Sarah Huckabee Sanders Version of Covfefe

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Way too many links, videos, and tweets to quote, but it's a good read. I'm wondering if this will get her "Mooched" out of a job.

I'm wondering if this the narrative Trump wants out there. That he knew it wouldn't work all along, or it was his idea to cancel. 

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

I'm wondering if this the narrative Trump wants out there. That he knew it wouldn't work all along, or it was his idea to cancel. 

Who knows? I'm guessing his narrative changes from minute to minute, depending on what Faux & Friends tell him and Shamity whispers in his ear.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

11 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

If one lives to lie, the truth is hard to handle.

[GreyhoundFan]

"What’s the hurry, Sarah Huckabee Sanders?"

Spoiler

When White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders holds an official press briefing, time is a precious commodity. May 22: “We’ll keep this short today.” May 17: “Sorry, I’m going to keep going because we’re really tight on time today.” May 7: “Sorry, I’m going to keep moving just because we’re going to get real tight on time here.” May 7 (again): “I’m going to just keep moving because I did it to your colleague.” For a more lively look at the press secretary’s time constraints, please click on the video at the top of this post.

It stands to reason that Sanders may well be watching the clock. Her briefings, after all, have a knack of ending at 20 minutes, or a tick before or after that mark. As The Post’s Philip Bump pointed out in an exhaustive quantitative look at White House press briefings, Sanders has averaged 20 minutes at the podium for her press briefings and gaggles (which tend to be shorter than full briefings). According to the calculations of the Erik Wemple Blog, Sanders’s briefings have clocked in at 22 minutes or less at least 28 times over the past six months.

It wasn’t always thus. According to George Condon, a National Journal White House correspondent, the senior wire reporter in the room has traditionally thanked the press secretary after an extensive Q-and-A session. Legendary UPI reporter Helen Thomas performed this function for years. “Before she would say, ‘Thank you,’ she was in the first row and she would glance around to see if there were hands still up because she didn’t want to cut it off before people had a chance to ask questions,” recalls Condon, who has been hanging around the briefing room since 1982.

Retired AP reporter Terence Hunt also executed the ritual. “I usually waited 45 minutes or an hour before ending it with a thank you. Occasionally I overlooked someone in the back when the briefing dragged on and when that happened, they gave me grief,” Hunt told the Erik Wemple Blog in an email.

Lengthy briefings continued through the end of the previous administration. “I mostly noticed it in the Obama era, particularly when Josh Earnest — to his credit — would try to take every question in the world,” says Olivier Knox, who covers the White House for SiriusXM and will assume the presidency of the White House Correspondents’ Association this summer. The “thank yous” no longer happen. “That’s completely dead,” says Condon.

Though Sanders softens her image with references to birthdays and other trivialities, cramming a legitimate-appearing press briefing into 20-odd minutes requires ruthlessness. There are 49 seats in the room, with various reporters crowding the sidelines, all equipped with questions. To leave the impression that she has sufficiently polled this crowd, Sanders moves quickly from journalist to journalist — and skimps on the answers.

Sample a string of exchanges from Sanders’s May 9 briefing. Asked about then-nominee for CIA director Gina Haspel’s declaration that she wouldn’t re-launch interrogation programs, Sanders said Trump had “confidence” in Haspel and would “allow” her to lead. Pressed on whether the president still believes that torture works, Sanders replied, “You know, honestly, I haven’t had a conversation with him about that recently.”

Next came a pair of questions about the president’s legal troubles. Doesn’t the American public deserve an answer to questions about a shell company controlled by attorney Michael Cohen? Sanders: “And I think there are appropriate venues and channels in which to do that. And I’ve encouraged you to reach out to them to do exactly what you just outlined.”

Moving on, the press secretary fielded this thoughtful question on foreign affairs:

On North Korea, before he was the National Security Advisor, John Bolton was critical of the Obama administration for sending Bill Clinton to negotiate the release of American detainees in 2009. Did the National Security Advisor raise any reservations at all about the current negotiations? And can you talk about what circumstances are different now than they were in 2009 to make it more appropriate?

Just how do you answer that one in 35 words? Sanders provides a tutorial:

I’m not aware of anything that he raised. Also, to be clear, the purpose of Secretary Pompeo’s trip was to negotiate and discuss the upcoming meeting between President Trump and the leader of North Korea.

Informational parsimony is the key here. Never surrender too much stuff; always highlight moments when you haven’t spoken with the president about a particular topic; shun complexity; and if there’s some other instrumentality, some other bureaucrat, some other spokesperson to whom a question can be referred, refer. “Smart brevity,” this is not.

Just what is the rush here? We asked Sanders that very question and didn’t get a response. Sometimes, however, she provides an explanation in the sessions themselves. On April 10, for instance, Sanders was in full hurry-up-offense mode. “Sorry, I’m going to keep moving because we’re tight on time,” she said at one point, only to repeat the imperative moments later: “Sorry, we’re tight on time with the visit of the Alabama team coming up soon.”

Was it a coincidence that Sanders was attempting to jam her briefing in just before the critical visit of the Crimson Tide? Priorities matter: Journalists were cut short on their questions so that all eyes could land on the president as he welcomed the national-championship football team, saying, “Great job. Big guys back there, huh?”

Like many phenomena in Trump world, the brief press briefings are both unacceptable and logical. Sean Spicer, Sanders’s predecessor, attempted on repeated occasions to tangle with the White House press corps on the nitty-gritty of the day’s news. His briefings, accordingly, lasted longer than those of Sanders, much to his detriment. Back in April 2017, for instance, Spicer fielded a question about the alliance between Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. He said, in part, “You look — we didn’t use chemical weapons in World War II. You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons. So you have to, if you’re Russia, ask yourself is this a country that you and a regime that you want to align yourself with? You have previously signed on to international agreements rightfully acknowledging that the use of chemical weapons should be out of bounds by every country. To not stand up to not only Assad, but your own word, should be troubling.”

About three months later, Spicer announced his resignation, leaving behind a paradoxical lesson for his successors: The less time you spend defending this president, the longer you’ll last.

 

[Cartmann99]

 I enjoy watching her when she has to pretend to believe in something that she knows is complete bullshit. She should never play poker, as her body language gives her away.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Sanders’s illogical claim that she’s not the person to answer questions about her own false statement"

Spoiler

In the past, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has made excuses for false statements. On Monday, she tried something new — telling incredulous reporters that she is not the right person to answer questions about one of her own untrue assertions.

During a televised media briefing, journalists pressed Sanders about her insistence in August that President Trump “certainly didn't dictate” a misleading statement to the New York Times on behalf of his son Donald Trump Jr. In a January letter to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, published for the first time over the weekend by the Times, the president's private legal team conceded that Trump had, in fact, dictated the statement.

“What's the reason for that discrepancy?” the Hill's Jordan Fabian asked Sanders.

“This is from a letter from the outside counsel, and I'd direct you to them to answer that question,” Sanders replied.

That. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

Sanders delivered wrong information last summer, and she — not the president's outside legal team — is best positioned to explain why. Yet Sanders insisted over and over Monday that she is the wrong person to answer questions about what she said.

“Do you retract that?” the New York Times's Peter Baker asked at one point, referring to Sanders's false denial.

“Once again, this is a reference back to a letter from the outside counsel,” Sanders said. “I can't answer, and I would direct you to them.”

Baker asked what formed the basis of Sanders's denial. “Once again, I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth, and I would encourage you to reach out to the outside counsel,” Sanders said.

The most possible basis is, of course, bad information supplied to Sanders by Trump himself. Last month, Sanders essentially blamed the president for one of her other false statements.

“We give the very best information that we have at the time,” she told reporters after her previous assertion that “there was no knowledge of any payments from the president” to porn star Stormy Daniels was contradicted by Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani's admission that the president did, in fact, reimburse another attorney, Michael Cohen, for the payment to Daniels.

Sanders has offered variations of the “best information” explanation on other occasions, too, such as when the White House could not get its story straight last year on the firing of James B. Comey as FBI director or on the status of a background check on Rob Porter, who resigned as staff secretary in February amid accusations of domestic violence.

Perhaps Trump objected to Sanders's suggestions that he could have been the cause of misinformation. In any case, Sanders made no such implication Monday, opting instead to make the illogical contention that the president's personal lawyers — who do not represent her — are the ones who should answer for what she said last summer.

“How can we believe what you're saying from the podium if his lawyers are saying it's entirely inaccurate?” The Washington Post's Josh Dawsey asked Sanders.

“Once again, I can't comment on a letter from the president's outside counsel, and I'd direct you to them to answer it,” she said.

 

[apple1]

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. Otherwise, SHS would be someplace receiving psych care.

I have a lot of difficulty even watching her. That said, I will give her this: Every time she steps behind that podium, I'm convinced her job is on the line. Her primary audience is Trump.

I personally would be somewhere asking, "Would you like fries with that?" before I would take that job.

And she has sold her soul in a way that she will never get it back. She will always be publicly viewed as a liar (and a bad liar, at that).

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[AmazonGrace]

 

i never lie except when I do

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

I don't see her lasting the summer, she's starting to crack under the weight of all the lies news she has to deal with on a daily basis from the clusterfuck that used to be our government. 

[formergothardite]

I wonder if she knows bad shit is going to go down after the end of the year and she wants to leave before it does. 

I wonder if they will actually replace her or if answering questions from the press will just disappear. 

[apple1]

She - unfortunately - sold her soul to do that job.

Her reputation and her Christian testimony (yes, I used that phrase) can never completely recover. I imagine the Fox listening crowd will forgive her, but even they will have a deep down nagging doubt as to the truth of anything she says.

[Cartmann99]

Sarah's father is very emotionally invested in this administration, so I still think that he would see her leaving as a betrayal. I see Sarah as being trapped  between an understandable desire to find a different job, and being very afraid of what will happen with her family if she leaves. Would her father relent and let her work for him, or would she have to navigate the job market with a scarlet "T" on her resume?

I'm no fan of hers, but that is a bad situation to be in.

4 hours ago, apple1 said:

She - unfortunately - sold her soul to do that job.

Yes, she did. I'm really curious what she will think and feel about this experience once a couple of decades have passed.

[candygirl200413]

But we know that she lies whenever her mouth moves so I'm going with the whole she's leaving the WH too. 

[formergothardite]

57 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

I'm really curious what she will think and feel about this experience once a couple of decades have passed.

She is not going to go down well in the history books. Her children and grandchildren will have a lot to think about when they learn her part in an attempt to destroy our country. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

[Howl]

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, you just sentenced yourself to hell.  There is nothing you can do, no repentance that can make up for this. Nothing.  You have sold yourself to the devil in the name of your religion.  You and Jeff Sessions both. 

[fraurosena]

On 6/15/2018 at 12:25 AM, Howl said:

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, you just sentenced yourself to hell.  There is nothing you can do, no repentance that can make up for this. Nothing.  You have sold yourself to the devil in the name of your religion.  You and Jeff Sessions both. 

This is why I hate religion. Not faith, mind you, but religion. Through the ages, religion has always been used to justify all manner of atrocities. I hate it, I hate the blind, unthinking, uncritical, biased following of religion. Religion nurtures the "I am better than you, so I can do anything I want to you because you're less human than I am" sentiments we see all around us. It leads to racism, exclusion and demeaning of 'others'. It leads to mindless terrorist attacks, the bombing of innocent people at a marathon, the flying of planes into buildings. It leads to the slaughter of whole communities because they occupy land that you want to settle. It leads to the killing of nurses trying to aid people that have been hurt while innocently protesting.  It leads to people being ostracised for loving someone of the same sex. And now it justifies ripping nursing babies from their mothers.

So, fuck religion.

Instead, try communicating with your god of choice without directives from others with ulterior motives, without directives from archaic books that have no connection with modern life.

Try to be the best possible person you can, without infringing on the lives and life-choices of others. In my opinion, that is the only path a human being should follow to enlightenment and 'god'.

/rant

[fraurosena]

Aww, Sarah doesn't want to answer questions. Sheesh, it's not like it's her job or something...