I guess all our enemies are changing the phones

[joevol320]

traitors in our intelligence agencies are willing to sacrifice our security because they hate Trump. Who knew we have a police state within our gov. You marxist will destroy this nation just to get st trump. Obama has really killed this nation.

 

[Crew]

traitors in our intelligence agencies are willing to sacrifice our security because they hate Trump. Who knew we have a police state within our gov. You marxist will destroy this nation just to get st trump. Obama has really killed this nation.

Why so sad, snowflake?

 

[golfballs]

It's what's left over after 8 years of Obama

 

[PKT_VOL]

You realize that changing phones is irrelevant to the technology, right?

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

traitors in our intelligence agencies are willing to sacrifice our security because they hate Trump. Who knew we have a police state within our gov. You marxist will destroy this nation just to get st trump. Obama has really killed this nation.

Poor guy. You're really taking this hard.

 

[UTCVol]

Poor guy. You're really taking this hard.

Joe's tears could probably single-handedly end the California drought.

 

[Grand Vol]

Sometimes context is really needed in threads. This is like many LG threads where he posts something cryptic and rails on about some issue or another and we have to play 20 questions to nail down exactly what he's screeching about.

So, exactly what are we supposed to be upset about?

 

[joevol33]

Sometimes context is really needed in threads. This is like many LG threads where he posts something cryptic and rails on about some issue or another and we have to play 20 questions to nail down exactly what he's screeching about.

So, exactly what are we supposed to be upset about?

My kids got into my valentines candy that my wife bought me. That's my reason!

 

[tumscalcium]

What?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

My kids got into my valentines candy that my wife bought me. That's my reason!

Uh oh. The joes are in the same thread.

 

[Grand Vol]

Uh oh. The joes are in the same thread.

At least one has an avi.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

So the focus should be on the leaks that allowed the press to learn of improper meetings by the Trump camp and not on the meetings. Kind of hypocritical when you considered he ran a campaign that benefited heavily from DNC leaks.

 

[Grand Vol]

So the focus should be on the leaks that allowed the press to learn of improper meetings by the Trump camp and not on the meetings. Kind of hypocritical when you considered he ran a campaign that benefited heavily from DNC leaks.

There is a distinct difference in getting hacked (the DNC) and leaks coming from inside the walls of the White House.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So the focus should be on the leaks that allowed the press to learn of improper meetings by the Trump camp and not on the meetings. Kind of hypocritical when you considered he ran a campaign that benefited heavily from DNC leaks.

Serious question, as I've seen one thing posted and a lot of left outrage inferring the opposite.


Were any laws broken? If not, what was inappropriate about the meetings, besides the coverup?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Serious question, as I've seen one thing posted and a lot of left outrage inferring the opposite.


Were any laws broken? If not, what was inappropriate about the meetings, besides the coverup?

I've no outrage about this incident as it presently sits. The cover-up is always worse. I just find it interesting that Trump relied on leaks to win, but now he's using them to in an effort to divert attention from the actual incidents.

I'm not sure any laws were broken, but it's highly inappropriate to enter policy discussions with foreign governments prior to taking power.

 

[hog88]

So the focus should be on the leaks that allowed the press to learn of improper meetings by the Trump camp and not on the meetings. Kind of hypocritical when you considered he ran a campaign that benefited heavily from DNC leaks.

If you are referring to the Flynn calls, they weren't improper. It's pretty standard practice for representatives of a new administration to speak with representatives from foreign governments to signal and derive intentions.

 

[MT LeConte]

Serious question, as I've seen one thing posted and a lot of left outrage inferring the opposite.


Were any laws broken? If not, what was inappropriate about the meetings, besides the coverup?

We may not know if laws were broken until we see how many times Flynn takes the fifth.

 

[Grand Vol]

We may not know if laws were broken until we see how many times Flynn takes the fifth.

You mean like Sebelius did?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I've no outrage about this incident as it presently sits. The cover-up is always worse. I just find it interesting that Trump relied on leaks to win, but now he's using them to in an effort to divert attention from the actual incidents.

I'm not sure any laws were broken, but it's highly inappropriate to enter policy discussions with foreign governments prior to taking power.

What's inappropriate about it? That's what I'm asking. All you did was repeat a word that was in my question.

Thanks.

 

[theFallGuy]

If you are referring to the Flynn calls, they weren't improper. It's pretty standard practice for representatives of a new administration to speak with representatives from foreign governments to signal and derive intentions.

I find it hard to believe that anyone from the Obama admin spoke to foreign representatives.

 

[Orange_Crush]

We may not know if laws were broken until we see how many times Flynn takes the fifth.

Uh huh. So... What was inappropriate about the calls?

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

I find it hard to believe that anyone from the Obama admin spoke to foreign representatives.

Again, why do you guys continue to compare what the Trump Administration is doing to what the Obama administration did? Y'all have spent the last 8 years bemoaning how terrible he was, yet you have no issue whatsoever dismissing Trump's missteps. I thought Trump was about "draining the swamp" and pretty much being the anti-Obama.

 

[FLVOL69]

Again, why do you guys continue to compare what the Trump Administration is doing to what the Obama administration did? Y'all have spent the last 8 years bemoaning how terrible he was, yet you have no issue whatsoever dismissing Trump's missteps. I thought Trump was about "draining the swamp" and pretty much being the anti-Obama.

The main turd has been flushed, time to weed out the existing dingleberries left over from the previously failed administration.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

What's inappropriate about it? That's what I'm asking. All you did was repeat a word that was in my question.

Thanks.

It is inappropriate because we are designed to have one group in power at a time at the time they were making these calls the Obama Administration was still in power

 

[Orange_Crush]

It is inappropriate because we are designed to have one group in power at a time at the time they were making these calls the Obama Administration was still in power

OK... So I guess I could have clarified with another question as well.

What is inappropriate? And by what standard?

(In other words, are you saying that you consider it appropriate? Or is there another, greater standard/precident that it is to be judged by? I know this will seem like a continuation of previous discussions, but it's really not. I'm just trying to weigh through politicized, party politics.)

So... One could also argue that Obama was straining Russian relations, throwing gasoline all over the place, and Trump's administration (who would have to deal with the collateral damage) was keeping the fumes from igniting.