New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

LOL! Grandstanding Adam Schiff demands Grinnel declassify Flynn Kislyak call transcripts...

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
In a timely response, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell on Friday implied that he plans to release the transcripts of December 2016 phone calls between former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

“Those are coming. It’s very important for the public to see ALL of them. For too long the public has been misled,” Grenell tweeted at Representative Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.), who challenged him to release the transcripts.

That's how you call a bluff...
 

Colorforms

Senator
In a timely response, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell on Friday implied that he plans to release the transcripts of December 2016 phone calls between former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.




That's how you call a bluff...
It's really a shame that in the age of democrat spin and lies, that a president no longer has executive privilege or the confidentiality to do his job effectively.

I'm sure that it will all switch back if democrats, God forbid, ever lie their way back into any level of power again.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
In a timely response, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell on Friday implied that he plans to release the transcripts of December 2016 phone calls between former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.




That's how you call a bluff...
Nah, you call a bluff by doing it. Not by saying you’re going to do it.

;-)
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Nah, you call a bluff by doing it. Not by saying you’re going to do it.

;-)
Based on his record, I think we can expect it sometime this week. He isn't going to immediately publicly announce he is going to do it and then not. He'd have dissembled or ignored Schiff's "demand" if he had no intention of releasing them. In fact, Schiff likely doesn't want them released, but knows they are coming soon, so he postured by "demanding" it. I expect they will be a big nothing burger.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Based on his record, I think we can expect it sometime this week. He isn't going to immediately publicly announce he is going to do it and then not. He'd have dissembled or ignored Schiff's "demand" if he had no intention of releasing them. In fact, Schiff likely doesn't want them released, but knows they are coming soon, so he postured by "demanding" it. I expect they will be a big nothing burger.
Any day now.

;-)
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
And Schiff Hid the testimonies under oath- the ones that said 3 years ago there was no Russia collusion.

Embarrassing that Schiff has no shame. He must have been picked on as a kid- to be this belligerent and mad.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
And Schiff Hid the testimonies under oath- the ones that said 3 years ago there was no Russia collusion.

Embarrassing that Schiff has no shame. He must have been picked on as a kid- to be this belligerent and mad.
Nonsense. The evidence of collusion is summarized in the Mueller report. Schiff didn’t hide it. But it’s true that, to this very day, Baghdad Barr hides a lot of the evidence through his “redactions.” You applaud that, no?
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Nonsense. The evidence of collusion is summarized in the Mueller report. Schiff didn’t hide it. But it’s true that, to this very day, Baghdad Barr hides a lot of the evidence through his “redactions.” You applaud that, no?
Uh You really aren't good with time.
Im speaking of Rhodes, Rice,Lynch,Powers & Brennan,McCabe- Under oath - showed there was Nothing to the Russia mess-

ALL UNDER OATH - WHICH MEANS MUELLER SHOULD HAVE JUST WALKED AWAY IN 2017
- THE FILE WAS EMPTY- THERE WAS NOTHING.

Why do you think Schiff hid those testimonies for 3 years ? YOU GOT PLAYED

You wasted 3 years on that. Remember ?​

57 witnesses who were interviewed by the committee during the Trump Russia probe. Obama's National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch were among those who gave their testimony.

In her interview with the House Intelligence Committee, conducted on September 8, 2017, Rice admitted there 'wasn't anything smoking' that showed the Trump campaign had helped with Russia's election meddling


“That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence…[redacted],” Clapper continued, “But I do not recall any instance when I had direct evidence of the content of these meetings. It’s just the frequency and prevalence of them was of concern.” James Clapper UNDER OATH JULY 2017


“Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” Andrew McCabe UNDER OATH Dec. 2017

“I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.” Ben Rhodes Obama NSA- Under oath December 2017

Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.” Samantha Power UN Representative UNDER OATH. MAY 2017

“I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” SUSAN RICE UNDER OATH SEPTEMBER 2017
 
Last edited:

Bugsy McGurk

President
Uh You really aren't good with time.
Im speaking of Rhodes, Rice,Lynch,Powers & Brennan,McCabe- Under oath - showed there was Nothing to the Russia mess-

ALL UNDER OATH - WHICH MEANS MUELLER SHOULD HAVE JUST WALKED AWAY IN 2017
- THE FILE WAS EMPTY- THERE WAS NOTHING.

Why do you think Schiff hid those testimonies for 3 years ? YOU GOT PLAYED

You wasted 3 years on that. Remember ?​

57 witnesses who were interviewed by the committee during the Trump Russia probe. Obama's National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch were among those who gave their testimony.

In her interview with the House Intelligence Committee, conducted on September 8, 2017, Rice admitted there 'wasn't anything smoking' that showed the Trump campaign had helped with Russia's election meddling


“That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence…[redacted],” Clapper continued, “But I do not recall any instance when I had direct evidence of the content of these meetings. It’s just the frequency and prevalence of them was of concern.” James Clapper UNDER OATH JULY 2017


“Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” Andrew McCabe UNDER OATH Dec. 2017

“I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.” Ben Rhodes Obama NSA- Under oath December 2017

Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.” Samantha Power UN Representative UNDER OATH. MAY 2017

“I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” SUSAN RICE UNDER OATH SEPTEMBER 2017
A winger’s best effort at logical “thought”....

If certain people have no evidence of something, that means there is no evidence of something, even though others have provided such evidence.

;-)
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
A winger’s best effort at logical “thought”....

If certain people have no evidence of something, that means there is no evidence of something, even though others have provided such evidence.

;-)
:rolleyes: In LiberalLand - When the experts give testimony under oath- then go on TV shows and say the opposite- that's 'evidence'.

By Mid 2017 Mueller knew all along there was never any Russian collusion and did his two-year investigation anyway. And guess what? There was never, ever any evidence for a criminal investigation into Trump and collusion with Russia, and they did it anyway.

You bought into it, which is natural for liberals, and wasted all that time. The un-redacted evidence proves that.

I am sorry you can't let it go. But just come to the cool realization you were played- and move on.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
:rolleyes: In LiberalLand - When the experts give testimony under oath- then go on TV shows and say the opposite- that's 'evidence'.

By Mid 2017 Mueller knew all along there was never any Russian collusion and did his two-year investigation anyway. And guess what? There was never, ever any evidence for a criminal investigation into Trump and collusion with Russia, and they did it anyway.

You bought into it, which is natural for liberals, and wasted all that time. The un-redacted evidence proves that.

I am sorry you can't let it go. But just come to the cool realization you were played- and move on.
You just repeat your idiocy. The evidence is summarized in the Mueller report. It’s quite dopey to point to people who don’t have the evidence to claim that there is no such evidence in the report when that evidence comes from others.

You seem incapable of grasping this basic point.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
You just repeat your idiocy. The evidence is summarized in the Mueller report. It’s quite dopey to point to people who don’t have the evidence to claim that there is no such evidence in the report when that evidence comes from others.

You seem incapable of grasping this basic point.

You mean the report that found nothing- because there was nothing?
Or the 'nothing' the experts said under oath?

You seem to make the mistake of making the Mueller report the 'bible'. When it wasn't needed in the first place. Intelligent people know this after the document dump a couple weeks ago.


Why ?

Because those under oath 3 years ago- said there was nothing. Mueller knew it. Everyone knew it. Except you.

Only desperate fools hang on to the now worthless Mueller report.


You wasted 3 years. Move on. You were fooled.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
It's really a shame that in the age of democrat spin and lies, that a president no longer has executive privilege or the confidentiality to do his job effectively.

I'm sure that it will all switch back if democrats, God forbid, ever lie their way back into any level of power again.
So you think Flynn's phone calls to the Russian ambassador in December 2016 should fall under executive privilege? You do know that Trump wasn't president at that time...right?
 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
You just repeat your idiocy. The evidence is summarized in the Mueller report. It’s quite dopey to point to people who don’t have the evidence to claim that there is no such evidence in the report when that evidence comes from others.

You seem incapable of grasping this basic point.
that would be the report that stated categorically there was NO COLLUSION.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
You mean the report that found nothing- because there was nothing?
Or the 'nothing' the experts said under oath?

You seem to make the mistake of making the Mueller report the 'bible'. When it wasn't needed in the first place. Intelligent people know this after the document dump a couple weeks ago.


Why ?

Because those under oath 3 years ago- said there was nothing. Mueller knew it. Everyone knew it. Except you.

Only desperate fools hang on to the now worthless Mueller report.


You wasted 3 years. Move on. You were fooled.
And around and around you go...

The Mueller report is chock full of evidence of collusion. You seem to have been brainwashed by the Trump/Baghdad Barr “No collusion!” lies.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
And around and around you go...

The Mueller report is chock full of evidence of collusion. You seem to have been brainwashed by the Trump/Baghdad Barr “No collusion!” lies.
Or maybe just listening to Obama Administration officials?

 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Or maybe just listening to Obama Administration officials?

Yikes. That idiocy sure has been drilled into wingers’ heads.

As I explained above, the evidence in the Mueller report is what it is even if others did not witness that conduct.

You people don’t seem smart enough to grasp this simple concept.
 
Top