He’s definitely high on the warhawk spectrum.
With Mattis gone thanks to this sequence of events, and Kelly to a degree as well, his influence will increase. If he doesn’t get hobbled because he fails to be obsequious enough at some point.
It’s the incoherence that bugs me. I don’t have a handle on the right moves to make, but reverse engineering policy and planning from the unpredictable outbursts of a lazy and cavalier CIC seems obviously problematic.
Guys stop getting his name wrong, it’s Mike Bolton.
Manafort’s lawyers stuffed up their redactions and inadvertently revealed elements of the accusations against him that weren’t previously public - among other things that he lied about sharing polling data and discussing a Ukrainian peace plan with Konstantin Kiliminik, someone considered to be connected to Russian intelligence services.
EFA
Time to play TRUMP BINGO
Yep. The walls keep closing in further everyday.
If only there was some distraction tactic Drumpf could employ, … like a total bullshit & bizarre, end up in the supreme court confected National Emergency / Crisis on the border or something, … 
He’s great around the fake tan
Trump roboting off the prompter now, … it’s actually so ridiculous and fantastical, it’s fkn hilarious.
Well … it’d be way easier for Reporters from a fact check view, to just report on if he actually said anything that was true, … or relevant. 
Incredible.
You can carry on in your usual way BSd however that was a good speech, regardless of whether there were lies in there or not or you agree with it or not. As a PR exercise he has just shored up a lot of votes with that speech.
They will pick it apart, but the PR will have worked and no amount of media take down afterwards will change that.
And someone should tell Acosta he isn’t winning his war with Trump.
Haven’t watched it. Was it a speech aimed at his base or was it one to convince swing voters? I.e. if you aren’t a die hard Republican, will it work.
If you are worried about immigration, yeah it will work.
Come on IT, you can’t label hate filled rhetoric and lies as a “good speech”.
How many of Hitler’s speeches were “good”?
Edit: Godwin would grant me an exemption in the case of the orange shitgibbon.
No speech containing deliberate and obvious lies is a ‘good’ speech IMO. If it is seen to be a good speech, that just reflects a stupid audience.
Ah, well given one of the things Hitler is seen as is that he was a great orator, I’d have said that most of Hitler’s speeches would be defined as “good”, where good is how effective they are with respect to his target audience.
Granted, perhaps my objection is to the use of the word “good”.
Perhaps “That was an effectively racist and fearmongering speech” would be an acceptable substitute.
FACT: Numbers are down to lowest point over past decade
TRUMP: 4000!
More to come: … (Without Doubt)
Well, . the racist and fearmongering speech, part is correct.
About as convincing as a Gill the Dill selling AFLX as exciting and cool.
Like an automaton reading cue cards full of crap it doesn’t even believe itself.
Yeah I think you overreacted just a tad. It was good from a PR standpoint to those he was targeting.
Bit of double think here. Lies and inaccuracy are “good”.
Once that speech has been taken apart lie by lie, then it’s a ■■■■ speech.
