Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.

[DivineOb]

OK, so how can he be responsible for something he was not told?

Statements like this are why you no longer have any credibility with me. Surely as a former cop you're familiar with the concept of "should have known."

[Cow Poke]

Statements like this are why you no longer have any credibility with me.

Stop with the "credibility with me" crap, because you have the credibility of squid poop, and stop your cowardly little "you're not a patriot" crap - I don't give a flip of what you think of me, because you're just a

Surely as a former cop you're familiar with the concept of "should have known."

Yes, and it's birdbrained stupid to try to apply that to something he wasn't told.

Here, I'll skewl you on "knew or should have known". That applies to things like "I didn't know that shooting him would actually kill him".
A reasonable person would know - or SHOULD know - that shooting somebody might actually kill them.

With regard to information you never received, there's no way to know that.

[DivineOb]

Stop with the "credibility with me" crap, because you have the credibility of squid poop, and stop your cowardly little "you're not a patriot" crap - I don't give a flip of what you think of me, because you're just a

Then stop commenting on it.

Yes, and it's birdbrained stupid to try to apply that to something he wasn't told.

Here, I'll skewl you on "knew or should have known". That applies to things like "I didn't know that shooting him would actually kill him".
A reasonable person would know - or SHOULD know - that shooting somebody might actually kill them.

With regard to information you never received, there's no way to know that.

Surely you're aware that the CEO of a company is not free from liability by virtue of being unaware of something he "should have known" which he conspired to remain ignorant of. Surely you're not *that* ignorant, right?

[Cow Poke]

Then stop commenting on it.

Quit bringing it up!!!! And I'll comment on what I went to comment on, Junior.

Surely you're aware that the CEO of a company is not free from liability by virtue of being unaware of something he "should have known"

And he can't know what he isn't told, when he has people he depends upon to tell him.

which he conspired to remain ignorant of. Surely you're not *that* ignorant, right?

Oh, now it's a "conspiracy"?

(I have to admit, this was a good laugh -- thanks)

[DivineOb]

Quit bringing it up!!!! And I'll comment on what I went to comment on, Junior.

No, I think I'll continue bringing up your support for Benedict Donald.

And he can't know what he isn't told, when he has people he depends upon to tell him.

And you are simply ignorant. What I've said about Trump can be, and has been, said of CEOs when their company was punished for misconduct.

Oh, now it's a "conspiracy"?

(I have to admit, this was a good laugh -- thanks)

Surely you're not so ignorant as to not know what 'conspire' means, right? I'll help you out (definition 2)

to act in harmony toward a common end

[Cow Poke]

No, I think I'll continue bringing up your support for Benedict Donald.

You do that, precious.

Be a little parrot. That seems to be all you're good at.

[Mountain Man]

Nutty Nancy is still fuming that Trump SHOULD have been told...

So she's admitting he wasn't told. She has to thread that needle very carefully, because if she complains that he didn't know, then she will be hoisted by her own petard, because she had access to the same information.

[DivineOb]

You do that, precious.

Be a little parrot. That seems to be all you're good at.

Tired of looking dumb for not understanding what "should have known" means? Didn't a wise widower once say something about ad hominem and concessions?

[DivineOb]

So she's admitting he wasn't told. She has to thread that needle very carefully, because if she complains that he didn't know, then she will be hoisted by her own petard, because she had access to the same information.

Help me understand this. Let's stipulate that they both had access to the same intel and they both should have read it. How does that minimize Trump's role in this scandal? He's the CIC unlike Pelosi. Also how would that excuse his continued failure to respond and instead spend 3 of the last 7 days golfing when Pelosi has shown an interest in getting to the bottom of this?

[Cow Poke]

Tired of looking dumb...

Take smart pills!!! Rogue has a rabbit.

Lemme know when you actually get news, Junior.

[Cow Poke]

So she's admitting he wasn't told.

And, since he never claimed to be a psychic....

She has to thread that needle very carefully, because if she complains that he didn't know, then she will be hoisted by her own petard, because she had access to the same information.

EGGzackly. And they did nothing then.

[Mountain Man]

scandal

There is no scandal, you dumbass.

[DivineOb]

There is no scandal, you dumbass.

Trump's failure to take any meaningful action over the past week is a scandal of its very own. Surely you can see that.

And once again you ignore the bulk of my post. Obviously because you know you don't have an answer. Off to slurp more mushrooms?

[Cow Poke]

Trump's failure to take any meaningful action over the past week is a scandal of its very own. Surely you can see that.

So, scratch FORMER scandal, on to NEW scandal.

[DivineOb]

So, scratch FORMER scandal, on to NEW scandal.

No, there are two scandals.

Trump's failure to act in the past based on this intel. The facts beyond dispute are: Trump was informed via the PDB. We have identified the Russian monetary transactions and afghan bag man. Trump, after being informed via PDB, rewarded Russia in at least two ways (G7 invite, troop removal from Germany). You and MM have no answer beyond blaming Pelosi for Benedict Donald's failures.

Trumps ongoing failure to act now that the intel is both confirmed and solid.

You have no response to these. It really doesn't matter to me whether you keep doing this because you're actually a traitor or because you just play one on TV.