Report: Sessions Out as Attorney General

[tinselwolverine]

The incident and the press pass isn't that big a deal and I could even chalk up the White House tweeting a doctored video as a mistake (though they should acknowledge their mistake), since the doctoring was likely done by someone else. All that is small potatoes relative to a typical week of political news.

I was out doing business and I went into an office and the television was on-I don?t know the network-anyway they were running the video of the mic grab in slow motion, over and over, like a booth review in a football game.

I was like ?damn...?

 

[Spartanmack]

The incident and the press pass isn't that big a deal and I could even chalk up the White House tweeting a doctored video as a mistake (though they should acknowledge their mistake), since the doctoring was likely done by someone else. All that is small potatoes relative to a typical week of political news. Spartanmack's posts about there being experts on both sides is a bit of a thing for me though. Might change how I interact with him going forward a little.

i can live with that and i stand by everything i said about the video. if you watch PJW's response again youll see its not sped up, he even posts a screen shot of the editing software.

 

[tinselwolverine]

i can live with that and i stand by everything i said about the video. if you watch PJW's response again youll see its not sped up, he even posts a screen shot of the editing software.

Here?s the dude explaining it himself.

Me I don?t see a whole lot of difference between the original and the close up.

Much ado about nothing.

Does PWJ have a partisan leaning?

I never heard of the guy before.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zo7ORobbXPw

 

[Gulo Blue]

i can live with that and i stand by everything i said about the video. if you watch PJW's response again youll see its not sped up, he even posts a screen shot of the editing software.

Yeah, that's fine. I certainly wouldn't expect a reaction after you've said you don't care twice. It's not a big deal. It's just foolish for me to put more into it than you. I made a good faith effort to follow up your on claim there. If you don't care to follow up more than I do, at some point I'm just trolling myself.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Here?s the dude explaining it himself.

Me I don?t see a whole lot of difference between the original and the close up.

Much ado about nothing.

Did you check out posts 36&37?


Here's a description from the company that put this out:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/v...ss-secretary-contains-extra-frames-2018-11-08

 

[Gulo Blue]

Does PWJ have a partisan leaning?

I never heard of the guy before.

Wikipedia says he's a youtube personality that makes videos about 9/11 being an inside job, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the New World Order and the Illuminati.



He is an editor at large for Infowars.

 

[Michchamp]

Wikipedia says he's a youtube personality that makes videos about 9/11 being an inside job, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the New World Order and the Illuminati.



He is an editor at large for Infowars.

LOL @ you for trying to engage with these retards in a respectful and honest matter.

 

[Gulo Blue]

LOL @ you for trying to engage with these retards in a respectful and honest matter.

I think Tinsel is trying to moderate. Show how a reasonable person might see it in a way more favorable to the White House's take. I don't think it's crazy. I saw it as subtle right off the bat. It felt more aggressive in one than the other, but when I went back and rewatched, it wasn't clear what was really different; not until the frame by frame comparison. But outside of the significance of who doctored, how, and who knew what when, the actual difference if it had happened by honest mistakes isn't that big an issue.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Did you check out posts 36&37?


Here's a description from the company that put this out:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/v...ss-secretary-contains-extra-frames-2018-11-08

I looked at the side-by-side videos and post 36 and I have to say I really didn’t see a difference.

I will say that the very slow mo frame by frame kind of defeats the purpose in showing what actually happened.

 

[Spartanmack]

Here?s the dude explaining it himself.

Me I don?t see a whole lot of difference between the original and the close up.

Much ado about nothing.

Does PWJ have a partisan leaning?

I never heard of the guy before.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zo7ORobbXPw

he does have a partisan leaning. I don't know if he proclaims any party affiliation but I'd describe him as a conservative libertarian. He does work for Infowars which I find odd because I've never seen him pumping any bizarre conspiracy theories. Although, I don't follow him on Infowars - I just watch his commentary videos on Youtube so I may be missing his batshit crazy side if he has one. He's pretty funny, generally aggressive calling out liberals (and some conservatives) and usually has some interesting perspectives.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think Tinsel is trying to moderate. Show how a reasonable person might see it in a way more favorable to the White House's take. I don't think it's crazy. I saw it as subtle right off the bat. It felt more aggressive in one than the other, but when I went back and rewatched, it wasn't clear what was really different; not until the frame by frame comparison. But outside of the significance of who doctored, how, and who knew what when, the actual difference if it had happened by honest mistakes isn't that big an issue.

Probably the video in post 36 is what I was referring to in post 121. There was no audio-it was a place of business-and so I didn’t know they were discussing whether or not any video had been doctored. It seemed more to me, again, like a booth review to see if Acosta had been justifiably called for targeting or not.

I do have to say, that Trump is a very baitable-we all know that. From this event-and it’s probably just a micro of interactions between Acosta and Trump-it did appear to me that Acosta was more attempting to bait Trump than to get a question answered.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yeah, that's fine. I certainly wouldn't expect a reaction after you've said you don't care twice. It's not a big deal. It's just foolish for me to put more into it than you. I made a good faith effort to follow up your on claim there. If you don't care to follow up more than I do, at some point I'm just trolling myself.

in either the buzzfeed or PJW video, there's reference to comments by compression experts who indicate that video can appear sped up because of the reduced frames per second in the compressed video. It's perfectly reasonable and it fits with my assessment that I personally didn't notice a difference let alone a dramatic difference between either video, which is why I say I don't see how a reasonable person could draw a different conclusion, regardless of what he/she thinks of his actions. I don't know if these compression experts are specifically named, however. And I'm not saying Acosta was overly aggressive or that he assaulted the woman. He did physically block her from taking a mic he should have already surrendered voluntarily. That's clear and undeniable no matter which video you watch. I don't feel I need "experts" to back me up if I don't see a difference in the videos.

And both videos fit perfectly with what the White House said about the incident. Clearly, the press needs the narrative to be that the White House wants you to think Acosta's actions were more violent in order to discredit their claim and the action taken against him. But as far as I know, the White House isn't saying anything about malice or the level of "violence" merely that him putting his hands on her is enough. I'm very skeptical of the press and these "experts" they're citing to back up their bull shit narrative about a doctored video when all that matters to the White House is that he put his hands on her. Again, as far as I'm concerned he deserves to have his credentials revoked even if the intern never attempted to take the mic from him.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I don’t think a White House correspondent should argue with either of the press secretary or the president. Ask a question, and if the secretary or the president bullshits you, point it out and then ask a follow-up question.


Acosta kept arguing that the caravan isn’t an invasion - of course he’s right; a thing can’t be a thing until it’s a thing, and the caravan can’t be an invasion because it hasn’t happened yet-it’s still 1000 miles away. Who knows?-They could all be abducted by aliens and never get here.

Now, assuming the caravan does get here will it be an invasion? You have to go to the secondary or tertiary definition of “invasion,“ but yes, an unwanted incursion fits the broad definition of invasion.

Amusingly, one definition figuratively used the word invasion as “the annual invasion of tourists arrived at the vacation community...” something like that.

That’s funny-an invasion of business and money. I would take that kind of invasion.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don’t think a White House correspondent should argue with either of the press secretary or the president. Ask a question, and if the secretary or the president bullshits you, point it out and then ask a follow-up question.


Acosta kept arguing that the caravan isn’t an invasion - of course he’s right; a thing can’t be a thing until it’s a thing, and the caravan can’t be an invasion because it hasn’t happened yet-it’s still 1000 miles away. Who knows?-They could all be abducted by aliens and never get here.

Now, assuming the caravan does get here will it be an invasion? You have to go to the secondary or tertiary definition of “invasion,“ but yes, an unwanted incursion fits the broad definition of invasion.

Amusingly, one definition figuratively used the word invasion as “the annual invasion of tourists arrived at the vacation community...” something like that.

That’s funny-an invasion of business and money. I would take that kind of invasion.

maybe mc wrote that definition. I'm sure the marauding hordes of folks with disposable income infuriate him to no end. Such grotesque displays of wealth are an affront to the working class town folks who are most certainly offended by the blatant display of wealth inequality even if does support the local economy. That is, so long as those locals aren't white folks in NRA caps - then those people can go fuck themselves. There's nothing more repulsive than consumers spending their money on goods and services that other people are happy to provide at an agreed upon price. Fucking capitalist pigs.

He'd be much happier confiscating that disposable income so those people stay home while their wealth is redistributed to the people they undoubtedly victimized while generating that disposable income.


Edit: that should read "Fucking 'invading' capitalist pigs."

 

[Michchamp]

So not only is the guy Trump "knows" but "doesn't know" not confirmed by the senate to be acting attorney general, it's amazing he hasn't been disbarred yet, for being involved in a huge patent fraud scam, which took millions of dollars from wannabe inventors. That's it, they took their money, promised to file patent applications and market their inventions, but did nothing, and then just disappeared.

Not only was Whitaker representing them as an attorney, he was also serving on their board. There's a screenshot of an email he sent in the link.

Given that Trump was a career con man and fraud, it's no surprise that his Administration continues to warehouse such people...

 

[Spartanmack]

that screenshot looks like it may have been doctored because it seems like a perfectly reasonable email that inhouse counsel would send to a company's detractors/disgruntled clients. I bet before the doctoring, it was a real smoking gun.

 

[Michchamp]

You always add so much to the conversation.

 

[Gulo Blue]

that screenshot looks like it may have been doctored because it seems like a perfectly reasonable email that inhouse counsel would send to a company's detractors/disgruntled clients. I bet before the doctoring, it was a real smoking gun.

An expert said it wasn't doctored. I think the expert was on buzzfeed or it was the guy that created the screenshot.

 

[biggunsbob]

So not only is the guy Trump "knows" but "doesn't know" not confirmed by the senate to be acting attorney general, it's amazing he hasn't been disbarred yet, for being involved in a huge patent fraud scam, which took millions of dollars from wannabe inventors. That's it, they took their money, promised to file patent applications and market their inventions, but did nothing, and then just disappeared.

Not only was Whitaker representing them as an attorney, he was also serving on their board. There's a screenshot of an email he sent in the link.

Given that Trump was a career con man and fraud, it's no surprise that his Administration continues to warehouse such people...

Yeah he defrauded People a lot of money and now this criminal is the attorney General of America. The GOP are just a Bunch of hypocrites. They always have been.

 

[Spartanmack]

You always add so much to the conversation.

do you think posts like yours where you highlight the screen shot of an email that doesn't indicate anything like what you say it does deserves anything more than ridicule? LOL at that.

clearly you have an undue, massively inflated sense of your own intellect as well as your contributions to this forum.