Favorite team:Navy 
Location:
Biography:
Interests:Boats
Occupation:Sailor
Number of Posts:11990
Registered on:2/7/2014
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
Why aren’t y’all focusing on the Chief of Staff? Clearly it’s plausible deniability by Obama but won’t be in the public perception. GOP should focus on Obama pulling strings. Y’all are missing the fricking target....
My understanding is that there probably was no reason that many people should of been unmasking in this instance? Only those responsible for investigating needed to know the name, correct?...
[quote]He's the incoming National Security Advisor, it's his job[/quote] Wrong, he wasn’t even speaking on behalf of Trump. He was out to dry on this one. Mueller report states there was no evidence Flynn was acting on Trump orders although he probably was? Thing is he never admitted that much ei...
The biggest name on that list isn’t even being talked about by GOP I can’t believe they not connecting the dots...
Flynn was under an (in)direct investigation before the Kislyak call it appears. Were there Russians playing a double game when Kislyak called Flynn? In other words, would the Obama administration/ intelligence community be savage enough to make a 20% uranium deal on the side to set up Flynn?...
[quote]This is fertile ground for an appeal but the #1 goal is to delay. It keeps Flynn out of returning to aid Trump. It stalls for time in case Trump loses reelection. It potentially makes Trump issue a pardon which is bad politically. Sullivan has to keep this up as long as possible. [/quote...
Okay but on what grounds? Is Judge Sullivan saying he’s lost faith in the independence of DoJ as least insofar as Flynn's case is concerned? The former Special Counsel appointees resigned as DoJ counsel from the case I believe? Is that enough reason? ...
I’m so lost here? How is this possible? [quote]Judge SULLIVAN has appointed retired judge to argue against the government's motion to dismiss the charge against Flynn[/quote] [img]https://i.imgur.com/FWscLMb.png[/img]...
[quote]Lolololol Get fricked.[/quote] You first ...
[quote]Cnn is talking about it right now. Saying they see nothing wrong with the unmasking by so many people. It was done correctly. blah blah blah. [/quote] But this going to be the biggest issue in November? Maybe but unlikely imo ...
[quote]Given there was nothing there it was justified they unmasked a citizen?[/quote] What was Flynn’s job in DC at the time and where has he previously worked before that job? Flynn isn’t you or I, he was one of the US Governments top spies prior to working as a lobbyist for Turkish government....
[quote]I think it’s wishful thinking on your part if you believe Trump will let this whole thing slide or fall from the public consciousness. And as things progress into charges and court cases it’ll be impossible for Obamagate to not be a major issue. How could historical levels of corruption by on...
Remember this important detail, Flynn was freelancing when he called up Sergey Kislyak and the Obama administration believed he was undermining “official” US policy.. The Mueller Report concludes that they found had no evidence Trump asked Flynn to speak to Kislyak about sanctions. Given that fin...
[quote] It’s a political noose to anyone that’s honest[/quote] Honestly it’s a nice talking point to beat back on Russia probe and actually go on the offensive. I think Trump and the Republicans should use this as an opportunity to reform FISA and some of these intelligence agencies. But they ne...
[quote]The illegal part is when it is proven that the unmasking was part of a surveillance campaign against a US citizen You have to get a judge to sign off on that. This was their way to avoid that legal requirement.[/quote] It’s nearly impossible to prove conspiracy in these type of situati...
[quote]He’s saying he had absolutely nothing to do with it[/quote] Interesting, I saw his spok just went went after Catherine Herridge in the most disgusting way you can imagine. ...
[quote]Wrong. Unmasking is ONLY allowed for legitimate national security reasons, and then ONLY by a small subset of authorized persons. It cannot be used when “fishing for dirt”, when disingenuously trying to establish a pretext for another illegal act (FISA abuse), or to target a political opponen...
[quote]My problem is they were requesting this to get to trump. Not for actually any legit reasons.[/quote] My problem isn’t the unmasking it the releasing to the press. That’s really the only crime I see here. ...
[quote]Biden said yesterday he had no part in it. [/quote] The unmasking part isn’t the crime it’s the leaking. Was Biden saying he didn’t leak it or unmask?...