Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 20, 2017

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster mocked President Trump's intelligence at a private dinner with a powerful tech CEO, according to five sources with knowledge of the conversation. Over a July dinner with Oracle CEO Safra Catz -- who has been mentioned as a candidate for several potential administration jobs -- McMaster bluntly trashed his boss, said the sources, four of whom told BuzzFeed News they heard about the exchange directly from Catz. The top national security official dismissed the president variously as an "idiot" and a "dope" with the intelligence of a "kindergartner," the sources said. A sixth source who was not familiar with the details of the dinner told BuzzFeed News that McMaster had made similarly derogatory comments about Trump's intelligence to him in private, including that the president lacked the necessary brainpower to understand the matters before the National Security Council.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Both Oracle and the Trump administration heatedly denied the comments that Catz later recounted.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If true, you can add these remarks to Tillerson's "moron" and Corker's "adult day care" comments.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-20 01:29 PM | Reply

H.R. Pufinstuf was your friend when things get rough. H.R. McMaster not so much.

I've never seen a president whose own Cabinet was full of people who thought he was an idiot. And yet they're doing nothing to protect us from an imbecile with nukes.

#2 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-20 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I wish someone would goad him into doing one of these IQ test challenges he brings up. Trump had a top notch education and would probably still come in under 95.

How funny would it have been if Tillerson had said "let's do it" after Trump mentioned comparing IQ tests?

#3 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-20 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've never seen a president whose own Cabinet was full of people who thought he was an idiot. And yet they're doing nothing to protect us from an imbecile with nukes.

#2 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-20 03:

I imagine that Trump's Cabinet are also idiots.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-20 04:37 PM | Reply

Trump is a dolt and his Cabinet and many of his Administration peeps are fully aware of it. This tells me we may have 'misunderestimated' some of them.

So, who wants to break the news to Mackris and Boaz?

Anybody?

Dont all answer at once, now, or it will get confusing.

#5 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2017-11-20 04:38 PM | Reply

I imagine that Trump's Cabinet are also idiots.

#4 | POSTED BY ZED

I tend to refer to them as patriots.

They are undoubtedly putting up with an unimaginable amount of BS and absurdity with his erratic behavior and whatnot, but see their role of keeping him from doing stupid things as a responsibility to this nation.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 04:44 PM | Reply

I imagine that Trump's Cabinet are also idiots.

#4 | Posted by Zed

Trump only hires the best idiots.

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-20 04:47 PM | Reply

I suspect members of his cabinet are attempting to figure out if there are enough of them who know he's insane to invoke the 25th Amendment.

#8 | Posted by Tor at 2017-11-20 04:48 PM | Reply

I tend to refer to them as patriots.

They are undoubtedly putting up with an unimaginable amount of BS and absurdity with his erratic behavior and whatnot, but see their role of keeping him from doing stupid things as a responsibility to this nation.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

If they were patriots they could remove him from office immediately. Instead they are allowing a mentally unstable egomanian man-child to run the country and ruin america's standing in the world.

They are complicit in every single thing trump does.

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 05:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

It has got to be awful to have to get a lawyer to protect you on the job just because the guy you work for is such a lying crook.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-20 05:24 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

We know that several of them are there to secure the massive transfer of wealth to the oligarchy. So, no they're NOT patriots, they're greedy bastards!

#11 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2017-11-20 06:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If they were patriots they could remove him from office immediately. Instead they are allowing a mentally unstable egomanian man-child to run the country and ruin america's standing in the world.
They are complicit in every single thing trump does.

#9 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

So, if they don't support a coup???

Sorry, we don't have those in this country, nor should we.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 06:41 PM | Reply

So, if they don't support a coup???

Sorry, we don't have those in this country, nor should we.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ

The 25th ammendment or impeachment are not coups. They are the remedies the founders provided for removing a maniac from the white house. Republicans aren't using them because they don't want to risk losing tax cuts for the rich.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 06:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The 25th ammendment or impeachment are not coups. They are the remedies the founders provided for removing a maniac from the white house. Republicans aren't using them because they don't want to risk losing tax cuts for the rich.

#13 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

In this case the 25th doesn't apply and impeachment less than a year in? How many times in this country's history has a president been impeached? Please try and put things into historical perspective.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 07:02 PM | Reply

In this case the 25th doesn't apply and impeachment less than a year in? How many times in this country's history has a president been impeached? Please try and put things into historical perspective.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ

Take your own advice. How many times has america allowed its electoral college to appoint a sociopathic con man to the presidency who collaborated with our enemies to get elected and is attempting to take down america from within?

These are unprecedented times and they call for an unprecedented response.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 07:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In this case the 25th doesn't apply and impeachment less than a year in? How many times in this country's history has a president been impeached? Please try and put things into historical perspective.

#14 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

The 25th doesn't apply? Please explain.

Impeachment less than a year in? I didn't know there was a grace period. Please explain.

#16 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-20 07:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The 25th doesn't apply? Please explain.

He doesn't meet the qualifications.

Impeachment less than a year in? I didn't know there was a grace period. Please explain.

#16 | POSTED BY CHUFFY

Impeachment is extremely serious and has only been done 3 times in the history of this Republic. There's a reason for that. So far, nothing he has done, that we know about and can prove, warrants impeachment. Ask the leadership of your party.

Take your own advice. How many times has america allowed its electoral college to appoint a sociopathic con man to the presidency who collaborated with our enemies to get elected and is attempting to take down america from within?

If you have actual proof of that....you should automatically be disqualified from sitting on a jury. Ever.

These are unprecedented times and they call for an unprecedented response.

#15 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

More unprecedented than the Civil War? WWI? Great Depression? WWII? 60's race riots? Hyper-inflation, gas lines, "misery index" of the '70's? Like I said, please gain some historical perspective.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 07:21 PM | Reply

More unprecedented than the Civil War?

#17 | Posted by JeffJ

Give it another year.

Wait until the noose starts to tighten.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-20 07:24 PM | Reply

Give it another year....

#18 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Fine.

That's at least reasonable.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 07:28 PM | Reply

More unprecedented than the Civil War? WWI? Great Depression? WWII? 60's race riots? Hyper-inflation, gas lines, "misery index" of the '70's? Like I said, please gain some historical perspective.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ

One more JeffJ post, one more case of WHATABOUTISM.

Yes those were also horrible historic traumas that america went through.

That doesn't mean this isn't one too.

And this one has an much easier remedy than those did. But repubs are too greedy and weak and scared to do it.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 07:38 PM | Reply

Maybe we should institute IQ tests and Psychological evaluations as necessary for candidacy.

#21 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-20 07:39 PM | Reply

please gain some historical perspective.
#17 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You too. This is up there with WW2 and the Civil War. Russia attacked us, Japan attacked, and the South attacked us. May not be an issue to you, but I prefer not having a foreign adversary decide my presidential election.

#22 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-20 07:40 PM | Reply

Like those are even remotely equivalent. Get a grip. Russia did far worse during the Cold War.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 07:42 PM | Reply

"Russia attacked us"

Not only did Russia attack us but our President has denied Russia attacked us and has defended Putin and done nothing to prevent Putin from continuing to attack us.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-20 07:42 PM | Reply

One more JeffJ post, one more case of WHATABOUTISM.
Yes those were also horrible historic traumas that america went through.
That doesn't mean this isn't one too.
And this one has an much easier remedy than those did. But repubs are too greedy and weak and scared to do it.
#20 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

It's not about "WHATABOUTISM". It's about putting things into historical perspective. Had Ted Cruz been president you'd probably be even more unhinged than you are now.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 07:44 PM | Reply

Fact is, Obama, through policy, was more friendly toward Russia than Trump has been so far.

It's called "foreign policy" and because you (plural) don't like the election results doesn't mean we forcibly remove those who have been elected.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 07:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 2


@#2

Adult Day Care cartoon
www.realclearpolitics.com

#27 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-20 07:51 PM | Reply

Maybe we should institute IQ tests and Psychological evaluations as necessary for candidacy.
#21 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

The same tests would eliminate at least 90% of the electorate.

#28 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 07:55 PM | Reply

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Ah yes the right tactic of the moment learned from the commies - WHATABOUTISM.

#29 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-20 07:55 PM | Reply

Fact is, Obama, through policy, was more friendly toward Russia than Trump has been so far.

I don't believe that is actually a "fact".

Sounds suspiciously like an opinion to me.

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-20 07:56 PM | Reply

I say this is much ado about nothing. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE paying any attention and not blinded by partisan hackery already knows Trump is an idiot. Of course his cabinet, the people who work closest with him, know it better than anyone else. It is really a sign of just how pathetic Trump defenders are that they alone to be the only ones unable to see what is perfectly obvious to every one else in the universe.

#31 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-20 07:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#28 | Posted by Ray

More than 90% of the population shouldn't be in the position of President.

#32 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-20 08:00 PM | Reply

I don't believe that is actually a "fact".
Sounds suspiciously like an opinion to me.

#30 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

He violated a treaty and canceled an Eastern European missile shield and got for, nor asked for, anything in return.

Is it really too much to ask that Mueller's investigation run its course before calling for Trump to be removed by any means necessary?

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 08:02 PM | Reply

More than 90% of the population shouldn't be in the position of President.
#32 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

That wasn't my point. Lying comes natural to politicians. The gullible electorate never learns.

#34 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 08:06 PM | Reply

Like those are even remotely equivalent. Get a grip. Russia did far worse during the Cold War.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ

Far worse than installing a puppet in charge of our country and hand picking his cabinet for him?

Like what?

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 08:10 PM | Reply

Fact is, Obama, through policy, was more friendly toward Russia than Trump has been so far.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ

Did obama refuse to enact sactions against russia like trump currently is?

Are you ignorant of current events or just pretending they don't exist?

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 08:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Anyone unwilling to call the idiot an idiot is...well...an idiot.

#37 | Posted by cbob at 2017-11-20 08:13 PM | Reply

Like those are even remotely equivalent. Get a grip. Russia did far worse during the Cold War.
#23 | Posted by JeffJ

Far worse than installing a puppet in charge of our country and hand picking his cabinet for him?

#35 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Please remove the tinfoil hat and put the bong down. Nothing we've gotten from Mueller's investigation is even remotely close to your caricature.

You sound like an unhinged right-winger claiming Obama was a Manchurian POTUS seeking to instill Communism in this country.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 08:14 PM | Reply

"Fact is, Obama, through policy, was more friendly toward Russia than Trump has been so far."

Examples?

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-20 08:14 PM | Reply

Did obama refuse to enact sactions against russia like trump currently is?
Are you ignorant of current events or just pretending they don't exist?

#36 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I'm well aware of it.

Obama negotiated a deal that lifted sanctions on Iran (a more obvious enemy than Russia) and transferred hundreds of millions in "ransom payments".

Did I strongly disagree with his policies pertaining to Iran? Hell yes! Did I ever argue that he should have been forcibly removed from office over any of that? Hell no!

Seriously, please get a grip.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 08:17 PM | Reply

#39

I already gave one.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 08:17 PM | Reply

Is it really too much to ask that Mueller's investigation run its course before calling for Trump to be removed by any means necessary?

Looks to me like Trump has conformed to the expectations of the Deep State. I doubt any allegations will be brought against him. The Mueller investigation would have served as a warning. Besides being shot, Reagan went through something like this.

#42 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-20 08:18 PM | Reply

#34 | Posted by Ray

Now that I agree with.

#43 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-20 08:23 PM | Reply

Please remove the tinfoil hat and put the bong down. Nothing we've gotten from Mueller's investigation is even remotely close to your caricature.

You sound like an unhinged right-winger claiming Obama was a Manchurian POTUS seeking to instill Communism in this country.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ

And you sound like your head is inside your ass.

The whole russia scandal you've been wrong every step of the way. Maybe you should start listening to the people who've been right.

Trump picked putin's favorite oil exec to run our foreign policy.

Let's test your knowledge of facts and current events:
WHY did trump pick tillerson?
WHAT has tillerson done to the state department since he arrived?

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 08:23 PM | Reply

Oh, so now it's about Tillerson.

Please elaborate. I know that when he was the head of Exxon he negotiated deals with the heads of many states, including Putin. GW Bush head dealings with Putin. So did Obama and Sec of State Clinton. So, is any CEO whose job requires negotiating deals with Putin and other heads of state automatically the modern-day equivalent of Alger Hiss?

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 08:31 PM | Reply

Please elaborate. I know that when he was the head of Exxon he negotiated deals with the heads of many states, including Putin. GW Bush head dealings with Putin. So did Obama and Sec of State Clinton. So, is any CEO whose job requires negotiating deals with Putin and other heads of state automatically the modern-day equivalent of Alger Hiss?

#45 | Posted by JeffJ

This is the problem with you. You say the russian scandal is a nothingburger, a conspiracy theory, and then talk about tin foil hats. Then when asked anything in depth on the issue, you reveal you actually aren't informed on the topic.

time.com

"The U.S. has lost 60% of its career ambassadors since January, according to the head of the union that represents diplomatic staff.

Barbara Stephenson, the head of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) and former U.S. Ambassador to Panama, wrote in a memo to members that diplomatic leadership ranks are being "depleted at a dizzying speed."

She referred to a recent TIME cover which she said corroborated her vision of government being dismantled. "The cover of the TIME magazine that arrived as I was writing this column jarred me with its graphic of wrecking balls and warning of ‘dismantling government as we know it,'" she wrote.

She blamed the decline in staff partially on "the decision to slash promotion numbers by more than half."

In addition to the decline in the number of ambassadors, Stephenson pointed to the reduction in the number of Career Ministers from 33 to 19 and of Minister Counselors from 431 just after Labor Day to 369 today -- numbers she said were still falling.

"These numbers are hard to square with the stated agenda of making State and the Foreign Service stronger," she wrote in the memo, which is titled "Time to Ask Why."

She warned that the staff leaving the profession could not easily be replaced, and that the loss would affect the capacity of the U.S. to shape world events.

President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have made little secret of the fact that reducing the size of the State Department is one of their key goals, something Tillerson called "the most important thing I want to do during the time I have," according to Salon.

However, Stephenson railed against this decision in her memo, notable as it breaks a tradition of the diplomatic corps not commenting on politics. "Were the U.S. military to face such a decapitation of its leadership ranks," she wrote, "I would expect a public outcry."

So putin supports trump, then trump goes and picks exxon's CEO for head of state department, who just happens to be buddies with putin, and just happens to stand to profit greatly from the elimination of russian sanctions. But that's all just a big coincidence, right jeffy?

Let's start somewhere simple: Do you know what the state department even DOES? Or are you a dumb hick who thinks it must just be some big wasteful government thingy?

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 08:46 PM | Reply

So, you decry the US being the world's police, through the State Department, among other agencies, and then act like reducing the scope of State is some Russian conspiracy?

I know you think the military is bloated. Is it possible that State is too? Is it possible that State becoming more lean is a net positive?

More importantly, regardless of the opinions you are I might have regarding those questions, how in the hell does a failure to fill departed roles in State automatically translate to traitorous acts?

Also, Senate Democrats have been employing every parliamentarian trick in the book to slow-walk and delay Trump nominations for cabinet positions and whatnot. Whilst I don't have a problem with what Dems have been doing, you surely should, based upon the position you seem to be taking. But you don't.

Hell, you should be ecstatic that Team Trump hasn't been able to reload vacated positions at State. But strangely, this is offensive to you, as if a vacancy is somehow worse to you than filling it with the next Pruitt or Devos.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 09:03 PM | Reply

"I already gave one."

You gave an example of an Obama action, but nothing from Trump to compare it against.

Maybe... that's because Trump hasn't done anything when it comes to Russia?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-20 09:08 PM | Reply

You gave an example of an Obama action, but nothing from Trump to compare it against.

Go ahead and provide one.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 09:10 PM | Reply

"Trump not enforcing sanctions on Russia" is one example.

Trump siding with Russia over all US intelligence agencies is another.

Your turn.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-20 09:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So, you decry the US being the world's police, through the State Department, among other agencies, and then act like reducing the scope of State is some Russian conspiracy?

I know you think the military is bloated. Is it possible that State is too? Is it possible that State becoming more lean is a net positive?

#47 | Posted by JeffJ

The state department PREVENTS us from being the world's police. It is the way we find DIPLOMATIC solutions to problems.

A Weaker state department means MORE military conflicts.

The state department has helped keep putin's ambitions in check for decades, so he HATES the state department. Suddenly his favorite candidate picks his favorite oil CEO to run the state department and they start dismantling it?

Rex isn't making the state department LEAN, he's getting rid of the people there with the expertise to stop his boss, putin, and you're rooting for it because... well I havent' figured that part out yet. Maybe you're russian?

#51 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 09:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The state department PREVENTS us from being the world's police. It is the way we find DIPLOMATIC solutions to problems.

Riiight. So, as Sec of State Hillary had ZERO input over upending Libya.

I guess Colin Powell going before the UN and presenting a case against Iraq never happened.

All you have so far is conspiratorial nonsense. Like I said before, you should consider waiting for Mueller to produce something concrete before shooting from the hip.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 09:20 PM | Reply

All you have so far is conspiratorial nonsense. Like I said before, you should consider waiting for Mueller to produce something concrete before shooting from the hip.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ

Everything he's produced so far has supported the theory of collusion.

Yet you keep saying "tinfoil hat conspiracy".

It makes you look either willfully ignorant, stupid, or intentionally deceptive.

How come YOURE not waiting for him to exonerate trump before declaring NOTHINGBURGER! over and over? You just like being laughed at?

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 09:27 PM | Reply

How come YOURE not waiting for him to exonerate trump before declaring NOTHINGBURGER! over and over? You just like being laughed at?

#53 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I'm not declaring "NOTHINGBURGER!".

I'm saying let the investigation run its course. I am mocking your characterization of things based upon proven facts right now. My view is open to change as new facts emerge. Are yours?

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 09:36 PM | Reply

I'm saying let the investigation run its course. I am mocking your characterization of things based upon proven facts right now. My view is open to change as new facts emerge. Are yours?

#54 | Posted by JeffJ

Absolutely. I used to think trump was in on the whole thing. Now i think he might just be a moron surrounded by people working for putin who took advantage of him, but that should result in impeachment too, if repubs had any patriotism or integrity.

You've been mocking the whole concept from the beginning. Talking about tin foil hats is the opposite of saying let the investigation run its course. One treats the issue seriously, the other dismisses it outright.

#55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-20 10:01 PM | Reply

I have NOT been mocking the whole concept. My point has always been and remains - let the investigation run its course. Period. If the investigation proves actual collusion or other impeachable offenses....then move from there. So far, that is not remotely the case.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-20 10:05 PM | Reply

"If the investigation proves actual collusion"

Junior was trying to collude. The fact he's a failure is moot.

Basically, he showed up with beer & condoms, and Chris Hansen was waiting for him. I didn't get what I expected isn't a defense.

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 10:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

JeffJ it's still your turn bro.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 12:02 AM | Reply

Trump shouldn't be president.

But the "Russia attacked us" claim is obviously untrue and people who insist otherwise are only betraying their inability to be reasonable.

You are referring to Facebook posts, for Godsake. Pull yourselves together.

#59 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-21 09:58 AM | Reply

#17:

He doesn't meet the qualifications?

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

What qualifications, exactly?

He can be impeached at any time. It doesn't matter how little or how long you wait. I am certain you would be defending the impeachment proceedings agains President Hillary Clinton on day 1.

#60 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-21 10:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

His violation of the Emoluments Clause rises to the level of impeachment. I'm assuming you mean "ask the leadership of the Democratic Party,"

The leadership of the Democratic Party is not in power, so asking them about impeachment is pointless, comrade.

#61 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-21 10:53 AM | Reply

You are referring to Facebook posts, for Godsake. Pull yourselves together.

#59 | Posted by Sully

Russia did far more than facebook posts. They released hillary emails hours after trump's ------------ video came out, to try and give him cover.

They fed fake stories to right wing media sources like drudge and breitbart, which eagerly reprinted the soviet propaganda for the idiotic readers.

They sent FALSE voting information to liberals, telling them they could vote on fake sites online, so that they wouldn't go out and vote for real.

Don't post about a subject before informing yourself about it. It makes you look dumb.

#62 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 12:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You are referring to Facebook posts, for Godsake. Pull yourselves together.
#59 | Posted by Sully"

Facebook. A form of digital media.

I'm sure you were equally dismissive of Anthony Weiner's texts and Hillary Clinton's emails.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 12:48 PM | Reply

But the "Russia attacked us" claim is obviously untrue and people who insist otherwise are only betraying their inability to be reasonable.
You are referring to Facebook posts, for Godsake. Pull yourselves together.

#59 | POSTED BY SULLY

Um, untrue according to whom?

- A cyberattack is any type of offensive manoeuvre employed by nation-states, individuals, groups, or organizations that targets computer information systems, infrastructures, computer networks, and/or personal computer devices by various means of malicious acts usually originating from an anonymous source that either steals, alters, or destroys a specified target by hacking into a susceptible system. - definition of a cyberATTACK in Wikipedia (you can look it up in any source, though)

- "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations." - Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement. This is not disputed in the Intelligence Community.

Nice try, but we reasonable folks aren't the ones you should be using the word, "betray," on.

#64 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-21 05:34 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort