Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
tyr_13 said:
Protip; Heroes don't even try to use information from security clearance applications for political attacks.*

And of course the article I linked to earlier showed that this PAC did in fact use some of the information that would have been redacted, making your post 1 for 3 on true information.


*Obvious exception for those who have gotten into trouble for lying on such applications, which isn't really about the specific information itself now is it?
Click to expand...

Say! More fact free claims, why not a few minutes ago you had slammed Trump and Co as "corrupt" even though literally one minute worth of research was all that was necessary to utterly disembowel the claim.

But now you declare that people should not use a security application that they got through FOIA based on REASONS. Say, lookat them goal posts go go go!

But you claim that I am only batting 2/3 (which is infinitely better than the zero y'all are putting up) and again relying on a totally out of date document claim : "showed that this PAC did in fact use some of the information that would have been redacted."

Sure.... "The group also released a portion of the security clearance application, blacking out some personal information." :rolleyes:

STRIKE THREE!
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Say! More fact free claims, why not a few minutes ago you had slammed Trump and Co as "corrupt" even though literally one minute worth of research was all that was necessary to utterly disembowel the claim.

But now you declare that people should not use a security application that they got through FOIA based on REASONS. Say, lookat them goal posts go go go!

But you claim that I am only batting 2/3 (which is infinitely better than the zero y'all are putting up) and again relying on a totally out of date document claim : "showed that this PAC did in fact use some of the information that would have been redacted."

Sure.... :rolleyes:

STRIKE THREE!
Click to expand...

You declared that they sounded like heroes for not using information that would have been redacted from a source that was literally illegal to have been given to them. Not only would that not make them heroes, they did in fact use information that would have been redacted.

You claimed them heroes for REASONS! A moral person would be ashamed to make such a claim.

I also claimed you were 1 for 3, because the USPS does say it released the information. That is not claiming you were 2 for 3. I even used numerals to make it easier for you. I made no claim of 'batting'.

And as always you're claiming your citation says things it absolutely does not say. It does not say the PAC didn't use the information they were legally prohibited from being given. To say it does is a lie, that takes less than one minute to find out.

You're no umpire. They are pretty good with 'if-then' claims, while you are not.
 
In her 20s, she substitute-taught at a school for Saudi children.

If the GOP can't do better than that they really are pathetic.

USPS takes responsibility a mistake, which is something Trump would never, ever do.
 
tyr_13 said:
I made no claim of 'batting'.
Click to expand...
And if so that average would be .666 .....

Coincidence?

Anyway, didn't you know that once a PAC gets its hands on "sensitive" information, they are legally *required* to disseminate it?
 
tyr_13 said:
You declared that they sounded like heroes for not using information that would have been redacted from a source that was literally illegal to have been given to them. Not only would that not make them heroes, they did in fact use information that would have been redacted.
You claimed them heroes for REASONS! A moral person would be ashamed to make such a claim.

I also claimed you were 1 for 3, because the USPS does say it released the information. That is not claiming you were 2 for 3. I even used numerals to make it easier for you. I made no claim of 'batting'.

And as always you're claiming your citation says things it absolutely does not say. It does not say the PAC didn't use the information they were legally prohibited from being given. To say it does is a lie, that takes less than one minute to find out.

You're no umpire. They are pretty good with 'if-then' claims, while you are not.
Click to expand...

Dream post! Zero links, just sticking to the guns.

protip: the PAC did nothing wrong, they did not publish information that should have been redacted, the PAC redacted the private information itself, your own article that you are now deliberately misrepresenting Completely destroys your claim.

Now, friendly advice: you made a claim, it was wrong, and when you get to the bottom of the hole that is rapidly filling with sewage?

Stop digging.

By the way, you are welcome for the link to the USPS statement.

TBD OUT!!
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Dream post! Zero links, just sticking to the guns.
Click to expand...

That was supported in my original link, the one you falsely claim your cite destroyed. You are incapable of keeping up.

protip: the PAC did nothing wrong,
Click to expand...

Yes they did.

they did not publish information that should have been redacted,
Click to expand...

Yes they did.

the PAC redacted the private information itself, your own article that you are now deliberately misrepresenting Completely destroys your claim.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You love your fact free assertions.

Now, friendly advice: you made a claim, it was wrong, and when you get to the bottom of the hole that is rapidly filling with sewage?
Click to expand...

It's sad that you have to even lie about being friendly. The claim I made was not wrong. You're still having trouble with 'if-then' statements, if you aren't simply lying about that too.

Stop digging.

By the way, you are welcome for the link to the USPS statement.

TBD OUT!!
Click to expand...

Yes, stop digging. Start reading for comprehension.

By your standard of heroes, Steele and the DNC are superheroes. Good to know you love them so. Thank you for all the praise.


___________________________________________________



Would a 'thinking' Republican or Trump supporter want to take a crack at this now? Are there any left reading this thread?
 
Minoosh said:
In her 20s, she substitute-taught at a school for Saudi children.

If the GOP can't do better than that they really are pathetic.

USPS takes responsibility a mistake, which is something Trump would never, ever do.
Click to expand...

If you look at her previous interviews, she mentions lots of details but not this one. I think, from the timeline, it's obvious why she wasnt forthcoming with that info. It's a good reason.

2001- 9/11 attack
2002- She gets job offer from CIA (she knows several languages but doesnt mention Arabic as one in her official bio)
later in 2002- starts working at Islamic school as an English teacher. ("Terror High" for the known terrorists who went there).

Looks like this PAC outed her first covert job.
 
Minoosh said:
How are you getting that meaning from that tweet?
Click to expand...
Agreed. The Washington Post made the same argument, badly.

When Trump says he wasn't prevented from firing Sessions by others, he is not admitting that he wanted to do so.
 
Sherkeu said:
Looks like this PAC outed her first covert job.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought of that.

I've been in touch with schools affiliate with Fethullah Gulen - haven't done any work for them though. I suppose that would make me an enemy of the Turkish government.

They have a fairly good reputation.
 
Sherkeu said:
If you look at her previous interviews, she mentions lots of details but not this one. I think, from the timeline, it's obvious why she wasnt forthcoming with that info. It's a good reason.

2001- 9/11 attack
2002- She gets job offer from CIA (she knows several languages but doesnt mention Arabic as one in her official bio)
later in 2002- starts working at Islamic school as an English teacher. ("Terror High" for the known terrorists who went there).

Looks like this PAC outed her first covert job.
Click to expand...

Correct. As I thought my linked article made clear, that is how she realized that the PAC had an unredacted copy of her application. Such a thing must by law not be released, and the PAC used it against her as an attack.

But Trump supporters insist that using information about a person's service to their country after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which it was illegal for them to be given in the first place, as a political attack is heroic.
 
Sherkeu said:
If you look at her previous interviews, she mentions lots of details but not this one. I think, from the timeline, it's obvious why she wasnt forthcoming with that info. It's a good reason.

2001- 9/11 attack
2002- She gets job offer from CIA (she knows several languages but doesnt mention Arabic as one in her official bio)
later in 2002- starts working at Islamic school as an English teacher. ("Terror High" for the known terrorists who went there).

Looks like this PAC outed her first covert job.
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
Correct. As I thought my linked article made clear, that is how she realized that the PAC had an unredacted copy of her application. Such a thing must by law not be released, and the PAC used it against her as an attack.

But Trump supporters insist that using information about a person's service to their country after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which it was illegal for them to be given in the first place, as a political attack is heroic.
Click to expand...

Thanks to both of you for the good summary.

I'm looking forward to seeing where the goal posts for heroism are moved to next. McCain isn't even in the ground yet for christ's sake.
 
Hahahaha! This happened.

We have converted a job she had before she applied to the cia as her first covert job!

Dr keith? They are absolutely lying. Unless you believe that she applied to the usps when she was a secret agent working for the ******* cia.

She thought they had it because she hid it!
Such made up nonsense.
 
Sherkeu said:
If you look at her previous interviews, she mentions lots of details but not this one. I think, from the timeline, it's obvious why she wasnt forthcoming with that info. It's a good reason.

2001- 9/11 attack
2002- She gets job offer from CIA (she knows several languages but doesnt mention Arabic as one in her official bio)
later in 2002- starts working at Islamic school as an English teacher. ("Terror High" for the known terrorists who went there).

Looks like this PAC outed her first covert job.
Click to expand...

Ha ha! No. Christ no.

This was in her app to the post office for ***** sake before she worked At the cia

Hilarious!
 
The Big Dog said:
Hahahaha! This happened.

We have converted a job she had before she applied to the cia as her first covert job!

Dr keith? They are absolutely lying. Unless you believe that she applied to the usps when she was a secret agent working for the ******* cia.

She thought they had it because she hid it!
Such made up nonsense.
Click to expand...

The Big Dog said:
Ha ha! No. Christ no.

This was in her app to the post office for ***** sake before she worked At the cia

Hilarious!
Click to expand...

Maybe you could provide a coherent summary of what you are trying to say for the avid reader who has not read all the articles.
 
The Big Dog said:
Ha ha! No. Christ no.

This was in her app to the post office for ***** sake before she worked At the cia

Hilarious!
Click to expand...

Link to a bio from May '18

That job consisted of working with Washington police and Maryland State Police on drug, money laundering and white powder investigations in the post 9/11 era. link
Click to expand...

So that's 2 terror-related jobs just after completing her MBA and getting a conditional offer from the CIA.

I don't see a good argument for these things being unrelated.

eta: when someone is working covert for the CIA, don't they usually have a cover job? I mean, they can't just say they are unemployed. Not that this was a cover job---could just be what she did til they had a spot for her, but it's possible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom