Deep State Unraveling

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

27 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Who has been "banned" from the White House?

William,

Wrong.

She gets into the White House. Some of the people around President Trump refuse to tell him she is there.

Look up the Patrick Byrne stuff I have already posted if you are actually interested in the story.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

32 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Who has been "banned" from the White House?

Along with looking up the Patrick Byrne stuff, look at your own post.

Powell says "blocked by White House counsel and others from seeing or speaking to the President ...."

Does your use of scare quotes indicate that you know that "banned" is not what Powell said?

Ellen

[william.scherk]

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

30 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Who has been "banned" from the White House?

Wrong.

What's wrong?  Wrong question?

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

She gets into the White House. Some of the people around President Trump refuse to tell him she is there.

Well, I surmise that this is not an ideal situation for a mooted "special counsel."  

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

EDIT:  The Oval Office meeting was on Friday, Dec. 18.

Here's a "Daily Beast" article about it, headline "Trump’s Bonkers Oval Office Meeting With Sidney Powell Was Even Too Much for Rudy."

Ellen.

That meeting is the same one that Patrick Byrne was at, for which I transcribed part of his interview above.

As to the article, take a look at their sources.

"Two sources familiar with the matter"

Woah... Cool, baby...  

But that's not my favorite. There's another source, too. And they outdid themselves with this one.

"A source quoted by CNN on Saturday"

 

But wait! There's more!

Go to the CNN link. The source is easy to find on the CNN article (search for "ugly"--this is what the Daily Beast article said the source said). And who is this source? Can you guess?

Wait for it... wait for it... here is comes:

"A person"

Seriously. That's the source.

That reaches a new threshold of hack. I can't even parody that.

 

Don't believe anything in the mainstream news.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

What's wrong?  Wrong question?

William,

Banned.

That's wrong.

Sidney Powell is not, and never was, banned from the White House.

Is it really that hard to understand this?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

16 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Along with looking up the Patrick Byrne stuff, look at your own post.

Powell says "blocked by White House counsel and others from seeing or speaking to the President ...."

Does your use of scare quotes indicate that you know that "banned" is not what Powell said?

Ellen,

It's worse. Sidney Powell has entered the White House before and after her complaint. What's more, she spoke to people in President Trump's circle there.

William's phrase, even using scare quotes ("banned" from the White House), implied she was not able to get in, as in banned from the premises.

Michael

[william.scherk]

23 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Look up the Patrick Byrne stuff I have already posted if you are actually interested in the story.

Byrne is not finished talking:

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, ThatGuy said:

And the new hype begins...
 

 

TG,

Using classified info for indictments means Rosen is able to use info regarding Biden and his son, Hillary Clinton, Schiff, and on and on and on...

It's going to be more than hype.

Michael

[Marc]

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

Using classified info for indictments means Rosen is able to use info regarding Biden and his son, Hillary Clinton, Schiff, and on and on and on...

It's going to be more than hype.

Michael

Wondering who is going to make a deal first?

Biden, Kamala, or ????

Even more importantly, who has already made a deal?

How anyone can be a member of this board for five years plus, and not completely understand how MSK and President Trump are not usually wrong, has baffled and bewildered me all year.

 

[ThatGuy]

16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

Using classified info for indictments means Rosen is able to use info regarding Biden and his son, Hillary Clinton, Schiff, and on and on and on...

It's going to be more than hype.

Michael

"Able to..." Yes. Will he? We'll see. But I'm rootin' for him...

(Just tempering my enthusiasm, based on this observation:)
 

 

[Marc]

11 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

"Able to..." Yes. Will he? We'll see. But I'm rootin' for him...

(Just tempering my enthusiasm, based on this observation:)
 

 

Fast forward to Jan 20 2021 at high noon and certain folks still will be blah blah blah talking about no ground game to win the primaries and beat Marco Rubio, and no chance to beat Hillary, and no chance to win the 2016 election and no chance to get inaugurated in 2021 and no chance for a third term 

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That meeting is the same one that Patrick Byrne was at, for which I transcribed part of his interview above.

I know that, Michael.  Obviously.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As to the article, take a look at their sources

Have you looked at what William quoted - and I requoted - from the Sean Spicer interview with Rudy?

I didn’t cite the article for veracity, only for the date of the meeting.  Looks like Rudy's remarks were after the meeting.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

We seem to be on different pages.

Just to make sure, rather than read a quote, I just watched the entire segment between Sean Spicer and Rudy Giuliani.

And I have a question. What do Rudy's remarks have to do with anything we are discussing?

I'm serious.

After going through all this business about the relationship between Sidney and Rudy with David Twinkelfoot, I don't want to simply recap.

Everybody, and I mean everybody who I consult on the pro-Trump side knows that Sidney is not on the official Trump team and has not been for several weeks. They know that Rudy is going in one legal direction and she is going in another. They know Sidney is not a lawyer hired by President Trump to represent his interests. And they also know that Sidney and President Trump are very friendly, much closer than cordial.

So where's the beef?

Is it in the remark Rudy said that Sidney is not Trump's Special Counsel?

Well, at the time he said it, if he wants the paperwork done before he acknowledges anything like that, he was telling the truth. There is no paperwork yet to my knowledge (although there might be by now.)

Besides, I know a lot about that Dec. 18 meeting and I'm not even sure Rudy was at the meeting. Nothing I have read indicates this. The articles say there was a meeting--then Kraken yuk yuk yuk, the sensible people around Trump blah blah blah, Rudy says...--but they never say Rudy was at the meeting. They are always quoting him from someplace else.

So if Rudy was not at the Dec. 18 meeting, he probably did not know of the verbal appointment when he went on Sean Spicer's show. And even if he was at the meeting, with his workload, I doubt he would have been there for the entire 4.5 hours.

From Rudy's tone, I got the feeling he believes so much in his approach that he did not find Sidney's approach necessary (for him), but I did not get the impression he wants her to stop or thinks she is loopy or anything like that. On the contrary, he spoke glowingly of her.

Does that clarify something? If not, what am I missing?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Byrne is not finished talking:

 

William,

I know you posted this because you like to mock Corsi, but I want to add context.

Notice that Patrick Byrne is not going on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc., with this story.

If you listen to his interviews, you will see him say (at least in the ones I have listened to) that he is essentially avoiding the legacy media and sticking to alternative media on purpose--not so much as a political thing, although there is some of that, but from an entrepreneurial perspective. He thinks the legacy media is going to tank, especially Fox, and the alternative media is going to get their market share once this election debacle is settled. As a billionaire entrepreneur, I think he's got more chops to say that than most folks.

On the political angle, right now he is doing a round of alt media (sort of like Susan Rice did when she went around to 5 Sunday legacy media talk shows to lie her fucking ass off about Benghazi for Clinton and Obama, saying the attack on the embassy was due to a YouTube video offending Muslims).

In Patrick's case, he said he was at the meeting on Dec. 18 in the White House. Then he saw Maggie Haberman's piece with a lot of made-up stuff in it. He claims he knows who leaked certain details and fictions to Haberman. And after he saw the lies start growing everywhere else, he decided to go out and set the record straight. But he found the idea of going on legacy media repugnant.

He emphasizes that this is not due to lack of invitations from the legacy media. He says he gets such invitations all the time. It's because he no longer takes the legacy media seriously for something like this and does not want to waste his time with them.

Michael

[william.scherk]

David Martosko has an interview with Sidney Powell just out. Apparently recorded yesterday ... I can't remember what failed enterprise he used to work for.

 

Edited December 25, 2020 by william.scherk
Orthography

[Marc]

I'm literally in love with Sydney Powell!!!!!!!!!!!

Kind of reminds me about a book some of y'all may have heard about.

John Galt and Dagny Taggart.

Atlas Shrugged 2.0

Galts Gulch

[Marc]

I was just looking at the election map and with the exception of the NE States, and the 3 States on the west coast, Trump won freaking EVERYTHING, except Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado and New Mexico.

January 20 2021 at noon, will be a very enjoyable moment although we will have it in the bag, wayyyyyy before that moment.

 

[Mark]

54 minutes ago, Marc said:

I'm literally in love with Sydney Powell!!!!!!!!!!!

Kind of reminds me about a book some of y'all may have heard about.

John Galt and Dagny Taggart.

Atlas Shrugged 2.0

Galts Gulch

Troll or fool,

Had a Dagney been president in real life would she have commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich?

[Marc]

15 minutes ago, Mark said:

Troll or fool,

Had a Dagney been president in real life would she have commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich?

Sydney Powell is not running for President, she is defending the President, The Nation, and The World, and of course Freedom.

No idea who Rod Blagojevich is though!

President Donald "JohnGalt" Trump and Sydney "DagnyTaggart" Powell forever!

 

[Mark]

Not to mention Philip Esformes.

Trump is in large part a sleazebag. 

(In the current political climate I support him anyway, especially against vote fraud.)

[Marc]

59 minutes ago, Mark said:

Not to mention Philip Esformes.

Trump is in large part a sleazebag. 

(In the current political climate I support him anyway, especially against vote fraud.)

You're the sleazebag disrespecting President Trump.

You should apologize for that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Would Dagny have put Rod Blagojevich in jail in the first place?

It's something to think about.

If one believes she would have while letting those around him run free, this is a good way to get in touch with our own inner fascist and authoritarian.

Michael

[Mark]

It isn’t fascist or “authoritarian,” whatever that means, to put crooks in jail.

Is it fascist to keep Snowden exiled and Assange in prison while letting scum like Blagojevich and Esformes run free?

Trump worshipers are almost as sickening as Trump haters.

Of course I hope I’m wrong and Trump pardons Snowden and Assange but we shouldn’t have illusions about Trump’s character.  Support him against the likes of Biden, Kamala, AOC etc. and all the vote fraudsters but you needn’t swallow him whole.

Kushner helped get Trump to commute (terminate) Esformes’ sentence.  Who elected him?  It looks like four more years of Trump would mean four more years of his jerk son-in-law.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

Trump worshipers are almost as sickening as Trump haters.

Mark,

Knock it off.

There are no Trump worshippers I know of on OL.

I know you like to feed on trashing the good others see right at the moment they talk about the good, but admiring the good is not worshipping. It's admiring the good.

(From the Fountainhead--Aunt Adeline to Ellsworth Toohey: "You’re a maggot, Elsie. You feed on sores.")

Banter is supposed to be playful, not Debbie Downer shit taken to the serious level.

Frankly, that's a premise I believe you need to check in your worldview, but that's between you and you.

As pertains to me, I see you constantly misidentify this, which is why I can never get fully on board with you.

When I get irritated with you, it's not the same as when Ayn Rand worshippers do. They don't want you to besmirch their goddess.

For me, I don't get irritated because you besmirch Trump. It's because you are identifying poorly and trying to be icky about it just to get attention. I get tired of explaining this difference because it's obvious you want to keep doing what you do and treating others according to a story in your skull rather than the reality in front of your eyes. At least in the fiction you tell yourself, you're the hero. So I guess you keep doing it for the serotonin hit.

But there are far better ways of getting attention. For example, try wearing a fucking watermelon as a hat. That would be better and it would make a lot more sense on Christmas.

And that means I no longer want to correct you about this crap you always do. I just don't want to be around you. Our world views don't align.

You don't bring truth, value, anything good to my life. You just bring bad vibes about the good. That's not exactly accurate. There are certain moments when you are a good weapon against bad people. But to me, you are only good for cannon fodder against them--and only then, sporadically. It's uneven.

It's a damn shame, too, with the mind you've got. I sometimes see flashes of brilliance, meaning you have it in you to be something better. But canon fodder may dream he is a leader and full of moral courage and things like that, but he's just cannon fodder. He's disposable.

Nobody misses you when you're gone.

Fucking build something, dude. Build something that brings value to the world, not something that tears down others all the time. 

Or don't...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

On 12/24/2020 at 5:02 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So where's the beef?

Is it in the remark Rudy said that Sidney is not Trump's Special Counsel?

Yes, that's what I was calling to your attention.  Does seem that Rudy would know - yes? - if Sidney Powell was made Special Counsel.

On 12/24/2020 at 5:02 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Well, at the time he said it, if he wants the paperwork done before he acknowledges anything like that, he was telling the truth. There is no paperwork yet to my knowledge (although there might be by now.)

Do you know if anything further has been said about it by Trump, or any indication confirming the appointment from Powell?

(I just got home a couple hours ago from a Xmas break-from-it-all Larry and I went on, staying at a lovely little historic Inn, and I haven’t yet looked at any internet stuff except this thread.)

Ellen