WTF Community

Day 200

1/ Trump took to Twitter on his first day of vacation to lash out at the “Fake News” media and insist that his political base was only “getting stronger" despite a drop-off in his approval rating and the intensifying Russian investigation. “The Trump base is far bigger and stronger than ever before (despite some phony Fake News polling). Look at rallies in Penn, Iowa, Ohio and West Virginia,” Trump tweeted. “The fact is the Fake News Russian collusion story, record Stock Market, border security, military strength, jobs, Supreme Court pick, economic enthusiasm, deregulation and so much more have driven the Trump base even closer together. Will never change!” He added: “Hard to believe that with 24/7 #Fake News on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTIMES and WAPO, the Trump base is getting stronger!”

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Jerry Brown has also endorsed California filing a lawsuit, as well. Although, the decision is up to the CA Attorney General, Xavier Becerra to pursue.

It’s “something that our independent attorney general can decide, but it might just be very helpful to get into court and resolve this in a judicial forum rather than in the rhetoric of politicians talking past one another" - Jerry Brown

Though the senator is expressing support for the investigation continuing, “I’m not sure that I agree with the witch hunt” is a different / less strong sentiment from outright disagreeing that the investigation is a witch hunt. It’s a very slight distinction, but I think the sentiment is more along the lines of “A republican senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee is reserving judgement on the Russia investigation.” ? It’s at least notable in that he’s not outright dismissing the investigation.

I see your point. How do you suggest rephrasing it for clarity?

That’s a fair point - the senator’s phrasing is built to give him deniability, but the second half does invalidate the first.

It just strikes me as – awkward? To say that he disagrees with calling it a witch hunt… and then use a quote where he calls it a witch hunt.

Perhaps just replace the phrase “witch hunt” with “hoax”? Like… [quote]A Republican senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn’t agree that the Russia investigation is necessarily a “hoax”[/quote]

or even

I wish these politicians would be more precise with their words!

For #2, NYT didn’t mention Flynn’s meeting with Turkish government officials in NY on September 19, 2016, as reported in March 2017 by WSJ.

According to people briefed on the meeting (including partial attendance by former CIA Director Woolsey), there was an “open-minded” discussion of options “raised hypothetically” to perhaps circumvent U.S. extradition protocols to essentially kidnap and return Gulen on disputed charges of orchestrating the coup against Erdogan.


September 15, 2017 follow-up:

Federal judge issues temporary block against Attorney General Jeff Sessions and DOJ’s attempt to withhold public safety grant money to punish sanctuary cities for not complying with demands on stricter immigration enforcement.

Judge ruled Sessions exceeded his authority by imposing new conditions beyond what Congress defined for the grant program.

@matt It’s almost like, “A Republican senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn’t agree with calling the Russia investigation is a “witch hunt,” but won’t rule out that it could be a “hoax.””

To me, the second half of his quote pretty much invalidates the first half. It’s not a witch hunt… but it might be a hoax… is basically the same as calling it a witch hunt, right? The use of the word “hoax” is kind of ridiculous. The investigation isn’t a hoax even if it ultimately doesn’t lead to any prosecutable offense for anyone in the Trump administration.

I mean, that’s almost like saying, “I don’t think we should say climate change isn’t caused by humans, but we should let the science play out to see if it’s real or not.” :roll_eyes:

1 Like