Looked like it was in Texas. Surprised they didn't.Yeah, you have give it to those two. They showed a lot of restraint. Not to mention, with knife in hand, threatening their lives, they would have been justified in shooting her ass.
Looked like it was in Texas. Surprised they didn't.Yeah, you have give it to those two. They showed a lot of restraint. Not to mention, with knife in hand, threatening their lives, they would have been justified in shooting her ass.
No, they are not the same thing. Not even remotely close to the same thing. We share intelligence with other nations all the time but it is done in ways not to compromise sources and methods and is done with the knowledge and blessings of the intelligence agencies.They actually praised Obama for the same exact thing they're accusing Trump of.
![]()
No, they are not the same thing. Not even remotely close to the same thing. We share intelligence with other nations all the time but it is done in ways not to compromise sources and methods and is done with the knowledge and blessings of the intelligence agencies.
No, they are not the same thing. Not even remotely close to the same thing. We share intelligence with other nations all the time but it is done in ways not to compromise sources and methods and is done with the knowledge and blessings of the intelligence agencies.
No, they are not the same thing. Not even remotely close to the same thing. We share intelligence with other nations all the time but it is done in ways not to compromise sources and methods and is done with the knowledge and blessings of the intelligence agencies.
Revealing information with the knowledge and approval of the sources vs...Ahh. So what was done differently this time?
There was nothing secret about the server. Having a non State dept email address kind of gives that secret away.ahh, you mean like using a secret server, lying about it and attempting to cover it up. you have absolutely no credibility here you know. i don't know why you torture yourself.
Revealing information with the knowledge and approval of the sources vs...
The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.
“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
So you don't see a difference?
Why can you guys not admit it when this clown f#cks up?
Where has this been verified? Washington post
No, they are not the same thing. Not even remotely close to the same thing. We share intelligence with other nations all the time but it is done in ways not to compromise sources and methods and is done with the knowledge and blessings of the intelligence agencies.
Revealing information with the knowledge and approval of the sources vs...
The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.
“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
So you don't see a difference?
Why can you guys not admit it when this clown f#cks up?
Do you use a shovel to bury your head into the sand?
Trump's "people in the room" have pretty questionable believability. Just like the multiple conflicting stories about why Comey was fired. How many different stories were floated around? Covering for the boss isn't anything new. And who is to say that the "people in the room" aren't the anonymous sources that simply don't want to be named because they know what happens to the people who don't toe the company line.The Washington Post ran with a story that wasn't fact checked with the people that were actually in the GD room!
Why wouldn't they do that? Because they don't care if it's accurate, and neither do you. It's simply put out to garner hits, which they already celebrated tonight.
If it turns out to be inaccurate the damage is already done, which is all their interested in.
Trump's "people in the room" have pretty questionable believability. Just like the multiple conflicting stories about why Comey was fired. How many different stories were floated around? Covering for the boss isn't anything new. And who is to say that the "people in the room" aren't the anonymous sources that simply don't want to be named because they know what happens to the people who don't toe the company line.
Never said she did no wrong. Just that the server wasn't a secret.Lol. Says the guy saying Hillary has done no wrong
No, just a story that has been outright refuted and uses a bunch of "top officiAls" doesn't register as fact to me.
Take your own advice.Just stop posting for the night and go to fkng bed.
You guys argue like grade schoolers. Never accept responsibility
What HRC did or did not do has zero bearing on what the clown-in-chief does.
If you've got proof of that, take it to the authorities. Otherwise you're simply guessing.I mean, Seth Rich was straight up murdered by the DNC (and more specifically, the Clintons). Anyone dispute that? Anyone? It's not even in the realm of a conspiracy at this point.
Catch a good buzz, reflect on THAT, and then get back with me on how bone-chilling it is.
But RQ claims that server wasn't a secret. It only got Seth murdered is all.
If you've got proof of that, take it to the authorities. Otherwise you're simply guessing.
First off, you have no idea if the claims are even true. We're talking liberal media with an agenda and anonymous sources vs. everyone in the room on record. I know who I believe.but it is done in ways not to compromise sources and methods
Just read about it and then reflect on it. Does anything else even remotely make sense? Do you even question it just a little? Not saying you have to be full on 100% like most people with common sense, but just a little?If you've got proof of that, take it to the authorities. Otherwise you're simply guessing.
Again, the people in the room work for Trump and it is very doubtful that they are going to go on record and dispute what Trump is now saying. Of course let's give it a week and see how many times Trump's story changes. Maybe Lester Holt can interview him again and he'll admit what he did and contradict all of those he has sent out to spin his story.First off, you have no idea if the claims are even true. We're talking liberal media with an agenda and anonymous sources vs. everyone in the room on record. I know who I believe.
Also, according to everyone in the room, everything discussed neither compromised sources and/or methods. So what's your point?
Why can't you admit the media makes shit up, purposely trying to undermine the president? There are dozens of examples.Why can you guys not admit it when this clown f#cks up?
If you've got proof of that, take it to the authorities. Otherwise you're simply guessing.
Again, you better read up on McMaster before further making yourself look even more ignorant. The man wrote the book, literally, on speaking truth to power.Again, the people in the room work for Trump and it is very doubtful that they are going to go on record and dispute what Trump is now saying.
How about someone from wikileaks calling for the hit in an attempt to frame HRC?Just read about it and then reflect on it. Does anything else even remotely make sense? Do you even question it just a little? Not saying you have to be full on 100% like most people with common sense, but just a little?
Oh, and GFY. You obviously want me dead if you want me to "go to the authorities". I applaud that PI. Huge balls.
Trump's "people in the room" have pretty questionable believability.
There is a reason we don't convict people simply based upon circumstantial evidence.
Anybody can write a fricken book. And i reiterate the possibility that source came from within the room.Again, you better read up on McMaster before further making yourself look even more ignorant. The man wrote the book, literally, on speaking truth to power.
The Post has a much better record with the truth than does Trump.Wouldn't it be one of the Trump ppl in the room leaking this to WaPo? Not exactly an open free for all meeting...not sure how you can question the believability of the ppl in the room, yet believe the WaPo story....unless of course WaPo is in bed with the Russians and are getting their information that way.
Anybody can write a fricken book.
And i reiterate the possibility that source came from within the room.
The source would be from that room. It's either Trumps non believable crew, or the Russians. Or they made it up...you've talked yourself into a bad position - you must believe the Russian sources are solid.The Post has a much better record with the truth than does Trump.