Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 22:11:50 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on May 17, 2017 5:45:30 GMT -5
Assuming that Trump said exactly what is reported by the NYT to be in the Comey memo, why did Comey not instantly refer this for a criminal investigation?
He was on the Hill at least twice after the meeting in question and never said a word about the alleged "obstruction of justice".
Just wondering if Comey thought this was as big a deal as Wolfie, Georgie and Tingle Leg do.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,077
|
Post by SSHoya on May 17, 2017 6:59:43 GMT -5
Assuming that Trump said exactly what is reported by the NYT to be in the Comey memo, why did Comey not instantly refer this for a criminal investigation? He was on the Hill at least twice after the meeting in question and never said a word about the alleged "obstruction of justice". Just wondering if Comey thought this was as big a deal as Wolfie, Georgie and Tingle Leg do. First, it is generally agreed that you cannot prosecute a sitting President but the remedy is impeachment which is a political remedy; thus there is no instant criminal referral to be made. Realistically, Comey was not going to "instantly refer" an obstruction charge based upon such thin evidence. Nor would Comey testify in open or closed session that based upon this conversation that he suspected the President of obstruction -- that'd be reckless and foolish and in the middle of an on-going investigation. Second, as it was in the middle of an on-going investigation, I'd speculate that Comey was waiting for the situation to play out as proving obstruction of justice is not as easy as it sounds as the prosecutors have to prove corrupt intent, i.e., "acting with an improper purpose." Even after Comey's firing (but prior to the disclosure of the allegations in the Comey memo), some commentators opined that this was not necessarily obstruction of justice: www.lawfareblog.com/was-firing-james-comey-obstruction-justice Thus, Comey may have thought that by exercising tactical patience after the "Flynn is a good guy" conversation on February 14, Trump's subsequent conduct may help prove or disprove corrupt intent. Comey would not say a word about an inchoate suspicion of an obstruction case against Trump to the Hill because it is exactly that, inchoate. Events subsequent to February 14th (in which Trump asked Sessions and others to leave the Oval Office to have a one-on-one with Comey which may be evidence that Trump knew his conversation was improper), i.e., Comey's firing in conjunction with Yates's firing, the ginning up of the Rosenstein memo, the now disclosed information in the Comey memo, if true, gets you down the road but still not impeachment because it is a political remedy and the GOP-controlled House does not seem so inclined yet. (I personally think the totality of Trump's conduct, i.e., alleged ethics violations including the Emoluments Clause, disclosure of code word information in a reckless manner to a hostile foreign power, and now the potential obstruction of justice are enough to open impeachment proceedings -- remember that impeachment is only an investigation conducted by the House). Third, recall that the investigation is a foreign counterintelligence investigation (FCI) into the Russian influence on the US election and is not primarily a criminal investigation. Most FCIs do not result in criminal prosecutions. When Comey disclosed the FCI on March 20th as he was publicly authorized to do by DOJ, he added the potential criminal violations more as a footnote. The primary purpose is the FCI and the equities are such that the criminal violations will take a back seat during the pendency and conclusion of the FCI, assuming the absence of a statute of limitations issue regarding any criminal violations. Even in the latter case the statute may be allowed to run in furtherance of the more important FCI. I will speculate that the FCI may result in collateral criminal prosecutions perhaps of Flynn (18 USC 1001, potential FARA violation, Logan Act though not likely) and Manafort (perhaps money laundering, FARA). I am more curious as to McCabe's testimony that no one has made an effort to impede the Russian investigation. Am I to assume that McCabe was not read in to the allegations in Comey's memos? Depends upon how closely held Comey's memos were but I'd think Comey's #2 would have been read in. One TV pundit suggested that McCabe considered the Russian investigation separate from the Flynn investigation which is clearly more advanced since the FBI interviewed Flynn. But to me, that is too technical in responding to such a question.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on May 17, 2017 7:09:34 GMT -5
Thanks for that explanation. It is all reasonable and plausible.
I guess we will see what the "Comey Memo" (or Memos) hold.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on May 17, 2017 8:07:55 GMT -5
I am more curious as to McCabe's testimony that no one has made an effort to impede the Russian investigation. Am I to assume that McCabe was not read in to the allegations in Comey's memos? Depends upon how closely held Comey's memos were but I'd think Comey's #2 would have been read in. One TV pundit suggested that McCabe considered the Russian investigation separate from the Flynn investigation which is clearly more advanced since the FBI interviewed Flynn. But to me, that is too technical in responding to such a question. "Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter." www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?_r=0Don't know if that means McCabe or not but I think it probably would.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,077
|
Post by SSHoya on May 17, 2017 8:40:18 GMT -5
I am more curious as to McCabe's testimony that no one has made an effort to impede the Russian investigation. Am I to assume that McCabe was not read in to the allegations in Comey's memos? Depends upon how closely held Comey's memos were but I'd think Comey's #2 would have been read in. One TV pundit suggested that McCabe considered the Russian investigation separate from the Flynn investigation which is clearly more advanced since the FBI interviewed Flynn. But to me, that is too technical in responding to such a question. "Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter." www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?_r=0Don't know if that means McCabe or not but I think it probably would. One would think so. Can't get much more senior than the #2 and I'm pretty certain he was Comey's pick. Who remembers this bizarre episode in which McCabe allegedly volunteered to Priebus that the NYT's story on the FBI's investigation of the Trump/Russia ties was "BS" resulting in Priebus asking if the FBI could knock down the story publicly? Supposedly, McCabe sought permission to do so but was told that Priebus could only cite "senior intelligence officials" as a source. Note the date: February 15th, the day after Trump and Comey had their "Flynn is a good guy" conversation. (McCabe's wife had run for state Senate in Virginia and Gov. McAuliffe's PAC had contributed $700k to her campaign but she lost. During the Clinton email investigation, some on the right said that McCabe should have recused himself from the Clinton investigation because of his wife's partisan political activity). In hindsight, I see McCabe's February approach to Priebus as an authorized contact in order to lull potential subjects/targets of the foreign counterintelligence investigation into complacency or attempting to elicit an incriminating statement from Priebus since Comey did not go public confirming the investigation with DOJ approval until March 20th in his testimony on the Hill. Otherwise, McCabe would have violated DOJ/FBI policy by volunteering that (false) assessment to Priebus. Why would McCabe do this? I assume the FBI did not know in Feb. 2017 the scope of the FCI and needed more time to achieve a better understanding of the scope of the investigation. Perhaps it wasn't until a month later it felt it could testify in open session that such an investigation had been on-going since July 2016. Regardless, a bizarre episode that seems to have been forgotten but perhaps explainable in an FCI context. www.politico.com/story/2017/02/james-comey-fbi-trump-russia-probe-235394
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 10:58:40 GMT -5
1) CBS: Sources tell us Kushner was a prominent voice advocating Comey's firing. Kushner pushed for Comey firing after stories broke about his sister in China and that the FBI probe was expanding to financial dealings....
He admitted falsifying his security clearance form by omitting meetings with Russians. Perhaps Kushner feared he was under FBI investigation. Or maybe he was upset that Comey was affecting his bottom line... Plenty of options in Trumpland
2) Icymi: From the Wapo report on the Comey memo
Who at the DOJ did he share this info with?? Did Sessions and Rosenstein know about this when they signed off on his firing?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,077
|
Post by SSHoya on May 17, 2017 11:06:44 GMT -5
CBS: Sources tell us Kushner was a prominent voice advocating Comey's firing. Kushner pushed for Comey firing after stories broke about his sister in China and that the FBI probe was expanding to financial dealings.... He admitted falsifying his security clearance form by omitting meetings with Russians. Perhaps Kushner feared he was under FBI investigation. Or maybe he was upset that Comey was affecting his bottom line... Plenty of options in Trumplan 18 USC 1001 false statement felony as clearly stated on the SF-86 when you sign it.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,077
|
Post by SSHoya on May 17, 2017 11:31:01 GMT -5
1) CBS: Sources tell us Kushner was a prominent voice advocating Comey's firing. Kushner pushed for Comey firing after stories broke about his sister in China and that the FBI probe was expanding to financial dealings.... He admitted falsifying his security clearance form by omitting meetings with Russians. Perhaps Kushner feared he was under FBI investigation. Or maybe he was upset that Comey was affecting his bottom line... Plenty of options in Trumpland 2) Icymi: From the Wapo report on the Comey memo Who at the DOJ did he share this info with?? Did Sessions and Rosenstein know about this when they signed off on his firing? Not so sure you can say Rosenstein signed off on the firing. His memo on restoring the FBI makes no recommendation on Comey's continued tenure but merely lists a collection of opinions from former DOJ officials about the appropriateness of Comey's conduct re: the Clinton email investigation. In fact it doesn't even cite the appropriate section of the US Attorney's Manual that Comey violated regarding affecting elections. Moreover, everyone forgets that the DOJ Inspector General had opened up an IG investigation in Janury 2017 over Comey's conduct of the Clinton investigation. Typically, no action would be taken on a personnel front pending actual findings and conclusions of such an IG report. Thus, Rosenstein may have wrongly assumed that his short memo was not going to be used to justify the termination of Comey. The only other FBI Director ever fired was William Sessions by Clinton after the Office of Professional Responsibility completed a full investigation and concluded that Sessions had used government resources for personal use. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cover letter for the firing was only signed by Sessions. Reportedly, Rosenstein threatened to resign when Trump et al trotted out his memo as justification for the termination. It is possible that Comey's memo was only shared with the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division Mary McCord since it was in the foreign counterintelligence arena. Rosenstein had not yet been confirmed at the time of the February 14th conversation. Perhaps Comey didn't know who he could trust? Sessions and Rosenstein both Trump appointee.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 17, 2017 13:26:44 GMT -5
I have been amazed at the hyperventilating on this board and in the MSM since Trump was elected. It has been a constant stream of negatism without any semblance of objectivity. Look back over this thread and try to find acknowledgement of anything positive about Trump. You will not find it. Posters seem to scour the Washington Post and N.Y. Times and others similarly aligned, happily reporting everything negative. You seem to take delight in slamming Trump. Trump is our President, duly elected. Has Trump said and done things I would have objected to? Yes. Yes. Yes. Do I wish someone else were President? Yes. Yes. Yes. Contrast how the MSM and you treated President Obama. Did they or you scour everywhere gleefully looking for all things bad while ignoring everything good? What about the Iran nuclear deal? What about doing nothing in Syria while over 100,000 died? What about Lois Lerner? What about refusing to enforce immigration laws he swore to defend? What about lying to the public about Benghazi? I don't recall any of you gleefully reporting any of that. As for Trumps meeting with the Russians, he apparently made a mistake. His handling of the apparent mistake after the fact was bad. In fact he needs to tighten the ship on how his messages are delivered. Others have also released information that might bring harm to us or our allies but that does not excuse Trump. Apples and oranges are more closely related than President Trump and President Obama. One needn't "scour" sources for evidence of Trump's ineptitudes or failures. He does it for us nearly every day on Twitter. The negativism is there because, largely, it's warranted. What part of it has been unfair? What has he accomplished? You may be able to come up with something or two things of which you approve. But the failures? Holy crap. He's historically inept and, to make matters worse, continues on the bull-headed path of acting as though he's the brightest, most well-prepared person in the room whilst others laugh or cringe. If you can't find the sucker in the room, it's you. That should have been Trump's campaign slogan. Having said that, shots were taken at Obama for 8 straight years both on the issues and on ridiculous "hey look at this" kind of stuff. Heck, our current president took how long to concede the birth certificate thing? Regardless, that's part of the deal. At no time, however, did the previous president get so butt hurt by things said about him in the media that he called them fake or #sad or #bad or barred them in large numbers from doing their jobs whether he liked how they did them or not. With regard to the latest intelligence leak, you say Trump made a mistake? Really? That's your level of concern? Agree to disagree. By a WIDE margin. And, not for nothing, the President's answer to what happened contained no admission of having made a mistake. That doesn't worry you? Per your last paragraph - I am sure you are still livid about President Obama identifying the actual name of a source in Afghanistan, as reported by the same Post reporter in 2014. And I am doubly sure you expressed your outrage on Hoya Talk at the time. Regarding the shots taken at Obama, they did not come from the MSM. They largely ignored them, only talk radio and Fox covered it. The MSM effectively gave him a pass. And so did those on this board who claim objectivity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 13:53:47 GMT -5
Per your last paragraph - I am sure you are still livid about President Obama identifying the actual name of a source in Afghanistan, as reported by the same Post reporter in 2014. And I am doubly sure you expressed your outrage on Hoya Talk at the time. Regarding the shots taken at Obama, they did not come from the MSM. They largely ignored them, only talk radio and Fox covered it. The MSM effectively gave him a pass. And so did those on this board who claim objectivity. First of all, I don't know that anyone here is claiming objectivity. Second, here's the Post link on the CIA station chief in 2014: www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-mistakenly-identifies-cia-chief-in-afghanistan/2014/05/25/ac8e80cc-e444-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html?utm_term=.d8514f312d85I'm PRETTY sure it wasn't President Obama who put that list together. Someone on the WH staff screwed up, yes. But that's not even close to apples-to-apples with what happened here. "President Obama identifying the actual name of a source in Afghanistan" is not what happened. If you think these two things need to have been treated equally by the media, you're kidding yourself. Trump personally divulged some seriously classified to a country that is blatantly adversarial to the United States. The intelligence community has concluded (whether Trump wants to acknowledge it or not) that Russia actively interfered in our electoral process. Whether it had an impact on the outcome or not, or whether the Trump campaign colluded doesn't change the fact that Russia actively interfered in the process. They have interests and allies that are in direct conflict with many of our country's interest and allies. They shouldn't even have been invited to the Oval Office to begin with. And Trump brags to them about the "great intel" he gets by sharing some of it with them. He ACTIVELY shared code word intel with an adversarial country. Someone on Obama's staff screwed up (and badly) when putting together a list.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,077
|
Post by SSHoya on May 17, 2017 14:39:39 GMT -5
Per your last paragraph - I am sure you are still livid about President Obama identifying the actual name of a source in Afghanistan, as reported by the same Post reporter in 2014. And I am doubly sure you expressed your outrage on Hoya Talk at the time. Regarding the shots taken at Obama, they did not come from the MSM. They largely ignored them, only talk radio and Fox covered it. The MSM effectively gave him a pass. And so did those on this board who claim objectivity. First of all, I don't know that anyone here is claiming objectivity. Second, here's the Post link on the CIA station chief in 2014: www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-mistakenly-identifies-cia-chief-in-afghanistan/2014/05/25/ac8e80cc-e444-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html?utm_term=.d8514f312d85I'm PRETTY sure it wasn't President Obama who put that list together. Someone on the WH staff screwed up, yes. But that's not even close to apples-to-apples with what happened here. "President Obama identifying the actual name of a source in Afghanistan" is not what happened. If you think these two things need to have been treated equally by the media, you're kidding yourself. Trump personally divulged some seriously classified Edited to a country that is blatantly adversarial to the United States. The intelligence community has concluded (whether Trump wants to acknowledge it or not) that Russia actively interfered in our electoral process. Whether it had an impact on the outcome or not, or whether the Trump campaign colluded doesn't change the fact that Russia actively interfered in the process. They have interests and allies that are in direct conflict with many of our country's interest and allies. They shouldn't even have been invited to the Oval Office to begin with. And Trump brags to them about the "great intel" he gets by sharing some of it with them. He ACTIVELY shared code word intel with an adversarial country. Someone on Obama's staff screwed up (and badly) when putting together a list. Staffer screw up v. Trump recklessly disclosing code word info to a hostile foreign power to the detriment of Israel. Yeah, it's the same. General Hayden that old lefty, former DCI and DIRNSA, weighs in on Trump (maybe General Hayden has been compromised by that evil MSM): www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-proves-hes-russias-useful-fool/2017/05/16/e1c6b6cc-3a7e-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d1c9c8ccf5a0And the classless Commander-in-Chief gives a commencement address at the USCG Academy and sullies that ceremony by whining that he's the most unfairly treated President in history by the media. www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-complains-at-coast-guard-academy-graduation-about-media-mistreatment-2017-05-17
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 17:08:44 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 17:25:38 GMT -5
House majority leader to colleagues in 2016: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016 exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately interjected, stopping the conversation from further exploring McCarthy’s assertion, and swore the Republicans present to secrecy. Before the conversation, McCarthy and Ryan had emerged from separate talks at the U.S. Capitol with Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman, who had described a Kremlin tactic of financing populist politicians to undercut Eastern European democratic institutions. When initially asked to comment on the exchange, Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Ryan, said: “That never happened,” and Matt Sparks, a spokesman for McCarthy, said: “The idea that McCarthy would assert this is absurd and false.” After being told that The Post would cite a recording of the exchange, Buck, speaking for the GOP House leadership, said: “This entire year-old exchange was clearly an attempt at humor. www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/house-majority-leader-to-colleagues-in-2016-i-think-putin-pays-trump/2017/05/17/515f6f8a-3aff-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.9564f5978588Lol...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,077
|
Post by SSHoya on May 17, 2017 17:25:46 GMT -5
Mueller is a good choice. Former Marine and doesn't take sh*t from anyone. He's also close to Comey and I can't imagine the White House is happy about this. Remember both threatened to resign if Bush didn't cease the warrantless surveillance program when Ashcroft was hospitalized. Comey was DAG and Mueller Director at the time.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,426
|
Post by hoyarooter on May 17, 2017 18:37:17 GMT -5
Mueller is a good choice. Former Marine and doesn't take sh*t from anyone. He's also close to Comey and I can't imagine the White House is happy about this. Remember both threatened to resign if Bush didn't cease the warrantless surveillance program when Ashcroft was hospitalized. Comey was DAG and Mueller Director at the time. I wonder how long it will take before Trump tries to fire him.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 17, 2017 18:54:16 GMT -5
Per your last paragraph - I am sure you are still livid about President Obama identifying the actual name of a source in Afghanistan, as reported by the same Post reporter in 2014. And I am doubly sure you expressed your outrage on Hoya Talk at the time. Regarding the shots taken at Obama, they did not come from the MSM. They largely ignored them, only talk radio and Fox covered it. The MSM effectively gave him a pass. And so did those on this board who claim objectivity. First of all, I don't know that anyone here is claiming objectivity. Second, here's the Post link on the CIA station chief in 2014: www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-mistakenly-identifies-cia-chief-in-afghanistan/2014/05/25/ac8e80cc-e444-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html?utm_term=.d8514f312d85I'm PRETTY sure it wasn't President Obama who put that list together. Someone on the WH staff screwed up, yes. But that's not even close to apples-to-apples with what happened here. "President Obama identifying the actual name of a source in Afghanistan" is not what happened. If you think these two things need to have been treated equally by the media, you're kidding yourself. Trump personally divulged some seriously classified Edited to a country that is blatantly adversarial to the United States. The intelligence community has concluded (whether Trump wants to acknowledge it or not) that Russia actively interfered in our electoral process. Whether it had an impact on the outcome or not, or whether the Trump campaign colluded doesn't change the fact that Russia actively interfered in the process. They have interests and allies that are in direct conflict with many of our country's interest and allies. They shouldn't even have been invited to the Oval Office to begin with. And Trump brags to them about the "great intel" he gets by sharing some of it with them. He ACTIVELY shared code word intel with an adversarial country. Someone on Obama's staff screwed up (and badly) when putting together a list. Spin. What Obama's White House did is much, much worse than what Trump did, as was Hillary's exposure of Special Access Program and other highly classified information on her private server. Any other reading is biased. Please note I am condemning what Trump did. My second point: did you or any others here daily attacking Trump have anything to say by way of condemning Obama for what his White House did?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 17, 2017 18:56:34 GMT -5
Mueller is a good choice. Former Marine and doesn't take sh*t from anyone. He's also close to Comey and I can't imagine the White House is happy about this. Remember both threatened to resign if Bush didn't cease the warrantless surveillance program when Ashcroft was hospitalized. Comey was DAG and Mueller Director at the time. I wonder how long it will take before Trump tries to fire him. Seems to me that Mueller has a conflict of interest with respect to his association with Comey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 19:00:38 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 19:03:16 GMT -5
First of all, I don't know that anyone here is claiming objectivity. Second, here's the Post link on the CIA station chief in 2014: www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-mistakenly-identifies-cia-chief-in-afghanistan/2014/05/25/ac8e80cc-e444-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html?utm_term=.d8514f312d85I'm PRETTY sure it wasn't President Obama who put that list together. Someone on the WH staff screwed up, yes. But that's not even close to apples-to-apples with what happened here. "President Obama identifying the actual name of a source in Afghanistan" is not what happened. If you think these two things need to have been treated equally by the media, you're kidding yourself. Trump personally divulged some seriously classified Edited to a country that is blatantly adversarial to the United States. The intelligence community has concluded (whether Trump wants to acknowledge it or not) that Russia actively interfered in our electoral process. Whether it had an impact on the outcome or not, or whether the Trump campaign colluded doesn't change the fact that Russia actively interfered in the process. They have interests and allies that are in direct conflict with many of our country's interest and allies. They shouldn't even have been invited to the Oval Office to begin with. And Trump brags to them about the "great intel" he gets by sharing some of it with them. He ACTIVELY shared code word intel with an adversarial country. Someone on Obama's staff screwed up (and badly) when putting together a list. Spin. What Obama's White House did is much, much worse than what Trump did, as was Hillary's exposure of Special Access Program and other highly classified information on her private server. Any other reading is biased. Please note I am condemning what Trump did. My second point: did you or any others here daily attacking Trump have anything to say by way of condemning Obama for what his White House did? "much, much worse." Thanks for clearing that up!
|
|