United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:16 pm

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:31 pm
Posts: 6897
Just fake news after fake news from this network. I wonder how many people hear these fake news stories, then never hear the "correction" and walk around believing these lies? And why are these "mistakes" never in Trump's favor? They are ALWAYS stories that are designed to hurt Trump.

================================

CNN Walks Back Jeff Sessions-Russia Bombshell
Amber Athey
11:29 AM 12/11/2017

CNN has quietly walked back more of their “bombshell” reporting on the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, and this time it’s a story relating to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ security clearance forms.

In May, CNN reported that Sessions had failed to disclose meetings he had with the Russian ambassador when he was a senator. Justice Department officials told CNN that Sessions had not listed those meetings on a security clearance form, even though the form says to list “any contact” with the “foreign government” or its “representatives” in the past seven years.

CNN framed the non-disclosures as more evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump team, writing, “He has come under withering criticism from Democrats following revelations that he did not disclose the same contacts with Kislyak during his Senate confirmation hearings earlier this year.”

At the time, Sessions said he was told by the FBI not to list meetings “connected with his Senate activities,” but CNN’s legal expert denied those claims.

“A legal expert who regularly assists officials in filling out the form disagrees with the Justice Department’s explanation, suggesting that Sessions should have disclosed the meetings,” CNN asserted.

The CNN report led to breathless coverage by the rest of the legacy media, who painted the non-disclosures as a Trump official trying to hide problematic meetings with the Russians.

However, CNN admitted early Monday that FBI emails prove that Sessions’ explanation for the non-disclosures is accurate.

“A newly released document shows that the FBI told an aide to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Sessions wasn’t required to disclose foreign contacts that occurred in the course of carrying out his government duties when he was a senator,” CNN’s Evan Perez wrote in the new piece.

Monday’s article indicates that Sessions was following what the FBI told him and was not intentionally trying to mislead the DOJ about his meetings with Russians.

Just this past Friday, CNN had to correct another “bombshell” report that claimed Donald Trump Jr. had advance access to Wikileaks documents stolen from the Democrats.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/11/cnn-w ... bombshell/

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 32703
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
I think DC is their legal export. "Well, Wikipedia says .... so therefore...."

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
awesome guy wrote:
I think DC is their legal export. "Well, Wikipedia says .... so therefore...."


Hey there, AG is calling me out!!! Ouchy. Why don't you give us all a discourse on the non-existent India sanctions you cited as proof that I was wrong??
Derp.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 32703
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think DC is their legal export. "Well, Wikipedia says .... so therefore...."


Hey there, AG is calling me out!!! Ouchy. Why don't you give us all a discourse on the non-existent India sanctions you cited as proof that I was wrong??
Derp.
That's not the only sanction you dope. The point was we have sanctions against pretty much everyone. There's no such thing as nation we're not in dispute with.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN0ZO1I1

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think DC is their legal export. "Well, Wikipedia says .... so therefore...."


Hey there, AG is calling me out!!! Ouchy. Why don't you give us all a discourse on the non-existent India sanctions you cited as proof that I was wrong??
Derp.
That's not the only sanction you dope. The point was we have sanctions against pretty much everyone. There's no such thing as nation we're not in dispute with.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN0ZO1I1


So, when you said we had sanctions against India related to nuclear testing, you really meant the great 2016 chicken leg dispute, in which no sanctions were imposed. Shifting sands...right!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 32703
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think DC is their legal export. "Well, Wikipedia says .... so therefore...."


Hey there, AG is calling me out!!! Ouchy. Why don't you give us all a discourse on the non-existent India sanctions you cited as proof that I was wrong??
Derp.
That's not the only sanction you dope. The point was we have sanctions against pretty much everyone. There's no such thing as nation we're not in dispute with.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN0ZO1I1


So, when you said we had sanctions against India related to nuclear testing, you really meant the great 2016 chicken leg dispute, in which no sanctions were imposed. Shifting sands...right!
I thought I left it at sanctions since there are several. Anyway, your ability to miss a point is remarkable.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 9751
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think DC is their legal export. "Well, Wikipedia says .... so therefore...."


Hey there, AG is calling me out!!! Ouchy. Why don't you give us all a discourse on the non-existent India sanctions you cited as proof that I was wrong??
Derp.


Dude, as you have proclaimed you are an expert on everything and everyone else is just back woods idiots (who love their confederate flag) derp

It must be special to be sooo much smarter than everyone else.

partisan douchebaggery aside


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think DC is their legal export. "Well, Wikipedia says .... so therefore...."


Hey there, AG is calling me out!!! Ouchy. Why don't you give us all a discourse on the non-existent India sanctions you cited as proof that I was wrong??
Derp.
That's not the only sanction you dope. The point was we have sanctions against pretty much everyone. There's no such thing as nation we're not in dispute with.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN0ZO1I1


So, when you said we had sanctions against India related to nuclear testing, you really meant the great 2016 chicken leg dispute, in which no sanctions were imposed. Shifting sands...right!
I thought I left it at sanctions since there are several. Anyway, your ability to miss a point is remarkable.


I understand your point, it just underscores your continued inability to comprehend the Logan Act.
Specifically, this part, "intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States."

Flynn was discussing specific sanctions. Unless you think Obama was discussing chicken leg sanctions with India, the tweet about Obama and India is off the mark, as I've already stated several times.

Not sure why you can't let this one go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think DC is their legal export. "Well, Wikipedia says .... so therefore...."


Hey there, AG is calling me out!!! Ouchy. Why don't you give us all a discourse on the non-existent India sanctions you cited as proof that I was wrong??
Derp.


Dude, as you have proclaimed you are an expert on everything and everyone else is just back woods idiots (who love their confederate flag) derp

It must be special to be sooo much smarter than everyone else.

partisan douchebaggery aside


Actually, you proclaimed that. Don't pull me into your silliness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 32703
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think DC is their legal export. "Well, Wikipedia says .... so therefore...."


Hey there, AG is calling me out!!! Ouchy. Why don't you give us all a discourse on the non-existent India sanctions you cited as proof that I was wrong??
Derp.
That's not the only sanction you dope. The point was we have sanctions against pretty much everyone. There's no such thing as nation we're not in dispute with.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN0ZO1I1


So, when you said we had sanctions against India related to nuclear testing, you really meant the great 2016 chicken leg dispute, in which no sanctions were imposed. Shifting sands...right!
I thought I left it at sanctions since there are several. Anyway, your ability to miss a point is remarkable.


I understand your point, it just underscores your continued inability to comprehend the Logan Act.
Specifically, this part, "intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States."

Flynn was discussing specific sanctions. Unless you think Obama was discussing chicken leg sanctions with India, the tweet about Obama and India is off the mark, as I've already stated several times.


Shifting sands. Your argument is an invertebrate without a spin. It's amusing that you're trying to lecture as you learn in parallel.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 9751
HokieFanDC wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think DC is their legal export. "Well, Wikipedia says .... so therefore...."


Hey there, AG is calling me out!!! Ouchy. Why don't you give us all a discourse on the non-existent India sanctions you cited as proof that I was wrong??
Derp.


Dude, as you have proclaimed you are an expert on everything and everyone else is just back woods idiots (who love their confederate flag) derp

It must be special to be sooo much smarter than everyone else.

partisan douchebaggery aside


Actually, you proclaimed that. Don't pull me into your silliness.


sure.. got it


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron