(05-20-2020 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 11:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  1. You don't know who you are unmasking.

proof that you're reading your 'daily talking points'. You certainly have an idea... and you know which 'team' they're on.... like it would be hard to 'ask around' about who was where and said what.

Quote:2. Why is a private citizen having conversations with a Russian Ambassador?

This lie is just admitting that you have no defense. He's not a private citizen and you know it. He's a part of the elected and incoming administration. The email being cited even says that it's merely the alleged 'frequency' that is unusual. Why it would be unusual, given the accusations going on is self-perpetuating. The outgoing administration can't believe they lost an election that they tried to rig.. so they flail at Russia... and the Russians want to know if this hostility is going to continue.

Quote:
3. It wasn't just one call...it was numerous calls, and that clearly raised suspicion.

pfft. It only raised suspicion because the suspicion (of collusion) was already there.

They'd just slapped Russia with sanctions and were upset that they were talking with their replacements rather than 'retaliating'. Sounds to me like a good case could be made for them only slapping the sanctions on Russia to create some sort of retaliation... and thus cause trouble for the incoming administration...

Quote:4. The purpose is their ******* job. Protecting America.

Which has nothing to do with what they were doing. Framing this as 'protecting America' is laughable.

Quote:Finally, the monitoring by the intelligence agencies is of the Russian guy, not any American!

And yet, there is no accusation of anything improper about or by the Russian guy, and the only thing you have on the American is 'talking more frequently than we'd like'.

Did anyone suggest to Flynn that they had these concerns? If all they were doing was protecting America, why not? As the memo states, there was no indication at the time that Flynn was passing any sensitive information... why wouldn't you simply say to him... 'hey, you're new so you may not know... but this is a bit unusual and they may be trying to compromise you with all these meetings.'

They didn't. If they're protecting America, why not? Why would you wait until a potential mistake was made (and America was damaged) to warn anyone?

Just to clarify, private citizen was not my choice of words...I was responding to another saying that. And no, I don't read any daily talking points...I read twitter, just like most all the others on the right here who post their "talking points" on a daily basis. You and both know who they are...but as usual, I'm the only one who's frowned upon for doing so apparently.

And what difference does it make if you know who you may be unmasking? And as I'm sure you're aware, the trump administration filed 17,000 requests of this nature in 2018.

Finally, everyone but the hardened lackeys know Flynn was a bad actor. Hopefully, since the trump administration is the most transparent in history, we'll get the transcripts of all the calls with Kisylak released soon.

Name who "everyone" is. It certainly wasnt team taint, because the only charge they brought was the fake lying to fbi charge that we now know has been debunked. It certainly wasnt Comey, McCabe, Strojk, etc, because the case against Flynn was shut down after not finding anything. SO either your Obama dream team is incompetant as a turd nugget, or there is no "everyone".

(05-20-2020 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 06:44 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 06:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, they did things by the book. Good to know.

#OBAMAGATE

You will come around....you will have to

To what? This nothingburger?

Our agencies picked up an unusual number of calls from an American to the Russian ambassador so the current administration at the time did their due diligence, by the book, to find out who it was and then monitored the situation to see if any sensitive information was being passed. Remember, trump was not president yet and Flynn was not a government employee, but rather just an adviser to trump.

I'm sure this will all be cleared up though when unconfirmed acting DNI Grennell releases the transcripts of the calls between Flynn and Kislyak.

I believe Coney has already admitted it wasn’t done by the book. And—why on earth are political people in the Obama administration unmasking private citizens in an intelligence operation? By the way—lets also understand that the Rice “by the book” memo Comey states nothing unusual is disclosed in the communications....so why are all these political goobers in the corrupt Obama administration unmasking unsuspicious and innocuous conversations? What’s the purpose—other than to use for political theatre and spying?

1. You don't know who you are unmasking.
2. Why is a private citizen having conversations with a Russian Ambassador?
3. It wasn't just one call...it was numerous calls, and that clearly raised suspicion.
4. The purpose is their ******* job. Protecting America.

Finally, the monitoring by the intelligence agencies is of the Russian guy, not any American!

1) You've missed the point. Political people have no business reading that stuff, much less unmasking people. Its not their job. Its an intelligence agency job or a law enforcement job. Once law enforcement/intlelligence actually see something happening---then they alert the proper civilian authorties---the political civilians don't do investigations (well, other than in banana republics and China).

2) A private citizen is calling the Russian Amabassador because that was his job in the preparing the transition as the NSA for the incoming Trump Administration. He called LOTS of foreign ambassadors during that period--just as his Obama counterpart did during the Obama transition.

3) See 2 above--btw---it was multiple calls? So what? The transcripts of the calls were available to intelligence and intelligence people were listening in on the calls in real time. Comey himself stated that there was nothing concerning in the calls themselves. In fact---if there was nothing concerning in the calls (as he apparently admitted to Obama per Rice), then the dispatching of FBI agents to interview Flynn a couple of days later becomes an action that is clearly NOT "by the book" as there is no reasonable predicate for the interview.

4) Yes. Their job is protecting Americans. All Americans. That means they dont get to ditch the constitution because the new duly elected president is going to bring in an NSA that is hostile to the crappy Iran agreement Obama signed (an agreement that the Senate also happened to disagree with and refused to ratify).

This is a Watergate level over reach by the Obama Administration. I'd think any thinking American---especially a liberal---would be appalled by these kinds of Nixonian politics by the Obama Administration.

(05-20-2020 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Just to clarify, private citizen was not my choice of words...I was responding to another saying that.

It's the language of the specific 'act' used against Flynn. It's pertinent, whether you used it or not... and the basis of the entire charge. Without it, no 'lying' takes place and no pressure is applied. The act applies to private citizen, and Flynn wasn't that.. with the best evidence being that the outgoing administration wasn't concerned at all about Flynn talking with the Russian ambassador.... only the frequency... and that no 'secrets' be divulged. That wasn't the basis for the charge at all... not even close.

Quote:And no, I don't read any daily talking points...I read twitter, just like most all the others on the right here who post their "talking points" on a daily basis. You and both know who they are...but as usual, I'm the only one who's frowned upon for doing so apparently.

Twitter, best I can tell is the primary distribution medium for 'talking points'... so best I know, you are reading talking points. As to 'you being the only one'? My point was that I feel confident that 90% of people talking about 'unmasking' know nothing about unmasking or how it is done without reading about it... What I know fits on a postcard... but it's enough to know that the idea that you have 'no idea' about whom is being unmasked isn't really true. The best example is that if you 'unmask' a meeting at the DNC HQ, it's true that you don't know who's there... but the odds are pretty good that its democrats.

Quote:And what difference does it make if you know who you may be unmasking? And as I'm sure you're aware, the trump administration filed 17,000 requests of this nature in 2018.

Aaaaah... here comes the deflection. Nobody said Trump didn't do this... It was Democrats who defended it... and now when they can't defend it anymore, they deflect and say Trump did it too'. The specifics of course would matter. There are perfectly reasonable reasons for unmasking, and then there are troubling reasons. These reasons are troubling. If you have specific examples where you are troubled, feel free to present them. Pelosi and company apparently can't find them... and God knows they're looking HARD.

Quote:Finally, everyone but the hardened lackeys know Flynn was a bad actor. Hopefully, since the trump administration is the most transparent in history, we'll get the transcripts of all the calls with Kisylak released soon.

and after the deflection, the 'argument in the absurd'. I believe it was the Obama admin that made this claim about transparency.... Maybe Trump said it as well, but we see how politicians define 'transparency'. It seems that you can be thick as molasses and still be 'the most transparent in history'. As for the transcripts of the calls, as the emails report that they've been looking for dirt, and we know for a fact that the FBI was... then those who need to see them certainly have, and all they could find was a 'private citizen negotiating'.... and then a 'did they talk about sanctions or didn't they'... not that the discussion was a problem, merely having an answer to that question that wasn't accurate... regardless of whether it was a mistake or an intentional lie. Seriously though, why would you lie if you knew they had been listening? Makes no sense.

Flynn is a bad actor? I'm not a lackey, I merely listen to formal charges and not innuendo. I really don't see that much here... so please enlighten me on his bad acts. I'm not disputing them, I'm merely unaware of them. I guess I need to spend more time on Twitter?

Exactly where am I no longer defending unmasking? I only point out trumps numbers because some here seem to think what happened under Obama was nefarious. I only raise trump's numbers to show that no, this is common practice. And I have zero issue with it unless criminal behavior in the doing of it is shown. Everything here points to proper channels being followed. Unless those channels are changed or shown to be flawed, I'm in no position to say they should stop. If it were up to me, next to none of this would be private and kept from the public.

(05-20-2020 04:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Flynn is a bad actor? I'm not a lackey, I merely listen to formal charges and not innuendo. I really don't see that much here... so please enlighten me on his bad acts. I'm not disputing them, I'm merely unaware of them. I guess I need to spend more time on Twitter?

There's too much to highlight...so best to just read the story. Not to mention his lying to the FBI and to Pence.

Flynn’s Work as Turkey’s Agent While a Transition Official: Judge Sullivan Was at Least Half Right

(05-20-2020 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This is a Watergate level over reach by the Obama Administration. I'd think any thinking American---especially a liberal---would be appalled by these kinds of Nixonian politics by the Obama Administration.

C'mon man...this is starting to reach Godwin's Law levels with this gate nonsense.

(05-20-2020 05:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 04:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Flynn is a bad actor? I'm not a lackey, I merely listen to formal charges and not innuendo. I really don't see that much here... so please enlighten me on his bad acts. I'm not disputing them, I'm merely unaware of them. I guess I need to spend more time on Twitter?

There's too much to highlight...so best to just read the story. Not to mention his lying to the FBI and to Pence.

Flynn’s Work as Turkey’s Agent While a Transition Official: Judge Sullivan Was at Least Half Right

Did you read the article? "May" "May have" "Appears". Judges are to call balls and strikes. This guy is on the field trying to get retired players out on the field to start a game back up that has already been settled. He needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred.

And the Turkish connection was so damning that the Feds passed on this to pursue BS lying to the FBI charges.

Uh no.

(05-19-2020 06:13 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 05:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Naming Jeff Sessions attorney general was a huge mistake. We got the absurd confirmation hearing, followed by the recusal, followed by the Mueller witch hunt, followed by Doug Jones. And Sessions clearly was not man enough for the job. If Trump had named Barr from the start, we'd be two years ahead of where we are, and these things would have been coming out prior to the 2018 election instead of now.

Owl, I agree with all of this ^^^

With that said, hindsight is 20/20. None of these negative consequences were foreseeable on 18th November 2016.

And except for the bit about Doug Jones, all the others would’ve happened anyway, unless you can point to a person who Trump trusted *And* could’ve gotten confirmed as AG in a 52-48 Senate *And* never met a Russian in their life *And* would’ve had the strength of character to stand up against the mob these last 3+ years. Say what you want about Sessions, but there are simply not that many people out there who fit the bill.

Even Dough Jones was not a given. He's not what we want period, but Roy Moore made that possible as well. The fact he was framed by a last second smear that turned out to be bogus was simply Alabama Republican Committee failures, but then they gave us Jeff Sessions, so....

Flynn is not an idiot and has been around D.C. for a long time. He knew that every call he had was being monitored. To be so intellectually dishonest that you can't differentiate between a reason and an excuse is telling, RWT. To help, "too many calls" is the latter - an excuse to apply pressure, not a reason.

(05-20-2020 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 06:44 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  You will come around....you will have to

To what? This nothingburger?

Our agencies picked up an unusual number of calls from an American to the Russian ambassador so the current administration at the time did their due diligence, by the book, to find out who it was and then monitored the situation to see if any sensitive information was being passed. Remember, trump was not president yet and Flynn was not a government employee, but rather just an adviser to trump.

I'm sure this will all be cleared up though when unconfirmed acting DNI Grennell releases the transcripts of the calls between Flynn and Kislyak.

I believe Coney has already admitted it wasn’t done by the book. And—why on earth are political people in the Obama administration unmasking private citizens in an intelligence operation? By the way—lets also understand that the Rice “by the book” memo Comey states nothing unusual is disclosed in the communications....so why are all these political goobers in the corrupt Obama administration unmasking unsuspicious and innocuous conversations? What’s the purpose—other than to use for political theatre and spying?

1. You don't know who you are unmasking.
2. Why is a private citizen having conversations with a Russian Ambassador?
3. It wasn't just one call...it was numerous calls, and that clearly raised suspicion.
4. The purpose is their ******* job. Protecting America.

Finally, the monitoring by the intelligence agencies is of the Russian guy, not any American!

1) You've missed the point. Political people have no business reading that stuff, much less unmasking people. Its not their job. Its an intelligence agency job or a law enforcement job. Once law enforcement/intlelligence actually see something happening---then they alert the proper civilian authorties---the political civilians don't do investigations (well, other than in banana republics and China).

2) A private citizen is calling the Russian Amabassador because that was his job in the preparing the transition as the NSA for the incoming Trump Administration. He called LOTS of foreign ambassadors during that period--just as his Obama counterpart did during the Obama transition.

3) See 2 above--btw---it was multiple calls? So what? The transcripts of the calls were available to intelligence and intelligence people were listening in on the calls in real time. Comey himself stated that there was nothing concerning in the calls themselves. In fact---if there was nothing concerning in the calls (as he apparently admitted to Obama per Rice), then the dispatching of FBI agents to interview Flynn a couple of days later becomes an action that is clearly NOT "by the book" as there is no reasonable predicate for the interview.

4) Yes. Their job is protecting Americans. All Americans. That means they dont get to ditch the constitution because the new duly elected president is going to bring in an NSA that is hostile to the crappy Iran agreement Obama signed (an agreement that the Senate also happened to disagree with and refused to ratify).

This is a Watergate level over reach by the Obama Administration. I'd think any thinking American---especially a liberal---would be appalled by these kinds of Nixonian politics by the Obama Administration.

Watergate was a rogue operation within the reelection campaign that Nixon did not know about until after the fact. The coverup failed because the FBI would not participate. This is FAR worse than Watergate.

Flynn did not work for anyone connected with the Turkish government. This is a lie told to smear him. He was never charged for anything remotely related to this lie.
The lying to the FBI charge has been dropped by the DOJ because it has become apparent he was intimidated and financially ruined to coerce a guilty plea.
Sally Yates told VP Pence that Flynn had lied to him. Yeah, that Sally Yates.
But we will keep hearing the useful idiots ringing the bell....Flynn lied!

(05-20-2020 06:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, they did things by the book. Good to know.

#OBAMAGATE

Of course the book they did things by was drafted by piece of **** communist Saul Alinsky.

(05-20-2020 05:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Exactly where am I no longer defending unmasking? I only point out trumps numbers because some here seem to think what happened under Obama was nefarious. I only raise trump's numbers to show that no, this is common practice. And I have zero issue with it unless criminal behavior in the doing of it is shown. Everything here points to proper channels being followed. Unless those channels are changed or shown to be flawed, I'm in no position to say they should stop. If it were up to me, next to none of this would be private and kept from the public.

While you may or may not have done it, the initial 'defense' was that this specific unmasking was justified. That has failed, so now the defense has turned to one of pure numbers, as above.

The problem with this argument is that the unmasking of 18,000 (vs less than half that under Obama) actually shows it to be the very 'transparency' that you implied didn't exist. One could easily argue that Trump is quite literally, twice as transparent as Obama by this measure. The alternative is to say that Trump's unmasking is obviously rather liberal, while Obama's was much more selective.... which also argues against your point.

I'm not saying that it WAS intentionally targeted... You'd have to know the specifics... but it was inarguably twice as 'targeted' as Trump's have been.

With that in mind, this is an interesting article from the NYT from a year ago... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/po...eport.html

If you want to continue down this 'guilt' (or not) by inference... I'd note this comment about the NSA's tracking of Americans getting calls from overseas:
The number of foreigners targeted for warrantless surveillance under that law had been rising steadily and continued to soar in 2018, the report showed. There were 164,770 targets for such warrantless surveillance, up from 129,080 in 2017.

In 2018, the report said, analysts queried material harvested from that program for information about an American 14,374 times. That was a continued decline, down from 16,924 in 2017 and 30,355 a year earlier. Those numbers referred to searches of metadata — logs showing who contacted whom, but not what they said.

So the NSA under Trump collected meaningfully more data on foreigners as Obama, but they asked for literally half the specific data on Americans that they did under Obama.

Obama seemed much more focused on targeting Americans it seems... and we could look at the 'unmasking' data to see if that was the case here as well. The specifics matter.

I'm not saying the above proves that Obama's unmasking was targeted against enemies... that takes more information... I'm just saying that you can't compare 'what he did' to 'what Trump has done' and call them 'equal' because they weren't. While I'm sure there were many more sources of data to be unmasked than just this one, THIS is the one that this simple google search provided, from a source that is not remotely 'in the tank' for Trump.... and 'what it implies' is not supportive of your inference.

(05-20-2020 05:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 04:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Flynn is a bad actor? I'm not a lackey, I merely listen to formal charges and not innuendo. I really don't see that much here... so please enlighten me on his bad acts. I'm not disputing them, I'm merely unaware of them. I guess I need to spend more time on Twitter?

There's too much to highlight...so best to just read the story. Not to mention his lying to the FBI and to Pence.

Flynn’s Work as Turkey’s Agent While a Transition Official: Judge Sullivan Was at Least Half Right

Yeah... remember what I said about innuendo? That's what 'half right' in the article headline essentially admits. If it's only half right and there are lots of 'may have' and 'appears' then someone could honestly disagree that he's FACTUALLY a 'bad actor' without being a lackey. You could easily give that deference to everyone... you know, like our constitution and our entire legal process requires.