Remember Benghazi!
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/0 ... tan-348336
Let the hearings begin!!
JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial
-
- Posts: 34226
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
“I wish you would!”
-
- Posts: 34226
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pent ... -veterans/
https://taskandpurpose.com/.amp/news/ta ... can-troops
Hey, don’t kneel in protest.
https://taskandpurpose.com/.amp/news/ta ... can-troops
Hey, don’t kneel in protest.
“I wish you would!”
Re: The Politics of National Security
Who can you believe, if not current & past Taliban leaders ?
Re: The Politics of National Security
I'm against bogging down our military in a indefinite, no win, situation, because our politicians can't agree to pull out.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:18 pmYou are anti-militaryold salt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:51 pmGood stuff. More from the Glennzilla :tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:34 pmThanks for posting...a portion:Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:25 pm 'Russia paying a bounty to Afghans for American military deaths' is the hoax we saw coming a billion miles away.
Going to disappoint a few Democrats to hear who you lefties are in bed with promoting it though...
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/hou ... d-germany/
...left-right anti-war coalition is no match for the war machine composed of the establishment wings of both parties and the military and intelligence community that continue to use selective, illegal leaks to sabotage any plans to reduce the U.S. military presence around the world. That the Democrats have spent a full decade desperately recruiting former military and intelligence officials to serve as their Congressional candidates (both Congressman Crow, Liz Cheney’s co-sponsor on the Afghanistan amendment, and the anti-German-troop-withdrawal Congressman Gallego, are both Iraq War veterans) has only made the party even more militaristic.
Combined with the fact that Democrats are increasingly merging with and being led by the Bush-era neocons and other Bush/Cheney operatives in creating such jingoistic and militaristic messaging campaigns as the beloved-by-liberals Lincoln Project, and that Biden is clearly trying to run to Trump’s right on foreign policy with ads accusing him of being too soft on China and linking him to Castro and Chavez, the picture is clear. It should come as absolutely no surprise that House Democrats are finding common cause with Liz Cheney and other GOP warmongers to block any efforts to reduce even moderately the footprint of the U.S. military in the world or its decades-long posture of endless war.
19 years is long enough. Do you think our people in the military want to spend their entire career deploying there ?
- youthathletics
- Posts: 15935
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
Setting aside the boots on the ground.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:51 amI'm against bogging down our military in a indefinite, no win, situation, because our politicians can't agree to pull out.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:18 pmYou are anti-militaryold salt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:51 pmGood stuff. More from the Glennzilla :tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:34 pmThanks for posting...a portion:Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:25 pm 'Russia paying a bounty to Afghans for American military deaths' is the hoax we saw coming a billion miles away.
Going to disappoint a few Democrats to hear who you lefties are in bed with promoting it though...
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/hou ... d-germany/
...left-right anti-war coalition is no match for the war machine composed of the establishment wings of both parties and the military and intelligence community that continue to use selective, illegal leaks to sabotage any plans to reduce the U.S. military presence around the world. That the Democrats have spent a full decade desperately recruiting former military and intelligence officials to serve as their Congressional candidates (both Congressman Crow, Liz Cheney’s co-sponsor on the Afghanistan amendment, and the anti-German-troop-withdrawal Congressman Gallego, are both Iraq War veterans) has only made the party even more militaristic.
Combined with the fact that Democrats are increasingly merging with and being led by the Bush-era neocons and other Bush/Cheney operatives in creating such jingoistic and militaristic messaging campaigns as the beloved-by-liberals Lincoln Project, and that Biden is clearly trying to run to Trump’s right on foreign policy with ads accusing him of being too soft on China and linking him to Castro and Chavez, the picture is clear. It should come as absolutely no surprise that House Democrats are finding common cause with Liz Cheney and other GOP warmongers to block any efforts to reduce even moderately the footprint of the U.S. military in the world or its decades-long posture of endless war.
19 years is long enough. Do you think our people in the military want to spend their entire career deploying there ?
As you well know...the U.S. war-machine drives much of our economy, and we all know the profiteering of defense related business keeps cash flowing, globally. Turning this conversation political, one can argue it is the common denominator between the economy of BHO Admin (to include deadbeat Rs) and Trump. BHO was more fiscally tight w/the military, whereas Trump was overtly pro-spending for the military..through 2020.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
~Livy
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
-
- Posts: 34226
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
People in the military take orders. What “they” want is irrelevant.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:51 amI'm against bogging down our military in a indefinite, no win, situation, because our politicians can't agree to pull out.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:18 pmYou are anti-militaryold salt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:51 pmGood stuff. More from the Glennzilla :tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:34 pmThanks for posting...a portion:Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:25 pm 'Russia paying a bounty to Afghans for American military deaths' is the hoax we saw coming a billion miles away.
Going to disappoint a few Democrats to hear who you lefties are in bed with promoting it though...
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/hou ... d-germany/
...left-right anti-war coalition is no match for the war machine composed of the establishment wings of both parties and the military and intelligence community that continue to use selective, illegal leaks to sabotage any plans to reduce the U.S. military presence around the world. That the Democrats have spent a full decade desperately recruiting former military and intelligence officials to serve as their Congressional candidates (both Congressman Crow, Liz Cheney’s co-sponsor on the Afghanistan amendment, and the anti-German-troop-withdrawal Congressman Gallego, are both Iraq War veterans) has only made the party even more militaristic.
Combined with the fact that Democrats are increasingly merging with and being led by the Bush-era neocons and other Bush/Cheney operatives in creating such jingoistic and militaristic messaging campaigns as the beloved-by-liberals Lincoln Project, and that Biden is clearly trying to run to Trump’s right on foreign policy with ads accusing him of being too soft on China and linking him to Castro and Chavez, the picture is clear. It should come as absolutely no surprise that House Democrats are finding common cause with Liz Cheney and other GOP warmongers to block any efforts to reduce even moderately the footprint of the U.S. military in the world or its decades-long posture of endless war.
19 years is long enough. Do you think our people in the military want to spend their entire career deploying there ?
“I wish you would!”
Re: The Politics of National Security
...until senior officers &/or DoD civilian officials leak to the media to influence policy.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:21 amPeople in the military take orders. What “they” want is irrelevant.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:51 amI'm against bogging down our military in a indefinite, no win, situation, because our politicians can't agree to pull out.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:18 pmYou are anti-militaryold salt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:51 pmGood stuff. More from the Glennzilla :tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:34 pmThanks for posting...a portion:Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:25 pm 'Russia paying a bounty to Afghans for American military deaths' is the hoax we saw coming a billion miles away.
Going to disappoint a few Democrats to hear who you lefties are in bed with promoting it though...
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/hou ... d-germany/
...left-right anti-war coalition is no match for the war machine composed of the establishment wings of both parties and the military and intelligence community that continue to use selective, illegal leaks to sabotage any plans to reduce the U.S. military presence around the world. That the Democrats have spent a full decade desperately recruiting former military and intelligence officials to serve as their Congressional candidates (both Congressman Crow, Liz Cheney’s co-sponsor on the Afghanistan amendment, and the anti-German-troop-withdrawal Congressman Gallego, are both Iraq War veterans) has only made the party even more militaristic.
Combined with the fact that Democrats are increasingly merging with and being led by the Bush-era neocons and other Bush/Cheney operatives in creating such jingoistic and militaristic messaging campaigns as the beloved-by-liberals Lincoln Project, and that Biden is clearly trying to run to Trump’s right on foreign policy with ads accusing him of being too soft on China and linking him to Castro and Chavez, the picture is clear. It should come as absolutely no surprise that House Democrats are finding common cause with Liz Cheney and other GOP warmongers to block any efforts to reduce even moderately the footprint of the U.S. military in the world or its decades-long posture of endless war.
19 years is long enough. Do you think our people in the military want to spend their entire career deploying there ?
-
- Posts: 34226
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:04 pm...until senior officers &/or DoD civilian officials leak to the media to influence policy.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:21 amPeople in the military take orders. What “they” want is irrelevant.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:51 amI'm against bogging down our military in a indefinite, no win, situation, because our politicians can't agree to pull out.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:18 pmYou are anti-militaryold salt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:51 pmGood stuff. More from the Glennzilla :tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:34 pmThanks for posting...a portion:Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:25 pm 'Russia paying a bounty to Afghans for American military deaths' is the hoax we saw coming a billion miles away.
Going to disappoint a few Democrats to hear who you lefties are in bed with promoting it though...
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/hou ... d-germany/
...left-right anti-war coalition is no match for the war machine composed of the establishment wings of both parties and the military and intelligence community that continue to use selective, illegal leaks to sabotage any plans to reduce the U.S. military presence around the world. That the Democrats have spent a full decade desperately recruiting former military and intelligence officials to serve as their Congressional candidates (both Congressman Crow, Liz Cheney’s co-sponsor on the Afghanistan amendment, and the anti-German-troop-withdrawal Congressman Gallego, are both Iraq War veterans) has only made the party even more militaristic.
Combined with the fact that Democrats are increasingly merging with and being led by the Bush-era neocons and other Bush/Cheney operatives in creating such jingoistic and militaristic messaging campaigns as the beloved-by-liberals Lincoln Project, and that Biden is clearly trying to run to Trump’s right on foreign policy with ads accusing him of being too soft on China and linking him to Castro and Chavez, the picture is clear. It should come as absolutely no surprise that House Democrats are finding common cause with Liz Cheney and other GOP warmongers to block any efforts to reduce even moderately the footprint of the U.S. military in the world or its decades-long posture of endless war.
19 years is long enough. Do you think our people in the military want to spend their entire career deploying there ?
“I wish you would!”
Re: The Politics of National Security
More Trumpnista stupidity. At least a few republicans seem to get it even if they will fold like cheap card tables. Would not be surprised if this is another one of Kushner's corrupt deals.
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Re: The Politics of National Security
The timing of the SOCM product — apparently tasked only after the story first broke publicly and then produced within a matter of days — also calls into question the motivations of DNI Ratcliffe. If there was a real hunger among policymakers at the White House to understand better the underlying intelligence and the nuanced (and possibly competing) views of analysts across the Intelligence Community, we suspect that tasking would have been issued months ago—when the intelligence on life-or-death threats to U.S. service members first surfaced. On the other hand, if the SOCM was tasked only lately as the Times reporting suggests, one can’t help but wonder if the underlying purpose was to give the administration ammunition to cast doubt on the intelligence community’s bottom-line conclusion. All told, the recent timing of the memo’s tasking and rush to complete it suggests it was intended not to inform policy discussions on how to protect American troops but to inform political efforts to rebut the media reports and bipartisan concerns on the Hill.
https://www.justsecurity.org/71220/unpa ... operation/
For all of the complexity of the intelligence process discussed above, the basic facts are clear: Our intelligence community has assessed that Russia is acting in a way that threatens American lives in Afghanistan. Yes, there are nuances and varying degrees of confidence in that conclusion. That’s normal. But there should not be any kind of debate about whether this conclusion should have been presented to senior policymakers and the President for their review and action—nor any doubt that they should have responded, urgently. In any other time, that would be a given. There might be a policy conversation to be had about what exactly to do in response, but no reasonable conversation can be had about whether to put this conclusion on the table at the level of the President and his National Security Council for discussion about what actions to take.
https://www.justsecurity.org/71220/unpa ... operation/
For all of the complexity of the intelligence process discussed above, the basic facts are clear: Our intelligence community has assessed that Russia is acting in a way that threatens American lives in Afghanistan. Yes, there are nuances and varying degrees of confidence in that conclusion. That’s normal. But there should not be any kind of debate about whether this conclusion should have been presented to senior policymakers and the President for their review and action—nor any doubt that they should have responded, urgently. In any other time, that would be a given. There might be a policy conversation to be had about what exactly to do in response, but no reasonable conversation can be had about whether to put this conclusion on the table at the level of the President and his National Security Council for discussion about what actions to take.
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
Re: The Politics of National Security
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN2470UT
Two U.S. Navy aircraft carriers are conducting exercises in the contested South China Sea within sight of Chinese naval vessels spotted near the flotilla, the commander of one of the carriers, the USS Nimitz, told Reuters on Monday.
The U.S. Navy has brought carriers together for such shows of force in the region in the past, but this year’s drill comes amid heightened tension as the United States criticizes China over its novel coronavirus response and accuses it of taking advantage of the pandemic to push territorial claims in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
China’s foreign ministry said the United States had deliberately sent its ships to the South China Sea to flex its muscles and accused it of trying to drive a wedge between countries in the region.
The Pentagon, when it announced the dual carrier exercise, said it wanted to “stand up for the right of all nations to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows”, describing its 100,000-ton ships and the 90 or so aircraft they each carry as a “symbol of resolve”.
About 12,000 sailors are on ships in the combined carrier strike groups.
China’s claims nine tenths of in the resource-rich South China Sea, through which some $3 trillion of trade passes a year. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam have competing claims.
China has built island bases atop atolls in the region but says its intentions are peaceful.
Re: The Politics of National Security
.. ...incomprehensible double-speak jibberish, which demonstrates why IC leakers are not taken seriously when they misuse their access for partisan political objectives.CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 9:15 am The timing of the SOCM product — apparently tasked only after the story first broke publicly and then produced within a matter of days — also calls into question the motivations of DNI Ratcliffe. If there was a real hunger among policymakers at the White House to understand better the underlying intelligence and the nuanced (and possibly competing) views of analysts across the Intelligence Community, we suspect that tasking would have been issued months ago—when the intelligence on life-or-death threats to U.S. service members first surfaced. On the other hand, if the SOCM was tasked only lately as the Times reporting suggests, one can’t help but wonder if the underlying purpose was to give the administration ammunition to cast doubt on the intelligence community’s bottom-line conclusion. All told, the recent timing of the memo’s tasking and rush to complete it suggests it was intended not to inform policy discussions on how to protect American troops but to inform political efforts to rebut the media reports and bipartisan concerns on the Hill.
https://www.justsecurity.org/71220/unpa ... operation/
For all of the complexity of the intelligence process discussed above, the basic facts are clear: Our intelligence community has assessed that Russia is acting in a way that threatens American lives in Afghanistan. Yes, there are nuances and varying degrees of confidence in that conclusion. That’s normal. But there should not be any kind of debate about whether this conclusion should have been presented to senior policymakers and the President for their review and action—nor any doubt that they should have responded, urgently. In any other time, that would be a given. There might be a policy conversation to be had about what exactly to do in response, but no reasonable conversation can be had about whether to put this conclusion on the table at the level of the President and his National Security Council for discussion about what actions to take.
obtw -- The Ukrainian army has taken their US provided Javelins out of their weapons storage magazines & are deploying them in their front line units in the Donbass.
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15523
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... lling.html
How could the UN possibly know what intelligence our people had? There could not be a more inept and useless organization than the UN.
How could the UN possibly know what intelligence our people had? There could not be a more inept and useless organization than the UN.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: The Politics of National Security
IN BURIED REPORT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ADMITS MAJOR FAILURES IN CONFRONTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM
Our Very Serious Genius
..
Only HE can prevent forest fi...err...cure all the ills of US society...FOR WEEKS, President Donald Trump and top advisers like Attorney General William Barr have sought to blame antifa for sporadic violence and rioting during the ongoing Black Lives Matters protests. With little evidence, Trump even threatened to label antifa, an amorphous left-wing movement opposed to fascism, as a domestic terrorist organization.
But the president’s strategy of pinning blame on antifa in quick, broad brushstrokes is undercut not only by constitutional hurdles and conflicting evidence on the ground, but also by a sobering report from his own intelligence officials that calls for an entirely revamped approach to domestic extremism. The analysis from the National Counterterrorism Center, which has not been previously reported, offers an unusually self-critical view of the gaps and weaknesses in combating homegrown terror threats, and it suggests that the focus needs to be on individual actors who break the law, rather than groups.
The report raises troubling questions about the government’s ability to head off a major attack from extremists at home. In stark terms, it depicts a system ill-equipped to deal with the rising threat of domestic extremists because of splintered approaches by different agencies.
Our Very Serious Genius
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15523
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
So which home grown extremist groups do we have to defend against? How do you defend against them? The problem is Antifa whack jobs and redneck redman chewing hillbillies are free to say anything they want. If the feds can prove they are conspiring to do something then they can arrest them. Unless you are suggesting the USA create a thought police it ain't easy to stop any of these people. I don't think the gubmint folks can prevent a major attack if some group puts their mind to it. The gubmint law enforcement agencies have to be 100% right every day. The bad guys just need to get lucky on any given day. With all the dry weather lately how hard would it be for a couple of jack wagons driving from place to place with a zippo to burn down half of a state? There is no limit to the threats. They come in all shapes and sizes. This is the sick new world we live in.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:19 pm IN BURIED REPORT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ADMITS MAJOR FAILURES IN CONFRONTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM
Only HE can prevent forest fi...err...cure all the ills of US society...FOR WEEKS, President Donald Trump and top advisers like Attorney General William Barr have sought to blame antifa for sporadic violence and rioting during the ongoing Black Lives Matters protests. With little evidence, Trump even threatened to label antifa, an amorphous left-wing movement opposed to fascism, as a domestic terrorist organization.
But the president’s strategy of pinning blame on antifa in quick, broad brushstrokes is undercut not only by constitutional hurdles and conflicting evidence on the ground, but also by a sobering report from his own intelligence officials that calls for an entirely revamped approach to domestic extremism. The analysis from the National Counterterrorism Center, which has not been previously reported, offers an unusually self-critical view of the gaps and weaknesses in combating homegrown terror threats, and it suggests that the focus needs to be on individual actors who break the law, rather than groups.
The report raises troubling questions about the government’s ability to head off a major attack from extremists at home. In stark terms, it depicts a system ill-equipped to deal with the rising threat of domestic extremists because of splintered approaches by different agencies.
Our Very Serious Genius
..
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: The Politics of National Security
RICOcradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:29 pmSo which home grown extremist groups do we have to defend against? How do you defend against them? The problem is Antifa whack jobs and redneck redman chewing hillbillies are free to say anything they want. If the feds can prove they are conspiring to do something then they can arrest them. Unless you are suggesting the USA create a thought police it ain't easy to stop any of these people. I don't think the gubmint folks can prevent a major attack if some group puts their mind to it. The gubmint law enforcement agencies have to be 100% right every day. The bad guys just need to get lucky on any given day. With all the dry weather lately how hard would it be for a couple of jack wagons driving from place to place with a zippo to burn down half of a state? There is no limit to the threats. They come in all shapes and sizes. This is the sick new world we live in.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:19 pm IN BURIED REPORT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ADMITS MAJOR FAILURES IN CONFRONTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM
FOR WEEKS, President Donald Trump and top advisers like Attorney General William Barr have sought to blame antifa for sporadic violence and rioting during the ongoing Black Lives Matters protests. With little evidence, Trump even threatened to label antifa, an amorphous left-wing movement opposed to fascism, as a domestic terrorist organization.
But the president’s strategy of pinning blame on antifa in quick, broad brushstrokes is undercut not only by constitutional hurdles and conflicting evidence on the ground, but also by a sobering report from his own intelligence officials that calls for an entirely revamped approach to domestic extremism. The analysis from the National Counterterrorism Center, which has not been previously reported, offers an unusually self-critical view of the gaps and weaknesses in combating homegrown terror threats, and it suggests that the focus needs to be on individual actors who break the law, rather than groups.
The report raises troubling questions about the government’s ability to head off a major attack from extremists at home. In stark terms, it depicts a system ill-equipped to deal with the rising threat of domestic extremists because of splintered approaches by different agencies.
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-just ... ized-crime
-
- Posts: 34226
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
“I wish you would!”
Re: The Politics of National Security
BREAKING: Judge Sullivan is seeking en banc review of the terrible DC Cir. decision that he can’t look into the bogus DOJ dismissal of the Flynn case.
Of course he can. I predict he will get en banc review & they will reverse.
As they should.
PS Big rule of law day today!
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/12 ... 79/photo/1
Of course he can. I predict he will get en banc review & they will reverse.
As they should.
PS Big rule of law day today!
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/12 ... 79/photo/1
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
- youthathletics
- Posts: 15935
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
Making a mockery of court system now, proving how effed the average joe is.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
~Livy
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
Re: The Politics of National Security
Nonsense.youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:20 pm Making a mockery of court system now, proving how effed the average joe is.
Let'e say Joe Biden wins. You'd be ok if Biden appoints a new AG, and the new AG stepped in and shut down and/or reversed prosecutions of Biden's friends? Or Democrats in general? No. You wouldn't. You'd lose your *hit.
What Barr did was wrong.
Know what would convince me as an American of all the Deep State tinfoil hat nonsense? If Flynn waived his attorney client privilege, and let his old lawyers talk....
...because 100 steak dinners says that Flynn copped to lying to the FBI to his own lawyers. Isn't it obvious that that's what happened here? It explains everything that followed.