Hmmmm. Who would I take in a Yates-Spicer Debate/Cage-Match…
Decisive in firing Yates in a CYA move then doing everything possible to avoid ditching Flynn pulling that trigger when they had no other option.
Sooooo your defense is that you’re paranoid?
And that to your mind, acting on information that your linchpin of National Intelligence may be a compromised Russian agent, in only 2 weeks is “decisive”?
The White House reviewed the evidence that led the Justice Department to believe then-national security adviser Michael Flynn was “compromised” with regard to Russia in early February, Press Secretary Sean Spicer confirmed Tuesday. The administration reviewed that evidence for nearly two weeks before asking for Flynn’s resignation “to make sure that we did the right thing,” he said.
“When you look at this compared to other instances, the idea that in 11 days, a review was conducted, the President acted decisively,” Spicer said. “I think that actually shows the system worked properly.”
I call bullshit. For the umpteenth time.
They didn’t give Sally Yates 11 days, now did they?
Well, by coincidence, Andrew was just in here. He said he didn’t mean Trump and Jivespice.
“My bad” he added
“What they were saying was unclear.”
“Traitor.”
Seems clear enough to me.
Wow, only 11 days when national security is at stake. Except for the fact that he’s always got a hard-on for more gunfire (for instance, approving the transfer of arms to the Syrian Kurds, along with ramping up in Afghanistan, firing cruise missiles and dropping the MOAB), I wonder how long it would take him to decide that maybe he ought to do something if NK blows another nuke.
Oh, and didn’t Obama warn him significantly before the inauguration that Flynn wasn’t to be trusted?
Many ingredients of a serviceable Spicer word salad were on display today:
“clear”
“clearly”
“When you look at”
“logic dictates”
Can’t charge full price for it, though, because it was missing
“robust”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the trump administration has never said they thought Flynn talking with the Russian ambassador about sanctions before they took office was wrong. They’ve always said their only problem with Flynn was that he lied to Pence.
“The White House didn’t get access to that underlying evidence described by Miss Yates until Thursday, Feb. 2, which is a week after Miss Yates first met with the White House counsel,” Spicer said.
I didn’t see the video so I’m going by the text in this article; did that vanilla shit stain actually refer to her as “Miss Yates?”
Funny how “due process” took as long as it took WaPo to come out with a devastating article about Flynn.
I don’t know about you, but that hearing yesterday definitely showed her to be a lousy communicator.
Right.
If they had spent as much time vetting him on the front end, they wouldn’t have needed “due process” while our national security was being compromised.
Seems his main qualification was that Obama detested him.
Yep, just another one of them coinky-dinks!
The administration reviewed that evidence for nearly two weeks before asking for Flynn’s resignation “to make sure that we did the right thing,” he said.
Bullshit. You only did anything because it leaked out and the Washington Post ran articles about it and had you and Flynn dead-to-rights on his being compromised and you could no longer put up the “Trump has full confidence in him” happy horseshit.
If it hadn’t “leaked” Flynn would still be the NSC Advisor.
The old “if I don’t like what I’m hearing you must not be communicating correctly” defense.
“The system worked…once we were forced into using it.”
I would suggest that the reason she was asked to come back the second day was because it wasn’t—it clearly wasn’t that clear on the first day,” Spicer said. “So I think logic dictates you don’t ask someone to come back and explain themselves a second time if they have done an effective job the first time…”
No, you ass clown. Despite your childish, petty attempts to impugn Yates, sometimes after information is presented, people find they have additional questions. It doesn’t mean the presenter somehow wasn’t clear about the information they shared. It usually means the person they were sharing it with wants to know more, or the discussion is ongoing, or maybe they weren’t paying attention very well. But this small minded, mean-spirited obsession with tearing down the most minor detractor is just embarrassing. I truly hate these people.