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.
After browsing through Turley's website and comments I find it hard to believe he would vote for Hillary. My dislike for Hillary goes back many years, so I may just have a head start on Turley.
I put him on my Twitter follow.
To Turley, upholding the Constitution is always the thing he's focused on. So his articles and Congressional testimonies may make him sound like he's a conservative or that he's favoring the Republican viewpoint, when really it all boils down to Constitutional rights.
He's been blunt when testifying under oath before Congress that he's a liberal who does not support Trump and voted for Hillary Clinton, and for Obama before her.
One of the reasons he's called upon for his opinion and Constitutional knowledge is because he's unbiased and fair. That can make it difficult to pinpoint what someone's political leanings are because most people are not unbiased and fair as we see here every day.
You now want us to believe that the Russia scandal — all the contacts between Trump officials and Russians, the hacking of Democratic emails, the coordination with WikiLeaks, all of it — was invented by Clinton?
Oh who are you kidding, it's out there and you still can't believe and never will.
“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED]. . . CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”
We now know that Russian intelligence was interfering, beyond all doubt. Why should we be surprised that the Clinton campaign would use that against the Trump campaign, exactly?
Further, we know that Obama and his administration was aware of the attempts to interfere in the moment, and were struggling with how to address the issue without appearing to put their thumb on the scale of the election. Given that, why would it be surprising that Brennan would report this (the Clinton campaign intent to publicize) to Obama?
What's really new here?
Also, you keep banging on that Turley chiefly concerned about the Constitution, but the majority of your linked article is simply him lamenting the lack of what he feels is sufficient news coverage.
“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED]. . . CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”
We now know that Russian intelligence was interfering, beyond all doubt. Why should we be surprised that the Clinton campaign would use that against the Trump campaign, exactly.
Further, we know that Obama and his administration was aware of the attempts to interfere in the moment, and were struggling with how to address the issue without appearing to put their thumb on the scale of the election. Given that, why would it be surprising that Brennan would report this (the Clinton campaign intent to publicize) to Obama?
What's really new here?
Also, you keep banging on that Turley chiefly concerned about the Constitution, but the majority of your linked article is simply him lamenting the lack of what he feels is sufficient news coverage.
First of all, he's a lawyer - he's going to use the word alleged.
Secondly, I keep banging that drum to remind people this is an unbiased viewpoint who focuses on the Constitution and not party loyalty.
And the REASON I linked to the article was to point out that it's not going unnoticed that the media isn't covering this.
Finally, I don't know who pee'd in your Cheerios this morning, but I don't need to justify to you why I post something.
First of all, he's a lawyer - he's going to use the word alleged.
Secondly, I keep banging that drum to remind people this is an unbiased viewpoint who focuses on the Constitution and not party loyalty.
And the REASON I linked to the article was to point out that it's not going unnoticed that the media isn't covering this.
Finally, I don't know who pee'd in your Cheerios this morning, but I don't need to justify to you why I post something.
First of all, that was a quote from Brennan's notes, not from Turley himself, and I don't care a bit about the use (or lack of) "alleged".
Eh, being a Constitutionalist isn't a guarantee of neutrality, especially when the discussion doesn't concern the Constitution.
I never claimed you did need to justify, well, anything. I asked a question - as part of a discussion. You know, the whole point to this forum existing? Feel free not to answer, it's no skin off my nose. You just seemed passionate about the subject, so I assumed you'd be willing to discuss it.
My point was there isn't much new here for the media to be reporting on. As such, is it really being under-publicized?
First of all, that was a quote from Brennan's notes, not from Turley himself, and I don't care a bit about the use (or lack of) "alleged".
Eh, being a Constitutionalist isn't a guarantee of neutrality, especially when the discussion doesn't concern the Constitution.
I never claimed you did need to justify, well, anything. I asked a question - as part of a discussion. You know, the whole point to this forum existing? Feel free not to answer, it's no skin off my nose. You just seemed passionate about the subject, so I assumed you'd be willing to discuss it.
My point was there isn't much new here for the media to be reporting on. As such, is it really being under-publicized?
Have a great day.
Go back and read your post to me. It came across completely differently than you're conveying here.
Directly from John Brennan’s declassified notes:
“Approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal From one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.
What more do we need now? What’s most disturbing is how many people blindly bought into this lie. The media went all in, brainwashing the clueless masses. I knew it was fabricated from the start, with Obama officials fingerprints all over it. They couldn’t accept the election results and tried to overthrow the president.
Directly from John Brennan’s declassified notes:
“Approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal From one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.
What more do we need now? What’s most disturbing is how many people blindly bought into this lie. The media went all in, brainwashing the clueless masses. I knew it was fabricated from the start, with Obama officials fingerprints all over it. They couldn’t accept the election results and tried to overthrow the president.
I'm stunned that there are documents WRITTEN by these people and idiots are still saying, 'If there's proof' and 'Where's the evidence?'
These are people who require that others chew their food for them, I'm assuming.
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.
