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

[toomuchtime_]

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.

I got all the facts right. Yates tried to support Obama's Russia hoax by using classified information to falsely suggest a link between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

^^^

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Once again you are wrong. She said that generally the unmasking is done by someone in the agency the information comes from. She was the acting AG, she has the clearance for the information be given to her. She said she did not give classified information to anyone. Just because she was given information from someone with the name unmasked doesn't mean she knows who requested or unmasked it, she only knows who gave her the information... do you understand logic and how it flows? Information flows the same way.

No, you're wrong. The NSA only unmasks the identity of Americans upon a legitimate request and the information is for the person making the request only, so if she received the information from that person, she knew a crime had been committed.

Good lord, if you are going to make comments you need to watch and pay attention to this shit. You are wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Once again you are wrong. She said that generally the unmasking is done by someone in the agency the information comes from. She was the acting AG, she has the clearance for the information be given to her. She said she did not give classified information to anyone. Just because she was given information from someone with the name unmasked doesn't mean she knows who requested or unmasked it, she only knows who gave her the information... do you understand logic and how it flows? Information flows the same way.

No, you're wrong. The NSA only unmasks the identity of Americans upon a legitimate request and the information is for the person making the request only, so if she received the information from that person, she knew a crime had been committed.

Good lord, if you are going to make comments you need to watch and pay attention to this shit. You are wrong.

tmt and baseque are like the religious extremists who go "if I really really really really believe, it will be true!!!!!!!!!!"

Nope, it won't.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Folks, the point is that "hearing" was a charade, nothing but propaganda with questions and answers rehearsed for weeks. Really, it should have been shut down after lisping, jewish, green tinted nut Al Franken restated the long debunked lie that 17 intelligence agencies determined Russia did something. Nothing but propaganda and fake talking points.

Link?

View attachment 125614

They made you a believer. I would say that their operation was successful.

 

[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.

Once again you are wrong. She said that generally the unmasking is done by someone in the agency the information comes from. She was the acting AG, she has the clearance for the information be given to her. She said she did not give classified information to anyone. Just because she was given information from someone with the name unmasked doesn't mean she knows who requested or unmasked it, she only knows who gave her the information... do you understand logic and how it flows? Information flows the same way.

No, you're wrong. The NSA only unmasks the identity of Americans upon a legitimate request and the information is for the person making the request only, so if she received the information from that person, she knew a crime had been committed.

Good lord, if you are going to make comments you need to watch and pay attention to this shit. You are wrong.

lol No, I am exactly right.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Once again you are wrong. She said that generally the unmasking is done by someone in the agency the information comes from. She was the acting AG, she has the clearance for the information be given to her. She said she did not give classified information to anyone. Just because she was given information from someone with the name unmasked doesn't mean she knows who requested or unmasked it, she only knows who gave her the information... do you understand logic and how it flows? Information flows the same way.

No, you're wrong. The NSA only unmasks the identity of Americans upon a legitimate request and the information is for the person making the request only, so if she received the information from that person, she knew a crime had been committed.

Good lord, if you are going to make comments you need to watch and pay attention to this shit. You are wrong.

lol No, I am exactly right.

No, you're wrong. Clapper and Yates just testified under oath in front of Senators, of whom knows most of the laws about this stuff and had Yates and Clapper lied, they would have been called out on it, right then and there. In fact, Cruz tried to get Yates in a "gotcha" moment and she handed his ass to him.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

She did no such thing. She was acting AG. She was privy to information pertaining to the ongoing investigations including anything known about Flynn.

The only criticism you could have is her refusal to back Trump's order. The same order that was struck down. She was correct.

In other words you don't care if she committed crimes concerning the unmasking of Flynn or the leak of classified information to the media in order to make her anti Trump gesture.

No, in my words, none of that is credible.
She never needed to unmask Flynn because she is privy to the details of any investigation within the DOJ.

But not in the NSA, which is where the files with Flynn's name on them were kept. Sally's going down, and not in a fun way.

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.

She didn't request it.
This is like the third time I've told you this.
You do understand that the investigation had been underway for months before she came in. She was acting AG for only10 days.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, in my words, none of that is credible.
She never needed to unmask Flynn because she is privy to the details of any investigation within the DOJ.

But not in the NSA, which is where the files with Flynn's name on them were kept. Sally's going down, and not in a fun way.

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.

You are truly dopey.

 

[Avatar4321]

Graham: How did you know that Gen Flynn was talking to the Russians? Yates: I can't reveal that in an open setting.

Then what is the point of her testifying if she cannot provide answers?

 

[Avatar4321]

The fright emoticon of the right and the trumpkins must be this:

What did she say that was so terrifying?

 

[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.

Once again you are wrong. She said that generally the unmasking is done by someone in the agency the information comes from. She was the acting AG, she has the clearance for the information be given to her. She said she did not give classified information to anyone. Just because she was given information from someone with the name unmasked doesn't mean she knows who requested or unmasked it, she only knows who gave her the information... do you understand logic and how it flows? Information flows the same way.

No, you're wrong. The NSA only unmasks the identity of Americans upon a legitimate request and the information is for the person making the request only, so if she received the information from that person, she knew a crime had been committed.

Good lord, if you are going to make comments you need to watch and pay attention to this shit. You are wrong.

lol No, I am exactly right.

No, you're wrong. Clapper and Yates just testified under oath in front of Senators, of whom knows most of the laws about this stuff and had Yates and Clapper lied, they would have been called out on it, right then and there. In fact, Cruz tried to get Yates in a "gotcha" moment and she handed his ass to him.

Yates refused to answer questions about where the information came from or what was in it, claiming it was too classified to speak of in public, but she was bit shy about trying to use it to support Obama's Russia hoax.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In other words you don't care if she committed crimes concerning the unmasking of Flynn or the leak of classified information to the media in order to make her anti Trump gesture.

No, in my words, none of that is credible.
She never needed to unmask Flynn because she is privy to the details of any investigation within the DOJ.

But not in the NSA, which is where the files with Flynn's name on them were kept. Sally's going down, and not in a fun way.

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.

She didn't request it.
This is like the third time I've told you this.
You do understand that the investigation had been underway for months before she came in. She was acting AG for only10 days.

If she didn't request it she knew who had and she knew she had no right tot the information, so she knew a crime had been committed and she had a legal obligation to report it.

 

[Lewdog]

Once again you are wrong. She said that generally the unmasking is done by someone in the agency the information comes from. She was the acting AG, she has the clearance for the information be given to her. She said she did not give classified information to anyone. Just because she was given information from someone with the name unmasked doesn't mean she knows who requested or unmasked it, she only knows who gave her the information... do you understand logic and how it flows? Information flows the same way.

No, you're wrong. The NSA only unmasks the identity of Americans upon a legitimate request and the information is for the person making the request only, so if she received the information from that person, she knew a crime had been committed.

Good lord, if you are going to make comments you need to watch and pay attention to this shit. You are wrong.

lol No, I am exactly right.

No, you're wrong. Clapper and Yates just testified under oath in front of Senators, of whom knows most of the laws about this stuff and had Yates and Clapper lied, they would have been called out on it, right then and there. In fact, Cruz tried to get Yates in a "gotcha" moment and she handed his ass to him.

Yates refused to answer questions about where the information came from or what was in it, claiming it was too classified to speak of in public, but she was bit shy about trying to use it to support Obama's Russia hoax.

She can't restify on it because it is still part of an ongoing investigation... which is what Comey already said last week. She did say that Flynn lying to the FBI could be a criminal offense... so there's that, so another reason she couldn't talk about it.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

She wasn't fired for Flynn. She was fired be Use she refused to enforce the law

 

[toomuchtime_]

But not in the NSA, which is where the files with Flynn's name on them were kept. Sally's going down, and not in a fun way.

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.

You are truly dopey.

Maybe you are too young to remember all the safeguards put in place after the reforms to the intelligence services following 911, but absolutely no one has the right to know the identities of Americans caught on intercepts of foreigners without formally requesting it and that person has no right to pass that information along without a FISA court order. None was ever obtained on Flynn, so some one broke the law and Yates had to know who it was when she received the information.

 

[Avatar4321]

No, you're wrong. The NSA only unmasks the identity of Americans upon a legitimate request and the information is for the person making the request only, so if she received the information from that person, she knew a crime had been committed.

Good lord, if you are going to make comments you need to watch and pay attention to this shit. You are wrong.

lol No, I am exactly right.

No, you're wrong. Clapper and Yates just testified under oath in front of Senators, of whom knows most of the laws about this stuff and had Yates and Clapper lied, they would have been called out on it, right then and there. In fact, Cruz tried to get Yates in a "gotcha" moment and she handed his ass to him.

Yates refused to answer questions about where the information came from or what was in it, claiming it was too classified to speak of in public, but she was bit shy about trying to use it to support Obama's Russia hoax.

She can't restify on it because it is still part of an ongoing investigation... which is what Comey already said last week. She did say that Flynn lying to the FBI could be a criminal offense... so there's that, so another reason she couldn't talk about it.

Which again demands the question: why is she testifying when she can't testify of jack?

 

[Lewdog]

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.

You are truly dopey.

Maybe you are too young to remember all the safeguards put in place after the reforms to the intelligence services following 911, but absolutely no one has the right to know the identities of Americans caught on intercepts of foreigners without formally requesting it and that person has no right to pass that information along without a FISA court order. None was ever obtained on Flynn, so some one broke the law and Yates had to know who it was when she received the information.

You don't know that... and the Senator's today were asking if there is some kind of way that it is recorded who requests and unmasks Americans in situations like Flynn's. Jesus dude, you think you know more than the Ex head of the DNI, acting AG, and U.S. Senators? That might be the funniest thing I've read all day.

 

[Lewdog]

Good lord, if you are going to make comments you need to watch and pay attention to this shit. You are wrong.

lol No, I am exactly right.

No, you're wrong. Clapper and Yates just testified under oath in front of Senators, of whom knows most of the laws about this stuff and had Yates and Clapper lied, they would have been called out on it, right then and there. In fact, Cruz tried to get Yates in a "gotcha" moment and she handed his ass to him.

Yates refused to answer questions about where the information came from or what was in it, claiming it was too classified to speak of in public, but she was bit shy about trying to use it to support Obama's Russia hoax.

She can't restify on it because it is still part of an ongoing investigation... which is what Comey already said last week. She did say that Flynn lying to the FBI could be a criminal offense... so there's that, so another reason she couldn't talk about it.

Which again demands the question: why is she testifying when she can't testify of jack?

...she was invited for the purpose of getting it on the record that she warned Trump's team about Flynn and Trump didn't do anything about it for 18 days.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, you're wrong. The NSA only unmasks the identity of Americans upon a legitimate request and the information is for the person making the request only, so if she received the information from that person, she knew a crime had been committed.

Good lord, if you are going to make comments you need to watch and pay attention to this shit. You are wrong.

lol No, I am exactly right.

No, you're wrong. Clapper and Yates just testified under oath in front of Senators, of whom knows most of the laws about this stuff and had Yates and Clapper lied, they would have been called out on it, right then and there. In fact, Cruz tried to get Yates in a "gotcha" moment and she handed his ass to him.

Yates refused to answer questions about where the information came from or what was in it, claiming it was too classified to speak of in public, but she was bit shy about trying to use it to support Obama's Russia hoax.

She can't restify on it because it is still part of an ongoing investigation... which is what Comey already said last week. She did say that Flynn lying to the FBI could be a criminal offense... so there's that, so another reason she couldn't talk about it.

More nonsense. Flynn didn't lie to the FBI, he lied to Pence. You don't get it, the investigation is no longer about collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, it is about crimes that may have been committed by members of the Obama administration, such as Yates, to try to support Obama's Russia hoax. What Flynn did was not the subject of today's testimony, Yates' actions were the subject.