Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

[jtauke]

Rep. King said these reports are very detailed about people’s lives. This was not caught up incidental. This was targeting. I believe Lynn is incorrect because the smokescreen is this Russian collusion thing. Susan Rice is the key to the real deception. I would throw Evelyn Farkas in there too.

Schiff won’t even comment even to deny what King said!

Come on Michael.

It’s 101 not to comment on an open investigation.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I find the more progressive Free Speech TV (esp Democracy Now!) and Ring of Fire TV (on the internet) to be pretty good, tho I don’t agree with all their positions (they tend to be pro-choice). At least they are free of corporate funding and influence. And they are not afraid to cover climate change and many other environment & big pharma harm stories in an honest way. . .

I see no good guys feeding us truth. What is clear is the power of words and that everything, as it has always been since Adam, is tipsy turvy.

The “more progressive media” is not “pro-choice”. The stance is anti-choice actually, in its denial of our responsibility to do God’s will. What choice is there in doing what one wants? And, shouldn’t it be “regressive”, if progress is to be measured in our journey to Christ.

The side we need to be on is God’s. There’s not much of a choice in what amounts to battle between slick power and wealthy buffoonery.

 

[lynnvinc]

I read quite a lot of the first one, and all I saw was, as I kentioned elsewhere:
Q. Innuendo, speculation, hypothetical events?

A. I can’t comment in a ongoing investigation.

This is not testimony *of *anything. The testimony comes from the person who answers, not the questioner.

I also read quite a lot of another one, which may have been the same one you have posted, only to see that it was a lot more of the same sort of thing.

If there is annything *of substance *in these hearings, I would be happy if someone familiar with the transcripts or videos could post some way of finding it, as I simply do not have time to wade through all the non-testimonial questions and answers of no comment. Even a unique phrase that one could search for on the page would be helpful, but posting hours and hours of video or related transcipts on their own is not helpful.

It did not take anywhere near that long to establish that *something had occurred, *however.

I hope Trump and everyone else is innocent of complicity and that thisnwill be accepted and acknowledged soon. This circus is creating its own mess when we need to think about what we are doing.

I think most of us kinda get that…

They did indicate that the Russians interfered in more ways than simply DNC hacking – they were pretty solid on that (which is the issue you raised).

However they made it clear that while they were investigating possible witting or unwitting coordination between the Russians and US persons, including those in Trump’s circle, they clammed up about whether they might have anything substantial on that at this point, only that they were investigating. I’ve never said otherwise, only that it looks suspicious, not that it’s definite, and that it’s my hope anyone who might have been wittingly or unwittingly coordinating with the Russians (if that had happened) are no longer in Trump’s circle.

All we do know is about Flynn making a deal with the Russian ambassador during the transition period, not much more. Of course, whoever leaked that would be in deep trouble if found out, but as the FBI said it is very difficult to find out since a good number of people knew about that in the FBI, Dept of Justice, and White House (both in the past and current admin). And it is possible, I’m thinking, that it could even be the girlfriend or wife of one of those, tho the initial leaking to a person like that is also against the law.

Whatever the case, it seems it was for the good it was leaked and Flynn removed from his position right away, bec it would have been a lot worse for the US AND Trump & his admin if Flynn had remained, only to be found out later, say a year later when the investigation is complete.

As for Susan Rice, who were the persons who were unmasked? I don’t have time to read all the posts here. Have their names be leaked, as well as unmasked? And who were they associating with when incidentally caught up in surveillance … since they said it was not the Russians.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

They did indicate that the Russians interfered in more ways than simply DNC hacking – they were pretty solid on that (which is the issue you raised).

However they made it clear that while they were investigating possible witting or unwitting coordination between the Russians and US persons, including those in Trump’s circle, they clammed up about whether they might have anything substantial on that at this point, only that they were investigating. I’ve never said otherwise, only that it looks suspicious, not that it’s definite, and that it’s my hope anyone who might have been wittingly or unwittingly coordinating with the Russians (if that had happened) are no longer in Trump’s circle.

All we do know is about Flynn making a deal with the Russian ambassador during the transition period, not much more. Of course, whoever leaked that would be in deep trouble if found out, but as the FBI said it is very difficult to find out since a good number of people knew about that in the FBI, Dept of Justice, and White House (both in the past and current admin). And it is possible, I’m thinking, that it could even be the girlfriend or wife of one of those, tho the initial leaking to a person like that is also against the law.

Whatever the case, it seems it was for the good it was leaked and Flynn removed from his position right away, bec it would have been a lot worse for the US AND Trump & his admin if Flynn had remained, only to be found out later, say a year later when the investigation is complete.

As for Susan Rice, who were the persons who were unmasked? I don’t have time to read all the posts here. Have their names be leaked, as well as unmasked? And who were they associating with when incidentally caught up in surveillance … since they said it was not the Russians.

If you find out the other names, then each one would constitute a felony.

Do you really want that?

Can you afford a top attorney?

 

[lynnvinc]

If you find out the other names, then each one would constitute a felony.

Do you really want that?

Can you afford a top attorney?

Well, if they’ve already be leaked and in some media report, then point it out. Please. That’s all I was wondering.

If names (aside from Flynn) haven’t been leaked, then it seems no harm was done, at least so far. And as I mentioned, it might be good that Flynn got out of the picture sooner than later.

 

[Ridgerunner]

WHY does the left effectively move society towards a form of totalitarianism? What is the “give away?” HOW can we tell?

.

It has to be authoritarian to totalitarian because it wants people to do what they naturally don’t want to do, and does not want them to do what they naturally want to do. The only recourse, then, is coercion.

It largely has to do with the destination of naturally scarce goods, but it also relates to the thinking process behind the destination of goods.

People naturally want to acquire goods. We want to do it for a number of reasons; some bad, but mostly good. Almost everyone has a natural hierarchy of destinations. For some, it’s “me first”. For some it’s “spouse and children first, then me”. For many, and probably most, it’s “children first, then spouse, then me, then the neighbor I know, then the neighbor I don’t know”. That, in Catholicism, is deemed part of the Natural Law, and moral. It’s embedded in our minds as children of God.

The ultimate destination of good in the more radical versions of socialism is “state first, then to whomever the state deems worthy of anything, one of which might be the producer” Typically the “servitors” of the state are, in reality, the first, be they the party hierarchy, the enforcers and the bureaucrats who serve the higher servitors. But the core of it is state determination of the ultimate destination of scarce resources. This, they claim, is the only way to ensure “fairness”,and “equality”.

Since far and away most people naturally want the first kind of distribution and dislike the second, coercion is necessary in order to force the second on them.

It’s interesting. We have widely observed (Venezuela being one of the more recent examples) that leftism fails, and the more radical it is, the more radically it fails. Why?

One of the primary reasons is something economists refer to as “Mother’s dilemma”. Hypothetical Mother has only so much money. She needs to go to the store for milk. She has herself, her husband, her children and a cat. Her favorite thing to eat is pudding, made from milk. Husband likes milk in his coffee. Her children like and need milk. The cat very much likes milk. But she doesn’t have enough money to buy enough milk for all.

So what might mother do? The natural thing for her to do, and the probable thing for her to do is determine a hierarchy for the 'destination" of milk. She might first ensure that the children have the minimum amount of milk to maintain health and then some. Then she tells her husband that she really doesn’t have enough milk for his coffee as he prefers, so he gets half as much. Seeing that the neighbor is ill, she takes a little to her and puts off the pudding to next payday, and the cat gets a piece of old bread that has been sprinkled with milk.

So it’s not great, but it works. A mother here and there will make one big pudding and consume it all herself, but she won’t be in her family position long if she does.

The state, of course, has no idea at all what Mother’s and her family’s milk needs are. So it does some calculations and decides who gets what; perhaps an even distribution to each recipient, in which the cat and husband are long on milk and some goes to waste, Mother still has to defer the pudding because she doesn’t get enough to make one, and the children don’t get enough for healthy growth. The state tells mother it will take care of the sick neighbor and she’s not to bother with her.

The state is inherently incapable of knowing how to make as good an allocation as Mother is. Nor does it assign the same “relational value” to distribution that Mother does. It thinks all needs are the same and none are flexible. So it has to force everyone involved to accept its distribution scheme. And besides, seeing that a lot of people really aren’t happy about the milk they’re getting, the state decides to confiscate more of the farmer’s milk so it can keep the unhappiness level down. That gets distributed, but eventually farmer butchers the cow because feeding her is a losing proposition, and you have Venezuela.

And that’s why the left is inherently totalitarian.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It has to be authoritarian to totalitarian because it wants people to do what they naturally don’t want to do, and does not want them to do what they naturally want to do. The only recourse, then, is coercion.

It largely has to do with the destination of naturally scarce goods, but it also relates to the thinking process behind the destination of goods.

People naturally want to acquire goods. We want to do it for a number of reasons; some bad, but mostly good. Almost everyone has a natural hierarchy of destinations. For some, it’s “me first”. For some it’s “spouse and children first, then me”. For many, and probably most, it’s “children first, then spouse, then me, then the neighbor I know, then the neighbor I don’t know”. That, in Catholicism, is deemed part of the Natural Law, and moral. It’s embedded in our minds as children of God.

The ultimate destination of good in the more radical versions of socialism is “state first, then to whomever the state deems worthy of anything, one of which might be the producer” Typically the “servitors” of the state are, in reality, the first, be they the party hierarchy, the enforcers and the bureaucrats who serve the higher servitors. But the core of it is state determination of the ultimate destination of scarce resources. This, they claim, is the only way to ensure “fairness”,and “equality”.

Since far and away most people naturally want the first kind of distribution and dislike the second, coercion is necessary in order to force the second on them.

It’s interesting. We have widely observed (Venezuela being one of the more recent examples) that leftism fails, and the more radical it is, the more radically it fails. Why?

One of the primary reasons is something economists refer to as “Mother’s dilemma”. Hypothetical Mother has only so much money. She needs to go to the store for milk. She has herself, her husband, her children and a cat. Her favorite thing to eat is pudding, made from milk. Husband likes milk in his coffee. Her children like and need milk. The cat very much likes milk. But she doesn’t have enough money to buy enough milk for all.

So what might mother do? The natural thing for her to do, and the probable thing for her to do is determine a hierarchy for the 'destination" of milk. She might first ensure that the children have the minimum amount of milk to maintain health and then some. Then she tells her husband that she really doesn’t have enough milk for his coffee as he prefers, so he gets half as much. Seeing that the neighbor is ill, she takes a little to her and puts off the pudding to next payday, and the cat gets a piece of old bread that has been sprinkled with milk.

So it’s not great, but it works. A mother here and there will make one big pudding and consume it all herself, but she won’t be in her family position long if she does.

The state, of course, has no idea at all what Mother’s and her family’s milk needs are. So it does some calculations and decides who gets what; perhaps an even distribution to each recipient, in which the cat and husband are long on milk and some goes to waste, Mother still has to defer the pudding because she doesn’t get enough to make one, and the children don’t get enough for healthy growth. The state tells mother it will take care of the sick neighbor and she’s not to bother with her.

The state is inherently incapable of knowing how to make as good an allocation as Mother is. Nor does it assign the same “relational value” to distribution that Mother does. It thinks all needs are the same and none are flexible. So it has to force everyone involved to accept its distribution scheme. And besides, seeing that a lot of people really aren’t happy about the milk they’re getting, the state decides to confiscate more of the farmer’s milk so it can keep the unhappiness level down. That gets distributed, but eventually farmer butchers the cow because feeding her is a losing proposition, and you have Venezuela.

And that’s why the left is inherently totalitarian.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’m thinking there are bad and totalitarian streaks on both sides of the aisle. The left supports abortion under the guise of “pro-choice” (being overly concerned about adult women, while downplaying the little humans in their wombs) and is bleeding-heart and concerned about human and planetary well-being…even at the expense of corporate profits and jobs (which is weird since the left used to be into blue collar issues).

The right, on the other hand, is into rigging the system to greatly help the rich and corporations, at the expense of the poor and their well-being, allowing people to get sick and die from lack of health care, living or just wages, welfare, and env regs.

The right is concerned about the baby up until the time it is born, but figures it’s on its own to swim or sink once it is born. The left claims the unborn baby has no right to life beyond what the mother grants it, but if perchance it does get born, then they want to make sure the gov and society helps it survive and thrive if its parents cannot help it.

And this is why my Carmelite president up north told us that as Carmelites we are neither right nor left, but followers of Christ.

The popes are also the same – neither right nor left, but followers of Christ.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m thinking there are bad and totalitarian streaks on both sides of the aisle. The left supports abortion under the guise of “pro-choice” (being overly concerned about adult women, while downplaying the little humans in their wombs) and is bleeding-heart and concerned about human and planetary well-being…even at the expense of corporate profits and jobs (which is weird since the left used to be into blue collar issues).

The right, on the other hand, is into rigging the system to greatly help the rich and corporations, at the expense of the poor and their well-being, allowing people to get sick and die from lack of health care, living or just wages, welfare, and env regs.

The right is concerned about the baby up until the time it is born, but figures it’s on its own to swim or sink once it is born. The left claims the unborn baby has no right to life beyond what the mother grants it, but if perchance it does get born, then they want to make sure the gov and society helps it survive and thrive if its parents cannot help it.

And this is why my Carmelite president up north told us that as Carmelites we are neither right nor left, but followers of Christ.

The popes are also the same – neither right nor left, but followers of Christ.

It might be well to learn a little more about people of conservative persuasions. First of all, the “Big Rich” contribute more to the Dems than to the Repubs. Conservatives contribute more to charity than do liberals.

And the charities that really aid the unwed mothers and their children are those that are of the “traditional” or “conservative” sort. Who operates the only facilities in my part of the country that provide shelter, food, counseling, medical, training and job referrals to unwed mothers? It’s sure not that darling of the left, Planned Parenthood. It’s Catholic Charities of Southern Missouri and those who contribute to it, including the Republican state legislature. And when the Dems had supermajorities in congress and the presidency besides, what did they do for the truly poor? Absolutely nothing except make the rest of us pay for their contraceptives and abortifacients.

One does not have to be politically oriented in order to be charitable, but one would make a great mistake to assume the left cares about “the born”, because its actions demonstrate that it does not, despite what it says. And one should not assume conservatives deserve the libels the left likes to pin on them. A lot of blue collar folks figured that out in the last election.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well, if they’ve already be leaked and in some media report, then point it out. Please. That’s all I was wondering.

If names (aside from Flynn) haven’t been leaked, then it seems no harm was done, at least so far. And as I mentioned, it might be good that Flynn got out of the picture sooner than later.

YOU would not be included in the distribution list.

Those who screwed up are now scrambling for cover … mid-level bureaucrats who have no real money and who have endangered their own 401(k) retirement plans and any equity the might have in their homes.

[Ya know … in previous posts, you expressed sympathy with and support for the masked black garbed men who firebombed the Student Union at UC Berkley … as if … they were legitimately protesting free speech. You might want to sit and carefully meditate what it is that you freely seem to associate with. In this case, Susan Rice deliberately violated the Espionage Statutes … however **in espionage, motive is not any kind of mitigating factor. If you violate the law, you go to prison. There are junior enlisted members of the military who took the wrong picture of the wrong thing just to have a souvenir and they are in prison, disgraced for life and will have no benefits of any kind. ]

 

[lynnvinc]

It might be well to learn a little more about people of conservative persuasions. First of all, the “Big Rich” contribute more to the Dems than to the Repubs. Conservatives contribute more to charity than do liberals.

And the charities that really aid the unwed mothers and their children are those that are of the “traditional” or “conservative” sort. Who operates the only facilities in my part of the country that provide shelter, food, counseling, medical, training and job referrals to unwed mothers? It’s sure not that darling of the left, Planned Parenthood. It’s Catholic Charities of Southern Missouri and those who contribute to it, including the Republican state legislature. And when the Dems had supermajorities in congress and the presidency besides, what did they do for the truly poor? Absolutely nothing except make the rest of us pay for their contraceptives and abortifacients.

One does not have to be politically oriented in order to be charitable, but one would make a great mistake to assume the left cares about “the born”, because its actions demonstrate that it does not, despite what it says. And one should not assume conservatives deserve the libels the left likes to pin on them. A lot of blue collar folks figured that out in the last election.

Well, I was reared Republican. We were not allowed to say Franklin Delano Roosevelt at home. If at all we had to refer to him, we had to use FDR. My parents had Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead in the bookcase, which I read as a teen. Later after leaving home I got more into Ayn Rand. Read Atlas Shrugged and her other books.

But eventually my Christian background won out, I converted from Presbyterian to Catholicism, and became a Democrat taking on their bleeding heart, progressive thinking…all before Roe v. Wade. I then worked against Roe and supported Ellen McCormack in 1976, and went around getting signatures to put her on the primary ballot.

I know both sides very well.

I was happy that Saints & Scoundrels (EWTN) recently had some episodes on Flannery O’Connor and Ayn Rand (Paul’s Ryan’s favorite author, but not mine at all anymore).

The Republican party did not use to be so anti-life in their anti-environment stance. Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon were 2 of our best environmental presidents – and some of the old school Republicans from Nixon’s time, James Baker and George Schultz, are still very good environmentalists. However, with Reagan the Republican party became very offensive to me in their anti-life, anti-environment stance. Granted they used to couch their anti-env stance in code words like “anti-regs” and “pro-business,” but now they are just openly anti-env, anti-life, they openly say “CC is a hoax.” There are very few at the national level who accept climate science and realize we must mitigate CC (John Huntsman and McCain (before Palin) come to mind).

I wouldn’t touch the Republican party now with a 10-foot pole. If you happen to hear there are some Republican candidates who accept that CC is real and needs to be mitigated, let me know and I might vote for them.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It might be well to learn a little more about people of conservative persuasions. First of all, the “Big Rich” contribute more to the Dems than to the Repubs. Conservatives contribute more to charity than do liberals.

And the charities that really aid the unwed mothers and their children are those that are of the “traditional” or “conservative” sort. Who operates the only facilities in my part of the country that provide shelter, food, counseling, medical, training and job referrals to unwed mothers? It’s sure not that darling of the left, Planned Parenthood. It’s Catholic Charities of Southern Missouri and those who contribute to it, including the Republican state legislature. And when the Dems had supermajorities in congress and the presidency besides, what did they do for the truly poor? Absolutely nothing except make the rest of us pay for their contraceptives and abortifacients.

One does not have to be politically oriented in order to be charitable, but one would make a great mistake to assume the left cares about “the born”, because its actions demonstrate that it does not, despite what it says. And one should not assume conservatives deserve the libels the left likes to pin on them. A lot of blue collar folks figured that out in the last election.

The problem with leftists today is their post-modern thinking along the lines of compassion. They always say how compassionate and caring they are. But clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson notes that we should look at what people do, not what they say. Very basic at its core. D’Souza also elaborates on this noting that Democrats will extend a rope from the top of a building, where they say they will pull one up, but really people are just left swinging in midair and no one really gets ahead, although not necessarily going down because of the social safety net. But the republicans, he adds, have a ladder where you get to decide it you go up, down or stay even.

In my experience the left really doesn’t care when they say they do. They won’t give anything of their own to help and instead use the force of government to take from others and they think they are getting all this credit.

 

[lynnvinc]

YOU would not be included in the distribution list.

Those who screwed up are now scrambling for cover … mid-level bureaucrats who have no real money and who have endangered their own 401(k) retirement plans and any equity the might have in their homes.

[Ya know … in previous posts, you expressed sympathy with and support for the masked black garbed men who firebombed the Student Union at UC Berkley … as if … they were legitimately protesting free speech. You might want to sit and carefully meditate what it is that you freely seem to associate with. In this case, Susan Rice deliberately violated the Espionage Statutes … however **in espionage, motive is not any kind of mitigating factor. If you violate the law, you go to prison.

There are junior enlisted members of the military who took the wrong picture of the wrong thing just to have a souvenir and they are in prison, disgraced for life and will have no benefits of any kind. ]
Okay, send them all to prison once you find out who they are. I’m not sure what your point is. I was just wondering who those people were that Rice requested to be unmasked, bec I haven’t been following the story and didn’t know whether it was public knowledge or not.

And I never said people should firebomb places as a way to express their free speech (I didn’t even know that had happened, bec I don’t have time to read complete posts), only that if people didn’t want someone they thought was highly offensive on their campus they had a right to (peacefully) protest the admin to refuse that person…not go out and do crime for Pete’s sake. Sheesh. You guys really take the cake. You know, I was almost killed at Berkeley from some student protests when they released a truck near the tower that came barreling down the hill nearly hitting me and my husband in the 60s. I would never condone that type of violent or harmful protest.

Lock 'em all up if they have committed a crime. I only meant about Flynn that it seemed to me it was good he was gone, that it may have done more harm to our country and the Trump admin if he had stayed longer. Of course, the person who leaked what he did should be brought to justice. And there may have been neg repercussions in revealing the Flynn thing, which the FBI pointed out, that some FBI methods may have also been leaked or tipped off to the enemy.

As for Susan Rice I don’t know all the details either, but if she committed a crime then I’m sure they’ll be prosecuting her, esp since the Republicans have all the power. Why are people so worried that somehow our justice system won’t go after those who have committed crime. But I can understand there is some concern that they tend to go after “street” criminals a lot more than white collar, corporate, rich and powerful criminals unfortunately, who often get off the hook or only a slap on the hand…

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Susan Rice and Evelyn Farkas need be back in the headlines.

Jim Kahlstrom, retired director of the NYC office of the FBI under Bill Clinton was being interviewed the other day. He was EMPHATIC about a thorough investigation of Susan Rice.

Rice gets investigated and THEN she gets called before a Congressional investigating committee.

 

[Michael68]

Okay, send them all to prison once you find out who they are. I’m not sure what your point is. I was just wondering who those people were that Rice requested to be unmasked, bec I haven’t been following the story and didn’t know whether it was public knowledge or not.

And I never said people should firebomb places as a way to express their free speech (I didn’t even know that had happened, bec I don’t have time to read complete posts), only that if people didn’t want someone they thought was highly offensive on their campus they had a right to (peacefully) protest the admin to refuse that person…not go out and do crime for Pete’s sake. Sheesh. You guys really take the cake. You know, I was almost killed at Berkeley from some student protests when they released a truck near the tower that came barreling down the hill nearly hitting me and my husband in the 60s. I would never condone that type of violent or harmful protest.

Lock 'em all up if they have committed a crime. I only meant about Flynn that it seemed to me it was good he was gone, that it may have done more harm to our country and the Trump admin if he had stayed longer. Of course, the person who leaked what he did should be brought to justice. And there may have been neg repercussions in revealing the Flynn thing, which the FBI pointed out, that some FBI methods may have also been leaked or tipped off to the enemy.

As for Susan Rice I don’t know all the details either, but if she committed a crime then I’m sure they’ll be prosecuting her, esp since the Republicans have all the power. Why are people so worried that somehow our justice system won’t go after those who have committed crime. But I can understand there is some concern that they tend to go after “street” criminals a lot more than white collar, corporate, rich and powerful criminals unfortunately, who often get off the hook or only a slap on the hand…

You don’t read complete posts, yet you leave some of the longest posts. lol, I just find that amusing

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Susan Rice is back in the news:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4399228/Rice-gets-four-Pinocchios-chemical-weapons-claim.html

**Now Susan Rice gets ‘four Pinocchios’ from fact-checkers over her claim Syria had ‘verifiably’ given up chemical weapons

Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice got fact-checked for a statement she made on chemical weapons in Syria in January

Last week’s gas attack proved that chemical weapons are indeed still in the country, despite an agreement for them to be destroyed

Rice got called out for using the word ‘known,’ which is code for the weapons declared by Syrian leaders, which many officials didn’t believe
**

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4399228/Rice-gets-four-Pinocchios-chemical-weapons-claim.html#ixzz4e2ncfY1J
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[lynnvinc]

Susan Rice is back in the news:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4399228/Rice-gets-four-Pinocchios-chemical-weapons-claim.html

Now Susan Rice gets ‘four Pinocchios’ from fact-checkers over her claim Syria had ‘verifiably’ given up chemical weapons

Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice got fact-checked for a statement she made on chemical weapons in Syria in January

Last week’s gas attack proved that chemical weapons are indeed still in the country, despite an agreement for them to be destroyed

Rice got called out for using the word ‘known,’ which is code for the weapons declared by Syrian leaders, which many officials didn’t believe

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4399228/Rice-gets-four-Pinocchios-chemical-weapons-claim.html#ixzz4e2ncfY1J
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It sort of amazes me that people are so focused on those out of power…sort of like kicking a dead horse…when those in power are probably up to no good at all that will bring disaster to our nation and the whole world. I know they are into destroying life on planet earth thru climate change, but as that may take 100s and 1000s of years that might not be quick enough for them

 

[Michael68]

It sort of amazes me that people are so focused on those out of power…sort of like kicking a dead horse…when those in power are probably up to no good at all that will bring disaster to our nation and the whole world. I know they are into destroying life on planet earth thru climate change, but as that may take 100s and 1000s of years that might not be quick enough for them

 

[Michael68]

It sort of amazes me that people are so focused on those out of power…sort of like kicking a dead horse…when those in power are probably up to no good at all that will bring disaster to our nation and the whole world. I know they are into destroying life on planet earth thru climate change, but as that may take 100s and 1000s of years that might not be quick enough for them

Criminal activity by these people doesn’t bother you? Of course not, they aren’t Republicans and can break the law all they want. Republicans might get a kid sick, might get a kid sick Yet we know the Democrats broke the law and that just doesn’t matter. Makes your arguments fall flat.

 

[Michael68]

It sort of amazes me that people are so focused on those out of power…sort of like kicking a dead horse…when those in power are probably up to no good at all that will bring disaster to our nation and the whole world. I know they are into destroying life on planet earth thru climate change, but as that may take 100s and 1000s of years that might not be quick enough for them

Criminal activity by these people doesn’t bother you? Of course not, they aren’t Republicans and can break the law all they want. Republicans might get a kid sick, might get a kid sick hundreds of years from now from your own admission. Yet we know the Democrats broke the law and that just doesn’t matter. Makes your arguments fall flat.