Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Washington Post

63 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Press

unread,
May 16, 2017, 6:09:02 PM5/16/17
to
The Washington Post admits that it would not be illegal for Trump
to reveal classified information.

The Post cites “former U.S. officials” as a primary source for
the story. Who are they and where did the former officials get
classified information?

The Post mentions former FBI Director James Comey early in the
story. Comey has nothing to do with the story.

The leaked information was largely public.

The Post exposes its sources to possible criminal liability

The Post does more to highlight classified information for the
Russians than Trump possibly could have. The Post merely shrugged
when Vice President Joe Biden pointed out where the nuclear codes
were.

--
Michael Press

dotsla...@gmail.com

unread,
May 16, 2017, 6:21:51 PM5/16/17
to
Worried about the post exposing their sources, not worried about trump exposing his.

Priorities!

Nobody claimed it was illegal, dude. That's just the cover y'all are coming up with to avoid addressing the actual word being used - stupid. Super, duper, stupid.

Haven't seen you own up to the sessions mixup, press. "Incorrect". Lol.

Cheers.

unclejr

unread,
May 16, 2017, 11:04:05 PM5/16/17
to
William = Jefferson, apparently.

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
May 17, 2017, 10:12:52 AM5/17/17
to
On Tue, 16 May 2017 15:08:57 -0700, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>The Washington Post admits that it would not be illegal for Trump
>to reveal classified information.

Then I will instruct our son's Doberman not to express his opinion of
the Post the next time he sees one - then back to norm.

Hugh


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

darkst...@gmail.com

unread,
May 17, 2017, 2:35:41 PM5/17/17
to
On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 7:12:52 AM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 15:08:57 -0700, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The Washington Post admits that it would not be illegal for Trump
> >to reveal classified information.
>
> Then I will instruct our son's Doberman not to express his opinion of
> the Post the next time he sees one - then back to norm.

It is a wonder to me that Trump has not called for the abolition of the First Amendment yet. The longer he leaves the Press some approximation of "free", the more likely he literally (and after a legal process!!) hangs.

Mike

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
May 17, 2017, 5:14:15 PM5/17/17
to
On Wed, 17 May 2017 11:35:38 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com
wrote:
Part of any real solution depends in part on knowing how your
opponents feel. You might take them out in one-on-one matches. But
we've seen over 8+ years that confrontation brings nothing but
resistance. You have to give a little and make them think you're
giving a lot.

We played war in Korea and Nam and learned nothing about not winning.
We have not stopped playing. It took more than 50 years to get this
bad - it will take longer to get it right.

Michael Press

unread,
May 17, 2017, 9:03:33 PM5/17/17
to
In article <49d8f227-5239-4bbe...@googlegroups.com>,
dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:

> Worried about the post exposing their sources, not worried about trump exposing his.
>
> Priorities!
>
> Nobody claimed it was illegal, dude.

Then what is the big deal?
That people not allowed to reveal certain information did so.

> That's just the cover y'all are coming up with to avoid addressing the actual word being used - stupid. Super, duper, stupid.
>
> Haven't seen you own up to the sessions mixup, press. "Incorrect". Lol.
>
> Cheers.

--
Michael Press

dotsla...@gmail.com

unread,
May 17, 2017, 10:52:21 PM5/17/17
to
Incorrect.

Cheers.

unclejr

unread,
May 17, 2017, 11:07:36 PM5/17/17
to
On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:03:33 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> In article <49d8f227-5239-4bbe...@googlegroups.com>,
> dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Worried about the post exposing their sources, not worried about trump exposing his.
> >
> > Priorities!
> >
> > Nobody claimed it was illegal, dude.
>
> Then what is the big deal?
> That people not allowed to reveal certain information did so.

Just because it was legal doesn't mean that it was a smr4t thing to do. In fact, it was an idiotic thing to do.

RoddyMcCorley

unread,
May 18, 2017, 12:26:20 PM5/18/17
to
The real issue is Dolt 45 seemed to have no clue that he was releasing
classified info. He, as POTUS, does have a right to do it, but he
stumbled into it without realizing, demonstrating, once again, that he
does not have the intellect the office demands.

--
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul
with evil.

Pennsylvania - Tá sé difriúil anseo.

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

unread,
May 18, 2017, 12:31:36 PM5/18/17
to
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 11:26:20 AM UTC-5, RoddyMcCorley wrote:
> On 5/16/2017 6:08 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> > The Washington Post admits that it would not be illegal for Trump
> > to reveal classified information.
> >
> > The Post cites “former U.S. officials” as a primary source for
> > the story. Who are they and where did the former officials get
> > classified information?
> >
> > The Post mentions former FBI Director James Comey early in the
> > story. Comey has nothing to do with the story.
> >
> > The leaked information was largely public.
> >
> > The Post exposes its sources to possible criminal liability
> >
> > The Post does more to highlight classified information for the
> > Russians than Trump possibly could have. The Post merely shrugged
> > when Vice President Joe Biden pointed out where the nuclear codes
> > were.
> >
> The real issue is Dolt 45 seemed to have no clue that he was releasing
> classified info. He, as POTUS, does have a right to do it, but he
> stumbled into it without realizing, demonstrating, once again, that he
> does not have the intellect the office demands.

Experience would be a better term. I believe a few of us might have expressed our concerns over his utter lack of political experience during the primaries

agavi...@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2017, 2:32:05 PM5/18/17
to
I think clown was the term.

Eric Ramon

unread,
May 18, 2017, 3:17:11 PM5/18/17
to
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 11:32:05 AM UTC-7, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I think clown was the term.

so I think we can agree that the man himself is not important and that, as far as Republican goals are concerned, a more competent replacement would be fine.

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
May 18, 2017, 4:13:57 PM5/18/17
to
On Thu, 18 May 2017 12:26:21 -0400, RoddyMcCorley
<Roddy.M...@verizon.net> wrote:

>demonstrating, once again, that he
>does not have the intellect the office demands.

In that regard nothing has changed since Trump was elected.he assumed
the office.

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
May 18, 2017, 4:19:53 PM5/18/17
to
Replacing a traitorous socialist was a good start. I'm surprised you
limited the replacement to non-liberals.

If you are on the UnACA I hope you can afford it in Portland Oregano.
0 new messages