Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am not sure if that ia above the law or simpmy the fact that perjury is difficult to prove. I was listening listening to something about that in regards to Sondlands testimony.
He admitted that what he said was untrue and he knew it was untrue. What he said was he used the least untruthful reply he could come up with.
Just an excuse but even the least untruthful statement is untrue and he admitted he knew that.
If there were a clear-cut case of perjury, as you say, how do you explain Sessions or Barr haven't gone after Clapper for years?
They don't go after each other in this way so that no one comes after them.
They don't go after each other in this way so that no one comes after them.
"They". Shaking my head here.
You know full well that Wyden got Clapper into an impossible situation before running cameras, where the choice was either to lie or to divulge highly classified state secrets. Your attempt at using this in support of Snowdon's self-serving excuse for not doing his whistle-blowing by the book is noted.
They don't go after each other in this way so that no one comes after them.
"They". Shaking my head here.
You know full well that Wyden got Clapper into an impossible situation before running cameras, where the choice was either to lie or to divulge highly classified state secrets. Your attempt at using this in support of Snowdon's self-serving excuse for not doing his whistle-blowing by the book is noted.
No, he could say "I can not answer that question". The Supreme Court ruled all of this unconstitutional. That is what you are defending.
At least we have gotten past the idea that he didn't commit perjury. When the government is doing things that are unconstitutional they most certainly should be exposed.
Are you really going to argue otherwise?
They don't go after each other in this way so that no one comes after them.
"They". Shaking my head here.
You know full well that Wyden got Clapper into an impossible situation before running cameras, where the choice was either to lie or to divulge highly classified state secrets. Your attempt at using this in support of Snowdon's self-serving excuse for not doing his whistle-blowing by the book is noted.
No, he could say "I can not answer that question". The Supreme Court ruled all of this unconstitutional. That is what you are defending.
At least we have gotten past the idea that he didn't commit perjury. When the government is doing things that are unconstitutional they most certainly should be exposed.
Are you really going to argue otherwise?
You know, dummy, you are starting to bore me now. If you are trying to play dumb, you really can do that on your own.
"I can not answer that question" would have answered the question in the affirmative. Is that something you missed even though it's unmistakable?
I am not defending anything, your stupid accusation notwithstanding. At the time, I am just kicking your simpleton version of what happened around for a while. In fact, I have yet to take a position on that issue.
Your unspecific assertion the "Supreme Court ruled all of this unconstitutional" is probably just another fantasy.
They don't go after each other in this way so that no one comes after them.
"They". Shaking my head here.
You know full well that Wyden got Clapper into an impossible situation before running cameras, where the choice was either to lie or to divulge highly classified state secrets. Your attempt at using this in support of Snowdon's self-serving excuse for not doing his whistle-blowing by the book is noted.
No, he could say "I can not answer that question". The Supreme Court ruled all of this unconstitutional. That is what you are defending.
At least we have gotten past the idea that he didn't commit perjury. When the government is doing things that are unconstitutional they most certainly should be exposed.
Are you really going to argue otherwise?
You know, dummy, you are starting to bore me now. If you are trying to play dumb, you really can do that on your own.
"I can not answer that question" would have answered the question in the affirmative. Is that something you missed even though it's unmistakable?
I am not defending anything, your stupid accusation notwithstanding. At the time, I am just kicking your simpleton version of what happened around for a while. In fact, I have yet to take a position on that issue.
Your unspecific assertion the "Supreme Court ruled all of this unconstitutional" is probably just another fantasy.
Your reply shows why anything posted here must be posted in a simple manner.
Obama illegally spied on Americans and for some reason you don't want to admit to that. Calling me names does not change anything.
Is Gordon Sondland a democrat?The name is already known so this is old news. And really, who cares who he is? I already know without asking that he's a Democrat.
Your reply shows why anything posted here must be posted in a simple manner.
Obama illegally spied on Americans and for some reason you don't want to admit to that. Calling me names does not change anything.
Your reply shows why anything posted here must be posted in a simple manner.
Obama illegally spied on Americans and for some reason you don't want to admit to that. Calling me names does not change anything.
Yes, yes, yes - make that VERY simple. Instead of the utter complexity of repeating baseless claims over and over again, make it VERY simple: Put up a link to the Supreme Court ruling declaring all this Obama admin spying "unconstitutional." Thanks in advance!
When did he illegaly py on Americans? Any chatmrges, indictnents,convictions?They don't go after each other in this way so that no one comes after them.
"They". Shaking my head here.
You know full well that Wyden got Clapper into an impossible situation before running cameras, where the choice was either to lie or to divulge highly classified state secrets. Your attempt at using this in support of Snowdon's self-serving excuse for not doing his whistle-blowing by the book is noted.
No, he could say "I can not answer that question". The Supreme Court ruled all of this unconstitutional. That is what you are defending.
At least we have gotten past the idea that he didn't commit perjury. When the government is doing things that are unconstitutional they most certainly should be exposed.
Are you really going to argue otherwise?
You know, dummy, you are starting to bore me now. If you are trying to play dumb, you really can do that on your own.
"I can not answer that question" would have answered the question in the affirmative. Is that something you missed even though it's unmistakable?
I am not defending anything, your stupid accusation notwithstanding. At the time, I am just kicking your simpleton version of what happened around for a while. In fact, I have yet to take a position on that issue.
Your unspecific assertion the "Supreme Court ruled all of this unconstitutional" is probably just another fantasy.
Your reply shows why anything posted here must be posted in a simple manner.
Obama illegally spied on Americans and for some reason you don't want to admit to that. Calling me names does not change anything.
Your reply shows why anything posted here must be posted in a simple manner.
Obama illegally spied on Americans and for some reason you don't want to admit to that. Calling me names does not change anything.
Yes, yes, yes - make that VERY simple. Instead of the utter complexity of repeating baseless claims over and over again, make it VERY simple: Put up a link to the Supreme Court ruling declaring all this Obama admin spying "unconstitutional." Thanks in advance!
Sorry, Obama had decided to not appeal to Supreme Court. He whined a bit then slithered off.
FISA Court exposes Obama's abuse of NSA to spy on Americans
Your reply shows why anything posted here must be posted in a simple manner.
Obama illegally spied on Americans and for some reason you don't want to admit to that. Calling me names does not change anything.
Yes, yes, yes - make that VERY simple. Instead of the utter complexity of repeating baseless claims over and over again, make it VERY simple: Put up a link to the Supreme Court ruling declaring all this Obama admin spying "unconstitutional." Thanks in advance!
Sorry, Obama had decided to not appeal to Supreme Court. He whined a bit then slithered off.
FISA Court exposes Obama's abuse of NSA to spy on Americans
Okay, at least you know when to back down. Good. We shall consider your claim Obama admin spying was considered "unconstitutional" retracted. And yes, FISA took issue with spooks not following minimization meticulously enough, and similar, and they were severe, and had to be corrected.
Those are his good qualitiesSen Graham is a low life scum of the earthAnd the moron trump wanted Barr to hold a press conference to say he did nothing wrong Barr refusedI fail to understand the obsession of Republicans with the whistleblower
What did he possibly do wrong?
Don’t see many Republicans justifying what Trump did
Trump is putting his country through this because of his uncontrollable impulsesexcept it's not trump going through this. its all of us and the antagonistic hate mindset it gets us in when we talk about it to the point we can't talk about it cause people go straight for the jugular.of that i can agree. my point in this case wasn't to go after trump for assange and the like. my point is, why is he "ok" to have to hide and why must he have to give up HIS sources, yet we can't do it now or "democracy" dies?great but that wasn't my point. they wanted all his whistleblower sources and flat out didn't give a damn who they took out along the way. their "rage" seems pretty convenient to their side.The governments desire to get Assange and Snowden has not changed under Trump.
Rage is convenient to both sides. I would be impressed with Trump's position if he dropped the cases against Snowden and Assange. Since he will not, the entire circus really doesn't concern me. Two clown gangs fighting over the same clown car.
of which it died long ago.
I don't believe anyone has anything on Trump but like I said, I can't feel bad for what he is going through.
Spying on Americans is unconstitutional. It shouldn't take a Supreme Court ruling to understand that.
All the same, it was only uncovered because of Snowden. He should be getting awards not pursued.
Spying on Americans is unconstitutional. It shouldn't take a Supreme Court ruling to understand that.
All the same, it was only uncovered because of Snowden. He should be getting awards not pursued.
You know, I won't take your say-so on that either. So far, I have seen no evidence for any effort on your side to understand the issue at hand beyond crowing,
without support in fact or law, about "unconstitutional". I also do not see any effort to define "unreasonable", as in "unreasonable searches". Crowing "unconstitutional" is not a definition. Particularly I do not see any effort to understand how, say, President Obama foregoing these surveillance powers would have played out on the political scenery in case a major attack happened that might (or might not) have been preventable by the use of these spying powers. If, as I suspect, you find too many in the U.S. too rightarded right now, you won't like what would happen next.
So, that's the background before which the "current drama" is playing out. Wyden, whom I like, and his take-no-prisoners approach to protect privacy, Clapper, whom I also like, protecting the tools of the executive to protect citizens, President Obama leaning toward the protection of privacy while needing to use the tools to protect his flank against the rightarded attack dogs, and Rand Paul, the insipid goof, threatening this whistle-blower, and every would-be whistle-blower to come. I'd say, if there is really a contemptible figure among the lot, it would be Paul, who sees to it the Executive gets an even freer hand to be as corrupt and self-serving as they desire. It takes a world-class asshole to do that, and it takes a decent amount of asshole-ness to either support that or stand idly by and shrug.
And no, a "They" do this, or don't do that, is not a "contribution" to anything resembling reasonable debate. It's how a conspiracy crackpot constructs a world of his own to fit around his paranoia.
One day you will win. LolLOLHa ha, the whistle blower's name is already known, but go ahead and jerk yourself off to that fantasy.Oh yeah... let Rand Paul do it. Then watch Rand Paul be sued into oblivion and then, kicked out of the Senate for violations of the whistleblower laws and ethics violations.
Go for it Rand Paul.
Only to rightards who think they know it.
I win every day.One day you will win. LolLOLHa ha, the whistle blower's name is already known, but go ahead and jerk yourself off to that fantasy.Oh yeah... let Rand Paul do it. Then watch Rand Paul be sued into oblivion and then, kicked out of the Senate for violations of the whistleblower laws and ethics violations.
Go for it Rand Paul.
Only to rightards who think they know it.
Who’s your president? LolI win every day.One day you will win. LolLOLHa ha, the whistle blower's name is already known, but go ahead and jerk yourself off to that fantasy.Oh yeah... let Rand Paul do it. Then watch Rand Paul be sued into oblivion and then, kicked out of the Senate for violations of the whistleblower laws and ethics violations.
Go for it Rand Paul.
Only to rightards who think they know it.
LOLOLWho’s your president? LolI win every day.One day you will win. LolLOLHa ha, the whistle blower's name is already known, but go ahead and jerk yourself off to that fantasy.Oh yeah... let Rand Paul do it. Then watch Rand Paul be sued into oblivion and then, kicked out of the Senate for violations of the whistleblower laws and ethics violations.
Go for it Rand Paul.
Only to rightards who think they know it.
