Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Oh no... not the mob.

 

D.C. is surely doomed now.

 

What once was so clean and tasteful will be muddied and ruined!

Quote:So, let's review.  

 

This is what Trump said: 

 

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

 

Okay, that's exactly what Trump said, verbatim.   

 

Now, what does the article you cite say? 

 

"Members of the Donald Trump transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under U.S. government surveillance following November’s presidential election, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday."

"Nunes said the monitoring appeared to be done legally..."

"Nunes described the surveillance as most likely being “incidental collection.” This can occur when a person inside the United States communicates with a foreign target of U.S. surveillance."

 

1) Does the article cited say Obama did it?   No.

2) Does the article cited say it was done illegally?  No.

3) Does the article say it was done before the election, as Trump alleged?  No. 

 

So what the hell is this article supposed to prove?  Or even allege?   It alleges that someone from a foreign power was under routine surveillance, and someone from the Trump team was caught communicating with this foreign person.  

 

What's the real bottom line here?  

 

Someone from the Trump team was communicating with someone from a foreign power who was under surveillance by our intelligence agencies.

 

The thing is though, from the same article.

 

Quote: 

...the information that he had seen and was disseminated across the intelligence community appeared to him to have "little or no apparent intelligence value."

 

So here is a question.  If there was "little or no apparent intelligence value, why was it "disseminated across the intelligence community"?

Quote:Oh, my sweet summer child. I mean, I get it, you get all your news from Trump's Twitter handle, but come on.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fbi-russia-mafia-trump-tower-two-years-2016-presidential-election-us-money-laundering-alimzhan-a7642851.html'>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fbi-russia-mafia-trump-tower-two-years-2016-presidential-election-us-money-laundering-alimzhan-a7642851.html</a>


This is yesterday's news.


Try and stay vigilant. The scandals are flying around like crazy so it is hard to keep up, I admit.


But that's what I'm here for.

 

LOL.  OK snowflake.

Quote:LOL. OK snowflake.

Quote:The thing is though, from the same article.

 

 

So here is a question.  If there was "little or no apparent intelligence value, why was it "disseminated across the intelligence community"?

 

You know what criminals do when they are caught?  They try to change the subject.  They start talking about their rights being violated.   They didn't get their Miranda rights.  It was an illegal search.  They were treated unfairly.   

 

So now, Trump and the people around him are trying to act like even though people like Flynn were caught talking to the Russian Ambassador, and even though his people have been under FBI investigation since last June, the real story is that it was leaked to the press.  As if the original offense is somehow negated by the fact that they were allegedly treated unfairly.   The big story, according to them, isn't what was leaked, the big story is that it was leaked. 

 

So, in answer to your question, if something was disseminated across the intelligence community, why?  I have no idea.  The whole question of leaks is an interesting sideshow, and the issue has a certain amount of merit, but let's be honest.  It's just an attempt to change the subject. 

 

"I don't want to talk about whether I robbed that bank.  I want to talk about how my Constitutional rights were violated."  

Quote:You know what criminals do when they are caught?  They try to change the subject.  They start talking about their rights being violated.   They didn't get their Miranda rights.  It was an illegal search.  They were treated unfairly.   

 

So now, Trump and the people around him are trying to act like even though people like Flynn were caught talking to the Russian Ambassador, and even though his people have been under FBI investigation since last June, the real story is that it was leaked to the press.  As if the original offense is somehow negated by the fact that they were allegedly treated unfairly.   The big story, according to them, isn't what was leaked, the big story is that it was leaked. 

 

So, in answer to your question, if something was disseminated across the intelligence community, why?  I have no idea.  The whole question of leaks is an interesting sideshow, and the issue has a certain amount of merit, but let's be honest.  It's just an attempt to change the subject. 

Saw an anology somewhere to what you're saying.....

 

"The white house is on fire and trump is holding the matches. The GOP is concerned about who called the fire department". 

Quote:You know what criminals do when they are caught?  They try to change the subject.  They start talking about their rights being violated.   They didn't get their Miranda rights.  It was an illegal search.  They were treated unfairly.   

 

So now, Trump and the people around him are trying to act like even though people like Flynn were caught talking to the Russian Ambassador, and even though his people have been under FBI investigation since last June, the real story is that it was leaked to the press.  As if the original offense is somehow negated by the fact that they were allegedly treated unfairly.   The big story, according to them, isn't what was leaked, the big story is that it was leaked. 

 

So, in answer to your question, if something was disseminated across the intelligence community, why?  I have no idea.  The whole question of leaks is an interesting sideshow, and the issue has a certain amount of merit, but let's be honest.  It's just an attempt to change the subject. 

 

This is nonsense. There's no need to change the subject. What Flynn did was neither illegal nor unethical. He was fired for misinforming Pence about it.


 

Leaking surveillance tapes, or even just describing them to the press, IS illegal.

Quote:LOL.  Liberals are in a tizzy.

 

Same as it ever was.

Both sides will never change it seems.


Might as well shut down this side of the message board because all everyone does is bash each other.

Quote:This is nonsense. There's no need to change the subject. What Flynn did was neither illegal nor unethical. He was fired for misinforming Pence about it.


 

Leaking surveillance tapes, or even just describing them to the press, IS illegal.

 

I said myself the issue has some merit. 

 

But it has nothing to do with whether what Trump said in his tweets was true. 

 

But I'll play along on the Flynn subject.   Can you tell me, what motive did Flynn have for misinforming Pence?   Did he forget?   If he simply made a mistake, why would he get fired for that?   If it wasn't a mistake, and he did it intentionally, why did he do that?   Why would he lie to Pence, if what he did was perfectly fine?   That doesn't add up.  

 

You said,

 

What Flynn did was neither illegal nor unethical.


If that is true, why did he lie to Pence? 

If he didn't lie to Pence, if it was just a mistake, why did he get fired?  

 

Does that make sense to you? 

Quote:You know what criminals do when they are caught?  They try to change the subject.  They start talking about their rights being violated.   They didn't get their Miranda rights.  It was an illegal search.  They were treated unfairly.   

 

So now, Trump and the people around him are trying to act like even though people like Flynn were caught talking to the Russian Ambassador, and even though his people have been under FBI investigation since last June, the real story is that it was leaked to the press.  As if the original offense is somehow negated by the fact that they were allegedly treated unfairly.   The big story, according to them, isn't what was leaked, the big story is that it was leaked. 

 

So, in answer to your question, if something was disseminated across the intelligence community, why?  I have no idea.  The whole question of leaks is an interesting sideshow, and the issue has a certain amount of merit, but let's be honest.  It's just an attempt to change the subject. 

 

"I don't want to talk about whether I robbed that bank.  I want to talk about how my Constitutional rights were violated."  

 

RUSSIA!

 

RUSSIAN MOB!

Quote:Both sides will never change it seems.


Might as well shut down this side of the message board because all everyone does is bash each other.

 

Trump's defenders have lost all objectivity.   They twist themselves into knots defending him.  Why, I don't know.   Most of the ones on this message board appear to be smarter than Trump himself.   I have no idea why they support him. 

Quote:I said myself the issue has some merit. 

 

But it has nothing to do with whether what Trump said in his tweets was true. 

 

But I'll play along on the Flynn subject.   Can you tell me, what motive did Flynn have for misinforming Pence?   Did he forget?   If he simply made a mistake, why would he get fired for that?   If it wasn't a mistake, and he did it intentionally, why did he do that?   Why would he lie to Pence, if what he did was perfectly fine?   That doesn't add up.  

 

You said,

 

What Flynn did was neither illegal nor unethical.


If that is true, why did he lie to Pence? 

If he didn't lie to Pence, if it was just a mistake, why did he get fired?  

 

Does that make sense to you? 

 

Because someone in a high level of government isn't supposed to make such a "mistake".

Quote:RUSSIA!


RUSSIAN MOB!

FAKE NEWS!


ALTERNATIVE FACTS!

Quote:FAKE NEWS!


ALTERNATIVE FACTS!

Yes you are.. That's all you libs have.. Fake news and agendas made up on the fly so you'll have something to cry about..

Quote:So, let's review.  

 

This is what Trump said: 

 

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

 

Okay, that's exactly what Trump said, verbatim.   

 

Now, what does the article you cite say? 

 

"Members of the Donald Trump transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under U.S. government surveillance following November’s presidential election, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday."

"Nunes said the monitoring appeared to be done legally..."

"Nunes described the surveillance as most likely being “incidental collection.” This can occur when a person inside the United States communicates with a foreign target of U.S. surveillance."

 

1) Does the article cited say Obama did it?   No.

2) Does the article cited say it was done illegally?  No.

3) Does the article say it was done before the election, as Trump alleged?  No. 

 

So what the hell is this article supposed to prove?  Or even allege?   It alleges that someone from a foreign power was under routine surveillance, and someone from the Trump team was caught communicating with this foreign person.  

 

What's the real bottom line here?  

 

Someone from the Trump team was communicating with someone from a foreign power who was under surveillance by our intelligence agencies.

 

Trump never said the surveillance was illegal other than questioning whether or not it was. He touched on the fact that the first request to do this surveillance submitted to the FISA court was rejected, but it is a fact that was reported back in early November that the second request just before the election was actually granted to look into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

I know you won't find it even remotely curious that we have all of these leaks that came out after the fact, but those leaks absolutely confirm that the Trump team was under surveillance, and someone was using the data collected to damage the administration before they even took office.  The leaks were illegal. 

 

How stupid do you need to be to think Obama would personally do this?  I know that you need to take that literally because otherwise, it doesn't prop up your position.  Being the president is a lot like being the head coach of a football team.  If your staff or players screw up, you take the heat for it.  So, when the Jaguars make a boneheaded mistake that cost them the game, how many times last year was the blame dumped on Bradley even though it could have been a coordinator or a player who actually screwed up?  The same thing is the case here where it's easier to say "Obama did XYZ" than to go through the litany of who actually ordered the surveillance.  At the end of the day, if you honestly believe Obama had no idea this was happening, you need to pull your head out of whatever orifice you've had it stuck in because you're bound to suffocate.  The very fact that these confidential discussions, which were NOT illegal, especially where Flynn is concerned, were leaked to the media speaks to a political intention, and there's only one person who would have had the inclination to go down that path to protect his "legacy".  Don't kid yourself.

 

Feel free to tell us what Flynn did that was illegal.  As the incoming National Security Advisor, he was doing what his predecessors had done previously, making phone calls to foreign leaders/diplomats.  He wasn't talking policy, or doing anything nefarious.  He was doing the same outreach Obama's incoming National Security Advisor did prior to him assuming the presidency back in 2009.  The only difference is that Bush didn't order his minions to spy on the incoming administration to dig up dirt so that he could continue to meddle and undermine the incoming administration.  We know the motivation is completely different for your messiah..

Quote:Both sides will never change it seems.


Might as well shut down this side of the message board because all everyone does is bash each other.

 

You might be right.

 

I was about to defend the forum, and then FBT chimed in with a particularly unwarranted attack on another poster's intelligence.

 

Shut it down, lock it up, drain the forum swamp, blow it up.  We can't behave, because the folks charged with making us can't behave either.

Quote:You might be right.


I was about to defend the forum, and then FBT chimed in with a particularly unwarranted attack on another poster's intelligence.


Shut it down, lock it up, drain the forum swamp, blow it up. We can't behave, because the folks charged with making us can't behave either.

Typical liberal. Don't like something? Whine, cry and try to end it.. Nevermind just simply staying out, just ruin everyone's experience on here..

Quote:did was perfectly fine?   That doesn't add up.  

 

You said,

 

What Flynn did was neither illegal nor unethical.


If that is true, why did he lie to Pence? 

If he didn't lie to Pence, if it was just a mistake, why did he get fired?  

 

 

Pence made a public statement that Flynn did not have contact with the Russian ambassador. That was based on what Flynn told him. Whether it was a mistake or a lie by Flynn, 
Pence was hung out  to dry and that made it unforgivable. Flynn resigned, and rightfully so.

 

The fact that Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador was not illegal weighs towards the "mistake" explanation, but some people will lie even when they have done nothing wrong. So who knows? Flynn is out, the price has been paid. And Flynn's conversation was reported by someone inside government intelligence, which is both illegal and a serious leak of intelligence data. That should be the sole topic of investigation in this case.

Quote:You might be right.

 

I was about to defend the forum, and then FBT chimed in with a particularly unwarranted attack on another poster's intelligence.

 

Shut it down, lock it up, drain the forum swamp, blow it up.  We can't behave, because the folks charged with making us can't behave either.

This behavior is no different than every other subforum on this board, just the subject matter is.