JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[jhu72]

If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

Last night's assassination had nothing to do with the storming of an embassy. Nothing proportional about the strike. He just made the embassy much less safe. This was not retaliation for protests at the Baghdad embassy. I fully understand you will defend anything this loser does. He provoked the Iranians by breaking a treaty they were living to and then sanctioning them economically. He set this in motion with his actions and now he has made the situation much worse. This likely guarantees Iran will now push for nukes. Trump has totally empowered the hard liners in Iran.

[Trinity]

BREAKING: A Whistleblower told the FBI that Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans were backed by Russian state-owned bank, VTB Bank. VTB was proposed lender for Trump Tower Moscow and allegedly funded the Rosneft Deal. New docs show deep ties between Deutsche + VTB.

So this news has also broken....

[seacoaster]

If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

[jhu72]

BREAKING: A Whistleblower told the FBI that Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans were backed by Russian state-owned bank, VTB Bank. VTB was proposed lender for Trump Tower Moscow and allegedly funded the Rosneft Deal. New docs show deep ties between Deutsche + VTB.

So this news has also broken....

Sure looks like Trump is waging the dog.

[Trinity]

The White House—America is safer today.
The White House—Americans need to leave Iraq ASAP.

[MDlaxfan76]

BREAKING: A Whistleblower told the FBI that Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans were backed by Russian state-owned bank, VTB Bank. VTB was proposed lender for Trump Tower Moscow and allegedly funded the Rosneft Deal. New docs show deep ties between Deutsche + VTB.

So this news has also broken....

Sure looks like Trump is waging the dog.

"Wagging the dog" was my initial thought at the 5 airstrikes in Iraq in response to a defense contractor being killed, the airstrikes which prompted the embassy protests, and now this.

I found also interesting the spate of DoD resignations in the past week...

[Typical Lax Dad]

BREAKING: A Whistleblower told the FBI that Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans were backed by Russian state-owned bank, VTB Bank. VTB was proposed lender for Trump Tower Moscow and allegedly funded the Rosneft Deal. New docs show deep ties between Deutsche + VTB.

So this news has also broken....

The american people knew this. Trump was duly elected.

[jhu72]

If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

There were no multilateral responses ever considered. Our ex-allies are not on board with this. This was a total knee jerk reaction by president SFB. Putin is not standing behind us, the Europeans are silent and only nut job corrupt Benji N is taking Trump's position. Iraqi is considering ordering all US troops out of Iraqi. This guy is a very stable genius.

[MDlaxfan76]

If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

I'd want to know what those top DoD advisors who just resigned thought of this action, and the 5 airstrikes in Iraq that preceded it.

And I'd want to know who in the national security/national defense team advised Trump to do it...if anyone.

I have no doubt that there will be Trump supporters (eg Pompeo) who will defend it as an appropriate action, but who was actually advising for it ahead of Trump's decision and who was advising against it?

Let's have a little oversight Congress...it was indeed an 'act of war'. Was the Gang of 8 even consulted?
Or just Lindsay Graham?

[seacoaster]

If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

There were no multilateral responses ever considered. Our ex-allies are not on board with this. This was a total knee jerk reaction by president SFB. Putin is not standing behind us, the Europeans are silent and only nut job corrupt Benji N is taking Trump's position. Iraqi is considering ordering all US troops out of Iraqi. This guy is a very stable genius.

Well, yeah. That is basically what I was trying to politely say -- lots of room for diplomacy. I was just trying to respectfully respond to YA's inquiry.

[jhu72]

BREAKING: A Whistleblower told the FBI that Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans were backed by Russian state-owned bank, VTB Bank. VTB was proposed lender for Trump Tower Moscow and allegedly funded the Rosneft Deal. New docs show deep ties between Deutsche + VTB.

So this news has also broken....

The american people knew this. Trump was duly elected.

This has been known for at least 4 years by the US intel community and talked about as a certainty by the ex-intel community on social media for more than 3 years. He is an asset of Putin. - duly elected.

[DocBarrister]

BREAKING: A Whistleblower told the FBI that Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans were backed by Russian state-owned bank, VTB Bank. VTB was proposed lender for Trump Tower Moscow and allegedly funded the Rosneft Deal. New docs show deep ties between Deutsche + VTB.

So this news has also broken....

This represents, in essence, a direct payment from the Russian government to Donald Trump.

This alone should disqualify anyone from occupying the Oval Office.

It also confirms what many have suspected ... that the Trump Organization is a house of cards mostly held up by laundered Russian money.

DocBarrister

[jhu72]

If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

I'd want to know what those top DoD advisors who just resigned thought of this action, and the 5 airstrikes in Iraq that preceded it.

And I'd want to know who in the national security/national defense team advised Trump to do it...if anyone.

I have no doubt that there will be Trump supporters (eg Pompeo) who will defend it as an appropriate action, but who was actually advising for it ahead of Trump's decision and who was advising against it?

Let's have a little oversight Congress...it was indeed an 'act of war'. Was the Gang of 8 even consulted?
Or just Lindsay Graham?

The "gang of 8" was not consulted if Pelosi comments are being understood correctly. She made a press release last night about congress not having been informed / consulted.

[Kismet]

If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

Not at all. I don't think it is un-American to ask questions about all this. I don't quibble with the fact that these guys were not good people and were/could be a threat to the USA. WaPo's David Ignatius and former Gen. David Petraeus were/are doing exactly that.....

"David Ignatius
@IgnatiusPost

An eerie feeling reading this news, reminiscent of when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 to topple a brutal dictator—and set in motion a chain of consequences for which America was utterly unprepared. As Gen. Petraeus said in 2003: Tell me how this ends."

I also find it interesting that this all blows up on a day the world leaks out that a whistleblower at Deutsche Bank told the FBI that their Trump loans were/are guaranteed/underwritten by Russian state-owned bank VTB.

Given to volume and frequency of the prevarifications that this President dispenses to us on a daily basis, pardon me for my skepticism.

[MDlaxfan76]

If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

I'd want to know what those top DoD advisors who just resigned thought of this action, and the 5 airstrikes in Iraq that preceded it.

And I'd want to know who in the national security/national defense team advised Trump to do it...if anyone.

I have no doubt that there will be Trump supporters (eg Pompeo) who will defend it as an appropriate action, but who was actually advising for it ahead of Trump's decision and who was advising against it?

Let's have a little oversight Congress...it was indeed an 'act of war'. Was the Gang of 8 even consulted?
Or just Lindsay Graham?

The "gang of 8" was not consulted if Pelosi comments are being understood correctly. She made a press release last night about congress not having been informed / consulted.

Yup. And probably not even the GOP members.

[jhu72]

If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

I'd want to know what those top DoD advisors who just resigned thought of this action, and the 5 airstrikes in Iraq that preceded it.

And I'd want to know who in the national security/national defense team advised Trump to do it...if anyone.

I have no doubt that there will be Trump supporters (eg Pompeo) who will defend it as an appropriate action, but who was actually advising for it ahead of Trump's decision and who was advising against it?

Let's have a little oversight Congress...it was indeed an 'act of war'. Was the Gang of 8 even consulted?
Or just Lindsay Graham?

The "gang of 8" was not consulted if Pelosi comments are being understood correctly. She made a press release last night about congress not having been informed / consulted.

Yup. And probably not even the GOP members.

I have to wonder if Graham was even told before the event. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. The White House and State Department seems to be playing catch up. They were not prepared to handle this event.

[holmes435]

[seacoaster]

Kathleen Parker in the WaPo on November 6, 2016 -- the theme: don't worry; whatever happens we'll be fine... :

"If Trump wins, he'll be held more or less in check by the House and Senate because that's the way our system of government is set up. Not even Republicans are eager to follow Trump's lead.

There won't be a wall. He won't impose any religion-based immigration restrictions, because not even Trump is that lame-brained. He'll dress up and behave at state dinners and be funny when called upon. He'll even invite the media to the White House holiday party. He won't nuke Iran for rude gestures. He won't assault women. He and Vladimir Putin will hate each other -- respectfully."

Almost every sentence -- maybe every sentence -- is wrong.

[doug7779]

If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

I'd want to know what those top DoD advisors who just resigned thought of this action, and the 5 airstrikes in Iraq that preceded it.

And I'd want to know who in the national security/national defense team advised Trump to do it...if anyone.

I have no doubt that there will be Trump supporters (eg Pompeo) who will defend it as an appropriate action, but who was actually advising for it ahead of Trump's decision and who was advising against it?

Let's have a little oversight Congress...it was indeed an 'act of war'. Was the Gang of 8 even consulted?
Or just Lindsay Graham?

The "gang of 8" was not consulted if Pelosi comments are being understood correctly. She made a press release last night about congress not having been informed / consulted.

Yup. And probably not even the GOP members.

I have to wonder if Graham was even told before the event. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. The White House and State Department seems to be playing catch up. They were not prepared to handle this event.

Pelosi was unreachable as she was masturbating to the impeachment documents

[Typical Lax Dad]

If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

I'd want to know what those top DoD advisors who just resigned thought of this action, and the 5 airstrikes in Iraq that preceded it.

And I'd want to know who in the national security/national defense team advised Trump to do it...if anyone.

I have no doubt that there will be Trump supporters (eg Pompeo) who will defend it as an appropriate action, but who was actually advising for it ahead of Trump's decision and who was advising against it?

Let's have a little oversight Congress...it was indeed an 'act of war'. Was the Gang of 8 even consulted?
Or just Lindsay Graham?

The "gang of 8" was not consulted if Pelosi comments are being understood correctly. She made a press release last night about congress not having been informed / consulted.

Yup. And probably not even the GOP members.

I have to wonder if Graham was even told before the event. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. The White House and State Department seems to be playing catch up. They were not prepared to handle this event.

Pelosi was unreachable as she was masturbating to the impeachment documents

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/3 ... -by-Russia