The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."...
The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons....
April 3, 2017
"White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign..."
Writes Eli Lake at Bloomberg, citing "U.S. officials familiar with the matter."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
479 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 479 Newer› Newest»@ Chuck
You are indifferent to the possible criminality and definitely unethical and dangerous behavior of the Obama Administration.
That gave me such pleasure, I paraphrased it.
Matthew Sablan: "This is a familiar refrain. Nothing happened. This is a witch hunt. What you found isn't that bad. That's technically legal. No one can prove it hurt them. That was so long ago, let's just move on"
You are not quite complete with your list of particulars.
The "lifelong republicans" amongst us continue to do what all leftists do: focus on the mundane, irrelevant and "well past due date" minutae to deflect from the bombshell that hit today (although the rumor mill had this last week).
@ Matthew Sablan
True. The aiding and abetting by Lifelong Republicans might be new. So there's that.
So? What is the big controversy? Does this prove that Obama "wiretapped" Trump?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/trump-praises-foxs-coverage-of-crooked-scheme-against-him.html
"For the past 12 days, conservative media outlets have worked diligently to convince their audiences that Nunes’s claim is a bigger story than Comey’s. And on Monday morning, Fox & Friends reported this “blockbuster”: The official who decided to unmask the names of Trump associates in intelligence reports was “very high up."
----------------
"The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice’s unmasking requests were likely within the law."
@ Drago
Get out of my brain.
Chuck,
Thought experiment. It might require some heavy lifting/assumption checking on your part. First lift-President Trump and his staff are not idiots. They are and were aware of the deep states makeup. President Obama showed his cards regarding what he was willing to do to his "enemies" on several occasions. Second lift-They had a pretty good idea that they were being surveillied before President Trump's tweet. Again, they're not idiots. Third (no lift required)-The Trump administration is up against -you know the players. What is his best method to bring the surveillance to the public attention? He can't trust government agencies. MSM? I think not. Turn it over to the Republican establishment? What are the options?
Tweets are different from the channels we are used to. I'd give him an A+ on bringing topics to the forefront so far. I like that there is public discussion about the way forward.
Fourth lift-President Trump's presidency has been pretty transparent so far. I and others on this blog can get a fairly good idea of what he is thinking from his tweets. That is a good thing. It's a good thing that the old ways of doing business are getting shaken up. The problems are pretty severe.
When Romney didn't get elected I figured it was over. Best candidate of my lifetime. But could he have really done much to change things?
A common sense revolution led by a madman.
This is par for the course (pun intended) for Obama - consider what his early campaigns did with divorce records, etc.
Inga: "So? What is the big controversy? Does this prove that Obama "wiretapped" Trump?"
Yeah, I'd stick with that if I were you.
Let the others handle the heavier lifting.
@ Inga
You are still in the bargaining phase. This was likely not illegal ignores that you support a president using the intelligence apparatus of the United States government for partisan political purposes.
Are you sure that will be your modified limited hangout?
Birkel: "@ Drago Get out of my brain."
Hey, I was here first..
Birkel: "Are you sure that will be your modified limited hangout?"
Inga and Chuck anxiously await the next Maddow podcast to provide direction.
Birkel,
You are right.
It's a sound assumption that surveillance, or "wiretapping" was SOP during the Obama administration, or before that, and that the various agencies and their professional staff were in it up to their necks. The entire system is suspect.
Its quite clear CHUCK that Obama surveilled Trump with impunity. Since he assumed that hillary was going to win and he knew she would never hold any hearings about Trump being surveilled.
You can get away with a lot if your successor is your ally and people assume they will win election. it sucks, then, that Trump actually won. Because now, Obama has a huge problem on his hands.
I really have to wonder at all the hair on fire over this, while ignoring or denying the possibility of a bigger scandal/ crime. Of course unmasking Trump's or Trump Team names is a worse outrage than Trump colluding with Russia, to Trumpists, I suppose.
Where is the collusion with the Russians?
I mean besides all the money they channelled to Hillary, and the favors she did for them.
@ Inga
So, just to be clear, you are fine with the Obama Administration weaponizing the intelligence services of the United States against political rivals? From the following list, which people would it NOT be ok for Obama to surveil:
Hillary Clinton
Chuck Schumer
Harry Reid
Joe Manchin
Heidi Heitkamp
Bernie Sanders
Jon Tester
Ben Nelson
Mary Landrieu
Michael K said...
"If Trump was talking about some specific kind of surveillance, he should have specified it. "
Chuck,I violated a couple of new year's resolutions by reading your comment.
However, I doubt Trump or his tech people knew exactly what method was used by Obama/CIA/NSA to surveil them. He just knew it had to be happening from the stuff that was being revealed.
"Wiretapping" is as good as any term.
No it isn't. "Wiretapping" is a term out of a late night tv crime show. And there's a very good chance, that at 5:30 am on a Saturday morning, that is where Trump's head was at.
Let's just say for the sake of argument that what Trump really meant to say was this: "I have just learned that members of my campaign staff were surveilled under CIA/NSA collection techniques; their names were inappropriately and probably illegally circulated within White House staff or related intel staff. It happened, as I understand it, during the height of the election campaign. Which raises such profound questions for our Democracy, I am calling for an investigation by the FBI, as well as the appropriate Congressional oversight committees..."
Now I just wrote that in about 90 seconds. Trump, with a large communications staff, a team of lawyers, and a month of time in which to work, has never come up with anything like that. Only his insane half-witted Tweets from last March 4.
Mind you, I don't think Trump gets away with just a half-rational statement. He still has all kinds of questions to answer. Even more so, given the twisted nature of them; the personal allegation that Obama was a "Bad (or sick) guy."
@ Chuck, who is so called
You are indifferent to the possible criminality and definitely unethical and dangerous behavior of the Obama Administration.
That gave me such pleasure, I paraphrased it, again.
Adam Housely just now reporting that his "inside contact" who provided the, apparently true, details of this activity spent "8 minutes" explaining precisely how the obama-ites used "reverse monitoring" tactics to give the appearance of legality to snooping on Trump, Trump associates, Trump campaign personnel and even Trump family members.
Further, that the exposure goes far beyond the few names we have become familiar with.
So then you tie all that with what is no longer debatable:
Last Minute Obama Rule Changes:
1) obama changed the rules to expand who can view raw data
2) obama changed the rules for exactly when in the process the unmasked names could be unmasked (making the names available to the newly wider audience)
3) obama changed the rules for Dept of Justice Succession to ensure that if for any reason the Attorney General recused himself from a decision-making process), an obama/holder acolyte would be in position to appoint a Special Prosecutor (Nice, huh?)
Other indisputable facts:
4) Hillary and 6 (yes, SIX) of her campaign staffers were allowed to maintain their high level security classifications and receive and review classified documents during the campaign!
5) There has been an unprecedented amount of leaking between the deep state and media in the last 6 months
6) There has never been a single element of "truth" or "proof" or anything else of any type demonstrating even the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Other pertinent "waiting to be confirmed" items:
7) This "reverse monitoring" surveillance of Trump and a broad swath of associates has been active for over a year!
8) Susan Rice has been identified in reports as being an individual who "unmasked" large numbers of Trump officials and made it possible for those reports to be spread far and wide.
If you are "lifelong republican", you look at those types of things and think to yourself: Hey, I wonder if Trump can spell "surveillance"?
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "No it isn't."
Yes it is.
Next.
Russia is a petro-state, why they wanted a drill baby drill Republican over an anti-fracking, Keystone killing Democrat who proved easy to buy is anybody's guess.
jr565 said...
Its quite clear CHUCK that Obama surveilled Trump with impunity. Since he assumed that hillary was going to win and he knew she would never hold any hearings about Trump being surveilled.
Really!
Do tell us about Obama's orders and communications in that regard. And especially the part about presuming that he'd be committing criminal acts for which he'd never be held culpable. You say that as a matter of fact, but moreover that it's "quite clear."
List all of the evidence.
@ Chuck, who is so called
You are indifferent to the possible criminality and definitely unethical and dangerous behavior of the Obama Administration. You do not think such behavior is "bad" or "sick" because as a Lifelong Republican you can only say indifferent things about a weaponized intelligence apparatus used for political advantage.
That gave me such pleasure, I paraphrased it, again.
>>How many days/ hours/ weeks/ months will it be before the MSM [Big 3 networks, NYT, CNN, Wapo] reports this scoop?
At least one more. No mention on CNN's web page. Three stories about Fox News scandals, and Waters impeachment talk.
Nothing to see here.
Fun.
Trump I fun.
As I was perusing the comments, I knew, I just knew it was only a matter of time before LLR F. Chuck would go ALL CAPS LOCK.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "List all of the evidence"
LOL
Yes, a guy running with the fake "golden showers" dossier demands, DEMANDS, you show him proof!!
It really doesn't get much funnier than that.
Again, how is it that candidates aren't beating a path to "lifelong republican" and potential "campaign manager" Chucks door?
It's inexplicable!
"We now have the new media talking points-'Ok, the Obama Administration did eavesdrop on Trump and his campaign, but didn't use the information to influence the election. Move along, nothing to see here.'"
But they did; someone leaked the fact that Trump was under investigation to the media in the Fall. Remember the Hillary tweet?
This is what I posted on another site:
A question I don't see anyone asking*-- and maybe Rice can answer it-- is why do we even know that Trump is under investigation for colluding with the Russians? Who originally leaked that, and why? Comey himself said that normally intelligence agents never discuss or disclose investigations; I would guess this is because they don't want to tip off the person under investigation.
For someone in the intelligence community to leak that they were investigating Trump suggests to me that they didn't have anything on him, didn't believe they were going to find anything on him, and leaked out the existence of the investigation back in the fall -- at the time of the Hillary tweet--in an attempt to discredit Trump the candidate. After he won, more leaks about the investigation of Trump and his team were reported in the press, who were happy to run with stories about Trump and his team being wiretapped, in the hopes of hurting Trump's incoming administration.
People are now going nuts over conspiracy theories because of the leaking of this investigation to the media; an investigation that should have been done undercover so as not to impugn innocent people. The leaks sole purpose seems to have been to harm Trump's presidency. The behavior of those pushing this bogus story borders on sedition.
TL;DR: Who originally leaked the story about the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, and why did they do it?
(Maybe because it has already been asked and answered and I missed it? If so, please set me straight.)
Its also quite clear CHUCK that Obama holdovers were working with media to selectively leak stuff to damage Trump even if they had no actual proof of any collusion.
And Trump flipped that whole script by saying, straight up, that Obama wiretapped him. It derailed the whole Russian collusion thing and made it, RIGHTLY, about the Obama surveillance.
Prior to that the Media, perhaps unintentionally were laying the story out that, in fact the Obama administration was surveilling Trump campaign for MONTHS. They simply didn't expect Trump to call out Obama for doing it. They then had to back track and deny that they ever reported what they reported.
When Mark Levin made the case for wiretapping/surveillance he simply read off NYT reports, and Mclathchy reports. Even the Breitbart allegations were only based on links to MSM accounts. The dems tried to discredit it by saying Breitbart put it out. But if you read the actual story on Breitbart they use MSM articles to prove the case. So, saying it can't be true because breitbart put it out is a complete dodge. Lets look at the actual articles Breitbarts linked to. The New York Times. Is the NYT fake news to the dems?
God, I wish I knew what Althouse really thought about her blog becoming the home to a bunch of readers who think that Trump's Tweets about "Obama" "tapping [Trump's] wires" in Trump Tower are justified.
Obama, for whom she voted, is a "Bad (or sick) guy"...
We can all disagree on the nuances/ legality/ ethics of this unmasking crap but it is clear to me that TRUMP WAS RIGHT ONCE AGAIN!
Chuck,
Your statement simply does not serve the rhetorical purpose of politics. Winston Churchill would have had some telling comments about you, should you have submitted such a draft to him.
Trump is no Churchill, but he plays the same position on the same field.
But the truth is the truth, and there really isn't any point to quibbling about words.
Every controversy that has come out so far by the dems and the media has been a manufactured one. based on allegations of wrong doing, but no proof of wrong doing. But its so apparent that these are manufactured controversies.
Take Michael Flynn's case. Despite all the brouhaha over wrong doing it was actually a complete non issue, and Flynn was ousted based on a manufactured story with the help of obama hold overs and media pushing the meme.
I can't believe people actually fell for it. It helps when the Media does the bidding of Democrats and don't question whether its a bogus story or not, but basically, the democrats played fast and loose with facts to generate a scandal and then Flynn had to fall on his sword because he got wrapped up in the scandal. THAT WAS NEVER THERE IN FIRST PLACE>
(cont)
When Flynn issue first broke the question was "Did he have a phone call with Russian diplomat and did he talk about lifting sanctions. If he did he may have broken the law"
TOTAL BS!
They were trying to say Flynn violated the Logan act. that was the scandal in the begining.
Here's CBS news describing possible issue:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-flynn-talked-with-russian-envoy-about-sanctions/
"Multiple sources told CBS News’ Jeff Pegues and Pat Milton that the conversation occurred before Mr. Trump took office and, if true, could be a violation of protocol and could be viewed as a violation of the law.
A law enforcement source who has been briefed on the issue told Milton that the discussion dealt with the relationship going forward with Russia including the sanctions. Any discussions about sanctions by a private citizen, the source said, may create conflict and confusion around U.S. national security interests."
UTTER CRAP. I wonder who the sources were who said that? Maybe Adam Schiff? The same people that unmasked Flynn's name?
Here's the truth about the Logan Act. No one has ever been charged with violating of it since it was passed. its a NON issue. And Flynn didn't violate it ANYWAY.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "God, I wish I knew what Althouse really thought about her blog becoming the home to a bunch of readers who think that Trump's Tweets about "Obama" "tapping [Trump's] wires" in Trump Tower are justified."
LOL
Good old "lifelong republican" Chuck.
Shermie, set the "Wayback Machine" for August 9, 1969. On this day, followers of Charles Manson murdered 5 people in Los Angeles.
Young and future "lifelong republican" Chuck reads about the murders and thinks to himself, Hey, did that guy over there just jaywalk?!! That's an outrage and should not be allowed to stand!!
Up until election day, I had braced myself for four years of day by day drudgery, every day some new awful PC BS from The Vagina. Instead I get entertainment and fun everyday. And Trump is almost always right, as he is here.
Take Michael Flynn's case. Despite all the brouhaha over wrong doing it was actually a complete non issue, and Flynn was ousted based on a manufactured story with the help of obama hold overs and media pushing the meme.
According to both Trump, and Pence, Flynn lied to Pence and misled him about Flynn's contacts with Russians. Because of that, Trump asked for Flynn's resignation. Where, in all of that, is a "manufactured story" or a blameworthy media?
It's an even worse story in fact, because we still don't have an explanation as to why Trump sat on information that Flynn had misled Pence for more than two weeks, doing nothing and saying nothing. Not telling Pence; not firing Flynn; allowing Flynn to continue to work in highly-classified subjects.
http://www.startribune.com/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-resigns/413676083/
"lifelong republican" Chuck doubles/triples/quadruples down on his "can we discuss anything EXCEPT what the dems have done here with respect to intel?!
Completely and utterly.......unexpected!
"lifelong republican" Chuck is no doubt at this very moment feverishly working with his allies in the Ninth Circuit drawing up charges against Trump for "Twittering in the First Degree"!
The "FIRST DEGREE" PEOPLE!!!
Obama did not wire tap Trump. Trump was wireless tapped by NSA, and then their transcripts were ordered by Obama's National security Adviser to be unmasked, listed in a numerical log, and stashed away in as many Deep State offices as possible so the NYT, CNN and WaPo could get it by Deep State leakers and use the insider info to set traps and create a Russian Conspiracy Fantasy.
Chuck rushes in where even Inga fears to follow (although PB gave it the old college try).
This is an utterly damning story for the Dems and here we are, going over the wording of Trump's tweets.
traditionalguy: "Obama did not wire tap Trump. Trump was wireless tapped by NSA, and then their transcripts were ordered by Obama's National security Adviser to be unmasked, listed in a numerical log, and stashed away in as many Deep State offices as possible so the NYT, CNN and WaPo could get it by Deep State leakers and use the insider info to set traps and create a Russian Conspiracy Fantasy"
Well, yeah....but in a "good" way...
exiled: "Chuck rushes in where even Inga fears to follow (although PB gave it the old college try). This is an utterly damning story for the Dems and here we are, going over the wording of Trump's tweets."
Indeed.
That's the type of courage that almost, almost, caused Chuck to join the military.
Almost.
(cont) The reason Flynn didn't violate the Logan Act was because Trump had won the presidency already and Flynn had already been appointed as the incoming NSA. He therefore can have conversations with diplomats about any policy he wants to discuss. That's one of his job requirements.Technically he hadn't started on the job yet, but diplomacy is done ALL the time in transition period before people in new administration OFFICALLY take power.
Becasuse the dems were going with the Logan Act as the reason Flynn needed to be ousted, they came up with the idea that it was imperative to out him because he was now open to Russian blackmail? WHY? Based on what rationale? That he violated the Logan Act? Well he didn't. THere was therefore no blackmail threat.
So why would Sally Yates need to warn Trump about him being open to blackmail? She too was operating under principle that they could get Flynn on violating logan act. otherwise her actions make NO SENSE at all (cont)
@ Chuck, who is so called
You are indifferent to the possible criminality and definitely unethical and dangerous behavior of the Obama Administration. You do not think such behavior is "bad" or "sick" because as a Lifelong Republican you can only say indifferent things about a weaponized intelligence apparatus used for political advantage.
That gave me such pleasure, I paraphrased it, again.
Blame Russian hackers! Susan Rice didn't know what she was doing. The Russians fooled her!
Yea, that's the ticket. Use that excuse.
jr565: "So why would Sally Yates need to warn Trump about him being open to blackmail? She too was operating under principle that they could get Flynn on violating logan act. otherwise her actions make NO SENSE at all (cont)"
Her actions make perfect sense under the following circumstances:
1) There is absolutely no collusion between Trump/Trump Campaign/Trump "associates" (whatever that means) and Russia
2) There is absolutely evidence that obambi surveilled Trump, his campaign and family members for over a year
3) Trump's surprise win meant all of this would come out
4) The left/dems/MSM/Deep State/"lifelong republicans" conjured up the collusion story and an avalanche of "fake news" innuendo-laden leaks to "get Trump" before he could be inaugurated and/or delegitimize Trump prior to taking office so when the truth came out no one would believe it
There is only one, ONE, scenario that fits all the "facts" and reporting that we have received for the last year, and it's the one outlined above.
Just listen to little mr. Schiff-ty over the last 2 days. Talk about being a meek little mouse and tossing out weak-tea accusations!
LOL
(cont) But here's the other point - if Flynn did or did not discuss lifting sanctions with Rusisans IT WOULD NOT BE CRIMINAL. But, there is a lot of evidence that HE NEVER EVEN HAD THAT CONVERSATION.
again, this shows how the media was complicit in this whole thing. The NYT was given a transcript of his conversation with Kisylak. How did they report the conversation? They said it could be be viewed in a number of ways. if they saw the transcript, couldn't they clear up the whole confusion by simply reporting what the transcript says? if the transcript says "he discussesd lifting sanctions" then woudlnt' that be how the NYT reported it? Because they should know. They have the actual conversation. the fact that it wasn't reported as "Flynn discussed lifting sanctions" but instead as "it could be viewed in a number of ways" SHOWS that the conversation does not in fact say what is alleged.
And Eli Lake already reported on this. He spoke to people who heard call or read transcripte and what they say the conversation says is" Russian diplomat asked about a number of topics, including, at one point sanctions. ANd flynn said "we are not officially in power for another few weeks so haven't had any meetings about policy. So we have no answer for you>" (paraphrasing) Thats not a conversation about lifting sanctions, is it? No, its a conversastion about whether they can have a conversation about lifting sanctions. And flynn said, "Not Now"
And I love Grassley for demanding answers about McCabe at the FBI as well.
We are going to find all of "lifelong republican" Chucks favorite obama-ites involved in this one.
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
You worthless chickenshit fuckheads. There ARE NO EXPLANATIONS FOR TRUMP'S MARCH 4 TWEETS.
Chickenshit fuckheads.hahahahahahaha, that right there is fifth grade insulting. Better leave the cussin' to poorly educated, Chuck.
And, the audacity of you bring up Michele Fields when you have yet to apologize for threatening to 'give Greta's tit a good twist". Because you mentioned her three times, I suspect you are trolling those of us who are offended by your frequent misogynist comments.
And , I think Trump should waste no time in giving Obama a full pardon, ahead of charges. Something not right about former presidents being brought up on less than extremely serious charges.
Life-long Republican offended that Obama called a name!
There was already a counterintelligence investigation going on, when these names were unmasked. If she unmasked these names she had a good reason to do so and did it legally within the scope of her job for Intelligence reasons, not political reasons as, Trump and followers are pushing. This is another nothingburger to deflect from the possibility of a far bigger crime, collusion with Russia to manipulate American democratic elections.
Same old deflection games that Trumpists are so willing to be part of.
Birkel said...
@ Chuck, who is so called
You are indifferent to the possible criminality and definitely unethical and dangerous behavior of the Obama Administration. You do not think such behavior is "bad" or "sick" because as a Lifelong Republican you can only say indifferent things about a weaponized intelligence apparatus used for political advantage.
Like so much of what your write, this also is untrue. When did I ever suggest that Obama or his administration were perfect or blameless or that they are immune? I criticized Susan Rice in this comments thread. I criticized her at the time of Benghazi.
I don't think that Obama was a "bad (or sick) guy" in this case, because I have no information that Obama ordered anything, reviewed anything, or manipulated anything, with regard to intelligence or surveillance on Trump or the Trump campaign.
If I had information, I might be quite happy to make a judgment. Tell me where to go, to get an exhaustive report on Obama's personal involvement in this matter.
I am not blaming Obama; I am not absolving Obama. I am saying I have no clear and convincing evidence about Obama at all.
You seem to think that I am somehow badly mistaken in taking that position. So now, in just a few words and hopefully with a very small handful of wonderful links, you'll steer me to the conclusive information that effectively indicts Obama. Okay, go...
Oh no! "the personal allegation that Obama was a "Bad (or sick) guy."
You hear that? It's personal! Chuck is getting his panties in a wad that someone called old Barry Wiretap "bad" and "sick." Leap to his honor, you lifelong Republican you. Dare I say that Vichy Chuck's personal Jihad against any who dare speak against the honor of Obama is touching. The future must not belong to those who insult Obama, right Chuck?
Have fun with this silliness Trumpists, because there is still a serious investigation going on in the Senate Intelligence Committee and the FBI. I'm sure they are looking into the unmasking of these names to make sure it was done lawfully and properly. If it wasn't done legally it will also be revealed eventually.
(cont) So, the whole basis for why Flynn might have broken the law was a fabrication. and then the conversation (which would be legal to have) probably didnt' happen the way the media and dems presented it as occuring. But, it could be cleared up if we get to hear the transcript directly, yes?
And you can even understand why Flynn might change his position by saying he can't say if sanctions dind't come up. Since he was obviously operating under premise that he didn't have an actual conversation about lifting sanctions with Kisylak. But if Kislyak asked about sanctions and he shut him down and said he coudlnt' ahve that conversation now, is that still technically a conversation about lifting sanctions? it woudn't be totally truthful if he didn't clarify that "sanctions may, in fact have come up" Again, this gets into the lawyerly parsing of words that the dems seem to put us through constantly.
"WHAT DOES "HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT LIFTING SANCTIONS ENTAIL" does it mean "having a conversation where lifting sanctions is discusssed" or does it mean "being asked about snactions, in passing and saying you will have conversation after you assume office in a few weeks"
The dems did the same parsing when it came to Sessions talking about meeting with Russians. ANd they did the same Parsing when they demanded Proof that obama wiretapped Trump.
It's terrible that Flynn got fired FOR THIS. Since, its so obviously a made up controversy.
There's no legitimate reason the names were unmasked and the documents disseminated widely, but only to Obama partisans who leaked to the press without consequences.
If she had a legitimate reason, let her tell us.
"There's no legitimate reason the names were unmasked and the documents disseminated widely, but only to Obama partisans who leaked to the press without consequences.
If she had a legitimate reason, let her tell us."
You don't know if there was or wasn't a legitimate reason for the unmasking. And no she does not have to tell you anything. There is still an active investigation going on and this might be confidential information. Interesting how you people like leaks when they benefit your side.
Trump: I love Wikileaks!
FullMoon said...
Chickenshit fuckheads.hahahahahahaha, that right there is fifth grade insulting. Better leave the cussin' to poorly educated, Chuck.
And, the audacity of you bring up Michele Fields when you have yet to apologize for threatening to 'give Greta's tit a good twist". Because you mentioned her three times, I suspect you are trolling those of us who are offended by your frequent misogynist comments.
I am not apologizing to you or anybody else. That fake quote about a tit twist; I never wrote it, never said it, and never wrote anything remotely like it.
You lying sack of shit; you can't link any of these readers to where I wrote such a thing. Because I didn't.
I have been repeatedly, maliciously and falsely accused of having "threatened" Greta van Susteren, and I have countless times explained, as I did from the outset that it was on Greta. I only postulated doing the exact same to Greta (grabbing and turning her) as what Corey Lewandowski did to Michelle Fields. For the stated reason that Greta told a national tv audience that doing so was not a crime on the part of Lewandowski.
That's it, and in having dragged this story out into the open again, I thank you for making yourself such a relentless assclown and again inviting me to showcase the ways in which the dwellers of the Althouse/Trump fever swamps get their stories messed up.
You're a liar, Full Moon. A worthless piece of shit. I don't know about any "misogynist" comments as you allege. I know for a fact that I never claimed that I could or would grab women "by their pussies" whether they liked it or not. Ya know? Still, I do hope that my comments are offensive to you.
Churchill called
Ramsey MacDonald (the PM) a "boneless wonder" and "a sheep in sheep's clothing".
He said of Stanley Baldwin (another PM) "it would have been much better if he never lived".
To Bessie Braddock MP - the recipient of "My dear, you are ugly. Tomorrow I will be sober but you will still be ugly"
And etc., and etc., in print, to journalists, in Parliament, etc. Churchill would have spread devastation with twitter. E
The investigation was compromised the moment they widely distributed documents with names unmasked. And yes. Civil servants answer to the people. They need to be dragged to Congress and made to answer, as they should have when we learned Obama illegally wiretapped Congress and journalists.
Inga wrote:
I really have to wonder at all the hair on fire over this, while ignoring or denying the possibility of a bigger scandal/ crime. Of course unmasking Trump's or Trump Team names is a worse outrage than Trump colluding with Russia, to Trumpists, I suppose.
SO, where is the evidence that there is such collusion with Russians? We keep hearing the allegation, but never hear the proof. WHere, oh where, is the proof? ANY PROOF.
Its now time for democrats to put up or shut up.
Schiff was on the news recently and said "we now have MORE THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence" yet when chuck todd asked him if he had any evidence he had to admit, NO. Don't you think that if there were such evidence that it would have been leaked already? Everything else was.
All the media did was INSINUATE there was an issue by suddenly making "talking to Russians' be a crminal act. But that same ambassador who Spoke to Flynn was at the WH talking to Obama at least 4 times alone in 2016. So, its not as if speaking to this ambassador is some act of subterfuge. he seemed to talk TO EVERYBODY.And why wouldn't he? he's an ambassador to Russia.
ANd lets be honest. obama was himself in bed with Russians. He supposedly heard about the hacks back in march and he simply said, at the time "Cut it out" to Russia. THat was the extent of his response. Why? Because he still needed Russia. He was trying to strike a deal with Russia to get peace in Syria and he sent Kerry over there to work out said deal. He also needed Russia to buttress his Iran deal. It wont work without Russian cooperation. WHich is why he let Russia sell uranium to Iran.
It was only after Trump won that Obama SUDDENLY saw the need to punish Russia. The sanctions he imposed occured literally in his last month.
And Hillary is one to talk about Russia collusion. John Podesta, who ran her campaing made MILLIONS from Russia. His brother, brokered a deal where we sold a good chunk of our uranium to Russia and The Podesta bros. got rich off the deal. And John never disclosed the millions he made working in Putin's interest.
Fair enough, by the way. obama had done a reset, they were looking past the fact that Putin killed journalists to get their magical Iran deal. and to push their magical Russian Reset. So, if in that context, Podesta works to assist Russia in attaining interests, well this was the position that Obama had placed Russia in. It was no longer off limits to work with Russians since they were now our allies. But if thats true for Podesta, why woudn't it be true for Flynn? Flynn was IN Obama's WH remember. He probalby spoke to many of these same Russians WHILE WORKING FOR OBAMA
"I am not apologizing to you or anybody else. That fake quote about a tit twist; I never wrote it, never said it, and never wrote anything remotely like it."
Chuck this is standard operating procedure with several of the commenters here. They lie, they twist the truth, they are nut cases with an agenda.They are trying very hard to get you to jump aboard the Crazy Land Express with them.
As long as Podesta is a Dem power broker, who literally profits from decisions that the Obama administration made with Hillary Clinton assisting them, I can't take this collusion accusation seriously.
Chuck says:
I have been repeatedly, maliciously and falsely accused of having "threatened" Greta van Susteren, and I have countless times explained, as I did from the outset that it was on Greta. I only postulated doing the exact same to Greta (grabbing and turning her) as what Corey Lewandowski did to Michelle Fields. For the stated reason that Greta told a national tv audience that doing so was not a crime on the part of Lewandowski.
So, you finally admit you were planning on committing what you considered a crime if presented the opportunity.
That's a start, buttwipe..
Inga and Chuck, a budding romance. An impotent old "lifelong Republican" with a fetish for fantasizing (or in his new spin (postulating) about roughing up female tv journalists, and a fat old boozy lefty crone. You make quite a couple.
I'm fine with Flynn being gone. Don't lie to the boss. But if that conversation is evidence of collusion, Obama promising more flexibility is damning.
Inga wrote:
Chuck this is standard operating procedure with several of the commenters here. They lie, they twist the truth, they are nut cases with an agenda.They are trying very hard to get you to jump aboard the Crazy Land Express with them.
This is classic projection. Its the dems pushing the Russian collusion story. With no real evidence that there was any such collusion. Just because Adam Schiff says there is proof doesn't mean there is.
Inga said...
....
Chuck this is standard operating procedure with several of the commenters here. They lie, they twist the truth, they are nut cases with an agenda.They are trying very hard to get you to jump aboard the Crazy Land Express with them.
No sense of irony. Typical lefty
Mathew Sablan,
I think it's a good idea for Rice to testify under oath as to the reasons for the unmasking, whether it be in a closed or open session. It would put a stop to the wild allegations...hopefully.
Blogger President-Mom-Jeans said...
Inga and Chuck, a budding romance. An impotent old "lifelong Republican" with a fetish for fantasizing (or in his new spin (postulating) about roughing up female tv journalists, and a fat old boozy lefty crone. You make quite a couple.
Spring fever,more lust than love. They won't stay together very long
Spying on Trump is expected. When Obama spied on Congress illegally, entire executive departments should have been fired, and Obama may need to have been impeached or at least investigated. By letting it slide, of course he'd do it again.
@Inga,
They lie, they twist the truth, they are nut cases with an agenda.
Wise up, Inga. This business stinks, & it stinks on multiple levels. What? Like the Obama admin had conscience problems with wiretapping people before this? That the Obama Justice Dept. was scrupulous in every way, & would never do something have the AG secretly meet with the husband of the Democratic candidate under FBI investigation? That the IRS wouldn't be used to target the opposition?
Everything I just listed here is fact. But, in your mind, you think we're paranoid for thinking that the Democratic Party federal apparatus would have a troubled conscience using its force against a candidate they openly spoke of as a hate-monger?
No, Inga, this is ugly, & it's just going to get uglier. Whatever Trump's problems are, & they are many, the Democrats weaponized the national security apparatus against the opposition. That is a far worse threat to American democracy than anything the Trumpies have come up with.
Whoever signed the order to illegally wiretap journalists? Should have been fired without retirement.
"Obama did not wiretap Trump."
Just wait until tomorrow on The View when Whoopi explains, how Trump was wiretapped, but he wasn't "wiretapped-wiretapped".
Matthew Sablan wrote:
"I'm fine with Flynn being gone. Don't lie to the boss. But if that conversation is evidence of collusion, Obama promising more flexibility is damning."
I doint think he DID in fact lie to the boss. The "lie" would be having a different interpretation of a conversation than is being presented by the media. ANd Flynn, most likely did not lie about his conversation. It occured, most likely, EXACTLY the way he said it did. However, the dems were trying to get him on a gotcha, the same way they tried to get Sessions.
As in "You said you had no conversation about lifting sanctions. But did Kislyak ask you about sanctions specifically? Then was that not a conversation about sanctions" him clarifying his statement to include that interpretation of what "having a conversation about something means" is not a lie.
But we all know that Trump fired him simply because he was an albatross at that point. Even if they dind't believe he did anyhthing wrong, its better to just dump him than keep defending him while he's in the spotlight. Becasue then the media will say "Trump is trying to block investigations" or "trump is covering up wrong doing". In this case, better to take the hit, so you can move on.
If the adminstration wants to characterize what Flynn said to VP as a lie, I totally get why they would say that. ANd I think Flynn understands it as well. At that point, he simply needed to fall on his sword. But, I think once he does testify (if it ever happens) he will be vindicated and the true controversy will be that the democrats took an innocuous conversation and tried to twist it into WaterGate II, and did so by leaking damaging SELECTIVE leaks that unmasked Flynn, and destroyed his career over it.
Inga said...
There was already a counterintelligence investigation going on, when these names were unmasked. If she unmasked these names she had a good reason to do so and did it legally within the scope of her job for Intelligence reasons, not political reasons as, Trump and followers are pushing.
Note her absolution of Rice is completely unsupported, it's based only on the belief Rice wouldn't do anything wrong. And yet this belief is enough for Inga to believe her opponents have been proven wrong.
It's childlike, as a kindergartner talks about a parent.
As to Rachel Maddow, as long as she can spend the show explaining how Trump's Tweet is still technically inaccurate, she won't have to deal with any of this icky stuff.
She can begin by examining the greek and latin roots of the word wiretap. That gets her to at least the first commercial break.
Examining Susan Rice's educational records and finding nothing about electrical engineering or the ability to solder gets her to the second.
From there, it's all downhill...
Why did Obama change the rules about disseminating the information with three days to go in his presidency?
I'm sure Inga has a rationalization for that too.
and for all the dems that poo poo the idea that Obama could ever wiretap Trump, HE "WIRETAPPED" James Rosen. He tried to get him convicted on violating the espionage act. Simply for writing a story. if he would do that to a member of the press are you saying he woudn't do it to the guy the dems think is the most evil guy since hitler who might beat hillary? And thus undo all of Obama's signature achievements?
Dont make us laugh. Obama thought he could get away with it because Hillary was a lock. and he knew that she would never question any surveillance done on Trump.
Also, it shoudl be pointed out that Eric HOlder at first denied any knowledge of any Surveillance of James Rosen. But then it was reported that HE PERSONALLY signed off on the order. So, we already have it on record that The Obama adminsration will spy on their enemies and then LIE about it.
Stipulating that there was no technical violation of the law for the sake of argument, do Democrats sound like people who can be entrusted with power over the surveillance apparatus to you.
BTW, I love how sure people are about how "legal" all this is when we still don't know the extent of what happened.
First it was impossible. Then it didn't happen. Now it's "legal".
As Slick Willie's campaign told you: Don't Stop Believin'.
Trump is no Churchill, but that is only because Churchill was a rhetorical genius and a terrific wit. Otherwise he was quite as nasty, quite as brutal, and quite as unconstrained/gonzo (when he decided to be) as Trump.
Reading about the goings-on of the time, one is struck not just by the verbal brilliance of these men (Churchill, Asquith, Lloyd George, and dozens more), but also their ability to speak freely, without fear of pearl-clutching mongs. One gets the impression that they were having fun, that you don't from US politicians since Reagan.
FullMoon said...
...
So, you finally admit you were planning on committing what you considered a crime if presented the opportunity.
That's a start, buttwipe..
Fuck you! Are you ready to apologize for misquoting me? I wasn't planning on committing any crime; the purported victim had already said that she'd never consider it to be a crime at all.
Now, back to you inventing a quote that I never wrote and never said; are you sorry? Are you retracting it?
YH,
I said...
"They lie, they twist the truth, they are nut cases with an agenda."
This comment has to do with the personal attacks that the same few perpetrate agains Chuck, or anyone who has an opposing view. It doesn't have to do with the subject matter of the blog post. I made several other comments directly relating to the subject matter of this blog post. I don't consider anyone a nutcase for having an opposing view, but I'd do consider them nut cases when they continuously engage in personal attacks during a political discussion.
YH: "Wise up, Inga."
No! Don't wise. Stay exactly as you are. In fact, double down, with even more passion!
jr565 said...
...
But we all know that Trump fired him simply because he was an albatross at that point. Even if they dind't believe he did anyhthing wrong, its better to just dump him than keep defending him while he's in the spotlight. Becasue then the media will say "Trump is trying to block investigations" or "trump is covering up wrong doing". In this case, better to take the hit, so you can move on...
I had no idea, that Trump was such a pussy, letting the media push him around in that fashion. A position as personal to the President, as National Security Advisor. And a person so personal to Trump, as Flynn; who was a campaign advisor, was one of Trump's first and most important military advisors (since Trump has not military or national security experience himself).
That's an amazing story; such a thin pretext for ousting someone so important and so close to Trump. So much for Trump's famous loyalty to his personal staff.
I really have to wonder at all the hair on fire over this, while ignoring or denying the possibility of a bigger scandal/ crime.
Why would you wonder about that? The "bigger scandal/ crime" you were fooled into believing was made up from whole cloth. There's literally no evidence to support it. And the Obama "scandal/ crime" is a pretty big one. Nixon would have been impeached for less if he hadn't already resigned.
This one gets a theme song, and it's Santana's "Smooth", sung by Rob Thomas.
Rick said...
"Note her absolution of Rice is completely unsupported, it's based only on the belief Rice wouldn't do anything wrong. And yet this belief is enough for Inga to believe her opponents have been proven wrong.
It's childlike, as a kindergartner talks about a parent."
Inga said...
"Mathew Sablan,
I think it's a good idea for Rice to testify under oath as to the reasons for the unmasking, whether it be in a closed or open session. It would put a stop to the wild allegations...hopefully."
Note how Rick ignored this comment.
Poor Chuck. He simply can't bring himself to stay on topic.
It's far too Trump-validating.
That's got to be uncomfortable for our "lifelong republican".
Let's not be too hard on Chuckie. He bit down hard on the ridiculously fake "dossier" and collusion lies and was prancing about joyously over the leftist impeachment pipe dream.
This is alot for him to absorb.
Find the pony yet in all of the Russian collusion horse shit yet, Inga?
Keep hope alive!
buwaya puti
Alas, our politicians are not well educated or gifted in debate, real debate. Cringe as you consider any of our recent presidents subjected to the weekly rigors of Question Time.
"I wish I knew what Althouse really thought about her blog becoming the home to a bunch of readers who think that Trump's Tweets about "Obama" "tapping [Trump's] wires" in Trump Tower are justified."
She has no time to think about that. She's probably sulking because Russia didn't send any trolls here, even though they had more than a thousand, and they targeted WI.
Heard at Meadehouse:
"Why not me?....Me?........ME?"
I said..
"I really have to wonder at all the hair on fire over this, while ignoring or denying the possibility of a bigger scandal/ crime."
Bob Loblaw said.
"Why would you wonder about that? The "bigger scandal/ crime" you were fooled into believing was made up from whole cloth. There's literally no evidence to support it."
How could you possibly know this? There is still an active investigation ongoing, no conclusions have been published yet. Are you having trouble with premature verbal ejaculations?
Tim, apparently Inga is unable to pick up on all the rhetoric and body language cues key Dems are projecting.
Oh well, as noted many times, Inga is always about 2 days behind on what is going on.
Blackouts perhaps?
Blogger Chuck said...
FullMoon said...
...
So, you finally admit you were planning on committing what you considered a crime if presented the opportunity.
That's a start, buttwipe..
Fuck you! Are you ready to apologize for misquoting me? I wasn't planning on committing any crime; the purported victim had already said that she'd never consider it to be a crime at all.
Now, back to you inventing a quote that I never wrote and never said; are you sorry? Are you retracting it?
OK, Chuck, I went back and checked your threat to Greta. Apparently you deleted it.
Are you now claiming you never ,ever, considered giving Grets tit a good twist?
To some people, Trump getting rid of Flynn or keeping him would equally be evidence of his guilt of . . . something.
"She has no time to think about that. She's probably sulking because Russia didn't send any trolls here, even though they had more than a thousand, and they targeted WI."
Hey, there's Drago.
(Just kidding!)
3rdGrader: "She's probably sulking because Russia didn't send any trolls here, even though they had more than a thousand, and they targeted WI."
LOL
So THATS why Hillary did not come to Wisconsin!
Those sneaky Russian trolls! How did they manage that?
"Those sneaky Russian trolls! How did they manage that?"
You should know Drago.
((just kidding!)
@ Chuck, so called
Your defense of Obama is to go full Chauncey Gardiner? As a Lifelong Republican, I admire your consistent defense of Democrats.
The buck stops where?
How could you possibly know this? There is still an active investigation ongoing, no conclusions have been published yet. Are you having trouble with premature verbal ejaculations?
What, exactly, is being investigated?
Chuck wrote:
had no idea, that Trump was such a pussy, letting the media push him around in that fashion. A position as personal to the President, as National Security Advisor. And a person so personal to Trump, as Flynn; who was a campaign advisor, was one of Trump's first and most important military advisors (since Trump has not military or national security experience himself).
It's called "damage control". You can see this same thing occur whenever someone says something that is construed as problematic. Even if people don't think he did anything wrong ulitmately, having them stay on means they will constantly be the focus so long as they are on the payroll. So, its better just to end the endless media scrutiny which would obviously occur and jsut find a new NSA. Trump didn't create damage control. Its how organizations handle most people who get in trouble for statements and/or actions. Even if they are not wrong, its better to just capitulate than fight.
I totallly get why Trump might do this. Even if he doesn't want to. I would have prefered if he fought it, but I also know where the conversation would have gone and know the media would be asking every single question about Flynn and the russians. SO, it wasn't worth it ultimately.
Inga: "You should know Drago"
Actually Hillary and six (SIX!) Of her campaign staff were allowed by the Obama administration to keep their top secret security clearances (UNPRECEDENTED!) which afforded them the opportunity to see classified Intel.
Are you now moving to the novel position that Russian interference affected the race in WI AND "Intel Hillary" knew it but her campaign did nothing to react to it!
LOL
Vote for Hillary:the candidate too incompetent to be held responsible!
Hmm. That theme would actually work for all Dems.
Chuck,
Please get back on your meds.
Many times I agree with you. Other times you are completely deranged and needlessly vulgar - you fucking asshole. :-))
"What, exactly, is being investigated?"
Obviously you didn't watch even a minute of the House Intelligence Committee hearing a couple of weeks ago. Go and do some catching up and then come back. If you don't know by now what is being investigated, with all due respect, you're not worth wasting my time on.
Chuck wrote:
Do tell us about Obama's orders and communications in that regard. And especially the part about presuming that he'd be committing criminal acts for which he'd never be held culpable
I know he would never be held culpable BY HILLARY. The dems woudn't hold HILLARY culpable for anything. Was Obama held culpalbe for spying on James Rosen? Nope.
Even the idea that Obama didn't commit criminal acts would be explained away by saying "Obama changed the rules' therefore it wasn't criminal. Or, the NSA agreed to the warrant. THerefore it wasn't criminal.
YOu know how they say you can indict a ham sandwhich? Well the NSA will sign off on almost 99.9999999% of warrants requested by Obama officials. so, it was, for all intents and purposes a rubber stamp. Even if it was legal, does that mean it would be justified legally outside the FISA courts?
Well, was charging James Rosen with violating espionage act legal? They did get the warrants. So, I guess sure. But we all know that there was no basis to charge him with violating the espionage Act. And yet the govt did so ANYWAY. That's just the kind of adminstration that Obama ran.
As Nixon said "Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal." adn that seem to be the attitude that Obama took here.
We all know that Most people assumed Hillary would win. And if she did, we know she would not hold Obama accountable for wiretapping her opponent. Therefore, its reasonable to assume that Obama did so, knowing he woudln't be held accountable. And is now shocked since Trump did, in fact win.
One of the most interesting aspects of this unmasking discussion is that Rep Nunes knew about this in January but was stonewalled by the Obama led Intel agencies when he requested info.
Drago wrote:
One of the most interesting aspects of this unmasking discussion is that Rep Nunes knew about this in January but was stonewalled by the Obama led Intel agencies when he requested info.
That is interesting.
Hey Chuck, what are your thoughts on this?
"If you don't know by now what is being investigated, with all due respect, you're not worth wasting my time on."
Schiff seems to think that something, everything and anything needs to continue to be investigated. I want to know what is actually being investigated. I mean, all of Trump's people's identities have been exposed by the government. Schiff has had to walk back at least once claiming to have hard evidence of collusion to this weak tea, "something must be investigated" nonsense.
So, we've gone from "dossiers full of damning golden showers" information to "conclusive evidence I've not seen but believe exists" to "evidence I've seen but can't reveal" to "SOMETHING SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED GODDAMN IT!"
I'd (wire)tap that!!
“We are still at the very early stage of the investigation,” he said. “The only thing I can say is that it would be irresponsible for us not to get to the bottom of this.” -- Someone should ask Schiff how this is possible since they've been investigating for almost a full year, and he himself has multiple times said that they were almost done with conclusive evidence, only to have to later admit that, nope, they've got nothing, back to investigating.
This doesn't sound like an investigation; it sounds like a fishing expedition. Which is exactly why you would widely distribute secret documents to people who may not have clearances with private information redacted.
Can I get a ruling here? Is being a "chickenshit fuckhead" worse than being in a "basket of deplorables"?
"Is being a "chickenshit fuckhead" worse than being in a "basket of deplorable"?"
Who said you can't be both?
In order to have the proper context of a conversation involving adversaries I would think that often it is reasonable and responsible for a NSA to request that a name be "unmasked," and it would be irresponsible not to do so. It doesn't become public. It is not a leak. There is a process in place to handle such requests. Is there any evidence that she didn't follow the rules in that regard?
@ exhelodrvr1
Fucking is good. Head is good. Chickenshit (sic) makes tomatoes grow. That seems like the better one, making a basket of deplorables worse.
A basket of cheese fries would be a tougher call.
Inga said:
"I think it's a good idea for Rice to testify under oath as to the reasons for the unmasking, whether it be in a closed or open session. It would put a stop to the wild allegations...hopefully."
If she asks for immunity before doing so, what will be your reaction, or that of the MSM?
Serious question, I'm genuinely curious.
"Is there any evidence that she didn't follow the rules in that regard?"
-- If you unmask it, you need to protect it. The fact that the first thing done after unmasking it was distributing it as widely as possible and not protecting it from leaks makes it VERY suspicious, especially considering all the commentary we have about the information is that: Clapper and others didn't think it proved collusion, that it had nothing to do with the Russian investigation to begin with, and that it included Trump family members and private conversations. Sure, maybe if they accidentally unmasked Flynn in that one conversation, we could say that was a legitimate use of their authority. But with the other evidence surrounding it, it becomes very, very worrisome.
FullMoon said...
...
OK, Chuck, I went back and checked your threat to Greta. Apparently you deleted it.
Are you now claiming you never ,ever, considered giving Grets tit a good twist?
I didn't delete one single thing about Greta. You invented some weird concocted memory all by yourself.
And no I never wrote anything like that. I never wrote any words even remotely like giving any tits a twist.
My question is what sort of weird mind you've got, imagining that I ever wrote it. I personally suspect that in the relentless course of trying to caricature me, someone else wrote words along those lines, and you imagined that I wrote it.
So again, fuck you. Fuck you and everyone else who tries to quote me and ends up misquoting me.
I woudln't assume that Chuck ISN'T a lifelong republican. There is a certain brand of Republican (We can call them the Bill Kristol Republicans) who were SO opposed to Trump winning that they literally would phone bank for Hillary clinton. WE call them Never Trumpers. Probably voted for Evan McMullin. You can still find them on Red state. Jay Caruso, is one such individual (though even on Red state, you can OCCASIONALLY find people who actually write non biased stories - people streiff come to mind)
And Even Bill Kristol said he'd prefer the deep state to Trump. So, Chuck is probably one of THOSE Republicans. Or, as I like to call them- Hillary Supporters. Hearing talking points from such "lifelong republicans' is like listening to Rosie O'Donnell. Just as unhinged, from the exact same focus of hating Trump with an irrational hatred. Chuck couldn't be objective about Trump if we paid him 10,000 dollars.
Though, why a "lifelong Republican" feels such a need to defend the Obama administration is beyond me. WE know he spied on James Rosen, on Angela Merkel, on Netenyahu, on journalists in general, on Congress. So, if he also spied on Trump would it REALLY be that surprising?
Lets hear Chucks defense of Obama in THOSE other cases. Or lets hear his vocal denials there too.
@ Chuck, so called a gratuitous ass hole
How do you, a self proclaimed attorney, keep alleging defamation as an anonymous poster online? I'm other words, why are you such an ignorant shit stain who threatens women?
If the investigation of Trump and his people had revealed illegalities, the request to reveal the names of Americans would have come from a non-political source. If the information was not illegal, but unsavory, it would have been leaked (by Rice or another political operative) during the campaign. That would have been more-or-less proper, the American people could look at the evidence and decide whether or not it disqualified Trump from the presidency.
As it is, the leaks are clearly an attempt by an administration and a political party that has lost the confidence of the American people to continue pursuing its policies from exile.
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
FullMoon said...
...
OK, Chuck, I went back and checked your threat to Greta. Apparently you deleted it.
Are you now claiming you never ,ever, considered giving Grets tit a good twist?
I didn't delete one single thing about Greta. You invented some weird concocted memory all by yourself.
If you didn't delete it, who in the hell did?
Why is this news? She was the National Security Advisor and had access such as this. Nothing illegal - yet. Man, on both the right and left everyone jumps to conclusions about Trump, Obama, Flynn, Rice, Et. al. And yet no matter what info or facts come out the partisan crowd really doesn't care. They believe whatever it is that fits their political narrative. How about just go get a coffee and bagel and enjoy life and see where we are in 6 months?
Inga said...
How could you possibly know this? There is still an active investigation ongoing, no conclusions have been published yet. Are you having trouble with premature verbal ejaculations?
Pretty amusing for someone who proclaimed Rice innocent on the basis ... nothing except her membership in Team Blue. But Inga always had different standards for her team vs those she hates.
And now if you are perplexed about why some Dem senators up for re-election in 2018 in states Trump won by +10 would filibuster a perfectly qualified SCOTUS nominee, well consider that the Dems need a giant narrative-changing distraction in the face of this horrible unmasking news for them.
If the GOP goes nuclear, look for a never-ending wailing about the damage inflicted the republic.
The filibuster can be viewed as a giant Hail Mary and a prayer the MSM can inflate and conflate to keep Rice's and Obama's law-breaking out of the news... This is why they kept that Trump Billy Bush tape on reserve until needed too....
Perhaps the media can use the filibuster as a way to take the oxygen out of the room that appears ready to combust Rice, Obama and the whole Democratic Party.
After all, losing 5 senate seats in 2018 is better than losing 30 seats if the full truth comes out that Obama was weaponizing the intelligence apparatus.
The Billy Bush tape did not work and neither will this...
"The intelligence reports included some intercepts of Americans talking to foreigners and many more involving foreign leaders talking about the future president, his campaign associates or his transition, the sources said. Most if not all had nothing to do with the Russian election interference scandal, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the materials."
So the intelligence reports were about foreign leaders talking about Trump. There was no conspiracy. There was no "hacking of the election."
As we knew all along, it was pure made-up bullshit, intended only to discredit Trump's election and sooth the hurt butts of Democrats. The Dems have been scaring the organic granola right out of their credulous followers and annoying the rest of us over horse crap fiction designed to cover their own butts.
If liberals were smarter, they'd be furious at their leadership for playing them for total suckers.
So Chuck's thing is what the meaning of wiretap is and a common thesaurus can't even help the poor thing. Bless his heart.
Y'all quit yanking that poor critter's chain!
Fullmoon: "If you didn't delete it, who in the hell did?"
Too easy.
The Russians.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "And no I never wrote anything like that. I never wrote any words even remotely like giving any tits a twist."
Just like Chuckie never wrote anything rumor-y about a certain 10 year old.
Until it was shown that he had.
In Chucks defense, when he reaches full-on spittle-flecked Trump-rage I'm not certain he is in an appropriate mental state to actually remember what he has written.
Will said...
If the GOP goes nuclear, look for a never-ending wailing about the damage inflicted the republic.
Who cares? Trump's election demonstrates the media has far less influence than they believe. Do it and then laugh while they hurt their own credibility wailing about it.
This whole business arguing about surveillance is nonsense. As a programmer here is what I think is happening: we know that the government has been sweeping up everything for years. It is all placed into a database(s). These database(s) are easily searched. So, last June, Rice and others requested database searches on various topics. Names, locations, key words and the like. Pretty easy to find a lot of Trump-related data. So, here is the deal to me. Did Obama order it, know about it, or was it just something that the lackeys did for the Boss? I suspect the latter. Obama is the master of plausible deniability. Or, if you prefer, he read it in the papers just like you did. The key question is simple: Nixon took responsibility for something's by done for him even though it was proved he didn't order it. Will Obama do the same?
You guys are being too hard on Inga - and not paying attention to her position. She has "evolved" to the point where she is willing to accept the verdict of Congressional investigations and right in this thread she has modified her position from "what Susan Rice did was legal" to "IF what Susan Rice did was legal."
The irony of this whole thing is that we are getting closer and closer to having Trump's original tweet proven correct. Only the real D true believers are going to be able to dismiss Trump's wiretapping charge on its technical definition. The rest of us will see it for the spying that it was.
Rice played the role of smug mouthpiece over Benghazi for which Obama rewarded her. I seem to recall his spirited defense of her, based in part on her being a "woman of color."
Also, Inga is on record here at Althouse (since a day or two after it happened) of buying the bullshit Rice video story and also defending Rice in the weeks afterwards. In fact, she and Cedarford were the only two toeing the Obama line. You can look it up.
"How about just go get a coffee and bagel and enjoy life and see where we are in 6 months?"
-- Because every time Republicans let investigations run their politicized course on Democrats' time tables, things like Ted Stevens losing his senate seat to a corrupt process and then dying before he could be exonerated happen, or we get told "At this point, what does that matter any way?" Or some people in Mexico or on the border end up dead due to gun running sting operations gone wrong.
The left has used up the right's patience and good will. They've had since June or July of last year. Put up or shut up.
Just like Chuckie never wrote anything rumor-y about a certain 10 year old
Now that I do recall clearly.
khesanh0802 said...The irony of this whole thing is that we are getting closer and closer to having Trump's original tweet proven correct.
That is the best part -- making Trump look prescient.
exiled notes:As we knew all along, it was pure made-up bullshit, intended only to discredit Trump's election and sooth the hurt butts of Democrats. The Dems have been scaring the organic granola right out of their credulous followers and annoying the rest of us over horse crap fiction designed to cover their own butts.
They are still doing it! They still going to try and sell Hillary! in 2020.
khesanh0802 said...
The irony of this whole thing is that we are getting closer and closer to having Trump's original tweet proven correct. Only the real D true believers are going to be able to dismiss Trump's wiretapping charge on its technical definition. The rest of us will see it for the spying that it was.
It is going to separate the insiders from the outsiders. Even the actual democrats out here in the real world understand just how wrong what Obama and his administration did was. It is far worse than what Nixon did. It was systemic and sustained. Nixon tried to cover up a single break in. Obama and his team released the private communications of dozens of people who were political opponents.
The best outcome for these cronies is jail time. I will be not be shocked if Obama refuses to willingly comes back to the states. He was watching journalists and members of congress too.
Laslo, Alcohol Forensic Analyst...
I have studied the effects of alcohol in arguments in many social situations, both in-person and online. Because of these studies, I can scientifically recreate the alcohol consumption pattern over a period of time, using the Reasonability / Invective Ratio. As you may surmise, increased alcohol consumption reduces Reasonability and increases Invective in measurable amounts.
I will apply these skills to this thread, and the commenter Chuck.
As reference / baseline:
First Post comment (Birkel) at 1:03.
2:22: First Chuck comment: "Oh, this story is such a big win-win for me....For me, a loyal and partisan Republican who happens to hate Trump and his Twitter account personally, and who also has known about and loathed Susan Rice from before the time that Obama became president, this is great news. Win-win. Democrats look ugly; Trump is still a liar."
The looseness of personal delight in hate indicates alcohol consumption began previous to this post. Judging from syntax and word-choice, Chuck is still in reasonable command of his facilities. I posit that between two and three ounces of alcohol consumption for an average heavy drinker (heavy drinker being identified by the casual hate). Judging from the vocabulary pretensions, I imagine this to be two glasses of Scotch On The Rocks, self-poured. The commenter will probably state that they NEVER have their Scotch 'On The Rocks', but I am sticking with Science in this matter.
2:43: Second Chuck comment: "Explain. Keep you answer as short as possible, and yet take as much space as is needed to explain in detail."
Twenty-one minutes have passed. Reasonable, but the onset of passive-aggressiveness, with self-pleasure at cleverness. Partway through the next glass.
3:24: Third Chuck comment: "Oh, what mendacious bullshit. You accuse ME of mincing words and hiding behind twisted meanings and opaque definitions?!? What a lot of fucking nerve....What a bunch of sick, warped, twisted, Trumpkin shitheads you are..."
Forty-one minutes pass. A longer period of silence, followed by noticeably greater aggressiveness and invective. Word choices such as "mendacious" and "mincing" indicate the subject is still holding onto the pretense of high-mindedness, but pedestrian vulgarities such as "shitheads" show that the thought processes are being occluded by alcohol consumption -- most likely two generous self-poured glasses.
3:43: Fourth Chuck comment: "You worthless chickenshit fuckheads. There ARE NO EXPLANATIONS FOR TRUMP'S MARCH 4 TWEETS."
Twenty-one minutes pass. The intense increase of invective and pedestrian vulgarity indicate an approach of black-out levels; commenter not even responding to the basic desire to seem reasonable to casual observers. Two more generous self-poured glasses: in someone of less alcohol 'experience' there would be a concern for heath, such as passing out and choking on their own vomit.
(to be continued)
3:51: Fifth Chuck comment: "We've seen that with Trump before..."
Eight minutes pass. A return to attempting to appear reasonable and in control. The subject has experience wrestling these demons.
3:54: Sixth Chuck comment: "Trump is full of shit now, as he always was."
Three minutes pass. The ability to monitor self-control is still impaired.
4:15: Seventh Chuck comment: "Go fuck yourself. You and President Fat Khakis. Your "personal Lord and Savior."...
Twenty-one minutes pass. Invective and the onset of Blasphemy: aggressive drinking has returned.
4:23: Eighth Chuck comment: "What you get, is some garbage that means whatever you and Trump want it to mean whenever you settle on a meaning that is useful..."
Eight minutes pass. Another return to attempting to appear reasonable and in control. The subject is moderating his alcohol intake -- self-awareness is playing a role at this alcohol plateau.
4:26: Ninth Chuck comment: "Don't you think it was because Trump can't spell "surveillance"?
Continued moderate drinking, belied by an attempt at cleverness well below the subject's sober capabilities.
4:31: Tenth Chuck comment: "I'm posting this again. Just because it gave me such pleasure, writing it in the first place:" (Repost of 3:51 comment, now in BOLD and ITALICS).
Five minutes pass. The subject returns to a previous comment to relive perceived past glory. Moderate alcohol intake increasing self-nostalgia.
4:45: Eleventh Chuck comment: "Now I just wrote that in about 90 seconds. Trump, with a large communications staff, a team of lawyers, and a month of time in which to work, has never come up with anything like that. Only his insane half-witted Tweets from last March 4."
Fourteen minutes pass. The increase in coherence and relative lack of Invective indicate the subject has paused in his drinking. This could be due to self-awareness of embarrassing inebriation, or just that the bottle is empty.
4:48: Twelfth Chuck comment: "Really! Do tell us about Obama's orders and communications in that regard. And especially the part about presuming that he'd be committing criminal acts for which he'd never be held culpable."
Three minutes pass. An increase in aggressiveness, but without corresponding vulgarity: the subject is white-knuckling this period of Dryness.
4:52: Thirteenth Chuck comment: "God, I wish I knew what Althouse really thought about her blog becoming the home to a bunch of readers who think that Trump's Tweets about "Obama" "tapping [Trump's] wires" in Trump Tower are justified. Obama, for whom she voted, is a "Bad (or sick) guy"..."
Four minutes pass. White-knuckled self-awareness leads to an appeal to an Outside Higher Source. The subject has plateaued, but does not seem to be increasing in sobriety: I imagine consumption of a substitute alcoholic beverage has taken place, consisting of subsistence levels. This evaluation
stands for the next eighty minutes of comments.
6:12: Seventeenth Chuck Comment: "Fuck you! Are you ready to apologize for misquoting me?..."
Invective has returned, but it seems tired, rote: again, consumption of a substitute alcoholic beverage at subsistence levels. The physical effects of the alcohol consumption are having a noticeable effect on the subject's energy and resiliency.
7:02: Seventeenth Chuck Comment: "So again, fuck you. Fuck you and everyone else who tries to quote me and ends up misquoting me...."
Fifty minutes pass. The lengthy time between comments, which function at the previous level, indicate the subject's weariness is overtaking him. Alcohol consumption is slowing: indeed, the subject may be nodding off for minutes at a time, glass in hand.
I am Laslo.
I will be not be shocked if Obama refuses to willingly comes back to the states
Is he still riding on David Geffen's good ship lolly pop?
Just clicked over to Rachel and she appears to be just introducing this topic at 40 minutes past the hour? Can anyone corroborate this?
Laslo,
That is some brilliant shit.
I'm just watching Homeland to see how the Dems planned for all of this to shake out, before Trump was actually elected and flipped the script.
ABC, CBS and NBC continue to prove they are an arm to the democrat party
You really expect that any legitimate news outlet will treat this distraction about Rice unmasking some people caught on incidental intercepts as some new earth shattering scandal? She was acting within the scope of her job, sheesh. A nothingburger. Maybe she'll testify as to why she did it, if it was she who did it. I
"She was acting within the scope of her job, sheesh."
Tell us, Inga, what was your reponse when the same claim was made about Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador?
AprilApple said...ABC, CBS and NBC continue to prove they are an arm to the democrat party
Susan Rice has double immunity with the press. They are still in love with Obama and Rice is one of his favorite "women of color" in politics. So their first instinct will be to protect her. And if anyone dares go after Obama's former AG, they'll scream it's a lynching.
It wasn't within the scope of his job to make deals with the Russians regarding sanctions, before the President was even sworn in. Shouldn't that be self explanatory? He also shouldn't have lied about it. BTW, If he had nothing to hide, why did he lie about it?
Inga: "It wasn't within the scope of his job to make deals with the Russians regarding sanctions, before the President was even sworn in."
LOL
Whoa nellie!
Where is the evidence of that, one wonders?.....
Looks like it's "don't need no fancy evidence"-Inga has shown up and displaced "We need to wait for all the investigations and facts to come out"-Inga
It can get confusing because they look exactly alike even though they are completely different in their philosophy.
"You really expect that any legitimate news outlet will treat this distraction about Rice unmasking some people caught on incidental intercepts as some new earth shattering scandal? She was acting within the scope of her job, sheesh."
-- We have no idea if this is true. Do you understand how clearances work? By unmasking those names, and widely distributing them, including to people who did not have Need to Know, she was breaking the law.
"It wasn't within the scope of his job to make deals with the Russians regarding sanctions, before the President was even sworn in."
-- He made no deals. Made no commitments. Made no positive or negative statements what-so-ever. In fact, his statement had even less substance and commitment to it than Obama promising more flexibility after the election. If Flynn was acting out of bounds, Obama was as well. So... uh... I guess you think that was a nothingburger too, right?
Actually, I can tell you that she wasn't acting within the scope of her job simply because of this. She unmasked Flynn and allowed his name to be leaked to the press, and we have not immediately had the leaker fired and brought up on relevant charges while Obama was still in the White House. Her job is to protect the data, especially sensitive data that she has that exposes private citizens' information. The fact that that leak happened shows us that she failed at her job; now we just need to find out if it was intentional or negligence.
Maybe she'll testify as to why she did it, if it was she who did it.
It all depends on when she did it if she did it. Did she do it before Obama ruled it was OK? If not, it's a felony. The press used to be interested in such felonious charges.
Susan Rice losing any future career would be no big loss. She was smug enough while in service.
Why didn't Flynn register as an agent of a foreign state? Why would any president make someone who was an agent of a foreign state be the NSA advisor? Why didn't Trump know Flynn was an agent of a foreign state and as someone who should've been registered as an agent of a foreign state, or did he and didn't care? Don't you people ask yourselves these questions?
Inga approves the weaponization of the intelligence community. Violating the law is just doing ones job.
Inga: "Why didn't Flynn register as an agent of a foreign state? Why would any president make someone who was an agent of a foreign state be the NSA advisor? Why didn't Trump know Flynn was an agent of a foreign state and as someone who should've been registered as an agent of a foreign state, or did he and didn't care? Don't you people ask yourselves these questions?"
I tend to spend less time asking questions about issues like this when confronted with an administration that has fully weaponized a gargantuan federal apparatus for the sole purpose of spying on and attacking political opponents.
I'm sort of funny that way.
Wait -- why are we saying Flynn is an "agent of a foreign state?"
Hillary Clinton accepted more money from foreign actors than Flynn ever possibly could; did anyone ask her to register as an agent of a foreign state? Did the press ever care about Podesta literally profiting by encouraging Democrats to weaken America's energy independence to prop up Russia's petrol market? Is he an agent of a foreign state?
What does your statement even MEAN?
"It wasn't within the scope of his job to make deals with the Russians regarding sanctions, before the President was even sworn in. Shouldn't that be self explanatory?"
LOL. The guy made a phone call (or maybe the ambassador called him; do we know?). You're my goto girl for all things Russian so tell me because I honestly don't know. The transcripts of the phone call has been made public?
"He also shouldn't have lied about it. BTW, If he had nothing to hide, why did he lie about it?"
I agree, glad he's gone. As to why he lied, we don't know yet.
"She unmasked Flynn and allowed his name to be leaked to the press...The fact that that leak happened shows us that she failed at her job; now we just need to find out if it was intentional or negligence."
And just how would you know this? You don't.
Mathew Sablan: "What does your statement even MEAN?"
It means "I'm fresh outta talkin' points amigo!"
Birkel said...
Inga approves the weaponization of the intelligence community. Violating the law is just doing ones job.
She would care to no end if Steve Bannon were the accused NS advisor/leaker.
Holy crap. Inga's off the deep end.
Inga: "And just how would you know this? You don't"
Uh oh.
"just the facts"-Inga is reanimating the clearly shared body. I wonder where "Don't need no fancy facts to make accusations"-Inga goes when "just the facts"-Inga pops in?
I have no hope that anything will come of this. Obama is invincible and his invincibility transfers to those he's has raised his scepter towards. The swamp is too strong, it's unfathomable.
"And just how would you know this? You don't."
-- I know that Flynn's name was unmasked, and that the file it was in was illegally leaked to the press. Someone leaked it, and whoever it was, was never brought to account by the Obama or Trump administration (as, recall, leaks about dossiers and Trump's "Russian collaboration" were happening under both.) Therefore, everyone in leadership who allowed the leak to happen and did not take extreme, immediate measures to secure America's intelligence assets has responsibility for it.
So, now we're just arguing whether it was incompetence, negligence or deliberate.
Let's just say for the sake of argument that what Trump really meant to say was this: "I have just learned that members of my campaign staff were surveilled under CIA/NSA collection techniques; their names were inappropriately and probably illegally circulated within White House staff or related intel staff. It happened, as I understand it, during the height of the election campaign. Which raises such profound questions for our Democracy, I am calling for an investigation by the FBI, as well as the appropriate Congressional oversight committees..."
This is so very mealy-mouthed that it tempts me to believe that Chuck is indeed a lifelong Republican. (So-called.) Hesitant phrasing all over the place. Only establishment Republicans express themselves that weakly.
It re-confirms for me the idea that the more spittle-flecked opposition to Trump is, more than anything else, a matter of style and perceived social class.
M Jordan: "I have no hope that anything will come of this. Obama is invincible and his invincibility transfers to those he's has raised his scepter towards. The swamp is too strong, it's unfathomable"
Probably. However, just the widespread exposure of what actually occurred will have to suffice.
Not to worry. The dems will be working hard with the republicans in the house/senate to make sure "this never happens again" (especially given who the President happens to be now).
We wouldn't want anyone to abuse their power now, would we?
Trump, for what it is worth, is at least investigating who is leaking state secrets to the press. Obama was very good at stopping whistle blowers who pushed negative stories about his administration to the press, arresting and trying record numbers of them. Less so good at people leaking stories that hurt his enemies to friendly media.
FullMoon said...
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
FullMoon said...
...
OK, Chuck, I went back and checked your threat to Greta. Apparently you deleted it.
Are you now claiming you never ,ever, considered giving Grets tit a good twist?
I didn't delete one single thing about Greta. You invented some weird concocted memory all by yourself.
If you didn't delete it, who in the hell did?
What is your problem, Full Moon? I'm quite serious; what is the matter with you?
The reason that you never found anything from me that resembled your phony purported quote from me is that I never wrote any such thing. You can quit looking for it, because I never wrote anything like that. I challenged you to find something like that, and you couldn't. I knew you couldn't because I know I never wrote anything like that.
I did not write anything like what you claimed, ever; so I never had to delete anything like that. And assuredly, I did not delete anything. I deleted nothing like what you claimed, ever.
So you see; it's not me; it's you. You and your faulty, fucked-up, imagination/memory. After you apologize for this offense, you should explain yourself.
I never wrote any such thing.
""It wasn't within the scope of his job to make deals with the Russians regarding sanctions, before the President was even sworn in. Shouldn't that be self explanatory?"
But it would be in only two weeks. Right? ARe you saying that no one in an incoming administration every has talks to other dignitaries from other countries prior to them officilaly taking office?
We should declare a moratorium on responses to Inga until she gains 20, maybe 25, IQ points. Even then we should be careful responding to her as people of average intelligence have trouble with complex facts. I feel sorry for it.
jaed: "This is so very mealy-mouthed that it tempts me to believe that Chuck is indeed a lifelong Republican. (So-called.) Hesitant phrasing all over the place."
I actually fell asleep 5 words in.
"lifelong republican" Chuck has an intellect that is "truly dizzying".
We should have a moratorium on responding to Birkel until he goes to see a shrink.
Testimony at the House Intelligence Committee Hearing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-transcript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/?utm_term=.c49b523776e7
"In December, Michael Flynn has a secret conversation with Ambassador Kislyak, about sanctions imposed by President Obama on Russia over attacking designed to help the Trump campaign. Michael Flynn lies about the secret conversation. The vice president unknowingly then assures the country that no — no such conversation ever happened. The president is informed that Flynn has lied and Pence has misled the country. The president does nothing.
Two weeks later, the press reveals that Flynn has lied and the president is forced to fire Mr. Flynn. The president then praises the man who lied, Mr. Flynn, and castigates the press for exposing the lie."
What does that statement have to do with proving Flynn is a foreign agent?
@ Chuck, so called
Nobody believes you. Try reading what you wrote above. All the cursing that exposes your internalized hatred reveals how miserable you are. And the lack of self awareness exposes something worse.
But hey, it's the internet and you're an ass hole. News at 11.
No, Inga. I didn't ask what the Washington Post said was in the conversation. I want to know if the transcript has been published.
Inga: "It wasn't within the scope of his job to make deals with the Russians regarding sanctions, before the President was even sworn in. Shouldn't that be self explanatory?"
We know that Flynn did no such thing since it would have leaked long, long ago as a "smoking gun". Certainly prior to the inauguration.
Hey, you know who did do some "ser-i-ous negotiatin'" before being sworn in? That's right babies! Obambi and his crew!
"HOW BARACK OBAMA UNDERCUT BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN"
"HOW BARACK OBAMA UNDERCUT BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN"
Matthew Sablan,
Flynn registered as agent of a foreign state after he was fired. He is currently registered as an foreign agent. You didn't know this?
What does that have to do with what he was doing BEFORE he was fired?
"don't need no fancy facts to make accusations"-Inga has definitely got the upper hand on "just the facts"-Inga.
This is a real nip and tuck battle.
I wonder who will emerge victorious?
Meanwhile I see that no one in the media much cares that John Podesta, Hillary's campaign manager, received 75,000 shares in an energy company linked to Vlad Putin and failed to declare them on his federal forms. It is quite literally true that Hillary's campaign manager was and still is an agent for a foreign government yet ignorant zings persists in her made-up fantasy "facts."
It's the transcript of the House Intel hearing, as you know. People who lie at the hearing are subject to perjury charges. Of course the transcript of Flynn's actual conversation with the Russian ambassador making deals about sanctions hasn't been published. It's still confidential and under investigation, obviously. But you already knew this.
"Of course the transcript of Flynn's actual conversation with the Russian ambassador making deals about sanctions hasn't been published. It's still confidential and under investigation, obviously."
-- Actually people have seen the transcripts.
jaed said...
"Let's just say for the sake of argument that what Trump really meant to say was this: 'I have just learned that members of my campaign staff were surveilled under CIA/NSA collection techniques; their names were inappropriately and probably illegally circulated within White House staff or related intel staff. It happened, as I understand it, during the height of the election campaign. Which raises such profound questions for our Democracy, I am calling for an investigation by the FBI, as well as the appropriate Congressional oversight committees...'"
This is so very mealy-mouthed that it tempts me to believe that Chuck is indeed a lifelong Republican. (So-called.) Hesitant phrasing all over the place. Only establishment Republicans express themselves that weakly.
It re-confirms for me the idea that the more spittle-flecked opposition to Trump is, more than anything else, a matter of style and perceived social class.
I wrote that in 90 seconds. I managed it, without a single reckless untruth. I didn't go beyond what was indisputable; I didn't make any reckless unsupportable allegations. All as I previously said, you asshole.
My point -- again -- was that Trump has had a month and a whole staff. And in all that time he's never made himself any clearer beyond his idiotic "wire tapping" of Trump Tower.
You seem to prefer "simple, reckless untruth," to what I wrote. That is your right. Your right, as well, to hate on Republicans. Go right ahead. I just wonder what party Trump is going to be part of, in the future. There's only one party that holds majorities in both houses of congress.
I wonder where "Don't need no fancy facts to make accusations"-Inga goes when "just the facts"-Inga pops in?
4/3/17, 9:40 PM
Oh, that's simple. "Don't need no fancy facts to make accusations" Torquemada Inga pops out when the story concerns Trump or a Republican while Joe Friday Inga takes a nap. "Just the facts" Joe Friday Inga emerges when the story concerns the Obama administration or any Democrat while Torquemada Inga pours herself a drink.
"I don't think [Flynn] knew he was doing anything wrong," the official said. "Flynn talked about sanctions, but no specific promises were made. Flynn was speaking more in general 'maybe we'll take a look at this going forward' terms."
In other words, even less than Obama promising more flexibility after the election. If Flynn is a foreign agent, then so was Obama.
Matthew, sheesh. What it has to do with it is this: he should've never been appointed NSA advisor. Either you are extremely naive or we are speaking at cross purposes.
Inga, here's a question:
If there was undeniable evidence of wrongdoing, why go to the media with leaks instead of directly to Congress or the DOJ and it's proper investigative channels?
Chuck said...
FullMoon said...
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
FullMoon said...
...
OK, Chuck, I went back and checked your threat to Greta. Apparently you deleted it.
Are you now claiming you never ,ever, considered giving Grets tit a good twist?
I didn't delete one single thing about Greta. You invented some weird concocted memory all by yourself.
If you didn't delete it, who in the hell did?
What is your problem, Full Moon? I'm quite serious; what is the matter with you?
The reason that you never found anything from me that resembled your phony purported quote from me is that I never wrote any such thing. You can quit looking for it, because I never wrote anything like that. I challenged you to find something like that, and you couldn't. I knew you couldn't because I know I never wrote anything like that.
I did not write anything like what you claimed, ever; so I never had to delete anything like that. And assuredly, I did not delete anything. I deleted nothing like what you claimed, ever.
So you see; it's not me; it's you. You and your faulty, fucked-up, imagination/memory. After you apologize for this offense, you should explain yourself.
I never wrote any such thing.
Seriously? Then provide a link to prove your innocence, and I will forever abstain from mentioning your threats to Greta, unless provoked. Seems reasonable?
-- Actually people have seen the transcripts.
4/3/17, 10:03 PM
To be fair, that news is from February. Liberals apparently get their news via carrier pigeon so they might not have heard about that yet.
"Of course the transcript of Flynn's actual conversation with the Russian ambassador making deals about sanctions hasn't been published. It's still confidential and under investigation, obviously. But you already knew this."
I honestly didn't, Inga. But if what you say is true, how does the Washington Post know what's in them.
Matthew, you are no longer making sense. Obama was President. It was his job to deal with the Russians and other foreign powers. It was not the job of Flynn to make promises of lifting sanctions to the Russian even before Trump was sworn in as President. You don't see the difference? Wow.
400!
Post a Comment