Auburnfan91

Verified Member
  • Content count

    2,558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Auburnfan91 last won the day on October 19 2009

Auburnfan91 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

88 Sterling

About Auburnfan91

  • Rank
    bleed orange and blue

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Interests
    college football, professional wrestling, music, and movies.
  • Location
    Deatsville, Alabama
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

614 profile views
  1. Because Susan Rice had the power to unmask U.S. persons in a report. She spelled out how she did so in her interview on MSNBC Apr. 4, and she didn't deny that Trump officials had been unmasked, just that she didn't leak them and that it wasn't done politically. She was basically saying they may have been caught up incidentally from surveillance, not that they were the target. That's a far cry from her interview on PBS Mar. 22 where she flat out denied any knowledge of Trump officials being unmasked. I don't see why people would give her the benefit of the doubt since she's been caught multiple times giving dishonest answers over the past few years. It's political what she did in that some of the alleged Trump officials that were swept up from surveillance were still part of Trump's campaign run for president. Unless there were some serious threats from Russia that had been picked up through surveillance, unmasking Trump officials simply for having contact with foreign officials seems political rather than for national security. It was part of her job to sometimes unmask U.S. persons in a report. If U.S. persons were unmasked, she would have known about it since she was the National Security Advisor. You can correctly say that what Rice did was legal; after all the NSA has the power to sweep up Americans in their surveillance and can request to unmask U.S. persons using national security as the reason for doing so, but that doesn't make what Rice did proper and morally justified. She's not above reproach and should be rightfully questioned since it's very likely she knew about Trump officials being unmasked. Adam Schiff has dismissed criticism of Susan Rice's double talk interviews and considers people going after her as part of the "Breitbart crowd" and using a Breitbart "formula". It's reasonable to question Schiff's bias and consider that he should recuse himself from leading the investigation since he's showing his partisanship and not looking at all the facts, only the one's he's interested in looking at. It's very likely that Susan Rice will become part of the Trump-Russia investigation at some point and might be asked to answer questions at a hearing. The fact that Schiff is already defending Rice should call into question his conflict of interest in leading the investigation.
  2. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/04/susan_rice_i_leaked_nothing_to_nobody.html Rice admitted to unmaskiing Trump transition/campaign officials but denies leaking them or spying on them for political purposes. This tap dance about not understanding the allegations that Trump's transition officials were under surveillance and playing semantics about unmasking Trump campaign persons is ridiculous on Rice's part.
  3. She was misleading because she was trying not to implicate herself to the Trump surveillance issue. The problem is that she had to have known about what was going on because it was part of her job to unmask and find out who a U.S. person was in a report so she could better weigh the significance of the report. That's what she admitted to on MSNBC on April 4. Her tweet on April 4 was hours after she had already done the interview on MSNBC.
  4. It didn't remove context. The question was the same as presented by Judy Woodruff before it cuts to Susan Rice's answer. Just because they edited the video and removed Woodruff's one on one interview question didn't change anything. Here's a different video with Judy Woodruff asking the same question in the last video which you're complaining about because it edited out Woodruff's question:
  5. Why did she lie on March 22 on PBS and say she had no knowledge of the surveillance of Trump transition officials if it was part of her job?
  6. The fact that Adam Schiff is defending Susan Rice, should show everyone that Shiff is partisan on the Russian investigation.
  7. So Susan Rice didn't lie on March 22 in an interview on PBS saying she had no knowledge of the unmasking/surveillance of Trump transition officials?
  8. The reason for replacing the old scoreboard was because the parts we needed for the scoreboard were no longer being made, so the scoreboard became obsolete.
  9. Now if Adam Schiff will recuse himself from the investigation, then maybe the investigation can be taken seriously and not be viewed as nothing but a partisan investigation. Schiff's defense of Susan Rice's double speak just shows he's as much a partisan as people say Nunes is but I'm sure resident liberals will argue he's not. It just shows the double standard's that the left love to employ. Jeff Sessions doesn't tell the whole truth, and the left howl that he should step down as AG. Susan Rice doesn't tell the truth on unmasking Trump officials, and yet the left defend her and attack Republicans for pointing out her not being truthful.
  10. Twitter defends liberals and has banned bully's who tweet mean things towards liberals but allow conservatives to be attacked.
  11. Why don't you read the article that MDM4AU posted?
  12. Good article. It not only shows ESPN's bias but also the bias of Twitter.
  13. Tell us what you think then. You posted this is the "serious" political forum. You pretty much agree with the survey?
  14. Meh, it also says that more people than not want Trump and the GOP in Congress to stop working on healthcare and move on to other priorities. It shows the public's contradictory responses. They don't want them to work on healthcare but at the same time say they own any problems with it going forward.
  15. Meyers didn't break the law, or violate an NCAA rule but if he did have an affair with one of the players then he did embarrass Auburn University. So what if the females on the team are consenting adults. Tyler Summitt, Pat Summit's son, resigned as Louisiana Tech's women's basketball coach for having an extramarital affair with a player. The woman that Petrino was with was 25 years old, she was an employee at Arkansas and a former student-athlete. Age of consent is a red herring on the issues of code of conduct, ethics, and the moral obligations of a coach at a university. I suspect Meyers resigned to get out in front of any possibly story coming to light.