(05-19-2020 12:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

The Steele Dossier is way below the integrity level of the Enquirer. But still Holy Scripture to the antiTrumpers.

(05-19-2020 12:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

Read the article, that is why I asked these questions.

The article doesn't answer either of those critical questions.

(05-19-2020 01:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 12:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

Read the article, that is why I asked these questions.

The article doesn't answer either of those critical questions.

I did read the article. What struck me was the depth, width, *and* pervasiveness of unmasking requests from a non NatSec sector. Even outside of Flynn.

I guess that angle eluded you.

But when one enables the lad- 'no smoke EVAH from the democratic side' themed filter, I can readily understand that stance.

(05-19-2020 02:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 01:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 12:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

Read the article, that is why I asked these questions.

The article doesn't answer either of those critical questions.

I did read the article. What struck me was the depth, width, *and* pervasiveness of unmasking requests from a non NatSec sector. Even outside of Flynn.

I guess that angle eluded you.

But when one enables the lad- 'no smoke EVAH from the democratic side' themed filter, I can readily understand that stance.

But is it that unusual for Treasury to unmask? I have zero idea about whether it is/isn't, and the article doesn't talk about it.

Within the Treasury is the OIA.

Quote:OIA advances national security and protects financial integrity by informing Treasury decisions with timely, relevant, and accurate intelligence and analysis. It supports this mission by:

- Driving intelligence to meet the priorities of Treasury decision-makers and external customers.
- Producing all-source assessments and other material to identify threats and vulnerabilities in licit and illicit networks that may be addressed by Treasury-led action.
- Delivering timely, accurate, relevant intelligence to decision-makers.
Providing the security infrastructure necessary to safeguard the Treasury's national security information.

So were the Treasury officials part of the OIA? Does the OIA have a history of unmasking?

You read an article from a random website on the internet and are chaffing at my questioning whether or not their salacious accusations are with or without merit.

Does your concern about the Treasury abuse extend to the Trump admin? Or has the alleged abuse stopped?

(05-19-2020 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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?

Because it's a site for conservative activism that masquerades as journalism.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/03/04/a...ews-sites/

(05-19-2020 05:00 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Because it's a site for conservative activism that masquerades as journalism.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/03/04/a...ews-sites/

As opposed to sites for leftist activism that masquerade as journalism. Like, for example, Snopes.

(05-19-2020 06:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 05:00 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Because it's a site for conservative activism that masquerades as journalism.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/03/04/a...ews-sites/

As opposed to sites for leftist activism that masquerade as journalism. Like, for example, Snopes.

As opposed to the MSM, leftist sources masquerading as journalism

Good of Grenell to try and snuff the "OBAMAGATE!" misinformation campaign, but it probably won't matter.

I guess under the Obama view 'by the book' means railroading the incoming NS advisor, using a **** charge to keep open on investigation of him even though the original issue was put to rest, changing the interview summary to indicate the complete opposite of what the original thoughts were by the agents, pipelining Natioonal Enquirer level dossiers to the media in order to use the media accounts to be a secondary source for FISA purposes, having their CIA spy on Republican staffers, throwing out intelligence 'unmasks' on pretty much anyone associated with the opposition like dollar bills being stuffed into g-strings at the Men's Club, and spending millions of dollars and countless hours of effort to keep the story of 'Russian collusion' alive in the media after the election.

Kind of a weird as fk definition of 'by the book', but it gives me the warm fuzzy tingles that the Obama administration viewed the foregoing as 'by the book', that is, according to the whack a mole's self serving definition. I guess if that quote gives him the feel kind warm down there jollies after the foregoing more power to him.

Funny thing when you read the memo in full, as apparently AEase did not.

First, in the now declassified document, Rice notes Comey as the person who gave the basis for her to lie to her successor.

What grounds are stated to justify lying to General Flynn? They seem amazingly thin. Comey claims that Flynn “is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak.”

Comey fundamentally admits that Flynn hadn’t said anything improper with Kislyak. Flynn did nothing wrong. Regardless, Obama’s officials take the absolutely unprecedented step of lying to a new administration’s incoming national security staff.

In fact, Obama is noted as stating that apparently "we [the current Administration] cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia" to the entirety of the Trump administration. Kind of a sub-rosa directive to tell them to lie to the incoming administration.

So the long and short is that Rice foresaw that despite the Obama holdovers’ best efforts, the truth about their “Russia investigation” could come to light someday. If that happened, she wanted it to be on record that President Obama had authorized her to lie, on advice from James Comey. This is not the mark of a crystal clean Administration.

Kind of a shocking back and forth in my opinion. Given what we know happened not so long after this conversation to Flynn, seems pretty grotesque to me.

So it sounds like it is typical for law enforcement agencies to inform their investigative targets that they’re being investigated. I didn’t realize that was par for the course. Given that some posters on here keep railing about the Obama administration not informing the Trump administration about the investigation into links between the Russian intelligence network and the Trump administration, it must be the SOP for our intelligence agencies to inform their investigative targets.

I’m also still waiting to find out how unmasking targets specific individuals, given that the names of US citizens are redacted and unknown to officials until the unmasking is requested.

(05-20-2020 06:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So it sounds like it is typical for law enforcement agencies to inform their investigative targets that they’re being investigated. I didn’t realize that was par for the course. Given that some posters on here keep railing about the Obama administration not informing the Trump administration about the investigation into links between the Russian intelligence network and the Trump administration, it must be the SOP for our intelligence agencies to inform their investigative targets.

I’m also still waiting to find out how unmasking targets specific individuals, given that the names of US citizens are redacted and unknown to officials until the unmasking is requested.

I suggest you ask the question of why the fk Treasury officials were unmasking? I mean if not Treasury, why not the Department of Labor for that matter. How the hell do you think the Treasury even got wind of the items? Perhaps pixies and elves whispering in their ear?

I guess that department seeking specific unmasks seems totally normal in lad-world. I mean, most sane people see a serious disconnect here -- the only thing is that the St Barry administration seemed to pass around intelligence info like dollar bills at a strip club. Yet that raises zero concern or ntoe of something odd in your quarter. Imagine that.

Ambassador Rice wrote "by the book" three times, which is how we know the whole thing was precisely by the book. Glad to see that is the thesis of AtEase.

lad, perhaps you might want to conjoin your tome on 'informing the subject' with the things that went on with 'informing General Flynn'. Like ---- clearing him then going back to the trough through an utter bull**** vector, in which the stated goal was to 'get him to commit perjury' or to 'get him fired'.

You know, *that* level of zealousness and informing that seemed the rule with the St Barry administration.

The same level of 'informing' that was seemingly present when it is very obvious that Mueller knew the entire collusion pile of crap was a nothingburger 2 months in -- yet invariably ketp it afloat to set up a perjury trap. That sort of 'informing'?

You seem to lose sight of some serious portion of the forest here lad. Again, funny that. Color me absolutely shocked.

(05-20-2020 07:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 06:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So it sounds like it is typical for law enforcement agencies to inform their investigative targets that they’re being investigated. I didn’t realize that was par for the course. Given that some posters on here keep railing about the Obama administration not informing the Trump administration about the investigation into links between the Russian intelligence network and the Trump administration, it must be the SOP for our intelligence agencies to inform their investigative targets.

I’m also still waiting to find out how unmasking targets specific individuals, given that the names of US citizens are redacted and unknown to officials until the unmasking is requested.

I suggest you ask the question of why the fk Treasury officials were unmasking? I mean if not Treasury, why not the Department of Labor for that matter. How the hell do you think the Treasury even got wind of the items? Perhaps pixies and elves whispering in their ear?

I guess that department seeking specific unmasks seems totally normal in lad-world. I mean, most sane people see a serious disconnect here -- the only thing is that the St Barry administration seemed to pass around intelligence info like dollar bills at a strip club. Yet that raises zero concern or ntoe of something odd in your quarter. Imagine that.

Uh, I already asked if it was abnormal for Treasury officials to do that. There is an intelligence branch of the Treasury department, so that leads me to believe the simple act of the Treasury unmasking isn't abnormal.

You're waving your arms about how abnormal it is, without addressing the fact that an intelligence department exists within the branch AND how normnal/abnormal it is for the Treasury to unmask.

And what do you mean by "seeking specific unmasks?" That's my question - how would someone do that? It's hard for me to be concerned without know how something actually occurred. If Flynn was "targeted" simply because the Treasury was monitoring relevant Russian agents related to sanctions and Flynn kept communicating with them, why would that be a concern? But if the Treasury found a workaround to be able to ID "U.S. Person 1" prior to them actually unmasking them, and used that knowledge to selectively spy on foreign nationals they interacted with, that's another issue. Hence my question...

(05-20-2020 08:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad, perhaps you might want to conjoin your tome on 'informing the subject' with the things that went on with 'informing General Flynn'. Like ---- clearing him then going back to the trough through an utter bull**** vector, in which the stated goal was to 'get him to commit perjury' or to 'get him fired'.

You know, *that* level of zealousness and informing that seemed the rule with the St Barry administration.

The same level of 'informing' that was seemingly present when it is very obvious that Mueller knew the entire collusion pile of crap was a nothingburger 2 months in -- yet invariably ketp it afloat to set up a perjury trap. That sort of 'informing'?

You seem to lose sight of some serious portion of the forest here lad. Again, funny that. Color me absolutely shocked.

For a second, let's clarify a central tenant of your argument, which keeps bugging me.

The FBI note did not clearly have a stated goal "to 'get him to commit perjury' or to 'get him fired'."

The note was different, it explicitly said "What is our goal? Truth/admission or to hum to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

This doesn't clearly show that the latter was a goal - if you think that this clearly shows it was, then the FBI's other goal was getting him to tell the truth and admit to his conversations...

The initial note was followed up with a note reading "We regularly show subjects evidence with the goal of getting them to admit their wrong doing."

And further on there are notes about the various paths they could go down regarding Flynn telling the truth/lying.

My point is this - if you're going to seize on the note about getting Flynn to lie, you should also seize on the note about getting Flynn to tell the truth. That's the logically consistent thing to do.

It would be really interesting to talk to the FBI employee who wrote these notes to understand them better.

(05-20-2020 08:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The FBI note did not clearly have a stated goal "to 'get him to commit perjury' or to 'get him fired'."
The note was different, it explicitly said "What is our goal? Truth/admission or to hum to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
This doesn't clearly show that the latter was a goal - if you think that this clearly shows it was, then the FBI's other goal was getting him to tell the truth and admit to his conversations...

Umm, it kinda does pretty much indicate that the goal was one or the other. Either of which would be troubling.

Quote:It would be really interesting to talk to the FBI employee who wrote these notes to understand them better.

I think it would be even more interesting to talk to whoever changed the 302 to understand why that happened. What say you?

(05-20-2020 08:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad, perhaps you might want to conjoin your tome on 'informing the subject' with the things that went on with 'informing General Flynn'. Like ---- clearing him then going back to the trough through an utter bull**** vector, in which the stated goal was to 'get him to commit perjury' or to 'get him fired'.

You know, *that* level of zealousness and informing that seemed the rule with the St Barry administration.

The same level of 'informing' that was seemingly present when it is very obvious that Mueller knew the entire collusion pile of crap was a nothingburger 2 months in -- yet invariably ketp it afloat to set up a perjury trap. That sort of 'informing'?

You seem to lose sight of some serious portion of the forest here lad. Again, funny that. Color me absolutely shocked.

For a second, let's clarify a central tenant of your argument, which keeps bugging me.

The FBI note did not clearly have a stated goal "to 'get him to commit perjury' or to 'get him fired'."

The note was different, it explicitly said "What is our goal? Truth/admission or to hum to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

This doesn't clearly show that the latter was a goal - if you think that this clearly shows it was, then the FBI's other goal was getting him to tell the truth and admit to his conversations...

The initial note was followed up with a note reading "We regularly show subjects evidence with the goal of getting them to admit their wrong doing."

And further on there are notes about the various paths they could go down regarding Flynn telling the truth/lying.

My point is this - if you're going to seize on the note about getting Flynn to lie, you should also seize on the note about getting Flynn to tell the truth. That's the logically consistent thing to do.

It would be really interesting to talk to the FBI employee who wrote these notes to understand them better.

Great, so the goal was : a) get him to admit to a violation drummed up to keep the Crossfire burning; b) get him to perjure himself (violation of 1001); or c) get him fired.

Sorry, the addition of your omitted agenda item of 'get him to admit to a ginned up charge, a charge we manufactured to keep Crossfire going on him' doesnt help your protestations much.

So, we included it now. Happy? Tell us how the hell that changes the calculus? There was no goal to 'exonerate'. Period. That item seemingly doesnt enter into your thought process.

There was also a specific goal to *ensure* that Flynn was not afforded the typical protections in such a prospecting trip. In fact, the Feeb higher level, Strzok, *and* the partner manufactured a trip specifically in order to bushwhack him.

I guess that is fine and dandy in lad world. Doesnt sit well with this ignorant redneck. So what came out of it was the following:

The memo came out that the Crossfire Flynn was no longer a valid item -- it was ordered closed.

The upper echelons came together to specifically determine what utter asinine and bull**** excuse they could gin up to keep *something* going against Flynn. i.e. the Rice / Obama / Yates / Comey meeting. An 'enlightened' decision was reached to mark the ongoing efforts up to a complete **** excuse -- a law that is measured in indictments per century that dont come out to 3.

But since Rice mentioned 3 times that it is 'by the book', then saying that those 3 magic times, like 'there is nowhere like home', or 'Candyman', or 'Beetlejuice' said those 3 magic times, makes it undeniable reality.

One thing I have learned in the 25 years of legal background, is that when someone says 'it is legal', or 'it is proper' --- once --- then there might be decent background. When someone incessantly says those terms, like the 3 times Rice says it, that tells me that it either isnt, or is so fing close to the line that one has to dance a lad cha cha cha to make it so. But then again, that is just years of observation from an ignorant redneck noting that.... Just saying.

So, getting back to the main subject, the super team heads back out with this +8 law of demon slaying with the specific directions to: a) have the subject incriminate himself; b) have the subject run afoul of the +20 law of dont tell a FIB to the FBI; or c) get the subject fired.

Notwithstanding it is perfectly normal for the subject to be in contact with whom he has been. Notwithstanding the archaic bull**** application of law with 2.2 indictments / century since its passage 221 years ago. Notwithstanding that the entire 'interview with a goal to kill' is camoed up in the +15 cloak of invisibility that the agents are there to provide background.

And all of the above is copacetic in lad-view. Anything else to add? Yep, all appears fine and dandy and kosher with *that* blockbuster delineation you make.....

(05-20-2020 07:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ambassador Rice wrote "by the book" three times, which is how we know the whole thing was precisely by the book. Glad to see that is the thesis of AtEase.

Was the book Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?

One question:

How the fk is the usage of a moribund, unconstitutional 18th-century prohibition against unauthorized diplomacy that has *never* been used in a successful prosecution, has not been invoked since prior to the Civil War, and has never been the subject of an indictment in the 150-year history of the Justice Department be “by the book”? Seriously.......

I mean, using that as an excuse is only 'by the book' in some serious backward ass Bizzaro-land definition.