lol we still have more than three yrs left of this I can't wait to see what this country looks like after we get done winning so much ...
We'll all be sleeping, so, so, so very tired from all the winning we'll be.
Hey, but Mike Pence has an Instagram account now. Who all follows him?
Vice President Mike Pence is now on Instagram. For up-to-date photos, follow VP here.
I'm not allowed to look at it if my wife isn't in the room with me.
Right?! So Trump selects a VP who either can't control his urges or out of some made up religious sense can't sin against his spouse by dining with other women without her? What's next? A Christian version of the Burqua? Anyway, help me understand this, is he afraid of sinning or is it some self imposed religious obligation? Or is it a dog whistle to his far right second coming Christian conservatives?
It's the world progressives have created. When Rolling Stone magazine can turn any man into a rapist only a fool would put themselves in a compromising position. Personally I will not meet with a female student behind closed doors and I never drive a female baby sitter home. All it takes is one accusation to ruin a life and/or career.
As someone who also works at a university in Canada and has done so for 15+ years, that is TOTALLY FUCKED UP and sketchy. I have never once heard of a professor or anyone else working at the university who can't or won't have a one-on-one meeting with a female unless, of course, he's already been accused of sexual misconduct. You sound completely paranoid (or like someone who has trouble acting appropriately around females).
This is for you PJSoul...not university but shows how a false accusation can damage someone.
I know what it can do - my own mother was falsely accused by a couple of idiot teenaged girls who were mad at her when she was a teacher. My mother didn't become paranoid after that incident though. She is a reasonable, logical person. My dad was a principal, so of course it's an issue he was well aware of too. And working at a university, I'm well versed on this issue in general. And I still think your attitude is fucked up. And BTW, what is WAY more common is sexual harassment of women by men, and I have been a victim of that a LOT of times, but you don't see me refusing to be in a room alone with men at work. I just don't think that is a good reaction to the issue.
You are absolutely right that sexual harassment of women by men is way more common. I am not disagreeing with that at all. You should also know that I am not treating the female students any different then the male students I meet with...I treat them both equally by leaving a door open with a receptionist present. I also don't use the same rules in my business where I have all female employees. I meet with all of them one on one behind close doors without any issue all the time. The university setting is a different animal altogether though and it is extremely logical for a person in power not to place themselves in a compromising position considering the new rules of engagement. When there are universities such as Yale that will punish students for simply writing about rape you know we have crossed over into an unpleasant illogical world.
Agree...very odd....but I didn't create this "odd" world. In this day and age depending on who the sitter is it is no longer appropriate. My wife agrees and so does pretty much every guy I know. Fortunately I am now just past the sitter phase but when necessary my wife does the driving. Universal precautions in the age of the oppressive patriarchy.
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.
lol we still have more than three yrs left of this I can't wait to see what this country looks like after we get done winning so much ...
We'll all be sleeping, so, so, so very tired from all the winning we'll be.
Hey, but Mike Pence has an Instagram account now. Who all follows him?
Vice President Mike Pence is now on Instagram. For up-to-date photos, follow VP here.
I'm not allowed to look at it if my wife isn't in the room with me.
Right?! So Trump selects a VP who either can't control his urges or out of some made up religious sense can't sin against his spouse by dining with other women without her? What's next? A Christian version of the Burqua? Anyway, help me understand this, is he afraid of sinning or is it some self imposed religious obligation? Or is it a dog whistle to his far right second coming Christian conservatives?
It's the world progressives have created. When Rolling Stone magazine can turn any man into a rapist only a fool would put themselves in a compromising position. Personally I will not meet with a female student behind closed doors and I never drive a female baby sitter home. All it takes is one accusation to ruin a life and/or career.
As someone who also works at a university in Canada and has done so for 15+ years, that is TOTALLY FUCKED UP and sketchy. I have never once heard of a professor or anyone else working at the university who can't or won't have a one-on-one meeting with a female unless, of course, he's already been accused of sexual misconduct. You sound completely paranoid (or like someone who has trouble acting appropriately around females).
This is for you PJSoul...not university but shows how a false accusation can damage someone.
I know what it can do - my own mother was falsely accused by a couple of idiot teenaged girls who were mad at her when she was a teacher. My mother didn't become paranoid after that incident though. She is a reasonable, logical person. My dad was a principal, so of course it's an issue he was well aware of too. And working at a university, I'm well versed on this issue in general. And I still think your attitude is fucked up. And BTW, what is WAY more common is sexual harassment of women by men, and I have been a victim of that a LOT of times, but you don't see me refusing to be in a room alone with men at work. I just don't think that is a good reaction to the issue.
You are absolutely right that sexual harassment of women by men is way more common. I am not disagreeing with that at all. You should also know that I am not treating the female students any different then the male students I meet with...I treat them both equally by leaving a door open with a receptionist present. I also don't use the same rules in my business where I have all female employees. I meet with all of them one on one behind close doors without any issue all the time. The university setting is a different animal altogether though and it is extremely logical for a person in power not to place themselves in a compromising position considering the new rules of engagement. When there are universities such as Yale that will punish students for simply writing about rape you know we have crossed over into an unpleasant illogical world.
Agree...very odd....but I didn't create this "odd" world. In this day and age depending on who the sitter is it is no longer appropriate. My wife agrees and so does pretty much every guy I know. Fortunately I am now just past the sitter phase but when necessary my wife does the driving. Universal precautions in the age of the oppressive patriarchy.
Be afraid, be very afraid. Of everything. Trust no one. What a way to go through life.
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.
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.
lol we still have more than three yrs left of this I can't wait to see what this country looks like after we get done winning so much ...
We'll all be sleeping, so, so, so very tired from all the winning we'll be.
Hey, but Mike Pence has an Instagram account now. Who all follows him?
Vice President Mike Pence is now on Instagram. For up-to-date photos, follow VP here.
I'm not allowed to look at it if my wife isn't in the room with me.
Right?! So Trump selects a VP who either can't control his urges or out of some made up religious sense can't sin against his spouse by dining with other women without her? What's next? A Christian version of the Burqua? Anyway, help me understand this, is he afraid of sinning or is it some self imposed religious obligation? Or is it a dog whistle to his far right second coming Christian conservatives?
It's the world progressives have created. When Rolling Stone magazine can turn any man into a rapist only a fool would put themselves in a compromising position. Personally I will not meet with a female student behind closed doors and I never drive a female baby sitter home. All it takes is one accusation to ruin a life and/or career.
As someone who also works at a university in Canada and has done so for 15+ years, that is TOTALLY FUCKED UP and sketchy. I have never once heard of a professor or anyone else working at the university who can't or won't have a one-on-one meeting with a female unless, of course, he's already been accused of sexual misconduct. You sound completely paranoid (or like someone who has trouble acting appropriately around females).
This is for you PJSoul...not university but shows how a false accusation can damage someone.
I know what it can do - my own mother was falsely accused by a couple of idiot teenaged girls who were mad at her when she was a teacher. My mother didn't become paranoid after that incident though. She is a reasonable, logical person. My dad was a principal, so of course it's an issue he was well aware of too. And working at a university, I'm well versed on this issue in general. And I still think your attitude is fucked up. And BTW, what is WAY more common is sexual harassment of women by men, and I have been a victim of that a LOT of times, but you don't see me refusing to be in a room alone with men at work. I just don't think that is a good reaction to the issue.
You are absolutely right that sexual harassment of women by men is way more common. I am not disagreeing with that at all. You should also know that I am not treating the female students any different then the male students I meet with...I treat them both equally by leaving a door open with a receptionist present. I also don't use the same rules in my business where I have all female employees. I meet with all of them one on one behind close doors without any issue all the time. The university setting is a different animal altogether though and it is extremely logical for a person in power not to place themselves in a compromising position considering the new rules of engagement. When there are universities such as Yale that will punish students for simply writing about rape you know we have crossed over into an unpleasant illogical world.
Agree...very odd....but I didn't create this "odd" world. In this day and age depending on who the sitter is it is no longer appropriate. My wife agrees and so does pretty much every guy I know. Fortunately I am now just past the sitter phase but when necessary my wife does the driving. Universal precautions in the age of the oppressive patriarchy.
Be afraid, be very afraid. Of everything. Trust no one. What a way to go through life.
Not no one...just not anyone. A guy like you has no problem labeling someone a racist and there is no doubt that you wouldn't hesitate changing that "C" to a "P" out of pure vindictiveness. People like you exist all around...more so now then ever...the brilliant do not let their guard down.
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.
You continue to put your faith in Trump, despite overwhelming evidence that he lies, cheats and makes shit up, over
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.
I know the threshold was reached. McCarthy's stance is that the threshold for unmasking is very high, and in this case, it was lowered. Isn't that the whole point of the article? That it was an abuse of power? That's where the authors bias comes in.
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.
I know the threshold was reached. McCarthy's stance is that the threshold for unmasking is very high, and in this case, it was lowered. Isn't that the whole point of the article? That it was an abuse of power? That's where the authors bias comes in.
that's how I read it as well. All people are biased in one way or another. Some biases are minor & do not cause harm to anyone, while others can cause harm to everyone.
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.
You continue to put your faith in Trump, despite overwhelming evidence that he lies, cheats and makes shit up, over
So who leaked it seeing how the "unmasking" is no longer an issue?
This isn't about faith in Trump. This is a separate issue altogether and worthy of an investigation regardless how you feel about Trump. In fact the less faith you have in Trump the more you should be concerned because he will be able to do the same type of surveillance, unmasking, and leaking against his opponents in 2020. Is this something you would be ok with? Don't bother answering...you are preparing your 2020 conspiracy posts already. The unmasking is an issue...it just isn't necessarily a "criminal" issue.
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.
I know the threshold was reached. McCarthy's stance is that the threshold for unmasking is very high, and in this case, it was lowered. Isn't that the whole point of the article? That it was an abuse of power? That's where the authors bias comes in.
Yes but he is stating within the article that certain questions must be answered in order to determine whether it was in fact an "abuse of power". The evidence points that way and McCarthy believes it but he leaves open the possibility that Rice can explain her actions. At this point it is on her to do so. The bias is to deny that she has anything to explain at all.
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.
You continue to put your faith in Trump, despite overwhelming evidence that he lies, cheats and makes shit up, over
So who leaked it seeing how the "unmasking" is no longer an issue?
This isn't about faith in Trump. This is a separate issue altogether and worthy of an investigation regardless how you feel about Trump. In fact the less faith you have in Trump the more you should be concerned because he will be able to do the same type of surveillance, unmasking, and leaking against his opponents in 2020. Is this something you would be ok with? Don't bother answering...you are preparing your 2020 conspiracy posts already. The unmasking is an issue...it just isn't necessarily a "criminal" issue.
Unmasking in ones professional duties and responsibilities is not an issue. But hey, the republicans can investigate so investigate away. I'm willing to bet, like all the other investigations of Hillary and Obama, they end up with a big fat goose egg. You're the one seemingly having the made up conspiracy theory, despite facts thus known to the contrary.
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.
At least there is no fear of Pence playing hide the cigar with the interns.
You forgot the word "consenting" between "the" and "intern."
Can't have consent in the workplace between a superior and a subordinate.....well, it may not be a matter of law, but the superior gets fired 99.9% of the time.
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 ...
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.
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.
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?
Comments
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.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/11/1619079/-Comparing-Presidential-Administrations-by-Arrests-and-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-Appointees
So who leaked it seeing how the "unmasking" is no longer an issue?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/05/media/donald-trump-defends-bill-oreilly/index.html
And, you know, you pay out $13 million or $25 million because, well, you know, you didn't do anything wrong.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
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©
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 ...
He ended it immediately upon getting a question that he couldn't answer.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/229062/did-the-obama-administrations-abuse-of-foreign-intelligence-collection-start-before-trump
You refuse to question intent for fear of what you might find.
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
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?