Random Politics & Religion #22

I'm sure that the NYTs will find Bat Boy though. I have faith in them.

I first saw it on Fox, the same network that made up the Rice non-story.

And wow fonewear, Kyle Schwarber! First pitch!

Any sources that the previous administration was spying that doesn't originate from Trump's baseless twitter accusations?

I like the cubs but I don't live in close enough to get the games locally. So I just watch the highlights online.

Sure, there's lots out there.

I know you are going to ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative though.

Even the liberal media admits that there was spying going on. Hell, it was even in the headlines on NYTs on January 20th.

Trump was the first person he brought the newly discovered information to before he even advised anyone else in the committee he's in...

The Rice story is dead, it was never really alive. The NSC can request names be unmasked on all kinds of intel reports, only the NSA (thats the agency, not the person) can grant the requests. The requests are no where near acts of wrongdoing, especially since they are denied all the time, per the head of the NSA in his recent testimony to the House.

Trump was not the target of any surveillance before the election, and his transition team was legally monitored after the election. There has only been the leak of one name, Flynn.

Just because you believe it to be so doesn't make it true.

Incorrect.

The FBI and the CIA can also unmask names.

But the NSC can only unmask names under specific circumstances. The NSC is not the investigator of any Russia or non-Russia involvement with Trump, btw.

Which is why it's imperative that Rice needs to go, under oath, and state why she unmasked these reports.

Remember, this is a woman who two weeks ago stated that she didn't know anything about these reports she requested to be unmasked. She is also the same person who, as Ambassador to the UN, went on several TV shows and stated to the general public that Benghazi was not a planned attack, it was a spontaneous response to an obscure YT video. She isn't the epitome of honesty.

A) Trump may or may not have been the target, and you better hope that he wasn't, otherwise Obama is seriously in hot water (since Rice unmasked Trump's name on raw intelligence data, it's highly possible and very easy to bring Obama into this whole mess).
B) Legal or not, there was no reason to 1) unmask Trump, and 2) spread this information throughout the federal government. Can you explain why Obama needed to relax such barriers 8 days before he left office? Can you also explain why Rice requested Trump's name to be unmasked?
C) With Flynn, you just stated the motive of this whole operation. This was never about national security, this was all about undermining Trump and his administration while Obama's Admin could do so.

Unmasking implies the identity of the person/people in question is not known. Otherwise names wouldn't need to be "unmasked". So much of this conspiracy *** hinges on the Obama administration somehow knowing names they obviously didn't know since they needed someone higher up to tell them.

You honestly think that Rice didn't know or needed to know who the foreign sources were talking to and/or about? Are you calling Rice stupid, incompetent, or both?

Interestingly though, Section 702 for the NSA

Specifically:


That's very specific. When Rice comes under oath and is asked if the unmasking of Trump and his associates fall under this very specific category, will she lie or blame some lower-level person?

Because there is no way any of the unmasking of Trump would fall into any of those categories. For one, she isn't the investigator. For two, she could have asked those who are investigating Trump for this information. For three, she has no reason to unmask Trump, other than political purposes of course.

Yup, looks like Rice broke the law. I guess the liberals are going to give her the Hillary standard, of course.

I like how you want her to testify but have already decided the outcome.

So Rice knew names already and asked for an unmasking for, like, shits and giggles. Then left this info for the next administration to find instead of using it to influence the election because reasons. That's a mighty fine political hitjob so long as you dont apply any critical thinking.

That don't mean he "works" for Trump.

Is there evidence that he was picked up by surveillance?

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

Why would she request these people unmasked? Or are we not allowed an answer to that?

Rice requested people be unmasked.
...
Intel containing unmasked people was leaked to the press.

But I guess somehow rice couldn't be involved because... reasons.

Left wing media is already calling people racist for daring to ask.

Do you really need any bigger indication that there is no real defense?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html?_r=0&referer=

/longs for edit button.

U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack


So... is this about to heat up?

Counterpoint: proofread/preview your stuff. I thought you were big on "personal responsibility".

No it's just a warning to know use chemical attacks on it's own citizens.

Right? KN literally provided the answer that Rice would give if for some reason she has to testify. She shared it with each of the agencies that was at the time, investigating the Trump campaign so they could *** its importance, or because she thought a crime occurred. And all she has to do is think it could be evidence of a crime. So the request to unmask was completely legit, and the sharing with other intel agencies was also completely legit. Doesn't seem too hard.

So, tell us, why is it necessary to unmask Trump?

It is not illegal for a presidential candidate to talk to foreign diplomats. They all do so, even your savior Obama when he was a candidate.

Why is it that Obama had to loosen the barriers that prevents agencies who do not need to know about such intelligence and let's them have that intelligence?

There is no reason why Rice had to unmask Trump, just like there was no reason for Obama to destroy those barriers to intelligence.

If you take off your partisan glasses off, you would see the facts in front of you.

She would never testify. Any testimony that isn't "I did it to harm the upcoming administration" would be a flat-out lie. There is zero reason why she would unmask such information, just like there was zero reason why Obama relaxed the barriers to prevent leaks.

You cannot, and will not, give a reason why either of these did so.

Who says she unmasked Trump?

When it's a Republican: "Where there's smoke, there's fire!"
When it's a Democrat: "Where there's smoke, there's literally nothing and you're an idiot for pointing it out. The air is 100% clear."

Normal activity on the part of the National Security Advisor isn't "smoke".

If speculation is the new evidence then you can stop with your daily reminders on the Trump investigation.