Trump is calling the entire senate to the white house for briefing on north korea

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,133
5,072
136
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...iefing-on-north-korea/?utm_term=.b26f0a9db974

Senate staff perplexed by unusual White House private briefing on North Korea
The White House announced Monday that it would host an unusual private briefing on North Korea for the entire Senate, prompting questions from lawmakers about whether the Trump administration intends to use the event as a photo op ahead of its 100-day mark.

Press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that the lawmakers would be briefed Wednesday by several senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. He emphasized that the meeting plan had been convened by Senate leadership and that the White House was serving “as the location.”

Yet the White House setting perplexed lawmakers who have grown accustomed to such briefings taking place in a secure location on Capitol Hill, where there is more room to handle such a large group.

[Trump gets on the phone to Asia as another North Korea flash point looms]

Past administrations have often held briefings for smaller groups of about two dozen or fewer lawmakers in the White House Situation Room. But they have traditionally sent high-level aides to Capitol Hill to hold discussions with larger groups in secure underground locations.

A senior Trump administration official said the meeting with senators will take place in the auditorium at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the building next to the White House that houses most of the National Security Council. The auditorium will be temporarily turned into a “sensitive compartmented information facility,” or SCIF, which is the term for a room where sensitive national security information can be shared, the official said.

Such facilities are configured to withstand eavesdropping or other technical snooping.

David Popp, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), explained that "The President offered to host the meeting and the Majority Leader agreed."

Other Senate leadership staffers signaled that most, if not all, senators in both parties are expected to attend the White House briefing.

But the unusual location left many staffers scratching their heads.

In recent years during debates surrounding Syria's civil war, terrorist attacks in Europe and the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in U.S. elections, Cabinet secretaries and senior law enforcement officials have traveled to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers.

“These briefings are always, always, always done in the SCIF up here,” one Senate aide, who was not authorized to talk on the record and so spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Monday. “Does it mean classified information is going to be shared in an unsecured setting? Or that we’re not hearing about classified material?”

Another senior aide, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it was President Trump’s idea to hold the meeting at the White House.

“I heard this came from Trump himself, that in a nutshell he said, ‘Why don’t we have them up here instead?’ ” the aide said.

The senior administration official confirmed that Trump offered the White House complex as a location and that McConnell accepted.

Congressional staffers suggested that the briefing’s proximity to Trump would make it easy for him to “drop by” and perhaps take over the briefing.

The image of senators meeting with Trump at the White House on a top national security concern could be touted by the White House as a key moment in the run-up to Trump’s 100th day in office — a milestone that the president has mocked in recent days but that his administration is working aggressively to promote.

Trump has sought to strike a tougher tone on North Korea in the wake of Pyongyang's latest weapons tests, which included a failed missile test this month. On Monday, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley hosted counterparts from the U.N. Security Council in Washington to discuss the security situation in Syria and North Korea, and Trump met with them and posed for a picture with the group, officials said.

“The status quo in North Korea is also unacceptable,” Trump told the U.N. ambassadors, Reuters reported. “The council must be prepared to impose additional and stronger sanctions on North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile programs.”
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,446
6,095
126
Not the "Bernie woulda won!" bullshit. You can't know that. Trump & the Russians might have beaten him like a rented mule for all we know.
How did I know Trump would win his Primary and likely the general? I can feel what's in the message, or in the case of Clinton, what's not in it. I am simply focused on what I believe is a fact, that our democracy is dead, Everything else flows from that. There is only one issue that is important and needs to be fixed before anything else progressive can happen and that is we have to get our democracy back. If there is some other message or that one is missing, there is no real message and the candidate will likely lose.

Now you don't believe that our democracy is dead, that it's just not how I want it to be, but you don't take into account that I died to hope. Democracy is dead to me and that's a fact. Perhaps if and when you realize that, you will see differently. The system can't heal from within the system. It must be forced to change by an active movement with the middle class. Hillary appealed to patience and reason and identity politics, a stay the course approach at a time when people are experiencing deep frustration and anxiety, Time to say why, that the government is run by and for the rich, not the average voter and that will only change when the average voter votes out anybody who will not get money out of politics. any other message is irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: local

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,335
4,468
136
Wow, a lot of wild speculation flying around in this thread. Not much that is fact based either.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,515
756
146
Not the "Bernie woulda won!" bullshit. You can't know that. Trump & the Russians might have beaten him like a rented mule for all we know.

He would have done better than her. She was a weak candidate and still won the popular vote with 2% lead, even with the Weiner laptop trick Team Trump had up their sleeves with the Russians. He would have beat the dog doodie out of him.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,245
12,875
136
Not the "Bernie woulda won!" bullshit. You can't know that. Trump & the Russians might have beaten him like a rented mule for all we know.
The French. Macron succeeded cause he was fuck you vote too.. I think Sanders would have pulled through..Fuck you votes are popular these days.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,515
756
146
The French. Macron succeeded cause he was fuck you vote too.. I think Sanders would have pulled through..Fuck you votes are popular these days.

Sanders was doing well in the general election match ups. He was at double digits against Trump. People may argue that he was outside of scrutiny, since he didn't make it to the general election, but a change in opinion would not have been drastic. Their best play was calling him a socialist. No way that makes up the huge deficit Trump had in match-ups with him.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,685
2,438
126
This is nothing more than a diversion that is all.

Hopefully you are right. For someone who campaigned on an isolationist platform, and frequently criticized earlier Presidents for entering wars to create a legacy, and who criticized Hillary for her warlike stances, Trump sure seems to be striving to enter a war, nuclear if at all possible. He is full of so much bluster and BS it's hard to read his true intentions however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken g6

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,739
9,651
136
good job "conservatives" You elected a retard.

China just informed trump he needs to get clearance from the un security council. They probably didnt know if trump knew there was one.

In Trump's defence, it was probably obsolete until it wasn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,433
229
106
This remind me of the movie Olympus have fallen. NK, Bunker, nuke, everyone in one room and WH.
 

Bubblehappy

Senior member
Aug 14, 2010
521
29
91
And meanwhile, NK decided to blast off some artillery rounds today. Hmmm, nuke test must not be ready, and they don't want another embarrassment of trying launch another missile.

Pressure China to cut off their aid and leave this whining little dictator alone. Once their supplies cut off, they will play nice. No oil and no food for awhile will force their hand. We don't need to wage a war over this. Kim is like a baby in a crib, the more he whines the more attention he draws.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,133
5,072
136
And meanwhile, NK decided to blast off some artillery rounds today. Hmmm, nuke test must not be ready, and they don't want another embarrassment of trying launch another missile.

Pressure China to cut off their aid and leave this whining little dictator alone. Once their supplies cut off, they will play nice. No oil and no food for awhile will force their hand. We don't need to wage a war over this. Kim is like a baby in a crib, the more he whines the more attention he draws.

I'm reminded of Trumps recent comments about Mars
Trump: "Tell me, for Mars, what do you see a timing for actually sending people to Mars. Is there a schedule, and when do you see that happening?"
Whitson: "Unfortunately spaceflight takes a lot of time and money...Getting there will require some international cooperation, a planet-wide approach in order to make it successful just because it is a very expensive endeavor."

Trump: "Well, we want to try and do it during my first term, or at worst during my second term, so we'll have to speed that up a little bit, OK?"

I can just picture him in a meeting with staff asking why we can't just go in and take out Korea and do it in time for the 2019-2020 ratings season. Maybe the 2018 ratings season but its ok if they get in time for the 19-20 ratings push.
It will be the biggliest ratings since 9/11.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,120
48,181
136
Sanders was doing well in the general election match ups. He was at double digits against Trump. People may argue that he was outside of scrutiny, since he didn't make it to the general election, but a change in opinion would not have been drastic. Their best play was calling him a socialist. No way that makes up the huge deficit Trump had in match-ups with him.

Why do you think a change in opinion would not have been drastic? It certainly was for Clinton. When she was not a presidential candidate she was one of the most popular politicians in the country. When she became the Democratic frontrunner her popularity among Republicans went in the toilet. I see no reason why the same thing wouldn't have happened with Sanders.

That aside, it's hard to see any national security interest in the US attacking North Korea. If Trump tries to gin up support for that we need to seriously start talking about removing him from office.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,120
48,181
136
Prediction on when we attack : sweeps week

As other people have pointed out the one scary thing about this is how easily trained Trump seems to be. The only thing he's done while in office of any substance that has been praised is (bafflingly) his missile attack on Syria. To me that means since that day he's been looking for another country to strike because then he can get that praise he desperately, desperately wants.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,446
6,095
126
Why do you think a change in opinion would not have been drastic? It certainly was for Clinton. When she was not a presidential candidate she was one of the most popular politicians in the country. When she became the Democratic frontrunner her popularity among Republicans went in the toilet. I see no reason why the same thing wouldn't have happened with Sanders.

That aside, it's hard to see any national security interest in the US attacking North Korea. If Trump tries to gin up support for that we need to seriously start talking about removing him from office.
In order to see a reason why it would not happen to Sanders you would have to know why it did happen to Clinton, and I would suggest that it did with her because the seeds of dissatisfaction with her were deeply planted over years and years of time and that a typical Republican smear campaign against Sanders would not have had the time to take.

Now that I have given you what I believe, at any rate, to be a true and logical reason to doubt your supposition, has it changed your mind? I suspect it may be that you retain your original opinion because it is emotionally invested.

It's not that I'm not emotionally invested too, thinking as I do, but I do so because I believe that if Clinton had won we would simply have had more of what we've had over the years, slight progressive progress on irrelevancies and governmental control firmly in the hands of the wealthy, more death for the middle class and more frustration they aren't being heard.

It looks to me like we have two parties, one full of anger and another that can't feel much of anything and is politically tone deaf.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Why do you think a change in opinion would not have been drastic? It certainly was for Clinton. When she was not a presidential candidate she was one of the most popular politicians in the country. When she became the Democratic frontrunner her popularity among Republicans went in the toilet. I see no reason why the same thing wouldn't have happened with Sanders.

That aside, it's hard to see any national security interest in the US attacking North Korea. If Trump tries to gin up support for that we need to seriously start talking about removing him from office.

Well Bernie was the best human in the race and expressed his concern for the public. Hillary was cold and remote and she cared for all the talking points and was unlike her husband where she embraced division. She was the consummate disconnected candidate. I can't speak for anyone but myself and people I know. We didn't dislike Hillary because of her party, not because of Trump, but because she was a wealthy beneficiary of the people she said she opposed. We were supposed to vote for her because she was a woman? If we didn't we were sexist? That's the spin on the part of some.

We were given a stuffed pantsuit or a billionaire bobblehead. At least Bernie was person who lived a relatively modest lifestyle, who put his safety and liberty on the line to stand up for things that matter. He wasn't owned by either party and that is why he had to go. The controlling powers did not want a leader, they wanted a puppet who said the right things. Doing them was completely unnecessary, just giving the illusion of choice mattered.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,120
48,181
136
In order to see a reason why it would not happen to Sanders you would have to know why it did happen to Clinton, and I would suggest that it did with her because the seeds of dissatisfaction with her were deeply planted over years and years of time and that a typical Republican smear campaign against Sanders would not have had the time to take.

Now that I have given you what I believe, at any rate, to be a true and logical reason to doubt your supposition, has it changed your mind? I suspect it may be that you retain your original opinion because it is emotionally invested.

It's not that I'm not emotionally invested too, thinking as I do, but I do so because I believe that if Clinton had won we would simply have had more of what we've had over the years, slight progressive progress on irrelevancies and governmental control firmly in the hands of the wealthy, more death for the middle class and more frustration they aren't being heard.

It looks to me like we have two parties, one full of anger and another that can't feel much of anything and is politically tone deaf.

I think the next election will show what is true and what is not. Obama governed as a centrist and was met with overwhelming Republican loathing. Clinton was the same. My bet is that whatever candidate the Democrats nominate in 2020 will see their personal popularity go in the toilet. It's because negative partisanship rules here.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I think the next election will show what is true and what is not. Obama governed as a centrist and was met with overwhelming Republican loathing. Clinton was the same. My bet is that whatever candidate the Democrats nominate in 2020 will see their personal popularity go in the toilet. It's because negative partisanship rules here.

If the Democrats run another self centered divisionist then yeah there will be a problem, and I bet that's going to happen. Why? Because only a few Dems like Biden understood her and the election. The rest are blaming it on Trump and the Republicans. Sure they were negative but that's politics. Sorry bro but for all that is Trump the opposition largely cannot see itself as being at fault except perhaps for not selling that which wasn't wanted harder.

There needs to be some self soul searching and changes made internally, not just doing the same things harder.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,446
6,095
126
I think the next election will show what is true and what is not. Obama governed as a centrist and was met with overwhelming Republican loathing. Clinton was the same. My bet is that whatever candidate the Democrats nominate in 2020 will see their personal popularity go in the toilet. It's because negative partisanship rules here.

I don't think you addressed my point head on. What you describe is a given. What I spoke of was the rate of decline as a function of time offset by the effectiveness of a meaningful counter-message. I suggested a reason why Clinton reached her tipping point much sooner than it would have been possible for Republicans to do in Sanders. He started more favorably, they had less time to smear him, and he had a relevant message, all reasons I believe logically support my argument that they would not have been equal opportunity victims. Sanders, I think, would have been much harder to knock off and he did have the only message that matters. We will never end this negative partisanship unless we remove the money from politics that feed it, the power the rich have to say who runs in election by the corruption money brings to them. The system will not fix itself from within. It is a vested interest.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,120
48,181
136
If the Democrats run another self centered divisionist then yeah there will be a problem, and I bet that's going to happen. Why? Because only a few Dems like Biden understood her and the election. The rest are blaming it on Trump and the Republicans. Sure they were negative but that's politics. Sorry bro but for all that is Trump the opposition largely cannot see itself as being at fault except perhaps for not selling that which wasn't wanted harder.

There needs to be some self soul searching and changes made internally, not just doing the same things harder.

I think this badly misses the dominant force in American politics over the last 20 years. Look at the changes here:

partisan_animosity.jpg


The percentage of each party viewing the other 'very unfavorably' has more than doubled since the 1990's and more than a third of Republicans and nearly a quarter of Democrats view the opposing party as a threat to the well being of the nation. That's animosity that transcends any particular politician. I mean again, Obama was about as inoffensive a Democratic president as the Republicans are likely to see again and their response was apoplectic rage.

This is not a case of one nominee or a type of nominee, this is long term polarization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,141
12,263
146
I think this badly misses the dominant force in American politics over the last 20 years. Look at the changes here:

partisan_animosity.jpg


The percentage of each party viewing the other 'very unfavorably' has more than doubled since the 1990's and more than a third of Republicans and nearly a quarter of Democrats view the opposing party as a threat to the well being of the nation. That's animosity that transcends any particular politician. I mean again, Obama was about as inoffensive a Democratic president as the Republicans are likely to see again and their response was apoplectic rage.

This is not a case of one nominee or a type of nominee, this is long term polarization.

A lot of this is due to the media and the opposing party telling people that 'the other camp' is indeed a threat to the nation's well-being. We the people may have held the wedge, but the media and the two parties hammered it in.