That was a rhetorical question, yes?UNI88 wrote:It's common sense that if you have something to say about a specific post that you quote it. If you have a general response, you use the quick reply. Why quote a specific post if you're not responding to anything in that post? Are you admitting to lacking common sense?mainejeff2 wrote:
Who are you.....the fucking thread police?
The Ukie dudes remind me of the Roxbury Guys from SNL.CID1990 wrote:Damn those two Ukrainian dude sure get around
https://www.yc.news/2019/10/02/infestat ... re-county/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
well.... you gotta start somewhere..Skjellyfetti wrote:Repeating a Game of Thrones reference ad nauseum is the peak of humor.
Moving goalposts...it's the Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax all over again.SeattleGriz wrote:Double bwahaha. Now Schiff says they don't need the whistleblower! Double fail.
Why would they need the whistleblower if they have the actual transcripts and the fact they were hidden?SDHornet wrote:Moving goalposts...it's the Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax all over again.SeattleGriz wrote:Double bwahaha. Now Schiff says they don't need the whistleblower! Double fail.
Paging jellybelly...oh wait, this is his thread too.
Hidden. Schmidden.kalm wrote:Why would they need the whistleblower if they have the actual transcripts and the fact they were hidden?SDHornet wrote: Moving goalposts...it's the Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax all over again.
Paging jellybelly...oh wait, this is his thread too.
SDHornet wrote:Moving goalposts...it's the Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax all over again.SeattleGriz wrote:Double bwahaha. Now Schiff says they don't need the whistleblower! Double fail.
Paging jellybelly...oh wait, this is his thread too.
How were they hidden? You're calling stored in a MORE secure place, as being hidden?kalm wrote:Why would they need the whistleblower if they have the actual transcripts and the fact they were hidden?SDHornet wrote: Moving goalposts...it's the Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax all over again.
Paging jellybelly...oh wait, this is his thread too.
It's not moving the goalpost. It's just saying that you don't need the Whistleblower when the President releases information that corroborates what the Whistleblower said. Why would you need to have the Whistleblower to show that Trump asked the Ukraine President to investigate a potential Democrat opponent when Trump released a summary indicating that Trump asked the Ukraine President to investigate a potential Democrat opponent?SDHornet wrote:Moving goalposts...it's the Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax all over again.SeattleGriz wrote:Double bwahaha. Now Schiff says they don't need the whistleblower! Double fail.
Paging jellybelly...oh wait, this is his thread too.
What are you talking about? That's an attempt to make it less likely that the information will be accessed. Yes, it is trying to hide the information.SeattleGriz wrote:How were they hidden? You're calling stored in a MORE secure place, as being hidden?kalm wrote:
Why would they need the whistleblower if they have the actual transcripts and the fact they were hidden?
Or maybe the Festrunk brothers for us oldtimers.Ivytalk wrote:The Ukie dudes remind me of the Roxbury Guys from SNL.CID1990 wrote:Damn those two Ukrainian dude sure get around
https://www.yc.news/2019/10/02/infestat ... re-county/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah. The secret server Obama placed his shit on. Right. Why do you think it was placed there? Was it the only call?JohnStOnge wrote:What are you talking about? That's an attempt to make it less likely that the information will be accessed. Yes, it is trying to hide the information.SeattleGriz wrote:
How were they hidden? You're calling stored in a MORE secure place, as being hidden?
When you hide something, you are putting it into a more secure place. What on EARTH are you people talking about with this line of argument?
From Bratislava...looking for some foxes!UNI88 wrote:Or maybe the Festrunk brothers for us oldtimers.Ivytalk wrote: The Ukie dudes remind me of the Roxbury Guys from SNL.
Giuliani is such an idiot. Besides the irony of the company's name, if he has no doubt about the source of the money, then he's got information about the source of the money...Skjellyfetti wrote:"I know beyond any doubt that the source of the money is not any questionable source," Guiliani said of the money he received from Fraud Guarantee.
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/ ... ssion=true
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bolton-warne ... 40068.htmlBolton warned lawyers over 'hand grenade' Giuliani: report
Washington (AFP) - The White House's alleged effort to pressure Ukraine so alarmed former national security advisor John Bolton that he alerted a lawyer, his former aide said on Monday, according to US media.
Bolton also warned that President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who has emerged as the point man in the president's alleged drive to pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden, is "a hand grenade who's going to blow everyone up," his aide Fiona Hill told lawmakers, according to the New York Times.
I figured Bolton was going to play a role in this before all was said and done. His departure was auspicious when it happened.kalm wrote:The Mustache:
"Fuck this noise."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bolton-warne ... 40068.htmlBolton warned lawyers over 'hand grenade' Giuliani: report
Washington (AFP) - The White House's alleged effort to pressure Ukraine so alarmed former national security advisor John Bolton that he alerted a lawyer, his former aide said on Monday, according to US media.
Bolton also warned that President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who has emerged as the point man in the president's alleged drive to pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden, is "a hand grenade who's going to blow everyone up," his aide Fiona Hill told lawmakers, according to the New York Times.
Need a vote before a trial, which may or may not happen.Skjellyfetti wrote:I wonder who Trump will have represent him at his Senate trial.
I hope he represents himself.
I suppose that has to do with what Susan Rice said. Yes, she said some Obama call records were place on the "secret server." But she said there was a difference between that and what happened here:SeattleGriz wrote:Yeah. The secret server Obama placed his shit on. Right. Why do you think it was placed there? Was it the only call?JohnStOnge wrote:
What are you talking about? That's an attempt to make it less likely that the information will be accessed. Yes, it is trying to hide the information.
When you hide something, you are putting it into a more secure place. What on EARTH are you people talking about with this line of argument?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-ad ... nistration“What [the Trump administration] did instead of storing it in the normal system, which is protected and classified, even though there was no classified substance in that actual discussion,” Rice told an audience at the Texas Tribune Festival. “Instead of putting it where it normally resides, they hid it on a very highly sensitive, highly compartmented server that very few people in the U.S. government have access to in order to bury it.”
So, once again, we have the "right" (which I have historically been a part of) being intellectually dishonest and distorting things.Rice was then asked how many times the Obama administration saved conversations to the server. Rice responded by saying the administration only saved conversations that were actually of a classified nature.
“It’s rare that a presidential conversation would be classified to that highest level — it’s not impossible, it’s very rare — even when two leaders are discussing classified information,” Rice responded.
John ... I’m going to give you a heads up here. Think of it as an FYIJohnStOnge wrote:I suppose that has to do with what Susan Rice said. Yes, she said some Obama call records were place on the "secret server." But she said there was a difference between that and what happened here:SeattleGriz wrote:
Yeah. The secret server Obama placed his shit on. Right. Why do you think it was placed there? Was it the only call?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-ad ... nistration“What [the Trump administration] did instead of storing it in the normal system, which is protected and classified, even though there was no classified substance in that actual discussion,” Rice told an audience at the Texas Tribune Festival. “Instead of putting it where it normally resides, they hid it on a very highly sensitive, highly compartmented server that very few people in the U.S. government have access to in order to bury it.”
She allowed that SOME Obama conversations went to that server. But this is what she said about that:
So, once again, we have the "right" (which I have historically been a part of) being intellectually dishonest and distorting things.Rice was then asked how many times the Obama administration saved conversations to the server. Rice responded by saying the administration only saved conversations that were actually of a classified nature.
“It’s rare that a presidential conversation would be classified to that highest level — it’s not impossible, it’s very rare — even when two leaders are discussing classified information,” Rice responded.
How many other conversations of Trumps were on the more secure server? If that was the only conversation, you might have a leg to stand on, but after the discussions with Australia and Mexico were leaked, I would bet quite a few if not all were moved there.JohnStOnge wrote:I suppose that has to do with what Susan Rice said. Yes, she said some Obama call records were place on the "secret server." But she said there was a difference between that and what happened here:SeattleGriz wrote:
Yeah. The secret server Obama placed his shit on. Right. Why do you think it was placed there? Was it the only call?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-ad ... nistration“What [the Trump administration] did instead of storing it in the normal system, which is protected and classified, even though there was no classified substance in that actual discussion,” Rice told an audience at the Texas Tribune Festival. “Instead of putting it where it normally resides, they hid it on a very highly sensitive, highly compartmented server that very few people in the U.S. government have access to in order to bury it.”
She allowed that SOME Obama conversations went to that server. But this is what she said about that:
So, once again, we have the "right" (which I have historically been a part of) being intellectually dishonest and distorting things.Rice was then asked how many times the Obama administration saved conversations to the server. Rice responded by saying the administration only saved conversations that were actually of a classified nature.
“It’s rare that a presidential conversation would be classified to that highest level — it’s not impossible, it’s very rare — even when two leaders are discussing classified information,” Rice responded.
