You know there is a Republican in the White House when his predecessor's FBI is caught setting up his National Security Advisor solely to get to the POTUS-to-be and undo an election, and the media is talking about a bear in a swimming pool.

(05-11-2020 11:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You know there is a Republican in the White House when his predecessor's FBI is caught setting up his National Security Advisor solely to get to the POTUS-to-be and undo an election, and the media is talking about a bear in a swimming pool.

Are they blaming Trump for the bear? If not, that's an improvement.

Moderate Democrats

A rare sighting of an endangered species.

Trump admin fired another IG, this time in State. Anyone know how common it is for administrations to boot this many IG’s (four now)?

Seems like that is a role that shouldn’t turnover much and really should be devoid of politics, since they provide oversight of the departments and political appointees.

(05-16-2020 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Seems like that is a role that shouldn’t turnover much and really should be devoid of politics, since they provide oversight of the departments and political appointees.

I think the problem is a feeling that the IG's have not been devoid of politics. They tend to be career bureaucrats, and therefore they are inclined to protect the bureaucracy, and Trump has taken on the bureaucracies.

Amazing that all those super duper intelligence people in the US Treasury under Obama were seeking unmasking requests -- on Flynn, on various Trump administration officials, on members of Congress.......

Yep, no smoke here. I am sure there is a real reason why Treasury officials are dipping their hands into NatSec dealings.

One has to wonder not just at the requests, but htf Treasury knew to request such unmasks......

https://theohiostar.com/2020/05/18/exclu...tleblower/

I find it amazingly illustrative that the number of unmasking requests tripled in the last 4 years of the Obama administration.

Also, kind of uncanny coincidence that this action increased in scope under the administration of the person that won his first seat through an illegal unmasking of judicial records. The Chicago way, brought to the national scene.

I would posit that Obama crowd did their utmost to weaponize the levers of government across the board.

From elsewhere:

For almost a quarter of a millennium, the defining feature of the U.S. has been the peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next.

Obama and his team willfully and actively violated this critical trust.

This will forever be the Obama legacy.

(05-19-2020 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  From elsewhere:

For almost a quarter of a millennium, the defining feature of the U.S. has been the peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next.

Obama and his team willfully and actively violated this critical trust.

This will forever be the Obama legacy.

Don't forget the role McConnell played in the decision. His immediate response of politicizing the Russian interference undoubtedly drove the Obama admin's decision to not go public with the information, which would have been the best choice for all.

(05-19-2020 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing that all those super duper intelligence people in the US Treasury under Obama were seeking unmasking requests -- on Flynn, on various Trump administration officials, on members of Congress.......

Yep, no smoke here. I am sure there is a real reason why Treasury officials are dipping their hands into NatSec dealings.

One has to wonder not just at the requests, but htf Treasury knew to request such unmasks......

https://theohiostar.com/2020/05/18/exclu...tleblower/

I find it amazingly illustrative that the number of unmasking requests tripled in the last 4 years of the Obama administration.

Also, kind of uncanny coincidence that this action increased in scope under the administration of the person that won his first seat through an illegal unmasking of judicial records. The Chicago way, brought to the national scene.

I would posit that Obama crowd did their utmost to weaponize the levers of government across the board.

So the Treasury implements financial sanctions on foreign actors, and Russia was being actively sanctioned for the Ukraine mess, and Russia was sanctioned by the Treasury for the election meddling (https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center...229.aspx).

So if the Treasury's intelligence arm received information that Russian representatives were talking to "U.S. Person 1" about those exact sanctions, there seems to be a good reason for them to be interested in who U.S. Person 1 is.

Or do you think the Treasury, which implements the sanctions, has no reason to want to know who was talking to a Russian government official about the implementation of the sanctions they had just implemented?

Lolz ---- sounds like my nephews: 'Mikey made me do it!'.

Still has zero bearing on that Obama and his team willfully and actively violated the trust of the peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next.

Perhaps you can tell us how it is McConnell's fault that the Treasury was unmasking everyone on the opposition from 2015?

Or how it is McConnell's fault that for some unfathomable reason that Treasury was using the unmasking process like lotto tickets?

(05-19-2020 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  From elsewhere:

For almost a quarter of a millennium, the defining feature of the U.S. has been the peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next.

Obama and his team willfully and actively violated this critical trust.

This will forever be the Obama legacy.

Remember January 2001, when outgoing Clinton staffers committed petty vandalism in the executive offices? Seems almost quaint now.

Quote:Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Multiple people said that, at the beginning of the Bush administration, they observed (1) many offices that were messy, disheveled, or contained excessive trash or personal items; (2) numerous prank signs, printed materials, stickers, and written messages that were left behind, some of which contained derogatory and offensive statements about the president; (3) government property that was damaged, including computer keyboards with missing or damaged “W” keys and broken furniture; and (4) items that were missing, such as office signs, a presidential seal, cellular telephones, doorknobs, and telephone number labels.

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf

(05-19-2020 11:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps you can tell us how it is McConnell's fault that the Treasury was unmasking everyone on the opposition from 2015?

Or how it is McConnell's fault that for some unfathomable reason that Treasury was using the unmasking process like lotto tickets?

Yep, cus I really said, or even suggested, that everything is McConnell's fault... Great deflection there.

Explain 2 things to me.
1) How did the Treasury target any specific individuals through unmasking?
2) Are you certain that Flynn was not involved in conversations with foreign officials/agents relevant to Treasury sanctions between 2015 and 2016?

(05-16-2020 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump admin fired another IG, this time in State. Anyone know how common it is for administrations to boot this many IG’s (four now)?

Seems like that is a role that shouldn’t turnover much and really should be devoid of politics, since they provide oversight of the departments and political appointees.

Reagan fired them all, although many were hired back.

(05-19-2020 12:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 11:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps you can tell us how it is McConnell's fault that the Treasury was unmasking everyone on the opposition from 2015?

Or how it is McConnell's fault that for some unfathomable reason that Treasury was using the unmasking process like lotto tickets?

Yep, cus I really said, or even suggested, that everything is McConnell's fault... Great deflection there.

Explain 2 things to me.
1) How did the Treasury target any specific individuals through unmasking?
2) Are you certain that Flynn was not involved in conversations with foreign officials/agents relevant to Treasury sanctions between 2015 and 2016?

I suggest you read the linked article, lad. Or not. Or wave your hands some more.

As for deflections, you follow up your comment about them with a fing world class set, mind you... lolz. As was your deflection about the trust in the transition of power being all McConnell's fault, as well. Double lolz.

(05-19-2020 12:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 11:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps you can tell us how it is McConnell's fault that the Treasury was unmasking everyone on the opposition from 2015?

Or how it is McConnell's fault that for some unfathomable reason that Treasury was using the unmasking process like lotto tickets?

Yep, cus I really said, or even suggested, that everything is McConnell's fault... Great deflection there.

Explain 2 things to me.
1) How did the Treasury target any specific individuals through unmasking?
2) Are you certain that Flynn was not involved in conversations with foreign officials/agents relevant to Treasury sanctions between 2015 and 2016?

Well kind of pretty much on par with your massive deflection about Obama deviating from the orderly and peaceful transition of power to willingly and intentionally shitting on that of the incoming Administration.

By the way, and I am not even denoting the literal millions of dollars and massive efforts spent by Clinton campaign aides *following* the election to perform that same job of shitting. But since you ostensibly defend the National Enquirer level Steele dossier as the ultimate in 'proof', perhaps you wont denote that as such.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...23616.html

I am sure that is McConnell's fault as well.

(05-19-2020 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing that all those super duper intelligence people in the US Treasury under Obama were seeking unmasking requests -- on Flynn, on various Trump administration officials, on members of Congress.......

Yep, no smoke here. I am sure there is a real reason why Treasury officials are dipping their hands into NatSec dealings.

One has to wonder not just at the requests, but htf Treasury knew to request such unmasks......

https://theohiostar.com/2020/05/18/exclu...tleblower/

I find it amazingly illustrative that the number of unmasking requests tripled in the last 4 years of the Obama administration.

Also, kind of uncanny coincidence that this action increased in scope under the administration of the person that won his first seat through an illegal unmasking of judicial records. The Chicago way, brought to the national scene.

I would posit that Obama crowd did their utmost to weaponize the levers of government across the board.

Big reader of The Ohio Star?

(05-19-2020 12:46 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing that all those super duper intelligence people in the US Treasury under Obama were seeking unmasking requests -- on Flynn, on various Trump administration officials, on members of Congress.......

Yep, no smoke here. I am sure there is a real reason why Treasury officials are dipping their hands into NatSec dealings.

One has to wonder not just at the requests, but htf Treasury knew to request such unmasks......

https://theohiostar.com/2020/05/18/exclu...tleblower/

I find it amazingly illustrative that the number of unmasking requests tripled in the last 4 years of the Obama administration.

Also, kind of uncanny coincidence that this action increased in scope under the administration of the person that won his first seat through an illegal unmasking of judicial records. The Chicago way, brought to the national scene.

I would posit that Obama crowd did their utmost to weaponize the levers of government across the board.

Big reader of The Ohio Star?

Not particularly. This was referred to at another source. I decided to send the base source link.

Is the rule is that one has to be a 'big reader of a publication' to denote it as a source now? Seems kind of odd, perhaps stupid. Why does this matter to you in any form? Or is this just another tack of the whack-a-mole comment that we have come to find so endearing of you?