MJHolland 12,725 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Not to embarrass you, but here are a few excerpts from your article: "Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim." "The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value . . . This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law. Personally I would have said "more than likely" within the law, given that she was trying to learn the names of those talking with Russians. 1 minute ago, Gaga Monster said: This is what the article also said: "the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration" That is technically illegally and morally wrong. Again, I don't support Trump anymore, I am no way inclined to right something positive about him, I am just trying to make sure the Politics section is not bias towards Democrats. Where does it say it was likely illegal in the article? I legit just pulled up and quoted where it says it's likely no laws were broken?! 4 minutes ago, Gaga Monster said: Mike Flynn was granted immunity so he visited laughing This might have been just a joke but no he wasn't, and in Trump's own logic, why would he want it if the Trump Camp + him did nothing wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 1 minute ago, En_Sabah_Nur said: Don't forget Mike Flynn, Jeff Sessions, Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld too! Bill would probably have an affair since Hillary is behind bars and can't stop him. "America, imdid have sexual relations with this women. I **** her behind my car and I can say that because my wife in in jail and can't hurt me" *Hillary escapes* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,725 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, Gaga Monster said: Again, I don't support Trump anymore, I am no way inclined to right something positive about him, I am just trying to make sure the Politics section is not bias towards Democrats. Sorry for the multiple quotes lol but I'm really interested in when this happened? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaga Monster 13,001 Posted April 3, 2017 Author Share Posted April 3, 2017 Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said: Since when?? GGD Presidential Elections Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaga Monster 13,001 Posted April 3, 2017 Author Share Posted April 3, 2017 Just now, MJHolland said: Sorry for the multiple quotes lol but I'm really interested in when this happened? GGD Presidential Elections Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaga Monster 13,001 Posted April 3, 2017 Author Share Posted April 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, MJHolland said: Not to embarrass you, but here are a few excerpts from your article: "Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim." "The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value . . . This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law. Personally I would have said "more than likely" within the law, given that she was trying to learn the names of those talking with Russians. Where does it say it was likely illegal in the article? I legit just pulled up and quoted where it says it's likely no laws were broken?! This might have been just a joke but no he wasn't, and in Trump's own logic, why would he want it if the Trump Camp + him did nothing wrong? I know Mike Flynn wasn't granted immunity, I was just joking if he would and ratted out the entire Trump team I am not sure if it is illegal, I apologize for that statement, I just have a problem when another administration is spying on someone about policy issues and their future plans. That is wrong, it is none of there business what his views on certain issues are and is not a good excuse to listen to conversations and basically spy on them if you go by the term spy on definition. GGD Presidential Elections Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaga Monster 13,001 Posted April 3, 2017 Author Share Posted April 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, Derpplause said: where is that gif with him flying in a chair? the chair had rocket boosters on it This one gets me everytime GGD Presidential Elections Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, Gaga Monster said: I know Mike Flynn wasn't granted immunity, I was just joking if he would and ratted out the entire Trump team I am not sure if it is illegal, I apologize for that statement, I just have a problem when another administration is spying on someone about policy issues and their future plans. That is wrong, it is none of there business what his views on certain issues are and is not a good excuse to listen to conversations and basically spy on them if you go by the term spy on definition. Jesus Christ. That is not what happened. The fact that Trump's people were picked up in any capacity (LEGALLY) is bad news for them because it means they were speaking to people they shouldn't have been... it's called incidental data collection... they were monitoring hostile foreign actors and trump people were incidentaly picked up. In no way shape or form is there any evidence that they were "spying on someone about policy issues or future plans." What on earth are you even talking about? You need to do some deeper research. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaga Monster 13,001 Posted April 3, 2017 Author Share Posted April 3, 2017 Just now, stvn said: Jesus Christ. That is not what happened. The fact that Trump's people were picked up in any capacity (LEGALLY) is bad news for them because it means they were speaking to people they shouldn't have been... it's called incidental data collection... they were monitoring hostile foreign actors and trump people were incidentaly picked up. In no way shape or form is there any evidence that they were "spying on someone about policy issues or future plans." What on earth are you even talking about? You need to do some deeper research. I quoted what the article said. "....such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters, and plans for the incoming administration." And I doubt it was 'accidental'. Give me a break, you just don't accidentally pick up the entire Transition team. I don't support Trump, but I do support a Democratic transition of power GGD Presidential Elections Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
En_Sabah_Nur 9,366 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, Gaga Monster said: So glad you have FINALLY seen the light fellow sistern. Although after reading what made you change your support him, all I can think of is you better thank your lucky stars you were not a business owner in the 50's... Where the tax rate was 91% Egypt. W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Just now, Gaga Monster said: I quoted what the article said. "....such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters, and plans for the incoming administration." And I doubt it was 'accidental'. Give me a break, you just don't accidentally pick up the entire Transition team. I don't support Trump, but I do support a Democratic transition of power Please stop making baseless claims, it is irresponsible. Your theory has been debunked a million times. Based on the information we currently have, there is no evidence of what you're saying. Period. It was incidental, and the fact that it was picked up puts anyone who was picked up in a very precarious situation. Do you know what a fisa warrant is? There are rules/courts that govern what is allowed when it comes to intelligence collection. There is no evidence that any rules were broken, period. The fact that so many of Trump's team were picked up is NOT evidence of a conspiracy against them but rather evidence that they were all involved in something totally nefarious. Remember, there is an active FBI investigation into the Trump team's collusion with Russia. This absolutely explains why so many Trumpers were picked up in incidental collection. President Obama could not have tapped Trump's phones unilaterally. That doesn't happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
En_Sabah_Nur 9,366 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, Gaga Monster said: I quoted what the article said. "....such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters, and plans for the incoming administration." And I doubt it was 'accidental'. Give me a break, you just don't accidentally pick up the entire Transition team. I don't support Trump, but I do support a Democratic transition of power You do if the whole transition teams seems to all be communicating or meeting with Russian officials, which seems to be the case so far... Egypt. W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,725 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Just now, Gaga Monster said: I know Mike Flynn wasn't granted immunity, I was just joking of he would and ratted out the entire Trump team I am not sure if it is illegal, I apologize for that statement, I just have a problem when another administration is spying on someone about policy issues and their future plans. That is wrong, it is none of there business what his views on certain issues are and is not a good excuse to listen to conversations and basically spy on them if you go by the term spy on definition. Very, very confused on your sentiment in that second paragraph. I think you likely misunderstand the situation at hand. Let's get some fact out of the way: 1. ) No conversations were ever recorded. The documents in question in the article and in the news are simply summaries of said conversations. This may seem like nuance but we should pay attention to accuracy and clarity when discussing matters of legality. 2.) No one in the Obama administration purposefully "spied" on anyone in the Trump campaign or the transition team. The US government routinely surveils foreign leaders as a protocol (e.g. Angela Merkel, etc.), especially those countries which might be dangerous to our national security (e.g. Syria, Putin, etc.). While surveilling THOSE foreign leaders, the Justice Department under Obama incidentally surveilled conversations those foreign leaders had with people on the Trump campaign/transition team. To reiterate, none of Trump's officials, spokespersons, employees, or Trump himself were ever the subject of any surveillance, they just happened to be talking to foreign leaders and diplomats that we were surveilling at the time because they are sketchy people. 3.) Once Obama's DOJ incidentally surveilled these conversations, all the names of every US citizen/person working for Trump were immediately redacted ("blacked-out") so no one would be able to see them. No even Rice, who had/has one of the highest security clearances in the country could view those names despite her request(s) for them. Those are probably the top three facts you need to know about this situation. Trump nor Trump's team was ever purposefully surveilled, and when they were their identities were immediately exported and protected BY Obama/Obama's administration. Now, please please please change the title of this thread. It is embarrassingly inaccurate and makes you look like you're trying to mislead people, which I hope you're not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaga Monster 13,001 Posted April 3, 2017 Author Share Posted April 3, 2017 Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said: So glad you have FINALLY seen the light fellow sistern. Although after reading what made you change your support him, all I can think of is you better thank your lucky stars you were not a business owner in the 50's... Where the tax rate was 91% Thank you! I really should have supported Kasich. He should really take notes from Canada. Canadas economic growth doubled because of an Infrastrucutre Bill and lowered the business tax rate to 15% for small companies. Instead he is doing the exact opposite, he is doing tax first then infrastructure. All I can say is Tax will be harder to pass than Infrastructure which will most likely get bipartisan support if done right, so expect more twitter meltdowns this summer if that doesn't pass GGD Presidential Elections Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said: You do if the whole transition teams seems to all be communicating or meeting with Russian officials, which seems to be the case so far... Exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.