Trump still uses his personal cell phone despite warnings and increased call scrutiny

[American]

China are you listening.....

Sure! They were listening to Hillary and her private server. :lol:

 

[American]

Indeed, "should have" and not "was absolutely required by law to have".

Heaven help the economy if everyone who did something rather dumb that they should not have done was sent to jail.

You against the SUPPOSED gun show loop hole, but are okay with Hillary having classified data sent to her private server. Dude, are you that clueless about which is worse?

 

[Threegoofs]

You against the SUPPOSED gun show loop hole, but are okay with Hillary having classified data sent to her private server. Dude, are you that clueless about which is worse?

You must be really upset about Jared and Ivanka.


Cummings: Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s private emails, texts raise security concerns | PBS NewsHour

Oh, wait.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Sounds like a lie.

Maybe TDS flaring again? eace

 

[Common Sense 1]

You take this tweet at face value? This is a guy who consistently tweets lies and seems not to know the difference between a lie and the truth. According to Politico:



The linked Politico article also says:

So you believe the MSM who fed you lies for 2 plus years about phony Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign?
They told you over and over that Trump was a Russian asset. Shifty said he had proof positive! So it seems you have not learned
your lesson with trusting the partisan Trump hating MSM.

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Dec 6

Fake News @CNN is reporting that I am “still using personal cell phone for calls despite repeated security warnings.” This is totally false information and reporting. I haven’t had a personal cell phone for years. Only use government approved and issued phones. Retract!

 

[Threegoofs]

Maybe TDS flaring again? eace

When someone consistently and repeatedly lies about the most minor of things, only a blithering idiot would treat him as trustworthy.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Sorry to break it to you, but when she failed to secure the classified material she had, she violated way more than a "policy", but you clearly don't care about that.

I'm quite prepared to admit that Ms. Clinton did not retroactively "secure the (retroactively) classified material she had".

Now, if you are able to advance some rational proposal as to HOW Ms. Clinton could have retroactively "secure(d) the (retroactively) classified material she had" I'd be most interested in hearing what it is.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You against the SUPPOSED gun show loop hole, ...

Really?

Just to clarify my position on "gun control" I am in favour of universal, permitless, open carry (with the proviso that the person doing so should have demonstrated an adequate knowledge of gun safety, skill in gun use, and an understanding of when it is, and is not, appropriate to use guns [much along the lines of how a person would qualify for a Driver's Licence]). I consider "gun banning" to be a waste of time, money, and effort (at least in the United States of America) on the basis that it simply wouldn't work UNLESS there was a VAST, and highly intrusive, federal bureaucracy dedicated to ENSURING that no one had any guns at all - and any "Good Idea" that simply will not work is NOT actually a "Good Idea".

... but are okay with Hillary having classified data sent to her private server.

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I never said that I was "OK" with that happening (if it actually did happen).

I think that it was incredibly sloppy, but I do NOT concur with your fixed opinion that what actually did happen was "illegal".

Dude, are you that clueless about which is worse?

Being able to differentiate between "what happened" and "what I say happened if what I say happened happened" is hardly the classic definition of "clueless".

 

[American]

Really?

Just to clarify my position on "gun control" I am in favour of universal, permitless, open carry (with the proviso that the person doing so should have demonstrated an adequate knowledge of gun safety, skill in gun use, and an understanding of when it is, and is not, appropriate to use guns [much along the lines of how a person would qualify for a Driver's Licence]). I consider "gun banning" to be a waste of time, money, and effort (at least in the United States of America) on the basis that it simply wouldn't work UNLESS there was a VAST, and highly intrusive, federal bureaucracy dedicated to ENSURING that no one had any guns at all - and any "Good Idea" that simply will not work is NOT actually a "Good Idea".



If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I never said that I was "OK" with that happening (if it actually did happen).

I think that it was incredibly sloppy, but I do NOT concur with your fixed opinion that what actually did happen was "illegal".



Being able to differentiate between "what happened" and "what I say happened if what I say happened happened" is hardly the classic definition of "clueless".

There's not doubt it happened, because Comey said so. It's probably the single truth that every came from his mouth. What he did with it is punt it down the road; letting her off the hook. There's no ambiguity in the law, but he used his discretion to stay alive. He heard he might have an unfortunate accident the following week.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

There's not doubt it happened, because Comey said so.

Agreed, the PHYSICAL act was what it was.

That is NOT to say that the PHYSICAL act was an ILLEGAL act (or even if it was that there was enough evidence to warrant a prosecution with a reasonable chance of a conviction).

You might not have noticed it, but the "Claque Trump" position with respect to impeachment of Mr. Trump is footed on EXACTLY the same basis (i.e "What was done was done but it wasn't contrary to LAW (and even if it was there isn't enough evidence to warrant a prosecution that will have a reasonable chance of securing a conviction).".

It's probably the single truth that every came from his mouth.

An opinion footed on "That is what I want to hear.".

What he did with it is punt it down the road; letting her off the hook.

An opinion footed on "That is not what I wanted to see happen.".

There's no ambiguity in the law, ...

Which, of course, is why a federal Grand Jury has met and brought down indictments charging Ms. Clinton with everything that you want to see her charged with - isn't it?

...but he used his discretion to stay alive.

An opinion footed on "That is what I want to believe.".

He heard he might have an unfortunate accident the following week.

Indeed. Now I'm not saying that it is true that

he heard that he might have an unfortunate accident the following week, but I have heard that there are people who are saying that

he heard that he might have an unfortunate accident the following week, and if there are people who heard that

HE HEARD THAT HE MIGHT HAVE AN UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT THE FOLLOWING WEEK, then it is quite likely that there are people who are saying that

HE HEARD THAT HE MIGHT HAVE AN UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT THE FOLLOWING WEEK, and if there are people who are saying that

HE HEARD THAT HE MIGHT HAVE AN UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT THE FOLLOWING WEEK,
​

well, then ... you know.

 

[Oborosen]

Obama did use a secure phone,

So we're just ignoring the time up until this point with him?