Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Uh yeah.. Pulitzer sure....for calling it FISA-Gate. But here's why we should expect it came from the WH: The reporting that came from these sources is that Susan Rice unmasked the person "for political purposes". That doesn't sound like intelligence agency speak. That sounds like WH/political speak. This source determined intent, not just the event itself.
Well the Obama administration has history of spying on their political foes along with using the IRS against them.
You refuse to question intent for fear of what you might find.
Right... you criticize my conjecture with an article from an editor at the NRO that is chock full of more conjecture that you represent as fact. It's kind of like criticizing leaks until you like the leaks. It's kind of like criticizing people who request immunity until you request immunity. Or maybe criticizing playing golf once every other month or so until you play it every weekend.
Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Uh yeah.. Pulitzer sure....for calling it FISA-Gate. But here's why we should expect it came from the WH: The reporting that came from these sources is that Susan Rice unmasked the person "for political purposes". That doesn't sound like intelligence agency speak. That sounds like WH/political speak. This source determined intent, not just the event itself.
Well the Obama administration has history of spying on their political foes along with using the IRS against them.
You refuse to question intent for fear of what you might find.
Right... you criticize my conjecture with an article from an editor at the NRO that is chock full of more conjecture that you represent as fact. It's kind of like criticizing leaks until you like the leaks. It's kind of like criticizing people who request immunity until you request immunity. Or maybe criticizing playing golf once every other month or so until you play it every weekend.
Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Good article, but conservative bias and this desire to bring down Obama is driving a lot of their thinking. I see a lot of conservatives thinking that the unmasking threshhold is somehow very high, and trump and co. don't meet this threshold. It's just denial of the level of corruption with trump because of blind disdain of Obama.
There is no bias in this article. This is a proper discussion on points of law. If there was bias McCarthy would lean towards labeling Rice's behaviour a crime but he refuses to do that. The real bias is the refusal to see her behaviour as an abuse. God forbid the Obama administration comes across in a negative light and even worse that Trump might be proven right on surveillance.
Every article has bias, but saying this doesn't shows your bias. The author's bias is that it doesn't reach the threshold of unmasking. Oh, and trump's been proven wrong on "wire tapping" already.
The "threshold of unmasking"? What are you even talking about? Unmasking happened. Flynn was unmasked. The threshold was reached. What wasn't reached was that unmasking being criminal. The criminal act was the leak of his name to the press. Nobody claims Rice participated in that leak. McCarthy doesn't make that claim. Someone did leak the info though and time will tell. Lastly on Trump it has only been proven wrong in the literal sense. People in his campaign were listened in on under the guise of "incidental contact". That is 21st century wire tapping my friend and if it was found that Rice was sharing info with Obama himself then Trump will in fact be more right then wrong. God forbid.
He will never be right she already stated she didn't leak any info but I guess you don't believe her , tell us do you agree that an independent counsel should investigate the Russian investigation because that's all this is a smoke screen on orange bafoon's part ...Putting political parties aside are you ok with any nation meddling in your country's election process ? Because that can't be denied they had their paws all over the process here ...
Were you upset with the Obama administration meddling in the Israeli election process? I highly doubt it. I love though how you have such faith in Rice's denials.
Mother should I trust the government? Noooooo
Yet you believe everything a proven liar egotistical groping bafoon spews I'd rather stick with her ...again I'll ask do you believe a independent counsel should take over the Russian investigation?
Uhhhh....no I don't believe everything the bafoon spews. I have said he is full of shit multiple times. Weird how many of you have trouble with nuance. Can't compute.
Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Uh yeah.. Pulitzer sure....for calling it FISA-Gate. But here's why we should expect it came from the WH: The reporting that came from these sources is that Susan Rice unmasked the person "for political purposes". That doesn't sound like intelligence agency speak. That sounds like WH/political speak. This source determined intent, not just the event itself.
Well the Obama administration has history of spying on their political foes along with using the IRS against them.
You refuse to question intent for fear of what you might find.
Right... you criticize my conjecture with an article from an editor at the NRO that is chock full of more conjecture that you represent as fact. It's kind of like criticizing leaks until you like the leaks. It's kind of like criticizing people who request immunity until you request immunity. Or maybe criticizing playing golf once every other month or so until you play it every weekend.
Speaking of immunity John Podesta just requested it as well. Hmmmmm. But no...I am not representing that article as fact....just circumstantial evidence. Evidence that aligns with Kucinich's criticism as well. You can criticize but do not avert your eyes to the possibility that the Obama administration abused their power.
Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Good article, but conservative bias and this desire to bring down Obama is driving a lot of their thinking. I see a lot of conservatives thinking that the unmasking threshhold is somehow very high, and trump and co. don't meet this threshold. It's just denial of the level of corruption with trump because of blind disdain of Obama.
There is no bias in this article. This is a proper discussion on points of law. If there was bias McCarthy would lean towards labeling Rice's behaviour a crime but he refuses to do that. The real bias is the refusal to see her behaviour as an abuse. God forbid the Obama administration comes across in a negative light and even worse that Trump might be proven right on surveillance.
Every article has bias, but saying this doesn't shows your bias. The author's bias is that it doesn't reach the threshold of unmasking. Oh, and trump's been proven wrong on "wire tapping" already.
The "threshold of unmasking"? What are you even talking about? Unmasking happened. Flynn was unmasked. The threshold was reached. What wasn't reached was that unmasking being criminal. The criminal act was the leak of his name to the press. Nobody claims Rice participated in that leak. McCarthy doesn't make that claim. Someone did leak the info though and time will tell. Lastly on Trump it has only been proven wrong in the literal sense. People in his campaign were listened in on under the guise of "incidental contact". That is 21st century wire tapping my friend and if it was found that Rice was sharing info with Obama himself then Trump will in fact be more right then wrong. God forbid.
He will never be right she already stated she didn't leak any info but I guess you don't believe her , tell us do you agree that an independent counsel should investigate the Russian investigation because that's all this is a smoke screen on orange bafoon's part ...Putting political parties aside are you ok with any nation meddling in your country's election process ? Because that can't be denied they had their paws all over the process here ...
Were you upset with the Obama administration meddling in the Israeli election process? I highly doubt it. I love though how you have such faith in Rice's denials.
Mother should I trust the government? Noooooo
Yet you believe everything a proven liar egotistical groping bafoon spews I'd rather stick with her ...again I'll ask do you believe a independent counsel should take over the Russian investigation?
Uhhhh....no I don't believe everything the bafoon spews. I have said he is full of shit multiple times. Weird how many of you have trouble with nuance. Can't compute.
I think using that type of tone towards others on the board is the primary reason why people may be so critical of what you say. Just a thought.
Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Good article, but conservative bias and this desire to bring down Obama is driving a lot of their thinking. I see a lot of conservatives thinking that the unmasking threshhold is somehow very high, and trump and co. don't meet this threshold. It's just denial of the level of corruption with trump because of blind disdain of Obama.
There is no bias in this article. This is a proper discussion on points of law. If there was bias McCarthy would lean towards labeling Rice's behaviour a crime but he refuses to do that. The real bias is the refusal to see her behaviour as an abuse. God forbid the Obama administration comes across in a negative light and even worse that Trump might be proven right on surveillance.
Every article has bias, but saying this doesn't shows your bias. The author's bias is that it doesn't reach the threshold of unmasking. Oh, and trump's been proven wrong on "wire tapping" already.
The "threshold of unmasking"? What are you even talking about? Unmasking happened. Flynn was unmasked. The threshold was reached. What wasn't reached was that unmasking being criminal. The criminal act was the leak of his name to the press. Nobody claims Rice participated in that leak. McCarthy doesn't make that claim. Someone did leak the info though and time will tell. Lastly on Trump it has only been proven wrong in the literal sense. People in his campaign were listened in on under the guise of "incidental contact". That is 21st century wire tapping my friend and if it was found that Rice was sharing info with Obama himself then Trump will in fact be more right then wrong. God forbid.
He will never be right she already stated she didn't leak any info but I guess you don't believe her , tell us do you agree that an independent counsel should investigate the Russian investigation because that's all this is a smoke screen on orange bafoon's part ...Putting political parties aside are you ok with any nation meddling in your country's election process ? Because that can't be denied they had their paws all over the process here ...
Were you upset with the Obama administration meddling in the Israeli election process? I highly doubt it. I love though how you have such faith in Rice's denials.
Mother should I trust the government? Noooooo
Yet you believe everything a proven liar egotistical groping bafoon spews I'd rather stick with her ...again I'll ask do you believe a independent counsel should take over the Russian investigation?
Uhhhh....no I don't believe everything the bafoon spews. I have said he is full of shit multiple times. Weird how many of you have trouble with nuance. Can't compute.
I think using that type of tone towards others on the board is the primary reason why people may be so critical of what you say. Just a thought.
He's always looked down his professorial nose at those who don't subscribe to his neocon way of thinking, despite being confronted by facts. Such as:
Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Good article, but conservative bias and this desire to bring down Obama is driving a lot of their thinking. I see a lot of conservatives thinking that the unmasking threshhold is somehow very high, and trump and co. don't meet this threshold. It's just denial of the level of corruption with trump because of blind disdain of Obama.
There is no bias in this article. This is a proper discussion on points of law. If there was bias McCarthy would lean towards labeling Rice's behaviour a crime but he refuses to do that. The real bias is the refusal to see her behaviour as an abuse. God forbid the Obama administration comes across in a negative light and even worse that Trump might be proven right on surveillance.
Every article has bias, but saying this doesn't shows your bias. The author's bias is that it doesn't reach the threshold of unmasking. Oh, and trump's been proven wrong on "wire tapping" already.
The "threshold of unmasking"? What are you even talking about? Unmasking happened. Flynn was unmasked. The threshold was reached. What wasn't reached was that unmasking being criminal. The criminal act was the leak of his name to the press. Nobody claims Rice participated in that leak. McCarthy doesn't make that claim. Someone did leak the info though and time will tell. Lastly on Trump it has only been proven wrong in the literal sense. People in his campaign were listened in on under the guise of "incidental contact". That is 21st century wire tapping my friend and if it was found that Rice was sharing info with Obama himself then Trump will in fact be more right then wrong. God forbid.
He will never be right she already stated she didn't leak any info but I guess you don't believe her , tell us do you agree that an independent counsel should investigate the Russian investigation because that's all this is a smoke screen on orange bafoon's part ...Putting political parties aside are you ok with any nation meddling in your country's election process ? Because that can't be denied they had their paws all over the process here ...
Were you upset with the Obama administration meddling in the Israeli election process? I highly doubt it. I love though how you have such faith in Rice's denials.
Mother should I trust the government? Noooooo
Yet you believe everything a proven liar egotistical groping bafoon spews I'd rather stick with her ...again I'll ask do you believe a independent counsel should take over the Russian investigation?
Uhhhh....no I don't believe everything the bafoon spews. I have said he is full of shit multiple times. Weird how many of you have trouble with nuance. Can't compute.
I think using that type of tone towards others on the board is the primary reason why people may be so critical of what you say. Just a thought.
Oh? Is it my tone that is the problem? I'm pretty sure it is my point of view that drives the criticism...that plus Trump Derangement Syndrome...and Putin Derangement Syndrome.
"Abuse of power" and Susan Rice are the new neocon buzz words and talking points in the echo chamber. Why, if Obama's abuse of power was so egregious, didn't the republican run congress do something to stop it? And now that Trump's doing it, you're okay with it? Professor?
Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Good article, but conservative bias and this desire to bring down Obama is driving a lot of their thinking. I see a lot of conservatives thinking that the unmasking threshhold is somehow very high, and trump and co. don't meet this threshold. It's just denial of the level of corruption with trump because of blind disdain of Obama.
There is no bias in this article. This is a proper discussion on points of law. If there was bias McCarthy would lean towards labeling Rice's behaviour a crime but he refuses to do that. The real bias is the refusal to see her behaviour as an abuse. God forbid the Obama administration comes across in a negative light and even worse that Trump might be proven right on surveillance.
Every article has bias, but saying this doesn't shows your bias. The author's bias is that it doesn't reach the threshold of unmasking. Oh, and trump's been proven wrong on "wire tapping" already.
The "threshold of unmasking"? What are you even talking about? Unmasking happened. Flynn was unmasked. The threshold was reached. What wasn't reached was that unmasking being criminal. The criminal act was the leak of his name to the press. Nobody claims Rice participated in that leak. McCarthy doesn't make that claim. Someone did leak the info though and time will tell. Lastly on Trump it has only been proven wrong in the literal sense. People in his campaign were listened in on under the guise of "incidental contact". That is 21st century wire tapping my friend and if it was found that Rice was sharing info with Obama himself then Trump will in fact be more right then wrong. God forbid.
He will never be right she already stated she didn't leak any info but I guess you don't believe her , tell us do you agree that an independent counsel should investigate the Russian investigation because that's all this is a smoke screen on orange bafoon's part ...Putting political parties aside are you ok with any nation meddling in your country's election process ? Because that can't be denied they had their paws all over the process here ...
Were you upset with the Obama administration meddling in the Israeli election process? I highly doubt it. I love though how you have such faith in Rice's denials.
Mother should I trust the government? Noooooo
Yet you believe everything a proven liar egotistical groping bafoon spews I'd rather stick with her ...again I'll ask do you believe a independent counsel should take over the Russian investigation?
Uhhhh....no I don't believe everything the bafoon spews. I have said he is full of shit multiple times. Weird how many of you have trouble with nuance. Can't compute.
I think using that type of tone towards others on the board is the primary reason why people may be so critical of what you say. Just a thought.
Oh? Is it my tone that is the problem? I'm pretty sure it is my point of view that drives the criticism...that plus Trump Derangement Syndrome...and Putin Derangement Syndrome.
Obviously, your opinion/POV is part of it. And people are certainly entitled to their own opinions. They way those opinions are presented can have both a positive and a negative influence.
I was simply stating that snarky comments (Does not compute) will probably not have a positive outcome. Fair enough?
Truman: "The buck stops here" Trump: "Hey Paul Ryan, catch!"
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Good article, but conservative bias and this desire to bring down Obama is driving a lot of their thinking. I see a lot of conservatives thinking that the unmasking threshhold is somehow very high, and trump and co. don't meet this threshold. It's just denial of the level of corruption with trump because of blind disdain of Obama.
There is no bias in this article. This is a proper discussion on points of law. If there was bias McCarthy would lean towards labeling Rice's behaviour a crime but he refuses to do that. The real bias is the refusal to see her behaviour as an abuse. God forbid the Obama administration comes across in a negative light and even worse that Trump might be proven right on surveillance.
Every article has bias, but saying this doesn't shows your bias. The author's bias is that it doesn't reach the threshold of unmasking. Oh, and trump's been proven wrong on "wire tapping" already.
The "threshold of unmasking"? What are you even talking about? Unmasking happened. Flynn was unmasked. The threshold was reached. What wasn't reached was that unmasking being criminal. The criminal act was the leak of his name to the press. Nobody claims Rice participated in that leak. McCarthy doesn't make that claim. Someone did leak the info though and time will tell. Lastly on Trump it has only been proven wrong in the literal sense. People in his campaign were listened in on under the guise of "incidental contact". That is 21st century wire tapping my friend and if it was found that Rice was sharing info with Obama himself then Trump will in fact be more right then wrong. God forbid.
He will never be right she already stated she didn't leak any info but I guess you don't believe her , tell us do you agree that an independent counsel should investigate the Russian investigation because that's all this is a smoke screen on orange bafoon's part ...Putting political parties aside are you ok with any nation meddling in your country's election process ? Because that can't be denied they had their paws all over the process here ...
Were you upset with the Obama administration meddling in the Israeli election process? I highly doubt it. I love though how you have such faith in Rice's denials.
Mother should I trust the government? Noooooo
Yet you believe everything a proven liar egotistical groping bafoon spews I'd rather stick with her ...again I'll ask do you believe a independent counsel should take over the Russian investigation?
Uhhhh....no I don't believe everything the bafoon spews. I have said he is full of shit multiple times. Weird how many of you have trouble with nuance. Can't compute.
I think using that type of tone towards others on the board is the primary reason why people may be so critical of what you say. Just a thought.
Oh? Is it my tone that is the problem? I'm pretty sure it is my point of view that drives the criticism...that plus Trump Derangement Syndrome...and Putin Derangement Syndrome.
Obviously, your opinion/POV is part of it. And people are certainly entitled to their own opinions. They way those opinions are presented can have both a positive and a negative influence.
I was simply stating that snarky comments (Does not compute) will probably not have a positive outcome. Fair enough?
Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Good article, but conservative bias and this desire to bring down Obama is driving a lot of their thinking. I see a lot of conservatives thinking that the unmasking threshhold is somehow very high, and trump and co. don't meet this threshold. It's just denial of the level of corruption with trump because of blind disdain of Obama.
There is no bias in this article. This is a proper discussion on points of law. If there was bias McCarthy would lean towards labeling Rice's behaviour a crime but he refuses to do that. The real bias is the refusal to see her behaviour as an abuse. God forbid the Obama administration comes across in a negative light and even worse that Trump might be proven right on surveillance.
Every article has bias, but saying this doesn't shows your bias. The author's bias is that it doesn't reach the threshold of unmasking. Oh, and trump's been proven wrong on "wire tapping" already.
The "threshold of unmasking"? What are you even talking about? Unmasking happened. Flynn was unmasked. The threshold was reached. What wasn't reached was that unmasking being criminal. The criminal act was the leak of his name to the press. Nobody claims Rice participated in that leak. McCarthy doesn't make that claim. Someone did leak the info though and time will tell. Lastly on Trump it has only been proven wrong in the literal sense. People in his campaign were listened in on under the guise of "incidental contact". That is 21st century wire tapping my friend and if it was found that Rice was sharing info with Obama himself then Trump will in fact be more right then wrong. God forbid.
He will never be right she already stated she didn't leak any info but I guess you don't believe her , tell us do you agree that an independent counsel should investigate the Russian investigation because that's all this is a smoke screen on orange bafoon's part ...Putting political parties aside are you ok with any nation meddling in your country's election process ? Because that can't be denied they had their paws all over the process here ...
Were you upset with the Obama administration meddling in the Israeli election process? I highly doubt it. I love though how you have such faith in Rice's denials.
Mother should I trust the government? Noooooo
Yet you believe everything a proven liar egotistical groping bafoon spews I'd rather stick with her ...again I'll ask do you believe a independent counsel should take over the Russian investigation?
Uhhhh....no I don't believe everything the bafoon spews. I have said he is full of shit multiple times. Weird how many of you have trouble with nuance. Can't compute.
I think using that type of tone towards others on the board is the primary reason why people may be so critical of what you say. Just a thought.
Oh? Is it my tone that is the problem? I'm pretty sure it is my point of view that drives the criticism...that plus Trump Derangement Syndrome...and Putin Derangement Syndrome.
Obviously, your opinion/POV is part of it. And people are certainly entitled to their own opinions. They way those opinions are presented can have both a positive and a negative influence.
I was simply stating that snarky comments (Does not compute) will probably not have a positive outcome. Fair enough?
Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Uh yeah.. Pulitzer sure....for calling it FISA-Gate. But here's why we should expect it came from the WH: The reporting that came from these sources is that Susan Rice unmasked the person "for political purposes". That doesn't sound like intelligence agency speak. That sounds like WH/political speak. This source determined intent, not just the event itself.
Well the Obama administration has history of spying on their political foes along with using the IRS against them.
You refuse to question intent for fear of what you might find.
Right... you criticize my conjecture with an article from an editor at the NRO that is chock full of more conjecture that you represent as fact. It's kind of like criticizing leaks until you like the leaks. It's kind of like criticizing people who request immunity until you request immunity. Or maybe criticizing playing golf once every other month or so until you play it every weekend.
Speaking of immunity John Podesta just requested it as well. Hmmmmm. But no...I am not representing that article as fact....just circumstantial evidence. Evidence that aligns with Kucinich's criticism as well. You can criticize but do not avert your eyes to the possibility that the Obama administration abused their power.
I feel like you just made up this John Podesta immunity request. A request for immunity cannot be circumstantial.
Andrew McCarthy is still all over this story and it ain't looking good for the former administration.
If true that she requested the unmasking, what law did she break?
Maybe none.
Exactly none, to be precise. So not sure how you keep bringing up watergate which was chock full of crimes. Although I do find it interesting that Trump has been bitching about leaks for weeks and it's pretty obvious that his admin leaked this Rice story to multiple conservative outlets. Th hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not "exactly none". Sorry...you do not have enough evidence to declare that. You also make assumptions on points of law that you and I don't fully understand. You are right about the leak of Rice's name though...that being said is it a "leak" or is it "whistleblowing"? Intelligence agents seem to believe she was behaving improperly and the public needed to know. Only a thorough investigation will discover the truth.
The GOP controls the intelligence committees. They could have had an open or closed door meeting where this came out. It's not whistleblowing when Elliott Cohen is the source.
You think that's the source but you do not know. Again you make assumptions. Either way the source doesn't change the story that is unfolding. There was confirmed surveillance via "incidental contact" of the Trump administration/transition team unrelated to Russia. Incidental names within that surveillance were unmasked by Susan Rice and to some degree that info was shared. The questions now need to be asked why? The possibility of abuse is very high here. The need to find Russia related material on Trump might have caused Obama administraion officials to behave badly. It can no longer be denied.
Of course I don't know for sure it was him... but the tea leaves are certainly pointing that way. Either way, isn't it pretty obvious it came from the WH?
It originates from the intelligence apparatus first and from there maybe to the White House...we just don't know. Either way it doesn't corrupt what is being reported. There are logs of unmasking requests and the info on Rice is either real or it isn't.
Also here is Andrew McCarthy breaking it down further...he properly explains how what isn't criminal can still be an abuse of power.
Uh yeah.. Pulitzer sure....for calling it FISA-Gate. But here's why we should expect it came from the WH: The reporting that came from these sources is that Susan Rice unmasked the person "for political purposes". That doesn't sound like intelligence agency speak. That sounds like WH/political speak. This source determined intent, not just the event itself.
Well the Obama administration has history of spying on their political foes along with using the IRS against them.
You refuse to question intent for fear of what you might find.
Right... you criticize my conjecture with an article from an editor at the NRO that is chock full of more conjecture that you represent as fact. It's kind of like criticizing leaks until you like the leaks. It's kind of like criticizing people who request immunity until you request immunity. Or maybe criticizing playing golf once every other month or so until you play it every weekend.
Speaking of immunity John Podesta just requested it as well. Hmmmmm. But no...I am not representing that article as fact....just circumstantial evidence. Evidence that aligns with Kucinich's criticism as well. You can criticize but do not avert your eyes to the possibility that the Obama administration abused their power.
I feel like you just made up this John Podesta immunity request. A request for immunity cannot be circumstantial.
Right? Podesta "requesting immunity" without having been asked to testify or having been charged with a crime would have blown up the media. Instead it blew up in BS' mind.
Don't bury your head in the sand to the certainty that Trump's campaign was corrupted by Putin and Russia. Has Trump done anything other than Putin's bidding?
Comments
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Uhhhh....no I don't believe everything the bafoon spews. I have said he is full of shit multiple times. Weird how many of you have trouble with nuance. Can't compute.
I think using that type of tone towards others on the board is the primary reason why people may be so critical of what you say. Just a thought.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
He's always looked down his professorial nose at those who don't subscribe to his neocon way of thinking, despite being confronted by facts. Such as:
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/11/1619079/-Comparing-Presidential-Administrations-by-Arrests-and-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-Appointees
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Oh? Is it my tone that is the problem? I'm pretty sure it is my point of view that drives the criticism...that plus Trump Derangement Syndrome...and Putin Derangement Syndrome.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-putin-derangement-syndrome-arrives-w474771
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-putin-derangement-syndrome-arrives-w474771
Obviously, your opinion/POV is part of it. And people are certainly entitled to their own opinions. They way those opinions are presented can have both a positive and a negative influence.
I was simply stating that snarky comments (Does not compute) will probably not have a positive outcome. Fair enough?
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/personal-irresponsibility-a-concise-history-of-trumps-buck-passing/2017/04/05/b94fc804-1a31-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Trump: "Hey Paul Ryan, catch!"
I was simply stating that snarky comments (Does not compute) will probably not have a positive outcome. Fair enough?
This is not for you...never was for you.
Ummm...ok.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/powerpost/mcconnell-nuclear-option-helps-senate-mccain-whoever-says-that-is-a-stupid-idiot/2017/04/05/d9d73aec-1a1a-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/05/reports-in-unmasking-controversy-were-detailed-had-info-about-everyday-lives.html
Is this the intelligence community just doing it's job?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/04/06/president-trumps-claim-without-evidence-that-susan-rice-may-have-committed-a-crime/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Don't bury your head in the sand to the certainty that Trump's campaign was corrupted by Putin and Russia. Has Trump done anything other than Putin's bidding?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©