?

RE: Steve Bannon. - GMDino - 04-06-2017

(04-06-2017, 07:22 AM)hollodero Wrote: lool... is that tweet for real?

Yep.  From 2014 when then candidate Trump was telling his loyal followers how easy it will be to fix everything when he was elected.

RE: Steve Bannon. - GMDino - 04-06-2017



RE: Steve Bannon. - Belsnickel - 04-06-2017

(04-05-2017, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  4) And those that said he had no chance to win were just clueless; but of course they have it figured out now. Of course lying is a big deal, but you may want to have that discussion with Matt. 

Lying while not under oath? Happens all of the time. It's problematic, but given the situation it is, as I said, much ado about nothing. If there is going to be a crucifixion of Rice for that one then I would like to see someone nailing her up start hammering nails into Trump for every single lie he has made since he announced his candidacy.

I try not to focus on those lies on social media because it isn't as big of a thing as the rest of it, and because it would take up too much time. I feel the same way about things like this from Rice. If we focus on every time a person in our government lies or is hypocritical in the media or on social media then that is all that gets focused on and we lose sight of the bigger issues. And this is exactly what is happening right now. It's why I just want an independent investigation to be done and over with so we can stop talking about it.

RE: Steve Bannon. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-06-2017

(04-06-2017, 09:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Lying while not under oath? Happens all of the time. It's problematic, but given the situation it is, as I said, much ado about nothing. If there is going to be a crucifixion of Rice for that one then I would like to see someone nailing her up start hammering nails into Trump for every single lie he has made since he announced his candidacy.

I try not to focus on those lies on social media because it isn't as big of a thing as the rest of it, and because it would take up too much time. I feel the same way about things like this from Rice. If we focus on every time a person in our government lies or is hypocritical in the media or on social media then that is all that gets focused on and we lose sight of the bigger issues. And this is exactly what is happening right now. It's why I just want an independent investigation to be done and over with so we can stop talking about it.

Two more self-inflicted investigations have developed during the Russian investigation. If the geometric growth of investigations continues we will never get it done and over with so we can stop talking about it.

RE: Steve Bannon. - JustWinBaby - 04-06-2017

(04-05-2017, 10:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Who wiretapped the AP?

More like smoking GUNS in case of the "Trump organization" as you put. 

The national security advisor, the Attorney General, the son-in-law, the "advisor" who was recruited to spy, Manafort, Stone, Erik Prince, etc. The Trump "organization" is a feast for Russian spies.

Have you already forgotten that ruckus with Eric Holder's DOJ and the AP reporters...and James Rosen...and Sharyl Atkinson?   Then there's that whole IRS thing.  Like I said, the Obama administration has a history of abuse of power here, and used the Espionage Act SEVEN times to go after leakers (that has been done just 4 other times, in HISTORY).

What actual facts on record?  I'm going off of comments from Republican AND Democrat reps on the investigative committees, and Directors of the CIA and FBI, who have said thus far there is no evidence of collusion.  The "smoking" you refer to has all been fake news or incidental contacts (Guccifer2.0 making a public tweet or two to Stone is a nothingburger). 

Where are the warrants giving legal clearance to surveil US citizens?  The wide latitude given for "legality" does not mean there hasn't been a massive abuse of power.

We KNOW there is an investigation, and we KNOW the Trump team was unmasked in incidental collection, and we KNOW that was [illegally] leaked.  We deserve to know the depth of the investigations and the justifications because there is huge potential of abuse and misuse of govt intel to target political opponents (which, by the way, is at least as concerning as any Russian attempts to interfere).

You're being partisan if you think either of these issues are a non-issue, settled or have a conclusion one way or the other.

RE: Steve Bannon. - JustWinBaby - 04-06-2017

(04-05-2017, 08:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No one is an apolitical person, but a person whose job is political strategy has no place in a room where politics are supposed to be checked at the door.

If you think there is more of a smoking gun on the Rice thing that on collusion between those around Trump and Russia, well, you may have missed (or ignored) some of the information out there in that regard.

The requests are made by the NSA to the agency for the unmasking specifically to prevent political abuses. If there were no legitimate reasons for the NSA to know the information then they would not be unmasked. Is there a possibility that there were still political motivations? That can't be denied, but it isn't as cut and dry as a lot of people are trying to make it out to be.

She's WH staff - whether Obama himself or Valeria Jarret or Rahm Emannuel sits in the actual meeting or gets debriefed by the NSA is largely a distinction without a difference.  Those people are appointed to carry out your agenda, they are your eyes and ears.  Susan Rice is CLEARLY not a person "checking her politics" at the door.

I'm not saying this is a smoking gun, I said if you think there's smoke on Russia collusion but not here, then you are being very partisan.  We KNOW Susan Rice requested people were unmasked (and LIED about it!), and we know intel was ultimately leaked [illegally].  Why did she lie if it was perfectly legal and a "non-starter"?

No, it's not cut and dry.  There are many questions that need to be answered before we can draw conclusions.  You dismissed it, extremely prematurely and that's what I called you out for.

RE: Steve Bannon. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-06-2017

(04-06-2017, 06:45 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: She's WH staff - whether Obama himself or Valeria Jarret or Rahm Emannuel sits in the actual meeting or gets debriefed by the NSA is largely a distinction without a difference.  Those people are appointed to carry out your agenda, they are your eyes and ears.  Susan Rice is CLEARLY not a person "checking her politics" at the door.

I'm not saying this is a smoking gun, I said if you think there's smoke on Russia collusion but not here, then you are being very partisan.  We KNOW Susan Rice requested people were unmasked (and LIED about it!), and we know intel was ultimately leaked [illegally].  Why did she lie if it was perfectly legal and a "non-starter"?

No, it's not cut and dry.  There are many questions that need to be answered before we can draw conclusions.  You dismissed it, extremely prematurely and that's what I called you out for.

When did you find out Susan Rice asked to know the redacted names of US citizens speaking to Russians (who were being monitored by unnamed US intel agencies)? How did you find out Susan Rice asked for the redacted names?

RE: Steve Bannon. - Dill - 04-06-2017

(04-06-2017, 06:35 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Have you already forgotten that ruckus with Eric Holder's DOJ and the AP reporters...and James Rosen...and Sharyl Atkinson?   Then there's that whole IRS thing.  Like I said, the Obama administration has a history of abuse of power here, and used the Espionage Act SEVEN times to go after leakers (that has been done just 4 other times, in HISTORY).

What actual facts on record?  I'm going off of comments from Republican AND Democrat reps on the investigative committees, and Directors of the CIA and FBI, who have said thus far there is no evidence of collusion.  The "smoking" you refer to has all been fake news or incidental contacts (Guccifer2.0 making a public tweet or two to Stone is a nothingburger). 

Where are the warrants giving legal clearance to surveil US citizens?  The wide latitude given for "legality" does not mean there hasn't been a massive abuse of power.

We KNOW there is an investigation, and we KNOW the Trump team was unmasked in incidental collection, and we KNOW that was [illegally] leaked.  We deserve to know the depth of the investigations and the justifications because there is huge potential of abuse and misuse of govt intel to target political opponents (which, by the way, is at least as concerning as any Russian attempts to interfere).

You're being partisan if you think either of these issues are a non-issue, settled or have a conclusion one way or the other.

Let's not worry about who's being partisan. I don't think Obama has a special history of abuse of power, but I don't want to go down that side road at the moment.

I recall that Holder supoened records from Rosen et al. I do not remember wiretapping. Going after leakers is not prima facie abuse of power and another side road.

Back to your question about warrants. As you say, Trump's people were incidental to surveillance of Russian spies. But the intelligence agencies noticed the frequency and pattern of contacts. That is not nothing. The repeated forgetting to mention contacts on the part of Sessions and Flynn and Kuechner is also not a nothing burger. Neither is the fact that a one time advisor was actually recruited as a spy. Nor Trump's curious inability to criticize a dictator whose opponents end up dead. and factor in all this is going on while the Russians are trying to sabotage our election to favor Trump. "Thus far no evidence of collusion" doesn't make any of this fake news, as Trump would have us to believe.

When an investigation begins and the White House stalls and blocks it, pronouncements regarding the evidence "so far" shouldn't be treated as conclusive. People should eventually get the full story from a non-partisan investigation, but at the moment I can see how ongoing surveillance may be easily compromised by too rapid revelations.  Trump's wire-tapping tweet has already compromised much, but from the perspective of the intel community perhaps something is still salvageable.

So it's a bit premature to hint at "massive abuse of power" when we are talking about people pulled into surveillance via intercourse with spies--spies from a country which tried to sabotage our election.

RE: Steve Bannon. - Dill - 04-07-2017

(04-06-2017, 05:22 AM)hollodero Wrote: But never mind, that Nunes thing, I need that one explained. Here's what I gathered: He heads a committee investigating Trump associates, drives somewhere one night, gets a call, changes cars, rushes to the White house to see intelligence handed to him by White House aides, then runs back to wherever, gives a press conference, rushes back to the White House to brief Trump on the documents the Trump staffers gave to him, gives another press conference, all while not consulting his committee, then cancels a Yates hearing for a Comey hearing that then gets cancelled, cancelled every meeting ever since. I've seen strange stuff, but that doesn't make any sense. Not even if I would assume conspiracies, that is. 
Any possible explanation, no matter how wild, to make some sense out of this?

Here is a hypothesis--the point of getting the material from the White House at night, and then making a big show of bringing it to the White House the next day as if something were found in another investigation (perhaps by the FBI) and from another site that "the president ought to know about," then the appearance is created of outside confirmation of Trump's crazy tweet accusation.

The meetings are cancelled thereafter so that the next news cycle is not dominated by intel people describing incidental surveillance of a half dozen Trump advisors/appointees.  It is dominated by this big question and apparent "independent" confirmation of Trump's tweet.

This totally worked inside the bubble, as Rush and Hannity were all over Nunes "revelation" and resistance of the Obama deep state and its efforts to make Trump look bad.  People called in ranting about fake news and repeating Trump's talking points about his own leakers being the real story not any fake Russian hacking of the DNC.  It is still Obama and his hangers on trying to preserve the establishment and the lamestream press lying about it all to throw us off the criminal leakers. Liberal treason as rush describes it, while Trump is "keeping promises" and undoing the regulatory state.

Outside the bubble, of course, this is another executive/PR disaster. In one sense it is an international issue since US allies look on with their jaws dropping in wonder at an administration crippling its own credibility and intel capabilities.  Leader of the free world? On the positive side, it has apparently restricted Bannon's power and uprooted the Cohen-Watnick weed from McMaster's staff. The adults, for the moment, gain more power on the NSC. I predict this may be temporary though, as informed competence conflicts with Trump's uniformed impulsiveness.

RE: Steve Bannon. - Dill - 04-07-2017

(04-06-2017, 01:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Two more self-inflicted investigations have developed during the Russian investigation. If the geometric growth of investigations continues we will never get it done and over with so we can stop talking about it.

LOL what's your rush, oncemore?

There will be plenty more Trump scandals, and probably worse, before the month is over. No deaths invovled in this one. Let's savor it while we can. Next month we may be wishing Russian investigation were still the worst from this administration.

RE: Steve Bannon. - JustWinBaby - 04-09-2017

(04-06-2017, 11:43 PM)Dill Wrote: So it's a bit premature to hint at "massive abuse of power" when we are talking about people pulled into surveillance via intercourse with spies--spies from a country which tried to sabotage our election.

Not, it is not.  And you're using fake news to justify fake opinions. (and I hate that term, but it's short-hand for "full of shit"). We'll just ignore how you dodged all the other pertinent questions in my original post.

Either there is evidence to support collusion, or there has been an abuse of govt surveillance power.  Increasingly, there does not appear to be a middle ground.

International corporations deal with many nations.  That's not evidence of anything.  It's actually typical of the "anti-science" crowd to make a faux stand on complete bullshit.

RE: Steve Bannon. - xxlt - 04-09-2017

(04-06-2017, 04:11 AM)Dill Wrote: Not anymore. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/steve-bannon-national-security-council/index.html

Perhaps Ivanka and Kuschner have levered him out of the NSA.

Cohen-Watnik, a Bannon protege whom McMasters was not allowed to fire, engineered the silly Nunes drama, giving him documents to bring back to the White House to show the White House. MSNBC commentator thinks maybe the adults on the NSC put their foot down--it's Bannon or us.

Seems plausible.

Oh wait. MSNBC, scratch that. Fake commentary. Ninja

RE: Steve Bannon. - xxlt - 04-09-2017

(04-06-2017, 07:04 AM)GMDino Wrote:

"Give him a chance!" ™

I'll bump my estimate of his IQ a little on that tweet. Sure it could have been a dig at Obama, but I think he was already being strong-armed by the Russians to run and this tweet shows foresight - something I did not think the Great One was capable of. He knew he couldn't do the job, and worried about the blow to his ego from impeachment, he wondered if his incompetence could trigger same.

RE: Steve Bannon. - hollodero - 04-09-2017

(04-07-2017, 12:12 AM)Dill Wrote: Here is a hypothesis--the point of getting the material from the White House at night, and then making a big show of bringing it to the White House the next day as if something were found in another investigation (perhaps by the FBI) and from another site that "the president ought to know about," then the appearance is created of outside confirmation of Trump's crazy tweet accusation. 

Sure that crossed my mind, I just can't quite believe that someone who managed to be a respected and powerful man like a Congressional Committee Chairman would willingly flush his whole reputation and probably career down the toilet just to give a Donald Trump a short, non-lasting break.
First in principle (I mean, there is loyalty and there is too much of that) - and because if that was indeed the plan, that would immediately make Nunes one of the dumbest politicians ever, and I have seen some gruesome stuff before. This doesn't sound right.

Since it's a Bannon thread (and only for that reason), maybe Bannon planned to further deconstruct things like trust in politics and Intelligence Committees and hence whispered something deceptive into Nunes' ear. Not that that sounds right.

RE: Steve Bannon. - Dill - 04-09-2017

(04-09-2017, 09:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: Sure that crossed my mind, I just can't quite believe that someone who managed to be a respected and powerful man like a Congressional Committee Chairman would willingly flush his whole reputation and probably career down the toilet just to give a Donald Trump a short, non-lasting break.
First in principle (I mean, there is loyalty and there is too much of that) - and because if that was indeed the plan, that would immediately make Nunes one of the dumbest politicians ever, and I have seen some gruesome stuff before. This doesn't sound right.

Since it's a Bannon thread (and only for that reason), maybe Bannon planned to further deconstruct things like trust in politics and Intelligence Committees and hence whispered something deceptive into Nunes' ear. Not that that sounds right.

Not an either/or. Of course Bannon was moving this. Walnick was his man.

And about "dumb" politicians. Remember that the US is a democracy, and votes, not intelligence or degrees or whatever are the final arbiter of who gets into office. We have many politicians even at the national level who may know some things (e.g., be good businessmen), but still don't have much statecraft. Bush knew how to leverage taxpayer money into a baseball stadium which enabled him to sell his team at great profit. Then he broke Iraq with no intention to "nation build." If you followed Trey Gowdy and the Benghazi witch hunt, you know that rational, non-partisan behavior is a risk for many Congressmen.

Doubtful Nunes et al. thought they were giving Trump a "break."  They were continuing a permanent, doubt-based narrative in which Trump would continue appear credible for his supporters as the Obama deep state continues its quest to destroy him.  They live by alternative facts/narratives. Outside Trump world, few grasp that this has worked so far or that it is intentional--though this tactic, amplified by Fox, won him the election. People like you see consequences, and so think--"No one could intend to do that"--but Trumpsters do not see consequences.

 At the moment the State Department is vastly understaffed and will soon be massively defunded, unable to maintain normal diplomatic functioning. Competent people in the foreign policy establishment refuse to work for Trump, fearing career damage. Trumpsters applaud the successful "deconstruction" of government--at the very moment the US faces crises in the Middle East and East Asia. Many of Trump's cabinet appointments are time bombs (e.g. education, EPA). We will be hearing about them this summer and fall. Congress still has the FREEDOM CAUCUS which will disrupt any calculus involving compromise with Democrats on even on a potentially unifying infrastructure bill. Trump and Trumpsters have responded to the healthcare defeat by blaming their most important ally, the Speaker of the House, and threatening people whose votes they need. We have not seen the last of career-risking "dumbness."

I continue to present this all as hypothesis. It will be somewhat confirmed if this time next week, we will are all talking about utterly new unforced errors and baffling diplomatic moves with unforeseeable consequences, which no one can quite believe.

RE: Steve Bannon. - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 04-09-2017

(04-09-2017, 02:43 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Not, it is not.  And you're using fake news to justify fake opinions. (and I hate that term, but it's short-hand for "full of shit"). We'll just ignore how you dodged all the other pertinent questions in my original post.

Either there is evidence to support collusion, or there has been an abuse of govt surveillance power.  Increasingly, there does not appear to be a middle ground.

International corporations deal with many nations.  That's not evidence of anything.  It's actually typical of the "anti-science" crowd to make a faux stand on complete bullshit.

When did you find out Susan Rice asked for the names in a redacted report? How did you find out? How is that an abuse of the NSA's power? Why are the government surveillance measures passed during the Bush administration suddenly "abuses" when applied to conservatives? You wouldn't know faux science if it bit you on your faux ass.