PDA

View Full Version : Sally Yates to testify today



decedent
05-08-2017, 12:28 PM
Sally Yates is about to bring back the Russia story in a big way (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/sally-yates-russia/)


Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates will testify in front of a Senate subcommittee Monday about what and when she told the Trump White House in regard to Michael Flynn's ties to Russia.

Yates' testimony will push the story of the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia back into the headlines, especially, if expected, she asserts that she warned Trump campaign officials that Flynn, the now-deposed national security adviser, was not telling the full truth about his contacts with Russian ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak.


President Obama fired Flynn. He noticed Trump's association with Flynn. Obama warned Trump to not hire him. Trump hired him anyway. Flynn immediately went to work as a foreign agent for Trump. Sally Yates expressed her concerns about this. Trump fired her. Now, Trump is intimidating a witness through Twitter and Spicer are trying to blame Obama for not taking away Flynn's security.

texan
05-08-2017, 12:32 PM
I think Flynn was fired wan't he? Interesting how you hope this proves somehow the entire administration is somehow guilty of something. Not gonna find a lot here.

decedent
05-08-2017, 12:40 PM
I think Flynn was fired wan't he? Interesting how you hope this proves somehow the entire administration is somehow guilty of something. Not gonna find a lot here.

Yes. Flynn was fired after violating the Logan Act and various other discoveries about him.


I hope the truth is uncovered. Most patriots would hope for the same.


Yates is limited in what she can say about her concerns about Team Trump's relationship with Russia. Instead, she'll mostly talk about how Team Trump was at risk of being extorted by Russians because of their close relationship -- which is just as damning.

Captain Obvious
05-08-2017, 12:42 PM
Patriots...

:biglaugh:

More like Muhadeen

decedent
05-08-2017, 01:07 PM
Patriots...

:biglaugh:

More like Muhadeen

What's "Muhadeen" and what does it have to do with this thread?

Captain Obvious
05-08-2017, 01:11 PM
Thats right, the US hating islamofacists spell it wrong, Mujadeen.

That must have been confusing to you.

decedent
05-08-2017, 01:23 PM
Thats right, the US hating islamofacists spell it wrong, Mujadeen.

That must have been confusing to you.

And what do "islamofacists" [sic] have to do with Sally Yates' testimony?

DGUtley
05-08-2017, 01:26 PM
Yes. Flynn was fired after violating the Logan Act and various other discoveries about him. I hope the truth is uncovered. Most patriots would hope for the same.
Yates is limited in what she can say about her concerns about Team Trump's relationship with Russia. Instead, she'll mostly talk about how Team Trump was at risk of being extorted by Russians because of their close relationship -- which is just as damning.
(Emphasis DGU's) Why is Yates limited? Why is Trump in danger of being extorted by Russians because of their close relationship? And, why is this just as damning? I've followed this tangentially and haven't seen anything that ties Trump to the Russians factually or even anecdotally.

Captain Obvious
05-08-2017, 01:32 PM
And what do "islamofacists" [sic] have to do with Sally Yates' testimony?

I hate spoon feeding the slow to grasp simple concepts crowd.

Your kind is more akin to America hating islamofascists than patriots.

In fact you are the opposite of patriots, you people are a bigger threat to the nation than terrorists. Your kind has killed and enslaved millions of times more people than radical Islam could ever dream of.

Kalkin
05-08-2017, 01:36 PM
More wishful thinking from the 2016 losing side.

decedent
05-08-2017, 01:50 PM
(Emphasis DGU's) Why is Yates limited? Why is Trump in danger of being extorted by Russians because of their close relationship? And, why is this just as damning? I've followed this tangentially and haven't seen anything that ties Trump to the Russians factually or even anecdotally.

Yate's testimony is limited by executive privilege. This protects executive branch documents and information from being turned over -- including expert testimony. She also cant' reveal classified material or violate attorney-client privilege.

I don't know how the Trump Team could be in danger of extortion from Russia: that's what this bpartisan subcommittee's investigation is about.


Despite allegations of the White House trying to stop Yate's testimony and various GOP Senators requesting a cancellation of today's hearing, there aren't likely going to be any major bombs today.

DGUtley
05-08-2017, 01:59 PM
Yate's testimony is limited by executive privilege. This protects executive branch documents and information from being turned over -- including expert testimony. She also cant' reveal classified material or violate attorney-client privilege.

Thanks @decedent (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1267). I forgot about the privilege being applicable. I use the privilege argument a lot. It drives other lawyers nuts when you won't turn over material that they want (probably need) but there's a legitimate privilege to assert. I was taught as a young lawyer to never waive privilege. I've changed that at times with an express agreement from the other side that I'll show them something provided it's not a general waiver. Privilege is a critical part of due process and equal protection.


I don't know how the Trump Team could be in danger of extortion from Russia: that's what this bpartisan subcommittee's investigation is about.
Thanks again.


Despite allegations of the White House trying to stop Yate's testimony and various GOP Senators requesting a cancellation of today's hearing, there aren't likely going to be any major bombs today.

I wonder -- if it's privileged, how can she testify -- other than perhaps to go and assert the privilege. Interesting times.

decedent
05-08-2017, 02:55 PM
So far, Republican Senators Cruz, Grassley, and Cornyn are only concerned with the unmasking and have no interest in Russian involvement.

Captain Obvious
05-08-2017, 02:56 PM
So far, Republican Senators Cruz, Grassley, and Cornyn are only concerned with the unmasking and have no interest in Russian involvement.

Why would they waste their time on mental masturbation?

Dangermouse
05-08-2017, 03:24 PM
Why would they waste their time on mental masturbation?

They were complicit.

Peter1469
05-08-2017, 03:43 PM
She say anything worthwhile?

decedent
05-08-2017, 03:53 PM
Why would they waste their time on mental masturbation?

What's "Muhadeen" and what does it have to do with this thread?

What do "islamofacists" [sic] have to do with Sally Yates' testimony?

Why are you desperately trying to deflect from the topic of this thread?

decedent
05-08-2017, 03:56 PM
In fact you are the opposite of patriots, you people are a bigger threat to the nation than terrorists. Your kind has killed and enslaved millions of times more people than radical Islam could ever dream of.

This drama is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Captain Obvious
05-08-2017, 03:58 PM
What's "Muhadeen" and what does it have to do with this thread?

What do "islamofacists" [sic] have to do with Sally Yates' testimony?

Why are you desperately trying to deflect from the topic of this thread?

More spoonfeeding?

See post #9

Whoosh....

You are welcome.

Captain Obvious
05-08-2017, 03:59 PM
This drama is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

I have no doubt this is your opinion.

I would have been shocked otherwise.

texan
05-08-2017, 04:05 PM
Yes. Flynn was fired after violating the Logan Act and various other discoveries about him.


I hope the truth is uncovered. Most patriots would hope for the same.


Yates is limited in what she can say about her concerns about Team Trump's relationship with Russia. Instead, she'll mostly talk about how Team Trump was at risk of being extorted by Russians because of their close relationship -- which is just as damning.

Very cute: yes most patriots want the truth, but do you really? You sound already decided. Sounds to me like you want a lynching.

texan
05-08-2017, 04:05 PM
Patriots...

:biglaugh:

More like Muhadeen

Yeah that was cute. Like he wants the truth.

texan
05-08-2017, 04:06 PM
(emphasis dgu's) why is yates limited? Why is trump in danger of being extorted by russians because of their close relationship? And, why is this just as damning? I've followed this tangentially and haven't seen anything that ties trump to the russians factually or even anecdotally.

nothing!

texan
05-08-2017, 04:07 PM
Where is Bo today? I can't believe we haven't heard about another shoe dropping or drip drip drip...............

FindersKeepers
05-08-2017, 04:09 PM
Yes. Flynn was fired after violating the Logan Act and various other discoveries about him.


I hope the truth is uncovered. Most patriots would hope for the same.


Yates is limited in what she can say about her concerns about Team Trump's relationship with Russia. Instead, she'll mostly talk about how Team Trump was at risk of being extorted by Russians because of their close relationship -- which is just as damning.

Why do you suppose, given what the Obama Administration knew about Flynn, they reissued his security clearance (the highest level of security) in 2016?

Was that foolhardy?

decedent
05-08-2017, 04:12 PM
Very cute: yes most patriots want the truth, but do you really? You sound already decided.


Absolutely, and it will start with an independent investigation. The White House and GOP senators are blocking justice.



Sounds to me like you want a lynching.


Nah. Trump is hanging himself. I'm more interested in the preservation of democracy, freedom and sovereignty.

Dangermouse
05-08-2017, 04:17 PM
nothing!

Where did Eric say dad got the money for the family firm? "We get it out of Russia".

http://www.theroot.com/eric-trump-claimed-russians-fund-trumps-golf-courses-r-1795023203

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 04:17 PM
So far, Republican Senators Cruz, Grassley, and Cornyn are only concerned with the unmasking and have no interest in Russian involvement.


Dont worry. There will be plenty of other people fishing for the nonexistent Russia / Trump connection.

decedent
05-08-2017, 04:18 PM
Why do you suppose, given what the Obama Administration knew about Flynn, they reissued his security clearance (the highest level of security) in 2016?

Was that foolhardy?

This is a lie put out by Team Trump.

Obama never granted Flynn the security clearance needed to act as National Security Adviser.

They're scared and they'll do anything to throw off the dogs, including blaming Obama.

The lesson of the day is to not believe anything Trump says.

Captain Obvious
05-08-2017, 04:18 PM
Absolutely, and it will start with an independent investigation. The White House and GOP senators are blocking justice.





Nah. Trump is hanging himself. I'm more interested in the preservation of democracy, freedom and sovereignty.

Do you realize that you people have announced Trump's demise like a billion times now and not even the most gullible of the gullible takes you people seriously anymore.

Honestly, have you no shame or dignity? You really don't get this?

decedent
05-08-2017, 04:19 PM
Dont worry. There will be plenty of other people fishing for the nonexistent Russia / Trump connection.

There's not only a connection, there's a cover up.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 04:20 PM
...Trump is hanging himself...

How so?

You know, one of the principles of democracy is accepting the outcome of an election. Especially an election where your preferred candidate lost.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 04:20 PM
There's not only a connection, there's a cover up.

But yet no one can find any evidence of either.

FindersKeepers
05-08-2017, 04:25 PM
This is a lie put out by Team Trump.

Obama never granted Flynn the security clearance needed to act as National Security Adviser.

They're scared and they'll do anything to throw off the dogs, including blaming Obama.

The lesson of the day is to not believe anything Trump says.

Actually, PolitiFact rates Trump's claim as TRUE.

We were interested in Trump’s statement that the Obama administration approved Flynn for security clearance, especially given that he was forced out of his Obama-era role in 2014.
We found that Trump has it right.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/02/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-michael-flynn-got-security-clear/

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings/tom-true.png

decedent
05-08-2017, 04:25 PM
How so?

You know, one of the principles of democracy is accepting the outcome of an election. Especially an election where your preferred candidate lost.

Relevance? If you're referring to me, I accepted the outcome of the election. I accepted it on November 9, 2016.


What I don't accept is any possible collusion with Russia to win the election, including possible deals made about sanctions, or possible illegal relationships that expose them to blackmail.

Captain Obvious
05-08-2017, 04:25 PM
There's not only a connection, there's a cover up.

You people are praying every day for one.

Maybe if you are lucky a terrorist attack will happen on Trumps watch, that will give you something to cheer about.

decedent
05-08-2017, 04:28 PM
Actually, PolitiFact rates Trump's claim as TRUE.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/02/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-michael-flynn-got-security-clear/

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings/tom-true.png



Flynn was given clearance by the Obama administration, but onnly for limited access to security information. Flynn was given the clearance that was required of the position he had held by Obama. This makes sense because Obama fired him.


Trump is making it sound like Obama gave him the security clearance needed to be his National Security Adviser.

decedent
05-08-2017, 04:30 PM
But yet no one can find any evidence of either.

Several people from Team Trump were caught lying about private meetings with Russians. That's a cover up by definition.



You people are praying every day for one.

Maybe if you are lucky a terrorist attack will happen on Trumps watch, that will give you something to cheer about.


By the way, "you people" is the cowardly way Trump attacks individuals. If you have something to say to me, why not be more direct?

Crepitus
05-08-2017, 04:38 PM
Thats right, the US hating islamofacists spell it wrong, Mujadeen.

That must have been confusing to you.

Mujahideen, just to set the record straight.

Captain Obvious
05-08-2017, 04:38 PM
Several people from Team Trump were caught lying about private meetings with Russians. That's a cover up by definition.


By the way, "you people" is the cowardly way Trump attacks individuals. If you have something to say to me, why not be more direct?

You have it all wrong, I'm saying you're no different than all of the other mindless lemmings.

Crepitus
05-08-2017, 04:43 PM
How so?

You know, one of the principles of democracy is accepting the outcome of an election. Especially an election where your preferred candidate lost.

Another is that the election is for the people of this country, not Russia, to decide.

FindersKeepers
05-08-2017, 04:44 PM
Flynn was given clearance by the Obama administration, but onnly for limited access to security information. Flynn was given the clearance that was required of the position he had held by Obama. This makes sense because Obama fired him.


Trump is making it sound like Obama gave him the security clearance needed to be his National Security Adviser.

So, when the info became known about Flynn, why did the Obama Administration not pull his clearance?

FindersKeepers
05-08-2017, 04:45 PM
Another is that the election is for the people of this country, not Russia, to decide.

And that's exactly what happened. Only Americans voted. Russia didn't vote.

decedent
05-08-2017, 04:50 PM
So, when the info became known about Flynn, why did the Obama Administration not pull his clearance?

From what I understand, Obama gave Flynn the highest security clearance, which was needed for the job. After he found about about Flynn, he fired him and his clearance was either removed or decreased. Obama warned Trump to not hire Flynn. Trump hired him anyway and requested security clearance or the job, and it wasn't granted.

FindersKeepers
05-08-2017, 05:00 PM
From what I understand, Obama gave Flynn the highest security clearance, which was needed for the job. After he found about about Flynn, he fired him and his clearance was either removed or decreased. Obama warned Trump to not hire Flynn. Trump hired him anyway and requested security clearance or the job, and it wasn't granted.

Actually, Flynn's clearance was never reduced, which is one of the reasons he was chosen for the job.

Crepitus
05-08-2017, 05:01 PM
And that's exactly what happened. Only Americans voted. Russia didn't vote.

Well we are still finding that out. Testimony just today!

Common
05-08-2017, 05:04 PM
I saw on tv today that Yates disclosed she warned the white house 2 weeks before Flynn was fired. That sounds reasonable to me, you just cant fire a cabinet level individual on a whim and a word. Its reasonable to believe after two weeks they determined he in fact should be fired. We still have to wait and see what it looks like after its all over

FindersKeepers
05-08-2017, 05:07 PM
Well we are still finding that out. Testimony just today!

I believe they testified that there was no knowledge of how Russia impacted the election.

While we're on the topic -- tell me what you thought about Obama sending an entire campaign team to Israel during their last general election to sway the vote against Bibi.

I'm really interesting in your opinion on that.

Crepitus
05-08-2017, 05:10 PM
I believe they testified that there was no knowledge of how Russia impacted the election.

While we're on the topic -- tell me what you thought about Obama sending an entire campaign team to Israel during their last general election to sway the vote against Bibi.

I'm really interesting in your opinion on that.

That was wrong. No ifs, ands. or buts about it.

decedent
05-08-2017, 05:14 PM
Actually, Flynn's clearance was never reduced, which is one of the reasons he was chosen for the job.

"Flynn never received broader security clearance needed to serve as Natl Security Advisor before his firing" -- Peter Alexander, National Correspondent, NBC News, May 8, 2017

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 05:14 PM
Relevance? If you're referring to me, I accepted the outcome of the election. I accepted it on November 9, 2016.


What I don't accept is any possible collusion with Russia to win the election, including possible deals made about sanctions, or possible illegal relationships that expose them to blackmail.

You also don't seem to accept the fact that no evidence of this supposed collusion exists.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 05:15 PM
Another is that the election is for the people of this country, not Russia, to decide.

How did the American people not decide the election?

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 05:19 PM
Flynn was given clearance by the Obama administration, but onnly for limited access to security information. Flynn was given the clearance that was required of the position he had held by Obama. This makes sense because Obama fired him.


Trump is making it sound like Obama gave him the security clearance needed to be his National Security Adviser.

All security clearances are limited to some extent. There's a thing called "need to know". If you have no need to know, you are denied the information no matter what level clearance you have.

Crepitus
05-08-2017, 05:19 PM
How did the American people not decide the election?

They did not.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 05:20 PM
That was wrong. No ifs, ands. or buts about it.

Then you must know something no one else knows.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 05:20 PM
They did not.

who did decide the election and how?

Kalkin
05-08-2017, 05:23 PM
They did not.
Then who did?

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 05:25 PM
How did the American people not decide the election?


They did not.

Please explain how Americans did not determine the outcome of their election? Be specific and provide facts to support your conclusion.

Crepitus
05-08-2017, 05:26 PM
Then you must know something no one else knows.

Nobody knows that it's wrong to interfere in another country's elections?

Nobody?

decedent
05-08-2017, 05:28 PM
Nobody knows that it's wrong to interfere in another country's elections?

Nobody?

Not of your guy won.

Kalkin
05-08-2017, 05:29 PM
Nobody knows that it's wrong to interfere in another country's elections?
Nobody?
Like this?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-20/obama-s-brexit-intervention-makes-waves-in-u-k-ripples-in-u-s
Or this?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/

Crepitus
05-08-2017, 05:35 PM
Like this?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-20/obama-s-brexit-intervention-makes-waves-in-u-k-ripples-in-u-s
Or this?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/

The first one is not the same thing and you know it.

I already condemned the second one.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 05:42 PM
Nobody knows that it's wrong to interfere in another country's elections?

Nobody?

Please tell me exactly how the Russians elected our president? You have been saying this for a while with no factual explanation to support that. This is your opportunity to explain how.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 05:43 PM
Like this?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-20/obama-s-brexit-intervention-makes-waves-in-u-k-ripples-in-u-s
Or this?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/

But but but....... Never mind.

decedent
05-08-2017, 05:48 PM
You also don't seem to accept the fact that no evidence of this supposed collusion exists.

Why does it take so many Russians to help run the United States of America?

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 05:54 PM
Why does it take so many Russians to help run the United States of America?
Show me the evidence that Russians helping to run the United States government?

FindersKeepers
05-08-2017, 06:01 PM
That was wrong. No ifs, ands. or buts about it.

He felt it was in the best interest of the US. Obama also traveled to Great Britain and gave a speech against the Brits voting for Brexit. That, too, failed, but I'm sure he thought it was a good idea.

Leaders do that -- they try to influence voting in other countries based on what they think is good for their own nations.

Now, if Russia had a hand in hacking -- they were breaking the law -- because hacking is illegal. But, like other nations, they had every right to try and convince Americans who to vote for.

Think back to when Crimea voted to join Russia. Obama and the EU had a royal fit. Never mind that the vast majority of Crimeans wanted out from under the Ukraine -- their vote pissed Obama off so badly that he levied massive sanctions against Russia. He really did.

We mess all the time in the affairs of others, so we really don't have any moral soapbox to stand on and whine when others do the same to us.

DGUtley
05-08-2017, 06:03 PM
Where did Eric say dad got the money for the family firm? "We get it out of Russia".
http://www.theroot.com/eric-trump-claimed-russians-fund-trumps-golf-courses-r-1795023203

i find it interesting that they can't get the year right for when he is alleged to have said this, which he denies and for which there is no evidence of.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/eric-trump-denies-alleged-statements-russian-funding-47273117

https://thinkprogress.org/eric-trump-reportedly-bragged-about-russian-funding-streams-e6f3e525f10e

Peter1469
05-08-2017, 06:05 PM
Then you must know something no one else knows.
"know"

Crepitus
05-08-2017, 06:05 PM
He felt it was in the best interest of the US. Obama also traveled to Great Britain and gave a speech against the Brits voting for Brexit. That, too, failed, but I'm sure he thought it was a good idea.

Leaders do that -- they try to influence voting in other countries based on what they think is good for their own nations.

Now, if Russia had a hand in hacking -- they were breaking the law -- because hacking is illegal. But, like other nations, they had every right to try and convince Americans who to vote for.

Think back to when Crimea voted to join Russia. Obama and the EU had a royal fit. Never mind that the vast majority of Crimeans wanted out from under the Ukraine -- their vote pissed Obama off so badly that he levied massive sanctions against Russia. He really did.

We mess all the time in the affairs of others, so we really don't have any moral soapbox to stand on and whine when others do the same to us.

There's a bit of a difference between making a public statement and engaging in a covert propaganda operation.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 06:07 PM
I'm still waiting for Crepitus to explain how American voters did not decide the American presidential election.

FindersKeepers
05-08-2017, 06:07 PM
"Flynn never received broader security clearance needed to serve as Natl Security Advisor before his firing" -- Peter Alexander, National Correspondent, NBC News, May 8, 2017

Simply not true. He had the top level of clearance.

His clearance was renewed in 2016, which allowed him to take the job. He then had to apply again, and did, but was fired before that application was completed.

Obama renewed Flynn's clearance in 2016 and did NOT reduce it anytime thereafter when it was discovered Flynn lied.

I can't figure out why they didn't think it was important enough not to reduce his level of clearance.

texan
05-08-2017, 08:21 PM
Sally Yates is about to bring back the Russia story in a big way (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/sally-yates-russia/)


Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates will testify in front of a Senate subcommittee Monday about what and when she told the Trump White House in regard to Michael Flynn's ties to Russia.

Yates' testimony will push the story of the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia back into the headlines, especially, if expected, she asserts that she warned Trump campaign officials that Flynn, the now-deposed national security adviser, was not telling the full truth about his contacts with Russian ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak.


President Obama fired Flynn. He noticed Trump's association with Flynn. Obama warned Trump to not hire him. Trump hired him anyway. Flynn immediately went to work as a foreign agent for Trump. Sally Yates expressed her concerns about this. Trump fired her. Now, Trump is intimidating a witness through Twitter and Spicer are trying to blame Obama for not taking away Flynn's security.
Did the shoe drop today? Waste of time thanks telling us the obvious and what we already knew Ms Yates.

Peter1469
05-08-2017, 08:22 PM
Did the shoe drop today? Waste of time thanks telling us the obvious and what we already knew Ms Yates.


She may have implicated herself in the unmasking of Flynn and others. She may end up being charged.

del
05-08-2017, 08:27 PM
She may have implicated herself in the unmasking of Flynn and others. She may end up being charged.

incorrect

carry on

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 08:36 PM
I'm still waiting for @Crepitus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1345) to explain how American voters did not decide the American presidential election.


Well? Crepitus, can you find an answer yet?

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 08:38 PM
She may have implicated herself in the unmasking of Flynn and others. She may end up being charged.

Even when they deny involvement they somehow raise even more questions about their actions.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2017, 11:02 PM
It is funny how a hard left wing type can make a wierd claim then back away from it when asked to support the claim.

Peter1469
05-09-2017, 04:19 AM
It is funny how a hard left wing type can make a wierd claim then back away from it when asked to support the claim.

They are dedicated to the cause.

FindersKeepers
05-09-2017, 07:28 AM
There's a bit of a difference between making a public statement and engaging in a covert propaganda operation.

Both are attempts to sway the votes of people who don't live in our nation.

Like I said -- if Russia was involved in the hacking -- then they broke the law, but otherwise, they're just doing what everyone else is doing.

Hillary was the real reason Trump was elected, and that's all on the DNC.

Crepitus
05-09-2017, 07:32 AM
Both are attempts to sway the votes of people who don't live in our nation.

Like I said -- if Russia was involved in the hacking -- then they broke the law, but otherwise, they're just doing what everyone else is doing.

Hillary was the real reason Trump was elected, and that's all on the DNC.

Missing my point. I wouldn't care if Vladimir Putin went on a speaking tour of every major city in the US talking up tRump. The fake news, paid Internet trolls, stolen documents, pressure on US officials, and that stuff is what I'm worried about.

FindersKeepers
05-09-2017, 07:49 AM
Missing my point. I wouldn't care if Vladimir Putin went on a speaking tour of every major city in the US talking up tRump. The fake news, paid Internet trolls, stolen documents, pressure on US officials, and that stuff is what I'm worried about.

All of the above are common to just about every campaign. Remember the DNC contractor that hired folks to disrupt Trump rallies? Remember the bogus sexual lawsuits against Trump by anonymous people who just faded away? How about a fake dossier? There's evidence that some in the EU were involved with that. How about media networks "leaking" debate questions?

Heck, in the Ukraine, we actually took part in funding the ouster of a duly elected president.

Politics is dirty business. And, many nations have their fingers in the pots of other nations.

Tahuyaman
05-09-2017, 08:14 AM
I'm guessing that I'll never get an explanation as to how the American voters didn't elect our current president.

Dangermouse
05-09-2017, 08:18 AM
I'm guessing that I'll never get an explanation as to how the American voters didn't elect our current president.

His lack of a majority is a major impediment.

DGUtley
05-09-2017, 08:23 AM
His lack of a majority is a major impediment.

I disagree. It's not an impediment at all. Our electoral college system provides the win he got -- for very good reasons we've been over ad nauseum. The only ones making it an 'impediment' are those unwilling to accept our system's result.

Tahuyaman
05-09-2017, 08:27 AM
His lack of a majority is a major impediment.

It's actually a lack of integrity which impedes his ability to form a supporting argument for his claim.

Crepitus
05-09-2017, 09:36 AM
All of the above are common to just about every campaign. Remember the DNC contractor that hired folks to disrupt Trump rallies? Remember the bogus sexual lawsuits against Trump by anonymous people who just faded away? How about a fake dossier? There's evidence that some in the EU were involved with that. How about media networks "leaking" debate questions?

Heck, in the Ukraine, we actually took part in funding the ouster of a duly elected president.

Politics is dirty business. And, many nations have their fingers in the pots of other nations.

Do that mean we should overlook it? I seriously doubt that would be your attitude if Clinton had been the beneficiary rather than the victim.

Common
05-09-2017, 09:55 AM
Well my liberal friends, Sally Yates turned out to be another russian flop

OGIS
05-09-2017, 12:28 PM
What's "Muhadeen" and what does it have to do with this thread?

Nothing. He's laying thread turds again.

Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

Even if it involves consistently violating forum rules.

We should be kind, though, as its probably just an "externalized expression of holdover trauma" from the locker-stuffing incidents.

OGIS
05-09-2017, 12:29 PM
And what do "islamofacists" [sic] have to do with Sally Yates' testimony?

Again, nothing. Hey, go easy on him. It's the Christian thing to do.

OGIS
05-09-2017, 12:34 PM
Patriots...

:biglaugh:

More like Muhadeen


Thats right, the US hating islamofacists spell it wrong, Mujadeen.

That must have been confusing to you.


I hate spoon feeding the slow to grasp simple concepts crowd.

Your kind is more akin to America hating islamofascists than patriots.

In fact you are the opposite of patriots, you people are a bigger threat to the nation than terrorists. Your kind has killed and enslaved millions of times more people than radical Islam could ever dream of.


Why would they waste their time on mental masturbation?


More spoonfeeding?

See post #9

Whoosh....

You are welcome.


I have no doubt this is your opinion.

I would have been shocked otherwise.


Do you realize that you people have announced Trump's demise like a billion times now and not even the most gullible of the gullible takes you people seriously anymore.

Honestly, have you no shame or dignity? You really don't get this?


You people are praying every day for one.

Maybe if you are lucky a terrorist attack will happen on Trumps watch, that will give you something to cheer about.


You have it all wrong, I'm saying you're no different than all of the other mindless lemmings.

Wow.

Just wow.

Tahuyaman
05-09-2017, 03:32 PM
Other than his misspelling of the Mujahideen, CO is speaking the truth.

decedent
05-09-2017, 06:57 PM
Nothing. He's laying thread turds again.

Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

Even if it involves consistently violating forum rules.

We should be kind, though, as its probably just an "externalized expression of holdover trauma" from the locker-stuffing incidents.

I guess he gets away with ruining so many threads because he's a tPF veteran. We get warnings for mentioning it. I see no harm in calling out this crap publicly.

Ransom
05-09-2017, 07:05 PM
Another nothing burger with cheese as far as Dems were concerned.

Political erections fizzled again.

OGIS
05-09-2017, 07:07 PM
I guess he gets away with ruining so many threads because he's a tPF veteran. We get warnings for mentioning it. I see no harm in calling out this crap publicly.

tPF may be circling the drain.

I will have zero interest in yet another con(artist)servative circle jerk splooge forum.

Except, possibly, to point and laugh when the leopard starts eating Trumpkin faces in a serious manner.

decedent
05-09-2017, 07:20 PM
tPF may be circling the drain.

I will have zero interest in yet another con(artist)servative circle jerk splooge forum.

Except, possibly, to point and laugh when the leopard starts eating Trumpkin faces in a serious manner.

I don't want a liberal forum; I don't want a conservative forum. (How boring would they be?) I thought I found one that was just right... but things have changed lately. Cigar was banned for literally no reason, while other members intentionally ruin threads (see first page of this thread) and only contribute insults (see every thread on this site).


But at the end of the day, this site is more interesting than the others, despite the bias. I await my thread ban, since this thread was ruined long ago by the usual culprits.

Common
05-09-2017, 07:22 PM
tPF may be circling the drain.

I will have zero interest in yet another con(artist)servative circle jerk splooge forum.

Except, possibly, to point and laugh when the leopard starts eating Trumpkin faces in a serious manner.
But you were perfectly fine when this was mostly a liberal splooge whine and lie forum lol
This forum is the best its ever been, you can actually have a reasonable conversation and learn from others

Mister D
05-09-2017, 07:26 PM
I don't want a liberal forum; I don't want a conservative forum. (How boring would they be?) I thought I found one that was just right... but things have changed lately. Cigar was banned for literally no reason, while other members intentionally ruin threads (see first page of this thread) and only contribute insults (see every thread on this site).


But at the end of the day, this site is more interesting than the others, despite the bias. I await my thread ban, since this thread was ruined long ago by the usual culprits.

:smiley_ROFLMAO:

OGIS
05-09-2017, 07:36 PM
I don't want a liberal forum; I don't want a conservative forum. (How boring would they be?) I thought I found one that was just right... but things have changed lately. Cigar was banned for literally no reason, while other members intentionally ruin threads (see first page of this thread) and only contribute insults (see every thread on this site).


But at the end of the day, this site is more interesting than the others, despite the bias. I await my thread ban, since this thread was ruined long ago by the usual culprits.


Agree 110%.

decedent
05-09-2017, 07:47 PM
:smiley_ROFLMAO:

I'll correct myself. He was banned for trolling, which is odd because that's all some people do around here.

Mister D
05-09-2017, 08:22 PM
I'll correct myself. He was banned for trolling, which is odd because that's all some people do around here.
You should correct yourself before you post so you don't make such ridiculous remarks.

Mister D
05-09-2017, 08:22 PM
Agree 110%.
That's a shame because he doesn't. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

resister
05-09-2017, 09:04 PM
Wow.

Just wow.
Get a room, lol

resister
05-09-2017, 09:06 PM
I don't want a liberal forum; I don't want a conservative forum. (How boring would they be?) I thought I found one that was just right... but things have changed lately. Cigar was banned for literally no reason, while other members intentionally ruin threads (see first page of this thread) and only contribute insults (see every thread on this site).


But at the end of the day, this site is more interesting than the others, despite the bias. I await my thread ban, since this thread was ruined long ago by the usual culprits.
Don't worry, he is alive and well on D.P.

Strangely, he is not nearly the troll he was here.

decedent
05-09-2017, 10:52 PM
Don't worry, he is alive and well on D.P.

Strangely, he is not nearly the troll he was here.

What's D. P., and who am I on there?


I mean... the non-X-rated kind.

resister
05-09-2017, 11:29 PM
What's D. P., and who am I on there?


I mean... the non-X-rated kind.
cigar, debate politics.

Ethereal
05-09-2017, 11:40 PM
Cigar was banned for literally no reason...

Wow. That statement is on par with "Hillary Clinton is an honest and good person" in terms of absurdity.

Ethereal
05-09-2017, 11:44 PM
Agree 110%.
You agree that Cigar was banned for no reason? Really?

Ethereal
05-09-2017, 11:48 PM
Don't worry, he is alive and well on D.P.

Strangely, he is not nearly the troll he was here.

Assuming that is true, it's probably because Debate Politics is one of the last balanced forums that Cigar hasn't been banned from yet. DP might be his last chance to interact with a diverse audience.

decedent
05-10-2017, 12:03 AM
cigar, debate politics.

I'm very, very white and I have never been to "debate politics". If Cigar is on there, please tell him I say hey.

Common
05-10-2017, 04:17 AM
I don't want a liberal forum; I don't want a conservative forum. (How boring would they be?) I thought I found one that was just right... but things have changed lately. Cigar was banned for literally no reason, while other members intentionally ruin threads (see first page of this thread) and only contribute insults (see every thread on this site).


But at the end of the day, this site is more interesting than the others, despite the bias. I await my thread ban, since this thread was ruined long ago by the usual culprits.

By the way I liked your post because I found it incredibly funny and ridiculous

decedent
05-10-2017, 03:20 PM
By the way I liked your post because I found it incredibly funny and ridiculous

Why don't you make a thread about it? Oh, you did.

Peter1469
05-10-2017, 06:19 PM
4085


199














Sally Yates testified like 'Alice in Wonderland' at congressional hearing (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/09/sally-yates-ted-cruz-muslim-ban-jonathan-turley-column/101465522/)


USA today bucks the trends and reports the news.


Sometimes congressional hearings bring clarity to controversies. Many times they do not. Controversies can become “curiouser and curiouser,” as they did for Alice in Wonderland. That was the case with the testimony of fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week discussing her unprecedented decision to order the entire Justice Department not to assist President Trump in defending the first immigration order. Yates was lionized by Democratic senators as a “hero (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/332478-olbermann-sally-yates-is-an-american-hero)” and has been celebrated in the media for her “courageous stand (https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/news/press-releases/conyers-praises-yates-courageous-stand-against-immigration-order).” However, for those concerned about constitutional law and legal ethics, there is little to celebrate in Yates’ stand. Indeed, her explanation before the Senate only made things more confusing. It was a legal wonderland moment for the new Alice of the Beltway Wonderland: “Curiouser and curiouser!” cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).”

There has been considerable speculation on why Yates would engineer such a confrontation, but what is more important is her justification for ordering an entire federal department to stand down and not to assist a sitting president. Yates’ prior explanation fell considerably short of the expected basis for such a radical step. She dismissed the review of the OLC by insisting that those career lawyers only look at the face of the order and did not consider Trump’s campaign statements and his real motivations (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/trump-firing-sally-yates-should-worry-214716). Of course, many question the use of campaign rhetoric as a basis for reviewing an order written months later by an administration. Most notably, Yates did not conclude that the order was unconstitutional (in contradiction with her own OLC). Rather, she said that she was not convinced that the order was “wise or just” or was “lawful.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/30/acting-attorney-general-orders-justice-department-attorneys-not-to-defend-immigration-executive-order/?utm_term=.1a52a9738bea) She does not explain the latter reference but then added that she was acting on her duty to “always seek justice and stand for what is right.” That is a rather ambiguous standard to support this type of obstruction of a sitting president.


It got far more “curiouser” when Yates appeared at the hearing. Senator Ted Cruz raised 8 U.S.C. Section 1182 (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-ted-cruz-and-sally-yates-face-off-in-testy-showdown-over-travel-ban/), which expressly allows a president to bar the entry of “any alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interest of the United States.” Yates responded by saying that there is also a provision enacted later that says that there can be no discrimination (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.999455ca584e) based on race, nationality and other criteria. However, that provision, 8 U.S.C. Section 1152 (a) (1) (A) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152), would not impact much of the executive order since it does not on its face (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states) apply to refugees or nonimmigrant visas. Moreover, the law was later amended (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/html/PLAW-104publ208.htm) to exclude changes in “procedures” even for those seeking immigrant visas. Yet, Yates relied on Section 1152 and said “that's been part of the discussion with the courts (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/09/sally-yates-and-ted-cruz-go-head-to-head-trumps-travel-ban/314018001/), with respect to the INA.” However, that argument was rejected by some judges (http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015b-0128-dc62-a1db-41ffbcbf0001) and was treated as limited even by those granting partial injunctions.





Why Trump wants Kentucky lawyers to define executive privilege: Jonathan Turley (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/20/trump-white-house-law-suit-kentucky-rally-jonathan-turley-column/100615544/)







Donald Trump says Congress has too much power. He's wrong. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/09/trump-congress-too-much-power/101404282/)





Yates agreed with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., that “the concerns you expressed about the constitutionality of these executive orders have been upheld by the courts (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.62b8b16c9415).” However, that is also not entirely correct. First, some courts ruled for the president, including a number of Ninth Circuit judges who took the extraordinary step of filing a dissent (http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d493-d536-a37b-d4d7f9b30000) to a rehearing petition in the first appeal. More importantly, most courts stayed only a portion of the orders, not the entirety. The point is that not only did career lawyers at the Justice Department conclude that the orders were constitutional but judges also agreed with interpretation of the Administration.


So all of this leads to one of the few truly probing questions given Yates at the hearing. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., asked, “Did you believe, then, that there were reasonable arguments (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.62b8b16c9415) that could be made in its defense?” In an astonishing response, Yates said no because she decided on her view of Trump’s real intent and not the language of the order. However, many judges disagree with implied motive as the appropriate standard for review, as evidenced by the oral argument this week (http://www.npr.org/2017/05/08/527452854/oral-arguments-begin-in-first-court-hearing-on-trumps-travel-ban) before the Fourth Circuit. More importantly, at the time of her decision, many experts (including some of us who opposed the order) were detailing how past cases and the statutory language favored the administration. It is ridiculous to suggest that there were no reasonable arguments supporting the order.

Ransom
05-14-2017, 05:57 AM
By the way I liked your post because I found it incredibly funny and ridiculous
Most of decedent's are.

MisterVeritis
05-14-2017, 10:12 AM
From what I understand, Obama gave Flynn the highest security clearance, which was needed for the job. After he found about about Flynn, he fired him and his clearance was either removed or decreased. Obama warned Trump to not hire Flynn. Trump hired him anyway and requested security clearance or the job, and it wasn't granted.
I know of three security clearance levels, confidential, secret and top secret. Do you know of others?

Everything else is about access within those categories. I am most familiar with sensitive, compartmented information (SCI). There are also special access programs (SAP). I dealt routinely with two-person control materials on the operational side. In the nuclear realm, access was restricted to those with a need to know through a variety of caveats and controls.

I should add, on the human intelligence side there are also caveats and handling instructions to restrict access to those with a need to know.

MisterVeritis
05-14-2017, 10:14 AM
"Flynn never received broader security clearance needed to serve as Natl Security Advisor before his firing" -- Peter Alexander, National Correspondent, NBC News, May 8, 2017
Is Peter an expert in compartmented information?