Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pretty clear that he called the Russian minister and I would expect the minister was wiretapped, what is not clear is why Trump fired him other than the lame excuse that he lied to Pence. You would hope that the future head of NSA would know that we monitor the Russian government.
"what is not clear is why Trump fired him other than the lame excuse that he lied to Pence."
For most people lying to your BOSS is enough reason.
I've done exhaustive research on this subject because I truly wanted to understand what happened, how it happened and why. I wanted to know our role in it and what we did wrong. My conclusion? A smear job on Clinton thanks to the GOP. This is my fact based opinion. YMMV
Re: Emails
If what you said is true, and its not, then the GOP would have been able to do something about it. They weren't. They know she didn't break any laws. The intelligence agencies know she didn't break any laws. Its a dead issue, IMHO.
Re: My credibility
When all else fails, personally attack others. Something right out of the ole political playbook. I don't care a whit if you find me credible or not. If you hold such disdain for my opinions, feel free to place me on your ignore list.
So it was the video after all?
Setting up the server violated section F of the Espionage Act.
Using up the server to store classified information violated section F of the Espionage Act.
Destroying that information violated federal record preservation laws.
Anyone not in the DC protected class would be in prison right now.
By monitoring the Russian Ambassador. And no, they didn't need to hang up as soon as it was determined that Flynn was a US citizen. Under FISA minimization policies, they can see where the conversation goes and name the US citizen if that person is necessary to understand the nature of the call. From Lawfareblog:
It is certainly true that U.S. intelligence services can get orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor foreign officials. The Russian ambassador, simply by virtue of his nationality and official position, is an “agent of a foreign power” under FISA and hence a valid target for wiretapping. It is publicly known and acknowledged that the U.S. government uses FISA to wiretap foreign embassies and consulates. So, the Journal may be right that Flynn was picked up on a wiretap of the Russian ambassador.
Wiretaps do indeed require minimization—but generally only to the extent “consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information.” In some cases, when an intelligence agency issues a report based on a wiretap, minimization requires the issuing agency to substitute a generic reference in place of a U.S. person’s name—e.g., “Ambassador Kislyak said that he was looking forward to watching the Grammy Awards on television and that he was hoping that [U.S. Person] would win an award.”
But a U.S. person’s name can be used when it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information in the report, and no serious argument can be made that Flynn’s identity was not necessary to understand the intelligence significance of his call with Ambassador Kislyak. The call is foreign intelligence information mainly because it involves Flynn.
I've done exhaustive research on this subject because I truly wanted to understand what happened, how it happened and why. I wanted to know our role in it and what we did wrong. My conclusion? A smear job on Clinton thanks to the GOP. This is my fact based opinion. YMMV
Re: Emails
If what you said is true, and its not, then the GOP would have been able to do something about it. They weren't. They know she didn't break any laws. The intelligence agencies know she didn't break any laws. Its a dead issue, IMHO.
Re: My credibility
When all else fails, personally attack others. Something right out of the ole political playbook. I don't care a whit if you find me credible or not. If you hold such disdain for my opinions, feel free to place me on your ignore list.
"My conclusion? A smear job on Clinton thanks to the GOP. This is my fact based opinion."
You will have to show us the "facts"you gathered to from such an opinion.
My OPINION makes me believe otherwise.
"They know she didn't break any laws"
Comey laid the things she did and are AGAINST the law.
To have in your possession of classified material on a private server is AGAINST the law.
To SEND classified info from a private server is AGAINST the law.
To receive classified materiel on a private server is AGAINST the law.
Having held a very high Top Secret clearance I am FULLY aware of what is required by law in regard to the handling of classified materiel.
Did you ever hold a TS clearance?
"https://asweetdoseofreality.com/2016...lary-off-hook/ Quote: Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true? Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent. Gowdy: It was not true? Comey: That’s what I said. Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true? Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true? Comey: There was classified information emailed. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true? Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true? Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account. Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually? Comey: No.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
I'll tell you how it works: Comey doesn't say a word about this during campaign but says 10 days before election they are again "reviewing" Clinton emails. This turns out to be a huge boost to Trump, likely as planned.
That's how it works.
" Comey doesn't say a word about this during campaign"
I guess you missed his hearing before Congress WAY BEFORE those 10 days you are referring to.
So, let me get this straight.... Comey says the FBI has been investigating Trump and his campaign's ties to Russia since July, but yet, there's no evidence to support Trump's claim that he was being wiretapped / surveiled right before the election? Is it just me or do those two statements directly contradict themselves?
Are we really expected to believe that an FBI investigation doesn't have a surveillance component to it?
Trump's allegations were proven true by Comey's statements. Feel free to show what I'm missing here....
The wiretaps were on the Russians. Trump and his stupid buddies called the Russians up and got recorded.
There "might be" be damning evidence implicating Hillary, and he releases it within 10-days of the election, only to be found out to be nothing, after the election was over, POSSIBLY swaying enough electoral votes to change the outcome (we'll never know).
<<But>>
We've also been investigating nutty-lying Don since July, but not a peep until after the election.
Can someone explain that one?
Good points, which begs the question, why are so many dumb Americans willing to take the word of "the intelligence agencies" at face value just because they are "the intelligence agencies" and surely they would never ever ever lie to us or try and manipulate public opinion....
People are like sheep, being led to slaughter.
Quote:
Comey is so far in Nutty-Lying Don's camp that it can't be ignored. When they get dowrapping up against the Trump Administration's treasonous collusion with Russia, I hope they go next to investigating the nefarious relationship between Trump and Comey.
Well see, now you've gone and lost all credibility. You've already decided that Trump "colluded" with the Russians to leak John Podesta's Guacamole recipe, hoping it would change the outcome of the election. You can no longer be objective. You will only see evidence that proves your conclusion and dismiss evidence that doesn't.
So, let me get this straight.... Comey says the FBI has been investigating Trump and his campaign's ties to Russia since July, but yet, there's no evidence to support Trump's claim that he was being wiretapped / surveiled right before the election? Is it just me or do those two statements directly contradict themselves?
Are we really expected to believe that an FBI investigation doesn't have a surveillance component to it?
Trump's allegations were proven true by Comey's statements. Feel free to show what I'm missing here....
One possible. Paul manafort was reported under investigation. He resigned or was fired from the campaign in August. Of course that is not investigating trump.
So, let me get this straight.... Comey says the FBI has been investigating Trump and his campaign's ties to Russia since July, but yet, there's no evidence to support Trump's claim that he was being wiretapped / surveiled right before the election? Is it just me or do those two statements directly contradict themselves?
Are we really expected to believe that an FBI investigation doesn't have a surveillance component to it?
Trump's allegations were proven true by Comey's statements. Feel free to show what I'm missing here....
You were prophetic.
It came out this afternoon, Trump WAS wiretapped.
All that remains now is to see how many were involved.
"what is not clear is why Trump fired him other than the lame excuse that he lied to Pence."
For most people lying to your BOSS is enough reason.
He knew about the lie weeks before. Why did he wait until it was published in WaPo?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
