Hopefully Trump government is now survieling Obama

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: burntheships

Don't get me wrong, something rotten was afoot there.

True. And your point is very valid. What Rice was doing was
surveillance and investigating, in which neither were her job.

She was an Advisor, and if the FBI was not involved, there
was no way she would "just doing her job".

But, to weaponized the intelligence community and have THAT become the political norm is something I cannot, will not get behind.

Which, is essentially what Rice did, under Obama. Obama administration
did this with many different agencies, including the IRS.

Cant forget Eric Holder either.

But, if there were ever a pair that needed investigating,
it would be the Clintons and their very real collisions with Russia.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GuidedKill

You should read up about how unmasking actually works as well as what Rice did to request the unmasking, because you are wrong.

Time will tell.....I will concede that the reason behind her unmasking will be pivotal on the legality of her actions....However I believe that the frequency of her "unmasking" and it being the same target over and over will be her eventual down fall...Not to mention the illegal leaks. Someone is behind those too....and there are only a few people that would have had access to that info....

Including well known dishonest Mrs. Rice.....

a reply to: Xeven

As long as the left over trash from the Obama administration is still working within the spying agencies Obama still rules them.

The democrats in congress had made sure that Trump appointees are hold back for as long as they can so they still have power over the agencies.

Is been nothing but obstructionist the true colors of the Democrats leaders is now for everybody to see.

vicious, corrupted and dirty.

a reply to: Xeven
SS Wars

Starring Harrison Ford and Will Smith

I can see the movie headline now.

The Secret Service decides to uphold the sanctity of the office of The President of the United States and moves in to arrest Barak Obama.

Will Obama's personal SS men go rogue and try to stop it?

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GuidedKill

You should read up about how unmasking actually works as well as what Rice did to request the unmasking, because you are wrong.

Time will tell.....I will concede that the reason behind her unmasking will be pivotal on the legality of her actions....However I believe that the frequency of her "unmasking" and it being the same target over and over will be her eventual down fall...Not to mention the illegal leaks. Someone is behind those too....and there are only a few people that would have had access to that info....

Including well known dishonest Mrs. Rice.....

Frequency of unmasking? What are you talking about?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'll just leave this here for you to read....It's only about 60 pages...

Link

Basically what I am getting at is according to reports there are several incidents of "unmasking" if not more by Mrs. Rice. If just one of those "unmasking" incidents ended up have no "foreign intelligence" value then Mrs. Rice defense of "unmasking for national security" fall right out the window......

If you read my link you will see there are very limited reasons for "unmasking" a U.S. Citizen without warrant, FISA or emergency AG approval.
It even is very specific on what and who can do what with the intel gathered...

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'll just leave this hear for you to read....It's only about 60 pages...

www.dni.gov... .pdf

Link doesn't work.

Basically what I am getting at is according to reports there are several incidents of "unmasking" if not more by Mrs. Rice. If just one of those "unmasking" incidents ended up have no "foreign intelligence" value then Mrs. Rice defense of "unmasking for national security" fall right out the window......

If you read my link you will see there are very limited reasons for "unmasking" a U.S. Citizen without warrant of AG approval.

So basically you are declaring Rice guilty without knowing why she unmasked because of your biases. "She unmasked a bunch of people, and I can't think of any reason why that would be legal. Therefore she is guilty!"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Link fixed....

I'm not assuming anything about Mrs. Rice other than what I know about her.

A lying, dishonest, crooked, disgusting person with an agenda and no moral compass....A woman who would go on National TV over and over and bold face lie to the American public in her and her parties interest....

Are most politicians that way?? sure...

The signals statute clearly states what is legal and what is not and going off Mrs. Rice track history.....I am only ASSUMING she wasn't honest....and if she was dishonest on her reasons for unmasking then YES...it is illegal.....Period.

a reply to: GuidedKill

I'm not assuming anything about Mrs. Rice other than what I know about her.

Then you say this:

A lying, dishonest, crooked, disgusting person with an agenda and no moral compass....A woman who would go on National TV over and over and bold face lie to the American public in her and her parties interest....

RIIIIIIGHT.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That was the whole point my friend......I can only assume what I know.....And I know everything that I posted...

Are you saying she hasn't done or been accused of any of the things I posted about her???

Did she not lie on TV over and over? Did she not push her agenda knowing the whole time is was false? Does that not make her a crook or liar or dishonest?

a reply to: GuidedKill

I'm saying that we don't assume things without evidence. All you are doing is creating bias for yourself that will be harder to overcome if you turn out to be wrong.

Are you saying she hasn't done or been accused of any of the things I posted about her???

Yes. Most of the things the right is babbling on about Rice are made up and partisan attacks.

a reply to: GuidedKill

The signals statute clearly states

You did not provide a link to a statute.
You provided a link to a policies and procedures directive.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GuidedKill

I'm saying that we don't assume things without evidence. All you are doing is creating bias for yourself that will be harder to overcome if you turn out to be wrong.

I have evidence of her lying....Do you really need to see it again to affirm she is a liar?

Also I have no problem being wrong....It's called being an adult....Do you have a problem being wrong?

a reply to: Phage

Correct it's the directive....And?

a reply to: GuidedKill

I've seen that evidence. It isn't what you think it is, but if you want to show it. I don't care. Though it's amazing that something like a supposed lie will allow you to declare someone guilty but you refuse to see any wrong doing on Trump or his administration's part.

a reply to: GuidedKill
There is no "and."

You said it was "the statute." It isn't. It's a list of procedures and policies, not laws.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GuidedKill

I've seen that evidence. It isn't what you think it is, but if you want to show it. I don't care. Though it's amazing that something like a supposed lie will allow you to declare someone guilty but you refuse to see any wrong doing on Trump or his administration's part.

This isn't a thread about that....The OP was about hoping Trump was doing the same thing Obama did to him...

I merely said I hope not cause I don't want any administration Trump, Obama or anyone wielding the power of the Gov against their political foes or U.S. Citizens...Because it is unethical and can be illegal depending on the circumstances.....

Then we went into innocent until proven guilty about Mrs. Rice and I merely stated judging by her past record I wouldn't be surprised if it is true and was done unethically and illegally.....Depending on ones motives and the frequency and info behind the "unmasking" will determine that....But if it looks like sh*t, smells like sh*t.....it must be sh

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GuidedKill
There is no "and."

You said it was "the statute." It isn't. It's a list of procedures and policies, not laws.

Statute directives merely show or attempt to show how to interrupt the law.....Basically a road map on what the law implies...They are based off statutes and direct how to interrupt them...

Do you not agree?

a reply to: GuidedKill

I don't know what a "statute directive" is but I do know what policies and procedures are.

USSID SP0018 prescribes policies and procedures and assigns responsibilities...

While going against policy and procedure may result in disciplinary actions for those who do so, it is not the same thing as criminal activity.

a reply to: Phage

Statutory interpretation is at the cutting edge of legal scholarship and, now, legislative activity. As legislatures have increasingly begun to perceive judges as activist meddlers, some legislatures have found a creative solution to the perceived control problem: statutory directives. Statutory directives, simply put, tell judges how to interpret statutes. Rather than wait for an interpretation with which they disagree, legislatures use statutory directives to control judicial interpretation.

LINK

Just one article about "directives" and their use.