Yeah, poor Flynn, Trump should have stood by him. The incoming administration does speak to foreign powers before the inauguration, Obama and his staff did it, so it's no like he broke a law. Seems likely Trump was the one that fumbled here and then didn't want to admit it. It just goes to show they aren't very experienced over there. Good in some ways, but bad in ways like this, when they fail to brief each other properly.
Well, here's a few links on the subject of Global Warming that Claeyt asked for:
And an article from the WP Factchecker admitting that several terrorists have indeed come from the countries banned by Trump. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... ics&wpmm=1 You have to get past the misleading headlines and opinions, but here are a few quoted facts:
Miller is citing research by the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of legal and illegal immigration. According to the center’s study, released Feb. 11, 72 people from the seven countries identified through the executive order have been “convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks.” The seven countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The center found that 33 of the 72 people “were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes,” including conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, material support of a terrorist or terrorist group, and international money-laundering conspiracy. On the list were the two Iraqi refugees in Bowling Green, Ky., who in 2011 were arrested and faced federal terrorism charges after it was discovered that, before becoming refugees, they had potentially targeted U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The revelation prompted the Obama administration to impose new, more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees.
The article goes on to list several more examples of assassination attempts, money laundering, support of terrorist groups, drug and gun trafficking, and visa/passport fraud.
Community Manager for Mortal Moments Inc.
Icon wrote:This isn't Farmville with fighting, its Mortal Kombat with corn.
This is actually the only legitimate media you posted and it's an opinion piece by Christopher Booker. The Telegraph is a conservative media group in England but Booker is proven to be highly strange when it comes to science. He has denied Smoking causes cancer. He believes asbestos is as safe as talcum powder and should still be in use. His ideas about climate change are without any scientific fact.
The "whistleblower" Bates at the NAOO even did an interview rolling back his criticism of Karl's study saying that although protocol was broken there was no data fraud.
This is a 'Daily Mail' clip and paste article posted on the Congressional Science committee site run by congressman Lamar Smith of Texas who's received 600,000 dollars from the Oil industry in the last 2 years (the most of any member of congress). He's a nut and a kook.
He's the most rabid climate denier in congress and is currently head of the congressional Science commission where he's read fake denier reports into the congressional record. He's also used the committee to issue subpoenas to threaten scientists he's disagreed with. He's currently issued more subpoenas in 2 years than the entire 54 year history of the commission. He justifies attacking scientists by using the HUAC committee as an example of his goals of the committee.
His investigations have been debunked by every major science group in the country.
Democrats have refused to participate in the committee due to his nonsense.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/ The same thing from just before the Paris Summit.
This is an article by climate denier blogger Anthony Watts who runs a right wing blog site.
...and for the record, I believe that all of these climate change deniers (Smith, Watts, Booker) should be allowed to post and then argued against as they represent the opposing side of the scientific debate about climate change. They are exaggerating and manipulating things like Bates's challenge of Karl to fit their world view. Their scientific proof is nowhere near as reliable or factually based as scientific studies saying climate change is real, man made and continuing. This is a debate and these guys are the 3% that disagree with the other 97% of scientists.
And an article from the WP Factchecker admitting that several terrorists have indeed come from the countries banned by Trump. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... ics&wpmm=1 You have to get past the misleading headlines and opinions, but here are a few quoted facts:
Miller is citing research by the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of legal and illegal immigration. According to the center’s study, released Feb. 11, 72 people from the seven countries identified through the executive order have been “convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks.” The seven countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The center found that 33 of the 72 people “were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes,” including conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, material support of a terrorist or terrorist group, and international money-laundering conspiracy. On the list were the two Iraqi refugees in Bowling Green, Ky., who in 2011 were arrested and faced federal terrorism charges after it was discovered that, before becoming refugees, they had potentially targeted U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The revelation prompted the Obama administration to impose new, more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees.
The article goes on to list several more examples of assassination attempts, money laundering, support of terrorist groups, drug and gun trafficking, and visa/passport fraud.
This article does give examples of people involved in raising money, supporting and foiled terrorist attacks who were arrested but it debunks Miller's argument that 72 terrorists came in from these countries. Of course this is nowhere near the number of terrorists coming in from countries like Saudi Arabia, the gulf states and Pakistan.
We're getting off target with this particular topic here. I don't disagree that 6 of these 7 countries (There are so few terrorists in Iran that that one is nonsense to attack Iran) shouldn't have greater vetting. THEY ALREADY RIGHTLY HAVE GREATER VETTING THAN OTHER COUNTRIES and I'm even willing to accept more if there is legitimate info of a growing threat from them. On average it takes 2 years for someone from these countries to get in. 6 of the 7 countries are in civil war right now and background checks are harder than other countries. All 7 of the countries have limited and irregular government control over info for vetting so greater vetting is justified. Outright denial is not. I disagree with the ban for these reasons:
1. It is based on the idea of a "Muslim ban" and not on any new information of a threat or increased terrorism coming from these countries.
2. Countries like Sudan, Iraq and especially Somalia, which just held it's first presidential election in years, are actually emerging from bitter civil wars and are trying to become part of the international community. Denying them access to it isn't the way to grow democracy.
3. It effects people who are residents of other countries including allies who have lived in those countries for in some cases their entire lives.
4. The ban affects people who have already received a visa, green card or a refugee status. This radically changes American immigration precedent and breaks the 1965 Immigration law.
Trump's administration greatly mishandled all of this and this hurt us internationally and did not help us to fight terrorism or the ideology of radical Islam.
DNC Rep. Maxine Waters takes call from someone posing as Prime Minister of Ukraine. They discuss the sanctions, army placements, election hacking among other things! Isn't this what Flynn was investigated for?
TotalyMeow wrote: Claeyt's perspective of Salem and what it's about is very different from the devs and in many cases is completely the opposite of what we believe.
TotalyMeow wrote:Yeah, poor Flynn, Trump should have stood by him. The incoming administration does speak to foreign powers before the inauguration, Obama and his staff did it, so it's no like he broke a law. Seems likely Trump was the one that fumbled here and then didn't want to admit it. It just goes to show they aren't very experienced over there. Good in some ways, but bad in ways like this, when they fail to brief each other properly.
You are completely missing the point on this. Many parts of this saga, which is only beginning, are possibly illegal.
1. Flynn had contact with the Russians during the campaign. This has been confirmed. Did he coordinate the DNC and campaign leaks with them? Flynn apparently called the Russian ambassador 26 times from August to December.
2. Flynn called the Russian ambassador after the election without consulting anyone in the Obama administration which is against protocol which is not normal and was not done by the incoming Obama administration. He called the Russian ambassador the day before the sanctions and expulsions and talked to them about the sanctions. This means that he actually warned the Russians about the sanctions before they happened. Where did he get his information about the sanctions coming? Was he briefed on them? Did Trump tell him about them following his own intelligence briefing on the sanctions and expulsions from the Obama's administration? None of this has been answered and all may lead to criminal charges.
3. Did Flynn go to the Russians during the campaign, throughout the fall and after the election on his own or did Trump coordinate his contact with them? Was anyone else involved with Flynn contacting the Russians? The Trump administration is refusing to answer this.
4. Flynn may have been illegally paid by the Russians in 2015. The Army is investigating this. This would also be a criminal investigation.
5. The Trump administration knew that the FBI and Justice department had recorded Flynn's calls A MONTH before deciding what to do. They still appointed him to the NSA chief and allowed him to receive intelligence. They ignored Flynn's possibly illegal actions and only took action after the scandal became public.
All of these things are part of why the Flynn part of the Dossier saga are possibly criminally illegal.
Here's the great thing about the Trump Presidency. Someone becomes a problem, they resign. Under Obama they were lauded.
Same scandal in a Hillary Clinton regime: Clinton avoids the press for at least 24 hours while she gets drunk and panics a few surrogates appear on news programs and make lawyerly half-true statements that everyone has to deflect. Pocahontas tweets that we are unfairly bullying a woman A week later, Clinton sets up an interview with a friendly media personality and answers prepared questions with a prepared joke. The controversy is declared "over" by her friends in the media. No one resigns.
Breaking news:
Director Of Secret Service Has Resigned, Was Selected By OBAMA
TotalyMeow wrote: Claeyt's perspective of Salem and what it's about is very different from the devs and in many cases is completely the opposite of what we believe.
Claeyt wrote:It took me 5 minutes to prove all of these are nut jobs, right wing bloggers and fake science. Come on Tmeow, you have to do better than that.
Do I? I thought you just wanted to know what I was referring to and I looked for a few simple, laymen termed stories so you could understand it easily. I can probably find the actual scientific papers if you really want, but you'll likely have to pay to read them.
Claeyt wrote:This article does give examples of people involved in raising money, supporting and foiled terrorist attacks who were arrested but it debunks Miller's argument that 72 terrorists came in from these countries. Of course this is nowhere near the number of terrorists coming in from countries like Saudi Arabia, the gulf states and Pakistan.
Oh, so only a few dozen of them were terrorists planning to kill people. I guess that changes everything?
Claeyt wrote:All 7 of the countries have limited and irregular government control over info for vetting so greater vetting is justified. Outright denial is not. I disagree with the ban for these reasons:
1. It is based on the idea of a "Muslim ban" and not on any new information of a threat or increased terrorism coming from these countries.
2.Denying them access to [the international community] isn't the way to grow democracy.
So, it makes sense to try to vet them properly before letting them in? But with how bad their records are, it's almost impossible to vet them at all, which makes just denying them access the solution. The list was based on the threat of increased terrorism, as determined by the Obama administration. Perhaps you're right and the list should be expanded, but the countries on it certainly do deserve to be there. Your silly statement that Iran isn't a source of terrorism just shows how brainwashed you are, they're the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
The US does not comprise the entirety of the international community. If their society and government becomes more tolerant of ours, I say fine, let them come here. But the western world has been bending over backward for these refugees and it's gotten us nothing but pain. Time for some give to go with the take.
And no, it didn't break any laws.
Dallane wrote:DNC Rep. Maxine Waters takes call from someone posing as Prime Minister of Ukraine. They discuss the sanctions, army placements, election hacking among other things! Isn't this what Flynn was investigated for?
Yeah, and one of the favorite candidates for the new DNC chair, Keith Ellison, was endorsed by David Duke. Funny how the media is silent on that.
Claeyt wrote: None of this has been answered and all may lead to criminal charges.
Um.... all that stuff you've been posting says that a transcript of the phone call, possibly obtained illegally then illegally leaked to the press, showed Flynn only told Putin to be patient and wait for Trump to take office. Nothing about terms of the sanctions or about any of the other last-minute tricks Obama was playing to try to thrust his policies on the world. So, he really didn't need to know anything.
The only thing that really concerns me about the entire Flynn thing is that high ups in the intelligence community and/or other White House positions have been recording calls which they probably didn't have legal permission to record, AND have been leaking them and who knows what other potentially classified information to the press at a ridiculous rate. To me, that is the biggest sign of problems in the administration. Not from Trump and his team, but from people lower down who have decided to put their own opinions and politics ahead of their duties to the President and loyalty to the country. They would rather manufacture a scandal and do their best to harm the entire nation, than give Trump a chance to do his job well.
Community Manager for Mortal Moments Inc.
Icon wrote:This isn't Farmville with fighting, its Mortal Kombat with corn.
Multiple members of Trump's campaign coordinated with Russian Intelligence DURING THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE LAST ***** YEAR. 4 Senior current and former Intelligence Officials are the sources for the aticle. The aides recorded with phone record logs collected by the Intelligence and FBI investigation includes Manafort, Flynn and at least 4 other campaign aides and TRUMP WAS ***** BRIEFED ON THE CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE BY THE AIDES DURING THE CAMPAIGN.
Republican leaders of Congress, Republican head of Ways and Means Chaffetz, Republican head of House Intelligence Committee and Sec. of Justice Department Jeff Sessions have ALL SAID THEY WOULD NOT PROSECUTE OR INVESTIGATE THESE ALLEGATIONS.
Well if you would read any of the articles you linked you would see whats actually going on. You are aware that not everything in the title of something is the entire article right?
TotalyMeow wrote: Claeyt's perspective of Salem and what it's about is very different from the devs and in many cases is completely the opposite of what we believe.
There's nothing new in these articles. This is why the practice of using deceptive headlines upsets me so much. So many people just read the headline and assume they know the whole article. These articles are just a rehash of things that have already been reported and they are still saying that there have been no wrongdoings found on the part of Trump's team. They're also still saying that people in the intelligence sector are continuing to illegally leak confidential information, which is either very dangerous for them (like decades in prison dangerous), or they're using the label 'confidential' to leak total lies while being super vague because it's supposedly a secret so they can't say much, shhhhh. Either way, disturbing.
Community Manager for Mortal Moments Inc.
Icon wrote:This isn't Farmville with fighting, its Mortal Kombat with corn.
