I'll concede that it is possible that in Trump's mind, he may have equated umasking and disseminating this info to Obama having his phones tapped, but that doesn't mean he was right. What he said is still not what actually happened. No worries, I never expect you to admit something Trump said was wrong. You still think 3 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary.
Just drop this HFDC. It's making you look silly. They surveilled Trump for political purposes. That's the bottom line. They can hide behind sophistry, but anyone with a brain knows it's lawyer bullshit.
The "bottom line" is that there are correct and incorrect ways to describe things. Trump has a history of being loose with the things he says, including fabricating complete crap. And WADR, the ppl who defend everything he says, all the time, are the ones that look silly, they just ignore all the crap he makes up. So, when he continues to be loose with the things he says, no, I'm not going to drop it.
Here's a simple example for you. A judge signs an order to put a drug dealer under surveillance. That means someone is going to be watching what the drug dealer does on a regular basis. That drug dealer is going to have interactions with lots of other people. Let's say the drug dealer happens to purchase a watch from you on Craigslist. You meet him, give him a package with the watch in it, and he gives you money. You weren't being surveilled, but the police are certainly going to want to know what you're interaction was, and will probably stop you, ask questions, and maybe bring you in for questioning. You did nothing wrong, you didn't get surveilled, but the surveillance of the bad dude, got you caught up in it.
From what is being said now, there is almost no doubt that someone used data that was incidental collection on Trump's ppl, for political purposes (or tried to). But, that doesn't mean, after the fact, that what Trump said was factually correct. Even the Trump folks walked it back once, and then tried to say it came from the Brits, which was not true at all.
The news already refutes you as the Obama administration made 3 attempts to spy on Trump. You're saying Obama accidentally spied on the person he twice was denied access only to get a 3rd attempt approved for someone else. That's not incidental, that's them getting what they were after all along. You look silly and stubborn as 80.
I said from the early on that someone purposefully used the incidental collection...while you guys were trying to say that Obama or one of his lackeys got a FISA warrant, or that Obama got the Brits to do surveillance on him, both of which were false.
Your post-truth rewrite doesn't change how wrong you guys were.
I'll concede that it is possible that in Trump's mind, he may have equated umasking and disseminating this info to Obama having his phones tapped, but that doesn't mean he was right. What he said is still not what actually happened. No worries, I never expect you to admit something Trump said was wrong. You still think 3 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary.
Just drop this HFDC. It's making you look silly. They surveilled Trump for political purposes. That's the bottom line. They can hide behind sophistry, but anyone with a brain knows it's lawyer bullshit.
The "bottom line" is that there are correct and incorrect ways to describe things. Trump has a history of being loose with the things he says, including fabricating complete crap. And WADR, the ppl who defend everything he says, all the time, are the ones that look silly, they just ignore all the crap he makes up. So, when he continues to be loose with the things he says, no, I'm not going to drop it.
Here's a simple example for you. A judge signs an order to put a drug dealer under surveillance. That means someone is going to be watching what the drug dealer does on a regular basis. That drug dealer is going to have interactions with lots of other people. Let's say the drug dealer happens to purchase a watch from you on Craigslist. You meet him, give him a package with the watch in it, and he gives you money. You weren't being surveilled, but the police are certainly going to want to know what you're interaction was, and will probably stop you, ask questions, and maybe bring you in for questioning. You did nothing wrong, you didn't get surveilled, but the surveillance of the bad dude, got you caught up in it.
From what is being said now, there is almost no doubt that someone used data that was incidental collection on Trump's ppl, for political purposes (or tried to). But, that doesn't mean, after the fact, that what Trump said was factually correct. Even the Trump folks walked it back once, and then tried to say it came from the Brits, which was not true at all.
The news already refutes you as the Obama administration made 3 attempts to spy on Trump. You're saying Obama accidentally spied on the person he twice was denied access only to get a 3rd attempt approved for someone else. That's not incidental, that's them getting what they were after all along. You look silly and stubborn as 80.
I said from the early on that someone purposefully used the incidental collection...while you guys were trying to say that Obama or one of his lackeys got a FISA warrant, or that Obama got the Brits to do surveillance on him, both of which were false.
Your post-truth rewrite doesn't change how wrong you guys were.
Nope, both of those are true and you called Trump a liar when he spoke the truth.
I'll concede that it is possible that in Trump's mind, he may have equated umasking and disseminating this info to Obama having his phones tapped, but that doesn't mean he was right. What he said is still not what actually happened. No worries, I never expect you to admit something Trump said was wrong. You still think 3 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary.
Just drop this HFDC. It's making you look silly. They surveilled Trump for political purposes. That's the bottom line. They can hide behind sophistry, but anyone with a brain knows it's lawyer bullshit.
The "bottom line" is that there are correct and incorrect ways to describe things. Trump has a history of being loose with the things he says, including fabricating complete crap. And WADR, the ppl who defend everything he says, all the time, are the ones that look silly, they just ignore all the crap he makes up. So, when he continues to be loose with the things he says, no, I'm not going to drop it.
Here's a simple example for you. A judge signs an order to put a drug dealer under surveillance. That means someone is going to be watching what the drug dealer does on a regular basis. That drug dealer is going to have interactions with lots of other people. Let's say the drug dealer happens to purchase a watch from you on Craigslist. You meet him, give him a package with the watch in it, and he gives you money. You weren't being surveilled, but the police are certainly going to want to know what you're interaction was, and will probably stop you, ask questions, and maybe bring you in for questioning. You did nothing wrong, you didn't get surveilled, but the surveillance of the bad dude, got you caught up in it.
From what is being said now, there is almost no doubt that someone used data that was incidental collection on Trump's ppl, for political purposes (or tried to). But, that doesn't mean, after the fact, that what Trump said was factually correct. Even the Trump folks walked it back once, and then tried to say it came from the Brits, which was not true at all.
The news already refutes you as the Obama administration made 3 attempts to spy on Trump. You're saying Obama accidentally spied on the person he twice was denied access only to get a 3rd attempt approved for someone else. That's not incidental, that's them getting what they were after all along. You look silly and stubborn as 80.
I said from the early on that someone purposefully used the incidental collection...while you guys were trying to say that Obama or one of his lackeys got a FISA warrant, or that Obama got the Brits to do surveillance on him, both of which were false.
Your post-truth rewrite doesn't change how wrong you guys were.
Nope, both of those are true and you called Trump a liar when he spoke the truth.
You are in the minority, and a small one, with that opinion. And that includes my man Nunes.
HokieJoe wrote:
Just drop this HFDC. It's making you look silly. They surveilled Trump for political purposes. That's the bottom line. They can hide behind sophistry, but anyone with a brain knows it's lawyer bullshit.
The "bottom line" is that there are correct and incorrect ways to describe things. Trump has a history of being loose with the things he says, including fabricating complete crap. And WADR, the ppl who defend everything he says, all the time, are the ones that look silly, they just ignore all the crap he makes up. So, when he continues to be loose with the things he says, no, I'm not going to drop it.
Here's a simple example for you. A judge signs an order to put a drug dealer under surveillance. That means someone is going to be watching what the drug dealer does on a regular basis. That drug dealer is going to have interactions with lots of other people. Let's say the drug dealer happens to purchase a watch from you on Craigslist. You meet him, give him a package with the watch in it, and he gives you money. You weren't being surveilled, but the police are certainly going to want to know what you're interaction was, and will probably stop you, ask questions, and maybe bring you in for questioning. You did nothing wrong, you didn't get surveilled, but the surveillance of the bad dude, got you caught up in it.
From what is being said now, there is almost no doubt that someone used data that was incidental collection on Trump's ppl, for political purposes (or tried to). But, that doesn't mean, after the fact, that what Trump said was factually correct. Even the Trump folks walked it back once, and then tried to say it came from the Brits, which was not true at all.
The news already refutes you as the Obama administration made 3 attempts to spy on Trump. You're saying Obama accidentally spied on the person he twice was denied access only to get a 3rd attempt approved for someone else. That's not incidental, that's them getting what they were after all along. You look silly and stubborn as 80.
I said from the early on that someone purposefully used the incidental collection...while you guys were trying to say that Obama or one of his lackeys got a FISA warrant, or that Obama got the Brits to do surveillance on him, both of which were false.
Your post-truth rewrite doesn't change how wrong you guys were.
Nope, both of those are true and you called Trump a liar when he spoke the truth.
You are in the minority, and a small one, with that opinion. And that includes my man Nunes.
awesome guy wrote:
The good news is they're running out of inertia to spin. The lies are being exposed and Obama is looking like a thuggish dictator from a banana republic.
Yeah their argument has essentially been reduced to "Trump should have used more precise language when exposing the Democrats' treasonous acts in 140 characters or less."
awesome guy wrote:
The good news is they're running out of inertia to spin. The lies are being exposed and Obama is looking like a thuggish dictator from a banana republic.
Yeah their argument has essentially been reduced to "Trump should have used more precise language when exposing the Democrats' treasonous acts in 140 characters or less."
I would use the word "correct" instead of precise, but sure. But I'm fine being part of the "their" that includes the intelligence officials, intelligence community, intelligence committee members, intelligence analysts, and pretty much everyone who has experience in that field of work.
The "bottom line" is that there are correct and incorrect ways to describe things. Trump has a history of being loose with the things he says, including fabricating complete crap. And WADR, the ppl who defend everything he says, all the time, are the ones that look silly, they just ignore all the crap he makes up. So, when he continues to be loose with the things he says, no, I'm not going to drop it.
I hope I don't come off as defending Trump on whacky stuff; but I do hope also to give him cred when the whacky stuff comes to fruition.
This Rice thing is (once again, just another scandal) on its face more serious than Watergate... but there have been a lot of those.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
The "bottom line" is that there are correct and incorrect ways to describe things. Trump has a history of being loose with the things he says, including fabricating complete crap. And WADR, the ppl who defend everything he says, all the time, are the ones that look silly, they just ignore all the crap he makes up. So, when he continues to be loose with the things he says, no, I'm not going to drop it.
I hope I don't come off as defending Trump on whacky stuff; but I do hope also to give him cred when the whacky stuff comes to fruition.
This Rice thing is (once again, just another scandal) on its face more serious than Watergate... but there have been a lot of those.
Saying it is serious is not the same as defending Trump. It is serious, if true.
Interested as to why this would more serious than Watergate. Watergate had actual illegal wiretapping, document destruction, conspiracy to cover up the illegal activities, disrupt the investigations, and a ton of other stuff. Watergate had a cornucopia of illegal activity.
the problem hoof, dc and visor boy has is that yes LEGALLy Rice could unmask the us citizens involved IF THAT WAS PART OF AN ACTIVE INVESTIGATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. In addition LEGALLY SHE CANNOT DISSEMINATE THE INFO ACROSS MANY AGENCIES and to outside interests (the media). In this case both rules were broken thus the moron is going down
I bet the dems wish they had dropped the Russian's stole thunder thighs election balogney a long time ago....
HokieFanDC wrote:
Interested as to why this would more serious than Watergate. Watergate had actual illegal wiretapping, document destruction, conspiracy to cover up the illegal activities, disrupt the investigations, and a ton of other stuff. Watergate had a cornucopia of illegal activity.
That's silly. You don't need men in ski masks to steal information or attach alligator clips to wires in telephone junction boxes any more. That doesn't mean it's less serious. All the things you mentioned are happening now in a modern iteration.
cwtcr hokie wrote:the problem hoof, dc and visor boy has is that yes LEGALLy Rice could unmask the us citizens involved IF THAT WAS PART OF AN ACTIVE INVESTIGATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. In addition LEGALLY SHE CANNOT DISSEMINATE THE INFO ACROSS MANY AGENCIES and to outside interests (the media). In this case both rules were broken thus the moron is going down
I bet the dems wish they had dropped the Russian's stole thunder thighs election balogney a long time ago....
You do realize I agree with you on those points, more on the second point than the first.
HokieFanDC wrote:
Interested as to why this would more serious than Watergate. Watergate had actual illegal wiretapping, document destruction, conspiracy to cover up the illegal activities, disrupt the investigations, and a ton of other stuff. Watergate had a cornucopia of illegal activity.
That's silly. You don't need men in ski masks to steal information or attach alligator clips to wires in telephone junction boxes any more. That doesn't mean it's less serious. All the things you mentioned are happening now in a modern iteration.
Please tell me what other things are being done other than the first part about looking at Trump team conversations?
And WRT to the first part, there is a big difference between actual wiretapping or electronic surveillance, and incidental collection. Electronic surveillance captured every conversation that occurs, no matter who is in the other end. Nixon was capturing all types of conversations and info. With incidental collection, you only get conversations from US citizens when they are talking to a person who has had a FISA court agree that the person is of enough of a concern to warrant electronic surveillance.
cwtcr hokie wrote:the problem hoof, dc and visor boy has is that yes LEGALLy Rice could unmask the us citizens involved IF THAT WAS PART OF AN ACTIVE INVESTIGATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. In addition LEGALLY SHE CANNOT DISSEMINATE THE INFO ACROSS MANY AGENCIES and to outside interests (the media). In this case both rules were broken thus the moron is going down
I bet the dems wish they had dropped the Russian's stole thunder thighs election balogney a long time ago....
"ACTIVE INVESTIGATION"? The National Security Advisor is not a law enforcement officer.
Donald Trump is a stupid man's idea of a smart man, a poor man's idea of a rich man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man.
HokieFanDC wrote:
Interested as to why this would more serious than Watergate. Watergate had actual illegal wiretapping, document destruction, conspiracy to cover up the illegal activities, disrupt the investigations, and a ton of other stuff. Watergate had a cornucopia of illegal activity.
That's silly. You don't need men in ski masks to steal information or attach alligator clips to wires in telephone junction boxes any more. That doesn't mean it's less serious. All the things you mentioned are happening now in a modern iteration.
Please tell me what other things are being done other than the first part about looking at Trump team conversations?
And WRT to the first part, there is a big difference between actual wiretapping or electronic surveillance, and incidental collection. Electronic surveillance captured every conversation that occurs, no matter who is in the other end. Nixon was capturing all types of conversations and info. With incidental collection, you only get conversations from US citizens when they are talking to a person who has had a FISA court agree that the person is of enough of a concern to warrant electronic surveillance.
HokieFanDC wrote:
Interested as to why this would more serious than Watergate. Watergate had actual illegal wiretapping, document destruction, conspiracy to cover up the illegal activities, disrupt the investigations, and a ton of other stuff. Watergate had a cornucopia of illegal activity.
That's silly. You don't need men in ski masks to steal information or attach alligator clips to wires in telephone junction boxes any more. That doesn't mean it's less serious. All the things you mentioned are happening now in a modern iteration.
Please tell me what other things are being done other than the first part about looking at Trump team conversations?
And WRT to the first part, there is a big difference between actual wiretapping or electronic surveillance, and incidental collection. Electronic surveillance captured every conversation that occurs, no matter who is in the other end. Nixon was capturing all types of conversations and info. With incidental collection, you only get conversations from US citizens when they are talking to a person who has had a FISA court agree that the person is of enough of a concern to warrant electronic surveillance.
HokieFanDC wrote:
Interested as to why this would more serious than Watergate. Watergate had actual illegal wiretapping, document destruction, conspiracy to cover up the illegal activities, disrupt the investigations, and a ton of other stuff. Watergate had a cornucopia of illegal activity.
That's silly. You don't need men in ski masks to steal information or attach alligator clips to wires in telephone junction boxes any more. That doesn't mean it's less serious. All the things you mentioned are happening now in a modern iteration.
Please tell me what other things are being done other than the first part about looking at Trump team conversations?
And WRT to the first part, there is a big difference between actual wiretapping or electronic surveillance, and incidental collection. Electronic surveillance captured every conversation that occurs, no matter who is in the other end. Nixon was capturing all types of conversations and info. With incidental collection, you only get conversations from US citizens when they are talking to a person who has had a FISA court agree that the person is of enough of a concern to warrant electronic surveillance.
You don't think that's a big distinction?
You conceded above that it was targeted incidental collection (and compilation of an unmasked US citizen) collected. They've certainly "disrupted" the investigations (it took a whistleblower for crimes sake). They then lied about it in public and (unlike nixon) leaked it to hurt the President of the United States.
The rest is yet to be confirmed, but let's just say the Dems best excuse at this point is a critical mass of stupidity and bad luck
cwtcr hokie wrote:the problem hoof, dc and visor boy has is that yes LEGALLy Rice could unmask the us citizens involved IF THAT WAS PART OF AN ACTIVE INVESTIGATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. In addition LEGALLY SHE CANNOT DISSEMINATE THE INFO ACROSS MANY AGENCIES and to outside interests (the media). In this case both rules were broken thus the moron is going down
I bet the dems wish they had dropped the Russian's stole thunder thighs election balogney a long time ago....
"ACTIVE INVESTIGATION"? The National Security Advisor is not a law enforcement officer.
here it is, poor black woman being persecuted for her skin color and gender (choice!). It has nothing to do with her illegal, corrupt, and disgraceful actions, just random white males hating on a black female. She and the democrats are a joke, total losers with zero decency or integrity.
HokieFanDC wrote:
Interested as to why this would more serious than Watergate. Watergate had actual illegal wiretapping, document destruction, conspiracy to cover up the illegal activities, disrupt the investigations, and a ton of other stuff. Watergate had a cornucopia of illegal activity.
That's silly. You don't need men in ski masks to steal information or attach alligator clips to wires in telephone junction boxes any more. That doesn't mean it's less serious. All the things you mentioned are happening now in a modern iteration.
Please tell me what other things are being done other than the first part about looking at Trump team conversations?
And WRT to the first part, there is a big difference between actual wiretapping or electronic surveillance, and incidental collection. Electronic surveillance captured every conversation that occurs, no matter who is in the other end. Nixon was capturing all types of conversations and info. With incidental collection, you only get conversations from US citizens when they are talking to a person who has had a FISA court agree that the person is of enough of a concern to warrant electronic surveillance.
You don't think that's a big distinction?
Jeez Loueez! You certainly share a gene with 80. You must also have some DNA in common with Slick Willie. Must you continually argue about the definition of "is"? It is also getting tiresome to read your continuous and fatuous rendition of "a blowjob is not sex".
