Any one who doesthat will not tell anyone other than Trump. Some people are much more proficient liars than Sessions is. And he got confirmed despite warning signs.
1 Like
Iām sick of standing up for American values, the law the constitution and reality and rationality. Iāve been doing it all fucking day and people just pop continually to argue that itās all over.
No it is not - but go ahead and play that game - get everyone agitated for no fucking reason like this was an Alex Jones thread.
Iām worn out trying to be reasonable - no one is invulnerable for the love of god.
2 Likes
Look. āLast post 2 hours ago Joined 2 hours agoā¦ā
@squirreltown, @antisachetdethe. Your turn. Fire awayā¦
2 Likes
Joined June 30. I and several others have hade conversations with them. Definitely not our puppet.
No, not @kenga (with whom Iāve had good conversations too), Iām talking about the one kenga replied to.
(as we speak thereās another one popping up in another thread).
1 Like
I didnāt know that I HAD presumed Rice was the one who made any unmaskings public.
My point was simply that Burr seems to have put the cart before the horse. I think the declaration that this was all simply some figment of Nunesās imagination should at least wait til after some actual investigation into the matter is done.
Yes, time and date of joining is always proof of sinister intentions.
Nope, not just that. That, plus the contents and tone of the posts.
1 Like
Please tell me I havenāt joined another echo chamber like those at Slate or New York Magazine. Iād heard good things about this place.
We have a better chance of winning if we look at all the things that can go wrong before they happen.
The election of Trump is something out of a fever swamp in the first place.
1 Like
Burr didnāt claim it was a figment of Nunes imagination. He claimed Nunes had been engaged in,
ācreating a false narrative about Obama administration national security adviser Susan Rice.ā
That is not the same thing.
When you write, "sounds like Rice got off unnecessarily easyā, you are presuming the National Security Advisor did something(in this case unmasking US person(in the USA, important FISA detail)) that was a party to a communication intercepted under a FISA warrant) wrong/improper/illegal.
As I stated earlier, Riceās JOB was to review things like signals intelligence for threats to āNational Securityā, especially if that intelligence had been kicked up the chain until it landed on the desk of a Senate-confirmed White House Advisor to the President of the United States. In this case, we know that she undertook the legal steps to find out who the US person was that was involved in the intercepted communication that was deemed concerning enough to send to the National Security Advisor - that step being requesting a FISC judge to approve unmasking per the law(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.) That judge approved the request.
Stepping back - recall that Devin Nunes has been recused from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence(of which he is the CHAIR) in all matters regarding investigation into Russiaās involvement in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign.
WHY? Perhaps because he is believed to be a party to the matters being investigated?
If that were the case - would he have any incentive to try to distract/deflect/obfuscate?
1 Like
So Burr claimed Nunes was making stuff up. How are we disagreeing here?
I took no issue with Riceās job description as youāve described, so why you need to repeat this is beyond me. My issue is with Burr seemingly pronouncing the verdict before the trial even begins. How does he know thereās a āfalse narrativeā until he investigates the matter? That kind of loaded language only undermines the credibility of the proceedings.
So Rice looked into matters lawfully, again, no argument. The question is, was that unmasking-gleaned information then used for other purposes besides SIGINT reviews, for example to gain a privileged look into the thoughts and workings of the Trump campaign?
Also youāre missing a key point: itās not just Rice they want to question about this. Thereās a total now of six Obama administration people who are persons of interest in this matter. One of them is the ex-ambassador to the U.N. What on earth would she have been doing getting involved with unmaskings or SIGINT? So thereās a lot of curious things to digest here, going beyond just Rice, and diminishing things like Burr did is frankly unwarranted.
We DONāT know that that this is all based on some ānarrativeā Nunes created, at least not until we look into the matter further. But Burrās statement frankly reduces my confidence that this matter is being taken as seriously as it ought to be. And look ā considering that Rice is coming in amidst rumors of abuses ā whether founded or not ā would make this matter not being investigated properly a real plus for her. Itād be as if Trump Jr. walked into his hearing and the committee chairman announced, āwell before we get to questioning, let me state what a crock I think this whole Russian narrative is.ā You donāt think heād breathe a bit easier?
If Nunes did ādeflectā or āobfuscateā a proper investigation would reveal that. But letās make sure we have a proper investigation. Frankly, I find Burrās comment shocking ā and irresponsible ā coming from the leader of the proceedings. Heās announced his bias in advance.
Burr claimed Nunes was lying. Left it to us and the press to ask āWhy?ā
If youāve no issue with Riceās job description, how can you continue to suggest she did something wrong?
Burr would know because as Chair of Senate Intelligence Cmtee, he has seen the transcripts, and heard closed-session testimony. The investigation has been ongoing for more than a year - the House and Senate only picked it up in the last 6 months and have been given info and testimony from intelligence and criminal justice agencies.
How does reviewing SIGINT of Russians provide a privileged look into the Trump campaign?
Or perhaps he knows what the conclusions of the investigations are because some of them are completed.
He is shooting down false narratives that have been launched to created outrage when people start getting arrested - I mean, we had a guy shoot up a pizza parlor because he got conned into believing Hillary was running a child sex-trafficking ring therein. Nunes has been pushing āsilent coupā nonsense along with the rest of the āDeep State is after our freedom!ā traffickers.
Yeah I know all about Pizzagate, itās a ridiculous comparison. I could do the same with the whole Russian narrative if I wanted to, considering how many of these āRussian hackingā stories have been proven false and have had to be retracted. I could easily argue itās mostly a bunch of unevidenced tinfoil hat stuff pushed by the āliberal mediaā to the āsheep.ā
If Burr believes Nunes is lying, fine, but making that PUBLIC only hurts the investigation. Heās announcing that to the press for a reason, a reason I canāt fathom. Sounds more like a political or personal squabble than anything else.
Whatās more, as I said originally, Burr contradicted himself: first he said this was all innocent, then he turned around and admitted something improper or even illegal was going on by saying:
āSome of that became public which itās not supposed to, and our business is to understand that, and explain it.ā
The leaking is an abuse right there. So something IS wrong here, and it ties in to my point. Itās what happened AFTER the unmaskings were done that may have involved something improper or illegal. Nobodyās questioned that the legality of the unmaskings, thatās not the point. And as for this question of yours, are you serious?
āHow does reviewing SIGINT of Russians provide a privileged look into the Trump campaign?ā
OBVIOUSLY if that intel involves private conversations with Trump campaign members, then who knows what they might discover. Imagine if the Trump people had access to private conversations between Clinton campaign people, all kinds of strategic info could be divulged. Itās like having them bugged, for free. Theyād kill for that kind of insight. As would any campaign.
And I notice you blew past my salient point here: actually this unmasking investigation isnāt just about Rice anymore. Iād still like to know why they want to question the U.N. ambassador in regards to this. Have any ideas as to why? Thatās very strange, to say the least. So as much as youāre trying to claim ānothing to see here,ā Iām afraid there is. All I ask is a fair, unbiased investigation, a belief in which doesnāt come from hearing the Senate Intel Chair trash things from the beginning.
In all honesty, Iāve never been good at deception (no poker face at all when it comes to anything beyond cards.) And Iām not much of a chess player.
In my naivety, I have thought ācorporateā broadcasting (or any corporate entity) (and for that matter political parties), would be solely driven by greed/power, but never to the point of betraying country. (Silly me, corporations with loyalties to countries!) I guess I viewed Fox/Murdoch in that way. And I was always concerned about Clear Channel.
Of course Putin couldnāt take over the media in the West the same way he did in Russia, but he obviously could and would buy interests if the West was willing.
Itās interesting how we establish limits, and even norms, on levels of corruption and evil. And even after I think I have been able to start looking at things in different ways, I surprise myself that I am still so limited in the ways I can view things.
Slightly OT, I have been watching the tweets of Schindler - Mensch - Taylor - Garland with hope and some skepticism. (They were the only things that were keeping me sane back in Feb/March when there was no information out there; I could believe that at least SOMETHING was being done to try to stop this madness.) But members of the MSM were comparing them to Breitbart, Jones et. al.
So it was interesting, on July 21 Eric Garland retweeted a tweet by JoshTPM with his own comment:
Garland: āLooks like someone got briefed.ā
JoshTPM tweet: āCould it be worse than you can imagine? Yes, it definitely could.ā
So now we just have to figure out if our imaginations are in the same realm.
And now, my tinfoil is only going to be used for barbeque.
2 Likes
Oh geez, Louise Mensch? Really? And to think the other poster was ridiculing Pizzagate.
Please donāt tell me you put any stock in anything wacky Louise says.
How so?
Do you deny someone was misled by outrageous false claims into carrying a rifle into a pizza shop and firing it?
Do you think itās ridiculous to suggest there may be other people whoāve been similarly misled, and some of them could be incited to commit violent acts?
And - if the investigation has already concluded - does it still hurt it, to counter disinformation that could incite violent acts by misled people?
Keep in mind that that Republican Senate Intel Chair has NOT had to recuse himself from the āRussia investigationā.
Nunes has, yet he is the one who issued those subpoenas - not the entire House Intel Committee, regarding hearings he isnāt supposed to be participating in. And he is under investigation by his own House Ethics Committee for leaking.
That, I can provide an answer to.
Because Devin Nunes went to the White House to look at the logs of who had requested unmasking of US parties surveilled in communication intercepts - which weāve established is lawful - and leaked them.
1 Like
Itās a ridiculous comparison, because Pizzagate has nothing to do with Riceās case. Itās simply a rather cheesy attempt on your part to undercut and discredit the unmaskings investigation, by associating it with something out of InfoWars.
And yeah I do realize there are people whoāve been misled and incited into commiting violent acts. The better comparison is the guy who shot Scalise who was all amped up on Rachel Maddow conspiracy theories. Or, as I told the other poster, taking anything that wacky Louise Mensch (aka the āAlex Jones of liberalsā) says seriously. Talk about inciting anger, Louise has pretty much declared open season on Trump and his people, convicting them of treason and declaring they deserve the gallows.
What āviolenceā are you talking about that could come out of conducting an unbiased investigation into these unmaskings? Youāre making no sense here. Weāre talking about possible violations of Fourth Amendment rights. Every citizen should be concerned, of course youāre not for obvious partisan reasons.
And I have no idea how youāre answering my question about the ambassador here. Are you saying she requested unmaskings herself? If so thatās simply bizarre. What business does a UN Ambassador have rooting around in this woodpile?
As for Burr, heās doing the equivalent of Don Lemon on CNN, declaring that the Rice unmaskings case is some smokescreen not worthy of his commenting on. But Donās just a talking head, he has no say, while Burr is supposedly leading an investigation. Thatās simply shameful.
Also you blew past the fact that BURR CONTRADICTED HIS OWN STATEMENT that this was all innocent by pointing out the leaks and admitting something WAS done wrong here.
And for the last time, I donāt claim Rice requesting unmaskings is illegal. But the leaking of them ISNāT. Thatās not her place. Thatās sensitive even classified intel, which could be a crime. The more I read you, the more I realize youāre more interested in carrying water for the Obama administration than you are finding out the facts.
No, I am pointing out that bullshit stories can create a threat to public safety, and that Burr is trying to let the air out of one that Nunes has been pushing. One which Trump has also been pushing.
If you canāt grasp that, or the risks, thereās no point in trying further.
Where do you get 4th Amendment from? Unmasking is a process - a due process - governed by law and overseen by a judge. Unmasking is legal. Ergo, not a 4th Amendment issue.
You just made a gigantic leap that is wholly unjustified.
My answer regarding Nunes subpoena of Powerās testimony was pretty straightforward.
Nunes bypassed normal channels, mucked around in the White House with a staffer who was later told to have nothing further to do with anything related to unmasking, and unilaterally issued subpoenas without consulting the rest of the committee - in a matter he was supposed to be recused from.
Power was previously on National Security Council, and as UN Ambassador, was US Rep to UN Security Council. And as such, needed to be briefed on many intelligence matters.
Why she would have made a request to have someone unmasked, I donāt know.
I also donāt know that it was not during her tenure on National Security Council.
Weāll have to wait for her testimony, I guess.
Burr made those statements AFTER receiving Riceās testimony in closed session.
A smokescreen not worth commenting on?
Why did he comment, specifically that Nunes had been making shit up?
Why do you dismiss his statements, yet give credence to Nunesā? Nunes, who has had to recuse himself, but continues to interject and interfere with the investigation.
And why do you accuse Susan Rice of leaking?
Nunes is the one under investigation by his own Ethics Committee for doing so.
Burr, who had just finished questioning Rice, seems to think she had nothing to do with it.
He did say leaking was a problem(and is as you point out, possibly criminal).
But the only person he pointed any fingers at was Nunes - a fellow Republican.
1 Like
-
The ābullshit stories that can create a threat to public safetyā have come out of MSNBC, as evidenced by an actual act of violence committed by a liberal: the Scalise shooting and rampage. An inconvenient fact you apparently donāt want to face.
-
If any of the unmaskings WERE handled improperly, or used later for improper purposes, then most certainly there are 4th Amendment issues involved here.
-
Power was not part of NSC or DOJ at the time, itās odd to say the least sheād be involved. Something doesnāt quite smell right there.
-
I made no judgment re: Nunesās credibility, you injected that whole idea yourself.
-
If Nunes had ever made the same kind of comment as Burr, Iād have called for Nunes to recuse himself from his own post immediately.
-
The fact both men are Republicans is irrelevant. Like I said, this sounds more like an intra-party squabble than anything else.
-
And again, Burr contradicted his own statement, admitting there WAS something improper going on here.
Iām interested in finding the truth. Youāre obviously interested in defending your party. Thatās why I keep winning here.