When someone gets a new handle does it wipe their memory also? Originally Posted by LexusLover
Dilbert had another handle?
- bamscram
- 05-13-2017, 09:21 AM
Dilbert had another handle?
- Rey Lengua
- 05-13-2017, 10:58 AM
- dilbert firestorm
- 05-13-2017, 12:53 PM
- gnadfly
- 05-13-2017, 01:24 PM
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1605156...e-comey-firing
What do Bernie Sanders’ hair and CNN have in common today? They are both saying, “Comey” every time you look at them.
The news coverage of Comey’s firing has become excellent entertainment. This is the biggest cognitive dissonance cluster bomb we’ve seen since election night. This one has everything.
For starters, the topic is too complicated for the public, and even the pundits. That creates a situation in which we’ll all invent our own version of the movie in our heads. Where there is confusion, complexity, and emotion there is usually lots of cognitive dissonance. We got all of that.
My cursory understanding of the topic is that Trump’s critics say he fired Comey to put a chill on the FBI’s investigation of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. This theory sort-of-almost makes sense, in a hypothetical and indirect way. I could see how taking out the top dog would make the underdogs at the FBI worry about going hard at the President. On the other hand, the people doing the actual investigation are professionals, and there would be too many witnesses if they did a bad job. So that doesn’t pass my sniff test. But I can’t rule it out, either.
President Trump’s official reason for the Comey firing has to do with a loss of confidence over his handling of the Clinton email investigation. The beauty of that official explanation (true or not) is that it is making heads explode with Democrats and the Opposition Media. How dare President Trump fire the person we publicly demanded he fire!
Now we have a bizarre situation in which both sides (Demcrats and Republicans) wanted Comey fired, but they had different reasons for wanting it. Democrats were upset that he might have torpedoed Hillary Clinton’s campaign by talking about the Weiner laptop discovery of additional Clinton emails close to Election Day. And Republicans hated Comey for not pursuing a criminal case against Clinton for her email server misdeeds. That’s the perfect set-up for cognitive dissonance. I’ll explain:
Democrats and the Opposition Media reflexively oppose almost everything President Trump does. This time he gave them something they wanted, badly, but not for the reason they wanted. That’s a trigger. It forces anti-Trumpers to act angry in public that he did the thing they wanted him to do. And they are.
Trump cleverly addressed the FBI’s Russian collusion investigation by putting the following line in the Comey firing letter: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.”
That one odd sentence caused every media outlet to display the quote and talk about it, over and over. And when you focus on something, no matter the reason, it rises in importance in your mind. President Trump, the Master Persuader, made all of us think about the “not under investigation” part over, and over, and over.
The trick here is that members of Trump’s campaign might be the ones under investigation, not Trump himself. But that’s where the complexity of this topic is useful to the Master Persuader. The viewing public won’t make that distinction. All they will hear – over and over – is the “not under investigation” part.
I’ve taught you in this blog that the right amount of “wrong” is what captures our attention and creates a memory. Trump’s odd inclusion of the “not under investigation” line is just wrong enough that we can’t move past it. It is persuasion-perfect.
The best explanation I have heard for the timing of Comey’s firing is that it comes soon after the Assistant Attorney General was confirmed, and he is Comey’s official boss. You need a proper boss for a proper firing. And it came right after Comey embarrassed himself by getting some facts about the Clinton email situation wrong in front of Congress. There is no perfect time to fire a person, but this was close to perfect.
My favorite part of this firing – from a persuasion perspective – is that it is such a strong move. The pure dominance of the play is what will stick in our minds. This was some ballsy Presidenting. That’s the lasting takeaway. You’ll remember the boldness long after you forget the timing and the details.
I’m also fascinated by how quickly the media turned on Comey after he was out of office. Apparently lots of people were afraid of him. No one mentioned that fear BEFORE he was fired, so I assume they really were afraid of him. Now people on both sides can’t stop yammering about how scary he was. Clearly it was a good firing for the country, regardless of the timing and the details.
My opinion of Comey’s handling of the Clinton email issue remains the same. I believe he sacrificed his career and reputation to avoid taking from the American voters their option of having the leader of their choice. If Comey had pushed for Clinton’s indictment, the country would have ended up with a President Trump without a “fair” election. That was the worst-case scenario for the country and the world. Comey prevented that disaster while still making it clear to the American public that Clinton was not guilt-free with her email server. He let the voters decide how much weight to assign all of that. In my opinion, Comey handled the Clinton email situation like a patriot. The media is spinning the situation as “making it all about himself.” That’s true in the same sense that a Medal of Honor winner who jumped on a grenade to save his buddies is “making it all about himself.” I don’t disagree with the characterization that Comey was trying to be the “hero” because that’s how it looks to me too.
I once heard a story about a guy who pulled a woman out of a car that was on fire. He got burns on his arms doing it. He saved her life, but I don’t like him because he was trying to be a hero. That guy made it all about himself.
I’m sure Comey had his flaws. But I don’t think his handling of the Clinton emails was among them. I assume historians will think otherwise.
What do Bernie Sanders’ hair and CNN have in common today? They are both saying, “Comey” every time you look at them.
The news coverage of Comey’s firing has become excellent entertainment. This is the biggest cognitive dissonance cluster bomb we’ve seen since election night. This one has everything.
For starters, the topic is too complicated for the public, and even the pundits. That creates a situation in which we’ll all invent our own version of the movie in our heads. Where there is confusion, complexity, and emotion there is usually lots of cognitive dissonance. We got all of that.
My cursory understanding of the topic is that Trump’s critics say he fired Comey to put a chill on the FBI’s investigation of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. This theory sort-of-almost makes sense, in a hypothetical and indirect way. I could see how taking out the top dog would make the underdogs at the FBI worry about going hard at the President. On the other hand, the people doing the actual investigation are professionals, and there would be too many witnesses if they did a bad job. So that doesn’t pass my sniff test. But I can’t rule it out, either.
President Trump’s official reason for the Comey firing has to do with a loss of confidence over his handling of the Clinton email investigation. The beauty of that official explanation (true or not) is that it is making heads explode with Democrats and the Opposition Media. How dare President Trump fire the person we publicly demanded he fire!
Now we have a bizarre situation in which both sides (Demcrats and Republicans) wanted Comey fired, but they had different reasons for wanting it. Democrats were upset that he might have torpedoed Hillary Clinton’s campaign by talking about the Weiner laptop discovery of additional Clinton emails close to Election Day. And Republicans hated Comey for not pursuing a criminal case against Clinton for her email server misdeeds. That’s the perfect set-up for cognitive dissonance. I’ll explain:
Democrats and the Opposition Media reflexively oppose almost everything President Trump does. This time he gave them something they wanted, badly, but not for the reason they wanted. That’s a trigger. It forces anti-Trumpers to act angry in public that he did the thing they wanted him to do. And they are.
Trump cleverly addressed the FBI’s Russian collusion investigation by putting the following line in the Comey firing letter: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.”
That one odd sentence caused every media outlet to display the quote and talk about it, over and over. And when you focus on something, no matter the reason, it rises in importance in your mind. President Trump, the Master Persuader, made all of us think about the “not under investigation” part over, and over, and over.
The trick here is that members of Trump’s campaign might be the ones under investigation, not Trump himself. But that’s where the complexity of this topic is useful to the Master Persuader. The viewing public won’t make that distinction. All they will hear – over and over – is the “not under investigation” part.
I’ve taught you in this blog that the right amount of “wrong” is what captures our attention and creates a memory. Trump’s odd inclusion of the “not under investigation” line is just wrong enough that we can’t move past it. It is persuasion-perfect.
The best explanation I have heard for the timing of Comey’s firing is that it comes soon after the Assistant Attorney General was confirmed, and he is Comey’s official boss. You need a proper boss for a proper firing. And it came right after Comey embarrassed himself by getting some facts about the Clinton email situation wrong in front of Congress. There is no perfect time to fire a person, but this was close to perfect.
My favorite part of this firing – from a persuasion perspective – is that it is such a strong move. The pure dominance of the play is what will stick in our minds. This was some ballsy Presidenting. That’s the lasting takeaway. You’ll remember the boldness long after you forget the timing and the details.
I’m also fascinated by how quickly the media turned on Comey after he was out of office. Apparently lots of people were afraid of him. No one mentioned that fear BEFORE he was fired, so I assume they really were afraid of him. Now people on both sides can’t stop yammering about how scary he was. Clearly it was a good firing for the country, regardless of the timing and the details.
My opinion of Comey’s handling of the Clinton email issue remains the same. I believe he sacrificed his career and reputation to avoid taking from the American voters their option of having the leader of their choice. If Comey had pushed for Clinton’s indictment, the country would have ended up with a President Trump without a “fair” election. That was the worst-case scenario for the country and the world. Comey prevented that disaster while still making it clear to the American public that Clinton was not guilt-free with her email server. He let the voters decide how much weight to assign all of that. In my opinion, Comey handled the Clinton email situation like a patriot. The media is spinning the situation as “making it all about himself.” That’s true in the same sense that a Medal of Honor winner who jumped on a grenade to save his buddies is “making it all about himself.” I don’t disagree with the characterization that Comey was trying to be the “hero” because that’s how it looks to me too.
I once heard a story about a guy who pulled a woman out of a car that was on fire. He got burns on his arms doing it. He saved her life, but I don’t like him because he was trying to be a hero. That guy made it all about himself.
I’m sure Comey had his flaws. But I don’t think his handling of the Clinton emails was among them. I assume historians will think otherwise.
- dilbert firestorm
- 05-13-2017, 01:50 PM
scott adams explained pretty good.
+1
+1
- bamscram
- 05-13-2017, 06:42 PM
- LexusLover
- 05-13-2017, 07:13 PM
I’m sure Comey had his flaws. But I don’t think his handling of the Clinton emails was among them. I assume historians will think otherwise. Originally Posted by gnadflyHe can't "assume" such at all.
Oxford Dictionary: "Historian" ..
"An expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon."
"History"
"The study of past events, particularly in human affairs."
He's speculating for the purpose of developing an opinion.
- I B Hankering
- 05-13-2017, 09:42 PM
.
May 2, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Rosenstein,
Now that you have been confirmed as Deputy Attorney General, it is vital that you begin to closely supervise and oversee the FBI’s handling of politically charged, high-profile and controversial investigations. In the past several months, the Committee has sought greater transparency regarding Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s role in those investigations and the appearance of political bias that his involvement creates. Public reports of his meeting with a longtime Clinton and Democrat party fundraiser, Governor Terry McAuliffe, and his wife’s subsequent campaign for public office being substantially funded by McAuliffe’s organization raise serious questions about his ability to appear impartial. The FBI provided unsatisfactory answers to those questions....
Mr. McCabe’s appearance of a partisan conflict of interest relating to Clinton associates only magnifies the importance of the Committee’s unanswered questions. This is particularly true if Mr. McCabe was involved in approving or establishing the FBI’s reported arrangement with Mr. Steele, or if Mr. McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on the politically-funded dossier in the course of the investigation. Simply put, the American people should know if the FBI’s second-in-command relied on Democrat-funded opposition research to justify an investigation of the Republican presidential campaign. Full disclosure is especially important since he is already under investigation by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General for failing to recuse himself from the Clinton matter due to his partisan Democrat ties....
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
March 28, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable James B. Comey, Jr.
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N
Dear Director Comey:
At your speech last Thursday at the University of Texas, you referenced former FBI Director J.Edgar Hoover’s short letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, which sought authorization for FBI surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. without any proper basis for doing so. You mentioned that you keep this letter on your desk, and place FISA applications awaiting your review on top of it, as a reminder. You cited this to emphasize the importance of oversight over the FBI, even over well meaning FBI officials, to ensure the propriety of the FBI’s actions. You are right to call attention to the importance of such oversight. As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is my constitutional duty to conduct that oversight over the FBI and the Department of Justice. Pursuant to its authority under the Constitution and the Rules of the Senate, the Committee requires information to determine: (1) the extent to which FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has been involved in the FBI’s investigation of President Trump’s associates and Russia; (2) whether that involvement raises the appearance a conflict of interest in light of his wife’s ties with Clinton associates; and (3) whether Mr. McCabe has been or should be recused from the investigation.
As you know, Mr. McCabe is under investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. That investigation is examining whether the political and financial connections between his wife’s Democratic political campaign and Clinton associates warranted his recusal in the FBI’s Clinton email investigation. On March 7, 2015, just five days after the New York Times broke the story about Secretary Clinton’s use of private email for official business, Mr. McCabe met with Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a longtime, close associate of the Clintons—along with his wife, Dr. McCabe. Mr. McAuliffe recruited Dr. McCabe, who had not previously run for any political office, to be the Democratic candidate for a Virginia state senate seat. Dr. McCabe agreed, and Governor McAuliffe’s political action committee subsequently gave nearly $500,000 to her campaign while the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton was ongoing. The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, also donated over $200,000 to Dr. McCabe’s campaign. While Mr. McCabe recused himself from public corruption cases in Virginia—presumably including the reportedly ongoing investigation of Mr. McAuliffe regarding illegal campaign contributions—he failed to recuse himself from the Clinton email investigation, despite the appearance of a conflict created by his wife’s campaign accepting $700,000 from a close Clinton associate during the investigation. You have publicly stated that the people at the FBI “don’t give a rip about politics.”1 However, the fact is that the Deputy Director met with Mr. McAuliffe about his wife’s run for elected office and she subsequently accepted campaign funding from him. The fact is that the Deputy Director participated in the controversial, high-profile Clinton email investigation even though his wife took money from Mr. McAuliffe. These circumstances undermine public confidence in the FBI’s impartiality, and this is one of the reasons that many believe the FBI pulled its punches in the Clinton matter. FBI’s senior leadership should never have allowed that appearance of a conflict to undermine the Bureau’s important work. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General is now investigating that matter, as part of the work it announced on January 12, 2017....
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
(Office of Senator Grassley)
- LexusLover
- 05-14-2017, 05:59 AM
And the North Koreans continue to rattle their missiles while fake news distracts the POTUS and HIS TEAM! The Liberals must want a war! Or would they settle for a NK missile strike on the West Coast?
- WTF
- 05-14-2017, 06:56 AM
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1605156...e-comey-firingI agree with this Portion of his passessment.
My opinion of Comey’s handling of the Clinton email issue remains the same. I believe he sacrificed his career and reputation to avoid taking from the American voters their option of having the leader of their choice. If Comey had pushed for Clinton’s indictment, the country would have ended up with a President Trump without a “fair” election. That was the worst-case scenario for the country and the world. Comey prevented that disaster while still making it clear to the American public that Clinton was not guilt-free with her email server. He let the voters decide how much weight to assign all of that. In my opinion, Comey handled the Clinton email situation like a patriot. The media is spinning the situation as “making it all about himself.” That’s true in the same sense that a Medal of Honor winner who jumped on a grenade to save his buddies is “making it all about himself.” I don’t disagree with the characterization that Comey was trying to be the “hero” because that’s how it looks to me too.
I once heard a story about a guy who pulled a woman out of a car that was on fire. He got burns on his arms doing it. He saved her life, but I don’t like him because he was trying to be a hero. That guy made it all about himself.
I’m sure Comey had his flaws. But I don’t think his handling of the Clinton emails was among them. I assume historians will think otherwise. Originally Posted by gnadfly
- bamscram
- 05-14-2017, 08:03 AM
- Rey Lengua
- 05-14-2017, 08:24 AM
- LexusLover
- 05-14-2017, 08:26 AM
- Rey Lengua
- 05-14-2017, 08:31 AM
- bamscram
- 05-14-2017, 10:57 AM