Trumps election staff was wiretapped......Well so much for no wiretap

[Faun]

No one is questioning if it was leaked. What is still unknown is if the leak was illegal.

There is no question about it. Comey agreed with Gowdy that it was a crime. Even Democrat Jim Himes said emphadically it was a felony.

What he agreed was a crime was the "unauthorized dissemination of classified or otherwise legally protected material." That alone should clue you in that all leaks are not necessarily criminal. And that's not including cases where the leaker does not know their leak comes from such material.

If it was authorized then where are the official documents to back that claim up? Who authorized it? Oh that's right, nobody knows, which means it wasn't authorized. You don't know anything about handling of classified material or the process of declassifying it. The process is very much well documented.

You still don't get it.

Unauthorized is not a synonym for illegal.

un·au·thor·ized
ˌənˈôTHəˌrīzd/unofficial, unsanctioned, unaccredited, unlicensed, unwarranted, warrantless, unapproved, bootleg, pirated; More
wildcat;
disallowed, prohibited, out of bounds, banned, barred, forbidden, outlawed, illegal, illegitimate, illicit, proscribed


You muppets are too easy.

No, antontoo is quite right. For example, if the leaker was not aware the name they gave to the press came from a FISA authorized intercepted communication, the leak is neither authorized nor illegal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, they agreed if it was illegally leaked, it was a felony. They have yet to determine who the leaker is, under what circumstances it was leaked, and if it was leaked illegally or not.

It was leaked, that is a fact.

The newspaper that first reported it said the source was a "high ranking government official".

No one is questioning if it was leaked. What is still unknown is if the leak was illegal.

There is no question about it. Comey agreed with Gowdy that it was a crime. Even Democrat Jim Himes said emphadically it was a felony.

What he agreed was a crime was the "unauthorized dissemination of classified or otherwise legally protected material." That alone should clue you in that all leaks are not necessarily criminal. And that's not including cases where the leaker does not know their leak comes from such material.

If it was authorized then where are the official documents to back that claim up? Who authorized it? Oh that's right, nobody knows, which means it wasn't authorized. You don't know anything about handling of classified material or the process of declassifying it. The process is very much well documented.

Oh, people of importance know. You don't.

 

[hadit]

It was leaked, that is a fact.

The newspaper that first reported it said the source was a "high ranking government official".

No one is questioning if it was leaked. What is still unknown is if the leak was illegal.

There is no question about it. Comey agreed with Gowdy that it was a crime. Even Democrat Jim Himes said emphadically it was a felony.

Flynn was compromised by the Russians and Trump admin KNEW about it for 2 weeks and DID NOTHING until the leak. This leaking was a FAVOR to this country and would be a textbook example of whistleblower protection eligible action.

That's not what whistleblowing is. Whistleblowing is when an insider exposes his own company's illegal activities. FISA wiretaps being used illegally for political purposes and violating a US citizen's rights was a gross violation of US federal law. He was never "compromised" by the Russians because he never did anything illegal. Nothing he spoke about with his conversations with the Russian ambassador were illegal. He never negotiated any deals as the corrupt Obama administration claimed.

How the f are you going to prove that this leak was for political purposes rather than patriotic ones?

Flynn was compromised by the Russians and was prime for extortion while having top security clearance - do you morons understand the severity of such threat for United States?

I thought the investigation is still going on. If that is so, how can you be so sure that's what happened?

 

[hadit]

There is no question about it. Comey agreed with Gowdy that it was a crime. Even Democrat Jim Himes said emphadically it was a felony.

What he agreed was a crime was the "unauthorized dissemination of classified or otherwise legally protected material." That alone should clue you in that all leaks are not necessarily criminal. And that's not including cases where the leaker does not know their leak comes from such material.

If it was authorized then where are the official documents to back that claim up? Who authorized it? Oh that's right, nobody knows, which means it wasn't authorized. You don't know anything about handling of classified material or the process of declassifying it. The process is very much well documented.

You still don't get it.

Unauthorized is not a synonym for illegal.

un·au·thor·ized
ˌənˈôTHəˌrīzd/unofficial, unsanctioned, unaccredited, unlicensed, unwarranted, warrantless, unapproved, bootleg, pirated; More
wildcat;
disallowed, prohibited, out of bounds, banned, barred, forbidden, outlawed, illegal, illegitimate, illicit, proscribed


You muppets are too easy.

No, antontoo is quite right. For example, if the leaker was not aware the name they gave to the press came from a FISA authorized intercepted communication, the leak is neither authorized nor illegal.

If the leaker was not aware that the name came from such, how did he come into possession of it? At some point, someone deliberately released this information. If they did it legally, there is a paper trail with authorizations and names, and this whole thing would be short circuited. If there is no such paper trail, something is amiss.

 

[Faun]

What he agreed was a crime was the "unauthorized dissemination of classified or otherwise legally protected material." That alone should clue you in that all leaks are not necessarily criminal. And that's not including cases where the leaker does not know their leak comes from such material.

If it was authorized then where are the official documents to back that claim up? Who authorized it? Oh that's right, nobody knows, which means it wasn't authorized. You don't know anything about handling of classified material or the process of declassifying it. The process is very much well documented.

You still don't get it.

Unauthorized is not a synonym for illegal.

un·au·thor·ized
ˌənˈôTHəˌrīzd/unofficial, unsanctioned, unaccredited, unlicensed, unwarranted, warrantless, unapproved, bootleg, pirated; More
wildcat;
disallowed, prohibited, out of bounds, banned, barred, forbidden, outlawed, illegal, illegitimate, illicit, proscribed


You muppets are too easy.

No, antontoo is quite right. For example, if the leaker was not aware the name they gave to the press came from a FISA authorized intercepted communication, the leak is neither authorized nor illegal.

If the leaker was not aware that the name came from such, how did he come into possession of it? At some point, someone deliberately released this information. If they did it legally, there is a paper trail with authorizations and names, and this whole thing would be short circuited. If there is no such paper trail, something is amiss.

Not necessarily. Again, we don't know who the leaker is or how they obtained they information they leaked. Without that, no one can claim the leak was legal or illegal with any amount of certainty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

 

[hadit]

If it was authorized then where are the official documents to back that claim up? Who authorized it? Oh that's right, nobody knows, which means it wasn't authorized. You don't know anything about handling of classified material or the process of declassifying it. The process is very much well documented.

You still don't get it.

Unauthorized is not a synonym for illegal.

un·au·thor·ized
ˌənˈôTHəˌrīzd/unofficial, unsanctioned, unaccredited, unlicensed, unwarranted, warrantless, unapproved, bootleg, pirated; More
wildcat;
disallowed, prohibited, out of bounds, banned, barred, forbidden, outlawed, illegal, illegitimate, illicit, proscribed


You muppets are too easy.

No, antontoo is quite right. For example, if the leaker was not aware the name they gave to the press came from a FISA authorized intercepted communication, the leak is neither authorized nor illegal.

If the leaker was not aware that the name came from such, how did he come into possession of it? At some point, someone deliberately released this information. If they did it legally, there is a paper trail with authorizations and names, and this whole thing would be short circuited. If there is no such paper trail, something is amiss.

Not necessarily. Again, we don't know who the leaker is or how they obtained they information they leaked. Without that, no one can claim the leak was legal or illegal with any amount of certainty.

Like I said though, at some point someone who knew the rules gained passed the information on (if not, we have a serious problem with information handling). That person either had authorization to pass it on, in which case they could step forward and simply show they did it legally, or they did not, in which case they should get in big trouble. The important point is, if this whole thing is legal, there should be easily obtained documentation with signatures, etc to prove it is so, and that should have shown up long ago. The fact that it has not gives reason to believe that the leak was not done legally, and the leaker has good cause to fear repercussions.

 

[hadit]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

True enough, but if legal, there should be a paper trail all the way back to the source.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

True enough, but if legal, there should be a paper trail all the way back to the source.

Sure. But the issue remains right to know.

 

[hadit]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

True enough, but if legal, there should be a paper trail all the way back to the source.

Sure. But the issue remains right to know.

The fact that this has not been evaporated by the simple display of a communication complete with the appropriate signoffs leads one to lean on the side of nefarious activity.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

 

[theHawk]

You still don't get it.

Unauthorized is not a synonym for illegal.

un·au·thor·ized
ˌənˈôTHəˌrīzd/unofficial, unsanctioned, unaccredited, unlicensed, unwarranted, warrantless, unapproved, bootleg, pirated; More
wildcat;
disallowed, prohibited, out of bounds, banned, barred, forbidden, outlawed, illegal, illegitimate, illicit, proscribed


You muppets are too easy.

No, antontoo is quite right. For example, if the leaker was not aware the name they gave to the press came from a FISA authorized intercepted communication, the leak is neither authorized nor illegal.

If the leaker was not aware that the name came from such, how did he come into possession of it? At some point, someone deliberately released this information. If they did it legally, there is a paper trail with authorizations and names, and this whole thing would be short circuited. If there is no such paper trail, something is amiss.

Not necessarily. Again, we don't know who the leaker is or how they obtained they information they leaked. Without that, no one can claim the leak was legal or illegal with any amount of certainty.

Like I said though, at some point someone who knew the rules gained passed the information on (if not, we have a serious problem with information handling). That person either had authorization to pass it on, in which case they could step forward and simply show they did it legally, or they did not, in which case they should get in big trouble. The important point is, if this whole thing is legal, there should be easily obtained documentation with signatures, etc to prove it is so, and that should have shown up long ago. The fact that it has not gives reason to believe that the leak was not done legally, and the leaker has good cause to fear repercussions.

Not to mention Jim Himes (D) on the Intel committee already said that Flynn's name drop was a leak, and it was a felony. He stated it many times on Tucker Carlson's show over a month ago. These progressive blowhards just don't want to admit it.

 

[theHawk]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

Jim Himes said it was illegal. Are you saying a Democrat member of the House Intel committee is wrong?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump needs to lock up all of Obama top Intel people, they're the most un-American scumbags in human history

 

[JakeStarkey]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

True enough, but if legal, there should be a paper trail all the way back to the source.

Sure. But the issue remains right to know.

The fact that this has not been evaporated by the simple display of a communication complete with the appropriate signoffs leads one to lean on the side of nefarious activity.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

No, no such leaning is suggested. Abide, and let the investigation continue.

 

[hadit]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

True enough, but if legal, there should be a paper trail all the way back to the source.

Sure. But the issue remains right to know.

The fact that this has not been evaporated by the simple display of a communication complete with the appropriate signoffs leads one to lean on the side of nefarious activity.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

No, no such leaning is suggested. Abide, and let the investigation continue.

If documentation that clearly established all the leaks were completely legal, would not the investigation already be over?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

True enough, but if legal, there should be a paper trail all the way back to the source.

Sure. But the issue remains right to know.

The fact that this has not been evaporated by the simple display of a communication complete with the appropriate signoffs leads one to lean on the side of nefarious activity.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

No, no such leaning is suggested. Abide, and let the investigation continue.

If documentation that clearly established all the leaks were completely legal, would not the investigation already be over?

Why would you think that?

 

[hadit]

True enough, but if legal, there should be a paper trail all the way back to the source.

Sure. But the issue remains right to know.

The fact that this has not been evaporated by the simple display of a communication complete with the appropriate signoffs leads one to lean on the side of nefarious activity.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

No, no such leaning is suggested. Abide, and let the investigation continue.

If documentation that clearly established all the leaks were completely legal, would not the investigation already be over?

Why would you think that?

Because there would be no need to further investigate. If I am trying to determine whether a law was broken, and someone furnished evidence that they acted legally, why would I continue trying to determine if a law was broken? I would continue only as long as I had evidence of neither.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

Only in the mind of a determined schizophrenic like Jake Starkey, extraordinaire

Show me in the law where I am wrong: you can't.

 

[Faun]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

Jim Himes said it was illegal. Are you saying a Democrat member of the House Intel committee is wrong?

Of course he could be wrong. Hell, in that same interview, he said the leak stemmed from the White House after they were informed that Flynn was in communication with Russians and could be blackmailable. And that's wrong because the leak first appeared in the Washington Post prior to that.

But it's cute watching your brain spin. You actually thought because he's a Democrat, I would take his word as gospel.

 

[theHawk]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

Jim Himes said it was illegal. Are you saying a Democrat member of the House Intel committee is wrong?

Of course he could be wrong. Hell, in that same interview, he said the leak stemmed from the White House after they were informed that Flynn was in communication with Russians and could be blackmailable. And that's wrong because the leak first appeared in the Washington Post prior to that.

But it's cute watching your brain spin. You actually thought because he's a Democrat, I would take his word as gospel.

Wrong again. I knew you would dismiss it since it doesn't line up with what you want to believe.