Trump Fully Admits To Sharing Highly Classified Intel With Russia

Submitted by: fancylad 5 months ago in News & Politics


President Trump admitted this morning that he did share highly classified information with two of Russia’s top diplomats during an Oval Office meeting last week. He even tweeted about it this morning -- twice!






Trump probably shouldn't be sharing anything with Russia, if only because it looks really bad in light of the investigation of his ties to Russia, but at this point, he really probably could shoot and kill someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and get away with it. After all, Trump admitted that "this Russia thing" was one of the reasons why he fired FBI Director James Comey last week.

As you'll remember, White House officials denied Trump slipped documents to Russia late yesterday.
There are 134 comments:
Male 40,772
Again: Trump did nothing wrong:
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/mcmaster-re-doubles-defense-trump-russia-meeting/

Again: The MSM is utterly biased and bigoted:
https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/levin-behold-the-media-double-standard-on-trump

I notice not one IAB Liberal will actually address the actual issue, or answer my actual questions. Typical, they put up 'funny pictures' and pretend those are relevant somehow...

Edit: ok, Bliznik is actually discussing it. It remains to be seen if he'll answer my questions tho... :/
-1
Reply
Male 341
How can anyone be so clueless?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
mentott510 You mean the MSM who ILLEGALLY actually made some of the classified intel public?
Or the 'leakers' who ILLEGALLY sent classified intel to persons not authorized to see it?

Because Trump did absolutely nothing wrong. He is allowed to declassify anything he sees fit, and the Coalition and Russia have an intel-sharing agreement in place since Obama. So what EXACTLY did trump do wrong? What law did he break?
-1
Reply
Male 6,077


3
Reply
Male 40,772
broizfam Except that this is a lie. 
Other than it being a complete fabrication? It's still not funny. Sorry.
-2
Reply
Male 6,077
5cats Oh, sure. I know there's no way to prove it but I'd be willing to bet you chuckled, at least a bit, but just don't want to admit it!
1
Reply
Male 40,772
broizfam Meh, Trump didn't "tell secrets" to anyone, he met with an ally and (legally, obliged to by agreements) shared intelligence to make a plan to fight ISIL. How is that wrong?
And Merkel was spyed on by Obama... just sayin.
-1
Reply
Male 6,077
5cats Personally, my feeling is that there's really nothing here. The problem is really due to what politics has become here. Everyone is so intent on trying to support their party that they've forgotten that the job is to support their country. That has led to everyone using any and every little thing they can, however insignificant/meaningless, to degrade the other party. Both sides do this. It's a shame. 
1
Reply
Male 6,077
broizfam By the way, I notice you didn't deny getting at least a little chuckle out of it!
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Oh, by the way? It was not TRUMP who said the intel came from Israel, it was... the New York Times!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html

So the one factor that may have looked bad for Trump? Exposing another ally's intel?? He didn't even do that! It was the NYT and the (illegal) leakers who did it. There is nothing saying Trump told the Russians "oh here's what Israel told us" at all. In fact there's nothing saying Trump told them anything that wasn't allowable and even required. It was "counter-terrorism" intelligence related to ISIL, says the NYT. 

And who else knows about that possibility now? EVERYONE! Including Iran...
-1
Reply
Male 40,772
30 minute video of the latest press release, where the alleged source again denies anything inappropriate happened:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/05/live-mcmaster-speaks-to-press-about-trump-russia/

There were (it is said) 4 Americans (counting or not counting Trump? I forget) in the Room, and the only one on record says nothing happened. The other 2-3 also say nothing happened. Did the Russians "leak" this information? Lolz! Who else could have, if everyone else says there was NOTHING WRONG.
-5
Reply
Male 40,772
5cats Look at the Press Corps: Awfully White aren't they? Where is the diversity?

(not from the latest presser, which I linked above, just a typical gathering)
I see 3, maybe 4 'persons of colour' in the crowd... out of 70+? Maybe the guy with the camera at the back is Asian too? But he's not a Press Corps member asking questions, lolz!
Source:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/15/forget-media-meltdown-former-house-speaker-tells-president-trump-close-down-the-press-room/
-4
Reply
Male 6,077
Somehow, I don't see this as a big issue. If we want Russia's help fighting terrorism we have to be able to share some info with them. The only thing I've seen brought up that may make sense as a problem is that it may be that Russia can infer where the info came from and that may cause those who supplied it to clam up.
3
Reply
Male 1,746
broizfam I agree that if we want Russia's help fighting terrorism we need to share information with them. However it seems like Trump shared the information without really considering why the information was confidential in the first place, and which have endangered the parties supplying the information in the first place. That isa big deal.

One part of the Trump threat is that he's actively attacking valuable ideals, like the separation of church and state, peer-reviewed evidence-based science, access to healthcare, etc. But the other part of the Trump threat is that he's so inexperienced at his job and he's so adamantly against listening to those who have more education or experience than he does, that some of his actions have far-reaching collateral damage that may negatively impact America in significant manners--like encouraging U.S. allies to stop sharing information that they have on ISIS and on pending terrorist attacks.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
bliznik Trump managed a multi-billion dollar empire, which he built himself, but he's "inexperienced"?
And you said the exact same thing about Obama, yes?
The REASON people like him is BECAUSE he isn't a 'professional politician' ok? If he was 'experienced' (ie: held elected office for decades) he wouldn't BE President right now...

HOW do YOU KNOW Trump "shared the information without really considering why the information was confidential in the first place, and which have endangered the parties supplying the information in the first place." Were YOU THERE? No? Then who said this? NOT the 4 people in the room. So who? See my links above, Trump not only did NOTHING WRONG he also FOLLOWED various intel-sharing agreements. Those are the cold facts.

That this intel (allegedly) comes from Israel is something the MSM reported, from the 'leaks' ok? Not a fact Trump told to the Russians...
-2
Reply
Male 1,746
5cats

What your argument boils down to is: "Identify who leaked the information, so Trump and his cronies can crucify that person in public for leaking the information." Which is the typical response to any whistleblowing. The things that we know are:

(1) An anonymous source claimed that Trump probably leaked classified information that could have compromised a source.

(2) Another anonymous source claimed that, after the meeting, people at the white house scrambled to call the CIA and NSA to ensure that the information that Trump provided to Russia wouldn't compromise the sources.

(3) Enough of what was claimed by these anonymous sources was true that Trump, Spicer, and McMaster have all made public announcements to clarify what happened.

All of this reeks of inexperience and incompetence. Now, it's possible that there's a gigantic conspiracy of massive proportions by multiple parties in the White House to take down Trump because people don't like him. But Occam's Razor's simplest explanation is that Trump is screwing up so badly that a lot of people are coming out of the woodwork to talk about his screwups to prevent him from hurting America.

Obama screwed up, and there were people who leaked information about him. Hillary screwed up, and there were people who leaked information about her. These leaks have always happened, and news cycles have always covered them. Trump's screw ups appear to be pretty darned often and pretty darned blatant. THAT is the evidence of his incompetence.

But you are correct that there's no hard evidence. You choose to believe in some massive conspiracy of many people in Washington willing to risk their jobs, reputation, and possibly their lives in order to bring down someone out of spite, and I choose to believe that most people who work for a company or the government don't leak information unless they are seriously, seriously disturbed by what they are witnessing and think that the world would be a better place if those types of things didn't occur.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
bliznik (1) No. No evidence of that exists at all. NO ONE THERE says this happened.
What DID happen is that the leaked info was used by the MSM to expose the connection. The thing you accuse Trump of maybe doing? The MSM actually did do it!

(2) No, there's no evidence this happened. There's no reason for it to happen, since the 3 people present say nothing was compromised. The MSM is basing this "reporting" on gossip from people who weren't there, and the lie that Trump isn't authorized to share intel. OR the 3 experts he brought with him either! Nonsense.

(3) If someone lies, makes shit up and spreads falenews? And then people who actually know the truth SPEAK UP? THIS PROVES THE LIES ARE THE TRUTH~!!! Wow, just wow...
-1
Reply
Male 1,746
(1) No evidence of that exists at all. NO ONE THERE says this happened.

Actually, the people in the room didn't say that Trump didn't leak classified information. Trump said that he shared facts pertaining to terrorism and airline safety with Russia. McMaster said that it was appropriate for Trump to share certain information with Russie. Neither person denied that the information was classified at the time it was shared. 

McMaster did say that the information probably didn't compromise any sources, but some anonymous sources claimed that, right after the meeting,  senior White House officials took steps to "contain" possible damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency. If that happened (and it seems pretty likely that it did since the White House didn't deny it), then it seems likely that at least some people at the White House thought that there was some "damage" that needed to be contained after that meeting.

(2) No, there's no evidence this happened. 

The evidence comes from the anonymous sources, the reporting of the anonymous sources, and the fact that the White House did not deny that they took steps after the meeting to place calls to the CIA and the NSA in order to contain possible collateral damage from the meeting with the Russians. All of those facts put together seem pretty probative. Is it 100% completely certain? Nah, but it looks pretty bad.

(3) If someone lies, makes shit up and spreads falenews? And then people who actually know the truth SPEAK UP? THIS PROVES THE LIES ARE THE TRUTH~!!!

If you actually read Trump's tweets and McMaster's statements, they don't deny that Trump revealed information that was, at the time, code-word classified. They don't deny that calls were made after the meeting to contain possible damage. Instead, they say that everything said in the meeting was "appropriate" and that Trump had the power to reveal that information to the Russians. 

I think that it is true that both Trump and McMaster think that everything said in the meeting was appropriate, but I also think that there are other people in the White House who heard what happened in the meeting (maybe they were the ones who were making the phone calls afterwards?) who didn't think that everything said in the meeting was appropriate. It sure seems like what they heard seemed so egregious to them, that they leaked the fact that it happened to news outlets--because they thought that Trump needed to be punished for doing something so egregious. 

Could they be making the entire thing up? Sure. But enough information has come out to suggest that a great majority of what they leaked was true.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
5cats No evidence exists that you are a sane rational person who's not mentally disabled.  I need proof.  
0
Reply
Male 40,772
bliznik YOUR argument is that Trump is NOT authorized to declassify ANYTHING he sees fit. But he is.
1. You argue he "might have" done these things, based on what?
2. The leaked information from an anonymous source who was not there. 
3. HOW do you KNOW Trump did something "incompetent" when the 3 others present said he did not?
4. HOW is sharing intel in accordance with existing agreements "incompetent"? You have proof it was otherwise? Lets see it.
5. These 'leakers' were not there, yet they chose to ovber-rule the elected President of the USA and undermine US Intelligence by revealing to the public classified information. THAT is a series of crimes.
6. so if anyone here was actually doing anything wrong? It sure wasn't Trump, his staff or the Russians. It was the WaPo, NYT and these "leakers" who were wrong.
-1
Reply
Male 1,746
YOUR argument is that Trump is NOT authorized to declassify ANYTHING he sees fit. But he is.

That is not my argument at all.

My argument is that Trump does a lot of things that cause White House staffers to worry about his actions so much that they leak a heck of a lot of stuff to the press. Leaks happen with every presidency, especially because many White House staffers think of themselves as the next Deep Throat. But they seem to be happening an awful lot with Trump. My gut feeling is that these leaks are happening because people who work for him are really, really, worried about the consequences of his actions.

The fact that less leaks happened with Clinton, the Bushes, and even Obama (who had a decent number of Republican-leaning staff working for him, BTW), means that they did not do things that worried their staff as much as Trump.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
bliznik Don't get the wrong impression. I'm not, by any means, a Trump supporter. But I'm, also not going to let my general discomfort with his administration make me criticize something he does just because he did it, either.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
broizfam Bingo, sloppy and like Trump braggadocios, but not illegal.  Just Trump being Trump.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 So Trump can NEVER even TALK to the Russians without the hysteria machine being set to eleventy!11!!! And the DNC propaganda arm screaming nonsense? Nice!
But if he doesn't talk to them, that looks like he's avoiding the issue and that makes him guilty too!!1! Liberal Logic!
-1
Reply
Male 7,943
5cats Again all you are doing is regurgitating nonsense.  Here's your strategy verbatim

Here is how it works: Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to (1) the biased “fake news” media, (2) over-the-top liberals, (3) hypocrites on the left, (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”

For the anti-anti-Trump pundit, whatever the allegation against Mr. Trump, whatever his blunders or foibles, the other side is always worse.



1
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 Liar, fucking get with it ok?

I addressed directly the specific actions: Trump is ALLOWED to do that! He can talk about this with the Russians because:
1. He's the President and can classify or un-classify intel as he sees fit.
2. The Russians are part of the Coalition, or are allies, and an Obama agreement is still standing to SHARE INTEL.

So you are a fat liar, and all those things you list either are true, or are just lies too. But in either case they don't apply to this situation. Is that clear enough for you? I've already told you all this several times, fuckwit. He did NOTHING wrong, and the leakers who divulged classified information broke the law, period.
-2
Reply
Male 7,943
5cats No you didn't.  I agree that he's allowed to do it.  Problem is it was sloppy, no other leader would do what he did with Russia.  They aren't our friends.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 How? How is it "sloppy"? How do YOU know what was said or how it was presented in that room?

Obama said the Russians were not a threat, so did Hillary. That talking to them was the only road to peaceful co-existence. Are you calling them liars?

Obama signed them up as allies in the fight in Syria, are you saying that was wrong? That Trump should tell them to get out, and violate those agreements, because... because why exactly? Please be specific.
-1
Reply
Male 7,943
5cats That doesn't mean you start sharing info with them.  It's clear Russia has an agenda.  They tried to get Lapenn elected, they are trying to break up the NATO alliance so Putin can return Russia to it's former glory.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 Really? You SIGN an agreement (treaty? idk the semantics) to SHARE intelligence about air raids and potential terror attacks. You do this with ALL the 'allies' fighting ISIL, which includes Russia, who Obama specifically invited to join in.

THEN! You do NOT share intel! Got it! Makes perfect sense!

You do know the intel shared was about laptop bomb threats? That has been in the news for a week or more? It's hardly a "Top Secret" and neither is the location of the city or cities involved. 

Talking with allies and making plans together REQUIRES they, you know, TALK! And pool their knowledge to best defeat a blood enemy.

That doesn't mean you start sharing info with them.

Honetly, do you even try to think before you hit 'submit'? That is truely and absolutely 100% wrong. And then you... change the fucking subject. 
-2
Reply
Male 7,943
5cats You don't share code words, and special op stuff details.  You go over generalities.  There's nuance involved.  Trump doesn't have that.


Honetly, do you even try to think before you hit 'submit'? That is truely and absolutely 100% wrong. And then you... change the fucking subject. 
Are you serious, you are the KING of non sequitur.  Get real, you simply can't follow a conversation.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
My notifications keep telling me that David Morris has made 3x replies to my comments on this thread, but I cannot see any of them :p
Probably for the best, lolz!
Now 2x from 'Dr Shrinker' also... I keep refreshing and reloading the page, perhaps I should exit entirely and return? I'll try that.
I can see other new comments...

Edit: Perhaps they were spam-bots who got their messages deleted? Or got themselves banned?
-5
Reply
Male 2,694
Does anybody actually know the exact nature of this information?   Well besides the people who actually found it and disseminated it?  Because without that knowledge would it not make all this "OMFG teh syk iz falling" stuff a bit premature.  Perhaps some knowledge gets shared and a new bridge gets built?  Perhaps a first step in a new trust?  Has that thought crossed anybody's noodle?  I read something about Israel but no hard evidence or confirmation.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
dromed Something about the location or composition of some rebels the US was training? I'm not sure exactly...
But yeah, sharing information with Coalition Allies is normal. Only the DNC can get their panties in a twist over it... and only when it isn't Obama or Hillary doing it...
-4
Reply
Female 407
5cats Well, no. The allegation is - and Trump has carefully worded his Tweets to avoid cornfirming or denying this, which is suspicious in itself - that intelligence was shared which had been provided to the US by another ally on the proviso that it wasn't shared with anyone else. So good luck getting any allies to share any intelligence with you from now on.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
DrCribbens Ok, but why would a coalition member not share with the rest of the coalition? 
Or if it's Israel (blame the joos!) who gave it? Why wouldn't they know the possibility the USA would share it? Perhaps that was their intention? Who knows!

And that's the point here, eh? The only person on record who was there (besides Trump!) says nothing wrong happened. The others have said off-record nothing happened too. So where are these "two anonymous sources" from? How did they get the (allegedly) classified materials? If they thought it was restricted, why did they (apparently) leak it illegally?
Big questions...
-3
Reply
Male 130
the cold war ended years ago.... what would you rather have talks with russia or war with russia? putin already said there would be a high likelyhood of war if cunton got in as president
1
Reply
Male 40,772
monsta420 The Liberal-left, MSM and DNC have "suddenly forgotten" that Obama and Hillary spent 8 and 4 yers (respectively) telling us all that Russia was our friend now! We have nothing to fear from Russia! We should open a dialogue and remove sanctions they told us... Remember the debate with Romney? Lolz!

Until a Republican talks to them, then all hell breaks loose!
-3
Reply
Female 407
5cats It isn't about talking to Russia. It's about betraying an ally.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
DrCribbens Which is what the New York Times did, see my link above.
-1
Reply
Male 40,772
The only named "source" for this "news" has completely denied saying anything like it:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/15/only-named-source-in-wapo-report-on-trumps-leaking-of-classified-information-denies-it/
So once again, anti-Trump lies and gossip.
-4
Reply
Male 1,746
5cats

Wow, even after Trump followed up both of these tweets with "I have been asking Director Comey & others, from the beginning of my administration, to find the LEAKERS in the intelligence community....." you continue to insist that the leaks are false and are lies.

What really boggles my mind is that 5Cats' thoughts are quite the norm among conservative voters.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
bliznik There can be "leakers' of FALSE information too, you do know that eh?
That the FACT that someone leaked it, doesn't mean the information is true at all. People can and have leaked fake shit or just plain mistaken ideas before, not just about Trump but for decades now...
What boggles my mind is the 180 spin the liberal left do on a daily basis...
-5
Reply
Male 1,746
5cats That's called someone slandering or defaming someone by providing false information.

There's a stark difference between leaking classified information and defaming someone. If Trump had proof that this information was false, he could sue the newspapers for defamation. The fact that he isn't, and is instead trying to identify people who are "leaking" information suggests that it's true.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
bliznik The false classified information is the issue. Leaking ANY classified info is highly dangerous, and if that info is in fact incorrect or just plain made up? That's a double-whammy of illegality.
Trump doesn't have to prove shit. It's up to the accusers to provide the evidence, then Trump can refute or disprove that.
The ONLY evidence so far? The word of ONE person who has come out and said he NEVER ONCE said such a thing. That makes this a fabrication, unless some actual evidence comes out.

So trying to find the criminals is somehow wrong now? Ah! It's a defaming attack on a Repub, so that's A-OK! Ic ic...
-5
Reply
Male 7,943
bliznik Pay no mind to the actual issues, just go after the people LEAKING the issues.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 We have FULLY and COMPLETELY addressed the ACTUAL issues.

1. Who said it? 2x anonymous sources. 1x named source who has said it's a lie. Who are we to believe since the actual "leaked" material is not known?
2. Does it matter? No. If the Russians didn't already legally KNOW the info? Then Trump is authorised to legally share it anyhow. That's my opinion on it, disprove it.

So, the actual accusations addressed? We move on to WHY these false things are being "reported as news" and the legality of that...
-5
Reply
Male 1,746
Does it matter?

Seeing how sources in the intelligence community are stating that they needed to do damage control right after Trump disclosed this information (which he has every right to do as President) in order to protect the identity of the person who collected the information, it's pretty clear that Trump had no idea about the consequences of his own actions or even why the information that was told to him was classified in the first place.

We move on to WHY these false things are being "reported as news" and the legality of that...

Almost all whistleblower sources are anonymous. Most news agencies do as much fact-checking as humanly possible before publishing information obtained by anonymous sources. Watergate would never have occurred if not for the anonymous Deep Throat. Could this all be completely fabricated? Absolutely. But from the way Trump is reacting to this story, it sure seems like the leaks are mostly true.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
bliznik 1. did that come before the NYT released all the information? Including that it came from Israel? Where do you see "damage control" being done before then? 
2. There were 4 people with Trump, it has been reported. 1 has publicly been named as a source, and denied all of it. The other 3 have privately denied anything untoward happened at all and hense are not the sources either.
So WHO exactly are the 2 sources? HOW would they know if they weren't even there? It matters.
-1
Reply
304
5cats I have a hypothetical question I would like you to answer. Lets for one moment, replace President Trump with say President Hillary Clinton. If President Hillary Clinton had done all of these things, would you be defending her so vigorously?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
pleasestop If the MSM made shit up? I wouldn't need to defend her, the IAB Liberal Army would do so, I'd probably comment that the accusation is false though, so yes?
I did so for Obama on several occasions, but no one remembers those of course...

I frequently say: why make shit up if the facts are there? 
If Trump broke some law? Show me the facts! Not the accusation of ONE person who has utterly recanted it, not "un-named sources" who may or may not have even been there...
There is nothing here, zero. Even if it's true? Still not a problem!
-4
Reply
Male 4,153
pleasestop You already know the answer to that. Both sides of the two party coin are exactly the same, full circle most of the time. The party leaders love it that way, it's what keeps them wealthy and powerful.  Now cats doesn't get to vote in US elections so he's just an observing neighbor and just as entitled to his opinions as anyone. The real pawns are the party-line voters.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Fucking bare-faced lies now? He 'openly admits' NOT A FUCKING THING done wrong. He SHARED INTEL which was either public already OR had already been given tot he Russians. You know? OUR ALLIES! You recall Obama partnering up with the 'not a threat to America' Russians after his Red Lines were abject failures? Good golly, stop the DNC FakeNews propaganda!
-5
Reply
Male 4,953
5cats Russia is NOT our ally, knucklehead. Along with China, they are what's known as a "near-peer threat" to American interests.

Also, unless you're now registered as an American taxpayer or have friends and family members whose lives have been, are, or will be at risk as members of the American military, maybe you should stop talking about who "our" allies are. You know, because you're not an American?

On the other paw, if you want to declare Russia and it's ex-KGB leader an ally of Canada, have at it.
3
Reply
Male 569
squrlz4ever "...declare Russia and it's ex-KGB leader an ally of Canada, have at it."

On behalf of the rest of Canada, I'd just like to say, "No, thanks."
P.S.  Knucklehead.  Lol!
0
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever I thought you were ignoring me, you fucking piece of shit. You lied about that too eh?
Fuck off. Go fuck your mother some more, hundreds have already.

Our allies, Canada is part of the coalition, fuck you cannot even get that right. OUR (Canada) allies! Prince Justine may have pulled the jets out, but we still have lots of troops (training, advisors and whatnot) AND support active there. So shove it up your man-cunt.
-6
Reply
Male 4,953
5cats LOL! You're the one who keeps the ignore list on here, not me. You need me to find your original posts stating as such?
2
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever I have nothing to say to an ignorant fuck like yourself. You falsely accuse me of horrible things and expect me to read your shit? Get fucking lost already. I don't give a flying fuck what you think or say.
You've repeatedly had psychotic breakdowns on IAB and have repeatedly called for me to be banned for nothing. Seek medical help, but I just don't care.
-6
Reply
Male 4,953
5cats What you choose to read is entirely your business. That said, you can prevent neither people nor squirrels from responding to dopey statements you make in a public forum--no matter how much you dislike them.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever I'll just call you out as the fucking liar you are when you do so, if I bother to reply. You are reprehensible in every way, a disgrace to IAB and your family.

You did not 'reply'  to what I said, you only attacked me, as usual. It's all you ever do, you have no merit to your side, so you attack and insult. Fuck you. 

"unless you're now registered as an American taxpayer... our allies" No, Canada is part of the coalition too, so they are MY (or our) allies as well. That's a FACT you choose to ignore, like the shit eating coward you are.
-6
Reply
Male 569
5cats Oh, ffs, Cats, the only person replying in this "conversation" is Squrlz. 

The only person I see attacking is you:
"you fucking piece of shit. "
"Fuck off."
"Go fuck your mother some more, hundreds have already."
"So shove it up your man-cunt."
"...an ignorant fuck like yourself."
"... shit eating coward you are."
"You are reprehensible in every way..."

I don't see a single word like that from Squrlz' side of the conversation.  Just calm, rational thoughts and arguments, with a few jabs thrown in.  No attack.

If anybody in here is psychotic...  well, surely to god I don't need to finish that sentence...
2
Reply
Male 1,018
irk I'm silently judging him so there's that.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
irk No, Squrlz has been after me for YEARS now. He's done that shit several times already. He deserves every word of that, and plenty more.
I make no secret of my debilitating mental issues, which Squrlz has also lied about and slandered me over. But at least I can tell the difference between truth and fiction. At least I don't run around demanding others be banned for shit I've made up. At least I don't ask that the police be brought in and false reports (which is illegal btw) made over PURE FICTION that his psychotic brain cooked up all by itself!

If you have no idea of the facts in the matter? I hope you'll modify your opinion now that you have a few eh?
-4
Reply
Male 569
5cats Despite the recent login account, I've been here since about 2003.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
irk Well then, perhaps you recall his letters to Fancy (which were posted) or his in-chat rantings and accusations (which have happened 3 times to me, iirc, and also to others) which looked like full-blown psychotic episodes.

Just saying, I've given him chance after chance and my reward was: being accused of horrible things and him asking people to call the RCMP to report me for his IMAGINARY accusations. Which is illegal btw...
-2
Reply
Male 4,953
5cats Seriously? You actually want to revisit our recent dust-up?
-1
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever No, asshole, I'm hoping you'll stop doing such things entirely. You brought shame only to yourself, and you know it. I've ignored you, please show some courtesy and do the same for me. Bye! 
-2
Reply
Male 4,953
5cats You can't help yourself, can you? So, yes, let's revisit our last conflict since you insist on repeatedly bringing it up and giving your own warped version of it in this thread.

It's my opinion, based on your obsession with the sexualized drawings of six-year-old girls that you can't seem to resist, that you should never be allowed anywhere near children. I find it absolutely alarming that while spamming IAB with your "catgirl" fetish you were working--unbeknownst to practically everyone on here--in a children's daycare center.

Not surprisingly, you don't like this opinion of mine and will do everything you can to silence it. You like to say that my expression of this opinion represents a "psychotic breakdown," which is pretty funny coming from IAB's resident psychotic.

Previously, I bit my tongue about your pedophilic yearnings, but decided to speak up when I got tired of your abusive bullying of myself and others on here. Now, in this thread, I can see you are back to your usual foul-mouthed, abusive language, which, I suppose, is no surprise.

If I am to believe your most recent statements, you no longer work with children. To which I say, Thank God.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
5cats I think you are being unhinged.
3
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 Um, why?
Someone who repeatedly (and falsely, based on his own psychotic imaginations) accused me of various crimes and I'm 'unhinged' for calling him on it? 
Please be specific.
-5
Reply
304
5cats Holy shit. Russia is not our ally. Trump had two Russian ambassadors, who used to be KGB spies invited into the white house along with Russian media, lets not forget that American media was barred from being present. Trump then proceeds to give Russia secret information. As president, he IS free to declassify whatever he likes, sure, but then why would the white house refute rumors that were put out yesterday that he gave Russia classified information?

Then, being the idiot he is, he went on Twitter and confirmed to the entire world that he handed out classified information to Russia in that media. Classified information that puts our REAL allies in a pretty shitty position.

Trump is literally Putin's cock holster. When Putin tells him to jump, Trump asks how high.
2
Reply
Male 40,772
pleasestop So all those times Obama SAID Russia was your ally in the fight against ISIL? HE lied?
And all those times the USA and Russia co-operated in Syria were... what exactly?

You are fucking nutz, claiming Russia and America have NOT been working together (allies, coalition partners, call it what you like) since the Red Line Failures...
It is an absolute fact: USA and Russia have an intel-sharing agreement (of some sort) over Syria.
-6
Reply
Male 682
5cats Against ISIS Russia might be the US' allies due to a common threat but not when it comes to sharing intelligence. USA's allies when it comes to sharing intelligence are UK, Germany, Australia, France... I might have left out a few... 
2
Reply
Male 40,772
fuad119 C... C... Canada perhaps? :-) Lolz!

Yes, BUT the alleged topic of the "illegality" was... ISIL! And with that in mind the USA (the whole coalition, in theory) and Russia do indeed have some sort of intelligence sharing agreement. IDK what exactly, it's classified :p
So Trump did nothing wrong, even if this accusation is true. It's meaningless, a witch-hunt once again. Hate-mongering.
-4
Reply
Male 682
5cats Yes Canada probably as well, I am not in the intelligence circle so I am not sure of it, however this isn't a matter of whether what he did was right or wrong this is a matter of he shouldn't have done that as the optics will be bad for the US intelligence community.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
fuad119 Remember that 'other scandal' of fakenews? When the US bombed that airport? Canada was warned too. As was Russia, and I imagine the rest of the Allies, in accordance with the intel sharing agreement(s). 

That didn't stop the MSM from lying about it and pretending Trump did something illegal... Wolf wolf they keep crying! But no wolves can be found... then on to the next fakenews without even trying to correct the lies they spread.

The 'optics' here are lies being spread by the MSM. If Trump did NOT share the intel? And violated these agreement(s)? How would that be good? Eh?
-1
Reply
Male 682
5cats Which news are you talking about? I don't remember the US bombing any airport.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
fuad119 After the last gas attack by Assad in Syria? Trump ordered the military airport the planes came from to be hit by Tomahawk missiles.
Of course the MSM cried about how much MONEY it cost, like the LIVES of people gassed were worthless...

The point was: Trump (the US Army that is) warned Russia and the MSM and DNC went berserk! Until it was proven that this was in accordance with various agreements, then they... changed the subject :p

Same shit, same lies, same changing the subject in a day or two...
0
Reply
Male 682
5cats Ah.. that.. when you said airport I thought civilian airport, that would be terrible but yeah I know of that and I was meh about it...
0
Reply
Male 527
So...Hang on, I gotta do the math on my next comment. "The lying liars who support the liar in chief lied when they said the newspapers lied when they told the truth about Donald shared secrets in a meeting?".
2
Reply
Male 20,920
zeegrr Maybe, possibly.
2
Reply
Male 527
fancylad I'm doing corrective math. I may also need an english class.....
0
Reply
Male 7,943
This will be the most Non Partisan comment.

What Trump did wasn't illegal. It was sloppy, and he mishandled classified intel.  He's guilty of doing EXACTLY what he blamed Hillary for.  Let the hypocrites and blind defend this, let those that hate Trump ridicule him for his hypocrisy.

LOCK HIM UP, LOCK HIM UP, LOCK HIM UP.
5
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 You? Non-partisan? What a fucking joke. How can you lie straight-up like that? Shameless.

If he "shared intel "with the ALLIES in the fight against ISIL? So what? He's the President! It's HIS CALL. But there is exactly ZERO evidence he did anything wrong or illegal, just vague 'he shared classified intel' which does NOT rule out it was already made public OR that the Russians already had it. 

And the leakers who leaked the story? They broke the law by sharing the very 'classified information' they accuse Trump of sharing. Except for them to send it to the press is completely illegal, while Trump discussing it with American ALLIES is perfectly fine.
-5
Reply
Male 7,943
5cats Exactly how is my comment wrong factually?  It's the truth as it is known right now based on the evidence presented and corroborated by McMasters and Trump
0
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 Bullshit. You tried this routine below and I disproved you there. You're full of DNC shit as usual.
-1
Reply
Male 7,943
5cats 

Again your strategy which is straight from the ALT right idiot movement 

Here is how it works: Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to (1) the biased “fake news” media, (2) over-the-top liberals, (3) hypocrites on the left, (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”

For the anti-anti-Trump pundit, whatever the allegation against Mr. Trump, whatever his blunders or foibles, the other side is always worse.


Until you can show thought that deviates from this template I'm ignoring your BS.  Because that's all you ever spout.  
0
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 Your Lies aren't any more truthful if you copy-paste them... I answered above. Stop changing the subject.
-1
Reply
Male 1,018
Wut bout Hilurby's EMAILS doe?




BEN GASY!
0
Reply
Male 8,560
So, NOW the main stream media is worried about the handling of classified information?

I guess had Trump just kept it on an unsecured server in the shitter everything would have been okay. 

-1
Reply
304
megrendel The difference is that while Clinton was stupid and careless, by leaving classified information on a private server, Trump just went ahead and handed it over to the Russians.

Oh, and Fox News isn't news. It's labelled as entertainment because they can't classify themselves as news, BY LAW. So fuck off with your bullshit
1
Reply
Male 40,772
pleasestop Stupid and careless? LMAO! She deliberately avoided the rules and laws from day-0! Before she even took the position she was deliberately setting up a private system. She refused to ever use the systems provided, even once!
That's not "careless" and guess what? It doesn't matter if she intended to do it or not, it's still A CRIME. Hundreds of them, actually...

And this is identical to a baseless allegation that Trump did something any President is ALLOWED to do? You are unhinged...
-4
Reply
Male 527
megrendel Fox news reminds us that there is no law saying they MUST tell the truth.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
megrendel yawn.  This is the new reality we are in.  Let's be honest Trump didn't break the law.  HOWEVER, this is mishandling classified material, IE the thing he RAILED Hillary for.  Hilariously duplicitous and hypocritical. 
0
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 Unbelievable, the lies from your mouth never stop.
-4
Reply
Male 7,943
  • 5cats What is untrue about my comment?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 There is NO evidence AT ALL that Trump "mishandled" anything. That is an accusation, not a fact. 
To compare this with Hillary's 4+ years of e-mail illegality is also untrue, it's not even remotely close. Might as well accuse Trump of the Lindberg Baby Kidnapping...
-4
Reply
Male 7,943
5cats And yes There is evidence that Trump "Mishandled"   It was listed as "highly classified" he gave that info to Russia, which is legal.  Problem is this is amateur sloppy, bragadosish etc For the hundredth time, Her e-mail server was not a LEGAL ISSUE.  It was a transparency issue.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 And you have proof of this? Not just 2x anonymous "sources" and one named source who said it is a lie? Proof?
And also: proof the Russians did not know these "classified" materials already through the intelligence sharing agreements?
And also: proof Trump isn't authorised to release this material as he sees fit?

PROVE IT or stfu...

Hillary breaking dozens of laws is indeed a legal issue. Her intentions are immaterial, the law(s) are quite clear on that, explicit in fact. By her own words she knowingly broke many laws, deliberately sent hundreds of classified documents to people (like her maid!) NOT cleared to see them. On purpose, and that's just one example of dozens, repeated thousands of times over 4 years or more. Careless my ass...
-4
Reply
Male 7,943
And also: proof Trump isn't authorised to release this material as he sees fit?
READ MY INITIAL COMMENT.  I clearly stated it's NOT ILLEGAL.  

And you have proof of this? Not just 2x anonymous "sources" and one named source who said it is a lie? Proof?
Are you even trying anymore?  TRUMP ADMITTED TO IT, God you are so irritating.   

Hillary breaking dozens of laws is indeed a legal issue. Her intentions are immaterial, the law(s) are quite clear on that, explicit in fact. By her own words she knowingly broke many laws, deliberately sent hundreds of classified documents to people (like her maid!) NOT cleared to see them. On purpose, and that's just one example of dozens, repeated thousands of times over 4 years or more. Careless my ass...

PROVE IT or stfu...  You are just regurgitating right wing nonsense.  I don't know if she broke any laws.  I expect the Judiciary to charge and convict Hillary.  Until then It's not my place and not your place to assume legalities.  We don't know if she sent "classified" messages to her maid, I didn't read any.  Sorry if i don't believe you because you "think you read something somewhere"  I've proven multiple times here and even in my above comment you don't know what the hell you read.  You just regurgitate everything.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 I already have. Many times. Give it up already.
Her own words, her own e-mails prove it.
The simple FACT (which you do not refute) that she failed to turn over all her work e-mails as required by both rules AND law is a crime. And the papers she signed under oath saying she did so? Also a crime. There was a court order to do so, you ignore that as well.

AND we DO know she sent it to her maid, at least 6 times, it's IN HER E-mails! Ordering the maid to enter the security room, use the (allegedly) secure system to print up classified documents and FAX THEM to Hillary! Fuck, if you cannot believe what Hillary herself said, what the FBI reported, then why am I bothering to tell you anything? You'll just ignore it, like always.
-4
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 So he did NOTHING wrong, and you still attack him? Deplorable!

Trump admitted NOTHING ILLEGAL. So what then? He told us he's doing his job and you (andthe rest of the DNC operatives) attack him for that? Think for a moment please...
-4
Reply
Male 1,018
normalfreak2 I like this cartoon because we all know Fox is the monkey making shit up and flinging it.
-1
Reply
Male 555
megrendel I don't think anyone believes that Hillary handled her email well.  But are you really claiming equivalency between "Storing classified information in an insecure location." and "Giving classified information directly to people who are explicitly not supposed to have it?"
0
Reply
Male 40,772
muert muert: The Russians are explicitly SUPPOSED TO have it!

It was mostly public knowledge already, the things they discussed. And Trump was REQUIRED to share intel, by the agreements Obama made. All 3 other Americans there said nothing improper was talked about. They were there dude... this is their job to know what's what.

It was the WaPo and NYT who made it public that Israel might be involved... not Trump.

Seriously, what Hillary did was against dozens of laws, over 6+ years time, thousands of violations.
Trump did his job, leaked nothing and possibly made the Russians friendlier to America... and you attack him? Based on the lies told by the DNC, not facts?
-1
Reply
Male 40,772
muert She knowingly sent Top Secret documents on an unsecured server to persons NOT authorized to see them. That is a crime.
She knowingly ordered the 'markings' of classification to be stripped off of e-mails. That is a crime.
She knowingly ordered her e-mails to NEVER be archived (as is the rule) and to delete them when they were A) under a court order (a crime) B) contained over 1000 classified e-mails (a Federal Crime).

This baseless accusation is "the same as" Hillary's thousands of crimes? Lolz! 

Who said the Russians aren't supposed to have whatever alleged intel was provided? Who said they didn't have it already? They are America's ALLIES ok? Who makes the call on that? The President! Case closed.

-5
Reply
Male 1,138
muert It's almost the same thing really.  Keeping it somewhere they can just take it anytime they want it and handing it to them are not that far apart.   Both should be punished to the full extent of the law, hopefully, prison for both of them, in cells next to each other.  I can dream right?
-1
Reply
Male 555
waldo863 I think you and I have a different concept of "almost."  

Scenario 1, I give you 20 dollars.

Scenario 2, you sneak into my house and take 20 dollars out of an unlocked box.

My 20$ in an unlocked box is safe from you because you don't know where I live, where I keep the box, if the box is unlocked, or if there is even 20$ in the box.
1
Reply
Male 1,138
muert Except that locked box of Hillary's servers was all over the news and everyone knew where it was and that she refused to change the way she did things.  It's more like:

Scenario 1:  You give me $20 that belongs to the American public.

Scenario 2:  You place $20 that belongs to the American public on the sidewalk in front of your house after being told you shouldn't do that because someone will take it and it's against the law.  Then, when someone takes it(as you were told they would), you deny being told someone would probably take it and that it was against the law to do it.  Then when asked to turn over your sidewalk, you only turn over part of it and lie about the rest.

yeah, you know what, you are right, they are not almost the same.  Just like I teach my daughter, when you lie about it, it's worse.  Trump admitted he did it, Hillary lied, so yeah, not almost the same, what Hillary did was worse.  They should still both be in jail.
-1
Reply
Male 7,943
waldo863 Let's be clear here and not dishonest.  Hillary's Server was never compromised.  All of the e-mails we have are from other .gov employees. 

Podesta was hacked but that is completely separate from Hillary's issues.  Hillary's issues weren't "illegal" at the time.  AT least I wont' go there until someone charges and convicts her.  Did she mishandled data for the sake of her own privacy concerns?  YOU are damn well right.   It was a clear violation of FOIA.  Beyond that I'm not sure anything truly "illegal" was done.  Obviously that'll change if she's convicted and charged but like I said, I'll go there when it happens.


To put it in perspective
You place $20 that belongs to the American public on the Fenced in and guarded sidewalk on your property after being told you shouldn't do that because someone can climb the fence or find a way through the fence and compromise your $20.  Since the wall is 30 ft tall and no one can see it doesn't mean that 20 is safe.  Someone could bypass the wall and have access to that 20 that wasn't secured properly.   Then when asked to turn over your 20 on the sidewalk, you only turn over $10 and spend the rest.

This analogy is more accurate.
0
Reply
Male 1,138
normalfreak2 So just because she was never charged and convicted, it was not illegal?  If I run a red light/stop sign, but was not charged and convicted, then I did not do anything illegal?  No, the act is still illegal.  She broke the law, it was illegal, she was just never charged and convicted.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
waldo863 No it's not.  


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/


She may have done something illegal if they can prove it.  Not enough evidence is not enough evidence.  You are "assuming" a lot here.  Rightly or wrongly let's call it what it is.  
0
Reply
Male 1,138
normalfreak2 ok, maybe not illegal but your own article says:
Clinton skirted State Department rules about records management, security and transparency.

The State Department’s policy as of 2005 is that all day-to-day operations are to be conducted on the official State Department information channel, which Clinton never used. She was also obligated to discuss her setup with several internal offices and demonstrate that it was properly secure, yet she did not. Some of those officers told the State Department Inspector General that they never would have allowed the private email setup had she asked.

Clinton did not ensure that her work-related emails were preserved on the State Department system in real time, nor did she surrender them immediately when she left office. This made her virtually impervious to Freedom of Information Act requests for her emails while in office and beyond.

Maybe illegal is not the right word, but she certainly did not follow policy, did not do things that she was obligated to do and then lied about it.  I know at least the perjury was illegal though.  No doubt about that.  The rest, sure, call it a grey area, she clearly did not follow policy and did not perform duties she was obligated to do.  If that's not illegal, it should be,
1
Reply
Male 7,943
waldo863 As I initially stated in my first reply to you.  This was a FOIA transparency issue through and through.  THAT's the issue here.  One that I'm fully condemning Hillary for.  This was one of the reasons the Democrats shouldn't have ran a flawed candidate like Hillary.  Look what we got, Trump.
-1
Reply
Male 1,138
normalfreak2 Ok, and what is FOIA?
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, is a federal freedom of information law that allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government.
That's right, it's a LAW.  So if she did not do what she was supposed to do under FOIA, she broke a law and that's illegal.  Is that really that hard to understand?  We are saying the same thing by a different name.  You are saying it's just a FOIA transparency issue, and I am agreeing, saying that is illegal.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
waldo863 One little issue to go here.  Intent matters for this Act.  That's the problem here.  Did she intend to hide and not disclose, etc.
-1
Reply
Male 1,138
normalfreak2 Well, she was told not to and did it anyway.  So yes, she intended to not use the proper method.  She even gave reasons for not wanting to, which she lied about anyway.  She was asked to turn over stuff, then only turned over part and tried to destroy the rest.  I don't even know how you do that without intending to.  If she intended to hand over everything, then she would have, she obviously did not though.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
waldo863 And she signed an affidavit saying she HAD turned over all her e-mails and archived them after she left office. That's felony perjury right there. She was ordered by a court to turn everything over, but she (then) destroyed evidence and classified materials.

When questioned by the FBI? She said she had amnesia and couldn't remember signing either document (the one she signed saying she'd taken the security course and agreed to follow it's rules, that too) and thus wasn't responsible or something. 

So a person, running for President, has amnesia and fainting spells and seizures, but we're not allowed to question her health and fitness for the job? Lolz. Liberal Logic.
-1
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 HA! The ONLY reason to have a private account on a private server is to hide everything! Remember, she signed an affidavit saying she had turned over ALL her work-emails for archiving when she left office. In fact she had turned over NONE and it wasn't just a little misremembering... it was a systemic and deliberate refusal to follow procedures and archive everything for FOUR YEARS. There is ample evidence in her own words that she knew exactly what went on, that she ordered it.

Remember, she got caught before, hiding e-mails and pretending they didn't exists. She was shocked when 200,000 (iirc) of them were recovered from various archives... she wasn't going to let that happen again.
Intent is NOT a factor. Look at the laws themselves and not the fucking DNC playbook for you facts. Plenty of people have been charged, tried AND convicted without the slightest "intent" to break the law. Petraus for one example... 
-1
Reply
Male 7,943
5cats Intent IS a factor dumbass.  I've read the fucking law you dolt.  In all of the acts previous uses and court cases INTENT mattered.  Did they willfully intend to use it for Treason?  This act is meant to target espionage.  So if someone can show they weren't doing this to  perform treason then that's all they need to show.  Clinton has a very strong case IE why they aren't bringing charges.  This act wasn't meant for situations like this with Hillary's e-mails.  This is a case of  our laws not being adequate enough for a deterrent. One can say we still have that problem today.
-1
Reply
Male 40,772
normalfreak2 Again: NOT for THESE SPECIFIC LAWS. Plenty of people have already been charged, tried and convicted without the slightest "intention" of breaking any laws. Indeed, without even KNOWING they'd broken a law when they did it!

But Hillary DID KNOW these laws because she signed legal documents saying she did (she took courses on them, mandatory for her clearance). And if those were false? That's illegal as well...
-1
Reply
Male 1,138
normalfreak2 I totally agree, intent matters in many things.  The only real difference between manslaughter and murder is intent.  However, I am pretty sure that when your staff tells you time and time again, this is wrong don't do this, and you do it anyway, your intended to do things the wrong way.  When asked to turn over copies of everything, she never intended to hand over everything, she intended to hand hand over part of it and attempt to destroy the rest.  She intended to do the opposite of what the LAW said.

Did she intend for it to get into the hands of Russians or other foreign entities?  Probably not, but she did intend to break the law and do things her own way.

That said, in many other things, intent is not a factor at all.  If you fall asleep at the wheel and run a stop sign, you likely did not intend to run the stop sign, but you still get in trouble for it.  If you run a stop sign because you did not see it, you still can get a ticket for running a stop sign.  You did not intend to run it, but you did.  If you speed in a school zone because you did not see the School Zone sign, you still get a ticket for it.  You did not intend to speed in a school zone, but you still did and you get punished for it.  This situation is much more like those than it is a difference between manslaughter and murder.  She was supposed to secure things a certain way, for national security reasons, and knowingly did things her own damn way anyway, then when asked to turn things over, intentionally did not turn over everything.  She did things she was not supposed to, and knew she was not supposed to.  She should be punished accordingly.
0
Reply
Male 1,746
waldo863 Erm, Hillary's servers were secured WAY before "that locked box of Hillary's servers was all over the news."

I love how you're making up facts in order to defend yourself.
0
Reply
Male 1,138
bliznik Her systems were never secured.  Not once.  Nothing she ever did on an e-mail or with an electronic device ever met the standards it was supposed to, at all.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
bliznik No, they were never "secure" and for ages used "off the shelf" anti-virus software that professional hackers could dismantle in minutes and leave no trace behind. It was a joke how anyone can think a server in a bathroom of a building with NO security alarm system is "secure"...

The rules (and laws) required her to use the provided military-grade devices and software, and to back up each and every single work e-mail sent. She signed a legal document before she started saying she knew this, and one after she left saying she did this. That's Felony Perjury fyi, just like her husband...

She also sent classified e-mails to and from her known unsecured devices (her staff told her this many times) from inside Russia and China... how could they NOT intercept them? They traveled through the systems controlled by the State! The only hope would be top-grade encryption, which Hillary never once used...

But go on! Tell me how she followed the rules and laws! Tell me how she had a secure e-mail system! Lmao!
-4
Reply
Male 7,943
waldo863 Then we just get Pence as the President which is probably worse because I think he's a true blue believer of the Conservative movement.
1
Reply
Male 1,018
normalfreak2 Pence might be competent as a military leader though.
0
Reply
Male 1,138
normalfreak2 Oh, so because the next guy might be worse, let's just let Trump get away with it?  Yeah, let's just let criminals get away with things because the alternative might be worse.  Makes total sense.
2
Reply
Male 7,943
waldo863 Did I say let Trump get away with it?
0
Reply
304
Trump is literally the personification of stupid.

The Whitehouse denied any communication just yesterday, and this idiot goes ahead and confirms what we already knew, that he did in fact share secrets with the Russians.

Every little kid in America should feel good about their chances of becoming president some day, Trump just proved the most idiotic of the idiots is capable.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
pleasestop Bullshit.
-4
Reply
Male 1,365
Stupid MSM! He's doing it for the safety of people eh? How partisan can you be when you can't realize that Donald Trump is a man of the people? Stupid libtards...
0
Reply
Male 40,772
doiknowyou As President? It's HIS CALL what information gets shared and what does not.
There is ZERO evidence he actually shared ANYTHING 'classified' at all.
Even if he did? The Russians may have already had that info since they are America's ALLIES in the fight against ISIL and agreed to share intel!
Even if he did? It's HIS CALL. 
Worst case scenario: he legally did his job. 
Best case? The MSM and DNC have lied, again, and it's another fakenews for the wolf-criers... another win!
-4
Reply