White House Won't Fire Mueller

[kaz]

ok, I can't find exactly where he was when he was making the call, but it doesn't even matter - his conversation was recorded legally because he called Kysliak's tapped line, and he was unmasked legally when he compromised himself by lying about that conversation.

Thank you for admitting you couldn't confirm he wasn't at Trump tower. I can't prove he was either.

But he was legally supposed to be masked. Not only was he not masked, but he was unmasked and there was no warrant in place. It was Unconstitutional. That we know

Legally he was not supposed to be masked, he was supposed to be unmasked because he compromised himself when he was lying to the whole world while Russians knew it and could leverage it against him.

Further, it was legal for a whistle blower (presumably Sally Yates) to then take the matter public when this was reported to Trump admin and they did nothing for 3 weeks.

Indeed. Unmasking is a legal, normal, and required in many, many cases. Those worrying about unmasking are either stupid, or lying, or both. Unmasking has been normal operation for intelligence services for decades.

You're just lying now. It's a violation of searching without a warrant

Unmasking by U.S. intelligence agencies - Wikipedia

Nope

Constitution of the United States - We the People

Yep

 

[edward37]

Do some reading Kaz Trumps racism reaches back many years up to the present times A black hating scum

Give me a Trump quote that's racist without a fake news spin

• Trump’s real-estate company was sued twice by the federal government in the 1970s for discouraging the renting of apartments to African-Americans and preferring white tenants, such as “Jews and executives.”
• In 1989, Trump took out ads in New York newspapers urging the death penalty for five black and Latino teenagers accused of raping a white woman in Central Park; he continued to argue that they were guilty as late as October 2016, more than 10 years after DNA evidence had exonerated them.

• A former hotel executive said Trump criticized a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

And of course when he called an American citizen- a Mexican- talking about the American judge born in the Midwest:
I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics. But we're building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico.

A former hotel executive said Trump criticized a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

A former hotel executive said .... When you need to include that on your short list, not what Trump said, you know you're floundering here

-----

• Trump’s real-estate company was sued twice by the federal government in the 1970s for discouraging the renting of apartments to African-Americans and preferring white tenants, such as “Jews and executives.”

You need to establish three more things

- Did they send in a black executive to rent in in the investigation?
- What was Trump's personal role?
- Was there a monetary benefit to selling to whites over blacks for their other properties?

On the third one, you can argue it's immoral, but being focused on money isn't racism.

-----

And of course when he called an American citizen- a Mexican- talking about the American judge born in the Midwest:
I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics. But we're building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico.

This is exactly what I said. Trump accused him of a conflict of interest, not racism

-----

In 1989, Trump took out ads in New York newspapers urging the death penalty for five black and Latino teenagers accused of raping a white woman in Central Park; he continued to argue that they were guilty as late as October 2016, more than 10 years after DNA evidence had exonerated them.

OK, at least you added the DNA evidence. You still haven't established a race connection other than you want there to be one. There are lots of races in this country. Just saying Trump had a conflict with other races doesn't make it racism other than in your sick little mind. And then only for Republicans. You'd suddenly get that for a Democrat.

I did google for this, but every article I found started with the premise that Trump is a racist. Do you have one that just re-evaluates the facts of the case?

Ya know kaz you arguing that the orange anus isn't a racist is like some one maybe you, arguing those 19 molested women and stormy are liars

Why did you vote for an orange anus then? You voted for the clown, you own that. Stop blaming your stupid decisions on other people

bite your tongue I'd vote for that POS when pigs fly I will admit to voting for GWB in 2000 my last repub vote

 

[AntonToo]

ok idiot, prove it.

You seriously do not know what the **** you are talking about. There was no wiretapp on Flynn's lines.

Kysliak's lines were wiretapped, which is how his conversation wit Kysliak was recorded. At that time he was in WASHINGTON, no where NEAR Trump ******* tower.

While CNN argues your point that Trump administration officials weren't the target of wiretaps, even the fakest of fake news don't make your claim that they weren't not at Trump tower when they did it

ok, I can't find exactly where he was when he was making the call, but it doesn't even matter - his conversation was recorded legally because he called Kysliak's tapped line, and he was unmasked legally when he compromised himself by lying about that conversation.

Thank you for admitting you couldn't confirm he wasn't at Trump tower. I can't prove he was either.

But he was legally supposed to be masked. Not only was he not masked, but he was unmasked and there was no warrant in place. It was Unconstitutional. That we know

Legally he was not supposed to be masked, he was supposed to be unmasked because he compromised himself when he was lying to the whole world while Russians knew it and could leverage it against him.

Further, it was legal for a whistle blower (presumably Sally Yates) to then take the matter public when this was reported to Trump admin and they did nothing for 3 weeks.

They didn't get a warrant. It was illegal to unmask him without one. You'd suddenly get that if it wasn't a Republican politician

That is WRONG, warrant is required for new or extension of surveilance, not unmasking.

Section 7.2(c) of USSID 18 permits the “unmasking” of a U.S. person’s identity if it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance. Specifically, this provision outlines several possible justifications upon which the government can rely to claim the unmasking was necessary, such as if the information indicates the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power, is engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, may be involved in a crime, or may be the target of hostile intelligence activities of a foreign power.

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=746666

Rice was within legal rights to 'unmask' Trump associates

 

[BluesLegend]

Trump, a political outsider was elected president. This pissed off the DC swamp to no end, they are livid. The attacks on Trump is the DC swamp sending a message to future outsiders who dare run for president, expect the Trump treatment e.g. you better not even think about running.

Is that record not getting old yet....

Tell us a story about the Deep State....

We won and you lost in a humiliating defeat how do you like that story.

Yes but how do you like being in bed with trump and his buddy Putin??? Comfortable?? Russians are scum trying to bring america down and you kiss trumps ass as he kisses putins ?? For shame

I'm having a grand time watching the left have a meltdown. Today's meltdown OMG Ivanka got her hair done at a salon in Iowa and dumb ass liberals FREAKED OUT

Freaked out liberal hate spewed forth...

- will never book an appointment at this salon again
- salon should know better than to serve Ivanka Trump
- this just truly sucks
- won't ever be back
- you will never get my business based on this one post

I'm having a grand time watching the right have a meltdown. Today's meltdown- and everyday's melt down- is that a veteran Republican prosecutor and FBI agent dares to investigate their Dear Leader and dumb ass Trumpsters FREAK OUT!.

Freaked out Contard hate spews forth to destroy the Republicans that dare investigate- Comey- Mueller- anyone who dares even to consider investigating their Dear Leader.

LOL you seem triggered and filled with rage and hate. Is it mean that I find that funny?

 

[kaz]

Give me a Trump quote that's racist without a fake news spin

• Trump’s real-estate company was sued twice by the federal government in the 1970s for discouraging the renting of apartments to African-Americans and preferring white tenants, such as “Jews and executives.”
• In 1989, Trump took out ads in New York newspapers urging the death penalty for five black and Latino teenagers accused of raping a white woman in Central Park; he continued to argue that they were guilty as late as October 2016, more than 10 years after DNA evidence had exonerated them.

• A former hotel executive said Trump criticized a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

And of course when he called an American citizen- a Mexican- talking about the American judge born in the Midwest:
I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics. But we're building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico.

A former hotel executive said Trump criticized a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

A former hotel executive said .... When you need to include that on your short list, not what Trump said, you know you're floundering here

-----

• Trump’s real-estate company was sued twice by the federal government in the 1970s for discouraging the renting of apartments to African-Americans and preferring white tenants, such as “Jews and executives.”

You need to establish three more things

- Did they send in a black executive to rent in in the investigation?
- What was Trump's personal role?
- Was there a monetary benefit to selling to whites over blacks for their other properties?

On the third one, you can argue it's immoral, but being focused on money isn't racism.

-----

And of course when he called an American citizen- a Mexican- talking about the American judge born in the Midwest:
I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics. But we're building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico.

This is exactly what I said. Trump accused him of a conflict of interest, not racism

-----

In 1989, Trump took out ads in New York newspapers urging the death penalty for five black and Latino teenagers accused of raping a white woman in Central Park; he continued to argue that they were guilty as late as October 2016, more than 10 years after DNA evidence had exonerated them.

OK, at least you added the DNA evidence. You still haven't established a race connection other than you want there to be one. There are lots of races in this country. Just saying Trump had a conflict with other races doesn't make it racism other than in your sick little mind. And then only for Republicans. You'd suddenly get that for a Democrat.

I did google for this, but every article I found started with the premise that Trump is a racist. Do you have one that just re-evaluates the facts of the case?

Ya know kaz you arguing that the orange anus isn't a racist is like some one maybe you, arguing those 19 molested women and stormy are liars

Why did you vote for an orange anus then? You voted for the clown, you own that. Stop blaming your stupid decisions on other people

bite your tongue I'd vote for that POS when pigs fly I will admit to voting for GWB in 2000 my last repub vote

You're the one who wanted to play the no you voted for Trump game

 

[kaz]

While CNN argues your point that Trump administration officials weren't the target of wiretaps, even the fakest of fake news don't make your claim that they weren't not at Trump tower when they did it

ok, I can't find exactly where he was when he was making the call, but it doesn't even matter - his conversation was recorded legally because he called Kysliak's tapped line, and he was unmasked legally when he compromised himself by lying about that conversation.

Thank you for admitting you couldn't confirm he wasn't at Trump tower. I can't prove he was either.

But he was legally supposed to be masked. Not only was he not masked, but he was unmasked and there was no warrant in place. It was Unconstitutional. That we know

Legally he was not supposed to be masked, he was supposed to be unmasked because he compromised himself when he was lying to the whole world while Russians knew it and could leverage it against him.

Further, it was legal for a whistle blower (presumably Sally Yates) to then take the matter public when this was reported to Trump admin and they did nothing for 3 weeks.

They didn't get a warrant. It was illegal to unmask him without one. You'd suddenly get that if it wasn't a Republican politician

That is WRONG, warrant is required for new or extension of surveilance, not unmasking.

Section 7.2(c) of USSID 18 permits the “unmasking” of a U.S. person’s identity if it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance. Specifically, this provision outlines several possible justifications upon which the government can rely to claim the unmasking was necessary, such as if the information indicates the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power, is engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, may be involved in a crime, or may be the target of hostile intelligence activities of a foreign power.

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=746666

Rice was within legal rights to 'unmask' Trump associates

Clearly when government is tapping someone and using that information to prosecute them without a warrant, they are doing something the Constitution says they can't do.

Go to court, get a warrant. Otherwise it's fruit of the poisoned tree

 

[edward37]

• Trump’s real-estate company was sued twice by the federal government in the 1970s for discouraging the renting of apartments to African-Americans and preferring white tenants, such as “Jews and executives.”
• In 1989, Trump took out ads in New York newspapers urging the death penalty for five black and Latino teenagers accused of raping a white woman in Central Park; he continued to argue that they were guilty as late as October 2016, more than 10 years after DNA evidence had exonerated them.

• A former hotel executive said Trump criticized a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

And of course when he called an American citizen- a Mexican- talking about the American judge born in the Midwest:
I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics. But we're building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico.

A former hotel executive said Trump criticized a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

A former hotel executive said .... When you need to include that on your short list, not what Trump said, you know you're floundering here

-----

• Trump’s real-estate company was sued twice by the federal government in the 1970s for discouraging the renting of apartments to African-Americans and preferring white tenants, such as “Jews and executives.”

You need to establish three more things

- Did they send in a black executive to rent in in the investigation?
- What was Trump's personal role?
- Was there a monetary benefit to selling to whites over blacks for their other properties?

On the third one, you can argue it's immoral, but being focused on money isn't racism.

-----

And of course when he called an American citizen- a Mexican- talking about the American judge born in the Midwest:
I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics. But we're building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico.

This is exactly what I said. Trump accused him of a conflict of interest, not racism

-----

In 1989, Trump took out ads in New York newspapers urging the death penalty for five black and Latino teenagers accused of raping a white woman in Central Park; he continued to argue that they were guilty as late as October 2016, more than 10 years after DNA evidence had exonerated them.

OK, at least you added the DNA evidence. You still haven't established a race connection other than you want there to be one. There are lots of races in this country. Just saying Trump had a conflict with other races doesn't make it racism other than in your sick little mind. And then only for Republicans. You'd suddenly get that for a Democrat.

I did google for this, but every article I found started with the premise that Trump is a racist. Do you have one that just re-evaluates the facts of the case?

Ya know kaz you arguing that the orange anus isn't a racist is like some one maybe you, arguing those 19 molested women and stormy are liars

Why did you vote for an orange anus then? You voted for the clown, you own that. Stop blaming your stupid decisions on other people

bite your tongue I'd vote for that POS when pigs fly I will admit to voting for GWB in 2000 my last repub vote

You're the one who wanted to play the no you voted for Trump game

Dont know what game you refer to but the last repub that got my vote wasGWB in 2000 and then I cut my voting arm off

 

[kaz]

A former hotel executive said .... When you need to include that on your short list, not what Trump said, you know you're floundering here

-----

You need to establish three more things

- Did they send in a black executive to rent in in the investigation?
- What was Trump's personal role?
- Was there a monetary benefit to selling to whites over blacks for their other properties?

On the third one, you can argue it's immoral, but being focused on money isn't racism.

-----


This is exactly what I said. Trump accused him of a conflict of interest, not racism

-----

OK, at least you added the DNA evidence. You still haven't established a race connection other than you want there to be one. There are lots of races in this country. Just saying Trump had a conflict with other races doesn't make it racism other than in your sick little mind. And then only for Republicans. You'd suddenly get that for a Democrat.

I did google for this, but every article I found started with the premise that Trump is a racist. Do you have one that just re-evaluates the facts of the case?

Ya know kaz you arguing that the orange anus isn't a racist is like some one maybe you, arguing those 19 molested women and stormy are liars

Why did you vote for an orange anus then? You voted for the clown, you own that. Stop blaming your stupid decisions on other people

bite your tongue I'd vote for that POS when pigs fly I will admit to voting for GWB in 2000 my last repub vote

You're the one who wanted to play the no you voted for Trump game

Dont know what game you refer to but the last repub that got my vote wasGWB in 2000 and then I cut my voting arm off

You didn't vote for W, liar

 

[AntonToo]

ok, I can't find exactly where he was when he was making the call, but it doesn't even matter - his conversation was recorded legally because he called Kysliak's tapped line, and he was unmasked legally when he compromised himself by lying about that conversation.

Thank you for admitting you couldn't confirm he wasn't at Trump tower. I can't prove he was either.

But he was legally supposed to be masked. Not only was he not masked, but he was unmasked and there was no warrant in place. It was Unconstitutional. That we know

Legally he was not supposed to be masked, he was supposed to be unmasked because he compromised himself when he was lying to the whole world while Russians knew it and could leverage it against him.

Further, it was legal for a whistle blower (presumably Sally Yates) to then take the matter public when this was reported to Trump admin and they did nothing for 3 weeks.

They didn't get a warrant. It was illegal to unmask him without one. You'd suddenly get that if it wasn't a Republican politician

That is WRONG, warrant is required for new or extension of surveilance, not unmasking.

Section 7.2(c) of USSID 18 permits the “unmasking” of a U.S. person’s identity if it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance. Specifically, this provision outlines several possible justifications upon which the government can rely to claim the unmasking was necessary, such as if the information indicates the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power, is engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, may be involved in a crime, or may be the target of hostile intelligence activities of a foreign power.

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=746666

Rice was within legal rights to 'unmask' Trump associates

Clearly when government is tapping someone and using that information to prosecute them without a warrant, they are doing something the Constitution says they can't do.

Go to court, get a warrant. Otherwise it's fruit of the poisoned tree

Who told you that? Some sort of legal expert? Or do you just make this shit up as you go?

The law passed by congress clearly states that no you do not need warrant for that. Now you come along and start claiming it is unconstituional and I'm supposed to just take your world for it as if the entire legislative and justice system do not know what they are doing.

Get real.

 

[edward37]

Ya know kaz you arguing that the orange anus isn't a racist is like some one maybe you, arguing those 19 molested women and stormy are liars

Why did you vote for an orange anus then? You voted for the clown, you own that. Stop blaming your stupid decisions on other people

bite your tongue I'd vote for that POS when pigs fly I will admit to voting for GWB in 2000 my last repub vote

You're the one who wanted to play the no you voted for Trump game

Dont know what game you refer to but the last repub that got my vote wasGWB in 2000 and then I cut my voting arm off

You didn't vote for W, liar

On my kids I did A republican all my life

 

[kaz]

Thank you for admitting you couldn't confirm he wasn't at Trump tower. I can't prove he was either.

But he was legally supposed to be masked. Not only was he not masked, but he was unmasked and there was no warrant in place. It was Unconstitutional. That we know

Legally he was not supposed to be masked, he was supposed to be unmasked because he compromised himself when he was lying to the whole world while Russians knew it and could leverage it against him.

Further, it was legal for a whistle blower (presumably Sally Yates) to then take the matter public when this was reported to Trump admin and they did nothing for 3 weeks.

They didn't get a warrant. It was illegal to unmask him without one. You'd suddenly get that if it wasn't a Republican politician

That is WRONG, warrant is required for new or extension of surveilance, not unmasking.

Section 7.2(c) of USSID 18 permits the “unmasking” of a U.S. person’s identity if it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance. Specifically, this provision outlines several possible justifications upon which the government can rely to claim the unmasking was necessary, such as if the information indicates the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power, is engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, may be involved in a crime, or may be the target of hostile intelligence activities of a foreign power.

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=746666

Rice was within legal rights to 'unmask' Trump associates

Clearly when government is tapping someone and using that information to prosecute them without a warrant, they are doing something the Constitution says they can't do.

Go to court, get a warrant. Otherwise it's fruit of the poisoned tree

Who told you that? Some sort of legal expert? Or do you just make this shit up as you go?

Here's an idea, read the fourth amendment. What does it say?

 

[kaz]

Why did you vote for an orange anus then? You voted for the clown, you own that. Stop blaming your stupid decisions on other people

bite your tongue I'd vote for that POS when pigs fly I will admit to voting for GWB in 2000 my last repub vote

You're the one who wanted to play the no you voted for Trump game

Dont know what game you refer to but the last repub that got my vote wasGWB in 2000 and then I cut my voting arm off

You didn't vote for W, liar

On my kids I did A republican all my life

Really? I always voted Democrat until Trump. Then I voted for Gary Johnson

 

[edward37]

bite your tongue I'd vote for that POS when pigs fly I will admit to voting for GWB in 2000 my last repub vote

You're the one who wanted to play the no you voted for Trump game

Dont know what game you refer to but the last repub that got my vote wasGWB in 2000 and then I cut my voting arm off

You didn't vote for W, liar

On my kids I did A republican all my life

Really? I always voted Democrat until Trump. Then I voted for Gary Johnson

you hated hillary that much?

 

[AntonToo]

Legally he was not supposed to be masked, he was supposed to be unmasked because he compromised himself when he was lying to the whole world while Russians knew it and could leverage it against him.

Further, it was legal for a whistle blower (presumably Sally Yates) to then take the matter public when this was reported to Trump admin and they did nothing for 3 weeks.

They didn't get a warrant. It was illegal to unmask him without one. You'd suddenly get that if it wasn't a Republican politician

That is WRONG, warrant is required for new or extension of surveilance, not unmasking.

Section 7.2(c) of USSID 18 permits the “unmasking” of a U.S. person’s identity if it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance. Specifically, this provision outlines several possible justifications upon which the government can rely to claim the unmasking was necessary, such as if the information indicates the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power, is engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, may be involved in a crime, or may be the target of hostile intelligence activities of a foreign power.

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=746666

Rice was within legal rights to 'unmask' Trump associates

Clearly when government is tapping someone and using that information to prosecute them without a warrant, they are doing something the Constitution says they can't do.

Go to court, get a warrant. Otherwise it's fruit of the poisoned tree

Who told you that? Some sort of legal expert? Or do you just make this shit up as you go?

Here's an idea, read the fourth amendment. What does it say?

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

The "search" was legal on Kysliak, the finding was of Kysliak communication with Flynn. Unmasking was reasonable and allowed by law.

How is that not constituional under 4th Amendment??

And if it's such a clear violation of Flynn's constituional rights why is he not suing the government? Maybe you can give Flynn's lawyers a call and explain to them how to better defend their client.

I think this makes more sense: you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[kaz]

You're the one who wanted to play the no you voted for Trump game

Dont know what game you refer to but the last repub that got my vote wasGWB in 2000 and then I cut my voting arm off

You didn't vote for W, liar

On my kids I did A republican all my life

Really? I always voted Democrat until Trump. Then I voted for Gary Johnson

you hated hillary that much?

I'm as Democrat as you are Republican

 

[kaz]

They didn't get a warrant. It was illegal to unmask him without one. You'd suddenly get that if it wasn't a Republican politician

That is WRONG, warrant is required for new or extension of surveilance, not unmasking.

Section 7.2(c) of USSID 18 permits the “unmasking” of a U.S. person’s identity if it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance. Specifically, this provision outlines several possible justifications upon which the government can rely to claim the unmasking was necessary, such as if the information indicates the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power, is engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, may be involved in a crime, or may be the target of hostile intelligence activities of a foreign power.

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=746666

Rice was within legal rights to 'unmask' Trump associates

Clearly when government is tapping someone and using that information to prosecute them without a warrant, they are doing something the Constitution says they can't do.

Go to court, get a warrant. Otherwise it's fruit of the poisoned tree

Who told you that? Some sort of legal expert? Or do you just make this shit up as you go?

Here's an idea, read the fourth amendment. What does it say?

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

The "search" was legal on Kysliak, the finding was of Kysliak communication with Flynn. Unmasking was reasonable and allowed by law.

How is that not constituional under 4th Amendment??

And if it's such a clear violation of Flynn's constituional rights why is he not suing the government? Maybe you can give Flynn's lawyers a call and explain to them how to better defend their client.

I think this makes more sense: you don't know what you are talking about.

To get a warrant to tap someone who is talking to the person you want to listen to without a warrant is a shallow end around the Constitution. You'd suddenly get that if it was a Democrat

 

[bripat9643]

OMG you're a sheep. Obama could shit in your soup and tell you it's peas and you'd believe him

Why do you refuse to answer a simple question?

I don't recall Obama pressuring or slandering or firing Comey when he was very publicly investigating Clinton - do you?

Are you serious? His minion had a flagrantly unethical tarmac meeting and ensured no charges were filed. Obama made the FBI investigation irrelevant at a higher level. And you say that wasn't slimy? You're delusional

...wtf? Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States of America...was "Obama minion"? Retard, Bill is no one's "minion" and you have ZERO evidence of Obama having anything to do with the meeting.

Bill did meet with Lynch, about what, no one knows and yes that includes you.

a secret meeting at a remote airport, and a few days later Comey changes "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" and "investigation" to "matter". Don't be so fricken naïve.

I wonder how much money went from the Clinton foundation to Lynch's swiss bank account.

I know- I know!

Less than the amount that Putin gave the Trump campaign in order to defeat Hillary.

How much was that?

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[AntonToo]

That is WRONG, warrant is required for new or extension of surveilance, not unmasking.

Section 7.2(c) of USSID 18 permits the “unmasking” of a U.S. person’s identity if it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance. Specifically, this provision outlines several possible justifications upon which the government can rely to claim the unmasking was necessary, such as if the information indicates the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power, is engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, may be involved in a crime, or may be the target of hostile intelligence activities of a foreign power.

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=746666

Rice was within legal rights to 'unmask' Trump associates

Clearly when government is tapping someone and using that information to prosecute them without a warrant, they are doing something the Constitution says they can't do.

Go to court, get a warrant. Otherwise it's fruit of the poisoned tree

Who told you that? Some sort of legal expert? Or do you just make this shit up as you go?

Here's an idea, read the fourth amendment. What does it say?

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

The "search" was legal on Kysliak, the finding was of Kysliak communication with Flynn. Unmasking was reasonable and allowed by law.

How is that not constituional under 4th Amendment??

And if it's such a clear violation of Flynn's constituional rights why is he not suing the government? Maybe you can give Flynn's lawyers a call and explain to them how to better defend their client.

I think this makes more sense: you don't know what you are talking about.

To get a warrant to tap someone who is talking to the person you want to listen to without a warrant is a shallow end around the Constitution. You'd suddenly get that if it was a Democrat

Well now you've repeated the same thing in slightly different way with no actual response to what you read....you are still wrong, wrong and wrong again.

There was never a constitutional challenge to Section 7.2(c) of USSID 18 and it is the law of the land...but hey maybe you are just the sort of giant legal mind that can shake things up (if Flynn's incompetent lawyers refuse to)

Untill then, Flynn was busted for his lies 100% legally and America is better off for it.

 

[kaz]

Clearly when government is tapping someone and using that information to prosecute them without a warrant, they are doing something the Constitution says they can't do.

Go to court, get a warrant. Otherwise it's fruit of the poisoned tree

Who told you that? Some sort of legal expert? Or do you just make this shit up as you go?

Here's an idea, read the fourth amendment. What does it say?

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

The "search" was legal on Kysliak, the finding was of Kysliak communication with Flynn. Unmasking was reasonable and allowed by law.

How is that not constituional under 4th Amendment??

And if it's such a clear violation of Flynn's constituional rights why is he not suing the government? Maybe you can give Flynn's lawyers a call and explain to them how to better defend their client.

I think this makes more sense: you don't know what you are talking about.

To get a warrant to tap someone who is talking to the person you want to listen to without a warrant is a shallow end around the Constitution. You'd suddenly get that if it was a Democrat

Well now you've repeated the same thing in slightly different way with no actual response to what you read....you are still wrong, wrong and wrong again.

There was never a constitutional challenge to Section 7.2(c) of USSID 18 and it is the law of the land...but hey maybe you are just the sort of giant legal mind that can shake things up (if Flynn's incompetent lawyers refuse to)

Untill then, Flynn was busted for his lies 100% legally and America is better off for it.

You keep quoting the courts, I keep quoting the Constitution

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This way we can avoid collaborating to address the country's problems indefinitely.

Actually, that's part of the point of a special investigator like Mueller...he can do his job free of partisan influence, and Congress can do their job of legislating and oversight.