But Hillary used the wrong e-mail server!

[M.I.Wakefield]

In a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador in the Oval
Office (!!), Trump basically started boasting about the "great intel" he
receives, and spilled information to the Russians that America hadn't even
shared with its allies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.1416b05ca757

The information came from a third country, that hadn't granted permission
for it to be shared.

So many questions ..

1) Did Trump burn a country's (Israel?) embedded agent.
2) Has the Oval Office been swept for listening devices left behind by the
Russians?
3) Has anybody explained to the man-child that intelligence information is
too important to be boasted about?
4) How many taping systems are active in the Oval Office? One for Trump?
One each for the NSA, DIA and CIA, so they can keep on top of what the
Fucktard-in-Chief has leaked?
5) Will any country share sensitive information with America again?

[Alan Baker]

Post by M.I.Wakefield
In a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador in the
Oval Office (!!), Trump basically started boasting about the "great
intel" he receives, and spilled information to the Russians that America
hadn't even shared with its allies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.1416b05ca757
The information came from a third country, that hadn't granted
permission for it to be shared.
So many questions ..
1) Did Trump burn a country's (Israel?) embedded agent.
2) Has the Oval Office been swept for listening devices left behind by
the Russians?
3) Has anybody explained to the man-child that intelligence information
is too important to be boasted about?
4) How many taping systems are active in the Oval Office? One for
Trump? One each for the NSA, DIA and CIA, so they can keep on top of
what the Fucktard-in-Chief has leaked?
5) Will any country share sensitive information with America again?

Be prepared for the wingnuts to dismiss the importance of this...

Accidentally including classified information in one's emails (with no
proof that anyone who wasn't cleared ever saw any of it): that's critical.

Actually sharing classified information with your adversaries: that's
trivial... ...if a Republican does it.

:-)

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by M.I.Wakefield
In a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador in the
Oval Office (!!), Trump basically started boasting about the "great
intel" he receives, and spilled information to the Russians that America
hadn't even shared with its allies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly
-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/1
5/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews&utm_ter
m=.1416b05ca757
The information came from a third country, that hadn't granted
permission for it to be shared.
So many questions ..
1) Did Trump burn a country's (Israel?) embedded agent.
2) Has the Oval Office been swept for listening devices left behind by
the Russians?
3) Has anybody explained to the man-child that intelligence information
is too important to be boasted about?
4) How many taping systems are active in the Oval Office? One for
Trump? One each for the NSA, DIA and CIA, so they can keep on top of
what the Fucktard-in-Chief has leaked?
5) Will any country share sensitive information with America again?

Be prepared for the wingnuts to dismiss the importance of this...

Hillary....emails.....Benghazi...Obamacare....

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Alan Baker

Post by M.I.Wakefield
In a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador in the
Oval Office (!!), Trump basically started boasting about the "great
intel" he receives, and spilled information to the Russians that America
hadn't even shared with its allies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly
-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/1
5/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews&utm_ter
m=.1416b05ca757
The information came from a third country, that hadn't granted
permission for it to be shared.
So many questions ..
1) Did Trump burn a country's (Israel?) embedded agent.
2) Has the Oval Office been swept for listening devices left behind by
the Russians?
3) Has anybody explained to the man-child that intelligence information
is too important to be boasted about?
4) How many taping systems are active in the Oval Office? One for
Trump? One each for the NSA, DIA and CIA, so they can keep on top of
what the Fucktard-in-Chief has leaked?
5) Will any country share sensitive information with America again?

Be prepared for the wingnuts to dismiss the importance of this...

Hillary....emails.....Benghazi...Obamacare....

The Shit Stain will say anything, for attention. IT really has no real allegiance. Just trolls for attention, all over Google Groups. And IT is mostly ignored.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by M.I.Wakefield
In a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador in the Oval
Office (!!), Trump basically started boasting about the "great intel" he
receives, and spilled information to the Russians that America hadn't even
shared with its allies.

[head plop]

[simplicity]

Post by M.I.Wakefield
In a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador in the Oval
Office (!!), Trump basically started boasting about the "great intel" he
receives, and spilled information to the Russians that America hadn't even
shared with its allies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.1416b05ca757
The information came from a third country, that hadn't granted permission
for it to be shared.
So many questions ..
1) Did Trump burn a country's (Israel?) embedded agent.
2) Has the Oval Office been swept for listening devices left behind by the
Russians?
3) Has anybody explained to the man-child that intelligence information is
too important to be boasted about?
4) How many taping systems are active in the Oval Office? One for Trump?
One each for the NSA, DIA and CIA, so they can keep on top of what the
Fucktard-in-Chief has leaked?
5) Will any country share sensitive information with America again?

Don't let your fantasies carry you over the board, MIW.

It may, after all, be another crap from the leader of destroy-Trump #FakeNews media outlet based on... oh, yes, of course, "anonymous sources".

"The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation," McMaster said. "At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed, and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known."
"I was in the room," McMaster concluded. "It didn't happen."

"This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced," said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy.

Who do you believe - "believe" being a key word here? Your choice.

[M.I.Wakefield]

Post by simplicity

Post by M.I.Wakefield
In a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador in the
Oval Office (!!), Trump basically started boasting about the "great
intel" he receives, and spilled information to the Russians that America
hadn't even shared with its allies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.1416b05ca757
The information came from a third country, that hadn't granted
permission for it to be shared.
So many questions ..
1) Did Trump burn a country's (Israel?) embedded agent.
2) Has the Oval Office been swept for listening devices left behind by
the Russians?
3) Has anybody explained to the man-child that intelligence information
is too important to be boasted about?
4) How many taping systems are active in the Oval Office? One for
Trump? One each for the NSA, DIA and CIA, so they can keep on top of
what the Fucktard-in-Chief has leaked?
5) Will any country share sensitive information with America again?

Don't let your fantasies carry you over the board, MIW.
It may, after all, be another crap from the leader of destroy-Trump
#FakeNews media outlet based on... oh, yes, of course, "anonymous
sources".

Except that, after WaPo published, several other news organization
independently confirmed the story. And then this morning Trump tweeted out
that he had an absolute right to reveal any information he wanted.

Post by simplicity
"The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats
to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation," McMaster said.
"At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed,
and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not
already publicly known."
"I was in the room," McMaster concluded. "It didn't happen."

A great non-denial denial, massively undercut by Trump's later tweet. The
WaPo story didn't mention sources and methods, or military operations; the
level of detail that Trump revealed was bad enough ... especially when the
source country didn't want the information shared. The WaPo was more
responsible with the information than Trump was; they ran the story by at
least one intelligence agency, and withheld details that they didn't want
made public.

Post by simplicity
"This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that
both countries faced," said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser
for strategy.
Who do you believe - "believe" being a key word here? Your choice.

Given the track record of the Trump White House? That's barely a serious
question.

[simplicity]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by simplicity

Post by M.I.Wakefield
In a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador in the
Oval Office (!!), Trump basically started boasting about the "great
intel" he receives, and spilled information to the Russians that America
hadn't even shared with its allies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.1416b05ca757
The information came from a third country, that hadn't granted
permission for it to be shared.
So many questions ..
1) Did Trump burn a country's (Israel?) embedded agent.
2) Has the Oval Office been swept for listening devices left behind by
the Russians?
3) Has anybody explained to the man-child that intelligence information
is too important to be boasted about?
4) How many taping systems are active in the Oval Office? One for
Trump? One each for the NSA, DIA and CIA, so they can keep on top of
what the Fucktard-in-Chief has leaked?
5) Will any country share sensitive information with America again?

Don't let your fantasies carry you over the board, MIW.
It may, after all, be another crap from the leader of destroy-Trump
#FakeNews media outlet based on... oh, yes, of course, "anonymous
sources".

Except that, after WaPo published, several other news organization
independently confirmed the story.

Nobody CONFIRMED anything. They all REPRINTED the original piece from WaPo. That's the big difference which you, purposely, obfuscate.

All that comes to my mind is the famous statement by a past master of mass propaganda, the one that says that the lie repeated 100 times becomes truth.

Post by M.I.Wakefield
And then this morning Trump tweeted out
that he had an absolute right to reveal any information he wanted.

"As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."
Exact quote, word by word.

So, now show me which part of it resembles your interpretation that "he had an absolute right to reveal any information he wanted" - another exact quote, this time from you.

I guess, now could be the good time to unleash your fantasies.

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by simplicity
"The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats
to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation," McMaster said.
"At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed,
and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not
already publicly known."
"I was in the room," McMaster concluded. "It didn't happen."

A great non-denial denial, massively undercut by Trump's later tweet. The
WaPo story didn't mention sources and methods, or military operations; the
level of detail that Trump revealed was bad enough ... especially when the
source country didn't want the information shared. The WaPo was more
responsible with the information than Trump was; they ran the story by at
least one intelligence agency, and withheld details that they didn't want
made public.

WaPo did not mention anything except innuendos from "annonymous sources". Perhaps something but, knowing WaPo history one may ask which parts of the REAL story did WAPO withhold - your claim, not mine and which they perhaps amplified.

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by simplicity
"This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that
both countries faced," said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser
for strategy.
Who do you believe - "believe" being a key word here? Your choice.

Given the track record of the Trump White House? That's barely a serious
question.

Oh, you cannot come up with the answer so you run away and hide behind an empty slogan.

The question is very serious. And it is really something you should ask yourself. Both your side and mine are based solely on beliefs. You believe an organization known to be extremely hostile to Trump. I believe that anything that's printed in that medium is a lie and fabrication to serve the not so secret agenda.

Who is right? Future may show.

To conclude, I have another serious question to you. I know you as one of the few individuals here who generally makes sense. Why is it that when it comes to Clinton - fortunately she is gone for ever, Trump and American politics your position is indistinguishable from that of Gordo, Roy or TomP: characterized by lack of judgement, extreme hostility and hatred?

[Alan Baker]

Post by simplicity

Post by M.I.Wakefield

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:25:34 PM UTC-6, M.I.Wakefield

Post by M.I.Wakefield
In a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador
in the Oval Office (!!), Trump basically started boasting about
the "great intel" he receives, and spilled information to the
Russians that America hadn't even shared with its allies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.1416b05ca757

The information came from a third country, that hadn't granted

Post by simplicity

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by M.I.Wakefield
permission for it to be shared.
So many questions ..
1) Did Trump burn a country's (Israel?) embedded agent. 2)
Has the Oval Office been swept for listening devices left
behind by the Russians? 3) Has anybody explained to the
man-child that intelligence information is too important to be
boasted about? 4) How many taping systems are active in the
Oval Office? One for Trump? One each for the NSA, DIA and
CIA, so they can keep on top of what the Fucktard-in-Chief has
leaked? 5) Will any country share sensitive information with
America again?

Don't let your fantasies carry you over the board, MIW.
It may, after all, be another crap from the leader of
destroy-Trump #FakeNews media outlet based on... oh, yes, of
course, "anonymous sources".

Except that, after WaPo published, several other news organization
independently confirmed the story.

Nobody CONFIRMED anything. They all REPRINTED the original piece from
WaPo. That's the big difference which you, purposely, obfuscate.
All that comes to my mind is the famous statement by a past master of
mass propaganda, the one that says that the lie repeated 100 times
becomes truth.

Post by M.I.Wakefield
And then this morning Trump tweeted out that he had an absolute
right to reveal any information he wanted.

"As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled
W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining
to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I
want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."
Exact quote, word by word.
So, now show me which part of it resembles your interpretation that
"he had an absolute right to reveal any information he wanted" -
another exact quote, this time from you.
I guess, now could be the good time to unleash your fantasies.

Post by M.I.Wakefield

"The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of
common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil
aviation," McMaster said. "At no time, at no time, were
intelligence sources or methods discussed, and the president did
not disclose any military operations that were not already
publicly known." "I was in the room," McMaster concluded. "It
didn't happen."

A great non-denial denial, massively undercut by Trump's later
tweet. The WaPo story didn't mention sources and methods, or
military operations; the level of detail that Trump revealed was
bad enough ... especially when the source country didn't want the
information shared. The WaPo was more responsible with the
information than Trump was; they ran the story by at least one
intelligence agency, and withheld details that they didn't want
made public.

WaPo did not mention anything except innuendos from "annonymous
sources". Perhaps something but, knowing WaPo history one may ask
which parts of the REAL story did WAPO withhold - your claim, not
mine and which they perhaps amplified.

All of which were then confirmed by Trump and McMaster in later
statements...

Post by simplicity

Post by M.I.Wakefield

"This story is false. The president only discussed the common
threats that both countries faced," said Dina Powell, deputy
national security adviser for strategy.
Who do you believe - "believe" being a key word here? Your
choice.

Given the track record of the Trump White House? That's barely a
serious question.

Oh, you cannot come up with the answer so you run away and hide behind an empty slogan.
The question is very serious. And it is really something you should
ask yourself. Both your side and mine are based solely on beliefs.
You believe an organization known to be extremely hostile to Trump. I
believe that anything that's printed in that medium is a lie and
fabrication to serve the not so secret agenda.
Who is right? Future may show.
To conclude, I have another serious question to you. I know you as
one of the few individuals here who generally makes sense. Why is it
that when it comes to Clinton - fortunately she is gone for ever,
Trump and American politics your position is indistinguishable from
that of Gordo, Roy or TomP: characterized by lack of judgement,
extreme hostility and hatred?

He's intelligent and thoughtful?

That someone else's opinion happens to match one's own is proof of nothing.

Trump is a failure and a liability and he has quite possibly obstructed
justice.

[M.I.Wakefield]

Post by simplicity
The question is very serious. And it is really something you should ask
yourself. Both your side and mine are based solely on beliefs. You believe
an organization known to be extremely hostile to Trump. I believe that
anything that's printed in that medium is a lie and fabrication to serve
the not so secret agenda.
Who is right? Future may show.

I've never thought Trump was qualified to be POTUS ... from 2 years ago:

========
To find a previous US President with no experience in government or the
military, like Trump, you have to go back to ... never.

Trump is the Kardashian of presidential candidates.
========

I believe that events to date have proven me right.

Post by simplicity
To conclude, I have another serious question to you. I know you as one of
the few individuals here who generally makes sense. Why is it that when it
comes to Clinton - fortunately she is gone for ever, Trump and American
politics your position is indistinguishable from that of Gordo, Roy or
TomP: characterized by lack of judgement, extreme hostility and hatred?

Hillary was a horrible candidate ... so much baggage ... IIRC, she'd never
improved from her starting number in any race she'd ever run. But it was
like the Democrats said "Let's nominate the worst candidate we can" and the
Republicans said "Hold my beer".

[Dhu on Gate]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by simplicity
The question is very serious. And it is really something you should ask
yourself. Both your side and mine are based solely on beliefs. You believe
an organization known to be extremely hostile to Trump. I believe that
anything that's printed in that medium is a lie and fabrication to serve
the not so secret agenda.
Who is right? Future may show.

========
To find a previous US President with no experience in government or the
military, like Trump, you have to go back to ... never.
Trump is the Kardashian of presidential candidates.
========
I believe that events to date have proven me right.

Post by simplicity
To conclude, I have another serious question to you. I know you as one of
the few individuals here who generally makes sense. Why is it that when it
comes to Clinton - fortunately she is gone for ever, Trump and American
politics your position is indistinguishable from that of Gordo, Roy or
TomP: characterized by lack of judgement, extreme hostility and hatred?

Hillary was a horrible candidate ... so much baggage ... IIRC, she'd never
improved from her starting number in any race she'd ever run. But it was
like the Democrats said "Let's nominate the worst candidate we can" and the
Republicans said "Hold my beer".

A choice between a Red Herring and an Orange Orangutan ;-)

Dhu

[Eric©]

Dhu on Gate wrote...

Post by Dhu on Gate

Post by M.I.Wakefield
Hillary was a horrible candidate ... so much baggage ... IIRC, she'd never
improved from her starting number in any race she'd ever run. But it was
like the Democrats said "Let's nominate the worst candidate we can" and the
Republicans said "Hold my beer".

A choice between a Red Herring and an Orange Orangutan ;-)

If they could get Trump off Twitter it would be half the battle. But some pro-Trump
pundit (or maybe it was one of his cabinet) claimed the other day that Twitter was the
only way he could make himself heard because the mainstream media are against him.

[simplicity]

Post by Eric©
If they could get Trump off Twitter it would be half the battle. But some pro-Trump
pundit (or maybe it was one of his cabinet) claimed the other day that Twitter was the
only way he could make himself heard because the mainstream media are against him.

Isn't that true? According to stats that I saw somewhere on TV 98% (or something close to that) coverage of Trump is negative or outright hostile.

[Alan Baker]

Post by simplicity

Post by Eric©
If they could get Trump off Twitter it would be half the battle. But some pro-Trump
pundit (or maybe it was one of his cabinet) claimed the other day that Twitter was the
only way he could make himself heard because the mainstream media are against him.

Isn't that true? According to stats that I saw somewhere on TV 98% (or something close to that) coverage of Trump is negative or outright hostile.

Or it's just accurate, and there's really not much good to counter the
disastrous.

[Eric©]

simplicity wrote...

Post by simplicity

Post by Eric©
If they could get Trump off Twitter it would be half the battle. But some pro-Trump
pundit (or maybe it was one of his cabinet) claimed the other day that Twitter was the
only way he could make himself heard because the mainstream media are against him.

Isn't that true? According to stats that I saw somewhere on TV 98% (or something close to that) coverage of Trump is negative or outright hostile.

Bu who reports what Trump says on Twitter? The media. And of course he's said some
pretty stupid things, including things that are totally false. IMO it's way beneath the
position of POTUS.

[Enceladus]

Post by Eric©
simplicity wrote...

Post by simplicity

Post by Eric©
If they could get Trump off Twitter it would be half the battle. But some pro-Trump
pundit (or maybe it was one of his cabinet) claimed the other day that Twitter was the
only way he could make himself heard because the mainstream media are against him.

Isn't that true? According to stats that I saw somewhere on TV 98% (or something close to that) coverage of Trump is negative or outright hostile.

Bu who reports what Trump says on Twitter? The media. And of course he's said some
pretty stupid things, including things that are totally false. IMO it's way beneath the
position of POTUS.

But not the scumbag, fake news-posting, leftarded media, eh?

Brilliant hypocrisy.

[simplicity]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by simplicity
The question is very serious. And it is really something you should ask
yourself. Both your side and mine are based solely on beliefs. You believe
an organization known to be extremely hostile to Trump. I believe that
anything that's printed in that medium is a lie and fabrication to serve
the not so secret agenda.
Who is right? Future may show.

Which is fine... you are entitled to your opinion. But is "never thought Trump was qualified" justifying your obsession to use anything, absolutely anything, to keep discrediting him?

Post by M.I.Wakefield
========
To find a previous US President with no experience in government or the
military, like Trump, you have to go back to ... never.
Trump is the Kardashian of presidential candidates.
========

Oh, so only military and politicos can apply for POTUS job? Hmmm... where is that written? BTW, I think Kim might have better chance to win than Clinton - speaks tons about the state of that democrap party.

I ask you again. Why do you excite yourself over media "degrading themselves over Trump, stumbling around in sightless rage, screaming" (quote by Tucker Carlson)? Four year is not too long and Americans will render the judgement. Why don't you scream at the democraps to shut up and start looking forward to 2020?

Why don't you leave this stupidity to Baker or Gordo?

Post by M.I.Wakefield
Hillary was a horrible candidate ... so much baggage ... IIRC, she'd never
improved from her starting number in any race she'd ever run. But it was
like the Democrats said "Let's nominate the worst candidate we can" and the
Republicans said "Hold my beer".

Oh, so it is not Russia? Where is the consistency? Can you actually make up your mind?

BTW, here is one more in the subject:
"Israel has full confidence in out intelligence-sharing with the United States and looks forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under President Trump" - Ron Dermer, Israeli ambassador to the US, May 16.

My comment: NYT = #FakeNews

[M.I.Wakefield]

Post by simplicity
Which is fine... you are entitled to your opinion. But is "never thought
Trump was qualified" justifying your obsession to use anything, absolutely
anything, to keep discrediting him?

I'm not discrediting him; I'm occasionally reporting on what amounts to
little more than a self-immolation.

Post by simplicity

Post by M.I.Wakefield
========
To find a previous US President with no experience in government or the
military, like Trump, you have to go back to ... never.
Trump is the Kardashian of presidential candidates.
========

Oh, so only military and politicos can apply for POTUS job?

It would help if someone who wanted to be POTUS had government experience,
because government is different from business, and business experience
doesn't prepare you to run a government ... as is evidenced by Trump hitting
the ground with a series of face-plants, as opposed to running.

Post by simplicity
I ask you again. Why do you excite yourself over media "degrading
themselves over Trump, stumbling around in sightless rage, screaming"
(quote by Tucker Carlson)?

Tucker Calrson? Seriously? There is a reason the man is running out of
news networks to be fired from. And he's on Fox News, which has just burned
much of the little credibility they had remaining pursuing an already
debunked story about a Democratic aide who was murdered in Washington DC
last year.

Trump, meanwhile, appears to have committed a number of acts that would
qualify as impeachable including, but not limited to, obstruction of
justice, and (breaking tonight) appointing someone to be National Security
Advisor who he knew to be under FBI investigation, and he ended up having to
fire after 24 days.

And now Trump has a Special Counsel, former FBI Director Robert Mueller,
leading the investigation into his conduct. Good luck with that, Donny!

Post by simplicity
Four year is not too long and Americans will render the judgement. Why
don't you scream at the democraps to shut up and start looking forward to
2020?

A week is a long time in politics; it's only 9 days since Sally Yates
testified to the Senate.

In legislative terms, though, it's practically 2018, and Trump's agenda is
dead in the water. And usually, less gets done in an election year than an
off-year.

[simplicity]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by simplicity
Which is fine... you are entitled to your opinion. But is "never thought
Trump was qualified" justifying your obsession to use anything, absolutely
anything, to keep discrediting him?

I'm not discrediting him; I'm occasionally reporting on what amounts to
little more than a self-immolation.

Don't lie to yourself. You have been jumping on any opportunity to discredit Trump, usually just parroting things you find in WP.

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by simplicity

Post by M.I.Wakefield
========
To find a previous US President with no experience in government or the
military, like Trump, you have to go back to ... never.
Trump is the Kardashian of presidential candidates.
========

Oh, so only military and politicos can apply for POTUS job?

It would help if someone who wanted to be POTUS had government experience,
because government is different from business, and business experience
doesn't prepare you to run a government ... as is evidenced by Trump hitting
the ground with a series of face-plants, as opposed to running.

Which means that you are for the class I call called career politicians. Those who know better...

And the fact that that class is mostly made of idiots and corrupted jerks does not seem to bother you?

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by simplicity
I ask you again. Why do you excite yourself over media "degrading
themselves over Trump, stumbling around in sightless rage, screaming"
(quote by Tucker Carlson)?

Tucker Calrson? Seriously? There is a reason the man is running out of
news networks to be fired from.

Ha, ha, ha. I put the name from FN as a bait and you get caught. It is so much easier to revert to character assassination than come up with reasonable argument, eh? It would have been quite traumatic to see Carlson making your beloved democraps look foolish and idiotic - at least those who have guts to accept his invitation.

Post by M.I.Wakefield
And he's on Fox News, which has just burned
much of the little credibility they had remaining pursuing an already
debunked story about a Democratic aide who was murdered in Washington DC
last year.

You are spreading lies again. It is not the "already debunked story". There is, actually the new twist in that story. Why are you so afraid of the possibility of different truth? Is it because it does not fit you narrative and your version of the universe?

Post by M.I.Wakefield
Trump, meanwhile, appears to have committed a number of acts that would
qualify as impeachable including, but not limited to, obstruction of
justice, and (breaking tonight) appointing someone to be National Security
Advisor who he knew to be under FBI investigation, and he ended up having to
fire after 24 days.

BS, BS, and more BS - straight from WP and MSNBC. Even your goddess Pelossi, yeah, that village idiot democrap, admitted that there is absolutely nothing impeachable in any of these.

Post by M.I.Wakefield
And now Trump has a Special Counsel, former FBI Director Robert Mueller,
leading the investigation into his conduct. Good luck with that, Donny!

Of course. You already know, judge and execute. No doubt Mueller is a Trump's puppet, Putin's confidant, Russian operative, whatever else, fill in the blanks.

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by simplicity
Four year is not too long and Americans will render the judgement. Why
don't you scream at the democraps to shut up and start looking forward to
2020?

A week is a long time in politics; it's only 9 days since Sally Yates
testified to the Senate.
In legislative terms, though, it's practically 2018, and Trump's agenda is
dead in the water. And usually, less gets done in an election year than an
off-year.

You may try to translate this gibberish of yours into English because I don't see how it relates to my paragraph.

[Dhu on Gate]

Post by simplicity

Post by M.I.Wakefield
In a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador in the Oval
Office (!!), Trump basically started boasting about the "great intel" he
receives, and spilled information to the Russians that America hadn't even
shared with its allies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.1416b05ca757
The information came from a third country, that hadn't granted permission
for it to be shared.
So many questions ..
1) Did Trump burn a country's (Israel?) embedded agent.
2) Has the Oval Office been swept for listening devices left behind by the
Russians?
3) Has anybody explained to the man-child that intelligence information is
too important to be boasted about?
4) How many taping systems are active in the Oval Office? One for Trump?
One each for the NSA, DIA and CIA, so they can keep on top of what the
Fucktard-in-Chief has leaked?
5) Will any country share sensitive information with America again?

Don't let your fantasies carry you over the board, MIW.
It may, after all, be another crap from the leader of destroy-Trump #FakeNews media outlet based on... oh, yes, of course, "anonymous sources".
"The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation," McMaster said. "At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed, and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known."
"I was in the room," McMaster concluded. "It didn't happen."
"This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced," said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy.
Who do you believe - "believe" being a key word here? Your choice.

Israel eh? There is *nothing* of import that happens in Israel
that is not known three minutes later in the Kremlin. The Jews
know which side the butter is on, and if not for the Red Army
there'd be none of them left in Europe.

Dhu

[M.I.Wakefield]

Post by Dhu on Gate
Israel eh?

Or Jordan, or Egypt, or one of the Gulf states.

The point is that a US ally has a source inside ISIS ... well "had", because
if they haven't fled or been killed yet, they likely soon will.

[Dhu on Gate]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by Dhu on Gate
Israel eh?

Or Jordan, or Egypt, or one of the Gulf states.
The point is that a US ally has a source inside ISIS ... well "had", because
if they haven't fled or been killed yet, they likely soon will.

Like as not the info came from Russian Chechens.

Dhu