RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT

[Macallik86]

Why is the NYT, not only standing by its reporting, but updating it with additional context throughout the day? I wish some of you would focus on the developing details of the story instead of the media outlets that are deriding the NYT as sellouts:

By Friday evening, concerned about testifying to Congress over the revelations that he discussed wearing a wire to the Oval Office and invoking the constitutional trigger to remove Mr. Trump from office, Mr. Rosenstein had become convinced that he should resign, according to people close to him. He offered during a late-day visit to the White House to quit, according to one person familiar with the encounter, but John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, demurred.
[...]

Some White House officials also believed that only the president could legally accept Mr. Rosenstein’s resignation, not Mr. Kelly, according to two people familiar with internal discussions.

By about 9 a.m. Monday, Mr. Rosenstein was in his office on the fourth floor of the Justice Department when reporters started calling. Was it true that Mr. Rosenstein was planning to resign, they asked. Officials at the Justice Department took the inquiries as evidence that the White House wanted to speed along that outcome.

Mr. Rosenstein and Ed O’Callaghan, his top deputy, raced out of the building and headed to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for what they expected to be the final word. Justice Department officials told reporters that Mr. Rosenstein expected to be fired upon arriving there.

A spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores, began drafting a news release that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was on his way back from a weekend in Alabama, would distribute if Mr. Rosenstein were fired.
[...]
Mr. Rosenstein was emotional, according to people familiar with his meeting with Mr. McGahn. Mr. Rosenstein wanted to leave on amicable terms, not in a manner that would trigger an angry Twitter tirade from Mr. Trump.
[...]
Two people familiar with the discussions described Mr. Kelly as “conflicted” about Mr. Rosenstein’s fate, believing that a departure before the midterm elections in November would be bad for the president. At some point, Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Trump had what the president’s spokeswoman called “an extended conversation” about the Times article. Mr. Trump said the two spoke Monday but did not say when.

Rod Rosenstein’s Job Is Safe, for Now: Inside His Dramatic Day


For fukks sake yall. This is supposedly the smartest thread on the damn site. Yall can't turn into Trump supporters and bury your head in the sand every time some news comes out that you don't like. There are levels and layers to this shyt. Rosenstein is a 'survivor' until he isn't. We don't know this man from a can of paint, yet everyone is SURE that he wouldn't have offered his resignation in this thread. If RR wanted to clear his name, he can go on twitter. He can call a reporter at ANY news outlet. He can release shyt through a friend a la James Comey. Don't give me this shyt that he is letting the media decide his fate and going quietly into the night.

The idea that multiple sources have corroborated each others lies on how RR acted throughout the day, and that RR went to the white house to get fired by Kelly (who doesn't have the power to fire RR) or by Trump (who isn't even in DC and has never fired ANYONE personally face-to-face or over any medium outside of twitter in the administration) is silly.

 

[Jhoon]

The president wrote the first story, and the times let him do it. I cancelled my member ship yesterday.

I have had enough of them.

 

[Macallik86]

fukk it, I'm down to die on this hill. If the NYT article is erroneous and RR didn't offer his resignation, I am down for the perma-ban. Who wants to take the other side of the bet?

Spoiler

If you aren't willing to risk an online userhandle to put weight behind your words, then why are you willing to slander and destroy the the integrity of one of our top news companies?

A lot of yall really need to think long and hard whether you are helping the cause or whether you are as closed-minded as the right and attack the media for presenting facts that are hard to swallow.

Spoiler

And if none of yall nikkas take me up on my offer, yall need to fall back,shut the fukk up and wait for all of the facts to come out

 

[Arithmetic]

Through this thread I have come across a lot of NYCSouthpaw's analysis. I appreciate it when it is contextually relevant, but let's not pretend that his opinion as a lawyer has any additional layers of insight into this topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the law.

You're entitled to your opinion. I have known him to be a reliable voice on discussions outside of the law. His legal background shouldn't preclude him from opining on non-legal topics, nor should it prevent us from considering his perspective on matters outside of the law.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Why is the NYT, not only standing by its reporting, but updating it with additional context throughout the day? I wish some of you would focus on the developing details of the story instead of the media outlets that are deriding the NYT as sellouts:


Rod Rosenstein’s Job Is Safe, for Now: Inside His Dramatic Day


For fukks sake yall. This is supposedly the smartest thread on the damn site. Yall can't turn into Trump supporters and bury your head in the sand every time some news comes out that you don't like. There are levels and layers to this shyt. Rosenstein is a 'survivor' until he isn't. We don't know this man from a can of paint, yet everyone is SURE that he wouldn't have offered his resignation in this thread. If RR wanted to clear his name, he can go on twitter. He can call a reporter at ANY news outlet. He can release shyt through a friend a la James Comey. Don't give me this shyt that he is letting the media decide his fate and going quietly into the night.

The idea that multiple sources have corroborated each others lies on how RR acted throughout the day, and that RR went to the white house to get fired by Kelly (who doesn't have the power to fire RR) or by Trump (who isn't even in DC and has never fired ANYONE personally face-to-face or over any medium outside of twitter in the administration) is silly.

You’re missing the point.

This story should never have leaked.

And it’s clear it was a targeted leak from within the WH.

 

[Kingcobrakai]

fukk it, I'm down to die on this hill. If the NYT article is erroneous and RR didn't offer his resignation, I am down for the perma-ban. Who wants to take the other side of the bet?

Spoiler

If you aren't willing to risk an online userhandle to put weight behind your words, then why are you willing to slander and destroy the the integrity of one of our top news companies?

A lot of yall really need to think long and hard whether you are helping the cause or reinforcing an attack on the media for presenting news that you find disagreeable

I’ll take it. It’s whatever. The White House fed them a story they had planned, but needed to burn it today. The NYTimes fell for it because

1) Trump was in New York and hardly fires anyone face to face
2) RR was going to be at the WH anyways in place of Sessions
3) It’s a scoop only they would get. Notice they always get scoops that paint Trump in a favorable light as well as offered a green light to a favorable outcome in what happens next.

 

[Arithmetic]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

fukk it, I'm down to die on this hill. If the NYT article is erroneous and RR didn't offer his resignation, I am down for the perma-ban. Who wants to take the other side of the bet?

Spoiler

If you aren't willing to risk an online userhandle to put weight behind your words, then why are you willing to slander and destroy the the integrity of one of our top news companies?

A lot of yall really need to think long and hard whether you are helping the cause or whether you are as closed-minded as the right and attack the media for presenting facts that are hard to swallow.

Spoiler

And if none of yall nikkas take me up on my offer, yall need to fall back,shut the fukk up and wait for all of the facts to come out

 

[Macallik86]

You're entitled to your opinion. I have known him to be a reliable voice on discussions outside of the law. His legal background shouldn't preclude him from opining on non-legal topics, nor should it prevent us from considering his perspective on matters outside of the law.

He has every right to throw conjecture into the arena. I actually enjoy your opinion in this thread as well. My point is that if someone asked me for a source on why I think the NYT sloppily rushed their RR article to print, and didn't reach out to Rosenstein I can't cite you as a source as much as I like your opinion.

In the same vein, southpawnyc, as liked as he is as a lawyer/reporter doesn't really have a relevant outtake on whether or not Schmidt did his due diligence. I think that is pretty clear given that the article I quoted a few minutes ago points out that:

By about 9 a.m. Monday, Mr. Rosenstein was in his office on the fourth floor of the Justice Department when reporters started calling. Was it true that Mr. Rosenstein was planning to resign, they asked. Officials at the Justice Department took the inquiries as evidence that the White House wanted to speed along that outcome.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

fukk it, I'm down to die on this hill. If the NYT article is erroneous and RR didn't offer his resignation, I am down for the perma-ban. Who wants to take the other side of the bet?

Spoiler

If you aren't willing to risk an online userhandle to put weight behind your words, then why are you willing to slander and destroy the the integrity of one of our top news companies?

A lot of yall really need to think long and hard whether you are helping the cause or whether you are as closed-minded as the right and attack the media for presenting facts that are hard to swallow.

Spoiler

And if none of yall nikkas take me up on my offer, yall need to fall back,shut the fukk up and wait for all of the facts to come out

I’ll take it. It’s whatever. The White House fed them a story they had planned, but needed to burn it today. The NYTimes fell for it because

1) Trump was in New York and hardly fires anyone face to face
2) RR was going to be at the WH anyways in place of Sessions
3) It’s a scoop only they would get. Notice they always get scoops that paint Trump in a favorable light as well as offered a green light to a favorable outcome in what happens next.

 

[Macallik86]

Is that your way of saying you want part of the ban action or nah?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Is that your way of saying you want part of the ban action or nah?

It seems to me that you have not realized that you have immediately been proven wrong and have essentially lost that bet. Furthermore I don’t owe the New York Times anything other than the extent to which their previous fukk up or at time that has expired since their previous fukk up has influenced any sort of political Crosswinds. I owe them nothing they owe me quality consistent reporting.

Pretending journalists don’t have agendas is naive and stupid.

 

[Macallik86]

It seems to me that you have not realized that you have immediately been proven wrong and have essentially lost that bet. Furthermore I don’t owe the New York Times anything other than the extent to which their previous fukk up or at time that has expired since their previous fukk up has influenced any sort of political Crosswinds. I owe them nothing they owe me quality consistent reporting.

Pretending journalists don’t have agendas is naive and stupid.

If I have already been proven wrong, then you are guaranteed to win and should have no issues taking the other side.

I can figure out who the mod is if you want to make it official and take the other side of the bet? Or is that sound I hear the sound of you backpedaling on your convictions?

 

[Pressure]

There’s going to be a moment where the same person who wrote the we are containing the president wrote the RR said whatever story is revealed.

This doesn't seem that far fetched



Smdh

 

[Arithmetic]

Schmidt said he worked on this story for "months, if not a year." McCabe was fired in March and it was the AP who first reported that he kept memos. Which one is it?:DrakeDucktales: