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

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

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

Can't exactly avoid it, since it's part of the accusations, depending on what slant someone goes with for arguing about it.

As best I can understand this stuff, if she ordered unmasking, and then info was given out to the media, that's not illegal leaking. Maybe an unfair advantage in terms of contacts & how soon, but not illegal.

a reply to: UKTruth

Really how so?

Sounds like a lot of political nonsense.

Nobody has a clue what is really going on except the actual investigators in the agencies.

Lots of asymmetrical political stunting.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Semantics. Requesting information to be unmasked so you can see who was saying what is most certainly surveillance. Spying in fact.
It is becoming clearer every day that the Trump team were spied on and Obama knew it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Unmasking is illegal. Obama's EO didn't make unmasking legal.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is just your wild conspiracy theory you are pitching like it is a proven fact.

Nope, I'm just noting the inside track, connection, and coincidences.

I recall you tell me earlier in the thread that I was wrong about there being no evidence to the unmasking being illegal angle.

At least you're admitting these are all just angles to you. But no, that's not what I said or meant. I pointed out how many times to goal posts keep moving and how every time you've been proven incorrect. That was the entire point of that post.

Are you dropping that point now as you realize I was right?

No, I'm dropping the argument because you're getting dull to argue with. A Russian bot could have a deeper argument than yours.

a reply to: Nyiah

Unmasking does not mean unclassified. Leaking classified information is a criminal act.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well that requires quality evidence to be brought forth.

Hence the House Intelligence Committee hearings.... Put up or shut up! Both for the allegations of Trump colluding with the Russians, AND for the allegations of spying on Trump. So everyone needs to get out of the way of finding and exposing that evidence to the bright light of day. Give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

I'm not going to play the stupid semantics game of whether he was "wiretapped" or "surveilled" or just caught up in "incidental collections." The way the game is played now, there is no need for targeted surveillance because everyone's data is collected automatically, and simply needs to be unmasked. Tomato--tomawto... it's all spying.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

Isn't the leaking of the information to the press where it gets into felony territory? I'm being sincere in this question.

Well the OP said Susan Rice unmasked the info not leaked it.

He mentioned this part: "Is it just a happy coincidence that the person who unmasked Flynn, is married to a former producer at the network that broke the story? "

a reply to: Boadicea

Want to investigate Trump? Make him testify in Congress under oath. Or capture Putin and make him testify in Congress under oath.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite

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

Of course.

They were terrified Trump might win.

He did...

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

Obama: "yes I spied on the president"

L: he said the president, not Donald Trump.

Obama: "yes I spied on Donald Trump"

L: he didn't say when, could've been 10 years ago

Obama: "yes I'm spying on Donald Trump right now"

L: no evidence that's the real Obama. Could be AI or hologram.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe I owe you an apology. When you say Trumps team was not under surveillance you actually mean it? I'm not talking about semantics, who ordered it, or if it was incidental or not. Do you think the leaked transcript of Flynn talking to the Russians was a complete fabrication by the press?

ETA: Also the doom and gloom stuff was in regard to your comment about the republican party working on behalf of Trump and not America. This insinuates that Trump is not for America. The president of America not being "for America" is pretty dystopic. To that, you still haven't answered the question of what America would look like if Trump was left unchecked.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Sad, but accurate (albeit extreme) portrayal of their arguments.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dfairlite

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

I suspect she had help from Obama.
She certainly did not have the authority to leak it to the press.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

Isn't the leaking of the information to the press where it gets into felony territory? I'm being sincere in this question.

Well the OP said Susan Rice unmasked the info not leaked it.

He mentioned this part: "Is it just a happy coincidence that the person who unmasked Flynn, is married to a former producer at the network that broke the story? "

The deep state treasonous liberals are slowly being drawn out like poison.
It does not surprise me that ties like one you speak of are brushed off, whilst the flimsiest link from a decade ago about Manafort is enough for the same people to call for Trump's impeachment.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Semantics. Requesting information to be unmasked so you can see who was saying what is most certainly surveillance. Spying in fact.
It is becoming clearer every day that the Trump team were spied on and Obama knew it.

At this point, anyone denying the surveillance is trolling.

Not really worth a response. They'd argue the earth is flat.

If it looks like poop, stinks like poop, feels like poop (ewww), by gosh, it's probably poop. It's hard for the left to understand the poop.

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Semantics. Requesting information to be unmasked so you can see who was saying what is most certainly surveillance. Spying in fact.
It is becoming clearer every day that the Trump team were spied on and Obama knew it.

At this point, anyone denying the surveillance is trolling.

Not really worth a response. They'd argue the earth is flat.

You're right.

Trump's tweet:

Obama was spying on him - check (his NSA was part of the Whitehouse staff)
Spying happened before the election - check
He was spied on in Trump Tower - TBD but it's pretty certain some of the conversations unmasked would have taken place there.

Trump was pretty much spot on.

a reply to: UKTruth

So you are 100 percent sure Trump and his administration have been surveilled without reason?

Research his crew. He has several Clinton level scum aboard the ship. Lots of profiteering to be done like his father before him.

a reply to: MysticPearl

you raise a good point. There seems to be a lot of selective memory going on with the rapid pace of development on stories like this one..

just curious, could you dig up any MSM articles corroborating what youre alleging? I dont disbelieve you, but it woudl be nice to see that for the sake of context and comparison.

On a separate note....has someone, anyone, assembled a timeline of the RussoTrump conspiracy? I would love to see a timeline with MSM citations showing when allegations and suspicions FIRST PUBLICLY surfaced and watch how they developed.

I have a strong suspicion and fear that thigns are going so fast ppl are forgetting how the narrative keeps shifting and changing in ways to make each side look as good as possible.