Steve Bannon.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 07:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I could think of a lot of non-political reasons why it would be prudent to have those persons unmasked. But where you fall on this is going to be partisan and since intent would be very difficult to prove in that instance, and given that she has to make the request and then it has to be deemed appropriate or not to unmask the name by the IC before it is done, it's not going to amount to anything.

Probably extra hard to find intent when she has already been exposed for lying about it. 

How many reasons can you think of that she would lie about knowing anything about it? 

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2017, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Probably extra hard to find intent when she has already been exposed for lying about it. 

How many reasons can you think of that she would lie about knowing anything about it? 

Quite a few, some bad, some negligent. It's not a good thing that she lied about it, but it's (again) not the smoking gun lots of people are making it out to be.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-05-2017, 02:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, no comparison there. Rice's role in the White House was not a political strategist. But nice try.

Also, this whole thing about Rice is much ado about nothing. She did lie in the PBS interview I think it was, but her requesting (because she couldn't do it herself or even order it to be done) that US citizens be unmasked in intelligence was not illegal in any way and does not constitute a leak or any such thing.

LOL, you honestly think Rice's appointment was apolitical?!?  You think Rice was an apolitical person?!?


And there's more of a smoking gun here, so far, on the Obama administration than anything with respect to collusion between the Trump organization and Russia.

It may not be illegal, but it raises VERY serious questions about ethics and political motivations.  Of course, between the IRS shenanigans and wire tapping the AP this is maybe not surprising.

Much ado about nothing....mmmkay

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 07:33 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Good to hear, as I never liked that move to begin with.

And I also read that Nina Habib Powell who is the deputy national security adviser for strategy, will now be invited to principals and deputies meetings. Apparently her influence in the White House is growing, especially after Bannon's exit. Quick tidbit, she was born in Egypt into a Coptic Christian family, not a Muslim one. But hey, libs should be happy about 2 outta 3 there .

So 1 out of three for conservatives.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well to be honest I knew some folks wouldn't give him credit for righting a possible mistake.

Well to be honest some folks won't admit He made a mistake, "possible" or otherwise.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 07:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, not illegal but most likely requested because of political reasons. Sorta odd for someone whose role is not that of a political strategist. 

What political reason do you think the NSA would have to ask for the names of US citizens speaking to foreign nationals while they were spying upon the foreign nationals after Trump was elected?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 08:08 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, you honestly think Rice's appointment was apolitical?!?  You think Rice was an apolitical person?!?


And there's more of a smoking gun here, so far, on the Obama administration than anything with respect to collusion between the Trump organization and Russia.

It may not be illegal, but it raises VERY serious questions about ethics and political motivations.  Of course, between the IRS shenanigans and wire tapping the AP this is maybe not surprising.

Much ado about nothing....mmmkay

LOL

Ever heard of the Patriot "why do you care if they are spying on you if you've got nothing to hide" Act?

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 07:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Quite a few, some bad, some negligent. It's not a good thing that she lied about it, but it's (again) not the smoking gun lots of people are making it out to be.

Where you fall on folks lying being no big deal is going to be partisan. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2017, 08:08 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, you honestly think Rice's appointment was apolitical?!?  You think Rice was an apolitical person?!?

And there's more of a smoking gun here, so far, on the Obama administration than anything with respect to collusion between the Trump organization and Russia.

It may not be illegal, but it raises VERY serious questions about ethics and political motivations.  Of course, between the IRS shenanigans and wire tapping the AP this is maybe not surprising.

Much ado about nothing....mmmkay

No one is an apolitical person, but a person whose job is political strategy has no place in a room where politics are supposed to be checked at the door.

If you think there is more of a smoking gun on the Rice thing that on collusion between those around Trump and Russia, well, you may have missed (or ignored) some of the information out there in that regard.

The requests are made by the NSA to the agency for the unmasking specifically to prevent political abuses. If there were no legitimate reasons for the NSA to know the information then they would not be unmasked. Is there a possibility that there were still political motivations? That can't be denied, but it isn't as cut and dry as a lot of people are trying to make it out to be.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 08:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Well to be honest some folks won't admit He made a mistake, "possible" or otherwise.

Well those folks are blind; as he has made many. It's the price you pay for bringing in a Washington outsider. Thing is some folks recognize he is the duly elected POTUS and hope he learns and or corrects his mistakes and thake the good with the bad. Some folks look to condemn him for every misstep he makes in an attempt to get rid of him because they don't like him.

 

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2017, 08:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where you fall on folks lying being no big deal is going to be partisan. 

Aww, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I didn't realize you thought we were at that point in our relationship, but since I never said that or thought it even, it's obvious we are at different places there.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 08:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No one is an apolitical person, but a person whose job is political strategy has no place in a room where politics are supposed to be checked at the door.

If you think there is more of a smoking gun on the Rice thing that on collusion between those around Trump and Russia, well, you may have missed (or ignored) some of the information out there in that regard.

The requests are made by the NSA to the agency for the unmasking specifically to prevent political abuses. If there were no legitimate reasons for the NSA to know the information then they would not be unmasked. Is there a possibility that there were still political motivations? That can't be denied, but it isn't as cut and dry as a lot of people are trying to make it out to be.

...and Lynch and Slick Willie talked about Grandchildren. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 08:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Aww, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I didn't realize you thought we were at that point in our relationship, but since I never said that or thought it even, it's obvious we are at different places there.

No one puts words in your mouth; I just used your wording. Those words are there to read. I think making less of Rice lying about her knowledge of these investigation(s) is subdued by your partisan view of Trump. It seems you deny this. Who is to question this? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 08:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well those folks are blind; as he has made many. It's the price you pay for bringing in a Washington outsider. Thing is some folks recognize he is the duly elected POTUS and hope he learns and or corrects his mistakes and thake the good with the bad. Some folks look to condemn him for every misstep he makes in an attempt to get rid of him because they don't like him.

 

Condemning him and attempting to get rid of him are two very different acts.

Who has attempted to get rid of him? Did I miss someone questioning his birth certificate, nationality, and eligibility to be president? For years?

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 08:48 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Condemning him and attempting to get rid of him are two very different acts.

Who has attempted to get rid of him?  Did I miss someone questioning his birth certificate, nationality, and eligibility to be president? For years?

That Congresswoman that thinks Russia invaded Korea called for him to be impeached about 1 week into his Presidency. There are numerous others. Hell I think there's an ongoing thread in this very forum. 


BTW, where's his damn tax forms. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That Congresswoman that thinks Russia invaded Korea called for him to be impeached about 1 week into his Presidency. There are numerous others. Hell I think there's an ongoing thread in this very forum. 


BTW, where's his damn tax forms. 

Is a thread on this forum an attempt to get rid of him?

[GMDino]

(04-05-2017, 09:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is a thread on this forum an attempt to get rid of him?

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 09:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is a thread on this forum an attempt to get rid of him?

Good work ignoring the first part of the post and posing a disingenuous question. It got you one "follow".  

The thread is not; however, I am sure it contains links of folks that are. I can find one or 2 for you if you no longer what to be unaware that there are folks trying to remove Trump from office.

I am truly surprised that you are unaware that there are folks trying to remove Trump from office

[GMDino]

300 million people in the US.

More voted against Trump than for him.

And if someone, anyone talks about impeaching him the entire left is crazy.

Ladies and gentlemen:  The Internet Post in a nutshell.

"Give him a chance." ™

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 09:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: 300 million people in the US.

More voted against Trump than for him.

And if someone, anyone talks about impeaching him the entire left is crazy.

Ladies and gentlemen:  The Internet Post in a nutshell.

"Give him a chance." ™

Which candidate got more votes for them than against them?

Of course the entire left is not crazy if a few extremist talk impeachment this early in his Presidency. I was just amazed someone didn't realize there were those that were advocating it.

Actually that post is you in a nutshell and it is not flattering

Of course we should give him a chance. Every time you post that as a jab speaks to your bias.