Originally posted by DivineBoob
View Post
It's hardly a nitpick. The PDB is not a document intended for reading "at leisure" (nor, I would wager, is the document you are describing which Schiff and Pelosi had access to.)
All of them. What a silly objection.
I'm not going to respond to nonsense about Obama which has already been debunked. If the PDB isn't composed of information intended to be read from cover-to-cover every day then it's not serving its purpose. Any president who was routinely being given useless information in the PDB *ought to have* made staffing changes to correct that.
You know you're being dishonest here. Don't waste my time.
Let's say that the information was considered "salacious and unverified" at one point in time. Don't you think we should have chased it down and either proven or debunked it before asking Russia to rejoin the G7?
And to claim that the information was "never" considered credible is just a lie. It's considered credible *now*, at minimum.
All of them. What a silly objection.
I'm not going to respond to nonsense about Obama which has already been debunked. If the PDB isn't composed of information intended to be read from cover-to-cover every day then it's not serving its purpose. Any president who was routinely being given useless information in the PDB *ought to have* made staffing changes to correct that.
You know you're being dishonest here. Don't waste my time.
Let's say that the information was considered "salacious and unverified" at one point in time. Don't you think we should have chased it down and either proven or debunked it before asking Russia to rejoin the G7?
And to claim that the information was "never" considered credible is just a lie. It's considered credible *now*, at minimum.
Carry on.
Comment