POLITICS House Intel Releases Muh Russia Docs

He doesn’t care about evidence.

He doesn’t care if they set him up.

He doesn’t care if Obama weaponized parts of the federal government for his own political objectives.

Because it works toward the same ends that IP prefers and wishes to occur.

This tells you as much about IP as it does the FBI, Obama or Flynn.

 

Again agent notes dictate that he didn’t even [uck fay]ing lie to them.

Why did they even question him IP? They had the call and they knew he did nothing illegal.

So they interviewed him with the pure intention to entrap him no matter what to get him fired from his national Security Advisor positive and to delegitimize the incoming Trump President.


You’re the one pushing for different rules with how the intelligence community and Obama Administration tried to sabotage a legally elected American president with no damn evidence besides the shit they made up and fed to the establishment media

 

I'm not pushing for that, because I don't for a second believe this happened.

 

Facts don’t care what you think or believe.

 

Agreed, but that hasn't dissuaded you. Because somebody made a video.

 

What, specifically, is wrong with the video?

 

I did not watch a 50 minute video of a podcast, Indy. Before this was Spygate. When that was shown to not be true it became Obamagate. This still all hangs on the idea that the previous administration committed some sort of crime, but no one has stated what crime that is, or how their actions are different than normal surveillance of foreign entities. It's a phony outrage predicated on the public not really understanding how this works. It wasn't the Trump campaign being spied on, it was people communicating with monitored foreign entities-- who are "masked" because they are US citizens, but can be "unmasked" upon request for all sorts of reasons. There is a bogeyman being created that this is not the norm and not legal. There is a bogey man being created that this was actually directed at the Trump campaign, when it clearly was not since it was conversations with foreign entities. That Flynn lied, confessed, and then "substantially cooperated" for months shouldn't just be ignored because he now recants his confession, but it is because of this obfuscating business about FISA warrants and masking. Remember why Flynn was fired from the White House? Because he lied to Pence. Poof, now that was a "misunderstanding" and we should look at why the FBI knew Flynn lied. And hey, why were they even talking to him?

Obfuscation. It's 2020, take a scandal and make it about the other guy. It's sad how effective this stuff is.

 

I agree that unmasking is not illegal and not even outside of the norm. But that's not where it stopped. The unmasking of the incoming National Security Advisor by half of the current administration, and then leaking that person's name to the media is the bigger issue, is it not? Would you say that's normal? Is leaking the name to the media illegal?

 

No, I wouldn't say that is normal. But depending on who it was, it may have been illegal. Remember though, this is at a time when a lot of stuff was happening that should not have been, like announcing a candidate was "under investigation" a week before the election over what turned out to be duplicate information already previously examined. Seems as though these things only work one way.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...-email-sent-on-trumps-inauguration-day-267998

 

By the book, just what a crook would say.

 

Source is politico. Content is irrelevant.

 

Someone types an article and they believe it

 

I think you mean "credible". Much more so than posting Trump's "Obamagate!" tweets or Conservative Tree articles or whatever that was for 37 posts. But, "by the book" certainly is damning, though. And, this is what the Trump admin released, thinking it was meaningful.

 

Obamagate is serious. Way worse than what President Water did.

 

What if Flynn was being actively spied on, and therefore, wasn’t “unmasked”?

 

Whataboutism.

And a generally weak argument, overall.

 

It is not whataboutism if it is about the same topic and even possibly the same individuals within government responsible for both.

 

It’s absolutely whataboutism.

You know it.

I know it.

Everybody knows it.

 

If it were unconnected, it would be. It isn't unconnected. It is in the same frame of time and with the same players.