It's not that they're both hacks.
I agree. Only Ratcliffe is a hack.
It's that you cheered on your guy when he played politics.
What does that have to do with Ratcliffe being a hack? The argument that since Clapper lied to Congress, and I cheered him on, Ratcliffe is not a hack, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It sounds like one of those arguments only you could come up with.
Not only that, but I didn’t know Clapper was lying. I didn’t even know he was testifying. Was it on TV? If I didn’t know it was happening, I couldn’t possibly have been cheering him on. That seems obvious. You tend to miss a lot of obvious stuff.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe all the stuff the intelligence guys say in public hearings? Surely a guy like you couldn’t possibly be so naïve. I mean if they told about the secret stuff, it wouldn’t be secret any more. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that seems kind of obvious too.
Besides, being a liar and being a hack are two entirely different things.
I would like to point out one more thing. Obama didn’t pardon Clapper for lying to Congress. On the other hand, Trump did pardon Roger Stone for lying to Congress. So Obama is best.
Now you know why nobody knows what you are talking about.