Source: Comey thought it was too political to say Russians were meddling in election

You are literally defending him right now?? Am I missing something? I mean what else do you call it when you want us to trust you over 17 career intelligence officials because trusting those 17 intelligence officials would be pretty damn condemning to Trump.

 

Republicans are critical of Trump because he is a unprecedented candidate who doesn't know how a bill turns into law.

Hillary's corruption at this level is hardly unprecidented. You just don't have the ability to take a few meta steps back and realize that the public perception if her corruption stems from a large portion of her and her advisors' private correspondences being leaked which isn't the case for previous presidential candidates. So ironically she's the most transparent candidate we ever had.

 

Yeah, it's funny, he defends Trump and Russia from attack rabidly by attacking others and then asks how he defends???

He's a right-wing nutjob living in his para-reality.

 

They don't have to tell someone, in order for you to know they have security clearance. If you know their job, and they can't discuss their assignments, it can be deduced they have clearance. It has nothing to do with them actually telling or not telling.

 

Let me get this straight. I am defending Trump because i said:

-Any activist or foreign government would try to hack us.
-The relevance of who hacked the DNC is not as important as the unethical information found in the messages.
-There is no hard evidence Russia hacked the DNC

Further, I never denied Russia didn't hack us. I said there was no hard evidence. What do you suggest we do if we get hard evidence? Nuke Russia? Why are you not upset at the content and so concerned about Russia?

So once again, how am I defending Trump? Because I am being pragmatic and calling the Democrats out on their unethical behavior?

You have become such a partisan hack like mc mark and Sweet Lou

 

So if I read your 100 or so D&D posts, I am sure that I would find you being pragmatic and calling the Republicans out on their unethical behavior?

I suspect I would find that you are anti-Hillary (moreso than pro-Trump or anti-Trump). That would make your posts partisan, right?

 

WTH are you talking about? People with clearances do not allude to having jobs with security clearances. That is my exact point. Your new neighbor Jim Bob who just moved into the neighborhood doesn't come over and say, "oh hey FranchiseBlade, Im JimBob. I work for the CIA. I can't tell you I have a security clearance, but I can generally speak about my job and let you pick up the clues".
If someone does have a security clearance, they will tell you they work some mundane boring job and you will be completely oblivious to them ever having one ... much like you are on this topic.

 

I know some people with security clearance because of where they work. circle of trust really depends on the clearance

This play is as blatant as Obama taking a stance on brexit in the uk, except Obama was more direct and less cowardly.

You don't see nk, Iran or China directly embarrassing a potential candidate or causing pure mayhem.

It's not really 17 officials, more like two. One for homeland and the other is the director that speaks to a blanket of intel agencies including the fbi.

 

What unethical behavior have Republicans done? They are the party of no/do nothing. I have been critical of gerrymandering.

I am anti-Hillary more than anti-Trump. I also recognize Johnson and Stein would be a worse president than both of them.

Hillary is going to make Obamacare worse instead of fixing it. She wants to punish businesses by raising corporate taxes (that will only punish small businesses), force higher burdens by raising minimum wage to unacceptable levels and force all businesses to provide benefits. She is doing nothing to encourage growth and doing everything to stiffle it

 

What are you talking about? If a family member with a military background is working for the govt. and doesn't talk about their job, it's not hard to figure out that they have a security clearance.

 

Hey Dems, so is Comey trustworthy and smart or incompetent? I can't keep track since your opinion of him flip flops just like Hilary. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

You're asking the liberals, especially on this forum, if they think mob rule is right?

 

Coming in with the gotcha's. You are correct with your gotcha. Knowing that someone has a security clearance is not a breach. Yes, as another poster pointed out, there is a circle of trust. However the circle of trust should not extend into knowing what they are cleared for or 'giving general information'.

 

This should be common sense. I do know one person that I assume have clearance because of their work with the government on cyber security of the future.

 

Hey Trump supporters, so is Comey trustworthy and smart or the figurehead of a rigged, partisan agency? I can't keep track since your opinion of him flip flops just like Donald after a late-night bender of KFC-infused Twittering. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

Your question speaks volumes.

Imagine me listing the 50+ things Trump has said and done that should have outrightly disqualified Trump from the highest office in the land. Imagine me listing all of the elected, "family values" Republicans who have endorsed Trump. And Jesus said "Grab'em by their ....".