Sally Yates testifies tomorrow and the alt right is running for cover

[Syriusly]

What?
Going down for what?
She's already testified that she obtained that information through the FBI investigation of Flynn. She was asked multiple times if she ever requested unmasking. She responded, no.

When some one is unmasked only the person who requested it is given the name, so either she requested it or she knows who did, and passing that piece of classified information is a crime, so if she is not lying to Congress about requesting it, she knows who did and by not reporting them, she is complicit in their crime.

No, she just testified that she NEVER requested for anyone's name to be unmasked, let alone Flynn's.

If she is not lying, then she knows who did and that person committed a crime by giving the information to her; either way she committed a crime.

And what crime is that?

It is no crime to unmask someone as long as it is done through the proper chain of command.

It is a crime to release the information.

So if she didn't request it, as she claimed, then the person who passed the information to her committed a crime and she had a legal responsibility to report it. Saying she committed no crime is like saying you did nothing wrong by receiving stolen goods because you didn't steal them.

????
No- Sally Yates had the legal right to the information. And there is no indication that the names were illegally unmasked- so she had nothing to report- except that Michael Flynn lied to the President.

 

[Syriusly]

Watching Sally Yates makes me realize just how partisan Obama made DoJ. Holder. Lynch. Yates.

Indeed, the damage Obama did to the DoJ and the intelligence services will require a deep and extended effort to clean up.

Yeah- Trump will have to spend a lot of time purging the DOJ and intelligence services of anyone who is not personally loyal to Trump- and will be willing to lie for him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The US and the Russian intel agencies apparently were both taping the meetings.

Flynn lied to Pence, Yates told the WH three times, she got fired, nothing was done about Flynn, eighteen days later the news stories ran, and Flynn was fired.

 

[Rustic]

She knows the who, what, when, and where of the Flynns, et al, but the Trumpkins would not listen.

Now the world gets to listen.

Sally Yates to testify at May 8 Senate hearing "Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates is set to testify May 8 before a Senate judiciary investigation into Russia's interference in last year's elections, her second congressional hearing at which she's scheduled to testify within the span of a week. "

Mod Edit -- No links to other message forums. JakeStarkey
Sally Yates Testimony to Shine Public Light on Russia Probes "Monday testimony from Sally Yates, former acting attorney general, is expected to be a compelling public moment in the so-far largely secretive investigations "

She got her ass beat…

 

[JakeStarkey]

The US and the Russian intel agencies apparently were both taping the meetings.

Flynn lied to Pence, Yates told the WH three times, she got fired, nothing was done about Flynn, eighteen days later the news stories ran, and Flynn was fired.

Don't cover this up, Trump. Do you own investigation, fire everyone who was involved with the Russians, give them pardons, and move the fuck on.

Do I expect him to do the smart thing?

No, I expect him to destroy himself.

 

[toomuchtime_]

When some one is unmasked only the person who requested it is given the name, so either she requested it or she knows who did, and passing that piece of classified information is a crime, so if she is not lying to Congress about requesting it, she knows who did and by not reporting them, she is complicit in their crime.

No, she just testified that she NEVER requested for anyone's name to be unmasked, let alone Flynn's.

If she is not lying, then she knows who did and that person committed a crime by giving the information to her; either way she committed a crime.

And what crime is that?

It is no crime to unmask someone as long as it is done through the proper chain of command.

It is a crime to release the information.

So if she didn't request it, as she claimed, then the person who passed the information to her committed a crime and she had a legal responsibility to report it. Saying she committed no crime is like saying you did nothing wrong by receiving stolen goods because you didn't steal them.

????
No- Sally Yates had the legal right to the information. And there is no indication that the names were illegally unmasked- so she had nothing to report- except that Michael Flynn lied to the President.

Only the person who requested Flynn be unmasked had a right to the information so she had no right to it unless she had requested it, so either she lied to Congress about requesting it or she knew the person who gave her the information had committed a crime by giving it to her.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The US and the Russian intel agencies apparently were both taping the meetings.

Flynn lied to Pence, Yates told the WH three times, she got fired, nothing was done about Flynn, eighteen days later the news stories ran, and Flynn was fired.

Flynn lied to Pence and for that he was fired, but there is no evidence that he presented a security risk to the US. The people in Obama's DoJ and intelligence services like Yates who misused classified information for political purposes do represent a security threat to the US.

 

[Syriusly]

No, she just testified that she NEVER requested for anyone's name to be unmasked, let alone Flynn's.

If she is not lying, then she knows who did and that person committed a crime by giving the information to her; either way she committed a crime.

And what crime is that?

It is no crime to unmask someone as long as it is done through the proper chain of command.

It is a crime to release the information.

So if she didn't request it, as she claimed, then the person who passed the information to her committed a crime and she had a legal responsibility to report it. Saying she committed no crime is like saying you did nothing wrong by receiving stolen goods because you didn't steal them.

????
No- Sally Yates had the legal right to the information. And there is no indication that the names were illegally unmasked- so she had nothing to report- except that Michael Flynn lied to the President.

Only the person who requested Flynn be unmasked had a right to the information so she had no right to it unless she had requested it, so either she lied to Congress about requesting it or she knew the person who gave her the information had committed a crime by giving it to her.

Or you could just be pulling crap out of your ass. Oh wait you are.

So far from what we have seen
Yates had every legal right to the information
She denies leaking it
and still Michael Flynn lied to the President- and she advised the President's staff accordingly.

Of course you are trying to make this about Yates- and not Flynn.

 

[Syriusly]

The US and the Russian intel agencies apparently were both taping the meetings.

Flynn lied to Pence, Yates told the WH three times, she got fired, nothing was done about Flynn, eighteen days later the news stories ran, and Flynn was fired.

Flynn lied to Pence and for that he was fired, but there is no evidence that he presented a security risk to the US. The people in Obama's DoJ and intelligence services like Yates who misused classified information for political purposes do represent a security threat to the US.

Flynn lied to Pence- and we do not yet have any evidence that he broke the law.

However Flynn has demanded immunity from prosecution before he will testify.

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

And Flynn himself said in 2016

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

 

[toomuchtime_]

If she is not lying, then she knows who did and that person committed a crime by giving the information to her; either way she committed a crime.

And what crime is that?

It is no crime to unmask someone as long as it is done through the proper chain of command.

It is a crime to release the information.

So if she didn't request it, as she claimed, then the person who passed the information to her committed a crime and she had a legal responsibility to report it. Saying she committed no crime is like saying you did nothing wrong by receiving stolen goods because you didn't steal them.

????
No- Sally Yates had the legal right to the information. And there is no indication that the names were illegally unmasked- so she had nothing to report- except that Michael Flynn lied to the President.

Only the person who requested Flynn be unmasked had a right to the information so she had no right to it unless she had requested it, so either she lied to Congress about requesting it or she knew the person who gave her the information had committed a crime by giving it to her.

Or you could just be pulling crap out of your ass. Oh wait you are.

So far from what we have seen
Yates had every legal right to the information
She denies leaking it
and still Michael Flynn lied to the President- and she advised the President's staff accordingly.

Of course you are trying to make this about Yates- and not Flynn.

Flynn lied to Pence and was fired for it, but Yates misused classified information for political purposes and has no yet been indicted for it.

 

[Syriusly]

And what crime is that?

It is no crime to unmask someone as long as it is done through the proper chain of command.

It is a crime to release the information.

So if she didn't request it, as she claimed, then the person who passed the information to her committed a crime and she had a legal responsibility to report it. Saying she committed no crime is like saying you did nothing wrong by receiving stolen goods because you didn't steal them.

????
No- Sally Yates had the legal right to the information. And there is no indication that the names were illegally unmasked- so she had nothing to report- except that Michael Flynn lied to the President.

Only the person who requested Flynn be unmasked had a right to the information so she had no right to it unless she had requested it, so either she lied to Congress about requesting it or she knew the person who gave her the information had committed a crime by giving it to her.

Or you could just be pulling crap out of your ass. Oh wait you are.

So far from what we have seen
Yates had every legal right to the information
She denies leaking it
and still Michael Flynn lied to the President- and she advised the President's staff accordingly.

Of course you are trying to make this about Yates- and not Flynn.

Flynn lied to Pence and was fired for it, but Yates misused classified information for political purposes and has no yet been indicted for it.

Flynn lied to Pence- and we do not yet have any evidence that he broke the law.
Nor is there ANY evidence that Yates misused any classified information- she correctly reported it to the administration

However Flynn has demanded immunity from prosecution before he will testify.

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

And Flynn himself said in 2016

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

 

[toomuchtime_]

The US and the Russian intel agencies apparently were both taping the meetings.

Flynn lied to Pence, Yates told the WH three times, she got fired, nothing was done about Flynn, eighteen days later the news stories ran, and Flynn was fired.

Flynn lied to Pence and for that he was fired, but there is no evidence that he presented a security risk to the US. The people in Obama's DoJ and intelligence services like Yates who misused classified information for political purposes do represent a security threat to the US.

Flynn lied to Pence- and we do not yet have any evidence that he broke the law.

However Flynn has demanded immunity from prosecution before he will testify.

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

And Flynn himself said in 2016

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

Flynn may have broken the law and if he did, it is clear he will be prosecuted for it. However, there is no evidence that anything he did represented a security risk to the US.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She knows the who, what, when, and where of the Flynns, et al, but the Trumpkins would not listen.

Now the world gets to listen.

Sally Yates to testify at May 8 Senate hearing "Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates is set to testify May 8 before a Senate judiciary investigation into Russia's interference in last year's elections, her second congressional hearing at which she's scheduled to testify within the span of a week. "

Mod Edit -- No links to other message forums. JakeStarkey
Sally Yates Testimony to Shine Public Light on Russia Probes "Monday testimony from Sally Yates, former acting attorney general, is expected to be a compelling public moment in the so-far largely secretive investigations "

She got her ass beat…

No, you and all who were hoping for the reverse, got your asses handed to you on a platter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The US and the Russian intel agencies apparently were both taping the meetings.

Flynn lied to Pence, Yates told the WH three times, she got fired, nothing was done about Flynn, eighteen days later the news stories ran, and Flynn was fired.

Flynn lied to Pence and for that he was fired, but there is no evidence that he presented a security risk to the US. The people in Obama's DoJ and intelligence services like Yates who misused classified information for political purposes do represent a security threat to the US.

Flynn lied to Pence- and we do not yet have any evidence that he broke the law.

However Flynn has demanded immunity from prosecution before he will testify.

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

And Flynn himself said in 2016

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

Flynn may have broken the law and if he did, it is clear he will be prosecuted for it. However, there is no evidence that anything he did represented a security risk to the US.

From what we know at the moment, yes, you are right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And what crime is that?

It is no crime to unmask someone as long as it is done through the proper chain of command.

It is a crime to release the information.

So if she didn't request it, as she claimed, then the person who passed the information to her committed a crime and she had a legal responsibility to report it. Saying she committed no crime is like saying you did nothing wrong by receiving stolen goods because you didn't steal them.

????
No- Sally Yates had the legal right to the information. And there is no indication that the names were illegally unmasked- so she had nothing to report- except that Michael Flynn lied to the President.

Only the person who requested Flynn be unmasked had a right to the information so she had no right to it unless she had requested it, so either she lied to Congress about requesting it or she knew the person who gave her the information had committed a crime by giving it to her.

Or you could just be pulling crap out of your ass. Oh wait you are.

So far from what we have seen
Yates had every legal right to the information
She denies leaking it
and still Michael Flynn lied to the President- and she advised the President's staff accordingly.

Of course you are trying to make this about Yates- and not Flynn.

Flynn lied to Pence and was fired for it, but Yates misused classified information for political purposes and has no yet been indicted for it.

Yes but no and still no. Get all your facts right.

 

[toomuchtime_]

She knows the who, what, when, and where of the Flynns, et al, but the Trumpkins would not listen.

Now the world gets to listen.

Sally Yates to testify at May 8 Senate hearing "Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates is set to testify May 8 before a Senate judiciary investigation into Russia's interference in last year's elections, her second congressional hearing at which she's scheduled to testify within the span of a week. "

Mod Edit -- No links to other message forums. JakeStarkey
Sally Yates Testimony to Shine Public Light on Russia Probes "Monday testimony from Sally Yates, former acting attorney general, is expected to be a compelling public moment in the so-far largely secretive investigations "

She got her ass beat…

No, you and all who were hoping for the reverse, got your asses handed to you on a platter.

No, you got your ass handed to your, Jake. Yates added absolutely nothing to Russia story; she either refused to answer questions or tried to defend her own actions. Her only goal at this point, clearly, is to try to stay out of prison.

 

[basquebromance]

"Sally Yates testified about Russia probe" --and as expected, provided zero evidence. Ridiculous theatrics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lie to yourself all you want, because it means nothing to anyone, kid. tmt is in the same basket with you.

Yates nonpartisanly, quietly yet forcefully indicted Flynn and the administration.

Cruz did not come back because she handed him his ass.

This was a bad day for trumpertootians.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Deep state boogeymen.

Ignorance is bliss which explains as to why you are always so happy. (snicker)

You believe anything and everything that isn't reality.
That sir, is ignorant.

I know infinitely more than you do. In the year and a half since I have been here? I have yet to see you make a coherent argument about anything. You are simply a "Me too" poster that chimes in on topics that promotes leftardism without ever making your own case via any due diligence. So let me sum it all up, you are inconsequential, you have no critical thinking skills and you never have anything of originality to add to any topic. You are simply a space filler and overall time waster BUT since I am resourceful? I can put an empty-headed moron like you to use by using you as a prop with a response that others will see, weigh and consider.

Hope this helps and here is a heartfelt "thank you" for unwittingly playing along.

(snicker)

I know infinitely more than you do.

Yes, yes we know Dale. This is where interactions with you always end up.

I understand that you knowing more is very important to you. You are indeed very knowledgeable about the conspiracy world.
Unfortunately that's all it is, conspiracy.

It's one thing to follow all of the various theories and their many machinations and iterations as a hobby. When you try to find ways to apply them practically, I have a problem with it. That isn't critical thinking. It's speculation at best and lunacy at worst.

I deal in what is known and is generally accepted. It serves me well. My instincts generally bear out in the end. I have no beef with you, just with your wild assertions.

The simple explanation is that Flynn is indeed a flawed character who's made some
shady decisions and Trump, for whatever reason, decided to partner with him despite the many credible warnings he received. In my world that requires a further look.

Flawed? In what way? Because jesuit trained Roman Catholic James Clapper who flat out lied during a senate committee hearing about spying on us says so? Flynn talked to people within the Russian government and why is that a big deal at all? It has been NATO, the E.U and their banking masters that have been pushing Putin and flat out LYING about what happened in the Ukraine when the coup d'eat happened. Somehow, it was Russia's fault that Crimea wanted no part of the E.U and their criminal IMF bank and decided to cast their lot with Russia....good choice, btw. What the E.U coveted most was the Crimean Peninsula and they didn't get it so they claimed that Russia invaded Crimea which was a fucking lie.

Let's see, what else did Russia do to hack off the globalists? They partnered up with Syria to run an oil pipeline which threatened the hegemony of the banker's oil cartel and that can't happen and besides, Assad doesn't have a Rothschild central bank and we can't let that stand. Russia also started kicking the ass of the CIA/MI5/MI6/ Mossad funded and trained mercenaries that WERE al qaeda and were re-branded as "ISIS" using Qatar as a conduit to funnel weapons to them bought by the Saudis to keep the region destablized....holy FUCK, we can't let THAT continue. All the while NATO forces are moving missile and nukes closer and closer to Russia's border and claiming what a threat Putin is. The American sheeple are THE dumbest and most uninformed wastes of life on the planet. Not only are most of them fat and stupid? They seem to wallow in the pride of being that way. If Flynn was talking to Russia to ease tensions so that we don't have a mutually assured destruction war of nukes? The guy deserves a fucking medal and the sanctions that the former "queer-in-chief" placed on Russia was ALL due to his doing his globalist masters bidding. You want to talk about "shady"? Hillary's diplomacy for sale and the donations to her foundations? How in the fuck is the Barrypuppet leaving the WH with a net worth of over 100 million dollars? I could write a book about the utter corruption and "back door" agreements that have sold us down the road that both bought and paid political parties have put upon us that will NEVER see the inside of a senate committee hearing but here it is, folks...we have this pathetic "dog and pony" show about Flynn having talked to the Russians. Forget the fuck out of the fact that USA.INC and their allies have been funding the ever lovin' shit out of the very alleged enemy that caused 9/11/01 and put us in this utter police state...fuck that! Let's put Flynn under a fuckin' microscope because the DNC got hacked where it was revealed what a bunch of corrupt sacks of shit they are....now THAT'S fucking important. Finding a scapegoat for revealing the cheating and corruption of the DNC trumps all....pardon the pun. I swear to my holy Father that I feel like I am living in Bizzarro World where "up" is "down" and a premium is placed on utter stupidity.


End of rant.

Flawed? In what way

He lied to the President and VP. He was fired for it.

 

[basquebromance]

Lindsey Graham is a democrat. South Carolina is out of their minds to keep electing that androgynous freak. Resign him now!