Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
<img src="https://pics.onsizzle.com/kidde-anned-water-yeah-but-her-emails-10074186.png"></img>
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
I believe the technical term is Benghazi^Benghazi
I believe the technical term is Benghazi^Benghazi
D
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Guest
That's my point. Were you outraged then? That wasn't a National security issue either
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
She set up a private email account for Government business. The FOIA impacts alone are problematic, and, to me disqualifying.
That's before the questions of how did that email address get whitelisted come up.
She set up a private email account for Government business. The FOIA impacts alone are problematic, and, to me disqualifying.
That's before the questions of how did that email address get whitelisted come up.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
Well played on all parts of this post
Ron White tag line here.
The word is chutzpah and it's a plague inside the Beltway. See also: Petraeus.
Did I mention I'm a mere three miles from a salted caramel truffle Blizzard?
Well played on all parts of this post
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
I don't get outraged. There's no point; however, it's a cool buzzword.
Never react in anger. Always react with forethought and intent.
I don't get outraged. There's no point; however, it's a cool buzzword.
Never react in anger. Always react with forethought and intent.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
No, my problem was the use of the private account for public, government business. (Think: FOIA discovery)
Does your boss let you use your personal gmail/hotmail/yahoo email for work communications? No. Why? Well, for starters, Sarbanes-Oxley.
No, my problem was the use of the private account for public, government business. (Think: FOIA discovery)
Does your boss let you use your personal gmail/hotmail/yahoo email for work communications? No. Why? Well, for starters, Sarbanes-Oxley.
Last edited:
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
Depends on what the business was. I understand your concern but the woman was investigated and under oath for 10 hours and they got NOTHING. I'd tend to give someone after all that the benefit of the doubt.
Depends on what the business was. I understand your concern but the woman was investigated and under oath for 10 hours and they got NOTHING. I'd tend to give someone after all that the benefit of the doubt.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
Meanwhile, this is impeachable.
From the NY Times:
That is complete and utter disregard for the American People, our system of government, and the rule of law. To leave a liar like that in a National Security position for that long after knowing is inexcusable.
Sally Yates was fired immediately. What did she do exactly? Oh, that's right. Nothing wrong. Just ticked off Orangeman.
Meanwhile, this is impeachable.
From the NY Times:
That is complete and utter disregard for the American People, our system of government, and the rule of law. To leave a liar like that in a National Security position for that long after knowing is inexcusable.
Sally Yates was fired immediately. What did she do exactly? Oh, that's right. Nothing wrong. Just ticked off Orangeman.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...calls-independent-flynn-investigation-n720666
Yet these idiots formed a special committee for Benghazi. John Cornyn can burn in hell.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...calls-independent-flynn-investigation-n720666
Yet these idiots formed a special committee for Benghazi. John Cornyn can burn in hell.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
That special Benghazi committee is probably the standing committee referenced.
That special Benghazi committee is probably the standing committee referenced.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
No. That committee is in the house. The guy quoted is in the Senate.
That special Benghazi committee is probably the standing committee referenced.
No. That committee is in the house. The guy quoted is in the Senate.
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
The Benghazi committee closed less than a month after the election once they got what they wanted from idiot rubes like you.
That special Benghazi committee is probably the standing committee referenced.
The Benghazi committee closed less than a month after the election once they got what they wanted from idiot rubes like you.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
I am sure Ryan is pleased he just got caught lying...he does know he can be fired too right?
I am sure Ryan is pleased he just got caught lying...he does know he can be fired too right?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
Paul Ryan? What did he lie about? Or did he get swept up in the same **** Pence did?
EDIT: just saw a teaser clip of Mitch with Joe from Morning Joe. Good old Mitch blows off the whole Russia thing as nothing.
Paul Ryan? What did he lie about? Or did he get swept up in the same **** Pence did?
EDIT: just saw a teaser clip of Mitch with Joe from Morning Joe. Good old Mitch blows off the whole Russia thing as nothing.
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?
That's fine. I have no problem investigating it. If he lied, he ought to have been fired (or allowed to resign).
But it still doesn't answer my question, which is exactly what was the conversation about. You say it's not a "nothingburger." Ok. What was it?
Or maybe more significantly, what could it have been?
We know it was about the sanctions. I think that leaves us with three broad possibilities.
1. The conversation was nothing. It was basically something like, "Don't worry about it Sergey. The Trump administration will be much friendlier than the current administration."
I'm going to assume, and hope, this is not it. If it's that type of call, then the stupidity of lying about it is equaled only by the stupidity of spending as much time on this issue as we are. But, on the other hand, we are dealing with people in the administration and the media who presently have no capacity to think clearly or cogently, so there is a chance.
2. USCHO posters' wet dream. Scenario #2, which most of you are hoping for, involves a call in which Flynn and the Russian discuss in detail the intricate steps the Russians took to hack the U.S. election, all with the knowledge and co-planning of the Trump campaign and the RNC. I don't want to dash your hopes, but good luck with this.
3. Most likely scenario. My money is on a call in which Flynn told the Russian representative that Trump would review the sanctions placed by Obama, and as soon as Trump had the power, he would likely reverse or modify them.
Ok. That's arguably a violation of the Logan Act, but there is no chance even a Democratically appointed U.S. Attorney would prosecute it. It's even arguably unacceptable, but not really. If the same call was placed 3 weeks later there is no problem.
But hey, even if your wet dream was dashed, at least everyone got to post all their email pictures again, right?
The only thing agencies seem remotely interested in investigating is whether Flynn lied, and who knew about it and when.
That's fine. I have no problem investigating it. If he lied, he ought to have been fired (or allowed to resign).
But it still doesn't answer my question, which is exactly what was the conversation about. You say it's not a "nothingburger." Ok. What was it?
Or maybe more significantly, what could it have been?
We know it was about the sanctions. I think that leaves us with three broad possibilities.
1. The conversation was nothing. It was basically something like, "Don't worry about it Sergey. The Trump administration will be much friendlier than the current administration."
I'm going to assume, and hope, this is not it. If it's that type of call, then the stupidity of lying about it is equaled only by the stupidity of spending as much time on this issue as we are. But, on the other hand, we are dealing with people in the administration and the media who presently have no capacity to think clearly or cogently, so there is a chance.
2. USCHO posters' wet dream. Scenario #2, which most of you are hoping for, involves a call in which Flynn and the Russian discuss in detail the intricate steps the Russians took to hack the U.S. election, all with the knowledge and co-planning of the Trump campaign and the RNC. I don't want to dash your hopes, but good luck with this.
3. Most likely scenario. My money is on a call in which Flynn told the Russian representative that Trump would review the sanctions placed by Obama, and as soon as Trump had the power, he would likely reverse or modify them.
Ok. That's arguably a violation of the Logan Act, but there is no chance even a Democratically appointed U.S. Attorney would prosecute it. It's even arguably unacceptable, but not really. If the same call was placed 3 weeks later there is no problem.
But hey, even if your wet dream was dashed, at least everyone got to post all their email pictures again, right?
- Status