Flynn Leaks: Susan Rice is Married to Ian Cameron, Former Executive Producer at ABC

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Breaking News: We aren't in a court. We aren't sentencing anyone to jail time. We are chronicling corruption.

There isn't and he wasn't.

The denial is strong with you.

Clearly if there was incidental collection, then an unmasking had to occur.

Why? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

Not even sure what the point of this is. If the unmasking was legal, then it doesn't matter who did it.

Two points;
Legal and ethical aren't joined at the hip.
It definitely matters who did it. If it's the intel agencies, at their discretion it's unlikely to be political. If it's Obama's #2, it's highly likely to be political.

Nixon resigned before he was impeached. Or did you forget that detail?

Show me the evidence that he ordered it.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors...

Indeed

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok, so by your standards, you believe nixon was innocent. LMFAO.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Boadicea
Fortunately for the unmaskers and disseminators and the publishers of that info, they have every opportunity to explain why what they did was legal and acceptable before congress... AND the court of public opinion.

Court of public opinion? Who the hell cares about that kangaroo court? I care about what the ACTUAL courts say.

As Hillary Clinton learned, some of those kangaroos vote.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Breaking News: We aren't in a court. We aren't sentencing anyone to jail time. We are chronicling corruption.

Breaking news. I don't care what you think you are doing. I won't abide by slander and confirmation bias laden accusations that don't have the evidence to back them up. I happen to deny ignorance and don't let my biases get the better of my imagination.

The denial is strong with you.

You are welcome to prove me wrong.

Why? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

Because we already know the incidental collection happened and that names were named. Hence the unmasking had to be a part of that process. Logic 101.

Two points;
Legal and ethical aren't joined at the hip.

I don't care about ethics here. That is just a distraction point.

It definitely matters who did it. If it's the intel agencies, at their discretion it's unlikely to be political. If it's Obama's #2, it's highly likely to be political.

This is why I don't care about ethics in this discussion, because your point is ridiculous and heavily partisan biased.

Show me the evidence that he ordered it.

Why do I have to do that? Nixon quit before the investigation could get to the point of implicating him.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why did Rice deny the surveillance and unmasking ever happened just a coupke of weeks ago in a media blitz and op-ed piece?

She knew this was coming out and was trying to get ahead of it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If there is incidental collection, who says that unmasking has to occur?
Bullsh*t
If there is incidental collection, the names have to be masked.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Boadicea
Fortunately for the unmaskers and disseminators and the publishers of that info, they have every opportunity to explain why what they did was legal and acceptable before congress... AND the court of public opinion.

Court of public opinion? Who the hell cares about that kangaroo court? I care about what the ACTUAL courts say.

As Hillary Clinton learned, some of those kangaroos vote.

Aye. 2 years later the Republicans are going to learn that the hard way if they keep siding with Trump over country.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why did Rice deny the surveillance and unmasking never happened just a coupke of weeks ago in a media blitz and op-ed piece?

I don't know. I'm not Rice's attorney, public speaker, or even Rice herself. How about asking her?

FYI: Bloomberg's Eli Lake (broke story on SR as unmasker) on Hannity radio show within minutes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Court of public opinion? Who the hell cares about that kangaroo court? I care about what the ACTUAL courts say.

I care about both. Given the widespread fed spying on judges, and the equally inappropriate contact with judges in ongoing federal cases, I won't ignore the very powerful role they play legitimately, but neither will I ignore the very powerful illegitimate role they may play.

Dismiss public opinion as a kangaroo court all you want, but I'm keeping in mind that the jury's verdict is also known as an election.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why did Rice deny the surveillance and unmasking never happened just a coupke of weeks ago in a media blitz and op-ed piece?

I don't know. I'm not Rice's attorney, public speaker, or even Rice herself. How about asking her?

I see.

So you are just the judge and jury who already decided she has done absokutely nothing illegal or unethical.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Dismiss public opinion as a kangaroo court all you want, but I'm keeping in mind that the jury's verdict is also known as an election.

I'd rather someone gets voted out of office over a partisan misunderstanding than goes to jail for something they didn't do.

From what I'm seeing here...the Left is in full panic/denial mode over this huge breaking story.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why did Rice deny the surveillance and unmasking never happened just a coupke of weeks ago in a media blitz and op-ed piece?

I don't know. I'm not Rice's attorney, public speaker, or even Rice herself. How about asking her?

I see.

So you are just the judge and jury who already decided she has done absokutely nothing illegal or unethical.

Where did I say that? You are putting words in my mouth. Here is my first post in the thread:

Scapegoat for what? There is no evidence that the unmasking was even illegal.

If you can produce that evidence then I'll change my tune.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
FYI: Bloomberg's Eli Lake (broke story on SR as unmasker) on Hannity radio show within minutes.

Cernovich broke the story.

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: IAMTAT
FYI: Bloomberg's Eli Lake (broke story on SR as unmasker) on Hannity radio show within minutes.

Cernovich broke the story.

Yeah. I saw his tweets.
Breitbart credits Lake, but I'll go with Cernovich.

Lake on Hannity right now.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First there was no evidence Trump was spied on.
Then there was no evidence that he was unmasked
Then there was no evidence that it wasn't because of 'muh Russia'
Then there was no evidence it was the Obama admin, just the intel community
Now there is no evidence that the unmasking was illegal

When will you guys stop with this?

There was never any evidence that Nixon ordered the watergate break-ins either.

I don't have to read past that. Thanks for exposing the fraudulent parallel Universe.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Boadicea
Fortunately for the unmaskers and disseminators and the publishers of that info, they have every opportunity to explain why what they did was legal and acceptable before congress... AND the court of public opinion.

Court of public opinion? Who the hell cares about that kangaroo court? I care about what the ACTUAL courts say.

As Hillary Clinton learned, some of those kangaroos vote.

Aye. 2 years later the Republicans are going to learn that the hard way if they keep siding with Trump over country.

Your trolling skills are commendable! We all know you don't believe the junk you post but can't help ourselves from taking the bait.

But bite I will, I want to understand your argument better.
What do you think it going to happen to the republicans and/or the country in two years?

Where do you think the Russian influence would lead if not for the brave democrats defending the country? You think America will turn Communist? Maybe start armed conflicts where we have no business or give Russia major stakes in our resources? Is it all an elaborate plan to devalue the USD? I just don't see the doom and gloom you are selling. Please help me understand what you are concerned with?