I'm saying if you're going to have a meeting of the security council, it would be fucking prudent to have the Director of National Intelligence.
You can't file a FOIA request until after something has taken place, and FOIA requests are redacted or denied in the name of national security. On Jan 29, 2017 4:20 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: > thats an awful small amount of text to deliver the entirety of the message. > hwat check and balances are you describing here by a person attending a > meeting that doesnt pertain to them? > are you saying they have excluded appropriate personell from meetings? > File a FOIA for the specific meetings you are referencing. > reply in line now with the specific meetings you are referencing having > taken place so that when you recieve the FOIA response we can correlate > them to the listed grievances you are referencing today > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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.g >>> ov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organ >>> ization-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. >>> >> > > > -- > 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. >
