During Meeting With Putin Trump Surrenders Humiliating Himself And The Country

[BULLDOG]

That might be the wrong way to describe what happened, but they did steal information, and release it along with coordinated fake news stories in an effort to influence our elections.

Oh my goodness. I don't think you are even allowed to get a driver's license in Israel unless you've already done 200 hours of that in American elections for Israel. Christ, we have whole agencies whose only job is that. And Trump is a "traitor" for not nuking Russia for it?

Foreign governments interfering with our elections is against our laws and threatens our sovereignty

 

[Correll]

Your unsupported denial of the deep state doesnt' cut it anymore.

I worked for 33 years in the "Deep State"
More Rightwing paranoia

No, everyone is not out to get you.....sometimes you just suck

LOL, we get it, you were a Gov puke. Do you really think that if there were (and there is) a "Deep State" it would include every low level secretary like you?

I worked with many Government executives over the years
No, they did not hold secret meetings plotting how they could get even with Republicans

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

Do you realize the hypocrisy in the question you just asked?

You have already stated that the leaks against Hillary Clinton was a good thing, and now you coming down hard on people for leaking negative information about the President.

A leak is a leak. A leak is not good when it is convenient for you, and then bad when it isn't.

IN one scenario you have, allegedly, a Russian who's loyalty is presumably to Russia and thus hacking and leaking information to weaken an enemy of RUssia, ie HIllary would be a good thing from his perspective.


In the other, you have a government employee who is supposedly loyal to the government, and who is bound by law and by an oath to obey the orders of his superiors, who instead of feeling loyalty to the duly elected President, breaks the law to undermine him by leaking classified information.

Because his loyalty is more toward the ruling Political Elite, than to the nation.


I do believe that you cannot see a difference between the two. Because you are part of the problem.

 

[Correll]

Your unsupported denial of the deep state doesnt' cut it anymore.

I worked for 33 years in the "Deep State"
More Rightwing paranoia

No, everyone is not out to get you.....sometimes you just suck

LOL, we get it, you were a Gov puke. Do you really think that if there were (and there is) a "Deep State" it would include every low level secretary like you?

I worked with many Government executives over the years
No, they did not hold secret meetings plotting how they could get even with Republicans

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

 

[rightwinger]

I worked for 33 years in the "Deep State"
More Rightwing paranoia

No, everyone is not out to get you.....sometimes you just suck

LOL, we get it, you were a Gov puke. Do you really think that if there were (and there is) a "Deep State" it would include every low level secretary like you?

I worked with many Government executives over the years
No, they did not hold secret meetings plotting how they could get even with Republicans

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

It is a conspiracy theory if you believe there is a class of people who are secretly conspiring to rule the country without a shred of proof

 

[Correll]

LOL, we get it, you were a Gov puke. Do you really think that if there were (and there is) a "Deep State" it would include every low level secretary like you?

I worked with many Government executives over the years
No, they did not hold secret meetings plotting how they could get even with Republicans

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

It is a conspiracy theory if you believe there is a class of people who are secretly conspiring to rule the country without a shred of proof

a. As I said, "individually take action". NO "conspiring" just doing.

b. The proof is in the actions of the government employees in question. And you, who tacitly admitted you would leak if you felt justified.

 

[rightwinger]

I worked with many Government executives over the years
No, they did not hold secret meetings plotting how they could get even with Republicans

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

It is a conspiracy theory if you believe there is a class of people who are secretly conspiring to rule the country without a shred of proof

a. As I said, "individually take action". NO "conspiring" just doing.

b. The proof is in the actions of the government employees in question. And you, who tacitly admitted you would leak if you felt justified.

You have no proof. There have always been leaks in Government. Just ask Nixon
Sorry righty.......nobody is out to get you
There is no Deep State

 

[Correll]

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

It is a conspiracy theory if you believe there is a class of people who are secretly conspiring to rule the country without a shred of proof

a. As I said, "individually take action". NO "conspiring" just doing.

b. The proof is in the actions of the government employees in question. And you, who tacitly admitted you would leak if you felt justified.

You have no proof. There have always been leaks in Government. Just ask Nixon
Sorry righty.......nobody is out to get you
There is no Deep State

Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

 

[PredFan]

This Is What A Surrender Monkey Looks Like

After the Russians pwned Donald Trump once again, in public, and basically laid claim to the US while Trump rolled over and played dead, Morgan Finkelstein, the Press Secretary for the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund, said that Trump just surrendered to Russia on election interference.

“Trump just unilaterally surrendered to Russia on election interference,” Finkelstein said in a memo send to PoliticusUSA, in which Finkelstein likened the meeting between the two leaders to a “good first Tinder date.”

“After a bilateral meeting that sounded like a good first Tinder date, based on the official readout, Trump is rewarding Putin’s egregious behavior by giving Putin the platform he so desperately craves without getting anything in return. Trump is unilaterally surrendering American sovereignty and the right to fair elections free of foreign interference.”

They highlighted this from the readout of the meeting (which, by the way, was just sent to PoliticusUSA, after the off-camera briefing and delayed audio demand by the Trump administration), in which Tillerson told the press that the President focused on moving forward since “it’s not clear to me that we will ever come to some agreed upon resolution of that question between the two nations so the question is what do we do now. And I think the relationship – and the president made this clear as well – is too important and it’s too important to not find a way to move forward.”

Q: “On the US election, could you spell out any consequences the Russians will face?”

Tillerson: “The president took note of actions that have been discussed by the Congress, most recently additional sanctions that have been voted out of the Senate to make it clear as to the seriousness of the issue. But I think what the two presidents – I think rightly – focused on is how do we move forward, how do we move forward from here? Because it’s not clear to me that we will ever come to some agreed upon resolution of that question between the two nations so the question is what do we do now.

And I think the relationship – and the president made this clear as well – is too important and it’s too important to not find a way to move forward. Not dismissing the issue in any way, and I don’t want to leave you with that impression. And that is why we agreed to continue engagement and discussion around how do we secure a commitment that the Russian government has no intention of and will not interfere in our affairs in the future, nor the affairs of others.

And how do we create a framework in which we have some capability to judge what is happening in the cyber world and who to hold accountable. And this is obviously an issue that’s broader than just U.S.-Russia, but we certainly see the manifestations of that in the events of last year. Again, I think the president is rightly focused on how do we move forward from what may be simply an intractable disagreement at this point.”

Note the question was what consequences will Russia face, and the answer is basically none unless Congress does it.

Sure, that might seem plausible, until we recall that President Obama left behind a good start on a time bomb Trump could deploy if he wished. Trump does not wish, it seems.

“It makes you wonder: what does Putin have on Trump that could make Trump act like a supplicant on the international stage? How deep in trouble is Trump that he couldn’t even perform the most basic task – asking Putin not to interfere in our elections?” Finkelstein asked, adding, “Trump’s unwillingness to put up a fight speaks volumes about what could be in Putin’s arsenal against him.”

The darkness surrounding the Trump administration’s trickle of information should be contrasted with the Russian foreign minister who talked on live TV about the meeting between the two leaders, claiming that Trump accepted Putin’s assertion that Moscow was not involved in the hacking of the 2016 election.

The Trump administration both forced the briefing to be off camera and put a delayed audio demand on the briefing. This is not normal. As I wrote earlier, this is called rolling over.

Finkelstein made a good point asking why, exactly, Trump would be willing to be humiliated like this on the international stage.

After "Good Tinder Date" with Putin, Trump "Unilaterally Surrendered" to Russia

You morons never get smarter. This is why America kicked you retards out of power.

 

[rightwinger]

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

It is a conspiracy theory if you believe there is a class of people who are secretly conspiring to rule the country without a shred of proof

a. As I said, "individually take action". NO "conspiring" just doing.

b. The proof is in the actions of the government employees in question. And you, who tacitly admitted you would leak if you felt justified.

You have no proof. There have always been leaks in Government. Just ask Nixon
Sorry righty.......nobody is out to get you
There is no Deep State

Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

Leaks are nothing new

Only Conservative Snowflakes whine that it is a vast conspiracy

 

[Correll]

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

It is a conspiracy theory if you believe there is a class of people who are secretly conspiring to rule the country without a shred of proof

a. As I said, "individually take action". NO "conspiring" just doing.

b. The proof is in the actions of the government employees in question. And you, who tacitly admitted you would leak if you felt justified.

You have no proof. There have always been leaks in Government. Just ask Nixon
Sorry righty.......nobody is out to get you
There is no Deep State

Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

Leaks are nothing new

Only Conservative Snowflakes whine that it is a vast conspiracy

See how I seriously responded to what you said, and all you did was repeat your previous postion?


1. That's me showing you respect and you being an asshole.

2. That's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and you basically admitted that you can't honestly make your case. You tacitly conceded Logical Argument.

3. My points thus stands as the final answer.


Here they are again, for everyone.


Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

 

[Eloy]

Morgan Finkelstein, the Press Secretary for the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund, said ...

Now there's an unbiased source.

Are you against Finkelstein because he is a Jew, it must be asked.

We expect these types of threads whenever Trump hits a home run.

You are right to suggest that Donald Trump cannot wait to run home to his Republican supporters and away from world leaders among whom (with the exception of the English) he has no standing.

 

[rightwinger]

It is a conspiracy theory if you believe there is a class of people who are secretly conspiring to rule the country without a shred of proof

a. As I said, "individually take action". NO "conspiring" just doing.

b. The proof is in the actions of the government employees in question. And you, who tacitly admitted you would leak if you felt justified.

You have no proof. There have always been leaks in Government. Just ask Nixon
Sorry righty.......nobody is out to get you
There is no Deep State

Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

Leaks are nothing new

Only Conservative Snowflakes whine that it is a vast conspiracy

See how I seriously responded to what you said, and all you did was repeat your previous postion?


1. That's me showing you respect and you being an asshole.

2. That's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and you basically admitted that you can't honestly make your case. You tacitly conceded Logical Argument.

3. My points thus stands as the final answer.


Here they are again, for everyone.


Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

Your response is not serious

It is based on rightwing hysteria and paranoia

 

[Correll]

a. As I said, "individually take action". NO "conspiring" just doing.

b. The proof is in the actions of the government employees in question. And you, who tacitly admitted you would leak if you felt justified.

You have no proof. There have always been leaks in Government. Just ask Nixon
Sorry righty.......nobody is out to get you
There is no Deep State

Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

Leaks are nothing new

Only Conservative Snowflakes whine that it is a vast conspiracy

See how I seriously responded to what you said, and all you did was repeat your previous postion?


1. That's me showing you respect and you being an asshole.

2. That's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and you basically admitted that you can't honestly make your case. You tacitly conceded Logical Argument.

3. My points thus stands as the final answer.


Here they are again, for everyone.


Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

Your response is not serious

It is based on rightwing hysteria and paranoia

You don't get to dismiss questions about the Deep State anymore.

 

[Papageorgio]

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

It is a conspiracy theory if you believe there is a class of people who are secretly conspiring to rule the country without a shred of proof

a. As I said, "individually take action". NO "conspiring" just doing.

b. The proof is in the actions of the government employees in question. And you, who tacitly admitted you would leak if you felt justified.

You have no proof. There have always been leaks in Government. Just ask Nixon
Sorry righty.......nobody is out to get you
There is no Deep State

What happened then to Hillary's vast rightwing conspiracy? Did she again lie?

 

[BULLDOG]

I worked for 33 years in the "Deep State"
More Rightwing paranoia

No, everyone is not out to get you.....sometimes you just suck

LOL, we get it, you were a Gov puke. Do you really think that if there were (and there is) a "Deep State" it would include every low level secretary like you?

I worked with many Government executives over the years
No, they did not hold secret meetings plotting how they could get even with Republicans

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

 

[Correll]

LOL, we get it, you were a Gov puke. Do you really think that if there were (and there is) a "Deep State" it would include every low level secretary like you?

I worked with many Government executives over the years
No, they did not hold secret meetings plotting how they could get even with Republicans

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

From my post, moron.

"NOT A CONSPIRACY".

my words.

Did you catch the part,


"NOT"?

 

[BULLDOG]

I worked with many Government executives over the years
No, they did not hold secret meetings plotting how they could get even with Republicans

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

From my post, moron.

"NOT A CONSPIRACY".

my words.

Did you catch the part,


"NOT"?

Well make up your mind. The situation you describe is a text book example of a conspiracy.

 

[Correll]

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

From my post, moron.

"NOT A CONSPIRACY".

my words.

Did you catch the part,


"NOT"?

Well make up your mind. The situation you describe is a text book example of a conspiracy.

I wonder is this a lib who has such strong barriers to communication that he can't read what I actually type?

Or is this a lib who plays games with the meanings of words to avoid information they don't like?

Or just a lib who likes to lie to muddle any point a conservative makes that they can't refute honestly?

 

[BULLDOG]

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

From my post, moron.

"NOT A CONSPIRACY".

my words.

Did you catch the part,


"NOT"?

Well make up your mind. The situation you describe is a text book example of a conspiracy.

I wonder is this a lib who has such strong barriers to communication that he can't read what I actually type?

Or is this a lib who plays games with the meanings of words to avoid information they don't like?

Or just a lib who likes to lie to muddle any point a conservative makes that they can't refute honestly?

You seem to wonder about a lot of stuff, and just make shit up when you don't understand it.

 

[Correll]

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

From my post, moron.

"NOT A CONSPIRACY".

my words.

Did you catch the part,


"NOT"?

Well make up your mind. The situation you describe is a text book example of a conspiracy.

I wonder is this a lib who has such strong barriers to communication that he can't read what I actually type?

Or is this a lib who plays games with the meanings of words to avoid information they don't like?

Or just a lib who likes to lie to muddle any point a conservative makes that they can't refute honestly?

You seem to wonder about a lot of stuff, and just make shit up when you don't understand it.

Says the man that though I was suggesting a conspiracy when I said, " not a conspiracy".