Trump's twitter meltdown looks even worse now, rather unsurprisingly: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41796255 DO SOMETHING! Don't panic, Mr Manafort. Don't panic!
Isn't it convenient that, in the week before the dirt on the Tories came out, Guido Fawkes oh-so-conveniently to do the Tories a favour by breaking the Jared O'Mara - while somehow conveniently forgetting to mention former that Tory leadership contender Stephen Crabb had been sending sexually explicit texts to a 19-year old who had applied to work for him (which is the second reported case of Crabb doing so this year, by the way) Can't think what I'm implying here...
If you read the article that he posted that redacted list on, then the comments section says it all. Unbelievable. They really don't care about what's going on, as long as "their side" is winning. He's utterly partisan and it's still not enough for them.
I’m ok with the mistress thing. It’s the non-consensual stuff that needs to stop. When Cecil Parkinson was found to have a mistress Francois Mitterrand supposedly said that if he sacked all his cabinet members with a mistress then he would be left only with the two homosexuals. I met Parkinson once. He had his initials on his shirt. We assumed that was to make them easier to spot when they were hung up in a strange bedroom.
"There is not a single sentence, not a single word in the indictment that refers to the campaign" says Fox News' Katie Pavlich Oh I beg to differ. Having read the relevant documents, reference to Trump's campaign is pretty goddamn easy to find - as they're on pages two and three, which for those of you who don't want to sift through mountains of legalese here is the relevant section, with references to the campaign highlights because in case a Fox News journalist happens to be using this forum... Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed that his interactions with an overseas professor, who defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood to have substantial connection to Russian government officials, occurred before defendant PAPADOPOULOS became a foreign policy adviser on the campaign. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him of the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of e-mails," but stated multiple times that he learned the information prior to joining the campaign. In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be an adviser on the Campaign in early March 2016, and met the adviser on or about March 14th, 2016: the professor only took and interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS because of his status with the Campaign: and the professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of e-mails" on or about April 26, 2016, when defendant PAPADOPOULOS had been a foreign policy adviser on the Campaign for over a month. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS further told the investigating agents that the professor was "a nothing" and "just a guy talk[ing] up connections or something." In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood that the professor had substantial connections to Russian government officials (and had met with some of those officials in Moscow immediately prior to telling defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of e-mails") and, over a period of months, defendant PAPADOPOULOS repeatedly sought the professor's Russian connections in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed he met a certain female Russian national before he joined the Campaign and their communications consisted of e-mails such as, "'Hi, how are you?'" In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the female Russian national on or about March 24, 2016, after he had become and adviser for the Campaign: he believed that she had connections to Russian government officials; and he sought to use her Russian connections over a period of months in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials. Through his false statements and omissions, defendant PAPADOPOULOS impeded the FBI's ongoing investigation into any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
She was talking about Manafort and Gates, to be fair to her. She's admitted that Papadopolous connects it and thinks that Flynn's next. Fox have simply left that bit out of their Twitter feed, for obvious reasons. She's a ****bag, of course, but she's trying to spin it in a different way to the main Fox narrative. The bit that got me was about "DT" not making the meeting in Russia himself, but sending an underling to make it more low-key. Maybe they should've chosen someone who wasn't already under a FISA warrant since 2014? The most guilty looking man in the universe might not be the best choice. https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/ca...g-interview-about-fisa-warrantrussian-spying/
And here's how all this **** ties into our politics: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ferendum-influence-donald-trump-a8027456.html Same people. Same money. Same companies.
Not to be outdone, the following is a direct quote from the Dire Leader's former head of communications Kate Perrior in regards to Tory sleaze The information is held by the whips, because they use it to make sure that MPs know that other people within the party know exactly what they’ve been up to, and that behaviour either is not acceptable, or it will be used against them – you will vote in a certain way or we will tell your wife exactly what you’ve been up to. Only the Tories would consider blackmailing their own MPs in order to whip them into compliance, which does throw up one worrying question: if that's their way of thinking, wouldn't it be beneficial to them to select a rogue's gallery of alcoholics, bigots, philanderers and crooks to stand for the party to guarantee as much dirt to blackmail them with at a later date? Because that description certainly goes a long way to describing our Britait negotiation team...
We will protect you, but only if you do what we say. Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison, Edward Heath... the list goes on. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/13/thatcher-child-abuse_n_5581561.html
Back into the Trumpiverse, here's a quick summary of his former advisor (and former aide to Richard Nixon) Roger Stone's recent Twitter activity... please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
Did anyone care back then? It was impossible to make an allegation against a well known public figure and be taken seriously, it seems. Reputation gained by simply holding a particular office was enough to repel any suggestion of wrongdoing before anyone was asked to investigate it. The world has turned full circle now though. It's enough just to be accused - especially of a sexual offence; guilt is assumed. Much like witchcraft in times gone by.
Your reputation gets damaged instantly now, but it's recoverable in many cases. A lot of famous or powerful people seem to have acted like utter ****s for years and got away with it, though. Plenty of chickens coming home to roost right now.
Depends how far back we want to go for that one. Obvious the system was more than capable of making sure that once something was swept under the carpet it stayed there in the 50s and 60s, for example there would be no way Marilyn Monroe's intake of sedatives and prescription pills would be kept quiet now like it was then while the modern equivalent of Mickey Cohen's enforcer Johnny Stompanato wouldn't be able to ingratiate himself within Hollywood to the point he had relationships with Ava Gardner and Lana Turner, but on the other it was still very easy to kill someone's career at the time, either by a McCarthyist accusing them of being a communist sympathiser or a whispering campaign that they might not be as heterosexual as they claimed to be.
Do you think One Hung Low in N korea will be waiting for airforceone when it supposedly visits S Korea?
I mentioned this yesterday morning: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/murdoch-fox-mueller-trump-244333 Is Murdoch just being a complete twat, as usual, or is this something more?
I wonder sometimes if Trump is doing a Hitler.Wanting no opposition from anyone in his attempt to turn the USA into a pre 1939 German state. He has someone doing a Goebbels..........they'll be burning books next!
It has to be said that, while CNN and MSNBC were covering Manafort, what were Faux News covering? A hamburger emoji. please log in to view this image
