Oh, for CS, go read Powell's open letter to Obama and STFU if you can't do anything but spew gibberish. According to the inverse of your assumption of Barr's logic, the police can go arrest a person and then look for a crime based on...well, according to you, nothing at all.
Could you tell me what the 'lie' was that Flynn is presumed to have told?
Oh, for CS, go read Powell's open letter to Obama and STFU if you can't do anything but spew gibberish. According to the inverse of your assumption of Barr's logic, the police can go arrest a person and then look for a crime based on...well, according to you, nothing at all.
Could you tell me what the 'lie' was that Flynn is presumed to have told?
Obamagate is the illegal unmasking of phone conversations using NSA metadata to spy on political opponents in "search of a crime". When no crime was found, they opened up an investigation based on a dossier that they paid for through the Clinton campaign using a foreign source previously labelled unreliable by the FBI - Christopher Steele. They then presented this dossier to the FISA court, as if it were valid foreign intelligence, to obtain the desired warrants.
What you've responded with is a run-on statement of Trump-cult faith with no context or even names.
"the illegal unmasking of phone conversations using NSA metadata to spy on political opponents"
Who? Flynn? When people asked who the person was who was conducting foreign policy with the Russians they didn't know it was Flynn. If they did unmasking wouldn't be required.
Statements of faith are not - by definition - factual. I therefore dispute whether any "bitch-slapping" has actually taken place.
Also, what kind of bricks? I only ask because my front wall has water damage and the bricks it's made of are very hard to find. It's a lovely wall (if only Trump could see it) and I hate it when you've got a bunch of yellow bricks in the middle of a terracotta wall.
Flynn, apparently wasn't unmasked. He was directly spied upon by Brennan's CIA. That makes it worse. But in one sense, you're right. No one on this blog is going to prove this case, here and now. The expectation that anyone could is a little insane. What people are telling you is what they believe happened according to what has been released. That gives us all a direction, a sense of things, but it's far different than a proof that would meet any legal standard. But those of us who think Flynn innocent would put money on it. We will have to wait until Durham brings indictments and trials are held.
If they are found guilty, the cabal of Brennan and the rest of the Obama minions, I syupuppose you all will say the game was rigged. If they are found innocent, we who believe we've beeen lied to for three years by this cabal will feel justice has miscarried.
I love how the Trump-cult portrays Flynn as if he was some blameless innocent going about some charitable business or other, rather than a shrewd operative who was selling himself based on his previous government experience. He lied about being paid by RT to meet with Putin, he lied about being in the employ of Turkey when he wrote an op-ed praising Erdo─Яan and the he lied about his conversations with the Russian to both the White House and the FBI. Here's a tip - don't want to be charged with lying ? Tell the truth and you'll be fine. Worked for me all my life, but then again, I'm not a Republican so lying just isn't something I need to do.
@John Sullivan All you Left Wing parrots who think you know what you're talking about should listen to Glenn Greenwald and see if you can answer his questions or counter his evidence. I dare you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB26jj0jrjc&t=3573s
Your response is perfectly fine. Except for the bloviating and projection. And for its lack of acknowledgement that you don't have a f'ing single percentage point of knowing any of what you claim is true though you attempt to give your delusions a patina of truth by stating them as certain facts. From what sources have you found such certainty? CNN, MSNBC, NYT, NPR, ABC, CBS, ABC? Slate, Salon, AP, Reuters. All known liars. They might be right but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Not even ten dollars.
#Obamagate is about operations run by the CIA/FBI/DOJ to attempt to cover up the Obama admin's massive espionage operations against political opponents--FISA section 702 "About" queries. It's not mostly about attempts to "get Trump."
Wait a sec, somebody get ahold of Darwin ... this is a brand new variety of Trump-cult logic that removes Trump from Obamagate, i.e. an evolution of Obamagate - a new strain of conspiracy. Sadly, this new life-form is not likely to prosper as every f_ing thing has to include Trump.
Also ... "massive espionage operations against political opponents". So if not Trump, who would that be?
That's called deflection. I presume the assumption is that you can argue by bringing up what is entirely unrelated to the question and shut the questioner up by playing "But Mommmm, Bobby hit me first." Ludicrous.
Maybe. But even as a comparison it's ludicrous. Are you saying that you have no idea what is going on in the Flynn case and that I have no idea what is going on the Obama case? Are you saying that if what is going on in the Obamagate case is accusations in search of a crime then it was ok to do this to Flynn? What the hell is this irrelevant comparison for? Each case falls or stands on the merits of it's own evidence. One has nothing to do with the other when evaluating whether or not either is justified.
Oh, for CS, go read Powell's open letter to Obama and STFU if you can't do anything but spew gibberish. According to the inverse of your assumption of Barr's logic, the police can go arrest a person and then look for a crime based on...well, according to you, nothing at all.
Could you tell me what the 'lie' was that Flynn is presumed to have told?
Maybe you can tell us what Obamagate is all about then? Isn't that an accusation in search of a crime?
Obamagate is the illegal unmasking of phone conversations using NSA metadata to spy on political opponents in "search of a crime". When no crime was found, they opened up an investigation based on a dossier that they paid for through the Clinton campaign using a foreign source previously labelled unreliable by the FBI - Christopher Steele. They then presented this dossier to the FISA court, as if it were valid foreign intelligence, to obtain the desired warrants.
What you've responded with is a run-on statement of Trump-cult faith with no context or even names.
"the illegal unmasking of phone conversations using NSA metadata to spy on political opponents"
Who? Flynn? When people asked who the person was who was conducting foreign policy with the Russians they didn't know it was Flynn. If they did unmasking wouldn't be required.
John. You just got bitched slapped with publicly available facts. This is going to come down like a ton of bricks on the Democrats and Obama
Statements of faith are not - by definition - factual. I therefore dispute whether any "bitch-slapping" has actually taken place.
Also, what kind of bricks? I only ask because my front wall has water damage and the bricks it's made of are very hard to find. It's a lovely wall (if only Trump could see it) and I hate it when you've got a bunch of yellow bricks in the middle of a terracotta wall.
Flynn, apparently wasn't unmasked. He was directly spied upon by Brennan's CIA. That makes it worse. But in one sense, you're right. No one on this blog is going to prove this case, here and now. The expectation that anyone could is a little insane. What people are telling you is what they believe happened according to what has been released. That gives us all a direction, a sense of things, but it's far different than a proof that would meet any legal standard. But those of us who think Flynn innocent would put money on it. We will have to wait until Durham brings indictments and trials are held.
If they are found guilty, the cabal of Brennan and the rest of the Obama minions, I syupuppose you all will say the game was rigged. If they are found innocent, we who believe we've beeen lied to for three years by this cabal will feel justice has miscarried.
If
I love how the Trump-cult portrays Flynn as if he was some blameless innocent going about some charitable business or other, rather than a shrewd operative who was selling himself based on his previous government experience. He lied about being paid by RT to meet with Putin, he lied about being in the employ of Turkey when he wrote an op-ed praising Erdo─Яan and the he lied about his conversations with the Russian to both the White House and the FBI. Here's a tip - don't want to be charged with lying ? Tell the truth and you'll be fine. Worked for me all my life, but then again, I'm not a Republican so lying just isn't something I need to do.
@John Sullivan All you Left Wing parrots who think you know what you're talking about should listen to Glenn Greenwald and see if you can answer his questions or counter his evidence. I dare you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB26jj0jrjc&t=3573s
Your response is perfectly fine. Except for the bloviating and projection. And for its lack of acknowledgement that you don't have a f'ing single percentage point of knowing any of what you claim is true though you attempt to give your delusions a patina of truth by stating them as certain facts. From what sources have you found such certainty? CNN, MSNBC, NYT, NPR, ABC, CBS, ABC? Slate, Salon, AP, Reuters. All known liars. They might be right but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Not even ten dollars.
Or the leaking of his name?
#Obamagate is about operations run by the CIA/FBI/DOJ to attempt to cover up the Obama admin's massive espionage operations against political opponents--FISA section 702 "About" queries. It's not mostly about attempts to "get Trump."
Wait a sec, somebody get ahold of Darwin ... this is a brand new variety of Trump-cult logic that removes Trump from Obamagate, i.e. an evolution of Obamagate - a new strain of conspiracy. Sadly, this new life-form is not likely to prosper as every f_ing thing has to include Trump.
Also ... "massive espionage operations against political opponents". So if not Trump, who would that be?
Lol, Obama had a very long enemies list...I guess you haven't been paying attention. I'm sure Mr. Taibbi is a regular reader of Sundance's blog.
If you think there is not evidence of wrong doing then you are even dumber than I think you are.
That's called deflection. I presume the assumption is that you can argue by bringing up what is entirely unrelated to the question and shut the questioner up by playing "But Mommmm, Bobby hit me first." Ludicrous.
It's not a deflection, it's a comparison.
"Could you tell me what the 'lie' was that Flynn is presumed to have told"
Well, that's a tough one. If only is there was a document that described exactly what Flynn lied about, one perhaps, that Flynn agreed (under oath) was accurate and truthful. Oh look, I found it https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents
Maybe. But even as a comparison it's ludicrous. Are you saying that you have no idea what is going on in the Flynn case and that I have no idea what is going on the Obama case? Are you saying that if what is going on in the Obamagate case is accusations in search of a crime then it was ok to do this to Flynn? What the hell is this irrelevant comparison for? Each case falls or stands on the merits of it's own evidence. One has nothing to do with the other when evaluating whether or not either is justified.
You didn't answer his question. What lie did Flynn tell?
this is a pretty good synopsis ...
https://apnews.com/d47a5be3e46442d0a1243c7dc52278f3