So I sit here and go through the trouble of providing a historical list of times this has happened.
Your response would be "doesn't matter, that isn't Trump". And on one hand you'd be right, Trump isn't them. It still sets up a terrible precedent for himself and future presidents that allows for rampant abuse that remains unchecked by the house and senate. Do we really need more government shadow organizations that have no mechanism for congressional oversight? On Jan 29, 2017 5:08 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote: > you are living in what ifs, assumptions, and biased logic. youre doing > fine for yourself. Carry on comrade, in fascism younite > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I can't dispense of pretenses I never claimed to hold. >> >> You said it wasn't a big deal, you couldn't find a source. I provided a >> source, and you also found a copy (but failed to read it). Then you said it >> didn't read that way, so I highlighted the exact line in question to save >> you the time from reading it. Then you went on some batshit tangent about >> filing a FOIA on the National Security Council of all things. Then you >> brought up "it hasn't happened yet". >> >> Can you please provide a reference in the history of the world when a >> power was granted to someone BY THEMSELVES in government that later wasn't >> abused? >> >> You're blindly trying to maintain a position on this without any sort of >> rational thought. >> >> This is the world our kids are going to grow up in. >> >> Please, at least try to make it a better one. >> >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 4:51 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> how centrist of you to devolve so quickly >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Steve, you are a prime example of the failure of the public education >>>> system :P >>>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2017 4:46 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> oh.... so you are saying youre complaining about something that hasnt >>>> even happenned... at least thats clear >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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/2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0170127/fact-check-on-donald-trumps-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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >
