Trump ordered top-secret security clearance for Jared Kushner despite concerns of John Kelly, intel officials

  
Via:  flynavy1  •  6 months ago  •  109 comments

Trump ordered top-secret security clearance for Jared Kushner despite concerns of John Kelly, intel officials
"a move that made Kelly so uncomfortable that he documented the request in writing..."

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


President Donald Trump early last year directed his then-chief of staff, John Kelly, to give presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner a top-secret security clearance - a move that made Kelly so uncomfortable that he documented the request in writing, according to current and former administration officials.

After Kushner, a senior White House adviser, and his wife, Ivanka Trump, pressured the president to grant Kushner the long-delayed clearance, Trump instructed Kelly to fix the problem, according to a person familiar with Kelly's account, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.

Kelly told colleagues that the decision to give Kushner top-secret clearance was not supported by career intelligence officials, and he memorialized Trump's request in an internal memo, according to two people familiar with the memo and the then-chief of staff's concerns.

It is unclear how Kelly responded to Trump's directive. But by May, Kushner had been granted a permanent security clearance to view top-secret material - a move that followed months of concern inside the White House about his inability to secure such access.


Kushner's lawyer publicly described the process as one that had gone through normal channels, a description that Kelly did not view as accurate, according to a person familiar with his reaction.

The former chief of staff, who left the administration at the beginning of this year, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump's push to get Kushner clearance - and the chief of staff's concerns about it - was first reported by the New York Times, which also reported that then-White House Counsel Donald McGahn had concerns about Kushner's clearance.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders declined to weigh in Thursday evening, saying: "We don't comment on security clearances."

Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Kushner lawyer Abbe Lowell, said in a statement that "in 2018, White House and security clearance officials affirmed that Mr. Kushner's security clearance was handled in the regular process with no pressure from anyone."

"That was conveyed to the media at the time, and new stories, if accurate, do not change what was affirmed at the time," he added.

An attorney for McGahn declined to comment.

See full article here: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-jared-kushner-security-clearance-20190228-story.html

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
FLYNAVY1
1  seeder  FLYNAVY1    6 months ago

Who to trust...?

As a person that had to obtain and maintain a security clearance, and knowing well what would disqualify a person from obtaining a clearance, I find this situation a compromise of national security.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.1  Snuffy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    6 months ago

If a memo from John Kelly exists, it should be easy enough to produce for congress. National security, especially as important as at that level, must not be compromised.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Snuffy @1.1    6 months ago
If a memo from John Kelly exists, it should be easy enough to produce for congress. National security, especially as important as at that level, must not be compromised.

It's not that easy.  It's a "note to file" which is part of the executive branch's records and therefore can be withheld,  hidden or disappeared at any time.  The only way to really document this would be to get Kelly before Congress and under oath and make that asshole say it out loud.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    6 months ago
Who to trust...?

Hillary Clinton and all the parasites surrounding her?

How about the people like Comey and others who use their positions to try to destroy Trump?

Oh, personally, a TS with the SCI and other add shit including a full scope poly.

But as one who still maintains a clearance, I also know that the Classification Authority is the President and he(she) is the ultimate authority from which all others receive their authorities.  And that includes all of the directors of any and all agencies of the federal government.

If Trump decides to classify or declassify anything it is his decision and his decision alone.  If he wishes to approve, deny or rescind the clearance of any individual, it is his decision alone and NO ONE has the authority to question his decision.

I would have thought you learned that when you received your clearance.

 
 
 
bbl-1
1.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2    6 months ago

So, Heil the Trump is new deal now?  All authority belongs to him?  If that is the case, disband both houses of congress, the military command structures and provide the Trump with a Judiciary that will do 'his will'.

Lets just get on with it.  Screw it.  Do it.  Why squander this once in a millennium opportunity?  Give the Trump the reins to everything, forever.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.2.2  Raven Wing  replied to  bbl-1 @1.2.1    6 months ago
So, Heil the Trump is new deal now? 

Nah......Trump just thinks so. He is trying to pattern himself after Putin and Kim as being a Dictator. But, all he succeeds at is being a d*ck.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.3  WallyW  replied to  bbl-1 @1.2.1    6 months ago
All authority belongs to him? 

Oh calm down and quit hyperventilating. We're only talking about the authority given to him as president by the Constitution. A president has a lot of power that he can use. So does the new AG, who has a lot of things that need to be looked into and investigated.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.4  XDm9mm  replied to  bbl-1 @1.2.1    6 months ago
All authority belongs to him?

Classification Authority....  YES.  Period, end of story.   If you ever had a clearance, you would have known that.  Just sayin.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  bbl-1 @1.2.1    6 months ago

Even Hitler and Stalin had their generals so you just can't disband military command structures. The military works from the top down

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.2.6  SteevieGee  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2    6 months ago
If Trump decides to classify or declassify anything it is his decision and his decision alone.  If he wishes to approve, deny or rescind the clearance of any individual, it is his decision alone and NO ONE has the authority to question his decision.

Actually, Congress has the authority to question his decision.  Perhaps you should read the Constitution. You know about the Constitution?   It's where the second amendment is.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.7  MUVA  replied to  SteevieGee @1.2.6    6 months ago

You used snark instead of a argument so you are saying the president doesn't make discussions on who gets security clearance.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.2.8  SteevieGee  replied to  MUVA @1.2.7    6 months ago

He can make the decisions.  Congress has the authority to question them.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.9  XDm9mm  replied to  SteevieGee @1.2.6    6 months ago
Actually, Congress has the authority to question his decision.

Sorry.  When it comes to Classification Authority, that resides with the President.  PERIOD END OF STORY.

Now, they can question him and he can tell them to pound sand.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  WallyW @1.2.3    6 months ago
We're only talking about the authority given to him as president by the Constitution.

Imperilling national security by disregarding all advice and giving out top secret clearances as nepotistic favors to people who've lied dozens of times on their application is exactly what the Constitution means by the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors."  

 
 
 
bbl-1
1.2.11  bbl-1  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.5    6 months ago

Hitler and Stalin.  You said it, I didn't.  Now, do you understand what I inferred?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2    6 months ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
bbl-1
1.2.13  bbl-1  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.4    6 months ago

False. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.14  XDm9mm  replied to  bbl-1 @1.2.13    6 months ago

Really?  Please indicate exactly how.   

Classification Authority of all US cleared personnel is derived from the classification authority of the entity they work for.   Now can you guess who provides those people THEIR Classification Authority?   That classification authority is derived from the POTUS, or President of The United States.  It really is that simple.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  bbl-1 @1.2.11    6 months ago

Oh, yeah. I was just expanding on your comment

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.16  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.14    6 months ago
That classification authority is derived from the POTUS, or President of The United States.  It really is that simple.

It really isn't simple, or every other president would have done it.  Having the authority is one thing, abusing it is another.  I'm surprised how many republicans are happy about that.  There is a reason the clearances weren't given the usual way, and Trump overrode their concerns, which actually harms our national security.  Why did he lie about it?  Why did all of them lie about it?   Ever wonder how it will feel when dems decide to follow the republican path of executive authority?  Although I doubt they would ever compromise national security so brazenly and openly.  If all this is just great for America, why do they all continue to LIE about it all?  Care to name the other presidents who overrode their national security people to force them to give clearances to undeserving people? 

 
 
 
bbl-1
1.2.17  bbl-1  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.14    6 months ago

False.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.18  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2    6 months ago
But as one who still maintains a clearance, I also know that the Classification Authority is the President and he(she) is the ultimate authority from which all others receive their authorities.

Yes and it shouldn't matter that to anyone that Trump AND his daughter LIED about it. /s

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.19  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  SteevieGee @1.2.6    6 months ago
It's where the second amendment is.

For a lot them, that's ALL that's there.  

 
 
 
WallyW
1.3  WallyW  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    6 months ago
I find this situation a compromise of national security.

If I remember correctly, the former Democratic candidate had a top secret clearance and abused it by sending and receiving governmental emails on an unsecured personal home server. Some of those messages were secret and above according to Comey.

I find that to be compromising national security.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.3.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  WallyW @1.3    6 months ago
I find that to be compromising national security

So tit for tat? We don't have to follow rules anymore because someone broke them in the past?

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669460336/ivanka-trump-reportedly-used-personal-email-account-for-official-white-house-bus

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.2  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.1    6 months ago

It isn't tit for tat it is to different standards being applied depending on your party affiliation. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.3.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.1    6 months ago

So you don't deny that Hillary broke the rules? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.3.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3.3    6 months ago
So you don't deny that Hillary broke the rules? 

I've never denied that rules were broken just as the FBI concluded. They also concluded that the 110 emails that were classified were not sent via the private email server intentionally and there was no evidence any of those classified emails were compromised.

Now in comparison you have a person who was denied clearance due to several issues including lying on the clearance application about his contacts just being handed clearance through nepotism. Now that is the very definition of compromised. There really is no comparison between the two situations.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.3.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  WallyW @1.3    6 months ago
I find that to be compromising national security.

Unfortunately for you, those who have the actual authority to make that determination disagreed.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.3.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3.3    6 months ago
So you don't deny that Hillary broke the rules?

no one wants a hillary tit, over a Trumppy tat,

they both are disgusting imho, but please attempto compare apples to oranges and don't go anywhere near either of those pears...please.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.3.7  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.1    6 months ago
We don't have to follow rules anymore because someone broke them in the past?

Ahhhhhhh....so you finally admit that Hillary broke the law. Don't let your little libbie friends on here know that. They will commence with the name calling and insults towards you.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.3.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @1.3.7    6 months ago
you finally admit that Hillary broke the law.

Comey stated as much, that she may have skirted certain laws, but with no mal intent, unlike the malicious unintended intention, i shall not mention, currently shockingly preserving the  Dis Order, know ones who did, definitely special order, the special ed candidate, worse to date, even worse to marry one so divorced from reality, it's unreal...really

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3.9  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.3.8    6 months ago
but with no mal intent,

Other than intentional disregard for federal records keeping laws that is.  She simply did not want to obey the REQUIREMENT of having all of her OFFICIAL BUSINESS recorded for posterity.

And of course there was that one email that she sent that apparently wanted some classified info sent to her electronically after being sneaker net'd from the high side to the unsecure low side, of course only after classification banners had been removed.  Otherwise, how did she come into possession of those classified emails with the 'portion marks' like (C)?  

 
 
 
lib50
1.3.10  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3.9    6 months ago

Are you pretending you care about that?  Because guess who else doesn't obey the REQUIREMENT of having all of their OFFICIAL BUSINESS recorded for posterity?  On a scale never seen before.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.3.11  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  bugsy @1.3.7    6 months ago
Ahhhhhhh....so you finally admit that Hillary broke the law.

Just repeating that lie will never make it come true no matter how many times you lot do it. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.3.12  bugsy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.3.11    6 months ago
Just repeating that lie will never make it come true no matter how many times you lot do it. 

Nope...you admitted it. Now you just don't want to own it because you know what your lib friends on here will do.

 
 
 
lib50
1.3.13  lib50  replied to  bugsy @1.3.12    6 months ago

You know, some of us decide to make our rebuttal or argument by allowing the assertion to stand, even if not proven or true.  For the sake of further debate.  May or not be true.  Just a heads up. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    6 months ago

The President has the authority to direct his chief of staff to grant somebody security clearance, so what is this all about?  Is it all a matter of trying to catch the President in a lie?  Based on all the anti-Trumpers in government, I really don't blame this President for putting his family in key positions. He needs people he can trust watching his back.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.4.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4    6 months ago
He needs people he can trust watching his back.

How are they going to do that, when they're both incompetent and security risks themselves?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4    6 months ago
Is it all a matter of trying to catch the President in a lie?

All one needs do is catch Trump opening his mouth. 

Some day one of y'all will have to explain to me WHY he lies about shit that y'all insist he need not lie about...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.4.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.1    6 months ago

How are they incompetent?  How are they security risks?  Was Hillary Clinton a security risk?  Did the top officials at the FBI & DOJ serve this country or did they betray it?

 
 
 
lib50
1.4.4  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.3    6 months ago
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.4.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @1.4.4    6 months ago

I'm commenting because Trump's family has NOT violated national security. Hillary Clinton did. So where have you been?

 
 
 
lib50
1.4.6  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.5    6 months ago

WTF?  Do you know that when people lie they are compromised and open to blackmail and influence from outside?  Do you know the reasons Kushner didn't get a clearance until Trump forced them?  Do you know how many times in history this has happened?  Trumps entire presidency has compromised our national security!  The security clearances are only a small part.  If a democrat were doing any of this crap the gop would have already voted to impeach.  Did I mention the unsecure phones and private emails used by Trump?  Not allowing any American into a Putin meeting, so only Russia know what happened?  Take those double standards somewhere else and deal with the truth about Trump. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.4.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.3    6 months ago
How are they incompetent?

What are their qualifications?  Jared sells real estate.  Ivanka steals shoe designs and trades on Daddy's name.  The only reason they hold the positions they do is because they're family.

Kushner had his clearance downgraded.  He "forgot" to mention his Russian contacts.  As lib50 said, the only way he got his clearance was his familial relation to Trump.

How could anybody NOT have a problem with this?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.8  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.5    6 months ago
I'm commenting because Trump's family has NOT violated national security.

You know this how? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.9  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.3    6 months ago
How are they incompetent? 

Well considering the FACT that he was incapable of filling out an SF86 without amending it 40 TIMES, I'd say that's a pretty good clue. 

How are they security risks? 

Gee Vic, you seem to actually want the facts. Wonder why Trump won't release them...

Was Hillary Clinton a security risk? 

Whataboutism...

Did the top officials at the FBI & DOJ serve this country or did they betray it?

Well Petraeus sure betrayed it. Who else did you have in mind? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.4.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.7    6 months ago
The only reason they hold the positions they do is because they're family.

It's because they can be trusted.  Unlike all those Obama operatives who abused their positions to oust an American President.


How could anybody NOT have a problem with this?

Not everyone thinks like you. I thought you learned that in 2016?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.4.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @1.4.6    6 months ago
WTF? 

She says

Do you know that when people lie they are compromised and open to blackmail and influence from outside? 

Then we have a TON of compromised people living in Washington DC & northern Virginia!

Do you know the reasons Kushner didn't get a clearance until Trump forced them? 

Yup, his application was flagged by the FBI because of his international business dealings & meetings. The same FBI whose leadership was trying to oust the President. The same FBI which is now still trying to deal with what those individuals did.

Do you know how many times in history this has happened?

Don't know. Did it happen with Bobby Kennedy or Eric Holder?

Trumps entire presidency has compromised our national security!  

You don't say!

 If a democrat were doing any of this crap the gop would have already voted to impeach. 

I doubt that very much.

Did I mention the unsecure phones and private emails used by Trump? 

Where they like a private server?

Not allowing any American into a Putin meeting, so only Russia know what happened?  

Is that like telling the Russians " After my election I have more flexibility" ?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.4.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.10    6 months ago
It's because they can be trusted.

Of course they can.  That's why Daddy had to get them security clearances they wouldn't qualify for otherwise jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.13  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.11    6 months ago
Yup, his application was flagged by the FBI because of his international business dealings & meetings. The same FBI whose leadership was trying to oust the President. The same FBI which is now still trying to deal with what those individuals did.

Hilarious. 

Vic, the CIA is the Agency that denied Jared SCI level clearance. I know that fact doesn't fit into you 'deep state' conspiracy theory, but it IS a fact...

I doubt that very much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama

Where they like a private server?

No. They haven't been reviewed by the FBI. 

Is that like telling the Russians " After my election I have more flexibility" ?

No, it's like telling the Russians SCI information in the Oval Office, just to 'show off'. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.14  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.4.13    6 months ago
Yup, his application was flagged by the FBI because of his international business dealings & meetings. The same FBI whose leadership was trying to oust the President. The same FBI which is now still trying to deal with what those individuals did. Hilarious. 

We're happy you have a sense of humor.  Even though you apparently laugh at the truth.

Vic, the CIA is the Agency that denied Jared SCI level clearance. I know that fact doesn't fit into you 'deep state' conspiracy theory, but it IS a fact...

First and foremost, SCI is NOT//NOT a clearance....  it's simply access.  There are only three "Clearance" levels:  Confidential, Secret, Top Secret.

But, you're basing your information on some inside CIA sources you personally spoke with that divulged SCI information to you, or are you basing your theory on what the Washington Post wrote and used unnamed anonymous sources....   

Where they like a private server? No. They haven't been reviewed by the FBI. 

What Trump tweets needs not be 'reviewed' as they're ALL out in the public arena.  There's no (C/S/TS (portion marks)) before any of them as there were on some emails on a private server in the basement of a Secretary of State.

Is that like telling the Russians " After my election I have more flexibility" ? No, it's like telling the Russians SCI information in the Oval Office, just to 'show off'. 

You were there and know specifically what was said?  Really, please expand on the conversation.

Now, in all honesty, all Presidents and executive level personnel slip and make the inadvertent disclosure.   Obama did just that and a man is sitting in a Pakistan prison for it.  And yeah...   that's a fact.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.15  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.4.9    6 months ago
Well Petraeus sure betrayed it. Who else did you have in mind? 

Damn....   I never knew Petraeus was with the DOJ or the FBI.  Please cite exactly when that tenure was.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.16  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.14    6 months ago
We're happy you have a sense of humor.  Even though you apparently laugh at the truth.

Why are you quoting Vic's comment? Do you think that Vic meant it to be humorous? 

But, you're basing your information on some inside CIA sources you personally spoke with that divulged SCI information to you, or are you basing your theory on what the Washington Post wrote and used unnamed anonymous sources....

I'm basing my comment on the SAME reports that Vic based his comment on but I am citing the facts. BTFW, I note that you don't question Vic's false 'facts'.

What Trump tweets needs not be 'reviewed' as they're ALL out in the public arena. There's no (C/S/TS (portion marks)) before any of them as there were on some emails on a private server in the basement of a Secretary of State.

Trump talks on the phone to his 'kitchen cabinet' almost every day. Trump's phone is NOT secure. What needs to be reviewed is whether those 'conferences' are easily surveiled on either end of the conversation. Someone who pretends to care about security would want that question answered. In fact, someone who pretends to know so much about security already KNOWS the asnwer...

You were there and know specifically what was said? Really, please expand on the conversation.

We have to take the Russian media's word for it since Trump only allowed them to be present in the Oval office for that meeting. Since Trump didn't deny the reports and instead insisted that he had every right to unilaterally divulge that SCI to the Russians, one can presume that the Russian media's report was factual. 

Now, in all honesty, all Presidents and executive level personnel slip and make the inadvertent disclosure.

Trump never claimed that it was a 'personal slip' or an 'inadvertent disclosure' so your comment is misleading. 

Obama did just that and a man is sitting in a Pakistan prison for it. And yeah... that's a fact.

Link? Oh and you were there and know specifically what was said? Really, please expand on the conversation.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.17  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.15    6 months ago

My bad. So who did YOU have in mind? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.18  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.4.16    6 months ago
Why are you quoting Vic's comment? Do you think that Vic meant it to be humorous?

I must surmise you failed to see YOUR comment, which was added to the END of Vic's.  Reading can be your friend.

BTFW, I note that you don't question Vic's false 'facts'.

If you paid attention, you would have realized I was responding to you and not VIC.

Trump talks on the phone to his 'kitchen cabinet' almost every day. Trump's phone is NOT secure. What needs to be reviewed is whether those 'conferences' are easily surveiled on either end of the conversation. Someone who pretends to care about security would want that question answered. In fact, someone who pretends to know so much about security already KNOWS the asnwer...

Exactly what phone might that be?  Please be very specific.   If you're speaking of his "cell phone", like Obama before him, his has been modified by the experts at NSA.  So, yeah, I do in fact know about security and what has been done.

one can presume that the Russian media's report was factual

You can presume what ever the fuck you want.  That doesn't make it true.

Trump never claimed that it was a 'personal slip' or an 'inadvertent disclosure' so your comment is misleading. 

He needs not even address it.   Oh, Obama never even acknowledged that his 'slip' was the reason a man now sits in prison.

Link? Oh and you were there and know specifically what was said? Really, please expand on the conversation.

Actually, I can't as the information is still classified.  However, suffice it to say it references back to taking down Bin Laden.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.19  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.4.17    6 months ago
My bad. So who did YOU have in mind? 

You made the assertion, not me.  I simply corrected you.

 
 
 
lib50
1.4.20  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.11    6 months ago

You take up a lot of space to say nothing. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.21  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.18    6 months ago
Reading can be your friend.

Knowing what is the truth and what isn't is too. 

If you paid attention, you would have realized I was responding to you and not VIC.

Oh I know, yet you characterized Vic's comment as the truth. It isn't. 

You can presume what ever the fuck you want. That doesn't make it true.

What makes it true is Trump defending it...

He needs not even address it.

Yet he DID address it and proudly stated his 'rights'. 

Oh, Obama never even acknowledged that his 'slip' was the reason a man now sits in prison.

Whataboutism. 

Actually, I can't as the information is still classified. However, suffice it to say it references back to taking down Bin Laden.

Then I presume that you have self reported your 'personal slip' to the appropriate agency...

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.22  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.19    6 months ago
You made the assertion, not me. I simply corrected you.

Actually, Vic asked the question. Here it is:

Did the top officials at the FBI & DOJ serve this country or did they betray it?

So I repeat, who, if anyone, do you have in mind? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.23  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.4.21    6 months ago
Yet he DID address it and proudly stated his 'rights'. 

As THE Classification Authority, from whom all others get their Classification authority, he can do as he pleases.   See how easy that is?

Oh, Obama never even acknowledged that his 'slip' was the reason a man now sits in prison.
Whataboutism. 

Really?   Give it up.  Obama made a slip, and another paid the price.

Actually, I can't as the information is still classified. However, suffice it to say it references back to taking down Bin Laden.
Then I presume that you have self reported your 'personal slip' to the appropriate agency...

No need to.  I can speak in generalities and not divulge information.   Much like the world knows where an agency training facility is located, hell, Tom Clancey spelled it out in a couple of his books, and it's been in the movies an untold number of times, yet, that is technically classified information, even if it is "common knowledge".  See how that works?  

So, to quote you:

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.24  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.4.22    6 months ago
Well Petraeus sure betrayed it. Who else did you have in mind? 
Damn....   I never knew Petraeus was with the DOJ or the FBI.  Please cite exactly when that tenure was.

Here's your post and my response:

Well Petraeus sure betrayed it. Who else did you have in mind?  Damn....   I never knew Petraeus was with the DOJ or the FBI.  Please cite exactly when that tenure was.

Do you really want to continue beating that dead horse.  I never made an assertion.  You did and were corrected.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2  seeder  FLYNAVY1    6 months ago

You know as well as I do, with so many things, just because you can…. doesn't mean you should.

You can't seem to put the country first can you?  It's always left and right with you...…  

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1  WallyW  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2    6 months ago

Trump seems to care a lot more about the country and its citizens than the current crop of Democrats do.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  WallyW @2.1    6 months ago
Trump seems to care a lot more about the country and its citizens than the current crop of Democrats do.

That is so grotesquely hilarious, NV needs to create a new emoji for it.  

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.2  lib50  replied to  WallyW @2.1    6 months ago

Gaslighting again?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2    6 months ago
You can't seem to put the country first can you?

Personally, I most certainly can.  But then, all sorts of people were defending a Secretary of State and her minions when she had an unsecured server in her basement with classified information on it.

Let's face it, if that were you or me, we would be in long term residence at Leavenworth.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.1  katrix  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2    6 months ago

Neither candidate last time around would have been eligible for a clearance if they were you or me.  I think anyone who wants to run for office should have to undergo a background check and obtain a clearance first ... although then the campaigning would last for about 4 years while the background checks were being done, as slow as the process is ;)

Regarding your comment to someone else above:

        "If Trump decides to classify or declassify anything it is his decision and his decision alone.  If he wishes to approve, deny or rescind the clearance of any individual, it is his decision alone and NO ONE has the authority to question his decision.

         I would have thought you learned that when you received your clearance."

Actually, that kind of thing was never mentioned when I received my clearance.  I didn't realize that until the last couple of years, from reading the news. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @2.2.1    6 months ago
Neither candidate last time around would have been eligible for a clearance if they were you or me. 

People like us have to go through the bullshit of completing an SF-86 and having our AND our family histories reviewed, poked, probed, prodded and put under a microscope to get our clearances, and then some of us must submit to polygraphs......   Plus, the need to continually submit Financial Disclosure Forms, submit to periodic re-investigations and polys.

Other people, like ELECTED officials, have them GRANTED simply by winning an election.  And that's regardless of what they have in their personal history, including criminal convictions.

Hell, if you or I did what Bernie Sanders has done, we NEVER would have been granted one.  But then you nor I were 'elected' to office.

Actually, that kind of thing was never mentioned when I received my clearance.  I didn't realize that until the last couple of years, from reading the news.

That's probably dependent on the organization and/or the person that briefed you.   In the Agency, we get 'officially' notified of our clearance when we EOD.   We take the Oath, sign NDA's and then get briefed.  At that point, we're notified of things like classification authority and who has and can do what, and our role in it, and the fact that the President is the ultimate "Classification Authority".  Then, they'll call out some names and tell everyone else to leave the room and start the rest of the on-boarding.  Those of us that are left get additional briefings and NDA's to sign giving us yet more access to 'stuff'.  And yet once again, some names are called out and the others are told to leave.   Yeah, yet more NDA's, and briefings.  When I EOD'd, I was literally there with only one other individual with a different briefer for our last NDA and briefing.  The position we were hired for literally had access to any and everything the Agency had or would have.  We were limited only by our own sense of duty and acknowledgement of a "need to know".   And while I can't speak for anyone else that worked where I did, I took that need to know quite seriously.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @2.2.1    6 months ago

I think the background work only takes about 6-8 weeks. I know that I had a secret security clearance by the time I got to my first duty station.

A top secret would most definitely take longer but if someone is running for POTUS, I think the FBI could speed it up.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.4  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.3    6 months ago
I think the background work only takes about 6-8 weeks.

That's entirely predicated on the organization and I'll surmise the totality of the depth of the background being looked at.   In my case, I got a 'conditional' offer of employment in early March dependent on final completion of the background investigation.  I was notified in late September that the work was completed and I would EOD in October if I wanted the job.  So, simple math indicates my background took just over six months from initial notice, but my investigation had already been on-going for almost six months.  (Which by the way is not unusual for anyone in the Agency with the level of clearance required there.)  So, the total time was almost a year from initial SF-86 submission to clearance approval.

HOWEVER.....  I have very serious personal reservations about requiring a Presidential contender needing to go through a SSBI or poly.   As we have seen, some agencies of the government can be 'weaponized' against any opposition force whether that is political as in actual political party or ideological as in 'issue' organizations.  Let's face it, can you imagine people like McCabe, or Struck being tasked with investigating Trump pre-election?  Hell, they used a manufactured 'dossier' complied by actual foreign agents as the basis for their later assault on the man.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.2.5  1stwarrior  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.3    6 months ago

I was selected to attend Air Command Staff College in July of '02, with classes starting in mid-August.  At the time, I had a Final Secret and had to get upgraded to TSI to attend the school.  Was given an Interim Clearance which allowed me to be "Read In" for the early classes and I got the TSI in November, just before Thanksgiving - 22 weeks.

When I retired, all my clearances "disappeared" jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.6  MUVA  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.5    6 months ago

My father was unable to leave the country for years after his retirement he served at SAC and Airborne command post and was military attache in Iran for 18 months.He still can't talk about most of what he did not even to my brother a 22 year FBI agent. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.7  XDm9mm  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.5    6 months ago
When I retired, all my clearances "disappeared"

Actually, no.   

Clearances go from "active" when working, to "current" when one 'debriefs' (and gets's all that "secret" shit erased from memory with that flash pen like in M-I-B //S//) which is maintained for two years after debrief (unless the 'clearance' is picked up and sponsored by another agency or government contractor on behalf of that 'agency' at which point it is again "active") and once that two years as "current" runs it's course, the clearance then disappears.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.8  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @2.2.6    6 months ago
My father was unable to leave the country

Predicated on the positions held and information they had, some people do in fact have quite extensive restrictions after service.   Your dad is a case in point.  The knowledge he had was obviously quite operationally valuable even after service.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.9  katrix  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.4    6 months ago
HOWEVER.....  I have very serious personal reservations about requiring a Presidential contender needing to go through a SSBI or poly.   As we have seen, some agencies of the government can be 'weaponized' against any opposition force whether that is political as in actual political party or ideological as in 'issue' organizations

That's true ... still, the American people are pretty crappy at choosing primary candidates who have a sense of ethics, it would seem. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.2.10  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @2.2.6    6 months ago

I had a fairly high security clearance but my wife had one that for her to leave the country required quite a bit of paperwork and interviews. 

There were some countries that she could not go to at all and some of them were quite surprising. 

P.S. She was a counter intelligence agent for the Deep State.....A triple agent by trade. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.11  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2    6 months ago
Personally, I most certainly can.

Not while supporting the traitor Scumbag in the WH.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3  bbl-1    6 months ago

Does not matter anymore.  The MAGA folk still shout "Lock Her Up" during the Trump's appearances.

Besides, the Russians, Turks and Saudis have the cash and the Trump's are 'broke arse'.  American security is now passé.  The 'New World Order' has arrived.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  bbl-1 @3    6 months ago

Have no fear.....

The Democrat Socialists haven't instituted the "New World Order" yet, try as they might, Americans that believe in America still thwart them.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.1  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1    6 months ago

I think some don't actually know what the new world order is and who is pushing it I can tell you it isn't Trump.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @3.1.1    6 months ago
some don't actually know what the new world order is

Very true, and those ten words you typed are very honestly, some of the scariest words ever written.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  MUVA @3.1.1    6 months ago

You're right, it isn't trmp. It's Neo-Cons like Pence and Bolton

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.4  MUVA  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.3    6 months ago

Another swing and miss it's Bill Crystal ,G Will, the Bush's.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  MUVA @3.1.1    6 months ago
some don't actually know what the new world order is

isn't that another "wrestling" term ?

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.6  MUVA  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.5    6 months ago

I think you are right it was the harts Bret and Owen and sting. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2  Jasper2529  replied to  bbl-1 @3    6 months ago
The 'New World Order' has arrived.

The NWO existed decades before Trump was born. Research Woodrow Wilson and others.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2    6 months ago
The NWO existed decades before Trump was born. Research Woodrow Wilson and others.

Goes back much further than that.  Look at your dollar bill.*

*Novus Ordo Seculorum (New Order for the Ages) was imprinted on the Great Seal of the United States created in 1782. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.2.1    6 months ago
Goes back much further than that.

In comment 3.2 I said  ...

Research Woodrow Wilson and others.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.2    6 months ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifNice try, no seegar.  Did you try that on your 8th grade civics* report? 

*[dating myself there...."civics" isn't taught anymore, is it?]

 
 
 
freepress
4  freepress    6 months ago

Truly amazing how the "freedom loving" tea party types are nowhere to be found screaming about executive overreach.

Obama didn't do anything these right wing nuts screamed about for 8 years, there were no FEMA camps, Obama left office without disgrace and did not usurp the country with authoritarian rule by refusing to leave office, no one took away all the guns as we can easily see with the number mass shootings under Trump, Obama did not take away their healthcare which is happening now under Trump, and Obama did not hand out tax cuts for corporate welfare or created an even more unfair tax system which the right wingers are just now waking up to higher tax bills for the middle class courtesy of the GOP and Trump.

Trump never wanted to be President. NEVER. He is making it clear he truly and absolutely wants to be a dictator like all the dictators he is so fond of. 

Trump was NEVER going to be a public servant to serve the people of America.

Trump wants America to serve him and expects to indulge in any criminal or unethical emoluments to benefit him to go unchallenged by the American people.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1  XDm9mm  replied to  freepress @4    6 months ago

You're entitled to your opinion.

But you need to remember something.  Opinions are like ass holes, everyone has them.    However, unlike opinions, ass holes actually have a real functional purpose.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1    6 months ago
You're entitled to your opinion.

Most of his comment was just listing facts, or did Obama come and take your guns away, ship you off to a FEMA camp and refuse to leave office only in your State and no one heard about it?

"Trump wants America to serve him"

"(Kim Jong Un) speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same,". - DJT

Seems pretty clear Trump wants America to serve him, not the other way around.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1    6 months ago
, ass holes actually have a real functional purpose

besides pretending to be "rULER" of US ?

.

R u stating u r fine with the process in which Don's son in law was given Top Clearance ?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.2    6 months ago
R u stating u r fine with the process in which Don's son in law was given Top Clearance ?

While the 'process' might have been questionable, the ultimate Classification Authority is in fact the President.   He (she) can grant, revoke or deny a clearance to any individual he/she desires.

I personally know people that had to undergo over 6 polys after a re-investigation simply because they could NOT//NOT acknowledge to the polygrapher the answer to the question(s) asked as the individual asking was not read into specific SAP.   At that point, very senior personnel had to intervene to override the polygraphers decision to pull the clearance.

Are there people I'm uncomfortable about having a security clearance?  Hell yes.  But, since I'm not one who holds Classification Authority over anything other than what I personally classify, nor can I grant anyone access to that classified material, it's a situation I must accept.

It is what it is.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.3    6 months ago
It is what it is.

Thank you for what appears to be an honest assessment.

Trumpp has proven there are so many things WRONG with our system of Government, it should be concerning to all.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.4    6 months ago
WRONG with our system of Government,

The "system" of government is fine.  It is after all the greatest experiment in governance the world has ever seen, warts and all.

What IS wrong with it is the current problem with vitriolic diatribes against a legally elected President that some simply refuse to accept and the widening political divide between the left and right.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the people in the middle (and I'll submit that is very likely in the range of 80% of the people) are being forced to "choose sides" so to speak with the radical extremes on either side of the spectrum.  There is no compromise possible.  Hell even Democrats that compromise with Republicans are put on a veritable 'hit list' by one of the more radical new congress people representing the left.  On both sides of the political spectrum, it's become the tail wagging the dog.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.5    6 months ago

What IS wrong with it is the current problem with vitriolic diatribes against a legally elected President that some simply refuse to accept and the widening political divide between the left and right.

Really, my friend?  This is part and parcel of American politics and it started in the very first Congress at Independence Hall, sometimes with fists,

Sometimes, as with Jackson and  Burr, a duel. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/past-programs/hfotw/120528-2/

For as long as there has been a free press in this country, you will have citizens tearing down a President in speech and print.

Even Lincoln could not escape the lowest insults of his day.

The illustrious Honest Old Abe has continued during the last week to make a fool of himself and to mortify and shame the intelligent people of this great nation. His speeches have demonstrated the fact that although originally a Herculean rail splitter and more lately a whimsical story teller and side splitter, he is no more capable of becoming a statesman, nay, even a moderate one, than the braying ass can become a noble lion. People now marvel how it came to pass that Mr. Lincoln should have been selected as the representative man of any party. His weak, wishy-washy, namby-pamby efforts, imbecile in matter, disgusting in manner, have made us the laughing stock of the whole world. The European powers will despise us because we have no better material out of which to make a President. The truth is, Lincoln is only a moderate lawyer and in the larger cities of the Union could pass for no more than a facetious pettifogger. Take him from his vocation and he loses even these small characteristics and indulges in simple twaddle which would disgrace a well bred school boy.”

Written as Abraham Lincoln approached Washington by train for his 1861 presidential inauguration, this tirade was not the rant of a fire-eating secessionist editor in Richmond or New Orleans. It was the declaration of the Salem Advocate, a newspaper printed in Lincoln's home ground of central Illinois. The Advocate had plenty of company among Northern opinion makers. The editor of Massachusetts's influential Springfield Republican, Samuel Bowles, despaired in a letter to a friend the same week, "Lincoln is a 'simple Susan.'"

The most esteemed orator in America, Edward Everett, wrote in his diary: "He is evidently a person of very inferior cast of character, wholly unequal to the crisis." From Washington, Congressman Charles Francis Adams wrote, "His speeches have fallen like a wet blanket here. They put to flight all notions of greatness." Then, at the end of his journey a few days later, Lincoln was forced to sneak into the capital on a secret midnight train to avoid assassination, disguised in a soft felt hat, a muffler and a short bobtailed coat.

After Lincoln's unseemly arrival, the contempt in the nation's reaction was so widespread, so vicious and so personal that it marks this episode as the historic low point of presidential prestige in the United States. Even the Northern press winced at the president's undignified start. Vanity Fair observed, "By the advice of weak men, who should straddle through life in petticoats instead of disgracing such manly garments as pantaloons and coats, the President-elect disguises himself after the manner of heroes in two-shilling novels, and rides secretly, in the deep night, from Harrisburg to Washington." The Brooklyn Eagle, in a column titled "Mr. Lincoln's Flight by Moonlight Alone," suggested the president deserved "the deepest disgrace that the crushing indignation of a whole people can inflict." The New York Tribune joked darkly, "Mr. Lincoln may live a hundred years without having so good a chance to die."

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/evidence-unpopular-mr-lincoln

Trump is in good company.  What he makes of it is up to him.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.5    6 months ago
What IS wrong with it is the current problem with vitriolic diatribes against a legally elected President that some simply refuse to accept and the widening political divide between the left and right.

Was Trum; legally elected...? buy illegally purchasing playmates, and also pornsy=tars ?

cause not so shore, this isn't moored, to more.

If not for illegal crimes committed by Trump, would he have been elected....

we can never know, but since it certainly appears crimes were committed, why do you feel they should now be ignored ?

asz this just does not jive, to say someone with a brain cell alive, but single sell organisms , have been sold for less i guess.

but how many times (x) do you multiply a single sell, and increase your quantity...?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.2    6 months ago

Of course he is

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.7    6 months ago
Was Trum; legally elected...? buy illegally purchasing playmates, and also pornsy=tars ?

Sure was.  By the electoral college.

cause not so shore, this isn't moored, to more. If not for illegal crimes committed by Trump, would he have been elected....

Porking a porn star is now illegal?   

we can never know, but since it certainly appears crimes were committed, why do you feel they should now be ignored ?

You'll need to cite the specific laws you allude to.   Thus far, no one has been able to accomplish that, not for a lack of trying.

asz this just does not jive, to say someone with a brain cell alive, but single sell organisms , have been sold for less i guess. but how many times (x) do you multiply a single sell, and increase your quantity...?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.6    6 months ago
Really, my friend?  This is part and parcel of American politics and it started in the very first Congress at Independence Hall, sometimes with fists, Sometimes, as with Jackson and  Burr, a duel. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/past-programs/hfotw/120528-2/

I was referring to slightly more recent history!!  

While acrimonious at times, since WWII there has been a degree of compromise and civility.  Of course there were some isolated incidents, but usually both sides either agreed or agreed to disagree as adults.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.9    6 months ago
asz this just does not jive, to say someone with a brain cell alive, but single sell organisms , have been sold for less i guess. but how many times (x) do you multiply a single sell, and increase your quantity...?

eye see u did not entertain this point, knor did you counter my other, but knor did i expect you would or could

" it certainly appears crimes were committed, why do you feel they should now be ignored ?

You'll need to cite the specific laws you allude to."

So, you feel all of this is fine...and within the letters of the law ?

."Porking a porn star is now illegal?   "

Probably only if you are Jewish. But, paying one off after LYING about it sure soiunds and looks fine to U ?

"Sure was.  By the electoral college."

Are  u so 'Sure was" if the details had been divulged prior to election day ?

I never attended the "electoral college", but if i had a choice, i'd have passed

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1    6 months ago
Opinions are like ass holes, everyone has them.

And lame analogies are like teapartiers (full stop).  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.13  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.5    6 months ago
What IS wrong with it is the current problem with vitriolic diatribes against a legally elected President that some simply refuse to accept and the widening political divide between the left and right.

Oh, puhleeze, like you weren't a party to that when Clinton and Obama were in office.  At least fess up to your own personal role in this problem instead of talking about others.

 
 
 
Ender
5  Ender    6 months ago

What bothers me is the trumps and Kushner have never fully divested from their companies.

When they deal with foreign banks/entities and they have access to all information, who is to say they couldn't strong arm foreign entities to bow down to their business interests.

I read one article that said little Jared didn't disclose close to 100 contacts.

That is not overlooking something. That was intentional.

I can imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed and Hillary had given top secret clearance to Chelsea.

The screams from the right would be deafening.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @5    6 months ago
The screams from the right would be deafening.

deafinitely 

.

but, whence dealing with the hypocrites, hypocrisy, is hippo critical.

Fat tubs of lard, lube, the system with the intention of reducing the friction by increasing the fiction, selling it as non, while flying it , like a None, in a Field of Dreams, as fantasy foursomes, are knot always required for a threesome, cause sum feel if they don't want a threesum, it's ok to force em'.

A POTUS with a lot of Vices, doesn't mean he has good Advice , just advise  for his many, and his wo many, as illustrated in his history, minus her stories, 

asz hypocritical advice is not advised for hypocrites with too many vices, already. 

 
 
 
JBB
6  JBB    6 months ago

The security of The United States of America is imperiled by Trump & Co...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JBB @6    6 months ago
The security of The United States of America

has been

TRUMPPED

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online





JohnRussell
devangelical
JumpDrive
Karri
Tacos!
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Texan1211


346 visitors