Originally Posted by Guest

Let's see hmmmmm..........As is commonplace with any story reacting to Trump vis a vis Russia what was left out

Yates with her recounting of a visit with McGahn stated that the justice Department had evidence that Flynn lied to the WH about "certain problematic conduct"...but declined to specify what "conduct"

However, we know because of the Obama team penchant for "unmasking" and their "leaks"both of which are security breaches
and the real tragedy in all this was suppose to be that Flynn by his conduct he was vulnerable to "blackmail"

Yet the salient political fact is that Trump fired Flynn for misleading Pence, and this despite the lack of any real evidence that Flynn conveyed any truly compromising information to the Russians

All that is known is that Flynn made a passing reference with the ambassador to US sanctions against Russia so what was there to blackmail? So Trump based on the fact only that Flynn mislead Pence fired him. Something like when Obama fired Hillary for her devious acts...wait no he pushed her forward to be his successor

The important question is whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign? And yet, Yates has yet to turn up anything new on that score.


So what is left unspoken and unreported by the MSM is "who exactly did the unmasking since both Yates and Clapper admitted they reviewed classified information about Trump, et al, that they shared information with others and while they deny it, someone leaked this information to the press. This conduct in Watergate took down a president and made two liberal reporters rich, heroes


Personal Best Regards:

I already posted a response to you on this but your lack of knowledge is so vast, this requires a bit more.

You said....

"Let's see hmmmmm..........As is commonplace with any story reacting to Trump vis a vis Russia what was left out

Yates with her recounting of a visit with McGahn stated that the justice Department had evidence that Flynn lied to the WH about "certain problematic conduct"...but declined to specify what "conduct"

Now let us see. You expect Ms Yates to testify in open hearing about what she told the White House on Flynn. I think I am saying it as you say it.......

You feel that she should compromise national security to publically spell out what he did or did not do ? Is that correct.

Gee....the WH knows what she said....if it were not troublesome why in the world does not your hero make it public ?
---------------------------------

You said...

"However, we know because of the Obama team penchant for "unmasking" and their "leaks"both of which are security breaches
and the real tragedy in all this was suppose to be that Flynn by his conduct he was vulnerable to "blackmail"

Yet the salient political fact is that Trump fired Flynn for misleading Pence, and this despite the lack of any real evidence that Flynn conveyed any truly compromising information to the Russians"

First I would ask you to define how you mean "penchant" for unmasking ? We know of one by Susan Rice, which she explained and you obviously have more information that the rest of us and why wont you share it ?

It is also apparent that you, and possibly only you know who leaked what. WHY do you not share your source for that because I know of a congressional comm that would love to know.

I also wonder since you do not know what was told to the WH about Flynn and neither does congress why would you question Ms Yates judgement ? OR do you know exactly what was told to the WH....you should be sharing all this information with congress Rubicon. EVEN YOUR HOLY WHITE HOUSE. They say she made a trip to the WH to "tell on Flynn" because it was sour grapes. That is interesting for sure along with the fact that it is admitted by Spicer that even President Obama warned Trump even before Ms Yates. We know how much Trump lied to US during this time and how he allowed Flynn to be involved in National Security after being warned.

My biggest question to you is HOW you know all you claim as facts, since it appears nobody else does ?

______________

You said...

"All that is known is that Flynn made a passing reference with the ambassador to US sanctions against Russia so what was there to blackmail? So Trump based on the fact only that Flynn mislead Pence fired him. Something like when Obama fired Hillary for her devious acts...wait no he pushed her forward to be his successor

The important question is whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign? And yet, Yates has yet to turn up anything new on that score.


So what is left unspoken and unreported by the MSM is "who exactly did the unmasking since both Yates and Clapper admitted they reviewed classified information about Trump, et al, that they shared information with others and while they deny it, someone leaked this information to the press. This conduct in Watergate took down a president and made two liberal reporters rich, heroes

Again, you post as if you, and you alone know all these facts which are not known by man. This is a typical response of a man who believes every word from a man and a WH that has lied consistently and proven to be liars, YET you adore this man so much you simply say that you, Rubicon, KNOW what nobody else in the country knows. That is really blind and stupid loyalty. I sincerely wonder whether you have any loyalty to this country or simply Trump. You make up stuff better than he does.

The important question in the hearing yesterday was NOT "whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign?". That was not the purpose and you and your hero keep bringing that up. I have not heard one direct accusation from anyone about collusion...not one, YET you and he and his minions keep defending him for something.

Could you tell us what you are defending him from ?

The in inquiry was the result of the FBI investigation and not a witch hunt by opponents. It will take a long time, and the information thus far known has certainly not allowed any determination to be made by anyone BUT surely has not clarified and only made more 'smoke". The investigation is for THE USA...and should be supported by and insisted upon by every single american. If you indeed prefer our security be threatened so that Trump can be loved, you are not really an american...you are someone endeared with one man only.

RUBICON, you obviously know "facts not in evidence". I have followed and hear pretty much all the panels and read everything I could on this. I have nothing to even allow me to say that Trump or his campaign did anything wrong, nor do I have any information that would allow me to say that an investigation of Russia involved in my country's affairs, and the many close ties to folks associated with Trump shows his or their innoncence. . Of course, you post that you have knowledge that even our congress does not have. so....

I quoted all you said because you have a habit of changing subjects, etc....ie, establishing a false narrative.

I cheer for this committee, not matter how long to find the TRUTH. The hearing yesterday, for me, clarified a lot. Flynn was allowed to continue working with our NATIONAL SECURITY even though the WH was informed and warned by both a patriotic american, who you WITH NO BASIS, accuse of leaking and the past President of the United States, but then again you accuse him of spying on Trump. No end to your accusations.

Just back to add....I doubt if you are rooting for this comm to find the truth, since your hero still does not believe that Russia was responsible for any action. He thinks this investigation is a hoax and a fraud, which seems strange for a President to say, but just allowing you to deny any of this, despite the entire complete intelligence community saying it with no degree of uncertainty....might add that profession of Russian interference is only doubted by two people in this world. President Trump and Rubicon. Also, might be wise to compare his tweet storm of today with the ACTUAL REAL TESTIMONY from yesterday, because as always he makes things up.

A good speech does not automatically equate to validity and credibility.

She is just one input on the matter....No matter how one cuts it.....with all her talent, capabilities and all other kudos from above....she is a fired...dis-gruntled employee....from the opposition party.....speaking against Trump.....what else would one expect???????

Originally Posted by Guest

A good speech does not automatically equate to validity and credibility.

She is just one input on the matter....No matter how one cuts it.....with all her talent, capabilities and all other kudos from above....she is a fired...dis-gruntled employee....from the opposition party.....speaking against Trump.....what else would one expect???????

She upheld the LAW. She did not have any public appearances after Trump fired her until the hearing which was delayed by Republicans. Evidently you did not listen to the hearings, it was more questions and answers, not just a "good speech". I would expect, as do most Americans, that people in their offices uphold the LAW, which she did. It is the small minded willfully ignorant people who make pitiful excuses such as yours.

Originally Posted by Guest

A good speech does not automatically equate to validity and credibility.

She is just one input on the matter....No matter how one cuts it.....with all her talent, capabilities and all other kudos from above....she is a fired...dis-gruntled employee....from the opposition party.....speaking against Trump.....what else would one expect???????

I find it amazing how anytime any american testifies under oath, if she does not bow to Trump, he/she is somehow "disgruntled" and from the "opposition party", and instead of speaking truth under oath, she is "speaking against Trump".

Everyone realizes this was a narrow day, except for folks like Cruz, who tried to turn it into an indictment of Yates, INSTEAD OF A SEARCH FOR TRUTH.

I honestly no longer believe any of you totally blind loyalists give a damn about this country...not one single damn. Why you would not root for truth instead of just defending Trump...and from what ? If Trump, or you cared one iota about the USA, you would thank her for the information.

But you folks know nothing but defend Trump...screw the country.

Originally Posted by Guest

She upheld the LAW. She did not have any public appearances after Trump fired her until the hearing which was delayed by Republicans. Evidently you did not listen to the hearings, it was more questions and answers, not just a "good speech". I would expect, as do most Americans, that people in their offices uphold the LAW, which she did. It is the small minded willfully ignorant people who make pitiful excuses such as yours.

The usual rabid response when ANYBODY does not lean in the prescribed direction!!

There was no mention of her breaking the law...those are your knee jerk words.

And please do read and re-read the underscored material above. After so many years of being lied to and deceived by the likes of Obama and Clinton most of us take everything with a grain of salt.

As for your last insulting, crude, totally uncalled for BS commentary, I would tell you to take a flying on a rolling donut. Exactly why this forum has degraded to the low level it currently moves.

Originally Posted by Guest

She upheld the LAW. She did not have any public appearances after Trump fired her until the hearing which was delayed by Republicans. Evidently you did not listen to the hearings, it was more questions and answers, not just a "good speech". I would expect, as do most Americans, that people in their offices uphold the LAW, which she did. It is the small minded willfully ignorant people who make pitiful excuses such as yours.

So you ignore that the Department Of Justice operated for the last 8 years like the Department of Injustice with, Yates , at the top of the hierarchy, whom you now claim upheld the LAW. and you state she did not have any public appearances after Trump fired her.

Well again the Department of Injustice operated under the cover of darkness for 8 years. No one in DOJ made public appearances.

The only time people saw Loretta Lynch was on an airport tarmac

Oh again why was Sally Yates fired...that's a rhetorical question

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

The usual rabid response when ANYBODY does not lean in the prescribed direction!!

There was no mention of her breaking the law...those are your knee jerk words.

And please do read and re-read the underscored material above. After so many years of being lied to and deceived by the likes of Obama and Clinton most of us take everything with a grain of salt.

As for your last insulting, crude, totally uncalled for BS commentary, I would tell you to take a flying on a rolling donut. Exactly why this forum has degraded to the low level it currently moves.

This "political" post, and the hard wired trend toward altRight extremism is what has ruined this site.

There is no discussion of any current events.

What I read, sans any criticism from YOU is hate toward fellow Americans that are NOT WHITE, NOT TRUMPERS, and of any person trying to immigrate to our great country that does not meet certain religious test.

What I read is hate mostly. I read NOBODY cheering for America. I hear cheering for Trump, and rest assured they are not even close to the same thing. President Trump has never ever done one thing for this country.

However, I can list millions of NON WHITES, NON TRUMPERS, IMMIGRANTS who have given their lives for this country....who today serve this country, not just military, but are proud Americans, who have a moral code, who would never treat their wives poorly, who would never think of lying or making false accusations.

This forum used to have people who rooted for America but had different views on what to do.

Now, it is populated with uninformed, lazy people who know one thing.....attack personally and have blind loyalty to a man who has never in his life done one single thing to deserve that.

Yates was a poor excuse for a gov employee. But, that is typical today. She was too lazy to do her job and used her liberal agenda to refuse to obey a legal order. On top of that, she ignorantly quoted a law that had nothing to do with the E.O. Thank goodness she was fired from her job. Apparently, the whole group of Obamanites were inept, to include L. Lynch and her request to prosecute people for hate speech if they said something bad about the Muslims. WOW, you just can't make that stuff up.

Originally Posted by Guest

So you ignore that the Department Of Justice operated for the last 8 years like the Department of Injustice with, Yates , at the top of the hierarchy, whom you now claim upheld the LAW. and you state she did not have any public appearances after Trump fired her.

Well again the Department of Injustice operated under the cover of darkness for 8 years. No one in DOJ made public appearances.

The only time people saw Loretta Lynch was on an airport tarmac

Oh again why was Sally Yates fired...that's a rhetorical question

Personal Best Regards:

We have a country, that thankfully is not run based on hate based opinion, but instead on laws. Your opinion is noted but totally unsupported by anything but what you wish it to be.

Thankfully, that is not how this country works.

The irony of your comments is stark, as you support a man who has been on the other side of that law more than the good side, who for his entire life has violated any and all moral codes.

Yet YOU stand in judgement without cause and attempt to hold the higher moral ground.

There is not an American breathing our free air that, should this woman lied under oath, would not support penalty, but to make "accusations" or "insinuations" about a person who did her job....hear that..her job. And she shoved that up a few sarcastic folks whomattempted to sully her and she did it well.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yates was a poor excuse for a gov employee. But, that is typical today. She was too lazy to do her job and used her liberal agenda to refuse to obey a legal order. On top of that, she ignorantly quoted a law that had nothing to do with the E.O. Thank goodness she was fired from her job. Apparently, the whole group of Obamanites were inept, to include L. Lynch and her request to prosecute people for hate speech if they said something bad about the Muslims. WOW, you just can't make that stuff up.

1. In what way did she not do her job ? She actually, by law, did her job with honor and dignity. I might add that the federal court agreed with her.

You have made a lot of serious accusations about a lot of people with no substance...simply an acid tongue.

Again, not arguing the merits, but Yeates decision was up held by federal courts and taken back by the Trump administration.

So, obviously, she was legally proven to be 100% correct and had the WH done their job as required...ie, consulted with her as attorney general, perhaps they would not have had egg on their fac.

Originally Posted by Guest

I already posted a response to you on this but your lack of knowledge is so vast, this requires a bit more.

You said....

"Let's see hmmmmm..........As is commonplace with any story reacting to Trump vis a vis Russia what was left out

Yates with her recounting of a visit with McGahn stated that the justice Department had evidence that Flynn lied to the WH about "certain problematic conduct"...but declined to specify what "conduct"

Now let us see. You expect Ms Yates to testify in open hearing about what she told the White House on Flynn. I think I am saying it as you say it.......

You feel that she should compromise national security to publically spell out what he did or did not do ? Is that correct.

Gee....the WH knows what she said....if it were not troublesome why in the world does not your hero make it public ?
---------------------------------

You said...

"However, we know because of the Obama team penchant for "unmasking" and their "leaks"both of which are security breaches
and the real tragedy in all this was suppose to be that Flynn by his conduct he was vulnerable to "blackmail"

Yet the salient political fact is that Trump fired Flynn for misleading Pence, and this despite the lack of any real evidence that Flynn conveyed any truly compromising information to the Russians"

First I would ask you to define how you mean "penchant" for unmasking ? We know of one by Susan Rice, which she explained and you obviously have more information that the rest of us and why wont you share it ?

It is also apparent that you, and possibly only you know who leaked what. WHY do you not share your source for that because I know of a congressional comm that would love to know.

I also wonder since you do not know what was told to the WH about Flynn and neither does congress why would you question Ms Yates judgement ? OR do you know exactly what was told to the WH....you should be sharing all this information with congress Rubicon. EVEN YOUR HOLY WHITE HOUSE. They say she made a trip to the WH to "tell on Flynn" because it was sour grapes. That is interesting for sure along with the fact that it is admitted by Spicer that even President Obama warned Trump even before Ms Yates. We know how much Trump lied to US during this time and how he allowed Flynn to be involved in National Security after being warned.

My biggest question to you is HOW you know all you claim as facts, since it appears nobody else does ?

______________

You said...

"All that is known is that Flynn made a passing reference with the ambassador to US sanctions against Russia so what was there to blackmail? So Trump based on the fact only that Flynn mislead Pence fired him. Something like when Obama fired Hillary for her devious acts...wait no he pushed her forward to be his successor

The important question is whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign? And yet, Yates has yet to turn up anything new on that score.


So what is left unspoken and unreported by the MSM is "who exactly did the unmasking since both Yates and Clapper admitted they reviewed classified information about Trump, et al, that they shared information with others and while they deny it, someone leaked this information to the press. This conduct in Watergate took down a president and made two liberal reporters rich, heroes

Again, you post as if you, and you alone know all these facts which are not known by man. This is a typical response of a man who believes every word from a man and a WH that has lied consistently and proven to be liars, YET you adore this man so much you simply say that you, Rubicon, KNOW what nobody else in the country knows. That is really blind and stupid loyalty. I sincerely wonder whether you have any loyalty to this country or simply Trump. You make up stuff better than he does.

The important question in the hearing yesterday was NOT "whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign?". That was not the purpose and you and your hero keep bringing that up. I have not heard one direct accusation from anyone about collusion...not one, YET you and he and his minions keep defending him for something.

Could you tell us what you are defending him from ?

The in inquiry was the result of the FBI investigation and not a witch hunt by opponents. It will take a long time, and the information thus far known has certainly not allowed any determination to be made by anyone BUT surely has not clarified and only made more 'smoke". The investigation is for THE USA...and should be supported by and insisted upon by every single american. If you indeed prefer our security be threatened so that Trump can be loved, you are not really an american...you are someone endeared with one man only.

RUBICON, you obviously know "facts not in evidence". I have followed and hear pretty much all the panels and read everything I could on this. I have nothing to even allow me to say that Trump or his campaign did anything wrong, nor do I have any information that would allow me to say that an investigation of Russia involved in my country's affairs, and the many close ties to folks associated with Trump shows his or their innoncence. . Of course, you post that you have knowledge that even our congress does not have. so....

I quoted all you said because you have a habit of changing subjects, etc....ie, establishing a false narrative.

I cheer for this committee, not matter how long to find the TRUTH. The hearing yesterday, for me, clarified a lot. Flynn was allowed to continue working with our NATIONAL SECURITY even though the WH was informed and warned by both a patriotic american, who you WITH NO BASIS, accuse of leaking and the past President of the United States, but then again you accuse him of spying on Trump. No end to your accusations.

Just back to add....I doubt if you are rooting for this comm to find the truth, since your hero still does not believe that Russia was responsible for any action. He thinks this investigation is a hoax and a fraud, which seems strange for a President to say, but just allowing you to deny any of this, despite the entire complete intelligence community saying it with no degree of uncertainty....might add that profession of Russian interference is only doubted by two people in this world. President Trump and Rubicon. Also, might be wise to compare his tweet storm of today with the ACTUAL REAL TESTIMONY from yesterday, because as always he makes things up.

My guess is you haven't been on this board too long. Mr. Personal Best Regards doesn't respond to anybody calling him out especially someone that goes into great detail about the nonsense he just posted.

I tried and gave up. You probably will too. In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans on this board consider it a fact free zone. I guess the term now is "alternative facts". Even when you supply them detail to correct their nonsense, they disappear.

There is a saying out there. It is, "making no sense actually makes sense". The reasoning is, If everything you say makes no sense, then it MAKES Sense that the next thing you state will make no sense.

Good luck trying to make Mr. No Sense d/b/a Personal Best Regards try to support anything that he posts. It is not in his nature. He has come out and stated that he will not respond to people questioning him. That was awhile ago, but it still seems to be in place.

Originally Posted by Guest

This "political" post, and the hard wired trend toward altRight extremism is what has ruined this site.

There is no discussion of any current events.

What I read, sans any criticism from YOU is hate toward fellow Americans that are NOT WHITE, NOT TRUMPERS, and of any person trying to immigrate to our great country that does not meet certain religious test.

What I read is hate mostly. I read NOBODY cheering for America. I hear cheering for Trump, and rest assured they are not even close to the same thing. President Trump has never ever done one thing for this country.

However, I can list millions of NON WHITES, NON TRUMPERS, IMMIGRANTS who have given their lives for this country....who today serve this country, not just military, but are proud Americans, who have a moral code, who would never treat their wives poorly, who would never think of lying or making false accusations.

This forum used to have people who rooted for America but had different views on what to do.

Now, it is populated with uninformed, lazy people who know one thing.....attack personally and have blind loyalty to a man who has never in his life done one single thing to deserve that.

BS!
If it was music here is the brass band!

Originally Posted by Guest

BS!
If it was music here is the brass band!

Yeah, you are famous for discussing real issues. You are really famous for every post you make referencing Clinton or Obama, or Obamas skin color.

All great, sharp, unbiased, informed posts.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yeah, you are famous for discussing real issues. You are really famous for every post you make referencing Clinton or Obama, or Obamas skin color.

All great, sharp, unbiased, informed posts.

OH SNAP!

Originally Posted by Guest

Yeah, you are famous for discussing real issues. You are really famous for every post you make referencing Clinton or Obama, or Obamas skin color.

All great, sharp, unbiased, informed posts.

Famous? Now I am impressed as you are obviously annoyed.

By the way please show me one time I ever mentioned skin color in any of my posts.

It is these extrapolations and emotional catharses that degrade credibility.

Me Famous? You annoyed!!