world

Trump removes Bannon from National Security Council

30 Comments
By VIVIAN SALAMA

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


30 Comments
Login to comment

Bannon's yellow journalism rag Breitbart is reporting Bannon's feuding with Trump's son-in-law Kushner and the GOP's Priebus. Trump's fighting with congress and the courts and can't even unite his White House. And Trump supporters actually want him to have even more control?

Rightists (many JT posters included) who wanted Trump to smash the system are getting just what they wanted. Own it rightists. Can the mess he's creating - and rightists called for - ever be cleaned up? Or has Trump pushed the US past the Rubicon.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/05/politico-kushner-clashing-bannon-desire-deconstruct-government/

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Don't pay attention to what they say, pay close attention to what they do.

And always, always watch the other hand...

Next up: Bannon leaves the White House to spend more time with family.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

All talk (and writing).

I strongly assume that Bannon will be working with (and for) Trump "backstage"!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I strongly assume that Bannon will be working with (and for) Trump "backstage"!

Well you know what they say about 'assume'

Bannons done, finished . I see no point clamoring to conspiracy when the deeds already done!!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

A senior White House official said Wednesday that Bannon was initially placed on the National Security Council after Trump’s inauguration as a measure to ensure implementation of the president’s vision, including efforts to downsize and streamline operations at the NSC.

The is just a new spin to justify a political operative at the NSC and to act like there is nothing controversial with the original decision or the decision to remove him.

The more believable scenarios are that McMaster kicked him out, and Bannon was blamed as the ring leader to Nunes' antics, which quickly backfired on Trump and Nunes.

Spicer will have a hard job to explain this away. Whatever he get paid, Spicer doesn't get paid enough.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

It's good he removed Bannon. People said Trump did it without realizing what he was doing.

Trump’s White House is facing allegations that it funneled secret intelligence reports to a Republican congressman leading an investigation into his campaign’s possible ties to Russian officials as well as Moscow’s interference in the 2016 election.

This is actually quite the story.

That whole thing Nunes created about "two sources giving me information and I reported it to Trump" was actually two White House officials showing him the information. You know, the group that is currently being investigated. And then, Nunes, for reasons he hasn't really explained, met with Trump for the purpose of, as he says, letting Trump know about the information. The information he just saw from inside Trump's White House. Before that, he goes on TV and misrepresents what he has in terms of evidence, and keeps the source, again, the group he is investigating, as anonymous.

And he's the one in charge of investigating Trump in the House of Representatives.

Why just say you have new intelligence from the White House and submit your report to the committee?

11 ( +12 / -1 )

All talk (and writing).

strongly assume that Bannon will be working with (and for) Trump "backstage"!

Doesn't matter what Trump does, you guys are NEVER satisfied. LOL

The is just a new spin to justify a political operative at the NSC and to act like there is nothing controversial with the original decision or the decision to remove him.

Can you prove this?

The more believable scenarios are that McMaster kicked him out, and Bannon was blamed as the ring leader to Nunes' antics, which quickly backfired on Trump and Nunes.

Can your prove this?

Spicer will have a hard job to explain this away. Whatever he get paid, Spicer doesn't get paid enough.

How would you know this?

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

Can you prove this?

Deductive logic. Why make the statement now if not for the spin effect?

Can your prove this?

I came to the opinion myself, but then found several news sources coming to the same opinion. Let me guess, fake news. I could also cite the history of lies of the Trump WH creating credibility problems for them. Anything they say should be questioned, either because of their history of lies or their inability to be professional.

"Alternative Facts" is now a word because of them.

How would you know this?

Spicer's stammering has been worse lately as he tries to reconcile in real time the lies put out by the WH with rationality and facts.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

"The more believable scenarios are that McMaster kicked him out, and Bannon was blamed as the ring leader to Nunes' antics, which quickly backfired on Trump and Nunes"

"Can your prove this?"

No real need to offer proof. Someone is putting forward a scenario, not making a concrete claim. This is different to a shrieking lunatic making concrete accusations by sending out trash tweets after watching idiotic trash right MSM TV shows.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Deductive logic.

What, that you can't prove it?

I came to the opinion myself, but then found several news sources coming to the same opinion. Let me guess, fake news.

Ok, it's an opinion, fine, I'm ok with that.

I could also cite the history of lies of the Trump WH creating credibility problems for them. Anything they say should be questioned, either because of their history of lies or their inability to be professional.

Gosh, I wish you had that same condemnation attitude with president 44.

"Alternative Facts" is now a word because of them.

No, it's actually been around since 1998

No real need to offer proof.

Bingo! Hit the nail on the head! That's the crux of the problem, liberals THINK they don't need proof of anything, it's visceral and based on emotion. smh.

Someone is putting forward a scenario, not making a concrete claim. This is different to a shrieking lunatic making concrete accusations by sending out trash tweets after watching idiotic trash right MSM TV shows.

Ok, so where is your proof?

-17 ( +0 / -17 )

Best move Trump has made so far since sacking KGB agent Flynn! Although this still doesn't excuse his treason of placing him there in the first place, and this crime will never be forgotten. Trump the Traitor constantly disappoints

5 ( +7 / -2 )

NYT says Trump was angered that his advisers did not sufficiently warn him of the implications of adding Bannon to the NSC. This surprise at the friggin' obvious is another sign that Trump has no business being president. Why Bannon was demoted now is under several orders of spin depending on Administration faction. Someday, a book will be written about all of this, and it'll be a helluva read.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/national-security-council-stephen-bannon.html?_r=0

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I'm tempted to say "yee-HAAA!" OK... yee-HAAAAA!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Another apprentice fired. Flynn, Bannon, and Conway next.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Well, not all historians are American, so you'd have to surmise that some historians around the world paint rosy portraits of Bush. But none of us can be bothered to locate these minor revisionists in the historical scrap heap. Proof is just a selling point on a tequila bottle.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Trump removes Bannon from National Security Council

Doesn't matter what Trump does, you guys are NEVER satisfied. LOL Can you prove this? Can your prove this? How would you know this?

What, that you can't prove it? Ok, it's an opinion, fine, I'm ok with that. Gosh, I wish you had that same condemnation attitude with president 44. No, it's actually been around since 1998 Bingo! Hit the nail on the head! That's the crux of the problem, liberals THINK they don't need proof of anything, it's visceral and based on emotion. smh. Ok, so where is your proof?

I just said, who knows doesn't matter one way or another, but nice try. I just said, he was a horrible president. Compared to 44 until 2007 pretty much. I prefer Tequila. Ok and Obama had Susan Rice, speaking of the devil..... That's his prerogative.

Never said, "roaring success". Unemployment stats don't lie. Otherwise, if they were happy, Hillary would have won, but they stayed out. No, I just go by the employment stats. My opinions are different.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Trump removes Bannon from National Security Council

good

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Bannon was put there to undo the damage that Susan Rice did by politicizing the National Security Council. That has been completed and the new NSA director has things under control, so Bannon can do focus on something else.

I still dont get why when the Trump admin says why something was done, all the newspapers want to make it a scandal instead. Yet, the real scandals they wont touch them. Susan Rice and 'sources close to her' (her ABC news producer husband?) said she didnt do anything wrong. So ok guess she didnt do anything wrong, nothing to see here. Oh that lie she told last week about knowing nothing? Oh well, now actually she did it but it was legal this week. By next week it will probably be proven it was done for poitical reasons only, that is the direction it seems to be going.

Most of the media seems to have no problem ignoring real stories, but still want to make up any of their own stories they can.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

garbage can't be hidden by covering it with more garbage. Flynn fired, Badboy fired and Kellyanne Goneaway and her alternative facts next. Maybe they just didn't realise they too had a foot in the swamp?

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Any of you read the comprehensive article on Bannon in Sunday's Magazine section of the New York Times? It clears the air about a lot of things. A lot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bannon was put there to undo the damage that Susan Rice did by politicizing the National Security Council.

Bannon's words were that Rice "operationalized" the NSC. He wanted to "de-operationalize" the NSC. No one even knows what that word means or what he did.

You are creating a false narrative by saying she politicized the office to support Trump's latest lies.

Plus, you are suggesting that a political operative in the NSC is the best way to not politicize the NSC. When do you think rationally and question what you are being fed?

I still dont get why when the Trump admin says why something was done, all the newspapers want to make it a scandal instead

Trump admin issues bombastic lies at every step to deflect criticism. What is surprising are the people who swallow these lies without question. The last bombastic lie has been proven a lie (Obama wiretapped me, McCarthyism, Watergate) and is not longer doing its job of deflecting attention,, so Trump has come up with another lie.

Meanwhile, the Russia investigation has revealed three new people connected to Trump and with contacts to Russia. This is the real reason for the Trump administration instigate new lies. Plus, Trump has to face what to do with Assad after tacitly telling him the U.S. doesn't care what he does.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Brannon told Trump he would resist the changes to the NSC proposed by Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster so one or the other had to go. Clear choice really.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/05/hard-believe-susan-rice-political-motives-tellusatoday/100094718/

Why so quick to determine that Susan Rice did nothing wrong? and why so quick to say the wiretapping was a lie? 47% of people now saying it is very likely/somewhat likely that Trump offices were wiretapped. I am sure if the word wiretapped was changed to surveilled or monitored that number would be even higher.

The more the information comes out, the more it seems Trump is being proven correct. As I have said before I think he already knows everything that happened and is just watching it play out to the end. Someone was without a doubt surveilling the non Russia related conversations of himself and his team for at least a year. If something was actually found, it would have been leaked looooong ago. Susan Rice says knew nothing about it, but when the evidence came out the next step is that sometimes she did it. Which is it?

Her position is not an investigator and the investigators had left all the names masked, so there shouldnt be any reason for her to have done that. So we will be seeing her testify and try to explain it away. Her most recent explanation centered around the word 'it', saying that she was talking about a different 'it' when she said she knew nothing about 'it'

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@klausdorth - Surely you must mean "tweeting", and not "writing" ! Remember, the Tweeter-in-Chief doesn't write !

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Trump admin issues bombastic lies at every step to deflect criticism.

Seems like Susan Rice is spinning a few of her own and the plot thickens

What is surprising are the people who swallow these lies without question.

You mean, that after 2 years, still nothing with the Russians and or possible collusion going on, so far. Maybe, just maybe the Dems might find that there is less than nothing in another few months.

The last bombastic lie has been proven a lie (Obama wiretapped me, McCarthyism, Watergate) and is not longer doing its job of deflecting attention,, so Trump has come up with another lie.

From the looks of it, it may not have been a lie after all. Boiling heat!

Meanwhile, the Russia investigation has revealed three new people connected to Trump and with contacts to Russia.

And watch that road lead to nowhere as well.

This is the real reason for the Trump administration instigate new lies. Plus, Trump has to face what to do with Assad after tacitly telling him the U.S. doesn't care what he does.

ROFL.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Bannon said yesterday:

Susan Rice operationalized the N.S.C. during the last administration. I was put on the N.S.C. with General Flynn to ensure that it was de-operationalized.

so Blacklabel says today:

Bannon was put there to undo the damage that Susan Rice did by politicizing the National Security Council.

It's not just the parroting of marching orders that's hilarious, nor is it the complete lack of evidence

it's the entire premise: that appointing a political adviser to the NSC for the first time in history was necessary because it had been "politicized."

Thanks, Blacklabel - you made my night. Par for the course, though, considering most all of Trump's cabinet picks are committed to the destruction of the departments they head.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Readers, Susan Rice is not relevant to this discussion. All future posts not dealing with the Bannon will be removed.

Sincerely, Mods

Moderator: If you try to impersonate a moderator again, you will be suspended from the discussion board.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Q. Is Trump learning to be a Politician ? And if by doing so, loosing the appeal that he had to those who voted for him ?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I wonder why Trump's people are russian out of office?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

One of the best things Trump has done this year !

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites