Forum Thread

Sally Yates on Russian issues

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 22 1 2 Next
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Sally Yates has much information. Hopefully too much to hide or distort. Republican followers won't like her testimony but I think it's the tip of the iceberg. Like the iceberg that sank the luxury liner Titanic.

    addictinginfo.com/2017/05/08/sally-yate...

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I watched a good part of the hearing and Sally Yates was highly professional answering the questions clearly, firmly and with integrity. She had done her homework and was well prepared. Republicans Cornyn and Cruz tried to corner her on not enforcing Trump's Muslim ban as well and she pushed back at them perfectly.

    Sally Yates was a star. Trump tried to undermine her with a tweet and also sending his gofer Spicer out with his version of events. We'll see how Spicer fares tomorrow at the press daily briefing.

    We must remember that Sally Yates testified under oath. That's different than a Spicer press briefing.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Apparently she was asked about various topics. Ted Cruz tried to defend the Muslim ban but she was quite good. I would have loved to watch it all but I could not. I imagine tomorrow will get good coverage as well. I look forward to highlights.

    shareblue.com/ted-cruz-flees-hearing-af...

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The more I see these "hearings" the less confidence I get in the "system" Just like with Comey every time I hear it is "classified" then I'm wasting my time watching anything like that. Sorry to say , that excuse should be only applicable only if it affects "others" or "foreign" entities. But I get the feeling it is mostly B.S. to avoid questions. Very irritating indeed ,until the Washington Post publishes what ever was "classified" anyway.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The more I watched these hearings the more disgusted I get thinking that is what constitutes the U.S. Government, you have Clapper taking almost 20 seconds to answer a simple question about unmasking , and he answered in the affirmative, but only once that he can remember but he can't say who because of security reasons, a crime was committed but since it was only one time it's okay, Ms. Yates answered in the same fashion only not saying that she did any unmasking, everybody is lying,
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: The more I watched these hearings the more disgusted I get thinking that is what constitutes the U.S. Government, you have Clapper taking almost 20 seconds to answer a simple question about unmasking , and he answered in the affirmative, but only once that he can remember but he can't say who because of security reasons, a crime was committed but since it was only one time it's okay, Ms. Yates answered in the same fashion only not saying that she did any unmasking, everybody is lying,

    What in the world are you even talking about? Did we watch two different hearings?

    Clapper had to explain to our wonderful and super smart Republican Senators the definition of unmasking because they either willfully don't want to know what it is or are incapable of understanding basic definitions. He then had to explain the difference between unmasking and leaking because some super smart Republican Senators don't seem to understand the difference.

    After he got the basic definitions out of the way, he tried to explain a few different hypothetical scenarios that could prompt a government employee to request the unmasking of someone who was unintentionally surveilled.

    Yates answered differently because she was in a different department that has different rules. It is a federal crime to discuss classified information in a public forum, so she would have committed a crime had she answered the Republican Senators questions.

    It's also interesting how you are more focused on that garbage than the fact that the Russian government interfered in our Presidential election and that then candidate Trump and his associates very likely colluded with them. You know - like the actual hearing was supposed to be about.

    It's nice to know where your priorities lie and it's quite depressing seeing how easily you soak up the garbage talking points and misdirection the Republicans dish out on a daily basis. I can't say that I'm surprised though.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: I watched a good part of the hearing and Sally Yates was highly professional answering the questions clearly, firmly and with integrity. She had done her homework and was well prepared. Republicans Cornyn and Cruz tried to corner her on not enforcing Trump's Muslim ban as well and she pushed back at them perfectly.

    Sally Yates was a star. Trump tried to undermine her with a tweet and also sending his gofer Spicer out with his version of events. We'll see how Spicer fares tomorrow at the press daily briefing.

    We must remember that Sally Yates testified under oath. That's different than a Spicer press briefing.
    All she needed after her back and forth with Cornyn and Cruz was a microphone to drop. Cruz looked like a dejected high school kid who just got turned down by the girl he asked to prom. His reaction after her schooling him was priceless.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: The more I watched these hearings the more disgusted I get thinking that is what constitutes the U.S. Government, you have Clapper taking almost 20 seconds to answer a simple question about unmasking , and he answered in the affirmative, but only once that he can remember but he can't say who because of security reasons, a crime was committed but since it was only one time it's okay, Ms. Yates answered in the same fashion only not saying that she did any unmasking, everybody is lying,

    What in the world are you even talking about? Did we watch two different hearings?

    Clapper had to explain to our wonderful and super smart Republican Senators the definition of unmasking because they either willfully don't want to know what it is or are incapable of understanding basic definitions. He then had to explain the difference between unmasking and leaking because some super smart Republican Senators don't seem to understand the difference.

    After he got the basic definitions out of the way, he tried to explain a few different hypothetical scenarios that could prompt a government employee to request the unmasking of someone who was unintentionally surveilled.

    Yates answered differently because she was in a different department that has different rules. It is a federal crime to discuss classified information in a public forum, so she would have committed a crime had she answered the Republican Senators questions.

    It's also interesting how you are more focused on that garbage than the fact that the Russian government interfered in our Presidential election and that then candidate Trump and his associates very likely colluded with them. You know - like the actual hearing was supposed to be about.

    It's nice to know where your priorities lie and it's quite depressing seeing how easily you soak up the garbage talking points and misdirection the Republicans dish out on a daily basis. I can't say that I'm surprised though.

    You are absolutely right about what was I watching? I thought I was going to hear something resembling the truth, but instead I got a lot of long winded answers to simple yes or no questions, also a whole of ducking under the " Security " blanket to avoid answering other questions, and the bottom line is that there is NO evidence that President Trump colluded with anyone let alone the Russians, although you did have Gen Clapper admitting to a crime , but only one time that he remembers, so that's okay, then you have Ms. Yates speculating that Gen Flynn MIGHT be susceptible to a blackmail scheme, and also if he that he was such a security risk why did Obama extend his employment after the warnings from Ms.Yates and after warning President Trump. Is that what you watched ?
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Better run JC, Fox is still on. They will tell you what is important and what you think. Pathetic.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Daily Kos: Michael Flynn never received level of security clearance required for national security adviser

    "Flynn didn’t get the clearance he would need to fill the national security adviser role under the Obama administration. Or under Trump. He never got that clearance at all."

    As we previously discussed, there are different levels and categories of security clearance. At the most basic level, security clearances are granted to people as a quick FBI background check before they are allowed to do much of anything for the government...janitors included. The term "security clearance" is a catch all thrown around as if any security clearances give access to almost any level of government or correspondence. Not true. It's on a need to know basis for the job.

    Another example of Trump obfuscation and shifting of the blame for their incompetence.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: Better run JC, Fox is still on. They will tell you what is important and what you think. Pathetic.
    It's amazing how right wing zealots will believe whatever Fox "News" tells them to believe. It's interesting that he's repeating Fox "News" talking points verbatim, but insists that he never watches Fox "News."
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    TJ Wrote: Better run JC, Fox is still on. They will tell you what is important and what you think. Pathetic.
    It's amazing how right wing zealots will believe whatever Fox "News" tells them to believe. It's interesting that he's repeating Fox "News" talking points verbatim, but insists that he never watches Fox "News."
    What is amazing is that when you have no answer you rely on your tired old lies about me, unless of course if you are clairvoyant then you would know just how false your claims about me are especially regarding FOX news and my political party, but then again you must convince yourself that as moderator of a very Liberal site that you are absolutely right each and every time, I pity you.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    TJ Wrote: Better run JC, Fox is still on. They will tell you what is important and what you think. Pathetic.
    It's amazing how right wing zealots will believe whatever Fox "News" tells them to believe. It's interesting that he's repeating Fox "News" talking points verbatim, but insists that he never watches Fox "News."
    What is amazing is that when you have no answer you rely on your tired old lies about me, unless of course if you are clairvoyant then you would know just how false your claims about me are especially regarding FOX news and my political party, but then again you must convince yourself that as moderator of a very Liberal site that you are absolutely right each and every time, I pity you.

    Would you like me to prove that you're using right wing talking points yet again or do ya just want to put your tail between your legs like Ted Cruz did and give it up?

    I also don't need any of your pity. We all pity you for feeling the need to regurgitate Republican talking points on a liberal website and then insisting that you don't watch Fox "News" even though you repeat their talking points verbatim.

  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    As the resident DINO, JC finally achieves the status he so truly deserves. Thank you Jebezus for showing him the light, the one true path to enlightenment (without even having to fly for 12 hours to India, I might add)!
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    If you're watching fux news, you're probably indoctrinated already. Most libs don't fall for their bs, but anyway, people are dropping like flies in this administration, you probably think it's just a coincidence that people are getting fired? Pigs can fly, if you believe Trump and his cronies have nothing to hide.