The leak is far worse than the resignation, obama's people really screwed up, jail may await them...

[Dale Smith]

BTW, the Hildebeast was lifting trade sanctions on radical muslim countries in exchange for donations to her slush fund (that was cleverly disguised as a foundation".

I can't tell whose ass you're farther up, Breitbart's or Alex Jones.

I do know that you love it in there.

Punkinpuss, try and put all your questions in one post, m'kay?

Your understanding of the situation concerning Russia is utterly pathetic and you just proved it. You think the first wave of sanctions placed on Russia has to do with the nuttiest claim that Russia leaked e-mails to Julian Assange to post on Wikileaks showing how the leftard clown posse was working behind the scenes to steal the election while revealing Hitlery's ties to John Pedophile-Desta and the DNC's connection to child trafficking with operatives like Laura Silsby? I guess Russia was behind the confiscation of Anthony Wiener's lap-top computer that had even more incriminating evidence? I guess Russia funded Project Veritas that also confirmed the findings of Wikileaks?

No, what happened was that Russia allowed Crimea to join them instead of staying with the Ukraine after a E.U/George Soros funded coup of the duly elected government of the Ukraine and then installed an E.U friendly puppet that would allow the parasitic IMF into their country. THEN Russia had the audacity to align themselves with Assad because they wanted to join in to build an oil pipeline....but wait! USA.INC and their globalist masters already had designs on the resources of that country that was not under their control and didn't have a Rothschild central bank....Russia stepped in when ISIS (funded by CIA black ops money with mercenaries recruited by Saudi intel and the MOSSAD with the backing of MI5 and MI6) created a false flag event by claiming Assad used chemical weapons on his own people which was a total load of bullshit...but? The Barrypuppet and the departed Hitlery were so proud of the taking down of Libya and throwing it into utter chaos while thousands died horrific and cruel deaths along with the raping and pillaging that country? I guess they felt like they were on a roll. Russia stopped it and the Barrypuppet seethed with anger along with his globalist pals. Soooo? MORE sanctions...they made up lies that Russia was killing civilians which was an utter load of bullshit that was shoveled to the American sheeple. Neocons like McCain were all onboard with what they called the "moderate radicals" and leftard sheeple like you bought it no doubt. Russia tried to broker a deal to bypass the intrinsic valueless fiat world's reserve currency known as the "petro-dollar" with other countries that were tired of having to use this worthless paper currency by forming BRICS. Putin has been a thorn in the side of the banking oligarchs since they were kicked out. Simply put, you are ignorant and you watch waaaaay too much TV news.


I have given you a lot to digest......may take you awhile. I hope it doesn't make your tiny pea-brain explode.

No need to "thank" me.......I do this because I am a "giver"......

 

[Coyote]

It is completely different since the officials involved broke numerous laws and violated the agreements they made to serve. They can be charged with actual laws and we can find out who they were. How are you ok with the US Government spying on US citizens? Or better yet an outgoing US Government spying on an incoming Government?

Oh really?

Your argument, in defense of wikileaks was that it was justified in exposing potential "criminal conduct".

The leaks WERE an illegal act however.

Do you still justify it?

If so, how can you not justify the leaks on Flynn?

Ans: it's DIFFERENT when it's OUR side

Did wiki leaks obtain their information through a US covert operation against a United States citizen?

No?

So the difference is monumental.

There was no covert operation against a US citizen.

Of course there was "a covert operation" against an American citizen -- Gen Flynn, T-Rump, and who the hell else knows how many others in the transition team. Even worse it appears completely unauthorized and certain HIGHLY illegal to leak any of that information to the public.

The Russians are routinely tapped. Flynn was NOT tapped. He was caught on the tape because the Russian was tapped. That is NOT a covert operation against Flynn.

It's not unusual to intercept and record conversations like that. What makes it unusual is that you need to be TASKED to FLAG it, Transcript it, Analyze it and Distribute it. And distribution of stuff like that is restricted to a couple hundred very trusted people. And if you take OUTSIDE that circle -- you're a traitor and criminal with no future.

Break it down.

The conversations ended up being analyzed when Putin's decision to not retaliate tit-for-tat raised a red flag in the intelligence community because it was such a drastic departure from normal Russian behavior. That precipitated analyzing and transcribing it.

Is that a "covert operation" against Flynn? No.

But Flynn clearly comes up and given the potential illegality of the phone call, and the concerns over Russian involvement in influencing elections - that raised another red flag.

Is it illegal? Well, if it is, then you'd better apply the same standards to their treatment of Clinton

Now...if you're talking about the "leaks" as taking the distribution out of the appropriate circle - then yes, I agree - it's illegal and criminal.

But again - apply the same standard to Clinton why don't you?

The problem is -- when PARTISANS infiltrate that trusted circle and start using that awesome power to form an insurrection -- the war that could start would end this Republic as we know it. Because of the massive amount of incriminating and embarrassing shit that's been bottled up in that power to spy for decades. Which is why -- until 9/11 all these agencies were EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED from conducting ANY Domestic operations.

I'm not happy about domestic survellience regardless.

Which brings up the point that pisses me off the most. Which is -- that all these party animals, both left and right don't give a crap about Civil Liberties unless and until THEIR SIDE is the victim. The Patriot Act powers and all this unimaginable power to probe and spy is just FINE WITH THEM -- when THEIR SIDE is in power. Which leaves the REAL Civil Libertarians to worry about how all this end should the genie get out of the bottle.

End the hypocrisy here. Be CONSISTENT on Civil Liberties implications of having these powerful agencies hijacked and misused. Or face a literal Armageddon some day... Not being dramatic. Just stating a fact.

I've never liked the Patriot Act.

The real question people need to ask is - how many civil liberties are you willing to give up for the perception of greater security?

Most people are pefectly willing to give up OTHER'S civil liberties.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is completely different since the officials involved broke numerous laws and violated the agreements they made to serve. They can be charged with actual laws and we can find out who they were. How are you ok with the US Government spying on US citizens? Or better yet an outgoing US Government spying on an incoming Government?

Oh really?

Your argument, in defense of wikileaks was that it was justified in exposing potential "criminal conduct".

The leaks WERE an illegal act however.

Do you still justify it?

If so, how can you not justify the leaks on Flynn?

Ans: it's DIFFERENT when it's OUR side

Did wiki leaks obtain their information through a US covert operation against a United States citizen?

No?

So the difference is monumental.

There was no covert operation against a US citizen.

Of course there was "a covert operation" against an American citizen -- Gen Flynn, T-Rump, and who the hell else knows how many others in the transition team. Even worse it appears completely unauthorized and certain HIGHLY illegal to leak any of that information to the public.

The Russians are routinely tapped. Flynn was NOT tapped. He was caught on the tape because the Russian was tapped. That is NOT a covert operation against Flynn.

It's not unusual to intercept and record conversations like that. What makes it unusual is that you need to be TASKED to FLAG it, Transcript it, Analyze it and Distribute it. And distribution of stuff like that is restricted to a couple hundred very trusted people. And if you take OUTSIDE that circle -- you're a traitor and criminal with no future.

Break it down.

The conversations ended up being analyzed when Putin's decision to not retaliate tit-for-tat raised a red flag in the intelligence community because it was such a drastic departure from normal Russian behavior. That precipitated analyzing and transcribing it.

Is that a "covert operation" against Flynn? No.

But Flynn clearly comes up and given the potential illegality of the phone call, and the concerns over Russian involvement in influencing elections - that raised another red flag.

Is it illegal? Well, if it is, then you'd better apply the same standards to their treatment of Clinton

Now...if you're talking about the "leaks" as taking the distribution out of the appropriate circle - then yes, I agree - it's illegal and criminal.

But again - apply the same standard to Clinton why don't you?

The problem is -- when PARTISANS infiltrate that trusted circle and start using that awesome power to form an insurrection -- the war that could start would end this Republic as we know it. Because of the massive amount of incriminating and embarrassing shit that's been bottled up in that power to spy for decades. Which is why -- until 9/11 all these agencies were EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED from conducting ANY Domestic operations.

I'm not happy about domestic survellience regardless.

Which brings up the point that pisses me off the most. Which is -- that all these party animals, both left and right don't give a crap about Civil Liberties unless and until THEIR SIDE is the victim. The Patriot Act powers and all this unimaginable power to probe and spy is just FINE WITH THEM -- when THEIR SIDE is in power. Which leaves the REAL Civil Libertarians to worry about how all this end should the genie get out of the bottle.

End the hypocrisy here. Be CONSISTENT on Civil Liberties implications of having these powerful agencies hijacked and misused. Or face a literal Armageddon some day... Not being dramatic. Just stating a fact.

I've never liked the Patriot Act.

The real question people need to ask is - how many civil liberties are you willing to give up for the perception of greater security?

Most people are pefectly willing to give up OTHER'S civil liberties.

Nope.. No reason in the 1st place to TAG and DISTRIBUTE that conversation. It was between an official of an incoming admin and a foreign diplomat. And CERTAINLY --- no reason to "leak it" if there wasn't any criminality within it. That's a primary trust we make when we give these spooks the abilities they have.

It is NOT illegal for nominees of Prez contest to contact foreign leadership. And certainly it's not illegal for those campaigns to OPPOSE current existing policy or past policies. EVEN in regards to sanctions or anything else that folks IMAGINE might have been in that conversation.

It was CLEARLY was skimmed against accepted practices for ANALYZING and DISTRIBUTING that kind of communication. And it left the containment of the very small group eligible to see and decide on that material.

I would hope you are CONSISTENT on this important Civil Liberty issue. SEEMS like you are -- but you are confusing an insurrection within the Intel Comm and using that mighty power with Hillary Clinton's simple ass disregard for security protocols and methods. Or having an intrusion on a G-mail account on someone's phone where the password was password ---- with the ultimately scary and unfathomable powers available to OUR Intel operations being abused. USED and ABUSED on citizens and political opposition. Time for everybody to say that is wrong -- before it escalates beyond control..

 

[flacaltenn]

To be clear -- you or I or the media does not have the job of evaluating "why Putin didn't retaliate".. If that happened Coyote, and the Obama admin made the conscious decision to TAP an OPPONENT CAMPAIGN because of that "queerness" ---- THAT should be made clear to the public. RIGHT???? Step up -- and OWN the stupid decision to go partisan within the inner most sanctums of US Intel spy agencies.

You can't excuse the tap, flag, distribution, and LEAK of that convo --- unless you realize the gravity of deciding to turn those agencies on SPYING on Domestic political campaigns. Clearer?? Have Obama acknowledge the EXTRAORDINARY threat he saw to authorize that.

 

[Coyote]

Oh really?

Your argument, in defense of wikileaks was that it was justified in exposing potential "criminal conduct".

The leaks WERE an illegal act however.

Do you still justify it?

If so, how can you not justify the leaks on Flynn?

Ans: it's DIFFERENT when it's OUR side

Did wiki leaks obtain their information through a US covert operation against a United States citizen?

No?

So the difference is monumental.

There was no covert operation against a US citizen.

Of course there was "a covert operation" against an American citizen -- Gen Flynn, T-Rump, and who the hell else knows how many others in the transition team. Even worse it appears completely unauthorized and certain HIGHLY illegal to leak any of that information to the public.

The Russians are routinely tapped. Flynn was NOT tapped. He was caught on the tape because the Russian was tapped. That is NOT a covert operation against Flynn.

It's not unusual to intercept and record conversations like that. What makes it unusual is that you need to be TASKED to FLAG it, Transcript it, Analyze it and Distribute it. And distribution of stuff like that is restricted to a couple hundred very trusted people. And if you take OUTSIDE that circle -- you're a traitor and criminal with no future.

Break it down.

The conversations ended up being analyzed when Putin's decision to not retaliate tit-for-tat raised a red flag in the intelligence community because it was such a drastic departure from normal Russian behavior. That precipitated analyzing and transcribing it.

Is that a "covert operation" against Flynn? No.

But Flynn clearly comes up and given the potential illegality of the phone call, and the concerns over Russian involvement in influencing elections - that raised another red flag.

Is it illegal? Well, if it is, then you'd better apply the same standards to their treatment of Clinton

Now...if you're talking about the "leaks" as taking the distribution out of the appropriate circle - then yes, I agree - it's illegal and criminal.

But again - apply the same standard to Clinton why don't you?

The problem is -- when PARTISANS infiltrate that trusted circle and start using that awesome power to form an insurrection -- the war that could start would end this Republic as we know it. Because of the massive amount of incriminating and embarrassing shit that's been bottled up in that power to spy for decades. Which is why -- until 9/11 all these agencies were EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED from conducting ANY Domestic operations.

I'm not happy about domestic survellience regardless.

Which brings up the point that pisses me off the most. Which is -- that all these party animals, both left and right don't give a crap about Civil Liberties unless and until THEIR SIDE is the victim. The Patriot Act powers and all this unimaginable power to probe and spy is just FINE WITH THEM -- when THEIR SIDE is in power. Which leaves the REAL Civil Libertarians to worry about how all this end should the genie get out of the bottle.

End the hypocrisy here. Be CONSISTENT on Civil Liberties implications of having these powerful agencies hijacked and misused. Or face a literal Armageddon some day... Not being dramatic. Just stating a fact.

I've never liked the Patriot Act.

The real question people need to ask is - how many civil liberties are you willing to give up for the perception of greater security?

Most people are pefectly willing to give up OTHER'S civil liberties.

Nope.. No reason in the 1st place to TAG and DISTRIBUTE that conversation. It was between an official of an incoming admin and a foreign diplomat. And CERTAINLY --- no reason to "leak it" if there wasn't any criminality within it. That's a primary trust we make when we give these spooks the abilities they have.

Actually - tagging it would seem appropriate in that it was something potentially ILLEGAL. The FBI cleared Flynn - AFTER investigating it. It should not have been leaked regardless should it?

It is NOT illegal for nominees of Prez contest to contact foreign leadership. And certainly it's not illegal for those campaigns to OPPOSE current existing policy or past policies. EVEN in regards to sanctions or anything else that folks IMAGINE might have been in that conversation.

It's POTENTIALLY illegal for them to conduct negiations or diplomacy - there is a specific (though untested) law in place for that. There is no way of knowing if what he did was illegal or was not illegal without examining it, right? Or should they ignore it? And it wasn't imagined, it apparently was in the conversation.

It was CLEARLY was skimmed against accepted practices for ANALYZING and DISTRIBUTING that kind of communication. And it left the containment of the very small group eligible to see and decide on that material.

Analyzing it was appropriate, against the background of what the Russians have been doing and concern about Russian involvement in the election and ties to multiple administration officials. Leaking it was not.

I would hope you are CONSISTENT on this important Civil Liberty issue. SEEMS like you are -- but you are confusing an insurrection within the Intel Comm and using that mighty power with Hillary Clinton's simple ass disregard for security protocols and methods. Or having an intrusion on a G-mail account on someone's phone where the password was password ---- with the ultimately scary and unfathomable powers available to OUR Intel operations being abused. USED and ABUSED on citizens and political opposition. Time for everybody to say that is wrong -- before it escalates beyond control..

No. I'm not confusing it. I'm seeing Comey - essentially "leaking" details about the ongoing investigation on Clinton (unlike any other person they've investigated" - I'm seeing Comey coming up at the last minute before the election stating they're reopening it and spilling information on what they found on Weiner's computer. I'm seeing all that from the FBI DIRECTOR and wondering what in the hell is going on in our country where this sort of abuse of power and interference is ok but analyzing Flynn's conversation is not? It seems to me it either is all ok or it is all not.

What bothers me: Comey trying to influence the election with his very PUBLIC investigations of Clinton and his very PRIVATE investigations of Trump's Russian ties.

What bothers me: The Intelligence Agencies seemingly circumventing the President and acting on their own.

Why is this occurring?

 

[Coyote]

To be clear -- you or I or the media does not have the job of evaluating "why Putin didn't retaliate".. If that happened Coyote, and the Obama admin made the conscious decision to TAP an OPPONENT CAMPAIGN because of that "queerness" ---- THAT should be made clear to the public. RIGHT???? Step up -- and OWN the stupid decision to go partisan within the inner most sanctums of US Intel spy agencies.

You can't excuse the tap, flag, distribution, and LEAK of that convo --- unless you realize the gravity of deciding to turn those agencies on SPYING on Domestic political campaigns. Clearer?? Have Obama acknowledge the EXTRAORDINARY threat he saw to authorize that.

The Obama administration? What evidence do you have that a decision was made to tap an opponent campaign or that the campaign was tapped? The intelligence agencies routinely tap the Russians and the Russian's involvement in hacking has certainly been a primary force behind a close examination of all those conversations.

IF it's a case of of those agencies spying on domestic political campaigns - you would have a point. But I don't buy that. All of this is coming out of wiretapping Russian officials - that means everyone who talked with them, would be included in the data.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's POTENTIALLY illegal for them to conduct negiations or diplomacy - there is a specific (though untested) law in place for that. There is no way of knowing if what he did was illegal or was not illegal without examining it, right? Or should they ignore it? And it wasn't imagined, it apparently was in the conversation.

no -- it's not illegal. Especially when it doesn't conflict with OPEN statements that candidates make in the campaign. Reagan had the Iran hostages FREED within an hour of his inauguration. Was that just "fast diplomatic effort"..

Perhaps Flynn was tasked to URGE the Russians not to respond in kind in ejecting US diplomats from Russia. STILL -- not illegal. Because maybe it was made clear that although the SAME Russian diplomats (they were likely all spooks of various Intel Agencies) --- wouldn't be invited back -- a Trump Admin would negotiate on replacing FULL diplomatic relations. STILL --- not illegal.

That's what Prez campaigns are all about. Changing policies, relations with EVERY partner and agency and govt worldwide. And to be FAIR about it -- the challengers should not be hobbled by restrictions on contacts with those sources for background, advice, and concerns. Any serious team running for Prez seat would lack "gravitas" if they were legally denied the right to HAVE those discussions.

No. I'm not confusing it. I'm seeing Comey - essentially "leaking" details about the ongoing investigation on Clinton (unlike any other person they've investigated" - I'm seeing Comey coming up at the last minute before the election stating they're reopening it and spilling information on what they found on Weiner's computer. I'm seeing all that from the FBI DIRECTOR and wondering what in the hell is going on in our country where this sort of abuse of power and interference is ok but analyzing Flynn's conversation is not? It seems to me it either is all ok or it is all not.

No where NEAR the same implications as tasking the inner most sanctums of America's spy industry to TAP and DISTRIBUTE against an opponent political campaign. Separate issue -- separate arguments about "abuse of power". In fact, from the daily nature of "the Russians are coming, The Russians are coming" drumbeat that I've seen -- It seems more like a cover and smokescreen for the COVERT OPERATIONS that were run from INSIDE the agencies.

I saw one similar very suspicious intercept on USMB a few days ago. It CLEARLY came from a deep Intel source and was just dumped on the Internet. It was a full recording of a convo that Maxine Waters had with the President of the Ukraine. Supporting the concept that "the Russians could not be trusted".. Just dumped there Tuesday and the restricted conversation occurred about the time the new sanctions went on Russia. A FUCKING CONGRESSIONAL PHONE conversation !!!! The choices are that the Ukranians dumped it (not bloody likely because of their limited space spy resources) OR --- WE dumped it. We being the same group of political partisans running covert POLITICAL operations out of the depths of places like NSA, CIA, DIA or others. This is scary shit ... And like I said -- it could end the Republic as we know it if turns out to political abuse of the Intel resources..

 

[flacaltenn]

To be clear -- you or I or the media does not have the job of evaluating "why Putin didn't retaliate".. If that happened Coyote, and the Obama admin made the conscious decision to TAP an OPPONENT CAMPAIGN because of that "queerness" ---- THAT should be made clear to the public. RIGHT???? Step up -- and OWN the stupid decision to go partisan within the inner most sanctums of US Intel spy agencies.

You can't excuse the tap, flag, distribution, and LEAK of that convo --- unless you realize the gravity of deciding to turn those agencies on SPYING on Domestic political campaigns. Clearer?? Have Obama acknowledge the EXTRAORDINARY threat he saw to authorize that.

The Obama administration? What evidence do you have that a decision was made to tap an opponent campaign or that the campaign was tapped? The intelligence agencies routinely tap the Russians and the Russian's involvement in hacking has certainly been a primary force behind a close examination of all those conversations.

IF it's a case of of those agencies spying on domestic political campaigns - you would have a point. But I don't buy that. All of this is coming out of wiretapping Russian officials - that means everyone who talked with them, would be included in the data.

You're not getting it -- we tap EVERYTHING foreign. That's not unusual. What's different here is the recovery of those recordings and the leak with NO LEGAL motivation to do so. .

I mention the Obama Admin because LITERALLY only a couple hundred people have the power to set policy and task the agencies to DO an operation like that on political opposition. The AGENCIES dont' make those calls to DISTRIBUTE and leak that kind of ULTRA sensitive material. So it was actually authorized, and VERY high level people in that Admin were involved. Make them justify the tactics used..

 

[flacaltenn]

And if it was NOT authorized. Catch and FRY the folks who did that without authorization... I can tell you right now --- it was more than 2 or 4 folks involved in that case.

 

[danielpalos]

just politics, as usual.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's POTENTIALLY illegal for them to conduct negiations or diplomacy - there is a specific (though untested) law in place for that. There is no way of knowing if what he did was illegal or was not illegal without examining it, right? Or should they ignore it? And it wasn't imagined, it apparently was in the conversation.

Don't know where your getting that unless you're referring the Logan Act of 179X something. NOBODY has ever been prosecuted under that act. And it applies only to declared foreign entities that are declared enemies and PUBLIC CITIZENS. Would never be applied to a political campaign that has been nominated to run for Prez.

Its NOT potentially illegal at all in the manner that the phone call(s) happened. SOMEBODY decided to task MULTIPLE agencies to snoop --- or there is a larger group of conspirators making their OWN politically biased decisions. That should CHILL anyone that ever claims to care about Civil Liberties.

The "it" that was in the conversation is the simple fact that the Ambassador brought up the topic of sanctions. Doesn't indicate any criminality at all. It was just embarrassing enough to get Flynn fired.

Now --- in the world of all possibilities, it could be that the Agencies themselves don't WANT a NSAdvisor who would clean house of "previous leaks" and political hijinks. And they fear that Flynn would have ALSO "politicized" the purge and replacements for those positions.. I'd be just as irate IF that were to happen. Those operations need to be COMPLETELY free of partisan pranksters and fanatics.