Why Would Joe Biden Request the Unmasking of General Flynn?

[Coyote]

I'm sorry TK, I really like you, but I see no difference in your approach - it is no less emotional.

If you say so. I never said to eliminate emotion from your arguments, I am simply suggesting you back emotions with facts and evidence. If the facts don't match your emotions, remove the emotions and cite the facts.

I have where necessary.

Do you see my sig?

"Emotions tell you what you believe, they do not tell you what is true."

I had to adopt that approach when I discovered my bisexuality. (That's another topic entirely).

It's a good sig

 

[Coyote]

I've approached it in as logical a manner as you, came to different conclusions, yet you label my view as all about hating Trump and "emotion".

Forgive my lack of tact, but anyone who makes an argument without citing facts is making an emotional argument. Arguments fueled by emotion instead of facts or logic are invalid.

And just like you did, I have to acknowledge your biases and incorporate them into my arguments. I see lots of emotion in politics, rarely any reason.

I'm going to reply a second time. Politics is not reasonable. It's largely emotion driven and belief based because there is seldom one truth or one fact or one statistic.

 

[Pete7469]

Why Would Joe Biden Request the Unmasking of a Communication by General Flynn....at ANY TIME...let alone Eight (8) days before he leaves office as Vice President? See January 12th entry below. Any of you Fanatic Democrats TDSers want to explain that?

View attachment 335632

So that his campaign staff can use whatever intel they can find when the DNC nominated him in spite of the fact he lost the primaries?

 

[Pete7469]

I'm going to reply a second time. Politics is not reasonable. It's largely emotion driven and belief based because there is seldom one truth or one fact or one statistic.

That's the most cognizant post you've ever submitted.

Although I will VEHEMENTLY disagree with you on truth or facts.

Statistics are based on collected intel, subject to change. Truth is permanent, facts are solid.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only thing she did wrong was use a server, something Colin Powell actually recommended.

Now, with your permission, may we get back to the subject matter of the thread?

As far as Colin Powell was concerned, he was wrong for making that suggestion. She was wrong for heeding it.

Given that, and that a thorough investigation (instituted by the Republican Congress) couldn't come up with anything much, I tend to agree with Comey's assessment that "no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute it" because it lacks intent.

Of course, he cited all of her violations of the law before he "exonerated" her.

You don't do things like that involuntarily or without intent.

1. Has EVERYTHING been released? (For example unredacted Mueller, Grand Jury testimony, ALL the related FBI files) OR is there a partisan slant in choosing what to release?

Let me ask you something:

What bearing would that have? You demand context in the midst of all the relevant actions being cited. Are you looking to be objective? Or are you looking to sate your political biases by cherry-picking other statements or behavior out of context and outside of their original meaning when or if all the relevant material is released?

2. Given that neither of us has seen everything related to the case, but the Judge has, and declined to allow withdrawal of the plea, and stated that there was no alterations of the substantive changes to the 302 forms and pretty much throughout the defense claims, I'm inclined to go with the judge's opinion. He knows the law and has seen all the evidence. WE do not really, and have not.

In a debate, we would call the latter half of that statement an "appeal to authority" or argumentum ad verecundiam. Just because the judge knows the law does not mean he is applying it fairly or justly. Jurisprudence requires the elimination of biases and the application of neutrality in rendering due process. What makes you think he is being fair to Flynn after he essentially called him a traitor? Is that objectivity speaking, or your political biases? But I digress.

Thousands of pages of documents have been released. I would be skeptical if it were just a statement here and a phrase there. But we're talking thousands of pages of documents related to Flynn's case. Not Trump's, just Flynn's. Also, I made a mistake in saying the 302s were "altered". I did more reading and found out they were flat out missing. There are no 302 forms to be found.

3. Corruption. Again, I have seen no evidence of it beyond conspiracy theory hype. Keep in mind too that the Obama was concerned enough about Flynn they notified the incoming Trump administration and provided the documentation.

Are you looking for evidence or simply taking cues from anecdotes you hear or read on the internet?

Obama was upset that Flynn contradicted him on the idea that "ISIS was on the run". I am assuming (stress on assuming) that he wanted to punish Flynn for contradicting him.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm going to reply a second time. Politics is not reasonable. It's largely emotion driven and belief based because there is seldom one truth or one fact or one statistic.

No, politics isn't reasonable. But that doesn't mean we are absolved of being reasonable ourselves.

 

[iceberg]

The only thing she did wrong was use a server, something Colin Powell actually recommended.

Now, with your permission, may we get back to the subject matter of the thread?

As far as Colin Powell was concerned, he was wrong for making that suggestion. She was wrong for heeding it.

Given that, and that a thorough investigation (instituted by the Republican Congress) couldn't come up with anything much, I tend to agree with Comey's assessment that "no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute it" because it lacks intent.

Of course, he cited all of her violations of the law before he "exonerated" her.

You don't do things like that involuntarily or without intent.

1. Has EVERYTHING been released? (For example unredacted Mueller, Grand Jury testimony, ALL the related FBI files) OR is there a partisan slant in choosing what to release?

Let me ask you something:

What bearing would that have? You demand context in the midst of all the relevant actions being cited. Are you looking to be objective? Or are you looking to sate your political biases by cherry-picking other statements or behavior out of context and outside of their original meaning?

2. Given that neither of us has seen everything related to the case, but the Judge has, and declined to allow withdrawal of the plea, and stated that there was no alterations of the substantive changes to the 302 forms and pretty much throughout the defense claims, I'm inclined to go with the judge's opinion. He knows the law and has seen all the evidence. WE do not really, and have not.

In a debate, we would call the latter half of that statement an "appeal to authority" or argumentum ad verecundiam. Just because the judge knows the law does not mean he is applying it fairly or justly. Jurisprudence requires the elimination of biases and the application of neutrality in rendering due process. What makes you think he is being fair to Flynn after he essentially called him a traitor? Is that objectivity speaking, or your political biases? But I digress.

Thousands of pages of documents have been released. I would be skeptical if it were just a statement here and a phrase there. But we're talking thousands of pages of documents related to Flynn's case. Not Trump's, just Flynn's. Also, I made a mistake in saying the 302s were "altered". I did more reading and found out they were flat out missing. There are no 302 forms to be found.

3. Corruption. Again, I have seen no evidence of it beyond conspiracy theory hype. Keep in mind too that the Obama was concerned enough about Flynn they notified the incoming Trump administration and provided the documentation.

Are you looking for evidence or simply taking cues from anecdotes you hear or read on the internet?

Obama was upset that Flynn contradicted him on the idea that "ISIS was on the run". I am assuming (stress on assuming) that he wanted to punish Flynn for contradicting him.

and it's funny when that "appeal to authority" doesn't say what you want to hear, then you don't follow through on the same, even if your overall education level on the topic *is* the same.

it's not a single person; it's human nature. best we can do is understand it when we do it and try to work around it and limit our own bias.

 

[Olde Europe]

What makes you think he is being fair to Flynn after he essentially called him a traitor? Is that objectivity speaking, or your political biases?

He conspired, behind the back of the U.S. government, with the Russian government against the U.S. government.

There was a time when conservatives didn't have to think long to find an adequate expression to describe such behavior. These times are seemingly long behind us because, quite obviously, political biases get in the way. Flynn should be happy, glad really, he got an offer to plead to the lesser offense of having lied to the FBI about the content of his conspiracy. The judge informed him on that. The judge also, rightly, explores whether his sworn plea, which Flynn seeks to retract, opens him up to charges of perjury. Twice. Or righty friends couldn't be more irate about that judge doing his job.

Then comes the funny part. In order to distract from their emotionally motivated "thinking", they turn around and accuse the other side of political bias, and of being guided by emotion.

Then comes the really funny, the risible part. They "think" this is all anything less than 100% transparent.

 

[Nostra]

What makes you think he is being fair to Flynn after he essentially called him a traitor? Is that objectivity speaking, or your political biases?

He conspired, behind the back of the U.S. government, with the Russian government against the U.S. government.

There was a time when conservatives didn't have to think long to find an adequate expression to describe such behavior. These times are seemingly long behind us because, quite obviously, political biases get in the way. Flynn should be happy, glad really, he got an offer to plead to the lesser offense of having lied to the FBI about the content of his conspiracy. The judge informed him on that. The judge also, rightly, explores whether his sworn plea, which Flynn seeks to retract, opens him up to charges of perjury. Twice. Or righty friends couldn't be more irate about that judge doing his job.

Then comes the funny part. In order to distract from their emotionally motivated "thinking", they turn around and accuse the other side of political bias, and of being guided by emotion.

Then comes the really funny, the risible part. They "think" this is all anything less than 100% transparent.

He conspired, behind the back of the U.S. government, with the Russian government against the U.S. government.

How? What did he do that was against the U.S. government?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why Would Joe Biden Request the Unmasking of a Communication by General Flynn....at ANY TIME...let alone Eight (8) days before he leaves office as Vice President? See January 12th entry below. Any of you Fanatic Democrats TDSers want to explain that?

View attachment 335632

To hear it for himself, maybe?
Why does this confound you? He obviously had the requisite clearance and authority.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

now THIS is an abuse of power i would say.

but hey - asking someone to look into this shit seems to be FAR WORSE OF A CRIME than actually abusing your power.

fucking shit needs to end, and people need jail time for this crap.

now THIS is an abuse of power i would say.

Why would you say that?
What evidence do you possess that shows Biden abused his power?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Senator Rand Paul:

"Declassified documents reveal V.P. Biden ordered the unmasking of General Flynn’s private conversation. Anyone think that Biden might have abused his power to go after a political opponent..."


Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Coyote? Anybody?

Umm...how is listening to the call "abusing his power to go after a political opponent"?

What action did Biden take with that information that was "going after a political opponent"?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why Would Joe Biden Request the Unmasking of a Communication by General Flynn....at ANY TIME...let alone Eight (8) days before he leaves office as Vice President? See January 12th entry below. Any of you Fanatic Democrats TDSers want to explain that?

View attachment 335632

As there was NO LEGITIMATE REASON to unmask a US citizen this violated US law. Joe was complicit in the Coup D'eTat and he needs to be held accountable.. Amazing that Joe would allow himself to be drawn into illegal conduct.

As there was NO LEGITIMATE REASON to unmask a US citizen this violated US law.

Sure. That's why the intel community approved his application to hear the call.

 

[mamooth]

You know how much bullshit is in that post?

Way to address the topic head on, oh self-proclaimed master of logic.

It's not my fault that you humiliated yourself again by putting the stench of your hypocrisy on open display, along with your willingness to lie openly about liberals. It was your pissy emotional vendetta which led to that. You should have learned by now, how letting your emotions rule you inevitably leads to your humiliation.

You never learn. But then, if you were capable of learning, you would never have been sucked into the Trump cult. The loopy conspiracy theories you're spouting here defy reality, but your still cling to them for purely emotional reasons.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know how much bullshit is in that post?

Way to address the topic head-on, oh self-proclaimed master of logic.

It's not my fault that you humiliated yourself again by putting the stench of your hypocrisy on open display, along with your willingness to lie openly about liberals. It was your pissy emotional vendetta which led to that. You should have learned by now, how letting your emotions rule you inevitably leads to your humiliation.

You never learn. But then, if you were capable of learning, you would never have been sucked into the Trump cult. The loopy conspiracy theories you're spouting here defy reality, but your still cling to them for purely emotional reasons.

You could just admit you lost.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

--Albert Einstein

 

[the other mike]

Let's hear what former acting Attorney General and caucasian M&M Matthew Whitaker has to say.

 

[the other mike]

I had to adopt that approach when I discovered my bisexuality.

Hope you're not a dude.
Just sayin.

 

[the other mike]

 

[basquebromance]

Flynn isnt the only victim of the deep state, my friends