10 Key Takeaways From The New York Times’ Error-Ridden Defense Of FBI Spying

[Rune]

I had a good conversation going.
asked and answered with civility and debate.

Then you showed up to take a shit all over the thread. ( sorry I thought I was responding to Rune)

Somebody call a whambulance

 

[dukkha]

The poor little baby.
So angry that others don't accept his bald faced lies.

you couldn't connect an idea if you rtied.

Nomad says nothing of substance -you agree - and neither have contributed anything to the discussion

 

[dukkha]

Somebody call a whambulance

Exibit A. for
Why you should thread ban RUNE at all times. all he can do is froth and derail

 

[archives]

The article is basically employing a NYT article to regurgitate all the inneundos that have been floated for the past two years. Noteworthy because the author is attacking another article that probably the vast majority of her audience never read

Anytime you see we know "because of the work of the House" Commitee it immediately sends up red flags. Problem with conservatives is that if they hear an accusation more than three times they accept it as fact and move on from there. Same occurs here, she's writing to the choir

Got to love the part of "targeting Americans for their political views or affiliations," no, they were targeted for suspicious activity with Russian authorities, do up really think Manaford first entered the intelligence services view because he supported Trump?

The noting of what paragraph what information is discussed is irrelevant and last I recalled the FBI hasn't been "investigating for two years with unlimited resources." I actually thought the article was going be a good read, partisan, but interesting, but turned out to be the same old, same old

 

[Rune]

He isn't Secretary of State anymore. He should not be meeting with Iranians. He has no official capacity with the United States government. But, I had no doubt you would defend his violation of the Logan Act

Dude, If the Logan Act is in play then it is in play for the Donald.
Noise just claimed it doesn't exist...

 

[The Derp]

no. Flynn had ordinary contact as incoming national security adviser.

1. Trump said "no one on his team had any contact with Russia" - that was false.
2. You don't know the contact Flynn had was "ordinary" because you don't know the transcripts of those conversations.
3. Flynn lied to FBI investigators, which is why he took a plea deal.

For some reason he lied to Pence,and Trump fired him -but the contact was not a violation of Logan ( which doesn't exist) and was an expected duty.

Trump wasn't going to fire him. He was forced to. How could Pence not have known about Flynn's contacts as future NSA director, when Pence was head of the transition!?!?!?

So it seems it's either a case of poor management (and thus, unfit to serve), or lies to cover up something pretty fucking bad.

the lying was process crimes -not going to collusion

The process of lying to the FBI about contacts with Russia. Contacts Trump said no one on his team had. So either Trump is unfit to serve because he's a bad manager, or he's covering for Flynn.

 

[Rune]

Exibit A. for
Why you should thread ban RUNE at all times. all he can do is froth and derail

You said you were leaving the thread, pussy.

 

[The Derp]

He isn't Secretary of State anymore.

So what? He's not running for office, he's not a part of a campaign, and for all you know, Iranians could have reached out to him; which makes sense since he was one of the chief architects of the deal Trump just violated.

He should not be meeting with Iranians. He has no official capacity with the United States government. But, I had no doubt you would defend his violation of the Logan Act

He wasn't acting as a representative of the US government, or as a member of any campaign, or as a member of any transition team. So how does that violate the Logan Act?

 

[The Derp]

Well at least you are admitting that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower just as Trump claimed.

Why were Russians setting up shop in Trump Tower?

 

[The Derp]

But, as I said, if there was anything in those communications that was incriminating, we would know it by now.

And you base this on, what?

If the Obama Administrations spy had anything of substance, we would know about it by now.

Why would that be the case?

But, you keep clinging to this hope that Trump will be impeached and Hillary will be inaugurated. I am sure it keeps your warm and cozy at night

I think Trump will resign and then flee to Russia in order to avoid prosecution because a) that's where all his money is and b) no extradition with the US.

 

[Rune]

Again, why did papa lie?

Note that noise ignore​s real question and tries to deflect by attaching the poster...a child's tactics.

 

[The Derp]

You are uninformed. Please do try to catch up.

You're being willfully ignorant.

 

[Rune]

you couldn't connect an idea if you rtied.

Nomad says nothing of substance -you agree - and neither have contributed anything to the discussion

Actually nomad pointed out the truth, which makes you very uncomfortable.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

You're being willfully ignorant.

It's not willful with that one.

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

lol, I'm not reading anything you post more than a tweet length.

Then why the concern for a link?

 

[dukkha]

The article is basically employing a NYT article to regurgitate all the inneundos that have been floated for the past two years. Noteworthy because the author is attacking another article that probably the vast majority of her audience never read

Anytime you see we know "because of the work of the House" Commitee it immediately sends up red flags. Problem with conservatives is that if they hear an accusation more than three times they accept it as fact and move on from there. Same occurs here, she's writing to the choir

Got to love the part of "targeting Americans for their political views or affiliations," no, they were targeted for suspicious activity with Russian authorities, do up really think Manaford first entered the intelligence services view because he supported Trump?

The noting of what paragraph what information is discussed is irrelevant and last I recalled the FBI hasn't been "investigating for two years with unlimited resources." I actually thought the article was going be a good read, partisan, but interesting, but turned out to be the same old, same old

specious and without refutations or references.
The OP is very specific in it's push back on the NYTimes blandishment article.

You should try the same instead of "targeted for suspicious activity with Russian authorities"
what activities? why are they enough for an investigation?

That's what the OP does and you just gloss over it

last I recalled the FBI hasn't been "investigating for two years with unlimited resources."

FBI counterinteligence probe started in July 2016

 

[Rune]

Then why the concern for a link?

Site rules as well as Federal law.

 

[Rune]

specious and without refutations or references.
The OP is very specific in it's push back on the NYTimes blandishment article.

You should try the same instead of "targeted for suspicious activity with Russian authorities"
what activities? why are they enough for an investigation?

That's what the OP does and you just gloss over it

FBI counterinteligence probe started in July 2016

"Unlimited resources"

 

[dukkha]

"Unlimited resources"

what limits are on Mueller? none.

 

[Rune]

specious and without refutations or references.
The OP is very specific in it's push back on the NYTimes blandishment article.

You should try the same instead of "targeted for suspicious activity with Russian authorities"
what activities? why are they enough for an investigation?

That's what the OP does and you just gloss over it

FBI counterinteligence probe started in July 2016

It is the lying about the meetings that is suspicious.