Out like Flynn - National Security Advisor countdown

[toomuchtime_]

But they can ask questions and what you and they want is to be able to claim the absence of facts to support Obama's Russia hoax is evidence it is true, and that's why you would prefer Flynn didn't have immunity.

Flynn was caught talking to the russians. If he talks, he has to admit ties between Trump and Putin. why would the democrats want to silence him?

Because there is no reason to believe anything he said to the Russian ambassador is evidence of any collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The Justice Department already knows what was said and saw nothing in it to justify any charges, so Democrats would prefer Flynn refuse to answer questions than tell the whole truth.

The basic issue we are dealing with here is that there are loads of speculations and accusations coming from Democrats, there is not one fact in evidence to support Obama's Russia hoax about collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

 

[Auld Phart]

Still waiting for the link proving those attorneys were fired for the reason you state.

.

You got a link with any proof that Obama "tapped" the Orange Anus ?

Have I made that claim?

(psst, When/IF I do, I'll provide a link)

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

(psst, When/IF I do, I'll provide a link)

Benghazi ?
NUNES WAS SUPPOSED TO PROBE COLLUSION. INSTEAD HE’S COMMITTING IT.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Nonsense. If they had evidence they would charge him.

In your own way, you've made a good point. Bill and Hillary Clinton for the last 35+ years have never been charged. Swallow that !!!!

You seem to be suggesting the Democrats' accusations bout Flynn are nonsense.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You seem to be suggesting the Democrats' accusations bout Flynn are nonsense.

False Equivalency
Big difference between 35 years of Right wing futility and this Flynn who has just been caught at it ...in the last several weeks

 

[Auld Phart]

(psst, When/IF I do, I'll provide a link)

Benghazi ?

What about it?

I believe Benghazi happened.

BUT...

Should I believe the version they told immediately after the attack, or the version they promoted a week later?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Should I believe the version they told immediately after the attack, or the version they promoted a week later?

Yeah Hillary was laughing heartlessly refusing to help the Ambassador and the Brave Americans because she was too busy with her pedophile porno operation in a Pizza shop....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Consciousness of Guilt derails Trump signing

Trump Skips Out On Signing Executive Orders After Reporter’s Question About Flynn

 

[Auld Phart]

pi

Should I believe the version they told immediately after the attack, or the version they promoted a week later?

Yeah Hillary was laughing heartlessly refusing to help the Ambassador and the Brave Americans because she was too busy with her pedophile porno operation in a Pizza shop....

piss poor effort at spin

come back when you're sober

 

[radical right]

and while you're finding that link, look up how many US attorneys were fired by Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and the reasons they were fired.

Maybe you should look up that the Obama and Clinton US attorneys were given 3-9 months before being replaced. They had time to finish pending investigations, or to even start new investigations. Trump had his fired US attorneys clean out their offices immediately.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

piss poor effort at spin

If you say so White man ...The Orange Anus is in deep shit LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

piss poor effort at spin

A Trump supporter should never ever use the word "Piss" .....it reminds us of Trump in Moscow dripping......

 

[toomuchtime_]

In other words, you are opposed to Republicans using intelligence services for political purposes but you see nothing wrong with Democrats doing it.

I'm against democrats doing it too. But there's no proof Obama did anything other than preserve legally gathered NSA intercepts. The leaks are a separate issue, since republicans have previously protected leaking of classified information.

"The Washington Post's Bob Woodward warned on Wednesday that there are people from the Obama administration who could be facing criminal charges for unmasking the names of Trump transition team members from surveillance of foreign officials.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said earlier that he had briefed Trump on new information, unrelated to an investigation into Russian activities, that suggested that several members of Trump's transition team and perhaps Trump himself had their identities "unmasked" after their communications were intercepted by U.S. intelligence officials.

The revelation is notable because identities of Americans are generally supposed to remain "masked" if American communications are swept up during surveillance of foreign individuals.


During an interview on Fox News, Woodward said that if that information about the unmasking is true, "it is a gross violation."

He said it isn't Trump's assertion, without proof, that his predecessor wiretapped Trump Tower that is of concern, but rather that intelligence officials named the Americans being discussed in intercepted communications.

"You can learn all kinds of things from diplomats gossiping, because that's what occurs. Under the rules, and they are pretty strict, it's called minimization. You don't name the American person who is being discussed," Woodward said.

He noted that there are about 20 people in the intelligence community who, for intelligence reasons, can order this "minimization" be removed.

"But the idea that there was intelligence value here is really thin," Woodward said. "It's, again, down the middle, it is not what Trump said, but this could be criminal on the part of people who decided, oh, let's name these people."


He drove the point home, adding that "under the rules, that name is supposed to be blanked out, and so you've got a real serious problem potentially of people in the Obama administration passing around this highly classified gossip."

Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme

Intentionally mishandling classified information is a federal felony that carries a sentence of up to five years in prison, and suborning such an act is also a federal felony, so as the Justice Department roots out the Obama moles still in government and begins to prosecute those who committed these criminal acts, we will have a chain of prosecutions that could potentially lead all the way back to Obama.

 

[Auld Phart]

piss poor effort at spin

A Trump supporter should never ever use the word "Piss" .....it reminds us of Trump in Moscow dripping......

it reminds us of Trump in Moscow dripping......

Something else from the imagination of partisan assholes

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Something else from the imagination of partisan assholes

and KGB recordings

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Nunes Dodges CA Crowd Calling For His Ouster

 

[Slade3200]

Start the countdown to Flynn testifying. The FBI won't give him immunity. and congress is afraid to give Flynn immunity.

Michael Flynn in 2016: Immunity 'means you probably committed a crime

Trump in 2016: 'If You're Not Guilty of a Crime, What Do You Need immunity for?

All of Clinton's top aides demanded immunity before agreeing to talk to the FBI and Obama's Justice Department was glad to give it to them, so why shouldn't Flynn be given immunity before testifying?

Is anybody saying that he shouldn't get immunity?

The post I was responding to said he wouldn't get immunity and suggested he shouldn't get it.

"Start the countdown to Flynn testifying. The FBI won't give him immunity. and congress is afraid to give Flynn immunity."

I think the poster you were responding to was implying that Flynn was guilty of crimes and thats why the FBI and Congress don't want to grant him immunity.

Nonsense. If they had evidence they would charge him.

They certainly have enough circumstantial evidence to justify months of investigation. Some may think it's a matter of time until something sticks. Unless the whole thing is a complete waste of time and total witch hunt as the Trumpsters are trying to say

 

[radical right]

Because there is no reason to believe anything he said to the Russian ambassador is evidence of any collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The Justice Department already knows what was said and saw nothing in it to justify any charges,

The same justice department that the AG was caught lying to congress, and had to recuse himself?

Lack of justice department action is a long way from proof of innocence, because of the cloud they're under of being guilty of the same accusations.

 

[toomuchtime_]

All of Clinton's top aides demanded immunity before agreeing to talk to the FBI and Obama's Justice Department was glad to give it to them, so why shouldn't Flynn be given immunity before testifying?

Is anybody saying that he shouldn't get immunity?

The post I was responding to said he wouldn't get immunity and suggested he shouldn't get it.

"Start the countdown to Flynn testifying. The FBI won't give him immunity. and congress is afraid to give Flynn immunity."

I think the poster you were responding to was implying that Flynn was guilty of crimes and thats why the FBI and Congress don't want to grant him immunity.

Nonsense. If they had evidence they would charge him.

They certainly have enough circumstantial evidence to justify months of investigation. Some may think it's a matter of time until something sticks. Unless the whole thing is a complete waste of time and total witch hunt as the Trumpsters are trying to say

To date, there is not one fact in evidence that supports any part of Obama's Russia hoax including claims that Russia influenced the election or that there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. In fact, there is not even one piece of hard evidence made public that the Russian government even hacked the DNC.

Based on facts in evidence, the only rational conclusion is that the Obama administration invented this whole Russia hoax to try to influence the election in Clinton's favor.

 

[radical right]

They certainly have enough circumstantial evidence to justify months of investigation. Some may think it's a matter of time until something sticks. Unless the whole thing is a complete waste of time and total witch hunt as the Trumpsters are trying to say

Benghazi, there was enough evidence in republicans minds to justify 8 seperate congressional investigations. Their bar keeps changing height.