Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Jumbo

By Jumbo
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

DogofWar1

DogofWar1

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

And anyone leaking to the Russians gets their legislative agenda passed.  That's how that works, right?

 

We should call the people leaking to the press what they actually are; whistleblowers.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

I don't entirely disagree that whistleblowers should be prosecuted even if they are doing a good. After all, they are knowingly breaking the laws. The stipulation here is that the whistleblowing must be about top secrets.  and I'm not sure everything leaked is. For example, I wouldn't think something said by the President in a meeting between him and diplomats would be top secret unless he's spilling top secrets.

 

Overall though, I don't mind that whistleblowing be prosecuted. It's a dangerous act and the whistleblower ought to believe that the value outweighs the cost (jail or at least termination). Still, Chaffetz is missing a step. He's bypassing the courts. That's pretty dangerous too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LD0506

LD0506

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, techboy said:

6. There is no "s" in McMaster.

 

See how wound up I am over this?? :P

 

I hear ya, HR has to tread lightly, but IMO that is exactly why he cannot be just another shill for this lunacy. Someone has to man up, and the list of possible candidates is painfully short

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Isifhan

Isifhan

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Burgold said:

I agree. He may be suffering from what Powell did. Powell was a man of integrity and intelligence, but he was also very much a good soldier who developed an unhealthy degree of loyalty and misplaced duty.

Powell should be the example for McMaster and reinforce that what he's starting to do is going down a dangerous path at the very least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LD0506

LD0506

Posted
Posted

Another thought provoking article that just may win the award for scariest thing I've read lately...........

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.html?_r=0

 

Quote

The Russian leak story reveals one other thing, the dangerousness of a hollow man.

Our institutions depend on people who have enough engraved character traits to fulfill their assigned duties. But there is perpetually less to Trump than it appears. When we analyze a president’s utterances we tend to assume that there is some substantive process behind the words, that it’s part of some strategic intent.

But Trump’s statements don’t necessarily come from anywhere, lead anywhere or have a permanent reality beyond his wish to be liked at any given instant.

We’ve got this perverse situation in which the vast analytic powers of the entire world are being spent trying to understand a guy whose thoughts are often just six fireflies beeping randomly in a jar.

“We badly want to understand Trump, to grasp him,” David Roberts writes in Vox. “It might give us some sense of control, or at least an ability to predict what he will do next. But what if there’s nothing to understand? What if there is no there there?”

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, twa said:

If you are surrounded by sharks chumming the water is not a good idea.

 

:)

 

"When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime."

     -Michael J. Flynn, September 2016

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dan T. said:

 

"When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime."

     -Michael J. Flynn, September 2016

 

That is a reasonable assumption,what crime matters though.

I've probably committed 3-4 this morning. :ols:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogofWar1

DogofWar1

Posted
Posted

Flynn is playing chicken  and/or trying to delay.  Why say anything until an indictment drops?  You're giving up something and the state hasn'y bothered to use their leverage yet.

 

Once an indictment drops, he can trade info for lenience.

 

A few analysts were saying that while Mueller is likely to move slowly, he may act quickly on a couple of indictments to try and force people to talk more easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...