InsideThePark

So the premise of your argument will be that this is different. No thoughts on the toxic relationship that Trump is responsible for with the intelligence? I know you don't like unfavorable revelations coming to light about Trump, but the public should be well aware of the distrust our guys have for the president.

Yeah, Trump wants the story to be about the leaks. It might work as a distraction to some folks (leaks happen in every Administration) but we shouldn't take our eyes off the ball, given all the recent developments. Our president picked a fight with the intelligence community. Difficult to say if they're responding in kind or bringing more awareness to the troubling relationship as you suggested. Either way, this is not good. Interesting, I don't remember you complaining about any of the leaks during the Obama Administration, Mr. "I'm not a trump supporter."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/spies-keep-intelligence-from-donald-trump-1487209351 U.S. intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter. The officials’ decision to keep information from Mr. Trump underscores the deep mistrust that has developed between the intelligence community and the president over his team’s contacts with the Russian government, as well as the enmity he has shown toward U.S. spy agencies. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump accused the agencies of leaking information to undermine him. In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr. Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said. Those sources and methods could include, for instance, the means that an agency uses to spy on a foreign government.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&referer=https://t.co/iYlsksB4ZC It's the New York Times... obviously they don't like Trump, but their "look over there news" about Flynn was accurate.

They had no problems with Mattis and Kelly. Most everyone else ends up in the crossfire.

Not "pop champagne" worthy but it's good that he's gone. Even cons had concerns about him before any of the Russia stuff came out.

If you think that was bad, wait until you get it from cals.

If you say so, hombre. Thank you... that was like pulling teeth.

You're a loyal Trumpster, I'll give you that. The "look over there news" turned out to be something pretty significant, but of course, you initially dismissed it.

Look over there news lol

It was a terrible appointment. Guess the good news is that it's unlikely they'll find somebody worse to replace him.

They live

Couple days late but this is too good to pass up. Easy D???

From what I understand, it would be against the law if they discussed sanctions at all. Edit: it's against policy to discuss sanctions, and against the law if it was negotiated. So you pretty much had it right. You mean... FAKE NEWS! I'm not jumping to conclusions... we'll have to see if anything (could be nothing) comes from this.

Liberals are freaking out because Joe Manchin, the conservative Democrat from West Virginia, voted for Sessions. The people who want him "primaried" don't realize that a progressive would get crushed by a Republican, who would be much further from the center. Just be happy that you got a Democrat in a red state who votes the party line some of the time.

Fo sho.

She does suck. You're right though, school choice isn't necessarily bad. If we're talking about charter schools, it's pretty much the only choice in places like Louisiana where their previous schools were tore up by the hurricane.

Old Department of Education logo New Department of Education logo

*cough* deflecting *cough*