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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

So you believe Nixon was innocent?

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

Really? It's a stretch in your mind to say that the president and his aides are much more partisan than staffers (even high level ones) at intel agencies?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Keep hoping.

There's a reason trump won, and the left has done nothing to prove they're worthy of any sort of political power since his election.

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: American politics and the IC are both corrupt AF anyway, that is not new news. Get back to us when there is a definitive violation of law, not just strong speak from someone pissy about legal unmasking being done.

originally posted by: Templeton
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.

Thanks for the ad hominem. I appreciate being insulted in non-political madness threads... /sarc

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?

It's hard to say right now. They recently buckled under public pressure to rebuke Trump on healthcare so that probably saved the public's confidence in them temporarily, but it is a long time between now and Nov 2018. Plenty of legislative battles to fight still.

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?

Doom and gloom? What are you talking about? I'm not pitching any doom and gloom. I'm being skeptical of the OP claiming that this is some major bombshell reveal against the Obama admin. I'm currently reserving judgement on the Trump investigation until the investigation wraps up or more definitive information is released to the public. So your narrative of doom and gloom is a misreading of my words or you just invented a strawman about me.

a reply to: Nyiah

The leaking was illegal. If you'll notice, in my OP it talks about how susan rice (the unmasker) has an inside track with the media (whom the story was leaked to).

Remember when the lefties shouted anyone down for suggesting Trump and his team were even surveilled? We're well beyond that now, where not only Trump and his team were surveilled, but that they were surveilled well outside any dealings/conversations with foreigners/Russia and on top of it, names were unmasked and then leaked to media outlets. That suggests pure political purposes for this.

And those same lefties are still in extreme denial. Just shifting, dodging, deflecting. All they do when proven wrong is fabricate yet another argument to rail against.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Nyiah

The leaking was illegal. If you'll notice, in my OP it talks about how susan rice (the unmasker) has an inside track with the media (whom the story was leaked to).

How was the unmasking illegal then? A blow by blow, step by step detailing of thought and action processes up against the law itself would be quite nice. As of right now, without any kind of definitive proof, you're jumping the gun.

You wouldn't make a very good lawyer.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Really? It's a stretch in your mind to say that the president and his aides are much more partisan than staffers (even high level ones) at intel agencies?

It is legally. I don't care about your opinion on the matter. I care about what can be definitively proven. Your opinion on ethics or partisanship isn't evidence the masking was illegal.

a reply to: MysticPearl

Trump or his team wasn't survailed. Incidental collection isn't a case of surveillance being ordered against Trump or more importantly a wiretap against him (Trump's ACTUAL original claim). Though I find it humorous that you are accusing liberals of moving the goal posts back after supporting Trump's original goal post relocation with the surveillance angle.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

That makes two of us.

Even more, I'd like to see the innocent exonerated and the guilty brought to justice.

Worth 20,000,000 votes for Trump in 2020.

So does this somehow mean trump hasn't hired a bunch of unethical morons to run things who have loads of cinflictof interest?

So all this breaking news about rice was found in database entries?

The woman requested other Intel agencies to unmask the Trump associates?

Is there anything illegal about that?

For the record. The unmasking of people like flynn is not an issue because of privacy issues. The man is already guilty of ethics violations and possibly legal violations. The unmasking is a problem in this case because the investigation is being exposed and that hurts the process.

It's amazing how trump has turned this into a privacy issue.

It won't work long term but he is probably hoping for a bigger wag the dog down the road.

I not a fan of Obama or the dems but this is clearly deflection.

In the case of Flynn getting leaked, the sue is actually the FBI lost a couple term Intel source.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This thread isn't about the unmasking or legality of it. It's about a politician who unmasked possibly sharing info with a news network.

So then, it was Obama spying on Trump after all, unless one actually thinks Rice acted alone. This is squarely at the doors of the Whitehouse now.

This news comes hot on the heels of Senator Grassley demanding answers to specific questions as to the role Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe played in the surveillance on Trump and his campaign.

Sen. Charles Grassley, in a March 28 letter, told FBI Director James Comey to produce the information on McCabe, including any requests by the deputy director for surveillance on Trump’s campaign and if he played a role in the FBI’s plan to pay the author of the now-discredited but much-reported-0n “Trump Dossier”. The Iowa Republican said he is also looking at McCabe’s deep ties to the Clinton family and their longtime friend, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, LifeZette reported on April 2. McAuliffe helped arrange $700,000 in donations to McCabe’s wife for a state Senate run, according to the Washington Examiner. Grassley told Comey to provide the information on McCabe to the Judiciary Committee by April 11.

www.worldtribune.com... am/

I can hear the sound of scurrying rats...

a reply to: Dfairlite

Did Rice even have the authority to ask for an unmasking of names as a National Security Adviser?

a reply to: luthier

Speaking of deflection... This thread isn't about the unmasking.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This thread isn't about the unmasking or legality of it. It's about a politician who unmasked possibly sharing info with a news network.

The leaking of the Flynn discussion is still the only crime we know about, but some only want to talk about wild speculation as opposed the actual cime on the table. If it is Rice who is responsible then she is a big fish to make an example of and I suspect she will be made an example of too if she is guilty - I think 10 years in jail is the maximum (though maybe more as Bradley Manning got 35 years)

originally posted by: Boadicea
Even more, I'd like to see the innocent exonerated and the guilty brought to justice.

Well that requires quality evidence to be brought forth. Not just partisan opinions plastered on a partisan news network. Liberal or conservative.

There is a reason the word under my username says "Skeptical". I don't buy into things just because everyone says so.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Really, what is the thread about the title appears to be about Rice unmasking Flynn to her husband and leaking names to the press.

For all you know trump has leaked every name to the press. It all benifits him.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This thread isn't about the unmasking or legality of it. It's about a politician who unmasked possibly sharing info with a news network.

Oh so you have evidence that not only did Rice unmask she also leaked to the press? Oh wait no. That is just your wild conspiracy theory you are pitching like it is a proven fact.

But at the same time I recall you tell me earlier in the thread that I was wrong about there being no evidence to the unmasking being illegal angle. I welcomed you to prove me wrong. Are you dropping that point now as you realize I was right?