Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Quatro
i use to hear the word vetted a lot in other administrations ... What happened to the vetting process in Trump administration?
The missing clues were not missing in Michael Flynn's case ... Perhaps Flynn was a double, double agent working for Trump and Russia, but reporting directly to Trump with no tapes and only a "he said" for proof?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetting
PS I'm starting to use wikipedia more and more something I never use to do, but it's so much easier ...  |
Its good to seek out further data on issues and Wikipedia is a good start. Wikipedia is not 100% accurate all the time (what is?), so it is a good idea to further research anything you don't understand or that appears questionable. I would also suggest a couple of other means to suss out the gist from the gibberish. When you read an article online, note if there are embedded links in the text to the sources used to compose the article; often you can get a clearer picture of the issue and, sometimes, you may find what is quoted in the article may not be the full context. If you see an article making a lot of claims, or strongly arguing claims, without links or references, ask yourself why and do a check on the claims. If a person or entity is cited and you don't know or have little knowledge of them, take the time to do a bit of research to find out the who, what, where, when and why. There are a lot of people or entities, of all stripes and at all levels of the spectrum, who depend on people not asking questions and/or blindly accepting arguments and the only way to prevent being taken in is to arm yourself with as much independent information as possible. It may taken a bit of extra time and effort, but knowing is better than being manipulated...
<O>