Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Believe General Kelly - he was part of Trump's "inner circle" and worked directly for him and knows him much better than anyone on this thread.
Our friends and closest colleagues usually say nice things about us and it's not that compelling because it's in their own personal interest to do so. But when a close colleague or friend says something negative, that puts them at risk, it's brave and more credible. Kelly has nothing to personally gain from this. He is a Republican who used to believe in Trump - until he worked closely with him and saw him for who he is.
+1
Kelly expected Trump or any president for that matter to be deferential to him rather than the other way around. Also, this episode bothered him so much he waited 4 years and two weeks before the election to get it off his chest?
A) Kelly expected Trump to be deferential to the Constitution and the rule of law, not to him.
B) Kelly has been talking about this for years - to Goldberg and Schmidt and others - but didn’t go on the record until now.
Anonymous wrote:
This woman is not an impartial voice. She is a leading never Trumper.
Why do we have to believe his motive for stating this is pure? He didn’t offer anything but his personal opinion. He provided no concrete evidence of Trump planning a fascist government or dictatorship. He hasn’t even spoken to him recently.
I personally believe he is part of a hit job by the Harris campaign and their liberal media allies. They know Kamala is losing the election, so the campaign and its media allies have launched incessant personal attack against President Trump.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone who knows or has worked with 3 and 4-star generals, like these men, know they are not prone to hyperbole. They are calm, measured people, who speak carefully and factually.
Nothing - except maybe the Helsinki news conference - has worried me as much as these comments by Kelly, Mattis and Milley. I hope they remember their oath to the Constitution to defend it against ALL enemies (including domestic) and speak publicly.
Anonymous wrote:
This woman is not an impartial voice. She is a leading never Trumper.
Why do we have to believe his motive for stating this is pure? He didn’t offer anything but his personal opinion. He provided no concrete evidence of Trump planning a fascist government or dictatorship. He hasn’t even spoken to him recently.
I personally believe he is part of a hit job by the Harris campaign and their liberal media allies. They know Kamala is losing the election, so the campaign and its media allies have launched incessant personal attack against President Trump.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Believe General Kelly - he was part of Trump's "inner circle" and worked directly for him and knows him much better than anyone on this thread.
Our friends and closest colleagues usually say nice things about us and it's not that compelling because it's in their own personal interest to do so. But when a close colleague or friend says something negative, that puts them at risk, it's brave and more credible. Kelly has nothing to personally gain from this. He is a Republican who used to believe in Trump - until he worked closely with him and saw him for who he is.
+1
Kelly expected Trump or any president for that matter to be deferential to him rather than the other way around. Also, this episode bothered him so much he waited 4 years and two weeks before the election to get it off his chest?
A) Kelly expected Trump to be deferential to the Constitution and the rule of law, not to him.
B) Kelly has been talking about this for years - to Goldberg and Schmidt and others - but didn’t go on the record until now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Believe General Kelly - he was part of Trump's "inner circle" and worked directly for him and knows him much better than anyone on this thread.
Our friends and closest colleagues usually say nice things about us and it's not that compelling because it's in their own personal interest to do so. But when a close colleague or friend says something negative, that puts them at risk, it's brave and more credible. Kelly has nothing to personally gain from this. He is a Republican who used to believe in Trump - until he worked closely with him and saw him for who he is.
+1
Kelly expected Trump or any president for that matter to be deferential to him rather than the other way around. Also, this episode bothered him so much he waited 4 years and two weeks before the election to get it off his chest?
Anonymous wrote:Believe General Kelly - he was part of Trump's "inner circle" and worked directly for him and knows him much better than anyone on this thread.
Our friends and closest colleagues usually say nice things about us and it's not that compelling because it's in their own personal interest to do so. But when a close colleague or friend says something negative, that puts them at risk, it's brave and more credible. Kelly has nothing to personally gain from this. He is a Republican who used to believe in Trump - until he worked closely with him and saw him for who he is.[/quote]
Kelly knows firsthand the dangers of a Trump presidency. Listen to him.
Anonymous wrote:
This woman is not an impartial voice. She is a leading never Trumper.
Why do we have to believe his motive for stating this is pure? He didn’t offer anything but his personal opinion. He provided no concrete evidence of Trump planning a fascist government or dictatorship. He hasn’t even spoken to him recently.
I personally believe he is part of a hit job by the Harris campaign and their liberal media allies. They know Kamala is losing the election, so the campaign and its media allies have launched incessant personal attack against President Trump.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Believe General Kelly - he was part of Trump's "inner circle" and worked directly for him and knows him much better than anyone on this thread.
Our friends and closest colleagues usually say nice things about us and it's not that compelling because it's in their own personal interest to do so. But when a close colleague or friend says something negative, that puts them at risk, it's brave and more credible. Kelly has nothing to personally gain from this. He is a Republican who used to believe in Trump - until he worked closely with him and saw him for who he is.
Not just his former chief of staff but also Trump's own VP is not endorsing him. When has that ever happened before in US history?
Anonymous wrote:
This woman is not an impartial voice. She is a leading never Trumper.
Why do we have to believe his motive for stating this is pure? He didn’t offer anything but his personal opinion. He provided no concrete evidence of Trump planning a fascist government or dictatorship. He hasn’t even spoken to him recently.
I personally believe he is part of a hit job by the Harris campaign and their liberal media allies. They know Kamala is losing the election, so the campaign and its media allies have launched incessant personal attack against President Trump.