- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BOOM! Chaffetz " DOJ IG to investigate leaks"
Posted on 2/15/17 at 10:42 pm to Minnesota Tiger
Posted on 2/15/17 at 10:42 pm to Minnesota Tiger
quote:
Obama is no longer president folks. Need to own up to acts of your teeeter in chief.
Posted on 2/15/17 at 10:43 pm to NOLA Bronco
Did anyone think the swamp things would go quietly? Expect anything....the swamp does not want to be drained.
Posted on 2/15/17 at 10:43 pm to CptBengal
quote:
they chose not to show them to their readers.
That's how you know it's a nothing burger.
Posted on 2/15/17 at 10:46 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Yeah that's the one I was talking about. The democrats don't actually want that. They just want vague innuendos to be able to bitch about in the media and a real investigation will take that away from them. And also put a lot of people in jail.
Then call their bluff, demand an investigation into Trump's administrations ties to Russia.
Posted on 2/15/17 at 10:46 pm to NOLA Bronco
quote:
Then call their bluff,
or WaPo could just publish what they have...
Posted on 2/15/17 at 10:47 pm to NOLA Bronco
quote:I DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP's TIES TO RUSSIA!!!!!!!
Then call their bluff, demand an investigation into Trump's administrations ties to Russia.
Happy?
Posted on 2/15/17 at 10:50 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Posted on 2/15/17 at 10:51 pm to CptBengal
quote:
or WaPo could just publish what they have...
Something tells me that if they did that, it still wouldn't change much in your mind.
Posted on 2/15/17 at 10:52 pm to NOLA Bronco
quote:
Something tells me that if they did that, it still wouldn't change much in your mind.
If they had something damning, they would report it. They dont
Posted on 2/15/17 at 10:54 pm to Sao
quote:
Careful what you ask for
I for one welcome the outing of corruption on either side of the aisle.
Posted on 2/15/17 at 11:02 pm to NOLA Bronco
quote:
Its in the original Washington Post piece.
LINK
Do you always just take sides before actually reading about the issue at hand?
Maybe you need to read it again. It does not say what you stated at all. The first use of the word explicit
quote:
Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.
That does not say 9 agreed. It says several. It also does not state he did anything explicitly. It states just the opposite.
The article goes on to say that the people who gave over that information.... well thank you. It points to Obama admin people.
quote:
Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
All of those would have been Obama people. They will go to jail. This is espionage.
Continuing....
quote:
All of those officials said Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president. “Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.
OH NO... look out.. The word explicit was used. The explicit quote: a review.... be revisited"
None of that was illegal at all.
Second... this isn't knew information. But thanks none the less
Posted on 2/15/17 at 11:03 pm to NOLA Bronco
quote:
quote:
or WaPo could just publish what they have...
Something tells me that if they did that, it still wouldn't change much in your mind.
Did he break a law? It is that simple.
Posted on 2/15/17 at 11:04 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
If they had something damning, they would report it. They dont
That assumes the sources were willing to offer that up whole cloth. The Post has gone on record saying the intelligence community informers would not allow that.
That is part of how the game of anonymous sources work.
Posted on 2/15/17 at 11:06 pm to NOLA Bronco
quote:
That assumes the sources were willing to offer that up whole cloth. The Post has gone on record saying the intelligence community informers would not allow that.
actually the original article says they were leaked the transcript.
So is the WaPo lying now or in the original article...fail again, proggie.
Posted on 2/15/17 at 11:10 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
OH NO... look out.. The word explicit was used. The explicit quote: a review.... be revisited"
None of that was illegal at all.
Second... this isn't knew information. But thanks none the less
Making excuses for undermining a sitting president on matters of national security and foreign policy. How American of you.
You also recognize that most of the intelligence community are life long or very long-term public servants that were not appointed by the sitting president, in this case, Obama?
For all the sourcing demands, please show me the receipts that all of this is stemming from Obama appointees? Or is that just wishful thinking and blind speculation? And I thought you all wanted to clean up Washington, so shouldn't someone be assessed on their merits, not who their hiring boss was? About the quality of their results, not based on if their results show a bad light on their new bosses?
This post was edited on 2/15/17 at 11:19 pm
Posted on 2/15/17 at 11:12 pm to NOLA Bronco
quote:
Making excuses for undermining a sitting president on matters of national security and foreign policy. How American of you.
Is that what obama did by talking to iran in2008 before inauguration?
this is the problem with you progs. You're too stupid to know you're an idiot.
Posted on 2/15/17 at 11:13 pm to CptBengal
quote:
actually the original article says they were leaked the transcript.
So is the WaPo lying now or in the original article...fail again, proggie.
This is the author on record speaking with NPR who is trying to goat him about the specifics:
quote:
MILLER: I can't (laughter) - I can't go that far with you. I'm sorry. I mean, we have to honor the agreements we have with our sources who describe some of this to us.
Posted on 2/15/17 at 11:15 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Is that what obama did by talking to iran in2008 before inauguration?
this is the problem with you progs. You're too stupid to know you're an idiot.
So we on to deflecting now?
How do you feel about the allegation that Obama did that with Iran? Do you think that was appropriate if found to be true?
Posted on 2/15/17 at 11:18 pm to NOLA Bronco
Man it's over. The FBI announced Flynn did not lie and are NOT pressing charges.
NBC is reporting investigators found NO Collusion.
However.... WaPo just helped 9 SENIOR officials under Obama commit espionage and Sessions is coming!
NBC is reporting investigators found NO Collusion.
However.... WaPo just helped 9 SENIOR officials under Obama commit espionage and Sessions is coming!
Popular
Back to top


0




