THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY

[Duchess]

Yesterday, six White House staff were escorted out of the WH by security because they failed their background checks. That got lost in the news of the day.

Isn't staff supposed to be vetted by the administration in order to avoid this type of thing?

[FunkyBurger]

Man, I just caught this morning's press conference. That was weird.

Weird is an understatement!

He seems to be a bit rattled by the leaks and he can't force a government worker to sign an NDA. HaHaFuckingHa.

Every single time he trots out Hillary and the Electoral College I see how needy he is. This is not a man who is confident. I see it when he tells the media he is a nice guy too. Wah, I'm nice, why won't you treat me kindly? *snicker*

When he said his WH was running like a fine tuned machine I laughed & laughed. It's a dumpster fire, you ignorant fuck.

I don't think this shit will ever get old.

I still have hope the CIA steps up and takes care of this problem CIA style if you catch my drift...

[Duchess]

I still have hope the CIA steps up and takes care of this problem CIA style if you catch my drift...

I get your drift but then we'd be stuck with Pence. He's as fucked up as trump but in a quieter, sneakier way. I think I'd rather deal with the head clown.

[BlueTiki]

I always thought America was great, I really did.

Rational people know America is great and has always been great. Don't listen to trump, Aussie, he's full of shit and only speaks to his base. He knows his audience and I'm pretty sure he feels confident they'll believe whatever bullshit he's spoon feeding them on any given day.

Really?

Great or greater than under any previous administrations . . . of either party or ideology?

Aussie, you get my support on this one.

Past tense "was great", wins.

Weird how the actual content of the leaked Flynn conversation was never included in any article.

And the fact previous pot smoking may have caused the ouster of WH aides and denial of security clearances.

Rock on, Donald!

[Duchess]

Great or greater than under any previous administrations . . . of either party or ideology?

I've never felt that America hasn't been great, not at any time in my whole life. I've always been a proud American.

[HairOfTheDog]

Weird how the actual content of the leaked Flynn conversation was never included in any article.

Why do you think that's weird? I don't.

It's an active national security investigation; I wouldn't expect to see the transcripts at this point. If the FBI determines that protocol was breached and/or Flynn lied intentionally to investigators...........then I'd expect to get more details if hearings are undertaken.

What we do know is that based on intel he received, Trump asked for (or readily accepted) Flynn's resignation after Flynn misled Mike Pence who then unknowingly passed false information to the American people. That's from Trump and his representatives directly.

If Flynn hadn't fucked up, why would he voluntarily or forcibly be ousted by Trump and company? He wouldn't, in my opinion. Trump and company booted Flynn; not the media and not Trump's detractors. It's irrational for Trump and his supporters to suggest otherwise.

I do hope we learn more about the Russia communications by Flynn and other Trump staffers during the campaign though.

[BlueTiki]

I was specifically referring to the sources divulging the info to the press.

No doubt Flynn fucked up.

I believe if the contents were damning to the Obama admin's sanctions, it would have been revealed . . . as it should be.

So . . . it's weird to me that the specifics were omitted and yet it is clear that, in some context, "sanctions" were mentioned.

When the Pentagon Papers were leaked, the public had the opportunity to read the documents and the press had a concrete document . . . no speculation.

Again, if sources knew the conversation took place, isn't it reasonable to assume they also knew the specifics?

[BlueTiki]

Great or greater than under any previous administrations . . . of either party or ideology?

I've never felt that America hasn't been great, not at any time in my whole life. I've always been a proud American.

I know.

Just like your Eagles!

[HairOfTheDog]

There's no doubt that sources knew the specifics considering the conversation was taped, Tiki. It's also confirmed that Trump was warned by the acting U.S. AG weeks ago that Flynn could be subject to blackmail after he let Pence unknowingly float a false narrative and vouch for Flynn.

That doesn't mean national security or FBI investigators feel the transcripts are appropriate for public release at this point. That's not weird to me.

Small portions of the Pentagon Papers were leaked and published four years after the papers were compiled and the full papers weren't released for 40 years. The Pentagon Papers and the Flynn tape are not comparable in scope, severity, nor situation, in my opinion.

But....maybe portions of the Flynn tapes will be leaked too. I hope not; I'd rather see them released and addressed through appropriate channels.

[Duchess]

I know.

Just like your Eagles!

I've never been able to say they are great so I'm not sure what has given you the idea I think they are. That doesn't keep me from rootin' for them every game day though.

[BlueTiki]

That doesn't mean national security or FBI investigators feel the transcripts are appropriate for public release at this point. That's not weird to me.

I hope not; I'd rather see them released and addressed through appropriate channels.

Sounds like you're alleging that federal intelligence employees were the ones who "leaked" the info.

I can't fathom why numerous third-party "leakers" would be concerned about releasing the specifics to the public and give the public, press and investigators a solid basis for investigation rather than speculation. Confidential or not.

As you stated, a tangible document, not the complete report, was released re: Pentagon Papers.

Cite at least one sentence, such as: " We will immediately be removing all sanctions " or " Now is not the time or the forum to discuss sanctions".

Both instances mention sanctions . . . contradicting Flynn's original statement.

One is down right fucked up and illegal . . . the other is appropriate.

Again, without complete disclosure by those leaking or reporting seems partisan to me.

[BlueTiki]

I know.

Just like your Eagles!

I've never been able to say they are great so I'm not sure what has given you the idea I think they are. That doesn't keep me from rootin' for them every game day though.

I was trying to draw a parallel of die-hard support in the face of overwhelming odds and facts.

Kinda like Trump supporters.

They'll keep rootin' for him, too.

[Carsman]

Yesterday, six White House staff were escorted out of the WH by security because they failed their background checks. That got lost in the news of the day.

Isn't staff supposed to be vetted by the administration in order to avoid this type of thing?

Maybe those six staff turned out to be illegal's!

[BlueTiki]

What about the boot of Carson's nigger?

Racist Trump!

[HairOfTheDog]

I'm not alleging anything, Tiki. I just think you're off-base.

I don't think it's partisan for all of the news outlets to report on the story; each claiming that insider leaks revealed Flynn lied or misled people within the Trump administration and the American people in regards to not discussing Obama-inflicted sanctions against Russia.

I've read and watched a variety of media coverage; left-leaning, right-leaning, and in-between. None of them claimed to know what Flynn specifically said and none identified the source of the leak. I don't claim to know who told the media about Flynn's fuck-up. I mentioned the NSA and FBI because they are the ones who definitely have the tape/transcript and they're not releasing it. That doesn't mean that the leaker is a member of one of those agencies or that the leaker has access to the tape/transcript, though President Trump appears to believe so (which isn't a bad guess, in my opinion).

Trump and anyone else who attempts to frame the free press for Trump's terrible decision to put loose cannon Flynn in charge of national security, or for the quick ouster of Flynn for fucking up, is off-base, in my opinion. The press reports on verified leaks under every President. It's their job. Those leaks don't always include transcripts, tapes, etc...

In any case, the content of the leak has been confirmed by Flynn's ouster, if one believes the initial statements from Trump himself and members of his PR team. I hope we get someone better as the next National Security Adviser.

[Duchess]

I was trying to draw a parallel of die-hard support in the face of overwhelming odds and facts.

Kinda like Trump supporters.

They'll keep rootin' for him, too.

Yeah BUT there's hope for my team, you boob.

[BlueTiki]

I'm trying to be reasonable.

I don't deny that Flynn wasn't truthful about the conversation about sanctions.

I don't begrudge or condemn the press for stating he lied.

What I am stating, again, is the overwhelming speculation that the sanction conversation was illegal . . . without any specifics.

Coverage focuses almost exclusively on probable illegal wrong doing and a connection to this administration's direct and covert relationship with Russia . . . with hardly a mention of the possibility of an innocuous remark. Am I wrong?

Flynn lied and Trump fired his ass.

What does concern me is the timeline from the call, the time this info was known by intelligence, the date this info by intelligence was conveyed to BOTH administrations and if . . . and I say if . . . Obama knew, why didn't his administration do something about this . . . like alert the public or congress before leaving office?

I loathe witch hunts and it is my opinion that releasing incomplete information (without specifics) adds fuel to the fire of conspiracy stories.

Additionally, the coverage on all networks is more opinion than news.

The news, as reported and supported is Flynn lied and Trump fired him.

There is nothing to suggest any collusion between Trump and Flynn with regard to the sanction conversation . . . just conjecture and speculation.

Again, as you stated, if the leaker wasn't privy to the transcript, why keep the story alive by speculating?

And . . . just for the record . . . this info hasn't been released to congressional members.

For fuck's sake! What is taking so long?

C'mon . . . this all happened during the Obama administration.

Does it really take this long to transcribe a domestic intercepted communication with a Russian foe?

[HairOfTheDog]

Yeah, again, Tiki -- I think you're parallels are perpendicular and you're off-base about the lack of transcript/tape in the public domain being of significance at this juncture.

And, you must be reading/watching news coverage from sources that I don't frequent. Most of what I've seen/heard mentioned early on that if Flynn violated the Logan Act or intentionally lied to FBI that criminal charges might be in play. None claimed that was the case or focused on that exclusively.

Since the FBI announced that they're not filing any charges at this time and the Trump team has stated that Flynn's out because he misled Pence, that's the bulk of what's being reported, along with who should be in charge of any separate investigations. None of which is a problem for me.

I don't remember you expressing any, but based on your sentiments about the Flynn coverage, you must have been thoroughly frustrated by all the Obama Birther and Clinton Benghazi coverage -- which was based on speculation, debunked claims, and unsubstantiated allegations coming from Congress.

Anyway, I don't consider your arguments on this one reasonable, just very partisan projection. So, I'm cool to agree to disagree with you here.

[BlueTiki]

I believe I stated the same about Benghazi . . . specifically about the cause of the attacks. I wanted both sides of the isle to release info backing their claims and hold those accountable for their statements.

I laughed out loud at the birther issue and condemned the movement as purely partisan.

I'm sorry you perceive my posiition as partisan . . . it isn't.

I have no problem stating when my position is one dominated by partisan ideology (any party's ideology) that is in contrast to factual and verified information.

[HairOfTheDog]

Don't be sorry, Tiki. It just reads as you making flat claims, blames, and comparisons in defense of Trump and Flynn. None of that is reasonable to me, but if you say you're not taking a strictly partisan position, I believe you.

The bottom line, for me, is that Trump appointed Flynn despite a lot of warnings against doing so, Flynn fucked up from the get-go and got outed, media is reporting it, Trump and Flynn are responsible for the positions they're in now, we'll see where the investigation ends up, and I'm glad we have a chance to get someone better than Flynn in that crucial role.