OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
mongooz said:
why do guys need immunity if they're not already guilty? (both dumpster's and flynn's words)
Click to expand...


what's interesting is that they denied his request for immunity. usually you give immunity to people to make a case against their higher up which would be trump. if they don't need flynn it might mean they already have what they need to get both of them.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
I love this:

"The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, contended that Bannon was placed on the committee in part to monitor Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and never attended a meeting. He’s no longer needed with McMaster in charge of the council, the official said."

So we had to put Bannon there because we knew Flynn was a double agent and needed to keep tabs on him. Now we don't have a double agent so there's no problem. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
0b452671d3dc17d4097f3b68bc2e5ea5.png


I can't remember what the "real story" is anymore. The smoke and mirrors are working on me. Until I have a minute to google some news stories.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
i love how they portray this huge "susan rice takedown" while leaving out key things like facts and the truth.


1. what she was doing was perfectly legal. trump is still the one under fbi investigation, no such investigation has been started on rice.
2. in all honestly it shows that what the trump campaign and transition staff were doing warranted perfectly legal surveillance.
3. it doesn't prove that obama wiretapped trump towers. we still are waiting on the evidence trump promised weeks ago.
 
So that Breitbart article quotes Bannon in the WSJ:

Mr. Bannon said in a statement: “Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized. General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function.”

The Journal continues (which of course, Breitbart omitted):

Another senior administration official said Mr. Trump “signed off on all the changes.”

“Steve was put there as a check on [Mike] Flynn,” the second official said, referring to the former national security adviser who was forced to resign in February over undisclosed contacts with Russia. With Gen. McMaster now in charge, “there was no longer a need [for Bannon] because they share the same views,” the official said.

“The idea initially was to make sure Flynn implemented the vision they had talked about,” the official said.

So there's even deflection within the story itself. Two completely different accounts, and a twist on the Bloomberg article's "unnamed official". Bloomberg is unabashedly anti-Trump. It makes sense they omitted the last part of the quote and didn't include Bannon's. And while I like Bloomberg, I'm inclined to think the WSJ article is the least biased. Bannon was there to watch Flynn, who they knew was a double agent, and they were doubtful would be in-step with Trump. McMaster is the right guy for them, so Bannon doesn't have to be there. The question I have is why bring Rice into it at all? She wasn't part of the council under Trump. They "de-operationalized" the council the moment they took power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top