FBI Counter Intelligence Unit Set Up To Catch LEAKERS is Starting To Bear Fruit.

a reply to: Lumenari

I'm not a Trump supporter silly. Something that a partisan cult member such as yourself will never understand.

What cult do you think I am a member of? Explain why you believe that.

I'm an America supporter.

You are obviously not.

Why do you say that? Most people here say I am a Russia hater. Now I am an America hater too? Speaking of Russia, their tactic has been to drive wedges between already existing divides in American society. They want Americans accusing their fellow Americans of being "un-American." If you believe that Trump is innocent, and truly love your country, you should respect our institutions and have faith that the investigation will leave him unscathed.

The nice part is in America, we can agree to disagree.

Exactly. It is also an exploitable weakness.

I'm sorry that you are so invested in your ideology that you can't see past the politics.

Once again, what do you believe that ideology to be? Here are some clues:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fortunately for America and people like myself, you are not only in the minority, your party is shrinking... slowly dissolving into history every post you make. Much like a cancer that is going into remission.

Sorry, not a Democrat as you seem to think. Only Nazis compare people to a cancer.

Which is again, good for America.

You mean good for single party rule. What's that called again?

a reply to: Lumenari

I'm not a Trump supporter silly. Something that a partisan cult member such as yourself will never understand.

That's something that is apparently very hard for some people to wrap their heads around... and it makes their position sound silly to most of the rest of us. I'm not a Republican either, but try to get certain people to understand that.

Apparently, and I am admittedly reverse engineering their statements and positions because I can't understand them on an intuitive level, certain people believe that everyone else around them can be classified into either "Democrat" or "Republican" and that classification then forces these people to act or think in a certain way which has been predetermined by the corresponding political party.

It is a strange philosophy, to be sure.

In other words, because I support a border wall, it then follows that I must be a Republican because Republicans support the border wall. Nothing else matters except that I have taken a position on one issue that happens to align with that particular party line. Now, since I am a Republican due to that alignment, it follows that I am somehow required to agree with the GOP on every other policy issue... for instance, I am required to agree with the recent Omnibus bill because it was supported by Republicans.

Seeing as I am upset by the Omnibus bill, I guess that flipped me to Democrat? I dunno... like I said, I simply cannot understand how this all works. Maybe I'm just dreaming about a world where people can have different issues on different subjects, but if so, may I never wake up. The idea of having to actually live in this reality of categorization without limits scares me.

TheRedneck

Reposted for good measure. Why no responses?
a reply to: KansasGirl


I'm still waiting for her to provide some evidence for the "two thousand lies" claim. She won't provide it though, as we know.


Here is a partial list:


JAN. 21 “I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.) JAN. 21 “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.) JAN. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.) JAN. 25 “Now, the audience was the biggest ever. But this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive.” (Official aerial photos show Obama's 2009 inauguration was much more heavily attended.) JAN. 25 “Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud.)” (The report never mentioned voter fraud.) JAN. 25 “You had millions of people that now aren't insured anymore.” (The real number is less than 1 million, according to the Urban Institute.) JAN. 25 “So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech, very nice speech. Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can't have that.” (There were no gun homicide victims in Chicago that day.) JAN. 26 “We've taken in tens of thousands of people. We know nothing about them. They can say they vet them. They didn't vet them. They have no papers. How can you vet somebody when you don't know anything about them and you have no papers? How do you vet them? You can't.” (Vetting lasts up to two years.) JAN. 26 “We've taken in tens of thousands of people. We know nothing about them. They can say they vet them. They didn't vet them. They have no papers. How can you vet somebody when you don't know anything about them and you have no papers? How do you vet them? You can't.” (Vetting lasts up to two years.) JAN. 26 “I cut off hundreds of millions of dollars off one particular plane, hundreds of millions of dollars in a short period of time. It wasn't like I spent, like, weeks, hours, less than hours, and many, many hundreds of millions of dollars. And the plane's going to be better.” (Most of the cuts were already planned.) JAN. 28 “The coverage about me in the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost has been so false and angry that the Times actually apologized to its dwindling subscribers and readers.” (It never apologized.) JAN. 29 “The Cuban-Americans, I got 84 percent of that vote.” (There is no support for this.) JAN. 30 “Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage.” (At least 746 people were detained and processed, and the Delta outage happened two days later.) FEB. 3 “Professional anarchists, thugs and paid protesters are proving the point of the millions of people who voted to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” (There is no evidence of paid protesters.) FEB. 4 “After being forced to apologize for its bad and inaccurate coverage of me after winning the election, the FAKE NEWS @nytimes is still lost!” (It never apologized.) FEB. 5 “We had 109 people out of hundreds of thousands of travelers and all we did was vet those people very, very carefully.” (About 60,000 people were affected.) FEB. 6 “I have already saved more than $700 million when I got involved in the negotiation on the F-35.” (Much of the price drop was projected before Trump took office.) FEB. 6 “It's gotten to a point where it is not even being reported. And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it.” (Terrorism has been reported on, often in detail.) FEB. 6 “The failing @nytimes was forced to apologize to its subscribers for the poor reporting it did on my election win. Now they are worse!” (It didn't apologize.) FEB. 6 “And the previous administration allowed it to happen because we shouldn't have been in Iraq, but we shouldn't have gotten out the way we got out. It created a vacuum, ISIS was formed.” (The group’s origins date to 2004.) FEB. 7 “And yet the murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years, right? Did you know that? Forty-seven years.” (It was higher in the 1980s and '90s.) FEB. 7 “I saved more than $600 million. I got involved in negotiation on a fighter jet, the F-35.” (The Defense Department projected this price drop before Trump took office.) FEB. 9 “Chris Cuomo, in his interview with Sen. Blumenthal, never asked him about his long-term lie about his brave ‘service’ in Vietnam. FAKE NEWS!” (It was part of Cuomo's first question.) FEB. 9 “Sen. Richard Blumenthal now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?” (The Gorsuch comments were later corroborated.) FEB. 10 “I don’t know about it. I haven’t seen it. What report is that?” (Trump knew about Flynn's actions for weeks.) FEB. 12 “Just leaving Florida. Big crowds of enthusiastic supporters lining the road that the FAKE NEWS media refuses to mention. Very dishonest!” (The media did cover it.) FEB. 16 “We got 306 because people came out and voted like they've never seen before so that's the way it goes. I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan.” (George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all won bigger margins in the Electoral College.) FEB. 16 “That’s the other thing that was wrong with the travel ban. You had Delta with a massive problem with their computer system at the airports.” (Delta's problems happened two days later.) FEB. 16 “Walmart announced it will create 10,000 jobs in the United States just this year because of our various plans and initiatives.” (The jobs are a result of its investment plans announced in Oct. 2016.) FEB. 16 “When WikiLeaks, which I had nothing to do with, comes out and happens to give, they’re not giving classified information.” (Not always. They have released classified information in the past.) FEB. 16 “We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban. But we had a bad court. Got a bad decision.” (The rollout was chaotic.) FEB. 16 “They’re giving stuff — what was said at an office about Hillary cheating on the debates. Which, by the way, nobody mentions. Nobody mentions that Hillary received the questions to the debates.” (It was widely covered.) FEB. 18 “And there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing.” (Refugees receive multiple background checks, taking up to two years.) FEB. 18 “You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?” (Trump implied there was a terror attack in Sweden, but there was no such attack.) FEB. 24 “By the way, you folks are in here — this place is packed, there are lines that go back six blocks.” (There was no evidence of long lines.) FEB. 24 “ICE came and endorsed me.” (Only its union did.) FEB. 24 “Obamacare covers very few people — and remember, deduct from the number all of the people that had great health care that they loved that was taken away from them — it was taken away from them.” (Obamacare increased coverage by a net of about 20 million.)


That's just the first six weeks. More here. Count them yourself.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's something that is apparently very hard for some people to wrap their heads around... and it makes their position sound silly to most of the rest of us. I'm not a Republican either, but try to get certain people to understand that.

If someone supports Trump, they are a Trump supporter, are they not? I am not implying that Lumenari is a Republican. In fact, most of the Republicans I know distrust Trump. Trump's supporters on ATS seem obsessed with defending the man and attacking his critics, rather than defending his policies.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's something that is apparently very hard for some people to wrap their heads around... and it makes their position sound silly to most of the rest of us. I'm not a Republican either, but try to get certain people to understand that.

If someone supports Trump, they are a Trump supporter, are they not? I am not implying that Lumenari is a Republican. In fact, most of the Republicans I know distrust Trump. Trump's supporters on ATS seem obsessed with defending the man and attacking his critics, rather than defending his policies.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am in the same boat for exactly the same reasons you outlined.

I am NOT going to be forced into a party on an issue.

The Omnibus bill was a horrible bill... that Trump signed it into law was a huge disappointment to me.

On the other hand, I as a rational person support the idea of sovereign nations... as such I am a xenophobic bigot.

Not to beat a dead horse, but to me the problem boils down to Progressives and their need to have everyone being a certain grey little box, with their appropriate hyphen-American name stamped on it so we can all be put into bigger boxes of a certain category.

This is done for a reason... if you keep everyone in different categories it is very easy to get them fighting between one another.

God forbid that all of us, as Americans, stop the infighting and focus on the people who say they represent us. Then start holding them accountable for their actions.

“It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” - Henry Ford

The America that used to be allowed spirited debate on a topic, using facts to arrive at a conclusion.

Now?

50 different sides sling poop at each other and nobody can seem to stay on topic. I am as guilty of it as the rest, simply because of the frustration level of, say, someone today pointing out that once the "Obama Recovery" tapers out, there will be an accounting.

In my world of looking at numbers and running a business, the "Obama Recovery" is a real thing. However, it is Recovering FROM Obama is what is actually happening. It certainly is in my really real world of paying employees, measuring and planning for job growth, finding employees that can do the work.

So yes, I agree with you entirely. I think the biggest challenge that America is facing now is getting out of political parties and doing what is right for the actual country.

a reply to: DJW001

If someone supports Trump, they are a Trump supporter, are they not?

Only in your world.

I support most of Trump's policies. Not all, just most. I also support anyone, regardless of name or political affiliation, who is falsely attacked. Thus, your box you wish to put people in is not adequate to the task, and it causes you to make false assertions.

I am not implying that Lumenari is a Republican.

No, your accusation? implication? was they are a "Trump supporter." As your previous sentence demonstrates, that must mean they support everything Trump does, regardless of personal opinion, no?

In fact, most of the Republicans I know distrust Trump.

I do not "trust" Trump... at least not in every circumstance. I would not trust Trump to keep his mouth shut enough to survive a personal interview with the FBI, for instance. He likes to talk too much, and his brain seems to outrun his mouth on a regular basis. On the other hand, I have much more faith in his ability to negotiate with Kim Jong Un. That is one of his strengths.

Of course, I am not a Republican, but your statement that "Republicans" do not trust Trump again seems to be using a box that is sorely inadequate.

Trump's supporters on ATS seem obsessed with defending the man and attacking his critics, rather than defending his policies.

When an attack is personal ("Trump lies" or "Trump is a petulant child"), of course a defense is personal as well. Few of the statements I see decrying Trump's policies last very long until personal attacks on the man begin to creep in as well. Thus, a defense to those unsubstantiated attacks will be a personal defense of the man.

That's sort of how debate works...

Take for example this thread itself. Trump's administration has pressed charges against a "deep state" leaker, James Wolfe. He is called that because his allegiance appears to not be to the people of America or even to America itself, but to the established government which many believe is corrupt (including me). His leaks have jeopardized the effective operation of the Trump administration, and are in direct violation of his job description, as well as possibly being in direct conflict with applicable laws. We will have to wait and see if that second charge is pressed; for now, he is in legal jeopardy for lying to the FBI. That is a policy issue; I believe that it is far beyond reasonable and quite possibly illegal for a member of the government to disseminate information outside of normal channels, especially if such information is either biased or leaked in an attempt to politically taint a member of the government. That is not "whistleblowing" as I understand the term; whistleblowing is the unauthorized dissemination of information with the express purpose of exposing improper activity that could jeopardize justice.

But instead of policy-based rebuttals, we have lists of supposed lies that Trump has told and accusations of Trump being "petulant." These posts are not coming from the more conservative members, but rebuttals certainly are.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Lumenari

My family was Independent during my youth (of course, that didn't stop them from primarily voting Democratic, lol) and I have continued that tradition to this day. There have been times when I would vote for every single Democrat on the ballot; there have been times when I voted for every single Republican on the ballot. Never did I take the easy way out and vote for the party. I am proud of that. Every race makes me stop and think: who is this person? What do they stand for? What kind of job do I expect them to do? Screw the party... that's just a bunch of fancy doings to try and franchise a candidate to get free votes.

I support Trump because I am a proponent of both a secure border and legal immigration; because I believe less regulation means more business, more jobs, more opportunity, and a stronger economy and country; because I believe excessive taxation is a detriment to the economy and my personal opportunities; because I believe peace is only possible when one is strong enough to defend themselves; because I believe the trade deals spanning the last few decades have been poisonous to the American economy rather than helpful; because I believe the government is corrupt and he scares the holy bejeezus out of both parties.

If you want to get into personality, I think Trump is a bloated bag of hot air supporting an ego big enough to blot out the sun if deployed in orbit, the dictionary definition of arrogance, and probably someone I would like to knock some sense into if we were to ever really meet. He is a Yankee real estate tycoon, for crying out loud! I'm a redneck and a research engineer... not much in common there. But I didn't vote for a friend; I voted for a President... and so far I think he is doing a fantastic job overall.

So it amazes me how easily some people try to insist that I am somehow worshiping this man.

I saw a YouTube video some time back about why Luther Strange didn't win the nomination despite Trump's endorsement... the only one I have seen to get it right to date. The populist movement that propelled Trump into the White House isn't about Trump any more than a nice wave off the coast is about a single surfer. It's about stopping the labeling, the false accusations, the political correctness, and the sheer idiocy that surrounds politics now. Trump just rode the wave; he doesn't control it. We the people control it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Lumenari

I am in the same boat for exactly the same reasons you outlined.

I am NOT going to be forced into a party on an issue.

And yet you were quick to put me into a box. Still waiting for you to reply.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Lumenari

My family was Independent during my youth (of course, that didn't stop them from primarily voting Democratic, lol) and I have continued that tradition to this day. There have been times when I would vote for every single Democrat on the ballot; there have been times when I voted for every single Republican on the ballot. Never did I take the easy way out and vote for the party. I am proud of that. Every race makes me stop and think: who is this person? What do they stand for? What kind of job do I expect them to do? Screw the party... that's just a bunch of fancy doings to try and franchise a candidate to get free votes.

I support Trump because I am a proponent of both a secure border and legal immigration; because I believe less regulation means more business, more jobs, more opportunity, and a stronger economy and country; because I believe excessive taxation is a detriment to the economy and my personal opportunities; because I believe peace is only possible when one is strong enough to defend themselves; because I believe the trade deals spanning the last few decades have been poisonous to the American economy rather than helpful; because I believe the government is corrupt and he scares the holy bejeezus out of both parties.

If you want to get into personality, I think Trump is a bloated bag of hot air supporting an ego big enough to blot out the sun if deployed in orbit, the dictionary definition of arrogance, and probably someone I would like to knock some sense into if we were to ever really meet. He is a Yankee real estate tycoon, for crying out loud! I'm a redneck and a research engineer... not much in common there. But I didn't vote for a friend; I voted for a President... and so far I think he is doing a fantastic job overall.

So it amazes me how easily some people try to insist that I am somehow worshiping this man.

I saw a YouTube video some time back about why Luther Strange didn't win the nomination despite Trump's endorsement... the only one I have seen to get it right to date. The populist movement that propelled Trump into the White House isn't about Trump any more than a nice wave off the coast is about a single surfer. It's about stopping the labeling, the false accusations, the political correctness, and the sheer idiocy that surrounds politics now. Trump just rode the wave; he doesn't control it. We the people control it.

TheRedneck

Quoted for excellence.

And a non-moderator Applause!

I would add nothing to that and you have put a smile on my face.

I'm going fishing... have a wonderful day!

a reply to: Lumenari

Oh, fishing... it's been so long. Catch (and fry up) a couple for me?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

If someone supports Trump, they are a Trump supporter, are they not?

Only in your world.

I support most of Trump's policies. Not all, just most. I also support anyone, regardless of name or political affiliation, who is falsely attacked. Thus, your box you wish to put people in is not adequate to the task, and it causes you to make false assertions.

Those are odd claims. Someone who has uncritical support for an individual is, by definition, a supporter. Trump is not being falsely attacked, he is being criticized both for his policies which are driving a wedge between ourselves and our allies, and his person, which is erratic and dishonest. Where were you when every other thread on ATS was disseminating false news about Hillary Clinton?

I am not implying that Lumenari is a Republican.

No, your accusation? implication? was they are a "Trump supporter." As your previous sentence demonstrates, that must mean they support everything Trump does, regardless of personal opinion, no?

No. I supported Obama while disagreeing with his handling of Ukraine and Libya. Speaking of false accusations, Trump was the standard bearer of the "Birther" movement.

Trump's supporters on ATS seem obsessed with defending the man and attacking his critics, rather than defending his policies.

When an attack is personal ("Trump lies" or "Trump is a petulant child"), of course a defense is personal as well. Few of the statements I see decrying Trump's policies last very long until personal attacks on the man begin to creep in as well. Thus, a defense to those unsubstantiated attacks will be a personal defense of the man.

That's sort of how debate works...

The problem is every time a policy objection is raised, Trump supporters deflect, use buzz phrases, or resort to personal attacks. Note how no-one has bothered to engage the long list of lies that prove that he is indeed a liar!

Take for example this thread itself. Trump's administration has pressed charges against a "deep state" leaker, BUZZ! James Wolfe. He is called that because his allegiance BUZZ! appears to not be to the people of America BUZZ! or even to America itself, but to the established government BUZZ! which many believe is corrupt (including me). BUZZ BUZZ BUZZ BUZZ BUZZ!

And yet, more posts on this thread have been attacks on fellow members than on actually finding out the facts of the situation. There is an assumption that he was leaking classified information, that this information was damaging to United States interests, and that it was politically motivated specifically to damage the president. Where has the actual evidence of any of those assumptions been posted?

But instead of policy-based rebuttals, we have lists of supposed lies that Trump has told and accusations of Trump being "petulant." These posts are not coming from the more conservative members, but rebuttals certainly are.

Look how far off topic certain petulant members have dragged this. They have been behaving like this is the Mud Pit. There is a reason for this. Now, to return to civility, what has Wolfe been accused of leaking? Was it classified? Has the FBI established his motivation yet?

a reply to: carewemust

Strategically left out of the OP:

Wolfe is actually not charged with leaking classified information. He is charged only with lying to the FBI when he denied having contact with certain reporters.

The indictment suggests that the FBI investigation was launched because classified information showed up in an article by one of the reporters, but it does not explicitly say that he gave any reporter classified information.

OP's source.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm sanguine about the FBI Flat foots getting it right with Wolfe. He may have just been doing his job as he sees it. If his little honey comes in with wild but accurate leaks, and then he does some damage control, by tuning it way down-----?

Sessions, yes, Mr. Jefferey B.S., has been a disaster as A.G. Why think it just changed?? Reparable News Organs want multiple sources on a breaking story. Wolfe was the ideal person to get corroborating witness statements, and as such he could tamp down what the Committee members were leaking. Now we wait to see if Watkins, et al. will testify that Wolfe never broke anything new, but only corroborated other's more radical leaks.

So far, they're only charging him on lying to the Freddies, not whether he really started those leaks, himself.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: carewemust

Strategically left out of the OP:

Wolfe is actually not charged with leaking classified information. He is charged only with lying to the FBI when he denied having contact with certain reporters.

The indictment suggests that the FBI investigation was launched because classified information showed up in an article by one of the reporters, but it does not explicitly say that he gave any reporter classified information.

OP's source.

I come to ATS not only for the actual news, but to see people dissect it. Get a feel for how the microcosm that is ATS thinks about the news and other people's opinions on it. Balanced out by some critical thinkers. You know, the members.

You have just posted 17 times on this thread and garnered an amazing 2 stars, in total.

You, my friend, are on the wrong side of history. According to just the people here.

Your worldview is broken.

Back to fishing...

a reply to: carewemust

They were so desperate to destroy Trump...this must have been the easiest thing in the world to catch these buffoons! 🍻

a reply to: DJW001

Those are odd claims. Someone who has uncritical support for an individual is, by definition, a supporter.

Someone who refuses to observe critique when offered is uninformed. I have critiqued Trump, but I do not feel a need to do so when his policies align with my personal desires.

Trump is not being falsely attacked, he is being criticized both for his policies which are driving a wedge between ourselves and our allies, and his person, which is erratic and dishonest.

Absolutely incorrect. A few (and only a few) examples:

• Trump is still criticized for his "Russian collusion," which has not manifested itself through his actions, nor has any evidence to support this accusation come forward, despite over a year of the most intense investigation I have ever seen.
  
• Trump was criticized unmercifully about claiming a "wiretap" in Trump Towers during the campaign. Yet we are now seeing reports and IG recommendations that verify that yes, Trump was surveilled, quite possibly in violation of law.
  
• Melania went in for kidney surgery recently. After she was released, rumors abounded for everything from Trump abusing her to her disappearing because she hates Trump. In actuality, she was recovering from surgery.
  
• Trump used strong rhetoric in his communications with Kim Jong Un, which led to nothing short of a major panic among his detractors that he was "going to start a nuclear war with North Korea." In reality now, we see Trump in Singapore for a historic summit, which shows more promise for a peaceful resolution than every President before him. But does he get any credit? No, as a matter of fact Chuck Schumer stood on the Senate floor and demanded from him a laundry list of requirements for support... every single one of which was in direct opposition to the Iranian Nuclear Agreement which was lauded as some sort of great achievement despite being possibly the worst agreement negotiated in American history.
  
• Trump is claimed to be racist... but where's the proof? An endorsement by David Duke that he denounced three separate times? In reality, black and hispanic unemployment is now lower than at any time in recorded history, he was endorsed by many black churches in the Rust Belt, and he has done nothing, not one thing that I have seen, that indicates animosity toward any race.

That is nowhere near a full list, only a few examples among literally hundreds. His policies are placing America first, using tariffs as bargaining tools to renegotiate trade agreements that have crippled our economy. The only "erratic" behavior I have seen is on the part of his detractors, as evidenced by the short list above.

Where were you when every other thread on ATS was disseminating false news about Hillary Clinton?

I was judging her by the exact same standards I use to judge every other politician, including Trump. Where were you? Making excuses for her national security violations and pay-for-play policies giving foreign access to our government?

TheRedneck

a reply to: carpooler

I'm sanguine about the FBI Flat foots getting it right with Wolfe. He may have just been doing his job as he sees it. If his little honey comes in with wild but accurate leaks, and then he does some damage control, by tuning it way down-----?

I'm not basing my opinion of the investigations on just Wolfe. The details will no doubt come out in the court records. I want to see a fair trial, conviction if the facts support it, and severe punishment as an example if convicted. More importantly, I want to see aggressive prosecution for anyone who was leaking information outside normal channels or as a bona fide whislteblower. In short, I want to see one, and only one, no more than than one, single, unique set of laws that apply to everyone. Not one set for you and I, and another set for the likes of Obama, Clinton, Comey, Lynch, McCabe, and anyone who supports them. One set of laws. Period.

Sessions, yes, Mr. Jefferey B.S., has been a disaster as A.G. Why think it just changed??

My complaint with Sessions has been that I saw nothing he was doing despite all the leaks and criminal activities that I saw indicated on an almost daily basis. Now, in the story in the OP, I see references to investigations having been started last year. That indicates an error on judgement on my part and causes me to re-evaluate my position.

I cannot believe I am having to explain critical thinking processes to adults...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: carewemust

Strategically left out of the OP:

Wolfe is actually not charged with leaking classified information. He is charged only with lying to the FBI when he denied having contact with certain reporters.

The indictment suggests that the FBI investigation was launched because classified information showed up in an article by one of the reporters, but it does not explicitly say that he gave any reporter classified information.

OP's source.

It would have been more honest to phrase that as a question. "could this have been strategically left out of the oo?"

An op can only be so long. You are criticising the op for not selecting the paragraphs you wanted to be included?

That was actually dishonest of you (should we start a lost of lies and point out every inaccurate thing you ever said? Then add on the stress of being a POTUS, then add on the stress that many, many powerful wealthy people want you dead.. many of his detractors would likely be curled up in the fetal position on the floor having an anxiety attack under such conditions) to imply that it is a fact that this portion was strategically left out. Maybe I should scour the article for some piece of info and claim that You "strategically left out" something from Your post claiming the OP strategically left something out?

Maybe your quoted portion wasn't the Only thing "left out" of the OP... But, those parts were just left out by happenstance or due to character counts perhaps... But the part that You pointed out (which everyone following this should already know by now so it's kind of a waste of space imo) was Strategically left out, because you want it to have been...



That's why we ask that new threads have sources linked, because It is not reasonable or necessary to include the entire story. It's up to you, and every other poster, to visit the link if you want to know what all was said.

You could go to pretty much any thread linking to a news article, and say "Look what was strategically left out." But what would that prove? That ATS has a policy asking its members not to post the whole article? If anything the op included more information that what is recommended.

Your suggestion that Even More should have been included, is a clear declaration of dissent against the TnC... the SACRED TnC... without which... All would be chaos... And I... thought... You were... one of the... good... guys... *faints onto keyboard, the impact of which happens to hit the post button, but not before first typing out this explanatory sentence*


I know you're a good guy 👍

...technically, your words Could be construed as an attempt to organize a resistance army against the 3 Tenors and solidify your rule for eons to come, but, I know you better than that.