Rubio: "All options should be on the table" with regards to Flynn

[Angrie]

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/867125893092712449

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting and positive to see some prominent Republicans standing up and at least saying they are ready to do what is necessary for the country. Rubio has seemed at least nominally/verbally to want to get to the truth at the bottom of all this for quite a while. He has been quite good and even handed in his public statements, and he seems to appreciate the gravity of Russian interference in the US election - perhaps partly because apparently his campaign was hacked as well.

However, Rubio at some point needs to put his money where his mouth is. For example, he talked up some 'big' talk on Rex Tillerson's Russia ties, but then out came the 'little' Marco of the caricature and voted to confirm him anyway. At some point, leadership requires action. Will Big Marco step up? If not, who will?

[Fight for Trump]

Rubio thinks he's a tough guy.

[EnglishPete]

Interesting and positive to see some prominent Republicans standing up and at least saying they are ready to do what is necessary for the country. Rubio has seemed at least nominally/verbally to want to get to the truth at the bottom of all this for quite a while. He has been quite good and even handed in his public statements, and he seems to appreciate the gravity of Russian interference in the US election - perhaps partly because apparently his campaign was hacked as well.

You sound like you really believe this "russia hacked the DNC and Trump was complicit" narrative that various people have been spinning with no evidence. Your sense of outrage sounds genuine. Doesn't the lack of evidence for this theory bother you?

[EnglishPete]

I've changed my mind. Another shocking scandal has been revealed

[Nyvin]

Interesting and positive to see some prominent Republicans standing up and at least saying they are ready to do what is necessary for the country. Rubio has seemed at least nominally/verbally to want to get to the truth at the bottom of all this for quite a while. He has been quite good and even handed in his public statements, and he seems to appreciate the gravity of Russian interference in the US election - perhaps partly because apparently his campaign was hacked as well.

You sound like you really believe this "russia hacked the DNC and Trump was complicit" narrative that various people have been spinning with no evidence. Your sense of outrage sounds genuine. Doesn't the lack of evidence for this theory bother you?

Do you consider Brennan's latest House Hearing "lack of evidence"?    How about the part that he couldn't answer Swalwell's question "in an open session"?

[Deblano]

Rubio thinks he's a tough guy.

But at the end of the day, he's just a robot.....

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Would somebody go pour some water on the robot so he can short-circuit and cry home to Daddy.

[EnglishPete]

Interesting and positive to see some prominent Republicans standing up and at least saying they are ready to do what is necessary for the country. Rubio has seemed at least nominally/verbally to want to get to the truth at the bottom of all this for quite a while. He has been quite good and even handed in his public statements, and he seems to appreciate the gravity of Russian interference in the US election - perhaps partly because apparently his campaign was hacked as well.

You sound like you really believe this "russia hacked the DNC and Trump was complicit" narrative that various people have been spinning with no evidence. Your sense of outrage sounds genuine. Doesn't the lack of evidence for this theory bother you?

Do you consider Brennan's latest House Hearing "lack of evidence"? 

Yes I do consider the Brennan House Hearing 'lack of evidence'. Exactly what evidence did he present?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WTF? You're saying that if someone says "I can't answer your question in open session" that means that they just didn't answer a question. Not answering a question (for whatever reason, good or bad) is not the same thing as presenting evidence.

Comey has previously said that the Crowdstrike report on the DNC hacking constituted the evidence that it was done by the Russians. Not not only has Crowdstrike's methodology been highly questioned but its known that previously they did a report into a military hacking allegedly by Russia in Ukraine. Later transpired that not only was it not the Russians but that the event never took place at all. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.

How on earth are we supposed to know if the 'evidence' that Brennan has that the Russians were behind the alleged hacking is any better than the Crowdstrike 'evidence'. In fact when Brennan was asked by Trey Gowdy if he knew of any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia Brennan avoided answering directly and danced around the question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDgjW5qa3Sc

[Nyvin]

Interesting and positive to see some prominent Republicans standing up and at least saying they are ready to do what is necessary for the country. Rubio has seemed at least nominally/verbally to want to get to the truth at the bottom of all this for quite a while. He has been quite good and even handed in his public statements, and he seems to appreciate the gravity of Russian interference in the US election - perhaps partly because apparently his campaign was hacked as well.

You sound like you really believe this "russia hacked the DNC and Trump was complicit" narrative that various people have been spinning with no evidence. Your sense of outrage sounds genuine. Doesn't the lack of evidence for this theory bother you?

Do you consider Brennan's latest House Hearing "lack of evidence"?  

Yes I do consider the Brennan House Hearing 'lack of evidence'. Exactly what evidence did he present?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WTF? You're saying that if someone says "I can't answer your question in open session" that means that they just didn't answer a question. Not answering a question (for whatever reason, good or bad) is not the same thing as presenting evidence.

Comey has previously said that the Crowdstrike report on the DNC hacking constituted the evidence that it was done by the Russians. Not not only has Crowdstrike's methodology been highly questioned but its known that previously they did a report into a military hacking allegedly by Russia in Ukraine. Later transpired that not only was it not the Russians but that the event never took place at all. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.

How on earth are we supposed to know if the 'evidence' that Brennan has that the Russians were behind the alleged hacking is any better than the Crowdstrike 'evidence'. In fact when Brennan was asked by Trey Gowdy if he knew of any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia Brennan avoided answering directly and danced around the question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDgjW5qa3Sc

His answer was a quarter-step away from "yes".   About as far as you can get in a public hearing.   I'd love to know what more you want,  solid proof?   He basically said that the US should be concerned about Trump being on a "treasonous path" either wittingly or unwittingly.   

[EnglishPete]

Interesting and positive to see some prominent Republicans standing up and at least saying they are ready to do what is necessary for the country. Rubio has seemed at least nominally/verbally to want to get to the truth at the bottom of all this for quite a while. He has been quite good and even handed in his public statements, and he seems to appreciate the gravity of Russian interference in the US election - perhaps partly because apparently his campaign was hacked as well.

You sound like you really believe this "russia hacked the DNC and Trump was complicit" narrative that various people have been spinning with no evidence. Your sense of outrage sounds genuine. Doesn't the lack of evidence for this theory bother you?

Do you consider Brennan's latest House Hearing "lack of evidence"?  

Yes I do consider the Brennan House Hearing 'lack of evidence'. Exactly what evidence did he present?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WTF? You're saying that if someone says "I can't answer your question in open session" that means that they just didn't answer a question. Not answering a question (for whatever reason, good or bad) is not the same thing as presenting evidence.

Comey has previously said that the Crowdstrike report on the DNC hacking constituted the evidence that it was done by the Russians. Not not only has Crowdstrike's methodology been highly questioned but its known that previously they did a report into a military hacking allegedly by Russia in Ukraine. Later transpired that not only was it not the Russians but that the event never took place at all. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.

How on earth are we supposed to know if the 'evidence' that Brennan has that the Russians were behind the alleged hacking is any better than the Crowdstrike 'evidence'. In fact when Brennan was asked by Trey Gowdy if he knew of any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia Brennan avoided answering directly and danced around the question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDgjW5qa3Sc

His answer was a quarter-step away from "yes".   About as far as you can get in a public hearing.   I'd love to know what more you want,  solid proof?   He basically said that the US should be concerned about Trump being on a "treasonous path" either wittingly or unwittingly.   

Firstly his answer wasn't a yes or anywhere particularly near it. Secondly even if he had said "Yes I have evidence" that isn't evidence. Its a claim to have evidence. Now it may very well be that there are very good security reasons why he can't present this particular alleged evidence in a public hearing.

However if that's the case you can't say "Brennan's public testimony today presented evidence for Russia being behind the hacking" and then when I ask what that evidence was you then say "he can't present evidence in an public hearing". He either presented evidence in his testimony or he didn't. He can't have done both. Evidently he didn't present any evidence for this claim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strong words from Brennan. Any evidence to back them up?

[I Won - Get Over It]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strong words from Brennan. Any evidence to back them up?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RINO Tom]

Forget who said it, shouldn't all options be on the table?  Why wouldn't they be?

[SoLongAtlas]

Option 1: Leavenworth