Reality Check Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, Prickly Pete said: Whatever Team Trump has on these Deep Staters, it's time to fast track the release of it. Every week we get a little more of the picture. It would seem that by the 4th of July, we are likely to see some real fireworks.
Prickly Pete Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, Reality Check said: Every week we get a little more of the picture. It would seem that by the 4th of July, we are likely to see some real fireworks. That's a long way off, considering the current situation.
bdutton Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Nanker said: Obama was the worst President ever. EVER. Yup... and Carter was a pretty high (or low depending on persepective) bar to clear.
Tiberius Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Nanker said: Obama was the worst President ever. EVER. Lol
Reality Check Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-902-1996-amendments-18-usc-1001 This is an important read from the archives of the DOJ. Highly recommended. 4 minutes ago, Prickly Pete said: That's a long way off, considering the current situation. The American public is lazy and naive. If real justice is to be served, it requires that a super majority see, understand, and actually experience genuine fear at what has happened to our country. There is no easy way out. We have failed as citizens to prevent our current problems. It is what it is now. 1
Foxx Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, BillStime said: It’s unraveling bro - your pride and joy - all the reasons why you are fighting for justice (your words) - is going up in smoke. #justice And how is this not coordination with a foreign government and even before the inauguration !!! What else was coordinated ? Flynn Discussed Sanctions at Length With Russian Diplomat, Transcripts Show 57 minutes ago, Foxx said: stop being such a tool for once would ya. what happened was nothing out of the ordinary that has been happening for a long time. it is known as the transition of power from one administration to another. it is a prudent action for there to be preliminary discussions before the actual date arrives so that there is no downtime. what was unprecedented was the Oministration's obstruction of that transfer of power. you don't impose sanctions on another super power in your last days to attempt to box in the next incoming administration, yet that is exactly what they did. the Obamanation was upset that his legacy was going to be destroyed and his policies abandoned and that the Islamic State that he so loves was going to be held accountable. the FBI was going to clear Flynn until the 7th floor got involved and they quite possibly got their marching orders from on high. i suggest you read the transcript(s) and do some critical thinking of your own for once. oh the outrage! why wasn't wILiAm mIlLeR prosecuted? https://twitter.com/iamJadePA/status/1266587703174406145 you ***** tool. Edited May 30, 2020 by Foxx 1 1
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 “I really don’t want us to get into a situation where we’re going, you know, where we do this and then you do something bigger, and then you know, everybody’s got to go back and forth". That is literally what “refrain from escalating” means. Keep the echo chamber going though. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: “I really don’t want us to get into a situation where we’re going, you know, where we do this and then you do something bigger, and then you know, everybody’s got to go back and forth". That is literally what “refrain from escalating” means. Keep the echo chamber going though. Question -- what specifically is Flynn discussing there? Do you know? Or are you just following the talking points from deeply stupid people who have lied to you for three years? 2
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Question -- what specifically is Flynn discussing there? Do you know? Or are you just following the talking points from deeply stupid people who have lied to you for three years? He is specifically discussing undermining the current president's policy towards Russia. Go ahead, laugh again, because once again I'm stating what is absolutely the truth no matter what you think of it. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, daz28 said: He is specifically discussing undermining the current president's policy towards Russia. Wrong. 1 minute ago, daz28 said: Go ahead, laugh again, because once again I'm stating what is absolutely the truth no matter what you think of it. It's not though. If it were, you'd post the full statement, not a clip without context. Try again... 1 1
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Wrong. I'm not wrong. I get why he did it, but it doesn't change the fact. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, daz28 said: I'm not wrong. I get why he did it, but it doesn't change the fact. You are wrong. All the way. The discussion you clipped -- and are too intellectually dishonest to post in full -- was talking about expulsions not sanctions. And Flynn didn't downplay or say he'd remove Obama's expulsions, in fact the opposite. He told Kislyak that he knew the Russians had to respond, but asked they do so in a reciprocal manner. 44 (needlessly) threw out 35 "diplomats" (spies) -- and as Flynn states in the parts you're ignoring, if Russia were to go further than Obama did (meaning more than 35 expulsions), it would cripple the Moscow embassy and make any future coordination between Russia and the US in the ME (which they were partnered fighting ISIS at the time -- per OBAMA'S foreign policy) impossible. So Flynn was not undermining any US policy. He was asking the largest nuclear threat on the planet NOT TO ESCALATE the matters by overreacting. That's not only legal, it's his job as INCOMING NSC chief. So you're wrong. Say you're sorry and educate yourself. 1 1
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: You are wrong. All the way. The discussion you clipped -- and are too intellectually dishonest to post in full -- was talking about expulsions not sanctions. And Flynn didn't downplay or say he'd remove Obama's expulsions, in fact the opposite. He told Kislyak that he knew the Russians had to respond, but asked they do so in a reciprocal manner. 44 (needlessly) threw out 35 "diplomats" (spies) -- and as Flynn states in the parts you're ignoring, if Russia were to go further than Obama did (meaning more than 35 expulsions), it would cripple the Moscow embassy and make any future coordination between Russia and the US in the ME (which they were partnered fighting ISIS at the time -- per OBAMA'S foreign policy) impossible. So Flynn was not undermining any US policy. He was asking the largest nuclear threat on the planet NOT TO ESCALATE the matters by overreacting. That's not only legal, it's his job as INCOMING NSC chief. So you're wrong. Say you're sorry and educate yourself. Ok he avoided a nuclear conflict. Got it. What tweet(s) did you develop that deflection from? I know a lot of you have your heels dug in too deep to even attempt to pull them out now, but I'm not going to ignore the facts no matter what semantics or unrealistic rationales are used. For what it's worth, I agree that his reasoning is surely debatable, but that's a different topic altogether. There's a link to the entire transcript here: https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/29/declassified-flynn-transcripts-contradict-key-mueller-claims-against-flynn/
Reality Check Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You are wrong. All the way. The discussion you clipped -- and are too intellectually dishonest to post in full -- was talking about expulsions not sanctions. And Flynn didn't downplay or say he'd remove Obama's expulsions, in fact the opposite. He told Kislyak that he knew the Russians had to respond, but asked they do so in a reciprocal manner. 44 (needlessly) threw out 35 "diplomats" (spies) -- and as Flynn states in the parts you're ignoring, if Russia were to go further than Obama did (meaning more than 35 expulsions), it would cripple the Moscow embassy and make any future coordination between Russia and the US in the ME (which they were partnered fighting ISIS at the time -- per OBAMA'S foreign policy) impossible. So Flynn was not undermining any US policy. He was asking the largest nuclear threat on the planet NOT TO ESCALATE the matters by overreacting. That's not only legal, it's his job as INCOMING NSC chief. So you're wrong. Say you're sorry and educate yourself. People are quick to forget that the grudge against Flynn was that the military stopped giving air support to ISIS, originally ISIL, of which Obama fully supported. Russia and the USA working together against "terrorists" was the only redline Obama cared about.
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's not only legal, it's his job as INCOMING NSC chief. Try again: 'The President’s authority to exercise power begins immediately upon being sworn into office and continues until he is no longer the officeholder' https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34722.pdf
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 Just now, daz28 said: Ok he avoided a nuclear conflict. Got it. Not what I said. But you're being dishonest again because you just got caught with your pants down parroting someone else's incorrect thought as your own. Just now, daz28 said: What tweet(s) did you develop that deflection from? None. I got it from reading the transcripts in full, and the Mueller report, and all of the Flynn filings over the past three years. Unlike you, I don't outsource my thinking to people who lied to me knowingly and intentionally for the past three years on just this subject. 1 minute ago, daz28 said: I know a lot of you have your heels dug in too deep to even attempt to pull them out now, but I'm not going to ignore the facts no matter what semantics or unrealistic rationales are used. And yet, here you were, posting an incomplete clip without proper context and drawing a completely false and unrealistic conclusion from it. 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: For what it's worth, I agree that his reasoning is surely debatable, but that's a different topic altogether. It's not a different topic. It's THE ENTIRE POINT. For three years you were told (as we all were) that Flynn cut a deal with the Russians to remove sanctions. We know now that was false. It was never real. It did not happen. Yet the media, and the Obama Administration used this lie to smear a war hero who spent 33 years serving his country -- not because he was working with Russia, but because they viewed him as a threat to their politics. That should disgust you regardless of your partisan leanings. Just now, daz28 said: Try again: 'The President’s authority to exercise power begins immediately upon being sworn into office and continues until he is no longer the officeholder' https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34722.pdf You're wrong. Again. Because you're trying to spin rather than understand how you were lied to. INCOMING administrations talk to foreign leaders all the time. Because their policies are about to become the policy. There is nothing in the law that requires new administrations to hold to the outgoing administration's policies. None. You're wrong. 3
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: And yet, here you were, posting an incomplete clip without proper context and drawing a completely false and unrealistic conclusion from it. That should disgust you regardless of your partisan leanings. I gave you a link to the whole transcript. Not leaning partisan, just following the facts. Partisan would be to ignore them. Or worse yet use semantics to alter them. Edited May 30, 2020 by daz28
Reality Check Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 ISIL became ISIS, and they were funded by Prince Alaweed of Saudi Arabia, you know, the guy who was majority share holder of Twitter.
Recommended Posts