Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.
utterly laughable.
Did you guys miss the point of that last statement? Too funny. I'll try to talk slower next time.
please, do tell. because to this guy who apparently reads too quickly, it makes very little sense.
Obviously, the scenario I played out is satirical to make a point. It's neither high moral ground nor laughable other than in a satirical sense. So, starting with the "Yeah sure you would," the entirety of the responses are pretty funny. I'm sure most of the folks on here were already in on the joke. Now the 2 of you are, too.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.
utterly laughable.
Did you guys miss the point of that last statement? Too funny. I'll try to talk slower next time.
please, do tell. because to this guy who apparently reads too quickly, it makes very little sense.
Obviously, the scenario I played out is satirical to make a point. It's neither high moral ground nor laughable other than in a satirical sense. So, starting with the "Yeah sure you would," the entirety of the responses are pretty funny. I'm sure most of the folks on here were already in on the joke. Now the 2 of you are, too.
yeah, I get it was satirical. but the point you were making is still obviously non-existent, since you still failed to express it. I'm guessing you won't.
your condescension is cute. clearly the smartest guy in the room.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
Actually you may be off base on this one on a few points. Feel free to do some research. I'm pulling in general knowledge from people I know that work in Defense (I'm relatively close to Pentagon City).
When you achieve the top secret clearance that Flynn has, you give up certain privacy rights related to national security. You aren't giving up your Miranda rights or unlawful search and seizure in criminal case, but I believe the IC can tap you, follow you, etc. if they have reason to believe what you are doing could harm the national security interests. In this case, it clearly could.
Second, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that executive privilege would apply before inauguration. But it's not binary. It's not private citizen or executive privilege. There is also top secret access which Flynn had and with it comes certain responsibilities.
But I'm not sure anyone is saying Flynn broke the law. But the sights will now turn to Trump and what he knew and whether he allowed these conversations to happen. Either he did and he is lying to us, or he didn't and his future cabinet appointee was going rogue on day one. Which one is worse?
Oh, wait, that was only female attacking female for outing a man who committed workplace sexual abuse rather than supporting her. Faulty analogy.
Yes it's the first recorded time when a woman (or man) was angry with the person that slept with her/his spouse. In most everyday lives, the woman would side with the other woman and they would end up drinking International Coffee in Paris together. But Hillary being angry with Monica was WAY out of bounds and highly inconsistent with human behavior.
But, she's above all that. She represents all women, and how dare any of them vote against her. She's the pillar of all they stand for. And letting your husband get a blow job from an intern and attacking said intern is what that person stands for as a powerful woman.
I don't disagree with your human behavior comment. But, what kind of human?
And, if I ever got a BJ from an intern and my wife not only stayed with me, but attacked that woman publically, I think I'd have to divorce her.
Yeah sure you would.. You would certainly have the moral high ground in that situation.
utterly laughable.
Did you guys miss the point of that last statement? Too funny. I'll try to talk slower next time.
please, do tell. because to this guy who apparently reads too quickly, it makes very little sense.
Obviously, the scenario I played out is satirical to make a point. It's neither high moral ground nor laughable other than in a satirical sense. So, starting with the "Yeah sure you would," the entirety of the responses are pretty funny. I'm sure most of the folks on here were already in on the joke. Now the 2 of you are, too.
yeah, I get it was satirical. but the point you were making is still obviously non-existent, since you still failed to express it. I'm guessing you won't.
your condescension is cute. clearly the smartest guy in the room.
kinda like my 10 year old.
I am far from smartest guy in the room. But, while the internet is tough on interpreting things like sarcasm and satire, that one was fairly self evident. I mean c'mon. Who's dumb enough to get caught (see? I did it again. I'm not really doing that - or am I? Jesus. Who knows any more? No. Really I'm not. Maybe.)
To me the amusing part is how both of you have taken a our side, his side that you're blinded by anything that's said no matter how obvious. We all fall into that trap (myself included). Doesn't make it any less amusing.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.
If we want to talk about White House affairs, is there any doubt that Trump is piping Kellyanne?
thanks for that image.
Need brain bleach? Hope Hicks
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?
lol what a joke
Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?
You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.
So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?
Well, now you know Trump's plan. Get Russia to point nuclear warheads at us from close range, and the libs will only remember that he "stopped" them.
Actually, I said it in jest, but it's actually happening. Russia has deployed missiles. I think the only thing my joke missed is that Putin is doing that to HELP Trump, so when he backs down, Trump is back in everyone's good graces. Ummm. Ok. Now I've gone too far. But, the Putin-Trump thing is spot on.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?
lol what a joke
Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?
You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.
So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?
Well, now you know Trump's plan. Get Russia to point nuclear warheads at us from close range, and the libs will only remember that he "stopped" them.
Actually, I said it in jest, but it's actually happening. Russia has deployed missiles. I think the only thing my joke missed is that Putin is doing that to HELP Trump, so when he backs down, Trump is back in everyone's good graces. Ummm. Ok. Now I've gone too far. But, the Putin-Trump thing is spot on.
Well it is quite interesting. Why is Putin choosing now to start violating a treaty? Why not in the last 6 years since he took office? Why not test Obama. The whole thing is curious to say the least.
so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?
lol what a joke
Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?
You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.
So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?
Well, now you know Trump's plan. Get Russia to point nuclear warheads at us from close range, and the libs will only remember that he "stopped" them.
Actually, I said it in jest, but it's actually happening. Russia has deployed missiles. I think the only thing my joke missed is that Putin is doing that to HELP Trump, so when he backs down, Trump is back in everyone's good graces. Ummm. Ok. Now I've gone too far. But, the Putin-Trump thing is spot on.
Well it is quite interesting. Why is Putin choosing now to start violating a treaty? Why not in the last 6 years since he took office? Why not test Obama. The whole thing is curious to say the least.
so our current president and his crew are clearly sold out to Russia and all some of you guys can come up with is old Clinton scandals?
lol what a joke
Relax. It's a side commentary. Nothing's taking away from your all focused the Russians are coming diatribe. It's our way of calming our nerves. BTW, how you feel about JFK getting those missiles pointed at us from shooting range?
You mean JFK the president who stood up to Russia and prevented WW3 without a shot being fired? I feel pretty awesome about him. He's a legend.
So now you're not just deflecting 20 years you're going back 50+ to avoid talking about the issue?
Well, now you know Trump's plan. Get Russia to point nuclear warheads at us from close range, and the libs will only remember that he "stopped" them.
Actually, I said it in jest, but it's actually happening. Russia has deployed missiles. I think the only thing my joke missed is that Putin is doing that to HELP Trump, so when he backs down, Trump is back in everyone's good graces. Ummm. Ok. Now I've gone too far. But, the Putin-Trump thing is spot on.
Well it is quite interesting. Why is Putin choosing now to start violating a treaty? Why not in the last 6 years since he took office? Why not test Obama. The whole thing is curious to say the least.
Well, technically he did do some things while Obama was in office that technically violated the treaty. But, this is clearly on a different level (if in fact you believe its all real and not posturing).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
Actually you may be off base on this one on a few points. Feel free to do some research. I'm pulling in general knowledge from people I know that work in Defense (I'm relatively close to Pentagon City).
When you achieve the top secret clearance that Flynn has, you give up certain privacy rights related to national security. You aren't giving up your Miranda rights or unlawful search and seizure in criminal case, but I believe the IC can tap you, follow you, etc. if they have reason to believe what you are doing could harm the national security interests. In this case, it clearly could.
Second, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that executive privilege would apply before inauguration. But it's not binary. It's not private citizen or executive privilege. There is also top secret access which Flynn had and with it comes certain responsibilities.
But I'm not sure anyone is saying Flynn broke the law. But the sights will now turn to Trump and what he knew and whether he allowed these conversations to happen. Either he did and he is lying to us, or he didn't and his future cabinet appointee was going rogue on day one. Which one is worse?
You could be right on all of the above...this is where it gets sticky and above all of our pay grades. My only point on this matter is not that Flynn is "innocent" of anything but that there is certainly some underhandedness to this all that just doesn't smell right. This article from someone who doesn't like Flynn at all really hits the nail on the head. The process on how someone is taken down matters.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.
Meanwhile, back here in the real world, Mike Flynn just resigned. Which makes him the 3rd Trump team member to step down due to shady dealings with Russia.
I don't need to change your mind, this is the reality of the situation my friend.
Comments
your condescension is cute. clearly the smartest guy in the room.
kinda like my 10 year old.
www.headstonesband.com
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
When you achieve the top secret clearance that Flynn has, you give up certain privacy rights related to national security. You aren't giving up your Miranda rights or unlawful search and seizure in criminal case, but I believe the IC can tap you, follow you, etc. if they have reason to believe what you are doing could harm the national security interests. In this case, it clearly could.
Second, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that executive privilege would apply before inauguration. But it's not binary. It's not private citizen or executive privilege. There is also top secret access which Flynn had and with it comes certain responsibilities.
But I'm not sure anyone is saying Flynn broke the law. But the sights will now turn to Trump and what he knew and whether he allowed these conversations to happen. Either he did and he is lying to us, or he didn't and his future cabinet appointee was going rogue on day one. Which one is worse?
To me the amusing part is how both of you have taken a our side, his side that you're blinded by anything that's said no matter how obvious. We all fall into that trap (myself included). Doesn't make it any less amusing.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Hope Hicks
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/14/russian-spy-ship-off-east-coast-us-officials-say.html
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
from The Daily Show
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
i hate it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
they had 8 years to come up with something, but when you spend your entire term campaigning you can't really do any kind of legislating.
legislating is waaaay more difficult than campaigning. they are learning that the hard way.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This article from someone who doesn't like Flynn at all really hits the nail on the head. The process on how someone is taken down matters.
http://theweek.com/articles/680068/americas-spies-anonymously-took-down-michael-flynn-that-deeply-worrying
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/opinions/reasoning-with-trump-voters-mallicote/index.html
I don't need to change your mind, this is the reality of the situation my friend.