Donald Trump

cincybearcat said:

Gern Blansten said:

Trump just gave what might be the stupidest press conference ever put forth by a sitting president. Unreal.

He ended it immediately upon getting a question that he couldn't answer.

I think ending a press conference when you get a question you can't answer is a lot of things...but hardly a stupid move

josevolution said:

CM189191 said:

josevolution said:

What a joke this administration Conservatives can't take ownership of anything at all just blame the black guy or the woman ...

ftfy

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Cards still being placed on the table and the Susan Rice card is a huge one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

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.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446456/susan-rice-unmasking-michael-flynn-legal-abuse-power-intelligence-foreign-targets

He should win a goddamn pulitzer.

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.

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

CM189191 said:

josevolution said:

What a joke this administration Conservatives can't take ownership of anything at all just blame the black guy or the woman ...

ftfy

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Cards still being placed on the table and the Susan Rice card is a huge one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

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.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446456/susan-rice-unmasking-michael-flynn-legal-abuse-power-intelligence-foreign-targets

He should win a goddamn pulitzer.

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 ...

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Cards still being placed on the table and the Susan Rice card is a huge one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

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.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446456/susan-rice-unmasking-michael-flynn-legal-abuse-power-intelligence-foreign-targets

He should win a goddamn pulitzer.

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.

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.

Right... you criticize my conjecture with an article from an editor at the NRO that is chock full of more conjecture that you represent as fact. It's kind of like criticizing leaks until you like the leaks. It's kind of like criticizing people who request immunity until you request immunity. Or maybe criticizing playing golf once every other month or so until you play it every weekend.

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

CM189191 said:

josevolution said:

What a joke this administration Conservatives can't take ownership of anything at all just blame the black guy or the woman ...

ftfy

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Cards still being placed on the table and the Susan Rice card is a huge one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

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.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446456/susan-rice-unmasking-michael-flynn-legal-abuse-power-intelligence-foreign-targets

He should win a goddamn pulitzer.

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

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

CM189191 said:

josevolution said:

What a joke this administration Conservatives can't take ownership of anything at all just blame the black guy or the woman ...

ftfy

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Cards still being placed on the table and the Susan Rice card is a huge one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

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.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446456/susan-rice-unmasking-michael-flynn-legal-abuse-power-intelligence-foreign-targets

He should win a goddamn pulitzer.

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?

mfc2006 said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

CM189191 said:

josevolution said:

What a joke this administration Conservatives can't take ownership of anything at all just blame the black guy or the woman ...

ftfy

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Cards still being placed on the table and the Susan Rice card is a huge one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa

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.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446456/susan-rice-unmasking-michael-flynn-legal-abuse-power-intelligence-foreign-targets

He should win a goddamn pulitzer.

Good article, but conservative bias and this desire to bring down Obama is driving a lot of their thinking. I see a lot of conservatives thinking that the unmasking threshhold is somehow very high, and trump and co. don't meet this threshold. It's just denial of the level of corruption with trump because of blind disdain of Obama.

There is no bias in this article. This is a proper discussion on points of law. If there was bias McCarthy would lean towards labeling Rice's behaviour a crime but he refuses to do that. The real bias is the refusal to see her behaviour as an abuse. God forbid the Obama administration comes across in a negative light and even worse that Trump might be proven right on surveillance.

Every article has bias, but saying this doesn't shows your bias. The author's bias is that it doesn't reach the threshold of unmasking. Oh, and trump's been proven wrong on "wire tapping" already.

The "threshold of unmasking"? What are you even talking about? Unmasking happened. Flynn was unmasked. The threshold was reached. What wasn't reached was that unmasking being criminal. The criminal act was the leak of his name to the press. Nobody claims Rice participated in that leak. McCarthy doesn't make that claim. Someone did leak the info though and time will tell. Lastly on Trump it has only been proven wrong in the literal sense. People in his campaign were listened in on under the guise of "incidental contact". That is 21st century wire tapping my friend and if it was found that Rice was sharing info with Obama himself then Trump will in fact be more right then wrong. God forbid.

He will never be right she already stated she didn't leak any info but I guess you don't believe her , tell us do you agree that an independent counsel should investigate the Russian investigation because that's all this is a smoke screen on orange bafoon's part ...Putting political parties aside are you ok with any nation meddling in your country's election process ? Because that can't be denied they had their paws all over the process here ...

Were you upset with the Obama administration meddling in the Israeli election process? I highly doubt it. I love though how you have such faith in Rice's denials.

Mother should I trust the government? Noooooo

Yet you believe everything a proven liar egotistical groping bafoon spews I'd rather stick with her ...again I'll ask do you believe a independent counsel should take over the Russian investigation?

Uhhhh....no I don't believe everything the bafoon spews. I have said he is full of shit multiple times. Weird how many of you have trouble with nuance. Can't compute.

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

Then why trust trump?

Who said I do?