Blank Discussion Topic
Options
Comments
-
It doesn't need to be declassified to send to the select committees.BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.0 -
So you say.mrussel1 said:
It doesn't need to be declassified to send to the select committees.BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.0 -
What do you mean? You have the select committees who are by law allowed to view classified materials adn if the POTUS deems certain intelligence to be too sensitive, you have the Gang of Eight. This isn't "so I say"... this is the actual US Code.BS44325 said:
So you say.mrussel1 said:
It doesn't need to be declassified to send to the select committees.BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.0 -
That was my understanding as well.mrussel1 said:
What do you mean? You have the select committees who are by law allowed to view classified materials adn if the POTUS deems certain intelligence to be too sensitive, you have the Gang of Eight. This isn't "so I say"... this is the actual US Code.BS44325 said:
So you say.mrussel1 said:
It doesn't need to be declassified to send to the select committees.BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.I LOVE MUSIC.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com0 -
You are correct on this but it doesn't mean that the committees know everything that the different agencies are collecting or how they are necessarily going about the gathering of intelligence that maybe on going. This is why congressmen/women went to langley to "see" raw intelligence on russia related issues. They had previously been given reports but those reports are not the same as the "raw" which includes sources, methods, etc. The point is that what committees know or don't know is all assumption. Nobody on here has any clue.mrussel1 said:
What do you mean? You have the select committees who are by law allowed to view classified materials adn if the POTUS deems certain intelligence to be too sensitive, you have the Gang of Eight. This isn't "so I say"... this is the actual US Code.BS44325 said:
So you say.mrussel1 said:
It doesn't need to be declassified to send to the select committees.BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.0 -
I don't believe it. Trump promised us nobody would lose their insurance....and it would be cheaper....and it would be better healthcare.....and there would be rainbows....and unicorns.mrussel1 said:Oops.. 24MM less people being insured after CBO scoring. Sounds like a winner for politics and humanity.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/cbo-gop-obamacare-repeal-plan-236007
0 -
Internal White House numbers are slightly higher than CBO at 26m.0
-
Just leave the guy's stapler alone, man.dignin said:
I don't believe it. Trump promised us nobody would lose their insurance....and it would be cheaper....and it would be better healthcare.....and there would be rainbows....and unicorns.mrussel1 said:Oops.. 24MM less people being insured after CBO scoring. Sounds like a winner for politics and humanity.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/cbo-gop-obamacare-repeal-plan-236007"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Spin baby spin, spin the black site, spin, spin, spin, spinning it around, spin, spin, spin, spin the black site, spinning it around.BS44325 said:
You are correct on this but it doesn't mean that the committees know everything that the different agencies are collecting or how they are necessarily going about the gathering of intelligence that maybe on going. This is why congressmen/women went to langley to "see" raw intelligence on russia related issues. They had previously been given reports but those reports are not the same as the "raw" which includes sources, methods, etc. The point is that what committees know or don't know is all assumption. Nobody on here has any clue.mrussel1 said:
What do you mean? You have the select committees who are by law allowed to view classified materials adn if the POTUS deems certain intelligence to be too sensitive, you have the Gang of Eight. This isn't "so I say"... this is the actual US Code.BS44325 said:
So you say.mrussel1 said:
It doesn't need to be declassified to send to the select committees.BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
Roles reversed and righties would be calling treason, punishable by death.rgambs said:
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.0 -
CNN aired "The Most Powerful Man in the World," about V. Putin last night.
I hate to spoil the ending but...turns out it WAS Russia, and a certain OF is in way over his head..
Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180 -
Under US law, that information must be shared with them. I'm not aware of any precedent or law that allows the executive branch to withhold any intelligence from the Gang of 8. In fact, Congress has subpoena power over the executive branch. Now the EC could claim executive privilege but that wouldn't hold up for one minute in court in this situation. And it would cause a fatal deterioration of relations between Capitol Hill and this White House. So bottom line, we're still in the same place we were.BS44325 said:
You are correct on this but it doesn't mean that the committees know everything that the different agencies are collecting or how they are necessarily going about the gathering of intelligence that maybe on going. This is why congressmen/women went to langley to "see" raw intelligence on russia related issues. They had previously been given reports but those reports are not the same as the "raw" which includes sources, methods, etc. The point is that what committees know or don't know is all assumption. Nobody on here has any clue.mrussel1 said:
What do you mean? You have the select committees who are by law allowed to view classified materials adn if the POTUS deems certain intelligence to be too sensitive, you have the Gang of Eight. This isn't "so I say"... this is the actual US Code.BS44325 said:
So you say.mrussel1 said:
It doesn't need to be declassified to send to the select committees.BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.0 -
Richard Nixon was impeached for ignoring subpoenas, among other things. He claimed Executive Privilege, but that really didn't work out too good for him.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
ABUSE OF POWER
DEFIANCE OF SUBPOENAS
no subpoenas yet, but give the House Judiciary Committee timePost edited by ikiT onBristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180 -
Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180
-
Brilliant!Tiki said:
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180
-
Absolutely. Well, maybe not the death part.Smellyman said:
Roles reversed and righties would be calling treason, punishable by death.rgambs said:
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.I LOVE MUSIC.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com0 -
What are you talking about? I am willing to consider that possibility. In due time we will find out whether the evidence was sufficient or not. At the moment though there is no evidence that the "ties" were "improper"...there is only evidence that there were "ties". This is what Clapper and anyone else in the know stated two weekends ago. Now of course these findings can change but that would require new evidence that nobody in the public has been made aware of to date.rgambs said:
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.0 -
I don't think in this situation Trump is claiming executive privilege. This spying (if it occurred at all) took place under the previous administration and I don't think Trump would prevent this from going to the committees. What we don't know is whether DOJ/CIA/NSA/DIA holdovers are resisting the sharing of some of this info or not and yes if they do resist that can and will likely result in subpoenas if it even goes that far. Another twist is that it was just reported (via three anonymous sources) that someone within the Obama administration relied on British Intelligence to access the NSA database for recordings of conversations allowing Obama to bypass American restrictions. Again this is all anonymous and could be bullshit as well but it demonstrates the limited reach of congress should the executive branch choose to use a foreign agency to do it's work.mrussel1 said:
Under US law, that information must be shared with them. I'm not aware of any precedent or law that allows the executive branch to withhold any intelligence from the Gang of 8. In fact, Congress has subpoena power over the executive branch. Now the EC could claim executive privilege but that wouldn't hold up for one minute in court in this situation. And it would cause a fatal deterioration of relations between Capitol Hill and this White House. So bottom line, we're still in the same place we were.BS44325 said:
You are correct on this but it doesn't mean that the committees know everything that the different agencies are collecting or how they are necessarily going about the gathering of intelligence that maybe on going. This is why congressmen/women went to langley to "see" raw intelligence on russia related issues. They had previously been given reports but those reports are not the same as the "raw" which includes sources, methods, etc. The point is that what committees know or don't know is all assumption. Nobody on here has any clue.mrussel1 said:
What do you mean? You have the select committees who are by law allowed to view classified materials adn if the POTUS deems certain intelligence to be too sensitive, you have the Gang of Eight. This isn't "so I say"... this is the actual US Code.BS44325 said:
So you say.mrussel1 said:
It doesn't need to be declassified to send to the select committees.BS44325 said:
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.mrussel1 said:
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing.BS44325 said:
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.mrussel1 said:
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.BS44325 said:
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.Tiki said:So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin?
I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help