User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 12:38:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as what he declassified was US-sourced, sure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The POTUS is the highest level Declassification Authority. He could tell the Air Force that all files on space aliens are declassified and to release them to CNN this afternoon. He could tell the CIA, all records on how and why they killed JFK are declassified and to release them to the Cubans tomorrow morning. Both would be completely legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 12:40:30 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
The press just makes it worse. If you think you have classified information or there is an issue with it...just shut up. I know nothing.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzsWxPLIOo
I know nothing If the real concern is partner nation being less willing to share with the United States, this never would have gotten reported. But, that's not at all what this is about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 12:42:00 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong. Or could you point out the American law he would be violating? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 12:43:59 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I referred to the applicable EO earlier. Rules for sharing or declassification of FGI would be governed under the bi-lateral intel sharing agreements with the respective nations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wrong. Or could you point out the American law he would be violating? Newsflash: the President can ignore an EO by saying "I hereby declare this EO does not apply to this conversation." EOs are not law. ETA: Non-treaty bilateral agreements are also not laws. And they can be obeyed or ignored at the President's whim. That is the nature of executive agreements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 12:44:00 PM EDT
[#5]
Lol confirmed non-story. Just like all the other ones.
And Lucy pulls the football away from the NeverTrumpers once again Must be a real boner killer to get excited over the "smoking gun" to Trump being impeached only to realize it's more #FakeNews |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 12:47:17 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, are you honestly going to sit here and argue that the President would be breaking the law if he violated an EO? Because that is what was quoted--legality. Not good call or bad call. Legality. Newsflash: the President can ignore an EO by saying "I hereby declare this EO does not apply to this conversation." EOs are not law. The broader issue is that he would be breaking agreements which would jeopardize our access to intel we may not be able to generate on our own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 12:50:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He is free to rescind that EO at any point. As he has chosen thusfar not to do so it is still in effect. The broader issue is that he would be breaking agreements which would jeopardize our access to intel we may not be able to generate on our own. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wait, are you honestly going to sit here and argue that the President would be breaking the law if he violated an EO? Because that is what was quoted--legality. Not good call or bad call. Legality. Newsflash: the President can ignore an EO by saying "I hereby declare this EO does not apply to this conversation." EOs are not law. The broader issue is that he would be breaking agreements which would jeopardize our access to intel we may not be able to generate on our own. As to your second line: not a law. So, again, what law would he be in violation of? Because you claimed he would have broken a law if he revealed information from a non-US source. (I will note, too, that your overly-broad statement is, you know, overly-broad and assumes that he in fact does lack that agreed authority in every possible scenario.) ETA: In case you forgot. Quoted:
Quoted:
The POTUS is the highest level Declassification Authority. He could tell the Air Force that all files on space aliens are declassified and to release them to CNN this afternoon. He could tell the CIA, all records on how and why they killed JFK are declassified and to release them to the Cubans tomorrow morning. Both would be completely legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 12:52:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as what he declassified was US-sourced, sure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The POTUS is the highest level Declassification Authority. He could tell the Air Force that all files on space aliens are declassified and to release them to CNN this afternoon. He could tell the CIA, all records on how and why they killed JFK are declassified and to release them to the Cubans tomorrow morning. Both would be completely legal. ETA: I see you are saying that because Trump did not tell you he was ignoring or revoking an EO from an earlier president, you are all butt hurt and think it should be illegal. LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 2:07:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, but we don't know what was shared is my point. To run around screaming the sky is falling because someone told CNN of all people they didn't like Trump sharing something with Russia is insanity. As an aside, I have worked with DOD and had my clearances. I know full well how the system is supposed to work and there is information that has to be shared in our times. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You cool with the Brits sharing intel we develop without us giving it the green light for distribution? As an aside, I have worked with DOD and had my clearances. I know full well how the system is supposed to work and there is information that has to be shared in our times. When McMaster says nothing inappropriate was discussed/disclosed, it's a lie/coverup. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 2:08:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 2:09:54 PM EDT
[#11]
Trump is just getting more flexibility, like Obama. Trump has a long way to go to spill as much classified shit as Obama.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 2:32:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As to your first line. He is the one giving the order. It only applies to the President when and if the President wants it to. AKA: if he did what you think he did (and, for the record, the WH is claiming he did not), he broke no "law" or even order from that perspective. As to your second line: not a law. So, again, what law would he be in violation of? Because you claimed he would have broken a law if he revealed information from a non-US source. (I will note, too, that your overly-broad statement is, you know, overly-broad and assumes that he in fact does lack that agreed authority in every possible scenario.) ETA: In case you forgot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 2:33:35 PM EDT
[#13]
So.. Media claims with unknown source that Trump gave them some super top secret material
Everyone involved but Trump that was at the meeting comes out and says its bullshit and says they talked about things that had nothing to do with what the WaPo is claiming WaPo is celebrating clicks (how to know they are nothing more than a tabloid at this point) Only named person in the Post article essentially raises the BS flag An NBC Journalist stops short of calling bullshit but does so in the most professional way possible saying "Us intel official tells me trump told russians about laptop airline threat. Told it wasnt anything they didnt already know" Trump says as president he can share information with other countries but confirms that he talked about the airline threat thus showing how fake/stupid the WaPo story is. Is that about the jist of it all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 2:36:23 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't be obtuse. Federal law is not the beginning and end of requirements. ETA: you added fed law is not the final requirement..you are right..the US Constitution is..so show where it says that.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:02:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's see this "federal law" you keep claiming by statute number where it specifically says the sitting US President cannot disclose any top secret info.....I simple do not believe one exist..period...now for everyone under the President sure...but not for the boss.... ETA: you added fed law is not the final requirement..you are right..the US Constitution is..so show where it says that.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:14:26 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should I rephrase to state that the President cannot arbitrarily disclose or declassify FGI without violating an international agreement? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Let's see this "federal law" you keep claiming by statute number where it specifically says the sitting US President cannot disclose any top secret info.....I simple do not believe one exist..period...now for everyone under the President sure...but not for the boss.... ETA: you added fed law is not the final requirement..you are right..the US Constitution is..so show where it says that.... I could see it as a violation of Trump's Oath of Office - so potentially more of an impeachment issue rather than a strictly legal one. Hope that makes sense... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:16:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dmnoid: Would your statement work better if you replaced "cannot" with "should not"? I mean, if you want to get technical - there's nothing illegal about POTUS running his mouth off about classified information. It's just a really, really, really stupid thing to do, and that goes double for any classified information from a foreign partner. I could see it as a violation of Trump's Oath of Office - so potentially more of an impeachment issue rather than a strictly legal one. Hope that makes sense... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:16:47 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should I rephrase to state that the President cannot arbitrarily disclose or declassify FGI without violating an international agreement? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Let's see this "federal law" you keep claiming by statute number where it specifically says the sitting US President cannot disclose any top secret info.....I simple do not believe one exist..period...now for everyone under the President sure...but not for the boss.... ETA: you added fed law is not the final requirement..you are right..the US Constitution is..so show where it says that.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:19:00 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Come on now, for days you have been in multiple threads claiming the President is violating the law....now when called on it..and I am not the first to do so, you fall back to some "violating an agreement" as law?.....so obviously he can since what they say he disclosed has been disclosed by at least one agency to the general public for months..that would be laptop bombs and public transportation by Homeland security... So now maybe it's time to give up on this lost BS and actually try to find something backed by some kind of real provable facts to use for your anti trump BS...when you find it, let me know..be glad to listen to it... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see this "federal law" you keep claiming by statute number where it specifically says the sitting US President cannot disclose any top secret info.....I simple do not believe one exist..period...now for everyone under the President sure...but not for the boss.... ETA: you added fed law is not the final requirement..you are right..the US Constitution is..so show where it says that.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:25:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's not really a law that says I can't call my boss a dick but there is no technical control preventing me from doing so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dmnoid: Would your statement work better if you replaced "cannot" with "should not"? I mean, if you want to get technical - there's nothing illegal about POTUS running his mouth off about classified information. It's just a really, really, really stupid thing to do, and that goes double for any classified information from a foreign partner. I could see it as a violation of Trump's Oath of Office - so potentially more of an impeachment issue rather than a strictly legal one. Hope that makes sense... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:26:14 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess that depends on how much bigger than you your boss is |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:26:18 PM EDT
[#22]
Trump did not break ANY fucking laws.
No impeachment. No resignation WaPo now has the NeverTrumpers humping their legs like the liberal whack jobs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:39:20 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now we are discussing fallout from an action rather than whether or not an action can occur. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I guess that depends on how much bigger than you your boss is |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:47:59 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Spilled the beans about an intelligence source some other country has inside ISIS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Spilled the beans about an intelligence source some other country has inside ISIS. If he talked in generalities about ISIS planting bombs in laptops, then that's a big yawner. Of course they are. If he revealed something that would indicate source or method then he's a dumbass. He can legally do it, but still a dumbass. The details matter here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:49:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where did I say he violated the law? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see this "federal law" you keep claiming by statute number where it specifically says the sitting US President cannot disclose any top secret info.....I simple do not believe one exist..period...now for everyone under the President sure...but not for the boss.... ETA: you added fed law is not the final requirement..you are right..the US Constitution is..so show where it says that.... Or better yet this post after that in responce to a post that said the president could do what he did with classified info.. This is your words from your post..... View Quote Don't know, doesn't matter. The only posts I have made in this thread have been to correct the notion that the President's authority to declassify information is absolute. End Quote Those and all the other post show you saying others are wrong that the president could legally share info.... Presidents authority to declassify isn't absolute according to your own post, meaning there is some kind of statute of law that controls what he can do...now suddenly you get called on it by people that actually know and it's some treaty agreement and he shouldn't share info...big fucking difference between those two.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:55:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Finally got a chance to watch McMaster's press briefing. Wow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:57:11 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Finally got a chance to watch McMaster's press briefing. Wow. Pretty awesome wasn't it! He completely shut down the false story. He was in the room, he knows the truth. Trump did nothing wrong or inappropriate. Period, end of story. He basically shut up the nevertrumpers on this matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:57:29 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Finally got a cxhance to watch McMaster's press briefing. Wow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:59:11 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty awesome wasn't it! He completely shut down the false story. He was in the room, he knows the truth. Trump did nothing wrong or inappropriate. Period, end of story. He basically shut up the nevertrumpers on this matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Finally got a chance to watch McMaster's press briefing. Wow. Pretty awesome wasn't it! He completely shut down the false story. He was in the room, he knows the truth. Trump did nothing wrong or inappropriate. Period, end of story. He basically shut up the nevertrumpers on this matter. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:59:38 PM EDT
[#30]
 FNN: Natl. Security Advisor McMaster BRIEFING on Trump's Upcoming Trip, Classified Info to Russians |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 3:59:48 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you mind sharing a link, I couldn't stay concentrated on it the other day due to my headache, and haven't found it again since..thank you.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Finally got a cxhance to watch McMaster's press briefing. Wow.  NSA Gen. McMaster Full Remarks at Briefing Amid Trump-Russia Reports| ABC News |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 4:09:43 PM EDT
[#32]
how are you obvious shills and your constant strawman arguments not banned yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 4:13:00 PM EDT
[#33]
I find it interesting this shit comes on the heels of new info on the Seth Rich murder. MSM deflecting for the left ???
Hannity is speaking about it now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 4:21:57 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 4:34:06 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you to both for posting the video..he makes it pretty clear that president did everything above board and zero bad shit... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you to both for posting the video..he makes it pretty clear that president did everything above board and zero bad shit... Further proof that Trump's administration is a mess and that he....ah fuck it, I can't keep this going.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 4:39:39 PM EDT
[#36]
Start at 17:30 and on you will get some more info on what was said.
 Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 4:42:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
how are you obvious shills and your constant strawman arguments not banned yet? Some are just straight up lying though, to try to bait people into chasing them in order to derail topics, or simply mislead readers with BS. The question is how do you tell them apart, the honestly wrong vs the liars? There's not really an easy answer. The ones who try to present themselves as some sort of authority or being "in the know", almost always via thinly veiled implication, they're the most suspicious. It's just another version of appeal to authority, people not in the know read it and think "well if he works in the government or in intelligence and he says that, then it's probably true". If you represent yourself as an expert and then repeatedly state falsehoods, you can't fall back on the defense of being a misinformed boob. What isn't stated is many of them have ulterior motives, so even if they may actually hold those positions they're not being honest with you because it's not in their interests. "Anonymous expert sources claim...". It's not just the MSM that uses fake experts or agenda driven sources to attempt to shape public opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 4:53:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I still cannot get past him saying "no"!!! 
There are also plenty of folks around who don't wash their hands after wiping their ass. I suspect there is a significant overlap between the two groups. In fact, I'm sure of it. I read it on the Internet. Right here. In the preview pane. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 4:55:38 PM EDT
[#39]
I heard more than one Hillary supporter say that Trump can't be trusted with classified material.
Think about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 5:00:49 PM EDT
[#40]
I'd believe McMaster over any KILLARY supporter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 5:05:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I heard more than one Hillary supporter say that Trump can't be trusted with classified material. Think about that. The Left always lies, always projects, and always doubles down when you call them on it. This is why they're so dangerous and ultimately a cancer that destroys society. Their relationship with reality is tenuous at best and when reality doesn't agree with their beliefs, they conclude that reality is the part that's wrong. From there it's only a short hop to murdering people to try to change reality, no people pointing out that you're wrong means you can pretend reality is whatever you want it to be. This is the ultimate distilled truth behind "1984" and the quote "2+2=5". A leftist believes that one can change fundamental reality if they just kill anyone who disagrees with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 5:47:18 PM EDT
[#42]
Current enemies:
Liberals MSM NeverTrumpers Weakling GOP Politicians like Ryan, McStain, McConnell, and any other not supporting the Administration SJWs LBGT ANTIFA BLM ..... and dare I say, some ARFCOMers ...... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 6:02:40 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In just about every post in this thread trying to refute posters saying the president could....Why did you post an EO in responce to a poster saying the president could declassify anything? Or better yet this post after that in responce to a post that said the president could do what he did with classified info.. This is your words from your post..... View Quote Don't know, doesn't matter. The only posts I have made in this thread have been to correct the notion that the President's authority to declassify information is absolute. End Quote Those and all the other post show you saying others are wrong that the president could legally share info.... Presidents authority to declassify isn't absolute according to your own post, meaning there is some kind of statute of law that controls what he can do...now suddenly you get called on it by people that actually know and it's some treaty agreement and he shouldn't share info...big fucking difference between those two.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 6:10:07 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are miles out of your lane. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In just about every post in this thread trying to refute posters saying the president could....Why did you post an EO in responce to a poster saying the president could declassify anything? Or better yet this post after that in responce to a post that said the president could do what he did with classified info.. This is your words from your post..... View Quote Don't know, doesn't matter. The only posts I have made in this thread have been to correct the notion that the President's authority to declassify information is absolute. End Quote Those and all the other post show you saying others are wrong that the president could legally share info.... Presidents authority to declassify isn't absolute according to your own post, meaning there is some kind of statute of law that controls what he can do...now suddenly you get called on it by people that actually know and it's some treaty agreement and he shouldn't share info...big fucking difference between those two.. Cause I can tell you what it looks like from here....based off your own post.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 6:16:22 PM EDT
[#45]
I have been trying to follow this incident, and there is so much "he said, she said...." I don't know what to believe anymore.
One thing is for sure, the mainstream news media is out to get DJT. Personally for me, I think the mainstream media is trying to divert the attention away from HRC's transgressions that came out during the PotUS campaign. HRC is not my president 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 6:18:26 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are miles out of your lane. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In just about every post in this thread trying to refute posters saying the president could....Why did you post an EO in responce to a poster saying the president could declassify anything? Or better yet this post after that in responce to a post that said the president could do what he did with classified info.. This is your words from your post..... View Quote Don't know, doesn't matter. The only posts I have made in this thread have been to correct the notion that the President's authority to declassify information is absolute. End Quote Those and all the other post show you saying others are wrong that the president could legally share info.... Presidents authority to declassify isn't absolute according to your own post, meaning there is some kind of statute of law that controls what he can do...now suddenly you get called on it by people that actually know and it's some treaty agreement and he shouldn't share info...big fucking difference between those two.. You've taken a position - that it is illegal for the President to use classified information as he sees fit -- that is inaccurate. You can't say something is illegal where there is no statute, or say the President is bound by an EO he (or his predecessor in this case) signed. Neither of those is an accurate statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 6:18:58 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And your full of BS, now that we have that out of the way, I support my duly elected president and my country, including th Constitutional rule of law.....what do you support? Cause I can tell you what it looks like from here....based off your own post.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 6:21:56 PM EDT
[#48]
It all boils down to: howler monkeys gonna howl. No particular reason, it's just what they do. This particular episode will calm down and then they'll start a new one. Next one is quite predictable. It'll be Trump blah blah blah, and it was wrong. WaPo will call the CIA and see if it's OK that they release the news. McCain will be appropriately disappointed, Schumer will be indignant, and everything will start all over again until the howler monkeys run out of steam and need to sleep for a few hours. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It's really getting rather boring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2017 6:29:42 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's correct. You've taken a positiion - that it is illegal for the President to use classified information as he sees fit -- that is inaccurate. You can't say something is illegal where there is no statute, or say the President is bound by an EO he (or his predecessor in this case) signed. Neither of those is an accurate statement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In just about every post in this thread trying to refute posters saying the president could....Why did you post an EO in responce to a poster saying the president could declassify anything? Or better yet this post after that in responce to a post that said the president could do what he did with classified info.. This is your words from your post..... View Quote Don't know, doesn't matter. The only posts I have made in this thread have been to correct the notion that the President's authority to declassify information is absolute. End Quote Those and all the other post show you saying others are wrong that the president could legally share info.... Presidents authority to declassify isn't absolute according to your own post, meaning there is some kind of statute of law that controls what he can do...now suddenly you get called on it by people that actually know and it's some treaty agreement and he shouldn't share info...big fucking difference between those two.. You've taken a positiion - that it is illegal for the President to use classified information as he sees fit -- that is inaccurate. You can't say something is illegal where there is no statute, or say the President is bound by an EO he (or his predecessor in this case) signed. Neither of those is an accurate statement. I would say I agree, if that is the point he is trying to make. However, it's not really all that uncommon for the US to agree to international codices, but refuse to be bound by them. ie UNCLOS and the US Freedom of Navigation Program. A layman's reading: The US says it's a good international law and we agree with it and will follow it. As long as it is in accordance with the US's interests. Addressing the world: "If you don't like that, well someone do something about it. What's that I hear? Oh, the sound of my Navy off your coast."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2017 12:36:28 AM EDT
[#50]
Hey guys!!!
This crisis is over and we're on to the next one: Trump allegedly asked Comey not to investigate Flynn!!! Oh teh noes!!! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
