trumps phone calls to foreign leaders released. Someone needs to hang. The US position has been compromised by some Obama sympathizer most likely.
Looks like we have a traitor
- Thread starter purkey
- Start date
How many people can get these transcripts? I don't understand how with all the resources of the intelligence agencies they can't find and prosecute these leakers.
The Deep State permanent buracracy, Democrats and never Trumpers are determined to destroy Trump and basically overthrow the results of a US Presidential election.
Hell, it could be someone in the foreign leaders administration.
THat's it -- gotta bring back The Mooch. Those transcripts would've never leaked if he didn't run off The Mooch.
I've never seen so many leaks, so many firings of a guy's own people.... deep state my ass. That's from inside the WH (aka "the dump"). Doesn't make Kelly look good, either. His own cabinet is basically setting their own policy and ignoring what he wants.
He literally can not help but brag on himself even when conducting diplomacy. It is about him at every second, at every turn.
I've never seen so many leaks, so many firings of a guy's own people.... deep state my ass. That's from inside the WH (aka "the dump"). Doesn't make Kelly look good, either. His own cabinet is basically setting their own policy and ignoring what he wants.
He literally can not help but brag on himself even when conducting diplomacy. It is about him at every second, at every turn.
Look at the mega-industries who invested billions try getting Hillary into the White House (remember, her campaign outspent Trump by a 2 to 1 margin -- and outside groups by a 3 to 1 margi).
You and the Democrats have literally become the party representing:
- The military industrial complex
- Wall Street
- Big Pharma
- Monsanto.
Doesn't this make you uneasy?
"According to figures compiled by the Center for Competitive Politics, an Alexandria group that opposes caps on political spending, Clinton’s campaign outspent the Trump campaign by more than 2 to 1.
While full spending reports are not yet compiled, campaigns typically spend just about all they raise. As of October 28, Clinton had raised $687 million compared to Trump’s $307 million—a 124 percent advantage.
Outside groups raised and spent more than three times as much on Clinton as on Trump. Super PACs and other groups supporting Clinton raised almost $190 million; those supporting Trump pocketed only $60 million."
Source: http://observer.com/2016/11/donald-trump-didnt-just-win-he-won-with-unprecedented-efficiency/
first thing i thought
trump should have absolutely known his conversations were compromised
We went from leaking White House transcipts to the military industrial complex in 2.0 seconds. I mean... dayum. That's fast.
It was actually 20 minutes according to the time stamps. Other than that, I agree with your post.
This clip kind of reminds me of a certain poster...
we noticed a few of the profiles [on LinkedIn] were consistently not engaging us [in debate] but rallying the troops”—the defenders of Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, critics of NATO, Trump-style European populists and the like...
A key feature of the online effort was trolling, the tactic of injecting inflammatory, off-topic commentary into discussion groups and threads with the goal of defaming critics, provoking fights and chasing away thoughtful adversaries.
www.newsweek.com/russia-putin-bots-linkedin-facebook-trump-clinton-kremlin-critics-poison-war-645696
McMasters a traitor? Not really....
Hardly, a White House official explained to me. I’m told McMaster wrote similar letters to all the living national security advisers from past administrations—Democratic and Republican—as a matter of longstanding practice. Revoking Rice’s clearance would have been unusual. And that practice applies not just to national security advisers but to other departments and agencies, such as secretary of State. The reason, the official said, is for the purposes of continuity. Without a continued security clearance, it would be illegal for government officials to discuss relevant sensitive information with a former official. The process for reauthorizing a past official’s security clearance is lengthy."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-r...e-keep-her-security-clearance/article/2009158
Hardly, a White House official explained to me. I’m told McMaster wrote similar letters to all the living national security advisers from past administrations—Democratic and Republican—as a matter of longstanding practice. Revoking Rice’s clearance would have been unusual. And that practice applies not just to national security advisers but to other departments and agencies, such as secretary of State. The reason, the official said, is for the purposes of continuity. Without a continued security clearance, it would be illegal for government officials to discuss relevant sensitive information with a former official. The process for reauthorizing a past official’s security clearance is lengthy."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-r...e-keep-her-security-clearance/article/2009158
