Here's the line you are looking for. Above and below it lists, by item, who is allowed to attend at all times, and who shall attend when it pertains to them. So who's to say that it ever pertains to them?
Our government is based on checks and balances, right? This removes quite a bit of balance when the only individuals confirmed by the Senate may spend the next 4 years without anything "pertaining to them". On Jan 29, 2017 4:09 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: > Im assuming this is excerpt of this: https://www.whitehouse. > gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum- > organization-national-security-council-and > > this sounds like bannon is becoming the equivalent of an executive > secretary, not jesus of jihadi as its being portrayed. The NSA and HSA (why > isnt there a big stink here?) are glorified secretaries (like the girl at > the desk on steroids) > > At no point does it state that the directors are disinvited to anything > that pertains to them. > > A restructuring with formal time management. Have you watched the senate > hearings... very inefficient time management. > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> His position is mandatory for them to meet. The JCoS and DNI may only >> attend when it is determined it is required. >> >> Text attached from the order. >> >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 3:39 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> this im still trying to find a legitimate source of what is actually >>> happening on. just like youre saying it makes him more important than the >>> director of the cia, i cant find much other than ego inflated opinions. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> What's your take on making Steve Bannon's new role critical to the >>>> National Security Council (making him more important than the Director of >>>> the CIA) while only allowing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of >>>> National Intelligence to attend "when it pertains to them"? >>>> >>>> This was an executive order... >>>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:40 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I can't believe everyone is arguing about who lies more. Wouldn't it >>>>> be great if we could argue about the policy and theory rather than the >>>>> character, or lack thereof? >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:23 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It sounds like you want a dictatorship. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:11 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> i truly hope you maintain your thought process, exactly as it is, >>>>>>> and those of like mind, it will make 2020 a breeze. And ivankas 8 year >>>>>>> reign will be glorious >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected] >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He's trying to use the very tactics he promotes in "art of the >>>>>>>> deal", which basically means "lie about everything, and negotiate >>>>>>>> down". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will be absolutely amazed if he makes it into a second term. I am >>>>>>>> also thinking that the Dems won't have their shit together over the >>>>>>>> next 4 >>>>>>>> though. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a fucked up place we are in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:04 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> then even more work can be done >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The real question is whether he can keep it up for 207 more >>>>>>>>>> weeks. And once the news organizations stop fawning over him, what >>>>>>>>>> does he >>>>>>>>>> do? Start wars? Drop a nuke on Mexico? He can't stand anything >>>>>>>>>> else >>>>>>>>>> being the shiny object, but you tell the news media to shut up and >>>>>>>>>> listen, >>>>>>>>>> at some point they will shut up and cover something else. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anybody notice all the old actors kicking off? Did they really >>>>>>>>>> die over the past 18 months and the news is just now dribbling out, >>>>>>>>>> or did >>>>>>>>>> the Trump victory just take away their hope? Barbara Hale was 94, I >>>>>>>>>> guess >>>>>>>>>> waiting 4 more years to see if the Orange One wins re-election might >>>>>>>>>> seem a >>>>>>>>>> bit much to ask. John Hurt was 77, Mary Tyler Moore was 80. I'm >>>>>>>>>> 66, it's >>>>>>>>>> always a bit unnerving when someone younger than me dies. But they >>>>>>>>>> say, >>>>>>>>>> only the good die young. Carrie Fisher must have been very, very >>>>>>>>>> good. We >>>>>>>>>> miss you, Princess. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Prince >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:25 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first >>>>>>>>>> week in office >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is just not true. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Several fact organizations made it pretty clear that untruths >>>>>>>>>> from Orange's mouth were about twice as plentiful as untruths from >>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>> other politician from either party ( and that includes Obama and >>>>>>>>>> Clinton). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> bp >>>>>>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/2017 10:44 AM, Rory Conaway wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > Nobody will ever lie as much as Obama or Hillary. That is a >>>>>>>>>> bar the will never again be reached. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Rory >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Prince >>>>>>>>>> > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 11:32 AM >>>>>>>>>> > To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first >>>>>>>>>> week in >>>>>>>>>> > office >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Nothing factually incorrect in that piece. It is largely >>>>>>>>>> opinion, so take it for that. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > One thing that I disagree with is calling him a liar. I think >>>>>>>>>> he's not necessarily lying; he just doesn't know the truth. Most of >>>>>>>>>> what he >>>>>>>>>> says appears to be just made up on the fly, and my observation is >>>>>>>>>> that his >>>>>>>>>> memory is not so good. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > bp >>>>>>>>>> > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > On 1/28/2017 10:48 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> First week...What a joke... >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170127/fact-check-on-donald-t >>>>>>>>>> rumps-fir >>>>>>>>>> >> s >>>>>>>>>> >> t-week-in-office >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see >>>>>>>>> your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the >>>>>>>>> team. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >> > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
