Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You also never got around to answering my question; how has the situation changed? That was your first excuse, and now you offer another excuse.
The reason why Sorensen quit was because he couldn't get Top Secret clearance. He couldn't get it because he abused his wife. The same reason why another staffer quit on the same day.
Kelly gave them the option of resigining, but if he had not taken it, Sorensen would have been fired as staff because he couldn't be that close to the President without a Top Secret clearance. It's the law, buddy, not the 'situation'.
Dragging the Washington Post into it is only dumb deflection. The Post had nothing at all to do with it. They just reported it, along with every other news outlet in the country. No smear, just the facts.
So far you have presumed everything, especial what you don't know and don't produce anything but opinion. You assume actions about Sorensen and Kelly without a shred of proof offered. You might even be right but opinion isn't evidence.
As to my answer of your question it was provided in my prior post. Just because you don't like it or won't except it doesn't mean I need to keep repeating it.
No one knew anything about Sorensen until WaPo reported the unverified accusation of his ex.
I say where is the proof ? If WaPo had it why not report it ?
I have no idea if Sorensen has the proof he says he does. I would say he needs to get his proof out and back up his story too, if he wants to clear his name. I doubt WaPo would print it. They didn't print any proof to support the ex's story either.
He is the one making the claim he was tried by the media and did nothing wrong. Not me. I just opened the story up for consideration.
So my unanswered question still stands. Where is the proof ?
So far you have presumed everything, especial what you don't know and don't produce anything but opinion. You assume actions about Sorensen and Kelly without a shred of proof offered. You might even be right but opinion isn't evidence.
As to my answer of your question it was provided in my prior post. Just because you don't like it or won't except it doesn't mean I need to keep repeating it.
No one knew anything about Sorensen until WaPo reported the unverified accusation of his ex.
I say where is the proof ? If WaPo had it why not report it ?
I have no idea if Sorensen has the proof he says he does. I would say he needs to get his proof out and back up his story too, if he wants to clear his name. I doubt WaPo would print it. They didn't print any proof to support the ex's story either.
He is the one making the claim he was tried by the media and did nothing wrong. Not me. I just opened the story up for consideration.
So my unanswered question still stands. Where is the proof ?
So far you have presumed everything, especial what you don't know and don't produce anything but opinion. You assume actions about Sorensen and Kelly without a shred of proof offered. You might even be right but opinion isn't evidence.
As to my answer of your question it was provided in my prior post. Just because you don't like it or won't except it doesn't mean I need to keep repeating it.
No one knew anything about Sorensen until WaPo reported the unverified accusation of his ex.
I say where is the proof ? If WaPo had it why not report it ?
I have no idea if Sorensen has the proof he says he does. I would say he needs to get his proof out and back up his story too, if he wants to clear his name. I doubt WaPo would print it. They didn't print any proof to support the ex's story either.
He is the one making the claim he was tried by the media and did nothing wrong. Not me. I just opened the story up for consideration.
So my unanswered question still stands. Where is the proof ?
If it was just his claim and not yours then why did you name the thread title as you did?? Naming the thread Sorensen claims would have been s much wiser choice if this was just about his claim and not about your take...
As an aside what are you looking for video of him beating her?? The fact he couldn't get a security clearance is a troubling one...
If it was just his claim and not yours then why did you name the thread title as you did?? Naming the thread Sorensen claims would have been s much wiser choice if this was just about his claim and not about your take...
As an aside what are you looking for video of him beating her?? The fact he couldn't get a security clearance is a troubling one...
You don't know he couldn't get a security clearance. All we know is he and many others hadn't received one yet, at the time. It was never really made all that clear why they were taking so long getting people the clearances.
You should have posted the thread. Then you could have done it the way you wanted too. The title listed the claims that Sorensen was making in the video. Not mine.
David Sorensen didn't have to resign. He resigned all on his own.
And he didn't lose anything by resigning; his old boss, the Governor of Maine, gave him back his old job.
LePage and Trump is an impressive work history. Topping that may not be possible without North Korea or a Mexican cartel.
So far you have presumed everything, especial what you don't know and don't produce anything but opinion. You assume actions about Sorensen and Kelly without a shred of proof offered. You might even be right but opinion isn't evidence.
As to my answer of your question it was provided in my prior post. Just because you don't like it or won't except it doesn't mean I need to keep repeating it.
No one knew anything about Sorensen until WaPo reported the unverified accusation of his ex.
I say where is the proof ? If WaPo had it why not report it ?
I have no idea if Sorensen has the proof he says he does. I would say he needs to get his proof out and back up his story too, if he wants to clear his name. I doubt WaPo would print it. They didn't print any proof to support the ex's story either.
He is the one making the claim he was tried by the media and did nothing wrong. Not me. I just opened the story up for consideration.
So my unanswered question still stands. Where is the proof ?
Have you ever applied for a Top Secret clearance? I have. It took over a year to get it. By then, my temp contract had expired, so the clearance expired with it.
The FBI always talks to the ex. But the FBI doesn't have to publish the reasons why it denies the clearance.
The ex just gave the Post the most probable reason why Sorensen never got his clearance.
If you want proof, then file a info request with the FBI.
And the correct word is 'accept', not 'except'. Try to use correct English when you file, or you might get turned down.
I accept it all just fine.
Vetting the top staffers at the White House is a matter of vital national security interest to us all. If Sorensen didn't muster up, it's good he's gone.
If he had gotten the clearance, it's no big deal to me; every President has an in-house speechwriter; they come with the territory.
But you really don't want proof. What you want is a smear to use on the Washington Post. Better go look for more a fruitful place than Sorensen.
He's gone, ancient history, and if Trump really thinks only Sorensen can write a speech Trump needs, he'll give Sorensen a call. No one ever really leaves this White House for good.
Have you ever applied for a Top Secret clearance? I have. It took over a year to get it. By then, my temp contract had expired, so the clearance expired with it.
The FBI always talks to the ex. But the FBI doesn't have to publish the reasons why it denies the clearance.
The ex just gave the Post the most probable reason why Sorensen never got his clearance.
If you want proof, then file a info request with the FBI.
And the correct word is 'accept', not 'except'. Try to use correct English when you file, or you might get turned down.
I accept it all just fine. Vetting the top staffers at the White House is a matter of vital national security interest to us all. If Sorensen didn't muster up, it's good he's gone. If he had gotten the clearance, it's no big deal to me; every President has an in-house speechwriter; they come with the territory.
But you really don't want proof. What you want is a smear to use on the Washington Post. Better go look for more a fruitful place than Sorensen.
He's gone, ancient history, and if Trump really thinks only Sorensen can write a speech Trump needs, he'll give Sorensen a call. No one ever really leaves this White House for good.
Looks like you are the one making the smears.
All I ask for was proof.
You didn't have or offer any. In bold above, which is it ? It can't be both, <.
Spare us all the lecture " vital national security interest to us all " that's the last thing the last admin. cared about with all their lying leaker appointments.
I do have to laugh though.
I never read the WaPo article. I don't subscribe. I couldn't smear them because I can't read them behind a paywall. All I could do is ask for proof and no one expressed any in the WaPo article in a post here in this thread. I couldn't see but I could smell the BS from miles away.
All I ask for was proof.
You didn't have or offer any. In bold above, which is it ? It can't be both, <.
Spare us all the lecture " vital national security interest to us all " that's the last thing the last admin. cared about with all their lying leaker appointments.
I do have to laugh though.
I never read the WaPo article. I don't subscribe. I couldn't smear them because I can't read them behind a paywall. All I could do is ask for proof and no one expressed any in the WaPo article in a post here in this thread. I couldn't see but I could smell the BS from miles away.
See 12. Wapo story was fine. Sorenson is simply trying to defend himself with a good offense.
The Wapo story covers both his wife's view and his view equally. And he submitted stuff to Wapo to back his position. Wapo reaches no conclusion on who is telling the truth. just presents both sides.
See 12. Wapo story was fine. Sorenson is simply trying to defend himself with a good offense.
The Wapo story covers both his wife's view and his view equally. And he submitted stuff to Wapo to back his position. Wapo reaches no conclusion on who is telling the truth. just presents both sides.
12 didn't help me as to the link because I couldn't read it.
If its as you say, and no reason for me to think it isn't, then sounds like a bit of a false claim, he was tried by the media. A story is a story and media reports on them. The word of an ex spouse is not enough on its own to prevent getting a clearance especially if there is proof to dispute it.
It could be cause for delay though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
